Ideal Rifle Scope

[tbro16]

Coming into this research I knew absolutely nothing about rifle scopes and what they are capable of. I still don't know nearly as much as I probably should to be spending as much as I am, but thats why I'm here. I don't know a single person that knows scopes let alone dials so all info has come from the not always so trustworthy internet. The first and only scope I've ever used was a super cheap vortex that I learned to dislike very quickly. It came on a cheap rifle combo that I'm ready to scrap and make a full upgrade on. In the end, the scope I purchase will be mounted on a 300 win mag. For the most part my western hunting is done in fairly open areas. I could take a shot in dark timber but I would presume it would come from a distance. I can confidently say I don't think I'll ever be comfortable at taking shots >600-700 yards. That said, dialing for elevation is something I'm certainly interested in.

With the research I've done I'm pretty dead set on the Nightforce SHV 4-14x50.

I've got a few questions and some that I THINK I already understand, just would like a little bit of confirmation on.

For those that do dial, at what distance do you decide to dial vs the traditional holdover? About anything past your zero?

When comparing FFP and SFP, the internet seems to like to tell me that the biggest advantage to FFP is accurately ranging your target using the scope, but that isnt something I think I'll ever do. My main question, is if I'm using the traditional holdover method using the dashes on the reticle for any shot past my zero, a FFP scope is required, correct? I think ranges change as you adjust magnification on an SFP? I believe that mistake cost me a nice MN whitetail last November lol

There are no actual advantages of using a mil reticle over moa with a FFP scope, right? For whatever reason, it seems like MOA just makes more sense to me. Want to make sure I'm not missing on something though.

I had considered the Leupold CDS system for a bit, but due to some poor reviews on this site I've decided against it. There, you would submit all your ballistic and load info and they created a dial for elevation for you. With other brands of dialing capable scopes, you'd pull up a ballistic trajectory calculator on the internet, make a DOPE sheet, and adjust your elevation dial for the corresponding MOA or MIL measurement, right?

Anyone have the SHV that might have a recommendation one way or the other? FFP vs SFP? MOA vs MIL?

 

[kevin11mee]

I'm scope shopping right now. The only thing about Nightforce scopes is that they are quite heavy. I would not put a 30 ounce scope on a hunting rifle; it's not only heavy but it makes the rifle top heavy. I dial anytime I have time, if I need to shoot fast I might use a holdover but personally I think it's still quicker to dial and shoot rather than count marks on a reticle. FFP vs SFP, I prefer SFP as the reticle stays a nice size. FFP reticles are quite difficult to see on low power and I usually had to zoom to 5-8 power to see it more clearly. You can holdover or hold for wind with a SFP but you need to know that the MOA marks are for full power, so you can half them when at half power. To me, the top hunting scopes in the 1k range are the Zeiss V4, Vortex Razor LHT, and Leupold VX5 HD.

 

[tbro16]

Yeah, its weight isn't something I'm overly excited about to say the least. I am willing to deal with a little extra weight if it means more insurance in the field. If the thing tracks, if it is indestructible, then I'm willing to pay a few more dollars and haul a few more ounces. I've read poor reviews about Vortex scopes tracking and, although I know it was a super cheap one, my last Vortex kinda spooked me from them. Sure seems like a lot of guys have a lot of faith in them however. That line of Leupold doesnt have any FFP offerings, unfortunately. I have considered the Zeiss V4 so its something I will continue to look into.

Is there such a thing as a gun range where i could rent rifles with different types of scopes on it? Sure would be nice to play with an FFP vs SFP before dropping this kind of money on it.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Went with the 56 model, set zero at 200 and use the reticle to adjust for distance cuz in a hunting situation you may only have seconds to make your shot. Generate a ballistics card, range the target, check the card for your holdover and fire. Great glass but for hunting, use it like a BDC scope.

 

[Formidilosus]

For those that do dial, at what distance do you decide to dial vs the traditional holdover? About anything past your zero?

All ranges. Zero at 100 yards, dial past.

When comparing FFP and SFP, the internet seems to like to tell me that the biggest advantage to FFP is accurately ranging your target using the scope, but that isnt something I think I'll ever do.

No. That is what is repeated by people that have no clue what they’re talking about. The advantage of FFP is that the wind holds and elevation holds are correct at all powers. Thinking that it is most advantageous to be on the highest power for all shots where you might need wind/elevation holds is silly. Would you accept a speedometer that is only correct at 60 mph, but is off at all other speeds?

My main question, is if I'm using the traditional holdover method using the dashes on the reticle for any shot past my zero, a FFP scope is required, correct? I think ranges change as you adjust magnification on an SFP? I believe that mistake cost me a nice MN whitetail last November lol

You can hold over with a SFP. The issue is the relative increment between crosshair and hashes change as power is adjusted. In other words- 1 moa or 1mil in the reticle at 15x say, isn’t 1 moa or 1mil at 10x in a SFP scope.

There are no actual advantages of using a mil reticle over moa with a FFP scope, right? For whatever reason, it seems like MOA just makes more sense to me. Want to make sure I'm not missing on something though.

That is incorrect and is repeated because people don’t have enough experience trying to shoot, and teaching people to use both. It is correct that either can be used very well, but base ten systems are more logical and intuitive in general. As well there are wind hold systems that mils offer that are not as clean or consistent in MOA.

Anyone have the SHV that might have a recommendation one way or the other? FFP vs SFP? MOA vs MIL?

FFP, Mil. I have never met a single person that wa s truly skilled in both MOA and Mil, that prefers moa or SFP for general close to mid range shooting in the field in all environments and conditions.

 

[BAKPAKR]

If you are scoping a 300 Win Mag, you might look at the eye relief. I think it is pretty short on the NF SHV 4-14.

 

[Felix40]

For hunting I see trade offs with FFP and SFP. I’ve seen a lot of very experienced people say they prefer SFP for hunting. The FFP scopes I’ve looked through have barely useable reticles at the lowest power. Hunting in dark timber that would be a real problem to me.

To me MOA makes more sense because I know how big 1MOA is no matter what distance the target is. It’s pretty much a wash though

 

[AkMtnRunner]

For most hunters, using a low magnification scope (9x max) with a simple duplex reticle, zeroed with a MPB trajectory, aiming dead on without dialing, a SFP is best. Keep it simple, stupid. A SFP scope does open up some opportunities, especially with higher magnification scopes where the max zoom is not always usable, but it is a more difficult system to master. If one is committed to spend the time to do so, great. But for the vast majority of hunters, it's unnecessary at best and can introduce too many things to think about causing bad shooting at the worst.

Much like reloading ammo. If someone takes the time to do it well, there are benefits, but for most, there is an 'easy button' that works well enough.

 

[tbro16]

Thats great, appreciate the responses.

@Formidilosus, I learned more off your Meopta Optika6 eval thread than any other web page on the internet. Notice how I didnt bother to ask about the quality of the glass lol. Appreciate your insight. When I last looked, it appeared the MRAD reticle was sold out about everywhere. Now I see some available, and is significantly cheaper than the SHV. Dont mind paying a little extra, but if they're equal I'd be dumb to go with the SHV. Do you generally lean one way or the other?

Good thinking on the eye relief. It is quite short. A little concerning, especially considering I wear glasses. The 300wm would be braked though.

 

[WRM]

At the risk of being presumptuous, it sounds like you are "relatively" new to hunting, and, perhaps, shooting in general. Forgive me if I am wrong. I have been involved with shooting and hunting for well over 45 years. So, my thoughts are based on experiences I have had over that time and what I have seen happen in the shooting sports over that period.

First, finances allowing, I would put a "good" scope (whatever that means to you) on a mediocre(ish) gun any day BEFORE I would put a crappy scope on a great gun or pair a crappy gun with a crappy scope. In other words, my focus would be on the glass, first, period. Most guns shoot "good enough" for hunting purposes. The scope puts that bullet where it needs to go. I'm not talking about paper punching accuracy that you can brag to your friends about. I'm talking about responsibly harvesting game accuracy. The two are not the same, and they should not be confused. That brings me to my first point.

You likely aren't going to harvest an animal at a range of 600-700 yards. WE may all like to dream of "that shot", but very few will ever make it successfully, assuming we even are presented with it. Forget about that as even in your wheelhouse of goals. Are you really willing to spend years/hours practicing behind a .300 Win mag to feel you are proficient enough to attempt that shot, which may never even present itself in the field? I am taking out of the equation the "cheats" that are rapidly appearing (Swaro super scope, ballistic calculator software on the phone, etc). If you can afford those options and/or want to take advantage of them, then that certainly is a potential. Without them, shooting at the distances you reference in the field takes skill, opportunity, luck and probably other things as well. Personally, I'd never try that shot. Many would, I'm sure, and that is their prerogative, of course. And, we haven't even begun to broach the issue of terminal energy on game at the distances you reference.

My "best" scope is a Kahles Helia CSX 3-12 x 56, currently residing on a Mountain Ascent in .280 AI. I picked it up years ago from Kahles "scratch and dent" bin, and it was neither scratched nor dented. I paid well under a grand for it. I doubt I'll ever need to upgrade that scope. It does everything I need it to in the category in which I use it. Light enough and a powerful light transmitter. I could not afford a (Swaro) Kahles today, so it's nice that I picked it up when and how I did.

I have looked at Nightforce a couple of times and scratched it from any options I need. Too heavy, too big, too elaborate, and way too expensive (for me). But, to each his own, as it is a personal choice. That gets me to my real point, however.

