How much is an optic worth?

[Ggreen]

Oh, I don't know about that SC site.

That guy might not know much.

-Nate

I live on that site lately. The bolt gun I picked up a while ago has me hooked. And I've been squeezing off more dry fired shots at paper than actual lead. IDK how much better the timney can get tho

 

[natdscott]

Timney is not the top-of-the-line, but other than BR and the Offhand sports, you'd be hard pressed to see the differences on paper.

And yeah, Mel is pretty knowledgeable. Being that he was an actual Sniper, he does by default have some knowledge that others do not.

I'm not on the forum much anymore. I guess I should be, but...


-Nate

 

[Ggreen]

Timney is not the top-of-the-line, but other than BR and the Offhand sports, you'd be hard pressed to see the differences on paper.

And yeah, Mel is pretty knowledgeable. Being that he was an actual Sniper, he does by default have some knowledge that others do not.

I'm not on the forum much anymore. I guess I should be, but...


-Nate

Trying to keep my rifle "practical" I decided against the lighter more pricey triggers. The 517 is offered on their custom built rigs so I figured it was a quality enough tactical trigger. I've had an older f-class savage in 6.5x284 from a trade that had an unreal trigger on it, but it was for all practical purposes not practical. The leupold/700 action/timney trigger/260rem combo has made holding near touching groups at 250yards a breeze. Basically every part of this rifle were recommended in some form on sc (except the trigger they only have a couple reviews on triggers). I've also been getting a big kick out of their browser based sniper game. For a total noob to tactical shooting it honestly helps understand the concepts, for the low low fee of free. I've gawked at the website for over a decade but only recently started actually using it.

 

[sheepdog697]

A used 6-24x vortex viper pst FFP would be excellent if you were hoping to reach out. even a 4-16 would be fine. I have a 5-20 gen1 razor and when im shooting long range i typically back it out to around 15-18x. If you have a higher magnification, and you back it down to 18x it will be more clear than a scope where 18x magnification is its max (in most cases).

 

[sheepdog697]

Great video from fank galli on scope PRACTICAL magnification

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjTGgsDd40w

 

[LarryC]

I am 77 YO and have been shooting for about 65 years, I have used (didn't own - could not afford) some very expensive scopes in the
past. I am not nor have ever been a competition shooter - except against friends! However today's economy scopes optics exceed the
quality of many of the expensive scopes of years past in my opinion.

I have purchased several of the Vortex scopes priced in the range of around $200 to $1k for rifles form .556 to 50 BMG. I have been very happy with every one. I don't believe the warranty can be matched by any other manufacturer nor can the quality matched for the price. In every case the scopes far exceed my ability!

 

[Hohn]

Scope shopping is a huge hassle.

I think the most important aspect of any scope for which you will shoot beyond point blank range is the turret accuracy and repeatability. The scope is first and foremost a targeting tool. The required level of optical performance is that it must be sufficient for you to make out the target at the ranges you will shoot under the conditions you will shoot. Better optical quality than this is nice to have, but doesn't practically improve system function. Again, the longer the range and the worse the lighting, the more optical performance (i.e. clarity, contrast, resolution) will be required.

If you are only taking point blank or closer range shots, turret accuracy is basically unimportant compared to holding zero. If the zero doesn't move, then it doesn't matter if your MOA or MRAD is exactly an MOA or MRAD.


Magnification is a game of rapidly diminishing returns. Going from 1x to 2x is a 100% improvement. Going from 2x to 3x is only a 50% improvement in image size. The net effect is that beyond 10x or so, you need a massive gain in magnification for it to be worthwhile. And IF you are going to use that much magnification, then you will need premium glass to make it worthwhile. A 25x scope with awful glass is useless at the higher magnifications.

Thus, there are step functions along the way where gaining meaningful capability above what a $800 optic will give you might require twice or triple the money. I can't afford a Tangent Theta, so I try to keep my applications to those where I won't need the premium stuff.

An example of a good match of scope to rifle is my CZ455 Varmint Tacticool with an SWFA 12x scope. I shoot it pretty much just at targets and in good lighting. Would this be a good hunting setup? No, it's way too heavy, the parallax on the SWFA is finicky. Definitely not a squirrel rifle. Way too much magnification, too little FOV, and the shallow Depth of Field is a deal breaker. The reticle is too fine for hunting.

My contrast, another CZ455 model that's lighter might get an inexpensive Nikon 2x-7X and work well for a rimfire hunting gun.

For a target centerfire rifle used at longer range, you could get away with a fixed optic if all your shots were at longer range, but you do have very real limitations with a fixed 10x compared to a 3-18 or 4-20. If those limitations are acceptable to you, then you can get more bang for the buck optically (fewer lens elements= better clarity/contrast, etc).


Personally, I'd be looking for a Christmas tree style reticle (with holdovers) in a variable optic with no more than 5x on the bottom if I were scoping a centerfire "precision" rifle for PRS style use with variable ranges and a need for speed.

 

[Gabriel]

Scope shopping is a huge hassle.





An example of a good match of scope to rifle is my CZ455 Varmint Tacticool with an SWFA 12x scope. I shoot it pretty much just at targets and in good lighting. Would this be a good hunting setup? No, it's way too heavy, the parallax on the SWFA is finicky. Definitely not a squirrel rifle. Way too much magnification, too little FOV, and the shallow Depth of Field is a deal breaker. The reticle is too fine for hunting.

I have had a few people tell me the 5-25 I have on my 455 is too much power. My response is "how is 5x too much?". You don't have to use it all. Like you said, that lower magnification number is important also. I wuldn't buy a fixed 25x optic, but with the option to bring it back down to 5x (or whatever works in a given situation) makes it a viable option.

For my use back in my woods at 100 yards, I keep it at 25x. It's nice not to have to drag out the spotting scope to see where I'm at.

 

[Hohn]

OP If your looking at a Nikon specifically, I really like the Nikon Prostaff 5 4.5-18x. Its a great optic with a lot of nice features, currently have them and have no intentions of ever getting rid of them. I reviewed one for my channel a while back if you'd like to check it out, might help answer a few more questions on it..

[video=youtube;oYe7YuTSuD0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYe7YuTSuD0&index=3&list=PLezKJ8l7dXJsLShS vdPhmDpuMNrVJkrXo[/video]

Love Nikons for bang/buck, amazing values. Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't offer in ANY model a truly "tactical" reticle like you'd want for PRS matches. For the vast majority of us, that's a non-factor. I just wish they had better "regular" reticles and weren't so wedded to the BDC thing.

Based on my experience with Nikon cameras, I assumed their scopes would be optically excellent, and they are--even the cheap ones are surprisingly good.

 

[Gabriel]

I was really interested in the Nikon Black optics when they were introduced. The parallax didn't adjust close enough for what I wanted it for. I agree about the BDC, I just won't buy a scope with that style of reticle. The Black optics have "standard" MOA or MIL reticles.

 

[Thor]

I heard an old hunter once say that "Optics weigh nothing and cost nothing" meaning it's not the place to buy second class. I have many scopes that I bought new many years ago, they are still good glass. If it's a good quality optic it will still be doing its job decades later.

Good luck in your search for range.

 

[rhino]

Love Nikons for bang/buck, amazing values. Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't offer in ANY model a truly "tactical" reticle like you'd want for PRS matches. For the vast majority of us, that's a non-factor. I just wish they had better "regular" reticles and weren't so wedded to the BDC thing.

Based on my experience with Nikon cameras, I assumed their scopes would be optically excellent, and they are--even the cheap ones are surprisingly good.

They have three in the catalog with mil-dot reticles:

1. PROSTAFF 5 4.5-18X40 Matte Mildot
2. MONARCH 3 4-16x42 Side Focus Mildot
3. PROSTAFF 5 3.5-14X40 Matte Mildot

Also, the BLACK X1000 4-16x50SF Matte has either mil hashes or MOA hashes in the reticle (either which would be very nice).

 

[Hohn]

Nikon is 15 years behind in reticles.

 

[Ggreen]

Nikon is 15 years behind in reticles.

Aren't all optics after the mil dots used by the marines in the 80's just rehashing the same thing with different packages? I wish I would have learned how to properly use standard marine or army dots before I bought my crazy simplified but very cluttered leupold array of dots style. I would have gone with a simple army dot reticle over my cluttered one now that I understand how they work. BDC is just a set distance based on testing in a certain rifle with specific ammo, but works well in the "close nuff." Reflex optics with holdovers are nice in certain situations for fast work. Seems like precision optics have just found a way to put more stuff in front of your eye to "simplify" ranging, but the reticles heart and soul dates back nearly 40 years

 

[Hohn]

A modern mil-hash or Christmas Tree (i.e. Horus-style) reticle is light years ahead of the basic mil-dot.

There's of course the tradeoff between features and clutter. But that's the difference between a hunting reticle and a PRS-style reticle.

This is IMO the best "precision" reticle that's not too cluttered like a Horus can be:

 

[seedubs1]

And mechanics. The guts in their scopes are complete garbage compared to what you get from other companies these days.

Nikon is 15 years behind in reticles.

 

[DRob]

I found a workable rule of thumb is spend more on the scope than you did on the rifle.

 

[Hohn]

I found a workable rule of thumb is spend more on the scope than you did on the rifle.

Yeah, I think that rule of thumb is woefully out of date. TERRIBLY.

 

[natdscott]

And mechanics. The guts in their scopes are complete garbage compared to what you get from other companies these days.

And WHY?! It's not like companies are still in DISCOVERY mode...we KNOW what works under bad conditions and heavy recoil. We have for DECADES.

Bill Weaver knew it--and filed his patent--in the 1950s.

Ever hear of a thing called "Micro-Trac"? To this day, it's probably still the most robust and best executed scope erector system ever used. The only thing Bill Unertl had to say about the system was that he should have invented it first.


The 1950s.

Optical glasses and crystals and reticle technologies have improved since then, but tell me again how we are making major progress.


-Nate

 

[rhino]

What is the name of that reticle and who makes it?

A modern mil-hash or Christmas Tree (i.e. Horus-style) reticle is light years ahead of the basic mil-dot.

There's of course the tradeoff between features and clutter. But that's the difference between a hunting reticle and a PRS-style reticle.

This is IMO the best "precision" reticle that's not too cluttered like a Horus can be: