Decision made

Like many who have gone before I've made myself practically nuts over the last few months trying to decide which $1000 scope I wanted to mount on my Model 10 .223. I looked at and through a LOT of scopes. Nightforce, Vortex, Burris, Leopold, Nikon. I was looking for a tactical scope with exposed turrets, lighted reticle, zero stop, as much clarity as possible (who doesn't want that?) AND because I frequently need to be able to dial down to the lowest power and shortest focal length it needed to be able to focus on very close objects. Last spring I was almost stepping on some rock chucks and also have the opportunity to shoot at a few over 500 yards away.

I finally got my hands on a Burris XTR II and found my scope. I bought the 4-20x50 with SCR-MOA reticle and love it. Only took four shots at the range to have it zeroed and then it was accurate at 840 yards and back to 100 for a test and put a round almost in the same hole as a previous shot.

It is a big scope and I like it. Now I can't wait to go out on the desert and snipe jack rabbits and coyotes this winter and chucks next spring.

I have the same scope with same reticle. Love it. Only took me 6 months to find one. From all the reviews, for the money it can't be beat. I grabbed a Vortex 6-24x50 HS-T to hold me over until I found the Burris. The Burris went on my 6.5 Creedmoor. the vortex went on my 308. Enjoy.

I have the XTR2 1-8 SFP on my AR and I love it. I would really like to buy a 4-20 for my 22-250 but I don't want a FFP scope so I guess the XTR2 is out for that.

Goosedowner,

Just out of curiosity,

Why do you say that you don't want a FFP scope? This is a question I've been kicking around for the last year or so... SFP or FFP?

I'm torn between the 2. I like the idea of my sub tensions being the same whether I'm on 24X or on 6X as I have to turn down the magnification when my barrel gets hot.

With the SFP when you turn the magnification down, the subtensions change... That messes me off when I'm holding off....

On the other hand, with a FFP scope, when turned up to max X... I lose several MOA hashmarks on the bottom post... But, If I am dialing in my dope for the shot, then I don't really need the bottom post right?

So, what is your thought on either of the 2? Anybody?

Ehhhhhh.... You don't ever "lose" anything with a FFP????

I switched to FFP a few years ago, and will NEVER go back. Have a few PA 4-14's note and am happy as can be

Darkker,

Good catch on the "lose" LOL!!

I was being a little over simplified when I made that statement... I was just meaning that I can't see about 6-10 of the (2 moa) hash marks when I turn up the magnification because the reticle grows to large to see completely (Vortex PST) with it being FFP. It's the only thing that I don't care for with FFP scopes. It hinders the ability (for me anyway) to "hold off" rather than dope the scope on the quicker shots.

That being aid, I will probably go with one none the less, and if need be, I just have to adjust my magnification to the setting which allows me full view of the reticle. I really hate it when I forget I turned down my magnification and hold off what I think is 1 MOA and it is actually 3 MOA. Miss!! at 80 yards... :(

...... None of my FFP scopes have part of the reticle drop off the edge of the map with zoom.....

If that's the best Vortex can do, then they may not be in business long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SageRat Shooter

Goosedowner,

Just out of curiosity,

Why do you say that you don't want a FFP scope? This is a question I've been kicking around for the last year or so... SFP or FFP?

I'm torn between the 2. I like the idea of my sub tensions being the same whether I'm on 24X or on 6X as I have to turn down the magnification when my barrel gets hot.

With the SFP when you turn the magnification down, the subtensions change... That messes me off when I'm holding off....

On the other hand, with a FFP scope, when turned up to max X... I lose several MOA hashmarks on the bottom post... But, If I am dialing in my dope for the shot, then I don't really need the bottom post right?

So, what is your thought on either of the 2? Anybody?

---

It's my eyes! I have a hard time seeing the FFP reticle on the lower XXX's? I'm finding that the older I get, I need more light and a better reticle.
Maybe I just need to check out a better FFP scope.

So far my 65 year old eyes don't have that problem, as long as I have the reticle focus properly adjusted. For close in shots at minimum power against a dark background that is why I have a lighted reticle. That sucker shows up nicely.

For me the other guys are getting all the good first focal plane scopes. I don't like the idea the reticle covers the little targets. When shooting ground squirrels I like the scope set on 20X . The idea I can range with the reticle doesn't interest me in the least since I have a good range finder. If there was one made with a plex so thick and close enough together they could be used at close range without being able to see the center cross hairs, that might be okay. Then when you turn up the magnification to 20X the center reticle covers no more than 1/4MOA it would be a go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich Coyle

Then when you turn up the magnification to 20X the center reticle covers no more than 1/4MOA it would be a go.

---

You should look at the Sightron 6-24x50 FFP then.... It has a 1/4 MOA floating dot when turned up to 24X... at 20X it is even smaller. Really nice glass, comparable to that of a Nightforce NXS, at half the price.