General scope questions: How do I get the most bang for the buck?

[Paul45LC]

Problem: Range toy to be used out to 600 yards. I would like to get the best optical quality for the least dollars without buying a disposable scope.

1. Magnification: How much is necessary? How much is preferable?
2. 30mm vs. 1 inch: Can you get by with the smaller tube and still get good results?
3. First or second focal plane reticle: Do you really need a ffp reticle at a shooting range?
4. Illuminated reticle: Really necessary?
5. Christmas tree reticle: Do the benefits outweigh the cost?
6. Tactical or not: Would not any median grade scope from a decent manufacturer be durable enough?

What do you think on these questions? I'm asking it this way to avoid steering the discussion towards a specific manufacturer, line, or model. Of course specific suggestions are welcome as well, and if you can come up with an "honorable mention" or two, that would be even better.

[explorecaves]

Vortex PST 4-16x50 FFP or if you don't want the illumination, Vortex HS-T 4-16x44. Great glass and can't beat their lifetime unlimited warranty.

[Klem]

Difficult to respond to the 'best optical quality for lowest $$$' without immediately referring to manufacturers. Some of your other questions however can be answered generically.

A 'range toy' suggests to me something you put in a car and drive out for regular marksmanship at a shooting club. So distance to all targets is known. Compactness and weight is irrelevant, as is ruggedness.

1. Magnification: How much is necessary? How much is preferable?
At the range you do not need low magnification. In your case the higher magnifications will work best. All variable scopes come with a range of magnification with the traditional cheaper being 4* to the most expensive, 8-10* (e.g. Leupold MK8 and March). You will not need low magnification to engage close moving targets and the lowest magnification will dictate the high end of the scopes range. So, as high as possible would be my answer. You can even get away with a fixed magnification scope if the price is right.

2. 30mm vs. 1 inch: Can you get by with the smaller tube and still get good results?
Yes. Plenty of great scopes out there with 1" tubes. All things being equal 30mm gather more light but all things are never equal. It also depends on a whole bunch of other things like objective diameter, number of internal lenses, lens coatings and quality of glass. The most likely advantage of 30mm is a greater adjustment range. All things being equal again they should be stronger, but are then slightly heavier.

3. First or second focal plane reticle: Do you really need a ffp reticle at a shooting range?
No, you do not need First Focal Plane(FFP) at a know-distance range. Second focal plane (SFP) is better for range shooting. FFP is only useful if you have a reticle that is designed as an aid to judging distance, and only useful in situations where you need to judge distance using the scope. FFP aids the shooter in judging distance at all magnifications, and not just the designated magnification. SFP scopes which use a judging size/distance reticle have a designated magnification where the reticle increments match the calibrated measurements (either MOA or Mils). It is usually the highest magnification. SFP scopes does not have reticle expanding as you crank it up, which is opposite to what shooters would prefer. They also tend to have slightly more range ratio in magnification. (e.g. March 2.5-25*42 SFP compared to same scope March 3-24*42 FFP).

4. Illuminated reticle: Really necessary?
Depends whether you plan to shoot at twilight at the range and would like the luxury of more contrast between reticle and target. But no, it is not 'really' necessary.

5. Christmas tree reticle: Do the benefits outweigh the cost?
I am unaware that Christmas tree reticles cost more. If the reticle is not the standard reticle the manufacturer might charge slightly more claiming it is 'non-standard'. You can use a Christmas tree reticle at the range but windage and elevation turrets are the traditional mechanism for off-setting range and wind. Plus Christmas tree's make the scope 'busy'.

6. Tactical or not: Would not any median grade scope from a decent manufacturer be durable enough?
Yes. The range is the last place where need a ruggedized scope, especially for this low-recoiling caliber. You might even be shooting under a weatherproof roof. You do not need the cost and weight associated with a military scope.

[rebelsoul]

Paul, I hope you don't mind if I tag along with you on this ride. I would like to here some educated opinions on this subject. I know the HORDE can cut through all the fog left by manufacturers and brand bias. I have used Simmons scopes for about 20 years, because they work well for me and they are dirt cheap. Simmons optical clarity suffers badly, but I only use mine for hunting at 300yds or less. My vision isn't good enough for target shooting. I always go for the cheapest tool that will do the job properly, because I beat the crap out of anything I use and dispose of it when it doesn't work. I take trade in guns and scopes in my business and my huntin' buddies love to get Nikons and leopolds and such for 50 bucks. I plan to stretch the range out a little in the next few years, so now I also seek knowledge.

[NugginFutz]

... I know the HORDE can cut through all the fog left by manufacturers and brand bias.

ROFL! The Horde? Un-biased? It is to laugh!

I have used Simmons scopes for about 20 years, because they work well for me and they are dirt cheap. Simmons optical clarity suffers badly, but I only use mine for hunting at 300yds or less. My vision isn't good enough for target shooting.

I had a blown vitreous in my shooting eye, a couple years ago and I now have horrid floaters. I can say, without reservation, that good quality optics is what allows me to continue to shoot. Don't let your perceived shortcomings with your vision deter you from seeking the appropriate scope for your needs. I see no sense in handicapping yourself further.

I always go for the cheapest tool that will do the job properly, because I beat the crap out of anything I use and dispose of it when it doesn't work. I take trade in guns and scopes in my business and my huntin' buddies love to get Nikons and leopolds and such for 50 bucks. I plan to stretch the range out a little in the next few years, so now I also seek knowledge.

Good to hear. Despite my knee-jerk response to your comment about un-biased opinion, this group has a plethora of good information to offer on quality optics. My personal experience has proven that, when it comes to optics, buying cheap is the guaranteed way to buying often.

[CPT.CRAZY]

Ok, here is my biased opinion. I would have to agree that the vortex pst line is hard to beat for the money. to answerer some of your questions 1"vs 30mm the larger the tube generally you get more internal adjustment, max magnification is a trade off on the low end its all based on how you will use the rifle. Ffp vs sfp; ate you going to use it to range targets of a known size? Illuminated retical; you don't know you needed it 'till you don't have it. Christmas tree retical got too busy for me, personal preference. I hope this helps to muddy the waters for you.

[BjornF16]

If you don't need an illuminated reticle, then go with one of the following Vortex's (Lifetime Warranty, great customer service):

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/148...ProductFinding (HS-T)

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/242...ProductFinding (Diamondback HP)

HS-T because it is essentially a PST without illumination. It does include a Zero Stop which is nice to have after shooting at long distances and then coming back in to close range (assuming one cranks MOA/MIL for elevation). My two PST's have very good optical qualities.

If you don't want to spend >$500, then consider the Diamondback HP. I haven't looked through its glass, but the parallax adjustment is nice to have.

I've shot Grendel out to 700 yards with my Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10x44 (fixed parallax at 100 yards) without issue, but would've been nice to have adjustable parallax.

At 700 yards, my maximum parallax error would have been 132mm (5.2").

For parallax error discussion, see http://rimfirebenchrest.com/articles/parallax.html

I found 10X to be more than adequate out to 700 yards. 16X is nice to have, but you have to balance how much minimum magnification you want. I would venture that 8-10X is enough to 600 yards. Even with 16X available, I spend most of my time on 10X.

30mm vs 1 in usually comes down to how much MOA/MIL is available to crank in elevation. Your objective will dictate how much light gathering ability the optic has. With a Grendel at 600 yards, the Diamondback HP with 1" tube still has plenty of elevation.

Benefit of FFP is in using scope to range at any magnification. If not an issue, stick with SFP for cost savings.

[Paul45LC]

Best optical quality for the lowest dollar is a beauty is in the eye of the beer holder situation. One person would answer "Zeiss" where another would come up with "Tasco". I don't necessarily expect to go with either extreme, but I also don't want to preclude them from the discussion either.

I am trying to come up with questions that could be applied to any scope selection problem as well as my specific question. Thus I may refine and edit my questions after further consideration.

Specific recommendations are most welcome after voicing your thoughts on the individual issues. I'm hoping to avoid someone throwing out a model without telling how they made that determination. (I would also like a broad range of options offered by a broad spectrum of folks.)

To put this question in perspective, the most expensive and powerful scope I've owned is a Nikon Monarch 4-16x.

[rebelsoul]

FUTZ, I,ve had cheap scopes go bad but not Simmons, thats the reason for 20 years of loyalty; I'm serious about being abusive. The HORDE would flogg me if they saw the condition of my two year old Grendel. It looks like it has been shot at and missed, sh&t at and hit. I had RK surgery 17 years ago and now I'm supposed to wear tri-focals (I find myself bobbing my head like a chicken just to perceive enough parralax to walk) Glasses just don't fit my rugged lifestyle. I know I'll have to step up my scope choice to be able to stretch out my range... My favorite shot on a whitetail is right thru the armpit, but it would take one of those magic bullets to hit what I can't see.

[Paul45LC]

Thanks y'all, there's lots of useful information here.

[stanprophet]

While I have never shot through a Vortex, I have looked through many of them, an I really think that you get a ton for the money. Having said that I found that decent glass makes all the difference. I cannot spend a fortune on glass but like you want the best bang for the buck. I have been using quite a few of the nikon P series and one M series scope. I can say I have been very happy with all of them. It started with a Nikon scope for my muzzleloader with the BDC. On a trip to Arkansas for deer hunting I took a shot with a 70 dollar muzzleloader with a 240 dollar nikon scope on it, at a Coyote at 240 yards using the BDC. This was right at dusk, I was amazed with that scope, point of aim was point of inpact. I ended up sticking with the Nikon when I needed some glass for the MSR's. Just another option to check out.

[Tedward]

I just got a new Vortex Dimaondback 4-16x42. It is there newest model and for $350, Midway $75 off, and free delivery it is a nice scope. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/242...ProductFinding
Finally got to use it today at 150 yards it was good and crisp. I need some brushing up but definitely getting there more than I was with my 3-7x35 Diamondback. Nice 3/4" groups with 2" fliers but all in all, nice grouping from my makeshift bench.

Also has 80MOA of adjustment, one reason I went with it.

[Rambozo]

I think if you're concerned about cost, and quality, I think a fixed power probably fits best there. They just aren't as complicated.

Tube diameter will effect how much adjustment you get, but generally, so does magnification. Lower magnification scopes generally have much greater adjustability. But at 600 yards, you don't need much. Depending on what you shoot, it's probably going to be between 10 and 16 minutes.

FFP vs. SFP is a trade off. FFP reticules are general bolder to account for their shrinkage at lower magnification. The thickness of the line can be bold, but I haven't had a problem with it in the PST or Razor. I shoot just as well with those as I do a finer one. Magnification helps here. FFP is nice piece of mind that you know your reticle is always true. It makes holdover easer. You have the option of not even touching your turrets. At the same time, Hold off on a standard NRA target isn't so difficult, considering the size of the rings. So in that regard FFP is over thinking it.

Illuminated reticule is probably nice if you shoot in the dark. I've never used it.

I like simple reticules. I'm not particularly fond of the chrismas tree stuff. A simple Moa hash reticule is what I like.

Tactical is nice, only because they generally come with proper target turrets.




Stay away from high magnification budget scopes. Otherwise just accept the idea that the image will likely be milky. If you want magnification beyond 24, then you really have to pay for it. Stay away from any budget scope marked 1/8th minute. The turret markings on those generally don't correlate well with the adjustability of the turret, meaning that they don't tend to go to a full minute on that full rotation. It's easy to get lost.

Zero stop is nice too.

[lrgrendel]

Sightron SIII 6-24x50 or 8-32x56
They come in smaller sizes too. No illuminated reticle and second focal plane.

