Maybe the one's he's looked through have a tree on top of and below the horizontal line?
Recommend me scope for a PRS style .22lr rifle
- Thread starter Tikka223
- Start date
Maybe the one's he's looked through have a tree on top of and below the horizontal line?
aaah c'mon
So many new scopes have a huge zoom range where either you cant see the reticle or its a telephone pole in front of your face. On top of that they all too frequently add unnecessarily over cluttered reticles.
Guys are getting so accustomed to crude hold overs to hit big plates that they are not learning what it takes to shoot better than that. Worse yet, many dismiss that effort as useless or stupid.
Most of you probably know I'm an old school F Class guy, but I play the PRS game as well. I've seen where shooting for so many has become a game of paint by numbers where people get results with little of the real artistry of the sport.
I get it though, times are changing, but its not all for the better.
Not to discredit PRS style shooting, it's a blast, but its not the center of the universe and I would like to see more guys shoot F Class as well to develop the finer skills.
Just as top F Class shooters have trouble transitioning to PRS, I'm certain the reverse is equally true... for most.
Last edited:
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Horses for courses.... I have competed and podiumed in both sports. Each sport has gear that suits the particular quirks of the game.
for PRS especially rimfire, I have used ALL of the Xmas tree reticle. It would have been so much harder without this aid.
So shoot what you prefer but I don't see the Xmas tree reticle I use as any hindrance at all.
Jerry
for PRS especially rimfire, I have used ALL of the Xmas tree reticle. It would have been so much harder without this aid.
So shoot what you prefer but I don't see the Xmas tree reticle I use as any hindrance at all.
Jerry
Maybe the one's he's looked through have a tree on top of and below the horizontal line?
Obviously, this Tremor 3. At least it's illuminated.
It's a tool, and it can be a very handy one (Christmas tree reticles). Some stages necessitate, whether by design through limited time frame or through explicit instructions, to use holdovers. For other disciplines, like ELR, if you shoot long enough, you will not have enough elevation and windage in your scope to accurately engage your target. For example, when I took my 6.5 Creedmoor out to 2,200 yards years ago, I was holding off into "dead space" in the scope, as I didn't have enough elevation or windage to have any sort of reticle close to the target.
Some reticles are better then others. For christmas tree style reticles, I've really become a fan of the SKMR reticles for PRS shooting. My ELR gun has an AMR reticle in it - when you shoot far enough, the extended windage hash marks can be really helpful.
If you are zooming in to the point where you are getting lost or the reticle is getting in the way, you are doing it wrong. I rarely shoot stages above ~12 power. Just because you have an NF ATACR with 35 power, doesn't mean you should shoot it at that power level. You most certainly can, but it wouldn't be beneficial to do so.
Use the right tool for the job. Sure, a x-mas tree reticle is not required for F-class style shooting, nor does it provide any benefits for that discipline. Use the right tool for the job. There's a reason why F-class rifles and PRS rifles are so different - different mission, different equipment.
And I agree that PRS is not the be all end all. No shooting discipline is. There is merits and warranted critiques for any discipline. Personally, I dislike the direction PRS is heading, it's turning into "barricade benchrest", but that's besides the point of this discussion.
At the end of the day, use the right tool for the job. That will look different from one discipline to another. It's great that F-class shooters are jumping into PRS, I personally would love to shoot F-class one day, but keep an open mind into how and why PRS and the equipment has evolved to where it's at. It seems really common here on CGN for F-class shooters to completely ignore and discount the evolution of PRS as a discipline, and instead try to inject as much F-class into it as possible. I get it, that's what you know and are comfortable with. But if you go into a new discipline with an open mind, and try to understand that discipline, it's history and evolution, it will help you adapt into the sport that much quicker. The last few years on CGN have been pretty painful, listening to F-class shooters try to tell PRS shooters how to shoot their own discipline. But it would behoove you guys to understand why we are currently at where we are in the sport.
Obviously, this Tremor 3. At least it's illuminated.
Usually by boxing day these are sold out, have to wait until next December...................
No one shooting discipline has the market cornered on hubris!
A few years ago at a PRS event I watched a very experienced F Class Shooter at his first PRS match start missing targets, proceed to loose track of his turrets and then tell everyone that would listen that if he had his F Class Gun these targets would be easy.
At the same event the Chou brothers who were there for their first time did very well. But the came prepared and with an open mind.
With respect to reticles at least in 2018 it was a mix of tree and other reticles for the top shooters.
There also seems to be trends, hot items and geographic preferences. Trying to spot misses at Meaford where they are swallowed up by foliage is quite different than looking for them in a sandy open area down in the Southern US.
This year will see the new JTAC reticle designed by PRO Clay Blackketter fielded by Tangent Theta. A very minimalist design. But if it is the best for the pros is it the best for mid pack and newbie shooters?
The rest of your gear has an effect as well. The challenge presented by my my .308 PGW Tactical Division Rifle is far different from a 22lb 6mm open gun that I am free recoiling.
Match directors also have a say based on their target sizes and COF. There are also seems to be Regional difference in those. PRS is not NRL is not AG Cup.
Yes most PRS matches have a large error budget and to a degree steel can make you lazy. More and more top level shooters seem to be advocating paper and small targets as an important component to training. Paper does not lie.
No difference than when I run my cow-horse hard at a show over the weekend. I spend my week in between getting him tuned up focusing on the fundamentals.
A few years ago at a PRS event I watched a very experienced F Class Shooter at his first PRS match start missing targets, proceed to loose track of his turrets and then tell everyone that would listen that if he had his F Class Gun these targets would be easy.
At the same event the Chou brothers who were there for their first time did very well. But the came prepared and with an open mind.
With respect to reticles at least in 2018 it was a mix of tree and other reticles for the top shooters.
There also seems to be trends, hot items and geographic preferences. Trying to spot misses at Meaford where they are swallowed up by foliage is quite different than looking for them in a sandy open area down in the Southern US.
This year will see the new JTAC reticle designed by PRO Clay Blackketter fielded by Tangent Theta. A very minimalist design. But if it is the best for the pros is it the best for mid pack and newbie shooters?
The rest of your gear has an effect as well. The challenge presented by my my .308 PGW Tactical Division Rifle is far different from a 22lb 6mm open gun that I am free recoiling.
Match directors also have a say based on their target sizes and COF. There are also seems to be Regional difference in those. PRS is not NRL is not AG Cup.
Yes most PRS matches have a large error budget and to a degree steel can make you lazy. More and more top level shooters seem to be advocating paper and small targets as an important component to training. Paper does not lie.
No difference than when I run my cow-horse hard at a show over the weekend. I spend my week in between getting him tuned up focusing on the fundamentals.
Last edited:
It’s all evolution.... I really like and find the EBR 7C near perfect. I also have a Burris ( yeah I know ) with a very basic mil cross hair in it. It is usable. But guessing a hold is not as easy as a tree style.
PRS is changing every year. More more guys are ditching bags to go with only one bag.
I see the the time is coming when barricade benchrest will start to go away. Increase movement and the weight will switch from 22-30 lbs rifles to a lite in the rear and balance in the front set up. It’s weird how this always go in many sports. First over build as a selling point use terms like mil spec. Go big. Then go small. Then add weight. Next will be lower the mass and get glass weight down etc etc it will always change. The market has to keep people buying.
PRS is changing every year. More more guys are ditching bags to go with only one bag.
I see the the time is coming when barricade benchrest will start to go away. Increase movement and the weight will switch from 22-30 lbs rifles to a lite in the rear and balance in the front set up. It’s weird how this always go in many sports. First over build as a selling point use terms like mil spec. Go big. Then go small. Then add weight. Next will be lower the mass and get glass weight down etc etc it will always change. The market has to keep people buying.
Thanks Jerry, I'll get in touch once I make my mind up.
There is something else to consider, wether or not you like an Xmas tree....
Depth of field.
I don't know yet if first focal plane or second focal plane can mechanically have the same depth of field, but when I compare my Kahles 624 to my Nightforce NSX 5.5-22, the Nightforce steals the show.
I would really like to know if that is because the NSX is second focal plane, or just a biproduct of something in the erector tube lens stack. At first I thought it might be scope length, but the Kahles is a bit longer, which should help, not hurt.
Why is depth of field important?
First is the ability to read mirage... A scope with a shallow depth of field will present the target as blurry... This is the result of mirage that is out of focus. This makes it more difficult to read mirage as well as identify details like a bullet impact.
The second point is seeing bullets fly. With a shallow depth of field scope. the bullet in flight will be in focus for a shorter distance and that will make it harder to see the bullet in flight.
I know PRS guys almost exclusively want FFP glass, but I would argue that a SFP scope like an NSX set at max power... perhaps the 3-15x model, would serve guys better than some of these short FFP scopes with a shallow depth of field.
If someone can identify a FFP scope with a DOF like and NSX, I would sure like to know about it.
Depth of field.
I don't know yet if first focal plane or second focal plane can mechanically have the same depth of field, but when I compare my Kahles 624 to my Nightforce NSX 5.5-22, the Nightforce steals the show.
I would really like to know if that is because the NSX is second focal plane, or just a biproduct of something in the erector tube lens stack. At first I thought it might be scope length, but the Kahles is a bit longer, which should help, not hurt.
Why is depth of field important?
First is the ability to read mirage... A scope with a shallow depth of field will present the target as blurry... This is the result of mirage that is out of focus. This makes it more difficult to read mirage as well as identify details like a bullet impact.
The second point is seeing bullets fly. With a shallow depth of field scope. the bullet in flight will be in focus for a shorter distance and that will make it harder to see the bullet in flight.
I know PRS guys almost exclusively want FFP glass, but I would argue that a SFP scope like an NSX set at max power... perhaps the 3-15x model, would serve guys better than some of these short FFP scopes with a shallow depth of field.
If someone can identify a FFP scope with a DOF like and NSX, I would sure like to know about it.
Last edited:
SFP is a horrible recommendation for a shooting discipline in which the reticle plays such an important role. Any time you change the magnification range on an SFP scope, the values denoted on the reticle change as a result. That will be severely punishing in shooting disciplines such as PRS/NRL.
Perhaps check out Zero Compromise scopes. Not sure what the DOF is compared to an NSX, but if any FFP scope has it, I would think it would be the ZC.
You just stated earlier that you run the entire match at 12 power... So if you aren't changing the power, it makes no difference as long as the reticle is dimensionally correct at the power you run it at.
The NXS is correct at max zoom. So as long as a guy is comfortable with 15x, it makes zero difference. I almost always run at 20x or higher, so the 5.5-22x is fine for me at 22x. Most guys do run lower though. Guys I usually shoot with tend to run around 16x.
As for zero comp... nice as I'm sure it might be for some, I wont drop that much cash for a scope for one thing, but there are other deal breaking elements to ZC as well like fast focus eye piece and locking turrets. Cant stand both yet its hard to avoid these days.
Last edited:
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 stated usually no more then 12x. The magnification ring is not static, there's times when more or less magnification is desired, but rarely do I need to go above 12x. Doesn't mean that I don't go down to 6x or 8x in a field stage in which there are targets scattered across a broad section that I need to jump too.
Feel free to use SFP if you are more comfortable doing so, but I would strongly advise against it for most people for the type of shooting we are talking about. A PRS/NRL range is much more dynamic then F-class.
Maybe the reason people are not going to fclass is it is the same game over and over. Today’s shooters want movement want par times.
Stick with your SFP night force and go teach those pesky PRS dudes just how much they don’t know...
Oh a and a bonus tip about locking turrets. You don’t have to lock them to shoot them lol I keep my windage locked and only hold. I leave the elevation un locked. It really is that simple.
Last edited:
I’ve been lead astray by a turret that moved when walking through thick brush. I would rather have locking turrets. I can learn to operate them quickly. I thought this was a PRS scope thread, not F class AA. If Jerry would shoot an SFP scope with no Christmas tree reticle in Rimfire PRS the rest of us would be quite happy.
