User Panel
Posted: 10/19/2014 7:08:22 PM EDT
What are the best scopes for this? For those of you that have the Leupold Mark 6 3-18. I checked this out in the store and could barely see the reticle at 3x. I'm wondering if you can see the crosshairs went hunting in low light situations. Also I will not be doing any stalking only hunting from my stand. does anyone have the Swarovski Z6i? From what I've seen it looks like the horus reticle is a good idea. Which Swarovski does not have. Anyways, just wanted to get some more opinions. I'm going to try to get back to a gun shop pretty soon and see what other kinds I can check out.
Also do you prefer FFP or SFP for this? |
|
[#5]
|
|
[#6]
|
|
[#7]
I'm seriously debating this scope for mine. I kind of wish they had something in between the 2.5-10x42 and the ATACR. Maybe at Shot Show.
|
|
[#8]
When is the shot show? When do companies start showing their new models?
|
|
[#9]
|
|
[#10]
Quoted:
For those of you that have the Leupold Mark 6 3-18. I checked this out in the store and could barely see the reticle at 3x. I'm wondering if you can see the crosshairs went hunting in low light situations. From what I've seen it looks like the horus reticle is a good idea. Also do you prefer FFP or SFP for this? View Quote I have a couple Mark 6 3-18x with the illuminated TremoR2 reticle . They are very pricey. It is difficult to see the reticle in very low light without the illumination. I prefer the FFP . My opinion is the 3-18 Leupold is NOT very good at CQB/Tactical use. Pretty much any of the reticles and the magnification are suited only for precision / longer ranges. The CQBSS Mk 8 1-8x is the closest to an ideal scope. It was designed for close in tactical situations but has the magnification to reach out with the H27 reticle. An alternative is the Mark 6 1-6x. In a way, it is a poor man's CQBSS and still has that nice big 34mm tube. It has a nice bright red dot ( unlike the CQBSS donut/ring). If you are not going to be shooting over 300-400 yards , it is an option for you too. If you are one of those guys that can easily bust targets at 800 yards with a 6x scope...it could be your winner. |
|
[#11]
Does the cqbss replace the need for a red dot. Do u shoot this with both eyes open at 1x? How far can you realistically shoot at 8x? Anyone know how the Swarovski z6i 1.7-10x42 would compare to this?
|
|
[#12]
|
|
[#14]
This is one of those questions that everyone can have a correct answer that can still be wrong for you. What you need to start with is listing out your priorities. What is your primary purpose for the rifle? What range do you expect to engage that purpose? How much can you afford to spend? Is weight an issue? I would suggest not getting hung up on what suits everyone else's needs and focus on your own. Optics are a huge decision to make, and one you want to get right the first time, unless money isn't an issue. Do your homework and put in plenty of time in research. That said, take a close look at CounterSniper
|
|
[#16]
Nightforce 3.5-15 nsx moar recticle I liked mine so much I ordered a second.
|
|
[#19]
I truly enjoy my US Optics SR8c 1-8×30 mounted in a SPR-E LT-139, this is on an 18" mid-length AR15 with a standard non-monolithic upper rail. I'm no marksman by any means, but this rifle w/ optic can hit at 400m with accuracy. Mind you I'm not talking about 1moa, but with M193 I was hitting consistently within a ten inch area.
|
|
[#20]
How far would you feel comfortable shooting a deer with the cqbss ? Which reticle do you prefer?
|
|
[#21]
That comfort level is up to you my friend. The 1-8 cqbss should in theory be good for man sized hits out to 800 yards.
However--what's the effective kill range on a Deer with a 14.5 308? What is your personal effective kill range on a deer? We can all play Couch snipers, but some may only be able to cleanly kill a deer with a 308 out to 150 yards--that's completely an individual hunter variant. As for reticle. For the most use out of the scope the H27 horus reticle is the cats ass. That's where you get a dot @ 1.1 power, and the grid with circle @ 8x. With the tmr you will simply get a smaller crosshair @ 1.1X |
|
[#22]
Quoted:
This is one of those questions that everyone can have a correct answer that can still be wrong for you. What you need to start with is listing out your priorities. What is your primary purpose for the rifle? What range do you expect to engage that purpose? How much can you afford to spend? Is weight an issue? I would suggest not getting hung up on what suits everyone else's needs and focus on your own. Optics are a huge decision to make, and one you want to get right the first time, unless money isn't an issue. Do your homework and put in plenty of time in research. That said, take a close look at CounterSniper View Quote Good point. |
|
[#23]
Omd. Thanks for explanation of cqbss. That scope does seem pretty awesome. Just need to decide if I want more magnification. With the scope being so small does it have problems gathering light for low light situations?
|
|
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is one of those questions that everyone can have a correct answer that can still be wrong for you. What you need to start with is listing out your priorities. What is your primary purpose for the rifle? What range do you expect to engage that purpose? How much can you afford to spend? Is weight an issue? I would suggest not getting hung up on what suits everyone else's needs and focus on your own. Optics are a huge decision to make, and one you want to get right the first time, unless money isn't an issue. Do your homework and put in plenty of time in research. That said, take a close look at CounterSniper Good point. + 1 |
|
[#25]
Quoted:
Omd. Thanks for explanation of cqbss. That scope does seem pretty awesome. Just need to decide if I want more magnification. With the scope being so small does it have problems gathering light for low light situations? View Quote I was away so this response has been delayed a couple days. First, I am not trying to put the "hard sell" on you for the CQBSS ( but is an awesome scope even if it is pricey). The CQBSS has a big tube - 34mm. Like all the Leupold Mark 6's and Mark 8's, they bring in a lot of light in twilight conditions. I have used both the Mark 6 1-6x and CQBSS (with no other light source*) on full moon nights with easy results (pigs, cat-eating fox) out to 150 yards. As for your earlier post regarding hunting, my opinion is the 8x of the CQBSS is sufficient magnification to get good, fairly easy hits on deer out to 300 yards. If you have some ammo that the gun likes ,work up a good range table for your tOBR, and can consistently shoot 1-1.5 moa , there is no reason why you could not push the "hunting" distance out to 400-450 yards. I am more comfortable having a higher magnification when I get to shoot at distances of over 500 yards ( it has to do more with my vision than anything else - and more magnification helps with better target discrimination too). If most of your hunting shots are going to be 50-250 yards, the CQBSS would work great. * Do not try this at home unless you know your environment. Target ID is critical. You don't want to shoot a neighbor's three black dogs at night that you thought were pigs . I did not do it but I came close. |
|
[#26]
Quoted:
Which -CQBSS- reticle do you prefer? View Quote Of the four reticles available........ I have the o and Horus H27 reticle. This is the reticle that the scope was designed to have. It's clearly the best for all applications. It helps greatly, when shooting longer distances, to have the Horus software. The CMR-W reticle is nice. It works similar to the H27 but is a bit busier. It has a red dot/ horseshoe, several range estimation tools ( a Leupold guy showed me but I can't remember ALL of the functionality) and lines for wind holds. It is the same price as the H-27 model. Leupold makes more money off of this one. It was created by Leupold ( Jim Smith?). For this reticle , you will have to work a bit harder to create a very accurate range card. It is VERY easy to use from zero to 300 yards. All the elevation holds are in the horseshoe if zeroed at 200 yards. Mil-Dot in a CQBSS? Yep, they make it. But likely only for the mil-dot mafia ( old crotchety snipers, now homeless since snipers hyde and it's members were sold out by lowlife). The TMR reticle is a complete waste on the CQBSS. Why (other than cheaper)? |
|
[#27]
What are your thoughts on the Mark6 3-18 or similar scope with an aimpoint T1 at 45 offset vs the CQBSS? Would the only negatives be the extras space taken up and weight?
|
|
[#28]
You pretty much nailed it . But the weight increase won't be too bad. The Mark 6 is relatively light. Only thing you have to be aware of is, since this is a tOBR, your offset T-1/H-1(or T2 ) will have to mount on the handguard rail section. You will probably have to, or should, rezero ( or verify) the Aimpoint whenever you remove the handguard.
That setup actually gives you a bit more flexibility than just a CQBSS. If you go with a Mark 6 WITHOUT an illuminated reticle, it may actually be cheaper than a CQBSS. You gain a lot more magnification and you have a red dot also. You can ditch the red dot when you don't need it. You will just have to learn to do the 45 degree shooting thing ! FYI, the Mark 6 3-18x illuminated reticle, on full power, is not bright or bold enough to use as a close range tactical red dot. On full power, you cannot see the red illumination in daylight. |
|
[#31]
What is your opinion of the Mark 6 3-18? Do you like it? Do you think the reticle gets too fine for hunting if it is not illuminated? Does this become a non issues as you begin to zoom in? Right now I'm looking at the H59 reticle.
I found out the TremoR2 illuminated was what I was looking at in the store. Per the Larue website: The LT-724 was initially designed to fit on the upper receiver in front of a Trijicon ACOG without the need for a railed handguard (note: a standard rear BUIS may not fit with the LT100 and LT724 combination). The LT-724 is also widely-used on freefloat and continuous-railed handguards in combination with any scope with side turrets shallower than ½" in length, like Trijicon Accupoints, Burris XTR, Leupold CQ/T, Leupold Mark 4 w/ M2 turrets, etc. (Note: The LT724 will not fit underneath the LT104 extension) Will this work with the Mark 6 3-18? |
|
[#33]
Quoted:
Thoughts on the VCOG for these applications? View Quote Love the vcog!!!! http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_219/253618_thoughts_on_vcog_as_a_tobr_optic.html Picked up mine new for under $1850 and larue (acog style) mount on it! |
|
[#34]
Frankly the CQBSS H27D is the best carbine optic ever fucking invented. Its not without fault, however. It is huge, heavy, and really fucking expensive.
But holy damn. The optics are perfect, the reticle is amazing, and you could beat someone to death with it and it wouldnt break. I have used it out to 850m on my 18" OBR for years, and now it takes up residence on my 16" Ptar 556. |
|
[#35]
Quoted:
Frankly the CQBSS H27D is the best carbine optic ever fucking invented. Its not without fault, however. It is huge, heavy, and really fucking expensive. But holy damn. The optics are perfect, the reticle is amazing, and you could beat someone to death with it and it wouldnt break. I have used it out to 850m on my 18" OBR for years, and now it takes up residence on my 16" Ptar 556. View Quote What's on the OBR now? Also perfect HL Mencken quote. |
|
[#36]
Quoted:
What's on the OBR now? Also perfect HL Mencken quote. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Frankly the CQBSS H27D is the best carbine optic ever fucking invented. Its not without fault, however. It is huge, heavy, and really fucking expensive. But holy damn. The optics are perfect, the reticle is amazing, and you could beat someone to death with it and it wouldnt break. I have used it out to 850m on my 18" OBR for years, and now it takes up residence on my 16" Ptar 556. What's on the OBR now? Also perfect HL Mencken quote. I am using a HDMR with a Tremor 2 reticle on the OBR now. Its more suited to a long range platform than a 308 heavy carbine. I like the improved magnification on the HDMR, but the actual glass is no comparison. IMG_0943 by KiowaDriver, on Flickr And my CQBSS now IMG_1557 by KiowaDriver, on Flickr |
|
[#37]
Looks like h27 with red dot is an excellent reticle. Saw video of cqbss and Schmidt and bender 1-8. They said both are great but I think they said (if memory is correct) that they prefer sb for a red dot because it's 1x where cqbss is 1.1x. Any issues with cqbss as a red dot?
Still trying to check out night force and some other models in person. Read some reviews that say s&b has best glass but some others like nf Swarovski and high end Leupholds are very good. Finally found a place to check out Swarovski. When I get back in town will go check those out. I'm thinking If I don't figure this out before rifle season that I might wait until shot show and see what is new coming out but like an earlier post said...some of those models may not come out for a year. I'm wondering if night force would do something similar to cqbss. |
|
[#39]
Yeah the way the 1-8 schmidt goes to a red dot is slick. I'm a huge short dot fan (no offense to leupold mk6 or 8 which are great products) but as of a few weeks ago the schmidt 1-8 still isn't available in the US. Chances are the vcog will be removed from my 762 tobr once the 1-8 shortdot is available
|
|
[#40]
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/09/19/tactical-scopes-field-test-results-summary/
That's one of the reviews I was looking at. |
|
[#41]
Quoted:
Yeah the way the 1-8 schmidt goes to a red dot is slick. I'm a huge short dot fan (no offense to leupold mk6 or 8 which are great products) but as of a few weeks ago the schmidt 1-8 still isn't available in the US. Chances are the vcog will be removed from my 762 tobr once the 1-8 shortdot is available View Quote I didn't know they aren't availble here. Does not look like they have as good of reticle to me as cqbss. |
|
[#42]
Really depends on your application. There have been no bad suggestions. I run a Mk 6 3-18 illuminated TMR on my 16" OBR and use it as a dedicated long range system. If I wanted a multi-role gun, I'd have gone with a CQBSS or a USO SR-8.
|
|
[#43]
Hi, What scope mount are you using in the top pic with the Bushnell scope? What I am really looking for is what height mount are you running? Thanks!
Quoted:
I am using a HDMR with a Tremor 2 reticle on the OBR now. Its more suited to a long range platform than a 308 heavy carbine. I like the improved magnification on the HDMR, but the actual glass is no comparison. <a href="https://flic.kr/p/n8qP6u" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3671/13867548714_d5b1f1c98a_b.jpg</a>IMG_0943 by KiowaDriver, on Flickr And my CQBSS now <a href="https://flic.kr/p/n8qPNm" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3707/13867551084_796a226447_b.jpg</a>IMG_1557 by KiowaDriver, on Flickr View Quote |
|
[#45]
|
|
[#46]
Quoted:
What are the best scopes for this? For those of you that have the Leupold Mark 6 3-18. I checked this out in the store and could barely see the reticle at 3x. I'm wondering if you can see the crosshairs went hunting in low light situations. Also I will not be doing any stalking only hunting from my stand. does anyone have the Swarovski Z6i? From what I've seen it looks like the horus reticle is a good idea. Which Swarovski does not have. Anyways, just wanted to get some more opinions. I'm going to try to get back to a gun shop pretty soon and see what other kinds I can check out. Also do you prefer FFP or SFP for this? View Quote I have the Mark 6 3-18 with a illuminated TMR ret and have no problem seeing low light at 3x.. |
|
[#47]
Quoted:
I am using a HDMR with a Tremor 2 reticle on the OBR now. Its more suited to a long range platform than a 308 heavy carbine. I like the improved magnification on the HDMR, but the actual glass is no comparison. <a href="https://flic.kr/p/n8qP6u" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3671/13867548714_d5b1f1c98a_b.jpg</a>IMG_0943 by KiowaDriver, on Flickr And my CQBSS now <a href="https://flic.kr/p/n8qPNm" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3707/13867551084_796a226447_b.jpg</a>IMG_1557 by KiowaDriver, on Flickr View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Frankly the CQBSS H27D is the best carbine optic ever fucking invented. Its not without fault, however. It is huge, heavy, and really fucking expensive. But holy damn. The optics are perfect, the reticle is amazing, and you could beat someone to death with it and it wouldnt break. I have used it out to 850m on my 18" OBR for years, and now it takes up residence on my 16" Ptar 556. What's on the OBR now? Also perfect HL Mencken quote. I am using a HDMR with a Tremor 2 reticle on the OBR now. Its more suited to a long range platform than a 308 heavy carbine. I like the improved magnification on the HDMR, but the actual glass is no comparison. <a href="https://flic.kr/p/n8qP6u" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3671/13867548714_d5b1f1c98a_b.jpg</a>IMG_0943 by KiowaDriver, on Flickr And my CQBSS now <a href="https://flic.kr/p/n8qPNm" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3707/13867551084_796a226447_b.jpg</a>IMG_1557 by KiowaDriver, on Flickr With your 556 predatar, can you get a good cheek weld, or is your head floating? Does that mount put a lt660 aimpoint micro at the same height? |
|
[#48]
The LT135 is 1.93" up. I use this mount because I shoot this rifle on the move, head up. It works great in that capacity. The cheekweld is high for bench or prone work.
This mount is about another .3" higher than the LT660. |
|
[#49]
Quoted:
I have the Mark 6 3-18 with a illuminated TMR ret and have no problem seeing low light at 3x.. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What are the best scopes for this? For those of you that have the Leupold Mark 6 3-18. I checked this out in the store and could barely see the reticle at 3x. I'm wondering if you can see the crosshairs went hunting in low light situations. Also I will not be doing any stalking only hunting from my stand. does anyone have the Swarovski Z6i? From what I've seen it looks like the horus reticle is a good idea. Which Swarovski does not have. Anyways, just wanted to get some more opinions. I'm going to try to get back to a gun shop pretty soon and see what other kinds I can check out. Also do you prefer FFP or SFP for this? I have the Mark 6 3-18 with a illuminated TMR ret and have no problem seeing low light at 3x.. I think the problem was that I was looking at the tremor2 reticle. With an illuminated reticle I would think there would be no problems using it in low light. |
|
[#50]
Quoted:
The LT135 is 1.93" up. I use this mount because I shoot this rifle on the move, head up. It works great in that capacity. The cheekweld is high for bench or prone work. This mount is about another .3" higher than the LT660. View Quote +1 on this. I have the 1.93" lt135 on 556 14.5 tobr with short dot for exactly that reason. Let's you shoot heads up. Less likely to use that gun prone or on bench for precision (but if I want precision I outshot the shootist with this exact set up... Braggin' rights framed on my wall) |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.