Given the increasing interest in 'field'-type competitions, what does this mean for rifle scope choices?
Does it change anything from so-called 'tactical benchrest' shooting? If so, how?
I was interested to hear Jacob's recommendation for rifle and scope choice for Assassin's Way, for example: he suggested a hunting-weight rifle, with a 'good scope' ... but what would be a 'good scope' for that kind of event?
While there are a range of 'field' events, with different rules, courses of fire, and so on, let's assume:
For example:
Mag range: What mag range are you running - more (for target ID, perhaps), or less (so you might get a smaller overall weight/size package)? What max mag range would be necessary? Is 30 too much? Would 18 be too little?
Weight: What would be your maximum weight? Is weight an issue, as you're carrying all your gear? Or not, as the scope is primary to success, and you'd cut weight elsewhere? Or merely relevant in the context of having to 'make weight' for a stated rifle + scope combination?
Does weightt become relevant in the context of balancing a rifle, especially if there won't be 'variations on a barricade' props - for example, is weight relevant to you, in terms of balance, if you are using a tripod? And, while Frank has said tripods are part of what we do now ... what about for those who don't? Is actively using the scope's weight for aiding balance (as opposed to, say, messing with weights in a chassis) a consideration for you? Why/why not?
Reticle: Are you wanting some kind of ranging reticle? If so, why (assuming you're also using a rangefinder/RF binos)? Or would you want it given there's talk of some events disallowing laser rangefinders on some stages (if not altogether)? And what kind of rangefinding reticle - one that simply has a separate 'ruler' (think Nightforce's MIL-R as one example), or one that is more designed for 'dynamic' ranging (such as the ZCO MPCT 3)? Why? And is a 'tree' going to help or hinder for these kinds of events? Why?
Size: Is 30 vs 34 mm tube size an issue here? Why or why not? What about objective lens size? Do we really need 56 mm for more light and FOV, or would 44 mm be enough to get the job done well, and have some size and weight benefits?
In discussing the above, I'm hoping to avoid simple answers of the 'just get a brand/model' suggestion ... I'm more interested in the different design elements, and what you see is more beneficial in field events rather than PRS-style events.
If you do want to discuss brands and models, perhaps it's worth also then providing a comparison from the same maker, and discussing why you'd go one over the other ... three quick examples that give concrete choices for the above, at different price points, would be:
[I've also chosen these three as reliability is paramount for me, and this comes with a certain weight penalty ... so, for this kind of event, I personally wouldn't be interested in running some kind of 'ultralight' that may then be more prone to mechanical failure.]
For each of the above, does the increase in mag range and FOV make up for the increase in weight, especially knowing you're lugging all your gear around all day?
Overall, does field shooting lean more on the side of larger mag, better FOV, and light gathering, or smaller size, less weight, but less mag?
What says the Hide Mind?
Does it change anything from so-called 'tactical benchrest' shooting? If so, how?
I was interested to hear Jacob's recommendation for rifle and scope choice for Assassin's Way, for example: he suggested a hunting-weight rifle, with a 'good scope' ... but what would be a 'good scope' for that kind of event?
While there are a range of 'field' events, with different rules, courses of fire, and so on, let's assume:
- You'll be carrying your gear for at least a day in a backpack
- You need to find, range, and engage targets / targets are unknown distances
- You're competing solo, rather than with a partner or team, so you need to both find your own targets and spot your own shots.
For example:
Mag range: What mag range are you running - more (for target ID, perhaps), or less (so you might get a smaller overall weight/size package)? What max mag range would be necessary? Is 30 too much? Would 18 be too little?
Weight: What would be your maximum weight? Is weight an issue, as you're carrying all your gear? Or not, as the scope is primary to success, and you'd cut weight elsewhere? Or merely relevant in the context of having to 'make weight' for a stated rifle + scope combination?
Does weightt become relevant in the context of balancing a rifle, especially if there won't be 'variations on a barricade' props - for example, is weight relevant to you, in terms of balance, if you are using a tripod? And, while Frank has said tripods are part of what we do now ... what about for those who don't? Is actively using the scope's weight for aiding balance (as opposed to, say, messing with weights in a chassis) a consideration for you? Why/why not?
Reticle: Are you wanting some kind of ranging reticle? If so, why (assuming you're also using a rangefinder/RF binos)? Or would you want it given there's talk of some events disallowing laser rangefinders on some stages (if not altogether)? And what kind of rangefinding reticle - one that simply has a separate 'ruler' (think Nightforce's MIL-R as one example), or one that is more designed for 'dynamic' ranging (such as the ZCO MPCT 3)? Why? And is a 'tree' going to help or hinder for these kinds of events? Why?
Size: Is 30 vs 34 mm tube size an issue here? Why or why not? What about objective lens size? Do we really need 56 mm for more light and FOV, or would 44 mm be enough to get the job done well, and have some size and weight benefits?
In discussing the above, I'm hoping to avoid simple answers of the 'just get a brand/model' suggestion ... I'm more interested in the different design elements, and what you see is more beneficial in field events rather than PRS-style events.
If you do want to discuss brands and models, perhaps it's worth also then providing a comparison from the same maker, and discussing why you'd go one over the other ... three quick examples that give concrete choices for the above, at different price points, would be:
- ZCO: 5-27 x 63 mm (37.9 oz / 1075 g) or 4-20 x 57 (34.8 oz / 986 g)
- Nightforce ATACR: 5-25 x 56 (37.6 oz/1066 g), 4-20 x 50 (35.2 oz/998 g), or 4-16 x 42 (30.0 oz/850 g)
- Bushnell: XRS 4.5-30 x 50 (37.8 oz /1070 g) or LRTS 4.5-18 x 44 (27.3oz /774 g)
[I've also chosen these three as reliability is paramount for me, and this comes with a certain weight penalty ... so, for this kind of event, I personally wouldn't be interested in running some kind of 'ultralight' that may then be more prone to mechanical failure.]
For each of the above, does the increase in mag range and FOV make up for the increase in weight, especially knowing you're lugging all your gear around all day?
Overall, does field shooting lean more on the side of larger mag, better FOV, and light gathering, or smaller size, less weight, but less mag?
What says the Hide Mind?
Last edited:
