Scope suggestions (500 - 1000 yards)

[Trent A]

How much is enough?… How much is overkill?…

Just getting set up for trying long range shooting. I have two setups that I need glass for.

1) Vudoo V-22: would like to try to shoot out to at least 400, probably 500, and try for maybe 600 yards. This gun is what I’ll shoot 95% of the time. Will be in a chassis but haven’t decided which yet. Will have a TT diamond, unsure of 1 or 2 stage yet.

2) Savage 110 Precision Elite, 5.56, in a MDT ACC chassis, with ELF single stage trigger.

What I have been using for scopes to compare to: hunting are Vortex Diamondback BDC 4-12 and Strike Eagle 4-24 (2nd focal plane). Target guns all have Arken SH4 gen ii 6-24 FFP (their bottom line).

Will the Arken be fine for 500 yrds? 1000 yrds? Should I be looking at getting something better? What are you paying for in a better scope? All of the above seem to be clear to me, but I haven’t ever really looked out that far with any of them enough to study if it makes a difference in detail, or whatever else I should be looking for.

I’ll always be shooting mid day so light transmission is a non issue. Generally will only be shooting on days their is no or very little wind. I only compete against myself, so I’m not looking for that fraction of a difference to be the very best against competitors. That being said, I do want to feel that I’m the limiting factor and not my gear.

What do you suggest? Including what your suggestion typically runs cost wise would also be helpful. Thanks in advance!

 

[sboone]

Home

DetailsThis rifle scope is part of the mid-tier optics line called GLx. GLx brings premium technology and materials into an approachable price range.The GLx 6-24x50mm rifle scope has a 6-24x magnification range, designed to help you locate, track and engage mid-range targets as well as reach out...

www.primaryarms.com

I've had this scope for a few years on a tikka rebarreled to a 20" 6.5cm. The glass is good enough to easily see splash for calling your own shots. I am using a blem scope as well. You'll appreciate the mil grid reticle as well.

 

[koshkin]

If you already have the Arken, why not try it and see if it works well for you?
If you were starting from scratch, I would guide you in a different direction, probably. However, if you already have the Arken, start with what you have.

ILya

 

[Rob01]

With a .22 at 500-600 yards you need to worry more about available elevation than the glass. You can see the target great at 500 but if you run out of elevation at 300 yards you won't have enough in the reticle to make it. First figure what you need to reach those distances and then look for scopes that have it. What's your price range?

 

[Trent A]

With a .22 at 500-600 yards you need to worry more about available elevation than the glass. You can see the target great at 500 but if you run out of elevation at 300 yards you won't have enough in the reticle to make it. First figure what you need to reach those distances and then look for scopes that have it. What's your price range?

It’s been a couple months but do recall doing the calculations for the Arken with a 30 MOA base and it would go 500, but I don’t recall if it was enough for 600 which I imagine is significantly more. Thank you for reminding me of this factor, I had forgotten that needed to be considered.

 

[Trent A]

With a .22 at 500-600 yards you need to worry more about available elevation than the glass. You can see the target great at 500 but if you run out of elevation at 300 yards you won't have enough in the reticle to make it. First figure what you need to reach those distances and then look for scopes that have it. What's your price range?

Forgot to reply about price range. Really, I want to find what I feel is a good value for what I’m getting, but don’t have a set price. That’s how I fell on the Arken and Vortex’s mentioned above, they did everything I wanted in the 200 yrd range for an exceptional price. I haven’t had any experience with top end glass, so I really don’t know what it is I’m really looking for/paying for since I haven’t personally seen the difference. As a max cap, I’ll say $2,500 used. That being said, I’m considering anything between $500 and that amount, so quite the broad range.

 

[Trent A]

If you already have the Arken, why not try it and see if it works well for you?
If you were starting from scratch, I would guide you in a different direction, probably. However, if you already have the Arken, start with what you have.

ILya

I definitely will throw one of the Arkens on their to see how it goes , but I guess it is mostly just my assumption that I will be left wanting/needing more. Would be thrilled if I was wrong though!

 

[acudaowner]

no such thing as over kill when it's in your favor unless you pay too much for it .. even on 22lr's we are running either 10x50x60 in the sightron s3 and a sv or 5x50x56 in the delta stryker . on the 22 we run out of elevation from the scope around 400 ish but a edjustable rail adds up to 200 moa so 5 and 600 yards are easy to get to seeing the misses being our biggest problem in the high grass and clover at our range your never going to spot a miss . went with the delta cause it had the same glass quality as a nightforce by 1/2 the cost both the s3 sightron ran me 980 at the time of purchase the sv 900 from the forums . best of luck to you finding something that makes you happy . It's always better to have and not need than to need and not have .

 

[Trent A]

Home

DetailsThis rifle scope is part of the mid-tier optics line called GLx. GLx brings premium technology and materials into an approachable price range.The GLx 6-24x50mm rifle scope has a 6-24x magnification range, designed to help you locate, track and engage mid-range targets as well as reach out...

www.primaryarms.com

I've had this scope for a few years on a tikka rebarreled to a 20" 6.5cm. The glass is good enough to easily see splash for calling your own shots. I am using a blem scope as well. You'll appreciate the mil grid reticle as well.

I’m definitely a bargain hunter myself. I would take a scope that was scratched all to hell if it saved me money. Function over fashion, lol.

 

[Trent A]

I suppose I also assumed 24x wouldn’t be enough power for that range either. Definitely like having higher power, hence using 24x for my 50-200 yrd that I’ve been shooting previously, lol.

 

[Rob01]

I suppose I also assumed 24x wouldn’t be enough power for that range either. Definitely like having higher power, hence using 24x for my 50-200 yrd that I’ve been shooting previously, lol.

24x is more than enough to shoot those ranges. The problem is though that you start to lose elevation in those very high powered scopes usually. The 6-36x range is about the spot where you still have about 32 mils like the Arken has but even some of them have less although some can have more.

With better glass you can see those little .22 impacts better but there is also a diminishing return there as the farther out the harder they are to see with anything.

I just put a Zeiss LRP S3 6-36 on my Vudoo but the 4-25 would be a good fit if you are looking for ELR with the .22 as it has 46.5 mils. They aren't cheap but if LE/Mil you can get better deals.

I looked at my ballistic calculator and with my SK Long range it says it would take 38.1 mils to 600 yards just to give you an idea.

 

[longrange772]

Arken is _more_ than enough. I regularly get to 1k with it and used it out to a mile on a Savage 110 Tactical. I only had 20 MOA rail so dialed some, held some. Definitely inside 1k wouldn't hesitate to recommend. Does it have the best X, Y, or Z features? Nope, but it is definitely competent inside 1k.

 

[Trent A]

Let’s say I only shoot 22 LR to 500 yd instead. Assuming a drop of -419” would mean I would need 83.8 MOA (419 divided by 5), right? If I had a scope with 55 MOA of total travel put on a 30 MOA base, putting me at 85 MOA total, that would work wouldn’t it? Or would that be cutting it to close? What about with a 40 MOA base?

I’d prefer mils but the particular scope I’m looking at (Vortex Golden Eagle 15-60) only comes in MOA.

I will try the Arken first and hope it will be clear enough for me. I sure do like having as much zoom as possible though so was toying with the idea of the Golden Eagle.

Thanks

 

[spife7980]

Switch your units in whatever calculator you got 419 inches from to moa or mil. Make it easy on yourself and skip linear measurements.

 

[Trent A]

I’ve only ever calculated them out that way. Probably should look into a calculator, lol.

 

[Trent A]

… wait… but, if I have a rail that is steeper than half the total travel of the scope, would that mean I wouldn’t be able to get down to zero at 100 yards?

 

[R_A_W]

With a .22 at 500-600 yards you need to worry more about available elevation than the glass. You can see the target great at 500 but if you run out of elevation at 300 yards you won't have enough in the reticle to make it. First figure what you need to reach those distances and then look for scopes that have it. What's your price range?

 

[spife7980]

… wait… but, if I have a rail that is steeper than half the total travel of the scope, would that mean I wouldn’t be able to get down to zero at 100 yards?

Pretty much, yeah.

Sure things can stack up in just the right way and you may luck out but generally I try to avoid bottoming out my optics. 600 yards is a really long way for a 22

 

[R_A_W]

If I had a scope with 55 MOA of total travel put on a 30 MOA base, putting me at 85 MOA total, that would work wouldn’t it? Or would that be cutting it to close? What about with a 40 MOA base?

If a scope has 85 MOA of total internal adjustment, generally speaking only 42.5 MOA of elevation would be available to compensate for bullet drop. Throw a 30 MOA base under it & now you've got 72.5 MOA elevation to compensate for bullet drop and only 12.5 MOA elevation of remaining "down" adjustment (somewhere, a burned-out NRL22 MD has pondered upside-down stages)

… wait… but, if I have a rail that is steeper than half the total travel of the scope, would that mean I wouldn’t be able to get down to zero at 100 yards?

Yeah, using round numbers... 40 MOA total internal (20 MOA usable for bullet drop) plus a 30 MOA base = -10 MOA gap (-30 MOA overcompensation by base + 20 MOA maxed out elevation adjustment = -10 MOA shortfall)

What are you paying for in a better scope?

Precision, feel, optical quality, brand... however, the law of diminishing returns applies. At some point, "improvements" across certain aspects become subjective, even the glass.

Higher quality glass transmits more light with truer colors and a sharper image, doesn't pick up mirage, etc. Combine that with better engineering and you can achieve more forgiving parallax and greater depth of field, an optimal exit pupil & larger eye box, etc.

I'm a few deep - I disclaim all errors

 

[Rob01]

Let’s say I only shoot 22 LR to 500 yd instead. Assuming a drop of -419” would mean I would need 83.8 MOA (419 divided by 5), right? If I had a scope with 55 MOA of total travel put on a 30 MOA base, putting me at 85 MOA total, that would work wouldn’t it? Or would that be cutting it to close? What about with a 40 MOA base?

I’d prefer mils but the particular scope I’m looking at (Vortex Golden Eagle 15-60) only comes in MOA.

I will try the Arken first and hope it will be clear enough for me. I sure do like having as much zoom as possible though so was toying with the idea of the Golden Eagle.

Thanks

First as mentioned, forget inches. No reason for them as scopes don't adjust in them. MOA or Mils.

Second moa at 500 yards is not 5 inches. An MOA at 100 is 1.047" or at 500 it will be 5.235" so 419 / 5.235 = 80.03 moa so you can see how those little .047 add up so don't forget them.

Third, a scope only has the MOA/Mils it has. A canted base does not add elevation but redistributes the available you have. RAW covered that. Seeing as you need 80 MOA I wouldn't lookm at a scope that had under 100 MOA total as you can sometimes lose some in zeroing. 90 MOA would be cutting it close but you also have the reticle to hold if need be. You could even get a scope with 80 MOA total on a 30 MOA base and then just hold the extra 10 MOA in the reticle.

Lastly, DO NOT get a Golden Eagle for this type of shooting. Not enough elevation and reticle sucks for holds. Try the Arken first. The EP5 has 32 mils and in my set up I need 28.5 mils to get to 500 so with a proper base set up it should work.

 

[Convex]

In line w/what U said about scratches.

A few scratches on the front glass of an optic (even down to the multi-coating) won't degrade/affect the optimal performance of an optic, just resale value, so if U don't care about cosmetics, it makes some optics more affordable.

 

[Trent A]

A few scratches on the front glass of an optic (even down to the multi-coating) won't degrade/affect the optimal performance of an optic, just resale value, so if U don't care about cosmetics, it makes some optics more affordable.

Good to know, thank you!

 

[Convex]

Good luck.

 

[FuhQ]

I definitely will throw one of the Arkens on their to see how it goes , but I guess it is mostly just my assumption that I will be left wanting/needing more. Would be thrilled if I was wrong though!

Try one of the Arken EP5 scopes. Noticeably better glass over my SH4 Gen2 scopes. Also, the 10 MIL rev turrets is nice.

 

[Trent A]

Try one of the Arken EP5 scopes. Noticeably better glass over my SH4 Gen2 scopes. Also, the 10 MIL rev turrets is nice.

I was eyeballing one of those listed in the buy sell trade, think they wanted $500 shipped and had all the extras with it too. Seemed like it wasn’t an excellent price, but not a bad one by any means either, if I am remembering their MSRP correctly.

 

[Convex]

What are you paying for in a better scope?

Better glass along w/the engineering skillsets to incorporate that glass in an optic to its fullest potential and made to last a long time. The use of constantly improving multi-coatings which improve light transmission and glass w/very low dispersion.

You have a $2500.00 limit. Along w/what Koskin told U, I'd say consider just holding off for awhile.

U might think about that next scope as a "grow into" proposition, which might mean getting a more expensive scope than U need now, but where are U going to be later/at what stage will U be later.

If U stick w/the gear U have and then progress to a certain stage and U wait, the one thing you'll avoid is ending up buying gear you've outgrown.

For me, when I wait, I end up with better gear for less money, Bcuz a deal always shows up.

Here's my shot of my March HM 4.5-28X52. $3500.00. Way above UR limit, but I've seen this scope and scopes from some of the other scope makers that come up for sale used w/a few cosmetic flaws that would come a lot closer to your $2500.00 limit.


A guy around here is going to buy an "A" list scope, he's going to get "sidetracked" w/something or other, and then he's going to sell it.


What's great about that is that he's got YOUR scope, that he's passing along 2 U for a lot less money.

 

[Trent A]

So I know I’m going to sound like a dunce here, but can we double check my understanding… I’m embarrassed to ask, but it might save me from a costly mistake in scope selection (I will try the Arken first, but still want to understand for the future), so here I go.

It sounds like bare minimum I need 28.5 mil of vertical adjustment to get out to 500 yd with the 22 LR, assuming I get the correct base.

So for base selection, do I want to aim for a little less than half of the scopes vertical adjustment, if I want to continue to zero at 100 yd as well? So as an example, a scope with 30 mil vertical adjustment would at a max allow a 15 mil base? But actually a little less, because you don’t want to completely hit the edge/bottom out your adjustment, right? Using this base would give me the full 30 mil of vertical adjustment of the scope, because it would ‘take up the slack’ making the previous positive adjustments move into the usable negative territory?

So I want a scope with 30 mil of adjustment and a base with 15 mil of cant? Mil to MOA is x3.5 right? So a base with 52.5 MOA (or as close as they make to that without going over that number)? So say a 50 MOA base? That seems like a lot more than I thought it would be…

Hopefully I’m getting some of this correct, but clearly I’m missing some major pazzle pieces. If I actually am right, then I guess I’ve already messed up by equipping all my 22’s with 30 MOA bases with the assumption that would be enough.

I’m sure you all can tell I’m as green as it gets when it comes to trying to get into long range shooting. I can practically already feel the impending shreds I’m about to be ripped into, lol. Thanks in advance for helping me understand where I’m going wrong, and helping me learn. I’m also open to being referred to a resource to better learn this vs taking up extensive time that it may take to explain. Thanks you!

 

[Trent A]

Better glass w/the engineering to use it to its full potential and made to last a long time. That's along w/the constantly improving multi-coatings which improve light transmission along w/incorporating glass w/very low dispersion.

You have a $2500.00 limit. Along w/what Koskin told U, I'd say consider just holding off for awhile.

U might think about that next scope as a "grow into" proposition, which might mean getting a more expensive scope than U need now, but where are U going to be later/at what stage will U be later.

If U stick w/the gear U have and then progress to a certain stage and U wait, the one thing you'll avoid is ending up buying gear you've outgrown.

For me, when I wait, I end up with better gear for less money, Bcuz a deal always shows up.

Here's my shot of my March HM 4.5-28X52. $3500.00. Way above UR limit, but I've seen this scope and scopes from some of the other scope makers that come up for sale used w/a few cosmetic flaws that would come a lot closer to your $2500.00 limit.


A guy around here is going to buy an "A" list scope, he's going to get "sidetracked" w/something or other, and then he's going to sell it.


What's great about that is that he's got YOUR scope, that he's passing along 2 U for a lot less money.

I’m definitely a fan of the used dent ‘n scratch discounted items. Much more concerned with function than fashion. With that in mind, I do also subscribe to the ‘buy once cry once’ mentality, saving from jumping over all the incremental advances that I might otherwise have taken (which I believe is in line with what you’re saying as well).

 

[Convex]

EXACTLY... don't think about where you are, think about where you're going to be.

 

[Trent A]

EXACTLY... don't think about where you are, think about where you're going to be.

Well I like that line of thinking, because right now, I’m at the starting line, and I’m not even sure I’m faced the right direction, lol!

 

[Convex]

Start reading the reviews of gear by Koshkin-Glassaholic-Denys-Big Jim Fish, from around here; they know glass, and which scope is @ what level and why.

There are certainly others, but these folks are the ones I know by name.

 

[Rob01]

So I know I’m going to sound like a dunce here, but can we double check my understanding… I’m embarrassed to ask, but it might save me from a costly mistake in scope selection (I will try the Arken first, but still want to understand for the future), so here I go.

It sounds like bare minimum I need 28.5 mil of vertical adjustment to get out to 500 yd with the 22 LR, assuming I get the correct base.

So for base selection, do I want to aim for a little less than half of the scopes vertical adjustment, if I want to continue to zero at 100 yd as well? So as an example, a scope with 30 mil vertical adjustment would at a max allow a 15 mil base? But actually a little less, because you don’t want to completely hit the edge/bottom out your adjustment, right? Using this base would give me the full 30 mil of vertical adjustment of the scope, because it would ‘take up the slack’ making the previous positive adjustments move into the usable negative territory?

So I want a scope with 30 mil of adjustment and a base with 15 mil of cant? Mil to MOA is x3.5 right? So a base with 52.5 MOA (or as close as they make to that without going over that number)? So say a 50 MOA base? That seems like a lot more than I thought it would be…

Hopefully I’m getting some of this correct, but clearly I’m missing some major pazzle pieces. If I actually am right, then I guess I’ve already messed up by equipping all my 22’s with 30 MOA bases with the assumption that would be enough.

I’m sure you all can tell I’m as green as it gets when it comes to trying to get into long range shooting. I can practically already feel the impending shreds I’m about to be ripped into, lol. Thanks in advance for helping me understand where I’m going wrong, and helping me learn. I’m also open to being referred to a resource to better learn this vs taking up extensive time that it may take to explain. Thanks you!

Yup sounds about right but having a 30 moa base doesn't cause a problem as you can just use a mount with 20 moa in it and be set. I bought a used MPA mount with 20 MOA in it that I will be putting my Zeiss LRP S3 4-25x50 scope in when it gets here. Then putting it on my 40 moa base for 60 moa of cant. You can do the same with a 20 moa on a 30 moa base.

 

[Trent A]

Yup sounds about right but having a 30 moa base doesn't cause a problem as you can just use a mount with 20 moa in it and be set. I bought a used MPA mount with 20 MOA in it that I will be putting my Zeiss LRP S3 4-25x50 scope in when it gets here. Then putting it on my 40 moa base for 60 moa of cant. You can do the same with a 20 moa on a 30 moa base.

Aww, clever, I don’t know why but I probably never would have thought of doubling up to get where I needed to be!

 

[Rob01]

Burris makes rings that will add moa also if you wanted to go ring route.

 

[Trent A]

Burris makes rings that will add moa also if you wanted to go ring route.

Another Hide member just turned me onto ARC M-Brace mounts. Sounded like it was a sweet spot for quality vs price and suggested keeping a look out for listings here in the $125-$150 range. Looking them up on Brownells, it looks like they come in a wide range of base angles as well. Barring any objections to why I might not want to use these, I was planning on giving them a try.

