Reply With QuoteDepends upon which mil formula you use as there are 2.
Originally Posted by earl39
That does get tossed out frequently. I'm not quite as "up" on geometry as I should be, I admit. But what seems to be the more technically correct, non-rounded number is more like:
1 Mil = 3.438 MOA
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
Depends upon which mil formula you use as there are 2.
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32 (New King James Version)
The best $1000 saddle on a $10 horse one could ever dream of. lol
^^ +1!!
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
[QUOTE=darkker;351081]
Super Snipers, which had a Naval contract, were Tasco originally.
Gotta love Least-Cost bidding[/QUOTE
This contract was only for units for the tests. Which the scopes did well in testing, but didn't offer everything the Military wanted.
It did however boost their sales by using it as a pitch.
I started with the SWFA 12x42, upgraded to a Gen 1 Vortex Razor, then finally to the Gen 2 4.5-27x56. Each upgrade has offered more consistency and easier shooting. Afterall the first step to shooting is seeing the target. I do believe, however that after the $2K mark in the optics world you are seeing diminishing returns for the cost.
A PA will never compare to high end Vortex, NF, Kahles, etc when it comes down to what you see when you look through them side by side.
Not saying you can't get it done with a PA, but the higher end scopes make it a lot easier, especially when you have to find targets quickly. If I didn't compete or understand all the benefits of the higher end scopes in the way I shoot I would have stuck where I started.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf;351379]If you werent competing in the type of matches you are, would your opinion remain the same?
Say you were simply a 1000 yd target shooter, would your requirments be the same?
Seeing better will always aide the shooter. I have a better understanding of what's going on down range in order to adjust. I wouldn't need all the bells and whistles, but I'd still want the super clear glass.
I'll also note that my natural vision is still 20/15, so it has nothing to do with me having poor vision. Seeing better simply makes shooting easier.
I won't argue your point about about the high end lines.
But for those who have some money to spend and get the most they can, they do compete amazingly well.
Another board member and I did just this.
He spent the $750-ish for the current SWFA 3-15, and I bought the PA.
We met up, and had some others with us, just to try and keep things unbiased. If you just look through them, you may say the SWFA is "brighter". But as we settled in to shoot targets beyond 1200, ALL target recognition disappears in the SWFA on the small target. The large one was a 55-gal from lid. Had you not known what it was, you would have not picked it up.
So again, let's look at this practically. A $229 scope can happily compete against well known lines around the $600 mark. It has almost all the same features, not glass, features; that people say those $2000+ scopes have.
THAT disparity in price is no where near reasonable, for the average Joe. Certainly to some, they can extract the value, or have enough money that it doesn't matter. For the rest of the shooters who don't have that kind of money to throw around; believing the hype can be costly.
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
I don't disagree and if classing by price range I pretty much look at it like this:
Low $200-$800
Medium $900-$1500
High end Med to low end high $1600-$2200
High $2300+
Basically everything priced in the High range only has minute differences in operation/features or is a fraction of a percentage better than many of the scopes in the low-high price range.
I put the Vortex Gen II Razor in the Low end of the high Range, but I believe you get the most bang for your buck from the Vortex. Not to mention with their warranty it's a lifetime investment!
I'd say the Bushnell's rule the medium range and from what I've seen PA and SWFA fight it out in the low range. All the ultra low end scopes aren't worth the time spent earning my paycheck that I would spend on them.
Ouch I wouldn't put my $79 prostaff up against a 299$ vx-ii. Though it has more travel then the leo.
So I would have to move the low end divide a bit. But I wouldn't hesitate on a shot at a deer out to 500yds. Paper wouldn't be as forgiving but I don't eat much paper these days :-)
I do have to get a pa just to see what it brings to the table.
Well what always makes me think about all this is looking back to not all that long ago, and what was used and the results produced.
The heavy gun 1000 yd record was untill (about) 5 years ago held by the same person for about 14 years. (14 years)
The shooter had built his own gun on a Rem 721 action. The scope was a 24 power Leupold with a 1" tube.
Countless rounds by countless shooters with better guns with better scopes (including Nightforce), were shooting at that record for all those years.
All that considered, how much credence should average Joe shooter, even average Joe match shooter, apply to the scope arguments?
I here you yobuck. It's a lot of personal preference. When I first started I came along with a Savage Axis that I rebuilt total with scope included chambered in 308. I'd still beat a lot of guys shooting 300WM's and 6.5's in the long range steel matches with that set up. What I've found is that as you improve the gear sometimes that shooter gets lazy because the gear runs so well. So if the fundamentals aren't applied as thoroughly then the assistance from the better gear doesn't help much. I've had days where I run with the pro level shooters no problem, days where I beat them, and days where I get slaughtered. It's very hard to stay in the correct mindset to shoot consistently every time you get on the gun. I've found my best matches are ones where I can stay calm, cool, and focused without stressing about the task. You start doing the fundamentals subconsciously.
Basically if you overthink your shot, you'll probably miss. Takes a lot of conditioning to shoot all day matches with large round counts!
So im gathering from what (your) saying, that an awfull lot has to do with mind over matter.
And of coarse we could go on to say if you dont mind it dont matter lol.
Im not totaly in the camp that it dosent matter, but i do believe we can do very well by not having the so called best.
I also dont think the gains made in the results weve seen in the last 30 years are in any way proportional to the cost in both time and dollars getting there.
I do envy that mausingfield though :-)
Runs like a sewing machine!
Interesting comparison LW...ida went with a "well oiled machine" or something lol.
I doesn't actually need much oil!
Check out my new review on the weaver tactical. I will say this about pimary arms. I own one, its the reticle that is matched up with certain 308 loads. I can say this about it. I dont have it in front of me but its hundreds of rounds shot and it holds flawlessly. The dials are flat out mush however. If they fixed that it would be a 10 for performance and cost. I shoot one of the exact loads it is calibrated for. It is on a gas gun AR10. Once it is set at 100 yrd zero you really have almost no need to touch the scope anyhow but you can. I flat out think they did their homework with those trajectories and nailed the reticle to create dial free shooting out to the effective zone of the 308 load. On a gas gun it does require a load that can be shot at least 1 moa or better or it really doesnt matter much how good the scope tracks does it? Not really a question.
Wow 4300 is high even for this scope, my LGS had a beast for 3499, put it on sale recently for 2999. It sold very fast at that price. I would love a Nightforce, but I would buy a NXS or ATACR. If you don't ever want to buy a high end scope don't ever shoot one haha. There is a noticeable difference, all that said I like my viper HST and it's clear enough for now and tracks well.
Yea, not real fond of the one I bought, make me an offer.....
If anyone is considering buying the Nightforce "Beast" for $4200.00, add another couple of hundred dollars and buy a Tangent Theta for about $4300.00. Nightforce glass never has impressed me that much. My first long range scope was a Nightforce 5.5-22x56. At the time, Nightforce only had 3 models: the 5.5-22x56, the 8-32x56 and the 12-42x56. The 5.5-22x56 Nightforce was my first "long range" scope. Later Nightforce came out with the NXS and renamed the first three models their "Benchrest" models. I tried an 8-32x56 NXS...again, I wasn't impressed with the glass for the money I paid. I do realize that making sure the scope tracks straight, and there aren't any flat spots in the turret as it travels, and the input is repeatable, returns to zero ect...is really more important than the image the scope gives you. If you can count the legs on a fly on a cow's azz at 1000 yards because your scope resolution and contrast are so good, it does you no good if your input into the turrets isn't dead on and repeatable. Eventually I got around to Schmidt & Bender's 5-25x56, which is still the gold standard against which all other scopes are measured. Strangely enough, I have two Hensoldts for my long range guns rather than the S&Bs. Hensoldt used to be Zeiss's military division - they were when I bought my scopes. Recently Hensoldt was sold and is no longer made by Zeiss. I'll never buy another one. My next purchase will be a Schmidt&Bender 5-25x56.
i had a NF 8-32x56 and loved that scope and wish ida kept it but needed the money...i have a NF ATACR and a vortex gen11 and like both a lot great glass...as far as clarity the gen11 is a little brighter but thats it...ive had the ATACR for almost 8yrs now and it has been use just about every weekend and still tracks as true as the day i got it.
ive had the chance to look through 2 Schmidt&Bender 5-25x56s the last couple of weekends and they are without a doubt very nice scopes but i personally did see enough difference to justify the price difference...now i didnt compare side by side or spend more than a couple of minutes with the S&Bs but the only differences i noticed was the colors looked a little more vivid and i really liked the turrets...i guess if i was a serious shooter like the PRS guys i might look into them a little harder but IMHO right now the best glass for the money in that price range is the vortex gen11...i think at $2800-$2900 the NF F-1 in ATACR is a little over priced but it is a nice scope.
The only reason I would buy something like that is if I was going to deploy in a war zone and the scope HAD TO WORK. That is why there is a market for US Optics, Steiner, Kahles and other brands that market scopes for ~$3000. If my life were on the line, and money wasn't a consideration, then yes I would want a ~$3000 scope known for be reliable.
That being said, I have no plans on taking a tour of rougher parts of the world, nor do I plan on visiting these places acting as a "sniper". I own no "sniper rifles" and will never claim to be a sniper, not for law enforcement or military. I enjoy long range shooting as a hobby, and as a hobbyist, these scopes are way overkill for me. It would be like towing a john boat with a Semi.
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I don't claim to be a "sniper", or claim to having been a "sniper" in the past. I just really enjoy using great glass. I don't look down on those who choose to spend their money otherwise; it's their money, I don't have any interest in trying to put other shooters down for their choices in equipment. If anyone took my post that way I apologize, as it was not my intent.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks