Scope advice for NRL22 competition rifle

[FuhQ]

Im just saying…

look at the original post
- dad bought a 14 year old who doesnt shoot competition a vudoo
- wants to buy the best scope, money not an issue.

why not start him on the best that’s available

hopefully we can agree that there is a difference between a budget scope and a higher level scope

just like there is difference between a CZ and a vudoo

Only an idiot would say there is no difference in a $600 scope and a $6,000 scope... But to say that $6,000 scope will make him a better shooter right out of the gate? No. Absolutely not. Fundamentals and practice will make him a better shooter. Alpha glass is just the cherry on top. You don't have to have it to be competitive. You really think that if you gave a pro champion NRL shooter a good rifle with a DNT on top, that he still wouldn't smoke you, with the same gun, but you're running a TT or ZCO? That's a foolish mindset to think that way. It got many a cowboy killed back in the day. What's that old saying, "beware the man who only has 1 gun, chances are he knows how to use it..."

Point being, if you're rocking a $10,000 rig, and don't practice or have the discipline or skills established to win, you won't win, no matter how much money you throw at it. To think you can buy your way into a gold medal is completely retarded.

 

[mmlook]

Only an idiot would say there is no difference in a $600 scope and a $6,000 scope... But to say that $6,000 scope will make him a better shooter right out of the gate? No. Absolutely not. Fundamentals and practice will make him a better shooter. Alpha glass is just the cherry on top. You don't have to have it to be competitive. You really think that if you gave a pro champion NRL shooter a good rifle with a DNT on top, that he still wouldn't smoke you, with the same gun, but you're running a TT or ZCO? That's a foolish mindset to think that way. It got many a cowboy killed back in the day. What's that old saying, "beware the man who only has 1 gun, chances are he knows how to use it..."

Point being, if you're rocking a $10,000 rig, and don't practice or have the discipline or skills established to win, you won't win, no matter how much money you throw at it. To think you can buy your way into a gold medal is completely retarded.

you guys are missing the point

im saying it will make your learning curve faster
- I know it, and ive seen it

its not about buying your way to the top,
its about, if you want to learn to shoot well and as quickly as possible, you want the best gear

you can learn to shoot a budget setup well,
i know it, ive done it. its a lot harder than shooting a well setup open gun.

but just because you can shoot a budget setup well, doesnt mean you can directly jump into an open setup and immediately start winning. you need time with that expensive open setup to learn to maximize the performance of it

thats what im saying, if you skip the budget step, you wont have to relearn anything, and you’ll progress faster, cause you arent working around limiting gear

 

[FuhQ]

you guys are missing the point

im saying it will make your learning curve faster
- I know it, and ive seen it

its not about buying your way to the top,
its about, if you want to learn to shoot well and as quickly as possible, you want the best gear

you can learn to shoot a budget setup well,
i know it, ive done it. its a lot harder than shooting a well setup open gun.

but just because you can shoot a budget setup well, doesnt mean you can directly jump into an open setup and immediately start winning. you need time with that expensive open setup to learn to maximize the performance of it

thats what im saying, if you skip the budget step, you wont have to relearn anything, and you’ll progress faster, cause you arent working around limiting gear

If you're shooting inside of 400 yards, and running expensive Lapua or Eley Match ammo, a Vudoo rifle, and that load is proven in that rifle to be a 1-hole gun, then you're scope really won't matter, as long as you have decent glass, repeatable and true tracking turrets, and a good shooter behind the wheel.

 

[mmlook]

If you're shooting inside of 400 yards, and running expensive Lapua or Eley Match ammo, a Vudoo rifle, and that load is proven in that rifle to be a 1-hole gun, then you're scope really won't matter, as long as you have decent glass, repeatable and true tracking turrets, and a good shooter behind the wheel.

this is not true

watching where the shots go and correcting is over half of the precision rifle game in general

especially for stuff like skyline targets or shooting into tall grass or into a shaded area

 

[oldrifleman]

this is not true

watching where the shots go and correcting is over half of the precision rifle game in general

especially for stuff like skyline targets or shooting into tall grass or into a shaded area

Yeah, I have never shot nlr22 or PRS 22 but I shot rimfire silhouette and benchrest for years. I had great Ammo for the day (80’s/90’s) but clear glass perfectly repeatable turrets were crucial. We were hamstrung to some extent because only certain scopes had parallax to 25 yrds. But you need great glass to see you misses and correct. You had to be able read and hold off for wind and the scopes gave you an edge if you bought well. Yes there are good low priced scopes today that probably would have been the envy on the line in 1990, but it is hard to learn to read missed shots if you can’t see them clearly. Would I buy my kid a “$6000” scope nope, but I did buy good gear to help them learn.
I still think this is a semi scam thread but it does have legs

 

[FuhQ]

this is not true

watching where the shots go and correcting is over half of the precision rifle game in general

especially for stuff like skyline targets or shooting into tall grass or into a shaded area

You can keep pretending the gear makes the shooter, which is not a surprise since you're a commercial supporter. But I grew up using shitty guns and scopes, and it definitely made me a better shot, once I got good equipment later on in life. But getting the basic fundamentals down using average gear was absolutely adequate for learning the basics and learning how to properly shoot, and shoot well.

