AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DMR / SPR / Recce Setup (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/17/2017 11:21:25 PM EDT
|
Hey all, looking for some guidance here. Back story...my first AR purchase was a Daniel Defense M4V11, which has been babied and unmodified from the beginning. Since purchasing it, I've wanted to do some sort of distance shooting setup with it. After talking with a co-worker, I got turned onto the designated marksman / special purpose rifle world. I realize the rifle won't be an exact clone (to a MK12 MOD 0/1) but would like to get it in the ball park. Looking to do 100 yards minimum but would love mid to high capability. Here's what I'm looking at. In the early stages as of right now, so bear with me. What suggestions do you guys have otherwise?
Optics: Leupold Mark 4 LR/T of some kind. Thoughts? Mount: ARMS scope rings Bipod: HBRM Harris 6-9" with notch increments Muzzle Device: Surefire muzzle brake with suppressor capability Trigger: Geissele SSA Thanks! |
|
you have a purpose, Awesome now you need a budget. What do you want it to weigh?
it is very east to take a nice clean 7lbs rifle and turn it into a 12lbs fatboy with only bipod, scope,scope mount, a true DMR is a 400-500 meter rifle snipers usually take 6-800 mortars & artillery beyond that. Now is your goal center mass hit (STEEL ringing )s or tiny groups(paper punching)? for CM hits an ACOG or NikonM-223 4-16 adjustable with a BCD reticel is near Ideal out to 500 meters ACOGS have great glass for the same $$$ you can do better it is light & small the Nikon M-223 is a more budget minded scope but it is very nice for the $$. the reticel once sighted in at 100 meters offers easy to read points of aim out to 500 meters. . the Nikon is also great for paper punching , and a good optic to learn the skill sets on for precision cold bore cool guy shooting, while allowing those less serious to ring steel out to 500 meters with ease. being a telescopic scope it is large needs a good mount and has a bit of heft to it. nothing wrong wth the harris bipod , or the gissele trigger If the rifel is meant to be mostly shot from the prone you may find an extended charging handel latch, and aBAD lever helpful.they make it so you are not crawling all over your firing position trying to release the bolt or lock it back. I don't like them on other use builds but I love them on a prone shooter. |
|
I would think more about what you want to do with the rifle long term.
Cloning Mk12s is a tall order and quite a rabbit hole. It involves lots of hard to find, expensive parts, some of which have long since been surpassed in terms of pure functionality. Heading down that hole with a DDM4V11 might not be the best call. You might wind up chasing your tail by spending a lot of money changing a very nice rifle that will never be close to a Mk12. If nothing else, add the scope, trigger, and bipod to the DD. See what kind of accuracy you can get with it. If you can't find ammo that it will shoot 1.5" or less at 100 yards, you're not really in DMR/SPR territory. You can use the scope, trigger, and bipod on a new build that's tailored to more precise shooting. I wouldn't go ripping that DD apart, no matter what. Wait until you get a suppressor to get a muzzle device. A2s are fine. |
|
Might want to look into an ssa-e instead, since you are not going for an exact clone. Same with the scope rings, larue, geissele, nightforce, badger etc are going to serve you better than the ARMS
I started with the idea of a mk12ish gun, ended up pretty far away but still same ballpark. White Oak SPR barrel 1/8 rifle length, Geissele mk4 15" rail, surefire warcomp, Geissele SSA-E, Magpul ACS-L, Larue SPR-S mount and a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x 42, Atlas bipod with Larue mount, BCM upper, lower, bolt, charging handle. Shoot lights out, has everything I want with no concessions for what is clone correct. I built it the way I would if I were sitting at Crane calling the shots. |
|
Some very good suggestions here, that's for sure. In terms of weight, I obviously don't want it becoming a whale...but a hefty feeling will be fine. I shoot at a farm range for distance stuff right now, where there is capability for both steel and paper punching. Center mass and paper accuracy would be preferred.
Oh and I definitely will not be stripping down the DD to rebuild it into an MK12. The barrel itself is accurate as hell, let alone the other solid components like the bolt. I more so want to eliminate the generics such as the trigger, then add the scope and such. As another guy above mentioned, if I were at Crane....well you get the point. I've heard numerous suggestions on mounts, do the direct scope to rail rings not work as well? I was more so thinking of strength and security in this aspect. Or would a scope mount be just as strong? I'd obviously have the ability to take off the whole scopes setup easier. Now how about glass? I don't necessarily want to set a budget though. What minimum power would suffice? 4? 4.5? Or is that a bit much for my up close 100yd shooting. If you guys are able to, could you post up some pictures as well? |
|
Use a Surefire Flash Hider. Your ears and fellow shooters will appreciate it.
Consider the SSA-E. That said, I have two SSA triggers and really like them. Use a Larue mount. Mark 4 is nice, but there are a ton of great choices between $500-$1,000. Decide if you'll use MIL or MOA, FFP or SFP. Be honest with yourself here - if you're going to be shooting at 100-200 yards most of the time, not ranging targets, not adjusting your reticle for windage or elevation, you probably don't need a scope with lots of bells and whistles. I shoot my 6.5 Creedmoor at 100 yards and that's it. A $300 scope works fine for that. However, that does not make me cool on the internet. 
|
|
Quoted:
Use a Surefire Flash Hider. Your ears and fellow shooters will appreciate it. Consider the SSA-E. That said, I have two SSA triggers and really like them. Use a Larue mount. Mark 4 is nice, but there are a ton of great choices between $500-$1,000. Decide if you'll use MIL or MOA, FFP or SFP. Be honest with yourself here - if you're going to be shooting at 100-200 yards most of the time, not ranging targets, not adjusting your reticle for windage or elevation, you probably don't need a scope with lots of bells and whistles. I shoot my 6.5 Creedmoor at 100 yards and that's it. A $300 scope works fine for that. However, that does not make me cool on the internet. |
|
Quoted:
That's the thing, I need to figure out what reticle I want. Unfortunately Optics Planet no longer has a mil reticle Mark 4, only a duplex. So what other scopes are out there with some strong reputation? Looking to go around a 4-16x Vortex Viper, Burris XTR, and SWFA Super Sniper are worth checking out if you want to keep it under a grand. More $$$? Then look at the Bushnell Elite Tactical. |
|
Quoted:
Hey all, looking for some guidance here. Back story...my first AR purchase was a Daniel Defense M4V11, which has been babied and unmodified from the beginning. Since purchasing it, I've wanted to do some sort of distance shooting setup with it. After talking with a co-worker, I got turned onto the designated marksman / special purpose rifle world. I realize the rifle won't be an exact clone (to a MK12 MOD 0/1) but would like to get it in the ball park. Looking to do 100 yards minimum but would love mid to high capability. Here's what I'm looking at. In the early stages as of right now, so bear with me. What suggestions do you guys have otherwise? Optics: Leupold Mark 4 LR/T of some kind. Thoughts? Mount: ARMS scope rings Bipod: HBRM Harris 6-9" with notch increments Muzzle Device: Surefire muzzle brake with suppressor capability Trigger: Geissele SSA Thanks! I also gravitated towards the recce style setup once I discovered it. My very first AR got a 3x magnifier to go behind my Aimpoint and then the rabbit hole just got deeper from there.... You asked for opinions, so take mine with a grain of salt. Optic: Rather than brand/model, think about what magnification you want on it. I've had everything from fixed 3x, 1-4, to 2.5-10. I can always come up with justifications for more magnification, but you still have to carry it at the end of the day. The Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10x32 FFP is a really nice optic for the money. Leupold doesn't do anything their Mk4 line that interests me anymore. I like the MK6 and Mk8 lines but can't justify the price. I cover both ends of the spectrum with Nightforce and Vortex. My Low Power Variables left me wanting more in the high end and seldom using the low end, so I switched to a 2.5-10. Quite a few options out there in that range. Name your price. Mount: Don't do ARMs rings. They'll end up split between the receiver and the handguard. You need something one piece that cantilever's forward. Google image search: 
Do you want quick release or bolt on? Weight and $$$ will be a factor. Bipod: I can't argue with that. It's what I use. I think the ATLAS bipod is really neat too but I like how quickly I can deploy the harris. Muzzle Device: Despite what others will say I don't terribly mind a muzzle brake on a 16" or longer gun. If you're next to it sure it's obnoxious. But consider where and how you'll be shooting and think about that. I will say that I haven't noticed a huge recoil difference when shooting from a rest. The biggest difference for me was a Gemtech suppressed bolt carrier along with a suppressor. Trigger: Anything Geissele honestly. I've got an SSA and an SSA-E. I usually hold the trigger through recoil and release to reset and start again. On my brand new SSA-E first time at the range I didn't have the stock firmly against me, squeezed the trigger, and it bump fired through a string of 3. After that I just made sure the stock had something to recoil against. No worries. All that is to say, it's a lighter trigger than my SSA for sure. |
|
Quoted:
I also gravitated towards the recce style setup once I discovered it. My very first AR got a 3x magnifier to go behind my Aimpoint and then the rabbit hole just got deeper from there.... You asked for opinions, so take mine with a grain of salt. Optic: Rather than brand/model, think about what magnification you want on it. I've had everything from fixed 3x, 1-4, to 2.5-10. I can always come up with justifications for more magnification, but you still have to carry it at the end of the day. The Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10x32 FFP is a really nice optic for the money. Leupold doesn't do anything their Mk4 line that interests me anymore. I like the MK6 and Mk8 lines but can't justify the price. I cover both ends of the spectrum with Nightforce and Vortex. My Low Power Variables left me wanting more in the high end and seldom using the low end, so I switched to a 2.5-10. Quite a few options out there in that range. Name your price. Mount: Don't do ARMs rings. They'll end up split between the receiver and the handguard. You need something one piece that cantilever's forward. Google image search: http://tactical360.511tactical.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-01-24-at-11.39.09-AM.png Do you want quick release or bolt on? Weight and $$ will be a factor. Bipod: I can't argue with that. It's what I use. I think the ATLAS bipod is really neat too but I like how quickly I can deploy the harris. Muzzle Device: Despite what others will say I don't terribly mind a muzzle brake on a 16" or longer gun. If you're next to it sure it's obnoxious. But consider where and how you'll be shooting and think about that. I will say that I haven't noticed a huge recoil difference when shooting from a rest. The biggest difference for me was a Gemtech suppressed bolt carrier along with a suppressor. Trigger: Anything Geissele honestly. I've got an SSA and an SSA-E. I usually hold the trigger through recoil and release to reset and start again. On my brand new SSA-E first time at the range I didn't have the stock firmly against me, squeezed the trigger, and it bump fired through a string of 3. After that I just made sure the stock had something to recoil against. No worries. All that is to say, it's a lighter trigger than my SSA for sure. Regarding optics, what did you find you settled into the most? After talks with my coworker and the idea of a DMR came up, he geared toward the Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14x40 with mildot, based on the original MK12 design he said. Is that a pretty good spread of close to mid range shooting? I'm not sure if I'll go with Leupold as of yet, need to consider others as well. How does Trijicon fair? Having said that, what reticle works the best? Mount: I totally get your point on this and makes total sense. Why'd the military spec those things out then, on the MKs? Solid mount more then likely. Muzzle Device: Might stick with the standard birdcage for now and upgrade this last, after I get some use in. The upgrade will have consideration of a future suppressor once/if that goes through here in IL. Trigger: Geissele SSA and SSA-E is a matter of weight pull, right? Bipod: Does your Harris mount to keymod? If so, did you go with their adapter? How's it work? Thanks again for the great info. I legitimately planned this Daniel Defense SPR project way before even research...by purchasing several boxes of Gorilla 69 grain Sierra MatchKing. Itching to use some! |
|
Leupold stopped selling the Mk4s commercially as of this year. Anything you find at a retailer is old stock and won't be replenished. FWIW, they're old and offer outdated features. There are much better options out there nowadays. To really offer a good suggestion, we need firm answers (I don't think I've seen one yet, although I may have missed it) on your absolute max price range for the optic, max ranges, as well as types of use (stictly bench/prone shooting or will you be moving around with the gun and doing short/mid/long range work).
Secondly, absolutely ditch the idea of ARMs scope rings. They're old as fuck and suck (for the most part). Stick with something from the likes of ADM or Larue if you want QD or Geissele, Nightforce, Badger if you don't need that feature. One piece mounts are going to be more secure as well as offer you enough cantilever to get the proper eye relief while still mounting the scope on the upper receiver. |
|
Quoted:
Kick ass and very thorough info, thanks. You offered alot per category. Regarding optics, what did you find you settled into the most? After talks with my coworker and the idea of a DMR came up, he geared toward the Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14x40 with mildot, based on the original MK12 design he said. Is that a pretty good spread of close to mid range shooting? I'm not sure if I'll go with Leupold as of yet, need to consider others as well. How does Trijicon fair? Having said that, what reticle works the best? Mount: I totally get your point on this and makes total sense. Why'd the military spec those things out then, on the MKs? Solid mount more then likely. The ARMs rings were used because it was the best available at the time. You have to remember, these things are tested and planned well before they're actually fielded. There wasn't a whole lot of options before the Mk12s were fielded. Muzzle Device: Might stick with the standard birdcage for now and upgrade this last, after I get some use in. The upgrade will have consideration of a future suppressor once/if that goes through here in IL. Trigger: Geissele SSA and SSA-E is a matter of weight pull, right? If you want precision, go with the SSA-E. Lower pull weight as well as a more crisp "break" is going to help, IMO. Bipod: Does your Harris mount to keymod? If so, did you go with their adapter? How's it work? You can get a Keymod sling stud adapter or just use a small KM pic rail section and then use a QD pic mount on the bipod. I prefer this option as it allows quick removal of the bipod if you don't need it (which is good, because it adds a lot of weight right near the muzzle). Thanks again for the great info. I legitimately planned this Daniel Defense SPR project way before even research...by purchasing several boxes of Gorilla 69 grain Sierra MatchKing. Itching to use some! Lastly, plan on picking up a lot more ammo types than that. If you want absolute precision, you're going to want to accuracy test as many loads as you possibly can if you're not setup for reloading. Some guns just like certain loads better than others. |
|
Quoted:
Kick ass and very thorough info, thanks. You offered alot per category. Regarding optics, what did you find you settled into the most? After talks with my coworker and the idea of a DMR came up, he geared toward the Leupold Mark 4 4.5-14x40 with mildot, based on the original MK12 design he said. Is that a pretty good spread of close to mid range shooting? I'm not sure if I'll go with Leupold as of yet, need to consider others as well. How does Trijicon fair? Having said that, what reticle works the best? Mount: I totally get your point on this and makes total sense. Why'd the military spec those things out then, on the MKs? Solid mount more then likely. Muzzle Device: Might stick with the standard birdcage for now and upgrade this last, after I get some use in. The upgrade will have consideration of a future suppressor once/if that goes through here in IL. Trigger: Geissele SSA and SSA-E is a matter of weight pull, right? Bipod: Does your Harris mount to keymod? If so, did you go with their adapter? How's it work? Thanks again for the great info. I legitimately planned this Daniel Defense SPR project way before even research...by purchasing several boxes of Gorilla 69 grain Sierra MatchKing. Itching to use some! Mount: I couldn't begin to tell you why the military does anything, but I wouldn't use them as the gold standard. The Mk12 is an awesome rifle and I fap to the MK12 picture thread most nights, but I would never build a clone because I have different ideas about how to do things. One reason they may have spec'd ARMS rings was that the original Mk12 Mod 0 utilized a continuous ARMS top rail: 
Ring placement didn't matter as much. The Mod 1 still used ARMs rings but you'll notice that both Mods are commonly seen with long fixed length stocks. Here's Matt Axelson's rifle showing a fixed length stock as well. You can see that even with the optic pushed all the way forward in the rings the eye-piece is still hanging out over the back of the receiver a bit. Does it matter? No, not if it's comfortable for the shooter. I've see some people that run their scopes so far forward you could probably flip up a rear iron sight. But they usually have their stocks completely collapsed too. The point is: ARMs rings are great, and they make great products, but just because it's on the MK12 doesn't mean it's the best thing out there. I just got a bobro single lever 1-piece mount and am blown away with the quality and simplicity. Muzzle Device: good call on the A2 birdcage. If you're going to go suppressed might as well wait til you've started paperwork on your can, then get an appropriate muzzle device. Trigger: From what I understand yes, SSA vs SSA-E is a matter of pull weight. I have the former in my mini-recce and the latter in my recce Bipod: My harris has an ARMS picatinny adapter on it. So it actually uses a throw lever to attach to picatinny. I'm sure someone makes the equivalent for keymod. From what i've read and see, a Recce is a flavor of 16" AR that includes a free-float handguard and some type of magnified optic. Pretty simple. An "SPR" is born from the idea of the MK12 Special Purpose Rifle. Most people who use the term SPR are referring to 18" guns. Ergo, my 16" recce 
|
|
4x is definitely not too much for 100 yards, if you're wanting to shoot for groups. To me a 3x9 is hard to beat. Or if it's for 100 yards plus most of the time, a fixed 10x would be sweet. To me, once you start getting above that, every tiny little movement becomes really amplified. A 1x4 is hard to beat for running and gunning and shooting at silhouettes, so I'm told, I don't really do a lot of that with optics. I'm shooting irons if it's for closer range. That's just me though. I have a 2x7 on my recce and that works pretty good too. But still, I think I'd almost rather have a 1-4 for a general purpose type gun. If I was just shooting distance, I'd go with a fixed 10x.
Are you free floating? You don't need to, to get good accuracy. But once you start using a bipod, a FF tube is the way to go. Otherwise you're putting pressure on the barrel and it will shift your POI. Some might not agree with this but I find ammo to be the biggest factor in accuracy over anything, other than glass. I've gotten decent, no really good, groups with a 7 pound single stage trigger. A lighter trigger helps you not mess up as much though. If your rest is really really solid, it makes up for a heavy trigger. If it's not, a light trigger helps. Just did some recce shooting on Saturday. Just to wet your whistle..... No claims of SF type accuracy but still fun. And you can see how ammo makes a big difference. I say it's not too bad for what I was shooting. 
100 yard shooting 
|
|
I'm in the same thought process as you but a bit ahead having put 300 rounds down range.
I bought a DD M4V11 Pro STW barrel because of the SD3G trigger, CH and the brake upgrades. One of these days the SD3G will end up on EE and I'll swap it for a SSA-E or something. The CH (BCM Gunslinger) has been replaced with a Geissele ACH. Somebody correct me if this is bad advice.... I chose which scope first and bought it before the mount (Mark 6 1x20). A quick thread here and a message to Geissele and the mount fits the scope to rifle perfectly. I didn't want QD mounts but some folks have to have them. KISS. My criteria for the scope were, FFP, true 1x, illuminated, zero stop turrets, BDC and didn't care if the turrets were covered or not (preferred not). So it was the Mark 6 with the CMR-W (windage) reticle. Other reticles would probably be more accurate. Also many experienced guys here will say a 1-6 BDC does not need a FFP reticle. I like it as at 1x, the reticle basically disappears and I have a two eyes open red dot kinda thing. Pricey, but my LGS was almost $300 less than web prices. Get the scope you want, don't compromise. If you can't afford it, buy some BUIS and start saving. :) Cruise the optics forum, you'll be amazed at the quality of replies. On a Larue thread somebody mentioned Prime .223 77 gr OTM. I bought a few hundred rounds, check it out. RUAG (Switzerland) manufactured, crimped primer pockets for shooting suppressed. Much less expensive than Black Hills 77 gr TMK, or most match ammo. Downside, .223 and lower pressures/velocities. But than, RUAG...sweet. If my rifle and me can shoot sub MOA, this ammo will. It comes in stripper clips, I need to order a spoon. (Careful on the price, Big5 has it at $62, $48 on the Prime site.) 
Prime 77 gr OTM |
|
My Recce build pics have been hijacked by Photobucket with their recent and sudden discontinuance of photo hosting for free.
But, what I did was take a decent M4 type upper and lower (Spikes M4LE upper, S&W M&P15 lower, match them with: 1. A 16"stainless match grade 1:8 twist Wylde chambered recon profile barrel (Lilja M4 Navy Recce); 2. A Geissele SSA-E trigger; 3. WMD Guns NiB-X BCG (this is not necessary, -- personal preference); 4. Magpul ACS stock, enhanced trigger guard and MIAD grip; 5. Daniel Defense MFR 12 free float rail (now discontinued, but serves well); 6. Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40mm scope - mil/mil with Firedot TMR reticle; 7. Larue LT-104 QD mount; 8. Leupold Deltapoint Pro min-reflex red dot (two ounces) offset 45 degrees on Leupold riser in ADM AD-TR QD mount; 9. Magpul MBUS Pro front and rear back up sights; 10. Raptor CH 11. Harris S-BRM 6-9" benchrest bipod in ADM QD mount with swivel lever added. The result is 1/2 MOA capable with laddered handload match ammo (Berger 52 grain FB, Lapua cases, H-4895 powder). You have a good head start with the DDM4V11. You might need to upgrade the barrel to get this level of precision, but your DD barrel might get you close to 1 MOA, so try that first to see how it does. That may be fine for your purposes. The important things are what your barrel can do with good ammo, a free float rail (which you already have) a good trigger, and a decent midpowered scope, preferably with matching MOA/MOA or mil/mil turrets and reticle. All else depends on whether you want to try to go the expensive clone route or want something actually better performing but with contemporary parts. I went the latter route, except for the real deal barrel, which I REALLY wanted and built everything else around it for a contemporary take on a Recce. |
|
Thanks again to everyone, getting a ton of great information and it's quite hard to reply via phone. I know a few have worried about me stripping the Daniel Defense down and rebuilding with authentic era MK12 parts. This is definitely not the case. I essentially wish to turn the DD into what is now known as a Recce rifle. I perhaps was using the wrong terminology and using DMR/SPR before.
I do believe my coworker is intending to create an SPR based off the Lone Survivor MK12...but I don't think he intends to go all natural either. And so here I lay, thinking through my options. I know it's been asked about my budget and distance. I wouldn't want to spend any more then $1000 but realistically $800 at the most. I want a nice piece of glass that can do me justice for kicks at 100yd steel but mostly well beyond that from medium to high range. Having said that, I think everything else is falling into place. I do like the Harris bipod but am stuck on whether I will need the swivel function. I plan on doing benchrest shooting along with prone ground work. In terms of ammunition, I'm certainly down to purchase whatever else you guys can suggest. I figure once the build is in service, I'll do a 30 round test per brand to see what works best. Otherwise, I know I'm gonna go back and read the comments again only to see something else. Until then, thanks again guys. |
|
Quoted:
PS, cam anyone explain a little bit about what I'm looking for with reticle to turret function? Matching the two makes a whole lot of sense. At least for my first scoped setup. As for scope options, the PST Gen II 2-10x32 is a very nice scope that can be had for around $900ish bucks. It'll work for pretty much any range a 16" 5.56 rifle is going to be suitable. I have a 2.5-10x32 scope (Nightforce NXS, not Vortex, though) on my 16" "Recce" and it's a very good magnification range for a "Recce" style rifle that will primarily be shot at distance. Attached File |
|
 I have a DDM4V11 PRO.
My PRO has the 18" barrel and already has the DD muzzle break. Geissele SSA-E, BCM mod 4 CH Vortex Viper 6.5x20-44mm scope on burris QD mount, MBUIS PRO 45 deg offset Magpul PRS gen II stock with monopod Harris bipod I have SSA-E and SSA triggers in different rifles and prefer the lighter SSA-E in a precision rifle, but that's all I use this rifle for. I have other rifles with red dots and magnifiers for 50-100 yds shooting. Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted:
You essentially want your turrets to match your reticle (mil based reticle with mil turrets, opposite for MOA). It's really not a problem anymore as almost all modern scopes are going to have matching reticles/turrets. As for scope options, the PST Gen II 2-10x32 is a very nice scope that can be had for around $900ish bucks. It'll work for pretty much any range a 16" 5.56 rifle is going to be suitable. I have a 2.5-10x32 scope (Nightforce NXS, not Vortex, though) on my 16" "Recce" and it's a very good magnification range for a "Recce" style rifle that will primarily be shot at distance. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/294984/33467886374-6188049fbe-k-257632.JPG |
|
Quoted:
You essentially want your turrets to match your reticle (mil based reticle with mil turrets, opposite for MOA). It's really not a problem anymore as almost all modern scopes are going to have matching reticles/turrets. As for scope options, the PST Gen II 2-10x32 is a very nice scope that can be had for around $900ish bucks. It'll work for pretty much any range a 16" 5.56 rifle is going to be suitable. I have a 2.5-10x32 scope (Nightforce NXS, not Vortex, though) on my 16" "Recce" and it's a very good magnification range for a "Recce" style rifle that will primarily be shot at distance. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/294984/33467886374-6188049fbe-k-257632.JPG |
|
Quoted:
I don't have enough posts to add photos yet but I have a DDM4V11 PRO. My PRO has the 18" barrel and already has the DD muzzle break. Geissele SSA-E, BCM mod 4 CH Vortex Viper 6.5x20-44mm scope on burris QD mount, MBUIS PRO 45 deg offset Magpul PRS gen II stock with monopod Harris bipod I have SSA-E and SSA triggers in different rifles and prefer the lighter SSA-E in a precision rifle, but that's all I use this rifle for. I have other rifles with red dots and magnifiers for 50-100 yds shooting. I only have this family pic of the DDM4V11 PRO in it's current setup, not sure the link below will work? https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4209/35588957262_1675bd9e81_b.jpgIMG_8716 by hd_rolling, on Flickr |
|
Quoted:
That's a nice setup, simple yet deadly looking. How far out do you reach with the 2.5-10? I've been keeping an eye on Trijicon Accupower scopes, I prefer the made in USA glass. Few different ranges I'm considering: 2.5-10, 3-9, and 4-16. I want to be able to kick around at 100yds but reach out for some shooting that will require more finesse. I think any of the three will work and I know 3-9 is the most popular range...but just considering my options. What do you guys think of Trijicon overall? Powered reticle worth it? 2.5-10 vs 3-9 is almost like 6 one way half a dozen another. They're so close to each other you might not notice. Having a decent size objective can lend to having more forgiving eye-relief which can be nice. I can tell you that my nightforce 2.5-10x24 has really sensitive eye relief and at dusk/low light it's almost impossible to use at 10x. Whereas my Vortex 2.5-10x44 has much more forgiving eye relief, and performs better at low light. My first time shooting long range was on a guy's Vietnam era M40 replica: 
Which uses a Redfield 3-9 with just a duplex reticle. 
For doing holdovers at 860yds I basically picked a spot I wanted to hold the center (like, halfway down this branch on that tree) then waited for the bullet impact, and walked it in from there. No adjustments were made to the scope. By comparison on my Mil-r reticle on my NXS 2.5-10x24: 
If i'm just guessing I can do a center hold, watch for bullet impact and call it as i see it. Like lets say it drops at the "2" mark below, I can say, "ok that's 2 mils down." I can then either adjust my hold accordingly, or twist my turret 2 mils. Same speech for windage. But, I also keep a little range card with my rifle for my preferred 77gr 5.56 ammo that has the appropriate Mil holdovers for 100yds ->600yds. That will get me darn close and I can use the previous steps again to fine tune. I'm not precision long range shooter, at all, but I find these features to be helpful. For the money, as someone else mentioned, the Vortex Viper PST Gen II 2-10x32 Front Focal Plane scope is pretty dang awesome: http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-pst-gen-2-2-10x32-ffp-riflescope-with-ebr-4-mrad-reticle 
The reticle looks like it would provide plenty of functionality and if you don't know, FFP means that the reticle changes size with the magnification so you can accurately calculate holdovers using the reticle regardless of magnification. As an example, and a nod to FFP, my 2.5-10 NXS is SFP: I was shooting at night with outdoor range lights on at 200yds. At 10x magnification I knew that my holdover for that particular ammo was like .5 mils or something like that, but at 10x with how little light there was I pretty much couldn't see. But if I backed the scope back to 5x I could actually see, but my reticle didn't change size so now that .5 mil reference wasn't the same. I can't remember what I did, but it was either a .25 mil holdover or a 1 mil holdover. Probably the former. I don't know. You can also watch the equipment exchange for used Vortex optics. I got my 2.5-10 that way. Only spent like $400. |
| Did you find a huge learning curve entering the long distance marksman world? I need to figure out what reticle to turret configuration I want. The duplex reticle looks too simple and does not offer any aid. I've read the mildot requires math conversion but I could be wrong. Either way, I started looking into the Nighrforce. Seems the ATACR models are more geared for tactical weaponry / applications? How do you feel about Trijicon? |
|
Quoted:
Did you find a huge learning curve entering the long distance marksman world? I need to figure out what reticle to turret configuration I want. The duplex reticle looks too simple and does not offer any aid. I've read the mildot requires math conversion but I could be wrong. Either way, I started looking into the Nighrforce. Seems the ATACR models are more geared for tactical weaponry / applications? How do you feel about Trijicon? As for Nightforce, both the NXS and ATACR are geared towards the tactical market. The ATACR has much better glass (though the NXS is no slouch in that department) and offers some added options like FFP as well as more reticle options (albeit at a much higher price). |
|
Do you want a clone or do you want to build an awesome midrange rifle? Your decision will take you down 2 different paths.
For a midrange rifle, stick with a 16" barrel or less. Look at rainier arms barrels, and ballistic advantage Hanson barrels. Geissele SSA, B5 stock. I prefer a LPV with mil-ret and an offset red dot, but go with what you want on optics but keep it in the LPV power. |
|
Quoted:
Do you want a clone or do you want to build an awesome midrange rifle? Your decision will take you down 2 different paths. For a midrange rifle, stick with a 16" barrel or less. Look at rainier arms barrels, and ballistic advantage Hanson barrels. Geissele SSA, B5 stock. I prefer a LPV with mil-ret and an offset red dot, but go with what you want on optics but keep it in the LPV power. A more broad question to everyone, which is more a more preferable cross hair...MOA or Mildot? Another dumb question, that Trijicon has turrets adjustable in MOA....but could someone just understand every 1/4 moa adjustment converts to 0.1 mil? Or would I be better off going with the MOA reticle? |
|
Quoted:
Link works, nice family you've got there lol. How you like the Vortex? Did you get a Harris with swivel? Trying to figure out if that's a feature I need or just get the simple HBRM. I have the non swivel harris, and its the smooth leg style. I would rather have the notched leg style but the one I have is my military leftover gear I pulled out of my dufflebag. I like the Viper and bought it on sale at a great price, all I use it for is range shooting so the 6.5x20 works fine for me. Vortex has a great warrantyÂ
|
|
Quoted:
Wait for the sales, I've bought my SSA's in the $160 range and SSA-E's in the $180 range. |
|
Quoted:
 You say youre using Vortex at 6 power minimum, you able to knock on steel or what not as close as 100yds and not be pushed in too far? I'll have to look at Vortex as well, what reticle setup you got? Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted:
To clear it up, I want a sick midrange SPR or Recce, whatever you wanna call it. I'm definitely going with a Geissele trigger and I could see myself swapping off the stock DD stock as well. As for optics, looking into Trijicon's AccuPower 2.5-10. maybe a bit higher power. How do you like that scope? A more broad question to everyone, which is more a more preferable cross hair...MOA or Mildot? Another dumb question, that Trijicon has turrets adjustable in MOA....but could someone just understand every 1/4 moa adjustment converts to 0.1 mil? Or would I be better off going with the MOA reticle? Here is a small reference: Last night I went shooting my mini-recce that has an NXS 1-4 on it with the FC-3g reticle. I was re-zeroing it after changing a scope mount. At 4x, zeroing it for .5" high at 50yds I was able to see my groups for the most part. I brought a 50x spotting scope with me. At 200yds on giant shoot-n-c targets I couldn't see my hits through the 4x scope, but at 200yds I could ring the 12" steel gong with every single round. At one point I lined the rifle up, took my head off the stock, looked over the top and squeezed the trigger. Hit the plate. However, when I shot a 5 rd group for precision at 200yds I managed about a 4" group (3" group with a pretty bad flier). At that range, the 1.5moa center dot is covering 3" of target and I basically can't see shit. It's enough to make hits, but not enough for great precision. Good enough for what I want out of it though. Same scenario, shooting a different rifle with 10x using the mil-r reticle and I can see my hold a lot better. I still can't really see holes, but I can have a much more consistent hold. Can usually get at least a 2" group. Mind you i'm not a great precision shooter. If you want to be able to hit steel, you can do that with an acog. If you want to try to get smaller groups the increased magnification is going to help. http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-pst-gen-2-3-15x44-ffp-riflescope-with-ebr-2c-mrad-reticle One way it was put to me on deciding between Mil vs MOA was "do you think in english or metric measurements?" Mil translates to metric really easily. Moa translates to english measurements more easily. 1moa is about 1" at 100yds. Which means 1moa at 200yds is about 2". If you've got an MOA scope, do a center hold, fire, and see a 4moa drop on bullet impact, you know you can dial 4moa up on your elevation turret. Or change your hold. Same story for Mil. But if you've got a mil-dot reticle with Moa turrets, you're doing math, or just sticking with a holdover. I prefer something with more markings than a pure mil-dot reticle. Also, those little mil-dot footballs cover a lot of target. |
|
Quoted:
Right now the only thing Trijicon makes that interests me is their Accupower 1-8. But I don't think this fits the bill for what you're wanting to do. Here is a small reference: Last night I went shooting my mini-recce that has an NXS 1-4 on it with the FC-3g reticle. I was re-zeroing it after changing a scope mount. At 4x, zeroing it for .5" high at 50yds I was able to see my groups for the most part. I brought a 50x spotting scope with me. At 200yds on giant shoot-n-c targets I couldn't see my hits through the 4x scope, but at 200yds I could ring the 12" steel gong with every single round. At one point I lined the rifle up, took my head off the stock, looked over the top and squeezed the trigger. Hit the plate. However, when I shot a 5 rd group for precision at 200yds I managed about a 4" group (3" group with a pretty bad flier). At that range, the 1.5moa center dot is covering 3" of target and I basically can't see shit. It's enough to make hits, but not enough for great precision. Good enough for what I want out of it though. Same scenario, shooting a different rifle with 10x using the mil-r reticle and I can see my hold a lot better. I still can't really see holes, but I can have a much more consistent hold. Can usually get at least a 2" group. Mind you i'm not a great precision shooter. If you want to be able to hit steel, you can do that with an acog. If you want to try to get smaller groups the increased magnification is going to help. http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-pst-gen-2-3-15x44-ffp-riflescope-with-ebr-2c-mrad-reticle One way it was put to me on deciding between Mil vs MOA was "do you think in english or metric measurements?" Mil translates to metric really easily. Moa translates to english measurements more easily. 1moa is about 1" at 100yds. Which means 1moa at 200yds is about 2". If you've got an MOA scope, do a center hold, fire, and see a 4moa drop on bullet impact, you know you can dial 4moa up on your elevation turret. Or change your hold. Same story for Mil. But if you've got a mil-dot reticle with Moa turrets, you're doing math, or just sticking with a holdover. I prefer something with more markings than a pure mil-dot reticle. Also, those little mil-dot footballs cover a lot of target. |
|
1/4 MOA is not .1 mil. These are different systems. Both involve angle, but the milrad system, or mrad, is based on the surveyor's radian unit. It is one yard, 36" at 1,000 yards, or 3.6" at 100 yards, and so forth. MOA may be instinctive, but for many of us the milrad system with its .1 mil clicks, ten per mil, is easier and faster when you are dialing in at distance. Both work. They are not interchangeable and using 1/4 MOA = .1 mil will cause huge misses at longer distances.
Here is some useful information: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2012/04/mil-radian-defined-and-mildot-scope-use-demonstrated/ Until about 4-5 years ago, all of my scopes (I have a bunch) were MOA. Since I got my first MRAD scope and played with it out beyond 300 yards, I've come to the conclusion that I will never own another MOA scope on a rifle that has exposed turrets and ranging reticle. Others will disagree. I'll keep and use the MOA scopes I have, but all new purchases with tactical turrets and reticles will be MRAD. On the subject of scopes the 32mm objective 2.5-10x scope has a certain popularity, mostly because it can be lighter and more compact. But, the difference in low light performance and in ease on your eye (reduced eye strain) is profoundly better by moving up to the more typical 3-9x40mm or 2.5-10x45. This is because of what is called exit pupil. The size of the beam coming out of the back of the eyepiece is optically controlled by the ratio of objective lens size to magnification. It's a pure mathematical equation and a rigid law of optical physics. Take objective lens size and divide it by magnification. 32mm divided by 10x is a 3.2mm exit pupil. That is very tiny. It is smaller than the size of the opening of your own pupil in low light, which is more like 5mm. That means that many of the rods and cone sensors in your eye do not get activated, that causes the image to become dim and to lose its color tending toward browns and yellows. Also, the 3.2mm exit pupil means that eye position is extremely critical and unforgiving, resulting in early fatigue or strain if you stay behind the scope much. If you move your eye even 1.5mm away from exact center of the scope at 10x, you lose the image entirely. It just goes black. I would advocate for a general purpose rifle to be used for distance shooting that you ought to get a scope that will be comfortable and forgiving at its highest magnification if you plan to shoot much. a 3-9x40 mm scope has a 4.4 mm exit pupil. That may not seem like much more, but it is, about 30% greater ability to move and not lose the image. In terms of brightness, the difference is even more profound, as it is the surface area, not mere diameter that determines the amount of light entering the scope. A 40mm objective lens has a surface area of 1256 mm square. A 32mm objective lens, only 804 mm square. If you got up to a 2.5-10x scope you need a 44-45mm objective at 10x to have the equivalent eye box, and a 44mm objective has a huge 1520 mm square surface area. The trade off is size and weight. Larger objective lens are more bulky and can be, but are not always heavier. My Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40mm weighs 15.3 ounces. The Vortex 2.5-10x32, even with its smaller objective weighs almost 19 ounces. You have many excellent choices. Good scopes represent a significant investment. Choose wisely and be well-informed. |
|
Quoted:
1/4 MOA is not .1 mil. These are different systems. Both involve angle, but the milrad system, or mrad, is based on the surveyor's radian unit. It is one yard, 36" at 1,000 yards, or 3.6" at 100 yards, and so forth. MOA may be instinctive, but for many of us the milrad system with its .1 mil clicks, ten per mil, is easier and faster when you are dialing in at distance. Both work. They are not interchangeable and using 1/4 MOA = .1 mil will cause huge misses at longer distances. Here is some useful information: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2012/04/mil-radian-defined-and-mildot-scope-use-demonstrated/ Until about 4-5 years ago, all of my scopes (I have a bunch) were MOA. Since I got my first MRAD scope and played with it out beyond 300 yards, I've come to the conclusion that I will never own another MOA scope on a rifle that has exposed turrets and ranging reticle. Others will disagree. I'll keep and use the MOA scopes I have, but all new purchases with tactical turrets and reticles will be MRAD. On the subject of scopes the 32mm objective 2.5-10x scope has a certain popularity, mostly because it can be lighter and more compact. But, the difference in low light performance and in ease on your eye (reduced eye strain) is profoundly better by moving up to the more typical 3-9x40mm or 2.5-10x45. This is because of what is called exit pupil. The size of the beam coming out of the back of the eyepiece is optically controlled by the ratio of objective lens size to magnification. It's a pure mathematical equation and a rigid law of optical physics. Take objective lens size and divide it by magnification. 32mm divided by 10x is a 3.2mm exit pupil. That is very tiny. It is smaller than the size of the opening of your own pupil in low light, which is more like 5mm. That means that many of the rods and cone sensors in your eye do not get activated, that causes the image to become dim and to lose its color tending toward browns and yellows. Also, the 3.2mm exit pupil means that eye position is extremely critical and unforgiving, resulting in early fatigue or strain if you stay behind the scope much. If you move your eye even 1.5mm away from exact center of the scope at 10x, you lose the image entirely. It just goes black. I would advocate for a general purpose rifle to be used for distance shooting that you ought to get a scope that will be comfortable and forgiving at its highest magnification if you plan to shoot much. a 3-9x40 mm scope has a 4.4 mm exit pupil. That may not seem like much more, but it is, about 30% greater ability to move and not lose the image. In terms of brightness, the difference is even more profound, as it is the surface area, not mere diameter that determines the amount of light entering the scope. A 40mm objective lens has a surface area of 1256 mm square. A 32mm objective lens, only 804 mm square. If you got up to a 2.5-10x scope you need a 44-45mm objective at 10x to have the equivalent eye box, and a 44mm objective has a huge 1520 mm square surface area. The trade off is size and weight. Larger objective lens are more bulky and can be, but are not always heavier. My Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40mm weighs 15.3 ounces. The Vortex 2.5-10x32, even with its smaller objective weighs almost 19 ounces. You have many excellent choices. Good scopes represent a significant investment. Choose wisely and be well-informed. |
|
Quoted:
You offer some more great points, especially why mil would be a better option. It's alot to take in. Right now I see myself as an entry shooter but I don't necessarily want to be buying up scopes here or there due to lack of research or understanding. I definitely get your objective and exit pupil information, so that's another thing to look out for. In your eyes, what would be a great scope to jump into? I see myself coming to enjoy marksman type shooting but would also love the freedom to just knock on some steel as well. I keep coming back to Leupold but...also Trijicon. What exactly do you like about mrad over moa then? Between $800-$1k, I'd be looking at the Vortex PST Gen II and possibly the Burris XTR II. |
|
If you're just starting out, go MILs. MOA is doable, and a fine system, but MILs is so much more intuitive when you get behind the gun.
I just purchased a second ATACR 4-16X42 F1 to go on my RECCE which will be an SPR again one day. It had a 2.5-10, went to a 1-4, going 4-16 because I just like the ATACR so much. Locking elevation turret, capped windage (I hold wind 99.9% of the time), not overly huge (but still pretty big for an AR). I almost went back to the 2.5-10X42, but it spends the majority of the time in the 8-10 range and I always want a little more. Don't think I've ever shot it under 4X, so I went with the bigger scope because it has a definite performance advantage. I shoot MK262 and like to stretch it out. |
| I like the ATACR but that thing is just behind my price range lol. The Vortex looks enticing, will have to do some more research on Burris. FFP seems interesting but we shall see. Lots of good information you can't otherwise find without asking. Just too many options out there as well, haha. |
|
Quoted:
I like the ATACR but that thing is just behind my price range lol. The Vortex looks enticing, will have to do some more research on Burris. FFP seems interesting but we shall see. Lots of good information you can't otherwise find without asking. Just too many options out there as well, haha. |
|
Around $800, it's sort of tough with the features I want but the price that I may not. What could I do without I'd need be, FFP? I stumbled upon a Weaver Tactical 3-15x50 but never heard of them.
http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-tactical-3-15x50-mil-dot-30mm-riflescopes.html?_iv_code=WR-RS-WV50MM-800382 Versus http://www.opticsplanet.com/vortex-viper-pst-gen-ii-3-15x44-riflescope-black.html?_iv_code=VX-RS-VVG244-PST-3158 Does Vortex offer anything new without FFP? |
|
Quoted:
Around $800, it's sort of tough with the features I want but the price that I may not. What could I do without I'd need be, FFP? I stumbled upon a Weaver Tactical 3-15x50 but never heard of them. http://www.opticsplanet.com/weaver-tactical-3-15x50-mil-dot-30mm-riflescopes.html?_iv_code=WR-RS-WV50MM-800382 Versus http://www.opticsplanet.com/vortex-viper-pst-gen-ii-3-15x44-riflescope-black.html?_iv_code=VX-RS-VVG244-PST-3158 Does Vortex offer anything new without FFP? As for Vortex, I'm a little biased as I've owned a few of their products and they've all performed great. It also helps that they have what amounts to a "no questions asked" warranty. Dropped your rifle off the bed of your truck and knocked a turret off the scope? "Sure, we'll send you a new one for free." As for no FFP, they may have something in their lower priced product lines, but most of their scopes (that I have experience with) in the mid-high mag range are going to be FFP. |
|
Quoted:
You offer some more great points, especially why mil would be a better option. It's alot to take in. Right now I see myself as an entry shooter but I don't necessarily want to be buying up scopes here or there due to lack of research or understanding. I definitely get your objective and exit pupil information, so that's another thing to look out for. In your eyes, what would be a great scope to jump into? I see myself coming to enjoy marksman type shooting but would also love the freedom to just knock on some steel as well. I keep coming back to Leupold but...also Trijicon. What exactly do you like about mrad over moa then? For a relatively modest amount of money (under $250) you can get introduced to the MRAD system with a good basic tactical scope. If you like it, you can either keep it as an extra scope or sell that scope on EE and get all or most of your money back while you then invest in an "all the bells and whistles" MRAD scope, or decide you want to stay with MOA. The basic no frills, deal of the century for a mid-powered MRAD scope is here: https://www.natchezss.com/weaver-grand-slam-tactical-rifle-scope-3-10x40mm-mil-dot-reticle-matte-black.html This scope is absolutely stunningly capable. It fights way above its weight class. It is Japanese. Japanese glass, Japanese materials, Japanese construction. Its optical quality is far better than anything I've ever seen in its price range, which has usually been in the $300-$400 range. The mil dot reticle has accurately placed dots one mil apart. The turrets are accurate and repeatable .1 mil clicks which are firm and precise. Construction is very high quality and is plenty rugged for all but full combat duty. Weight is reasonable, at 16.6 ounces. It's limitations are few but worth commenting on: 1. It has a one inch main tube, rather than the 30mm or 34mm main tubes of the high end scopes. The only practical effect is that elevation adjustment range is limited by the small tube. It will get you out to at about 700 yards before the elevation turret runs out of adjustment range. It is not a 1,000 yard scope, but could do it with a sloped base. Contrary to popular myth, scopes with one inch main tubes do not transmit less light than those with 30mm main tubes. This is because the diameter of the image inside the scope is far smaller than the inside diameter of a 1' tube. 30mm and larger tubes only permit more adjustment range for elevation and windage and tend to be a bit sturdier (and heavier) as the tube is usually a bit thicker. 2. It is not illuminated. To learn the MRAD system, illumination is not needed. 3. It is second focal plane rather than first focal plane. This means that the reticle remains the same size as the image is zoomed in and out with magnification change. This can be important with higher powered scopes. The mil dots on the reticle will only be accurate at 10x. But for scopes of this class with 10x or lower power on the high end, you will almost always be using only 10x to take any long shot. None of these things matter for the intended purpose of this scope. I would recommend that if you are considering MRAD, pick up this scope and get a mobile ballistic app like Strelok+ Pro, which I think is less than $15. That app lets you enter the information for your bullet shape, muzzle velocity, altitude and other variables and it will generate a bullet drop hold over and hold off chart in either mils or in MOA, both for bullet drop at yardage and also for the effect of wind. It will also show you for that particular load, a "through the scope" view for the yardage (or meters, your choice) for every mark on the reticle. This is an inexpensive way to see if MRAD is to your liking. This is the scope I bought about 5 years ago on recommendation of many members here, to see if I wanted to make the switch. I initially mounted it on a 1,000 yard capable Sako custom 6mm bolt gun with match barrel, since I knew how accurate that rifle was. That let me assess the optical qualities at distance and evaluate whether the reticle and turrets were accurate. I was not expecting it to be so good. It is, and it is still on that rifle. It is now in in a sloped base ring combo to compensate for the more modest adjustment range. For that kind of shooting I do not need illumination. You'd be surprised how well you can do with 10x at longer range if the glass is good. Consider giving this a try. You can QD mount it and swap with something else. At the $800-$1,000 price point you have a lot of options, but that is a lot of money to spend if you make the wrong choice. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DMR / SPR / Recce Setup (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor