Good scope for 100-600 yards

Precision- I never dial windage. Most long range shooters don''t. maybe a click or 2,but most times not at all. I have learned in my time shooting 600 to 1000 yards that if you try chase the wind, well you may as well hang up your rifle and go home. learn to read the wind flags. Chasing windage is going to put you all over the target. Set it and use holdover. Your groups will be a lot more consistent and you will have a much better score.
 
Last edited:
Precision- It is really not that hard. One just learns from experience and repetition. One uses the circle lines, eyeballs, ect. Don't get me wrong- I love Mil Dot. I have a 8-32 on my 223. I zero it at 200 yards and use mil dot from there on out, But I don't shoot 1000 yards with it.
Regular MOA be 1/4 or 1/8 MOA is so much easier to work with. I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any of the guys I shoot with that use mil dot for long range shooting. My F Class rig-zero at 300 yards, 32 clicks and I am dead on at 600 yards. Only reason I wish I would have got 1/8 MOA is because sometimes at 600 or 1000 yards if I am 1 inch high or low, well one click puts you 1 or 2 inches the other direction. Hold over is a must learn part of long range shooting. I just think for a new shooter getting into long range that MOA is easier way to go.
 
Last edited:
I am learning a lot on this thread. But it may have put me further from a choice.
The drawback to FFP scopes is that the reticle gets very thick under HP and covers the target, Under LP its so fine that I may not be able to see it
I understand why not to use the MIL & MOA mixed scopes after doing a little googling. MIL is metric versus MOA is SAE. Being a machinist I use mixed dimensions all the time.It is much easier for me to use straight SAE/Imperial dimensions and I think in fractions quite well. If I stick with a MOA scope I can quickly estimate 1" @ 100 or 6-1/4" at 600 and quite easily. Seeing as I am shooting at known target sizes its fair to say that I can judge MOA by where I hit or miss and move from there, so I dont think a FFP will help me. Armed with that I will look at MOA RFP scopes and choose a reticle style that will be fine enough that I can see enough of my target to judge distance.
 
Last edited:
MIL angular systems are based on "milliradians" which is based on one of four standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil

MOA in the USA shooting sports the Nat'l Rifle Association angular system based on smallbore and highpower rifle target's scoring ring sizes based on the inch. It's 1/3600th of the range. Both metallic and optical sights' movements were based on that standard: 30 inch metallic sight radius of 30 inches had the rear sight's 40 tpi lead screws move .025" per knob turn (twelve clicks) changing bullet impact exactly 3 inches for every hundred yards Scope base spacing was 7.2 inches so their knobs moving the scope tube .002" for 4 clicks also move the sight 1 inch for every hundred yards of range Been that way until the 1960's when someone bought a fancy hand calculator and learned using its trigonometry functions, the sine of one minute of angle of a circle was 0.00029088820456342459637429741574 (ad infinitum); approximately 1/3437.7468192663078421628115837863 (ad infinitum). They could not (nor will not) grasp the actual usability of making things simple, so they mandated everyone say that a minute of angle in the shooting sports is 1.047197536428328546947470696664 (ad infinitum) inch for every hundred yards. But they never got the target printing companies to change their scoring ring values to angular subtensions; they still use the old, but totally usable inch system. The trig MOA people don't want to move a smallbore 100 yard target with inch spaced rings back to 95.492967201841884504522543994065 (approximately; not exact) yards so its inch-spaced rings would have exactly 1 trigonometric minute of angle spacing.

Metallic sights are the most exact; their spacing never changes. Scopes are not exact; their lens focal lengths have tolerances and in spite of the base length of their spacing is fixed, the amount of movement about an image varies because the image size of a distant target varies a small amount for a given magnification. There's easily a 1 percent spread of exact scope movement per click across all the scopes of the same make and model.

Most European made sights were based on the metric system; one or two clicks per centimeter for each 100 meters of range. Anschutz match rifle metallic sights are based on 2 mm per click at 50 meters for their standare sight radius.

So much for Sight Adjustment Values 101.
 