I zero at 100, and shoot .22LR at 200 & 300 yards quite regularly with dialing up 11+ MILs from a 100 yard zero to hit at 300... And do it just fine with a Christensen Arms Ranger 22, with a Burris XTR-2 on top, and CCI Standard Velocity. I can see my misses, which are 95% caused by velocity dropout from cheaper mass-produced ammo. But I'm not competing. Regardless, I can still be extremely accurate and consistent at 200 & 300 yards with a .22LR without having a ZCO or TT scope... And incase you're wondering, the 300 yard target at my range is tucked up inside the edge of a tree line right in front of a natural creek/spring. It stays dark around the 300 yard gongs.

 

[mmlook]

You can keep pretending the gear makes the shooter, which is not a surprise since you're a commercial supporter. But I grew up using shitty guns and scopes, and it definitely made me a better shot, once I got good equipment later on in life. But getting the basic fundamentals down using average gear was absolutely adequate for learning the basics and learning how to properly shoot, and shoot well.

gear doesnt make the shooter, but good gear helps you make better shots more of the time. which helps you learn quicker

I am a commercial supporter, but if you notice, I sell both Arkens and Tangents

I also have competed nationally with both.

Cheaper scopes will get the job done, but they will slow down your growth and skill set compared to running a higher end scope.

if you start with the best, you will understand what a good shot looks like more of the time, cause they are in general more forgiving for things like eyebox, parallax, depth of field, especially at higher mag.

it pains me to watch new people struggle with budget gear, and then think they suck.

when in reality, most of us would also struggle with that setup, and its not entirely them. its just their gear is difficult to shoot with.

 

[carbonbased]

I’m just trying to bridge the gap here and not enter the fray.

I don’t think @mmlook is saying anything particularly controversial. He’s just mixing two statements together and you guys are kinda thinking he’s saying something else.

@mmlook sez:
#1 Best gear makes learning quicker
If you have the cash, of course getting the best gear is probably going to make the learning process quicker. You know mistakes are ALL you and not the gear.

He’s not saying the gear will automatically make you better than someone with much better skills. You might beat someone with equal skill and a worse scope, however.

mmlook sez:
#2 At the very tippy-top of competition, the best scope can make a difference in points/winning/losing
Assuming the top guys/gals are very very evenly matched, you don’t want to spot your competition anything.

Again, he’s not saying you are going to beat someone better than you. But you might eke out a win from someone evenly matched with you (who is also using a great scope).

Everything he is saying is predicated by if money is no object, and that learning quickly is the goal.

Buying a win, which typically means beating someone with gear even though he’s a fair bit better than you, isn’t what he’s saying.

 

[carbonbased]

Extreme example (@mmlook isn’t saying this part, but I am):
In ski racing (XC or downhill), imagine you have an amazing ski wax tech and your competition has Joe Bob the Floor Wax Aficionado.

They are going to have to be fucking amazing skiers and you will have to really suck for you not to win.

This happened to me with two friends. They were in better shape than me. We were casually XC skiing in Colorado. Warm day. They picked the (very, very) wrong wax, I picked the perfect wax.

I absolutely smoked those fuckers, laughing as I near effortlessly blew by them as they had two inches of snow stuck to the bottom of their skis and were swearing and literally snowshoeing lololol!!!!

Such a good memory. Normally they could beat me any day of the week. Not by a ton, but easily beat me they would.

I think it’s a matter of how closely you’re matched, both in skills and with gear. Depending on the combined degree of skill-to-skill + gear-to-gear mismatch, either statement can be true (gear can get you a win, gear can’t get you a win).

In shooting, a pretty extreme example would be some world champ that has a Tasco with an inch of Vaseline smeared on both ends (and no backup irons) shooting against a competent rifleman with a decent setup. I realize no one on this thread is bringing up that extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

 

[koshkin]

Ok. Of course you’ll run into small problems aligning the magnification between the scopes in question…I don’t know how to set two different scopes (different mags and brands) exactly to the same mag. Perhaps one needs fancy tools, or fancy knowledge. Or both.

@koshkin you want to weigh in here? See this post above.

I do not think I understand what the question is. 1 mrad is 1 mrad regardless of what magnification you are on.

 

[carbonbased]

I do not think I understand what the question is. 1 mrad is 1 mrad regardless of what magnification you are on.

So, I took an earlier stab at answering you, but I got messed up so I deleted it.

I think you are saying: Since mrads are an angular measurement, it doesn’t matter how visually large they appear in the scope.

“Visually large” is the best I have to explain that lol. Monkey brain at work.

Since I have extremely limited knowledge as to how optics work, both in physics and in human perception, this train of thought is probably laughable to you. I can (dimly) imagine a series of interlocking axioms/maths that make the way I’m explaining things look very kindergarten-y.

He and I are talking about if one could “print” the view that’s in a scope at 10x, and then overlay the prints up to a backlit window to see how large the reticle’s are between each scope.

To me, you’d have to print at 100% scale to be about to compare the two reticles. I think his retina+brain is perceptually “printing” to fit on a 8.5x11 sheet of paper (relative).

For example, I could see if one scope had a huge field of view and one didn’t, when you printed and scaled the circles to be the same diameter, then yes, one reticle would look smaller. I think that’s what the other fellow is getting messed up with, perceptually, when he looks through his two scopes.

Basically what you have here is two fools applying the wrong way of looking at optics and then arguing about it. Lol. Help us out here.