Long range scope for a mtn rifle

Just to throw a wrench into the whole thing, and I realize its not what the OP asked for, but it is easily possible to hold MOA with a 6X42 Leupold, sporting a M1 turret, to 1000 yards with a little practice. The whole point of a 'mountain rifle" is weight. Throwing a pound and half to two pounds of optic on a mid to light weight rifle seems to defeat the purpose.
As I said, different strokes, and certainly one can do whatever the hell they want, but fixed 6's have been doing the "impossible" for quite some time. They won't break the bank, and offer a pile of performance.

R.
 
"...600 to 1000 yards..." Absolutely nobody should ever take a hunting shot at those distances with any rifle. Never mind a 6.5 whatever mountain rifle.
"...needs to be above 20 so meaning 20,24,32..." Nope. Too much magnification for hunting. The higher the magnification, the smaller the field of view will be.
"...gets solar glare a twilight..." At twlight, perhaps? Quit shooting towards the west, wind direction permitting.
 
I think plain sight gave us a great overview of some scopes that may suit the op.

I'd like to suggest using a moa or mil turret though and zeroing it at 100 yards/meters. Reason being that when you develop your load and verify a turret with yardage marks on it you do it at a much lower altitude than where you would likely mountain hunt ( I'm assuming sheep or goats). With the reduced air pressure up high your drop is less and as you get further out this will become apparent as your drops dont match the turrets. The reason for the 100 zero is that if you use a ballistic program to find the corresponding moa/mil correction for your distance it will based on whatever zero you input to begin with at the lower altitude where you developed your load. As you reach your hunting altitude there is less of a chance for the 100 yard zero to be affected by the different atmosphere than there is a 200 yard zero or even further.

I use the Swarovski brh and it gets my 6.5 to over 900 yards at altitude.
 
sunray said:
"...600 to 1000 yards..." Absolutely nobody should ever take a hunting shot at those distances with any rifle. Never mind a 6.5 whatever mountain rifle.
"...needs to be above 20 so meaning 20,24,32..." Nope. Too much magnification for hunting. The higher the magnification, the smaller the field of view will be.
"...gets solar glare a twilight..." At twlight, perhaps? Quit shooting towards the west, wind direction permitting.
Click to expand...


Completely disagree. Learn your own limits and stay within them. If you're not comfortable with longer shots then don't take them. Don't preach to others what their limits should be.
 
6.5-06 with a 140 Berger at 2988fps. Zeroed at 100 yds. The brh reticle has 4.5 mils built in and the top of the bottom post is 5.5 mils

At about 5000ft is where you can start to pass 900 yards if it were a standard pressure day.
 
sheephunter said:
You really do love to argue with me don't you bear...if you actually read what I wrote you'd get my point but somehow your desire to argue with me blinds you. It's too bad. It's sad that you have to put words in my mouth to make your points...words I never said nor intended. But I guess if you didn't invent things that I said you wouldn't have much to argue with me about would you. Let's just stick to what I actually say bear and not what you'd like me to have said and then we can avoid these awkward moments. The European style of hunting is much different than the North American style for a large number of reasons and European optics have been constructed for the European market for decades. Most of them are starting to look more seriously at the North American market, however....and we are seeing changes that better suit the North American style of hunting.
Click to expand...

I don't "invent" things, I'm only quoting what you type. Your claim of the Z5 and Z6 series as well as European optics in general not being up to snuff for the "North American way of hunting" is ludicrous. The fact is that it doesn't fit into YOUR perception of an optimum North American scope.
The Z3 and Z5 line is made in the US specifically for the North American market. The Europeans mainly use the Z4 and Z6 line, many retailers abroad don't even handle the Z3 and Z5 as they don't sell well.
Perhaps you should apply to Swarovski as Director of Marketing to set them straight.
 
bearkilr said:
I don't "invent" things, I'm only quoting what you type. Your claim of the Z5 and Z6 series as well as European optics in general not being up to snuff for the "North American way of hunting" is ludicrous. The fact is that it doesn't fit into YOUR perception of an optimum North American scope.
The Z3 and Z5 line is made in the US specifically for the North American market. The Europeans mainly use the Z4 and Z6 line, many retailers abroad don't even handle the Z3 and Z5 as they don't sell well.
Perhaps you should apply to Swarovski as Director of Marketing to set them straight.
Click to expand...

Where did I say they weren't up to snuff? Where did I say they didn't fit into my perception? Yes, you do invent things....lol Or perhaps you can quote where I said that....lol I actually know the North American marketing people for Swaro quite well.....you might be surprised at their thoughts when discussing NA vs Europe optic requirements. The popularity of the Z3 and Z5 in North America and the lack thereof in Europe can be attributed to tube size..... It's a standard metric thing. The methods of hunting vary quite a lot from NA to Europe and scopes are constructed accordingly. It's really not that hard to understand. Why do you think there's been the big move to 1" tubes, smaller objective lenses and ballistic reticles and turrets by manufacturers like Zeiss and Swaro. Because they want a bigger piece of the North American pie. Whether you or I shoot long-range is irrelevant because an ever-growing population of North American hunters do. It seems the Europeans are finally catching on. Night hunting isn't popular in North America...smaller objectives are. Get the picture? I have no interest in hunting at 1,000 yards but many do and what you or I think really doesn't matter but your desire to argue long-range hunting with me is blinding you to the facts. I'm not a proponent nor opponent of long range hunting but I'm smart enough to see there is money to be made there in optics....apparently the Europeans are too. Feel free to quote me on that because it's something I actually said!
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
Where did I say they weren't up to snuff? Where did I say they didn't fit into my perception? Yes, you do invent things....lol Or perhaps you can quote where I said that....lol I actually know the North American marketing people for Swaro quite well.....you might be surprised at their thoughts when discussing NA vs Europe optic requirements. The popularity of the Z3 and Z5 in North America and the lack thereof in Europe can be attributed to tube size..... It's a standard metric thing. The methods of hunting vary quite a lot from NA to Europe and scopes are constructed accordingly. It's really not that hard to understand. Why do you think there's been the big move to 1" tubes, smaller objective lenses and ballistic reticles and turrets by manufacturers like Zeiss and Swaro. Because they want a bigger piece of the North American pie. Whether you or I shoot long-range is irrelevant because an ever-growing population of North American hunters do. It seems the Europeans are finally catching on. Night hunting isn't popular in North America...smaller objectives are. Get the picture? I have no interest in hunting at 1,000 yards but many do and what you or I think really doesn't matter but your desire to argue long-range hunting is blinding you to the facts. I'm not a proponent nor opponent of long range hunting but I'm smart enough to see there is money to be made there in optics....apparently the Europeans are too.
Click to expand...

Here:
sheephunter said:
It really is hard for the European optic manufacturers to embrace the North American way of hunting but it seems a few are coming around.
Click to expand...

Please share with us what the "North American way of hunting" is and which European manufacturers haven't embraced this, in other words are lacking a product line to suit the needs of North American hunters? They have all embraced our way of hunting, hence the reason for the Swarovski Z3 & Z5, the former Zeiss Conquest and current Terra and HD5, the S&B Summit, etc. Our way of hunting isn't long range, rather it's inexpensive optics. They weren't selling their regular $2000 scopes so they had to make ones to suit the NA market. Most European hunters only have a couple of rifles, which they outfit with top of the line scopes. Here many of us have several rifles and few will splurge on a $2000 scope, but if you can get a $400 Zeiss, then consider it sold!

If you're referring to "North American competitive shooters", then you have a point, as Zeiss (Hensoldt) and S&B are the only one's I'm aware of who have dedicated competition/long range tactical optics. Perhaps you're confused, something I can understand, seeing as this is the Precision Rifle forum, not Hunting and Sporting Arms where this topic should be, considering the title. Or perhaps even the Optics forum?

Anyhow, I won't derail this any further. I'd suggest to the OP to look at what scopes the competitive shooters are using at 1000 yards, the same will likely be the best for hunting. Your limit is your budget. The most expensive ones are generally the best when it comes to optics, especially at high magnification.
 
FWIW the Swarovski elevation is limited internally so that at the high and low end of travel it will not affect the windage as happens with most other makers that attempt to maximize their elevation totals in the catalogue but end up with trouble zones in reticle adjustment. Take your scope and try to shoot a square with the elevation maxed. The problem will become evident.
So how do you extend the range of a hunting scope with 36MOA of adjustment? Zero at a longer range, and use a ballistic reticle. There is no reason that the scope when properly set up will not provide adequate service at extended ranges. Also Swarovski has an on line calculator so you can set up your BDC and reticle to match your load, change the data for various powers etc.
 
plainSight Solutions said:
Some thoughts and observations, based on having setup up a healthy number of "mountain" rigs for customers, using a variety of lightweight mountain-style rifles (Tikka T3 Lites, Sako Finnlights, Christiensen Arms, Browning Mountain TI, Kimber Mountain Ascent, RMR, Forbes Model 20, HS Precision PHL...).

Huskemaw, Leupold and Vortex do not enter into these discussions as I cannot speak from personal sales experience on these brands - however all three, certainly Huskemaw and Leupold have asserted themselves as excellent candidates for this type of setup.

A "long-range mountain" rifle has few requirements in mind:
1 - lower overall weight,
2 - balance,
3 - durability,
4 - adequate magnification range for ethical "longer" shots (at least 14 power at the high end),
5 - some sort of ballistic reticle or turret (either mil/moa click-dilineated, or preferrably in yards/meters).

Accordingly, and at the risk of ruffling some feathers, certain brands/makes, models, and inherent specifications make some rifle scopes less desirable for a "mountain" setup (this is all observational, not authoritative, so feel free to disagree).

Zeiss Classic Conquest line: with the discontinuation of the Rapid-Z reticles in this line and without the availability of a ballistic turret, the Classic Conquests are no longer candidates.
Zeiss Victory HT line: with a maximum mag of 12x in the 56mm objective model, this line falls short in the magnification department.
Zeiss Diavari line: the 4-16x50mm and 6-24x56mm models could be considered, however they run in the 725 - 800 gram range, making them a tad heavy.
Sightron: excellent value for money scopes, however they admittedly lack the durability required for hunting in an alpine environment.
Nightforce: while outstanding, exceedingly durable, feature-rich, long-range scopes, an NXS 5.5-22x56 tips the scales at close to 900 grams, making it both heavy and unbalanced. That being said, a personal friend packed his 338 Edge sporting an NXS 5.5-22x56mm into the mountains this year and bagged a sheep, so if you don't mind lugging that sort of rig around the mountains, it can serve you well.

The March Hunting 2.5-25x42mm:
Cost: $2,450
Features: 610 grams, 30mm tube, 42mm objective for low profile and balance, 100 MoA of adjustment, ED glass, widest mag range of any scope available
Cons: MoA based turret (vs. range dilineated ballistic style turret), limited availability in Canada, warranty, weight

Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44mm with Ballistic Turret (or BRH/BRX reticle):
Cost: $1,599
Features: 451 grams, 1-inch tube, 44mm objective for low profile and balance, very useable mag range, outstanding warranty, flexible and user friendly ballistic turret system
Cons: only 36 MoA of adjustment

Swarovski Z5 5-25x52mm with Ballistic Turret (or BRH/BRX reticle):
Price: $1,739
Features: 495 grams, 1-inch tube, wide mag range, outstanding warranty, flexible and user friendly ballistic turret system
Cons: only 25 moa of adjustment, 52mm objective is largish for a mountain-style setup, 5x minimum mag is "too high" for some

Swarovski Z6 5-30x50mm with Ballistic Turret (or BRH/BRX reticle):
Cost: $2,699
Features: 600 grams, 30mm tube, highest magnification of any scope in its weight/quality class, outstanding warranty, flexible and user friendly ballistic turret system, some of the best HD glass available in any scope
Cons: only 25 moa of adjustment, 50mm objective is getting largish for a moutain-style setup, 5x minimum mag is "too high" for some, cost

Leica ER 3.5-14x42mm with IBS or Ballistic Reticle and Target Turret:
Cost: $1,599
Features: 470 grams, 30mm, tube, 42mm objective for low profile and balance, 50 moa of adjustment, IBS/ballistic reticle software is excellent, dovetails well with CRF-1600B or Geovid HD-B ballistic output, excellent optics
Cons: mag range is lacking, the Leica ER scopes are a bit of a dark horse at this point and potential buyers are uncertain

Zeiss HD5 3-15x42mm with Rapid-Z Reticle:
Cost: $1,099
Features: 521 grams, 1-inch tube, 42mm objective for low profile and balance, Rapid-Z reticle system is outstanding, reasonably priced, Conquest line is durable, reliable and well-proven
Cons: on the heavier side, Zeiss does not have an inherent ballistic reticle system (turrets available through Kenton Industries in the US)

Zeiss HD5 5-25x50mm with Rapid-Z Reticle:
Cost: $1,249
Features: 754 grams, 1-inch tube, Rapid-Z reticle system is outstanding, reasonably priced, Conquest line is durable, reliable and well-proven, wide mag range
Cons: 50mm objective is getting largish for a mountain setup, 5x minimum mag is "too high" for some, combination of weight and objective size on a lightweight "mountain" rifle will result in an unbalanced setup, Zeiss does not have an inherent ballistic reticle system (turrets available through Kenton Industries in the US).

Ballistic Turret vs. Ballistic Reticle:

While the choice between these can be a matter of preference, there is a key differential between these two styles of ranging that must be considered: with a second-focal plane scope, the hold-over values of a ballistic reticle (Swaro BRH/BRX, Zeiss Rapid-Z, Leica IBS/Ballistic Reticle, Nightforce Velocity, etc...) vary with the magnification setting. In other words, when a ballistic reticle is setup for specific caliber/load/environmental data, the corresponding range for each reticle subtension will change depending on what magnification the scope is set to. Thus, using the Rapid-Z system for example, given the particulars of the inputs, for the "5" subtension line to equal 500 yards, the scope MUST be set at a specific magnification, or the "5" will not equal 500 yards.

Sometimes, the "optimal" zoom setting (as dictated by the ballistic software) is vaguish and interpolated (i.e. 13.7x) making it difficult to be precise that the scope is in fact at the correct zoom setting. Most modern software solutions allow the user to specify a magnification they would like to operate at (i.e. at 10x power), affording some flexibility, however the output might be difficult to memorize and actualize in the field, especially during a stressful situation (i.e. at 10x, the Rapid-Z #2 line = 176 yards, #3 line = 268 yards, #4 line = 353 yards, etc... rather than the lines falling on even, 50 or 100 yard increments).

For some systems (i.e. NF Velocity) the configuration is simplified, as the scope must be set at maximum magnification for the range values to fall into place - making the "setting" of the scope relatively easy. However using maximum magnification when hunting carries with it a much different set of risks than when shooting paper.

Given these functional realities, the risks/limitations of a ballistic reticle should be considered. First, for the reticle to work, the user must always remember to place the scope at the proper magnification setting before shooting. Second, there are certain situations when the "proper" magnification setting could prove disadvantageous. The primary risk is that when the magnification must be set very high for the reticle subtensions to work as desired, the scope could be zoomed-in more than the user would like when considering target reaquisition for follow-up shots. In other words, you are zoomed-in very close, and after the realities of pulling the trigger (recoil, muzzle-rise, the target moving) you become "lost in the scope" and cannot find your target again without a) "dismounting" your eye from the scope to find the target, and/or b) powering the scope down to a lower magnification for a wider field of view.

With a ballistic turret that utilizes the central point of the crosshair as the POI, the range function works regardless of the magnification setting. Of course, the user must remember to turn the turret to the correct value/setting prior to shooting.

Given the allowance for variable magnification, it can be argued that a yard/meter dilineated ballistic turret affords the user more ease of use and flexibility, while reducing the risks of becoming "lost in the scope" - merely an opinion and certainly open to debate.

Recommendation:

Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44mm with Ballistic Turret - light-weight, balanced, outstanding optics, optimally sized objective, durable construction, best warranty in the business, excellent magnification range, user configurable ballistic turret (custom turret optional), and reasonably priced.

When paired with an optic/rangefinder that provides Equivalent Horizontal Distance (i.e. Swarovski EL-Range, Leica CRF-1600B, Leica Geovid HD-B...), it makes for a straight-forward and very effective combination, particularly in the mountains.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info very helpful..
 
Shooting Centre said:
So how do you extend the range of a hunting scope with 36MOA of adjustment? Zero at a longer range, and use a ballistic reticle. There .
Click to expand...

Yup, definitely one way to get around it but as the OP specified turrets it limits it to pretty well 30mm or bigger tubes and even then the options would be somewhat limited.
 
bearkilr said:
Our way of hunting isn't long range,
Click to expand...



LOL...do you seriously believe that? We typically shoot much longer ranges than Europeans and whether you or I partake, long range hunting is an extremely fast growing facet of North American hunting. It's not in Europe. You can bury your head in the sand if it makes you feel better but open your eyes and look around....hunters are buying up long-range products faster than manufacturers can make them. Agree or disagree.....guys are doing it more and more every year. European manufacturers are starting to cotton on to that fact and making money from it. I agree with your comment about inexpensive optics too. See lots of things are different from Europe to North America.

BTW......improperly paraphrasing isn't quoting....LOL
 
sheephunter said:
LOL...do you seriously believe that? We typically shoot much longer ranges than Europeans and whether you or I partake, long range hunting is an extremely fast growing facet of North American hunting. It's not in Europe. You can bury your head in the sand if it makes you feel better but open your eyes and look around....hunters are buying up long-range products faster than manufacturers can make them. Agree or disagree.....guys are doing it more and more every year. European manufacturers are starting to cotton on to that fact and making money from it. I agree with your comment about inexpensive optics too. See lots of things are different from Europe to North America.

BTW......improperly paraphrasing isn't quoting....LOL
Click to expand...

4x, 6x and 3-9x in a variable are classic North American scopes and I'd bet they're still the #1 sellers. 2.5-10,3-12 and 8x56 are the popular European models. The Europeans do hunt more at night, largely only wild boar as they've become nocturnal from pressure. Night hunting isn't popular here (by most of us anyhow) since it's illegal.
Are you suggesting that the new norm is a 5-25x? Certainly there's a niche group of hunters who partake in ultra long range hunting, thanks mainly to TV shows and the products they market, but I'd be willing to bet that 99% of shots taken on game in North America are under 300 yards.

Regardless, our way of hunting in North America isn't 600-1000 yards shots, that was my point.
 
5 years ago the V-Bull in F-Class shooting was 1 MOA. A few years ago it was reduced to 1/2 MOA because too many guys were shooting perfect scores and tie breakers would go on for 30 rounds before someone missed it. Often times these would occur out to about 800 yards. To end the tie breakers, they had to be shot at a greater distance than the tie actually occurred.

The point I'm trying to make here is called "Progress". The quality of shooting components has made leaps and bounds in recent years as had knowledge of hand loading and barrel twist rate optimization which extends the shooting horizon.

In addition, informative web sites like this one - despite the bickering that so often goes on - do stimulate thought and educate.

To this point it is unfair for one shooter to so firmly project your own shooting limitations upon anyone else. Sure there are keyboard pros out there who think they can shoot and can't, but there are also plenty of guys out there who have the goods to back it up.

I know plenty of guys who could shoot medium sized game consistently out to 800 yards and just a few who could hit ground hogs at 1000 yards so consistently that it boggles the mind. I've seen 15 shots in a row into a 5 inch V Bull at 1000 yards in a squadded match. That is next level shooting and I know only one person who has done it, but he did it this summer. Unfortunately he's too secretive to explain what he did to do it.

It's not that long range hunting is impossible, it's just that few people have the goods to get it done today, but progress is progress and more guys can do it today than 5 years ago. What about 5 years from now?

Sure F-Class is not hunting, but the point still stands... Progress happens every minute if only one little thought at a time. If a guy has the dream, let him dream, the world is not flat, he might get good at it if he isn't already.
 
Last edited:
BadAsMo said:
5 years ago the V-Bull in F-Class shooting was 1 MOA. A few years ago it was reduced to 1/2 MOA because too many guys were shooting perfect scores and tie breakers would go on for 30 rounds before someone missed it. Often times these would occur out to about 800 yards. To end the tie breakers, they had to be shot at a greater distance than the tie actually occurred.

The point I'm trying to make here is called "Progress". The quality of shooting components has made leaps and bounds in recent years as had knowledge of hand loading and barrel twist rate optimization which extends the shooting horizon.

In addition, informative web sites like this one - despite the bickering that so often goes on - do stimulate thought and educate.

To this point it is unfair for one shooter to so firmly project your own shooting limitations upon anyone else. Sure there are keyboard pros out there who think they can shoot and can't, but there are also plenty of guys out there who have the goods to back it up.

I know plenty of guys who could shoot medium sized game consistently out to 800 yards and just a few who could hit ground hogs at 1000 yards so consistently that it boggles the mind. I've seen 15 shots in a row into a 5 inch V Bull at 1000 yards in a squadded match. That is next level shooting and I know only one person who has done it, but he did it this summer. Unfortunately he's too secretive to explain what he did to do it.

It's not that long range hunting is impossible, it's just that few people have the goods to get it done today, but progress is progress and more guys can do it today than 5 years ago. What about 5 years from now?

Sure F-Class is not hunting, but the point still stands... Progress happens every minute if only one little thought at a time. If a guy has the dream, let him dream, the world is not flat, he might get good at it if he isn't already.
Click to expand...

Thank you, could not of put that any better my self
 
bearkilr said:
I'm not convinced that's the case for hunting. I usually consider something that's "progress" to be a positive.
Would this be progress?


[youtube]5aYFtRtg-74[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Absolutely it's progress. What else would you call it? Give that scope to a guy who has no long range experience and he will be able to shoot father with it than without.Can that scope outperform a top level competitive shooter, maybe, maybe not, I've never seen comparative data. But that's today's version anyway. Even if it's not better today, give them time and I'm sure that one day there will be nobody on the planet who could outshoot that type of system.

A Blackberry phone today has a more powerful processor than my first PC. 10 years from now there will be nano processors in everyone's cell phones that will be 1000 times faster than any PC we are using today. Once that kind of processing speed finds it's way into devices like this, my money is on the devise.

Ya, that's progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom