Guys,

I'm still unable to make up my mind about what scope I shall buy for the R93 .223 barrel I have on order. You have already provided valuable input with respect to reticle type (TDS, mil-dot) and the way to use a PD scope in the field (hold-over or click adjustment for long range shooting).

Alas, I'm still struggling with this problem. Needless to say, I have to make some compromises (e.g. I have quite a bit of cash, but above, say, $800 the air gets very rarified for this project... and that is already stetching it far beyond what I'll tell my girlfriend ). I'd like to get the Swarovski TDS reticle, but in my price range I can only swing either the 6-18x50 or 4-12x50. "No problem", I hear you say, "just get the 6-18x50 and quit whining, what's the problem anyway??"....

Well, here it comes, the more I try to study the issue of PD scopes, the more I run into the issue of field of view vs. magnification. When I set out on this project, I figured "the more magnification the merrier", now I'm not so sure?? The 6-18x50 is not exactly blessed with a bunch of FOW (less than 20ft at 100m). Is that going to be a problem?? I can imagine the R93/.223 is *also* going to be used as a "walkaround" rifle - it probably won't keep up with the "big boys" in terms of caliber or barrel contour, anyway. So it is probably best to try to plan for an all-around PD rifle.

Would I be better off with the high magnification and low FOW of the 6-18, or would the better FOW of the 4-12 balance out the somewhat paltry upper magnification??

Or should I forget about this whole business and either get a Leupold 4.5-14x40 Tactical Mil-Dot - or even a Burris 4-16 Signature with Balistic Mil-Dot (I'm not sure about the quality of the Burris??)

Pardon this discussion, which is obviously of the Ford vs. Chevy type... Still, opinions and experience would be greatly appreciated.

- mike

Buy the 6 to whatever power. you will have no use for a 4 power on a .223 varmint rifle scope, that a 6 power can also do. and you will want more than a 14 power on the top end. I have a 6X18 and it is fine for shots to 400 yards. If I couild only be fine to shots at 400 that is.

Jameister

Get a 40mm objective. You don't need the extra weight and baggage of the huge 50mm objective, especially in a gun which you may carry rather than shoot from a fixed position. Besides, in the daylight conditions in which you use a varmint rifle, the larger objective adds nothing to the optical quality of the sight picture.

Make sure the low range is at least as low as 6 or 6.5 power. The top end is irrelevant -- anything about 12X is plenty for the longest shots on prairie dogs, although 18x or 20x is nice on occasions when there is little mirage and your targets don't move around much. You'll likely turn your scope down to 8 or 10x to acquire the target, then crank it up to near the maximum for the shot. The field of view will be proportional to the power setting with most scopes (and, oh yes, the manufacturers lie about FOV and eye relief, so check out the actual scope if these are important issues to you.) One often overlooked and important aspect of field of view is that if it is wide enough and your cartridge low enough in recoil, you can call your own shots (see the bullet impact). In the case of a hit, this is gratifying; and in the case of a miss is important to revising your hold.

Best of luck!

P.S. How common are prairie dogs in Switzerland?

[ 09-17-2003, 22:43: Message edited by: Stonecreek ]

You are going to find that when the heat starts building up at all where you are hunting, then you are going to start getting what I call " heat waves". It is like looking thru a glass or water, because of the heat rising.

If you are in a prone position this happens even quicker.

12 to 14 power is as much as you are going to be able to utilize for most of the time. Early morning may allow you to use more than that, but as it quickly progresses, you will not. Sometimes it is bad enough that 6 x is about all you can see, with all of the heat waves in your scope, no matter how good the glass is.

I usually don't care for 50mm objectives, but it does give a better field of view than a 40 mm. If you are stationary, then it is worthwhile. If you are mobile in a vehicle it is worthwhile. If you are mobile on foot, you will hate hauling the extra weight.

Since you have an $800.00 budget for a scope, instead of the Euro scopes to shoot an American Prairie Dog, why don't you consider an American Scope, either the Leupold, or the Burris in the upper magnification models, or the Springfield Armory scopes. Even the Shepard scope would add to the enjoyment. Just a thought.

Hope you enjoy your trip.

I've only been shooting prairie dogs for 3 years but one thing I learned early on is that I like high magnification. I have 2 Sightron SII 6-24x scopes, one on a 22-250 rifle and the other on a 223 AI. I also have a Bushnell 4200 6-24x on a 17HMR. Most of the time these are turned up to at least 20x when shooting off the bench which is how I shoot the most. I also have a heavy(fluted) barreled 308 with a 4-16x Bushnell 4200 on it and a 257 Roberts with a 4-16x Sightron on it. I really like the 4-16x on the 308, which is a Kimber Longmaster, as a dual purpose rig. For deer and antelope 4x gives you a nice field of view and on the bench at 16x p'dogs at 300+ yards were easy to see. I was even able to see the hits at this range. I would lose the sight picture for a moment but could get back on target before the bullet impact. I've owned a number of Leupold and Burris scopes but for the value and quality, I've settled on the Sightrons and the Bushnell 4200s.
Good luck,
Darnell

Thanks for all the feedback guys. This is a great place to solicit opinions and learn from experience! Much appreciated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

P.S. How common are prairie dogs in Switzerland?

