The game of optics- scopes specifically..

[neo9710]

To be quite blunt - I dont know much about scopes. Ive always entrusted my Aimpoint ML2 with a magnifier on my M4. Well, looks like my needs have changed. I'm picking up a .308 very soon and optics is now the question... The biggest use this thing is going to have is for 3 gun competitions (which I recently started signing up for). Im mostly concerned about my distance shots. I know my dot on my Aimpoint with start becoming a pain at distances. I was recommended the SWFA Super Sniper Rifle or the Falcon Menace..

So, what should I look for?! Any recommendations? I'm not looking to spend $1000+.

[kelly neal]

Low Powered variables rule the roost in 3 gun Tactical and Heavy Metal - Scoped (.308) divisions.

SO under $1000, I would look at Leupold MR/T 1.5-5X (w/ CMR reticle), Meopta 1-4X, Trij TR24 or Burris XTR.

I run a Leupold 1.5-5X with the CMR when shooting Heavy Metal Scoped. The CMR is calibrated to a 62 gr in an M4 but with a little tweaking of the zero, it is pretty close with a .308 155 gr.

[bp7178]

I would look at Leupold MR/T 1.5-5X (w/ CMR reticle),

Ugh. I had one and hated it. It felt that the reticle doughnut was very cramped and the eye box was too small.

On the other hand, for $400-300 cheaper, the Trijicon TR24 is the shit. I can't recommed it enough. I'm kicking myself for selling mine.

As soon as I clear the holidays, and to see what surfaces at the next SHOT show, I'll be looking at getting a TR24R.

It is a whole lot of scope for the money.

Having owned both the Loopy CMR2 and the TR24, the Trijicon is a winner without contest.

[JStor]

"Having owned both the Loopy CMR2 and the TR24, the Trijicon is a winner without contest. "


I was looking at the TR24s. Do you generally go with the 30 mm version?

[Nevermiss]

Low Powered variables rule the roost in 3 gun Tactical and Heavy Metal - Scoped (.308) divisions.

SO under $1000, I would look at Leupold MR/T 1.5-5X (w/ CMR reticle), Meopta 1-4X, Trij TR24 or Burris XTR.

I run a Leupold 1.5-5X with the CMR when shooting Heavy Metal Scoped. The CMR is calibrated to a 62 gr in an M4 but with a little tweaking of the zero, it is pretty close with a .308 155 gr.

Good advice here! It's best to try and get a chance to actually look through the scopes before you purchase.

I went with the Meopta and I've been very happy. I recently picked up a Swarovski Z6i 1-6X, but this is a little more than your budget. I need to get another one and I'm also considering the Trij TR24.

Try and look through them before you buy.

Check out the 1-4X sticky thread here and on the Brian Enos forum.

[bp7178]

I was looking at the TR24s. Do you generally go with the 30 mm version?

I would only consider the 30mm version. The TR21 has a 1" tube. It is very different than the TR24 and the two can't be considered the same scope with a different tube size.

TR24.

[Alaskapopo]

To be quite blunt - I dont know much about scopes. Ive always entrusted my Aimpoint ML2 with a magnifier on my M4. Well, looks like my needs have changed. I'm picking up a .308 very soon and optics is now the question... The biggest use this thing is going to have is for 3 gun competitions (which I recently started signing up for). Im mostly concerned about my distance shots. I know my dot on my Aimpoint with start becoming a pain at distances. I was recommended the SWFA Super Sniper Rifle or the Falcon Menace..

So, what should I look for?! Any recommendations? I'm not looking to spend $1000+.

In that price range I like two scopes. The TR24 1-4x Trijicon with the Red or Green Triangle reticle.

The Meopta is an even better choice for three gun as you can use different parts of the reticle for hold overs.
pat

[Alaskapopo]

I would only consider the 30mm version. The TR21 has a 1" tube. It is very different than the TR24 and the two can't be considered the same scope with a different tube size.

TR24.

They basically are the same scope with the TR24 being a bit nicer.(true 1x, better field of view) I have had both and both work.
Pat

[sparkman]

M4C member Steve (now Magpul instructor) turned me onto the
Triji 24G at a MDFI class... I bought one and have not looked back..
they ARE the shit....bright, clear and fast.

[kelly neal]

[QUOTE=bp7178;848533

Having owned both the Loopy CMR2 and the TR24, the Trijicon is a winner without contest.[/QUOTE]


Maybe, then again maybe not .........

[neo9710]

Wow. Thanks all...
Price is always a concern..Im going to see who around here has a Trijicon TR24 for me to look through..

[bp7178]

Maybe, then again maybe not .........


I really haven't hidden my disappointment with the Loopy 1.5-5 CMR2.

What do you have to add to the discussion?

[SA80Dan]

I really haven't hidden my disappointment with the Loopy 1.5-5 CMR2.

What do you have to add to the discussion?

Well....I'd have a look at Kelly's results in 3 Gun.....adds more than a lot if you ask me! :)

[Gutshot John]

I'm really not a fan of the TR-24 triangle reticle. I'd much prefer a traditional mil-dot type setup for a low-powered optic. There is no "absolute" 1x-magnification and whatever its advantages you shouldn't confuse it with a red-dot. It doesn't work that way.

Having owned both the TR-21 and TR-24 there is no functional difference between the two except slightly more light/clarity, slightly better FOV and a better tube in the latter. When I say "slightly" I mean that it wouldn't make a difference to the overwhelming majority of people even on this board. The notion that they are radically different scopes is overstated. People have their preferences obviously but the real disadvantage to both of these scopes are the lack of reticle options and the current ones suck.

What I did like about the 24 was the more consistent eye-relief, but the nice thing about the M4 with a fully extended buttstock for longer-range precision shots the eye relief times up nicely on the 21. Since that time however I've sold both after taking a DMR and a couple of precision shooting classes. It just changed my thinking on how a scope is employed and the TR-21/24 both fall short of that requirement.

No scope can do every job well. The idea with the Accu-Point was that the you get the "best of both worlds" of a red-dot with the advantages of a precision optic. You also get the worst of both worlds. It's not nearly as fast as a RDS and you don't get the ability to place your eye wherever you want it like you do with a red-dot which becomes very relevant when you're shooting non-traditional positions (e.g. rollover prone etc.) though this will be the same with any magnified scope you get, and finally you don't get the precision of magnification.

For me the main virtue of a magnification is that it allows for greater precision, both the 21 and 24 are at their most precise at their zero distance. The reticle post means that uf you have it zero'd for 100 yards (my typical zero), you're going to lose that precision rapidly as you move out to 300. Beyond 300 yards I found precision to be atrocious. This means that if you want true precision at 300 yards you have to zero at that distance and then learn your holds closer in. If you're absolutely never going to shoot beyond 300 yards than it's perfectly adequate but I don't know that it's still the ideal. Honestly if that's the outside range of your shooting needs, I'd stick with a quality RDS and maybe a magnifier if you're absolutely certain you need one.

In short IMO you're better off committing to the advantages of the RDS or magnified scope, understanding their liabilities, and getting the best out of it rather than compromising on everything.

This really left me with two-options: a fixed power combat optic like the ACOG or a variable power mil-dot optic like the Leupold.

For light-weight and simplicity there are few magnified optics that compete as well as the ACOG. I've owned two TA-33s (amber triangle in .308 as well as the amber horseshoe in 5.56). These are both excellent optics and though not nearly as fast as an RDS the light-weight and BAC makes them comparable to the 24 at 1x. The horseshoe reticle however has some of the same problems as the 24 reticle post in that precision is not really its strong point. In the end however neither of these were sufficient to my purposes either and so I sold one and traded the other for some training.

At the end of this journey I decided that the best option was a variable power with a mil/mil or moa/moa reticle/adjustment that are externally adjustable. I like the ability to dial in your dope like I do with my bigger scopes as well as the ability to be precise both at close and longer ranges. I think the Leupy CMR2 reticle holds a lot of promise. If the TR-24 had an option for mil-dot it might be acceptable, but the .25MOA clicks and the inability to rapidly change your dope is a distinct downside.

[kelly neal]

I am a big fan of the CMR reticle, it provides several levels of options on how to engage targets. I originally thought the dot was too small when Jim Smith introduced me to the CMR at Ft. Benning 3 Gun but since shooting it A LOT over the past year, I've found that I really like it. It is light years ahead of the SPR reticle and puts Leupold on par with pretty much every other scope manufacturer's reticles.

As for the horseshoe, I think it is about perfect. For close shots, it is basically a big dot. For plates/headshots out to about 150, if it is in the horseshoe you own it, something that a bigger horseshoe would not do. For more technical shots, you can use the dot.

As for the eye box, I have never had trouble with it.

I'm not saying that everyone has to run out and buy a 1.5-5X MR/T (look at my original post) and the Trij TR24 is also an excellent scope. Note the original question was about optics in 3 gunning and either scope (or the Burris or Meopta) will be very competitive. The entire Leupold shooting team relies heavily on the 1.5-5X MR/T with CMR and does quite well with it, thank you very much.