Long range hunting scope.

[joseph]

This is what I got and love it.

Testing new Vortex custom turret. - Georgia Outdoor News Forum

joseph

PS: Scope is $899.99 and the Custom turret is another $100. I do not trust the computer programs. I made a drop chart that I shot at the range to give the turret maker the ark that the bullet actually makes as it goes down range after being fired from "MY" rifle. They made it "dead nuts" accurate.

 

[FAL Shot]

Depends on how you use the scope. The better Burris scopes have always had super clear and bright glass for the price. Have owned 4 of them, still have 3 of them. I think the new Burris ballistic reticle is a nice HUNTING reticle. My Burris 4-16x44 Signature Select is pleasant to look through. Burris scope works well in low light situations.

I would suspect most of the Vortex scopes are made by Optical LIght Works, same company that builds Bushnell Elite, most Weavers, Sightron, etc. Not the world's best scopes, but really good for the money.

Places like Cabela's and Scheel's will NOT stock Burris Signature Select, Black Diamond or Euro Diamond as their Zeiss, Leupold and Swarovski sales would take a serious plunge or maybe most folks just go to a familiar name brand they have bought for years. The Fullfield II scopes are not in the league of the better Burris scopes, although maybe a good deal.

I picked my Signature Select over a 4-20x40 Nikon Monarch. I prefer to use the ballistic reticle than taking time to dial up elevation. Depends on how you like to use a scope, but the Black Diamond will give you target turrets if you want to dial up. There is better glass than Burris, just not at the same price from what I have seen.

 

[Sully2]

Years ago ( early '70's ) I thought Redfield was the top of the heap.....then one day I looked thru a Leupold!! Been a fan of Leu's ever since and then this May a gunsmith BSed me into buying a Zeiss.... 1 is the 4.5-14...the other TWO are the 6.5-20 x 50's.

I dont get caught up in "fad's"...no matter how good they seem to be. And all this "combat" gear...this "tactical' HS...makes me sick to my stomach...cause all I can envision is a pack of grease painted loonies in the woods hunting...geeze!

If its costing ME hard earned cash...Its gonna be a Zeiss

 

[wrongside]

I see this is an 8 month old post. Someone else might be in the same situation though. I would go a little bigger than the 4.5-14 if I was looking to shoot out to 1000 yards. I have a Ziess 6.5-20x50 on my 600yd. target rifle, I also have a Leup. 8.5-25x50 on another rifle and I never run either scope on its highest power. I think it is better not to run them all the way up, my Ziess is set on 16x and the Leupold I shoot on 20 power. It seems a lot of the shooters I shoot with do not run the scope up to its highest power. I don't know about 30mm tube giving more elevation as to it giving more light transmission. This is also the advantage of a 50mm bell as apposed to 40mm bell. If to need more elevation out of the scope you will need to go to a canted base. I am not sure but it I think the Ziess has about 75 moa.

 

[lightwind]

This is an older post but I do want to point out a couple of issues. First, to FAL SHOT, you said:

"Places like Cabela's and Scheel's will NOT stock Burris Signature Select, Black Diamond or Euro Diamond as their Zeiss, Leupold and Swarovski sales would take a serious plunge or maybe most folks just go to a familiar name brand they have bought for years. The Fullfield II scopes are not in the league of the better Burris scopes, although maybe a good deal."

This is not a credible statement. You do not differentiate between the levels of the alpha brands (Zeiss, Swarovski, S&B, Leica...) and only consider them as a lump. That is not correct. For instance, there is a major differnce between the Zeiss Conquest and the Zeiss Victory Fl T*. You also pay for the difference. Likewise, there is a difference between the Swarovski Z3, Z5, and Z6 (not just in erector magnification). You are implying that the Burris Signature Select is the equivalent of the Zeiss Victory Fl T* or the Swarovski Z6 and I have never seen a reveiw that gives any credance to that view. Instaead, the "alpha" scopes are considered that for a reason. They are the best glass available, are rugged, are mechanically reliable, and cost a fortune.

The fact that you lump Leupold (who makes respectable scopes) in the same category as the alpha scopes tells me you have never looked through one of the best scopes made. However, the reality is that most people never need the best scope and that a lesser scope is plenty for almost all applications. Just be clear that there are better scopes out there if you are willing to pay for them. As for me, I have one alpha scope (Zeiss 6-24X56 T* Fl) and I can compare it with my Leupold Mark 4, Swarovski Z5, Minox Za5, and Vortex PST. I don't have a bad scope in the bunch, but I do have one that is well above the rest from all of the characteristics that count. I have beaten it around and it always holds zero and the turrets are unbreakable (so far). The brightness is unequaled among the scopes I have. I don't have the Burris, but I have read the reviews and it is a good scope, just not one of the "alpha" scopes that cost a fortune. Let us know why you are lumping them together. Also let us know if you have compared them head-to-head.

 

[lightwind]

Second post for comments on this thread. Wrongside said:

"I don't know about 30mm tube giving more elevation as to it giving more light transmission. This is also the advantage of a 50mm bell as apposed to 40mm bell. If to need more elevation out of the scope you will need to go to a canted base. I am not sure but it I think the Ziess has about 75 moa."

This is a common misconception that a larger tube transmits more light. The purpose of the larger tube is to give more motion to the erector (the section with the zoom magnification and the section that turns the image right side up). This allows both more elevation and windage. It does not transmit more light. The light is all concentrated on the front surface of the erector and is not lost because the erector surface is smaller. The mechanism for concentration is the objective lense system. The objective lens system can be made up of one or more lenses which can be coated or uncoated. The use of multiple coated lenses improves the light transmission. However, the primary purpose of the objective lense is to get all of the light to the erector. The smaller the erector the smaller the objective lense focuses the light. There should be no "overshoot" of the light outside of the front surface of the erector. Naturally, there are a lot of complications that make a scope better or worse than another but the lack of transmission of light should not be blamed on the size of the erector.

If you want a lot of travel in the elevation and windage get a larger tube. If you want better light transmission pay for better glass and coatings.

 

[Loner]

The 30mm tube is also much stronger. If the erector lenses are larger the scope should
have not only a better picture but a little more light. They are typically smaller than a pea.
I know my 35mm tube scope has about dime sized lens. There is a lot inside these things
we just don't know and understand fully. By the time we get it all figured out the whole
game changes. Digital is coming, don't doubt it.

 

[etisll40]

Re: Long range hunting scope. HELP

I'm looking for a scope too. I have a Nightforce 5.5-22x56 and a Leupold vx-3 4.5x14x50 with a Boone & Crocket reticle but I'd like another Night force in 5-20x50 or so but lighter weight. Any ideas? Thanks I'd like to save a pound or so.

 

[rkcolt45]

I have a Zeiss 4.5-14x44 mil-dot on a 7STW. It's zeroed at 300 yds and the next dot down represents 400yds and the next one is a holdon at 500 yds. Works perfect. I shot at buck last year at 416yds and held 1st dot...perfect.

 

[lightwind]

Loner: I am not going to chop up my Swaro or Zeiss to look at the size of the erector lenses, but I believe you when you say pea size for a 1" tube and a dime for a 35mm. i might buy one of those $69 "sniper scopes" to tear open. <G> The pea size is a very reasonable estimate.

However, les's talk about transmission. For transmission the size of the optic has very little to do with light in and light out. Let me give you an example. Take a look at the optics for a transmission microscope. The high magnification lenses are tiny. However, if you look at light transmission they can be as high as 90+%. The reason is the combination of glass and coatings. Good glass and good coatings give a good fraction of light transmitted. I don't see that changing in any meaningful way for a lens going from the size of a pea to the size of a dime when optics the size of a pin-head (microscopes) can have high transmission.

That does not mean that a vendor offering a 30 mm tube does not use those better lenses and coatings. It just means you can also buy a scope with a 30 mm tube that has lousy optics. As an example, I can buy a 30mm tube Barska "6-24x44 tactical rifle scope" for about $130. I can buy a 30 mm tube Zeiss Victory 6-24x 56 for about $2500. Both have the same tube diameter. Is there anyone out there who thinks the optical brightness and image quality would be similar? The difference is the quality of the glass and the precision of the lenses and coatings (as well as all of the mechanical issues). At the same time we could compare a 1" Zeiss conquest with the 30 mm Barska and still get a much better image out of the Zeiss. Again, glass, coatings, precision.


By the way, 1" = 25.4 mm. So, the size of the lenses in the 30 mm housing can't be that much larger. Go to 35 and it is more of an advantage, but you also have to count in the extra travel they give to get a handle on the lens size change.

What we consistantly get with a larger tube is increased travel of the erector (more elevation and windage). There can be a lot more transmission but it depends on glass, coatings, and lens precision.

 

[lightwind]

Etisll40: I suggest you take a look at the Swarovski Z5 3.5-18X44 or the Z5 5-25X52. Both are bright and crisp. They are featherweights compared with your NF. I have the 3.5X18 and love it. Not quite my Zeiss Victory, but half the price. I can see a clear difference between the image in the Swarovski and my Vortex PST (also good glass but not as good as the Swarovski). You can get the Swarovski with the Ballistic turret option and that lets you dial in ranges. I actually prefer dialing in elevation and windage but you can also get holdover reticles. If you go for the ballistic turret or holdover reticles be sure to calibrate them on a measured range before you depend on them.

 

[Loner]

You seem to be of the impression that an infinite amount of light can be focused down
to any size and passed through a lens with no additional loss. Not my understanding of
light and optics. But I am not claiming it's a large gain by any means, I did say a little more light. And I really don't know if some of the 30mm tubes have any larger erector
lens or not. They may have. But my swaro 3x12 30mm has a pathetic 39 moa of total
travel. Nightforce can squeeze 100 out of the same tube. Looking through the scopes
is a totally different animal. One is an enhanced bright picture and the other just another
scope. Like you said lots of difference in glass and coatings. Even my USO's are not better
than the Swaro in glass. I don't doubt a Zeiss would be any different. Making the erector
shorter and ffp vs sfp would also play into how much elevation can be delivered. With a
shorter erector the mechanics of holding it in place become more of a challenge and the
physics in the optical design would be different as well.
It would be fun to take a class from a scope engineer on all this stuff wouldn't it. I like
the equipment as much as I do using it I think.
( microscopes are a great example of how badly light is transmitted through a small lens,
look at the 1000x lens and without a bulb right behind it you see only grey. Much different
in design and application so I am not sure if it's apples to apples)

 

[joseph]

Just wondering????

I have shot my 6mm Norma BR. and it will shoot 5 shot groups at 200 yards way under 1/2" and average a little under 10 inches at 1,000 yds. with my 6-24x50mm MOA FFP PST scope. Smallest was 8+1/8".

If I change the scope to a Sworo or a much more expensive scope will my rifle shoot smaller groups at those distances with the same thickness of reticle?

I did change to a 8-32x50mm BSA with a fine reticle with a 1/8" dot which cost $98.00 with a 40 MOA Picatinny rail. I then shot a 4+1/4" then a 5+1/5" and a 4+3/4" all 5 shot groups at 1,000 yds.

How come???

joseph

 

[lightwind]

Just wondering????

I have shot my 6mm Norma BR. and it will shoot 5 shot groups at 200 yards way under 1/2" and average a little under 10 inches at 1,000 yds. with my 6-24x50mm MOA FFP PST scope. Smallest was 8+1/8".

If I change the scope to a Sworo or a much more expensive scope will my rifle shoot smaller groups at those distances with the same thickness of reticle?

I did change to a 8-32x50mm BSA with a fine reticle with a 1/8" dot which cost $98.00 with a 40 MOA Picatinny rail. I then shot a 4+1/4" then a 5+1/5" and a 4+3/4" all 5 shot groups at 1,000 yds.

How come???

joseph

First, let me say that you shoot a lot better than I do independent of any scope or rifle I have. Then let me say that you have an outstanding weapon that is apparently extremely precise. Having said that, as I understand it, Annie Oakley shot without sights.

Your groups are incredible with any scope. The eye is the best instrument we have to use. My guess is that you just see better than some of the rest of us (me in particular). My problem is that I can't hit what I can't see. I have a Vortex Viper PST 6-24 FFP MOA that I use also. On my Savage .308 I get about 1 moa with the PST starting at about 200 yards. That is where I can pick up a bit (0.75 moa) from about 200 to 400 yards going to my Zeiss. At 100 yards there is no onticiable difference. The difference is that I can see my targets a little better with the Zeiss than the PST. I can only assume that you can see better with all of the scopes and you have better precision in your shooting. The 0.5" groups at 200 yards are approximately 0.25 moa. I can't shoot 0.25 moa with my rigs. Your shots at 1000 yards in 5" groups are about .5 moa but you are not saying anything about wind. If there was no wind you might even be able to better your .5 moa. However, if you had any wind then it would be difficult to tell how precise the aiming was.

Same rifle with a change from the PST to the Zeiss and back I can see a change in my statistics (5+ shot groups) at every range over 200 yards. No difference at 100 yards. I haven't shot that combination over 400 so I can't tell you about the longer range. Maybe someone else can contribute who can consistantly shoot 0.25 moa groups and has reached out farther than 400 yards with multiple scopes on the same rig.