scope selection

[D Scott]

Just picked up a new savage LRP 260 looking for a little advice on scope selection, Im looking at some of the higher end Vortex, also sightron and nightforce, will be using it for longer range target and varmint hunting, any suggestions on models and retical choices? are there good retical choices for shooting different distances rather than dialing up? thanks Scott

 

[yote doctor]

Whats your budget if any?

 

[D Scott]

well i may go up to 1500-1600 or so, but really want function not just a name

 

[MOOSE39465]

well i may go up to 1500-1600 or so, but really want function not just a name

Night Force.

 

[strombeckj]

My two cents is as follows... Look into a sightron SIII 6-24x50, MOA/MOA and save the other $1000 for a bed job, and re-barrel. All 3 of the scopes listed are beyond the rifles current capabilities. I have yet to see a NF turn a .75 MOA rifle into a .50 MOA rifle. I am not knocking a NF, just suggesting a better place to invest your money IMHO.

A old time BR shooter once told me never spend more on optics then you do on your rifle.

Jon

 

[Grumulkin]

A old time BR shooter once told me never spend more on optics then you do on your rifle.

Jon

I don't know about that. This would be shot with a Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14X with an illuminated TMR reticle I bought used for, if I remember correctly, $950 that I mounted on a $550 rifle.

My personal scope preferences run to Leupold and Nightforce. I have a 4-16X Swarovski that is very nice but only has a duplex reticle. I've come to like the more specialized reticles like mil dots and TMRs.

 

[D Scott]

I don't know about that. This would be shot with a Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14X with an illuminated TMR reticle I bought used for, if I remember correctly, $950 that I mounted on a $550 rifle.

My personal scope preferences run to Leupold and Nightforce. I have a 4-16X Swarovski that is very nice but only has a duplex reticle. I've come to like the more specialized reticles like mil dots and TMRs.

Thanks for the feedback on the scopes, I do have a swarovski now it sits on my 22-250, great scope bright and clear just a duplex, and only 40 moa of adjustment, but dont really shoot it past 4-500 yrds, the 260 I hope to shoot a little farther, I dont want to spend the whole paycheck on the thing but I agree with Grumulkin sometimes to FIND the limits on a rifle the scope should be equal to or better than the performance of the rifle
Any particular reticles you like on the nightforce of leupold that would eliminate dialing up ?

 

[Tikka Lover]

I second the Sightron SIII MOA. You really can not beat it even if you want to spend more money. It is a great value and the reticle is perfect. I have two more in stock if you want one, check it out here > SIIISS624X50LRMOA sightron sIII 6-24x50LRMOA

 

[mjm0073]

I did a lot of research deciding on what scope to mount on my new GA Precision .300 WSM and got a lot of good advice from our members. I even stopped in several retail stores until I was able to put my hands on a NF. I finally went with a www.greybullprecision.com Leupold 4.5 - 14 x50. It has a ballistic turret and the windage marks on the horizontal reticle. Cost $1150 new and weighs somewhere around 1 lb. Nightforce scopes appear to be awesome from all the reviews I read, but the darn think weighs 2 lbs! I personally don't want a 2 lb scope on my 7lb hunting rifle. Good thing about a NF, though, is if you run out of shells you can take it off and use it as a weight for a dead fall or clock whatever it is over the head with it.

 

[joseph]

I vote against the Sightron III because at max power the center dot is .25 inch. This is way to thick for my target shooting or varmint hunting. I would rather have a fine cross hair with a 1/8" or 1/16" dot. I shoot at 1000 yds with my 6-24x50 FFP PST and am changing to another scope with a 1/16" or 1/8" dot or plain fine cross hair with no dot. I want to be able to hold inside the X ring which I can not with a heavy reticule because it looks thicker then the 10 ring at 1,000 yds. to me anyway.

joseph

PS: I do love the FFP PST for hunting, but for target shooting the SFP would be better.

 

[joseph]

I don't know about that. This would be shot with a Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14X with an illuminated TMR reticle I bought used for, if I remember correctly, $950 that I mounted on a $550 rifle.

My personal scope preferences run to Leupold and Nightforce. I have a 4-16X Swarovski that is very nice but only has a duplex reticle. I've come to like the more specialized reticles like mil dots and TMRs.

How come you covered up the other two holes that would give you a 1" or larger group?

joseph

PS: When we shoot at 1,000 yds. we shoot 5 shot groups and 10 shot groups for score and group size.

Here is a 5 shot group which measures .375, but was shot at 200 yds.

The 1,000 yd. target has the 5 shot scores & group sizes in lower right corner. They are 1+2+3 relays. The winner had a 5.25" group, but I beat his scores.

 

[strombeckj]

I vote against the Sightron III because at max power the center dot is .25 inch. This is way to thick for my target shooting or varmint hunting. I would rather have a fine cross hair with a 1/8" or 1/16" dot. I shoot at 1000 yds with my 6-24x50 FFP PST and am changing to another scope with a 1/16" or 1/8" dot or plain fine cross hair with no dot. I want to be able to hold inside the X ring which I can not with a heavy reticule because it looks thicker then the 10 ring at 1,000 yds. to me anyway.

joseph

PS: I do love the FFP PST for hunting, but for target shooting the SFP would be better.

Joseph,

Sightron does make a target dot that at full power is .125 It is on their higher power SIII's 8-32x56 and 10-50x56 you can get them is 1/8 or 1/4 adjustments to. I like the 1/8 since the minutes per rev. is 10

The also make the 8-32 and 10-50 in a Fine Cross Hair.

Don't over look these scopes for competitive shooting. I am seeing more and more of them out there.

Jon

 

[Grumulkin]

My Nightforce intended for long range shooting has the Mil-Dot reticle but a lot of the other Nightforce reticles look just as good if not better.

And for those who want to know why I covered up the holes that give a larger group; I'm a thrifty sort of person. The target had been previously used and patched; the shots pictured were 3 consecutive shots. For what it's worth, I detest the "flyer" excuse invented by gun writers to make a gun they were testing sound better than it really was. I also detest the "if I do my part phrase" which is also frequently used to make a gun sound better than it is. I know that if I do my part, which is usually the case at least off the bench, I'm capable of holding 0.25 MOA or better so if a group is worse than that, it's not me, it's the gun/scope or the load.

 

[D Scott]

Thanks for the feedback everyone , I am considering the NF benchrest 8-32 x56 mostly from a cost perspective, it has 50 moa of elevation, I was thinking of putting a 20 moa base on to get this savage 260 out to 1000 yrds will this be enough moa for a 260 with 130-140grainer ? and still have a 100yrd 0 ? The online calculator estimates between 34-37 moa depending on velocity/load data , am I close on this estimation? thanks Scott