Colt LE6940 Scope Recommendations - 500m Shot

[Zane1844]

For instance if you can see the target you want to shoot at 100 yards with your naked eye and you want to be able to see that target at 500 yards, you will need the minimum of a 5X optic. If you can only see what you need to see at 50 yards, you will need to get a 10X optic.

A magnified optic only allows you to see your target better, other than having marks that can help you with holdovers/windage it won't make it any "easier" to actually hit your target. In my experience, it often makes it "harder" because you will start seeing your heartbeat/swaying and cause you to rush a shot or not follow good fundamentals and miss.

That was exactly my thinking about magnification. It is probably not accurate but I think for simply seeing, with my eyes, the most ideal situation would be using 1 power for every 100 yards. As in, no magnification at 1, 2x at 200 yards, etc. To be honest I have not tested the idea at all those ranges, with variable magnification.

However, at 400 yards, my 4x scope lets me see what I'd want to. Which is very close to what I can see at 100 with a RDS, or just my eyes if not shooting.

For your second point, I agree and also have experience with that. Mainly because I focused too much on the COG's BDC, and found it more difficult to hit at distance vs a RDS.

[Dahart85]

Okay, thank you for the insight, that helps a lot.

The short-term goal is to be able to single shot an 18" square wearing camo, but not obscured and not moving. The next step I plan to move into after this is pushing out into the 1,000-1250m range with other weapons and scopes. It is a progressive goal to essentially build up as funds/skill/practice/training allow and push my distance out as far as I can physically and mentally.

For example, if I look at Leupold, they have a lot of variations on their Tactical Mark 4 scopes. For this type of shooting would I be looking more at the ER/T or is the VX/R better? Do I need an LR/T? How important are the adjustments if I want to push 500 then 750m?

If I look at it myself, I would think I want the Mark AR Riflescope 12x or 18x if I plan on moving towards 750m with solid center mass hit. I just don't know, given the application, if that would be a good starting point with variables like being in broad daylight.

Also, do you have any sites you recommend I can do more research? A lot of stuff I find tends to either be very in depth (and over my head at this time) or very broad and not definitive. Most just say it depends on what you're shooting at and with, but doesn't elaborate. So thank you all very much for your help in getting me going, being very helpful and I appreciate it greatly.

[Crow Hunter]

Okay, thank you for the insight, that helps a lot.

The short-term goal is to be able to single shot an 18" square wearing camo, but not obscured and not moving. The next step I plan to move into after this is pushing out into the 1,000-1250m range with other weapons and scopes. It is a progressive goal to essentially build up as funds/skill/practice/training allow and push my distance out as far as I can physically and mentally.

For example, if I look at Leupold, they have a lot of variations on their Tactical Mark 4 scopes. For this type of shooting would I be looking more at the ER/T or is the VX/R better? Do I need an LR/T? How important are the adjustments if I want to push 500 then 750m?

If I look at it myself, I would think I want the Mark AR Riflescope 12x or 18x if I plan on moving towards 750m with solid center mass hit. I just don't know, given the application, if that would be a good starting point with variables like being in broad daylight.

Also, do you have any sites you recommend I can do more research? A lot of stuff I find tends to either be very in depth (and over my head at this time) or very broad and not definitive. Most just say it depends on what you're shooting at and with, but doesn't elaborate. So thank you all very much for your help in getting me going, being very helpful and I appreciate it greatly.

Start with what distance can you resolve your aiming point on your 18" target with your naked eye and calculate what magnification you would need to see that same aiming point at the range you want to shoot. (Cut out an 18" cardboard square and see how far away you can see it with an unaided eye.)

Keep in mind that there will be A LOT more factors involved in shooting at 500 yards than just what optic you are using.

The rifle/ammo/shooter/environmental conditions/ranging ability combination will be as much or more of a factor at 500 yards than which optic you choose.

But at a minimum you will need to be able to see what you are shooting at and that is what I would start with as a baseline for an optic.

Personally, I would start with shooting at 250'ish yards until I could get good enough to hit that 18" target on command then start adding range to it and practicing the ranging/holdovers and work my way out to 500 yards.

