Glass for a longer range shooter

If the scope does not maintain zero, return to zero and dial accurately everything else is a non-starter.

Suggest you do some research on scopes that do the above.

You will be surprised by your findings.

In your price range, look for SWFA, Night Force, Bushnell LRHS and Sightron either used or new.

MOA or Mils is just a scale of measurement either work fine. The MOA is 1 click for 0.25"/100y and Mil is 0.36"/100y, so the Moa has a finer graduation.

When you are shooting long range 500m-1000m + on out FFP is a benefit as you come ups and windage adjustments work at any scope power where the 2nd Focal Plane is usually set at 10x so the windshield rhymes with the dials, so it is not that useful at unknown or ranged distances.

In your price range a high magnification scope will not be as useful as advertised, say at 24x this level of magnification does uncover any anomalies with the 'glass' itself.

At 1000 yards my groups, 5 and 10 shot do not differ much at all at scope powers between 10x and 24x.

As an example , at a club event in hunter class, limited to <0.750" barrel at muzzle, 9x scope ,<10.5 lbs, hunting /sporter stock, factory or handloads being the general criteria.

As a lark a friend said for why don't you (me) try that Steyr 7mm-08 in the class, it has a fixed 6x SWFA, I was reluctant but gave it a try, anyway, no prize but it did a 6.25" 3 shot group, rifle was bought used and new to me at the time.

The takeaway is you do not need to break the bank to shoot at distance, just use reliable equipment.

Another thing if you are 50+ get your eyes checked before buying 'awesome glass'. Nothing negates 'awesome' glass like a pair of Wallyworld eyeglasses.
 
Maple57 said:
Well the reality of it is that manufacturers will not generally quantify depth of field since it is hard to quantify.

Technically depth of field is an infinity thin plane at exactly the ideal focus distance.

Everything is technically out of focus both before and after that thin theoretical plane. The question is by how much? That is somewhat subjective but obvious to the eye just the same.

The only advice I can really offer is to evaluate scopes you are considering side by side (use a premium scope as a bench mark) and know what to look for. For some guys that's a tree, I can see the tree, that's good enough... This guy will never be a precision rifle shooter. You need to see fine detail both before and after the ideal point of focus as far as possible. Then you can read mirage.

Unless it screams at you, things like chromatic aberration are to me nothing you want to pay much attention to as it will reveal itself in many other ways.

The most important thing to look for is detail in something with poor contract like bark on a tree or grain in a telephone pole.

You might also pull a couple optical resolution charts off the internet and print them. Maybe print a couple on grey paper to reduce the contrast. Post them at some distance away and evaluate them.

Look for sharpness, but more importantly how difficult it is to get the scope to focus acceptably well. Some scopes will never really focus they will just get better or worse but never good.

All too many scopes will fail badly at this simple test. Vortex Diamondback Tactical is the worst I have seen. Burris XTRii is better but not but 3 times the price better. Hence the XTRiii.

Hopefully you know some guys with scopes you might be considering so you can have a peek through theirs, or you can go to a store that stocks what you might be interested in.

And one final thought... Give no extra point to any FFP scope with more than 4X zoom... Anything below 4X from the max will render the reticle useless. FFP scopes should at least have an illuminated reticle to counter this point.



Money alone will NOT solve this problem.

Short scopes with big lenses and high magnification are typically problematic regardless of price. Regardless of price.

Think about the sharpness of refraction angles... Bring lenses closer and the angles get exaggerated and DOF is reduced automatically... Optical fact.

Scope manufacturers are about making sales. They will slut themselves out to anyone with a credit card and go to great lengths to help you feel great about dropping $4000 on a scope that sucks, but you would never admit to for the simple fact that you paid $4000 for it. Besides fan boys who don't know the difference will tell you that you are crazy to bash it, so that might make you feel like you didn't get raped.

A solid benchmark for nice glass is Kahles 5-25, but there is better out there if you are fussy. I would say needlessly better, but better just the same if a got that kinda cash.

The real question with scope selection is short of a Kahles 5-25, what is really good enough?
Click to expand...

Could you explain if the Vortex Diamondback Tactical is such a bad scope, why all top three positioins in CRPS were won with this scope in the Eastern Canadian Championships in 2019 and probably 2020? Dont really think $500 scopes should be compared with glass costing 10x that. FYI real world dude
 
+1 I don't get the bashing on the Diamondback Tactical. I had one and liked it, there isn't a lot of competition in its price point, that's the important part. I moved on to much better, but its also 3 times the price, so of course its not a fair comparison.

In optics you have two ways of picking a scope: First you pick all the features and glass quality you want and pay the price it commands. Second, you set a budget and make the best of it.
 
Longstud said:
Could you explain if the Vortex Diamondback Tactical is such a bad scope, why all top three positions in CRPS were won with this scope in the Eastern Canadian Championships in 2019 and probably 2020? Dont really think $500 scopes should be compared with glass costing 10x that. FYI real world dude
Click to expand...

I shoot most weekends with the top national CRPS shooter for 2020 and he uses a Kahles 525.

First of all, I have 2 of them. One on a PCP pellet gun, where it belongs and one on a 22 that will be replaced as soon as I can decide what with. Don't misinterpret that to indicate that I am a fan of the DT, but I do know them well. Cost is irrelevant. The scope is either good or not so good, cost is a meaningless point as it does not change what the scope is and does.

I also have better scopes, that I also know well. That being the case, I can help illustrate the difference.

A Vortex Diamondback Tactical has all the right features, except a zero stop, but with adjustable scope rings I got around that.

It has relatively nice turrets and side parallax... all good so far

Everything falls apart when you look through the glass and try to see what a great shooter needs to see, or for that matter what all "precision" rifle shooters need to see to become great.

You need two things, depth of field and a sharp clear image. You do not get this from a DT.

This image is blurry at best even when set parallax free in clear conditions. Since the image is already blurry at the pinnacle of focus, the depth of field is shallow as a direct result. Clarity both closer or farther than the pinnacle of focus is much worse because it started from a a low point to begin with.

Guys in PRS you mentioned are supposedly winning matches with DTs because of Kestrel data and without the shooting skills someone would develop in F Class. This is where the difference becomes clear.

In F Class we are reading mirage constantly. About 80 percent of our energy is invested on that and 20 percent of the flags. If you don't have a scope with a deep depth of field and good sharpness, you wont read mirage very well at all. In PRS there are no flags, so you are increasingly reliant upon mirage which you cant see with a DT.

I can reference a couple spotting scopes to illustrate this point. I have a Kowa 554 and a Vintage Bushnell Spacemaster. At a match in the fall I used both for a while in a CRPS match. The Spacemaster could see heavy mirage at the horizon, but not at the target. The Kowa could easily see the mirage at the target.

I also have a Nightfoce NXS and that is probably the best scope I ever had for depth of field. I can easily see my bullets in the air and easily read mirage. I also have a Kahles 624 and it is sharper than the NXS but does not have the depth of field.

So to summarize the point, there are slight differences in what one needs for PRS or F Class or hunting for that matter. But across the board, you need to be able to read mirage to refine the shot placement beyond the numbers you get from a Kestrel.

If you have the optics that you can see your own shots in the air, you can call your misses and adjust for it. If your glass in not up to this task, then you are dropping points, don't kid yourself.

The DT lets you go through the motions, but to become a better shooter, you need better glass. Cost is not a factor in this point.

Oh ya... The fast focus POS eye piece... Go ahead and test this for yourself... Set the rifle on a target and wiggle the eye piece. The reticle will move at least 1 MOA on both of mine, just by touching the eye piece. Locking ocular lens is always a better choice.
 
Last edited:
What scope would you recommend for someone in the production division. Choices limited by the dollar cap on production division. Thanks
 
Maple57 said:
I shoot most weekends with the top national CRPS shooter for 2020 and he uses a Kahles 525.

First of all, I have 2 of them. One on a PCP pellet gun, where it belongs and one on a 22 that will be replaced as soon as I can decide what with. Don't misinterpret that to indicate that I am a fan of the DT, but I do know them well. Cost is irrelevant. The scope is either good or not so good, cost is a meaningless point as it does not change what the scope is and does.

I also have better scopes, that I also know well. That being the case, I can help illustrate the difference.

A Vortex Diamondback Tactical has all the right features, except a zero stop, but with adjustable scope rings I got around that.

It has relatively nice turrets and side parallax... all good so far

Everything falls apart when you look through the glass and try to see what a great shooter needs to see, or for that matter what all "precision" rifle shooters need to see to become great.

