4-16 to much for a Recce/SPR

[DacoRoman]

So I knew nothing about long range shooting. I just finished a 2 day John "Shrek" McPhee Long Range "Heavy Carbine" class this last weekend (no other long range class to compare it to, but I found it awesome, and learned a shit load) .

We shot out to 600 yards using all 12x24" reduced IPSC steel targets. I used a Burris XTR II 1-5X mil reticle on a 556 gun with a 16" Rainier Arms Ultramatch SDM Shilen barrel. There were two other 556 shooters (class of 7), and one was running a Leopold 1-8x, and the other a NF (either a 4-14 or 4-16x, FFP scope). I took shots with both of these other rifles out to 600 yards. I also looked through, but didn't shoot, a student's Leopold Mark 6 3-18x that was on a .308 AR.

My impressions, limited such as they are following only a single class, are that for a dedicated precision 556 rig 10X and above can be very useful, to increase the probability of hitting reduced sized, shaded, or partially obscured targets out to 600 yards. The 500 and 600 yard targets were both shaded, and with my 5X I was having difficulty hitting them. I couldn't see the bullet splash where I was hitting and only with someone spotting, I was finally able to dial in my hold over, but if the wind kicked up a bit, I again couldn't see my bullet splashes so I couldn't adjust my shots. 8X with the Leupold 1-8x was solidly good, but left me wanting more magnification. 10X was better, but I could see wanting 12-14X for more difficult shots.

So, now I'm looking to get a relatively light and compact scope but with a top end magnification of at least 12x (although 10x would likely be fine), using a FFP and a Horus christmas tree/grid type reticle, and just run offset irons on the gun to bridge 0-100 yards.

So the main issues to me then really just boil down to the weight, and length of the scope. And of course reticle design, and how low will the scope allow you to go magnification wise and still be useful, given the a FFP. So given those considerations I'm looking at scopes like the NF ATACR 4-16x and Mark 6 3-18x. By the way I found the image quality of the Mark 6 at 18x fairly poor, as in dull and not very clear, it looked good at up to like 14-16x. The Nightforce did seem a bit clearer to me I think.

[Spin Drift]

So I knew nothing about long range shooting. I just finished a 2 day John "Shrek" McPhee Long Range "Heavy Carbine" class this last weekend (no other long range class to compare it to, but I found it awesome, and learned a shit load) .

We shot out to 600 yards using all 12x24" reduced IPSC steel targets. I used a Burris XTR II 1-5X mil reticle on a 556 gun with a 16" Rainier Arms Ultramatch SDM Shilen barrel. There where two other 556 shooters (class of 7), and one was running a Leopold 1-8x, and the other a NF (either a 4-14 or 4-16x, FFP scope). I took shots with both of these other rifles out to 600 yards. I also looked through, but didn't shoot, a student's Leopold Mark 6 3-18x that was on a .308 AR.

My impressions, limited such as they are following only a single class, are that for a dedicated precision 556 rig 10X and above can be very useful, to increase the probability of hitting reduced sized, shaded, or partially obscured targets out to 600 yards. The 500 and 600 yard targets where both shaded, and with my 5X I was having difficulty hitting them. I couldn't see the bullet splash where I was hitting and only with someone spotting, I was finally able to dial in my hold over, but if the wind kicked up a bit, I again couldn't see my bullet splashes so I couldn't adjust my shots. 8X with the Leupold 1-8x was solidly good, but left me wanting more magnification. 10X was better, but I could see wanting 12-14X for more difficult shots.

So, now I'm looking to get a relatively light and compact scope but with a top end magnification of at least 12x (although 10x would likely be fine), using a FFP and a Horus christmas tree/grid type reticle, and just run offset irons on the gun to bridge 0-100 yards.

So the main issues to me then really just boil down to the weight, and length of the scope. And of course reticle design, and how low will the scope allow you to go magnification wise and still be useful, given the a FFP. So given those considerations I'm looking at scopes like the NF ATACR 4-16x and Mark 6 3-18x. By the way I found the image quality of the Mark 6 at 18x fairly poor, as in dull and not very clear, it looked good at up to like 14-16x. The Nightforce did seem a bit clearer to me I think.

Loved the Leupold 3-18x for it's weight and size, but I agree with you, 18x was a stretch, more like a good 3-15x. It is 10 ounces lighter than the NF 4-16x, but mine tracked for shit.

[DacoRoman]

Loved the Leupold 3-18x for it's weight and size, but I agree with you, 18x was a stretch, more like a good 3-15x. It is 10 ounces lighter than the NF 4-16x, but mine tracked for shit.

Which turrets did you have? But yeah, this is why I'm leaning toward the NF...but..the compact size and light weight of the Mark 6 keep me dreaming ..and I tell myself that I'd zero and then just use hold overs, but still, I would prefer better quality turrets/tracking.

[Spin Drift]

Which turrets did you have? But yeah, this is why I'm leaning toward the NF...but..the compact size and light weight of the Mark 6 keep me dreaming ..and I tell myself that I'd zero and then just use hold overs, but still, I would prefer better quality turrets/tracking.

It was a couple of years ago, had the M5B2 turrets which were sort of tall.

http://s1377.photobucket.com/user/sp...qdqs4.jpg.html

I was disappointed because the illuminated version I bought was about $3400 which is S&B money, it was no S&B.

Right after I bought it, Leupold came out with the lower M5C2 turrets, I wasn't going to play the "let's loose a bunch of money" game again, just for lower turrets and hopefully better tracking.

Just checked specs. again, the Leupold is 23.6 oz., the NF is 30oz.

I honestly like the glass better on the NF 4-16x F1.

[Pappabear]

I have been impressed with my NF SHV 4-16 F1 or whatever it is. For $1,200 I dig the reticle, glass and whole enchilada. I'm not spinning it up for 1,400 yrd shots so 5 revs does not bother me.

I'd like to get another.

PB

[DacoRoman]

It was a couple of years ago, had the M5B2 turrets which were sort of tall.

http://s1377.photobucket.com/user/sp...qdqs4.jpg.html

I was disappointed because the illuminated version I bought was about $3400 which is S&B money, it was no S&B.

Right after I bought it, Leupold came out with the lower M5C2 turrets, I wasn't going to play the "let's loose a bunch of money" game again, just for lower turrets and hopefully better tracking.

Just checked specs. again, the Leupold is 23.6 oz., the NF is 30oz.

I honestly like the glass better on the NF 4-16x F1.

I can dig it. Good to know that you are liking the NF glass better, I'm leaning NF pretty hard at this point.

[DacoRoman]

I have been impressed with my NF SHV 4-16 F1 or whatever it is. For $1,200 I dig the reticle, glass and whole enchilada. I'm not spinning it up for 1,400 yrd shots so 5 revs does not bother me.

I'd like to get another.

PB

That SHV sure looks like a lot of scope for a great price.

[tylerw02]

The question is if 4x is too much on the low end. Our military doesn't seem to think a 4x ACOG is overkill. Nor do they think a 3.5-10x Leupold is overkill on the bottom end.

Anybody that says you're over-scoped needs to harp on the USMC and Army for their ACOGs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Don't Tread On Me]

I think the issue comes from individuals wanting a rifle that does it all. The low power variable optics are certainly a trade off, and there are those that argue that with consistent practice, they can be just as quick as a red dot up close but then have that added magnification to take longer shots when necessary. I personally prefer to look at the intended weapon's purpose. I have used a Leupold 3.5-10x in CQM training and I was not as smooth or consistent as I am with a red dot but then again, the rifle was not really intended for that role so I can't say I was disappointed with the results, if anything, just tired. Try being the poor bastard on the line doing ready up drills with an M110 while everyone else has an M4!

[mtlung87]

3-15X seems to work pretty well on my JRA M21 DMR. SWFA SS.