AR Sponsor
What makes the perfect SPR scope? (Page 2 of 2)
|
Originally Posted By the-answer-is-42: For minute of man/battlefield accuracy, sure. But for anything more than that past 200 yards you need more than 10x. Disagree. An SPR is not a benchrest rifle. Years ago my choice was a Leupold VX-R 3-9x40 for the following reasons: Light weight Enough magnification to reach out to extended ranges Simple, thick (easy to see) mil reticle Mil turrets Good illumination I found it to be just about perfect for the role. That one was discontinued years ago and there were a couple other similar Leupolds later but there really aren't a ton of similar scopes on the market today. If I'm concerned about ranges where I would need more glass I'd also want more rifle anyways. Doesn't need to be FFP, leave it on low mag for quick handling. Don't get me wrong, I prefer FFP but in some roles it is a complication. |
Malcolm X was right about liberals.
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: Completely agree. If similar size and weight, no reason to max at 10 assuming equal glass. As long as you have a good reticle, you can always back down to 10. The problem will be eye box at max magnification if size and weight are equal because objective would be equal... |
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: Are you saying the eyebox at 10x would be shorter or longer on a 2-10 vs a 3-15? Hard to say on same magnification. I haven't figured out how to calculate intermediate eye box from spec charts. But for sure a 40mm objective will feel more usable on max with a 10x than a 15x when running around and taking improvised position shots. |
|
Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Hard to say on same magnification. I haven't figured out how to calculate intermediate eye box from spec charts. But for sure a 40mm objective will feel more usable on max with a 10x than a 15x when running around and taking improvised position shots. Sure, but I’m thinking that they’d be identical or nearly so at the same magnification, rendering your point moot. |
|
Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: Are there any examples of these higher mag scopes that are the same weight and dimensions as their lower mag counterparts? Obviously with similar eye boxes, exit pupil & fov as well. Attached File Attached File Helos 2-12 vs 4-20, very similar. |
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: Sure, but I’m thinking that they’d be identical or nearly so at the same magnification, rendering your point moot. Originally Posted By bluedog82: Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Hard to say on same magnification. I haven't figured out how to calculate intermediate eye box from spec charts. But for sure a 40mm objective will feel more usable on max with a 10x than a 15x when running around and taking improvised position shots. Sure, but I’m thinking that they’d be identical or nearly so at the same magnification, rendering your point moot. A lot of times yes. People say it about 1-10’s a lot. That they’re more picky than a 1-6. Of course they are at 10X. Dial them back to 6X and they’re about the same. You can’t compare perfectly apples to apples obviously so I’m making a generalization across models. |
|
Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: Are there any examples of these higher mag scopes that are the same weight and dimensions as their lower mag counterparts? Obviously with similar eye boxes, exit pupil & fov as well. They won’t be the exact same obviously, but there are a ton of examples that are similar enough. Usually they don’t change as much in size as they do in qualitative characteristics since you’re warping the glass more within the same (approximate) confined space. The 1-6/1-10 Razor for example won’t have as great a 1X or high end as the 1-6, but in terms of length or weight they’re interchangeable. The NX8 also comes to mind. It’s a 2.5-20 yet is terribly small and really pretty light. It’s 7oz more than the same brands 1-10, and a lot of that comes simply from the larger objective. It doesn’t compromise in size, it compromises in glass characters. People complain the glass can take a downturn past 16X and the DoF is shallow needing fine parallax adjustment, and as an owner of two, they’re not wrong. Edit it occurs to me since posting that there coming out with their 2-12 which is barely larger than their old 2.5-10 and probably a more direct replacement. For 3oz and a fraction of an inch it goes from a 4X to a 6X erector which is a good deal to me. Usually these differences do come out to a low couple ounces or an inch or less, I guess is my point I’m trying to make. |
|
