Rifle Scopes Need input choosing a mid-range FFP scope for 458 Socom

[Davis]

I have been reading scope reviews and threads for quite a while trying to decide on an optic for a rifle I am building. This build is going to be a bolt action bullpup that will be suppressed in 458 Socom. I want to push the range limits as much as possible,(300-400 yards) with 500 grn subs will require a lot of reference marks on the reticle (I would prefer not to use turrets to adjust the reticle to different ranges if I can keep from it), (500-600 yards) 350 grn supers will be closer to standard trajectory and should be doable on any reticle that will work for the long range subs.

-I want to use a FFP reticle so everything stays consistent at all powers, and I would like the reticle to cover most of the field of view at the higher power settings.
-Prefer an illuminated reticle, one that gets dim enough to be usable in low light without washing out the view of the target.
-Price range ~$800 or less hopefully, but definitely sub $1k.....the cheaper I can fill the bill, the better.
-Looking for best performance in low light, so high quality of glass and larger objective lense is probably better too.
-Would like to find an option that is fairly compact and not overly heavy.....but this is low on the list of concerns.
-Durability....doesn't have to be bomb proof....the recoil from the 458 Socom will be the majority of it's abuse.

1-8X would be about perfect I think, but no options that are affordable that I have found.

Something like 2-10X seems like a reasonable power range. The two lines I have been looking at are Weaver Tact. and the Vortex Viper PST (if SWFA had more illuminated options I would already have one). My concerns with both of these lines is the 3-15/4-16 models seem to be the "golden child" in each line and get the best set of features/reviews....and they aren't much more money. This makes me think why not go one step bigger if it will gain better performance/quality, but then these scopes are huge and heavy.

-The Weaver 2-10x36 FFP DMR concerns me because the usable part of the reticle is fairly small, and the DMR sounds like it may be less refined then the EDMR...plus consensus seems to be the illumination doesn't go low enough. But the glass is nice.
-The Vortex 2.5-10x32 FFP I like the way the reticle extends long in the lower quad. Everyone seems to be pleased with the illumination, and the consensus seems to be the glass isn't as good.

Both of these options have fairly small objective lenses, so that is a concern in terms of light gathering isn't it?

Any suggestions/insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

Glass on the Vortex 2.5-10x32 FFP is quite good to my eyes - it's the older Vortex 2.5-10x42 SFP model that has awful glass. I've owned both.

What about the SWFA SS 1-6x24? Not a ton of magnification, but a nice scope for 1k new, or less used or on the Sample List. Illumination, FFP, good reticle.

For more magnification - Bushnell Elite Tactical 3-12x44mm FFP with the G2DMR reticle. One of the best reticles you'll find for your purposes. Nice glass, quality construction, not as big and heavy as the 50mm objective scopes. Street price around $800-850 new, may find them for less (*cough* call Liberty Optics). No illumination with the G2 reticle, but if you want illumination the same scope can be had with a BTR-MIL reticle that is illuminated, but lacks the windage tree of the G2. Actually see it for $721 at "grab a gun" but have not bought from them and don't know how they are to deal with. This series has a good reputation for durability.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

Regarding low light use - it's not "light gathering" but exit pupil and coatings quality. Coatings quality follows price pretty closely. Exit pupil is generally equal (with some variations depending on scope design) to the objective diameter divided by the magnification. In other words, a 50mm objecting used at 10x will give you a 5mm exit pupil. I would suggest an exit pupil no smaller than 4mm for dim light, and 5-6mm for darkness. Larger is better, up to about 6-7mm is the most your eye can use depending on your eyes (mostly goes with age, older = smaller maximum useful pupil). So let's say you set 4mm as your exit pupil requirement. That would mean a 50mm scope would be useful in dimmer conditions up to 12.5x, a 44mm at 11x, and a 40mm at 10x. I would hesitate to get the 2-10x36 Weaver or 2.5-10x32 PST if you want to use more than 8x in dimmer light.

 

[ranger1183]

Glass on the Vortex 2.5-10x32 FFP is quite good to my eyes - it's the older Vortex 2.5-10x42 SFP model that has awful glass.

This is what I have found as well. I own a Vortex 2.5-10x32 FFP and love it. It sits on my go-to hunting rifle now.

 

[Davis]

Sounds like that larger objective is getting more interesting. Being able to work with moonlight would be a plus.

Why is it the scopes with the perfect reticles are non-illuminated.....the G2DMR would be perfect...as is the SS Milquad? The BTR-2 looks like a possibility if the whole reticle lights up.(1-6.5 FFP) but that scope is out of my price range.

I really like the 1-6 SS, I would like it better with milquad, and it seems high priced. I think I would be just as happy with 2X on the low end .....a 2-7x or 2-8x would be even better, but seems like nobody makes a ranging reticle scope in that power range.


The 2.5-10 x32 Vortex is a strong contender right now.....any pics of how big the reticle is at 7-8x?

 

[AK264]

Well there are many much more knowledgable than me here but here goes. At 600 yards I like a little more power than 9 or ten. I know the consensus is 9 or ten is good enough at 600 I just like a little more. That being said dont rule out the SWFA 3x9. Its glass makes up for its being somewhat underpowered. The SWFA 3x9 has a lot of things going for it that dont readily translate into tangibles eyebox is great and its just easy on the eye. Personally I would rather have a SWFA 3x9 on a stick than the SWFA 3x15 at any range. The weaver tacticals have a hell of a lot of bang for the buck. THe glass is very good but they sure make me work for it change power, side focus, im always screwing with the reticle focus, unlike the SWFA 3x9. Thats what I mean by intangible. The side focus on the weaver tactical 3 x 15 doesnt seem to snap in like say a sightron, where all of a sudden its sharp you are there... It may just be my old eyes. Not that Im knocking the weaver tacticals, I think they are unbeatable for the money in the 3-15 class. If the sightron 3.5x10 was FFP it would be a great value and appropriate but since its not meh. Ill tell you Im not that big on illuminated reticles it aint that easy to get the light where its needed in the amount needed. Nightforce does it well and the cost of the weaver 2x10 approaches the cost of a used like new nightforce 2.5x10. I havnt looked through the weaver 2x10. Price wise its a bit for its range, maybe they did put a $ or two into the illumination. Me I would go with the SWFA 3x9 before I put out for that 2x10 weaver in that class but as I said I havnt had to the pleasure of peering through that model. Me at 600 I want more mag than either provides 12x min and for the parameters mentioned the weaver 3-15 would be my choice. IF you are really going to get that far, in my experience 600 is a good little poke even with a .308. I think you are going to end up dialing for elevation. Will the 5 mils on the SWFA and weaver get you to 600? Excellent+ condition used SWFA 3x9s can be found for $500 and if its not your cup of tea you wont lose much if you flip it.

 

[Davis]

600 is not likely going to be something that I regularly attempt.....depending on my level of success. I was just trying to come up with an envelope of operation to help decide on the power range. I am not apposed to bumping up to 3-15 other then the size and weight. This rifle will be about 27" long....about 37" with the can, so a 14" long scope that is pushing 2 lbs will not be my final choice unless it is intended to go on with a quick detach and serve double duty on a longer range rifle down the road. I would like to do a long range build, so that is possible. I really don't want to spend this much money on a scope without illumination....unless one with good illumination cannot be had in my price range.

I am not opposed to a used scope either, if there might me a used Nightforce that made it into my price range I would give it strong consideration (there would likely be a lot of drooling involved). I have no interest in spending this much money without having some convincing assurances that the quality is there. This will be the most expensive scope I have purchased to date.....I have always gotten Burris Signature Mil-dots in the past, but FFP is not an option from Burris that I have seen, and I am hoping that the scopes we are discussing will be better glass then I am used to.

I am very impressed with the SWFA scope reveiws, and I am not necessarily in a hurry if anyone has info on them working on a 3-9 or 3-15 with illumination, I would not be opposed to waiting.

 

[Davis]

What I was doing on the elevation issue is playing around with the zeroing distance.....zero at say 150 yards and that gives me a 350 yard reference at the bottom of a mil-quad and closer ranges can be held with the reference points about center.....giving ranges of 50-350 yards without touching a turret. Huge drop with a 500 grn bullet at 1050 fps, but that looks like fun to be able to have reference points to cover that range. It will be better for the 350 grn supers, I will be able to cover a much longer range.

I really like something like the Mil-quad reticle.....I like the cross style with the longer bottom leg, so I am leaning away from the Weaver....heard too many gripes about their CS too.
Discovered the 2.5-10 NF can't be had with FFP.
Liking the idea of going larger on the objective lense for better low/no light performance.

 

[Davis]

After further consideration, currently looking at Vortex PST 2.5-10x32 FFP, or Bushnell Elite Tact. 3-12x44 FFP illum BTR-MIL. Both can be had for a similar price. Curious about a comparison of warranty service, glass quality, and the quality of the illumination (do they adjust down very dim for low light).....also what do you think of the reticles in these two scopes down at low magnification (either one of the reticles usable, or are they just basically a plex crosshair)

The Bushnell has the larger objective , so I like the idea of better low light performance if everything else is equal.

Also considering non-illuminated options but leaning towards illuminated pretty hard at this point.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

I own that PST and the non-illuminated G2 reticle flavor of that Bushnell. To answer your questions:
-haven't used warranty service with either company, but Vortex always seems to get A+ reviews, while Bushnell reports vary a bit
-that particular model PST, in the one example I have, has excellent glass clarity. The Bushnell is also excellent, but for color and clarity maybe just a hair behind that model PST (and well ahead of the 4-16x and SFP 2.5-10x44 PST). However, that PST has a smallish 3.2mm exit pupil at 10x, while that Bushnell has roughly 4.4mm at 10x and 3.7mm at 12x, and to me has a much more flexible eyebox.
-haven't used an illuminated Bushnell. The PST has very good illumination.
-Seeing hash marks and ranging with them is not a realistic idea below 4x, and best done at 6x or higher. With FFP the reticles can get so thin at low magnification that they become hard to use as a simple crosshair (plex). I find the PST reticle shrinks to barely useable at 2.5x. This is the MRAD model, the MOA model has thicker outer hairs and would probably be more useful at 2.5x. My G2 Bushnell is a bit faint but still fairly useable at 3x. Haven't used the BTR-MIL.

 

[Davis]

The G2 reticle, and the SWFA mil-quad are the non-illuminated options I have on my radar....the G2 would be hard to pass up if I decide to go without illumination.

Seems like there are several Bushnells showing up used....makes me wonder why so many are being dumped.


So glass quality goes to Vortex by a hair
Objective size to the Bushnell
More Magnification to the Bushnell
Warranty service probably Vortex
Illumination.....no votes yet by way of comparison

 

[1slow01z71]

I think youre going to be highly disappointed in that cartridge for shots that far. Youre basically going to be in 22lr trajectory territory. You will run out of reticle subtensions well before 500yds. The 458 drops like a rock after 150. Ive got the x32 pst on my 300blk and it works great but 400yds is asking a lot of it and its got way better ballistics than the 458. 500gr subs at 250yds you will be off the reticle, at 500yds youre looking at 90moa of elevation. You literally wont have enough turret adjustment and reticle to get you there unless you run a canted base and even then you will barely make it. I suggest you run some ballistics calcs and set some realistic goals.

 

[BERTMAN77MK2]

I second the motion for a cartridge re-evaluation in light of the ranges listed. All the good scopes have been covered!

 

[Davis]

The idea is to zero at 150 yards....with 500 grn subs that should get me to 350 yards at the bottom mark on a Mil-quad reticle, the second mark from the top of the reticle is showing about 44 yards (this is all theoretical on a ballistics program at this point) It should be about 125" drop from 150 to 350 yards.

My thought is to use a longer zero to get the top of the reticle close to 50 yards and let the chips fall where they do from there. I want to establish ranges for each mark on the reticle and then use those marks for aiming points without using the turrets.....then I can later use the turrets to extend the range.

Maybe this won't work.....I realize it is going to be more like a mortar round then a rifle, but it appears doable......please correct me if you still think it can't work.

 

[1slow01z71]

So your actual zero will not be at the crosshair intersection but at the top of the reticle?

 

[Davis]

I guess it depends on your point of view. It looks to me like if I "zero" the center at 150 yards that would put the next to the top mark on at about 44 yards and the bottom mark at about 350.

Or I would suppose I could start by trying to zero the top mark at 50 yards and let it go form there, and just see where each point ends up.....not really a way to do that on the ballistics programs, so I change the zero until I get close to 50 yards up at the top of the reticle. 150-200 is good ball-park for what I want to do.

 

[1slow01z71]

Just beware that zeroing it that way you will not have much elevation left on the turret should you want to stretch it out further. What you have on the reticle will basically be it.

 

[Davis]

Any guesses how much angle I might need on the base to not use up my adjustment? I will be custom making the base so I thought I would start out by setting the angle of the base so that the top of the reticle was bore sighted to the rifle with the scope adjustments all centered.....probably would be a significant cant....but that would save my adjustment. I just hope I'm not looking through the barrel/suppressor to get it accomplished.

 

[SomeOtherGuy]

I think you should check out the Barrett ex-rings, which let you adjust, with the rings mounted, between 15 and 40 MOA of elevation:

Barrett | Optics

That plus a 20 MOA base would certainly give you a wide range of elevation to play with.

You might also want to look at some scopes with an extremely wide range of elevation adjustment - the SWFA SS 10x42HD immediately comes to mind within your price range. All the SS scopes have a good adjustment range, though most will be only about the same 100 MOA or so that you're looking at with the Viper PST 2.5-10x32 (but more than the 74 MOA of the Bushnell). I just ran the elevation knob on my SS 10x42HD and it rotates through a whopping 38 mils of adjustment, or about 130 MOA. Combine that with an angled base (20 or 30 MOA) and the Barrett ex-rings and you should be able to play mortar quite nicely.

Look up reviews on the 10x42 HD model SS. Glass quality is better than the PST or Bushnell, construction quality seems about the same as the Bushnell (excellent), and I personally like the reticle - which by the way has 10 mils on the down hair, so you can add that further to your elevation for your indirect fire shots.

 

[scudzuki]

Seems like there are several Bushnells showing up used....makes me wonder why so many are being dumped.

Because they sell a metric $hit ton of them, and a percentage of all scopes end up used on the market.
I've bought and sold 2 DMRs, an XRS, and an Elite Tactical 6-24 FFP G2DMR (excellent reticle BTW), but not because there was anything wrong with them. They were in fact excellent scopes in their respective price ranges.
I've also bought and sold (in the same time frame) an S&B 5-25x56 PMII, a March F 3-24x42, and a USO SR-8s, all excellent scopes, but somehow not exactly what I wanted or needed at the time.

I recently picked up a used ET 6-24x50 FFP illuminated mildot for a great price from a Hide member and I doubt I will ever sell it unless I am destitute.

I also just bought a new SMRS (ET 1-6.5) with an SFP illuminated BTR-2 reticle and I am surprised this scope does not get more love; it's feature set and glass are impressive. Unfortunately it is out of the OP's price range at well over $1k.

I realize the OP stipulated FFP but I think for this mag range (1-x), FFP is not necessary, with certain reticles it is counterproductive (when what is a proper reticle at top magnification is not good at 1x), and it adds unnecessary cost to the optic. Mine will be used at 1x or 6.5x and never in between; situations that dictate 1x will not require holds and the greater apparent size and brightness of the illuminated reticle will be beneficial. At distances requiring holds, the scope will be at full power where the reticle subtends correctly. Apparently Vortex (a company that has a history of responding to the market) agrees with me since their 2nd generation Razor HD 1-6 is also a SFP design.

Joe

 

[Davis]

One reason for using a middle of the road power setting would be to increase low light performance if the highest setting wasn't getting it done.

I was leaning towards the ffp3-12 illum. btr-mil, but Bushnell has done a really piss-poor job of showing what the reticle looks like illuminated as well as what the sight picture looks like at 3 and at 12 power. There are pictures out there that show what the reticle looks like.....but so far I haven't found anyone giving a convincing review of how the illumination performs in low light. I was ready to jump on the next good deal I found, but now I think I want to get my hands on one before I just shuck out $775 and hope for the best.

If anyone has one of these scopes I would really appreciate a detailed appraisal of the reticle and the illumination.

 

[Davis]

The black Friday deals on SWFA are killing me.....$450 for the 3x9 is cheap enough I am considering trying no illumination.....and looking into a used rangefinder. I know the reticle can be used for ranging.....so I should try that first I guess.

I'm going to go out on the prowl today and see if I can lay hands on of the Bushnell My concern is the 9 power top end on the swfa.