Recommend me scope for a PRS style .22lr rifle

[Maple57]

I can never quite tell if you just like arguing minute points to be obtuse or if you are just convinced what you know to be true is the one truth? Guys run FFP in PRS-type stuff because the sub tensions are correct at all magnification levels. When some one says "they run the whole match at 12x" I wouldn't take them at that quite literally. I tend to run 11-13 for positional and up to maybe 16x in prone although sometimes I'll zoom in more if conditions permit or require it (tiny KYL) and sometimes I'll zoom out more if I need more field of view, etc. I imagine you can see where I'm going with this? I can also watch my trace in most positions which honestly is more of a result of practice and knowing where to look than anything else (provided you have good glass). If you're happy with your NXS at 22x, that's great but that doesn't make it ideal. There's a reason that FFP scopes are the orthodoxy in this field, as the many top shooters (who shoot 10 thousand+ rounds a year and invest copious resources to be successful) have demonstrated. It's not like they don't know about SFP optics...

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to be open minded. I don't ever just blindly follow the leader. Guys win because of many reasons that have little to do with the scope or caliber of the rifle and more to do with a specific set of personal skills as applicable to the particular sport. F Class is more calm, deliberate and technical, PRS is more about managing confusion and cognitive over load with a side of positional management. Wind is always a factor but you cannot use a Kestrel in F Class... so wind reading needs to be internal. Even if we could use a Kestrel in F Class, the accuracy required would exceed its usefulness.

As I stated, the NSX has a significantly better depth of field than the Kahles 624. The benefit of that distinction is at the heart of my point. Its not about SFP vs FFP... exactly.

Since so many guys run at around 15x anyway, I see no disadvantage at a practical level of running SFP as long as its clear where the reticle is dimensionally correct at the power you run at anyway.

At almost 60 years old, I don't expect to win major PRS NRL style matches, but how anyone places is not a result of SFP or FFP. I agree that some guys will think so, but that's just not founded in realistic mechanical fact.

I'm not even saying that SFP is better for PRS, I'm saying that increased depth of field is better for precision shooting than scopes that have a more shallow depth of field. I have yet to find a FFP scope with a DOF that compares to the NSX. If I could find one I would advocate for it.

As for Jamie or emerson spinning turrets, well people do stupid things out there out of pure ignorance or brute stubbornness. Understanding a tool and respecting it does not include throwing all caution and common sense into the wind and misbehaving with a rifle. I've been shooting alot with target turrets that do not lock since 1980 and have never accidentally spun a turret. Even if I did, I would surely know it.

Those push pull locking turrets are more likely to get pressed by bumping something and then locked, and that will slow you down and frustrate when you don't expect it to be locked. As for the hold over hold up guys, well that speaks to my point about the lost skill of true precision shooting. This precludes all efforts to shoot better than what the shooter has loosely deemed good enough. These locking turrets are a declaration of that very point and represent a personal commitment to not even trying to do better. I can't respect that.

If guys find F Class boring, well boring for you or not, it's a place to learn how to shoot better and learn how to be more precise than you can ever learn to be in PRS NRL games. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but exposure to both will make you better at both. BTW, Nobody worth his salt uses locking turrets in F Class.

The only locking turret I could ever possibly like, would be designed to lock only at the zero position.

 

[Jamie]

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to be open minded. I don't ever just blindly follow the leader. Guys win because of many reasons that have little to do with the scope or caliber of the rifle and more to do with a specific set of personal skills as applicable to the particular sport. F Class is more calm, deliberate and technical, PRS is more about managing confusion and cognitive over load with a side of positional management. Wind is always a factor but you cannot use a Kestrel in F Class... so wind reading needs to be internal. Even if we could use a Kestrel in F Class, the accuracy required would exceed its usefulness.

As I stated, the NSX has a significantly better depth of field than the Kahles 624. The benefit of that distinction is at the heart of my point. Its not about SFP vs FFP... exactly.

Since so many guys run at around 15x anyway, I see no disadvantage at a practical level of running SFP as long as its clear where the reticle is dimensionally correct at the power you run at anyway.

At almost 60 years old, I don't expect to win major PRS NRL style matches, but how anyone places is not a result of SFP or FFP. I agree that some guys will think so, but that's just not founded in realistic mechanical fact.

I'm not even saying that SFP is better for PRS, I'm saying that increased depth of field is better for precision shooting than scopes that have a more shallow depth of field. I have yet to find a FFP scope with a DOF that compares to the NSX. If I could find one I would advocate for it.

As for Jamie or emerson spinning turrets, well people do stupid things out there out of pure ignorance or brute stubbornness. Understanding a tool and respecting it does not include throwing all caution and common sense into the wind and misbehaving with a rifle. I've been shooting alot with target turrets that do not lock since 1980 and have never accidentally spun a turret. Even if I did, I would surely know it.

Those push pull locking turrets are more likely to get pressed by bumping something and then locked, and that will slow you down and frustrate when you don't expect it to be locked. As for the hold over hold up guys, well that speaks to my point about the lost skill of true precision shooting. This precludes all efforts to shoot better than what the shooter has loosely deemed good enough. These locking turrets are a declaration of that very point and represent a personal commitment to not even trying to do better. I can't respect that.

If guys find F Class boring, well boring for you or not, it's a place to learn how to shoot better and learn how to be more precise than you can ever learn to be in PRS NRL games. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but exposure to both will make you better at both. BTW, Nobody worth his salt uses locking turrets in F Class.

The only locking turret I could ever possibly like, would be designed to lock only at the zero position.

Just how many PRS matches have you shot? I know with 10 targets 5 positions and a par time I am not looking for mirage. I am looking at the grass trees and anything that will move. In some matches our targets pan near 180 so head wind to full value to tail wind all in the same 2 min. I use my kestrel binos and spotter while not shooting to look for mirage. I have had my windage turn on me while getting into a position you are lucky it has not happened yet.

 

[emerson]

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to be open minded. I don't ever just blindly follow the leader. Guys win because of many reasons that have little to do with the scope or caliber of the rifle and more to do with a specific set of personal skills as applicable to the particular sport. F Class is more calm, deliberate and technical, PRS is more about managing confusion and cognitive over load with a side of positional management. Wind is always a factor but you cannot use a Kestrel in F Class... so wind reading needs to be internal. Even if we could use a Kestrel in F Class, the accuracy required would exceed its usefulness.

As I stated, the NSX has a significantly better depth of field than the Kahles 624. The benefit of that distinction is at the heart of my point. Its not about SFP vs FFP... exactly.

Since so many guys run at around 15x anyway, I see no disadvantage at a practical level of running SFP as long as its clear where the reticle is dimensionally correct at the power you run at anyway.

At almost 60 years old, I don't expect to win major PRS NRL style matches, but how anyone places is not a result of SFP or FFP. I agree that some guys will think so, but that's just not founded in realistic mechanical fact.

I'm not even saying that SFP is better for PRS, I'm saying that increased depth of field is better for precision shooting than scopes that have a more shallow depth of field. I have yet to find a FFP scope with a DOF that compares to the NSX. If I could find one I would advocate for it.

As for Jamie or emerson spinning turrets, well people do stupid things out there out of pure ignorance or brute stubbornness. Understanding a tool and respecting it does not include throwing all caution and common sense into the wind and misbehaving with a rifle. I've been shooting alot with target turrets that do not lock since 1980 and have never accidentally spun a turret. Even if I did, I would surely know it.

Those push pull locking turrets are more likely to get pressed by bumping something and then locked, and that will slow you down and frustrate when you don't expect it to be locked. As for the hold over hold up guys, well that speaks to my point about the lost skill of true precision shooting. This precludes all efforts to shoot better than what the shooter has loosely deemed good enough. These locking turrets are a declaration of that very point and represent a personal commitment to not even trying to do better. I can't respect that.

If guys find F Class boring, well boring for you or not, it's a place to learn how to shoot better and learn how to be more precise than you can ever learn to be in PRS NRL games. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but exposure to both will make you better at both. BTW, Nobody worth his salt uses locking turrets in F Class.

The only locking turret I could ever possibly like, would be designed to lock only at the zero position.

Locking turrets are a commitment to mediocrity, eh? Well, obviously not something you are afflicted with. Your ambassadorship for Fclass sends a clear message to me. No thank you.

 

[rugbydave]

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to be open minded. I don't ever just blindly follow the leader. Guys win because of many reasons that have little to do with the scope or caliber of the rifle and more to do with a specific set of personal skills as applicable to the particular sport. F Class is more calm, deliberate and technical, PRS is more about managing confusion and cognitive over load with a side of positional management. Wind is always a factor but you cannot use a Kestrel in F Class... so wind reading needs to be internal. Even if we could use a Kestrel in F Class, the accuracy required would exceed its usefulness.

As I stated, the NSX has a significantly better depth of field than the Kahles 624. The benefit of that distinction is at the heart of my point. Its not about SFP vs FFP... exactly.

Since so many guys run at around 15x anyway, I see no disadvantage at a practical level of running SFP as long as its clear where the reticle is dimensionally correct at the power you run at anyway.

At almost 60 years old, I don't expect to win major PRS NRL style matches, but how anyone places is not a result of SFP or FFP. I agree that some guys will think so, but that's just not founded in realistic mechanical fact.

I'm not even saying that SFP is better for PRS, I'm saying that increased depth of field is better for precision shooting than scopes that have a more shallow depth of field. I have yet to find a FFP scope with a DOF that compares to the NSX. If I could find one I would advocate for it.

As for Jamie or emerson spinning turrets, well people do stupid things out there out of pure ignorance or brute stubbornness. Understanding a tool and respecting it does not include throwing all caution and common sense into the wind and misbehaving with a rifle. I've been shooting alot with target turrets that do not lock since 1980 and have never accidentally spun a turret. Even if I did, I would surely know it.

Those push pull locking turrets are more likely to get pressed by bumping something and then locked, and that will slow you down and frustrate when you don't expect it to be locked. As for the hold over hold up guys, well that speaks to my point about the lost skill of true precision shooting. This precludes all efforts to shoot better than what the shooter has loosely deemed good enough. These locking turrets are a declaration of that very point and represent a personal commitment to not even trying to do better. I can't respect that.

If guys find F Class boring, well boring for you or not, it's a place to learn how to shoot better and learn how to be more precise than you can ever learn to be in PRS NRL games. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but exposure to both will make you better at both. BTW, Nobody worth his salt uses locking turrets in F Class.

The only locking turret I could ever possibly like, would be designed to lock only at the zero position.

I'm not advocating "following the leader" but choosing a scope whose design compromises most suit your purposes/needs. You seem to think depth of field is the most critical factor when choosing a scope, good for you. You also shoot on 22x so your SFP scope works for you.

In my case, like for many top level PRS guys, I shoot on different magnifications based on conditions/target size/stage design, so SFP is out. I can also spot my own trace most of the time so I don't see how I'm missing out by not having better depth of field. I also like capped or locking windage as I only dial wind for movers or if it's blowing >20mph. My elevation locks at 0. All these features work for me and in my experience/opinion outweigh any possible advantage of having more depth of field.

Your disdain for guys who "hold over hold up" is also strange to me. That's a specific skill that comes into play in certain circumstances/stages (although a small minority do it exclusively, some quite well). It's a speed over raw precision (although you can be very precise with the correct reticle) technique. PRS-type shooting is at it's origin about "practical" shooting and is therefore more about being a well rounded and adaptable precision rifle shooter vs the specificity required of a discipline like F-Class.

I'm not ####ting on F-Class, by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know all that much about it and although what I do know doesn't pique my interest enough to set aside the time to participate in it (vs other shooting disciplines) if I had all the time in the world, I certainly would participate as it's evident that it will increase your shooting skills and translate to better performances in other disciplines.

 

[Maple57]

Its not distain for guys who hold over... It's distain for scopes that trap shooters into doing so, and then guys falsely defend locking turrets as some sort of benefit to guard against an absurd insecurity. Locking turrets are a limitation, not an advantage and that is true regardless of dial or hold over. I hold over sometimes as well when it suits me, but I've never felt the need for obscuring my view with an overly detailed reticle to do so. Better to see the conditions.

Even more absurd is scopes like the ATACR where the windage turret is three times as hard to turn as the elevation... EVEN THOUGH IT IS CAPPED!!!

Maybe I'm just hyper sensitive to the DOF thing because I test for things like that because its proven to be critical for F Class and I shoot at higher magnification than most which is where DOF is most problematic.

I have spent many years and fired thousands of rounds annually in sniper matches and F Class using SFP scopes. I struggled with FFP scopes to get the same view of conditions that I'm so familiar with. Seems guys are arguing with me about this because they never noticed the problem that I've pointed out. Doesn't mean its not a problem.

 

[Jamie]

Its not distain for guys who hold over... It's distain for scopes that trap shooters into doing so, and then guys falsely defend locking turrets as some sort of benefit to guard against an absurd insecurity. Locking turrets are a limitation, not an advantage and that is true regardless of dial or hold over. I hold over sometimes as well when it suits me, but I've never felt the need for obscuring my view with an overly detailed reticle to do so. Better to see the conditions.

Even more absurd is scopes like the ATACR where the windage turret is three times as hard to turn as the elevation... EVEN THOUGH IT IS CAPPED!!!

Maybe I'm just hyper sensitive to the DOF thing because I test for things like that because its proven to be critical for F Class and I shoot at higher magnification than most which is where DOF is most problematic.

I have spent many years and fired thousands of rounds annually in sniper matches and F Class using SFP scopes. I struggled with FFP scopes to get the same view of conditions that I'm so familiar with. Seems guys are arguing with me about this because they never noticed the problem that I've pointed out. Doesn't mean its not a problem.

I think you are hyper sensitive and stuck in your way........but as long as you are shooting it’s all good.

 

[Longbow]

-------------

--------

 

[Tikka223]

What happened to this thread???

 

[old303]

So is it possible to directly compare FFP and SFP models of the same scope, or is that a big enough design difference that you're looking at two totally different scopes? And are things like depth of field easier to deliver one way? Most discussions of how FFP is an advantage because of keeping reticule graduations the same at the target end don't mention it making any other difference in scope functionality. I'd like to better appreciate the ways an SFP scope might be an advantage for whatever other reasons it holds.

 

[rugbydave]

Its not distain for guys who hold over... It's distain for scopes that trap shooters into doing so, and then guys falsely defend locking turrets as some sort of benefit to guard against an absurd insecurity. Locking turrets are a limitation, not an advantage and that is true regardless of dial or hold over. I hold over sometimes as well when it suits me, but I've never felt the need for obscuring my view with an overly detailed reticle to do so. Better to see the conditions.

Even more absurd is scopes like the ATACR where the windage turret is three times as hard to turn as the elevation... EVEN THOUGH IT IS CAPPED!!!

Maybe I'm just hyper sensitive to the DOF thing because I test for things like that because its proven to be critical for F Class and I shoot at higher magnification than most which is where DOF is most problematic.

I have spent many years and fired thousands of rounds annually in sniper matches and F Class using SFP scopes. I struggled with FFP scopes to get the same view of conditions that I'm so familiar with. Seems guys are arguing with me about this because they never noticed the problem that I've pointed out. Doesn't mean its not a problem.

Again, you state things that apply to you as being universal truths. Locking turrets are a limitation TO YOU. Some guys like locking turrets as it suits their method. That's just personal preference. You've never "felt" the need for "overly detailed reticles" but some like them. Some top shooters like super simple reticles, some run Horus' and some run something in the middle. Again, personal preference. Basically most of your argument boils down to "my personal preferences are the only correct way of doing things". Must be nice to be the only guy who knows what's up

 

[kthomas]

Again, you state things that apply to you as being universal truths. Locking turrets are a limitation TO YOU. Some guys like locking turrets as it suits their method. That's just personal preference. You've never "felt" the need for "overly detailed reticles" but some like them. Some top shooters like super simple reticles, some run Horus' and some run something in the middle. Again, personal preference. Basically most of your argument boils down to "my personal preferences are the only correct way of doing things". Must be nice to be the only guy who knows what's up

Seems to be the modus operandi for some of the F-class shooters getting into PRS here on CGN. Discounting decades of evolution in the sport, and re-inventing the wheel through the narrow lense of an F-class shooter.

I think it's great that new people are getting into the discipline with different backgrounds and perspectives, experimenting with things that those that have been absorbed in the sport for a while may overlook. There is a lot of value in looking at things from a different perspective, and applying applicable lessons from other disciplines where they may apply. The only way things evolve and improve is through experimentation. But the problem lays when these F-class shooters, who have limited experience in this new to them discipline, act as if they are the experts and they have the definitive say on what the best gear and techniques are. If it wasn't for the fact that I see countless newer shooters here being led down the wrong rabbit hole through these experiments, I wouldn't care less about those pretending to be experts and making themselves look like fools.

It would be as silly as me shooting a few F-class matches with my PRS rifles, and then telling the F-Class community how they are doing everything wrong. It's the equivalent to me barging into F-class threads, and telling shooters new to F-class that they need FFP scopes with holdover reticles, locking turrets, bipod with spiked feet, 10+ round mags and mag extensions, etc. and then argue with more experienced F-class shooters who (rightly) counter my self professed "expertise" in this new to me discipline. However, if/when I try out a new shooting discipline, I would hope that I go into it with a much more open mind, taking the time to learn why the discipline has evolved in the way that it has.

I've stepped back a bit from the precision shooting section of the forum, because I'm tired of butting heads with F-class shooters that think they know more about PRS type shooting then those that have immersed ourselves into the sport for years. The closed mindedness that is prevalent amongst some of the more prominent members here is a huge disservice to the Canadian firearms community, but I've decided that it's not my problem anymore. At this point, people can experiment and listen to whomever they desire, and figure out for themselves what does and doesn't work, and what may or may not be optimal for the discipline. Reader beware, listen to the wrong people and you may find out the hard way why tens of thousands of shooters use different gear and technique then what is recommended by some on here.

 

[Johnny Boom]

What happened to this thread???

They don't call it Gunnutz for nothing!

At this point, people can experiment and listen to whomever they desire, and figure out for themselves what does and doesn't work, and what may or may not be optimal for the discipline. Reader beware, listen to the wrong people and you may find out the hard way why tens of thousands of shooters use different gear and technique then what is recommended by some on here.

Sadly, I have to agree.

 

[Johnny Boom]

So is it possible to directly compare FFP and SFP models of the same scope, or is that a big enough design difference that you're looking at two totally different scopes? And are things like depth of field easier to deliver one way? Most discussions of how FFP is an advantage because of keeping reticule graduations the same at the target end don't mention it making any other difference in scope functionality. I'd like to better appreciate the ways an SFP scope might be an advantage for whatever other reasons it holds.

Here's a good article from the PRB:

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/21/best-scope/

It's a little out of date, but you can see how many SFP scopes were used by the top 150 shooters in PRS/NRL back in 2018.

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to compare FFP vs SFP Nightforce ATACRs if you have about $8K lying around.

For me though, any theoretical improvement in depth of field wouldn't offset the primary disadvantage of the SFP scope.

 

[old303]

Here's a good article from the PRB:

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/21/best-scope/

It's a little out of date, but you can see how many SFP scopes were used by the top 150 shooters in PRS/NRL back in 2018.

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to compare FFP vs SFP Nightforce ATACRs if you have about $8K lying around.

For me though, any theoretical improvement in depth of field wouldn't offset the primary disadvantage of the SFP scope.

Yes, I see the advantage of FFP for PRS, but was thinking that somebody somewhere must appreciate SFP scopes for some advantages for some other sorts of shooting or the manufacturers wouldn't make that kind.

 

[Johnny Boom]

Yes, I see the advantage of FFP for PRS, but was thinking that somebody somewhere must appreciate SFP scopes for some advantages for some other sorts of shooting or the manufacturers wouldn't make that kind.

I'm not sure of any inherent optical advantages, but outside of practical competition, some guys really like SFP for hunting as the reticle stays at a constant size. It's really hard to use some FFP scopes at low magnification depending on the reticle.

 

[Unholysavage]

You can get good SFP scopes with fine reticles, which don't cover as much of the target for shooting groups on paper. Many FFP scope reticles get to be on the thick side when at high mag, especially the 8x to 10x zooms, simply because they need to be thick enough to see at low mag.
And most people I know still prefer SFP for hunting at shorter range.
There are pros and cons for each.

 

[emerson]

Seems to be the modus operandi for some of the F-class shooters getting into PRS here on CGN. Discounting decades of evolution in the sport, and re-inventing the wheel through the narrow lense of an F-class shooter.

I think it's great that new people are getting into the discipline with different backgrounds and perspectives, experimenting with things that those that have been absorbed in the sport for a while may overlook. There is a lot of value in looking at things from a different perspective, and applying applicable lessons from other disciplines where they may apply. The only way things evolve and improve is through experimentation. But the problem lays when these F-class shooters, who have limited experience in this new to them discipline, act as if they are the experts and they have the definitive say on what the best gear and techniques are. If it wasn't for the fact that I see countless newer shooters here being led down the wrong rabbit hole through these experiments, I wouldn't care less about those pretending to be experts and making themselves look like fools.

It would be as silly as me shooting a few F-class matches with my PRS rifles, and then telling the F-Class community how they are doing everything wrong. It's the equivalent to me barging into F-class threads, and telling shooters new to F-class that they need FFP scopes with holdover reticles, locking turrets, bipod with spiked feet, 10+ round mags and mag extensions, etc. and then argue with more experienced F-class shooters who (rightly) counter my self professed "expertise" in this new to me discipline. However, if/when I try out a new shooting discipline, I would hope that I go into it with a much more open mind, taking the time to learn why the discipline has evolved in the way that it has.

I've stepped back a bit from the precision shooting section of the forum, because I'm tired of butting heads with F-class shooters that think they know more about PRS type shooting then those that have immersed ourselves into the sport for years. The closed mindedness that is prevalent amongst some of the more prominent members here is a huge disservice to the Canadian firearms community, but I've decided that it's not my problem anymore. At this point, people can experiment and listen to whomever they desire, and figure out for themselves what does and doesn't work, and what may or may not be optimal for the discipline. Reader beware, listen to the wrong people and you may find out the hard way why tens of thousands of shooters use different gear and technique then what is recommended by some on here.

Thing is KT, not all of those presenting themselves as “prominent” F class shooters actually are. I know of one who is a bit of a know it all pariah in F class. Apparently conducts himself the same there as he does here, except they gets see him stacked up against real pros on match day. We don’t get that satisfaction.

 

[Longbow]

Yes, I see the advantage of FFP for PRS, but was thinking that somebody somewhere must appreciate SFP scopes for some advantages for some other sorts of shooting or the manufacturers wouldn't make that kind.

I am not an optical engineer and did not stay at a Holiday Inn, but have toured the Tangent Theta manufacturing facility. So as understood and likely poorly interpreted by a History Major

Scope manufacturing tech has evolved greatly over the past decade or two. Aside from reticle preferences, put simply FFP scopes are more difficult and more expensive to do well. Internally they are more complicated and more difficult to produce with great lower light capability, in particular at higher magnification. So by their nature they are generally much more expensive to do very well. The vast majority of scopes are not bought by long range competitors willing to pay 3000-4000 plus for a scope. While the price difference has narrowed of late but they still cost more. The average hunter taking shots in lower light at 100-150m or less is not willing to pay that kind of money for a scope that is frankly way more than he needs in most cases...Yes out West there are styles of hunting that do but certainly not as many.

F class shot on a square range with a small x-ring and a desire for high magnification, yet still the need to look thru mirage are generally better served with a SFP scope. F class is not PRS. Not that a FFP scope cant be done incredibly well in just about all aspects and not sure if Maple57 has ever spent a lot of time behind a FFP Tangent Theta for instance but I have and it deals with mirage very well. You just need to be prepared for the sticker shock.
Folks will now pipe in and say that there are cheaper FFP scopes, absolutely, and like SFP scopes they fill a market niche well. But there will generally be a trade off somewhere in their performance, which is not to say that they are not perfectly fine for a given application. Oh yah and of course there is a pile of subjective personal opinion as well.

 

[Maple57]

F class shot on a square range with a small x-ring and a desire for high magnification, yet still the need to look thru mirage are generally better served with a SFP scope. l.

See, this is the exact point... There is no seeing through mirage any better than you can see through water.

This is exactly why I keep beating on depth of field. Shallow depth of field puts mirage out of focus. The mirage still distorts the image, regardless of DOF, but with a generous depth of field you can read the mirage well. Shallow DOF does not see through mirage, you just cant see why your image is distorted. The image is not clear regardless, but at least with one, you can see why.

 

[kthomas]

See, this is the exact point... There is no seeing through mirage any better than you can see through water.

This is exactly why I keep beating on depth of field. Shallow depth of field puts mirage out of focus. The mirage still distorts the image, regardless of DOF, but with a generous depth of field you can read the mirage well. Shallow DOF does not see through mirage, you just cant see why your image is distorted. The image is not clear regardless, but at least with one, you can see why.

How often do you think mirage is going to be the determining factor of whether you hit a 3 MOA plate at ~400 yards, shooting off of an unstable barricade?