PRS Talk Ideal PRS Scope

[Mordamer]

1. Magnification Range 13-26 or 12-24.
2. 16 inches long so you never have to touch paralax.
3. 10 mil turrets.
4. Says Nightforce on the side so you can actually trust it.

I never dial below 13x or above 24x in a PRS match and I shoot a lot of them. Drives me nuts that so many scopes that are obviously targeted at long distance shooting go down to 4-7x on the low end. Not to mention they are all FFP and that makes it impossible to pick reticle thickness that is usable over the whole range.

Stupid 15 mil turrets on high end scopes with tiny little lines that make it hard to tell which click you are on. Tangent Theta has a gigantic turret and most of the space on the dial is just empty space because they use tiny numbers.

Nightforce hasn't released any new top end optic in awhile. I'm sure they won't release this, but it'd be sweet if they did.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

@gebhardt02

I like it overall. But probably too niche to sell enough to be worth the development.

 

[iceng]

10-30x56 would work. 10mil turrets i like, but not convinced on 16" long so its parallax is easier.

Locking turret ?

Edit.. what sort of reticle ?

 

[Mordamer]

10-30x56 would work. 10mil turrets i like, but not convinced on 16" long so its parallax is easier.

Locking turret ?

Edit.. what sort of reticle ?

Non locking and Mil-C reticle.

 

[Pete B]

I could live with 5mil turrents......

 

[beetroot]

Leupold Mark 4hd?
Kahles K525i DLR?

Wider mag range but meets most your other specs.

 

[Niles Coyote]

I could get into a 10-30x56 with large Gen 3 Razor style zeroing turrets that are coated for use with markers and has a option for a tree reticle similar to either the PR-2 or EBR-7D. Ideally the dots of the EBR-7D rather than the lines of the PR-2.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Just to play a little devils advocate here but then why not the ZCO 840 with the 1x, 2x, 3x reticle? 8x and 10x are damn near the same thing. The little bit extra top end won’t make it worse. Super forgiving parallax. Has the 10 mil turret option. You can put a turret tape on it for markers.

There’s also the S&B 10-60 but the reticle sucks.

 

[Kino]

I'm in the "has been" age bracket and can't see nearly as good and the higher magnification really helps, especially on KYL racks with small targets.

I've never been a fan of Vortex but the Razor G3 is an outstanding optic, its essentially retired all my Nightforce 25x optics! Better glass, tracks perfectly, more magnification and the DOF is insane, I rarely ever touch the parallax.

Optics typically work best in the middle range of zoom and I'll run in the 18-25x most stages and it's right in the sweet spot with plenty of magnification. If you really need to crank up the magnification it's always there if you need it.

 

[Cody S]

I think the 4x zoom ratio was just perfect for FFP tactical prs optics. I do not like 24x on the high end, I'd love something like a 10-40 and yes I agree, a long tradition style with the most forgiving characters as physically possible.
say what you want about tangent theta but I've never seen a more forgiving scope at any price point than a tt525p.
I've heard the new 735p isn't quite the same in that regard which is a damn shame because it's close enough to my ideal of approx 10-40x60 36mm tube, extra long, etc. make it weigh a ton too.
oh well.
these are the days.

 

[hlee]

Idk, I find myself dialing the mag pretty far back to find the targets, then zooming in to shoot. That’s a failing of mine, no doubt, but a little less mag on the low end works for me.

 

[Cody S]

could they save any significant cost making a 15-30x56 instead of a 6-30 or whatever? Just wondering if magnification range has all that much to do with the cost, or if it's being a higher mag that adds more cost.

 

[Rippey715]

Ideal scope? I could probably run a fixed power between 16-18. Almost never touch my zoom. Don’t remember the last time I touched it in a match. Parallax down to 15yds. Big field of view. I dial wind so something like the TT JTAC reticle would be cool but if there is a Christmas tree it need not be more than 2 mils of windage either side. And maybe 2 mils of up elevation only. 10 mil turrets. More explicit Markings at every .5 on windage turret. Zeroing no harder than the G3.

