-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Need help with picking a scope....
- Thread starter Hindsight
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,405
I am in the earlier stages of precision shooting with a 308 AR. I am finding all kinds of bad habits that didn't plague me when shooting bolt guns. Consistent cheek weld, grip, trigger, follow through, and a mil-mil scope are all helping, not to mention ammo.
I have a Vortex viper 2.5-10x40 that is adequate, but the lack of paralax adjustment has me now buying a Vortex Razor, which will also be higher magnification than I have ever had, at 5-20. Perhaps if I had better skills I wouldn't miss that adjustment, but if I move my head side-to-side at 300yards, the poa changes about 1.5-2 inches.
At 100 yards this isn't an issue, but beyond that it increases with distance, in my observation.
I had a S & B PM fixed 10x, and it was a great optic, very clear and easy to see small objects at 300y, but it wasn't a milradian reticle or adjustments, so I traded it away.
I have a Vortex viper 2.5-10x40 that is adequate, but the lack of paralax adjustment has me now buying a Vortex Razor, which will also be higher magnification than I have ever had, at 5-20. Perhaps if I had better skills I wouldn't miss that adjustment, but if I move my head side-to-side at 300yards, the poa changes about 1.5-2 inches.
At 100 yards this isn't an issue, but beyond that it increases with distance, in my observation.
I had a S & B PM fixed 10x, and it was a great optic, very clear and easy to see small objects at 300y, but it wasn't a milradian reticle or adjustments, so I traded it away.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,984
A budget range for the scope would help with recommending something ... are you willing to pay as much as the cost of the rifle ? Or the cost of the 6.8 upper ? Or less ?
Generic "help" probably falls into "magnification" and "features" useful for the scope. Also "general knowledge" on scope "language" ... as it is hard to figure what you know or don't know but I note you say you are just getting into long range shooting so I will plum for you benefitting from some of what I say ... but if it is already "known" information ... my apologies.
A Woodchuck at 300 yards is likely to be a 2 Minute of Angle ( MOA ) target width wise if on all 4 feet and 1 MOA if on it's back feet or if facing you ... and a MOA is 1 inch at 100 yards ( roughly ) and three inches at 300 yards. So 6 inches to 3 inches and more likely the 3 inches if you are going to kill it humanely.
How "tight" you need to shoot IMO determines the click value for your scope. Mention has been made of military scopes clicking in Mils. A Mil is 1 centremetre at 100 metres or approx 1/3 MOA at 100 yards. So basically 1 inch at 300 yards. Minute of Angle scopes usually click in 1/4 MOA which is .75 inches at 300 yards. Both scopes therefore enable you to dial in an accurate cross hair aiming point for the target at this range.
Most Mil scopes come with a Mil Dot reticle. The reticle is used to assist in ranging distance, usually for man sized targets not varmints. It can also be used to judge lead adjustment for moving targets and can be used to assist in altering adjustment when seeing "bullet splash". The distance between the dots on a Mil Dot reticle is 3.6 MOA at 100 yards or 3.6 inches and 10 cm at 100 metres. At 300 yards the dot distance is 10.8 inches apart, so could be useful for seeing bullet splash and correcting your aim by altering the cross hairs or aiming off. You can however get reticles which are designed to work with MOA spacings, particularly on the more expensive range of scopes, and these would give a more precise ranging ability if forinstnces the hash marks were 1 MOA apart or 3 inches at 300 yards.
This information is based on you potentially wanting to choose a scope which has some reticle benefits or "functions". Some shooters prefer this. Others are happy with a simple cross hair which has no function other than "point of aim".
The next thing to consider is how thick the reticle should be. For Groundhogs you want a fairly fine reticle otherwise there runs the risk of obscuring the target at higher magnification if the scope you buy has a reticle in the First Focal Plane. These scopes make the reticle thicker as you zoom to higher powers but the distance between the markings on the reticle, such as Mil Dots , remain the same. A Second Focal Plane reticle remains the same size at all powers but if it has markings on the reticle these will alter in distance according to the power changes on the scope. You effectively get a "ranging" power on magnification and can work at that power or if doubling the power you half the distance.
As has already been said, if you go for a Mil Dot reticle you may as well go for a scope that clicks in Mils. Sub dividing by 10 the distance between the dots is then nice and easy. If you go for a MOA click then think of a MOA reticle. Focal plane wise, if going for a reticle which has measurement markings go for a first focal plane scope as the markings then work easy at any power. Just be sure to get a "fine" reticle for your intended tasks. S&B scopes offer "fine" reticles and bear this in mind if there is a choice. A second focal plane scope can work well but you need to be good with your "maths" and this can be confusing if shooting under pressure.
If you don't like markings on the reticle then a second focal plane reticle is the perfect choice.
On the design of the scope the main thing to consider is whether you want target turrets which enable you to dial in corrective changes without the need of a coin or screw driver such as needed on hunting turrets. For Woodchuck's at 300 yards and a desire to go out to 600 yards I definately would recommend target turrets.
Then there is paralax alteration which can be done on the objective lens at the front of the scope or by a third knob on the turret housing. The later is much easier to use, especially if the scope has a long body.
On "magnification power" ... you can see bullet splash from most mild recoiling rifles at 300 yards up to 20x possibly 25x depending upon your field of view. You can also shoot more accurately on higher power and this assists you for reading the mirage in order to dope the wind when shooting at longer ranges.
The size of the scope and the asthetics of balancing scope size to rifle size is up to you. Low profile scopes if they don't have the features you want are'nt a consideration but if they do have the features then that is a plus point as the weapon is more balanced. Some scopes are heavy and can give the rifle a "top heavy" feel to it.
One handy thing to consider is the internal movement of the scope if you want to go out to 600 yards later on. Plus the magnification needed for this distance in terms of what you want to do at 600 yards. I would try and go for a scope that offers a power range at the upper level of between 15x and 25x. If you want to use the AR15 for it's usual use such as in a tactical comp then you will want a wide field of view at lower power. So 4x to 5x maximum.
The best scope for your use, which is also perhaps one of the most expensive, is the MarchF 3-24 X 42 in Mil Radian clicks in the first focal plane. Expect to pay the cost of the rifle or more but it is a very compact scope with the highest technical build of any scope in terms of zoom range and precision movement.
Generic "help" probably falls into "magnification" and "features" useful for the scope. Also "general knowledge" on scope "language" ... as it is hard to figure what you know or don't know but I note you say you are just getting into long range shooting so I will plum for you benefitting from some of what I say ... but if it is already "known" information ... my apologies.
A Woodchuck at 300 yards is likely to be a 2 Minute of Angle ( MOA ) target width wise if on all 4 feet and 1 MOA if on it's back feet or if facing you ... and a MOA is 1 inch at 100 yards ( roughly ) and three inches at 300 yards. So 6 inches to 3 inches and more likely the 3 inches if you are going to kill it humanely.
How "tight" you need to shoot IMO determines the click value for your scope. Mention has been made of military scopes clicking in Mils. A Mil is 1 centremetre at 100 metres or approx 1/3 MOA at 100 yards. So basically 1 inch at 300 yards. Minute of Angle scopes usually click in 1/4 MOA which is .75 inches at 300 yards. Both scopes therefore enable you to dial in an accurate cross hair aiming point for the target at this range.
Most Mil scopes come with a Mil Dot reticle. The reticle is used to assist in ranging distance, usually for man sized targets not varmints. It can also be used to judge lead adjustment for moving targets and can be used to assist in altering adjustment when seeing "bullet splash". The distance between the dots on a Mil Dot reticle is 3.6 MOA at 100 yards or 3.6 inches and 10 cm at 100 metres. At 300 yards the dot distance is 10.8 inches apart, so could be useful for seeing bullet splash and correcting your aim by altering the cross hairs or aiming off. You can however get reticles which are designed to work with MOA spacings, particularly on the more expensive range of scopes, and these would give a more precise ranging ability if forinstnces the hash marks were 1 MOA apart or 3 inches at 300 yards.
This information is based on you potentially wanting to choose a scope which has some reticle benefits or "functions". Some shooters prefer this. Others are happy with a simple cross hair which has no function other than "point of aim".
The next thing to consider is how thick the reticle should be. For Groundhogs you want a fairly fine reticle otherwise there runs the risk of obscuring the target at higher magnification if the scope you buy has a reticle in the First Focal Plane. These scopes make the reticle thicker as you zoom to higher powers but the distance between the markings on the reticle, such as Mil Dots , remain the same. A Second Focal Plane reticle remains the same size at all powers but if it has markings on the reticle these will alter in distance according to the power changes on the scope. You effectively get a "ranging" power on magnification and can work at that power or if doubling the power you half the distance.
As has already been said, if you go for a Mil Dot reticle you may as well go for a scope that clicks in Mils. Sub dividing by 10 the distance between the dots is then nice and easy. If you go for a MOA click then think of a MOA reticle. Focal plane wise, if going for a reticle which has measurement markings go for a first focal plane scope as the markings then work easy at any power. Just be sure to get a "fine" reticle for your intended tasks. S&B scopes offer "fine" reticles and bear this in mind if there is a choice. A second focal plane scope can work well but you need to be good with your "maths" and this can be confusing if shooting under pressure.
If you don't like markings on the reticle then a second focal plane reticle is the perfect choice.
On the design of the scope the main thing to consider is whether you want target turrets which enable you to dial in corrective changes without the need of a coin or screw driver such as needed on hunting turrets. For Woodchuck's at 300 yards and a desire to go out to 600 yards I definately would recommend target turrets.
Then there is paralax alteration which can be done on the objective lens at the front of the scope or by a third knob on the turret housing. The later is much easier to use, especially if the scope has a long body.
On "magnification power" ... you can see bullet splash from most mild recoiling rifles at 300 yards up to 20x possibly 25x depending upon your field of view. You can also shoot more accurately on higher power and this assists you for reading the mirage in order to dope the wind when shooting at longer ranges.
The size of the scope and the asthetics of balancing scope size to rifle size is up to you. Low profile scopes if they don't have the features you want are'nt a consideration but if they do have the features then that is a plus point as the weapon is more balanced. Some scopes are heavy and can give the rifle a "top heavy" feel to it.
One handy thing to consider is the internal movement of the scope if you want to go out to 600 yards later on. Plus the magnification needed for this distance in terms of what you want to do at 600 yards. I would try and go for a scope that offers a power range at the upper level of between 15x and 25x. If you want to use the AR15 for it's usual use such as in a tactical comp then you will want a wide field of view at lower power. So 4x to 5x maximum.
The best scope for your use, which is also perhaps one of the most expensive, is the MarchF 3-24 X 42 in Mil Radian clicks in the first focal plane. Expect to pay the cost of the rifle or more but it is a very compact scope with the highest technical build of any scope in terms of zoom range and precision movement.
Hindsight
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 5,350
So much information, so little time. lol Lets just say I am used to shooting a shot gun with iorn sights.
I would like to keep the cost under $1000.00 but could push that out to $1500.00. I am just getting into the long range stuff. I am used to shots under 150 yards, so my sweet center point scopes have worked just fine.
If you have any book recomendations for learning about bullet drop, windage and other things that come into play at longer ranges that would also be a huge help. I know alot of these factors depend on bullet wieght, powder, angle of the sun, the coriolis effect (thats for you Jerry and Doug) etc..... I am loving all the information. I have actually printed off alot of these posts so I can study them. You guys are awesome.
I would like to keep the cost under $1000.00 but could push that out to $1500.00. I am just getting into the long range stuff. I am used to shots under 150 yards, so my sweet center point scopes have worked just fine.
If you have any book recomendations for learning about bullet drop, windage and other things that come into play at longer ranges that would also be a huge help. I know alot of these factors depend on bullet wieght, powder, angle of the sun, the coriolis effect (thats for you Jerry and Doug) etc..... I am loving all the information. I have actually printed off alot of these posts so I can study them. You guys are awesome.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,405
the "shooter" app for android has been very helpful for me when determining bullet drop and windage. $9.99
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,505
Keep in mind hindsight. some of these guys are used to shooting at targets that shoot back.
Hindsight
Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 5,350
I never even thought of checking for an app. Thanks
gotta love technology
Keep in mind hindsight. some of these guys are used to shooting at targets that shoot back.
That is exactly why I asked the question here. I figured those guys would have practied enough to know what the best is. There life depends on being the best.
A big THANK YOU to all of those who put there life on the line, so we can have the freedom to do what we want.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,984
For books which help you understand scopes, bullet drop, windage correction and long range shooting there are a few good ones - the best is probably "Ultimate Sniper" by Maj John Plaster available through Paladin Press. For shooting long range in a civilian sport such as F Class ( long range target shooting with scopes ) there is a good book on wind reading using range flags and has good information on reading mirage called "The Wind Book for Rifle Shooters" by Linda Miller and Keith Cunningham. This is also through Paladin Press.
Shooter is an excellent ballistic calculator for field use. You might also want to consider some form of windmeter if shooting in the field to use with it. Kestrel make the best. A laser range finder is also a valuable bit of kit. You have dedicated range finders usually working on 6x-7x with a mono eye piece and you have laser range finders built into good top end bino's. Zeiss did do a telescopic sight with one built in but it is expensive and IMO not the best solution. You don't want to be pointing your rifle every where to look for quarry. I definately recommend the use of bino's to look for quarry and avoid monocular eye strain from using a scope or a dedicated range finder. Use these for ranging once the target is acquired. All these bits of kit though are another area of high expense. The cheapest is probably the app for Shooter and then the windmeter and should be the first buy. The laser range finders are costly. Good value ones for up to 1000 yards though are available.
You can do a lot though with a ranging reticle, especially out to 600 yards. If you determine which power on the scope you prefer to range at ( lower power if hand held - higher power if prone or off a rest ) then placing pegs at the hieght of a Woodchuck at 100 yard increments ... you can see how high they look in the scope from the the cross hair
placed at the top of the peg and using the mil dots or hash marks below the cross hair in the scope to get a good indication of range (with practise). The higher the magnification the more precise you can be in a first focal plane scope or in second focal plane you need to range on the ranging power for the reticle. Usually though this is a high power. If not then just remeber that you can double the power and half the distance ... so two mil dots will represent "a mil" and one dot half a mil.
There is nothing wrong with starting to learn ranging skills by using the scope rather than being reliant upon electronic aids. The same is true for assessing the wind. Picking up a hand of dust or some blades of grass and just throwing them into the air gives a good "tell" for direction and strength. Chalk powder or talc in a small squeeze bottle like an old lemon jiff dispenser also works well by simply squeezing a dust cloud and seeing how it moves. Mirage is another. If wanting to know 100 yard increments for placing 7 inch pegs to practise ranging ... measure 100 yards in your car and walk the distance counting your paces with your usual normal steps. This once remembered is then easy to pace out. We used to use beads on a string to count off every 100 yards when doing much longer distances. If your pratise area has man made objects in the area you can measure off distance from them either by way of how they are placed or by knowing the height of them and using the reticle.Telegraph poles are usually regularly spaced and so are fence posts. Measure the distance and just multiply. Pylons are also the same. There are a lot of easy skills which can help judge distance in the field. Known height of objects such as five bar gates and fence posts using the reticle also works to judge distance with the scope or the height of your truck/car. Plaster's book will tell you how to do the maths.
Let me check out scopes in your price range and I will come back to you on this.
Shooter is an excellent ballistic calculator for field use. You might also want to consider some form of windmeter if shooting in the field to use with it. Kestrel make the best. A laser range finder is also a valuable bit of kit. You have dedicated range finders usually working on 6x-7x with a mono eye piece and you have laser range finders built into good top end bino's. Zeiss did do a telescopic sight with one built in but it is expensive and IMO not the best solution. You don't want to be pointing your rifle every where to look for quarry. I definately recommend the use of bino's to look for quarry and avoid monocular eye strain from using a scope or a dedicated range finder. Use these for ranging once the target is acquired. All these bits of kit though are another area of high expense. The cheapest is probably the app for Shooter and then the windmeter and should be the first buy. The laser range finders are costly. Good value ones for up to 1000 yards though are available.
You can do a lot though with a ranging reticle, especially out to 600 yards. If you determine which power on the scope you prefer to range at ( lower power if hand held - higher power if prone or off a rest ) then placing pegs at the hieght of a Woodchuck at 100 yard increments ... you can see how high they look in the scope from the the cross hair
placed at the top of the peg and using the mil dots or hash marks below the cross hair in the scope to get a good indication of range (with practise). The higher the magnification the more precise you can be in a first focal plane scope or in second focal plane you need to range on the ranging power for the reticle. Usually though this is a high power. If not then just remeber that you can double the power and half the distance ... so two mil dots will represent "a mil" and one dot half a mil.
There is nothing wrong with starting to learn ranging skills by using the scope rather than being reliant upon electronic aids. The same is true for assessing the wind. Picking up a hand of dust or some blades of grass and just throwing them into the air gives a good "tell" for direction and strength. Chalk powder or talc in a small squeeze bottle like an old lemon jiff dispenser also works well by simply squeezing a dust cloud and seeing how it moves. Mirage is another. If wanting to know 100 yard increments for placing 7 inch pegs to practise ranging ... measure 100 yards in your car and walk the distance counting your paces with your usual normal steps. This once remembered is then easy to pace out. We used to use beads on a string to count off every 100 yards when doing much longer distances. If your pratise area has man made objects in the area you can measure off distance from them either by way of how they are placed or by knowing the height of them and using the reticle.Telegraph poles are usually regularly spaced and so are fence posts. Measure the distance and just multiply. Pylons are also the same. There are a lot of easy skills which can help judge distance in the field. Known height of objects such as five bar gates and fence posts using the reticle also works to judge distance with the scope or the height of your truck/car. Plaster's book will tell you how to do the maths.
Let me check out scopes in your price range and I will come back to you on this.
Last edited:
Yeah, once you make it past 400 yards or so, especially in field conditions where the range to the target is unknown, it really helps to have software. I use Shooter as well. Used to use Nightforce (same as Exbal,) on a pocket PC, but prefer Shooter, the biggest reason being that it is not a separate piece of hardware, and the battery isn't running dead in my drag bag.
I also use a Kestrel 4500nv for wind and density altitude, and a Swarovski rangefinder, though I am going to be upgrading it to a Vectronix at some point soon.
Be warned, this sport is even more addictive than knives and much more expensive. Between everything I keep in my drag bag, I have about $15,000 wrapped up.
I also use a Kestrel 4500nv for wind and density altitude, and a Swarovski rangefinder, though I am going to be upgrading it to a Vectronix at some point soon.
Be warned, this sport is even more addictive than knives and much more expensive. Between everything I keep in my drag bag, I have about $15,000 wrapped up.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,984
Well I have done some searching around on prices for scopes and there is a scope which just stands out for me ... but it is at the top end of your price range ( $1599 was the price I saw but you may get it slightly cheaper if you shop around ). This scope is a "legend" among professional users and is still the scope which provides the most internal elevation to-date, 140 MOA elevation and 45 MOA windage. It has been used since the early 1990's on everything from .223 to .50 cal's and is still in use today for .50 cal 2000+ yard engagements in S'tan. It is'nt what I had originally thought of as it is not a zoom powered scope but at 16x magnification it is able to cope with close work and extreme distance and has exceptional glass for a 40mm objective tube. The scope is the Leupold Mk IV 16 x 40 M1 which comes with a standard Mil Dot reticle so you can range with it and has side turret paralax and .25 MOA clicks.
The clicks are the only issue here as you need to remember that if using the scope dots to help with bullet splash and correcting aim there are 3.6 MOA between the dots ... so 14 clicks dot to dot as an approximate guide ( 3.5 MOA ). This will work fine for up to 600 yards. It is'nt as easy as subdividing the dots into 10th mil clicks mentally and that is why Mil clicks are usually recommended but at 14 clicks the scope does offer a bit more precision and thinking in 7 clicks for a half mil and 14 for a mil is not too hard.
The scope does'nt have an illuminated reticle so the reticle thickness is a little more than the fine thickness on some scopes but is a nice compromise between low light visibility for the reticle and still having a fine enough cross hair to shoot with extreme precision for point of aim acquisition.
These scopes are not too big either with a 40mm objective and would offer a nice low profile for an AR15 mount. They also will retain their second hand value far better than anything else in that price range as they are still "top of their game" for extreme long range internal movement.
They rank up there with the Nightforce 5-22 x 56 NXS and the S&B 5-25 x 56 PMII as the most popular issued scopes in military circles for long range work.
They also are the scope that Plaster bases his teaching on in his book and are an ideal platform to learn from.
The clicks are the only issue here as you need to remember that if using the scope dots to help with bullet splash and correcting aim there are 3.6 MOA between the dots ... so 14 clicks dot to dot as an approximate guide ( 3.5 MOA ). This will work fine for up to 600 yards. It is'nt as easy as subdividing the dots into 10th mil clicks mentally and that is why Mil clicks are usually recommended but at 14 clicks the scope does offer a bit more precision and thinking in 7 clicks for a half mil and 14 for a mil is not too hard.
The scope does'nt have an illuminated reticle so the reticle thickness is a little more than the fine thickness on some scopes but is a nice compromise between low light visibility for the reticle and still having a fine enough cross hair to shoot with extreme precision for point of aim acquisition.
These scopes are not too big either with a 40mm objective and would offer a nice low profile for an AR15 mount. They also will retain their second hand value far better than anything else in that price range as they are still "top of their game" for extreme long range internal movement.
They rank up there with the Nightforce 5-22 x 56 NXS and the S&B 5-25 x 56 PMII as the most popular issued scopes in military circles for long range work.
They also are the scope that Plaster bases his teaching on in his book and are an ideal platform to learn from.
Last edited:
No offense Peter, but Leupold MkIV's are crap. Overpriced as can be for the features offered, and many times they are defective out of the box. You should be able to find a Nightforce 5.5-22x56 for that price (not advertised, as that would violate MAPP.) I recommend learning on a mil reticle with mil knobs, and I recommend against a 16x fixed optic because they are useless for any sort of positional shooting.
There are threads upon threads at Sniperhide.com chronicaling Leupolds with canted reticles, knobs that don't track, etc etc. Then the fact that the price is crazy for the features...
Friends don't let friends buy Leupold.
There are threads upon threads at Sniperhide.com chronicaling Leupolds with canted reticles, knobs that don't track, etc etc. Then the fact that the price is crazy for the features...
Friends don't let friends buy Leupold.
I'd take a look at IOR. Excellent scopes and a pretty good value for the $. US Optic and Nightforce are top end scopes, but will be a lot of $$$$. The ACOGs are very nice, but are combat scopes and may not be the best choice for small targets at fairly long distances.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,984
If bm11 can find a NF 5.5-22x56 mil/mil/zero stop within the budget then THAT is the scope to go for ... but when I looked across the Net they were in the $2000 plus range.
So if that is doable it is a great buy :thumbup:
As to the Mk IV being "crap" ... unless Leupold have somehow let their quality control go badly recently which I cannot comment on ... the Mk IV 16 x 40 's that I have used ( military issue and one I bought for myself ) have been good. They are the standard issue scope for the Canadian Army with their McMillan .50 cal and have seen a LOT of hard use. Not many scopes can stand the recoil from a .50 on their inner working parts ... these do and have done so for a long time and for some very high round counts. Much higher than anyone will encounter in the civilian market. They are expensive for a fixed power scope though, I agree. Usually when manufacturer's get a military contract they decide to "tear the backside" out of the price on the civilian market. Accuracy International are another good example in rifles. Those are incredibly expensive for what they are too. They trade on the fact that their "goods work" when others don't.
I like the N/F better than the Leupold by a long way though ... it is a great scope ... so if you can find one within the budget then that is great. A good zoom power scope is a better option. I just would'nt call the Mk IV as bad as you have done ... based on Snipershide posts ??? There are a lot of people on there who are learning to shoot but consider themselves experts. I've used Mk IV's 16x and they worked fine for me ... and I would buy one if I could'nt jump to a N/F or a S&B or a March ... infact at the time I did do ... that is all I can say ...
So if that is doable it is a great buy :thumbup:
As to the Mk IV being "crap" ... unless Leupold have somehow let their quality control go badly recently which I cannot comment on ... the Mk IV 16 x 40 's that I have used ( military issue and one I bought for myself ) have been good. They are the standard issue scope for the Canadian Army with their McMillan .50 cal and have seen a LOT of hard use. Not many scopes can stand the recoil from a .50 on their inner working parts ... these do and have done so for a long time and for some very high round counts. Much higher than anyone will encounter in the civilian market. They are expensive for a fixed power scope though, I agree. Usually when manufacturer's get a military contract they decide to "tear the backside" out of the price on the civilian market. Accuracy International are another good example in rifles. Those are incredibly expensive for what they are too. They trade on the fact that their "goods work" when others don't.
I like the N/F better than the Leupold by a long way though ... it is a great scope ... so if you can find one within the budget then that is great. A good zoom power scope is a better option. I just would'nt call the Mk IV as bad as you have done ... based on Snipershide posts ??? There are a lot of people on there who are learning to shoot but consider themselves experts. I've used Mk IV's 16x and they worked fine for me ... and I would buy one if I could'nt jump to a N/F or a S&B or a March ... infact at the time I did do ... that is all I can say ...
Got one right in my safe that I would sell for the $1500 upper limit he posted. It's a great scope, but I'd let it go to help a fellow member (and I would kick in the extra to get another Schmidt and Bender. I love them that much.) Here it is mounted on my DTA SRS:
Leupold has let their quality control go. Numerous instances of them breaking down or straight up not running out of the box that I could cite. If you get a good one, than it is a good scope, but you still overpaid for the features you are getting. A fixed power MOA knob scope with a non illuminated reticle and no zero stops and marginal glass for $1599? Give me a break.
Let me quote Lowlight from snipershide (the owner, a former USMC sniper, as well as an instructor at Rifles Only in Texas.)
Funny, you see the truth, you point out the problems, which happen far too often, you're a hater of the company...
When class after class the number one scope to fail is Leupold, --then people claim because so many of them are out there, well these are their "tactical" scopes and not the hunting line. When we have a competition with 92 shooters and the one brand with multiple scope failures on the line is Leupold, to the point where people can no longer continue to compete, that is not hate, but a problem within the product line.
However if I see a problem and bring it to the company and they tell me we'll look into it, and I say nothing --- people also get up in arms.
When you point out the scopes "no longer" say Made in USA, people get upset with the messenger, and don't question a company who's prices have gone up, who's failure rates has increased, and who moved to second tier parts enough to lose the Made in USA tag, we are haters.
Sure plenty of scopes are made overseas, but their failure rate is not reflected on their location. For a company like NF, who is bringing things on shore, and is used every bit alongside Leupolds in the military, the failure rate cannot be compared... it's easily 5 to 1, maybe even 10 to 1. Sure Leupolds are packaged with system rifles, but that is not based on success, but volume, the ability to produce replacements better than any other company.
Are they god awful, no not at all, but really would I invest my money in one given the choices, absolutely not. Given the same budget, there are better scopes to invest in, some for less money.
I have a new M5 here to review, I think from the outside it is a decent scope, we'll see how it performs... but other companies out there are definitely beating Leupold at their own game haters or not.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,198
I have a S&B Summit (2.5-10) I use on my 270win. It's taken deer at 300yds no problem, as long as I do my part.
To me glass and adjustments made all the difference...I traded in my Zeiss to get it. (Alex @ Eurooptics.com is great to work with.)
The Zeiss Conquests are a heck of a deal considering how good the glass is, but if you are using it for long range and twisting the turrets a lot you may want something with a more solid click. If you are leaving the turrets alone their targeting reticle is slick.
I like the NF for their turrets and lighted reticles, but to me the glass wasn't good enough to balance the cost.
I've never had an issue with a Leupold- but I like the glass in Zeiss better. I do like Leupold turrets in the VX-3 and up lines.
Swarovski glass to me looks too blue...like their coating punches up that color spectrum. I don't see any difference between Swarovski's high end glass and the Zeiss Conquest range. Not a fan of their Swarovski turrets.
If I was goin' all out I'd get a S&B PM II. But that's a bit over budget.
To me glass and adjustments made all the difference...I traded in my Zeiss to get it. (Alex @ Eurooptics.com is great to work with.)
The Zeiss Conquests are a heck of a deal considering how good the glass is, but if you are using it for long range and twisting the turrets a lot you may want something with a more solid click. If you are leaving the turrets alone their targeting reticle is slick.
I like the NF for their turrets and lighted reticles, but to me the glass wasn't good enough to balance the cost.
I've never had an issue with a Leupold- but I like the glass in Zeiss better. I do like Leupold turrets in the VX-3 and up lines.
Swarovski glass to me looks too blue...like their coating punches up that color spectrum. I don't see any difference between Swarovski's high end glass and the Zeiss Conquest range. Not a fan of their Swarovski turrets.
If I was goin' all out I'd get a S&B PM II. But that's a bit over budget.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,984
Well that is a most generous offer bm ... if Hindsight does'nt take you up ... can I have first refusal ? 
:thumbup:
I know Frank from Snipershide and his post appears to be based on the whole MkIV range given his reference to the M5 ... most of which are zoom scopes ... and the "bun fights" which go on over there over any type of equipment leave me less than impressed ... but in fairness Frank seems a nice guy ... and he encounters "numbers of shooters" to have a valid point if the failure rate is that high ...
I share a similar background to Frank ( except over here in our forces ) and do a fair bit of shooting for my country ( GB ) and Europe as well as teaching/coaching in long range military and civilian F Class ... I am a former individual National Champion and current team European Champion and World Champion in F Class for what it's worth ... and as I say the Mk IV 16x has won it's spurs with me ... but I can only speak from personal experience ... although I have used a lot of good scopes. ... and maybe things have changed but they were good when I used them ... not as good as the others mentioned but they usually cost a lot more ... and I have'nt used a cheaper one better than it otherwise I would have suggested it. Having said that though, I have'nt used many middle price range scopes and there in lies an issue as I would only recommend something I have used myself.
:thumbup:I know Frank from Snipershide and his post appears to be based on the whole MkIV range given his reference to the M5 ... most of which are zoom scopes ... and the "bun fights" which go on over there over any type of equipment leave me less than impressed ... but in fairness Frank seems a nice guy ... and he encounters "numbers of shooters" to have a valid point if the failure rate is that high ...
I share a similar background to Frank ( except over here in our forces ) and do a fair bit of shooting for my country ( GB ) and Europe as well as teaching/coaching in long range military and civilian F Class ... I am a former individual National Champion and current team European Champion and World Champion in F Class for what it's worth ... and as I say the Mk IV 16x has won it's spurs with me ... but I can only speak from personal experience ... although I have used a lot of good scopes. ... and maybe things have changed but they were good when I used them ... not as good as the others mentioned but they usually cost a lot more ... and I have'nt used a cheaper one better than it otherwise I would have suggested it. Having said that though, I have'nt used many middle price range scopes and there in lies an issue as I would only recommend something I have used myself.
Last edited: