Which scope?

Justin, over the last year or two I've seen more and more of these scopes being used and abused at competitions and they've gotten a stellar reputation. I've never been a fan of bushnell but the proof is in the pudding. Check em out
http://www.bushnell.com/all-products/rifle-scopes/elite-tactical/ers-3-5-21x-50mm

Also check out the SWFA scopes. Lot of guys running them as well and the glass is better then the PSTs. Just something for you to check out!

Mike
 
Sam Millard said:
Justin, how far do you want to shoot with this rifle?
Click to expand...

I want to be able to hunt with it out to around 1200 yds or so. I will target shoot with it out to around 1700 yds.

I think the rifle will do it but it all really depends on my abilities. I may need some help from you on that part.
 
So you're building a 6 lbs rifle with a carbonwrapped barrel but not trying to build a super lightweight rifle and you would build a dedicated longrange rifle if thats what you wanted but you want to be able to shoot out to 1200 yards on an animal. Im so confused....
Im sure im coming across as an ahole but really I think you need to figure out your build before your scope. If you are looking at 1200 yards hunting build a rifle to do that. Theres no way around it a longrange gun is heavier. If you want a super lightweight rifle well there range is limited. If your building a good all around gun you can do that but again expecting 1200 yards is in my opinion a little unreasonable. So.......get the nightforce its the best scope for what you are expecting out of the rifle. I still think the leupold is the best combination and fit but the nightforce is hands down a better scope. I love my nxs with moar-t reticle. My tikka 300 wsm with the leupold shoots great also. I have used that scope to harvest a deer at 916 on my longrange rig before upgrading to the nightforce. With my longrange rifle (13.5lbs) mounted to my duplex I hardly notice it or st least the 5 lbs difference between a 13lbs rifle and an 8lbs one.
 
Last edited:
pyroducksx3 said:
So you're building a 6 lbs rifle with a carbonwrapped barrel but not trying to build a super lightweight rifle and you would build a dedicated longrange rifle if thats what you wanted but you want to be able to shoot out to 1200 yards on an animal. Im so confused....
Im sure im coming across as an ahole but really I think you need to figure out your build before your scope. If you are looking at 1200 yards hunting build a rifle to do that. Theres no way around it a longrange gun is heavier. If you want a super lightweight rifle well there range is limited. If your building a good all around gun you can do that but again expecting 1200 yards is in my opinion a little unreasonable. So.......get the nightforce its the best scope for what you are expecting out of the rifle. I still think the leupold is the best combination and fit but the nightforce is hands down a better scope. I love my nxs with moar-t reticle. My tikka 300 wsm with the leupold shoots great also. I have used that scope to harvest a deer at 916 on my longrange rig before upgrading to the nightforce. With my longrange rifle (13.5lbs) mounted to my duplex I hardly notice it or st least the 5 lbs difference between a 13lbs rifle and an 8lbs one.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There's no reason a heavy scope can't go on a lightweight rifle and work well on it. Weight has NOTHING to do with accuracy at extended ranges. In order to get a lightweight rifle you USED to have to use a lightweight sporter style barrel and sporter style stock. With barrel technology and stock technology now, you don't have to sacrifice the ergonomics of a "tactical" style stock for lightweight and the same goes for using a carbon barrel. You're shooting abilities have to be excellent to handle a lightweight rifle accurately at long range, but it is very very doable.

Mike
 
HellsCanyon said:
Weight has NOTHING to do with accuracy at extended ranges.
Mike
Click to expand...

Well I guess we will agree to disagree on this. Theres a reason shawn carlocks guns weigh what they do. If your goal is to shot animals at 1200 yards simply put there are better options than lightweight rifles. You dont agree with that and thats fine its America you dont have to have the same opinion. Ill use what I want and you guys can use what you want to. I hope the rifle you build for justin shoots lights out and that he harvest the animals he targets cleanly.
 
Last edited:
pyroducksx3 said:
So you're building a 6 lbs rifle with a carbonwrapped barrel but not trying to build a super lightweight rifle and you would build a dedicated longrange rifle if thats what you wanted but you want to be able to shoot out to 1200 yards on an animal. Im so confused....
Im sure im coming across as an ahole but really I think you need to figure out your build before your scope. If you are looking at 1200 yards hunting build a rifle to do that. Theres no way around it a longrange gun is heavier. If you want a super lightweight rifle well there range is limited. If your building a good all around gun you can do that but again expecting 1200 yards is in my opinion a little unreasonable. So.......get the nightforce its the best scope for what you are expecting out of the rifle. I still think the leupold is the best combination and fit but the nightforce is hands down a better scope. I love my nxs with moar-t reticle. My tikka 300 wsm with the leupold shoots great also. I have used that scope to harvest a deer at 916 on my longrange rig before upgrading to the nightforce. With my longrange rifle (13.5lbs) mounted to my duplex I hardly notice it or st least the 5 lbs difference between a 13lbs rifle and an 8lbs one.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you're confused. I'm probably not explaining myself very well.

I do have my build figured out exactly. I'm having a 300 wm built that will be light enough to carry on some of my longer trips (15-25 miles) but still have the capability to be accurate at longer ranges.

No worries though. Ryan, Sam and Broz have all given me the same advice and I respect their opinions very much.
 
They go hand in hand but I'll get completely off your thread now. I hope you get everything you want out of the build, no hard feelings.
 
I will just throw my opinion at this then shut up:) I don't care how much accuracy potential a light rifle has, consistently transferring that potential through a shooter's trigger finger is difficult. Heavy rifles are better suited to deliberate long distance shooting than light rifles, especially when that weight is evenly distributed along the rifle's length.

Having said that, if it were me, building that rifle, I would go with DE 20MOA rings/bases ( a little lighter and lower than rail/rings), a ring level, and a 3.5-15 x 50 NXS. I would make sure I could hold, hit, and spot my hits out to 800 consistently before messing with the really long stuff. the 3.5 v. the 5.5 lower magnification would make the rifle much "handier" at close distances. This is the set up I use on my DE Stalker, which is designed around the same reasons you are building this rifle.

Think it through...would you hang a $2000 long range specific optic on a Tikka T3 300WM? Even if it shot 1/2 MOA consistently?
 
Sam I agree with that for sure. If my maximum effective range is only 600 or 800 yds, that is what I'll stick with. If I can accurately shoot farther, that will be even better.

The reason I was thinking about using the 5.5-22 instead of the 3.5-15 is that it is only 2oz heavier. I would love it if I could use a VX-3 at 20 oz, but I don't trust that it will ALWAYS dial correctly.

I do like that 3.5-15 NXS.
 
Sam Millard said:
...<snip>... 3.5 vs. the 5.5 lower magnification would make the rifle much "handier" at close distances.
Click to expand...
Very good point there. Exactly the reason why I'm ripping the VX3 6.5-20 off my .338Ultra and putting on a VX6 4-24. I want more field of view for the closer stuff.

Justin, I like the sounds of your build. Bolt on the glass you want and don't concern yourself w/ the weight penalty.
For what i's worth....I'm confident the folks at Leupold will fix your tracking issues. Obviously something is wrong w/ it.
Hunt'nFish
 
pyroducksx3 said:
Well I guess we will agree to disagree on this. Theres a reason shawn carlocks guns weigh what they do. If your goal is to shot animals at 1200 yards simply put there are better options than lightweight rifles. You dont agree with that and thats fine its America you dont have to have the same opinion. Ill use what I want and you guys can use what you want to. I hope the rifle you build for justin shoots lights out and that he harvest the animals he targets cleanly.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that a heavier rifle is easier to make a long range shot with, but is it doable and repeatable with a "lightweight" rifle? You bet... Added weight is like a stabalizer on a bow. Does it increase the bows accuracy? No... does it aid in making a steady shot? Yep! Can guys still shoot out at 80-100 yards without a stabalizer? Yep... can most people? No.... Fundamentals and skill have more to do with it.
In my mind, lightweight being 8-9 lbs scoped/loaded. This rifle here I just put into bedding is a great example of what I'm talking about (Picture was taken while opening up barrel channel). 7 lbs before optics in a 280AI. Capable of 1000 yard shots all day long in a lightweight long-range package.


As far as adding a heavy scope on top of a lighter rifle, I compare that to shaving weight off your sleep system and pack so it doesn't hurt as bad when you pack that monster 80MM spotter with you. Just because you cut weight in one area, doesn't mean you have to in others. It just helps offset the heavy aspect of one area!

Didn't mean to come off offensive and we're all able to have a good discussion here... :)

Mike
 
Justin

I agree with hells canyon and others. Bolt up the 5.5-22 and go shoot it. The DE ring/base combo are very nice and I like that suggestion as well. It will be a nice rifle and more important IMO is getting a good stock that fits you and learning consistent cheek weld and trigger control. Spend your time and $$$ practicing and you will be just fine.

Just curious. What stocks are you looking at??
 
Mike & Justin, what barrels are you using and what kinda of moa are they capable of?
I've been eyeing the Christenson's for years, but being a new technology I was uneasy about their consistancy.
Hunt'nFish
 
Hunt'nFish said:
Mike & Justin, what barrels are you using and what kinda of moa are they capable of?
I've been eyeing the Christenson's for years, but being a new technology I was uneasy about their consistancy.
Hunt'nFish
Click to expand...

My barrels are using Bartlein cores and are a completely different carbon technology then Christensen or Proof Research. Haven't built one yet that won't shoot the 1/2MOA we like and while not guaranteed, they have all shot much better than that.

Just finished that 280AI last night. First one built off an untrue Rem 700. We'll see how it does but I'm confident it's gonna shoot lights out as well.

Mike
 
I just got a scope for my sheep rifle, but i don't plan on shooting quite as far as you.

i had 5 requirements i wanted to meet for my sheep scope and just narrowed it down to the lightest one. I wanted parallax adjustment, elevation adj, and windage adj, 30mm tube, with about 40-44mm objective.

I ended up with a Mark 4 4.5-14x40. At 16oz it was the lightest scope i could find that met those requirements.

Just took my ram a couple days ago at 552 yards, so far, no complaints!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Sold Nightforce, S&B, Kahles
Replies
16
Views
2K
Gmr777
G
Atoka Man
Rifle Scope Upgrade
Replies
13
Views
783
Atoka Man
Atoka Man
J
Scope suggestions
Replies
12
Views
906
SDHNTR
S
H
Another which scope question?
Replies
15
Views
776
houser52
H
Mk7mmSTW
  • Locked
Sold LPR 338 Ultimate NF package-turn key!
Replies
1
Views
393
Mk7mmSTW
Mk7mmSTW

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top