I believe this is the best bang for the buck for your use but you also cannot go wrong with a Vortex PST FOR SLIGHTLY MORE MONEY.
Always get more POWER than you think you need.

[stokesrj]

Optics, truly are one area where you get what you pay for, but the benefits to cost ratio diminishes rapidly at the higher end. I own and use optics from low end VX1 Leupold to Zeiss rail mount HT. I also own metallic sights that cost far more than most scopes.

Accuracy can be obtained with almost any scope from a reputable company. I shoot the exact same size groups with my McMillan Tubb 2000 with my 5-55X Nightforce Competition scope or my metallic sights around .28" at 100 yards. Don't expect a high dollar scope to make a difference in your shooting, only your pleasure in shooting.

So it all depends on you, your specific shooting circumstances and likes and dislikes.

My area of competition is the NRA and CMP High Power National Match course of fire, shot at 200 yards offhand and sitting rapid, 300 yard prone rapid, and 600 yard prone slow fire.

Scopes have only recently been made legal for this course of fire but so far no one shooting a scope has matched or bested the metallic sight scores at the national level.
I say this only to point out that the very best riflemen in the country that shoot from positions other than a rest, can shoot metallic sights better than anyone can shoot the same course of fire with a scope, any scope.

The Army Marksmanship Unit researched this topic and chose the Nightforce NXT 5-25X with a .25 Moa dot as the best of the best for this purpose. I have watched them shoot the various Vortex, March, US Optics, and so forth with almost no difference in scores. Overwhelmingly they prefer second focal plane scopes for known distance range work and lighted reticles are only accepted if they can't buy the same scope without them. Lighted reticles are of no value under normal daylight use.

Higher magnification is desirable with no or little mirage but undesirable with heavy mirage. For that reason, a variable scope is desirable, but not necessary. A fixed scope could save you some money or allow you to put more money towards better optics, coatings or movements, a fixed 10X is hard to beat.

The only reason to have a 30mm tube on a range rifle is to allow for greater adjustment of impact. You may need more if the scope is misaligned. But in general, a well aligned mount with a built in forward slant of ten degrees or so will allow plenty of adjustment for 600 yards use with a 1" tube.

So to be very precise for your stated use, you do not need,

Lighted Reticle
First Focal Plane Reticle
30 MM tube
Christmas Tree Reticle
Tactical or Military Construction

You do need;

Quality of build
Quality of movement
Quality of optics

Leupold, Vortex, Nightforce, Zeiss, and Swarovski come to mind as manufacturers that provide what you need. I didn't name the brands I've seen prove unreliable at the range or ones that provide only marginally better performance at ridiculous prices. I own all the above brands, so obviously, I thought they were worth the price. Many of them I bought used on eBay. One example was a Leupold 36x bench rest scope that I bought used for about $250 dollars years ago and used it for various load development tasks. Late last year I was using it to develop loads for my 9.3x62 Blaser R93 Attache, a rather light rifle for that caliber. After about 75 rounds the cross wires gave way, broke and formed a horizontal S. I was really sad, because it had served me well all that time and had impeccably precise and repeatable movements so I sent it back to Leupold and inquired if the reticle could be replaced.

After a few days they called me and apologized but stated the scope was unrepairable as it was no longer produced. They went on to say that I could choose any current scope they manufactured and just pay the difference to an equivalent scope. Since I now had a Nightforce 15-55X Competition that could play the role of my load development scopes I chose a VX6 2-12X CDS lighted reticle scope which sells for about $1,200. To my surprise they said close enough, and shipped me the new scope at no additional charge. That is what I call real customer service, I even told them I bought the scope used. They simply said, doesn't matter, glad to make a customer happy. Guess what, I might buy another Leupold. My Leupold VX6 compares very well to my rail mounted Zeiss HT 3-12X56 with lighted reticle an ASV ballistic turrets that costs over $3,000. The Zeiss is better for shooting hogs at night but just about the same for everything else.

This may be more information than you wanted, but it also may help you understand the value of a good scope better.

Bob