Always buy the best quality optic you can afford, you will never say that you wished you couldn't see the target as well or had more scope flare or less low light clarity.

That being said, take a real hard look at what you really "Need" and how often you plan on shooting a non moving camoflaged 18" square at 500 yards using high quality premium ammunition.

In most "defensive" situations, you will probably be better off with a non-magnified reflex optic, particularly on a 5.56 carbine.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Okay, thank you for the insight, that helps a lot.

The short-term goal is to be able to single shot an 18" square wearing camo, but not obscured and not moving. The next step I plan to move into after this is pushing out into the 1,000-1250m range with other weapons and scopes. It is a progressive goal to essentially build up as funds/skill/practice/training allow and push my distance out as far as I can physically and mentally.

For example, if I look at Leupold, they have a lot of variations on their Tactical Mark 4 scopes. For this type of shooting would I be looking more at the ER/T or is the VX/R better? Do I need an LR/T? How important are the adjustments if I want to push 500 then 750m?

If I look at it myself, I would think I want the Mark AR Riflescope 12x or 18x if I plan on moving towards 750m with solid center mass hit. I just don't know, given the application, if that would be a good starting point with variables like being in broad daylight.

Also, do you have any sites you recommend I can do more research? A lot of stuff I find tends to either be very in depth (and over my head at this time) or very broad and not definitive. Most just say it depends on what you're shooting at and with, but doesn't elaborate. So thank you all very much for your help in getting me going, being very helpful and I appreciate it greatly.

The scope lines you're listing above are just all over the map in terms of quality and magnification levels, despite being all Leupold, and the way you're listing them it sounds like you either are confusing lines or don't understand what does what. I mean this nicely, not harshly.

For 18" squares out to 500m, with no short range use, I would suggest something anywhere from the 3-9x at the simple end to a 1-8x (for $4k) to up to maybe a 5-20x50mm type scope. A very broad range, with wide ranging prices, sizes, and weights. High magnification is nice when you're prone at a square range, but you'll get tired of a 35oz scope if you're trying to hike with your rifle and then take an offhand shot.

You will find a greater number of discussions at Sniper's Hide, but with more focus on very long range precision. For your stated uses I don't think the expertise there is any greater than here. (If you wanted to shoot at 1500m with a 338LM, it might be different.) I think most people just buy their first scope, use it for a while and figure out if it's right or wrong for them. If you buy a brand with a good reputation and transferable lifetime warranty, like Leupold, Nightforce or Vortex, you can re-sell your scope later at a small loss if it's not the right one for you.

So, all that said, I would get something roughly in the 3-12x or 4-16x range, quality, use it for a while and then figure out if your real use works with it. If not, you'll have a much better idea what to replace it with.

[BrigandTwoFour]

At first I was going to jump right into the Leupold Mk6 1-6x20, Vortex Razor HD II 1-6, or the SWFA SS 1-6x24. All of those put you in the $1000+ range, but are fantastic optics.

If you were willing to drop down to a 1-4x scope, it easily gets you under $1000 with very good quality.

But since it seems you don't care so much about close range performance, I see no reason not to look something like a 2.5-10 or 3-9. Honestly, there are a ton of great scopes in the mid magnification range that meet your price point. Just take your pick of one that has a matching reticle and turrets and be done with it.

Vortex has a new PST 2.5-10x32 on the market that is gaining a lot of attention. It's $800, but can be found for less. SWFA has a 3-9 and a 3-15 that seem pretty well regarded. Bushnell has been coming out with a lot of great looking scopes in a variety of magnification levels using their G2DMR reticle.

Just some food for thought.

[CobraBG]

I have a Les Baer .223 Super Varmint AR with a 20" bull barrel and use it for shots out to around 500 to 600 yards. The scope is a Leupold VXIII 4.5x14 with tactical turrets (1/4 moa adjustments) and it has worked very well. I like the variable magnification and if can remember correctly it was around $600 though that was many years ago. I really don't shoot this much at distances less than 200 to 300 yards.

If I were buying now I might consider an illuminated reticle for more definition against dark cover or with dim lighting.

[Dahart85]

Sorry for the delayed response, was in California for a wedding over the weekend. Napa Valley is gorgeous and had a lot of fun.

Personally, I would start with shooting at 250'ish yards until I could get good enough to hit that 18" target on command then start adding range to it and practicing the ranging/holdovers and work my way out to 500 yards.

Thank you Crow, some great information in your post. I am confident in my abilities to hit 500m as I can hit it with iron sights right now about 75% of the time in fairly ideal conditions. The problem is I want to move out further over time and realize I need to learn to use optics to begin developing further. The only optic I've ever used was an M68 CCO (which I think is an Aimpoint CompM2 in civilian terms?) while deployed. Other than this one reflex, I've always used rails and been fine for my intended purposes. But I'm comfortable in close combat for defensive and offensive situations. My glaring weakness is distance and obviously knowledge outside of what I'm used to.

The scope lines you're listing above are just all over the map in terms of quality and magnification levels, despite being all Leupold, and the way you're listing them it sounds like you either are confusing lines or don't understand what does what. I mean this nicely, not harshly.

For 18" squares out to 500m, with no short range use, I would suggest something anywhere from the 3-9x at the simple end to a 1-8x (for $4k) to up to maybe a 5-20x50mm type scope. A very broad range, with wide ranging prices, sizes, and weights. High magnification is nice when you're prone at a square range, but you'll get tired of a 35oz scope if you're trying to hike with your rifle and then take an offhand shot.

You will find a greater number of discussions at Sniper's Hide, but with more focus on very long range precision. For your stated uses I don't think the expertise there is any greater than here. (If you wanted to shoot at 1500m with a 338LM, it might be different.) I think most people just buy their first scope, use it for a while and figure out if it's right or wrong for them. If you buy a brand with a good reputation and transferable lifetime warranty, like Leupold, Nightforce or Vortex, you can re-sell your scope later at a small loss if it's not the right one for you.

So, all that said, I would get something roughly in the 3-12x or 4-16x range, quality, use it for a while and then figure out if your real use works with it. If not, you'll have a much better idea what to replace it with.

Thank you very much. You are right and no offense taken. I flat out do not know what the difference is. Spent the better part of my training being taught on irons for close combat so never ever had to even consider worrying about scopes other than the occasional reflex which are pretty cut and dry for my purposes. No hiking, just prone, ideal conditions, target shooting. Good point on sticking with better brands for re-sale purposes if I don't like them.

At first I was going to jump right into the Leupold Mk6 1-6x20, Vortex Razor HD II 1-6, or the SWFA SS 1-6x24. All of those put you in the $1000+ range, but are fantastic optics.

If you were willing to drop down to a 1-4x scope, it easily gets you under $1000 with very good quality.

But since it seems you don't care so much about close range performance, I see no reason not to look something like a 2.5-10 or 3-9. Honestly, there are a ton of great scopes in the mid magnification range that meet your price point. Just take your pick of one that has a matching reticle and turrets and be done with it.

Vortex has a new PST 2.5-10x32 on the market that is gaining a lot of attention. It's $800, but can be found for less. SWFA has a 3-9 and a 3-15 that seem pretty well regarded. Bushnell has been coming out with a lot of great looking scopes in a variety of magnification levels using their G2DMR reticle.

Just some food for thought.

Thank you for some specifics to start looking at while continuing my research. Glad to hear there are a lot of options where I'm starting. I am starting to concur that it will be a certain amount of trial and error at this point.

I have a Les Baer .223 Super Varmint AR with a 20" bull barrel and use it for shots out to around 500 to 600 yards. The scope is a Leupold VXIII 4.5x14 with tactical turrets (1/4 moa adjustments) and it has worked very well. I like the variable magnification and if can remember correctly it was around $600 though that was many years ago. I really don't shoot this much at distances less than 200 to 300 yards.

If I were buying now I might consider an illuminated reticle for more definition against dark cover or with dim lighting.

Is the illuminated reticle very helpful during the day only against dark cover? I would be afraid it would wash out against the background most of the time. This shot would be coming with a hill with trees behind it, so it may have a darker background.

Thank you all as well for your patience with my, well, ignorance on this topic.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Is the illuminated reticle very helpful during the day only against dark cover? I would be afraid it would wash out against the background most of the time. This shot would be coming with a hill with trees behind it, so it may have a darker background.

Thank you all as well for your patience with my, well, ignorance on this topic.

There are three general ranges of scope illumination:
1) Only useful in darkness (sometimes referred to as night vision only)
2) Somewhat useful in daytime, against a darker background (not a glacier at noon)
3) Aimpoint bright, useful on a glacier at noon.

#2 is the most common by far. #3 is pretty rare, and mostly found in 1-4x type scopes, more often the expensive ones. Many companies claim one level and actually make a different one, in BOTH directions, so you can't really go by what the manufacturer says.

Among scopes I've owned, the Burris TAC30 1-4x and MTAC 1.5-6x40 are right on the edge of #3. The Vortex Viper PST's I've had are solidly in #2, and their purported night vision settings are actually, for me, quite useful for an unassisted eye in after dusk lighting. The Weaver I have with illumination (SS Euro 3-9x56) is in #1.

Anyway, the long and short is that decent illumination can be useful in daytime against a dark forest background or similar. Only super bright illumination really compares to red dot type use, and for a solid #3 you're looking at just a couple of scopes, all at $1k+.

I think something from the Vortex Viper PST line would probably be a good starting point for you, whether 1-4x, 2.5-10x, or 4-16x. The SWFA SS 3-9x42mm is also a great scope for the price ($600), but doesn't have illumination. Any of these may or may not be what you really want to end up with, but would be good quality scopes for figuring out what you really want, and have resale value if they aren't quite right for your use.

[Crow Hunter]

Sorry for the delayed response, was in California for a wedding over the weekend. Napa Valley is gorgeous and had a lot of fun.



Thank you Crow, some great information in your post. I am confident in my abilities to hit 500m as I can hit it with iron sights right now about 75% of the time in fairly ideal conditions. The problem is I want to move out further over time and realize I need to learn to use optics to begin developing further. The only optic I've ever used was an M68 CCO (which I think is an Aimpoint CompM2 in civilian terms?) while deployed. Other than this one reflex, I've always used rails and been fine for my intended purposes. But I'm comfortable in close combat for defensive and offensive situations. My glaring weakness is distance and obviously knowledge outside of what I'm used to.



Thank you very much. You are right and no offense taken. I flat out do not know what the difference is. Spent the better part of my training being taught on irons for close combat so never ever had to even consider worrying about scopes other than the occasional reflex which are pretty cut and dry for my purposes. No hiking, just prone, ideal conditions, target shooting. Good point on sticking with better brands for re-sale purposes if I don't like them.



Thank you for some specifics to start looking at while continuing my research. Glad to hear there are a lot of options where I'm starting. I am starting to concur that it will be a certain amount of trial and error at this point.



Is the illuminated reticle very helpful during the day only against dark cover? I would be afraid it would wash out against the background most of the time. This shot would be coming with a hill with trees behind it, so it may have a darker background.

Thank you all as well for your patience with my, well, ignorance on this topic.

If you are mainly looking at shooting long range targets without needing the close range abilities of a "fighting optic" I would get a nice Leupold VX II - Mark 4 range cost/quality scope with TMR or Mildots and exposed target turrets in the 10X range. I might even just go a fixed 10X if you don't really need closer range stuff and you want to keep cost down. That would let you see at 500 yards what you see at 50 yards with a naked eye and you wouldn't have to worry about First Focal Plan vs Second Focal Plane with ranging and you could get decent quality glass without spending a ton.

This is just going off mostly what I have read, I don't do much long range stuff other than fun shooting. That is usually just walking XM193 on to 5 gal buckets in a field at 500 yards with a Aimpoint M4 with my brother for kicks.

I have a Colt 6724 with an old Leupold VariX III in 4.5-14 w/Duplex that has been more than adequate the few times I have tried to shoot out to 400 yards with it. But I am not an expert long range shot, just hitting a 1/2 size Larue target or an occasional crow.

You definitely want to get good glass if you are going higher power. I have some friends that have some cheap brand 16X scopes, it is like looking through a cheap pair of sunglasses. Dark and slightly distorted. Not something I would want to spend a large amount of time looking through trying to find a small target.