So let me start of by saying, I am humbling myself, and coming before people that know more than me. (so please do not give me to hard of a time.)
I have been shooting scoped rifles since I was a child. Hunting and such.

But I have about $1,500 gift card to Cabelas I need / want to spend, and I was thinking about getting a Ruger Precision Rifle Gen_2 in the 6.5 Creedmoor.
And I got to thinking, I need to put the right scope and scope rings on it.
And unlike everyone else I see, just go out and buy some random scope, and start throwing lead all over the places trying to hit things at 1,000 plus yards.
I want to do it right
And arfcom has taught me. Buy once, Cry Once

I am also willing to my admit my limited knowledge in this area.
I do not know what is need.
 Or what to be looking for long range rifle scope.
 I have no idea how to use turrets on a scope. ( understand the principles, but have never used in the field or been taught)
Same goes for mil_dots, I understand how they work, but I have never used a scope with them.

I have contacted a local range that has a 1000_yard plus range about any training classes for long range shooting they might have.
I also have a very large pieces of land, to shoot on so I will be able to use this rifle for what it was meant for.

So after all that rambling, and embarrassing story time
What do I need to be looking at for a good long range scope?
Can I get what I need for around $1,000  range ( I might can stretch the budget to $1,500 )
Where do I need to start?
Also this rifle will NOT be used for hunting.




EDIT : What is everyones thought on this scope for the RPR in 6.5 Creedmoor?
Will it get the job done?
Is it enough scope, to get the most out of the rifle?
Or is this to much scope?
It is the top of my budget, maybe alittle over once I add rings
http://nightforceoptics.com/benchrest/12-42x56
Can I get it done for less?  I would like to not have to spend that much. 

That NF would be nice and clear but not really the best LR reticle. The "tree" type reticles have grown on me I guess.
I've used one of their 5.5-22 scopes but not to that distance, <1K yards.

I have a 6-24 PST Viper vortex ebr-2c MOA on my 6.5 CM RPR, had it out to 625 on steel, watched hits, saw splash, nice clear glass.

The NF benchrest scope is a purpose built scope, for competition. If you know what you're wanting it for, go for it.



I'm am still new to this, so my advice may be relevant, although I post it in hopes that someone smarter than me will correct it if I'm wrong.

First off, get a reticle with MOA or Milradian subtensions, and make sure your turrets match. Moa/moa and mil/mil

Do not get a duplex or BDC reticle.

You PROBABLY will want Front Focal Plane to shoot out to 1000yds

I've seen a lot of people recommend 1x per 100 yards, so a 10x scope would be fine. IMO -That depends on what you are shooting at. For me, I would double that. Seeing hits makes the experience more enjoyable, so at least 20x on the top end. When you get heat mirage, you can always back zoom.


Try and find someone local with glass you can look through HTF is a good start.

You can find GREAT deals on used optics on the EE here. A Vortex PST 6-24 FFP can be found for under $900 here. Buy a used Vortex with confidence, their warranty goes with the scope.

If I were you, the Vortex would be my first choice. Also look for Leupold ER/T, Nightforce SHV or NSX F1, Burris XTR, Vortex Razor gen 1, Bushnell elites.

The Razor gen 1 deal with the Spuhr mount for $1700 isn't bad.

Cheapest options I would consider are the Burris XTR II and Viper PST II 5-25x models.

I agree very good scope and excellent mount for a good price

Razor gen 1

leupold...

No, just no they have very little to offer in this world, especially that is priced to actually be competitive.

There are a lot of good optics out there right now with good glass.  It can be hard to pick exactly what you want.  You have to think about things, like how it looks, how the turrets feel, how the clicks feel, weight, and reticles.  After shooting a while I settled on the Kahles K624i with the SKMR3 reticle.

There have been a lot of other good suggestions, but a lot of it comes down to preference, and the balance of features and qualities.  There isn't a magic scope that will make you hit every shot.  I would look for a FFP scope with no more than 6x on the bottom end and no more than 30 on top (there are a couple options that go over 30.)  The Nightforce benchrest series are not something I would put on an RPR because of the feature set.

I wish Kahles made something in that range, but the PST II 5-25 would be good to look at.  There are a couple minor things id change about the reticle but it will offer a lot of value.

https://www.amazon.com/SWFA-3-15x42-Tactical-Rifle-Scope/dp/B00X4MY570?tag=vglnk-c102-20


I can with out a doubt recommend this scope for long range target shooting. 

$700 for the scope
$170 for a mount
$45 for a level
-------------------
$915

That is a good scope that will do what is needed.

--I would look for 1st focal plane so your reticle substensions are correct at all magnification levels

--70moa  min elevation travel so you have enough travel to dial drops

--Matching turrets and reticle so you don't have to convert from one system to another.

--While I  have a 10x scope for long range and it works fine I would suggest 15x as a minimum.

--Look for a parallax/side focus adjustment so you can remove parallax error at all ranges.

-Harder to tell but you need accurate, repeatable tracking so when you dial 9.7mil your reticle actually moves 9.7mil everytime.

-Very nice to have but not needed is a zero stop.

- Very nice to have but not needed are 2 turn turrets, the one I listed doesn't have that and I get lost in the turns and have to go back to zero.

-You will want to go with a larger objective lens as the max magnification level increases. So a 15x42mm is fine and 24x56mm is fine but a 24x42mm would not be a good choice as it would be less user friendly at 24x.

-Consider how small of targets you want to shoot. If you want to shoot sub half moa targets then you will want fine lines on your reticle, 1/2 moa and up targets then heavier lines will work fine and are easier to see on dark targets and will also be more usable at lower mag levels.

-Ignore all the clear glass claims, this is so subjective. Most $300+ scopes have good glass these days. A lot of what the glass looks like has to do with the scope being properly adjusted and the preconceived ideas of the guy looking through it.

Thank yall for all the advice so far.

To comfortably shoot out to 1000 yards how much magnification do I need?
And be able to see splash would be nice.

.

Really depends on your eyes. For most, 20x is plenty, but 25-30x seems to be more common. If mirage comes into play, you won't be using that much magnification.

A few thoughts on scope selection:


Magnification

I'm maybe a little old school, dating back to when 10X was plenty for 800m, but I'm also an amateur astronomer and I appreciate the tradeoffs that come when the magnification outstrips the light gathering ability and resolving power of the objective lens.

More magnification isn't much help in a small objective, as the exit pupil gets too small and the image brightness is poor, resulting in highly magnified but grainy images.

I have a 4-14x56 on my favorite precision rifle, and it's plenty for shooting out to 1000 yards.  

The advantage of a 14x maximum magnification with a 56mm objective is that the exit pupil is still a comfortably large 4mm, which works well even on over cast days.  At 9x the exit pupil is 6.2mm which is about as large as anyone's pupil gets short of full dark conditions.

At 30x or 42x, the exit pupil with a 56mm objective is 1.9mm and 1.3mm respectively, and those magnifications are not much use on anything but very bright days as the exit pupil will be much smaller than the diameter of your pupil.


Mil versus MOA

It's essential that your turrets match your reticle.  While some shooters have scope where they don't match, it just makes life harder than it has to be.

Mil versus MOA will start an argument pretty much every time, but generally speaking if you think in imperial units (estimating target sizes in inches and ranges in yards) then the MOA system makes more sense.   If you think in metric units, (estimating target size in centimeters and ranges in meters) then the Mil system makes more sense.  

There are some pros and cons -  1/4 MOA adjustments are a bit more precise than .1 Mil adjustments, but you can communicate and record Mil sight settings with 1 or 2 fewer digits - but the biggest difference is in how you think.  You need to be realistic. While you can re-train your brain to use cm and meters, you need to go all the way and immerse yourself in it, or you'll never get past the problem of "metric as a second language".  

Mil is popular with the tacti-cool mall ninja crowd because it's what the military uses, but the reality is that way too many shooters end up with a mil reticle and then use inch and yard units, and make the head math harder than it needs to be.  

Where this matters is if you start doing stadiametric ranging using the hash marks on either an MOA or Mil reticle. Here are some examples:

If you have an MOA reticle and are estimating in inches and yards then it's pretty easy to estimate range:

Range in yards = (target size in inches / target size in MOA) x 100

if you're ranging on a target that is 30" tall and it subtends 4 MOA in the reticle, then the range is 750 yards  30/4 = 7.5 x 100 = 750.  30/4 is hard to do in your head, but 30/2 is 15 and half of 15 is 7.5.  Most people can manage that.

If you have a Mil reticle and you're ranging the same target, while estimating in centimeters and meters, it's also pretty easy to estimate range:

You'd use:

Range in meters = (target size in cm/target size in Mil) x 10

And you'd get:

75 cm / 1.1 mil x 10 = 680 meters.   That's the rounded head math number because with 1.1 mil I need to reduce the 75 by 10% (call it 7) to get 68 and then take that times 10.  

Don't get hung up on the differences between 30 inches and 75 cm anyway and the 1.5 cm difference is going to be lost in the noise of the actual target size anyway.

Given that a Mil is 3.44 MOA, a 10 Mil reticle with .5 mil hash marks has a total of 20 hash marks, while a 40 MOA reticle with 1 MOA hash marks has 40 hash marks.  Consequently, you end up having to do a bit more extrapolation when determining how many Mils the target subtends.   That's one of the potential cons of using the Mil reticle and most companies try to offset that by incorporating a separate ranging scale with a 2 Mil scale marked in .1 Mil hash marks.  

However, if you're mixing systems and trying to estimate using inches and yards with a Mil reticle:

You'd use:

Range in yards = (target size in inches / target size in Mil) x 27.8.

Using the same example, but using 30" and subtending 1.1 Mil you'd get:

30/1.1 = 27.27, 27.27 x 27.8 = 758 yards.

That's nice, but there is no way on God's little green earth I can do that in my head, especially under stress and time pressure.

Short version = don't mix units, and choose the system that lets you do the math in your head the easiest.


First versus second focal plane reticle

Another area where arguments often ensue is in choosing between a first and second focal plane reticle. Both have their fans and both have their place, but many shooters don't understand the strengths, weaknesses and tradeoffs involved.

With a second focal plane (SFP) reticle, the reticle stays the same size when the magnification is changed.  In other words, if we reduce the magnification, the target gets smaller while the reticle stays the same size.

With a first focal plane reticle, the reticle's size changes with the magnification.  This means that if a target subtends 4 MOA at 750 yards or 1.1 Mil at 680 meters at 14x, it will have the same subtension in the reticle at any magnification - 10x, 7x, 4x, etc.

 
There are pros and cons to each of them.  

The advantage of the SFP reticle is that the lines are the same width at any magnification, so they won't get larger at high magnification and potentially obscure the target, nor will the lines get smaller at lower magnification and disappear in the low light conditions where you are more likely to use low magnification.  

That's the major disadvantage of the FFP reticle.  The width of the lines in the reticle are always a compromise between too fat at high magnification and too thin at low magnification, and the higher the magnification range on the scope the worse the compromise has to be.

The disadvantage of the SFP reticle  is that if you are using the reticle for stadiametric ranging, or holding off the target in windage or elevation, the reticle is only correct at a single magnification - almost always the maximum magnification of the scope.    

However, some companies also mark the power adjustment ring at 1/2 max magnification where you can then use the reticle for ranging and hold off, but at twice it's normal value.  In other words, if you were holding off 8 MOA using 1 MOA hash marks at 14x, you'd only use 4 hash marks at 7x as they are now functionally 2 MOA hash marks.  This gives you at least some ranging and hold off capability at a lower magnification that might be more appropriate in low light and/or shorter range.

FFP scopes also seem to cost more than SFP scopes, so cost also becomes a factor to consider, and given the tendency for the fine reticle to disappear in low light or even against a dark back ground in good light, an illuminated reticle becomes almost essential, and that adds more cost, as well as another system to maintain and another system to potentially fail.

The thing is that many of the civilian shooters that get a FFP reticle probably get it for the wrong reasons, and then don't actually use it for ranging and holding off the target at anything other than the scopes maximum magnification.  Unfortunately, in exchange for that capability they never or hardly ever use, they now have to tolerate a too thick reticle at maximum magnification that can obscure a target at long range, and a too thin reticle at low magnification.    They'd be better off with a SFP scope.


Adjustments

Mil or MOA, if you're going to shoot at long range where you need to put windage and elevation on the scope, you absolutely must have adjustments that are accurate and repeatable.

Whether you put 30 MOA of elevation on your scope or 8.7 Mil on the scope, it must produce exactly 30 MOA or 8.7 Mil of change on the target,with no lag or backlash in the adjustment and it must return to zero each and every time you run the adjustment out and back.   This is quite often the critical difference between a cheap scope and a good quality scope, and in most respects the quality and reliability of the adjustments are far more important than the optics.

30mm tubes usually offer more range of windage and elevation adjustment than 1" tubes.  Be careful though as some less expensive scopes with 30mm tubes are just using the larger tube to dress up the same old 1" tube optics.  Read the specs carefully.

Scopes with higher magnification generally have less range of adjustment than the same basic design with lower magnification.  For example:

The NF 8-32x56 has 65 MOA of elevation adjustment and 45 MOA of windage adjustment;
The NF 5.5-22 x 56 however has 100 MOA of elevation adjustment and 60 MOA of windage adjustment; and
The NF 3.5-15x 50 has 110 MOA of elevation adjustment and 80 MOA of windage adjustment.  

So....you have to ask yourself whether you really need that extra magnification when it's costing you 35-45 MOA of elevation adjustment and 20-35 MOA of windage adjustment.  Personally, I like having a full 100 MOA of elevation adjustment, and 35 MOA on each side of center for windage.  But that's also because I'm old school and still like the .308.


Overal quality

Scopes have gotten significantly better over the last 20-30 years, and you can get a lot more for your dollar now than you could in the past.  However, you still get what you pay for.

Larger objectives collect more light, allow a larger exit pupil at any given magnification and have higher resolution, but larger objectives cost more money when made to comparable quality and it's not a linear function.  Bigger gets more expensive quicker if the quality stays equally high.

Fixed power scopes offer more quality for the buck than variables.  Variables have more lenses and are more mechanically complex as they have to maintain precise alignment as the lenses move to change magnification.   A cheap variable will tend to have poor alignment and that poor alignment will cause the point of impact to shift as the magnification is changed.   And, even a high quality variable that does not change the point of impact will still have slightly less throughput of light, as each of the extra lenses in the system will reflect some light, even with very high grade lens coatings.  

On the other hand the quality of variable scopes have increased substantially in the last 20 years and it's no longer hard to find a reliable variable - but you still need a minimum level of quality.

+1 for the Burris XTR optics currently available in the $1000 range.  Great value for the money

I have narrowed it down to about 5
But I am open to anything 

Vortex Viper PTS Gen 2         5-25x50    

Zeiss  Conquest   5-25x 50    

Nightforce SHV    5-25x56

Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50  this one is a little over budget 

Nightforce Benchrest 8-32x56

So what does everyone think.

I have a Gen II Razor and sent you an IM for my choice that is an excellent optic and within your budget.

Buy it before I do and sell my Razor :-)

Dakota FAL, my complements, sir!  That's a ton of great information, and well written to boot!

How far can you shoot with irons?

So a 10x scope will make a target at 1000m look the same as it would be at 100m with iron sights.  At 20x, a target would look the same as it does at 50m. Now if your max range is only 500m then 20x would be like shooting with irons at 25m. Probably overkill.   10x will work for 1000m just fine generally, but if you need the extra oomf for your eyes then a 12x or 16x would be good.  I have a 6-24x on my 6.5cm and I only did that because it has better glass than the one below it, and because it may move to a longer range gun.  BUT it's FFP so I don't have much in the way of disadvantages when I drop the zoom below maximum unlike a SFP scope.

Just realized i use Meters not Yards but I'm too lazy to go back and replace them :D

http://www.scout.com/military/snipers-hide/story/1611356-big-jim-reviews-nightforce-shv
http://www.snipercentral.com/scope-reviews/

Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50

Works great out to 1.25K

Attached File

@DakotaFAL

Very thorough response and write up, thank you for your effort and comments.

Well, did you buy your scope yet?

My last scope money went to SWFA. They have sales a few times a year. I got the HD 5 X 20 for $1040. No regrets. I would have spent the $1300 if it were not on sale at the time. I also have their 16X fixed power SS. The only problem with the 16X fixed power is not being able to turn down magnification when mirage is a problem. I plan on the SS 3 X 15 for my next project, a well worn 700 soon to get a new barrel, and action trued.

I can go along with Burris XTR II. I have the 4-20x50 on my 338 LM. Under $900 bucks. The SWFA that was mentioned is a great scope too.

Sightron SIII 10-50X60 will do the job of a Nightforce, but less $.  In answer to your question, I've bought lots of scopes before I found what I wanted.  Of course it all depends on the application too.