Originally Posted By the-answer-is-42: For minute of man/battlefield accuracy, sure. But for anything more than that past 200 yards you need more than 10x. Incorrect, for me, in my own experience. I regularly shoot to 500 yards w/ 2.5x, 3x, & a 1-6x LPVO. Low contrast targets, normal "field" setting, not some picture perfect square range. Absolutely agree that higher mag yields better, easier PID/observation capability, of course. It can have a downside, in the real world, with a smaller FOV that causes you to miss things. This discussion leads to the definition of an SPR, and what that is, subjectively, to each one of us, in accordance with our own use case. Some people seem to consider it a big heavy benchrest kind of gun. Others, like me, see it as a fighting rifle, meant to be carried, and fought with, as it were, while being capable of greater accuracy/precision at ranges beyond what's typical for a general-purpose rifle. The definition being subjective, means that glass choice will be also. To each their own. For me, a 1-6x, 1-8x or maybe 1-10x fits the bill nicely. Side note: I used to be one of those that'd always run an LPVO at either 1, or all the way up to 6, but lately I've taken to leaving it on 2 or 3. |
|
Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Incorrect, for me, in my own experience. I regularly shoot to 500 yards w/ 2.5x, 3x, & a 1-6x LPVO. Low contrast targets, normal "field" setting, not some picture perfect square range. Absolutely agree that higher mag yields better, easier PID/observation capability, of course. It can have a downside, in the real world, with a smaller FOV that causes you to miss things. This discussion leads to the definition of an SPR, and what that is, subjectively, to each one of us, in accordance with our own use case. Some people seem to consider it a big heavy benchrest kind of gun. Others, like me, see it as a fighting rifle, meant to be carried, and fought with, as it were, while being capable of greater accuracy/precision at ranges beyond what's typical for a general-purpose rifle. The definition being subjective, means that glass choice will be also. To each their own. For me, a 1-6x, 1-8x or maybe 1-10x fits the bill nicely. Side note: I used to be one of those that'd always run an LPVO at either 1, or all the way up to 6, but lately I've taken to leaving it on 2 or 3. Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Originally Posted By the-answer-is-42: For minute of man/battlefield accuracy, sure. But for anything more than that past 200 yards you need more than 10x. Incorrect, for me, in my own experience. I regularly shoot to 500 yards w/ 2.5x, 3x, & a 1-6x LPVO. Low contrast targets, normal "field" setting, not some picture perfect square range. Absolutely agree that higher mag yields better, easier PID/observation capability, of course. It can have a downside, in the real world, with a smaller FOV that causes you to miss things. This discussion leads to the definition of an SPR, and what that is, subjectively, to each one of us, in accordance with our own use case. Some people seem to consider it a big heavy benchrest kind of gun. Others, like me, see it as a fighting rifle, meant to be carried, and fought with, as it were, while being capable of greater accuracy/precision at ranges beyond what's typical for a general-purpose rifle. The definition being subjective, means that glass choice will be also. To each their own. For me, a 1-6x, 1-8x or maybe 1-10x fits the bill nicely. Side note: I used to be one of those that'd always run an LPVO at either 1, or all the way up to 6, but lately I've taken to leaving it on 2 or 3. See id call a 1-6/1-8, and maybe I’m dating myself here, a DMR. As in a general use rifle that can still shoot to mid-range with some precision. But I realize as optics progress yesterday’s DMR is today’s regular rifle. I have and like my 2-10’s and 1-6/8/10’s, but I have things like a 4-16 ATACR and 2.5-20 NX8 on small-frames that are absolutely still handy enough to carry. Really I try to keep all my rifles handy as I like to hunt with them, even if they’re not the most appropriate of hunting rifles. Nice glass is about the first thing I’ll pay a few oz penalty for to get more capability. |
|
Originally Posted By Ronnoc: I opted for a Vortex Viper PST Gen 2 3-15. Just built the upper for it and put it on an existing lower till I build a new one. The rest of the upper is lighter with a 16" fluted barrel and lighter weight rail, went back and forth between a 16 and 20 inch barrel but wanted to compensate. I wanted a 2-10, but my eyes are older and will help me see better. Built as a cross between an SPR and a coyote rifle. I live in areas with heavy woods but also open fields and it would help me see. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/73248/4519_jpg-3721613.JPG Same scope here and it’s quite excellent, I use it on my 20” spr build |
Game on!
|
Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Incorrect, for me, in my own experience. I regularly shoot to 500 yards w/ 2.5x, 3x, & a 1-6x LPVO. Low contrast targets, normal "field" setting, not some picture perfect square range. Absolutely agree that higher mag yields better, easier PID/observation capability, of course. It can have a downside, in the real world, with a smaller FOV that causes you to miss things. This discussion leads to the definition of an SPR, and what that is, subjectively, to each one of us, in accordance with our own use case. Some people seem to consider it a big heavy benchrest kind of gun. Others, like me, see it as a fighting rifle, meant to be carried, and fought with, as it were, while being capable of greater accuracy/precision at ranges beyond what's typical for a general-purpose rifle. The definition being subjective, means that glass choice will be also. To each their own. For me, a 1-6x, 1-8x or maybe 1-10x fits the bill nicely. Side note: I used to be one of those that'd always run an LPVO at either 1, or all the way up to 6, but lately I've taken to leaving it on 2 or 3. Agreed about the lack of agreement on definitions for various rifle setups. What you’re describing I would classify as a Recce rifle. Maybe I’ll do a video on the topic sometime. |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: They won’t be the exact same obviously, but there are a ton of examples that are similar enough. Usually they don’t change as much in size as they do in qualitative characteristics since you’re warping the glass more within the same (approximate) confined space. The 1-6/1-10 Razor for example won’t have as great a 1X or high end as the 1-6, but in terms of length or weight they’re interchangeable. The NX8 also comes to mind. It’s a 2.5-20 yet is terribly small and really pretty light. It’s 7oz more than the same brands 1-10, and a lot of that comes simply from the larger objective. It doesn’t compromise in size, it compromises in glass characters. People complain the glass can take a downturn past 16X and the DoF is shallow needing fine parallax adjustment, and as an owner of two, they’re not wrong. Edit it occurs to me since posting that there coming out with their 2-12 which is barely larger than their old 2.5-10 and probably a more direct replacement. For 3oz and a fraction of an inch it goes from a 4X to a 6X erector which is a good deal to me. Usually these differences do come out to a low couple ounces or an inch or less, I guess is my point I’m trying to make. When did you get yours? I heard they made a change somewhere around late 23/early 24. I haven't experienced issues with mine past 16 and don't find the parallax requiring anything significantly different than my other optics. I got mine late 24 if I recall. |
|
Originally Posted By Marksman14: When did you get yours? I heard they made a change somewhere around late 23/early 24. I haven't experienced issues with mine past 16 and don't find the parallax requiring anything significantly different than my other optics. I got mine late 24 if I recall. Originally Posted By Marksman14: Originally Posted By doty_soty: They won’t be the exact same obviously, but there are a ton of examples that are similar enough. Usually they don’t change as much in size as they do in qualitative characteristics since you’re warping the glass more within the same (approximate) confined space. The 1-6/1-10 Razor for example won’t have as great a 1X or high end as the 1-6, but in terms of length or weight they’re interchangeable. The NX8 also comes to mind. It’s a 2.5-20 yet is terribly small and really pretty light. It’s 7oz more than the same brands 1-10, and a lot of that comes simply from the larger objective. It doesn’t compromise in size, it compromises in glass characters. People complain the glass can take a downturn past 16X and the DoF is shallow needing fine parallax adjustment, and as an owner of two, they’re not wrong. Edit it occurs to me since posting that there coming out with their 2-12 which is barely larger than their old 2.5-10 and probably a more direct replacement. For 3oz and a fraction of an inch it goes from a 4X to a 6X erector which is a good deal to me. Usually these differences do come out to a low couple ounces or an inch or less, I guess is my point I’m trying to make. When did you get yours? I heard they made a change somewhere around late 23/early 24. I haven't experienced issues with mine past 16 and don't find the parallax requiring anything significantly different than my other optics. I got mine late 24 if I recall. In low light you don’t? I do. I’ll have it out around dusk and play around with it and I notice no issues til maybe 16 or so, then the image starts to darken dramatically quickly. It’s usable but the falloff is fairly steep whereas some optics hold up great or it’s a small steady decline. Still sharp, just dims fast. Not that I’m complaining. These things happen in such high performance small package optics. I got mine both secondhand. I don’t mind the parallax but it is pickier than other options. But when you’re comparing it against things like the 4-16 ATACR that’s to be expected. To be fair the ATACR doesn’t go past 16 or for all I know it’d fall apart too  I think both of my NX8s are post-revision so maybe they were worse back when.I actually really like the 2.5-20. You hear lots of mixed things but chronologically a lot of the negative was from early on and I think the revision was part of that. I REALLY like the glass quality and I hear mixed things about that too. Only thing is the image starts to get picky and dark in low-light fast above the mid-teens, which in an optic with an 8X erector coming in at the size it comes in at is to be expected. I got the ATACR because it’s supposed to be an all around better optic than the NX8, and it is at least optically (as it’s obviously bigger and heavier despite the 4X erector and smaller objective) it is, but I was impressed with the NX8. It’s most of an ATACR at a lot less price. |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: In low light you don’t? I do. I’ll have it out around dusk and play around with it and I notice no issues til maybe 16 or so, then the image starts to darken dramatically quickly. It’s usable but the falloff is fairly steep whereas some optics hold up great or it’s a small steady decline. Still sharp, just dims fast. Not that I’m complaining. These things happen in such high performance small package optics. I got mine both secondhand. I don’t mind the parallax but it is pickier than other options. But when you’re comparing it against things like the 4-16 ATACR that’s to be expected. To be fair the ATACR doesn’t go past 16 or for all I know it’d fall apart too I think both of my NX8s are post-revision so maybe they were worse back when.I actually really like the 2.5-20. You hear lots of mixed things but chronologically a lot of the negative was from early on and I think the revision was part of that. I REALLY like the glass quality and I hear mixed things about that too. Only thing is the image starts to get picky and dark in low-light fast above the mid-teens, which in an optic with an 8X erector coming in at the size it comes in at is to be expected. I got the ATACR because it’s supposed to be an all around better optic than the NX8, and it is at least optically (as it’s obviously bigger and heavier despite the 4X erector and smaller objective) it is, but I was impressed with the NX8. It’s most of an ATACR at a lot less price. To that, I can't really say. Between my ATACR 5-25 and 4-16 and the NX8, the window of "I can see" to "I can't see" is so close I never really bothered to compare too much
|
|
Originally Posted By Marksman14: To that, I can't really say. Between my ATACR 5-25 and 4-16 and the NX8, the window of "I can see" to "I can't see" is so close I never really bothered to compare too much Originally Posted By Marksman14: Originally Posted By doty_soty: In low light you don’t? I do. I’ll have it out around dusk and play around with it and I notice no issues til maybe 16 or so, then the image starts to darken dramatically quickly. It’s usable but the falloff is fairly steep whereas some optics hold up great or it’s a small steady decline. Still sharp, just dims fast. Not that I’m complaining. These things happen in such high performance small package optics. I got mine both secondhand. I don’t mind the parallax but it is pickier than other options. But when you’re comparing it against things like the 4-16 ATACR that’s to be expected. To be fair the ATACR doesn’t go past 16 or for all I know it’d fall apart too I think both of my NX8s are post-revision so maybe they were worse back when.I actually really like the 2.5-20. You hear lots of mixed things but chronologically a lot of the negative was from early on and I think the revision was part of that. I REALLY like the glass quality and I hear mixed things about that too. Only thing is the image starts to get picky and dark in low-light fast above the mid-teens, which in an optic with an 8X erector coming in at the size it comes in at is to be expected. I got the ATACR because it’s supposed to be an all around better optic than the NX8, and it is at least optically (as it’s obviously bigger and heavier despite the 4X erector and smaller objective) it is, but I was impressed with the NX8. It’s most of an ATACR at a lot less price. To that, I can't really say. Between my ATACR 5-25 and 4-16 and the NX8, the window of "I can see" to "I can't see" is so close I never really bothered to compare too much I’m sure if you had an eye chart or something you’d be able to note image falloff at the higher magnification too, which isn’t really unique to the NX8 or anything. But mostly all I notice is a fairly abrupt light drop off, which you’ll really only see in low light. It still does a great job of light transmission overall though. It’s not a hunting optic but I had it out @ dusk and was still able to make a shot at a deer in woods past dusk so it does a great job given what it is. I think the NX8 is an excellent optic at cramming a lot of scope into a small package, but I bet the NX6 is the better qualitative scope given it does less in a larger package, much like the ATACR. I think their 2-12 will be a dandy of an optic and if it were out at the time it’d likely be what I’d use in place of an NX8 or HX6i, both of which I consider to be very nice optics and no slouch in their own rights. |
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/499242/IMG_1059_png-3732217.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/499242/IMG_1058_png-3732218.JPG Helos 2-12 vs 4-20, very similar. Originally Posted By bluedog82: Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: Are there any examples of these higher mag scopes that are the same weight and dimensions as their lower mag counterparts? Obviously with similar eye boxes, exit pupil & fov as well. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/499242/IMG_1059_png-3732217.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/499242/IMG_1058_png-3732218.JPG Helos 2-12 vs 4-20, very similar. The fov numbers don’t look similar. I should have added in ‘durable’ as a qualifier
|
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: I’m sure if you had an eye chart or something you’d be able to note image falloff at the higher magnification too, which isn’t really unique to the NX8 or anything. But mostly all I notice is a fairly abrupt light drop off, which you’ll really only see in low light. It still does a great job of light transmission overall though. It’s not a hunting optic but I had it out @ dusk and was still able to make a shot at a deer in woods past dusk so it does a great job given what it is. I think the NX8 is an excellent optic at cramming a lot of scope into a small package, but I bet the NX6 is the better qualitative scope given it does less in a larger package, much like the ATACR. I think their 2-12 will be a dandy of an optic and if it were out at the time it’d likely be what I’d use in place of an NX8 or HX6i, both of which I consider to be very nice optics and no slouch in their own rights. Originally Posted By doty_soty: Originally Posted By Marksman14: Originally Posted By doty_soty: In low light you don’t? I do. I’ll have it out around dusk and play around with it and I notice no issues til maybe 16 or so, then the image starts to darken dramatically quickly. It’s usable but the falloff is fairly steep whereas some optics hold up great or it’s a small steady decline. Still sharp, just dims fast. Not that I’m complaining. These things happen in such high performance small package optics. I got mine both secondhand. I don’t mind the parallax but it is pickier than other options. But when you’re comparing it against things like the 4-16 ATACR that’s to be expected. To be fair the ATACR doesn’t go past 16 or for all I know it’d fall apart too I think both of my NX8s are post-revision so maybe they were worse back when.I actually really like the 2.5-20. You hear lots of mixed things but chronologically a lot of the negative was from early on and I think the revision was part of that. I REALLY like the glass quality and I hear mixed things about that too. Only thing is the image starts to get picky and dark in low-light fast above the mid-teens, which in an optic with an 8X erector coming in at the size it comes in at is to be expected. I got the ATACR because it’s supposed to be an all around better optic than the NX8, and it is at least optically (as it’s obviously bigger and heavier despite the 4X erector and smaller objective) it is, but I was impressed with the NX8. It’s most of an ATACR at a lot less price. To that, I can't really say. Between my ATACR 5-25 and 4-16 and the NX8, the window of "I can see" to "I can't see" is so close I never really bothered to compare too much I’m sure if you had an eye chart or something you’d be able to note image falloff at the higher magnification too, which isn’t really unique to the NX8 or anything. But mostly all I notice is a fairly abrupt light drop off, which you’ll really only see in low light. It still does a great job of light transmission overall though. It’s not a hunting optic but I had it out @ dusk and was still able to make a shot at a deer in woods past dusk so it does a great job given what it is. I think the NX8 is an excellent optic at cramming a lot of scope into a small package, but I bet the NX6 is the better qualitative scope given it does less in a larger package, much like the ATACR. I think their 2-12 will be a dandy of an optic and if it were out at the time it’d likely be what I’d use in place of an NX8 or HX6i, both of which I consider to be very nice optics and no slouch in their own rights. I think you are right about the nx6. I will be picking up a 2-12. As has been mentioned - the shallow depth of field that these compact scopes like the nx8 have is another con. Sure there have been technological advances, but as a rule there is no free lunch. |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: See id call a 1-6/1-8, and maybe I’m dating myself here, a DMR. As in a general use rifle that can still shoot to mid-range with some precision. But I realize as optics progress yesterday’s DMR is today’s regular rifle. I have and like my 2-10’s and 1-6/8/10’s, but I have things like a 4-16 ATACR and 2.5-20 NX8 on small-frames that are absolutely still handy enough to carry. Really I try to keep all my rifles handy as I like to hunt with them, even if they’re not the most appropriate of hunting rifles. Nice glass is about the first thing I’ll pay a few oz penalty for to get more capability. Originally Posted By doty_soty: Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Originally Posted By the-answer-is-42: For minute of man/battlefield accuracy, sure. But for anything more than that past 200 yards you need more than 10x. Incorrect, for me, in my own experience. I regularly shoot to 500 yards w/ 2.5x, 3x, & a 1-6x LPVO. Low contrast targets, normal "field" setting, not some picture perfect square range. Absolutely agree that higher mag yields better, easier PID/observation capability, of course. It can have a downside, in the real world, with a smaller FOV that causes you to miss things. This discussion leads to the definition of an SPR, and what that is, subjectively, to each one of us, in accordance with our own use case. Some people seem to consider it a big heavy benchrest kind of gun. Others, like me, see it as a fighting rifle, meant to be carried, and fought with, as it were, while being capable of greater accuracy/precision at ranges beyond what's typical for a general-purpose rifle. The definition being subjective, means that glass choice will be also. To each their own. For me, a 1-6x, 1-8x or maybe 1-10x fits the bill nicely. Side note: I used to be one of those that'd always run an LPVO at either 1, or all the way up to 6, but lately I've taken to leaving it on 2 or 3. See id call a 1-6/1-8, and maybe I’m dating myself here, a DMR. As in a general use rifle that can still shoot to mid-range with some precision. But I realize as optics progress yesterday’s DMR is today’s regular rifle. I have and like my 2-10’s and 1-6/8/10’s, but I have things like a 4-16 ATACR and 2.5-20 NX8 on small-frames that are absolutely still handy enough to carry. Really I try to keep all my rifles handy as I like to hunt with them, even if they’re not the most appropriate of hunting rifles. Nice glass is about the first thing I’ll pay a few oz penalty for to get more capability. I’d argue the progression of ammunition was one of the most important factors of extending the range of the ar15 platform. A 14.5” 5.56 is a 700yd rifle with the right projectile. It doesn’t take much to accurately get there optically imho.. but yea better optics and optics in general have certainly been a huge factor as well. |
|
Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: The fov numbers don’t look similar. I should have added in ‘durable’ as a qualifier Ha! As for FOV, that’s at min-> max mag so obviously the 4-20x is gonna be way smaller; if you look the 4x is exactly half the 2x which makes perfect sense. For another example, Razor G2 3-18: 46.5oz, 14.4”. Razor G2 4.5-27: 48.5oz, 14.4”. 50 vs 56mm so some other minor differences but we’re at a very similar size, and nobody really bought those and they were pretty much discontinued as I understand it. |
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: Ha! As for FOV, that’s generally at max mag so obviously the 20x is gonna be way smaller…Razor G2 3-18: 46.5oz, 14.4”. Razor G2 4.5-27: 48.5oz, 14.4”. 50 vs 56mm so some other minor differences but we’re at a very similar size, and nobody really bought those and they were pretty much discontinued as I understand it. Both 6x erectors. I’m sure there are notable differences in fov, and exit pupil. Either way, two different mag ranges for different use cases. Neither one would go on a 5.56 rifle for me. Now heavy bolt guns for 1k +… sure. Those scopes weren’t durable either |
|
Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: I’d argue the progression of ammunition was one of the most important factors of extending the range of the ar15 platform. A 14.5” 5.56 is a 700yd rifle with the right projectile. It doesn’t take much to accurately get there optically imho.. but yea better optics and optics in general have certainly been a huge factor as well. Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: Originally Posted By doty_soty: Originally Posted By JoeDevola: Originally Posted By the-answer-is-42: For minute of man/battlefield accuracy, sure. But for anything more than that past 200 yards you need more than 10x. Incorrect, for me, in my own experience. I regularly shoot to 500 yards w/ 2.5x, 3x, & a 1-6x LPVO. Low contrast targets, normal "field" setting, not some picture perfect square range. Absolutely agree that higher mag yields better, easier PID/observation capability, of course. It can have a downside, in the real world, with a smaller FOV that causes you to miss things. This discussion leads to the definition of an SPR, and what that is, subjectively, to each one of us, in accordance with our own use case. Some people seem to consider it a big heavy benchrest kind of gun. Others, like me, see it as a fighting rifle, meant to be carried, and fought with, as it were, while being capable of greater accuracy/precision at ranges beyond what's typical for a general-purpose rifle. The definition being subjective, means that glass choice will be also. To each their own. For me, a 1-6x, 1-8x or maybe 1-10x fits the bill nicely. Side note: I used to be one of those that'd always run an LPVO at either 1, or all the way up to 6, but lately I've taken to leaving it on 2 or 3. See id call a 1-6/1-8, and maybe I’m dating myself here, a DMR. As in a general use rifle that can still shoot to mid-range with some precision. But I realize as optics progress yesterday’s DMR is today’s regular rifle. I have and like my 2-10’s and 1-6/8/10’s, but I have things like a 4-16 ATACR and 2.5-20 NX8 on small-frames that are absolutely still handy enough to carry. Really I try to keep all my rifles handy as I like to hunt with them, even if they’re not the most appropriate of hunting rifles. Nice glass is about the first thing I’ll pay a few oz penalty for to get more capability. I’d argue the progression of ammunition was one of the most important factors of extending the range of the ar15 platform. A 14.5” 5.56 is a 700yd rifle with the right projectile. It doesn’t take much to accurately get there optically imho.. but yea better optics and optics in general have certainly been a huge factor as well. Oh for sure. Your standard ball ammo wasn’t precise or terribly lethal past very far. A 193 or 855 setup with a RDS or ACOG made a lot of sense. But heavy 75/77 grain is commonplace now and tipped projectiles extend frag range to 400-500+, and make effective hits doable further than that. And that’s not even getting into things like 6arc. One of my 2.5-20 NX8s is on a 12.5 6arc and the idea of such a short rifle having so much scope would have sounded silly even a few years back. These days though it’s got the range and precision to make use of it. The trend has been being able to take advantage of more and more glass with less and less gun. |
Joined:
Jan 2025
Posts:
28
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By seatex68: I don't understand why 5.56 is used for anything over 500 yards. That's when I use an AR-10. https://i.ibb.co/sv4N30TW/62ab396bb0b1b.jpg Because mk262 exists and does well. Also, NAS3 cases are allowing higher pressure loadings which further extend the range. |
Joined:
Jan 2025
Posts:
29
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By JoshNC: Because mk262 exists and does well. Also, NAS3 cases are allowing higher pressure loadings which further extend the range. 7.62 NATO retains over 1,700 foot-pounds of energy at 500-yards versus 950 foot-pounds for 5.56 NATO. That's why I use .308/7.62 NATO for long distance. |
|
Originally Posted By seatex68: 7.62 NATO retains over 1,700 foot-pounds of energy at 500-yards versus 950 foot-pounds for 5.56 NATO. That's why I use .308/7.62 NATO for long distance. Originally Posted By seatex68: Originally Posted By JoshNC: Because mk262 exists and does well. Also, NAS3 cases are allowing higher pressure loadings which further extend the range. 7.62 NATO retains over 1,700 foot-pounds of energy at 500-yards versus 950 foot-pounds for 5.56 NATO. That's why I use .308/7.62 NATO for long distance. I don’t understand why 7.62 is used for anything over 500 yards, that’s when I use a 6.5 CM. |
|
Originally Posted By JoshNC: Because mk262 exists and does well. Also, NAS3 cases are allowing higher pressure loadings which further extend the range. Originally Posted By JoshNC: Originally Posted By seatex68: I don't understand why 5.56 is used for anything over 500 yards. That's when I use an AR-10. https://i.ibb.co/sv4N30TW/62ab396bb0b1b.jpg Because mk262 exists and does well. Also, NAS3 cases are allowing higher pressure loadings which further extend the range. And that’s not even getting into Grendel or Arc. Between the two of them they’ve really taken the fire out of me shooting my large frames, and I’ve got some nice ones like an MWS and OBR. But the 6arc mimics its trajectory with a lot less weight and recoil. |
Joined:
Jan 2025
Posts:
30
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By seatex68: 7.62 NATO retains over 1,700 foot-pounds of energy at 500-yards versus 950 foot-pounds for 5.56 NATO. That's why I use .308/7.62 NATO for long distance. I have both as well. And 6.5cm. It’s fun to shoot 5.56 far. If I had to shoot a people past 500, I’d certainly grab my SR25. But for range fun, 5.56 is great. |
|
Originally Posted By seatex68: I don't understand why 5.56 is used for anything over 500 yards. That's when I use an AR-10. https://i.ibb.co/sv4N30TW/62ab396bb0b1b.jpg Because you dont get to pick at what range engagements happen. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By seatex68: 7.62 NATO retains over 1,700 foot-pounds of energy at 500-yards versus 950 foot-pounds for 5.56 NATO. That's why I use .308/7.62 NATO for long distance. Originally Posted By seatex68: Originally Posted By JoshNC: Because mk262 exists and does well. Also, NAS3 cases are allowing higher pressure loadings which further extend the range. 7.62 NATO retains over 1,700 foot-pounds of energy at 500-yards versus 950 foot-pounds for 5.56 NATO. That's why I use .308/7.62 NATO for long distance. Now carry it with 200 rounds for 20 miles |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Because you dont get to pick at what range engagements happen. It's like they forgot this was a thread about SPR scopes. Yes 5.56 has it's limitations to lethality, but that's why an SPR has a fairly specialized niche optic with a max mag in the 10-15x range. That gets you into the 2x per 100y range for the acceptable max range limits. Then the typical objective size is 30mm to 42mm. That gives you lighter weight scope with an exit pupil which is typically north of what a traditional high power variable can do. Which makes for quicker engagements at 200y to max engagement range. |
|
Originally Posted By d16man: I put an Athlon 2-12 on my new 308. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/337946/1000013528-3709863.jpg Mines been great for several years of use now. Attached File Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: I think the Athlon Ares 2.5-15 comes very close (at least in the <$750 market), with the only real detractor being the lack of locking turrets or at least a capped windage turret. Glass in the Chinese version is quite good, the reticle is great, and my only other complaint is that the brightness is too dim to use the reticle quickly at lower powers. What SPR optics are you fellas running? I’m a big fan of the Vortex Strike Eagle 3-18x44. It offers very similar features compared to my Leupold MK5HD 3-18x, which is one of my favorite and most versatile optics, at a budget price that lets me put one on several rifles. |
|
Originally Posted By cms81586: I’m a big fan of the Vortex Strike Eagle 3-18x44. It offers very similar features compared to my Leupold MK5HD 3-18x, which is one of my favorite and most versatile optics, at a budget price that lets me put one on several rifles. I’ve also got one of those. Had it for years now but it’s on my 6 ARC which I haven’t actually shot a ton. Need to get more time on it. |
|
I'm eagerly awaiting the Primary Arms PLXC 2.5-20x scope. It sure looks like it will make an awesome SPR optic. Primary Arms PLXC 2.5-12x https://primaryarmsoptics.com/fr/optics/rifle-scopes/medium-range-scopes/primary-arms-plxc-2-5-20x48-ffp-compact-rifle-scope/ |
|
Originally Posted By 03RN: Because you dont get to pick at what range engagements happen. This guy gets it. The point of a 5.56 SPR isn't to be the best at long range. It's to give you the ability to comfortably shoot from 0-600+ (even out to 800 yd) all while sharing ammunition with the rest of the rifle squad. I've shot my SPR in gas gun matches out to 1050, and in 2 gun matches where most targets were inside of 50 yards and the max range was 200, and taken 2nd in gas gun (8th overall for the season) and 1st in several 2 gun matches. Anyway, in terms of optics, I'm using an ATACR 4-16 with the MIL-R ret (MIL-XT is probably better in hindsight) and a T2 in an Arisaka offset mount. The nas3 ammo changes the equation...I'm shooting it this season (77 gr SMK doing 2800 out of a 16" barrel) and in practice sessions it's hilariously good out to ~630 (max distance for this range). |
|
Originally Posted By Sniper3142: I'm eagerly awaiting the Primary Arms PLXC 2.5-20x scope. It sure looks like it will make an awesome SPR optic. Primary Arms PLXC 2.5-12x https://primaryarmsoptics.com/fr/optics/rifle-scopes/medium-range-scopes/primary-arms-plxc-2-5-20x48-ffp-compact-rifle-scope/ Hoping to get at least one of these out for review when they drop! |
|
Originally Posted By Sniper3142: I'm eagerly awaiting the Primary Arms PLXC 2.5-20x scope. It sure looks like it will make an awesome SPR optic. Primary Arms PLXC 2.5-12x https://primaryarmsoptics.com/fr/optics/rifle-scopes/medium-range-scopes/primary-arms-plxc-2-5-20x48-ffp-compact-rifle-scope/ Its really is a great scope! The Plx 1.5-12 is also a good option for the medium range. |
|
Originally Posted By bluedog82: I think the Athlon Ares 2.5-15 comes very close (at least in the <$750 market), with the only real detractor being the lack of locking turrets or at least a capped windage turret. Glass in the Chinese version is quite good, the reticle is great, and my only other complaint is that the brightness is too dim to use the reticle quickly at lower powers. What SPR optics are you fellas running? The Athlon Helos gen2 2-12x Attached File It's been an amazing feature set for both hunting and COLA |
What makes the perfect SPR scope? (Page 2 of 2)
AR Sponsor