Ideal Rifle Scope

[Wrench]

Whatever you choose....prove it on a tall target and twist the snot out of it on the couch. If it's gonna crap out, I'd rather it be closer to the post office than the elk woods.

 

[WRM]

There's a lot to like in their lineup. IF I was replacing my Helix, I'd look hard at an R2 2.5-15 or an R1 in 3-12.

There is some good value in the Optika6 range, but the scopes tend to be a bit more bulky than what I'd be looking for. If you are looking at Nightforce, there is some strong competition here in my mind for a whole lot less money. I looked hard at the Optika6 range to scope a project Marlin, and the scopes were just too much for that gun. I ended up going with a Leupold and am very pleased.

I've not yet seen the Optika5 range, but likely some good stuff there too. And, there is nothing wrong with a MeoPro.

To me, it is a very personal matter in what you are looking for and what you want to pay. Meopta makes good glass (they've made glass for Zeiss under contract, as well as others). One of our local gun shops is a leading retailer in the US for Meopta. I've known the owner for nearly 50 years. He would not carry and sell that much of a line if he was not impressed with it.

Hope this helps.

 

[WRM]

Anyone want to chime in on what the terminal energy for a .300 win mag is at 700 yards? I honestly don't know. But, to me, this is often overlooked as part of "ballistics".

What's the bullet drop on the "typical" .300 Win mag load at that range? Do you need a +20 MOA (or more) ring base to be able to dope for that range?

 

[WRM]

And I wholeheartedly agree about a brake--maybe one of the best range items ever invented, after hearing protection. You are going to have to put in some time and effort at the range. Without a brake, you likely are going to develop a really nice flinch with anything much that ends in mag. I've never noticed recoil shooting at game, but I sure do notice it punching paper.

Here's a suggestion. Take the money you save NOT buying a Nightforce and put it on a Kowa 553 or 554. You're going to need a quality spotter at the range and in the field, and it is hands down one of the best spotters out there--punches above its weight. Better men than me have already reviewed them on here. You can search that.

 

[JGuest]

@Formidilosus covered your questions how I would have. I would add on the MIL vs MOA argument that 1/4 MOA is a finer adjustment than 0.1 MIL which to me is a disadvantage. It will be more clicks to adjust your drop for any given range.

Also MIL is functionally uniform for all manufacturers, some MOA scopes are true MOA others are set to 1" at 100 yards. Thats 4.7% difference between the two MOA versions. Enough to not be noticeable close in but possibly cause a bad shot or miss at max range. That's if you don't have a place to shoot out to 500 plus yards and test it first.

 

[Wrench]

Anyone want to chime in on what the terminal energy for a .300 win mag is at 700 yards? I honestly don't know. But, to me, this is often overlooked as part of "ballistics".

What's the bullet drop on the "typical" .300 Win mag load at that range? Do you need a +20 MOA (or more) ring base to be able to dope for that range?

The canted base is tough to answer as it really depends on your gun. Some barrels tend to print high, some low....or left or a combination of the previous.

Retained energy is dependent upon your bullet choice and velocity, but suffice it to say that you will be close to 2k at 700....over/under but close.

700 is no issue for a 300 vs any North American animal.

 

[WRM]

And Jguest just touched the edge of the ammo issue I mentioned previously. Your effective miss of the true bullseye (where you intended to hit) only increases at longer range, even under the best of conditions. Bad conditions just magnify that. If you can consistently shoot one MOA or less FROM THE BULLSEYE on the range at 100 yards and you take a poke at 700 yards, your shot has the potential to be off by a fairly wide margin, even under perfect conditions. Then variations in your ammo, even if you only use the "same" thing over and over, are going to further vary your impact to some impossible to predict degree. Ammo manufacturers do not make ammunition that can produce identical results from box to box, much less lot to lot. Super premium ammo is better, for sure, but you have to spend even more $$$ to practice with it. So, this is another variable for your accuracy, which you really can't control......unless you are an anally meticulous handloader (and that goes wayyyyy beyond just shoving powder, primer and bullet in an empty casing).

So, to circle back, practice stalking and take 300 yard shots. Now you don't need a Nightforce or doping your scope.

 

[WRM]

Well, I think we've then established you can kill an elk at 700 yards with the caliber of your choice IF you can put the bullet in a vital area.

And printing high low left right etc. may well indicate a need to relieve your stock and have your action bedded. I bed my scope bases.

And don't forget to check your scope rings and lap if necessary!

 

[prm]

If you want to learn to shoot longer ranges whether it be for hunting or just fun, you are better served to buy a tool that you can develop your skills with. Nothing prevents you from setting a 200 yd zero and not touching it for hunting. Then, when you’ve had time to get comfortable with it the additional capabilities, you have them.
As for “ideal”, well that’s up to the individual. I can’t personally fathom adding a 30oz scope on a rifle I’m carrying around the Rockies. But that doesn’t make it a bad scope, just not for me.

 

[woods89]

I have a 3-10 SHV. Mine has the lovely virtue of working mechanically just as it's supposed to, which should be the general rule with all scope manufacturers , but isn't. Zeroing with 2 shots is a wonderful thing.

I'd put some serious thought into FFP. One of my fears is forgetting to make sure I'm on max power before making a wind hold.

Put me in the camp that will carry some extra weight for tracking and retaining zero.

 

[WRM]

@Formidilosus covered your questions how I would have. I would add on the MIL vs MOA argument that 1/4 MOA is a finer adjustment than 0.1 MIL which to me is a disadvantage. It will be more clicks to adjust your drop for any given range.

Also MIL is functionally uniform for all manufacturers, some MOA scopes are true MOA others are set to 1" at 100 yards. Thats 4.7% difference between the two MOA versions. Enough to not be noticeable close in but possibly cause a bad shot or miss at max range. That's if you don't have a place to shoot out to 500 plus yards and test it first.

To me, it goes without saying--if you don't have a place to practice at 500 yards, you have no business shooting at game at 500+. There are just too many variables involved to "assume" you are going to be right at longer range. You can get away with it at intermediate range (150 yard at range and shooting to 300 in field). But, if you have never punched paper at a particular range (certainly much beyond 300), you should seriously consider whether to drop the hammer on an animal at that range. Just my opinion.

 

[kevin11mee]

Anyone want to chime in on what the terminal energy for a .300 win mag is at 700 yards? I honestly don't know. But, to me, this is often overlooked as part of "ballistics".

What's the bullet drop on the "typical" .300 Win mag load at that range? Do you need a +20 MOA (or more) ring base to be able to dope for that range?

That all depends on the bullet and velocity. A 200 grain Nosler Accubond can kill effectively at 700 yards (provided one could make that shot; that is a long ways) and the drop is about 15 MOA; you don't need a 20 MOA rail if you get a good scope- they have plenty of adjustments out past 1000.

 

[WRM]

I have a 3-10 SHV. Mine has the lovely virtue of working mechanically just as it's supposed to, which should be the general rule with all scope manufacturers , but isn't. Zeroing with 2 shots is a wonderful thing.

I'd put some serious thought into FFP. One of my fears is forgetting to make sure I'm on max power before making a wind hold.

Put me in the camp that will carry some extra weight for tracking and retaining zero.

It's been a looooong time since I looked at Nightforce. Those SHVs, particularly the 3-10, are far more reasonably priced than anything I had seen on their site last I looked. And the weight on the 3-10 isn't bad. To the extent you can say $1,000.00 is a bargain for a scope, that price is not too awful. You certainly won't save enough going with anything else to buy the Kowa I mentioned--it's more than the scope. Whenever anyone says Nightforce, I immediately think of the monster versions I see on the guns of others. So, if you think an SHV fits your bill, then, by all means, you should get it. Then, set it and forget it or dope the scope. That's up to you and your abilities. Above all else, enjoy your new addiction!

If I got that SHV I personally would find a place to get the 4A reticle. I just don't have a need for the MOAR. That just brings me back to the Leupold fixed though. For at least $600 less, I can have all I really need in a new scope.

 

[WRM]

That all depends on the bullet and velocity. A 200 grain Nosler Accubond can kill effectively at 700 yards (provided one could make that shot; that is a long ways) and the drop is about 15 MOA; you don't need a 20 MOA rail if you get a good scope- they have plenty of adjustments out past 1000.

About as I figured, but I didn't want to look it up. I was sure one of you .300 WM guys would know the technical end of it.

I am glad to see you concede that 700 yards is an awfully long shot, however. I saw a review of the SHV where somebody was pleased to consistently ring a 14 inch gong at 500 yards. Add 200 yards to that, in less than ideal conditions (probably much less than at a range), and see how many shots it takes to ring it once. And, ringing an always stationary gong simply will never equal hitting and, more importantly, killing an animal. You have to decide where your own personal moral and ethical code leaves you in the distance you are willing to spit lead at a living creature that is not shooting back at you. Mine is about half of 700 yards. But, again, that's just me. And, thus the reason a Leupold fixed can cover most any need I have now. Whether I want to spend more and have more is the only question (after I've decided I actually think I need more).

 

[tbro16]

I can confidently say I don't think I'll ever be comfortable at taking shots >600-700 yards.

^ In case you needed the reminder, WRM. I guess I don't entirely understand the infatuation with telling me I shouldn't be taking 700 yard shots at moving elk tomorrow with this new scope I'd buy. I think I'm a little bit more knowledgable with shooting/hunting than you assume. No offense taken though.. well, maybe a little

Of course I'm going to practice at variable distances. This post wasnt meant for others to talk me out of dialing, it was for recommendations on it. I don't expect to be comfortable with it tomorrow, its just something I'm interested in and would like to learn more on. Better to start messing with it sooner rather than later, I suppose. I've got plenty of time, ammo, and space to practice.

I am pretty dead set on FFP. I'm leaning mil over moa as well. Now just comparing models that offer these things. I am one of those anti-vortex guys. I heard enough about Leupolds CDS tracking issues to scare me off. I'm listening on the Meopta Optikas and the SHVs closest. Zeiss is tempting as well.

Reliability is my number one concern. Weight sucks, I get that, but if thats everyones only knock on Nightforce then I know they're doing something right.

 

[WRM]

I don't own a Leupold with CDS, and can't comment on its reliability. I think the reasons I don't probably are pretty obvious. The beauty of the fixed 6 is there literally is almost nothing to go wrong with it.

I never said "you shouldn't" take such shots. I said that is something you (or anyone) has to decide for themselves. My personal opinion is very few hunters are even remotely qualified to take such shots at game. That is my opinion, as I have tried to make clear many times. My recommendation on dialing is simple--stalk better and you won't have to dial. You don't have to listen to that. Will you miss some opportunities? Sure. Will you miss some taking a poke at 700 yards (or even 500 yards)? Yes, yes you will. Worse you may well wound and not recover animals. It's your ethical and moral code to work out, however, and I'm not going to be standing over your shoulder whispering "don't do it".

I genuinely wish you the best in your undertaking. The SHV may be your "one scope". Or not. I simply submit there is not, in my opinion, an "ideal scope" to shoot at game at 700 yards. Prairie dogs, sure, but not big game animals. And I said 700 yards because the > symbol you used indicates "greater than" mathematically. My logical conclusion there was you will be comfortable up to 700 yards, but not necessarily beyond. And, I did not say anything about moving elk. If you had suggested you would shoot at a moving elk at 700 yards, well don't know that I would have said anything at all.

 

[WRM]

In breaking news, Ryan Avery has now admitted, nay proclaimed, on this very site no less, that you don't need a scope at all under any known atmospheric or planetary conditions. You just need to be shooting the 6.5 CM. The oracle has spoken. End of scopes as we know them.

And much thanks to Messrs. Denning and Avery for bringing some much need comic relief to this site.

 

[tbro16]

"I DONT think I'll ever be comfortable taking shots >600-700 yards"

Your logical conclusion was not what I meant, nor was it what I said. I also dont need you over my shoulder whispering anything lol. Just looking for a little help is all. I dont know if the SHV is my one scope, thats why I came here for opinions.

Appreciate what you've contributed.

 

[WRM]

Which can be easily read to mean I may be comfortable shooting up to 700, or at least 600. Even 600 or 500 is a stretch, IMO. Regardless, it's up to you to work out. Good luck!

Hold the presses: breaking news on this Avery 6.5CM scandal. This apparently IS NOT a joke.

I have a backdoor to a Spetsnaz Dark Web site. I'm usually too scared to use it, but I had to check out this Avery story on the 6.5 CM. Spetsnaz agents just intercepted and decoded encrypted chatter between Avery and Abe Frohman, sausage king of Chicago. Avery actually said the energy from a 6.5 CM round, even at 1,400 yards, passing within 1 foot of an elk was sufficient to kill not only that elk, but ALL elk it had ever sired. This news is just breaking. Don't know if Avery will publicly confirm this. If your name ain't Ferriss you just don't screw around with Abe Frohman!

 

[prm]

Though also heavier than I’d prefer for hunting at 26 oz, another scope I have been considering is the Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 With the TMR reticle. Also give me something to reach out at times. Just food for thought.