Entry level .308?

[Stonebridge]

@MOA you're right- my 'top of mind' brands for a budget rifle were Savage and Vortex. On August 18th I'll have the opportunity to shoot the exact rifle and scope combination that I think I want with Hornady ammo pretty much to my heart's content. I'm reserving judgement until I've actually gotten some trigger time with the platform.

As a side note, I mentioned the possibility of using a shorter, stiffer barrel. Savage is now offering a .308 with accu-stock and accu-trigger with a shortened threaded barrel they're calling their Precision Carbine. It looks to fit my criteria very nicely.

Taking a tangent from the main thread, I'd like to hear your opinions on scopes. It's pretty much decided to be a Vortex as I've been impressed with all the Vortex glass I've used so far and my buddy's a dealer.

I'm leaning toward a mil-dot reticle, though I have nothing to really back that idea up. Just preconceived notions again and let me reiterate, I'm a beginner looking to get started in longer range shooting; if a scope requires calculus to operate, it's going to be a while before I'm to that level. I'm not exactly sure what power/magnification I should be looking for. To recap, I have the acreage to reach out to 800 yards but will more often be shooting in the 200 - 500 range.

Thanks in advance. You guys have been great.

-'bridge

PS- QuietShootr- that sig line is shiny.

[taliv]

just my opinions, but i don't subscribe to the "shorter stiffer" theories. maybe it is marginally more accurate, but i'll take velocity any day over an extra .1 or .2 MOA of accuracy for practical shooting that doesn't involve getting inside small vehicles. I'm running a 29" medium (not heavy) profile barrel WITH a 9" suppressor on the end and I don't have any problem hitting targets at respectable distances. (pics in the long range night shooting thread)

sure it's possible to shoot 1000 yrd with 18" bbl. it's possible with a 223. heck, my local range has 1000 yrd black powder matches.

if your goal is 1st round hits at unknown distance, you're seriously handicapping yourself in performance and adding noise. and the only positive is maneuverability. (which is admittedly more important for some jobs than others)

mil-dots are not nearly so easy to use as mil-hash type reticles. some great shooters like cluttered reticles, other great shooters like simple reticles. I think it boils down to how good your eyesight is, how you think, and what and how you like to shoot. But i don't know any good shooters that like dots. thus, you can find some really great deals on scopes with dot reticles on the used optics for sale forums.

optimal magnification depends on where and what and when you are shooting. moving targets, fast acquisition, lot of mirage = lower is better. shooting groups, very small targets, target identification, using mirage for wind calls = higher is better. so, ideally, a scope with a wide range of magnification is great.

[BrigandTwoFour]

Nothing wrong with the 10PC, it's a fine gun by all accounts.

I have a Vortex 6.5-20x44PA on my Howa 1500. That gun has a 20" heavy barrel. it will eventually get bedded into a manners T2.

The mil dot system is pretty good, and widely understood. I would try to get a scope that has the reticle and adjustment turrets in matching measurements (mil/mil, moa/moa). Mine is a mil reticle and moa adjustments. It's workable, but it will get replaced eventually.

Take a good look at the SWFA Super Sniper series, they offer a lot of value for the money and come in mil/mil.

do your research on FFP vs SFP scopes. The new "hotness" is in FFP scopes with mil/mil adjustments. SWFA, Vortex, and Bushnell all have scopes that meet those specs with an affordable price tag.

Good luck

[Gutshot John]

There is no price advantage with the Savage. Any of those guns are about the same price point.

Where Remmy has a significant advantage is the sheer amount of parts, accessories and customization possibilities.

That Savage trigger however is craptastic and is a deal breaker for me, YMMV.

if your goal is 1st round hits at unknown distance, you're seriously handicapping yourself in performance and adding noise. and the only positive is maneuverability. (which is admittedly more important for some jobs than others)

Can you expand on this a bit? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. 1st round hits at unknown distance is primarily reliant on two things: Good Dope in relevant conditions and Distance Measuring skill. If you have good dope with an 18" barrel out to a given distance within the performance envelope and can accurately measure that distance...than a 1st round hit shouldn't be a problem. If you don't have those things than the barrel length doesn't make a bit of difference. In terms of velocity you're maybe losing 15-25 fps max for each inch of barrel length? So while there are obvious differences between a 26" barrel and an 18" barrel, inside of 600 yards the difference isn't going to be that different. From 600-1000 it's mostly a question of the quality of your dope.

mil-dots are not nearly so easy to use as mil-hash type reticles.

