Rifle Scopes My argument against "good" glass (for now)

R

ripcurlksm

Private
Minuteman
Jun 23, 2009
42
0
43
CA
#1
I recently purchased my first bolt action, a stock Rem 700 5R .308 which comes in a nice H&S Precision stock. I've got a 16x Millett TRS-2 sitting on top of a good rail and rings. I've been to the range 3x and "I" am shooting consistent 5-shot .75" MOAs prone with Federal Match 175 .308. However I feel the "rifle" is actually closer to honest .4" MOA when I'm not throwing a shot.

I am posting here because I would like to eventually compete in precision matches, and beyond shooting the heck out of the rifle and having fun I know I have a lot of personal improvement to make, and of course there are upgrades to the rifle.

Scope:
Here is what I am hung up on... I kinda like the Millet TRS 2 scope. Its the only scope I've owned, it holds zero and has worked well for me for the past 3 years I've owned it and shot it off my M14. Until last week I was able to look through a US Optic 10x thanks to NoExpert (M14/CGN/SH) and it was very impressive. I have the money to drop 2-3k on a scope. One thing I have decided for a new scope is I would like to get more magnification (22-25x) so I can see my bullet holes at 200 yards through the scope. Looking at the NF 22x (~$2,000) which gets rave review at this price point for a 22x I think why not spend a little more ($2,800) for USO and get a more customized scope. Then at this price point why not spent a little more (~3,100) and get S&B or Premier and get better glass. Its goes on and on, which is okay. I'm just thinking at the end of the day, as long as my $400 Millet TRS-2 is holding zero and I am doing my part, any scope I get isn't necessarily going to make me a better shooter for my current needs (non-competing, paper punching at 100-200 yards and steel to 600 and occasionally steel out to 1k). Would I like to compete out to 1k? Hell yes. Just not convinced a scope is the best money spent vs other upgrades.

H&S Precision stock:
Aluminum bedded stock, pretty good stock. I do think i need to skim bed it and tighten up the recoil lug. This is a great option that I think would be a great investment and a fun project for me to do. Would eventually be getting a McMillan stock with a offhand hook and adj cheek riser.

Trigger:
I've got the Remington X-Mark trigger adjusted to its lightest setting and took the set screw out of the trigger. I've been shooting pretty good with it, but I'm sure a Jewell trigger would be a good investment/no brainer.

I guess everyone's needs are different and this is how I see it for me. The real answer is that all of these things need or should be done anyhow, but it seems ~600+ on a stock and ~200 on a trigger and more perfect practice may be my best dollars spent?

Great 0.4"-0.5" groups that I ruined @100 yards:
Untitled-11.jpg

2012-03-24_10-12-46_266.jpg

2012-03-24_10-12-41_9.jpg


My personal best 5-shot group @100 yards at .6"
2012-03-11_20-00-59_123.jpg
 
#2
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

If spotting bullet holes at 200 is your objective, both the Bushnell HDMR and SWFA 5-20x50mm HD can accomplish that easily. You don't really need to drop $2K to $3K.
 
#3
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Why is it that everyone feels obligated to attain uber elite gear and when they can't afford it they feel a need to justify the decision to shoot with the gear that they have available to them? Stop fretting over the minutia and go out there and have fun with you've got or can afford to get. Stop drooling over vaporware on the internet and spend that time doing something useful. Walk your dog, fuck your wife, teach a kid to roll a joint, anything is better than coveting.
 
#4
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

HDMR G2 for the win. Seriously, it is difficult to get comfortable behind my USO after spending time with the HDMR. The extra magnification (21 vs 17) and HD glass make a world of difference.

I also really like my SWFA 5-20. It would likely be better for a 308 because of the 10 mil turrets.

Also note, I'd take any of them at any price over the Nightforce. Better glass, and better reticles in the proper sight plane.
 
#5
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

here's my take on it...and we can test it if anyone wants, I'll take you to Badlands and get Steve Suttles to show you.... if we take any modern scope that SH members consider low end ( Bushnell 3200 10x, SWFA SS Classic 10x, Weaver Grand Slam Tactical 3-10x, etc, etc) put it on a box stock Remington 700P or Savage 10FCP HS Precision and put it in the hands of the likes of Steve, Carlos Hathcock, Chuck Mawhinney, etc, etc, it's better gear than what they had when they were making the shots that 99% of the members here jack off to... so my bet is that they can out shoot 99% of the members here w/ that POS scope and rifle, while said members have a top of the line rifle and scope combo...

the point is, you need to know how to shoot before you need said gear.

"it's the indian, not the arrow" grasshopper
 
#6
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the point is, you need to know how to shoot before you need said gear.

"it's the indian, not the arrow" grasshopper

</div></div>

I agree, and hope that was evident in my post
 
#8
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

I would get a better trigger. You can save some money on the Jewell and get a Timney but if it isn't broken why fix it? Skim bedding the rifle wouldn't hurt but I'm not positive you will notice a difference. Would still be a cool project for you to under take.

If the Millet is working out stick to it until you feel you have to upgrade.
 
#9
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

A good friend of mine is in the process of building up his first quality rifle. He started with an SPS Tactical.

My advice to him was to spend money on the things that are holding him back.

As of now, his Bushnell is doing him fine, but the stock hasn't been comfortable. I sold him an H-S on the cheap and skim bedded it for him. Its shoots well, but the thing didn't fit him well. So we installed a Karstens on it and he's doing much better with it.

We've got his X-Mark Pro adjusted nicely but it is far from the best. He's considering other options.

Ultimately, his goal is a chassis of some kind.

However, he ran it at a match and the 5-15x Bushy was less than ideal at 800 yards. He's considering what to replace it with, but he wants to make the rifle fit him first.
 
#10
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if we take any modern scope that SH members consider low end ( Bushnell 3200 10x, SWFA SS Classic 10x, Weaver Grand Slam Tactical 3-10x, etc, etc) put it on a box stock Remington 700P or Savage 10FCP HS Precision and put it in the hands of the likes of Steve, Carlos Hathcock, Chuck Mawhinney, etc, etc, it's better gear than what they had when they were making the shots that 99% of the members here jack off to... so my bet is that they can out shoot 99% of the members here w/ that POS scope and rifle, while said members have a top of the line rifle and scope combo... </div></div>

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you really have no evidence of that. I'll wager many of the members here can outshoot those guys, largely because of technology, advances in techniques, etc. The guys here are shooting competitively, not worried about "sniping" a guy at 400 yards. Give Hathcock your 10x Bushy and a 700 P, I bet he wouldn't compete with guys like Rob or George in a match.
 
#11
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Not an expert here, still learning myself but your groups are solid so I'd just run what ya brung until you see the need. If you can accurately range UKD targets with it, can be comfy behind it, know the controls with your eyes closed and it tracks and returns to zero, why change it? It does what you need. Just get out and run a few matches with it.

Big Daddy Don Garlits (drag racer) used to say "If it don't go, chrome it."

My Millet TRS-1 did not return to zero or track properly so I upgraded to the Vortex PST. I haven't competed with it yet but I like the glass and the controls.

Good luck and go burn some ammo!
 
#12
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)


This crap cracks me up. Every forum of every kind has threads exactly like this and its made up of two to three groups of people. This happens with cars, boats, planes, guns, any hobby with toys its all the same.

1. The people who can't afford, or justify, the cost of the best equipment and feel the need to put everyone down who has it in attempt to make themselves feel less insecure.

2. Then you have the guys who understand that having good equipment has nothing to do with skill set and they don't normally get involved in the flame war.

3. Lastly there is a group of people who have the best equipment and feel the need to justify their purchase and shove it down everyone's throat as the "best".

Unfortunately most people need to try and make themselves feel nice inside instead of talking facts and informing others.


Bottom line buying good equipment does not mean you are a great shot nor should it. It merely indicates you enjoy shooting and have enough disposable income to buy some nice toys...that's it nothing more!
 
#15
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

what is group #4 trebec? i think you missed an important one, its the group that.....

-he who has tried said toys and determined them not worth the money, yet keeps to himself so as to not anger the fanboys, and believes a 10 dollar piece of kit can get the job done if need be, all the while enjoys trying out items for oneself to form his own opinion as opposed to reading the internet ninja views, then getting sandy vagina trying to explain the fellers debating their views, to which he who has tiny weener and has embraced it...


P.S. write that down
 
#16
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if we take any modern scope that SH members consider low end ( Bushnell 3200 10x, SWFA SS Classic 10x, Weaver Grand Slam Tactical 3-10x, etc, etc) put it on a box stock Remington 700P or Savage 10FCP HS Precision and put it in the hands of the likes of Steve, Carlos Hathcock, Chuck Mawhinney, etc, etc, it's better gear than what they had when they were making the shots that 99% of the members here jack off to... so my bet is that they can out shoot 99% of the members here w/ that POS scope and rifle, while said members have a top of the line rifle and scope combo... </div></div>

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you really have no evidence of that. I'll wager many of the members here can outshoot those guys, largely because of technology, advances in techniques, etc. The guys here are shooting competitively, not worried about "sniping" a guy at 400 yards. Give Hathcock your 10x Bushy and a 700 P, I bet he wouldn't compete with guys like Rob or George in a match.
</div></div>

hence why I said "most" of the members here... and we can test it, Steve Suttles is about 3hrs drive from me... let's go

we have maybe 1% of the members here that are great shooters and need the high end stuff to get every edge they can, then I'd bet that we have another 10%, maybe 20%, that are like me, we're good shots, but will never committ to being great.... but we're not the ones starting these threads, we've shot enough, on enough platforms to know what works.

then you have 80% or more that are total novices, they come and ask what they need to shoot 1000yds, or sub MOA groups @ 100,200,300,etc....

they always get the "you need to spend more on your gear responses, some from other novices, some from the guys that actually are semi serious...

it's almost always the wrong answer, what they need is to just fucking shoot, preferably w/ something decent and some icoaching, but they need to shoot, they can all be handed George or Rob's match rifles and still not be able to even zero them, much less actually engage a target
 
#18
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wlwaldock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
2. Then you have the guys who understand that having good equipment has nothing to do with skill set and they don't normally get involved in the flame war. </div></div>

Christ, you don't need a quadrophonic Blaupunkt! What you need is a curveball!
 
#19
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

if your shooting at a well lit 100 yard range, i suppose any optic will do the trick, but there is a reason most people who do a lot of shooting, ie professional hunters, competition shooters, etc say spend as much on your optic as you did on your rifle. guns and optics are like anything else, you have to fit them to your purpose. you don't have to break the bank, but you find you always get what you pay for.
 
#20
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EbVKWCpNFhY"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EbVKWCpNFhY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
 
#21
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wlwaldock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This crap cracks me up. Every forum of every kind has threads exactly like this and its made up of two to three groups of people. This happens with cars, boats, planes, guns, any hobby with toys its all the same.

1. The people who can't afford, or justify, the cost of the best equipment and feel the need to put everyone down who has it in attempt to make themselves feel less insecure.

2. Then you have the guys who understand that having good equipment has nothing to do with skill set and they don't normally get involved in the flame war.

3. Lastly there is a group of people who have the best equipment and feel the need to justify their purchase and shove it down everyone's throat as the "best".
</div></div>

Not sure if this was directed at me, but if you read my post I've said that I need to work on my own shooting, I do have the money for better optics but I think my money may be better spent in other areas.
 
#22
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

There is more to a pricier scope than just bells and whistles when we talk about moving up from a millet. Tracking, return to zero and durability are a few of the most important improvements you will see in just a $500-$600 jump. Law of diminishing returns however starts to come into play.

If punching paper from a bench is your thing, the millet may very well do all you want. But if you want to get into comps, UKD ranges with lots of dialing and things like that, my bet is your millet will fail in one way of another LONG before any of the other parts you mentioned. Dependability needs to be priority 1... You can't miss the shot your broke down gear won't let you attempt. Once dependability is met, then look for accuracy, ergos and cool factor.

Don't confuse any of the above with buying the absolute best. Durability for your purposes can be met without spending $4k plus on a holdseldt (sp?)
 
#24
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

this brings up a great point...yesterday, a friend and I were out shooting ground squirrels at around 150-200 yards (our favorite pasttime here in Southern ID). I have a Leupold 3-9 on my 17 Hummer, he has a Schmitty on his Savage .22LR (I know, I know, lucky bastard!). While he is busy telling me "this squirrel is eating...that squirrel is dropping a ducket..." I am busy asking him, "what squirrels, where?"

It was at this point, that I contemplated whipping out the credit card to have a Schmitty delivered to our firing position, so I could enjoy the same details!

Honestly, I am far from shooting like 100% of the members on here, but, I still wouldn't mind a Schmitty, Premier, USO, etc...sitting on my .22lr!
smile.gif


At least when I missed, with gear like this, I would know it was still me! HAHA!!

Buy what makes you happy, dude.
 
#25
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FALex</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this brings up a great point...yesterday, a friend and I were out shooting ground squirrels at around 150-200 yards (our favorite pasttime here in Southern ID). I have a Leupold 3-9 on my 17 Hummer, he has a Schmitty on his Savage .22LR (I know, I know, lucky bastard!). While he is busy telling me "this squirrel is eating...that squirrel is dropping a ducket..." I am busy asking him, "what squirrels, where?"

It was at this point, that I contemplated whipping out the credit card to have a Schmitty delivered to our firing position, so I could enjoy the same details!

Honestly, I am far from shooting like 100% of the members on here, but, I still wouldn't mind a Schmitty, Premier, USO, etc...sitting on my .22lr!
smile.gif


At least when I missed, with gear like this, I would know it was still me! HAHA!!

Buy what makes you happy, dude. </div></div>

what power was the "schmitty"?
 
#26
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

First and foremost I am attacking no one. My opinion is no more valuable than any one elses. We are all entitled to our beliefs I just chose to share mine. Let me be crystal clear these are my opinions NOT facts.

Otherwise....

How many private jet owners are licensed to fly their own plane

How many Ferrari owners drive so fast they need a Ferrari

Does Larry Ellison really need a 450' yacht because he is so good at operating a ship

I just dont understand the argument that you can't buy good equipment unless you are a 1% shot. That's BS.

I 100% agree 99% of us don't "need" the best equipment

Its just humorous how people are so arrogant as to think they get to dictate what you should or shouldn't buy based on their personal perspective of cost
 
#27
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Kevin, for what it's worth, I'd say get the rifle how you want it first, then figure out an optic.

I was in the same boat picking out a scope, I had the cash for an S&B, but wanted certain features only available with the USO. I gave up some glass quality to get features I wanted, but ultimately got an optic that suits me and my rifle.

Plus when the rifle is where you want it, it's easier to get the scope that is right for you and it. You won't be asking this question cause your rifle will be set, just have to pick out a scope.

Just something to consider...
 
#29
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

I use to be in your boat. Never understood expensive optics. If my savage shoots great and my cheap optics gets the job done, why the hell should I waste my money?

Here's the deal. I get it...As long as a scope holds zero and tracks properly, thats all you NEED for accuracy.When I got my $150 tactical BSA I thought it was GREAT. I used it and it got the job done. Then as I got more into the hobby, I started having little annoyances with the BSA. Not so clear past 16x, turrets a little mushy etc.. So I got a $500 vortex viper. This scope was great, it had everything I needed. Eventually, I started having little complaints about this scope. I wanted ffp, clearer glass and mil turrets. These little things are NOT required, but since its my hobby it can make it more enjoyable. I bought the $900 Viper PST. Now I have it and REALLY enjoy it. Absolutely no complaints so far.

I'll tell you this though.... My accuracy did not increase at all throughout this entire process. So while all the extra features and quality help, ultimately I paid for a more enjoyable experience shooting. If you don't have the urge to upgrade yet, then DON'T! Enjoy your current equipment while you can.
 
#30
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what can ya say.......???

but what do I know....???

24lo7kw.jpg


mbkgtj.jpg


fp1i5x.jpg


</div></div>

Where did you get a penny that big?

Laying on the floor of a Nuke Power plant?
wink.gif
 
#32
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

...Or, maybe it's akin to the guy in perfect healh telling everyone how great it is to use Viagra, and how everyone should buy into the experience.

I really do appreciate good optics. But my budget stiil doesn't allow them to come live in my house.

So folks who can't afford higher priced optics should forego something affordable and just forget about shooting, because, as we all know, lesser optics are just not acceptable among our elite class of discerning shooter?

I think we can all afford to be cutting each other a bit more slack, and can ill afford the purist's disdain.

We're actually all here to shoot, and not to quibble about the sizes of various dicks.

Greg
 
#33
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Wow! 30 replies, and less than half actually pertain to the original post. The rest is still pissing contests about who's a "real" sniper's hide member, real snipers vs. comp shooters, gear snobs vs bottom feeders, concrete belly vs. real comp shooters, newbies vs. posers, etc.

I thought this was Sniper's Hide, not arf.com. But as high and mighty as the "established" SH members are, they still can't help but have petty arguments or lump people into groups to elevate themselves as oligarchs or something.

Can there ever be one thread where people just help the OP and stay on topic? If it's not gear getting dumped on, it's the people themselves.




To the OP: I think you're right on track, and you do have some helpful suggestions above. I'd like a GAP-10, but the FNAR was a fraction of the price and at my range distances, the paper won't notice the difference. I'd like an S&B or USO, but my Nikon Prostaff will get me to 300-400 yards easily. And guess what, objective view is GREAT at max power. I've seen a NF at max power(22X or 24X I think) and the objective view was horrible. I had to fight to get a view at all.

FWIW, I think you're headed the right direction(but I'm probably a poser, concrete belly shooter, or some other denegration). Trigger & stock are easiest and cheapest. When your groups start consistantly matching the rifle at .4 MOA, then maybe even a custom bbl like Bartlien or Rock, or custom action work from SAC or someone.

**(My Opinion)Or just keep the current rifle setup as is, and start a build from the ground up; you've obviously got a pretty good stick as it sits. Since you've already got $3,000 ready for glass if you wanted, you could start a custom build, and by the time you've taken delivery, you'll probably have that $3k saved up again and ready for glass. That way, when one rifle is out getting work, you've got another to keep shooting....


Millets are great for the money. Heck, shoot some comps just for the fun of it. While you're there, others will have S&B, NF, USO, and they'd surely let you take a peak & ask questions. Sample as much of the high end stuff as you can and see if they have any regrets or wish they'd done something differently.....
 
#34
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Run whatever makes ya happy
A $$ scope WILL NOT make you a better shot, practice will thou.

As with most spend $$ on ammo or reloading gear n shoot more, you will know when you need better gear.

Buy used get more bang for ya $$

Bed action, n get a good trigger
group buy on Huber right now, very good trigger

Shooting makes you a better shot not the gear ya use
Its the Indian not the bow
 
#35
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...Or, maybe it's akin to the guy in perfect healh telling everyone how great it is to use Viagra, and how everyone should buy into the experience.

I really do appreciate good optics. But my budget stiil doesn't allow them to come live in my house.

So folks who can't afford higher priced optics should forego something affordable and just forget about shooting, because, as we all know, lesser optics are just not acceptable among our elite class of discerning shooter?

I think we can all afford to be cutting each other a bit more slack, and can ill afford the purist's disdain.

We're actually all here to shoot, and not to quibble about the sizes of various dicks.

Greg </div></div>

Actually Greg, with all due respect, there is only one post in this entire thread that can be viewed as elitest(two if you include mine...which was intended to be viewed with a sense of humor). To the contrary, this thread DOES NOT have any "Elite Glass" fanboy posts. While the "purist's disdain" of which you speak is prevalent, it is not found here.
 
#36
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

What kind of precision matches are you considering? How do they score these matches you are considering?
What kind of distance is involved?
Are these groups from the bench or from the prone position?

Upper end glass (Hensoldt & S&B) is always nice but not required.
I have had S&B's on some of my rigs for extended periods of time but they were long-time lenders.
I use Mark 4's, VX-3 LRT's, Sightron SIII's, and a couple NXS's. Picked up most used for cheaper than typical market prices.
These are my upper end optics, as I can afford more of them for different rigs. I shoot all of my rigs out to 1K and usually beyond. I have been doing this for awhile with really stubby barrels.
For what you want to do, no upgrade may be the answer.
I would consider the trigger first, then how does the stock fit you when you are shooting in the position that you would compete at?
If you want to do a lot of shooting and the desire for tiny groups at short or long range, learning to reload may be another consideration.
In the end, it is your gun and money-Choose what you want!
 
#37
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

if it ain't broke don't fix it. work on practice, trigger control, and get a .22 to practice with, and feed it some decent quality ammo.
 
#38
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

I one thing you'll run into is repeatability in the long run. If a scope shoots straight - great! But, just be aware that there are a lot of people who have come before us and they've put the gear to the test in order for us to not make the same mistakes. Sometimes the tolerences in cheaper scopes just aren't up to the task when taking consistent shots at longer distances. One reason that these scopes cost more is that there's more time put into the tooling and manufacturing of the product. That just takes time and money to do - like it or not.

That being said, there's probably a reasonable middle of the road that accomplishes what you want and what you need all in one. Good luck, and I'll talk to you in 3 years when you end up buying an S&B!
 
#39
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wlwaldock</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This crap cracks me up. Every forum of every kind has threads exactly like this...
Bottom line buying good equipment does not mean you are a great shot nor should it. It merely indicates you enjoy shooting and have enough disposable income to buy some nice toys...that's it nothing more!
</div></div>

Right, just human nature. In capitalism, we choose how much money to earn and how to use it.

I first figured this out in a fistfight in Jr High with some idiot that said I didn't deserve my new Air Jordans as I wasn't good enough at basketball...shoes I'd literally earned cleaning toilets after school. I wasn't exactly open minded to his argument, nor yet mature enough to laugh at him and not even bother with time of day.

<span style="font-style: italic">If your goal is to shoot the smallest groups</span>, and you've got the money to both practice and buy Gucci gear, buy the cool toys, much of it really is better. If not, get out and shoot out the barrel, spend the extra time at your bench lacking a Chargemaster or Giraud trimmer, and upgrade when the pain of not having something overcomes the pain of finding the money.
 
#41
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

My advice - having owned the same rifle - is don't sink a lot of dough into it. You'll never get all of it back on resale. In fact, I'd just shoot the hell out of it and save up for a custom when the time is right. You'll know. There's plenty you can learn shooting out to 300-400 yards. I have a sweet custom now with a Premier LT 3-15 and, yes, that scope is wonderful...great glass, easy to get behind, etc. But I shoot 3-4X more .22 rimfire @ 100-200 yards using a Leupy 4X. Or I'll take the iron-sighted M1 out and let it kick my butt on the 100/300 yard ranges.
 
#42
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Shooters are all about gear just like the car guys (non-racers).

That's what I miss about motorcycle racing. Both Roadracing, and Motocross, it's all about the rider and not the gear. No one will argue about gear because the finish line is the telling tale. In racing, the older guys usually have more money and buy the nicer stuff, but they rarely ever finish near the top
laugh.gif


In shooting, the only ones that spend the money are the older guys, unless some young kid has a rich dad. I myself think shooting takes no skill at all if you compare it to other sports like motocross racing, football, basketball, etc.

Fact is anyone can be a good shooter if they dedicate the time, practice, and have a gun that is properly set up. However, almost every shooter I met seems to think he has some kind of special X-men type skills, and that you need good glass to be a good shooter. I myself think it's hogwash, as long as you know your scope tracking ability, and can see the target, what more do you need?

Old guys generally have bad eyes that is why they need good glass. If you have a 12 year old girl with 20/20 vision, she can look through a TRS and S&B and will not notice a lick of difference in "glass quality" between the 2. Her good eyes can do most of the work, she can naturally see colors and contrast better so she does not need the premium glass.

The average comp shooter though is about 40 years old, if not 50, and these guys most definitely notice a difference between the S&B and TRS.

The older you get, your eyes have a harder time focusing, has a harder time gathering light, they see less colors, and they have a harder time with contrast as everything seems to just blend together. When I see a guy with 2 coke bottles for prescription glasses, I really do believe him when he says "the clarity of the S&B is unmatched" and that the $3500 was well spent. Premium scopes have premium glass that will help old eyes gather light better, see more contrast, and distinguish colors better.

It's the same with regular glasses (bifocals). Some people don't need $600 glasses to see better, some can wear $2 safety goggles and see better than the guy with the $600 glasses.

Older guys also have a hard time with staying behind a scope for long periods of time unless it has premium glass on it. Even the good stuff, old guys are limited on how long they can stay behind a scope without their eyes straining.

Here is a good article on vision as you get older: http://www.allaboutvision.com/over60/vision-changes.htm
 
#45
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: luvtolean</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Motorcycle racing guys not about the gear? Surely you jest! </div></div>

not really, it's about the finish line!
 
#46
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My apologies, the humor went clean over my head.

Greg </div></div>

getting old and losing your vision is really not that funny.
 
#48
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Idk if any of you guys own a Rolex or breitling or any high end automatic watch but if you do you know that they don't keep time for $hit. You can go to the gas station and buy a timex that keeps dramatically better time.

Thus

Anyone who owns a watch nicer than a timex is a fool
 
#49
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

Getting old beats the alternative.

To the OP, one of your problems here is you did not choose one of the "favored" brands of budget scope.

I will tell you this, I have had a TRS-1, overall I was very pleased with the scope. Resetting the turrets to zero is a non-starter on it though.

I then decided to try FFP and matching reticle/turrets and bought a Falcon 4-14. The glass was similar but the reticle was much better and the matching reticle/turrets was a revelation. The scope tracks very well, the glass is surprisingly good, the turret feel needed a little work (took about 2 minutes, now they are great)
After I decided that mil/mil FFP was the way to go for me, I upgraded again to an IOR 3-18x42.
If you spend a great deal of time behind a scope, you will certainly appreciate good glass.
The IOR is not perfect, I wish it had illumination and the windage adjustment is a bit mushy. The great glass, awesome reticle, 10 mil elevation outweigh the small, niggling complaints.

I have a 5R, I am slowly upgrading it. I found it to be very accurate in the HS stock that it came in (torqued to 50 in-lbs).
I was able to shoot very well with the X-Mark pro trigger, though I found that adjusted too low, they become very inconsistent. 3 to 3.5 lbs seems to be the magic number.
I prefer a wider, ribbed trigger shoe so I had an old style 700 trigger installed and set at 3.5 lbs.

I dis-agree that you can't recoup your money on a tuned trued 700 action. Tac-Ops rifles are very highly regarded, seem to have no problem in regards to resale and they are nothing but very refined, reworked 700 actions.

So, after rambling and not really coming to the point.
If you have money to spend on good glass, spend it.
It is not a waste. If you can afford an S&B, Premier etc..., buy one. Once you spend time behind it, you'll consider "budget" glass as something that starts at about 700 dollars, not 300.

A trigger upgrade will help tremendously.
A Rifle Basix, Timney or Shilen would probably be best for a rifle that gets in the dirt.
A proper skim bed won't hurt and will probably make your rifle more consistent.
Get into a "mid-range" scope like an IOR 3-18 or 4-16 or Bushnell HDMR for around 1300 to 1500, then you will have money left over for a good chassis system like a KRG, XLR, AICS etc...
 
#50
Re: My argument against "good" glass (for now)

I thought companies like SWFA and Bushnell were fighting to end these silly pissing contest with their great mid priced scopes? Seriously. There's something out there to meet everyone's budget. Pick what meets yours and have at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Good scope for 200 yards
Replies
38
Views
1K
FuhQ
FuhQ
D0ntTr3@d0nM3
Looking for budget friendly glass
Replies
69
Views
2K
Primary Arms
Primary Arms
AquaRhombus77
Recommended Optics
Replies
8
Views
359
Bungi
B
N
Rifle Scopes Internal Scope Operation
Replies
0
Views
66
nick338
N
J
Rifle Scopes Best High-Magnification LPVO for my use case?
Replies
57
Views
3K
Burdy
Burdy
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts