• The Shot You’ll Never Forget Giveaway - Enter To Win A Barrel From Rifle Barrel Blanks!

    Tell us about the best or most memorable shot you’ve ever taken. Contest ends June 13th and remember: subscribe for a better chance of winning!

    Join contest Subscribe

Rifle Scopes First Rifle Scope, First Bolt Gun

N

Naaman

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
May 13, 2020
657
327
#1
Hello all,

I have been reading and talking to folks I know about how to select all the equipment I'm going to need for my first hunt. It will be deer in Arizona (either Flagstaff or Tuscon area).

After aggregating all the advice I've received so far, I've narrowed down my scope options to two Trijicons (there are specific reasons why I buy Trijicon):
A) Credo 2.5-15x42
B) Credo 2-10x36

Scope will be mounted on a Model 70 Featherweight, .308.

The features I (think) I want include the following:
A minimum magnification as close to 1x as possible for 2 eyes open shooting
As much maximum power as I can get while still having a very low power option
As much eye relief as possible
A low profile when mounted (which is why I like the 40-ish mm objective rather than a 50 or 56)
An ability to function in a "tactical" capacity... "just in case" (not super important, but nice to have)

Obviously, I want a quality sight picture/glass, as well.

Where I'm stuck is on the value of the additional available power and light gathering of the larger scope when compared to the pros/cons of FFP vs SFP configurations.

I have no clue what magnification I will "need" to make a clean shot, but hunters have advised me to buy as much magnification as I can afford in a quality scope (better to have too much scope than not enough).

I like the simplicity of FFP, but in this case, I'm not sure whether that simplicity is more valuable than the additional light gathering and magnification of the 42mm (SFP) option.

Is there a consensus on what is more valuable? Any anecdotes about which one is more useful to have?

Thanks in advance.
 
#2
What are these specific reasons you buy Trijicon? I like a lot of their stuff, but I don’t think I’d be the guinea pig on those scopes since they’re new and they’ve had issues with their variable optics before.
 
#3
redneckbmxer24 said:
What are these specific reasons you buy Trijicon? I like a lot of their stuff, but I don’t think I’d be the guinea pig on those scopes since they’re new and they’ve had issues with their variable optics before.
Click to expand...

-First, I like the company and the products they put out.

-I like that a lot of their stuff is American made.

-I like that nothing they make is made with slave labor (I find it hypocritical to buy products for the purpose of freedom preservation that are produced in countries that use sweat shops/slave labor to cut costs).

I'm not aware of the issues they've had with variable optics. Would you happen to have a link?

Thanks for the heads up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCX
#4
Naaman said:
-First, I like the company and the products they put out.

-I like that a lot of their stuff is American made.

-I like that nothing they make is made with slave labor (I find it hypocritical to buy products for the purpose of freedom preservation that are produced in countries that use sweat shops/slave labor to cut costs).

I'm not aware of the issues they've had with variable optics. Would you happen to have a link?

Thanks for the heads up.
Click to expand...
Their scopes, like almost all scopes regardless of who makes them, are made with imported parts. So Made in USA really means assembled in USA with imported parts. NF is made in USA, with imported parts. Leupold, TRIJICON, Vortex, etc etc etc.

I have Trijicon LPVO's, no issue with them. They do their job. But their reticle choices suck, but i will admit this isnt terrible:

1589473594128.png


But on a bolt gun, why go with such a small objective and tube size? 30mm tube with 42mm objective? could do so much better for the same price. Not to mention the fact that SFP is so 1983.
 
#6
Naaman said:
After aggregating all the advice I've received so far, I've narrowed down my scope options to two Trijicons (there are specific reasons why I buy Trijicon):
A) Credo 2.5-15x42
B) Credo 2-10x36

Scope will be mounted on a Model 70 Featherweight, .308.
Click to expand...

Either setup you have will be superior to the rifle and glass on my father in law's deer rifle. He has a very old Winchester .308 (no idea of the model number) and a 3 - 9 scope he got "cheap" at a pawn shop when his old scope got damaged.

His eyes are old, but he still gets several deer each season, so i think you'll be fine regardless of which one you pick.
 
#7
TacticalDillhole said:
Their scopes, like almost all scopes regardless of who makes them, are made with imported parts. So Made in USA really means assembled in USA with imported parts. NF is made in USA, with imported parts. Leupold, TRIJICON, Vortex, etc etc etc.

I have Trijicon LPVO's, no issue with them. They do their job. But their reticle choices suck, but i will admit this isnt terrible:

But on a bolt gun, why go with such a small objective and tube size? 30mm tube with 42mm objective? could do so much better for the same price. Not to mention the fact that SFP is so 1983.
Click to expand...

I'm tracking on the "made in USA" nuances. All their MROs, ACOGs, etc, are completely US made. I like that about them. I can live with "made in Japan" because it's not sweat shops (like Vortex, for example, which is made in China).

As for the size of the scope, I admit I'm totally clueless, so any input is welcomed. I'm also trying to balance the weight of the scope (and overall weapon system) with it's usefulness for the given purpose. Right now, I'm confident in my ability to make just about any shot that relies exclusively on the basic fundamentals. Wind calls, humidity, elevation, etc. are things that I will be learning moving forward, and so I currently have no idea how to select a scope when thinking about the kind of shooting that actually needs a scope.

pabrousseau said:
im guilty of wanting a one scope that is best for everything but it is hard to find. what type of cover do you anticipate hunting in?
Click to expand...

This is rapidly becoming more apparent to me, admittedly. I'll need to do more research on the areas I'll be hunting, but I plan to hike out and anticipate making the shot across a valley against an animal on a hillside... but I know there are lots of wooded areas in Flagstaff, so I'd like to be ready for that, as well.

1500varmint said:
Either setup you have will be superior to the rifle and glass on my father in law's deer rifle. He has a very old Winchester .308 (no idea of the model number) and a 3 - 9 scope he got "cheap" at a pawn shop when his old scope got damaged.

His eyes are old, but he still gets several deer each season, so i think you'll be fine regardless of which one you pick.
Click to expand...

This is encouraging to me. This is also my virgin hunt, and while I'm confident I can make just about any shot that relies exclusively on the fundamentals, I have never had to think about making a humane shot that may be affected by elevation, wind, temperature, etc... I know I can "hit a target" at 200 or 300 yards, but I'd like every advantage I can get when thinking about having to get a clean kill from potentially hundreds of yards away (I won't take a shot that I'm not confident I can make, however... even if I have the best stuff in the world, I'd move closer if necessary and hopefully don't spook the animal in doing so).

Thanks for all the feedback so far!
 
#8
Naaman said:
I'm tracking on the "made in USA" nuances. All their MROs, ACOGs, etc, are completely US made. I like that about them. I can live with "made in Japan" because it's not sweat shops (like Vortex, for example, which is made in China).

As for the size of the scope, I admit I'm totally clueless, so any input is welcomed. I'm also trying to balance the weight of the scope (and overall weapon system) with it's usefulness for the given purpose. Right now, I'm confident in my ability to make just about any shot that relies exclusively on the basic fundamentals. Wind calls, humidity, elevation, etc. are things that I will be learning moving forward, and so I currently have no idea how to select a scope when thinking about the kind of shooting that actually needs a scope.



This is rapidly becoming more apparent to me, admittedly. I'll need to do more research on the areas I'll be hunting, but I plan to hike out and anticipate making the shot across a valley against an animal on a hillside... but I know there are lots of wooded areas in Flagstaff, so I'd like to be ready for that, as well.



This is encouraging to me. This is also my virgin hunt, and while I'm confident I can make just about any shot that relies exclusively on the fundamentals, I have never had to think about making a humane shot that may be affected by elevation, wind, temperature, etc... I know I can "hit a target" at 200 or 300 yards, but I'd like every advantage I can get when thinking about having to get a clean kill from potentially hundreds of yards away (I won't take a shot that I'm not confident I can make, however... even if I have the best stuff in the world, I'd move closer if necessary and hopefully don't spook the animal in doing so).

Thanks for all the feedback so far!
Click to expand...
A larger objective will give you a more forgiving eye box and eye relief, especially at higher magnification
 
#9
I would choose this over the trijicon

www.snipershide.com

Optics - Mint Bushnell DMR2 Free Rear Bag -$899-

This is brand new. I mounted it and decided to play scope swap between rifles. I ended up with a XRS2 for the magnification I needed and now am going to a smaller objective for the gasser. I’ll throw in a rear bag with it. Comes in box with the accessories from the factory still sealed up...
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com
 
#11
TacticalDillhole said:
A larger objective will give you a more forgiving eye box and eye relief, especially at higher magnification
Click to expand...

That's a good point and one that I had forgotten to factor in: at work we use T2s, on which I've had to specifically train myself to present the rifle to where I can pick up the dot every time; flipping the 3x magnifier into position compounds this even more (for me, but I deal with it). With my MROs at home, it is much more forgiving, which is why I went with the MRO for my personal stuff.

It's one more "pro" for the 42mm (or any other scope larger than the 2-10x36), but what do you think of the value of the extra visibility compared to the value of the FFP configuration? Am I making more of a deal out of FFP than I should be?

TacticalDillhole said:
I would choose this over the trijicon

www.snipershide.com

Optics - Mint Bushnell DMR2 Free Rear Bag -$899-

This is brand new. I mounted it and decided to play scope swap between rifles. I ended up with a XRS2 for the magnification I needed and now am going to a smaller objective for the gasser. I’ll throw in a rear bag with it. Comes in box with the accessories from the factory still sealed up...
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com
Click to expand...

I'm researching it now. Although, I believe this scope is made in Japan (not a problem), I think their other stuff is made in China (which presents an ethical problem for me; I like to avoid funding businesses that outsource to slave labor). Specs wise, it's nice (according to my limited understanding of scopes :ROFLMAO: )

army_eod said:
Burris Fullfield 3-9.
Click to expand...

This may sound silly, but is a scope at that price battle worthy? My philosophy on buying guns is that I should be able to use whatever gun is in my hands at the moment to fight my way to safety, should the need arise. So I try to configure them first for their primary function, and then ruggedly enough to be abused and still reliable. I have the funds for a higher end optic, and would like to buy something that I can grow into over time, rather than out of. I don't mean to sound like a snob about it. I just prefer to buy once, cry once, whenever possible.

Thanks again, for all the input!
 
#12
I was reading up more on SFP vs FFP and have a basic question:

In my experience with hold overs, I have always eyeballed the hold. For example, at short range, I aim 2 inches high to account for mechanical offset. With a pistol at 100m on a silhouette pop up target, I aim at the top of the head for a consistent knock down.

If I know what the bullet drop is at a given range (for example, 30 inches at x yards), can't I just put the cross hairs 30 inches above the intended point of impact regardless of whether I'm looking through FFP or SFP. In other words, can't I just ignore the hash marks on the reticle if I know what the hold is?

For example, a human torso is x inches tall. I need to hold over by the same amount as what the torso appears in the scope if the holdover is also x. Or half of x or one third of x, etc.

Its only when I want to dial the scope that the hash marks matter, correct?
 
#13
Naaman said:
I was reading up more on SFP vs FFP and have a basic question:

In my experience with hold overs, I have always eyeballed the hold. For example, at short range, I aim 2 inches high to account for mechanical offset. With a pistol at 100m on a silhouette pop up target, I aim at the top of the head for a consistent knock down.

If I know what the bullet drop is at a given range (for example, 30 inches at x yards), can't I just put the cross hairs 30 inches above the intended point of impact regardless of whether I'm looking through FFP or SFP. In other words, can't I just ignore the hash marks on the reticle if I know what the hold is?

For example, a human torso is x inches tall. I need to hold over by the same amount as what the torso appears in the scope if the holdover is also x. Or half of x or one third of x, etc.

Its only when I want to dial the scope that the hash marks matter, correct?
Click to expand...
Much more reading needs done on this subject. Unless you only hunt at "point blank range" which varies by caliber but is about 200 yards. If you are interested on humane longer ranges, which is a subjective debate, then there is much more to understand about holding vs dialing, too much info to put in this short reply, BUT the good news is, THIS IS THE WORLDS BEST SITE to learn all of this. Stick around, read, read, read. ask questions. have a sense of humor, have thick skin. These are some of the best guys in the world in all senses of the meaning. The amount of experience in this one forum is not matched anywhere in the world.

Welcome to the rabbit hole and money pit that is Long Range Shooting.

May God have mercy on your wallet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lil Casino
#14
Thanks, man.

I don't know what qualifies as "long range" shooting in a community like this (I would assume over 500m?). So I'm not sure where the "mere" need for magnification crosses the threshold into the "need" for making mathematical calculations. My question above is based on the idea of having enough DOPE to visually estimate the hold over and make the shot confidently.

I take your answer to mean that within 200 meters, this might work, but beyond that, math/dialing becomes necessary (in order to stay precise enough for a humane kill).
 
#15
Welcome! As for your 2 questions, I'm not much help, however some of the best advice I recieved about purchasing a scope was: find an "in stock" local dealer and ask to take scope(s) outside (with an employee of course) and look through the scope in natural lighting.
Made a world of difference vs inside with florescent and led lighting. It may make you decision about whether or not simplicity vs light gathering ability is worth it. Best of luck!
 
#16
Naaman said:
Thanks, man.

I don't know what qualifies as "long range" shooting in a community like this (I would assume over 500m?). So I'm not sure where the "mere" need for magnification crosses the threshold into the "need" for making mathematical calculations. My question above is based on the idea of having enough DOPE to visually estimate the hold over and make the shot confidently.

I take your answer to mean that within 200 meters, this might work, but beyond that, math/dialing becomes necessary (in order to stay precise enough for a humane kill).
Click to expand...
No what he means is a second focal plane is only good at full magnification for holdovers and ranging. First focal plane is good at any magnification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bender
#17
TacticalDillhole said:
No what he means is a second focal plane is only good at full magnification for holdovers and ranging. First focal plane is good at any magnification.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. I guess I don't really understand SFP, then.

I've seen some scopes with "hunter holds" (no numbers) and then there are those scopes with no hash marks. I figured that with something like that, it would not matter whether it was second or first focal plane, and assumed that an SFP with hash marks could be used like one without.
 
#18
Naaman said:
Oh, I see. I guess I don't really understand SFP, then.

I've seen some scopes with "hunter holds" (no numbers) and then there are those scopes with no hash marks. I figured that with something like that, it would not matter whether it was second or first focal plane, and assumed that an SFP with hash marks could be used like one without.
Click to expand...
Only at full magnification.
This is gonna open up a big can of worms for you

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bender
#23
After some thought on this, it occurs to me to simplify my question. So here goes:

If I wanted a good general purpose scope, what should I look for in terms of features?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pucker
#25
Nice. Thanks. So, what about magnification range? There is the "old stand by" of 3-9, but wider ranges are easily available nowadays.

At work, we used to use Elcans (with 3.4x). It was a clunker of an optic, and I always hated the shadowbox effect.

My newb mind really likes the idea of a 2 or 2.5 on the bottom end and 10x or more on the upper end, but maybe I'm being too nitpicky?
 
#26
Naaman said:
Nice. Thanks. So, what about magnification range? There is the "old stand by" of 3-9, but wider ranges are easily available nowadays.

At work, we used to use Elcans (with 3.4x). It was a clunker of an optic, and I always hated the shadowbox effect.

My newb mind really likes the idea of a 2 or 2.5 on the bottom end and 10x or more on the upper end, but maybe I'm being too nitpicky?
Click to expand...
At least 4x, for 308 4-16 is a good range. I have a 3.5-21 that works well. These days I mostly use 5-25.

it all depends on what range you are going to be shooting. I rarely use max magnification as it can become difficult to get a good picture. Most will shoot somewhere around 15-18.
 
#27
You can’t have too much mag with quality glass but at times you can shoot with too much mag. For hunting I prefer to have at least 18x for a good look at deer. Most of my rifles have at least 20-25x on them. Seldom ever do I shoot at full mag but it’s handy to have when checking out deer/targets at distance.
 
#28
I’ll simplify it more. Tracking is number one. Make sure it’s reputable scope line NOT just manufacturer. 3-15ish or 5-25 ish. You can always dial down
 
#29
Ditto what Bender said. Mag is good but tracking is a must.

I will also say that I liked a lot of trijicons and owned a few. I liked my ACOGs so much that I scooped up a 5-20 accupower. Very disappointed. I shit canned it after 3 months. Tracking was decent but If the sun was anywhere in front of you the glare was so bad you couldn’t see through it. The credo is probably improved but there is a lot more proven scopes out there to limit yourself to only those 2. Just my thought after being down that road.
 
#30
TacticalDillhole said:
At least 4x, for 308 4-16 is a good range. I have a 3.5-21 that works well. These days I mostly use 5-25.

it all depends on what range you are going to be shooting. I rarely use max magnification as it can become difficult to get a good picture. Most will shoot somewhere around 15-18.
Click to expand...

Jsmith2631 said:
You can’t have too much mag with quality glass but at times you can shoot with too much mag. For hunting I prefer to have at least 18x for a good look at deer. Most of my rifles have at least 20-25x on them. Seldom ever do I shoot at full mag but it’s handy to have when checking out deer/targets at distance.
Click to expand...

Bender said:
I’ll simplify it more. Tracking is number one. Make sure it’s reputable scope line NOT just manufacturer. 3-15ish or 5-25 ish. You can always dial down
Click to expand...

Jsmith2631 said:
Ditto what Bender said. Mag is good but tracking is a must.

I will also say that I liked a lot of trijicons and owned a few. I liked my ACOGs so much that I scooped up a 5-20 accupower. Very disappointed. I shit canned it after 3 months. Tracking was decent but If the sun was anywhere in front of you the glare was so bad you couldn’t see through it. The credo is probably improved but there is a lot more proven scopes out there to limit yourself to only those 2. Just my thought after being down that road.
Click to expand...

What I'm gathering is that any magnification power is more useful if it is not the maximum magnification (15x looks better on a 4-20 than it does on a 3-15); and that tracking is the scope's ability to retain consistency with it's zero throughout the magnification range (so that calculations remain true/shots land on target after dialing).

TacticalDillhole offered this as basic features to look for:
FFP
MILS
Zero Stop
50-56mm objective
34mm or larger tube

In order to keep weight down, I may end up compromising on the tube diameter and/or objective lens diameter.

I've expanded my search to include Leupold and Nightforce... but starting from scratch with these two mfrs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bender
#31
Naaman said:
What I'm gathering is that any magnification power is more useful if it is not the maximum magnification (15x looks better on a 4-20 than it does on a 3-15); and that tracking is the scope's ability to retain consistency with it's zero throughout the magnification range (so that calculations remain true/shots land on target after dialing).

TacticalDillhole offered this as basic features to look for:
FFP
MILS
Zero Stop
50-56mm objective
34mm or larger tube

In order to keep weight down, I may end up compromising on the tube diameter and/or objective lens diameter.

I've expanded my search to include Leupold and Nightforce... but starting from scratch with these two mfrs.
Click to expand...
Nightforce is good to go with their whole FFP line. Leupy is hit or miss depending on what line but they will take care of you. I wouldn’t hesitate running a MK V 3-18. They are actually pretty light for their magnification ranges.
 
#32
Naaman said:
What I'm gathering is that any magnification power is more useful if it is not the maximum magnification (15x looks better on a 4-20 than it does on a 3-15); and that tracking is the scope's ability to retain consistency with it's zero throughout the magnification range (so that calculations remain true/shots land on target after dialing).

TacticalDillhole offered this as basic features to look for:
FFP
MILS
Zero Stop
50-56mm objective
34mm or larger tube

In order to keep weight down, I may end up compromising on the tube diameter and/or objective lens diameter.

I've expanded my search to include Leupold and Nightforce... but starting from scratch with these two mfrs.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, tracking is about when you dial 1.3 mils you are actualdialing 1.3. You have to do a tall target test to see if there are any errors in your turrets. If they are to severe, return the scope. A small difference can easily be compensated for.
 
#36
I went ahead with a Trijicon Tenmile FFP 3-18x42.

The "sacrifices" I made on this decision were:
-30mm (instead of 34mm) tube
-42mm objective (instead of 50mm+)

The decision making elements were:
-Lightweight for the size/capability/magnification range
-Got it for a good price (was unable to compare online pricing for the Nightforce I was looking at at the same vendor, otherwise might have went with that one)

The scopes that I looked at included Bushnell Tactical Elites, Eotech Vudus, and a Nightforce (I think it was one of the SHVs).

Now that I have it, I will use it for everything it's worth, but it feels heavier than I would like, so I may end up buying another lightweight scope down the road some time and swapping it onto the Model 70 Featherweight, and putting the this scope onto a more robust build (or selling it and getting something altogether different once I experience the whys and wherefores regarding scope selection and use).

Thanks again to all who helped me understand where to start and what to look out for.

Now to find out what I like and hate about the choice I've made. 😄
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Rifle Scopes New hunting scope
Replies
23
Views
996
secondofangle2
secondofangle2
Harman117
Short Bolt Action .223 Optic?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Memberberries
Memberberries
Q
Scope for Hunting Rig
Replies
14
Views
792
Quackaddict
Q
Bandit31
Rifle Scopes My first what scope thread
Replies
20
Views
779
Bandit31
Bandit31
jbell
Rifle Scopes Bushnell Match Pro ED 3-18 & other budget scopes
Replies
16
Views
742
Rob01
Rob01
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts