User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/31/2021 5:46:38 PM EDT
I have a pretty nice 18" AR setup that I haven't shot in years, it actually doesn't even have a scope/sights on it cause I never really got into long range (other than 100yd hunting).
I figured with ammo prices I'd mess around with 200-250yd shooting to slow the ammo usage bleed, plus the rifle ranges have been dead so ill have them to myself. I don't really plan on shooting to 400 but what the zoom ability to push ouu, plus it helps if I don't have a spotter scope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2021 6:11:19 PM EDT
[#1]
How much you looking to spend?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2021 6:14:21 PM EDT
[#2]
Hits on what? A 1 moa target or a 10moa target?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2021 6:14:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Hits on what? A 1 moa target or a 10moa target?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2021 7:15:28 PM EDT
[#4]
I have a 1X4 Leopold MKAR with the BDC reticle that is fun mid range optic. Plus it's a great HD optic.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/31/2021 8:09:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Ahh sorry, was hoping to keep it around $300, I know ill probably get hooked and upgrade, but I feel like a "just for fun" gun $300 should get me something? I've never done any long distance shooting other than hunting back in the day but we sighted in and kept things around 100 most the time
Is something 6-20x50 going to give me enough field of view (I dont think people really go over 50?) and is 6 base zoom going to give me any scanning ability around 100 yards? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2021 8:13:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: rocketrepairguy]
[#6]
I just bought a 3-18x50 Bushnell Forge for 640.00
https://www.dvor.com/bushnell-forge-3-18x50-riflescope.html |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2021 9:03:29 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By taymag: Ahh sorry, was hoping to keep it around $300, I know ill probably get hooked and upgrade, but I feel like a "just for fun" gun $300 should get me something? I've never done any long distance shooting other than hunting back in the day but we sighted in and kept things around 100 most the time Is something 6-20x50 going to give me enough field of view (I dont think people really go over 50?) and is 6 base zoom going to give me any scanning ability around 100 yards? I would look for a used 10X or 6-18 Leupold with Target turrets. For your price range. But to shoot 250 yards you don’t need a lot of magnification unless you’re shooting tiny groups. And it doesn’t sound like your weapon choice is up for the task. Even the Redfield 4-12 Accuplex would be a decent choice. It just doesn’t have parallax adjustment. I got a used Leupold MKAR in 6-18 with Mil turrets for $350.00 a couple of years ago just watching LGS’s. The previous owner upgraded to a Vortex Razor. But as he admitted the Leupold was his stepping stone. Good luck and remember you don’t need ultra high magnification to go to a quarter of a mile. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2021 9:29:13 AM EDT
[#8]
You aren’t going to see 300 yard holes in paper with a $300 rifle scope (not enough clarity/light-gathering)
You need a spotting scope. Even a $250 Celestron will be ok to get you by in the beginning. As for the rifle scope, buy quality over magnification. I’d rather shoot 300 yards with a good 6x than a low quality 12x. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/3/2021 10:00:06 AM EDT
[#9]
You're looking for a drone or a target camera, not a riflescope. You'll never see .2" wide holes in paper at 300m even with 30x magnification and your budget sticks you with glass quality ranging from trash to functional but it'll never get to fine. It takes a really darned nice scope to resolve .2" wide holes in paper at 100yrds, more than your budget is likely to allow even at that short range. Walk up to your target to look at your groups. A rifle scope is a sighting device, not an inspection device.
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/3/2021 10:51:43 PM EDT
[#10]
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1020618830?pid=351470
These have gotten good reviews. Japanese glass, not Chinese. If you want a little less magnification this one is a little cheaper... https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1020618738?pid=832126 |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/4/2021 10:13:39 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Shadowgrouse: https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1020618830?pid=351470 These have gotten good reviews. Japanese glass, not Chinese. If you want a little less magnification this one is a little cheaper... https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1020618738?pid=832126 That said, those are excellent scopes and you will probably never get a chance to get a discount like that on glass like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2021 10:22:55 AM EDT
[#12]
Buy good clean glass with decent eye relief. And a spotting scope
.22 holes are hard to see even with a 60x spotting scope unless using shoot-n-see targets |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2021 11:40:25 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ballisticxlr: While those are excellent scopes, they're not going to (and no other rifle scope will) allow spotting of 22cal bullet holes in paper from 250-300yrds. No scope can see .22 bullet holes at 300 yards? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2021 10:25:37 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rob01: No scope can see .22 bullet holes at 300 yards? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rob01: Originally Posted By ballisticxlr: While those are excellent scopes, they're not going to (and no other rifle scope will) allow spotting of 22cal bullet holes in paper from 250-300yrds. No scope can see .22 bullet holes at 300 yards? I can remember the light Blue bench rest targets with a white backing paper. When the sun was right I could see some holes with a straight 36X Leupold. But my eyes were better then. I can see 300 yard splashing on steel with a good clear 6X. I regret trading the 36X. |
|
|
|
ME, USA
|
Posted: 4/5/2021 10:56:42 AM EDT
[#15]
OP, try and find a fixed power SWFA. This is going to be your best bet in my opinion.
Bev 
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2021 8:23:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MS556]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rob01: No scope can see .22 bullet holes at 300 yards? Not at OP's $300 price point or even close to it. Vortex has a Chinese Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 FFP with mil/mil or moa/moa turrets just above that price point. I have one on a precision.22LR bolt gun, but the glass is done for by 300 yards, certainly can't see bullet holes. Its still decent for hold overs and hold offs at 250-300. I use a spotting scope to see fine detail. To see .22 bullet holes at 300+ he needs a good spotting scope with decent glass and 45+ magnification, IMO. That's at least $800-1,000 and more. Resolving fine detail like small holes at 300+ involves high magnification and good glass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2021 10:08:06 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MS556: Not at OP's $300 price point or even close to it. Vortex has a Chinese Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 FFP with mil/mil or moa/moa turrets just above that price point. I have one on a precision.22LR bolt gun, but the glass is done for by 300 yards, certainly can't see bullet holes. Its still decent for hold overs and hold offs at 250-300. I use a spotting scope to see fine detail. To see .22 bullet holes at 300+ he needs a good spotting scope with decent glass and 45+ magnification, IMO. That's at least $800-1,000 and more. Resolving fine detail like small holes at 300+ involves high magnification and good glass. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MS556: Originally Posted By Rob01: No scope can see .22 bullet holes at 300 yards? Not at OP's $300 price point or even close to it. Vortex has a Chinese Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 FFP with mil/mil or moa/moa turrets just above that price point. I have one on a precision.22LR bolt gun, but the glass is done for by 300 yards, certainly can't see bullet holes. Its still decent for hold overs and hold offs at 250-300. I use a spotting scope to see fine detail. To see .22 bullet holes at 300+ he needs a good spotting scope with decent glass and 45+ magnification, IMO. That's at least $800-1,000 and more. Resolving fine detail like small holes at 300+ involves high magnification and good glass. Agree with this. But not with this. I have no problem seeing bullet holes at 300 yards with 25x. But back to the other point, I paid a helluva lot more than $300 for my scopes. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 8:59:13 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mi650: Agree with this. But not with this. I have no problem seeing bullet holes at 300 yards with 25x. But back to the other point, I paid a helluva lot more than $300 for my scopes. I haven't made it to the range yet, but I got my Viper 6.5-20x and zoomed in on some things at 20x around 200-300 yards away and feel like I have a chance seeing holes, but who knows -- That being said I feel like I could see spatter targets for sure, but would make seeing tight groups with holes touching harder since they are a bit of a mess when you get a few shots together |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 10:39:51 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MS556: Not at OP's $300 price point or even close to it. Vortex has a Chinese Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 FFP with mil/mil or moa/moa turrets just above that price point. I have one on a precision.22LR bolt gun, but the glass is done for by 300 yards, certainly can't see bullet holes. Its still decent for hold overs and hold offs at 250-300. I use a spotting scope to see fine detail. To see .22 bullet holes at 300+ he needs a good spotting scope with decent glass and 45+ magnification, IMO. That's at least $800-1,000 and more. Resolving fine detail like small holes at 300+ involves high magnification and good glass. You do not need a 45x+ spotter to see bullet holes at 300 yards. I can see them on 25x with a Strike Eagle. If someone is having issues and has bad eyes then use a shoot n cee target and definitely no issues. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 10:54:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By taymag: I haven't made it to the range yet, but I got my Viper 6.5-20x and zoomed in on some things at 20x around 200-300 yards away and feel like I have a chance seeing holes, but who knows -- That being said I feel like I could see spatter targets for sure, but would make seeing tight groups with holes touching harder since they are a bit of a mess when you get a few shots together Are you using match ammo in a match barrel? At 250 yards a 1 MOA rifle will have a 2-3" spread. a regular ol' AR shooting M193 will be more like 6-8". I think splatter targets are a great solution. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 12:34:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eracer: Are you using match ammo in a match barrel? At 250 yards a 1 MOA rifle will have a 2-3" spread. a regular ol' AR shooting M193 will be more like 6-8". I think splatter targets are a great solution. Ill be using a mix of both, but I am mainly referring to how many shots on each target really. One of the ranges I use has large target board so I can put 4-6 targets decent size targets on it, the other one only lets me put 2, and when I have 2 targets up I think they change ever 20 min, so you either just dont shoot or you're target starts get full (assuming I'm hitting it lol). That being said I'm pretty new to long range shooting so spatter targets will be great |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 1:18:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rob01: No scope can see .22 bullet holes at 300 yards? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rob01: Originally Posted By ballisticxlr: While those are excellent scopes, they're not going to (and no other rifle scope will) allow spotting of 22cal bullet holes in paper from 250-300yrds. No scope can see .22 bullet holes at 300 yards? That’s what I was thinking as well. The Sightron SIII’s I’ve owned would beg to differ. Not the most tactical optic, but their resolution is amazing for the price. |
|
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 1:30:18 PM EDT
[#23]
It's my opinion that anything over 20x withing 500yds is useless scope wise a sporting scope would be fine but shooting I seem to never have my optics above 20x and mostly shoot around 15x
At300yds a nice 1-5or 1-6 is plenty for general shooting. For benchrest you kinda need to spend 1500+ or at minimum get an swfa 20x fixed. I shoot primarily leupold but I do like this 1-5 steiner I just picked up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 1:45:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eracer]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperJlarge: That’s what I was thinking as well. The Sightron SIII’s I’ve owned would beg to differ. Not the most tactical optic, but their resolution is amazing for the price. Indeed they are. What do you mean by 'not the most tactical'? Many of their models are mil/mil with very nice reticles. I wish I'd kept the article I read in VHP (Very High Power) where they did a very comprehensive 1000-yard test of the Sightron SIII and a spec-comparable Nightforce (I don't remember which model.) Resolution tests, color fidelity tests, optical clarity tests, and more. The Sightron won about half the tests. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 2:54:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SuperJlarge]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eracer: Indeed they are. What do you mean by 'not the most tactical'? Many of their models are mil/mil with very nice reticles. I wish I'd kept the article I read in VHP (Very High Power) where they did a very comprehensive 1000-yard test of the Sightron SIII and a spec-comparable Nightforce (I don't remember which model.) Resolution tests, color fidelity tests, optical clarity tests, and more. The Sightron won about half the tests. Edit; Actually, I just looked at their site. The SIII PLR looks like a good upgrade. I may try to get 1 for my daughters .22 My previous gripe was about the turrets and reticles. You’ll pay more for that model, put it’s more useable than the previous SIII tactical or capped scope models. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 3:05:32 PM EDT
[#26]
For a .22 I might go with the S-TAC FFP 3-16X42 Zero Stop. $670 MSRP vs. double that for the PLR.
Nice little reticle too. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 3:09:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SuperJlarge]
[#27]
Not a fan of the S Tac glass. Plus, that Mil Hash H reticle is more inline with what I’m using with my other optics (nf/Vortex).
Hope she gets a scholarship; college funds may go towards optics! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2021 3:19:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eracer]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperJlarge: Not a fan of the S Tac glass. Plus, that Mil Hash 5 reticle is more inline with what I’m using with my other optics (nf/Vortex). Hope she gets a scholarship; college funds may go towards optics! Gotcha. I personally don't prioritize that for a .22 and it's limited range (as long as the objective is big enough.) But hey, no reason not to go with the best you can afford. 
|
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 3:13:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MS556]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rob01: You do not need a 45x+ spotter to see bullet holes at 300 yards. I can see them on 25x with a Strike Eagle. If someone is having issues and has bad eyes then use a shoot n cee target and definitely no issues. Not doubting you, but if there is mirage (which I often encounter) that becomes a real stretch even with good glass at 300. I have a nice older Burris Black Diamond 6-24x50 target scope, 1/8 MOA fine target reticle, 1/8 MOA tall target turrets, with very good Japanese glass. I use it for load development, moving it from rifle to rifle. With it I can see .224 caliber bullet holes at 24x on white paper at 300 in good light if no mirage. But mirage is a way of life here and the holes just disappear under those conditions. I can dial down to 14x and get a clearer image, but no chance of seeing holes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2021 5:59:18 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MS556: Not doubting you, but if there is mirage (which I often encounter) that becomes a real stretch even with good glass at 300. I have a nice older Burris Black Diamond 6-24x50 target scope, 1/8 MOA fine target reticle, 1/8 MOA tall target turrets, with very good Japanese glass. I use it for load development, moving it from rifle to rifle. With it I can see .224 caliber bullet holes at 24x on white paper at 300 in good light if no mirage. But mirage is a way of life here and the holes just disappear under those conditions. I can dial down to 14x and get a clearer image, but no chance of seeing holes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MS556: Originally Posted By Rob01: You do not need a 45x+ spotter to see bullet holes at 300 yards. I can see them on 25x with a Strike Eagle. If someone is having issues and has bad eyes then use a shoot n cee target and definitely no issues. Not doubting you, but if there is mirage (which I often encounter) that becomes a real stretch even with good glass at 300. I have a nice older Burris Black Diamond 6-24x50 target scope, 1/8 MOA fine target reticle, 1/8 MOA tall target turrets, with very good Japanese glass. I use it for load development, moving it from rifle to rifle. With it I can see .224 caliber bullet holes at 24x on white paper at 300 in good light if no mirage. But mirage is a way of life here and the holes just disappear under those conditions. I can dial down to 14x and get a clearer image, but no chance of seeing holes. We used to use a Blue sheet of closed cell foam insulation for a backer. The foam would seal the hole leaving a blue spot for the hit. I bet the pink foam would work too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2021 7:23:26 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/16/2021 9:24:34 PM EDT
[#32]
The Super Sniper is not a bad option. When I first needed a scope I got a Nikon Monarch. It wasn't bad, but focal plane, turrets and reticle were not what I was looking for. The SS might have been a better choice
From experience, get a scope with turrets and plane. You'll probably get hooked and be way ahead of the game when you upgrade and your original scope cost will have been a tiny fraction of the cost of what you end up with. Please remember the cost of a good mount/rings. This is not an area to go cheap. Good luck, you have a fun journey ahead. |
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 9/17/2021 1:34:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MS556]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Winkychevelle: It's my opinion that anything over 20x withing 500yds is useless scope wise a sporting scope would be fine but shooting I seem to never have my optics above 20x and mostly shoot around 15x At300yds a nice 1-5or 1-6 is plenty for general shooting. For benchrest you kinda need to spend 1500+ or at minimum get an swfa 20x fixed. I shoot primarily leupold but I do like this 1-5 steiner I just picked up. I think benchrest shooters would strongly disagree. Match the optic to the task. Benchrest competition top shooters use 45x or higher fixed power scopes at 100 yards. Yes, 45x at 100 yards. Useless for other purposes, though. Those of us who handload, even for hunting ammo, often use high powered scopes for load development, even though the rifle may have a LPVO or mid-powered scope in the field. A variable with 24x on the top end with very fine crosshairs is a good choice for load development. It just makes consistent shot placement much easier. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
