Long Range Scope

21 February 2013, 07:51

MS Hitman

Long Range Scope

quote:
Originally posted by artshaw:
quote:
Originally posted by butchlambert:
Pretty easy to figure. He is a lot of fun. He hasn't answered many questions, just spit out info. His military record was very good[or was it lack of?]
He'll try to yank a few chains and then go back in his hole.

Too bad you "experts" cannot spell Schott glass.
As for my military record (whatever bearing it might have) is unknown to you and will remain so.
As for yours.........

It is always amusing that when "experts" cannot come up with facts, they fall back on name calling.

Yeah get those baits out ..... real "fair chase" hunting hero from Seward's folly.

I suppose you would know a LOT about Texas Sheep aka your girlfriends, but no MR Know It All, it's Wyoming Sagebrush.

Of course your super high X March scopes (none of which you own) are SFP as that's why they have the red numbers on the magnification ring.
Do you know why SFP have certain magnification #s in a different color ?

Lots of Army AMU schools/units in AK I'm sure. Also the worldwide hub of 1000 yard benrchrest shooting.

Glad you drop other peoples' names but are too cowardly to ever reveal yours.

When you actualy own any of these optics or rifles, can prove you served as a sniper in any branch or hold any long range match records, you might be worth bothering with. Until then you are a pair of "talk bigs" that are just too vapid to bother with anymore.

Bye bye boys.

Good bye Art. If your last post is what you have to offer, no point in returning.

21 February 2013, 18:29

AnotherAZWriter

I have scopes with reticles in the first and second focal plane. Neither is foolproof.

The Horus H25 reticle is wonderful if you have plenty of time to figure out exactly which grid line to hold for elevation, but often the windage adjustment has you holding on empty space. Other drawbacks? It is difficult to pick out small targets on the grid. As for the advantage of FFP, the entire grid becomes nearly invisible when you turn the power down.

The problem with not dialing up with any scope is the wind - holdover reticles work great...until you need to hold between to vertical hash marks with a 2 MOA for the wind.

21 February 2013, 19:43

jwp475

quote:
Originally posted by butchlambert:
I can tell that you didn't check the March Tacticool scope link that I sent you. Does Shit and Bender have anything comparable? Seems March has FFP scopes also. Does Shit and Bender have a 10X-60X or a 10X-80X? Do they use ED quality glass? So Shot glass is the best?
What are your qualifications in this matter? You've read a little? Are you an optics engineer?
Looks like a Texas sheep pasture. Show me bullet holes at 600yards with your Shit and Bender. Go to the March website and see bullet holes at 1000 yards using a cell phone camera shooting through the lens.

March Scopes do have excellent optics and magnification range, but IME they are not the equal of S&B in low light hunting situations to my eyes

22 February 2013, 02:58

butchlambert

jwp475,
Not a problem. That is one reason there are several different brands. We all have different tastes and needs. My BR March requires a lens cap that cuts down the light in certain conditions. Don't use it all the time and my best low light scopes for hunting are the Swaro and my Zeiss. I will not claim they are better or worse than the S&B in low light as I have not had them side by side at the same time to do an honest test.

22 February 2013, 03:06

jwp475

I have a Zeiss Davari 6X24X56 that is also an excellent scope in low light

22 February 2013, 04:25

Tyler Kemp

artshaw, why are you such a unpleasant fellow?

People here try to give legitimate advice and you're a huge jerk to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I gave MY experience from being around guys who shoot long ranges extremely accurately.

I'll say it again, a Bushnell HDMR is the best dialing scope I have ever used, and if you paid any attention you'd realize quite a bit of competitors in long range tactical matches use it too.

22 February 2013, 06:05

MS Hitman

Tyler,

Don't bait him up.

22 February 2013, 21:54

AnotherAZWriter

The best money I have ever spent on optics is a top of the line Meopta scope. I can now see mirage that I could not see before. When I miss at long range, it isn't because I can't see the target, my W/E adjustments don't work, etc. - it is because of a four letter word: WIND.

Yesterday I shot at 820 yards. The conditions were nearly calm, but my scope showed a slight L-R wind even though it was cloudy. I got set up to shoot, and decided to check once again just before the shot. Mirage was gone (and not because the wind was too strong). Held dead on instead of the 1 MOA hold I had been planning.

I would rather have a great spotting scope and run of the mill rifle scope than a great rifle scope with a crap spotting scope.

