Best Scope for Western Rookie

[SDHNTR]

Clarification, I shoot VortX TTT 150 for deer, VortX TTT 168 for elk. The OP is primarily a whitetail Eastern hunter meaning most shots inside 100-150 yds. Don't see a need to put a Nighforce, Swaro, Zeiss, or some other Alpha glass which I have. You ever shoot a deer with a heavy coppe bullet at close range? It basically pencils through an animal with a minimal blood trail. I actually will shoot the 150 grs out of my '06 or preferably 130 grs out of my .270 for whitetail/mule deer. I live in elk country and shoot the 168 grs VORTX out of my ' 06 for bull elk. I like copper bullets for better penetration, less meat damage, and shoot a lighter bullet for caliber. My comment was tailored to an Eastern hunter that occasionally comes out West and is likely not gonna be taking shots from the next county. The OP is just looking for a serviceable versatile without breaking the bank.

You missed my point. I shoot nothing but copper and your post is full of misconceptions. The 168 is a better choice for ALL of which you describe. Go back and read what I wrote again. Don’t be misled by the fact that a particular Barnes is heavier. Some are made differently, like the 168. It is designed to open faster at lower speeds. The .308 168gr TTSX (not the TTT which doesn't exist) is the original LRX. The 150 is made of a harder alloy and will actually have a far greater likelihood of “pencilling through” than the 168. Also, close range means more velocity and less likelihood of pencilling through. You indicated the opposite, another misconception.

And a proper scope recommendation has virtually nothing to do with cost. You can get a far better functioning $500 scope than some $2000 scopes. Swaro is pretty glass garbage and Zeiss is right behind it. The OP can get what he wants without breaking the bank and it doesn’t need to involve “alpha” glass.

 

[freddyG]

Some are made differently, like the 168. It is designed to open faster at lower speeds. The .308 168gr TTSX (not the TTT which doesn't exist) is the original LRX. The 150 is made of a harder alloy and will actually have a far greater likelihood of “pencilling through” than the 168. Also, close range means more velocity and less likelihood of pencilling through. You indicated the opposite, another misconception.

Barnes lrx, tsx and ttsx, are all made from solid copper, not an alloy. Always have been. I don’t know how one can make solid copper softer/harder. It’s not possible.

They use the cavity size in the tip as an expansion variable. Also, I have shot and recovered quite a few lrx, tsx, and ttsx from elk, and don’t notice much difference in expansion between them, unless the impact speed is significantly different.

 

[SDHNTR]

Barnes lrx, tsx and ttsx, are all made from solid copper, not an alloy. Always have been. I don’t know how one can make solid copper softer/harder. It’s not possible.

They use the cavity size in the tip as an expansion variable. Also, I have shot and recovered quite a few lrx, tsx, and ttsx from elk, and don’t notice much difference in expansion between them, unless the impact speed is significantly different.

You are technically correct in that copper itself is not an alloy. I was speaking in very general terms. My understanding is the bullets do contain alloys, and are not truly pure copper. Using alloys is one way they can make them harder or softer. I could be wrong as I’m not a metallurgist, but that’s my understanding. And even if it has nothing to do with composition and is instead purely a matter of the size of the hollow tip, the concept still remains the same. Call Barnes and ask them. They probably won’t tell you exactly how, but they will tell you the 150 gr is by design harder to open and designed for deeper penetration (higher minimum expansion velocity) than the 168.

And I do agree with you that when kept above a certain velocity, they do all behave somewhat similarly. Full expansion is full expansion. It’s on the margins where the differences show up.

 

[freddyG]

You are technically correct in that copper itself is not an alloy. I was speaking in very general terms. My understanding is the bullets do contain alloys, and are not truly pure copper. Using alloys is one way they can make them harder or softer. I could be wrong as I’m not a metallurgist, but that’s my understanding. And even if it has nothing to do with composition and is instead purely a matter of the size of the hollow tip, the concept still remains the same. Call Barnes and ask them. They probably won’t tell you exactly how, but they will tell you the 150 gr is by design harder to open and designed for deeper penetration (higher minimum expansion velocity) than the 168.

And I do agree with you that when kept above a certain velocity, they do all behave somewhat similarly. Full expansion is full expansion. It’s on the margins where the differences show up.

I talked with one of their engineers before sierra bought them. The copper bullets are 99.9% copper.

Although he didn’t outright say it, he also inferred that the lrx opening better at a lower speed, is just marketing hype, which also mirrors my experience. They don’t expand any better at below 2k fps impact velocity than the ttsx in my experience.

 

[roadrunner]

You are technically correct in that copper itself is not an alloy. I was speaking in very general terms. My understanding is the bullets do contain alloys, and are not truly pure copper. Using alloys is one way they can make them harder or softer. I could be wrong as I’m not a metallurgist, but that’s my understanding. And even if it has nothing to do with composition and is instead purely a matter of the size of the hollow tip, the concept still remains the same. Call Barnes and ask them. They probably won’t tell you exactly how, but they will tell you the 150 gr is by design harder to open and designed for deeper penetration (higher minimum expansion velocity) than the 168.

And I do agree with you that when kept above a certain velocity, they do all behave somewhat similarly. Full expansion is full expansion. It’s on the margins where the differences show up.

Anytime you add component metals to the parent or base metal you create an alloy. You normally don't add alloys to create an alloy.

The alloy will be created either substitutionally or interstitially...

 

[SDHNTR]

Anytime you add component metals to the parent or base metal you create an alloy. You normally don't add alloys to create an alloy.

The alloy will be created either substitutionally or interstitially...

Appreciate the education.

 

[jimh406]

That being said, I want something that is powerful enough to stretch it out a bit (say 400-500 yards). Im looking to keep it around $500 or less if possible but as with everything in life, I realize you get what you pay for! So that is a flexible $500 budget.

If the money is available, consider taking advantage of Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales. What power to have varies by individual. I stepped up to a 3-15 a couple of years ago. I think that's enough for me although I previously used a 3.5-10 or 3-9 for a long time, and it was ok as well. The high power scopes are very heavy. I decided not to go there.

Make sure you save money for very solid rings and base/picatinny. Good ones aren't cheap, but I feel not as good ones won't give you solid performance and are likely part of the reason why scopes are unreliable. No, I didn't test a large number of setups. . However, I have experience with systems and it's been my experience that systems are only as good as the weakest/worst part.