You need two things, depth of field and a sharp clear image. You do not get this from a DT.

This image is blurry at best even when set parallax free in clear conditions. Since the image is already blurry at the pinnacle of focus, the depth of field is shallow as a direct result. Clarity both closer or farther than the pinnacle of focus is much worse because it started from a a low point to begin with.

Guys in PRS you mentioned are supposedly winning matches with DTs because of Kestrel data and without the shooting skills someone would develop in F Class. This is where the difference becomes clear.

In F Class we are reading mirage constantly. About 80 percent of our energy is invested on that and 20 percent of the flags. If you don't have a scope with a deep depth of field and good sharpness, you wont read mirage very well at all. In PRS there are no flags, so you are increasingly reliant upon mirage which you cant see with a DT.

I can reference a couple spotting scopes to illustrate this point. I have a Kowa 554 and a Vintage Bushnell Spacemaster. At a match in the fall I used both for a while in a CRPS match. The Spacemaster could see heavy mirage at the horizon, but not at the target. The Kowa could easily see the mirage at the target.

I also have a Nightfoce NXS and that is probably the best scope I ever had for depth of field. I can easily see my bullets in the air and easily read mirage. I also have a Kahles 624 and it is sharper than the NXS but does not have the depth of field.

So to summarize the point, there are slight differences in what one needs for PRS or F Class or hunting for that matter. But across the board, you need to be able to read mirage to refine the shot placement beyond the numbers you get from a Kestrel.

If you have the optics that you can see your own shots in the air, you can call your misses and adjust for it. If your glass in not up to this task, then you are dropping points, don't kid yourself.

The DT lets you go through the motions, but to become a better shooter, you need better glass. Cost is not a factor in this point.

Oh ya... The fast focus POS eye piece... Go ahead and test this for yourself... Set the rifle on a target and wiggle the eye piece. The reticle will move at least 1 MOA on both of mine, just by touching the eye piece. Locking ocular lens is always a better choice.
Click to expand...
The individuals I referenced winning in 2019 were in the production division where the gun and optic are regulated by fixed dollar amounts. I’m sure not many would be using a DT in the open division. I was just trying to point out that it’s not really fair comparing $500 entry optics against glass costing 4x or more!
 
Longstud said:
What scope would you recommend for someone in the production division. Choices limited by the dollar cap on production division. Thanks
Click to expand...

The Athlo Argos BTR Gen 2 would be my suggestion and it has already done well out east. I believe it has an overall win to its credit... open and production combined.

Get behind one of these and it will be very easy to see the difference.

Athlon will have a bunch of new scopes in 2021.. I doubt in time to be considered production scopes for 2021 but certainly at a price point that will. These will have a variety of desired 'modern' FFP specs. I hope to view some when they are released.

PM or email for those that want to discuss optics. There is so much more then just being able to 'see' an object.

Jerry

PS... when looking at production class 'wins' also consider the number of shooters still in production. I doubt there are many shooters there... there are precious few in BC matches. Look up practiscore CRPS 2020 Eastern Championships... there were 4 shooters in Production. At the Westerns, there was a grand total of ONE shooter.
 
Last edited:
Mystic Precision said:
The Athlo Argos BTR Gen 2 would be my suggestion and it has already done well out east. I believe it has an overall win to its credit... open and production combined.

Get behind one of these and it will be very easy to see the difference.

Athlon will have a bunch of new scopes in 2021.. I doubt in time to be considered production scopes for 2021 but certainly at a price point that will. These will have a variety of desired 'modern' FFP specs. I hope to view some when they are released.

PM or email for those that want to discuss optics. There is so much more then just being able to 'see' an object.

Jerry

PS... when looking at production class 'wins' also consider the number of shooters still in production. I doubt there are many shooters there... there are precious few in BC matches. Look up practiscore CRPS 2020 Eastern Championships... there were 4 shooters in Production. At the Westerns, there was a grand total of ONE shooter.
Click to expand...

You are correct in the shift to open by the vast majority but when I first began shooting matches the ratio was close to 50/50. The smaller ORPS matches still see production class but the CRPS has become a more serious game. Lots of travelling and lots of money on equipment which restricts participating for many because of the costs, especially in the shadow of Covid.
 
No mention of anybody using vx3i, 5hd or 6hd, I’ve only ever had the old vx3. How does the new leupold line up compare?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom