How would you scope a PE-90?

Which one?

  • ACOG and cie

    Votes: 17 37.8%

  • Red-dots

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • High power scope

    Votes: 15 33.3%

  • Iron sights

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • Other ( please explain )

    Votes: 7 15.6%
  • Total voters
    45
Slowbalt

Slowbalt

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
42   0   2
Hey all,
The time has come. The time for optics that is ! But I have been debating this for over a week now, and I guess this thread may help me see better and make the right choice. Would you choose a "quick pointer" like the ACOG or a similar design, a red-dot sight, or a scope with high magnification? I plan on using it as my all-around rifle, shooting yotes and the such, participating in amical competitions at my local club ( 100yrd, and I'll get owned anyway by the custom rifles builders and our president which doubles as the Quebec's LR champion ). Would like to use it for "tactical training" but the facilities and cost of ammo kinda keep this marginal. Also, would an ACOG require the cheekpiece? Let's hear ya!!
 
I plan on putting a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x on mine when it arrives. I've ordered the Zeiss (Warne) quick release rings. That way I can easily remove it if I want a different type of sight.

Most of my shooting will be target/varmints. A varmint/target scope makes sense.
 
ACOG will take a very long time to get.

I'm using a Leupold Mark IV 1.5-5X with SPR/illuminated reticle. It also comes without illumination and that scope is a little bit thinner and lighter.

The 1.5X is good for close in stuff.

Price of the Leupold is reasonable.
 
Iron sighted or the target model?

I like my scopes as low as they can practically be. For most, the same sight line of the irons works o.k.

I've said it a couple of times and I'll say it again; I think the Nightforce NXS series of scopes are fantastic quality for the dollar. I have a 3.5x15 on my 700, and a 2.5x10 on both an AR and my PE-90

070118002.jpg
 
If it's an iron sighted model, leave it alone. If it is a black target special, then either an acog, aimpoint, or something else lightweight (like a leupold 1.5-5 VX III, NOT an MR/T as it is too heavy).

Brobee
 
Brobee said:
If it's an iron sighted model, leave it alone. If it is a black target special, then either an acog, aimpoint, or something else lightweight (like a leupold 1.5-5 VX III, NOT an MR/T as it is too heavy).

Brobee
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? Are non-target models less accurate?
 
Accuracy is the same. The only difference would be the replacement of the iron sights with a steel picatinny rail welded directly to the receiver. There is a flip up ajustable objective for back up irons as well. The front sight post is the same for both models.

If you want to run glass, I'd recommend the target model, but you can do it with the regular model just fine. I'd use a cheek piece or you'll have a 'chin weld' -again YMMV.
While I personally wouldn't bother with anything over 10 power, there is nothing wrong with it, and the MR/T is a fantastic sight in it's own right.
 
Slowbalt said:
Care to elaborate? Are non-target models less accurate?
Click to expand...

No...I'd suggest inherent accuracy would not vary too much from one to the other...the issue in my mind is the ergonomics of setting up the optics. The geometry of the iron sights on the non-flattop models dictate that your scope will either have to be mounted way up high or way far forwards. Your head position will likely be less than optimal as you'll either have to compromise on optimal eye relief or optimal cheek weld. As an aside, you can use the cheekpiece to mitigate cheek weld issues associated with scope height, however the height of the scope over the bore amplifies Point-of-Impact/Point-of-Aim trajectory considerations....IMHO less than ideal. If you want to use a scope on a swiss arms, get the flattop.
 
Brobee said:
however the height of the scope over the bore amplifies Point-of-Impact/Point-of-Aim trajectory considerations
Click to expand...


I would add that this would only be an issue if you are canting the rifle, and as such, is a consideration whether you are using optics or irons.
 
beltfed said:
I would add that this would only be an issue if you are canting the rifle, and as such, is a consideration whether you are using optics or irons.
Click to expand...

True for service rifle type shooting at ranges beyond your zero range (100 yards?), but IMHO it is also an issue if you have a 100yard zero and want to know exactly where that bullet will strike at ranges less than 75 yards. The flattop does not solve this problem, but it eliminates about an inch to an inch-and-a-half out of the equation.

It would also be an issue if a guy is trying to minimize sightline/trajectory effects over a 200 yard zero (ie: for coyote and gopher hunting) with an ultra-fast/ultra-light bullet. In this application it's also IMHO advantageous to have the line of sight as close to the bore as possible.
 
Last edited:
Brobee said:
True for service rifle type shooting at ranges beyond your zero range (100 yards?), but IMHO it is also an issue if you have a 100yard zero and want to know exactly where that bullet will strike at ranges less than 75 yards. The flattop does not solve this problem, but it eliminates about an inch to an inch-and-a-half out of the equation.

It would also be an issue if a guy is trying to minimize sightline/trajectory effects over a 200 yard zero (ie: for coyote and gopher hunting) with an ultra-fast/ultra-light bullet. In this application it's also IMHO advantageous to have the line of sight as close to the bore as possible.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your statement.:confused:

If you zero at 100 yards with irons or a scope, the bullet is going to land in the same place regardless of how high your sighting system is set above the bore. Bullet drop & trajectory is/will be the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom