My Rifles Need New Optics:

[Comancheria]

To all: Thanks VERY much for your input.

Adam: I have not yet looked at the Sig unit, but most definitely will.

dj and Rockymt: Agree as to the built-in error of using a vehicle odometer. Yesterday, I bought one of those construction wheeled measurement units, and checked it for accuracy at the local high school football field.—dead on at 100 yards. Now, I will use it to measure out 100, 200, 300 yards…..etc out to say 1,000, over even ground, with a highly reflective target (the aforementioned hurricane-wrecked travel trailer) and check the Leica 1200 out at those distances against that target. Hopefully, that will restore my confidence!

Still, I am going to want something—either the Geovids, the Terrapin X, or maybe the Sig unit, that will also take into account angle and environmentals.

SMK: Thanks. That is indeed a confidence builder.

Graywolf and Will: Yeah, it is doubtful that I would ever—while hunting—shoot at any critter approximating 1K yards—but of course would like the ability to do so, and the confidence that shooting that distance at say, steel would give me.

Lance: More good info--with that kind of results at 15X, I should be able to have overkill (no pun intended!) with 18X. The length and weight difference between the two scopes is surprisingly negligible.

What worries me about all long-range scopes is the rough and tumble exerted on those big turrets in a saddle scabbard.

 

[snox801]

Well if you are prepared to spend the money which sounds like you are the leicas are Fantastic. I have the 3000's and they are great. I have yet to load a custom curve as I got them to late to make it work this year. But I have that my rifle and my phone with AB app. It's been spot on. Reading the wind is the hardest part.
I'll be building my custom curves for the leicas this fall.

 

[5RWill]

A high quality 3.5-18×50 is PLENTY for taking deer sized game well past 1000 yards. I have used my 3-15×50s for shots well past that, like 1500-1650+. Coyotes @ 1327 @ 16x & 1365 on 17x on other rifles. Plus, wider FOV for closer use than the 5-25.

Agreed, though i might still opt for the larger objective. Oddly enough i really like my K318i more than the K525i but both perform almost equally in every scenario except holding resolution at max magnification. K525i loses some.

What worries me about all long-range scopes is the rough and tumble exerted on those big turrets in a saddle scabbard.

Don't man i mean unless the cosmetic defects of it being scratched will bother you. Part of what you're paying for is durability. If exposed non locking turrets bother you (which the swaros are big) Vortex AMG or Mark 5 would be my second look if you don't mind FFP. Matter of fact the AMG is going on my hunting rilfe specifically because of it's low light performance, light weight, and locking turrets.

 

[Comancheria]

Thanks for the input as to power, lance and Will. Will, I am glad for the reassurance as to the durability of the high turrets. I have been obsessing a bit over the mental picture of some Colorado or Wyoming Guide spitting in the sand and saying: "I knew you was gonna bust them high-falootin' high-dollar reticles off that there German scope, you *******!"

Wolf and snox: Your experience with the Geovids is highly encouraging. Not sure why, but, whereas I prefer the optics of Swaro rifle scopes to Zeiss or Leicas, I have always like the Leica binoculars over the few Swarovskis I have tried. At the present time I have a wonderful pair of 8 X 40 Leicas that I plan to pass on to a younger, old canoe-racing and hunting buddy with a lot fewer years on his legs than mine have. (And he doesn't know it yet, but when I finally go belly up, he will be getting these two hunting rifles and associated optics!)

So at this point, with all of everyone's sage advice, I am leaving toward the following:

(1) Swarovski X5is (I wish the cheaper non-illuminated versions were still available) on both rifles--probably going with the 5 X 25 on the .300 RUM and the 3.5 X 18 on the .300 Winnie ultra light--best of both worlds.

(This notwithstanding, I am still looking at the new Valdada Recon 2 for the .300
RUM--although it is heavier and not so easy to tell which rotation you are on.)

(2) Leica Geovid RF 3000s for range, angle, elevation, and environmental.

(3) Maybe: a Kestral with AB for the wind. I looked at this as a ballistic solver before I knew the Geovids existed--when I was leaning toward the Terrapin X--which I know can talk to the Kestral, but have not yet done my homework as to whether the Geovid has bluetooth capability to talk to the Kestral--and even if it did, it seems as though having ballistics in both units would be overkill.

So perhaps it would be better, just having a wind meter to measure the wind where I am standing and dial that in after getting the elevation solution.

 

[Pro2A]

Agreed, though i might still opt for the larger objective. Oddly enough i really like my K318i more than the K525i but both perform almost equally in every scenario except holding resolution at max magnification. K525i loses some.



Don't man i mean unless the cosmetic defects of it being scratched will bother you. Part of what you're paying for is durability. If exposed non locking turrets bother you (which the swaros are big) Vortex AMG or Mark 5 would be my second look if you don't mind FFP. Matter of fact the AMG is going on my hunting rilfe specifically because of it's low light performance, light weight, and locking turrets.

Also, might consider the Sig Tango 6 series in 3-18x50 or 5-30x56. They feature illuminating Christmas tree reticles (not cluttered like Horus) locking turrets so you can't inadvertently bump the setting, and they also have the unique in scope Level-Plex electronic level selectable for 1/2 or 1deg. I'll bet rifle cant causes more misses in the field than anyone ever suspects....especially for quick shots and buck fever. A factor no one ever discusses. Three degrees cant at 1000yds is about 42" by itself plus all the other myriad of variables. Few acknowledge that individuals are hard pressed to perceive more accurately than 3deg and optical illusion references in the field induce more error. Few, if any, vial levels are more accurate than 3deg whether from Vortex, NF, Accuracy 1st,... If not going with a Level-Plex scope, consider the Send-It electronic level (programmable in 0.2deg increments; see Brownells) that attaches to the picatinny rail mounting either horizontally or vertically. Good hunting.

 

[snox801]

You are not alone with your selection. I also prefer other scope over Leica. Not for glass but for other features. Swaro is top notch and would be my choice for said rifle
I actually had one 3.5-18 on my 6.5 to save weight. Great scope but when it come to bios I think leicas are best hands down.
I love the range finder in them. Both my 1600b and geovids have always been very reliable.

 

[Comancheria]

snox & Wolf:

Question: If either of you has any experience with non-ranging 40 mm Leica binos, Do you feel that the range-finder types suffer any significant optical compromises because of the added functionality? Thanks.

Russ

 

[skipglo]

Understood, dj and your point is well-taken. The truck is a brand new Raptor with the stock 37 inch tires, but you could be right. I didn't pace it off that day due to time constraints. But I am going to need one of those rollers anyway, when I set up a 600 yard or longer range.

Let me add a more specific question to the forum as a whole:

Unless I am talked out of it, I will almost certainly be going with at least one Swarovski X5i.

There are two models: the 3.5--18 X 50, and the 5--25 X 56.

If I were going to end up with only one, what are your opinions of which one I should buy for all-around "long" (but not "ultra long") range hunting--of mule deer, elk, and speed goats?

Thanks and best regards,

Russ

5x25....if you need it you got it.... you can always turn a scope down...but you can't turn it up past what it has!

 

[Comancheria]

Thanks, Skip.

 

[5RWill]

snox & Wolf:

Question: If either of you has any experience with non-ranging 40 mm Leica binos, Do you feel that the range-finder types suffer any significant optical compromises because of the added functionality? Thanks.

Russ

While i don't have experiences with that particular set i'd say no. Used a set of Swaro RF Binos at Okolona this year when i killed my first turkey, they were astounding. I took my rifle and steel targets to let my friends stretch it out to 935yds. So was behind them a lot.

My Sig Kilo 3000s are good for what they are too was pleasantly surprised given the price at the quality of glass.

 

[Comancheria]

Thanks. Just did a little more homework—(which I should have done before asking the question as to whether the RF components affect the optics), and found that the lazer is not located inside either barrel, it is in the middle on the outside.

Conversely, the lazer used by the $4,500.00 Swarovski ds scope—the all-in-one ballistic solution—resides inside the barrel. And most reviewers report a significant drop in light transmission over the non-range-finding Swaro scopes. And this is supported by the factory claim of something around 85 percent—as opposed to 92 or 93.

So another reason I think to avoid this scope—in addition to my fears (hopefully unfounded) about the durability of its electronics under heavy recoil.

 

[TravisLH]

I wouldn't worry to much about the recoil fouling the electronics. I don't have the scope your concerned about but I do run the Burris Elim 3 and they've held up to 300wm recoil just fine. On my paper punchers I don't mind spinning turrets and entering all the atmospheric data in to come up with a shooting solution and I do just fine with it. However, I don't wanna have that much to do in order to pull the trigger on game, those last few minutes of light combined with the fact game doesn't generally stand still for long means every second counts. That's why I opted for a scope with the ballistic calc and LRF built in, it has a few negatives but more advantages.

 

[Comancheria]

Travis: Hmmm—interesting. Checked the Elim 3 our on the web. I see it has a remote button so you don't have to fumble so much for it when aiming. That is another whine I have about the ds.

If you don't mind my asking, what are the negatives for you?

Best regards,

Russ

 

[TravisLH]

Travis: Hmmm—interesting. Checked the Elim 3 our on the web. I see it has a remote button so you don't have to fumble so much for it when aiming. That is another whine I have about the ds.

If you don't mind my asking, what are the negatives for you?

Best regards,

Russ

Weight is the biggest issue the added electronics naturally add wieght, not sure how much is to much for your needs. Other issue is mounting, they require a picatiny to picatiny and the mounts included aren't really that good (purchased my own to get steel). Another issue is the dimmer for the illuminated read out, once you dim it if you allow it to phase off them the brightness gets reset to default which will blind you if your getting ready to shoot in very low light.
To deal with the brightness, as it gets dark I will set the brightness and just range something every few minutes to keep it from going into "sleep" mode and resetting. On the ballistics side I've found it to be insanely accurate so long as you factor in everything.....I used my ballistic calculator and true chronic readings to get my base line drop for 700 instead of using their cartridge list. For windage the read out gives you the value at the distance ranged for a 10mph crosswind, then you just figure out the true hold by multiplying the true wind speeds value as a % and the number of mild in the read out. Then just take the value for the winds poi and fire, makes what takes me a min or two to do by hand from a bench to a few seconds.
Keep in mind there are 2 models for the Elim 3 and that only the 4-16 has the remote, infact the 3-12 isn't even compatable with the remote unit.