View Full Version : 4-16 to much for a Recce/SPR
Im piecing together a SPR/Recce build and have everything but the optic. I was originally going to go with something like the traditional 1-4/1-6/2-10 but have come across some deals on good 4-16 scopes. Specifically the PST FFP model. Do you think that to much scope for this kind of rifle?
What are your goals for the rifle?
Standard Recce/SPR uses. Precision fire from 50-800 yards.
I just did a precision rifle class at The Site in Illinois. I shot my Sionics 18.5 inch Stainless Perimeter Marksman Rifle (SPR) in the class and I have it topped with a Vortex Viper PST 2.5x10x44. I was making easy hits at 600 yards using 77 grain CBC / Magtech 5.56. The PST is very good glass for the money. I would personally stick to the 2.5x10, it was plenty for what I would use on a SPR. YMMV
It absolutely depends on what your plans are for the rifle. I'm running a 6-24x50 Viper PST on mine, but my intent was to shoot the smallest groups possible at a given range. It's not good for close in or fast work, but that wasn't a concern for me with this rifle.
If you're wanting it for a general SPR at the ranges you stated, then the 2.5-10 would be just about perfect in my opinion.
I was making easy hits at 600 yards using 77 grain CBC / Magtech 5.56.
Iraqgunz was saying some nice things about that Magtech 77 ammo.
I would personally stick to the 2.5x10, it was plenty for what I would use on a SPR. YMMV
I don't mind 10x even when I shoot to 1000 yards. If there's any kind of mirage on a given day, I'll turn whatever scope I'm shooting down to 10-12x.
If you are going for precision at 800 yards, I would not use a 1-4. A 1-6 possibly, but I would say 2-10 would be your best bet. As markm said 10x will be fine at the longer ranges, and 2x will be fine at 50. I have a 4-14x and its good but I dont consider it as dual-purpose. These kind of applications are tricky imo. I prefer a dedicated upper for close or far shooting.
+1 on a 2.5-10 on a SPR, that is what I have been running for 7 years or so, it just works. Im running the 2.5-10X24 Nightforce
I don't think the magnification is too much, I think most scopes in that range are too large and heavy.
I think the Mark 6 3-18x44 is just about the perfect scope for that role. But, sadly I went through three of the mother****ers and could never get one w/o an offset reticle. Had to give up on it.
The magnification was great on the upper end, but really it was maybe a 15x at max. 18x was pretty limited. Its biggest draw was in that it was less than 12" long and insanely light.
I've had a couple of 2.5-10x42 NXS scopes, the illumination is pretty disappointing.
My epic scope saga continues. Maybe after SHOT there will be some better products on the market.
Am going to have to side with bp7178 that it isn't necessarily overkill. Granted to me a recce and SPR are two different design purposes, one as a Gp rifle for 0-600 on man sized targets with in my mind a 1-4/6X optic set up, though I am running an ACOG on my rendition of a recce. For an SPR I think I would be looking at a 2-8/10x heavily since Leupolds in the 8x range are on sale at several of the sites I frequent and would serve me well for the ranges I am going out to with an SPR set up but the top end at 10X would be my ideal since you can go out plenty far with that much magnification. That said, I have considered going higher magnification on my envisioned SPR build since it isn't a rifle that I feel i would be lugging that much and as long as the weight wasn't crazy high why not? That said, if you getting a good deal on the 4-16X scope grab it and try it out. If the price is right you would not likely be losing much money if you decided to resell it and go in a different direction.
Look no further than the Mark 6 3-18 FFP. If SFP is desired/preferred, the NF 2.5-10 works well. Those two get my vote.
steyrman13
11-08-14, 03:56
Another one to look for in the 10x is the US optics 1.8-10. FFP, lots of reticle choices and the EREK elevation knob is awesome. Eye box it better than the NF too but it is heavier.
The 2.5-10x pst looks like the best bang-for-buck mid-long range scope out there. I almost got one, but decided on a 1-4 to use for hd+rec shooting at some distance.
My limited experience with scopes so far is that new-comers seem to over-magnify stuff. I think you'll find 4-16 to be a bit much for action shooting or moving targets. If its prone with stationary targets, 4-16 would be fine, IMO.
I should point out that Im not a novice distant shooter. Im not great at it but Ive been doing it causally for many years and professionally for a couple years a while back.
My original plan is to get a PST 2.5-10x34 FFP MRAD for my soon to be here BCM SS410 RECCE. However I came across a few good deals on the PST 4-16 FFP MRAD. I also have a possible deal going on a Bushnell Elite Tactical 3-12x44 FFP MRAD that I might be getting depending on how my Rem 700 sells.
I suspect you'll be able to find a home for that 4-16x on something longer if you decide it's a bit much on most anything 5.56; but the 2.5-10x32 is still the one I'd run on a Recce if you care about the 400m+ side of the equation most.
Vegasshooter
11-11-14, 18:44
I chose the Vortex 2.5-10x44 at first. Then I switched to the 2.5-10x32 FFP. I had read nothing but good reviews on it, and talked to a few who had it. I bought it and am super happy with it. The biggest difference is the clarity with the adj parallax. The FFP wasn't the deal sealer for me, as much as the parallax. I have looked through both scopes side by side same day, and the 32 FFP was significantly clearer and brighter. No comparison.
Doc. Holiday
11-12-14, 09:35
I'm running the Vortex 4-16 FFP PST on my Recce and I think it's perfect. I wanted a nice scope that I can take off at anytime and put it on another rifle and not be "wanting". I love my scope. I would rather have the power and then decide if I need it or not rather than not having it and wanting it. I as able to justify this because most ACOGs are 4x power and non adjustable. I have zero regrets.
Just sent out payment for a 2.5-10x32 FFP MRAD yesterday. Its going in an ADM mount. Cant wait to get this thing out to the desert.
Just sent out payment for a 2.5-10x32 FFP MRAD yesterday. Its going in an ADM mount. Cant wait to get this thing out to the desert.
I was definitely impressed when I got mine last week. For the price of these, it appears to be a very high quality optic. Way beyond the price point.
Just sent out payment for a 2.5-10x32 FFP MRAD yesterday. Its going in an ADM mount. Cant wait to get this thing out to the desert.
Good choice, you won't be disappointed. It will do its part if you'll do yours. For the money, its hard to beat. Then theres the top notch warranty as an added bonus. I am going to shoot mine tomorrow at 400-600 and possibly beyond.
What I really want is a Nightforce 2.5-10x32 FFP but they won't make it.
Doc. Holiday
11-24-14, 08:42
Good choice, you won't be disappointed. It will do its part if you'll do yours. For the money, its hard to beat. Then theres the top notch warranty as an added bonus. I am going to shoot mine tomorrow at 400-600 and possibly beyond.
You won't have any issues. I put my scope at 6 power and was ringing at 600 very easy.
You won't have any issues. I put my scope at 6 power and was ringing at 600 very easy.
Oh, I'm not worried out to 600. I can hit 10 inch movers easily at 600. What I need to figure out is my dope beyond 600. I'd like to scoot back to 1000, so I need to figure out my dope every 50 yards past 600 out to 1000. If any of you guys have any advice or suggestions, I'm all ears.
Doc. Holiday
11-24-14, 09:41
If you're shooting a .223, in my experience out of my Recce rifle, the bullets were starting to tumble past 850 yards. I only got one hit on 16 inch steel out of 10 shots at 875. Which is not enough for me to call my Recce rifle a 875 yard gun. Best of luck to you.
If you're shooting a .223, in my experience out of my Recce rifle, the bullets were starting to tumble past 850 yards. I only got one hit on 16 inch steel out of 10 shots at 875. Which is not enough for me to call my Recce rifle a 875 yard gun. Best of luck to you.
What ammo and barrel? With a fast twist barrel (1/7) and a high velocity load, 1,000yds is certainly doable.
Doc. Holiday
11-24-14, 09:54
Oh don't get me wrong. I know there are SPR rifles out there that do 1,000 yards. All I was saying is that not every AR with a scope thrown on it will do that. I have a Recce, not an SPR. (16 inch barrel) with a 1/8 shooting 77gr.
Will_Power
11-25-14, 15:32
What ammo and barrel? With a fast twist barrel (1/7) and a high velocity load, 1,000yds is certainly doable.
Factory loads here would probably be the Black Hills 5.56 stuff right? Any other factory loadings with enough poop to make it that far?
Doc. Holiday
11-25-14, 15:38
I was using Silver State Armory 5.56 77gr OTM. They have given me by far the best groupings out of multiple manufactures that I have tried.
Renegade04
11-26-14, 22:56
On my Mk12 Mod 0, I run a 3.5-10x40mm, while on my Recce, I use a 1-4x24. I only use the Recce for targets out to 300 yards.
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/jamesrea_2006/jamesrea2011A/010_zps9c9ee132.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/jamesrea_2006/media/jamesrea2011A/010_zps9c9ee132.jpg.html)
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/jamesrea_2006/jamesrea_08/043_zps8f32cd24.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/jamesrea_2006/media/jamesrea_08/043_zps8f32cd24.jpg.html)
I know Vortex uses pretty decent Philippine glass, but I have doubts about how well ANY 32mm objective scope would perform on 10x in low light. How are those 2.5-10x32 Vortexes working for dusk/pre dawn shots?
I am seeing the new Burris XTR II 2-10x42 for the same price ($700) as you can find that Vortex for, and those are getting good reviews. It has a 34mm tube, and also uses Philippine glass. I would be leaning toward that over the Vortex if I was in the market.
Scope just came in this morning. The rifle is close to complete. Just need a bipod, sling, BUIS and Geissele trigger and Ill be all set. Here she is as of now.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/IMG_20141206_131637_zpsjjdmur5q.jpg
it depends, a 4-16 is a great power range but it is going to really bulk up the rifle. but if your not humping the rifle, go for it
I know Vortex uses pretty decent Philippine glass, but I have doubts about how well ANY 32mm objective scope would perform on 10x in low light. How are those 2.5-10x32 Vortexes working for dusk/pre dawn shots?
I am seeing the new Burris XTR II 2-10x42 for the same price ($700) as you can find that Vortex for, and those are getting good reviews. It has a 34mm tube, and also uses Philippine glass. I would be leaning toward that over the Vortex if I was in the market.
I have the same question. How is the pst in 32mm in low light at 10x?
I have the same question. How is the pst in 32mm in low light at 10x?
Pretty good. I work out towards the more rural end of town and have a large park and a big desert area next to my building. We have a nice dark second floor balcony too. I took it up there at around midnight and was glassing around nearby parking lots, parts of the desert area near street lamps and other parking lots and a gas station out around 600-700 yards. I ever felt the ability to see was hindered by the scope quality.
C-grunt,
How is the reticle in the mid power range? Say 4-6x? Is it thick enough to pick up quickly and actually be able to use the hash marks? Or is it still pretty small/fine at that range?
vicious_cb
02-15-15, 05:41
it depends, a 4-16 is a great power range but it is going to really bulk up the rifle. but if your not humping the rifle, go for it
Not really sure where is bulky glass perception is coming from but pick a 4-16x from a top mgf and you'll find they arent big at all. The Nightforce 4-16x42 is actually shorter than the Vortex 2.5-10x32. 10x might be good for ringing nice spray painted steel targets but for field use you first need to IDENTIFY the target before you shoot it.
http://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/header-ATACR-4-16x42-F1.jpg
Little Creek
02-17-15, 06:52
I just mounted a NF SHV 4-14x56 on my DDM4V11 S2W with MOAR illuminaated reticle. I have not had a chance to shoot it yet, but I have high hopes. I picked this carbine over the DDM4 MK12. I also just replaced the trigger group with a SD=E.
I pulled an old leupold Mk 4 off of mine and replaced it with a 3-24x42 March Scope. Its on an 18 inch MSTN mk12 mod O, The March was on a .308 bolt gun before, but the size and weight for what you get works equally well on the SPR and you get the large power range to go with it.
March 3-24x42 ffp
12.3 inches long
22.6 oz
Leupold Mk 6 3-18x44 ffp
11.90 inches
23.60 oz
Nightforce 2-10x42
11.9 inches
19 oz
Nightforce 4-16x42 ffp
12.6 inches
30 oz
Currently running a 2.5-10x42 NF on my RECCE.
On a 5.56 Riglet, I personally wouldn't go bigger/heavier than the Mk6 3-18, but that's just me.
ClearedHot
02-18-15, 06:14
Not your typical Mk12/SPR optic, but it works.
http://i.imgur.com/MtDNOCh.jpg
Not really sure where is bulky glass perception is coming from but pick a 4-16x from a top mgf and you'll find they arent big at all. The Nightforce 4-16x42 is actually shorter than the Vortex 2.5-10x32. 10x might be good for ringing nice spray painted steel targets but for field use you first need to IDENTIFY the target before you shoot it.
http://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/header-ATACR-4-16x42-F1.jpg
Yep^^
Keep it quality (NF, LP Mark 4-6, Bush Elite etc.) and weight is not a factor.
You can shoot 700 yards with a 3.5 power ACOG, but that does not mean 4-16 is too scope. I would be fine with that scope and run it mostly at 10X for best optics and eye relief.
C-grunt,
How is the reticle in the mid power range? Say 4-6x? Is it thick enough to pick up quickly and actually be able to use the hash marks? Or is it still pretty small/fine at that range?
Sorry I missed this post.
I havent gotten the rifle out past 200 yards yet to give the scope a real workout. Glassing around the neighborhood it seems like 4-6 power is right around the area where it becomes useful for ranging/adjusting. However I wont be able to really tell until I get it on some steel out at 500 yards or so.
vicious_cb
04-12-15, 00:02
More pics of the new NF 4-16 on gas guns.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8692/16774054190_da53d65f68_b.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/53n73Bk.jpg
Boba Fett v2
07-19-15, 16:13
More pics of the new NF 4-16 on gas guns.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8692/16774054190_da53d65f68_b.jpg
My search is over. I know what must be done.
I was suggested by a marine sniper to set a NF2.5-10x42.
Btw mine is in 5.56 REECE
Little Creek
04-18-16, 05:33
Mine, a DD5V1 has a NF SHV 4-14x50 F1.
VelveteenMole
04-21-16, 03:11
The NF 2.5-10x42 on a Recce.
http://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160734/86670.JPG
http://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160734/86699.JPG
I'll admit the illumination could be more even and crisp across the thickness of the lines and the pushbutton control is slower and more distracting than a knob. However, the scope is light, bright, clear, mechanically excellent, and I think 2nd FP is ideal in this power range since 5 and 10x are very useful power increments that make hold/measurement conversion easy (hold half or double the measurement at 5x). And an FFP reticle either gets small as hell at 2.5 or covers things at 10x.
I can't imagine fighting the exit pupil on a 32mm as low-light as I'll shoot sometimes. No idea how the lack of parallax knob plays out on the 32mm.
I will admit, especially with the T-1 on there, I'm very tempted to get a 4-16 ATACR F1, though, because I would like to see more detail at 500-800. But I'm not sure if the extra 10oz is worth it on a recce. I'm sure I'll go there with an 18" Grendel at some point.
The 2.5-10 is awesome as far as you can take a Recce or SPR as long as you know what the target is and it's not 1/4 MOA in mirage. I haven't pinned down the precise limits under what conditions so don't ask, lol.
C-grunt,
How is the reticle in the mid power range? Say 4-6x? Is it thick enough to pick up quickly and actually be able to use the hash marks? Or is it still pretty small/fine at that range?
Just saw this thread popped back up.
I responded to this question in the past with a half answer. Well a fw weeks back I took my SPR out to a decent distance. 375 yards on my 2/3 sized IPSC steel target. Using the mid-range setting on the scope, ie roughly 4-6 power, is definitely doable and you would be able to use rough holds using the reticle. It's not an ideal reticle size for holds, especially if you needed it done fast, but you can do it.
I responded to this question in the past with a half answer. Well a fw weeks back I took my SPR out to a decent distance. 375 yards on my 2/3 sized IPSC steel target. Using the mid-range setting on the scope, ie roughly 4-6 power, is definitely doable and you would be able to use rough holds using the reticle. It's not an ideal reticle size for holds, especially if you needed it done fast, but you can do it.
Which scope are you referring to again?
Which scope are you referring to again?
Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10x32 FFP milrad.
This is a 4x16 on a my 30 caliber AR.
http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s460/Peter_Schiestel/Guns/AR%2015/93663f04a8eefc6580746df58ed084b9_zpssdlclzqj.jpg
http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s460/Peter_Schiestel/Guns/AR%2015/b07b7823aa2bd757e109b89fd7fef026_zps5b7qdjgc.jpg
http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s460/Peter_Schiestel/Guns/AR%2015/6cb6dd89910ad467414c9e6304b8fc43_zpsurd5xb1e.jpg
I was using Silver State Armory 5.56 77gr OTM. They have given me by far the best groupings out of multiple manufactures that I have tried.
Meh... I just did a day at the range with SSA, FGMM, IMI "Mk262", Australian Outback 69 gr Match, Hornady 75gr Match, Norma 77gr match, Fiocci Match, and even some PPU "Match" - and the SSA was by far the WORST of the lot.
Don't get me wrong, all of these loads were right around 1 moa; some a little less, some a little more. But SSA was "largest" by a lot.
Let's put it this way, I see no reason to spend $18/box of SSA when I can get the same results out of a $10 box of PPU.
I shot 2 x 5 round groups of each on an indoor 100 yard range. No wind, no distractions. SPR-ish rifle with 20in stainless Wylde barrel, SSA-E trigger, bipod and rear bag.
Now, I wouldn't hesitate to use the SSA for an SD situation, it's still 5.56 77g OTM. It's going to have an effect on target and that effect is going to land where you want it.
But for paper punching, one can do better, especially if you look at it from an ROI perspective.
(And I realize this is kinda necro-posting, but I came across this thread while researching optics choices for my own AR's).
I think it comes down to how much target shooting vs practical shooting vs humping it around. My SPR/SAM-R mostly wears a 2.5-10x32 Vortex, but that's mainly b/c it's closer to the historical rifle config.
The reticle is fine for precision work in good light, but I wouldn't even want to hunt, let alone fight with it.
My Recce-ish wears a Trijicon 1-4. Good compromise optic in all regards; I like it because the sight picture is fast, extraordinarily clear, and easy. The reticle is incredibly sharp and detailed compared to red dots (i have astigmatisms) and easy to pick up in most situations.
But...when i'm shooting from a bench for groups, on goes the Bushnell 3.5-21x50. It's so big it looks almost comical on an AR, even the full dress SPR, but man you can *see* the bullseyes with that thing!
Based on all that, I think the 4-16's are probably "too much" for an AR unless you're mostly doing bullseye work or load workups. There are quite a few decently priced intermediate scopes out there, especially compared to the $$ paid for a vortex pst 4-16.
I would take a hard look at the Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40 in MilDot or triangle. If you lean more target, then mildot, if more tactical than bullseye, then triangle reticle.
whatever you get, spend a bit for return-to-zero mount. makes the idea of switching optics way easier.
patriot_man
06-20-16, 06:21
I ran a supplementary red dot so I can get the extra magnification out of my scope however I think 14x is too much. 10x is perfect for the capabilities of the rifle and cartridge.
http://i.imgur.com/fMGhEek.jpg?1
mattpittinger
06-20-16, 10:17
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160620/ec728cc3b55c1338cb5930e0f5b9fbfc.jpg
I run 4-16 on my SPR, with a vortex micro on top for the close work. Really anything past 35/50 yds 4x doesn't slow you down too much. And out past 400 that 16x makes a huge difference when shooting small, dark, or camouflage targets.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BlackWatch16
06-20-16, 16:16
I run 4-16 on my SPR, with a vortex micro on top for the close work. Really anything past 35/50 yds 4x doesn't slow you down too much. And out past 400 that 16x makes a huge difference when shooting small, dark, or camouflage targets.
Agreed. Honestly I don't understand why folks make the "too much magnification" comment. IMO such an issue does not exist. The best example of this flawed logic is the original M110...they all said that 10x is more than enough because that's what guys were using for decades with the M24. I call bullshit. Technology allows us to get better and keep the weight down. Giving snipers a 20" semi-auto spotter/support rifle and expecting them to use it as a primary rifle with only 10x is borderline criminal. We learned and finally got it together with the CSASS...18x minimum, yes even with a 16" gas gun, is the right answer!
Now, I understand that there are extreme examples...you don't need a 30-40x competition style scope on there. But at that point the optic weight is more of a problem than it's power. Also, I understand when folks only have a couple scopes and have to decide which of their rifles they are ideally suited for...ie the 7.62 is gonna get the most power and the 5.56 will take a back seat.
But as long as you have some offset irons or a MRD that you are comfortable making fast engagements with inside 100m, then your SPR concept is good to go and I say get the most power you can without adding too much weight, ESPECIALLY if you wanna shoot out to 800m! 4-16 is perfect if you can get a good price. I'll also caveat that to say if you're only gonna do prone long range precision stuff with this rifle, you don't even need offset irons or MRD, so stack up on all the power you can and forget about the weight. If you can see better, you can shoot better...period. But for the SPR concept that can do everything, you gotta keep the weight down, and a close range sighting system is now mandatory IMO.
My 5.56 SPR wears a 4-14 and Griffin Armament fixed offset irons...always up and ready.
My 7.62 wears a 3-18 and offset MRD.
After testing multiple options and configurations this works best for me. YMMV
I agree with Blackwitch on many points. I have a 3-10 on my SPR and just bought a 4-16 for my LMT MWS. When shooting longer range with my SPR 16 inch Noveske, I would appreciate the extra 5X.
I think the 6.5-20X might tip the scales on more scope than needed, but if solid BUIS are around, no major harm. I shoot my ACOGs all day long to 500 so...the debate rattles on.
I really like 4-16x on my SPR. 4x is quick enough for closer shots, and 16x gets used for ranging my steel plate(I need to buy a rangefinder sometime), for shooting at 650-800 yards, and for shooting groups as small as I can at 100 for load development.
Vegasshooter
06-20-16, 20:26
I have recently gone to my 4-16X Vortex FFP on my DMR/ SPR rifle. Gotta admit, it's a hoot. Dial up to 16X, 19moa of come up, and hold for wind. That will get me very consistent hits at 625+. It may not be a run and gun rifle, but I've got a Razor 1-6 for that. The 4-16X is pure fun out to the limit of the .223/5.56 cartridge.
Has anyone here used the Vortex Razor HD Gen II 3-18X50 on an 18" SPR type rifle? I know it's a heavy optic at just over 46 oz. I've been between it and the Nightforce ATACR 4-16X42 F1 at 30 oz and can't seem to make up my mind, though I am leaning towards the Vortex with the EBR-2C mrad reticle. Price is close enough that it's a toss up but the only thing holding me back from the Vortex is the weight, as I like everything else about it above the NF.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
I like vortex products. I have the 2-10 with MIL turrets and EBR reticle on my SPR. Just bought my an ACTAR 4-16 for my MWS. NF does have an H59 and some Tremor reticles.
I think that Vortex would weigh more than the gun. They are massive. Great scopes but they are huge. I'd like one for my 300WM, but not an AR.
Good luck
I like vortex products. I have the 2-10 with MIL turrets and EBR reticle on my SPR. Just bought my an ACTAR 4-16 for my MWS. NF does have an H59 and some Tremor reticles.
I think that Vortex would weigh more than the gun. They are massive. Great scopes but they are huge. I'd like one for my 300WM, but not an AR.
Good luck
Thank you for the insight. I'm beginning to think that the weight will indeed be too much as you mentioned. As nice as the extra magnification would be, I don't think I care to have a 15lb gun if I don't have to. How durable are the Viper line of optics such as the 2-10 you have in comparison to the Razor? I'd like to have FFP on all my optics which is why I was entertaining the 3-18x50. It seems there is a gap in the Razor line between the 1-6 an 3-18. If vortex had a 2.5-10 Razor with a EBR reticle I'd be all over it. (I've also looked at the NF NXS options but dislike the lack of FFP)
Vortex , sub $1,000 scopes are in a different league as they super big heavy ones in the $1,500+ range. Those are very nice with glass and good turrets etc. My Viper is OK, but just OK. I don't like the turrets on the Viper, but it works fine. I just dial up and down a little and mostly shoot inside 500 so its easy.
Bushnell Tactical has some decent stuff too for the money. good luck.
Eurodriver
06-23-16, 18:56
Gotta get that Nightforce SHV F1 bro
Gotta get that Nightforce SHV F1 bro
Which reticle ?
Eurodriver
06-24-16, 00:39
Which reticle ?
I have the MOAR reticle. I believe, and I'm not looking at it in front of me so I'm not sure, the MOAR and MIL R reticle is all they offer and they look the same except different gradiants.
I tried the mil thing but with matching turrets and reticles, and me thinking in inches, I stuck with the MOAR.
Fantastic optic for the $1,250 OTD price tag and neat reticle. Blows Vortex PST out of the water and I have had two 6-24x50 FFP, a 4-16, and a 2.5-10x32 and 44. And a 1-4
I think Ill grab the Mil r and it has exposed turrets which I prefer. Ill let you know how it works out for me.
PB
Gotta get that Nightforce SHV F1 bro
My google search skills must be lacking as I somehow managed to skip over this option. I didn't even realize they had a sub $1500 optic with mil-r and ffp. Thank you. Seems like a great option for the price.
Eurodriver
06-24-16, 13:31
I think Ill grab the Mil r and it has exposed turrets which I prefer. Ill let you know how it works out for me.
PB
It's good stuff. I was debating about the XTR II and all the other mid tier brands vs the SHV but almost all of them have problems and I didn't like how the SHV had capped turrets.
One day out of the blue I saw the SHV F1 had just been listed for sale by Midway, did a search on SH and saw it was the bee's knees.
And it is.
P.S. The windage turret is still capped but I use holds for windage as it changes so often down here.
Spin Drift
06-24-16, 20:46
16X is a lot of wheels for a .223/5.56, even with 77s.
.308, sure.
YMMV.
BlackWatch16
06-24-16, 20:59
16X is a lot of wheels for a .223/5.56, even with 77s.
.308, sure.
YMMV.
There is NEVER a disadvantage to seeing further/clearer/better. As discussed earlier in this thread, as long as the length and weight of the optic matches well to its intended purpose and function and the rifle is well balanced, take as much power as you can get. I've never been in a long range situation and said, "man I wish I had less magnification and optical clarity right now!"
Spin Drift
06-24-16, 21:36
Further, clearer, better isn't always a function of increased magnification.
And I've never said "I wish I had a heavier, larger scope for a .223/5.56 rifle.
Good Luck.
Eurodriver
06-24-16, 21:52
Further, clearer, better isn't always a function of increased magnification.
And I've never said "I wish I had a heavier, larger scope for a .223/5.56 rifle.
Good Luck.
When I'm shooting 4" gongs at 600 yards I find the 14x lacking. I wish they had a SHV F1 in 5-20
Spin Drift
06-24-16, 23:19
When I'm shooting 4" gongs at 600 yards I find the 14x lacking. I wish they had a SHV F1 in 5-20
That's nice.
Eurodriver
06-25-16, 03:24
Thanks. It's my favorite rifle. That F1 is a killer value.
USMC_Anglico
06-25-16, 08:43
There is NEVER a disadvantage to seeing further/clearer/better. As discussed earlier in this thread, as long as the length and weight of the optic matches well to its intended purpose and function and the rifle is well balanced, take as much power as you can get. I've never been in a long range situation and said, "man I wish I had less magnification and optical clarity right now!"
There is a disadvantage to too much magnification though. Too much mag will magnify every breath, twitch and wobble of the shooter. The rule of thumb taught to me and that I find works very well is approximately 2xthe magnification for the distance you are shooting at. That dovetails with the NF 2.5-10 for an SPR and the S&B 5-25 for .308; .300 win mag and higher.
If you need to observe, that's what high mag spotters are for.
I have the MOAR reticle. I believe, and I'm not looking at it in front of me so I'm not sure, the MOAR and MIL R reticle is all they offer and they look the same except different gradiants.
I tried the mil thing but with matching turrets and reticles, and me thinking in inches, I stuck with the MOAR.
Fantastic optic for the $1,250 OTD price tag and neat reticle. Blows Vortex PST out of the water and I have had two 6-24x50 FFP, a 4-16, and a 2.5-10x32 and 44. And a 1-4
I ordered the SHV MIL MIL F1 yesterday. It's a week out. I too realized the they had mil mil which was my first reason I didn't want the scopes. I only saw MOA scopes in the stores. ( doesn't matter , I just know all my dope in mils) then I saw the UNCAPPED elevation and dig the capped Windage. It has the same MIL R turret which is my favorite on my NXS scopes.
I'm pretty excited about this offering.
Im going to bring this back up here, for size, weight and magnification
Has anyone used the Burris Veracity 2-10x42FFP or the Burris XTR 2-10x42 FFP scopes? I would probably pass on the night force and find a FFP comparable scope.
XTRII 2-10x42 ffp
13.5 inches
22.7 oz
I pulled an old leupold Mk 4 off of mine and replaced it with a 3-24x42 March Scope. Its on an 18 inch MSTN mk12 mod O, The March was on a .308 bolt gun before, but the size and weight for what you get works equally well on the SPR and you get the large power range to go with it.
March 3-24x42 ffp
12.3 inches long
22.6 oz
Leupold Mk 6 3-18x44 ffp
11.90 inches
23.60 oz
Nightforce 2-10x42
11.9 inches
19 oz
Nightforce 4-16x42 ffp
12.6 inches
30 oz
steyrman13
06-25-16, 10:42
Im going to bring this back up here, for size, weight and magnification
Has anyone used the Burris Veracity 2-10x42FFP or the Burris XTR 2-10x42 FFP scopes? I would probably pass on the night force and find a FFP comparable scope.
XTRII 2-10x42 ffp
13.5 inches
22.7 oz
You could have a Leupold MK6 3-18x44 for that same size and weight actually 1.5" shorter and only .9oz heavier
Eurodriver
06-25-16, 10:42
I ordered the SHV MIL MIL F1 yesterday. It's a week out. I too realized the they had mil mil which was my first reason I didn't want the scopes. I only saw MOA scopes in the stores. ( doesn't matter , I just know all my dope in mils) then I saw the UNCAPPED elevation and dig the capped Windage. It has the same MIL R turret which is my favorite on my NXS scopes.
I'm pretty excited about this offering.
Yeah that plain SHV model is a bust. I would never buy a scope for a target rifle that had caps on the elevation turret. It makes absolutely no sense. Also, like you, all my dopes are in MOA but it isn't that big of a deal with modern ballistic calcs and a few moments of time ;)
I got very fortunate that the F1 came out the same week I was looking for an optic. Otherwise I might have just went with the Vortex 4-16 again. I wrote about my experience with the F1 in my 600 yard build thread in this sub forum. The pics are all gone but the gist of it is that the F1 (all F1s are uncapped by the way) kills all of the other mid-tier scopes in every single aspect.
ETA the Burris XTR II - I don't know why everyone has a hard on for that optic. Same price as the NF SHV F1 but the illumination on mine broke within ten seconds of using it and that 34mm tube is a beast for an AR.
Eurodriver
06-25-16, 10:48
Not sure how anyone could say this is "too much scope" for an SPR...
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w521/6234987u02/IMG_5152_zpsg63hhiyz.jpg
This is the MOAR reticle at 14x. Target is at 500 yards and the orange circle is 3" wide.
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w521/6234987u02/Untitled2_zpsh8betehf.png
Not sure how anyone could say this is "too much scope" for an SPR...
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w521/6234987u02/IMG_5152_zpsg63hhiyz.jpg
This is the MOAR reticle at 14x. Target is at 500 yards and the orange circle is 3" wide.
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w521/6234987u02/Untitled2_zpsh8betehf.png
Did you get the Bobro mount, freakin sweet. Those mofos are hard to find in stock. What was the height of your mount. I bought a 1.375 I think. I hope my bell clears.
You could have a Leupold MK6 3-18x44 for that same size and weight actually 1.5" shorter and only .9oz heavier
That would be my choice, if I did not already have the 3-24 March ffp on mine. I was adding those from Burris to show size and weight, I am not sure what the reason is but so many people still choose the NF 2.5-10 x24,32,42 when other options are available in the FFP.
Eurodriver
06-25-16, 11:00
I checked my previous orders and this is the exact Bobro I have. Never measured it so I'm unsure of the actual height. The website says its 1.5" but if you did get one that is 1.375" you'll still have plenty of room even with a flip open lens cover as you can see in the pics. Honestly, I wish the scope was higher because the Magpul stock's cheek riser is useless as I can't get a good sight picture unless its completely bottomed out.
http://www.primaryarms.com/b10-300-300/p/b10-300-300/
I checked my previous orders and this is the exact Bobro I have. Never measured it so I'm unsure of the actual height. The website says its 1.5" but if you did get one that is 1.375" you'll still have plenty of room even with a flip open lens cover as you can see in the pics. Honestly, I wish the scope was higher because the Magpul stock's cheek riser is useless as I can't get a good sight picture unless its completely bottomed out.
http://www.primaryarms.com/b10-300-300/p/b10-300-300/
I had a build just like yours. And even though your not pushing that riser, the stock is doing its job by putting you dead on the optic. And super stable. It does give lift even at bottom level. Great stocks.
BlackWatch16
06-25-16, 16:17
There is a disadvantage to too much magnification though. Too much mag will magnify every breath, twitch and wobble of the shooter. The rule of thumb taught to me and that I find works very well is approximately 2xthe magnification for the distance you are shooting at. That dovetails with the NF 2.5-10 for an SPR and the S&B 5-25 for .308; .300 win mag and higher.
If you need to observe, that's what high mag spotters are for.
Problem is that rule of thumb isn't based on quantitative data collected in a scientific manner. It is merely regurgitated instructional talking points passed down from one generation of snipers to another. By that logic 5-25 is "too much" for a 308, although I would disagree. There is certainly a difference in desired power for a 308 pushing 175gr at 2650fps and a 300WM pushing 190gr at almost 3000fps. Load up some 230gr Berger hybrids and you're almost at 338 capability. More power is always better, provided you do not violate the rules of weight, balance, and enough FOV on the low end. Plus on a true modern SPR a backup sighting system for 100m and in is a must. Regarding the concept of max effective range, let's not forget that the standard for the M16 and M4 (with iron sights) is 550m and 500m respectively. Trained shooters should be able to provide combat effective fire at that distance, and there are still plenty of great shooters who can put accurate rounds on target consistently. Thus, the SPR concept starts at a range of 600m, and 800m is realistic given the right conditions and the right shooter.
I refer back to the greatest modern day fail regarding poor optic/rifle combination...the original SASS with only 10x...we got it WRONG. Thankfully the CSASS program fixed it, and it wasn't done just by asking guys what they thought...it was confirmed through a scientific user eval with data collection.
USMC_Anglico
06-25-16, 17:08
Problem is that rule of thumb isn't based on quantitative data collected in a scientific manner. It is merely regurgitated instructional talking points passed down from one generation of snipers to another. By that logic 5-25 is "too much" for a 308, although I would disagree. There is certainly a difference in desired power for a 308 pushing 175gr at 2650fps and a 300WM pushing 190gr at almost 3000fps. Load up some 230gr Berger hybrids and you're almost at 338 capability. More power is always better, provided you do not violate the rules of weight, balance, and enough FOV on the low end. Plus on a true modern SPR a backup sighting system for 100m and in is a must. Regarding the concept of max effective range, let's not forget that the standard for the M16 and M4 (with iron sights) is 550m and 500m respectively. Trained shooters should be able to provide combat effective fire at that distance, and there are still plenty of great shooters who can put accurate rounds on target consistently. Thus, the SPR concept starts at a range of 600m, and 800m is realistic given the right conditions and the right shooter.
I refer back to the greatest modern day fail regarding poor optic/rifle combination...the original SASS with only 10x...we got it WRONG. Thankfully the CSASS program fixed it, and it wasn't done just by asking guys what they thought...it was confirmed through a scientific user eval with data collection.
And I will offer from personal observation that a 5.56 platform offhand with higher magnification is a hassle to shoot. Notice I said offhand, if all you do is bench resting then OK, put as much mag as you can afford on it. Once you actually have to pick it up, patrol with it and then start engaging targets at range under less than ideal conditions, too much mag becomes a hindrance. As always YMMV. Bigger calibers sure go bigger as you need that for range, my personal .308 runs a HDMR and I'll usually be up around 15x-16x at max range which so far is 760yds. I've only spun it up higher at range to observe at times.
Spin Drift
06-30-16, 14:48
On my LPR, the NF 2.5-10X works well, but I'm thinking center of mass shots, on torso sized targets, out to 500.
I just don't shoot too much long range target/paper with .223.
Also, I considered weight, in addition to size (footprint).
The S&B 5-25X Ultra Short is a super scope, but the smaller windage/elevation knobs are pretty small if you plan on doing a lot of dialing.
Where it really shines is behind a NVD clip-on.
Little Creek
09-02-16, 15:06
Gotta get that Nightforce SHV F1 bro
Mine has an illuminated MOAR reticle. Mounted on a DD5V1.
I'm running the Vortex 4-16 FFP PST on my Recce and I think it's perfect. I wanted a nice scope that I can take off at anytime and put it on another rifle and not be "wanting". I love my scope. I would rather have the power and then decide if I need it or not rather than not having it and wanting it. I as able to justify this because most ACOGs are 4x power and non adjustable. I have zero regrets.
Well said. I have NF ATACR 4-14 and selected it for the same reason. At 1KM the extra power can be really handy with my old eyes.
Little Creek
12-25-16, 07:12
I have a NF SHV 4-14x56 on my DDM4V11 18" STW with NF 20MOA base and rings. I also think 4X is low enough. I have some 5.56 77gr. OTM. I wonder how far a good shooter could reach with such a rig and ammo. In other words, at what distance does the 77 gr. peter out?
RustyKnifeUSMC
01-20-17, 08:02
To OP's question, a 4-16 is in my opinion a little on the "too much magnification" for a .223 but I understand the argument that you can't have too much magnification. I guess it depends on the purpose of the rifle. If you are going to using it primarily off a bench to punch paper out to distance or take it on a prairie dog hunt then no its not too much scope.
I just finished my Centurion Arms Mk12 build.
Ended up with a Bushnell Tactical Elite LRHS 3-12x44 in a Nightforce Unimount (20 MOA and extended rail).
jroberts1968
04-02-17, 20:03
I will add on the NF 2.5-10x42 it is clear crisp and light (not the lightest) I wish it was FFP and the sub stantions are a little to fine for on certain targets.
I may swap it out for a 4-16x42 ATACR F1
There are several other bench marks for these optics one of the biggest is tracking if it don't track it's about as worthless as teets on a bore�� As Larue says Buy once Cry once. There are nice scopes sub 1000 but they track like shit! The top end scopes will always way more and have positive turret adjustments.......they have metallic parts not plastic parts under the metallic parts. They will have edched reticules.
just my opinion
If you haven't used or owned a FFP 2.5-10x I'd strongly suggest trying one before you buy or recommend one. In that particular power range SFP are much more useable. I really with though NF would make a detent in the power ring when you're on 5x.
If you haven't used or owned a FFP 2.5-10x I'd strongly suggest trying one before you buy or recommend one. In that particular power range SFP are much more useable. I really with though NF would make a detent in the power ring when you're on 5x.
^THIS!
5.56 guns need to have a usable low range, as well as some magnification. A good rule of thumb is 2x the distance you want to shoot, i.e 500m = 10x. I love all these FFP optics with 3-18 or 4.5-27 etc. Most FFP reticles are not usable at the lower range. Most I have used only begin to be usable at the middle of the mag range. The current trend for low power variables all have a daylight visible dot which is usable at low range. I run a Leupold MK6 1-6 on my Bartlein barreled SPR and its fine out to 600m. My KAC SR25 ACC runs a Leupold MK8 CQBSS, my precision bolt gun runs a Leupole MK6 3-18 with H59. I never dial it below 7x. Also, anything much above 18x and you will get a lot of mirage. Most shooters I know with high mag optics typically dial back to about 18 or 20 most of the time.
I have a NF SHV 4-14x56 on my DDM4V11 18" STW with NF 20MOA base and rings. I also think 4X is low enough. I have some 5.56 77gr. OTM. I wonder how far a good shooter could reach with such a rig and ammo. In other words, at what distance does the 77 gr. peter out?
I have an SHV on my NovesKe SPR and dig it. Those 77's will ring steel at 1,000 but not with any authority. But they will safely carry that distance. The Black Hills variety is pretty darn hot and will make that task a bit more easy. That DD gun is nice piece , go for it.
PB
sasquatchoslav
04-14-17, 05:53
That's exactly how I came to buy a Vortex Diamondback 4-16 the deal was too insane it was 289 to my door on Amazon. I did violate my inkling that 4x was too much mag for the purpose of my 308AR though which is hog control. It's tough to hit a hog running at full tilt inside 100 yards on 4x or is for me I should have stayed with say a 1.5-6. That said the quality of the glass is more than I'll ever need I've taken game-o-plenty in very low light conditions at dusk and dawn I will keep this glass forever and likely it's going on an old bolt once my thermal scope arrives. Soon!
Doc. Holiday
04-14-17, 08:32
It just comes down to what SPR stands for. Special Purpose Rifle. So what is YOUR special purpose for it? Someone's application may need a 1-6 power only scope, while another's purpose is a 4-16 power, etc. You just have to find out what YOUR special purpose is and go with it. If you are wanting to engage targets 50 yards-500 I would prob do a 1-6 or a 2.5-10. If you are wanting 100-1,000 I would probably go with the 4-16 (depending on your eyes). If you want the best of both worlds, get a 4-16 and then slap a red dot on the side or top and zero that at a close distance, but you will sacrifice a little bit more weight.
There aren't any free lunches. There will ALWAYS be give and take.
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
04-15-17, 16:36
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.
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
04-16-17, 13:01
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/spindrift01/media/DSC_0271_zpsyugqdqs4.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 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
It was a couple of years ago, had the M5B2 turrets which were sort of tall.
http://s1377.photobucket.com/user/spindrift01/media/DSC_0271_zpsyugqdqs4.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.
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.
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
04-18-17, 12:02
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!
3-15X seems to work pretty well on my JRA M21 DMR. SWFA SS.
Russell0331
05-11-17, 09:14
I've had everything from 1-4's to 8-25's on SPR's/MK12's. If most of your shooting is from the bench, get higher mag. If most of your shooting is dynamic, then get a 1-4,6,8,or 10. I currently run a 3.5-15 on my SAM-R, an ACOG on a LWRC, and a 3.2-17 on a MK12.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.