I'd appreciate input

- I want to commit the most heineous(?) of sins which is to try and get one rifle and scope to do everything

- but it is an expensive rifle and it switches barrels. A Blaser professional (synthetic) with .223 match barrel (26 inch) for varminting and a standard profile .308 (22 inch) for anything else

The scope and barrle can be swapped between barrels without losing true.

Obviously I am hoping to spend on quality to get a rig which I hope will out last me - so fairly long time

The purpose with .223 is walking fields and for rabbits mostly around 200 yards off bipod, but out to 450 (have done several times with my current remmington VS) but also down to 15 off hand- when you turn around a corner and one is looking at you - or one has hunkered down and hoped you would walk by without noticing. Often shooting in relativley low light

Thinking I would like a reticule such as the new Leupod TMR (which seems an excellent design) or Nightforce NXS NPR2 - which would allow good offsets and a bit of rangefinding. Though I will probably be getting a rangefinder as well as using estimates of rabbit heghts to give distance is a bit risky

These reticules are sort of found on the tactical scopes

So What scope do people reccomend -

The options I have identified and considered to date are:


Leupold MK4 6.5-20 X50 M1 Illuminated with TMR

- but question about quality of optics and the 6.5 magnification at bottom end might be a bit high for off hand shots

Lightforce NXS 5.5-22X50

- good optics - better range and lower end - but the weight at 32 ounces might overewhelm the rifle

S&B PMII

Relly good optics but same weight as NXS for lower magnification at top end

Send my current Leupold VXIII 4.5-24X50 back if they can fit a TMR reticule on it (still will not be illuminated though)

I would appreciate input and alternatives

My primary concern with the flexibility needed (as described) would be to have a FOV large enough to be able to take the short range (15-20yds) shots. A lower magnification of 6.5 is not going to help a lot there, as much as we'd all like the upper magnification of 20x...

It obviously depends on how often you expect to take short vs. long shots. For the short shots you mention, a 1-1.5 magnification would be ideal. But I guess, it would be nice to have magnification higher than 6x for the long shots (although you could probably hit with a 6x). So, I think I'd look for something in the range of 2-8, 3-9, 3.5-10, or 4.5-14.

Look for FOV data for the lower magnification end. That will be the limiting factor.
- mike

May want to try premierreticles.com as they do alot of work on leupold scope they can change the parallax setting for those close in shot plus they are a dealer in leupold scopes.

I'm a big fan of Leupold, take a look @ the 4.5x14 VXIII. Big, but not too big, good optics & at least here, fare priced. If your shots are mostly inside 200yds, a 3.5x10 would work fine, even for the occasional 400yd shot.

I would use a Swarovski 3x12x50, it works on Jackrabbits,coyotes, deer,antelope, prairie dogs and gophers.

The Euro scopes with their 4x magnification range (e.g. 3-12 as suggested) are nice, as they combine a bit more FOV at the bottom with a bit more magnification at the top. One issue to consider, though. Not THAT many Euro scopes come with reticles suitable for varminting. I'm not saying they don't exist (Swaro may offer their TDS reticle on some of their Euro scopes in addition to the US models), just make darn sure before you buy. A heavy reticle is great for big game shooting, but not much use for long range varminting.
- mike

The NightForce will make the rifle so top-heavy it will want to roll. Trust me, I been there. I like the Swarovski style too but for one important reason; no adjustable objective. Its a total pain in the ass to always have to crank the objective bell back and forth on a walkabout gun. Been there too.

Sounds like the magnification issue has been pretty well covered. For the reticle, i think your assessment of the TMR is just right. I used to think the best ballistic/ranging reticle was the Burris Ball. Mil-Dot, but i really like the ranging/downrange zeroing possibilities of that TMR. It's a milliradian system with .5 mil stadia also. Should be just terrific for downrange zeroing to the tune of 17.2 minutes of compensation.

I'd get the 4.5x14 Leupold with the varmint recticle. I had a 4.5 Leupold and it sure was a nice scope. I shot a gopher with it at 15 yards, so the 4.5 can get down there. I'd have a hard time thinking the 6.5 could though.

I only sold it because I mostly target shoot.

For a 'walking around' rifle I would not lug the weight of the big scopes you guys are talking about.

I can't see much out of the bigger scopes past 14 power regardless of their costs.

I have several 223's that I consider walking rifle with regular NON heavy barrels on them. One has a 2 x 7 weaver Rimfire scope on it ( Winchester Featherweight in 223), the other is a PacNor 1 in 7 twist heavy sporter 24 inch barrel with a Hogue Rubber stock on a Ruger 77 Mk 2 action. That one gets to use two different scopes. If I am shooting it mainly off the hood of my truck at whatever distances I has a plain old Simmons 4.5 x 14 with a 40 mm objective, and a Stoney Point target turrent. ( read this as disposable scope since it sees rough service use.). When I walk with it, it gets a good old Leupold 3 x 9 VariX 2 with a target dot reticle.
That is pretty good for a coyote sized critter out to 350 yds or more if I have a decent rest.

Just what I look for in a walking rifle, utility and light weight. I have tons of the heavy barreled 26 and 28 inch length barrels.

Cheers and good shooting
seafire

If some huge 50 mm scope is selected then the rig will be ungainly with the 308 22" barrel on.

This topic gives me a slight temporary headache. When I forget about it the headache will go away.

As a final comment: Good luck.

Leupold compact 3x9 would be nice. If you want a compact high-mag scope with gloss finish you can check out the Burris compacts esp. the 4x12 but the three Burris compacts I have tend to be a little fish-eyed. May be the nature of the compact beast and can be gotten used to for the most part.

There are lots of choices if you want a matte finish and don't care about aesthetics of huge scopes, but for a walker I don't see the need for anything over 12x.

A 4x12AO on the .223 and a non AO 2-7 or 2-8 on the .308 would be the ideal set-up IMO.

So thanks for the advice so far!! My distillation is that -

It looks like I should check whether I can send the VXIII 4.5-14X50 back for Leupold for a reticule change (if they can add TMR)or to premier and try that before moving on to anew scope.

I am going to keep the scope anyway, and with a TMR reticule and the recently added Butler creek target turrets its a good unit irrespective of where it ends up.

I suppose the real test is that I can, and have, reliably shot rabbbits (and other things) at 450 paces on 14X with it even if they are very small in view. And with the .223 that is probably nearly as far as you can go anyway on a target that small. So it has just enough magnification for the task.

At the other end the the 4.5X is likely to serve relatively well for walk around mode, particularly if I use the standard short barrel .308 and go for larger faster movers i.e. deer pigs etc.

The 50mm lense, while large, is good for the low light shooting that is common here on varmints - Rabbits Foxes and Roos who genearlly sleep during the day - and that the old Leupold glass is reasonably good adds to that capability. The last rabbit I shot in fact was after dark, a blob in the scope and invisble to the naked eye, and figured out as a rabbit by deduction more than observation. Note - It was in a very empty field with only Roos around and if I hit one unintetionally the land owner would have been pleased.

It won't be illuminated - but I have never had that and to be honest don't really know how much it would help. I have heard that there are add on illuminators - are they good/useful? In what situations do illuminators really help - I suspect for rapid target acqusition in low light?

I wonder if Leupold or premier can do the new luminous reticules - that charge up from a torch? I doubt it but will check with them and post back here

Being a European - and "forced" to use large objective scopes, due to the hours of our hunting - I'm not as worried about using large objective scopes as some of our North American friends. Large scopes are just "normal" to me.

One thing struck me, though. It seems like you intend to use the same scope for the .223 as well as for the .308. Correct?? This may work in a pinch, but I would personally work towards issuing each barrel with its own scope. To me, there is just too much hassle switching from one rifle to the other - even if you believe the adjustments are repeatable enough to regain past settings. The Blaser is a wonderful system in terms of flexibility, you switch calibers, barrels and scopes in a matter of minutes. But even the Blasers can't do anything about varying trajectories or imprecise scope adjustments. Sharing a scope is possible, but you'll spend a significant amount of time, ammo and barrel life just switching from setup A to setup B.

Just MHO.

- mike

MHO is 100% correct.

What Blaser don't tell you is that the saddlemount may require the screws adjusting when moving between barrels, this is due to the engineering tolerances involved.

That means not only do you have to change scope turret settings (sometimes by a lot) but you also have to throw in a variable which is not going to be very precisely repeatable.

I tried it with my 2 blaser barrels and thought the likelihood of turning the wrong way too likely.

BTW will you not need different stocks to accomodate the different diameter barrels?

Oh and the saddle mount is not so low that you can't (at least on a K95) mount a 56mm objective on the lowest rings..... I had mine machined lower.

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
What Blaser don't tell you is that the saddlemount may require the screws adjusting when moving between barrels, this is due to the engineering tolerances involved.

This can happen, it does not HAVE to happen, but it is a possibility. Over time, the mounts will also need just a tad of tightening - probably depending on how often you remove and replace them. Make sure you get the QD mounts with finger levers - as opposed to the ones with screws.

quote:

BTW will you not need different stocks to accomodate the different diameter barrels?