Last edited:
I am learning a lot on this thread. But it may have put me further from a choice.
The drawback to FFP scopes is that the reticle gets very thick under HP and covers the target, Under LP its so fine that I may not be able to see it
I understand why not to use the MIL & MOA mixed scopes after doing a little googling. MIL is metric versus MOA is SAE. Being a machinist I use mixed dimensions all the time.It is much easier for me to use straight SAE/Imperial dimensions and I think in fractions quite well. If I stick with a MOA scope I can quickly estimate 1" @ 100 or 6-1/4" at 600 and quite easily. Seeing as I am shooting at known target sizes its fair to say that I can judge MOA by where I hit or miss and move from there, so I dont think a FFP will help me. Armed with that I will look at MOA RFP scopes and choose a reticle style that will be fine enough that I can see enough of my target to judge distance.
Click to expand...

The Reticle on a FFP scope will be no larger/thicker than it is on max power of a SFP scope, but it will definitely be smaller at lower magnifications. Depending on the reticle, it could be hard to see as you mentioned.

For a long time, I used "target dot" reticles. Very Very thin crosshairs and a tiny dot in the middle of the crosshairs. For me, it worked very well at known distances with known target size. With varying target sizes and varying distances, I had trouble judging hold distance. I probably could have figured it out with more time and practice, but replaced it with a Mil-Dot reticle which gave me reference points for my holds.

These are pics through the SWFA SS HD 5-20x50 FFP scope with Mil Reticle at a 12" steel plate at 600 yards.
5x
IMG_20140301_174711_934_zpsy8ksxdmt.jpg

10x
IMG_20140301_174744_192_zpsd37jpn9v.jpg

15x
IMG_20140301_174822_301_zps3qs7e2yk.jpg

20x
IMG_20140301_174924_944_zpsvljc5y4k.jpg
 
I fail to grasp the theory behind "Aim small, hit small." regarding bullseye size. My test groups at medium range (600 yards) subtend the same angle at each one regardless of bullseye size. Bullseye sizes have ranged from the 4" 50 yard smallbore target bullseye, 8" 100 yard one, 13", 19", 36" and 44" highpower rifle targets. The bullseye is the aiming black circle. The area on target one holds the sight's aiming axis is the same regardless of how big anything at target range is. It ranges from zero MOA with a rifle setup for free recoil shooting, to as much as 2 to 3 MOA slung up in prone with a sling and no artificial support. Sitting, kneeling and standing position's aiming area is progressively bigger.

The 36" bullseye on the highpower 600 yard target subtends 6 MOA to the aiming eye through aperture sights. It subtends 2 degrees, 120 MOA to the eye looking through a 20X scope. Matches shot with both on that target produce virtually equal scores at best with both types of sights. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
@ Precision shooter- Thank you for posting the pics. That gives me a great reference point. So far I have only seem the 600yd line through a 3-9 Leupold on my Rem 7600. I wasnt able to contact using that rifle, but I only tried a few rounds using some best guess elevation holdover with a rifle sighted at 100yd.
 
Boogieman, good luck with holdover out past about 400 yards. Because of that very problem, I bought a Vortex Viper PST 4-16 FFP. To me, that's about the most FFP scope for the money that's less than $1000. I like the scope. I might like a Nightforce a teensy bit better, but I'm not yet willing to drop that much change on a scope. You can also get a scope with BDC dots or lines, which is where I went first. It's useful, but has limitations on the really long shots and is normally used at max magnification on SFP scopes.

BART, the 'aim small, miss small' really applies to the hunters, and probably isn't worth much as advice on target shooting. A beginner deer hunter might make the mistake of aiming at the deer and not at a spot on the deer. That leads to poor shot placement and lost deer.
 
I think you will be happy with that scope. Having the hash marks of the reticle match the turrets is the best way to go IMHO. And being FFP means the 2 MOA hashes will always be 2 MOA regardless of magnification. Good Choice.
 
That's what forums like this are for...

The price of that scope from SWFA is $999.95.
http://swfa.com/Sightron-6-24x50-SIII-30mm-Riflescope-P65922.aspx

Also, they have a great guarantee on the price.
110% Low Price Guarantee

If you find a lower price at any competitor's store on a new identical item just show us the lower price when you buy the item at SWFA or within 10 days after your SWFA purchase and we'll give you 110% of the difference.

Our 10-day price-match guarantee is good on everything from optics to accessories. The item must be in stock and available for purchase at that price from a company (excluding wholesale or membership clubs) with a physical store location in the U.S. who is authorized by the manufacturer to sell the product.
 
I have a LGS that sells to me at near cost, so I will wait to see what he can do with Sightron. May end up using SWFA
He sold me a Leupold VX-3 Handgun List $689.99, best online $549.99 my LGS price $475.00 OTD
 
Wow, sounds like a good deal to me. Sometimes it pays to have friends in "the business"...

Look forward to a report on how the scope performs. May add it to my list of potentials.
 
I will second that on a long range target rifle, I would just want super fine haired plain reticle and skip the mil-dots. you can use the target to adjust windage and the dots usually just get in the way. hunting would be a different story, since the size of my target would be fluid.
 
Wind changes so quickly and often, most shooters by the time they dial for the given wind speed, it changes. It's a lot easier to dial elevation and hold for wind.
 
Bart-Aim small hit small. Easy to grasp. Take your 3-9 power scope. Set target at 600 yards. Draw a 1 inch circle on it. Now- can you see it?. No you can't maybe jump to a 3 inch circle-Can you see it?. maybe. Now lets go to a 8-32 power scope. Same target- I can see a 1/2 inch dot at 600 yards. I can put my cross hairs inside that 1/2 inch circle. There for my POA is 3 to 4 times smaller than yours. While you are shooting at a 3 inch or bigger bullseye ( lots of room for hits) I am shooting at a 1/2 inch circle ( much smaller room for error). Now shooter being equal. The guy with a 8-32 scope is going to dust you hands down in a heart beat. His margine of error is smaller,His groups are smaller.
In other words-You cant hit what you can't see.
This is why almost all long range shooters have a 25 power scope or bigger on their set ups. Most I have shot with have 32 to 42 power and now a few are even using the 15-55 power Nightforce Scope. The bullseye on the 600 yards NRA Targets have a X in the middle. It's nice to put your crosshairs right where those 2 lines intersect instead of inside the 6 inch circle some where.
 
Last edited:
4runnerman, a 1" diameter white spot on a black bullseye at 600 yards viewed with a 9X scope appears 67 yards away and subtends about 1.5 MOA to ones aiming eye. Average minimum visual acuity/resolution of the human eye is about 1/4 to 1/3 MOA. I can easily see a 1" diameter white spot against a black background 67 yards away with my unaided eyes. I can also clearly see white 1.5" diameter rapid fire target spotters in an 800-yard target with a 10X scope. And can quarter a 5" (1/2 MOA) target spotter 1000 yards away with a 10X scope reticle.

I can put that white circle in any outside corner of a scope's crosshair intersection appearing to just touch the edges of the reticle wires repeatably within a 1/10th MOA spread. It's easy with a rifle rested for free recoil shooting without any holding pressure from the shooter to be so aimed. Whenever the rifle's against a live human, their pulse beat enlarges the area it's aiming axis stays in. From traditional F-class positions it can subtend a 1/20th to 1/10th MOA aiming area; rarely. if ever any less. Handheld slung up in prone without artificial support, the best of us will have an aiming area of about 1/2 to 2/3 MOA on target. How much further away from the fininte aiming point the line of sight will be due to rifle recoil changing it before the bullet exit varies across people and the amount of recoil.

All that aside, I understand why the smaller the holding area is on target, the closer bullets will land to it. Higher magnification of that area does not reduce it; just makes it more apparent to the shooter. A small aiming area does let one miss very little, but it's not hard to do if all the right stuff's put together to do it. A 4 times better visual acuity a 36X scope has over a 9X one only means what's seen appears 4 times bigger. It does not make the holding area 4 times smaller. At least in my opinion. Long range group sizes fired on bullseye targets with aperture sights (they're 1X magnification) are not 20 times smaller than those fired with a 20X target scope; maybe 10% smaller at best.
 
Last edited:
Bart I beieive what you say,but must add. I have a 3-9 very good quality scope on one of my 22's. I find it very very hard to believe that you could see a 1 inch target at 600 yards. Heck at 100 yards a 3-9 scope ( to me) is useless. I will have to bring the 3-9 next time to the range and do the 1 inch at 300 yards just to see if it is true. I have to believe at 300 yards the crosshairs must hide the whole target:D

Take a look at post 26. Bottom picture is a great quality scope at 20 power on a 12 inch plate. Not much to see. Now you say at 3-9 you could see a target 12 times smaller?. and at 9 power?. I just have to check that one out for myself.

Second pic from top is 10 power. The target is almost covered by the crosshairs. Your target is 12 times smaller than that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top