Scope Question

D

desertstormvet

New member
I recently purchased a Remington 700SS 5R Mil Spec 300 Win Mag and plan to put a Leupold Mark 4 ER/T 8.5-25x50mm on it. Unfortunately, this is what's on my Barrett MRAD (in 338LM) so I am thinking of "upgrading." I was thinking about Nightforce's NXS 8-32x56, but don't get the impression it's tactical enough...not that I'm a sniper. (I'm assuming I need more magnification as the 338LM has a bit more distance to it.) Vortex's Razor HD GenII 4-27x56mm looks interesting... Any thoughts? Schmidt&Bender is too much $$ for me.
 
Two thoughts come to mind...

1. You have way more magnification than you really need for tactical shooting.

2. You have just about the right amount for F Class shooting, although most of the top end shooters are moving towards higher magnification and bigger lenses in that sport.

I've never heard anyone say that Nighforce wasn't "tactical enough" as their optics are pretty beefy.

Generally you want 0.5-1x magnification for every 100 meters you plan on shooting, 2-4x magnification for every 100 meters you plan on observing. Rough guidelines, but it is generally where I start for planning.

Another Leupold would do you fine, as would the Nightforce or Vortex. But if you wouldn't mind looking at just getting a new scope for the 300 Win Mag, then I would consider this:

Bushnell Elite Tactical XRS 4.5-30x 50mm

Buddy of mine who shoots F-Class couldn't believe how user friendly the FFP reticle was, and the glass on the model he used was extremely good.

If you want serious magnification, look to the Leupold VX-6 lineup. Don't worry about it not being "tactical" enough as even the single spring setup in the VX line is stout enough to repeatedly handle a 338 Lapua. The double spring setup for redundancy is the real difference (along with a slightly thicker scope body) between the Mk and VX scope series.

VX-6 7-42X56mm (34mm) Side Focus Target

But it will cost a pretty penny.

Hope this helps.

Jimro
 
I could keep my 8.5-25x50mm on the 338LM and move my 6.5-20x50mm to the 300 Win Mag and simply buy another Leupold Mark 4, but instead go with 4.5-14x50mm, for my 308. Would save me some $$ and not "over do" the magnification. I do like the Leupold Mark 4 (and FFP), but don't know what I don't know re: other makers, i.e. Vortex HD and Nightforce.
 
No scope made for long range shooting will equal the price-performance ratio of a Weaver T24. ALIMO. (At Least In My Opinion)
 
Stay away from the Leupold VX6 7-42x56 my first one broke after 56 rounds the side focus had moving parts in side and would make a clucking noise. I sent it to Leupold to get it fixed and got it back still with moving parts and clucking noise. I sent that one back and Leupold sent me a new one I open the box and the side focus had more moving parts and louder clucking noise. I know on one other person that had two VX6 7-42x56 with the same problem as mine and one other person that his elevation turret lockup on him.
 
I've found the Mk4 8.5x25 LR/T M1 sufficient to 1,000 yards and have them mounted on my AR-10 & a T3 Tactical where they perform admirably at the more frequent distance I shoot these at of 600 yards.

For my last rifle build I looked really long and hard at Vortex Razor HD 4.5x27 before deciding upon on a Nightforce NXS 5x22. This rifle was built specifically to shoot 1,000 yards and the MLR reticle has made me wish all my optics presented this way.

I am in the process of building a .338 Lapua Magnum and have already acquired an NXS 8x32 with the MLR reticle, though I've not decided if it will be going on the new rifle or if I'll be swapping it for the 5x22.

Another scope well worth a look is the Trijicon AccuPoint 5x20. I've spent some time behind one on a .300WM at 1,000 yards and its clarity and lack of distortion is very good.
 
Generally you want 0.5-1x magnification for every 100 meters you plan on shooting
Click to expand...

I use a 20X at 1000 yards, with a pretty thin reticle, on a 1 m.o.a. target. No way would I want to take that shot at 10x. At 10x, the reticle would obscure more of the target. Aim small, miss small. Although I've only looked through a FFP optic at shorter ranges, seems to me they would not be preferable for any type of long range, small point of aim shooting unless it was a necessity for ranging. The reticle size at 1000-1500 yards on a minute of angle target would probably obscure it completely. JMO, YMMV

I keep hearing this "over-do" of magnification on this forum, and it has never, ever- made sense to me. It's one thing if we're talking fixed...but with a variable, you can always dial it down if mirage dictates, check wind conditions, or acquire the target. I've never complained of having "too much" magnification for long-range.
 
tobnpr,

You picked out one line and ignored the rest of the post explaining exactly what you just wrote.

Those are planning factors, guidelines. I know folks who disagree with them, and that is fine.

But allow me to explain the reasoning behind them. Tactical shooting (sniper competition for the politically incorrect) involves unknown distance shooting in a time constrained environment. If you don't know where your next target will present, it is much faster to use a lower magnification optic with a wider field of view and less concerns about parallax.

Obviously if you are only going to fire known distance on paper targets, put whatever glass you want with as much magnification as you want. The F Class shooters have all been upgrading their glass with more magnification because they shoot known distance and gain an advantage by the higher magnification.

Jimro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top