AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/30/2010 12:28:55 AM EDT
| getting tax refund and i need a scope , so what makes a luepold or night force cost 5x what a bushnell costs? not shit talking i really dont know. what is a first focal plane? and will a bushnell trophy handle 308 recoil without changing zero? can it stand a little abuse? i want to get the best bang for my buck but i dont want to cheap out and get a scope than wouldnt be suited for the platform im putting it on. alls i have is eotechs with magnifiers. only scopes i have are cheapos on my 22's. please educate me. thanx in advance. |
| leupy's for warranty and decent glass. not sure about night force but ive heard there good not sure about warranty. trophy prob wont hold zero very well but then again i had a bushnell sportview on mine for a while and it held up. (till i could afford a good scope) |
|
I have a Bushnell 4200 4-16x on mine, and I've been pleased with it. Paid about $400 out the door for it. It's the older style with the adjustable objective, not the newer side focus model. I'm sure that the optical clarity won't compare to a Leupold or Nightforce costing more than twice the price, but I think it's a reasonable balance between cost and function. I have a BSA 4-16x on another AR target gun, and while it serves a function, it's nowhere near the optical clarity of the Bushnell. That said, the price was nowhere near the Bushnell, either––I gave $60 for it used. To compare, I can see stuff better at 10x with the Bushnell than I can with the BSA at 16x. So far both scopes are holding up fine, but neither really has a rough life, suffering only the occasional bump when pulled out of the trunk of the car to walk to the shooting line.
I guess it boils down to how much quality you can afford. For some, it's no problem to drop $1K or more on a scope. I'd be hard pressed to spend that much on a scope and feel like I'm really getting my money's worth. Sure, the optics would be nice and the reliability would surely eclipse my cheap $60 BSA, but for the type of shooting I do, it's overkill. I'd much rather spend $500 on a scope and another $500 on ammo. If I were you, I'd decide how much I wanted to spend on a scope and take that money with me to the gun show or the gun store that carries a decent selection of glass, look through several brands, and see which one you like the best at the price point you chose. Long as you stick to the major brands––Leupold, Nikon, Bushnell, etc––you should get what you pay for. |
| I'm no scope expert but I will tell you what I know. FFP basically means that when adjusting magnfication the crosshairs adjust with you, so as you go up in magnfication the crosshairs get bigger. This makes the scope more accurate in some respects ie changing magnfication and zero. I don't know if I'm really explaining it right. I will tell you this I am getting one of the Vortex FFP s 4-16x50 scopes that are coming out in May/June. They sound like a good deal for a FFP scope and from what I have read about them to be good, although they are not on the market yet so I am taking a chance. Just google FFP and you will find lots of info about the advantages and disagvantages of a FFP scope. I was going to get a Busnell 6500 scope until I found this one. |
| yep on the left side its a parallax adjustment mostly used on target scopes for using above 10x from what ive read. They said that the parallax is not necessary for hunting application because its so little of a difference, so depending if u want to do some target shooting or not. |
| I paid big money for a NightForce NXS 5.5-22x56mm NP-R1 and then some more big money on a LaRue QT-107 (30 MOA incline) quick disconnect mounting system. Now I can leverage those high costs by using the same scope and mount on any rifle with a flat (0 MOA) Picatinny rail. I use the same scope on my LR-308, an FNH .308 tactical bolt-action, and my BA-50 BMG. One scope, three guns. All I do is keep track of the turret adjustments between guns and can return it to near zero between any of the guns. A couple of shots to put it back on target and I'm ready for an afternoon of shooting. So to me, it was worth paying 4 or 5 times what a run-of-the-mill scope would costs because I now have an excellent scope for multiple rifles. |
| if you want the best IMO............ Schmidt & Bender ........ but you gonna pay alot more......I recently bought a Nikon Monarch X mildot .... got a good deal for $650 very cool and tactical looking ........ for a new build ..... I have several Nikon Monarchs so I know they'll handle what ever job you need from them. I have a buddie you has a couple of the bushnell 4200...... they have some really clear glass in them... Nice scopes IMO... There is a reason why Leupold , Nightforce , Schmidt & Bender are so much more money ....... They are scopes that will last your grandchildrens lifetime. |
|
Lot of misconceptions on here about what parallax adjustment is and what it does.
I never used to believe that some glass was worth 3-5 times as much as others until I bought my Leupold Mark 4 scope. Now I see the difference. The clarity, especially in low light is literally like night and day difference. I'm sold now. |
|
For my $0.02, some depends on what max magnification you are looking for and how far you plan on shooting. The Mark 4 and Nighforce have top quality lens coatings, which you miss when you go to high magnificaiton in less than perfect lighting situaitons. They also have a lot of MOA verticale travel for those who want to shoot beyond 600 yards (most scopes will get you that far altough some need a +20 MOA base to do it, depends on scope and load. Then there is always the cool factor. I had an NXS which was very cool, but gave it up for the BR with 1/8 MOA clicks for F Class. I need to buy a scope for my new 300 RUM and I am frankly looking for the tactical turrets just because I like the way they look. I won't buy now as I am currently unemployed, but when that is resoved I will choose between Millet LRS, Sightron SIII fixed 20X tactical, Vortex PST 6-24-50. If I didn't care about tactical turrets I would get a Sightron SIII 8-32 in a heartbeat.
