Counter Sniper Scopes

You are correct. But I 'm talking about shooters who are not match shooting, only trying for the best shots they can make. One guy I know likes shooting at 3000 yards. He does not use a C.S. scope, he had to have a scope specially made as any regular scope would not adjust as needed for that range, even with a base with a lot of built in MOA.
It was just an observation or thought that a finer adjustment could be an advantage for the shots at 2000 yds plus.

JK
 
By your own logic the circumstances where the 1/8 MOA clicks of the CS would be appropriate (not that I agree), the scope is not appropriate anyway; thus, that argument does not help the legitimacy of 1/8 MOA clicks on the CS.

By the way, if we use a .338 LM at 2100 yards as an example, you'd have to be able to judge wind better than 1/6th of one mph to make a 1/8th MOA click meaningful. Likewise for elevation, a 1/4 MOA click could get you to within 2.75" vertical at 2100 yards, while a 1/8 MOA click could get you to within 1.4". In my opinion, this effectively refutes the argument for 1/8 MOA clicks using extreme long range as the application.

But a scope with even 60 MOA usable elevation isn't sufficient for extreme range shooting.

-z
 
I cannot disagree with your logic, especially if the scope does not have the MOA range that would allow for longer shots. Short of having a base with a lot of extra MOA built in, the 1/8" clicks would be more time consuming than they would be worth. As I have stated, I do not shoot long range compitition.
You appear to have a lot of experience in that type of shooting, so I will defer to your experience.
Thank You for your replies. I hate to have a day go by without learning something.

Best Regards, John K
 
A final word and opinion of the Counter Sniper scopes
Two Marine Scout Snipers were in the shop today. Both of these guys the real deal with a lot of combat experience.
Both shoot at nothing less than 1000 yards when range shooting.
Their opinion on the C.S. scope, which they have both used.
1. Are there better long range scopes, yes. Are there better long range scopes for the same money that the C.S. scopes sell for, No.
2. The turrets are very well made, repeatable and as good as anything on the market.
3. They are as bright and clear as any scope that has the same magnification range, puple exit etc, in other words, scopes that are the same mechanically the same and in the same price range.
4 They have (except for the cheapest) a front focal plane retical. If you don't
know the advantage of that, you don't know much about target scopes.
5. They are mechanically well made, hold up to rough use and hard shooting weapons.

These guys have been there, done that. I trust their opinions and know that they not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.
For the price, if you can't afford the best, the Counter Sniper scope is a very good deal and will hold up and do what it is supposed to do. There is not a better long range scope in the same price range.
That is the bottom line that I got from two of America's best.
I trust their opinions. If I was looking for a good long range target scope and had less than $1000. to spend, I would now buy a C.S scope with no hesitation.

Best regards, John K
 
That is interesting, all of the USMC snipers that I work with say the exact opposite.

You said you don't use one, then you said you had one on your .338 Lapua.

Can I see a picture of your .338?
 
They have (except for the cheapest) a front focal plane retical. If you don't
know the advantage of that, you don't know much about target scopes.
Click to expand...

That's me. Actually I don't know much about any type of scope.
I searched around and found out the difference between a front and rear plane reticule, but I could not really find anything about why one would be better than the other.

So what is the practical difference there?
 
Full explanation

A100_1910_img.jpg

article | Practical Long-Range Rifle Shooting, Part II - Optics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top