Looking for /k/'s opinions on scope for long range shooting.

>>34734334
In order of preference:
>S&B PMII 3-27x56 H42
>NF BEAST (I think it's only available in the tremor2 reticle)
>Vortex Razor HD gen2 4.5-27x56 EBR-2C
>Bushnell XRS 4.5-30x50 (iirc only 1 reticle option)
I've heard some good things about the Sig Tango6 but haven't looked through one myself. They're still new enough from a totally unproven manufacturer I'd avoid them for a few years yet.

SWFA SS 10x42 if you live in USA.
Bushnell elite tactical 10x40 if you live in europe.

Best value for money especially the SWFA.
No need for a 1k scope for that range.

>>34734488
Well, I was going with the buy once, cry once school of thought, figuring that get better than needed so If/when moved out to longer, would already have the scope to do it.

>>34734473
Good point on the Sig being a new manufacturer. Iirc, their warranty was online 5 years instead of lifetime.

While on the subject of scopes, have been reading about the benefits of lapping the scope rings. Anyone tried doing that before, and if so, any brand/model of the rods for lapping them, seem better than others?

>>34734788
I've always lapped all my rings, mainly out of autism. I've only ever used the Wheeler lapping bars, they work fine.

For most applications lapping isn't necessary. Hell for most *tactical*/precision applications it isn't necessary, and is only really good for heavy-recoiling rifles as it buys a little more surface contact and thus better traction on the scope body to prevent it shifting.

File: the other rack.jpg (1MB, 2400x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x1600px

>>34734473
These are good suggestions. If OP has the budget, there is little reason to compromise. Also, Vortex, Leupold and Steiner/Burris have the best warranties in the industry, something to consider.

>>34734788
You shouldn't need to lap good rings, especially such rings mounted on a quality 1913 base. Lapping is generally for inexpensive scope bases that have no rail, like Ruger or Tikka's clamping system.

A Nightforce or Badger base with Nightforce, Badger, TPS, Spuhr, ARC, Near or similar quality rings will have excellent contact and not need lapping.

>>34734334
if you want to spend up to 2500 then vortex gen 2 will get you there.

if you want to spend around 1.5k look at the bushnell elite tactical hdmr gen2

if you want to spend between 900-1200 look at either bushnell 6-24 / vortex pst gen2 5-25

>>34734334
>80% of /k/ is noguns
>of the 20% of hasguns, 80% have a single poorfag gun
>of the 20% who are more than one hasguns, 80% can't shoot shit
>of the 20% who have guns and can shoot, 80% don't shoot more than 200 yards on any sort of regular basis
>that last 20% who you want their opinion, is only like 4 or 5 guys
Read into this all you like, but note that the vast majority of "advice" you are getting here will be from armchair /k/ommandos or wannabe larpers. This is true for almost all of the shooting subhobbies on /k/.

File: FUUUCKKK.jpg (34KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 680x510px

vORTEX oPTICS are like looking into my dog's TAILHOLE; all I can see is SHIT.

>>34734334
Athlon Ares BTR 3-15x

I just got one and for the money, 799, it gives me just as much as my vortex razor. Glass isnt as clear but the quality I will value as the same.

Second choice would be a vortex razor, but it might just be too much scope for what youre looking for. Same goes for schmidt and bender. Youre only shooting out to 600, so you dont really need to be spending more than 1500 on a scope

I cant get behind getting a Nightforce, only because it really is catered toward the competition crowd with most of its lineup being SFP(second focal plane).

US optics is pretty good, but they are overpriced, and if I were to get one, I would get it with the internal level built in.

Did I mention you really need to have a level for your scope? Because you really should get one if you ever plan to shoot out past 600.

>>34735710
I have no problem with SFP scopes in a tactical setting, and they're the undisputed king of hunting and target optics for a reason.
>no, you will not be ranging with the reticle, ever, in any shooting situation. Even a really experienced, highly trained shooter can't do it faster than whipping out a laser rangefinder
>no, reticle ranging is not accurate enough for anything more than getting kinda-sorta close on the first shot and figuring it out from there
>yes, most laser rangefinders will work in any weather that permits you to see your target through your riflescope
>yes, a quality laser rangefinder costs less than the difference between the SFP and FFP options of the same damn scope
Therefor SFP scopes provide a much more precise, less cluttered reticle that can still be used for wind hold-offs at any magnification, and are generally lighter and slightly more durable due to fewer moving parts.

File: shocked-dog-1-1024x682.jpg (94KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x682px

>>34735343

>>34736010
I mean, if that works for you it works for you. But for me, I care more for accuracy than hits, I prefer a FFP because I can just point, set to whatever magnification I want, and automatically know its going to hit exactly where I calculate its going to hit(holdover at 1 mil, 2 mil, etc). With a SFP, I gotta be 100% sure my magnification is exactly where I zeroed it on for my calculations to work. Otherwise, "oh shit, missed by 3 inches because set magnification at 10.5 instead of 11."

In competitions, it doesnt really matter how accurate you are, you just gotta make the hits. Thats why alot of 1-4, 1-6, 1-8 are SFP, because youre gonna hit a 12 inch plate no matter what magnification youre at as long as youre aiming dead center.

>>34734870
OP here, was going to put the scope on a Ruger Precision Rifle, is the rail on it sufficiently flat to not need to lap it, or no?

File: Steiner magic.jpg (503KB, 2400x1600px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 2400x1600px

>>34737164
The rail is fine, especially in 6.5CM. The cartridge recoils lightly enough that even if your rings or base were wonky, your scope wouldn't move if all the fasteners were properly torqued.

I would only worry about lapping a lightweight, low cost hunting rifle in a magnum caliber.

File: mybaby.jpg (126KB, 1440x810px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1440x810px

For those ranges, an SWFA SS 10x42 is more than sufficient.

I recently picked up an Athlon Argos BTR 6-24x50 ffp for shiggles.

And it's honestly not a bad scope for the coin.

If you want to buy once cry once in this order USO ST10 > Burris XTR II > Razor HD GenII> SWFA SS 10x42 HD > else.

Here's my RPR, going to upgrade the glass once I grow more into the rifle and get better as a shooter.

I'm currently at a consistent 1moa but would like to be close to 5/8 or 7/10 moa before I decide to upgrade glass.

File: mybaby2.jpg (74KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 960x540px

>>34737627
Here's my Tikka t3 in a KRG X-ray with a SWFA SS 10x42. Dedicated hunting rifle lobbing 180gr pills.

May drop the stock light barrel for a 20inch medium palma, but for it's use it's a great hunting/plinker even with a light barrel.

>>34737351
Cool, ty.

>>34737627
>If you want to buy once cry once in this order USO ST10 > Burris XTR II > Razor HD GenII> SWFA SS 10x42 HD > else.


What???

a 1500 dollar fixed 10 power then you suggest the xtr2 line which is okay for the money but you have to realize you will have CA and in my case I'm having to send my 1.5-8 back to them because it doesnt track for shit, then you suggest the vortex gen2 which should be at the top of your list and not right before the fixed 10 power that costs 300$.


>>34735343
You should stop shoving your vortex riflescope into your dog's ass then.

>>34734334
Are you shooting from a bench, doing prs? What?

That will decide what you buy

>>34738231
Well somewhat do both, intend to switch to lying prone, using a Bipod.

what does SWFA stand for?

>>34737627
I'd put a Vortex PSTgen2 over the SWFA any day, and I have the 10x42 HD.

Burris a shit, Bushnell is leagues better.

I'm pretty new to scopes and long range shooting in general. I've never shot past 300 yards and I was using my vortex strike eagle that's 1-8x magnification. I could barely see the target at that range.

Are there any good rules of thumb for magnification or how do you know that you have the right magnification for the range you're shooting?

>>34735261
This is a heavy dose of projection with a heap of common sense thrown in
>wait you're NOT supposed to trust random people on the internet?!

If you have yet to figure that out then you probably won't listen to some other random anon on a french sheep shearing forum

>>34739077
pretty new to it here too. I like having a lot more magnification than most seem to. I've dialed it up to 18x at 100 meters many a time. That's shooting on a range though, against a stationary target, using a bipod. You wouldn't be able to do that against a moving target, would be too slow to find it.

>>34739077
"when you're happy with it" is pretty much the only metric for magnification.

Magnification is always a trade-off, always a balancing act. Higher magnification means less user-induced aiming error, but also means lower light transmission, higher mirage, tunnel vision effect, and lower field of view. Higher magnification also means, with variable power optics, higher low-end magnification, which can make finding the target through the scope in the first place difficult.

Now, you can offset all those negatives with larger objectives and larger tubes, but then the scope is physically bigger and heavier.

For example, I like 1-8x or 2-10x or similar on my hunting rifles because I need good light gathering, a low minimum magnification for getting on target on moving or close animals fast, and they're generally small and light.

But I like 3-18x or 5-25xish for my "tactical" precision rifles because if I'm shooting at moving targets they're far away and moving slowly and I don't really need a very low minimum magnification and weight isn't an issue.

And finally I like a fixed 65x for my benchrest rifles. Light transmission isn't a huge deal because I only shoot them during daylight and aiming error is the most important factor in whether I win/place/blow it. Weight and size are nonissues as it gets carried all of about 30 feet and the rifle's already over 20lbs before optic.

>>34735261
>80% can't shoot shit
>cross eye dominant
>astigmatism
>shaky hands
my best group is 4 moa

at 50 yds