I have a Nightforce 12-42 BR on my GAP 308. I can tell you that I now think anything over 32x is a waste of time as I rarely have conditions where mirage will not prevent it's use. Since I do shoot long range I really like a very fine crosshair. Easier to get when you have second focal plane scopes like my BR, FFP scopes reticles can cover a lot of area at long distance and high magnification (depends on scope, that is why IOR came out with thier new MP-8 with the center dot). For my LR308 I bought a Leupold Mark 4 1.5-5. Built like a tank, great reticle and good at close range and low X's. But I am so accustomed to higher power scopes I regularly find myself switching it with something with more X's like Simmons Whitetail Classic 20x. Very good glass, adjustable objective, but only 1" tube, no side focus and reticle is very thick for my preference. Nothing comes close for me in it's price range though. There may be a Super Sniper 3-9x in this gun's future. If I wasn't looking for the military level of durability, and didn't need very high MOA adjustability I would be looking hard at Mueller. Prices are crazy low. 8-32 has tactical turrets and side focus. 4-14 is 30mm and has tactical turrets. No shortage of choices means I always see something else I might like better, but it can get expensive fast. But lots cheaper than the same problem with wives! |
| haha.. i had no idea they had a second focal planes available. i wonder wat that looks like. also wat does a 20 moa base do? does it give you a 20 in high point of impact with no scope ajustment? its built in the base? so i understand now that a first focal plane magnifies your retical in conjuntion with the zoom on your scope to make milling more accurate correct? so how does a second focal plane work? at this point i prolly belong in the optics forum but you guys have giving me great responses. thanks to all |
|
Just a few more thoughts on this, but clarity is really difficult to grasp until you see it with your own eyes. I'd highly recommend going down to your local sporting goods store and looking through the various scopes. For example, with my Nikon Buckmaster 4.5x-16x, on the lowest power setting (4.5x), I can see the target more clearly than my $120 NcStar at 9x and it almost appears like the 4.5 is a higher magnification.
Secondly, I always like the look of mil-dots, but you really have to be careful since they can be too thick and obscure your view of what you are aiming at. The duplex reticle, where the aiming crosshairs are much finer, are extremely helpful in accurately acquiring the target even at low magnifications at longer distances. As far as reliability, I've managed to drop my Nikon from chest height (by accident) with no effect. Just my $0.02, but I think once you begin getting above the $500 range, the differences become less and less discernible (read: your bang for the buck goes down). But, I've also come to learn that if you are shooting at long range, clarity is king and that's where the money might start becoming worth it. |
|
For my 308, I was going to get either a Mark 4 4.5-14 or NF 3.5-15. I went with the NF primarily because of the turrets and
durability. I could have saved a couple hudred dollars by going with the Leupold, but I wanted to see how NF compares to my other Leupolds (V-XIII and Vari-X III models). If an illuminated reticle isn't required, you can save more $$ by going with Leupold. All NF long range scopes are illuminated. Grizz |
| I've never used a Nightforce scope before so I can't comment on them but I have a Leupold Mark IV, 4.5-14 x 50 and it is excellent and built like a tank. I went with the standard duplex crosshairs. I am currently working up a pet load, then I will order the BDC turrets based on the load that it likes. |
| thats what i kinda figured with bang for you buck, as in the difference will be way greater from a 200 to 700 dollar scope than from a 700 to a 1200 scope. so you guys think a thin retical is more effective than say the quickness of milling? i can see your point though, if you cant see your target it makes it hard to hit it. any comment on second focal plane? im pretty sure i get the first focal plane from the explinations i have gotten. and was i correct on the base thing? i assume thats only used for very long range set ups or where your bullet has a ton of drop.. |
|
Quoted:
thats what i kinda figured with bang for you buck, as in the difference will be way greater from a 200 to 700 dollar scope than from a 700 to a 1200 scope. so you guys think a thin retical is more effective than say the quickness of milling? i can see your point though, if you cant see your target it makes it hard to hit it. any comment on second focal plane? im pretty sure i get the first focal plane from the explinations i have gotten. and was i correct on the base thing? i assume thats only used for very long range set ups or where your bullet has a ton of drop.. I can't comment on the point of diminishing returns but to your other questions a thin reticle will allow you to see more of your target at long ranges so unless you are really good and fast at milling, I would say pass on the Mil-Dot reticle. That's what laser range finders and BDC turrents are for. As to the canted base yes, my understanding is that the have a can't front to back that dupes adjustment. For example if you zero at 100 yards with a standard base, you *should* be somewhere in the middle of the range of adjustment in the scope. So if your scope has 50 MOA of adjustment you would have +25 and -25 MOA of adjustment. With one of the canted bases, at 100 yards you may be in the lower portion of the adjustment range and have more + MOA adjustment. And yes, that is typically for really long range shooting. Most "tactical" scopes will have a very generous range of adjustment, the Mark 4 that I have has 100 MOA of adjustment. Most scopes are also second focal plane, 1st focal plane optics are less popular and quite a bit more expensive. For me, it wasn't worth the extra $$. |
|
Regarding FFP vs. SFP, the higher the overall power multiplier (4-16 has a 4 multiplier 3-15 has a 5 multiplier), the harder the reticle will be to see on the lowest power in FFP. The SFP stays the same thickness to your eye as the view size increases or decreases, but only is true on a set power like 10 or max.
Regarding the scope to buy, the most important thing to ask is "what am I going to do with the rifle?" If you are doing long range, the money does go a long way. If you are only shooting within 100 yards at large objects, then a BSA or Simmons will work. The money that you are investing is about tracking, repeatability and clarity. Can you get a good scope for $300? Yes. Can you easily use it to the maximum range of the rifle's capability. Probably not (the Super Sniper being a noted exception). Personally I own a Nightforce 3.5-15x50 and an IOR 3-18x42 for my long range .308 AR and .260 AR respectively. You won't understand where the extra money goes until you actually get to use a higher quality optic. But the first thing you need before using it is an accurate ballistics chart for your rifle. Regarding clarity, I can see better on 10 power with my good glass than I can on 15+ power with the sub $200 scopes. The bullet holes are clear and crisp with good glass, rather than dark, hazy and blurred on higher power. I rarely put my good glass above 12 power unless I am using the reticle to range or compensate. Higher magnification should come second to clarity as really high magnification has serious issues when tracking or finding a target especially in hot conditions with mirage. Leupy fans lump their scopes in the same group as Nightforce, but other than durability and relative clarity it doesn't compare with features IMO. A .308 requires 40 MOA of travel for a 168 grain bullet to get to 1000 yards. A Nightforce has 100-110 MOA of internal travel. Theoretically your zero should be towards the center of the scopes adjustment so you have to cut the total travel in half. This leaves 50 MOA+ of adjustment, which should get you out past 1000 yards. Comparable Leupold Mark IV's typically have 60-80 MOA of travel, which may not get your bullet out to 1000 yards. You need a canted base to use the scopes turrets if it lacks the internal travel - my IOR does and I have to have a 20 MOA base. Additionally the springs that adjust elevation are typically steel which fatigues easily and eventually wears out. If you track on a Leupold, they teach you to track 10 MOA above your target and then adjust back down 10 MOA because the springs will stick (until the recoil kicks it up) and not adjust as the scope ages. Nightforce uses titanium springs that have an indefinite spring life with no theoretical wear out. Additionally NF offers reticles that match the knobs. You can get Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA so if you see your bullet splash 4 MOA right and 2 MOA low, you adjust your knobs 4 MOA left and 2 MOA up, instead of getting out your mil dot master to do the conversion. Leupold typically only offers MOA knobs and Mil reticles. Repeatability is the ability to go from 100 yard zero to 800 yards, and back to the 100 yard zero without being two or three inches off when the knob returns. Most higher end tactical scopes over $700 will provide consistent tracking. 1/4 MOA and 1/4" clicks are not the same thing at 800 yards. You only buy a good scope once. Versus the cost of ammo, barrels, gas and other components, a good scope will outlast the rifle you put it on! A Nightforce is worth every penny I paid and I wish I didn't nickel and dime all the cheaper crap that I purchase before finally buying what I really wanted. |
| S&B and USO are my favorites. I have a USO that I ordered a long time ago finally coming in, so long ago I forgot I ordered it. But if you're willing to pay the cash those two brands are hard to beat in quality of the build and glass. S&B is coming out with a new model soon for the PMII, I would wait for that if going with S&B. IT really sucks waiting for USO to make a scope so if you can buy one already made it will save you some frustration. If you look through either of these scopes then look through and handle a lower tier the difference is obvious, even to someone who is not an expert in scopes. |
|
I am using a Horus Hawk on my RR .308.
3-12x50mm, FFP, excellent glass, holdover style reticle (some say it's too busy, but I love it - no dialing), and at $450, it didn't break the bank. I've rang steel out to 400yd with ease, and if I find some place to shoot further, I imagine it would be just as easy at further distances. The software has been dead on so far. |
|
I've been thinking about doing an EBR M-14 build and if that happens I'll probably be looking at the 4-16x Vortex Viper PST. Illuminated, Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA, FFP is an option, and it has a greater adjustment (and magnification) range, and is cheaper, than the closest comperable Leupold MK4.
Leupolds are nice enough scopes but they've gotten lazy off government contracts. Their competitors are hungry and willing to evolve and improve. |
| been away from computer camping for a few days but thank you to all for your detailed responses, so let me clairify... ffp is actually not worth it? and i would really enjoy the vertical adjustment that night force offers. im mounting on a 308 and would like ability to reach out to rounds potential so the extra adjustment will come in handy. although its hard to find a range that long here. 350yd is best i can find so far. |
AR Sponsor