Max Magnification for Precision Rifle Scope?

[jetinteriorguy]

Man if these kids are even half as dumb as I was in my early 20’s having a supervisor that age would drive me insane. Even a dumb old man is twice as smart as a smart young man, no substitute for experience in the real world.

 

[taylorce1]

Having seen what Mil-dot reticles can do, I'm not sure a 20x scope with a much simpler design is a great tool.

It worked fine for hitting silhouettes with a spotter, but silhouettes are pretty big.

Fixed is better than not fixed, though.

A Mild Dot reticle is a far simpler reticle than your Varmint Hunter reticle. There are a lot of Milling reticles out there but they aren't the same as the Mil Dot reticle, a popular one is a HORUS reticle it is a milling reticle but not a Mil Dot. You can use either a MOA or Milling type reticle basically the same way as long as you understand how to use them. A MOA reticle like the NF MOAR reticle style is far more useful IMO than your VH reticle, and it works basically the same as a Milling reticle.

I hate to tell you that you can't use most reticles long range without a spotter anyway. The issue you have using one by yourself is you can't make corretctions without seeing the bullet impact. With some of the smaller cartridges you can do this, but there are some cartridges that make this near impossible even with heavy rifles and running a brake or suppressor. The spotter isn't affected by recoil or a narrow field of view like most shooters are.

Fixed is not necessarily better than a variable scope. Fixed has fewer moving parts to eventually break, and is cheaper to build a reliable scope. That doesn't mean you can't have a great variable scope with very accurate and repeatable adjustments. They just aren't cheap to manufacture, and in most cases you do get what you're willing to pay for when it comes to variable optics for long range shooting. If you're going to go with a variable scope you need to be prepared to spend $1,500+ on optics to get features most people want.

 

[std7mag]

Man! We seriously need a "like button" on this forum!

BartB is absolutely correct (in my oppinion).

One issue with fixed power scopes also is what power to get.
8X, or 10X may leave you wanting more at distance. Plus it's harder (neigh on impossible) to see mirage at that low of a power.

24X, 38X, or even 42X will let you see the mirage. But that's about all on bad days.

Your better off paying the money for good glass, and a scope that tracks reliably than fancy reticles!
And with the cost coming down on reliable rangefinders, ranging with a reticle has become less important. Good skill to know, yes. But are you only going to use the reticle for ranging?

 

[Bart B.]

Regarding

Fixed is not necessarily better than a variable scope. Fixed has fewer moving parts to eventually break, and is cheaper to build a reliable scope.

Mount any variable scope on an optical collimator then change the power back and forth while the reticle moves about the reference in the letter C, S or figure 8 patterns the scope reticle makes because of mechanical tolerances in lens mounts. One to two thirds MOA error is common.

This is also the best way to "box" a scope because it eliminates rifle, ammo and human variables. Box it using 2 clicks each direction and you'll be surprised.

 

[recoil junky]

I recently put a 6-24X50 30 mm tube Bushnell Nitro on my 700VLS .243 varmint rig. I find it just as clear as my Leoupolds and much clearer than the Vortex Viper of the same "caliber". It tracks well but with the chosen reticle I don't need to be fiddling with adjustments and a prairie dog, as a rule, doesn't often sit and wait for such foolishness anyways.

A Red Bull can sized rodent has a short attention span, much shorter than a 1000 yard clanger target, so a hit at 500 yards is quite a feat across a grassy expanse of NW Colorado/SW Wyoming on a 95° day with a stiff cross wind.

Sometimes on further and closer inspection, that prairie dog turns out to be a cow pat and you did hit it twice it's just that the heat wave/mirage makes it appear to be moving . . . . .

RJ

 

[Swifty Morgan]

A Mild Dot reticle is a far simpler reticle than your Varmint Hunter reticle. There are a lot of Milling reticles out there but they aren't the same as the Mil Dot reticle, a popular one is a HORUS reticle it is a milling reticle but not a Mil Dot. You can use either a MOA or Milling type reticle basically the same way as long as you understand how to use them. A MOA reticle like the NF MOAR reticle style is far more useful IMO than your VH reticle, and it works basically the same as a Milling reticle.

I read Leupold's explanation of my reticle, and even after they explained it, it still didn't look too good.

It says, "Provides aiming points out to 500 or 600 yards (ammunition dependent)." It sounds like you have to shoot up a bunch of ammunition in order to find out what the aiming points mean for your latest box of cartridges. Then I guess you have to remember exactly where, between the marks, your bullet will land. Maybe I'm wrong.

I hate to tell you that you can't use most reticles long range without a spotter anyway. The issue you have using one by yourself is you can't make corretctions without seeing the bullet impact.

I'm all done with .308 for a while. After every shot, the crosshairs were aimed at the next county. I am hoping I can see something with 6.5 CM, or at least with .223 or .204. I am planning to join a club with a long range, so hopefully, there will be opportunities to connect with spotters.

Fixed is not necessarily better than a variable scope.

By "fixed," I meant, "repaired."

If you're going to go with a variable scope you need to be prepared to spend $1,500+ on optics to get features most people want.

I stuck a Primary Arms 4-14x on my AR-15, which is not a precision gun, and I will be putting a Viper 6-25x on the Ruger RPR. I don't expect the Viper to be my final solution, but I have tremendous confidence in the recommendation of the guy who taught me, and I'm sure it will allow me to shoot long enough to figure out what I like in long-range scopes.

A lot of the guys I shot with last weekend were using Nightforce scopes.

 

[taylorce1]

It says, "Provides aiming points out to 500 or 600 yards (ammunition dependent)." It sounds like you have to shoot up a bunch of ammunition in order to find out what the aiming points mean for your latest box of cartridges. Then I guess you have to remember exactly where, between the marks, your bullet will land. Maybe I'm wrong.

I am hoping I can see something with 6.5 CM, or at least with .223 or .204.


By "fixed," I meant, "repaired."


I stuck a Primary Arms 4-14x on my AR-15, which is not a precision gun, and I will be putting a Viper 6-25x on the Ruger RPR. I don't expect the Viper to be my final solution, ....... I'm sure it will allow me to shoot long enough to figure out what I like in long-range scopes.

A lot of the guys I shot with last weekend were using Nightforce scopes.

You really should purchase a Chronograph, it'll save ammunition. Regardless of what type of scope you use you'll have to shot a lot of ammunition to confirm aiming points. If you are using factory ammunition you should buy your ammo by the case so it is all the same lot number. Every time you get a new batch of ammunition you'll have to reconfirm zero, and the rest of your dope. I hope your teacher taught you to use a note pad at that school that way you'll not have to remember anything, it'll all be written down in B&W.

You might be able to see your bullet impacts with the .223 and .204. However, unless they are custom built rifles with specialized twists they aren't great at long range. The 6.5 Creedmoor will be tougher but the RPR isn't exactly light and the muzzle brake might be good enough with practice you could possibly see bullet impacts.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote. However, I was also responding to Bart B. to whom I respect his opinion very much. I just disagree in this case that fixed power optics are always better than variable. I believe that these new high end optics like NF, S&B, Khales, and .... perform every bit as good if not better than his old T20 target scope. If they weren't then the people competing with them wouldn't use them for very long.

I know nothing about the Vortex or Primary Arms scopes you purchased. I do know that a lot of talk on the long range forums state that any Vortex line below the Razor, say that the only good thing about them for long range shooting is the warranty. I do have some experience with the Viper lineup of hunting scopes, but I don't mess with the adjustments much once I find a load for them. I don't have an NF at the moment, but the only complaint I hear about them is the price.

 

[stagpanther]

I have about a half dozen fixed magnification scopes on rifles--divided into two "classes." First, there are the "old school" simple duplex reticle scopes on hunting and scout type rifles where I'm probably not going to take a shot beyond 100 to 200 yards. Great for eastern thick woods hunting. Then there are the tactical longer range SWFA's which I have in 12 to 16 x magnification. They are built like tanks and have one of the best reticles in the business available on any scope IMO. Their only weakness IMO is the glass itself isn't the sharpest or clearest; but at it's price point I think that shortcoming is tolerable.

I found a place that is still selling the scope Bart likes, and I would have been on it except for longer distance shooting I really like having some kind of fine subtensions in the reticle to adjust on the fly if I'm shooting past 200 yds.

 

[kilotanker22]

Personally I have no intention of ever buying anything with more than 18x magnification again. I wouldn't rule it out, but time and time again I find myself dialing my magnification back to either 12x or 18x. On multiple optics.

On a good hot day, or a cold day with snow on the ground. I have no trouble seeing Mirage at 24x through my Vortex Viper HST. Sometimes I still have to reduce to 12 power, because of the heat coming from the barrel.

If I was going to use a fixed power on a bolt gun, it would probably be a 12x of some sort. I believe that 12x is sufficient to engage man sized targets at 1000 yards pretty easily. If you were shooting small animals like a ground hog past 500 yards or so you might want more.

I think the reason that a lot of people like really high magnification is so they can spot their bullet holes in paper at several hundred yards. With my Vortex I can normally see my bullet holes at 300 yards on 18x. Depending on the color of the paper I am shooting at. If using the shootNsee targets, I can see the impacts at 600 yards with 18 power.

 

[stagpanther]

It's funny how "magnification" isn't necessarily the same "size" across scopes; I have leupolds that at 3 x 9 show the field of view larger, closer and sharper than other scopes with higher magnification ratings.