24 February 2013, 15:05

Instructor

AnotherAZ Writer,
Your comment about a great spotting scope is definitely "right on" Admit that my experience with Long Range-NRA has been w/ "irons" but have not found most rifle scopes up to the task of determining mirage, wind, etc. equal to a quality spotting scope. "Old school" here and still use Kowa Mod.77 w/LER 25x lens, but should point out that the highest quality rifle scopes in my years of shooting has been mostly Leupold MK4 or older Weaver T series. Could well be that the more modern, sophisticated rifle scopes available today would be up to the task??

26 February 2013, 02:28

AnotherAZWriter

Instructor:

As you know when mirage is thick, you don't need a spotting scope to see it; you can see it through your scope. Shooting PDs in Wyoming on a summer day nearly always shows mirage. However, in AZ the air is so dry is rare to see mirage through a rifle scope. But, cranking the power to about 30 or 40 and then turning the focus to a point about halfway almost always allows me to see mirage against the out of focus background; lesser scopes didn't do that. Turning the focus really helps bring out the mirage; I tried doing that with a sidefocus rifle scope, but didn't work very well.

BTW, love your reference to the old Weaver T models; they were the first scope I ever used that moved the reticle reliably. In fact, I think Redfield's inability to do that coupled with their 3200 series scopes did them in. But what do I know?

26 February 2013, 19:05

jwp475

quote:
Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
The best money I have ever spent on optics is a top of the line Meopta scope. I can now see mirage that I could not see before. When I miss at long range, it isn't because I can't see the target, my W/E adjustments don't work, etc. - it is because of a four letter word: WIND.

Yesterday I shot at 820 yards. The conditions were nearly calm, but my scope showed a slight L-R wind even though it was cloudy. I got set up to shoot, and decided to check once again just before the shot. Mirage was gone (and not because the wind was too strong). Held dead on instead of the 1 MOA hold I had been planning.

I would rather have a great spotting scope and run of the mill rifle scope than a great rifle scope with a crap spotting scope.

Exactly why I prefer S&B scopes the resolution is as good as the Swarovski 20X60X80 spotter

26 February 2013, 20:40

AnotherAZWriter

I picked the Meopta after comparing the Swaro; no contest in terms of resolution.

I notice I pick up mirage better with a Nightforce than a Leupold. But nothing picks it up better than a high quality 75 or 80 mm lens. Besides, to see it best you need to move it out of focus from the target. Yesterday was a perfect example. I saw no mirage at my 820 yard target through my scope, spotter or rifle. My anemometer said 4 mph. I twisted the focus of my scope so that it was focused about 300 yards; I could see faint mirage against the blurred background; it was nearly flat, so even though my anemometer said 4 mph, I held for 3 MOA with a .300 RUM. Shot was about 5 inches high, but nearly perfect for wind. I then shot my .308 with 4 MOA windage; shot was 5 inches high as well, but needed about 3/4 MOA more windage. In that case the of .308 shot, the wind was almost negligible on my anemometer.

I have not found any riflescope to be as effective as a good spotter when it comes to picking up mirage. I think the very narrow range of focus is why; a rifle scope has a pretty wide range of focus.

27 February 2013, 05:19

jwp475

quote:
Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I picked the Meopta after comparing the Swaro; no contest in terms of resolution.

I notice I pick up mirage better with a Nightforce than a Leupold. But nothing picks it up better than a high quality 75 or 80 mm lens. Besides, to see it best you need to move it out of focus from the target. Yesterday was a perfect example. I saw no mirage at my 820 yard target through my scope, spotter or rifle. My anemometer said 4 mph. I twisted the focus of my scope so that it was focused about 300 yards; I could see faint mirage against the blurred background; it was nearly flat, so even though my anemometer said 4 mph, I held for 3 MOA with a .300 RUM. Shot was about 5 inches high, but nearly perfect for wind. I then shot my .308 with 4 MOA windage; shot was 5 inches high as well, but needed about 3/4 MOA more windage. In that case the of .308 shot, the wind was almost negligible on my anemometer.

I have not found any riflescope to be as effective as a good spotter when it comes to picking up mirage. I think the very narrow range of focus is why; a rifle scope has a pretty wide range of focus.

A 5X25X56 S&B is very good at it IME

04 March 2013, 23:07

MARK H. YOUNG

Guys,

So have any of you guys actually used the Leupold 30mm 3x18 with 50mm objective? My research shows it to have a super wide field of view and lighter weight than some of the other long range scopes. These things in my mind were a problem with the Nightforce I used.

The leupold with it's wide FOV and moderate weight to my mind would make not only a good long range scope but an all around scope.

Mark