Building on the stock vs chassis thread, let's discuss optics.  Though I'm probably going to end up regretting starting this thread as I am already well down this rabbit hole. . .

I have started a short list of optics, but figured I'd open it up and get other perspectives. 

I currently have a Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 FFP MRAD on my Rem 700.  I really wanted to the 6-24, but I got a great deal on this one.  I've had a chance to shoot this one out to 1000+ and while I think it's ok, I am looking for something else. 

Another one is reticle.  So many darn reticle choices.  I won't be shooting PRS matches or anything like that.  Those Horus, Tremor, etc reticles get pretty wild.  I sort of like the grid features on some, but don't want is super cluttered.  I found that when spotting for a buddy with my scope, the reticle was "ok", as in it was useful for helping make adjustments, but also made me focus on say a quarter of the window to really see the splash on the near misses.  Maybe totally a case of "you're doing it wrong", but learning. 

hows it brotha. Will try to write down some of my experiences on hand (if you go on snipershide i believe they started an optic thread with data points, there are a ton of more experienced and distinguished shooters there with opinions that would weigh much heavier than mine lol). Maybe one day ill do a scope comparison in the future for this thread. The scopes I have on hand between my brother and I are

-Zcomp 5-27 with mpct-1 reticle
-NF ATACR F1 7-35 with mil-xt reticle
-Khales 5-25 with skmr3 reticle
-Vortex gen2 razor 4.5-27 with ebrc-2moa reticle
-Sightron s3 6-24 with ebr2c MOA-2 reticle
-Vortex pst gen 2 5-25 with ebr2c milrad
-NF SHV 4-14F1 w/ not sure which reticle lol (its my bros)

1. FFP vs. SFP (FFP > SFP IMO)

I havent found a need for SFP ever in my life. The only group of shooters i see using them are benchrest / F class, mostly because they dont have to worry about reticle enlargement when on higher power, considering their target size downrange.
The other argument i hear for SFP is hunting. I hunt currently with the zcomp and my brother with his khales, have shot goats from 20yds to 600 yards and havent had any issues with having a FFP scope. The caveat is you need the RIGHT reticle for the job. A lot of these companies have done a great job with creating reticles that when in the FFP and on lowest power, can be used similar to a duplex reticle for quick off hand shots.
The biggest uptick for FFP is obviously ease of use in the field. Theres no calculations or estimates on wind holds or DOPE changes. You hit .2 mils left, you hold .2 mils farther right for the same wind hold. On a 2nd FP scope, you would have to stop, think about where on the mag range you are and what multiplier you would use to make sure your reticle holdover is true. This works extremelly well when hunting or even spotting for a friend (that is if they are in FFP and are using the same click value).

2. Illum vs non-illum (illum > slight margin)

Ive always been a person to say i would never use illum, esp since its illegal to hunt at night in hawaii and i doubt id ever use my bolt gun for a SHTF scenario. BUT it has been nice when hunting in thicker brush or with a hog we killed near the end of hunting time. Its one of those things where its better to have and not need than to not have and want. When in thick brush, esp with a FFP scope, the reticle can be on the smaller/thin side if you are unfamiliar with it, just puttting the illum slightly on will turn your reticle into a near red dot state enough for quick shots. I used the illum on my 7-35 with my 22lr when shooting a hog about 15min before sunset, did i NEED it for the kill? absolutely not with my NF ATACR, but i felt it gave me a slight edge and allowed me to place an ethical shot on the hog, especially since it was a 22.

3. MOA vs MIL (doest matter, and no one should convince you other wise)

Its 100% subjective. One might say, well the military uses mils or most prs guys use mils, so mils has to be better. Or most F class guys use moa, so it must be better. Theres a few things that i put into consideration when doing this personally. If you are going to shoot bench rest or F class. moa can be helpful because you can find scopes with 1/8moa clicks which gives you a finer click to click adjustment than the mil avaialble versions. The second thing would be to pick one and stick with it. I would not reccomend buying a mil scope, then moa, then mil, etc. It can become confusing in the long run and you have to familiarize yourself with 2 diff systems. Another point of contention is what do the people you shoot with have? Im talking like regular shooting buddies or hunting partners. My brother followed suite with me and only buys mils scopes (khales, etc) because when we are shooting in the field or hunting, its easier to communicate wind holds and dope. Also one thing i have loved about mils is the "smaller values" Shooting at a distance might be 4.8mils vs like 16.4 moa (this really is nit picky lol).

4. Budget vs expensive (personal choice / values)

The topic where it can become slightly debated. The guy with the vortex saying his scope is just as good as the guy with the SB, zcomp, etc. The market has become a great place for all sorts of budgets and you can get really good stuff for a great price, that is one thing no one can deny. And having more options is always great. What it boils down to IMO, is what is your budget and what do you value. One thing you have to be honest with is that buying a 2k vortex will not get you the same quality as a 3-4k zcomp or TT or SB, thats just a 100% fact. And for 99% of people, that is totally fine. Because the increase in quality is not a 1:1 increase with price. Going from a 3kish zcomp to a 4kish TT does not equal 1k worth of value IMO. But is a TT better than a zcomp? probably, will it mean i will be a better shooter? prob not lol.

One thing i will say though is that the application should also drive the options (sounds like common sense ik). For example, if youve ever been out to the west side to hunt goats, you will see that a lot of the time in the day they will hide under trees in shade. So you have thick trees / brush with a black goat in the dark shade. What separates the zcomp and vortex IMO (i have used both hunting), is that the zcomp gives an extra edge to see these black goats under these trees. Also another example like stated above was with my NF ATRACR, it was near pitch black with my eyes but as soon as i looked through my scope at the pig, it felt as if it was half an hour earlier in the day. Frank Gali on snipershide podcast said something similar that he has been seeing anecdotally at the non typical ranges type of competitions. They have been shooting dark colored targets between brush at 500-700 yards and a lot of guys are struggling to see it. Not because they dont have the mag, but because they are lacking that slight extra bit of contrast and clarity in their optics. Now, does this matter for kokohead or does seeing a goat in the shade make or break my hunt? prob not. But shooting and hunting are my main hobbies and i don't go out to fancy dinners or drive a fancy car or take lavish trips, so it is a priority im willing to spend on and would never look down upon someone who isnt willing to spend that much or is stuck using a lower costing optic.

So where does that leave someone who doesnt have a variety of scopes to look through or test? If its your first scope, i would highly recommend anything in the PST gen 2 range. It has great glass, decent turrets, reliable ish, and has a great reticle. From there its a good starting point for someone to decide where they want to go to, if they are happy in this tier or the bug has bit them and they want to reach out for something in the NF / SB / khales / zcomp range or go full out on the TT.
Look at youtubers such as west desert shooter or LRSU. or look at what some popular people such as phil velayo or 22lrmarksmen are using.

if you are looking at a hunting rig. I personally would spend as much as you can on the glass and optic quality. Sounds overkill to spend more on a hunting rig that a "prs rig", but to me, hunting is where all these things actually matter. I want the best glass with the highest level of build quality / durability and also track flawlessly so that after i hike for 3-4hrs and get soaked by a random flash flood and need to make a shot at sundown or a 600 yard shot across a ridge, i will know that my optic will be the last thing to let me down.

5. Scope rings
I know you didnt ask about this, but just wanna say, please dont ever put cheap ass rings on your expensive scope. Yes its hard to swallow the extra cost of rings, but that is the foundation to which your scope is being attached to your rifle, so its equally as impt as your optic itself. Personally, ALL my rifles have ARC M10 rings. Best design hands down and havent had reports of anyone with issues or slippage.

6. Reticle

VERY VERY subjective as well. I noticed you said you didnt know how you felt about HORUS or Tremor and i was the same way. To me the best balance of these reticles are the SKMR or the MPCT or MIL XT reticle. I would say the MIL XT is probably a tie for my fav with my MPCT. The SKMR on my brothers khales is pretty nifty as well.
One thing i HATE is the EBR on my gen 2 razor. it has an open center which just feels weird and makes aiming seem off IMO. one thing i loved with the milxt or mpct is the floating dot. It gives a precise hold and allows your eye to focus easily on a smaller POA.j

6. Magnification (depends on situation)

For 99% of applications, 25x is way more than enough. Anything more will add unnecesary cost and will show major degradation in glass quality, esp in cheaper brands. Also with even 25x, mirage can be a killer, esp in our climate. One valuable lesson i learned is that quality >>> mag range. Looking at an animal with a pst gen2 at 16x seemed like i wanted to "see" more. now with my zcomp im usually never above 10x and can see every spec of detail on an animal out to 400-500 yards without wanted to zoom in and give up a little eyebox forgiveness. The only reason i have a 35x on my ATACR is because its on my vudoo 22 and its one of the few scopes in that tier that can parallax down to like 15yds.