I kind of agree but the statement is simplistic. Mil-dots are harder to use if you can see the mil-hash equally well. I prefer oval type mil-dots but I know a lot of good shooters that like true mil-dots just fine. One way or the other the mils system (whether dots, ovals or hashes) of estimating distance is the most versatile choice. This is what a lot of people mean when speaking about mil-dots, it's a generic appellation and could mean any of the three. But in general I do agree.

optimal magnification depends on where and what and when you are shooting. moving targets, fast acquisition, lot of mirage = lower is better. shooting groups, very small targets, target identification, using mirage for wind calls = higher is better. so, ideally, a scope with a wide range of magnification is great.

I agree...assuming you have an FFP optic.

[1911pro]

I was in the same boat and after a good bit of research this is what I ended up with for a cheaper first long range setup.
Remington 700sps varmint 26 inch barrel in .308 $525.00 NIB off the M4C exchange.
Weaver Tactical 4-20 mil mil FFP scope $737.64
Leupold 15moa base $109.95
Seekins meduim rings $118.95

The stock sucks and the trigger is not horrible if you adjust it down all the way. The Weaver scope has good glass, but is a little short on elevation adjustment and needs a 15moa base to get out to 800 yards or so. With the base it has about 10 mil adjustment. A Bell and Carlson stock will run a little over $200 from from Stockys. I have plans to get one when I can actually shoot well enough to notice the difference. I have limited time at the range with it, but so far so good. If you want I can bring it to Tusco next class.

[Stonebridge]

Yeah, if you could bring it to the next class, that'd be awesome. And if you feel like meeting up to go to this Savage/Vortex/Hornady thing with me, let me know.

One of the issues I'm dealing with is blank-slate-itis. Meaning, where a Savage accu-trigger might be "craptastic" to you by comparison, I have nothing to compare it against other than my old mil-surps and shotguns. Thus, the little accu-trigger testers at the gun counter feel pretty darn good to me.

So I guess my question is, without any modifications, drop-ins, trigger jobs, Timney's or what-have-you.... straight out of the box, brand new from the factory, who has the better trigger? Savage accu-trigger or a Remy 700?

My goal in this is not necessarily to buy the rifle I can add/change the most things on or has the most aftermarket support. That will be my next, "ultimate" rifle IF my "learner" rifle begins to limit me. Which may never happen.

-'b

[Stonebridge]

Another question- I sort of like the idea of a detachable box magazine for the rifle. Wondered what issues, pros and cons there might be with such a setup or if it's a non-issue either way.

Thanks,
-'b

[1911pro]

Yeah, if you could bring it to the next class, that'd be awesome. And if you feel like meeting up to go to this Savage/Vortex/Hornady thing with me, let me know.

One of the issues I'm dealing with is blank-slate-itis. Meaning, where a Savage accu-trigger might be "craptastic" to you by comparison, I have nothing to compare it against other than my old mil-surps and shotguns. Thus, the little accu-trigger testers at the gun counter feel pretty darn good to me.

So I guess my question is, without any modifications, drop-ins, trigger jobs, Timney's or what-have-you.... straight out of the box, brand new from the factory, who has the better trigger? Savage accu-trigger or a Remy 700?

My goal in this is not necessarily to buy the rifle I can add/change the most things on or has the most aftermarket support. That will be my next, "ultimate" rifle IF my "learner" rifle begins to limit me. Which may never happen.

-'b

Will do. Will talk to you also about the S/V/H. I really do not think you could go wrong with the Savage and the accu-trigger. I have heard good things about the 10fp. With my limited knowledge my Remington 700 with X-mark pro seems pretty darn good at the lightest adjustment. As set from the factory it was way, way to heavy.

[MOA]

Both the triggers are ok. I would not worry about it right off the bat.

On the short barrel thing: If you are going to be shooting factory ammo, specificly Gold medal match, you will give up little to nothing going 18" to 20". If you plan to handload heavier bullets get a little longer barrel.

[taliv]

So here's a quick example. I'll try to do something more thorough when not on my iPhone.

Assume a 26" 308 168g has muzzle velocity of 2750 fps. At 800yrd it has 209" of drop. Now you get your hacksaw out. I'll use your numbers and split the difference. 20 fps x 8" is -160 fps. Your 18" barrel now had a mv of 2590 fps and 244" of drop. That means one is shooting 35" flatter and needs 9" less wind given a full value 10mph wind.

So basically velocity is giving you more margin for error if your range estimatmaid off or your wind call is off even if your dope is perfect.

More later...