Scope for a dedicated hunter...

[CAPTBEACH]

Almost finished with a 308 Shorty Hunter and to the point when I need to think about glass...

I am a fixed power kind of guy but I want to be able to hunt dark deep woods and bean fields so a variable is the only option for inside 100 in the woods or out to 500 on the far side of a bean field if the shot presents itself I'll take it...so lets call that 0-600 for arguments sake...I have always used a 200 yard zero (hold over from the Corps) I am looking hard at the Nikon M-308 4x16 BDC reticule calculated for the SMK 168...or the SWFA 3x15 as I have 2 other SWFA scopes now and am very satisfied with them...

My bullet/load of choice is FGMM or its clone 41.7 gr of IMR 4064 with a 175 SMK, yes.... GASP...I use SMK match bullets to hunt with...never had a deer take more than another step or two and most DRT in their tracks

Does anyone know if NIKON makes a turret for the 175 SMK or if anyone else makes a mid range scope that uses the 175 ballistics? Using Strelok I find that they are so close its almost a dead heat...using 2600FPS for both as starting velocity and with BC's of .462 for the 168SMK and .496 for the175 SMK looking at the table below it seems like the NIkon with its 168 turret is almost or nearly close enough to run the 175...am I missing something? Over simplification?

****168***175
200 0" 0"
300 -8.9" -8.74"
400 -25.91" -25.28"
500 -52.36" -50.91"
600 -89.92" -87.01

[stomp442]

I would just get a scope with a moa turret rather than a calculated one that way you can make it fit your load. If your stuck on a Nikon the 6-18 Nikon buckmaster would be a good one. The best hunting scope made in my opinion is the 6-18 leupold vx II. Very light and very clear.

[cowtownup]

I didn't realize that 41.7 of IMR-4064 under a 175 SMK was a clone of the 175 FGMM...

I have a Nikon Prostaff and am really please with it. It sounds like you've really done your research so I'm sure you will be fine either way you go.. i would vote for a variable power optic...

[sixonetonoffun]

My absolute favorite hunting scope so far is my vx-iii 2.5-8x36 on my 500/375 the glass really makes the low magnification shine. Can shoot with both eyes open with practice.

[darkker]

Given what scopes you are looking at, I say no.

This is my personal take on scopes, and why I think you are comparing apples to oranges.
The Nikon is a SFP scope, so the clicks only "work" at one power. Not a big deal for hunting, I will grant you, but if you are going to be doing any varminting, or grouping across said bean field, you want them to match. Also with matching turrets/reticle, you can use any bullet, start, you want. The BDC will pigeon-hole you to ONE thing only.

Can't recall if I also posted the review here.... I bought a Primary Arms 4-14X FFP mil/mil scope and did some side X side against that SWFA and a Weaver tactical. Honestly I like the bottom portion of the reticle of the SWFA best for mile work; but no way would I spend the money. The PA has better glass in the heat and distortion at distance. Worse case it is a push, but the PA is significantly less money. So far for me, it tracks the same(very good), has better positive clicks and has withstood a pile of abuse.

Best wishes which ever way you go.

[foxx]

I agree with Darkker. I just picked up 2 of those PA's and really like them. I was very surprised. I, too, am a SWFA fan, and I have been drooling over that 3-15, but I can't imagine it being better than the PA for hunting. I am sure I would not want to carry it into battle, but for the woods and bean fields, man, I can't justify the SWFA when the PA is out there for 1/3 the price. (that's why I got 2, BTW)

[emtrescue6]

I have been very happy with my Nikon glass...have a couple Pro-Staff's and a Monarch...I'd happily buy both again. I am also a fan of Swift Optics and have several of the Swift Premier scopes, including a 3-9x40 that has been on a 270 for 22 years now error free. I am happy with the clarity of their glass and the ease of their warranty....several years ago I did have a new Swift that went hen$hit almost immediately after buying it and it was replaced without a hassle. I use to be a big Lepould fan (grew up just down the street and across a bridge from their factory in Portland, OR...I have a couple 30+ year old Lupy's I wouldn't trade for anything...but I wouldn't walk across the street for free Lupy's made now days.

[Jamie]

Does anyone know if NIKON makes a turret for the 175 SMK or if anyone else makes a mid range scope that uses the 175 ballistics?

Nikon has the Spot-On program that will print drop for your loads to help match up to your reticles. Leupold will burn you a turret for their CDS scopes. I am sure there are a few more out there but those are the ones you will commonly see.

For pure optical clarity, it is hard to be the Cabela's Instinct/Euro line.

[gmohr54]

I have shot Nikon on my rifles up until now. The BDC works well sometimes. For my Savage Model 10FCP 308 5R I have purchased
a Primary Arms 4-14X44 FFP Mil/Mil scope. Tracks perfectly and is spot on with the free ballistics calculator I use. from 50yds to 500yds.
Price was great and they ship fast. The glass is every bit as sharp and clear as the Nikons if not clearer. Try one, I do not think you will
be disappointed.

Gene

[JCalhoun]

I have Weaver fixed power K4 & K6 on my dedicated hunting rifles.

[jpdown]

For a dedicated hunting rifle scope, I like the looks and function of the Leupold VX-2 3-9x40 with CDS dial, Leupold VX-3 3.5-10x40 with CDS dial, or the Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x36 with B&C reticle. The glass and contrast on these newer Leupold VX-2 and VX-3 models is much improved over the older VX-II and VX-III models. These scopes are lighter and more compact than comparable brands. The CDS dial and Duplex reticle are a simple and accurate shot placement solution. No reticle clutter to distract or figure out. Determine the distance with a rangefinder, dial in the CDS yardage and shoot. I made some glue and tape over CDS dial strips calibrated for various loads to avoid paying $89 for a new CDS dial. It seems, I can't make up my mind on just one load. I've tried a lot of different hunting scope brands over the years, but always seem to come back to Leupold, especially now that I believe their glass is once again competitive with other brands.

Not to scale

[sixonetonoffun]

I wanted the B+C on my 2.5-8x36 but sticker shock got in the way.

[gmohr54]

I am real happy with my Primary Arms 4-14X44 FFP scope. Dead accurate and holds zero. So far the only thing that has kept me
from kiling a hog or dear is well.. the animals themselves. Well, that and time, Just got my dies and will start reloading and doping
rounds to find the sweet one.

Gene

[D.ID]

Clicks from an moa turret work at any magnification, even on a second focal plane. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
.
I like nikon and my monarchs track fine, my prostaffs bdc reticle works fine out to 600+ but dials can be custom made to mach up more precisely than any reticle can.
Matching turrets and reticle will be irrelevant if your dialing in your shots.
If you are hunting ranges beyond point blank (2-300 yards) buy and use a range finder. That once in a lifetime trophy is not the same size as the forked horn by the road and can not realistically and reliably be ranged with a reticle.
If you want a turret to match your specific load at a given temp and altitude look at kenton turrets before you buy your scope and be sure to get one that custom turrets are available for.
Vortex viper and bushnell elite tactical should be looked at, the 2.5-16x42 bushnell sfp or 3-15x42 swfa ffp come to mind.
Nothing against primary they are just unfamiliar to me.
Shoot most of mine sfp, mil ret and moa turrets just fine.
If you find yourself all the way up to 6x on the low end you might as well have 24x on the high. My ability to identify partially obscured targets like a buck in brush has dramatically improved my success rate.
If your talking variable anyway: magnification is your friend, better to have and not need than to need and not have.

[darkker]

[QUOTE=D.ID;284002]Clicks from an moa turret work at any magnification, even on a second focal plane. One thing has nothing to do with the other[QUOTE]

No, not true. Yes your adjustment still adjusts, but the graduations (BDC,mildot, etc) will only match the turrets adjustment value at one magnification setting, if you have a SFP scope.
If you have a FFP scope, the reticle value and click value always match at any magnification.

[savgebolt]

fyi,,,i have seen printed tapes like shown above that you can buy and install on your turrets,,,, i saw then at longrangehunting.com,, its a free read

[D.ID]

[QUOTE=darkker;284406][QUOTE=D.ID;284002]Clicks from an moa turret work at any magnification, even on a second focal plane. One thing has nothing to do with the other

No, not true. Yes your adjustment still adjusts, but the graduations (BDC,mildot, etc) will only match the turrets adjustment value at one magnification setting, if you have a SFP scope.
If you have a FFP scope, the reticle value and click value always match at any magnification.

I have never heard of anyone (while hunting) using a bdc reticle while simultaneously dialing adjustments. On paper it comes in handy, on a dear it is going to be one or the other.
I have both and use both and have never needed to combine the two >independent< means of correction, except for extreme range when there is inadequate amounts of adjustment in the scopes turret.

[darkker]

Using a BDC, they probably don't dial, as you stated it defeats the purpose. The issue I do see frequently is that someone sets-up an improvised target at a short distance, say 50 yards, to verify zero. If that is done, the power may not be correct. Also when your velocity, atmosphere, etc changes; your BDC is now incorrect and one finds themselves pigeon-holed.
That is why I suggested the FFP scope in a mil/mil configuration. For the money based on my personal experience, I voted for the PA. but of the two scopes the OP referenced, the SWFA is a better choice in terms of flexibility over time and applications.

[D.ID]

But if your shooting to check your zero you would be using the main intersection of the cross hair making the power and or spread of the bdc irrelevant again.

[BarrelBurner]

Capt, my vote given the cartridge and the scope choices listed would be the Nikon.
I find myself more often than not using a BDC set up for shots 400yds and less in hunting scenarios, beyond that I'm dialing up though.

The BDC is faster than looking at a drop chart and then dialing on a mil/mil set up for your intermediate and longe shots. There are so many cases where time is critical especially if you have a buck pushing a doe around, they usually don't stay still too long. At least with the Nikon you have the choice of both the BDC and dialing (which ever is most appropriate at the time). It really is a plus that you are considering an optic that's matched to the cartridge or at least very closely so.

[darkker]

But if your shooting to check your zero you would be using the main intersection of the cross hair making the power and or spread of the bdc irrelevant again.

Not if you adjust, and think the bdc is still "on" for your drops. BDC reticle assume a lot, between a constant BC #, launch speed, and atmosphere.

[D.ID]

I would hope it is a given that environmental conditions effect bullet drop regardless of scope features like bdc, mil/mil, mil/moa, ffp or sfp, there is just no way around that either way but nothing can compensate for that without a correction. Drop charts or a pda will lead you the exact distance off course unless you correct for it.
In either case a zero check at specific conditions is still a zero check and has nothing to do with focal planes. Environmental corrections and a study of your ballistics is necessary regardless.