Yeah, that’s the scope I want. I think.

 

[sethrrows]

Ideal scope? I could probably run a fixed power between 16-18. Almost never touch my zoom. Don’t remember the last time I touched it in a match. Parallax down to 15yds. Big field of view. I dial wind so something like the TT JTAC reticle would be cool but if there is a Christmas tree it need not be more than 2 mils of windage either side. And maybe 2 mils of up elevation only. 10 mil turrets. More explicit Markings at every .5 on windage turret. Zeroing no harder than the G3.

Yeah, that’s the scope I want. I think.

Other than the fixed power, sounds like you pretty much described a Kahles k328i DLR with a skmr+ reticle.

 

[Cody S]

Other than the fixed power, sounds like you pretty much described a Kahles k328i DLR with a skmr+ reticle.

who needs a 3 power for the low end on a prs scope though?
I just want the tt735p with the wide angle eyepiece.
I'll wait patiently. it's be the first scope I consider a worthy upgrade to the tt525p

 

[sethrrows]

If it was 7 instead of 3 on the low side, would I still use the middle of mag range 95% of time?.... probably so...

 

[Cody S]

If it was 7 instead of 3 on the low side, would I still use the middle of mag range 95% of time?.... probably so...

I never go below 10, but I do find myself wanting more than 28 every now and again.

 

[Rippey715]

I’ve just heard fixed power offers some of the best visuals since it doesn’t compromise over a range of magnification. So if you don’t zoom anyway
Maybe it could even be cheaper (yeah right)

 

[CK1.0]

1. Take a Razor G3
2. Ditch the xmas tree reticle and all those lines and hash marks most of us will never need or use (that mostly just get in the way and make it harder to spot splash)
3. Replace it with something more minimalist and open (similar to ZCO's MPCT1X or TT's JTAC reticle)

Perfecto!

 

[beetroot]

I’ve just heard fixed power offers some of the best visuals since it doesn’t compromise over a range of magnification. So if you don’t zoom anyway
Maybe it could even be cheaper (yeah right)

There are a few fixed 10x options out there but they aren't very popular. The SWFA 10x42 HD is about $800 and the USO FDN 10x is about $2000.
At these two price points there are a lot of really good variable power scopes that there's not much of a reason to by the fixed power models.

If someone introduced a fixed 10x that was around $1000, had a super wide FOV and amazing glass then perhaps it would be a viable option but I'd imagine 99% of people would still buy a variable scope.

 

[beetroot]

1. Magnification Range 13-26 or 12-24.
2. 16 inches long so you never have to touch paralax.
3. 10 mil turrets.
4. Says Nightforce on the side so you can actually trust it.

I never dial below 13x or above 24x in a PRS match and I shoot a lot of them. Drives me nuts that so many scopes that are obviously targeted at long distance shooting go down to 4-7x on the low end. Not to mention they are all FFP and that makes it impossible to pick reticle thickness that is usable over the whole range.

Stupid 15 mil turrets on high end scopes with tiny little lines that make it hard to tell which click you are on. Tangent Theta has a gigantic turret and most of the space on the dial is just empty space because they use tiny numbers.

Nightforce hasn't released any new top end optic in awhile. I'm sure they won't release this, but it'd be sweet if they did.

There are a few very high magnification FFP scopes on the market now.
ATACR 7-35, TT 7-35, ZCO 8-40, or if you want cheaper Leupold Mark 4hd 8-32.

I'm guessing you are wanting a scope that offers the highest possible optical performance but not the ZCO/ATACR price tag.
Unfortunately any company that spends the money on R&D for such a niche product is going to need to charge a lot in order to get a return on the investment.

 

[beetroot]

1. Take a Razor G3
2. Ditch the xmas tree reticle and all those lines and hash marks most of us will never need or use (that mostly just get in the way and make it harder to spot splash)
3. Replace it with something more minimalist and open (similar to ZCO's MPCT1X or TT's JTAC reticle)

Perfecto!

Leupold Mark 4hd 8-32 comes in both the PR2 and PR3, it's very close to what you have described here.

 

[Cody S]

There are a few fixed 10x options out there but they aren't very popular. The SWFA 10x42 HD is about $800 and the USO FDN 10x is about $2000.
At these two price points there are a lot of really good variable power scopes that there's not much of a reason to by the fixed power models.

If someone introduced a fixed 10x that was around $1000, had a super wide FOV and amazing glass then perhaps it would be a viable option but I'd imagine 99% of people would still buy a variable scope.

nah, I'd totally want a fixed 20x for a target scope.
I've got a vortex venom I'm going to start testing for 22lr very soon and I think it's glass quality and everything will be livable. amazing what those Chinese kids can do nowadays.

 

[beetroot]

nah, I'd totally want a fixed 20x for a target scope.
I've got a vortex venom I'm going to start testing for 22lr very soon and I think it's glass quality and everything will be livable. amazing what those Chinese kids can do nowadays.

In that case I don't think you'll ever get your wish, a fixed 6-14x is a pretty hard sell, a fixed 20x would likely never catch on.
SWFA still do their fixed scopes, so I think that'll be your only option.

But as you've pointed out the $400-$1000 are so good now there is not much point in buying fixed scopes anymore.

 

[Rippey715]

Im basing the fixed power between 15-18 because of the average PRS scope being something like 5-25, 6-36, or 7-35, 3-28. So center of zoom be would be in the high teens. Again, if you never touch your zoom in a match you could probably get by without it. It's a weird idea but I really think it might be viable.

There are a few fixed 10x options out there but they aren't very popular. The SWFA 10x42 HD is about $800 and the USO FDN 10x is about $2000.
At these two price points there are a lot of really good variable power scopes that there's not much of a reason to by the fixed power models.

If someone introduced a fixed 10x that was around $1000, had a super wide FOV and amazing glass then perhaps it would be a viable option but I'd imagine 99% of people would still buy a variable scope.

 

[hlee]

Mag above this mythical “high teens” is not nearly as important as; the ability to start a stage with a low mag and large field of view to acquire the targets, then rapidly crank the zoom to something more usable. A fixed scope deletes this ability.

 

[Rippey715]

I don’t search for targets in the scope though. Find targets and areas with your eyes and just put the gun down pointing at the target. Look up over the scope when transitioning between targets. No need for the low mag either really I guess. Zooming in and out takes time , more body movements, and mental power. Just my thoughts. I have seen some very good shooters who adjust zoom frequently. I was just “advised” early on to set it and forget it.

 

[beetroot]

Im basing the fixed power between 15-18 because of the average PRS scope being something like 5-25, 6-36, or 7-35, 3-28. So center of zoom be would be in the high teens. Again, if you never touch your zoom in a match you could probably get by without it. It's a weird idea but I really think it might be viable.

I tend to be a lower magnification guy, often around 8-10x but will go as low as 6x if my reticle is thick enough to be useful.
I think trying to find one magnification that is appealing to enough people would be difficult, and even if you could do that I bet majority of people would still just buy a variable scope.

Unless manufacturer was able to give amazing glass, wide FOV, forgiving parallax and depth of field, all at cheap price, I don't think people would buy one. If I got all the above with high end LOW glass (Razor G2/G3 type glass) for under $1000 I'd maybe consider it but with the USO costing $2000 and when cameraland did the special run of PM2 6x42s they were also $2000, I don't think $1000 is particularly feasible.

I recall that when cameraland did the limited run of 6x42s they ended up struggling to sell them despite there seemingly being a big demand for them. I may be mis-remembering but I thought this was the case.

 

[CK1.0]

Leupold Mark 4hd 8-32 comes in both the PR2 and PR3, it's very close to what you have described here.

I had no idea about the Mark 4HD and the PR3, thanks!

I had been having a hard time deciding between a ZCO 5-27 or 8-40, and was planning on having to spend a lot of loot just to try their MPCT1X reticle… I honestly don’t even care about getting better glass, I just want to try running a more minimalist reticle (running a Razor G3 now, but think I preferred the Razor G2’s reticle more than I care about the G3’s better glass).

$1600 sounds like nearly nothing when you’ve been bracing yourself for $4K+ before adding in a new mount and diving board!

I have a MK4 8-32x56 PR3 MIL on order, if I dig it then I can decide if I really want to jump up to a ZCO.

 

[Rippey715]

I had to borrow a rifle for day 2 of a match this weekend and noticed it had more clarity and I could see targets better but I didn't notice why until mentioning it later to the rifle owner and he said it was cause there was not a tree in the reticle. I had not noticed the missing tree but did notice the clarity. I have a Strike Eagle with the EBR 7c and borrowed a Arken with the VHR reticle. Now I'm more interested in getting a reticle that doesn't have the tree in the future. And I dont really mean clarity of glass in this case, it was just while watching my shots and setting NPA, I felt like I was seeing more or had less distractions.

 

[beetroot]

I had no idea about the Mark 4HD and the PR3, thanks!

I had been having a hard time deciding between a ZCO 5-27 or 8-40, and was planning on having to spend a lot of loot just to try their MPCT1X reticle… I honestly don’t even care about getting better glass, I just want to try running a more minimalist reticle (running a Razor G3 now, but think I preferred the Razor G2’s reticle more than I care about the G3’s better glass).

$1600 sounds like nearly nothing when you’ve been bracing yourself for $4K+ before adding in a new mount and diving board!

I have a MK4 8-32x56 PR3 MIL on order, if I dig it then I can decide if I really want to jump up to a ZCO.

Interested to hear your thoughts on it vs the G2 and G3 Razors.
If you get similar performance at a lower price and all your giving up is magnification you were never going to use anyway, then its a no brainer.

 

[CK1.0]

Interested to hear your thoughts on it vs the G2 and G3 Razors.
If you get similar performance at a lower price and all your giving up is magnification you were never going to use anyway, then its a no brainer.

I'm curious too... I read in another thread that the new MK4HD glass is the same as what's used in the MK5HDs, and plenty of guys run those and do well. I've never looked through a MK5HD, but from what I've heard/read, it's supposed to be "meh", maybe on par with a Razor G2 or maybe just below that?

I don't mind giving up the magnification, I park it on 18-20x and leave it there 98% of the time, but I am concerned about giving up too much clarity and I'm hoping there isn't too much chromatic aberration. The Razor G3 has spoiled me a bit in that it's super clear and the colors come through true and unadultered. That said, I was happy with the glass in the G2 and I never felt like it held me back either.

But, I'm buying the Leupold for the reticle, not the glass. I think @Rippey715 hit it on the head, I just want less distractions, period. It's not really about the money to me either, I'm willing to pay more for good glass (and probably will be doing so if I like the minimalist reticle thing), but it's nice to not have to spend ZCO/TT money to find out if I even like it or not.

For me, maybe like many of us, I feel like I have stared at a xmas tree long enough to where I feel like I can see it even when it isn't there, I don't need a line or a dot every freaking .02mils in every direction, it's just too much for my eyes/brain to compute and I don't need all that.

Found this dude on YouTube who by coincidence has videos showing both reticles in action (and I think I know which I like better):

 

[beetroot]

I'm curious too... I read in another thread that the new MK4HD glass is the same as what's used in the MK5HDs, and plenty of guys run those and do well. I've never looked through a MK5HD, but from what I've heard/read, it's supposed to be "meh", maybe on par with a Razor G2 or maybe just below that?

I don't mind giving up the magnification, I park it on 18-20x and leave it there 98% of the time, but I am concerned about giving up too much clarity and I'm hoping there isn't too much chromatic aberration. The Razor G3 has spoiled me a bit in that it's super clear and the colors come through true and unadultered. That said, I was happy with the glass in the G2 and I never felt like it held me back either.

But, I'm buying the Leupold for the reticle, not the glass. I think @Rippey715 hit it on the head, I just want less distractions, period. It's not really about the money to me either, I'm willing to pay more for good glass (and probably will be doing so if I like the minimalist reticle thing), but it's nice to not have to spend ZCO/TT money to find out if I even like it or not.

For me, maybe like many of us, I feel like I have stared at a xmas tree long enough to where I feel like I can see it even when it isn't there, I don't need a line or a dot every freaking .02mils in every direction, it's just too much for my eyes/brain to compute and I don't need all that.

Found this dude on YouTube who by coincidence has videos showing both reticles in action (and I think I know which I like better):

I've been using a tree reticle for quite a few years now and really don't find it an issue.
In reality I very seldom use the tree, although I do use hold overs a reasonable bit.

I guess I'm in the camp of rather have it just in case, as the few times I've needed to hold wind and elevation and not had it, I've regretted it.

 

[Cody S]

I like the tree and the .2 windage hashmarks. I use mainly the gen3 xr reticle and whatever vortex's equivalent is. no complaints on either design.

 

[CK1.0]

Most times I'm a "rather have it and not need it" type, but I guess it's just personal preference... I tend to look at reticles from a "less is more" point of view, and after thinking about it for a second, that seems to be what I prefer in just about any gun sight.

It probably started for me a million years ago when I switched to all-black irons on my Glocks (back when everyone was chasing Sevigny/Vogal in IDPA/USPSA), and then manifested itself further when I got into 3-Gun and shooting carbines and PCCs in how much I vastly prefer Aimpoint-style single dots over any kind of EOTech "donut of death" or any other gimmicky BDC reticles out there...

I just like whatever makes it the least visually complicated for my eyes/brain and only want what I really need (because to me the other stuff I don't use just gets in the way).

I'd probably be totally into a simple fixed-power scope for PRS (like guys were talking about earlier in the thread), I'd just want mine with a simple minimalist reticle too. That PR3 reticle in a fixed 18x would be lean and mean.

 

[hlee]

If any scope industry reps are following this thread and taking notes; a scope spec’d from ideas here could only properly be called The Homer…

 

[Rippey715]

So a ZCO, 16x fixed power with the mpct1x reticle. Make it come with turret tape or a white board turret. $2500> to meet production class.

 

[hlee]

Sells exactly 1 scope, disqualifying it for production class.

 

[Cody S]

the main thing they should see is many prs people do not want to pay for an 8x or 10x erector, a 4x or 5x will do just fine if we are talking a 10-40x56 or something nice we can actually use.
no more 3-30 bullshit for me. I just want the most forgiving eyebox and accurate turrets with the best glass they can acquire, and a decent reticle, like gen3xr, jtac, etc etc.
a 10-30 or 10-40 would be ideal mag range for prs shooting it sounds like.
one of these days I may give the tt735p a try to see if it's as good as the 525p

 

[Mormegil87]

the main thing they should see is many prs people do not want to pay for an 8x or 10x erector, a 4x or 5x will do just fine if we are talking a 10-40x56 or something nice we can actually use.
no more 3-30 bullshit for me. I just want the most forgiving eyebox and accurate turrets with the best glass they can acquire, and a decent reticle, like gen3xr, jtac, etc etc.
a 10-30 or 10-40 would be ideal mag range for prs shooting it sounds like.
one of these days I may give the tt735p a try to see if it's as good as the 525p

This.

And for the love of all things holy, no locking turrets, no capped windsage and 10 mil turrets with big bold numbers and hashes on a white board/vinyl back ground.

 

[beetroot]

This.

And for the love of all things holy, no locking turrets, no capped windsage and 10 mil turrets with big bold numbers and hashes on a white board/vinyl back ground.

Strongly disagree, I virtually never dial windage and have on more than one occasion bumped my windage dial without noticing.
Capped windage or at least the option of, is a must for me.

 

[Cody S]

I do dial winage and I've never bumped my scope. I'd hope stage designers try to avoid that as we spend a lot on the glass..
I can go for either but I prefer non locking, 10 mil turrets that are very accurate and durable and I'll definitely pay for the tool less zerostop...
I love that feature and use it more frequently than I'd like.

 

[beetroot]

the main thing they should see is many prs people do not want to pay for an 8x or 10x erector, a 4x or 5x will do just fine if we are talking a 10-40x56 or something nice we can actually use.
no more 3-30 bullshit for me. I just want the most forgiving eyebox and accurate turrets with the best glass they can acquire, and a decent reticle, like gen3xr, jtac, etc etc.
a 10-30 or 10-40 would be ideal mag range for prs shooting it sounds like.
one of these days I may give the tt735p a try to see if it's as good as the 525p

Doesn't the ZCO 8-40 do exactly what you are asking?
Or the Leupold MK4 8-32 if you want a cheaper option?

I do dial winage and I've never bumped my scope. I'd hope stage designers try to avoid that as we spend a lot on the glass..
I can go for either but I prefer non locking, 10 mil turrets that are very accurate and durable and I'll definitely pay for the tool less zerostop...
I love that feature and use it more frequently than I'd like.

The stage designers in my area certainly do not take that into consideration.
I've had the windage move on me about 4 times, and each time I didn't notice until I was missing for an unknown reason.
Most people don't dial for wind so I guess that's why there is a trend towards lock and/or capped windage.

I agree on tool less turrets though, they are an excellent feature.

 

[Cody S]

Those are top of my list for my new 22 scope for prs, but I'd much rather wait for the ultra wide eye piece stuff to trickle out in the coming years.

 

[Mormegil87]

@beetroot different strokes for different folks.

The overwhelming vast majority of people I've shot with over the last couple of years dial there first wind call unless the wind is a head/tail wind.

 

[CK1.0]

Another vote for locking or capped-but-still-useable windage dials... I don't dial wind that often (I honestly need to practice dialing my first wind call more), but I'd be paranoid 100% of the time of bumping the knob or it moving on me when I don't want it to if it didn't lock or get covered lol.

 

[Mormegil87]

I've never had it happen on the clock in almost 10 years of competition. Not even sure how it's possible to do on the clock without being reckless with your rifle placement.

I can see it happening in transit between staged but a semi decent pre stage, pre shot checklist fixes that.

I guess if a shooter wants them all the more power to that shooter but it definitely falls in the "cons" category when I'm looking at scopes. Same for Christmas tree reticles. I can live with Leupold's locking design because it on locks on 0.

 

[hlee]

It’s not the stage designer’s job to take care of your gear. It is their job to create interesting and challenging shooting problems. They are in active competition with shooter gear, including the scope. A stage that causes the careless shooter to mildly monkey fuck his scope is a challenge. But, I’ve never “bumped” the windage turret in a way to cause it to rotate- in competition or while hunting. I think uncapped locking turrets are the best combination of utility and security.

Pre-stage

Scope? Check
Dope? Check
Rear bag? Check
Eye/ear pro? Check
Loaded mag? Check

“Shooter, are you ready and do you understand the course of fire?

“Yes”

“Beep!”

“There’s the target. Hold edge of target. I’m such a pro. Send it. I’m fuckin Bob Lee Swagger. Click? What the fuck do you mean click? WTF? Oh, I didn’t put the mag in the gun. FML.”

Seen it happen. Laughed about it. Then did it myself…

 

[NiteQwill]

If Tangent Theta made a 735P with 10 mil turrets, I would buy 5 yesterday.

 

[Cody S]

If Tangent Theta made a 735P with 10 mil turrets, I would buy 5 yesterday.

I've read that the 7-35 isn't as forgiving because it's a slightly shorter design.
idk if that's true because I only own the 525 but that's literally half the reason I bought it.
idk what they were thinking. I'm probably going to save a buck this time and get a g3 razor to test. others seem to like them.