 

[FuhQ]

So I know I’m going to sound like a dunce here, but can we double check my understanding… I’m embarrassed to ask, but it might save me from a costly mistake in scope selection (I will try the Arken first, but still want to understand for the future), so here I go.

It sounds like bare minimum I need 28.5 mil of vertical adjustment to get out to 500 yd with the 22 LR, assuming I get the correct base.

So for base selection, do I want to aim for a little less than half of the scopes vertical adjustment, if I want to continue to zero at 100 yd as well? So as an example, a scope with 30 mil vertical adjustment would at a max allow a 15 mil base? But actually a little less, because you don’t want to completely hit the edge/bottom out your adjustment, right? Using this base would give me the full 30 mil of vertical adjustment of the scope, because it would ‘take up the slack’ making the previous positive adjustments move into the usable negative territory?

So I want a scope with 30 mil of adjustment and a base with 15 mil of cant? Mil to MOA is x3.5 right? So a base with 52.5 MOA (or as close as they make to that without going over that number)? So say a 50 MOA base? That seems like a lot more than I thought it would be…

Hopefully I’m getting some of this correct, but clearly I’m missing some major pazzle pieces. If I actually am right, then I guess I’ve already messed up by equipping all my 22’s with 30 MOA bases with the assumption that would be enough.

I’m sure you all can tell I’m as green as it gets when it comes to trying to get into long range shooting. I can practically already feel the impending shreds I’m about to be ripped into, lol. Thanks in advance for helping me understand where I’m going wrong, and helping me learn. I’m also open to being referred to a resource to better learn this vs taking up extensive time that it may take to explain. Thanks you!

I have 5 Arken scopes, and some Vortex, SWFA, and have owned just about every brand throughout the years. But I also own 5 Zeiss scopes, and 3 Kahles (1 Helia, 2 K624i)... I own alpha-tier glass.

Personally, I feel that all scopes under $500 are in the "beginner" (average hunter/shooter) category...And there are some really good budget scopes in their respective price ranges. Most are Chinesium...But that doesn't mean they're immediately junk, like some folks think.

From $500-$1000 MSRP fall into the "budget" category, more for the advanced hunter or beginning competitive shooter. And they tend to offer much higher-end features than the sub-$500 optics, and MUCH better turrets and reticles. You will also start seeing good zero-stops, exposed target turrets, etc... Most will have Pilipino HD, and Chinese HD glass...And SOME entry-level Japanese ED/ELD glass in some scope.

From $1,000-$1,500 mark, there is a small, but noticeable difference in glass and turret quality. This is the price-point where you start seeing mostly good-quality Japanese ED/ELD glass start entering the picture.

Then there's a very obvious jump around the $1,500-$2,500 range. This is the professional hunter, semi-pro shooter category. This is where top-end Japanese ED/ELD glass from places like LOW start entering the picture. And you start seeing German SCHOTT glass making its debut. Virtually NO chromatic aberration, sharper resolution, edge-to-edge clarity, sharp reticles, more precise adjustments (diopter, parallax, etc...), clean illuminated reticles, precise turrets and tracking.

And then a noticeable jump at $2500+, which is the professional shooter/operator/professional hunter category. This is when you start getting into the alpha-tier Japanese LOW-built ED/ELD glass, and top-tier German Schott glass. This is where your Kahles, Swarovski, Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender, Hensoldt, Vortex Razor, Nightforce ATACR, etc... start coming into play.

 

[FuhQ]

Another Hide member just turned me onto ARC M-Brace mounts. Sounded like it was a sweet spot for quality vs price and suggested keeping a look out for listings here in the $125-$150 range. Looking them up on Brownells, it looks like they come in a wide range of base angles as well. Barring any objections to why I might not want to use these, I was planning on giving them a try.

I'd also take a good look at Seekins Precision. I run their rings on just about every rifle I have.

 

[Rob01]

Another Hide member just turned me onto ARC M-Brace mounts. Sounded like it was a sweet spot for quality vs price and suggested keeping a look out for listings here in the $125-$150 range. Looking them up on Brownells, it looks like they come in a wide range of base angles as well. Barring any objections to why I might not want to use these, I was planning on giving them a try.

Nope nothing wrong with the ARC. Good mount but I don’t think you will see them in that price range.

 

[Trent A]

I have 5 Arken scopes, and some Vortex, SWFA, and have owned just about every brand throughout the years. But I also own 5 Zeiss scopes, and 3 Kahles (1 Helia, 2 K624i)... I own alpha-tier glass.

Personally, I feel that all scopes under $500 are in the "beginner" (average hunter/shooter) category...And there are some really good budget scopes in their respective price ranges. Most are Chinesium...But that doesn't mean they're immediately junk, like some folks think.

From $500-$1000 MSRP fall into the "budget" category, more for the advanced hunter or beginning competitive shooter. And they tend to offer much higher-end features than the sub-$500 optics, and MUCH better turrets and reticles. You will also start seeing good zero-stops, exposed target turrets, etc... Most will have Pilipino HD, and Chinese HD glass...And SOME entry-level Japanese ED/ELD glass in some scope.

From $1,000-$1,500 mark, there is a small, but noticeable difference in glass and turret quality. This is the price-point where you start seeing mostly good-quality Japanese ED/ELD glass start entering the picture.

Then there's a very obvious jump around the $1,500-$2,500 range. This is where top-end Japanese ED/ELD glass from places like LOW start entering the picture. And you start seeing German SCHOTT glass making its debut. Virtually NO chromatic aberration, sharper resolution, edge-to-edge clarity, sharp reticles, more precise adjustments (diopter, parallax, etc...), clean illuminated reticles, precise turrets and tracking.

And then a noticeable jump at $2500+, when you start getting into the alpha-tier Japanese LOW-built ED/ELD glass, and top-tier German Schott glass. This is where your Kahles, Swarovski, Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender, Hensoldt, Vortex Razor, Nightforce ATACR, etc... start coming into play.

What does LOW stand for? So the Vortex Razor gen iii 6-36x56 would be in the top tier? This is what I was considering as a potential 'buy once cry once' purchase. Was told by yet another Hide member (seeing a theme in where I get all my info, lol) that the gen iii in their opinion was on par with many other $4K scopes of other brands (didn't specify which brands). EuroOptic's list price is Currently $3K. Purchased a 30% off certificate yesterday for $100 which would bring it down to $2,100 pre-tax and shipping (punched it in just to see if it would work or not and it did bring it down to that amount). So with cert $2,200 + approx $200 in taxes, and I think it was free shipping but not sure. $2,400 total, just under my max budget. Yay? Nay? Start with the Arken and save the certificate until I know if I need more scope? Think it was good until Jan 2024.

 

[Trent A]

I'd also take a good look at Seekins Precision. I run their rings on just about every rifle I have.

The rebranded Vortex PMR's are the same as what you are talking about aren't they? Or is it a different line? PMR is what I had been previously using but was under the impression that the one piece ARC was superior. I actually have a half dozen sets that I was planning on trying to sell and replace with the ARC's. Other than the lack of being able to gain the angle, are they not as inferior as I interpreted them to be from my prior conversation with a member?

 

[Trent A]

Nope nothing wrong with the ARC. Good mount but I don’t think you will see them in that price range.

Good to know. Do you know what used prices do usually run, so I can adjust my expectations of what I'm looking for?

 

[FuhQ]

What does LOW stand for? So the Vortex Razor gen iii 6-36x56 would be in the top tier? This is what I was considering as a potential 'buy once cry once' purchase. Was told by yet another Hide member (seeing a theme in where I get all my info, lol) that the gen iii in their opinion was on par with many other $4K scopes of other brands (didn't specify which brands). EuroOptic's list price is Currently $3K. Purchased a 30% off certificate yesterday for $100 which would bring it down to $2,100 pre-tax and shipping (punched it in just to see if it would work or not and it did bring it down to that amount). So with cert $2,200 + approx $200 in taxes, and I think it was free shipping but not sure. $2,400 total, just under my max budget. Yay? Nay? Start with the Arken and save the certificate until I know if I need more scope? Think it was good until Jan 2024.

LOW = Light Optical Works. It's a glass and and lens manufacture in Japan, one of the best in the world. And that's what the Vortex Razor scopes, some of the newer Zeiss scopes (V4 & S3), etc... are made. Nightforce also sources their glass from them, same with many other high-end scope companies.

Light Optical Works

Light Optical Works, Ltd. of Suwa City, Nagano Prefecture, Japan. Carries out development of binoculars, rifle scopes, spotting scopes, and field scopes.

www.light-op.co.jp

 

[Rob01]

The rebranded Vortex PMR's are the same as what you are talking about aren't they? Or is it a different line? PMR is what I had been previously using but was under the impression that the one piece ARC was superior. I actually have a half dozen sets that I was planning on trying to sell and replace with the ARC's. Other than the lack of being able to gain the angle, are they not as inferior as I interpreted the to be from my prior conversation with a member?

Yes the Vortex PMR are the same as Seekins. They aren’t inferior and are a good product. I have used Seekins rings since 2005 on a lot of rifles and optics and never failed me.

 

[FuhQ]

What does LOW stand for? So the Vortex Razor gen iii 6-36x56 would be in the top tier? This is what I was considering as a potential 'buy once cry once' purchase. Was told by yet another Hide member (seeing a theme in where I get all my info, lol) that the gen iii in their opinion was on par with many other $4K scopes of other brands (didn't specify which brands). EuroOptic's list price is Currently $3K. Purchased a 30% off certificate yesterday for $100 which would bring it down to $2,100 pre-tax and shipping (punched it in just to see if it would work or not and it did bring it down to that amount). So with cert $2,200 + approx $200 in taxes, and I think it was free shipping but not sure. $2,400 total, just under my max budget. Yay? Nay? Start with the Arken and save the certificate until I know if I need more scope? Think it was good until Jan 2024.

That's a great scope for that price with the 30% cert. Hard to go wrong there.

 

[Rob01]

Good to know. Do you know what used prices do usually run, so I can adjust my expectations of what I'm looking for?

I’d expect to see them in the $190-225 area. They hold their value well.

 

[Trent A]

Yes the Vortex PMR are the same as Seekins. They aren’t inferior and are a good product. I have used Seekins rings since 2005 on a lot of rifles and optics and never failed me.

Maybe I misunderstood him. In any case, I'm glad to hear that I don't have a half dozen rings that I can't use anymore!

 

[Trent A]

Yes the Vortex PMR are the same as Seekins. They aren’t inferior and are a good product. I have used Seekins rings since 2005 on a lot of rifles and optics and never failed me.

I have liked them... but I also couldn't tell you what the difference is between those and the cheaper lines either. I know they are cut with better precision, so I would assume that means a higher likelihood of being in true alinement with the bore, but ya, past that they all kind of seem the same to me. I know they aren't, but don't know enough to tell you why.

 

[Trent A]

That's a great scope for that price with the 30% cert. Hard to go wrong there.

Glad to hear it. Is it something that would be a true buy once cry once scope? Or do you think I would eventually want to get even better? Does it even get significantly better?

 

[Rob01]

I have liked them... but I also couldn't tell you what the difference is between those and the cheaper lines either. I know they are cut with better precision, so I would assume that means a higher likelihood of being in true alinement with the bore, but ya, past that they all kind of seem the same to me. I know they aren't, but don't know enough to tell you why.

Material used and precision manufacturing. Just like an optic the rings are made to a level and Seekins are excellent.

 

[Trent A]

Material used and precision manufacturing. Just like an optic the rings are made to a level and Seekins are excellent.

I am fond of Seekins. That being said, I don't own any of their rifles, but I sure do spend a lot of time pineing over them, lol.