6.5 Grendel Scope Recommendations

[Tedward]

Need a scope for my 6.5 Grendel

Looking at Vortex Viper HS 6-24x50, and Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50. The HS is $589 and the PST is $749. not sure if there is $160 difference and is Vortex a good scope.


also looking at the Nikon Monarch 6-24x50SF $679 and the Nikon Monarch 5-20x44SF $529


Again same price range but which is better???

Thanks

[LRRPF52]

What are you primarily doing with the rifle? Since you have a 24" barrel, that steers you towards mainly a target gun. If recreational target shooting is your main purpose, then I would lean to the Vortex Viper PST's or even the Viper HS XLR. There are some amazing deals that beat the normal sticker prices right here on the forum from Camera Land's demo specials.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?6030-Camera-Land-Optic-s-Demo-Update-4-10-2013

Main things you have to decide are:

* Magnification range ( I think 12 or 14 power is plenty for shooting at distance, but I also have 20/15 vision, so 10x is fine for me with quality glass)
* FFP vs. SFP (You really only need FFP if using the reticle to range is important to you on all magnification settings.)
* MOA vs. Milliradian (If you're in the US, MOA's make a lot of sense because you can use inches for target/reticle measurements.)
* Reticle holds vs. dialing for elevation
* Zero stop

That Vortex Viper HS 4-16x50 LR FFP XLR Matte Black VHS-4313-LR @ $679.99 is a killer deal from Camera Land (demo unit). Here is the XLR reticle:

[Drifter]

Main things you have to decide are:


* FFP vs. SFP (You really only need FFP if using the reticle to range is important to you on all magnification settings.)

* Reticle holds vs. dialing for elevation

FWIW, I prefer FFP for both ranging and holdovers.


The new SWFA SS 3-15x42mm FFP Mrad scope looks like a nice fit for a Grendel rifle (in terms of magnification range, size, weight, focal plane, reticle and turrets in agreement, price, reputation of previous models, etc):

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-3-15x42-Tactical-Rifle-Scope-P62238.aspx

[LongRanger]

Another brand to look at.

I have quite a few Hawke Optics scopes in the ranges of 3-12 X 50 to 8-32 X 56 and they are all very good quality. Hawke is a British company that has over 50% of the market in Europe. So Europe's counterpart to Leopold which has the largest share in the U.S. Lifetime warranty to orginal purchaser.

http://www.hawkeoptics.com/sidewinder-30-side-focus/hawke-sidewinder-30-sf-4-16x50-sr-pro.html

The above link is for the Sidewinder model which runs around $500 list.

Also take a look at the Nite-Eye models which go for around $350 list.

They can be found for less if you do some searches on the internet using the HK model numbers.

[Overwatcher]

A thumbs up for Vortex,I own 2 and have had nothing but positives.
Soon to be 3,I really love the new XLR reticle.

[Y85]

+1 on Vortex - great scope

[Armored Transport]

Look at the Sightron SIII 8-32x56 with the LRMOA reticle. 2nd FP will do you better for known distance target shooting and these scopes are nothing short of amazing for the price....

[davidj]

Look at the Sightron SIII 8-32x56 with the LRMOA reticle. 2nd FP will do you better for known distance target shooting and these scopes are nothing short of amazing for the price....

I have the 6-24x50 and would buy another if (when?) I ever get another long gun.

[denimdeerslayer]

Myself i'm looking at the Burris laser ranging scope for mine. It will be for hunting. I just have never gotten into shooting holes in paper too much other than sighting in with a rifle. This one is the model I'm looking at. http://www.eliminatorlaserscope.com/eliminatorII.html

[LR1955]

What are you primarily doing with the rifle? Since you have a 24" barrel, that steers you towards mainly a target gun. If recreational target shooting is your main purpose, then I would lean to the Vortex Viper PST's or even the Viper HS XLR. There are some amazing deals that beat the normal sticker prices right here on the forum from Camera Land's demo specials.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?6030-Camera-Land-Optic-s-Demo-Update-4-10-2013

Main things you have to decide are:

* Magnification range ( I think 12 or 14 power is plenty for shooting at distance, but I also have 20/15 vision, so 10x is fine for me with quality glass)
* FFP vs. SFP (You really only need FFP if using the reticle to range is important to you on all magnification settings.)
* MOA vs. Milliradian (If you're in the US, MOA's make a lot of sense because you can use inches for target/reticle measurements.)
* Reticle holds vs. dialing for elevation
* Zero stop

That Vortex Viper HS 4-16x50 LR FFP XLR Matte Black VHS-4313-LR @ $679.99 is a killer deal from Camera Land (demo unit). Here is the XLR reticle:

Guys:

If it had twice the number of lines, dots, and tick marks, would you have twice the hit probability?

LR1955

[LRRPF52]

Guys:

If it had twice the number of lines, dots, and tick marks, would you have twice the hit probability?

LR1955

I hear you, and there are basically two camps as you already know: those of us who like to dial, and those who prefer using reticle holds with the new Horus-type stadia systems. If speed is a consideration, within 500yds, the reticle holds are preferred by a lot of guys in competition and real-world engagements overseas. When I talk in-detail with anyone who has actually filled the Sniper duty position during the past 12 years, I'm seeing a trend that indicates that a lot of the way we did sniper training has been invalidated, and the new generation of vets within the community are having to fight the entrenched older guys who are doing their instructor time before retiring.

One of the main points of contention is dialing vs. reticle holds. The guys who have had to perform in the duty position in combat are frequently engaging targets of opportunity in the 300-600m range, with minimal exposures where the shot needs to be taken quickly, almost always from a position other than prone. Having a good idea of what the range is and the wind conditions will usually get the first shot close to the target, from which a rapid correction can be made with the above type of reticle.

I was raised on dialing, but I see the validity of using the reticle within intermediate ranges. If there is time and distance, then dialing elevation makes more sense.

Another point of debate is appropriate knob types for a combat riflescope. Guys have had the target turrets spin on them against gear in the night, then go to take a shot on someone that needed killing, and had 8 Mils of windage off of zero, resulting in a gross miss, so locking or capped turrets are preferred by those who have had that experience, with an elevation turret that has a zero-stop as a minimum.

Ballistic software vs. dope books has been another major area of change that the old school is fighting as well. Ballistics calculators have allowed shooters to extend the maximum effective range for 1st-round hits significantly.

[LR1955]

I hear you, and there are basically two camps as you already know: those of us who like to dial, and those who prefer using reticle holds with the new Horus-type stadia systems. If speed is a consideration, within 500yds, the reticle holds are preferred by a lot of guys in competition and real-world engagements overseas. When I talk in-detail with anyone who has actually filled the Sniper duty position during the past 12 years, I'm seeing a trend that indicates that a lot of the way we did sniper training has been invalidated, and the new generation of vets within the community are having to fight the entrenched older guys who are doing their instructor time before retiring.

One of the main points of contention is dialing vs. reticle holds. The guys who have had to perform in the duty position in combat are frequently engaging targets of opportunity in the 300-600m range, with minimal exposures where the shot needs to be taken quickly, almost always from a position other than prone. Having a good idea of what the range is and the wind conditions will usually get the first shot close to the target, from which a rapid correction can be made with the above type of reticle.

I was raised on dialing, but I see the validity of using the reticle within intermediate ranges. If there is time and distance, then dialing elevation makes more sense.

Another point of debate is appropriate knob types for a combat riflescope. Guys have had the target turrets spin on them against gear in the night, then go to take a shot on someone that needed killing, and had 8 Mils of windage off of zero, resulting in a gross miss, so locking or capped turrets are preferred by those who have had that experience, with an elevation turret that has a zero-stop as a minimum.

Ballistic software vs. dope books has been another major area of change that the old school is fighting as well. Ballistics calculators have allowed shooters to extend the maximum effective range for 1st-round hits significantly.

LRRP52:

I tend way more for hold offs and have always been that way. However, I dislike cluttered reticles and think they slow the guy down, distract him, and allow for a loss of situational awareness.

To 500, you don't need anything more than a cross hair or dot. Past 500 and you may need a couple of tick marks on the vertical. Any way you look at it (no pun intended), even if you gave the guy a laser rangefinder and a ballistic calculator, the chances of him making a first round hit on a stationary upper torso with the issued 7.62 M-118 LR, the M-24 or M-110, and the currently issued optics is less than 30% at distances around 800 meters. You can tell the guy the exact distance and I do not give him more than a 30% chance of a first round hit. His wind doping generally is not good enough, they don't have a good enough zero, they can't see well enough due to the optics and environment, excitement, anxiety, fatigue, ballistic ability of the M-118 LR, rifle problems, etc, etc. Let alone the spotter actually spotting and not pulling security and then, being able to see trace or splash.

A better chance with the .300 WM due to the ballistics of the ammunition but that may be outweighed by the recoil.

LR1955

[LRRPF52]

Roger. M24's are gone now. Only 7.62 NATO system being used is M110/Mk11, and they are leaning to 16" uppers for those, with telescoping stocks. The only bolt gun chambering in the Army is the .300 WM M2010, until just the past week, where the PSR contract was finally awarded to Remington, and that system brings with it the .338 LM.

There seems to be a large trend leaning more towards the Horus reticles, although my experience with them has been difficult due to the busy nature of the stadia, but I did not train with it as much as the Horus proponents either, so I'm not the one to really cover-down either way because of my bias towards dialing. One thing that has really stuck out to me from guys who have been using long-range rifles in a military capacity over the past decade + is that they all talk about how important using the reticle is, and knowing where elevation holds are for time-critical shots, while leaning to dialing if the distance and time allow for it.

With the new optics SOCOM is buying, there seems to be a preference for the Horus system, or variations of it when looking at the Leupold CMR reticle in the Mk 8 scopes, but those lines seem a bit thick for my taste:

[Nukes]

With the Mark 8 1.1-8x24mm CQBSS, on high power only the fine stadia of the H27D reticle are visible and on low power the heavier stadia immediately lead your eye to the central red (if illuminated) dot without any obscuration. As you say, dial or use the reticle as time allows or demands.

[Jon A]

People should keep in mind highly successful lobbying/promotion has played at least some role in the rush to Horus by some of the Military. I personally can't say how much but I do think people should keep in mind it may not be as much of a pure "grass-roots 'that's what all the users want/ask for'" deal as it may seem to some on the outside.

Anyway, I think we're getting a ways off track from what will be helpful to the OP.

FWIW, I prefer FFP for both ranging and holdovers.

Holds,hold for wind.