Tweet
I'm about to order a Vortex HS-T (4-16x) for my grendel build, but I'm having second thoughts about the magnification. My grendel is a 19" heavy barrel that I will use for target shooting. My local range is 1,000 yards, but I usually shoot swingers at 440 yds or clays on the 560 yd berm. With the fixed power 10x on my .308, I'm always finding myself wishing for more magnification. Should I opt for the higher magnification 6-24x PST instead of the HS-T? The HS-T is about perfect for my budget, but I don't want to regret the lower magnification if it ends up being a handicap. My gut tells me that the HS-T is perfect for my build, but I've never used a scope and felt that it had too much magnification (and I have a 32x on a .17hmr).
-
-
Go with the higher magnification...you can always dial it down (you'll never use it on 6X and wish you had 4X). -
I am in the exact same deleama and can't make up my mind. The post by JDub is true but if you are going to use the rifle for woods hunting too, the close shot will make you wish you went the other way. I think if your only using it at a range the. The higher power. I think I'm going with the 4-16 but still can't decide. Really need one of each I might go with a less expensive one for the woods. Tough decision.Comment
-
I have the 6-24 PST on my 308, and it works well for both applications. I think I am going with the Bushnell 6-24 ET624FJ on my Grendel because I have read great reviews on it and there are some places with it priced lower than the PST.Comment
-
Have you ever said, "I wish my car had less horsepower..." No one ever complains of having too much magnification unless you are hunting in Africa, up close, and or personal defense...Comment
-
Just looked at the Bushnell. http://www.brownells.com/optics-moun...fication_1=24x
Sounds good. Are you looking at the FFP? How do you like FFP??Comment
-
Most variable power scopes with high magnification only are usable on maximum magnification in the best of lighting conditions. To break this mold, you usually have to fork out some serious cash, like Schmidt & Bender, USO, Hensoldt, NightForce, or the Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50 series. The Leupold Mk IV also have stunning glass on high magnification.
I really prefer to stay around 12x if possible on a scope with a 50mm objective or larger, because of field of view. If you're on a fixed target range, then this is less of a concern if the discipline is basically canned and straightforward so that you are basically shooting a lane, but when you start shooting competitions or target arrays where there is a lot of traversing and elevating, I really like wide field of view and great glass.
I also have better than 20/20 eyesight, so I interact with scopes and optics differently than someone with 20/20 or less. I think the 4-16x50 is a fairly optimum scope profile for a target Grendel or AR.Comment
-
I have palpitations every time I look at a USO. Full on stroke when I see the price tag.Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
I'm yet to use higher than 10X on an AR, so I can agree with you there. The upside of going with lower mag is that if you spend the same money then you get that gooder glass. While not in the same class as the scopes you mentioned earlier, the SWFA 3-15X definitely has my attention. I may end up with it. Heck, I will change my mind 20 times before I slap the cash down.Originally posted by LRRPF52 View PostComment
-
16x is arguably too low for 1,000yds, but fine for 400. Having shot F Class (300-1,000 target shooting) for a number of years it's all down to the magnification, reticle and repeatability. Size, weight and light transmission of the scope is not as important, as long as you're not looking through a Coke bottle.
I agree with '52' that the Leupold Mk4 is a good scope. It has two erector springs at 6 and 9 O'Clock instead of only one like their Mk1-3. You can get stronger erector springs and the Leupold Custom Shop will recommend an external optical service provider who does this sort of thing but by then the cost is the same as a Mk4. I used a Mk 4, 6.5-20x50. M1 turrets with TMR and found it to be a good tactical scope and very rugged/repeatable, but a bit underpowered for 1,000yd target shooting. It's actually only 19x but they don't advertise that too much...20x sounds better on the website.
If you're going to shoot long range from a bench or prone then get the biggest scope you can afford, otherwise the scope will be the limiting variable in your system. If you want a more tactical gun then don't go big, but in proportion to the length/weight of the barrel. Again, '52' is right about tactical concerns; field-of-view and other considerations are more important, like the need to dial down for close range. Hunting on 4-6x, or thereabouts. If you are pinging gongs from the comfort of a seat, and they don't shoot back, then high mag is best and don't worry about the lowest setting. A normal second focal plane scope (reticle does not expand or contract as you dial) is what you want as you won't be judging distance using the reticle.
One thought is you might want to look at the Nightforce Benchrest range. They are not military ruggedised so the price is cheaper than their NXS range. They make two long range target scopes; the 8-32*56 and the 12-42*56. The focus is on the front and not the side but the benefit of that is it makes for a cheaper scope and one less lens to transmit light through. I was looking through one yesterday and I have to say at 400M it was no less clear than my March on the same setting (but it was less than half the price!). Nightforce have a new scope for 2013 called the 'Competition'. It's a 15-55*52 and with side-focus, which is handy not only for keeping your position when focussing but also an easy check for mirage is to dial slightly out of focus and then back for the shot. I have no idea what it costs or its availability but it is an indication of scope manufacturers leaning towards higher magnification for long-range target shooting. I imagine it will be a lot higher than the other two Benchrest models. The 'Competition' lowest setting is 15X to allow the highest setting of 55X. You don't need a low setting shooting gongs on a range. I had mine permanently cranked up to 20X (19X!) when shooting and always wanted more magnification. I only cranked it back briefly when setting-up the bags and rest at the start.
Weaver is another good value-for-money target rifle scope.
I have never used a Vortex rifle scope so cannot comment. Others here think it is a good choice.Comment
-
I'm leaning towards the 6-24x. If I bump up my budget, I can get the 6-24 x 50 PST (second focal plane) for $749. Once I start going down this road though, I end up in the "upgrade death spiral". Once my new budget is $750, I can justify another $150 increase for something better, and so on, and so on...
Now, I'm looking at the Viper HS Long Range 6-24x with the XLR reticle (first focal plane). I really like the looks of the reticle which is similar in concept to the new Horus reticles. 1/2 moa elevation turret and capped windage turret. I actually prefer the courser elevation adjustments and I don't dial for windage, so this sounds perfect. I was planning on going mil/mil, but I can settle for moa/moa; neither is ingrained for me since my current set-up is mil/moa. Pretty big increase in the budget, but it might be worth it.Comment
-
Unless you are going to use the reticle stadia lines to judge distance/size then a second focal plane scope is without doubt a better choice. The reason being a front focal scope's reticle expands as you dial up the magnification. It becomes less fine when you need it to be.
If you are going to shoot this at the range, with known distances. Or you have other ways of judging distance (laser rangefinder) then for long-range target shooting a second focal plane scope is superior.Comment
-
From my experience good glass is better than more magnification. I run a 3.5x15 nightforce. 95% of the time its on 10x.
I shoot to 1k regularly and have made hits at 1200.Comment
-
My Premier 3-15x50 is MORE than enough scope out to 1k. Thats running on my bolt gun.
On my Grendel I am running a Bushnell 3-12x44 G2DMR and it is also more than enough for 1k work.
However, the Premier is hands down, far and away better, but not because of the extra power. It is because of the glass, the FOV, the turrets, and the eye box.Comment
-
I'll take glass quality over magnification any day. March Optics and Hensoldt really make that argument clear, as do S&B and USO.Comment
-
AMEN!Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
Best glass - Premier, S&B, March, Hensoldt (and a few Leupolds, but not many)
Best turrets - Premier, then USO, then S&B
Toughest - Premier, S&B, USO, and Pride Fowler
Best value - No such thing in the top tier optics world...Comment
Comment