If you get two different class barrels (e.g. a regular and a heavy), you can do with the stock (or forearm in case of a wooden stock) for the heavier barrel. It may look a bit sloppy with the lighter barrel, but it will work. If you have a wooden stock (I forget what you ordered), you can get different forearms matching the different barrel contours. But that would be one more thing to fiddle with.

quote:

Oh and the saddle mount is not so low that you can't (at least on a K95) mount a 56mm objective on the lowest rings..... I had mine machined lower.

Its funny, in the States there seem to be two heights of the Blaser Saddle mounts sold (or at least advertised): a medium and a high. The medium allows you to mount a 50mm objective on a regular barrel contour, outside of that, you have to move up to the high. Funnily, in Europe I have never seen this distinction made?? Maybe Europeans are all expected to mount 56mm scopes... I've seen pictures of the work 1894 had done on his mounts to lower them. Very neat.

- mike

I think a 4-12 or 4-14.5 would be perfect for those needs..........in a leupold of course.

I own a Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x40 on a 25-06. It is a nice very nice scope, and I like the duplex reticle that it has on it. I use this setup when shooting at larger game and on windy days. First, I like the adjustment knobs on the Leupold when sighting it in. I also like the power ring, as it adjust easily. I also like the overall size of the scope. It is reasonably sized compared to most scopes of similar power. The eye relief on the scope is very forgiving, making quick off-hand shots a little easier. The downside of the scope is it's price and it's ability to gather light. I say that because my .223 has a 3-9x40 Buckmaster on it that gathers just as much light and costs about half as much. This scope is almost an equal to the Leupold. The only thing I wish was different on it is the adjustment knobs. Sighting this scope in still takes a nickel or quarter. Other than that, it is a great scope. Both scopes have consistently remained deadly accurate, despite being bounced all around the countryside. With either of these guns, I have never found the need for a rangefinding reticle. Both calibers shoot flat enough that I can look through the reticle and guess the range good enough to make a clean kill. Although the Leupold does have a range estimation feature built into it using the duplex in combination with the power ring.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
What Blaser don't tell you is that the saddlemount may require the screws adjusting when moving between barrels, this is due to the engineering tolerances involved.

This can happen, it does not HAVE to happen, but it is a possibility. Over time, the mounts will also need just a tad of tightening - probably depending on how often you remove and replace them. Make sure you get the QD mounts with finger levers - as opposed to the ones with screws.

- mike

Mike - maybe I was unlucky but both my 6.5 barrels required a half turn on the cross head screw opposite the finger clamps to mount on the 5.6 barrel.

Thanks for the compliment re the rings. I think the R93 mounts the scope nearer to the barrel than the K95 having a meatier barrel profile.

Thanks agian for the good advice and new knowledge

The reality is that I expect to mostly use the .223 match barrel - and have the .308 in reserve for anything else I may get into over time - so a couple of sighting in shots are not a major issue if needed as I don't intend to swap often - though ultimately seperate scopes seem to be the way to go.

Im getting the new professional stock - with the dimensions for the match barrel. Putiing a standard profil in means there is a bigger gap - maybe 1/2 cm ? but that does not bother me as it is purely cosmetic. I'm also getting the new lighter trigger that blaser have announced.

I'll have to followup on the scope mounts heit issues - I didn't realise that there were options - I had not seen it in Blaser documentation. Are there different scope mounts for 1 inch versus 30mm scopes?

North Texan - I think we have the same scope 4.5-14X50 VXIII with range finding reticule -which is basically 8 moa from the cross hair to the thick part of the posts. I think it is a good simple solution for large game - deer goats roos pigs etc which seems to be your prey where. In this the variances in the estimation of the size of the target and sweet spot for aiming are relativly large i.e dinner plate.

I think it is more difficult for varminting where say a 2 inch misestimation in the hieght of a rabbit (which I could easily make) would cause a 50m mis estimation in range and with a .223 at 350 yards I think that translates to a miss. Still I haven't been out since I found out about the rangefinding capability and may try and work it. I have also put butler creek target turrets on it as I also found the coin operation irritating - I gather the more recenet VX III models have changed over so as not to need the coins style

However I would like the more advanced reticules TMR NPR2 for quick holdoffs - eliminating the need to adjust the mechanics of the scope frequently. The cost for changing over the reticule with preimer to Gen 2 mildot is around $250 US plus postage I believe- that is a lot when a new scope is only 3 to 4 X that. I have not heard back from Leupold as yet - I would prefer the Leupold TMR reticule anyway

Hence if forced back to buying a new scope with Leupold has 4.5-16 range however the nightforce starts at 1/2 power more and gives a lot more magnification at the top end 5-22. As far as I can tell the field of view when the powers of both are wound down is entirely consistent with their power settings. The issues with nightforce is of course the weight.

The only alternative I've come across is the S&B 4-16 but that is the same weight as the Nightforce.