Help with selecting a 1000 yard scope

[cwilliams]

There goes the thread again. You are both a wealth of knowledge from different perspectives and I appreciate what you offered, but I wish it had been done without the snarky remarks. It's a poor reflection upon your character and a discouragement to those who wish to learn from you.

So it's made very clear, I take nothing regarding load data, however vague or to the point it may be, as the end-all solution. It's a starting point and nothing more. I would not have started hand loading if I didn't want to find what was optimal for my gun. Isn't that what it's all about?

Again, thank you.

[PrimaryArms]

Help with selecting a 1000 yard scope

There goes the thread again. You are both a wealth of knowledge from different perspectives and I appreciate what you offered, but I wish it had been done without the snarky remarks. It's a poor reflection upon your character and a discouragement to those who wish to learn from you.

So it's made very clear, I take nothing regarding load data, however vague or to the point it may be, as the end-all solution. It's a starting point and nothing more. I would not have started hand loading if I didn't want to find what was optimal for my gun. Isn't that what it's all about?

Again, thank you.

Not arguing , just want you to understand how things really work. There is big difference between a common accuracy load and well developed load. You will not have your particular load until you go from starting to max load using different powder, primer and other combinations.

[cwilliams]

Not arguing just want you to understand how things really work. There is big difference between a common accuracy load and well developed load. You will not have your particular load until you go from starting to max load using different powder, primer and other combinations.

Agreed.

[JMP]

Your talking about a common accuracy load..
Perhaps you should explain it to Cwilliams and Blackbeard

No Dimitri, I am not talking about a common accuracy load. This gets a bit into physics. Math and physics are topics that I will not get into on a gun forum as that is what I do professionally, and I have spent my entire adult life learning and working with these type of concepts. I do not discuss such issues as the conversation tends to not end well as folks that who have never studied motion and thermodynamics will interject opinions from what they read on the internet from folks without a solid basis of understanding. In the beginning, I recommend that folks stick to what works and hone from there. Otherwise, if people want to understand such a concept in proper depth, they are best off returning to the universities and study the topics if they haven't done so. The truth is that there is so much misinformation on these types of things, it just isn't even worth discussing as it makes matters worse and confuses the folks trying to learn. However, I am happy to chat with anyone in a live conversation should he or she like to shoot and learn a bit more about the dynamics of the system.

This happens to a lot of people learning to reload is that they focus on the fancy stuff and fail to work on the fundamentals. The components I listed and approximate charge weights will get people to where they need. However, what people usually do not focus on appropriately is the seating depth. The charge is important, but as long as you are close, you can attain good accuracy by adjusting your seating. The distance from the ogive to the lands has a very profound impact on the pressure and the pattern in which it builds. This is why seating dies are generally equipped with a micrometer to refine the seating depth.

I understand what you are saying; however, I believe that you are in the mindset of loading for ARs. The problem with ARs is that you get strictly limited in length by your magazines. When this is the case, yes, you frequently need to work with suboptimal lengths and compensate with a much more refined charge. Also, as the barrel ages, you will need to consistently "chase the lands", and this is a continuum where you can't simply rework your entire load. Due to loading limitations and the unsupported chamber, semiauto rifles just simply cannot be made nearly as accurate as precision or benchrest bolt action rifles.

Given the design of the action of an AR, in relational to the barrel, you have a larger impact and as the possibility of shear wave interference is greater. The design of the action is completely different than the bolt action that the OP will be shooting. In a solid bolt rifle, the barrel is pretty much an extension of an extremely rigid action, which is then solidly fixed to a rigid stock. In cartridges like 6.5CD with a strong action and heavy barrel, and what's typically a contour that starts at 1.25", you get far less wag the dog effect.

The only issue where loads can be difficult to tune are in factory barrels where the chamber is cut too long and you cannot tune the load as you would optimally. Thus, you must do your best by altering charge.

I don't know if you have much experience with rifles such as the Accuracy Internationals, but the design of the bonded action on the extremely rigid chassis and heavy contours allow them to be very load insensitive relative to other rifles.

Now, having said that, in now way am I suggesting to not properly work up a load, but I am rather confident, our friends will find fair success based on the information I provided with the range for charge, bullets, and primers. If you can get results with a powder other than 4350, RL17, or the VV equivalent with a 139-142gr bullet, you'll be the only shooter on the line to do so without sacrificing velocity. Powders like H100V will give the shooter good velocity, but it simply lacks consistency.

The common mistake that folks make when starting out is to get caught up spending half of a barrel's life developing loads before they move on to what is more important, which are the fundamentals of long range shooting. Tactical shooters do not need a benchrest load as with a benchrest outfit, the system will be so far above the tolerances of the operator (user error) that some of that will be wasted. I do not load anywhere to the degree of a BR guy like Lynn does, but even so, the loads I have in my rifles will outshoot most shooters.

I apologize to all as this thread viered off topic. My original post was simply aimed to help the OP with some proven information to help keep his costs down in the budget for his complete build. He WILL get good results by using that as a starting point. Given that, he can look around at the prices of such equipment to get a better idea on the complete package and what he can spend on a scope.

With a scope, they are extremely expensive, and for long range shooting, one should absolutely buy the best possible scope he can afford.

[PrimaryArms]

Help with selecting a 1000 yard scope

No Dimitri, I am not talking about a common accuracy load. This gets a bit into physics. Math and physics are topics that I will not get into on a gun forum as that is what I do professionally, and I have spent my entire adult life learning and working with these type of concepts. I do not discuss such issues as the conversation tends to not end well as folks that who have never studied motion and thermodynamics will interject opinions from what they read on the internet from folks without a solid basis of understanding. In the beginning, I recommend that folks stick to what works and hone from there. Otherwise, if people want to understand such a concept in proper depth, they are best off returning to the universities and study the topics if they haven't done so. The truth is that there is so much misinformation on these types of things, it just isn't even worth discussing as it makes matters worse and confuses the folks trying to learn. However, I am happy to chat with anyone in a live conversation should he or she like to shoot and learn a bit more about the dynamics of the system.



This happens to a lot of people learning to reload is that they focus on the fancy stuff and fail to work on the fundamentals. The components I listed and approximate charge weights will get people to where they need. However, what people usually do not focus on appropriately is the seating depth. The charge is important, but as long as you are close, you can attain good accuracy by adjusting your seating. The distance from the ogive to the lands has a very profound impact on the pressure and the pattern in which it builds. This is why seating dies are generally equipped with a micrometer to refine the seating depth.



I understand what you are saying; however, I believe that you are in the mindset of loading for ARs. The problem with ARs is that you get strictly limited in length by your magazines. When this is the case, yes, you frequently need to work with suboptimal lengths and compensate with a much more refined charge. Also, as the barrel ages, you will need to consistently "chase the lands", and this is a continuum where you can't simply rework your entire load. Due to loading limitations and the unsupported chamber, semiauto rifles just simply cannot be made nearly as accurate as precision or benchrest bolt action rifles.



Given the design of the action of an AR, in relational to the barrel, you have a larger impact and as the possibility of shear wave interference is greater. The design of the action is completely different than the bolt action that the OP will be shooting. In a solid bolt rifle, the barrel is pretty much an extension of an extremely rigid action, which is then solidly fixed to a rigid stock. In cartridges like 6.5CD with a strong action and heavy barrel, and what's typically a contour that starts at 1.25", you get far less wag the dog effect.



The only issue where loads can be difficult to tune are in factory barrels where the chamber is cut too long and you cannot tune the load as you would optimally. Thus, you must do your best by altering charge.



I don't know if you have much experience with rifles such as the Accuracy Internationals, but the design of the bonded action on the extremely rigid chassis and heavy contours allow them to be very load insensitive relative to other rifles.



Now, having said that, in now way am I suggesting to not properly work up a load, but I am rather confident, our friends will find fair success based on the information I provided with the range for charge, bullets, and primers. If you can get results with a powder other than 4350, RL17, or the VV equivalent with a 139-142gr bullet, you'll be the only shooter on the line to do so without sacrificing velocity. Powders like H100V will give the shooter good velocity, but it simply lacks consistency.



The common mistake that folks make when starting out is to get caught up spending half of a barrel's life developing loads before they move on to what is more important, which are the fundamentals of long range shooting. Tactical shooters do not need a benchrest load as with a benchrest outfit, the system will be so far above the tolerances of the operator (user error) that some of that will be wasted. I do not load anywhere to the degree of a BR guy like Lynn does, but even so, the loads I have in my rifles will outshoot most shooters.



I apologize to all as this thread viered off topic. My original post was simply aimed to help the OP with some proven information to help keep his costs down in the budget for his complete build. He WILL get good results by using that as a starting point. Given that, he can look around at the prices of such equipment to get a better idea on the complete package and what he can spend on a scope.



With a scope, they are extremely expensive, and for long range shooting, one should absolutely buy the best possible scope he can afford.

A common load is a particular load that seems to work in most guns for that caliber.
what I am talking about is common practice and how reloading works you have to go through the ladder test no matter what gun its for.

Ladder Test Defined
What is a ladder test? A ladder test is, fundamentally, a method of testing a load combination using continuous increments while looking for a cluster of consecutive shots showing similar points of impact (POI). Usually the powder charge is adjusted incrementally while noting/tracking the point of impact variations in the vertical plane, and looking for plateaus on the target. The idea being that your best load will appear where several sequential, incremental charges impact in nearly the same place on the target. Basically you are trying to visualize a "sweet-spot" in the barrel harmonics by using the bullets impact on a target.
Good luck I am out of here!!

-Dimitri

[JMP]

OP, if you are in the Greater Los Angeles area, I have several extra entry level scopes you can check out. I'd suggest first doing variable vs. fixed. I have a fixed 12x and a 6-24 FFP that aren't even mounted on a rifle that we can pop on your rig and give it a whirl.

[chiefblackbeard]

OP, if you are in the Greater Los Angeles area, I have several extra entry level scopes you can check out. I'd suggest first doing variable vs. fixed. I have a fixed 12x and a 6-24 FFP that aren't even mounted on a rifle that we can pop on your rig and give it a whirl.

That is a generous offer, I will give you a shout if I can come down there. Thanks.
Aside from the main topic, I happen to be pretty well versed with thermodynamics and mechanics in general, can you point me to some material on cartridge and barrel dynamics. I know the basics, but will be pretty interesting to read more about it.

Sent from my Grand S Lite using Tapatalk

[707electrician]

How do you like the SCR MOA reticle? Thats the one and only minor complaint I have with the first run of the XTR II scopes was their G2 Mil Dot reticle that seemed kind of plain considering the other features that the scopes have. I was really glad to see them offer some more advanced reticle designs for the 2015 long range models.

Haven't had a chance to actually use it yet but so far a like it a lot. After hearing great things about the xtr II line I really wanted to try one out but I had the same feeling about the lack of a reticle that matches the features of this scope, I am really glad I waited for the scr reticle

[1911ShooterPhil]

SWFA are good to go...

Need a scope for a target rifle for mostly long range plinking.
My budget is under 1k
Priorities
1. Ruggedness and reliable turret tracking.
2. Clarity
In that order.
Thinking of the swfa 10x42 HD and the ior valdada 10x42.
Please share your experiences with these. Which one is better?
Any other good options?

I used a Bushnell Elite 10x40 Mil-Dot on my 5.56 NATO SPR. I liked it because it was super rugged and reliable, and very simple to use. My shooting partner used a SWFA SS 10x42 Mil-Dot on his custom Savage 10FP left-hand .308 WIN. He was quite pleased with his scope purchase. Eventually, I ended up with a Sightmark 6x42 which was pretty nice, because 10x was just too much for a 5.56 NATO. I like fixed power optics for my long distance guns because that was what I was taught to use while in service. It's all about personal preference, though. Variable optics have their uses too. But, fixed power optics are usually more rugged and less expensive. That's the reason I have stuck to fixed power optics. Cheers! --1911ShooterPhil

[97F1504RAD]

I agree with a few that mentioned the Burris. I have two in mind that I am currently saving for and will be making one of those purchases really soon due to the rebate Burris currently has going.

http://www.sportoptics.com/burris-xtreme-tactical-II-scopes.aspx

[chiefblackbeard]

In this post, for your purpose, I think HK Dave made the best suggestion for the SWFA HD 5-20x50. The only downside to that is the reticle, but it is the best long range scope (IMO) in the budget price range. I have made repeaded hits at a 1 MOA target at 1 mile with a SWFA HD 5-20x50. It's far from optimal, but it can do it.

Any thoughts on the swfa 3-15x 42
It is a whole lot cheaper, I can pick that up if it can do the job.
Otherwise I will just bump my budget to 1300 and get the 5-20x50 (non illuminated)
Do you see a real need for an illuminated one on that?

[chiefblackbeard]

I used a Bushnell Elite 10x40 Mil-Dot on my 5.56 NATO SPR. I liked it because it was super rugged and reliable, and very simple to use. My shooting partner used a SWFA SS 10x42 Mil-Dot on his custom Savage 10FP left-hand .308 WIN. He was quite pleased with his scope purchase. Eventually, I ended up with a Sightmark 6x42 which was pretty nice, because 10x was just too much for a 5.56 NATO. I like fixed power optics for my long distance guns because that was what I was taught to use while in service. It's all about personal preference, though. Variable optics have their uses too. But, fixed power optics are usually more rugged and less expensive. That's the reason I have stuck to fixed power optics. Cheers! --1911ShooterPhil

My preference for fixed power is in line with my general preference for fewer moving parts, or the least number of parts in general required to do a job( I manage engineering projects and this is kind of my core philosophy with regards to equipment. The more complicated ones are usually the first ones to fail)

The military used to have a fixed power scope on their sniper platforms for this and other reasons (fixed magnification makes it easier to 'learn' and use your scope intuitively plus it eliminates the errors from ranging at a non optimized. Magnification ( even for a ffp)
I guess the disadvantages of a fixed power are not as important until 800m which is the practical Max for a 308 specially when you have a spotter with an m4 with you.
At extended ranges it seems like the disadvantages are weighing in a bit harder.

[SPECR]

Any thoughts on the swfa 3-15x 42
It is a whole lot cheaper, I can pick that up if it can do the job.
Otherwise I will just bump my budget to 1300 and get the 5-20x50 (non illuminated)
Do you see a real need for an illuminated one on that?

Pass on the illumination unless you plan on hunting in low light or at night.

[HK Dave]

Any thoughts on the swfa 3-15x 42
It is a whole lot cheaper, I can pick that up if it can do the job.
Otherwise I will just bump my budget to 1300 and get the 5-20x50 (non illuminated)
Do you see a real need for an illuminated one on that?

They are entirely different in clarity and build quality from what I gather.

Used non illuminated SWFA 5-20x50mm can easily be found for around $1K. Most "used" scopes are often, "never used" scopes. lol

Clarity is on par with about a Vortex Razor Gen I HD 5-20x50mm... maybe a little clearer than a Nightforce F1.

Of course if you're bumping up to $1300 or so... find yourself a Vortex Razor Gen I HD 5-20x50mm. I know some vendors were blowing them out for like $1350 at some point. That's a $2K scope for $1350... and worth every penny.

[chiefblackbeard]

They are entirely different in clarity and build quality from what I gather.

Used non illuminated SWFA 5-20x50mm can easily be found for around $1K. Most "used" scopes are often, "never used" scopes. lol

Clarity is on par with about a Vortex Razor Gen I HD 5-20x50mm... maybe a little clearer than a Nightforce F1.

Of course if you're bumping up to $1300 or so... find yourself a Vortex Razor Gen I HD 5-20x50mm. I know some vendors were blowing them out for like $1350 at some point. That's a $2K scope for $1350... and worth every penny.

Looks like you guys are going to bump my budget up by the 100s and the 50s until we reach the shores of Deutschland where the finest glass is made and I will be left with just enough money for a savage axis to mount it on [emoji23]

Sent from my Grand S Lite using Tapatalk