I am new to precision shooting and bolt action rifles in general. I have a Remington 5R in .308 and am considering the Vortex PST 4-16x50 or 6-24x50. It will be a dual use target and hunting rifle (mostly target shooting out to 500 yards for now). Which of these optics would be a better choice and can you recommend a picatiny mount for this rifle? Would there be a better optic for the same price? Does the Razor HD 5-20x50 justify the extra 1000?
Remington 5R Vortex 50mm optic?
- Thread starter Blue_Fish
- Start date
ultimate_monkey
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- victoria BC
i have no experiance with the scopes you listed but as far as rails
farrel, night force, near manufaturing will all be good choice , i would recoment a base with 20moa built in..
farrel, night force, near manufaturing will all be good choice , i would recoment a base with 20moa built in..
I have a Viper PST 6-24x50 SFP on order for my new Savage model 12 F-class.
I like to use Ken Farrel 20moa bases. Its hard to find a nicer base and they are a very good price.
As far as magnification hunting with the 6-24 will be a pain. But that depends where you are hunting. In my area its all really close shots. But if your shooting 100 yards or more then a 6-24 should do ok. That’s up to you to decide.
I like to use Ken Farrel 20moa bases. Its hard to find a nicer base and they are a very good price.
As far as magnification hunting with the 6-24 will be a pain. But that depends where you are hunting. In my area its all really close shots. But if your shooting 100 yards or more then a 6-24 should do ok. That’s up to you to decide.
The 4-16 would be better for hunting.
I have a 4-16 PST and a 2.5-10 PST, and both loose some "brightness" at the top of thier magnificaiton range. Like all variable scopes, but a little more so with the Vortex. They might be pushing the magnification range buy going with a multiple of 4 where as most others stay at 3. Just a guess.
Great scopes for the money. Might get annother one!
Gas Can
I have a 4-16 PST and a 2.5-10 PST, and both loose some "brightness" at the top of thier magnificaiton range. Like all variable scopes, but a little more so with the Vortex. They might be pushing the magnification range buy going with a multiple of 4 where as most others stay at 3. Just a guess.
Great scopes for the money. Might get annother one!
Gas Can
How much clearance is there between the bell and the barrel? I was thinking of getting the vortex medium rings and either the Nightforce or Alberta Tactical base. Can you post a picture of your setup (specifically the clearance with the mount and rings)?
i have a leupold mark 4 base on my 5r.With a 50mm objective you will need large rings. The only problem with the 5r is that when you put a 50mm with large rings is that your cheek weld wouldn't be on the cheek. More like on the chin. You will need a cheek bag. I used this for a cheek bag with some foam to get the right height. Eventually i switched my out my stock to a hs precision pst 025.
As for the FFP stuff. If you are hunting, then stick to a lower magnification. I have a mark 4 4x-14x-50mm. I do 1000 yard stuff and i use 11x magnification for that range. The reason i didn't get the FFP is because the reticle grows with the magnification increase which is good because your elevation adjustments stay the same to the reticle's holdover marks at any magnification. The bad about that is your reticle thickness will begin to block your target out as magnification increases. if you are shooting fine targets like small circles in fclass and you want that extra magnification than you may lose your target to the reticle.The idea of the FFP is to make hits, More suited i guess for hunting...or combat which they are designed for. If you go to target than just learn how to use the second focal plane reticle.Usually most 2nd plane reticles will have a magnification at which the elevation adjustments are consistent with the reticle holdover hash marks. In the leupolds case it is @ 14x power for my scope. Which is still nice and gives a decent field of view long range. I went with the mark 4 TMR reticle because @ 1000 the reticle is nice and thin and i can see what i am hitting. Try both style scopes out to get an idea of what works.You can usually take em outside at a gunstore to see how they work. I've used a PST 4-16 and the glass is good. I've looked through my friends HD razor and it is amazing. I think the leupold glass is much better than the standard PST. It brings in more light i find. But the Razor is awesome. Much more clear than my leupold. I went with the leupold because of the TMR reticle and the 100 MOA. Decide what you want in a scope and research everything about it. Again, if you are going into both hunting and target shooting maybe consider this. Buy a cheap 1-4x power scope with detachable rings and buy a target style scope with detachable rings. More money in the end but if you want to do both than that is an option. Remember that a bigger objective with the 5r makes it hard to get a nice cheek weld if you don't have a cheek bag.
Here is my 5r with the new stock. Notice the height of the cheek piece to get a nice view. That is how high my cheek bag was with foam with the old stock as well. hope this info helps. Again it's just my opinion from my experience.
As for the FFP stuff. If you are hunting, then stick to a lower magnification. I have a mark 4 4x-14x-50mm. I do 1000 yard stuff and i use 11x magnification for that range. The reason i didn't get the FFP is because the reticle grows with the magnification increase which is good because your elevation adjustments stay the same to the reticle's holdover marks at any magnification. The bad about that is your reticle thickness will begin to block your target out as magnification increases. if you are shooting fine targets like small circles in fclass and you want that extra magnification than you may lose your target to the reticle.The idea of the FFP is to make hits, More suited i guess for hunting...or combat which they are designed for. If you go to target than just learn how to use the second focal plane reticle.Usually most 2nd plane reticles will have a magnification at which the elevation adjustments are consistent with the reticle holdover hash marks. In the leupolds case it is @ 14x power for my scope. Which is still nice and gives a decent field of view long range. I went with the mark 4 TMR reticle because @ 1000 the reticle is nice and thin and i can see what i am hitting. Try both style scopes out to get an idea of what works.You can usually take em outside at a gunstore to see how they work. I've used a PST 4-16 and the glass is good. I've looked through my friends HD razor and it is amazing. I think the leupold glass is much better than the standard PST. It brings in more light i find. But the Razor is awesome. Much more clear than my leupold. I went with the leupold because of the TMR reticle and the 100 MOA. Decide what you want in a scope and research everything about it. Again, if you are going into both hunting and target shooting maybe consider this. Buy a cheap 1-4x power scope with detachable rings and buy a target style scope with detachable rings. More money in the end but if you want to do both than that is an option. Remember that a bigger objective with the 5r makes it hard to get a nice cheek weld if you don't have a cheek bag.
Here is my 5r with the new stock. Notice the height of the cheek piece to get a nice view. That is how high my cheek bag was with foam with the old stock as well. hope this info helps. Again it's just my opinion from my experience.
I should've specified a little more. The Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14x50 needs large rings as mediums would not work being it a variable scope. I am not to familiar with the Burris ring heights. I wanted a leupold set up. So i stuck with the mark 4-20 moa base and the leupold rings. I remember sizing up the medium rings by leupold and they would not fit. Height from the bell of the scope to the barrel is really no concern. Once you get your scope sighted in you can measure the sight height. In my case it is exactly 2.13 inches. It is dimension from the middle of the cross hairs to the barrel of the rifle.Knowing the sight height is a must. So remember this point. When using a ballistic program you can put this into your variables. If you are concerned with the height you can always go to a 40mm objective. For the longest time i used the fixed 10-40 and i had no problem with the long range but again you are limited to the fixed magnification. I ain't plugin leupold but they make a mark 4 in a 3.5-10x40. Very nice. If you were interested in that razor i would suggest getting it. It's glass is amazing. The PST glass is good but not great. the real nice thing about the vortex stuff is the warranty. So that is a plus. Check out Grouse River Outfitters in Kelowna and talk to Glen. He uses a Razor and can give you all the info. Again don't worry how much a gap there is. A cheek bag will set your field of view for you. I used a BlackHawk cheekbag. Most gunstores should have them. Remember to stuff some foam. I used folded up bandanas to get the height. But in the end, i swapped out the stock to the one in that picture. I found that the stock on the 5r had too long of a LOP and the cheek thing. The gun fits way better now and it was a pure drop in. I did it myself and no accuracy difference....but the stock was 800 bucks.No bedding or nothing.You can sell the other stock on here for about 250. I suggest getting a good trigger for it. I put a jewell benchrest trigger ($300) and it is all the difference. I set it for 1lb, again not ideal for hunting and fclass requires a 2.5 lb pull which is as light as you SHOULD go with that 40x trigger on the 5r. Once i burn this rifle out, i will get a new barrel with the same twist and length and accurize the action but until then i will keep it like this. Check these pictures out of 5 shot groups @ 110 yards. Hard to beat this gun. It's nice to know that this gun can out shoot some of those guns out there that cost the major bucks. I am happy with my 5r. Can't really argue with the pictures...proof is in the puddin. Rather, proof is in the 5 shoot groups.Cheers
I have a couple of these rifles. Only one is scoped right now. Eventually the second one will get a Sightron 6-24x on it.
My scoped 5R has a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x 50mm with Rapid Z 1000 reticle. The only flaw I see with the Leupold scopes other than price is the change in eye relief. Zeiss, NF etc don't change eye relief and the reticles are etched. The Sightron does change but it's very little and a lot less than the Leupold. Do your homework before you put the money down on the scope. Do it right and do it once.
One other thing to consider. There is a debate about one piece rails with the 700 rifles. Some are saying the offset holes can put torque on the base/receiver and this could cause you accuracy loss. I have two piece bases and Leupold rings on mine. No complaints. A rail is convenient, so something else to look into and decide for yourself.
If you're average height etc then the HS stock that comes with the 5R, VSSF II, VSF etc should fit you perfectly. Those outside the average may need to upgrade or modify their stocks.
One thing about these rifles. Shoot them first before putting money into them. Mine shoots so nothing has been done to it. I did get the trigger lowered to 3 lbs (original not 40x trigger) but my first groups with the 5lbs trigger is still my best to date.
Try sighting in with Fusion 165 ammo. Then go up one click and change to Federal Gold 168. The following results were with Federal Gold match 168. 5 rounds at 100 yards. On a bench with bag in front bean bag for back.
My experience with a number of these rifles is that they tend to all shoot sub .5 moa right from the box. This includes under 1" at 200 yards.
On a side note the review I read on Sniper Central pissed me off a bit. The author has maintained that factory rifles are all the same etc etc. Does a review on the Tikka and says how great the accuracy is. The rifle was shooting just above .5 moa with match ammo. Then he reviews the 5R which was shooting just below .5 moa with match ammo and says how it's decent but nothing super special. I looked at the ammo he used and everyone who reads up on this rifle knows that 168 Federal Gold is the go to round for this rifle. With 175 also being excellent. I noticed very little shooting for groups with the Federal Gold 168 during the accuracy testing for the 5R. This really seemed like the author was trying to handicap the results. Just something to keep in mind when reading reviews about these rifles.
My scoped 5R has a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x 50mm with Rapid Z 1000 reticle. The only flaw I see with the Leupold scopes other than price is the change in eye relief. Zeiss, NF etc don't change eye relief and the reticles are etched. The Sightron does change but it's very little and a lot less than the Leupold. Do your homework before you put the money down on the scope. Do it right and do it once.
One other thing to consider. There is a debate about one piece rails with the 700 rifles. Some are saying the offset holes can put torque on the base/receiver and this could cause you accuracy loss. I have two piece bases and Leupold rings on mine. No complaints. A rail is convenient, so something else to look into and decide for yourself.
If you're average height etc then the HS stock that comes with the 5R, VSSF II, VSF etc should fit you perfectly. Those outside the average may need to upgrade or modify their stocks.
One thing about these rifles. Shoot them first before putting money into them. Mine shoots so nothing has been done to it. I did get the trigger lowered to 3 lbs (original not 40x trigger) but my first groups with the 5lbs trigger is still my best to date.
Try sighting in with Fusion 165 ammo. Then go up one click and change to Federal Gold 168. The following results were with Federal Gold match 168. 5 rounds at 100 yards. On a bench with bag in front bean bag for back.
My experience with a number of these rifles is that they tend to all shoot sub .5 moa right from the box. This includes under 1" at 200 yards.
On a side note the review I read on Sniper Central pissed me off a bit. The author has maintained that factory rifles are all the same etc etc. Does a review on the Tikka and says how great the accuracy is. The rifle was shooting just above .5 moa with match ammo. Then he reviews the 5R which was shooting just below .5 moa with match ammo and says how it's decent but nothing super special. I looked at the ammo he used and everyone who reads up on this rifle knows that 168 Federal Gold is the go to round for this rifle. With 175 also being excellent. I noticed very little shooting for groups with the Federal Gold 168 during the accuracy testing for the 5R. This really seemed like the author was trying to handicap the results. Just something to keep in mind when reading reviews about these rifles.
Nice shooting R700. I gather 110 yards so the range was 100 meters.
When I moved I was shooting at the range and the groups were very good but seemed slightly bigger than my best groups. I later realized the range was 100 meters and not 100 yards which I was previously shooting at.
One of the most memorable experiences with my 5R was having a tennis ball sized rock called out around the 300 meter line. First shot with the 5R, and it was dust. That put a big smile on my face. The 5R never lets me down.
When I moved I was shooting at the range and the groups were very good but seemed slightly bigger than my best groups. I later realized the range was 100 meters and not 100 yards which I was previously shooting at.
One of the most memorable experiences with my 5R was having a tennis ball sized rock called out around the 300 meter line. First shot with the 5R, and it was dust. That put a big smile on my face. The 5R never lets me down.
I've got a PST 4-16x50 with FFP on my hunting rifle. It's a great scope for for hunting and longer range shooting except, as R700 explained, the reticle hides small targets at high magnification. In my opinion, for hunting, 4 power is better for in forests and thicker cover. The 6 power is a little harder to find your target in a hurry. If you're hunting in open areas, the 6-24 would be great.
Near and Farrell both make excellent rails.
If you're going to have a dedicated long range rifle, then yes, the Razor HD 5-20x50 is worth the extra $$. I have one on my Barrett 98, and love it. My Dad has a Leupold 4.5-14x50 Mark 4 TMR on his rifle and there is no comparison. They are both good to about 600 yards, but after that, the Razor is considerably clearer and brighter (both at 14x).
Near and Farrell both make excellent rails.
If you're going to have a dedicated long range rifle, then yes, the Razor HD 5-20x50 is worth the extra $$. I have one on my Barrett 98, and love it. My Dad has a Leupold 4.5-14x50 Mark 4 TMR on his rifle and there is no comparison. They are both good to about 600 yards, but after that, the Razor is considerably clearer and brighter (both at 14x).
100% agree. The razor is clean as ice. I would consider the nightforce line also. The only reason i chose the mark 4 at the time because the razor was not available yet. The main feature about the mark 4 i like is the TMR reticle and how the reticle does not come together in the center. Again this is for long range. I've mentioned before that i shoot 1000 yards lots. Approximately 1000 rds per summer, at my target where i use 8 inch balloons. I find that even how fine the reticle is, it blocks out the balloons. With the open center in the reticle, i can see my target without it being blocked if the reticle where to join. It took my a long time to chose a scope but that was my deciding factor. With my scope i find that at 700-800 on 14x on a sunny day the outside edge of the class begins to lose the clarity. That is why i usually dial it down to about 10 power for longer range stuff and it goes away. I also like the MOA adjustment on mine. It is 100 MOA up but after everything is mounted, i have 75.25 of elevation. The nightforce model i was looking at only had 65, which is still plenty but i like to have that little extra. But like daryl said, spend the extra money and buy it once. I know there are better scopes than the leupold but it suits my shooting style. Good enough for grouping @ 100 yards to feel good and great for hits not when you push it out there. After 300 yards i am not concerned about groups, i am just going for hits anyway.I am satisfied to see my balloons pop through the scope. If i was an fclass guy, i would get a higher magnification, if i did hunting than lower magnification is best. Especially in brush. Would i get another leupold, yes. Would i get a nightforce, yes and i would get a razor. All are good but decide what kind of shooting you want to do and build your rig based off that. they all are alot of money but spend the little extra and buy it once. I break it down into 3 styles of shooting for myself. Groups, Hits or Hunting. Find what scope fits those categories for you.This is just my opinion based off my experience. Always glad to help out a Milspec guy.Cheers.
Thank you everyone for the excellent information. As usual, the more you learn the less you know. I have many things to consider for building this rig now. I definitely agree that it is better to buy something quality once than to have to replace it later. I will be doing much more research but for the moment my preference is leaning towards the Razor 5-20x50, there seems to be a lot of praise for these optics.
So it's been a while but I finally got around to ordering some parts for my 5R. I just received my Viper Vortex 4-16x50 FFP with a medium precision matched ring set. I am still waiting on my 30 moa Near base, GG&G bipod and pelican case to arrive. I am planning on building a hot wire foam cutter to cut out the pattern. Once I get it all put together I will post some pictures. Has anyone used the Vortex precision matched rings? So far they seem like a well built unit.
