I Need a Scope--Explain it to me like I'm 5.

[Marbles]

I personally use the Sig Sauer BDX combo and IMO it is the simplest system for mid-longer range shots. Simply range the target and the organ holdover dot moves to whatever the correct holdover is. Much faster than turning turrets.

But, not legal in all states. Illegal in mine.

 

[Fetty Wapiti]

I haven't seen it mentioned, but Zeiss v series are great for the price (buy used) great glass and not too heavy. Maven is great and a swaro x5i is gem if you can get a good price

 

[rookieforever33]

OP, if you want the basics explained to you like a 5year old try googling "explain differences of riflescopes". If you want to read people arguing like 5 year olds start a thread on an internet forum.

 

[Schmo]

Apparently 10 out of 11 people on this board haven't come to grips with the fact that 95%+ of all game animals are killed at distances under 300 yards, where dialing, wind holding, etc isn't mandatory, or in most cases even necessary.

Hmmm. Okay. I guess that’s why 4 out of 5 of my last deer taken in Montana were significantly over 300 yards. And no, I was not backing up to make it a longer shot. On some of those I closed distance from 800+.

My last 5 deer were 370, 360, 196, 353, and 440 yards.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

True, but 4-500 where you do need to hold wind and you still aren’t spotting hits at 20X+.

If you only knew how many folks simply can’t stay on target at 100 yards on a bench, let alone spot impacts in field with lightweight hunting guns in 300 Winnie The Pooh… Only on the internet is where folks can regularly do it.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Apparently 10 out of 11 people on this board haven't come to grips with the fact that 95%+ of all game animals are killed at distances under 300 yards, where dialing, wind holding, etc isn't mandatory, or in most cases even necessary.

This is a western backpacking hunting forum. While you are correct in your generalization, Rokslide represents a bit more of a niche user base; with much higher probabilities of requiring learning the skills and having gear that works for dialing and holding for wind.

 

[IDVortex]

I'm still trying to figure out how folks spot their shots. I've used a man bun gun, so I grab my butt cheeks and close my eyes as my man bun pulls the trigger.

 

[Macintosh]

My attempt at 5yo simplicity since I havent seen it spelled out all in one post:

Lots of folks including me have had scopes with good reputations lose zero repeatedly, potentially wounding an animal or disrupting a hunt or tag they’ve spent years planning for. No warranty is going to get you a do-over on your tag that you built points for years to draw, etc. Therefore many people consider durability a “must-have”, and all other criteria such as weight, glass, features, etc as “nice to have’s”. See scope eval link above for details.

Shooting inside 300ish, simplicity might be better and isnt really a limiting factor for some people. For others it is. 300ish-350ish is where “long range” issues begin to really come into play. Distance amplifies error, and several sources of error are always in play, AND errors are additive, ie they stack up on top of each other…so things that weren’t a concern at shorter range become much more significant at longer range.

many folks use too much magnification so especially with a harder recoiling gun such as a light-weight 300winmag, they lose sight of where a hit animal runs and/or cant make a followup shot as quickly or as well as they could if they used less magnification. PRS is not a good allegory for hunting in this regard because those guns hardly recoil at all, and those targets dont move, making very high magnification more useable. That is not the case in an 8.5lb 300 winmag.

Past 300-400ish yards wind matters, sometimes a lot. Especially with a scope that can magnify above 9 or 10x, a reticle you can hold wind at any magnification is very helpful—this means FFP is more or less mandatory for most shooters to effectively deal with wind in a hunting scenario. Dialing wind is not as effective for the vast majority of shooters. People make 2fp scopes work, it is just much more difficult to do reasonably well.

A large majority of FFP reticles are hard to see against a noisy background when at lower magnification. Depending on where and how you hunt this may be more or less of a problem, but ime it can be a big problem for an eastern hunter putting together a gun for occasionally travels west to hunt, but which will commonly be used for eastern timber hunting. This is why many folks think they hate ffp reticles. BUT there are FFP reticles designed to be easy to see at low magnification that eliminate or reduce this problem. Some have been mentioned here. If, because this gun will see plenty of use at short range, you decide to go with a 2fp scope, then a lower-magnification scope (9-10x, 12x MAX) still allows enough field of view in situations where you need to use the reticle at max power—most people cannot effectively use the reticle in a 2fp scope unless its at max power where the graduations are true.

A lot of folks talk about shooting at longer ranges, and it seems easy after a little practice, but when it comes to making a real hunting shot TONS of folks (including me) cant make reliable first-round hits as well as they think they can. It takes a lot of practice to make reliable first round hits at 400 or 500 yards in a new situation.

The cliffs notes:
Get a ffp scope that has been shown objectively to generally hold zero well, with a reticle designed for low-magnification visibility, somewhere on the lower-range of magnification, and practice with it a lot if you have any real hope of using it past point blank range. Some of the best candidates have already been mentioned.

 

[Marbles]

My attempt at 5yo simplicity since I havent seen it spelled out all in one post:

Lots of folks including me have had scopes with good reputations lose zero repeatedly, potentially wounding an animal or disrupting a hunt or tag they’ve spent years planning for. No warranty is going to get you a do-over on your tag that you built points for years to draw, etc. Therefore many people consider durability a “must-have”, and all other criteria such as weight, glass, features, etc as “nice to have’s”. See scope eval link above for details.

Shooting inside 300ish, simplicity might be better and isnt really a limiting factor for some people. For others it is. 300ish-350ish is where “long range” issues begin to really come into play. Distance amplifies error, and several sources of error are always in play, AND errors are additive, ie they stack up on top of each other…so things that weren’t a concern at shorter range become much more significant at longer range.

many folks use too much magnification so especially with a harder recoiling gun such as a light-weight 300winmag, they lose sight of where a hit animal runs and/or cant make a followup shot as quickly or as well as they could if they used less magnification. PRS is not a good allegory for hunting in this regard because those guns hardly recoil at all, and those targets dont move, making very high magnification more useable. That is not the case in an 8.5lb 300 winmag.

Past 300-400ish yards wind matters, sometimes a lot. Especially with a scope that can magnify above 9 or 10x, a reticle you can hold wind at any magnification is very helpful—this means FFP is more or less mandatory for most shooters to effectively deal with wind in a hunting scenario. Dialing wind is not as effective for the vast majority of shooters. People make 2fp scopes work, it is just much more difficult to do reasonably well.

A large majority of FFP reticles are hard to see against a noisy background when at lower magnification. Depending on where and how you hunt this may be more or less of a problem, but ime it can be a big problem for an eastern hunter putting together a gun for occasionally travels west to hunt, but which will commonly be used for eastern timber hunting. This is why many folks think they hate ffp reticles. BUT there are FFP reticles designed to be easy to see at low magnification that eliminate or reduce this problem. Some have been mentioned here. If, because this gun will see plenty of use at short range, you decide to go with a 2fp scope, then a lower-magnification scope (9-10x, 12x MAX) still allows enough field of view in situations where you need to use the reticle at max power—most people cannot effectively use the reticle in a 2fp scope unless its at max power where the graduations are true.

A lot of folks talk about shooting at longer ranges, and it seems easy after a little practice, but when it comes to making a real hunting shot TONS of folks (including me) cant make reliable first-round hits as well as they think they can. It takes a lot of practice to make reliable first round hits at 400 or 500 yards in a new situation.

The cliffs notes:
Get a ffp scope that has been shown objectively to generally hold zero well, with a reticle designed for low-magnification visibility, somewhere on the lower-range of magnification, and practice with it a lot if you have any real hope of using it past point blank range. Some of the best candidates have already been mentioned.

5 year old, stopped paying attention at about "distance amplifies" and is playing with something by "at longer range."

Ok, fine, depends on the kid.

Bad jokes aside, nice summery.

 

[Macintosh]

5 year old, stopped paying attention at about "distance amplifies" and is playing with something by "at longer range."

Ok, fine, depends on the kid.

Bad jokes aside, nice summery.

You can lead a 5yo to water, but you cant make him LOOK, A SQUIRREL!!

 

[8mille]

I hunt the eastern U.S. and grew up using whatever scope was on sale at Walmart. Cheap scope and rings on the gun. Sighted it in at 100 yards and killed many whitetail over the years.

For the past 10 years I have pretty much exclusively used a bow and crossbow.

The world of optics/scopes is absolutely overwhelming. I look up previous posts and I get so lost that I just stopped looking for a scope.

I have a Tikka 300 WM that desperately needs a great scope. I will be using a suppressor on the rifle as well.

I feel like I have gravitated towards a NightForce, but still open to anything.

From what I have gathered, I do want something with turrets and Zero Stop.

This weapon will hopefully be used on western hunts.

Guidance is greatly appreciated!

If you will be shooting 400-500 max you can keep it simple with a 2nd focal plane(rear) scope. 3-9 or 4-10. Maybe a bigger range like
4-14 . I avoid FFP and parallax scopes. Leupold,Vortex,Bushell,Primary,Zeiss all good. BDC reticle work fine . If you want to go beyond , you’ll want to consider FFP. MOA always simple and easy out to 1000. But again, beyond 400-500 mil dot may be something you prefer. I buy Leupold for everything. I got one Zeiss on a Steyr Mannlicher that has been good as well. If I get into longer ranges of shooting beyond 500 I’ll get into FFP(maybe even mil dot). Good luck.
Learn the difference between SECOND FOCAL AND FIRST FOCAL planes scopes. Also, don’t buy into the “spend as much or more on your scope than your rifle”. That comes more into play for long range in my opinion. Nothing written in stone. It’s really preference . I bought $400 Leupold vx scopes
for most of my rifles that cost $1500. Those rifles today are in the $1800 to $2200 range and the scopes around $700 for similar quality. Just my opinions- other folks may give you better advice.
PS. I avoid gadgetry like illuminated reticles and such. They can be useful- but you can never go wrong with simple.

 

[DAD]

My attempt at 5yo simplicity since I havent seen it spelled out all in one post:

Lots of folks including me have had scopes with good reputations lose zero repeatedly, potentially wounding an animal or disrupting a hunt or tag they’ve spent years planning for. No warranty is going to get you a do-over on your tag that you built points for years to draw, etc. Therefore many people consider durability a “must-have”, and all other criteria such as weight, glass, features, etc as “nice to have’s”. See scope eval link above for details.

Shooting inside 300ish, simplicity might be better and isnt really a limiting factor for some people. For others it is. 300ish-350ish is where “long range” issues begin to really come into play. Distance amplifies error, and several sources of error are always in play, AND errors are additive, ie they stack up on top of each other…so things that weren’t a concern at shorter range become much more significant at longer range.

many folks use too much magnification so especially with a harder recoiling gun such as a light-weight 300winmag, they lose sight of where a hit animal runs and/or cant make a followup shot as quickly or as well as they could if they used less magnification. PRS is not a good allegory for hunting in this regard because those guns hardly recoil at all, and those targets dont move, making very high magnification more useable. That is not the case in an 8.5lb 300 winmag.

Past 300-400ish yards wind matters, sometimes a lot. Especially with a scope that can magnify above 9 or 10x, a reticle you can hold wind at any magnification is very helpful—this means FFP is more or less mandatory for most shooters to effectively deal with wind in a hunting scenario. Dialing wind is not as effective for the vast majority of shooters. People make 2fp scopes work, it is just much more difficult to do reasonably well.

A large majority of FFP reticles are hard to see against a noisy background when at lower magnification. Depending on where and how you hunt this may be more or less of a problem, but ime it can be a big problem for an eastern hunter putting together a gun for occasionally travels west to hunt, but which will commonly be used for eastern timber hunting. This is why many folks think they hate ffp reticles. BUT there are FFP reticles designed to be easy to see at low magnification that eliminate or reduce this problem. Some have been mentioned here. If, because this gun will see plenty of use at short range, you decide to go with a 2fp scope, then a lower-magnification scope (9-10x, 12x MAX) still allows enough field of view in situations where you need to use the reticle at max power—most people cannot effectively use the reticle in a 2fp scope unless its at max power where the graduations are true.

A lot of folks talk about shooting at longer ranges, and it seems easy after a little practice, but when it comes to making a real hunting shot TONS of folks (including me) cant make reliable first-round hits as well as they think they can. It takes a lot of practice to make reliable first round hits at 400 or 500 yards in a new situation.

The cliffs notes:
Get a ffp scope that has been shown objectively to generally hold zero well, with a reticle designed for low-magnification visibility, somewhere on the lower-range of magnification, and practice with it a lot if you have any real hope of using it past point blank range. Some of the best candidates have already been mentioned.

Appreciate response! Very helpful!

After seeing a variety of scopes mentioned, what scope would you recommend?

 

[doc holiday13]

Not ready previous 5 pages. i'm answering soley based on the title question

Cheap scopes work but quality, clarity, reliability 'generally' go up as the price of the scope increases

A scope should cost the same or double the cost of a rifle.

If your maximum shooting distance is 0- 600 yards, you don't need more the 10x magnification. You could even get a fixed magnification.

FFP vs SFP reticle. If you have a "ranging reticle" then just know you can only range with the reticle on max magnification if you have a SFP reticle.

Need i expound further?

 

[Macintosh]

Appreciate response! Very helpful!

After seeing a variety of scopes mentioned, what scope would you recommend?

Nothing really different than has already been suggested. My "east/west crossover" rifle wears a S&B klassik 3-12, but that's apparently hard to find now. Any of the already-mentioned options should work well and you can search to find info, images of the reticles, etc on this site. I havent used some of the popular options (swfa 3-9, maven 1.2, etc), but enough people swear by these that I can't imagine any would be bad choices. Pick one, do a bang-up job mounting it, buy a pile of ammo to practice at range, and you'll be set.

 

[fmyth]

Not ready previous 5 pages. i'm answering soley based on the title question

Cheap scopes work but quality, clarity, reliability 'generally' go up as the price of the scope increases

A scope should cost the same or double the cost of a rifle.

If your maximum shooting distance is 0- 600 yards, you don't need more the 10x magnification. You could even get a fixed magnification.

FFP vs SFP reticle. If you have a "ranging reticle" then just know you can only range with the reticle on max magnification if you have a SFP reticle.

Need i expound further?

I guess I did it all wrong putting a $299 SWFA 6x on my $600 Tikka 6.5C.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I guess I did it all wrong putting a $299 SWFA 6x on my $600 Tikka 6.5C.

Yep totally unusable setup.

 

[jfk69]

A scope should cost the same or double the cost of a rifle.

Need i expound further?

Bullshit. Cost does NOT equal quality, value or reliability. This myth has been perpetuated for far too long. This is especially true in optics.

 

[cottonant]

Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50

 

[doc holiday13]

Bullshit. Cost does NOT equal quality, value or reliability. This myth has been perpetuated for far too long. This is especially true in optics.

I mean.. if you never shoot beyond 400 yards... you're correct. I shoot beyond that..

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I mean.. if you never shoot beyond 400 yards... you're correct. I shoot beyond that..

I’ve killed countless animals, including tiny coues deer who blend in like no other, coyotes, varmints etc. with SWFA fixed 6 scopes at more than double that yardage.