Still undecided , LR plinker/taget scope, would love to have some input.

Hence my reticle choice.

I may also get the offset inserts when I get my Burris rings, not sure if I will need them or not.

From some quick Ukrainian math and the Sierra software , with a modest muzzle velocity and the bullets I will be using, the calculations show that I will have about 63 MOA drop @ 1700 yards and that is with a 200 yard zero.

Last attempt; your scope will arrive more or less optically centered from Sightron. This means you will have 25minutes up and 25 down. If you install a 40moa base on your rifle you will be 15 moa in the hole trying to zero it at 100. A 20 moa base gives you 45 moa up and a 5 moa cushion to get it zeroed. 45 moa gets a Berger 300gr. to 1350m the rest of the way will be reticle based holds.

I guess what I'm saying is if your scope had 80+moa of adjustment then the 40 minute base would be fine, for the scope you are looking at a 20 is more suitable. I personally think you were on the right track with the 8-32x
 
Anyone shooting long range is well-advised to use an offset base.

Keep in mind that mirage could also limit usable magnification to say 12x on some days.

The 30mm tube scopes typically also permit more MOA of adjustment, which is helpful if you want to be able to dial a drop from say 200 to 1500 meters.

Top end magnification of say 32x for those distances sounds about right to me. The SIII SS 8-32X56 is 30mm tube and has 70 MOA of elevation adjustment overall.

Sightron is available in Canada from Hirsch Precision, among others. Since most riflescopes are ITAR controlled, you're going to need a non-US retail source for easy transaction
and warranty access.

ht tp://www.hirschprecision.com/optics/sightron.php
 
I know what you are saying, I am not going to be using a 100 yard zero.A 40 MOA base with 25(up) MOA scope travel gives me 65 does it not?

So, if I am looking at a far away zero point, let's say 500 minimum wouldn't what I have selected work out?There should be enough adjustment.

So, if I go with the 40 MOA base and the scope with 50 total adjustment what it looks like to me is that a guy can theoretically make it to almost 1500 yards and still have the scope optically centered and with 10 UP in the MOA reticle and 20 DOWN a guy can make it a long ways even without touching his elevation knob.

edit, I guess I should add that this will be a dedicated LR setup.

Last attempt; your scope will arrive more or less optically centered from Sightron. This means you will have 25minutes up and 25 down. If you install a 40moa base on your rifle you will be 15 moa in the hole trying to zero it at 100. A 20 moa base gives you 45 moa up and a 5 moa cushion to get it zeroed. 45 moa gets a Berger 300gr. to 1350m the rest of the way will be reticle based holds.

I guess what I'm saying is if your scope had 80+moa of adjustment then the 40 minute base would be fine, for the scope you are looking at a 20 is more suitable. I personally think you were on the right track with the 8-32x
 
Last edited:
You may have a hell of a time sighting in if you can't shoot under 400 yards. Don't cheap on the gear - there are 25 MOA and the odd 30 MOA bases available too. I'd go with the better scope. I have an NXS 8-32 and I really like it.
 
The only thing I can see happening under 400 is starting load development, once I get a start and see some consistency then hopefully I can do my fine tuning at longer distance.Also if I choose something like an MOA reticle there is the option of using the upper hash marks if I need to come in closer.

I still haven't ruled out the NF line yet either,the 12-42 is an nice magnification range but only 45MOA of elevation the Sightron 10-50 has 50 , the NXS 8-32 has 65 vs the Sightron with 70, so not much difference between comparative models.

You may have a hell of a time sighting in if you can't shoot under 400 yards. Don't cheap on the gear - there are 25 MOA and the odd 30 MOA bases available too. I'd go with the better scope. I have an NXS 8-32 and I really like it.
 
Back
Top Bottom