First or Second Focal Plane on a Handy Rifle?

>>31966785
do you want the reticle to magnify with the magnification?

File: scout rifle lookup.jpg (40KB, 420x216px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 420x216px

>>31966838
The way I look at it, having a first focal plane reticle will mean that estimating a quick shot will take one less step. Find target, focus in, (skip thinking about what zoom setting the scope is on), estimate range and calculate holdovers due to range and windage, fire)

What benefits am I missing for second focal plane scopes in this setting? My main benchrest rifle is SFP, but I'm always shooting at known ranges and want to take the time to do the calculations.

have a random bolt gun picture

>>31966885
i have a 1-4x second focal plane (Trijicon Accupoint, Tritium+fiber optic), and once you know your dopes for max magnification, it isn't really a second step at all.

If you're going to be estimating, it will probably be at max magnification, right?

File: Simple reticle.jpg (312KB, 1382x778px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1382x778px

>>31966885
>1-6

with such low magnification there is little reason to adjust within the magnification settings, right?

>>31966885
with the scope mounted like that it will only work on 1x unless the eye-relief at 6x is massive or something

>>31966899
>>31966905
true. Something tells me I'll be shooting at 1x (red dot?) and 6x frequently. How do you like that accpoint? im looking at the 1-6x right now, despite it being $200 over budget.

>>31966922
That scope pictred is known as a long eye relief or a scout scope. The entire bild of this rifle was built on Jeff Cooper's Scout Rifle idea, just updated and modified to something that fits me better....like losing the long eye relief scope and taking advantage of 30+ years of optics development.

>>31966939
>The entire bild of this rifle was built on Jeff Cooper's Scout Rifle idea, just updated and modified to something that fits me better....like losing the long eye relief scope and taking advantage of 30+ years of optics development.
If you're doing that, why stick to the .308 cartridge? Take advantage of 30 years of cartridge development and use 6.5 Grendel.

Then you can go a step farther with a 6.5 Grendel lightweight 18" barrel AR and you have a gun that takes all the concepts the scout rifle concept was designed to excel at, and makes them work better than a bolt action ever could.

I love bolt actions, but if Cooper could see where the AR was today you know he would be adjusting his specifications to include it. He was working with the technology available to him at the time.

>>31966939
I haven't used it enough, sadly. But I can say that the glass is good enough to use early morning.

File: DSC03852.jpg (153KB, 648x655px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 648x655px

>>31966989
Four reasons:
1. Simplicity. I already own and reload .308 and .308 is a hell of a lot more common in the world than 300BLK or 6.5 Grendel.
2. Low profile. I don't want something that screams tactical. I want something that screams "deer hunter".
3. Weight. A bolt action will be lighter than a semi-auto. I'm also sure an ultralight .223 parent cartridge carbine can be thrown together for less weight than a .308. but see reasons 1 and 2.
4. Accuracy. A good bolt will still beat a good semi-auto.
5. I've got a vepr in 308 already if I want to make lots of noise/lots of holes .

Have a pretty vepr.

>>31966785
You're budget is actually right on the money for an SWFA 1-6x FFP.
http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-HD-1-6x24-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P53845.aspx
I recall either TTAG or TFB did an excellent writeup on this scope and reticle.

>>31967040
>reasons 1 and 2
I thought .223 was common in America? In Europe we have .223 bolt actions that hunters use.

If it's lighter why not use .223? Wasn't that why America used 5.56 over 7.62x51?

File: Leupold-DEVO-reticle[1].jpg (106KB, 832x796px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 832x796px

>>31966939
>1x and 6x

Buy a D-EVO and a red dot and never look back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4t5XkVQGGo

File: hunter_main_c_1.png (61KB, 1518x600px)

61KB, 1518x600px

>>31967155
we have caliber restrictions on deer hunting here. Also this is a do-anything rifle, so hunting an elk/moose/bear is definitely on the table (and only a state away).

>>31967131
Friend of mine has their 10x fixed and loves it. Will check it out.

>>31967160
$1500 before the red dot? I also did not immediately find a weight. I'll look into it, bt I'm leary. Thanks though.

Pic: A Kimber Hunter. One of the 5 finalists on the rifle, it lost ot because the stock felt just a bit too cheap, and it would require too much to get it just the way I wanted it. Hear its a great rifle though.

>>31967238
One consideration might be how much you need the really close capacity of a 1x. For a bolt action, I think a 2.5-10 or similar might make more sense. You have more mag, and you should be looking for a larger objective, which will give you better low light capacity than a 1-n (one of their main drawbacks imo). You're really only giving up capacity within 25 yards or so, and even then not completely. They're typically cheaper too.

Your typical rifle calibers with 150-180 grain bullets doing 2500-3000 fps and up are going to be hitting +5" out to 300 yards with a 200 yard zero.

If you have time to range something beyond 300 yards, chances are you will also be glassing it on 6 power.

Beyond 600 yards, margin of error for non-expert users with something like mil dots ends up far to large to accurately range with the reticle.

If you are looking to spend $1000, I would consider changing your zoom ratio. Under 1000 is stuff like the PA or Strike Eagle which I don't think you are after.

Most of what I would assume you are looking at starts out more like 1200.

I would consider something like the 5:1 zoom ratio Vortex Razor LH. They are light, glass is great, under/at $1000, and for something that is a "handy rifle" I wouldn't see it being something you're going to be doing a lot of clicking turrets on, so the 1" tube isn't really a detractor in this case.

File: K3YbrFa.jpg (328KB, 3612x865px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 3612x865px

>>31967040
>1
makes sense
>2
pic related but I get your point
>3
Yeah, a 6.5 Grendel AR can be light enough to beat most .308 bolt rifles. Really the only object is cost, as some ultralight parts to trim off the last bits of weight get expensive fast.
>4
Buy quality parts and that won't really be the case. Semis can be just as accurate for practical purposes--and the scout rifle concept doesn't care if you're 1/4 MOA more accurate.
>5
Definitely a pretty one.

Yeah overall for your situation, it makes sense. Just didn't want to see someone else chase the scout rifle specs without considering that there are more modern alternatives.

>>31967367
good points. I'm also going for lightweight. I'll look at that as well.

>>31967395
PA to strike eagle is ok...but I really feel like theres a step up in the 1k-1500 range. Buy once, cry once, etc etc. I may just have to save up that extra week. And I love that stock, but (unfortunately?) I impulse bought a squareback vepr with unfinished rear thumbhole. I actually carved and sanded the thumbhole down, bt decided at that point to just buy a buttstock and pistol grip. This winter I'll finish off the thumbhole in back with learning how to checker and carve in a design or two. Should be a fun learning project.

>>31967398
That ares ACR is fun looking. Love seeing wooden rifle stocks. I should mention that I alreay own a precision .308, a vepr .308, and a BCM 16" mid length AR in .223. This is just something more of a cover-the-bases rifle that'll let me do fun rifle drills in the northwoods, learn to properly use a rhodesian sling, etc. It'll also be the de facto hunting rifle if I ever choose to get back out there.