---

Heck, the extensive Swiss Prairie is full of the little critters. The sub-species we mostly see is red in colour with a white cross, makes for great sight pictures...
- mike

Here is what I found.

If you are shooting on a big field with little or no physical references, then the big problem is finding the little bugger in the scope once you have identified them with your range finder or binoculars.

I use a 7 power range finder to spot them. I then find the prairie dog in the scope at 7 power using a special rock, bush or other physical reference.

Since the scope and LRF are at the same power, I find that the physical references will look pretty much the same. I then crank of the variable power on the scope until I am comfortable with sight picture, mirage if any etc. and fire.

At ranges over 450 yards the high power and resolution of a good scope really come in handy at least for me. At 700 and over a juvenile PD is a tough target, especially if there is a mirage running or a little wind.

D.

I have no problem with the larger magnification scopes, usually using a 6x24 or at least a 6x18.
However, I keep it set on 6x until I pick up my target, then crank it up as required. At the lower magnifications that critter shows up nicely.
From that point on, there's no problem. Our summers aren't too very hot so mirage is not often a problem. Some days I may never go above 12X. It all depends on the distance. My smallest target is woodchuck. We have no prairie dogs this far eas. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Seafire: I'm not an optomitrist either (and have never played one on TV and didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night). But now that I think about it, you may be right that there may be a slight advantage in terms of sight picture with the 50mm. While my statement that the field of view is the same despite objective size is technically correct, since the exit pupil is larger with the larger objective, it stands to reason that the side-to-side latitude of eye placement should also be larger. I do know from experience that the greater the latitude of eye placement, the quicker the acquisition of the sight picture and the easier it is to take advantage of the ENTIRE field of view. This is one reason that savvy scope manufacturers opt to slightly reduce the field of view in favor of longer eye relief and more forgiving eye placement -- because it has the EFFECT of making the field of view more usable. If have you ever experienced one of those "wonder scopes" from the super high-dollar manufacturers with which you have to place your eye "just so" to see a blankin' thing, you'll know what I mean.

So please pardon my knee-jerk reaction that the larger objective doesn't add to the FOV. It may effectively, as you have observed, add to the usable FOV. (I still don't like having a scope the size, shape, and weight of a little league aluminum baseball bat burdening my rifle and being necessarily mounted so high that my head wobbles around in the air like a bobblehead doll, so I'll opt for the optical compromises which come with compactness.)

Sound like you're unsure. If i was unsure i think i'd get as much flexibility in the optic as i could, so... why not a high-powered variable Burris outfitted with the Ballistic Mil-Dot reticle, and target turrets?? That way you could use the Mildot reticle for rangefinding/multiple zero reference, and use the trajectory compensating stadia lines for same. You'll also have the option to choose whatever magnification you like, and run in clicks for the maximum amount of flexibility possible in a scope.

There's really three schools of thought on this.

One is the "don't put any data on the reticle school", put it on the knob. This looks very promising for short to medium range say out to 800 yards.

Second is put non-round specific data on the reticle, and use a computer to pick the point on the reticle based on a matrix of points (eg Horus Vision or more round specific Burris ballistic-plex.) This is the perfect system for very long range shooting, say over 800 yards.

Third one is put round specific data on the reticle, generally discredited (except for military) because of round variation.

I am investigating all of these. The Horus system is very interesting. My next rifle will have a 3.2-17x44/58 with the H-25 reticle.

My .17HMR has the Burris Compact Variable with the ballistic plex for that round.

My M40A3 clone has round specific BDC and it is difficult to get working properly, but I am continuing to work with it.

So we shall see what develops. This question is far from answered in my opinion.

D.



[ 09-27-2003, 21:39: Message edited by: DMCI* ]

Here is what the H-25 reticle looks like:



The site is fairly comprehensive, including computer programs, PDA ballistics software, special reticles, demo programs, etc.

Home page for Horus System

You know MHO-- you need to get on over to www.longrangehunting.com, and post a few of those questions there. That site is hands down the best for your inquiries. Some of the guys on that site hold doctorate degrees in long-range-- believe me. But, on the other hand-- i've seen some of DMCI's posts too-- like the one above, and i'm of the opinion that he's right there with those guys too.

There are some out there that believe the Horus Systems are state-of-the-art. Yeah, i'd have to say they gotta be pretty darn close.

[ 09-28-2003, 10:55: Message edited by: sscoyote ]