Rifle Scopes I need to narrow down my list and find the best scope for "me"

[Blindeye_03]

I have been reading and reading and reading till I am blue in the face but ultimately need some input here to help me decide what to put on top of my rifle.

I do know what I am wanting though; it must be mil/mil and ffp. As far as illumination goes, I don’t care if it does or doesn’t, but what I do care for is that it brings in enough light for me to see well while shooting. I don’t plan on hunting with this rifle (aics stock is heavy..) and plan to just shoot targets out to 800yards or so. Currently the longest range I have access to is 400 yards. I would rather buy something now that would get me further out than buy two different scopes.

Also, I have bad eyes and don’t see too well when its dark, so it would be better if I had something that worked well in lower light conditions. The scopes that offer better resolution and clarity are my priority. It would be nice to also have a nice tracking scope, and turrets that offer feedback through feel or sound.


Here are some that I am interested in:

Vortex viper pst 6-24x50
Swfa ss 5-20x50
Bushnell 3.5-21x50 with g2dmr reticle
Leupold mk4 4.5-14x50 m5 with tmr reticle (not fond of the different eye relief at lower magnifications vs higher magnifications)
IOR 3.5-18x50
Vortex razor hd 5-20x50 with ebr-2b reticle
Uso lr17 3-17x44 (used) with gap mil reticle


I am trying to not ask which one is “best” but would like to know which would be best for me. It would be easier to just get some time behind each one but I don’t know anyone that has any of these scopes and work every weekend right now and cant get out to any matches to see them first hand.

Money isn’t really a factor since I can afford any of the scopes above, but I wouldn’t want to go past what I am seeing the used USO’s go for.

 

[C45P312]

So price is not a factor i take it?

 

[Blindeye_03]

Well, not in the sense that I can afford a s&b, but any of the above up to the used uso (seen them go for 2100-2300).

 

[NaHa]

I have been reading and reading and reading till I am blue in the face but ultimately need some input here to help me decide what to put on top of my rifle.

I do know what I am wanting though; it must be mil/mil and ffp.

Here are some that I am interested in:

Vortex viper pst 6-24x50
Swfa ss 5-20x50
Bushnell 3.5-21x50 with g2dmr reticle
Leupold mk4 4.5-14x50 m5 with tmr reticle (not fond of the different eye relief at lower magnifications vs higher magnifications)
IOR 3.5-18x50
Vortex razor hd 5-20x50 with ebr-2b reticle
Uso lr17 3-17x44 (used) with gap mil reticle



I am trying to not ask which one is “best” but would like to know which would be best for me.

To shoot known distance, there's no reason to have a front focal plane scope. You don't know what you want. The list is apples to oranges, and only YOU can know what's best for you. Here's what you should do: set a budget of $500. Get a decent scope. Learn what you don't know -- which is quite a bit. Then, after using that scope for a year or a thousand rounds or so, get something else, if indeed that's deemed an improvement. Don't get caught up in the gear queer hysteria. A $300 Super Sniper is better than any scope the Scout Snipers were using in the 60s and 70s. And those boys did okay, let alone shooting only at KD ranges.

 

[steve123]

Bushnell 3.5-21x50 with g2dmr reticle or better yet the 2013 version with 10 mil knobs and zero stop.

I shoot KD distances 99% of the time. FFP rocks! Holdover/under/off/lead/range on any magnification.

 

[Rem7]

May want to look at Nightforce F1 too. Also Premier light tactical as well if you are going to buy new. You may want to clarify what magnification you seek tho. It will help narrow down your search.

 

[Rem7]

Btw there is a used 3-15 Premier in the used section right now for $2200. Damn fine choice IMHO.

 

[Pinto]

Well, I was going to offer an opinion on what I'd always believed - "the larger the objective, the better light gathering ability the scope has" - and therefore, you should be looking to the 50mm or larger objectives to help with "something that worked well in lower light conditions." But when I decided to do some investigation to back up my claim, I came away believing perhaps the USO w/44mm objective might be the best. I'm always happy to learn new stuff ....

"SCOPES DO NOT GATHER LIGHT!"
A substantial portion of a scope's ability to transfer light to the eye is dependent on the glass; how it is ground, how it is installed/aligned, the coatings, the quality of the glass itself, etc. this is where a lot of your money goes when buying scopes. A 50mm scope with really poor glass coatings and such is probably going to be worse at high magnification than say a 30mm scope with really good coatings and such at the same settings .

We DON'T Want the Brightest Scope
..... quoting Scott Powers, who has discussed sniper scopes in detail:"Objective size. What is reasonable, usable, or just plain hoaky? I will offer my opinion; one I am sure will garnish some argument. I do not believe there is any use for anything larger than 40mm, or 42mm at the most. In a good quality scope, one in fact going to be used for sniping, competition, or collecting, a large objective bell is only a hindrance, no matter what the current hype."

 

[6.5 Shaggy]

For shooting stationary targets at a known distance, ffp is of no benefit IMO. I have used both, and still use both, but for different usees. My long range (1500 yds) rifle has a NF 3.5-15x50 sfp npr1, but used to wear a 4-16 IOR FFP. My medium range hunting gun has an IOR 2.5-10x42 FFP MP8 dot. I like the FFP so my lead holds are constant at any range, any magnification; but didn't like the reticle thickness of FFP at the longer ranges on my bigger gun.

I have had the opportunity to use all the scopes listed except the Bushnell , Razor and the SWFA, I have used Schmidt as well and looked at the SWFA but not used one . I highly recommend the IORs. The only reason I quit them is the weight, they are heavy but the glass is absolultly superb. The mechanics of the ones I used were flawless as well. In that price range you could also consider Nightforce . The glass on the USO was good, but no better than the NF, and not as good as the IOR.

So, my two cent reccomendation for someone with poor eyes, to shoot from 200 to 1000 yards on stationary targets, with tactile clicks and high resolution in a <$1700 price range would be: #1)Nightforce3.5-15 x 56 Sfp NPR1 or MOAR reticle, or #2) IOR 3-18x 50 Sfp MP8 dot ILL

Hope that helped. Why do want FFP and Mil/Mil? You may have reasons we don't understand, and therefore are giving you poor advice.

 

[Quickdraw40]

Steiner 4-16x50, $2,300.

 

[springer01]

I don't understand why some of you say no use for FFP at KD..if I am shooting at 400 yards with FFP and spot a miss through my scope I can correct it by a holdover or turret using my reticle at any power. How is that not a benefit and extremely useful? FFP all the way IMO!

 

[Blindeye_03]

All the scopes I've used in the past were mils or had hash marks.. They weren't mil dots and I have a better understanding of mils than moas or so I feel after reading threads here.

Most of what I have been looking at offer their reticle in ffp, and like you said just knowing I can range or make corrections at any magnification seems to be a benefit.

I'm also not fond of buying twice.. Even if I wont benefit from ffp right now or more magnification than 10x shooting to 400 yards. Having more would keep me from needing a spotting scope, and with my bad eyes I'd like a smidgen more.

I'm enjoying reading the replies and appreciate the advice.

 

[NoFail]

Hell I just received a 1-6 in FFP. I wouldn't have it any other way. But the idea of it's reticle wouldn't work if it was SFP anyway. At 6x I get a very usable mil scale with an open center. At 1x is a circle with the tiny mil scale inside and acts as a sort of red dot, circle not viewable at 6x.

I use a 12x fixed for target range on same rifle. The 1-6 is intended for everything else but the range, such as for critters or what have you.

 

[scudzuki]

Well, I was going to offer an opinion on what I'd always believed - "the larger the objective, the better light gathering ability the scope has" - and therefore, you should be looking to the 50mm or larger objectives to help with "something that worked well in lower light conditions." But when I decided to do some investigation to back up my claim, I came away believing perhaps the USO w/44mm objective might be the best. I'm always happy to learn new stuff ....

"SCOPES DO NOT GATHER LIGHT!"
A substantial portion of a scope's ability to transfer light to the eye is dependent on the glass; how it is ground, how it is installed/aligned, the coatings, the quality of the glass itself, etc. this is where a lot of your money goes when buying scopes. A 50mm scope with really poor glass coatings and such is probably going to be worse at high magnification than say a 30mm scope with really good coatings and such at the same settings .

We DON'T Want the Brightest Scope
..... quoting Scott Powers, who has discussed sniper scopes in detail:"Objective size. What is reasonable, usable, or just plain hoaky? I will offer my opinion; one I am sure will garnish some argument. I do not believe there is any use for anything larger than 40mm, or 42mm at the most. In a good quality scope, one in fact going to be used for sniping, competition, or collecting, a large objective bell is only a hindrance, no matter what the current hype."

While scopes may not technically "gather" light, all other things being equal, a larger objective is generally brighter and/or has greater FOV than a smaller objective.
I'm not talking CounterSniper 50 compared to USO 44, I'm talking S&B PMII 56 compared to 50.

The downside is the extra size and weight.

Likewise, everybody always says larger main tubes do not transmit more light; they allow for more adjustment.
2 scopes, one with 30mm, one with 34mm main tube, with the same adjustment; which one do you think has larger internal lenses?

Size does matter.

As for the member who posted you don't need FFP for known distances... I didn't buy scopes with G2DMR reticles only to range. I can do that with a simple mil-dot. I bought them for the ability to use elevation and wind holds.

I see no reason to go SFP.

Joe

 

[JesseBB]

I went through this same situation two years ago. I'm old and my eye sight has degraded to the point that iron sights do not work well anymore, so I quit across the course shooting with my Garand and Colt Sporter. Now I shoot steel targets from 200 to 500 meters. I got caught up in the "best scope" craze and bought both of the big Premiers. One of the tactical shooters said that the big power scopes produce too much mirage at high power in the summer. And yes we do have hot months here in the Sacramento area. I dumped both Premiers and bought three US Optics ST10 scopes. Got two of them on this web sight for $1100 each. The ST10 will do anything you will probably want to do. It's like starting out on a small motorcycle and the next thing you know is your looking for a bigger bike and then you have to sell the first one you bought at a loss. Unless you are really tight for money, save and get a great scope the first time. JesseBB

 

[Scrawnjohn]

I would go with the Bushnell g2dmr the optics are great for the money you can't beat it I shoot from out past a 1000 and the scope is great

 

[ronnl001]

I would go with the Bushnell g2dmr the optics are great for the money you can't beat it I shoot from out past a 1000 and the scope is great

I think this is a good choice. I might start with the Weaver 3-15 FFP for a cheaper option as well.

 

[peaceatwar]

I'm going to throw a pitch for NightForce scopes since they range in price used from $1200-2200. Lots of options as far as: magnification, SFP vs FFP, Reticles, Turrets, High Speed, Zero-Stop, objective size.

Personally I have owned/own:

5.5-22x56 HS/ZS NP-R2
2.5-10x32 HS/ZS NP-R2
3.5-15x50 Mil-Spec FFP HS/ZS MLR

Each one of them is my favorite scope in one way or another. I don't think there is a compact scope that exists that is better than the 2.5-10 if you are looking for something small.

 

[springer01]

Lots of options as far as: magnification, SFP vs FFP, Reticles, Turrets, High Speed, Zero-Stop, objective size.

Wouldn't say lots of options in the SFP vs FFP .. they have one FFP scope and that's it. NF has dropped the ball as far as FFP scopes are concerned.

 

[jimmykm21]

Everything that needs to be said is said.
Only thing I will add is with a budget that you have set of up to $2300

you got some fine choices out there.

 

[scudzuki]

Everything that needs to be said is said.
Only thing I will add is with a budget that you have set of up to $2300

you got some fine choices out there.

Scare up another $600 and I'll sell you this S&B PMII 5-25 I am getting rid of!

Joe

 

[Macdaddy]

Btw there is a used 3-15 Premier in the used section right now for $2200. Damn fine choice IMHO.

I agree. If you have a budget up to about $2200 you can find a really nice used Premier Reticles in either the full blown Heritage or the Light tactical both of which have the exact same glass. Don't let the 15X top end scare you off. 15X is plenty for what you want to do IF it's good glass which this is. I shoot well beyond 1000 yards with mine and I don't have the greatest eyes either. The only caution I would offer is to see which of the two reticles works best for you. The GEN II or the GEN II XR. The graduations in the reticle were a little too fine for my eyes on the XR and I went back to the standard GEN II.

 

[FALex]

having used the 6-24 PST, G2DMR, owned 2 SSHD's, and now own 2 Razors 2B reticle, I'd say your budget is going to be your decision. You could not go wrong with any of the scopes you listed. Some have more bells and whistles, some have better quality components, but I did get confused when you listed a PST and a Razor...if you have Razor money, then buy the Razor...

All that said, I loved the shit out of those SSHD's as they are great scopes, but I think in terms of bang-for-buck, I'd roll the Bushy G2DMR.

I was considering the Bushy also, but I ended up with Razors because I was able to get a great deal on them and I like the EBR 2B reticle over the G2, JMO.

Suffer in silence, though, friend. These are definitely first-class problems we got here!!

 

[SOTA]

+1 for nightforce I don have a F1 but I have a nxs and love it

 

[tylerw02]

FFP does offer benefit if shooting at known distances. It gives you the ability to use more than one power and have the reticle still function. When mirage gets high and you can't use full zoom where the reticle works, you can zoom down and still have accurate wind holds or to measure your results.