New scopes
03-20-2021, 07:39 PM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
In fairness, I BOUGHT my ATACR on an instructor program, as well as my Vortex Razor and Vipers, and my Bushnell Elite Tacticals, so I don’t have that much into them - still sizable investments, however.
But since you mentioned the lottery, I thought I’d point out the irony of your words - I would generally be too cheap to have bought it, but I WON it in a drawing of all shooters at a match last season. So I picked up a $3500 optic for the price of a $250 match fee.
I do plan to buy a Tangent Theta this winter, however, so maybe my tastes and tolerances are changing (we also started 2 new businesses last year which are paying off much better returns already than we expected).
But since you mentioned the lottery, I thought I’d point out the irony of your words - I would generally be too cheap to have bought it, but I WON it in a drawing of all shooters at a match last season. So I picked up a $3500 optic for the price of a $250 match fee.
I do plan to buy a Tangent Theta this winter, however, so maybe my tastes and tolerances are changing (we also started 2 new businesses last year which are paying off much better returns already than we expected).
Last edited by Nomercy448; 03-21-2021 at 07:02 AM.
03-27-2021, 04:45 PM
#13
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 12,745
In fairness, I BOUGHT my ATACR on an instructor program, as well as my Vortex Razor and Vipers, and my Bushnell Elite Tacticals, so I don’t have that much into them - still sizable investments, however.
But since you mentioned the lottery, I thought I’d point out the irony of your words - I would generally be too cheap to have bought it, but I WON it in a drawing of all shooters at a match last season. So I picked up a $3500 optic for the price of a $250 match fee.
I do plan to buy a Tangent Theta this winter, however, so maybe my tastes and tolerances are changing (we also started 2 new businesses last year which are paying off much better returns already than we expected).
But since you mentioned the lottery, I thought I’d point out the irony of your words - I would generally be too cheap to have bought it, but I WON it in a drawing of all shooters at a match last season. So I picked up a $3500 optic for the price of a $250 match fee.
I do plan to buy a Tangent Theta this winter, however, so maybe my tastes and tolerances are changing (we also started 2 new businesses last year which are paying off much better returns already than we expected).
10-22-2021, 12:03 PM
#15
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
Revising this thread again this afternoon and thinking about “minimum optics to do the job” - this photo and the scope pictured came to mind. This is a $129 MSRP Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40mm, which I purchased for $49 plus shipping. It’s a capped dial scope, opposed to a turret adjustment scope, so we have to use a few tricks to retain zero, and since it’s on a 22LR, we have to dial two full revolutions with no rev indicator of any kind to reach 300yrds, but the glass is good enough, and in decent conditions for a decent shooter, we are able to deliver on target. It obviously gives up a LOT to the Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR II’s he has on his other firearms, but we’re not terribly hindered from fun days of plinking and pack rat and squirrel hunting with this little Savage.
Rolling through the few photos I have on Flickr, I also noticed these two pictures of relatively inexpensive scopes which I’ve used for mid range shooting, including considerable dialing for extreme trajectory compensation:
1) my 17WSM rifle sporting a $300 Nikon Buckmaster II BDC scope purchased on close out for $150, shown here fired at 200yrds. Also a capped dial, same deal - we have to mark the dial “clip” and the adjustment screw to be able to dial for range, or rely upon known reticle subtensions - which are inconsistent in this BDC reticle. But I have dialed this optic to reach out to 500 yards with the WSM on a few occasions, although I typically consider this to predominantly be useful as a 300yrd bunny gun. This happens to be one of my least favorite optics ever - as the mixed IPHY and BDC combo couldn’t be worse, and without parallax focus adjustment its opportunity for error and blurry reticle at longer range is frustrating. It also doesn’t perform well in low light, and has notable lag in resolution - but given decent lighting on short to midrange targets, it does the job.
2) A $300 Midway Exclusive Nikon Buckmaster SF, which comes with a second-focal plane Mil-dot reticle and and 1/8 IPHY adjustable turrets. This comes with two sets of turrets - a tall capped set and a shorter, fatter capless set - pictured here with the tall capped set installed. Topping this Ruger Charger pistol (since replaced), I shot regularly with this scope out to 325 yards (as pictured here) and occasionally farther, combining turret dialing with reticle hold over - occasionally totaling over 20ft of drop compensation to reach the target. As an 18x max optic with a 40mm, this scope does give up some brightness at max resolution due to its small exit pupil, but overall, it’s very serviceable.
I share these as acknowledgement that I know I don’t NEED a $1500-3500 optic to dial and shoot long ranges. He11, my first long range scope ever was a $200 Tasco World Class 4-16x44mm AO with Mil-dot reticle, and I reached out with that scope to 1000 yards many times, a few times even 1200-1760. But resolution, low light performance, and CA were all lacking, and of course, second focal plane, 1/4 IPHY dial with a Mil-dot reticle, and 1” tube limiting its dialing capacity - AND - capped dials instead of turrets... lots of things working against a smooth long range experience.
Rolling through the few photos I have on Flickr, I also noticed these two pictures of relatively inexpensive scopes which I’ve used for mid range shooting, including considerable dialing for extreme trajectory compensation:
1) my 17WSM rifle sporting a $300 Nikon Buckmaster II BDC scope purchased on close out for $150, shown here fired at 200yrds. Also a capped dial, same deal - we have to mark the dial “clip” and the adjustment screw to be able to dial for range, or rely upon known reticle subtensions - which are inconsistent in this BDC reticle. But I have dialed this optic to reach out to 500 yards with the WSM on a few occasions, although I typically consider this to predominantly be useful as a 300yrd bunny gun. This happens to be one of my least favorite optics ever - as the mixed IPHY and BDC combo couldn’t be worse, and without parallax focus adjustment its opportunity for error and blurry reticle at longer range is frustrating. It also doesn’t perform well in low light, and has notable lag in resolution - but given decent lighting on short to midrange targets, it does the job.
2) A $300 Midway Exclusive Nikon Buckmaster SF, which comes with a second-focal plane Mil-dot reticle and and 1/8 IPHY adjustable turrets. This comes with two sets of turrets - a tall capped set and a shorter, fatter capless set - pictured here with the tall capped set installed. Topping this Ruger Charger pistol (since replaced), I shot regularly with this scope out to 325 yards (as pictured here) and occasionally farther, combining turret dialing with reticle hold over - occasionally totaling over 20ft of drop compensation to reach the target. As an 18x max optic with a 40mm, this scope does give up some brightness at max resolution due to its small exit pupil, but overall, it’s very serviceable.
I share these as acknowledgement that I know I don’t NEED a $1500-3500 optic to dial and shoot long ranges. He11, my first long range scope ever was a $200 Tasco World Class 4-16x44mm AO with Mil-dot reticle, and I reached out with that scope to 1000 yards many times, a few times even 1200-1760. But resolution, low light performance, and CA were all lacking, and of course, second focal plane, 1/4 IPHY dial with a Mil-dot reticle, and 1” tube limiting its dialing capacity - AND - capped dials instead of turrets... lots of things working against a smooth long range experience.
10-31-2021, 07:04 AM
#16
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eastern wv
Posts: 3,644
have to ask, for those of you that are happy with your scopes (and NO bash meant)
but when your making them longer shots for you's at 300-400 yards, are you making scope adjustments in the field, or just holding over and using say , Kentucky wind age like adjustments for distance, aiming higher over body or such, rather than again, making actual scope adjustments for the shots!
as that is my point on why I said, most folks get by with basic scopes, as there NOT making lots of adjustments often, to find where they fail!
as like Is aid, most deer hunters I know tend to sight in a rifle at "X" range, and leave it there , thus there never really using the scopes adjustments after sighting in!
so unless scope then gets a hard impact, they tend to hold zero's
its when your making adjustments often, you find weak links in scopes designs and materials used
Glass
again, can be GREAT on lesser scopes, but it won't change the durability of internals on the scopes!
add great internals and great glass, you end up with costly scopes!, nature of the beast
but for those that use the adjustments often, they tend to be a needed deal in long term life of scopes!
as again cheaper scopes just DON"T have the internal parts, even one's with better glass from my experience!
they can be GOOD , but not the same as the top tier scopes!
but when your making them longer shots for you's at 300-400 yards, are you making scope adjustments in the field, or just holding over and using say , Kentucky wind age like adjustments for distance, aiming higher over body or such, rather than again, making actual scope adjustments for the shots!
as that is my point on why I said, most folks get by with basic scopes, as there NOT making lots of adjustments often, to find where they fail!
as like Is aid, most deer hunters I know tend to sight in a rifle at "X" range, and leave it there , thus there never really using the scopes adjustments after sighting in!
so unless scope then gets a hard impact, they tend to hold zero's
its when your making adjustments often, you find weak links in scopes designs and materials used
Glass
again, can be GREAT on lesser scopes, but it won't change the durability of internals on the scopes!
add great internals and great glass, you end up with costly scopes!, nature of the beast
but for those that use the adjustments often, they tend to be a needed deal in long term life of scopes!
as again cheaper scopes just DON"T have the internal parts, even one's with better glass from my experience!
they can be GOOD , but not the same as the top tier scopes!
attached is the drop chart for my 270 weatherby, one of my mid range rifles which I use holdover for shooting, as you can see the drops are in moa so sighted in at 300 yards, its just over 2" high at 100, 3" high at 200, 8" low at 400, 20" low at 500. I have conditioned myself to hold lower third of the shoulder to 200 yards or so, dead on at 300, upper third at 400, and 10" over the hairline at 500, my 7mm stw is within an inch or 2 of this same trajectory, I dial my long range shots.
As for turning knobs, for the most part, scopes with good turrets on them, the more ya spin them the more accurate they move.
Last edited by Ridge Runner; 10-31-2021 at 07:07 AM.
03-22-2022, 04:47 AM
#18
Spike
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 12
I am now using Element scopes on all my rifles including airguns. I am well pleased with them. I was never a scope dialer until I got into airguns. However I desired to stretch the distances as I purchased high power PCPs. I have had good luck with the Element scopes and the zero stop turret feature. I use a MTC Rapier Rangefinder and simply dial the corrected value. The MTC automatically corrects for windage and elevation distance, wind, and angle. The combination has been flawless.