This is also true on the low end. If its a SHTF bolt gun or hunting gun, i ideally want a minimum of 3 on the low. That's the only complaint with my zcomp rn. Having only 5 on the low makes it a bit more tedious to spot game or scan open areas. Im currently saving up to upgrade my hunting rig to a TT 3-15 hunter and will shift my zcomp to my 223 trainer for that reason.


To give a brief summary of the optics above.

GLASS = Zcomp > Khales / NF ATACR >> Razor gen2 > pst gen2 / NF SHV > sightron

Build quality = zcomp / khales / atacr >> razor gen2 > pst gen2 / NF shv / sightron

Turrets = zcomp > atacr / khales >>> razor gen2 > nf shv > pst gen2 > sightron


Hope this helps. would be good to see what other peoples perspectives are as well. Let me know if you got more questions regarding above.

hows it brotha. Will try to write down some of my experiences on hand (if you go on snipershide i believe they started an optic thread with data points, there are a ton of more experienced and distinguished shooters there with opinions that would weigh much heavier than mine lol). Maybe one day ill do a scope comparison in the future for this thread. The scopes I have on hand between my brother and I are

-Zcomp 5-27 with mpct-1 reticle
-NF ATACR F1 7-35 with mil-xt reticle
-Khales 5-25 with skmr3 reticle
-Vortex gen2 razor 4.5-27 with ebrc-2moa reticle
-Sightron s3 6-24 with ebr2c MOA-2 reticle
-Vortex pst gen 2 5-25 with ebr2c milrad
-NF SHV 4-14F1 w/ not sure which reticle lol (its my bros)

1. FFP vs. SFP (FFP > SFP IMO)

I havent found a need for SFP ever in my life. The only group of shooters i see using them are benchrest / F class, mostly because they dont have to worry about reticle enlargement when on higher power, considering their target size downrange.
The other argument i hear for SFP is hunting. I hunt currently with the zcomp and my brother with his khales, have shot goats from 20yds to 600 yards and havent had any issues with having a FFP scope. The caveat is you need the RIGHT reticle for the job. A lot of these companies have done a great job with creating reticles that when in the FFP and on lowest power, can be used similar to a duplex reticle for quick off hand shots.
The biggest uptick for FFP is obviously ease of use in the field. Theres no calculations or estimates on wind holds or DOPE changes. You hit .2 mils left, you hold .2 mils farther right for the same wind hold. On a 2nd FP scope, you would have to stop, think about where on the mag range you are and what multiplier you would use to make sure your reticle holdover is true. This works extremelly well when hunting or even spotting for a friend (that is if they are in FFP and are using the same click value).

2. Illum vs non-illum (illum > slight margin)

Ive always been a person to say i would never use illum, esp since its illegal to hunt at night in hawaii and i doubt id ever use my bolt gun for a SHTF scenario. BUT it has been nice when hunting in thicker brush or with a hog we killed near the end of hunting time. Its one of those things where its better to have and not need than to not have and want. When in thick brush, esp with a FFP scope, the reticle can be on the smaller/thin side if you are unfamiliar with it, just puttting the illum slightly on will turn your reticle into a near red dot state enough for quick shots. I used the illum on my 7-35 with my 22lr when shooting a hog about 15min before sunset, did i NEED it for the kill? absolutely not with my NF ATACR, but i felt it gave me a slight edge and allowed me to place an ethical shot on the hog, especially since it was a 22.