Leupold FX II 6 x 36 . (or the 6 x 42 if you are so inclined--you'll just pay more for the extra objective mm)

Stupid simple. Lifetime warranty. Clear glass and very good light transmission. Shop around and a sub $300.00 price is possible. I bought one for a .338 Win mag and it is a great pairing.

I can hear you laughing---a fixed power scope with no turrets and adjusters--what a dipsh##. At one time, fixed power scopes ruled. And for good reason. They work. There is very little to break. It is very likely you will never shoot better in the field than that scope will. Save a ton of money and put it in other gear that will let you get where you need to be to stalk within 300 yards of your quarry. I doubt you'll ever regret the purchase, even if it is just a step in your journey to find the ideal scope. Or, buy a Nightforce, lug that monster around everywhere and fiddle with dials. It is your choice.

I also am a big fan of Meopta optics. I don't care for their models that emulate Nightforce in size and complexity, but they make GREAT glass for a lot less. If you want a big, bulky, turrety scope, you still can feed that desire with a Meopta AND keep a bunch of bucks in your pocket. IF I needed to replace my Kahles, a Meopta very likely would take its place.

Best of luck in your quest for the ideal rifle scope--a unicorn if there ever was one. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, however, said some dude.

 

[SDHNTR]

Also not a Nightforce fan here. Too heavy, and reticles that are too complex. If you want to dial at a basic level, get a SFP. If you want to use dots for holdover, get a FFP, that way the dots are useful throughout the power range. SFP and dots mean you can only use max power. I don’t like that because max mag dramatically shrinks your field of view which will likely mean you can’t see your hits, and that’s important. So I’d just get a SFP with a standard clean Plex reticle, and dial as you wish. You’ll be able to do so throughout the mag range. I think this is the best blend of “keeping it simple” yet also taking advantage of the advances in tech available to us nowadays. Personally, I zero at 200. Point on for anything 0-200. I’ll hold a touch high for anything 2-300, and then dial 300+. Just what works for me.

As for exact scope, I’d recommend a Zeiss V4 in either 3-12 or 4-14. Either will be lighter than Nightforce, just as durable and reliable, and less expensive.

 

[WRM]

There is a reason that the KISS acronym came into existence. Scope technology has deviated from KISS in a mighty way. But, manufacturers apparently sell these high dollar monsters, so of course they are going to make them. I can't really argue against SDHNTR's reco of an approach if you feel the need to "dial" it all, but I wholeheartedly agree with his zero and ranging principle. I just think most people, realistically, are not going to get too many responsible shots beyond 300 yards or so. It may be best to let something walk if you can't stalk to within 300ish yards rather than take what is, in essence, a pot shot under real field conditions. If you can consistently hit live targets in the field with a 700 yard kill shot, then please join our military forces and get in sniper school. You will learn how to dope a scope professionally then.

 

[tbro16]

At the risk of being presumptuous, it sounds like you are "relatively" new to hunting, and, perhaps, shooting in general. Forgive me if I am wrong.

You likely aren't going to harvest an animal at a range of 600-700 yards. WE may all like to dream of "that shot", but very few will ever make it successfully, assuming we even are presented with it. Forget about that as even in your wheelhouse of goals. I am taking out of the equation the "cheats" that are rapidly appearing (Swaro super scope, ballistic calculator software on the phone, etc). If you can afford those options and/or want to take advantage of them, then that certainly is a potential.

You didnt ask for my life story, but you're going to get it anyway.

I am not new to hunting, but quite new to this kind of hunting. Grew up shooting deer with scope-less shotguns in southern Minnesota. I've tinkered with a scope here and there in my 12 or so years of hunting but prior to this research I knew next to nothing. FWIW, I've got just two short seasons of Elk hunting under my belt. Its now a passion and I'm ready to invest accordingly. Looking more and more like I'll be moving 1000+ mi closer to the elk woods here in the next 6 or so months too. I shouldnt say money isnt a factor, because it always is, but I'm not afraid to spend good money on good equipment.

I'm confused by your "cheats" comment though. Can you explain? My goal is to use a ballistic trajectory calculator for the round I use, throw it on a dope sheet, then adjust my scope accordingly at the range and in the field. Is "ballistic calculator software on the phone" something different?

 

[ericmcd]

Another vote for the keep it simple method. The turrets, busy reticles, ffp scopes are a ton of fun on the range and I even have a few. But I don't think they have a place in the field for most people. Unless you have the time and money (and can find ammo) to practice A LOT it'll hurt you in the long run. I had a friend last year who took 6 shots at a buck at just over 700 yards last year and missed every one. If I was in that position I would have simply walked 400 yards closer for a easy 300 yard shot

 

[WRM]

And please don't take what I said as an insult. I live in the south, and we often forget a lot of our deer hunting brethren to the north are limited to slug guns and that scopes are not always used. Good for you on the elk addiction, however, and the possibility you may move closer to your addiction.

My basic point is: you do not have to break the bank (or even just overspend) to get a high quality scope. There are many options available way short of a Nightforce, Kahles, Swaro, etc. that will keep a lot more money in your pocket. Of course, it won't be there long because there is a ton of other stuff I'm sure you will find is needed. Jumping from a crappy Vortex to a Nightforce is a big jump. If you want to do that, that is your prerogative. Personally, I'm not a fan of Nightforce for the hunting I do. I surely would not want to lug one around in mountainous terrain myself, but you look to be a bit younger than me. Buy the Nightforce if it's what you think you want. The good thing about it is you can get a lot of your money out of it if you decide you don't like it. But, the same can be said for the fixed Leupold I suggested.

The SWAROVSKI DS GEN. II 5-25X52 P is my idea of a "cheat".​

At around $4,600.00 MSRP, it isn't for everyone anyway. If you can afford it and you don't want to go to the range beyond sighting it in, it seems to suggest it will do everything for you except skin your kill. The guys at Outdoorsmans also seem high on its abilities. It just makes what used to require some degree of skill and knowledge on the part of the hunter seem a lot more like a video game or a heads up military grade display system, to me. I don't want to use one, but any one who would like to use it certainly is free to do so. In my book (which means absolutely nothing), it is a "cheat". Perhaps one day you can have a personal drone that will go out and find the game, retrieve you from in front of your campfire and deliver you to the optimum firing position. I wouldn't use one of those either. But, that's just me.

I don't keep up with all the ranging software and apps. Kestrel has for a while made an anemometer that works with your cell phone and ballistics charts. It's the way less expensive version of the above scope. If you really are going to take a poke at something 700 yards away, you darn sure need to know something about the wind. But, that's only where it was measured. The wind can be doing tricky things in a 700 yard shot. Back to my point about 300ish yard shots.

Technology has radically changed the game of hunting, probably more so in the last 10 years than maybe the last 50 or maybe even hundred. It is a personal decision on how much of it to incorporate into your personal hunting morals and ethics. I'm not here to tell you what to do or not do. Dealing with your scope was usually zeroing and learning your holdover and guessing at wind if it would be an issue. Or, just passing on that shot. Then it became the mils, the rads, the dialing, etc. Now, if you can afford to, it may just be point and shoot. I prefer KISS. But, that's just me.

 

[WRM]

Back to my earlier sniper school reference--why do you think there is a shooter and a spotter? At the distances you are getting into, somebody needs to tell you about your "splash" with those misses referenced in post 14. Then, you re-dope to account for whatever you weren't able to figure out before you took the first shot. Rarely will an animal that lives by its wits give you 6 chances to get it right. Hone your stalking skills and learn to pass on marginal shots. You aren't nearly as good a shot in the field as you may be at the range.

 

[WRM]

Let me know when we're ready to jump to why your ammo likely is going to let you down at long range, unless you are both an anally meticulous handloader AND a pretty darn good shot (or you own a $4,600.00 Swaro).

 

[204guy]

Holy old man Fudd I don't know what I'm talking about so I can't add a relevant answer to the question so I'm just going ramble on about irrelevant stuff Ramba lamba sham bam- batman.

 

[ecsn7d]

@WRM what Meopta models are you a fan of?

 

[kevin11mee]

You didnt ask for my life story, but you're going to get it anyway.

I am not new to hunting, but quite new to this kind of hunting. Grew up shooting deer with scope-less shotguns in southern Minnesota. I've tinkered with a scope here and there in my 12 or so years of hunting but prior to this research I knew next to nothing. FWIW, I've got just two short seasons of Elk hunting under my belt. Its now a passion and I'm ready to invest accordingly. Looking more and more like I'll be moving 1000+ mi closer to the elk woods here in the next 6 or so months too. I shouldnt say money isnt a factor, because it always is, but I'm not afraid to spend good money on good equipment.

I'm confused by your "cheats" comment though. Can you explain? My goal is to use a ballistic trajectory calculator for the round I use, throw it on a dope sheet, then adjust my scope accordingly at the range and in the field. Is "ballistic calculator software on the phone" something different?

I think you’re on the right track personally. Learning ballistics, dialing, and wind adjustments is more complicated in the short run but if you invest in it and put in the time, you will be better in the long run. Dialing your scope will allow you to more accurately shoot provided you practice, and you need to practice with your actual hunting load(more costly) in field shooting positions. I have a .300 win mag with a brake and it recoils about like a .270, so practice isn’t punishing at all. Really, the Zeiss V4 and Vortex Razor LHT are really the top scopes that fit this style of shooting/hunting. All the high-end optics in this category are way too heavy for hunting unless you’re shooting from a blind or you’re hunting flat areas.