AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/14/2010 4:13:25 PM EDT
|
I'm looking for:
- Mil-dot reticle or other range-finding reticle - First or second focal plane is fine - Max zoom somewhere between 9 and 16, plus or minus - Don't care about illumination - $500 or less A couple I've found so far that meet these requirements (and seem like decent quality) are the Falcon Menace 4-14x44 and the Sightron SII 4-16x42MD. Any thoughts on these scopes? Other suggestions in my price range? Thanks! |
|
I have one of these, and think it is excellent...
Bushnell 3200 - AG This would also be an excellent choice: Sightron S2 |
I'm lookin for the exact same thing. Going on the Leupold custom shop website and adding the milldot reticule and M1 turrents to the VX-2 line is what I was thinking, but thats only VX-2 quality and is still going to cost over the $550 range. Has anyone done this to a Leupold VX-2? Anyone have any suggestions to stay under the $500 mark?
|
|
Cool, some good suggestions in here. Thank you, you've given me some good stuff to look at.
One consideration I'm working over in my head is whether or not adjustable magnification will even do anything for me. Given that with a second focal plane reticle, the mag has to be set to max for the measurements to work, it seems entirely likely that the scope will spend the vast majority of its life set at maximum. Even with a FFP reticle, which I'm leaning against at the moment, I don't think it will find its way down into lower magnifications very often. With that in mind, I'm curious as to whether it makes sense to forgo the added expense and complication of an adjustable magnification scope. Thoughts? EDIT: Does anyone have any experience with the Millet TRS 10x-50mm scope? It's illuminated, which I can give or take, but it seems like a damn good deal, and I see people mention Millet positively. Is it just me, though, or is a mil-dot reticle with 1/4 MOA adjustments a little weird? |
|
Quoted:
Cool, some good suggestions in here. Thank you, you've given me some good stuff to look at. One consideration I'm working over in my head is whether or not adjustable magnification will even do anything for me. Given that with a second focal plane reticle, the mag has to be set to max for the measurements to work, it seems entirely likely that the scope will spend the vast majority of its life set at maximum. Even with a FFP reticle, which I'm leaning against at the moment, I don't think it will find its way down into lower magnifications very often. With that in mind, I'm curious as to whether it makes sense to forgo the added expense and complication of an adjustable magnification scope. Thoughts? EDIT: Does anyone have any experience with the Millet TRS 10x-50mm scope? It's illuminated, which I can give or take, but it seems like a damn good deal, and I see people mention Millet positively. Is it just me, though, or is a mil-dot reticle with 1/4 MOA adjustments a little weird? THis is the very reason I went with a straight 10x on my long range .308 (the Bushnell I mentioned). This and a Mildot Master, and you are GTG in my book. - AG |
|
Quoted:
50 mm is pretty heavy got rid of all of mine Good to know. I'll look into that Nikon you mentioned. People seem to love their glass. The only thing that appeals to me about a 50mm objective is the additional light-gathering ability. I don't know if you've ever had a chance to make it over here to the beautiful Pacific Northwest, but the forests here are incredibly dense and dark. It's often as dark as twilight under the canopy, and anything I can do to increase the ability of my scope to gather what little light exists is a bonus in my book. I don't know if that will offset the additional weight or not. Any thoughts on this matter? Thanks! Quoted:
THis is the very reason I went with a straight 10x on my long range .308 (the Bushnell I mentioned). This and a Mildot Master, and you are GTG in my book. - AG Thanks for the input. Do you have any thoughts on having a mil-dot reticle with 1/4 MOA adjustments? That just seems odd to me to cross the two methods of measurement. I know they're related, of course, but mil-dot is based on yards (or meters, which I'm more comfortable with) whereas MOA finds its home in inches, as in 1 MOA = 1" at 100 yards. It just feels odd to me to "cross the streams," so to speak. Thanks everyone, you're doing a great job pointing me in the right direction. I appreciate it greatly. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
50 mm is pretty heavy got rid of all of mine Good to know. I'll look into that Nikon you mentioned. People seem to love their glass. The only thing that appeals to me about a 50mm objective is the additional light-gathering ability. I don't know if you've ever had a chance to make it over here to the beautiful Pacific Northwest, but the forests here are incredibly dense and dark. It's often as dark as twilight under the canopy, and anything I can do to increase the ability of my scope to gather what little light exists is a bonus in my book. I don't know if that will offset the additional weight or not. Any thoughts on this matter? Thanks! Quoted:
THis is the very reason I went with a straight 10x on my long range .308 (the Bushnell I mentioned). This and a Mildot Master, and you are GTG in my book. - AG Thanks for the input. Do you have any thoughts on having a mil-dot reticle with 1/4 MOA adjustments? That just seems odd to me to cross the two methods of measurement. I know they're related, of course, but mil-dot is based on yards (or meters, which I'm more comfortable with) whereas MOA finds its home in inches, as in 1 MOA = 1" at 100 yards. It just feels odd to me to "cross the streams," so to speak. Thanks everyone, you're doing a great job pointing me in the right direction. I appreciate it greatly. To me, 1 moa, or even 1/2 moa adjustments are just way too coarse for precision work. I do most of my "longer" shooting at 400 yards. At this range, a 1 moa click is 4" ! This coupled with the fact that 1/4 MOA is the most common (read cheapest, don't have to re-invent the wheel) is probably the reason it is so prevalent. - AG |
|
Quoted:
To me, 1 moa, or even 1/2 moa adjustments are just way too coarse for precision work. I do most of my "longer" shooting at 400 yards. At this range, a 1 moa click is 4" ! This coupled with the fact that 1/4 MOA is the most common (read cheapest, don't have to re-invent the wheel) is probably the reason it is so prevalent. - AG You know, I wrote this whole long message about how "no, you've got to be wrong, it's weird to mix the two measurement systems, blah blah blah," and then I actually bothered to do the math and had one of those A HA moments. The trick is that I was thinking of mil-dots in meters. If one simply reverts to yard measurements, it actually works brilliantly. Sucks that I've gotta use English units, but hey, if it works, it works. Luckily I figured it out before hitting the Submit button, or I'd be figuring out whether or not crow tastes decent right about now 
Thanks for the input. |
|
I'm bringing this back to the top!
After much budgeting and reading of reviews, I've decided on SWFA's SS 10x42 scope. Since I'll eventually upgrade, I'm sure, I've decided to get a really solid mount, and Bobro's offerings catch my eye. What I'm concerned about is whether there will be enough rise out of the Bobro 30mm cantilever mount to clear my MagPul MBUS sight. I can't find a measurement on the ocular end of the scope, nor can I find a measurement on the rise of the scope mount. Will it clear? Halp please? |
AR Sponsor
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.