3. MOA vs MIL (doest matter, and no one should convince you other wise)

Its 100% subjective. One might say, well the military uses mils or most prs guys use mils, so mils has to be better. Or most F class guys use moa, so it must be better. Theres a few things that i put into consideration when doing this personally. If you are going to shoot bench rest or F class. moa can be helpful because you can find scopes with 1/8moa clicks which gives you a finer click to click adjustment than the mil avaialble versions. The second thing would be to pick one and stick with it. I would not reccomend buying a mil scope, then moa, then mil, etc. It can become confusing in the long run and you have to familiarize yourself with 2 diff systems. Another point of contention is what do the people you shoot with have? Im talking like regular shooting buddies or hunting partners. My brother followed suite with me and only buys mils scopes (khales, etc) because when we are shooting in the field or hunting, its easier to communicate wind holds and dope. Also one thing i have loved about mils is the "smaller values" Shooting at a distance might be 4.8mils vs like 16.4 moa (this really is nit picky lol).

4. Budget vs expensive (personal choice / values)

The topic where it can become slightly debated. The guy with the vortex saying his scope is just as good as the guy with the SB, zcomp, etc. The market has become a great place for all sorts of budgets and you can get really good stuff for a great price, that is one thing no one can deny. And having more options is always great. What it boils down to IMO, is what is your budget and what do you value. One thing you have to be honest with is that buying a 2k vortex will not get you the same quality as a 3-4k zcomp or TT or SB, thats just a 100% fact. And for 99% of people, that is totally fine. Because the increase in quality is not a 1:1 increase with price. Going from a 3kish zcomp to a 4kish TT does not equal 1k worth of value IMO. But is a TT better than a zcomp? probably, will it mean i will be a better shooter? prob not lol.

One thing i will say though is that the application should also drive the options (sounds like common sense ik). For example, if youve ever been out to the west side to hunt goats, you will see that a lot of the time in the day they will hide under trees in shade. So you have thick trees / brush with a black goat in the dark shade. What separates the zcomp and vortex IMO (i have used both hunting), is that the zcomp gives an extra edge to see these black goats under these trees. Also another example like stated above was with my NF ATRACR, it was near pitch black with my eyes but as soon as i looked through my scope at the pig, it felt as if it was half an hour earlier in the day. Frank Gali on snipershide podcast said something similar that he has been seeing anecdotally at the non typical ranges type of competitions. They have been shooting dark colored targets between brush at 500-700 yards and a lot of guys are struggling to see it. Not because they dont have the mag, but because they are lacking that slight extra bit of contrast and clarity in their optics. Now, does this matter for kokohead or does seeing a goat in the shade make or break my hunt? prob not. But shooting and hunting are my main hobbies and i don't go out to fancy dinners or drive a fancy car or take lavish trips, so it is a priority im willing to spend on and would never look down upon someone who isnt willing to spend that much or is stuck using a lower costing optic.

So where does that leave someone who doesnt have a variety of scopes to look through or test? If its your first scope, i would highly recommend anything in the PST gen 2 range. It has great glass, decent turrets, reliable ish, and has a great reticle. From there its a good starting point for someone to decide where they want to go to, if they are happy in this tier or the bug has bit them and they want to reach out for something in the NF / SB / khales / zcomp range or go full out on the TT.
Look at youtubers such as west desert shooter or LRSU. or look at what some popular people such as phil velayo or 22lrmarksmen are using.

if you are looking at a hunting rig. I personally would spend as much as you can on the glass and optic quality. Sounds overkill to spend more on a hunting rig that a "prs rig", but to me, hunting is where all these things actually matter. I want the best glass with the highest level of build quality / durability and also track flawlessly so that after i hike for 3-4hrs and get soaked by a random flash flood and need to make a shot at sundown or a 600 yard shot across a ridge, i will know that my optic will be the last thing to let me down.

5. Scope rings
I know you didnt ask about this, but just wanna say, please dont ever put cheap ass rings on your expensive scope. Yes its hard to swallow the extra cost of rings, but that is the foundation to which your scope is being attached to your rifle, so its equally as impt as your optic itself. Personally, ALL my rifles have ARC M10 rings. Best design hands down and havent had reports of anyone with issues or slippage.

