I invite a critique of this advice please: Scopes

hybridfiat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2013
Messages
68
Location
Western Australia
I've been asked a few times recently for advice/opinion on buying a scope by new shooters and came up with what I thought might be helpful. I stress that it isn't for long range shooting but general hunting.
One new shooter comprehensively ignored all advice and has bought (a very nice) Vortex PST 6-24 x 50 for a lightweight .223 that he is going to shoot rabbits with out of the back of a ute (pickup). He thinks that the bigger and more features it has = better to hunt with. But it is heavy and 1st focal plane and not at all suited to what he is going to use it for.
Anyway here's what I wrote if you find something that you disagree with please post.
Busting The Bulldust About Scopes​

1. 30mm tubes don't help light gathering they only give the ability to wind the elevation up more if you want to shoot out beyond 800m. 30mm scopes cost more, weigh more, require 30mm rings.
2. Zoom scopes are versatile but in practice the zoom is one more thing that can complicate and delay a shot. Never get snobbish about fixed power scopes. They are more durable. Cheaper than zoom scopes (so that expensive high end brand is easier to afford). They gather more light at the same magnification than a zoom scope, as there's less glass in the way. In practice most killing shots are made at the setting you see it first in, there simply isn't time to faff about. Zoom scope are dearer, good zoom scopes are expensive, the best zoom scopes are poisonously expensive.
3. 1st focal plane is helpful in Tactical equipment for ranging when using the milradian system because it works at any zoom setting. But the first focal plane feature is not helpful anywhere else like hunting. It cannot be used with a scope that has a Bullet Drop Compensator reticle, unless the rifle you use under it and the ammo is perfectly matched with the reticle, pretty unlikely. Most BDCs in 1st FP scopes are set for: 5.56x45 NATO, 7.62x51 NATO, .338 Lapua Magnum. FFP scopes cost more.
4. Parallax adjustment on a scope is important in Tactical and Target applications but a pain in the butt when hunting. Basically the scope has to be focused each and every time you raise it to your shoulder; as the game (very unfairly) will not appear at the range you last set, so it will be out of focus. Parallax adjustment is dear, side parallax is dearer still.
5. Tactical turrets get in the way and if you have stop to play with the elevation or windage when hunting deer you obviously weren't ready to go hunting in the first place. TT scopes cost more.
6. Huge objective lenses on cheaper scopes may help to overcome the poor coatings they used to compensate by gathering more light. Manufacturers can cover up the fuzzy edges (poorly ground lenses) by making the sight picture smaller. Good brands coat all their lenses properly both sides so improving light gathering and their sight picture is wide (field of view) and have good lens grinding so they can utilise the full sight picture without having the picture go fuzzy at the edges. A huge objective is helpful when hunting at twilight (German style). The bigger the objective the higher the cost and weight.
7. Illuminated crosshairs can be distracting and don't make up for poor optics, but do help at twilight.
8. Monstrous magnification is great for Tactical sniping shots or target shooting but of little use when hunting. First the sights at 15 - 20x will wobble around like an old lady on a pizpot. Acquiring a target at high magnification can take days. The light gathering at high mag is generally poor unless you have several thousands of moneys to spend on a top end scope. Unless the it is high end a high zoom rate is going to make the scope worse.ie A 3-9 has a rate of 3. A 3-15 has a rate of 5.
9. Tactical reticles are for Tactical use. Hunting reticles are for hunting.
10. BDCs
a) A bullet drop compensator reticle (BDC) is only as good as the person who uses it and requires practice. The ability to judge distance accurately is essential as is a good memory for which bar is which range when in times of stress, (like when you see that stag with all the exciting pointy bits for the first time). It only works properly in a '2nd Focal Plane scope' at one magnification.
b) It is better to set a limit on the maximum range you are going to shoot at, then use the 'Maximum Mid-Range' sighting technique. In short; sight the rifle so the impact will go no higher at the mid-way point and no lower at the maximum range than half the vital area of the animal you are gunning for. This is determined by the vital area size, so if it is a goat the vitals would be about 150mm ( 6"). Sight the rifle so the point of impact is never more than 75mm high or 75mm low from the muzzle to the maximum range set for your load.
There's is a little chart on a site that explains it all but is in imperial. (Chuck Hawkes, Maximum Mid-Range Trajectory')
Sighted like this your rifle will shoot into the vital area if you centre the crosshairs on the vital area and squeeze the trigger. The only range you have to judge is the maximum range for your load. That's just one range as opposed to hundreds of possibilities.
Eg: A 7mm Rem Mag using a 140gn BT at 3150fps should be sighted to be 2.5" high at 100yds which should mean it's 3" high at 200yds and 3" low at 310yds. So you can confidently shoot from 0-310yds by aiming at the centre of the vital area from point blank to 310yds.
 
I should add that I have a variety of scopes from a Zeiss 6-20 x 50 with a Rapid Z reticle on my long range rifle, a Zeiss 6x40 with No1 reticle on the brush deer rifle to a Bushnell Trophy 1.75-5x24 on my Savage 99 pig gun.
 
I am not exactly sure why you think that FFP (e.g., Vortex HSLR) are designated for special calibers/bullets?
I think it is huge advantage that you do not have to check in the heat of the moment what magnification your scope is at and you still can be sure the exact dimensions of the sub tension.
 
As I understand it the relationship between the stadia in a FFP scope and the target does not change. Therefore it cannot be altered for a different trajectory. Lets take 2 extremes a .444 and a .300 Rem ultra mag, at 100yds they may have the same point of impact but they .300 is going to shoot flatter and so as the distance increases the disparity in the relationship with the fixed stadia increases.
Can the same stadia be used for different loads/calibers?
If I'm wrong I'll edit/delete the section.
 
When all said and done, you are writing general guidelines for shorter range hunting on a LR forum which is OK.

1. Yes a person should match the scope to the gun for relative size and capabilities/limitations of both. That is no different in anything. I would not put racing slicks on a Prius either.

2. In LR hunting, a fixed power scope that works for LR will severely limit you at shorter ranges. This pretty well limits you to in the SR game to a fixed 3, 4 or maybe 6 power. For normal SR hunting, nothing wrong with a quality 3-9 or maybe 4-12. Plus keep it on the lower power until needed to go higher.

3. BDC scopes work at a variety of powers and calibers, not just one as you think. Got to be smarter than the scope! Here is a 3-9 Kahles TDS reticle and verified drops with the bars. Exbal's reticle tool will fix that on ANY BDC scope, any caliber etc. Not rocket science.




4. I am not sure why you seem confounded by adjustable parallax and it is such a challenge for you to manage. Set it for intermediate range and let it go. Only comes into play really for longer ranges on precise targets.

5. Your guidance on "mid-range" siting in, is another perfect example of the short range mindset and guidelines which I agree work well for that situation. Nothing wrong with it for short range hunter, but most LR hunters use a variation of that anyway. Most long range hunters will probably have their scope dialed in on 200-300 yards anyway in case of a quick shot and adjust later. The WSM BDC drops above were for a 200 yard zero BTW.
 
Cheers Bountyhunter, yes I'm being a bit cheeky but there's a lot of experience on this forum.
I use my Zeiss 6.5-20 as a ranging scope at 12x and then use a ballistics app (Strelok+) to calculate the elevation from a 100m zero. The BDC in it works best at one setting as does your Kahles I expect. I can and have made a chart for it's BDC at 20x but dont use it.
A 1st focal only has one setting for the relationship between target and trajectory..
 
When all said and done, you are writing general guidelines for shorter range hunting on a LR forum which is OK.

It seemed an awfully long dissertation to get to the point, and preaching to a LRH group seems odd.

You're correct in many situations for many people, the old Weaver K4, and Leupold 3x, are still good, may be the best solution.

If I was hunting rabbits from the back of a truck, I would leave my ATACR home. I would wager most here have purposed based firearms for, close quarters, mid range, and long range.

The person limited to one rifle for economic or political reasons, probably would be better off with something other than a pure long range rifle. It's also true that some of the adaptions on the market intended to push a general purpose rifle into long range service, fail to one degree or another.

When I was a kid my uncle used to take us rabbit hunting at night, method was to drive around in the truck with a spotlight, and turn his greyhound loose, and keep up as best we could. It was rare the dog missed, it was as much or more fun than shooting, and in terms of numbers probably more productive. So what? It doesn't mean one should not use or have a rifle.

A true long range hunter might set up an elevated stand (Texas tower), with a true long range rifle and optic, and kill the most rabbits by the end of the day.

If your point is technology can/is being applied poorly, you're correct. Where you placed it maybe, has me uncertain I got your point.
 
Sorry you have me wrong here I'm not aiming this at LR shooters. I'm tapping into a good source to proofread this I suppose.
Novice shooters who walk into a gunshop and get all starry eyed over the tech and come out with something grossly unsuited to their needs. I'm relying on your experience and knowledge to ensure I don't get it completely wrong.
 
Sorry you have me wrong here I'm not aiming this at LR shooters.

Novice shooters who walk into a gunshop and get all starry eyed over the tech and come out with something grossly unsuited to their needs. I'm relying on your experience and knowledge to ensure I don't get it completely wrong.

Happily wrong, my apologies.

Totally agree that too many clerks, and beginners overestimate their needs.
 
...Zoom scopes are versatile but in practice the zoom is one more thing that can complicate and delay a shot. Never get snobbish about fixed power scopes. They are more durable. Cheaper than zoom scopes (so that expensive high end brand is easier to afford). They gather more light at the same magnification than a zoom scope, as there’s less glass in the way...
More durable? Maybe. Yes, the mechanism that slides the lenses inside the erector tube is missing in a fixed mag scope. I'm not convinced this mechanism fails very often. It may cause a point of aim shift when changing magnification, however, so that could be an issue for low end zoom scopes.

Cheaper? Yes, but the lower popularity of fixed mag scopes means the production volume is low and there is less competition in this product space, which probably diminish the cost advantage.

Gather more light? Not really. Fixed mag scopes have erector lenses, just like variable mag scopes. A simple 6X fixed power scope will have the same number of lenses as a simple 3-9X scope in the same model line. Most rifle scopes have 6-10 lenses or other glass elements (such as etched reticles). Generally, the higher the magnification and/or cost, the more lenses there are. Each separate lens element causes about 1% loss of transmission. Even if the variable mag lens had one or two more lenses, the transmission would be lower by only 1-2%, which is almost negligible.

There is something to be said for a simple 4X or 6X scope for hunting, but the owner may regret not having a variable mag scope when he takes that rifle to the shooting range to zero the scope or test ammo for group size.
 
All things considered, I would much rather take a 3-12x50 scope over a fixed power. Makes no sense to get a fixed power. You can leave the 312 scope on 6 power and its magic, fixed! HA

Also, I only run FFP scopes. Hunting, tactical, anything, FFP. Much more practicle.

For example,
If I am shooting a coyote that is trotting along and 3 mph. I know what my lead is going to be at 300 yards on my FFP scope. No matter what the magnification is on, its always the same.
On a SFP scope, you have to usually be up on the highest power for the subtensions to be correct. No good.

The ideal hunting scope is something like 3-12 or 3-15. You can go low, or you can go with a little more mag for shots that reach out.

Also, adjustable turrets are very important. If you want to get exact, thats a must. Its too hard to hold over at 400 yards exactly.
 
Cheers fellas, I'll modify my rather opinionated advice. :rolleyes:
I'll moderate the fixed power and delete the light gathering too.
I'm looking forward to a hunt in New Zealand soon and may get another rifle while there. I've got my eye on a nice 7x57 that could be used for some longer range shooting. I've also been reading up on Sightron scopes and they seem to have a pretty good name.
 
You are presenting a number of opinions as fact. And a number of statements that are misleading or flat untrue.

I wish I had a magical gun that shot 2.5" high at 100 and 3"high at 200.
 
Never get snobbish about fixed power scopes. They are more durable.

I can't afford expensive scopes, the most expensive one cost $220; so maybe my input isn't worth all that much.
The most expensive scope I've bought was a fixed power Bushnell Elite 3200. I bought fixed powder for the "durability" factor. The first one broke after the 19th shot; it's replacement broke after less than 200 shots. (Mounted on a 30-30.)
All the other scopes I've bought were adjustable powers, prices at $50, $130, and $150; none of them have failed, 2 have been used for 3000+ shots on a 30-06 and 30-30.

I'm more than skeptical of the claim that fixed power scopes are more durable.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top