6. Reticle

VERY VERY subjective as well. I noticed you said you didnt know how you felt about HORUS or Tremor and i was the same way. To me the best balance of these reticles are the SKMR or the MPCT or MIL XT reticle. I would say the MIL XT is probably a tie for my fav with my MPCT. The SKMR on my brothers khales is pretty nifty as well.
One thing i HATE is the EBR on my gen 2 razor. it has an open center which just feels weird and makes aiming seem off IMO. one thing i loved with the milxt or mpct is the floating dot. It gives a precise hold and allows your eye to focus easily on a smaller POA.j

6. Magnification (depends on situation)

For 99% of applications, 25x is way more than enough. Anything more will add unnecesary cost and will show major degradation in glass quality, esp in cheaper brands. Also with even 25x, mirage can be a killer, esp in our climate. One valuable lesson i learned is that quality >>> mag range. Looking at an animal with a pst gen2 at 16x seemed like i wanted to "see" more. now with my zcomp im usually never above 10x and can see every spec of detail on an animal out to 400-500 yards without wanted to zoom in and give up a little eyebox forgiveness. The only reason i have a 35x on my ATACR is because its on my vudoo 22 and its one of the few scopes in that tier that can parallax down to like 15yds.

This is also true on the low end. If its a SHTF bolt gun or hunting gun, i ideally want a minimum of 3 on the low. That's the only complaint with my zcomp rn. Having only 5 on the low makes it a bit more tedious to spot game or scan open areas. Im currently saving up to upgrade my hunting rig to a TT 3-15 hunter and will shift my zcomp to my 223 trainer for that reason.


To give a brief summary of the optics above.

GLASS = Zcomp > Khales / NF ATACR >> Razor gen2 > pst gen2 / NF SHV > sightron

Build quality = zcomp / khales / atacr >> razor gen2 > pst gen2 / NF shv / sightron

Turrets = zcomp > atacr / khales >>> razor gen2 > nf shv > pst gen2 > sightron


Hope this helps. would be good to see what other peoples perspectives are as well. Let me know if you got more questions regarding above.

shocked that NF did so poorly in your results
mahalo for spending the time to write that all out
 

The NF SHV is their "budget" optic. Spoke toa NF rep about that and he said the main difference is the turret mechanism as it was not designed for constant adjustment. Forgot to ask about glass

The NF SHV is their "budget" optic.

ah
ok
thanks

ah
ok
thanks

focus

hows it brotha. Will try to write down some of my experiences on hand (if you go on snipershide i believe they started an optic thread with data points, there are a ton of more experienced and distinguished shooters there with opinions that would weigh much heavier than mine lol). Maybe one day ill do a scope comparison in the future for this thread. The scopes I have on hand between my brother and I are

SNIP

Hope this helps. would be good to see what other peoples perspectives are as well. Let me know if you got more questions regarding above.

Awesome!  Thank you for the thorough response!   Very helpful. 

That's quite a list of optics that you have experience with!  I am very jealous!

My short list (so far) is:
Nightforce ATACR 5-25 with mil-xt
S&B PMII 5-25x56 (likely one of the grid reticles)
Kahles K525i (5-25x56)
Kahles K624i (6-24x56)
Vortex Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27

Will have to give the Zcomp and TT a look as well.  I heard of TT before, but not the Zcomp. 

Certainly still very much open right now, but that's what I'm looking at so far.  In that order as well. 

1. FFP vs SFP
Very good points.  I only have FFP optics right now.  I like mil reticles so far, particularly for the Rem 700.  My LPVO is an FFP, but haven't really "played" with that feature as much (but very different purpose).  The spotting for a friend is one that I've run into so far.  When we were shooting last, there were two mil reticles and one moa reticle user.  It was funny how we spotted for each other and "different language" between MOA and MIL.  I'm sure for more experienced shooters it would be easier.

2. Illumination
Good points.  Both my current scope are illuminated, but for difference reasons.  My LPVO illum is mostly for a red dot like at 1x.  While my Vortex PST has illumination, I haven't really used it.  I've "tested" it while glassing out of my condo window at night and I can envision what you mean. 

3. MOA vs MIL
I'm in the MIL side, mostly because of previous experience.  While not that much experience, I've found that my mind has picked up the MIL/MRAD like of thinking.

4. Budget vs Expensive
Yeah, that's very subjective.  I'm totally one who will advocate for buying best you can afford.  I've also seen people discuss the "just as good as".  I haven't had THAT much experience with the uber quality glass level.  Just my ATACR 1-8, but that doesn't really count.  When we were shooting a few weeks ago, there were times when the lighting was lower and I noticed the clarify of my Vortex PST suffered.  Not interested in a hunting rig.  At least not right now. 

5. Scope rings
I checked out the ARC M10s and they sound very impressive and have a great following.  I also read good things about SPUHR mount, and pretty good about Badger rings and the MPA mount.  I totally agree with not to skimp.  I went with Leupold Mark 4 with my Vortex PST, which ended up needing to be lapped.  They aren't very corrosion resistant.  I'm looking at 34 mm tubes right now, so will have to get new rings (or mount) anyways.

6. Reticle
Last shooting session, my buddy had a scope in the 20x or 24x range.  He was seemingly able to spot the splashes way better than I was.  But like you said, that probably had a lot to do with clarify of the optic.  I mean I thought the PST was pretty good, but in the 800-1000+ yard range, it wasn't that clear.  At least in not ideal lighting conditions. 

Thank you again for the feedback.  Super helpful. 

Interesting that the Sightron got picked on.     Haha.  I recall when I was looking for a scope and got the Vortex PST that Sightron came highly recommended for that price range.

Have been reading and watching videos about Zcomp and TT. Dangerous...

You cant go wrong with a ZC 5-27, Kahles 5-25, or ATACR 7-35. IMHO, they're some of the best day optics you can get for a precision rifle and spending more will yield little to no benefits.

I personally own the ATACR 7-35 for the mil xt reticle and extra magnification (the killer demo scope price was a huge plus). The practical working range for most scope will usually be around 10-15x. Although that might be the practical range, extra magnification on high quality glass at extended ranges always helps (assuming you have a stable position and good recoil mitigation). My only grip is every damn NF occular turns for magnification adjustment....

You cant go wrong with a ZC 5-27, Kahles 5-25, or ATACR 7-35. IMHO, they're some of the best day optics you can get for a precision rifle and spending more will yield little to no benefits.

I personally own the ATACR 7-35 for the mil xt reticle and extra magnification (the killer demo scope price was a huge plus). The practical working range for most scope will usually be around 10-15x. Although that might be the practical range, extra magnification on high quality glass at extended ranges always helps (assuming you have a stable position and good recoil mitigation). My only grip is every damn NF occular turns for magnification adjustment....

Thanks!  While Zcomp seems very impressive, they aren't in the lead for consideration.  Still going back and forth, and round and round though. . . who knows.  Haha

ATACT 7-35 got bumped up into the shortlist, but I've been looking very hard at the S&B PMII offerings and where I can get them at a decent price.  That occular turns thing is one thing I have noticed on my ATACR 1-8 LPVO, but that's only when I'm doing try manipulations around the house.  When shooting, I take the rear cap off (leaving the lock ring thing). 

ETA: My current scope is 4-16.  While it was ok when shooting in the 800-1200 range, there were times when I noticed that either the definition/clarity wasn't quite what I needed to differentiate some things at distance.  Could be optic clarity, mag, etc.  While my Viper PST is decent, I understand that it can leave some to be desired.  My buddy had a similar price range scope in the 6-24 and he was able to spot much better with his optic than mine. 

I've been chatting with a buddy who has recently gotten into LR as well, but a bit further down the path than I am.  It's a complete rabbit hole and optics is just the current one.  I dunno what is more scary, that the TT is not on the "hell no, too expensive list" or that I've already pretty much decided that I'm gonna spend the amount for the optics in my shortlist. . . going to need more OT.   

Was doing more research on reticles and alternate uses of zero (like zeroing at the duplex) last night.  Pretty staggering when you listen to folks that have years of experience.  All of that math in their head on the fly.  I mean I was good at geometry, trig, etc.  But now I have to put more deliberate thought into it.  I've been drawn to the Mil-XT and GRID reticles and away from the Tremor/Horus reticles.  Still leaning that way, but found some pretty interesting videos on the Horus.  Wish I had a range like they do in the videos out in West Texas.

Scope ordered.  This was surely and expensive CC cycle. . .   

 

Another buddy is updating a family Rem 700 in 7 mm.  Cerakote, new stock, new glass, etc.  Also handloads for a caliber that's new to him  So good to have others going through a similar journey.

I picked up an SWFA SS fixed 6x scope. $300, a solid scope, clear glass, quality all the way as far as I can tell. Shoots 1 moa or better with good ammo out of my 22" rem 700

People like all these features but the more features you add the more it costs to get quality and the more moving parts there are to break.

I picked up an SWFA SS fixed 6x scope. $300, a solid scope, clear glass, quality all the way as far as I can tell. Shoots 1 moa or better with good ammo out of my 22" rem 700

People like all these features but the more features you add the more it costs to get quality and the more moving parts there are to break.

What distances are you envisioning for the 6x scope?

I’ve heard many say 1x power for every 100 yards. I would say it depends.  I have a friend who hunts and he tends to have his opinions skewed or framed with his hunting experience. Field of view on his 4-14 was good, but not great for shooting and spotting in the 600-1000 ranges.

Caliber 700?

Scope ordered.  This was surely and expensive CC cycle. . .   

 

Another buddy is updating a family Rem 700 in 7 mm.  Cerakote, new stock, new glass, etc.  Also handloads for a caliber that's new to him  So good to have others going through a similar journey.

What scope did you end up with? I currently have 2 scopes which  I think is more then enough for me as far as magnification for the ranges I shoot. Nightforce atacr 4-16 f1 on my 556. Nice glass if your into that, good light transmission, crisp lines, no visible chromatic aberration. And on my 762 I have a Tangent Theta TT315P (3-15x). Very nice scope, lots of light transmission, no visible chromatic aberration, tactile clicks on turrets. Just gets kinda hard to turn the mag ring. Here’s some pictures I found of my scopes I took a few years ago.

What scope did you end up with? I currently have 2 scopes which  I think is more then enough for me as far as magnification for the ranges I shoot. Nightforce atacr 4-16 f1 on my 556. Nice glass if your into that, good light transmission, crisp lines, no visible chromatic aberration. And on my 762 I have a Tangent Theta TT315P (3-15x). Very nice scope, lots of light transmission, no visible chromatic aberration, tactile clicks on turrets. Just gets kinda hard to turn the mag ring. Here’s some pictures I found of my scopes I took a few years ago.

Damn that’s some nice glass!

I “thought” about TT 525 for a bit there. Thought was in quotes because mostly dreaming. Haha. I liked a lot of what reviews said, but it was tough to justify that leap without looking first. Sadly we don’t have the used market that many folks take advantage of on the mainland.

I ended up with the NF ATACR 7-35. Got hooked up with a good price, so went with that. It was really close between that, the 5-25 ATACR and S&B. I really wanted to give the S&B a try, partially because I’ve always wanted one. The pricing came down in the last couple of years which made it back in the range. I ended up going with the 7-35 for the extra mag even if I wouldn’t necessarily need it for the distances envisioned. That’s what got me looking at the 5-25 first. Maybe the S&B will be for a future gun. Haha

I have a NF ATACR 1-8 on an AR and love that thing. Been meaning to do more ammo testing and shooting it at longer ranges, but just haven’t gotten around to it. Think I need to adjust the eye relief. I’ve shot it in a carbine class, but used the 1x all day for that.

What distances are you envisioning for the 6x scope?

I’ve heard many say 1x power for every 100 yards. I would say it depends.  I have a friend who hunts and he tends to have his opinions skewed or framed with his hunting experience. Field of view on his 4-14 was good, but not great for shooting and spotting in the 600-1000 ranges.

Caliber 700?

I am shooting a .308 Remington 700.

As for what range? Well it is sighted in at 100 yards since that's all we can do at Kokohead but I imagine it could reliably hit a mansize target 600 yards pretty easy. Target identification is not going to be very good at that range but I think for hitting the target it would be adequate.

My father told me of either a book he read or snipers he spoke to in the army (can't recall which) and he told me that even though the snipers were given variable scopes, they often found themselves leaving them at a 6 power setting. When I looked at fixed scopes, fixed 6x and fixed 10x seemed common. I would have liked a fixed 8x but 10x seemed a little too much. I figured that the fact that fixed 6x seemed a common option must be indicative of a certain standard in the industry. Maybe a good combination of field of view but magnification? I haven't done anything with the gun but put holes in paper though so I can't speak to effectiveness of 6x at far distances. I also read that some of the most decorated WW2 marksmen were using 4x scopes with simple crosshairs.

However this may also have been advice before the long range calibers became common and before advanced scopes with first focal plane were invented? Certainly when people are shooting over a mile I think 6x would be unusable.

I am shooting a .308 Remington 700.

As for what range? Well it is sighted in at 100 yards since that's all we can do at Kokohead but I imagine it could reliably hit a mansize target 600 yards pretty easy. Target identification is not going to be very good at that range but I think for hitting the target it would be adequate.

My father told me of either a book he read or snipers he spoke to in the army (can't recall which) and he told me that even though the snipers were given variable scopes, they often found themselves leaving them at a 6 power setting. When I looked at fixed scopes, fixed 6x and fixed 10x seemed common. I would have liked a fixed 8x but 10x seemed a little too much. I figured that the fact that fixed 6x seemed a common option must be indicative of a certain standard in the industry. Maybe a good combination of field of view but magnification? I haven't done anything with the gun but put holes in paper though so I can't speak to effectiveness of 6x at far distances. I also read that some of the most decorated WW2 marksmen were using 4x scopes with simple crosshairs.

However this may also have been advice before the long range calibers became common and before advanced scopes with first focal plane were invented? Certainly when people are shooting over a mile I think 6x would be unusable.

Gotcha.  If that's what you feel will work for you and it's capable of what you need it for, then rock on. 

To clarify, I understand that precision rifle shooting doesn't necessarily mean more mag.  That said, I think your scope is a limiting factor for your setup.  Again, I mean if you feel it works, then cool.  Some could argue that .308 isn't the en vogue choice these days, but it's still very popular for a number of reasons, not just ballistics.  While I'm not going to be shooting PRS matches or anything like that, try reading about those that do shoot in those matches. 

I was chatting with a couple of "old school" snipers, including USMC and others.  A few of them used fixed 10x for much of their careers and it sounds like they were quite proficient.  That said, like anything in this world, technology advances are usually very helpful in increasing capabilities. 

My father told me of either a book he read or snipers he spoke to in the army (can't recall which) and he told me that even though the snipers were given variable scopes, they often found themselves leaving them at a 6 power setting. When I looked at fixed scopes, fixed 6x and fixed 10x seemed common. I would have liked a fixed 8x but 10x seemed a little too much. I figured that the fact that fixed 6x seemed a common option must be indicative of a certain standard in the industry. Maybe a good combination of field of view but magnification? I haven't done anything with the gun but put holes in paper though so I can't speak to effectiveness of 6x at far distances. I also read that some of the most decorated WW2 marksmen were using 4x scopes with simple crosshairs.

You can get reliable hits with irons at 600 yards, so the magnification is more for target ID and acquisition.  The lower power helps with speed at those short to medium ranges.

Gotcha.  If that's what you feel will work for you and it's capable of what you need it for, then rock on. 

To clarify, I understand that precision rifle shooting doesn't necessarily mean more mag.  That said, I think your scope is a limiting factor for your setup.  Again, I mean if you feel it works, then cool.  Some could argue that .308 isn't the en vogue choice these days, but it's still very popular for a number of reasons, not just ballistics.  While I'm not going to be shooting PRS matches or anything like that, try reading about those that do shoot in those matches. 

I was chatting with a couple of "old school" snipers, including USMC and others.  A few of them used fixed 10x for much of their careers and it sounds like they were quite proficient.  That said, like anything in this world, technology advances are usually very helpful in increasing capabilities.

I am really limited in my knowledge level of distance shooting so my choice was by no means some expert opinion. I would like to take a distance shooting class someday to really help put the math into practice.

What do you think makes my setup a limiting factor? Is it mostly the lack of higher magnification? My eyesight is pretty sharp still but I could imagine when it gets worse then higher magnification would certainly be a significant advantage. Though if I were taking 800-1000 yard shots in Afghanistan I am sure I would want the higher magnification.

Sometimes I wonder if I should have gone with the fixed 10x scope but I wonder what the limitations are of closer range shots. If I had to shoot 50 yards in short order would a 10x make it hard to find my target quickly?

I could have spent $2000 on a 3x-18x Leupold with FFP and had a great scope but ouch!