Rifle Scopes Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

[dbooksta]

My highest power scopes are currently:
<ul style="list-style-type: disc">[*]Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 (mil-dot)[*]Leupold Mark-IV 4.5-10x40 (mil-dot)[/list]

My most powerful gun is a .308. I typically test loads for accuracy at 100 yards and don't ever expect to shoot beyond 600 yards.

I print .7MOA 5-shot groups on good days with uncustomized match-grade loads out of my Savages, but I have this sneaking suspicion that even at max power these scopes are leaving me with up to .5MOA of sighting error. Maybe I'm not using the right targets, but I'm just not sure I can line them up to within small fractions of an MOA shot to shot.

For bench work, to take the sight alignment out of the equation, I was thinking I should have a fixed-power scope (after all, there's no need to zoom out to find a paper target off a bench), and one with enough magnification that I can clearly see when I'm sighting off by less than .1MOA -- and maybe even see my .223 groups at 200 or more yards. Does this make sense, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

And if it makes sense to add <span style="font-style: italic">one</span> of these to my kit are there any recommendations on reasonably-priced and well-sized fixed-power scopes for my range and purpose?

So far I've only been able to come up with the following:

<ul style="list-style-type: disc">[*]SWFA SS 20x42 mil-dot, 21oz, $280[*]Weaver 24x40 T-series, 16oz, $375[*]Leupold 25x40 FX-3, 11oz, $550[/list]

Assuming there's no notable drawbacks other than weight (which isn't a factor for bench work) I'd lean towards the SWFA because I like the versatility of standardizing on mil-dot reticles.

 

[Cegorach]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

Mirage can very easily make easily make a high magnification fixed power scope unusable.



Another thing you will have to contend with is the unforgiving eye position that a high magnification and small objective scope will require. From you description I am uncertain if it will matter but low light performance will also be very poor.

 

[Lt. Arclight]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

I own a SS in 20X. Its a great scope for the money. IMO, you'd be better off saving $$ and buying a high quality variable-spend once and cry once.

14X is enough for 200-300 yards and as far as .5moa "sighting error"- uh,don't blame the scope.

 

[deersniper]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

You should check out some of the groups shot by people with 10x scopes.


1/2" dots make good targets and are easy to quarter.

The online training is worth it also.

-dan

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbooksta</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I print .7MOA 5-shot groups on good days with uncustomized match-grade loads out of my Savages, but I have this sneaking suspicion that even at max power these scopes are leaving me with up to .5MOA of sighting error. </div></div>

Ummmmm............no.

If you want a finer aiming point for bench shooting you need to be looking at thinner reticles, not more power with a mildot. If you are averaging .7moa without doing load development for your rifle youa re doing just fine and tweaking your load to your rifle will get you further than trying to gain with magnification.

I just don't see which part of the thin air you are pulling the .5moa sighting error from.

 

[dbooksta]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

I admit I'm pulling my suspected sighting error out of thin air. But as noted the crosshairs on these mil-dot scopes are thick -- if I recall my last range trip I think they're something like half an MOA. In principle I guess if I were clever I could still find a way to get a repeatable and perfectly aligned (better than .1MOA) sight picture with such a reticle.

I also feel like at these powers movements of up to half an MOA barely register in the sight picture. Again, I don't know if this is a common perception? Are you expert target shooters just paying super close attention to margins that are at the limit of visual accuity (for someone with 20/20 vision)?

Do I need finer reticles? Or do I just need to accept that sub-MOA shooting is about alignments that are at the limit of normal human accuity?

It just seems like if I had a higher-power scope with a 1/4MOA center dot I could easily and clearly reproduce alignments below .1MOA without too much squinting....

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

If you had a higher power scope you'd actually see how much your rifle's alignment with the target is actually moving when it is to all perception......perfectly still.

Mucho magnification showing ALL the movement going on throws alot of shooters off and they can produce better groups with lower mag. SOme shooters do better with higher mag.

If you think the crosshairs are too thick, you can dial an offset into the scope and use a different sight picture-ie, put your 1" dot so that the bottom of it just touches the horizontal crosshair and the side of it just touches the vertical crosshair (like a cirle in a corner). There's a reason benchrest shooters use targets that have an aiming point that is seperate from where their group impacts.....

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

Not to mention that once you go big on magnification, the mirage from your barrel can cause optical abberations that will make your perceived .5moa error something you would prefer.

Most crosshairs on mildots are no larger than .34moa (and that's a really thick mildot crosshair). The dots are .6876 moa in diameter on a true mildot (.72" at 100yds).

 

[dbooksta]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

So for daylight bench target shooting off sandbags or bipods out to 600 yards what is generally considered a good reticle and magnification level?

And am I correct in assuming that a fixed power is still preferable to variable power for this purpose, because it gives better optics (fewer lenses and less aberration) for a given price, and one should never want to dial down the magnification in this scenario?

 

[doc76251]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbooksta</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And am I correct in assuming that a fixed power is still preferable to variable power for this purpose, because it gives better optics (fewer lenses and less aberration) for a given price, and one should never want to dial down the magnification in this scenario? </div></div>

No. 10 - 15 years ago you would be correct. Today manufacturing techniques have improved so dramatically that there is no reason NOT to own a variable.

One WOULD definitely wish to have the option to dial down as others have noted when mirage or ground effect becomes a factor. I typically drive a 17X, today with a balmy 72*F and sun shinning I was down at 12 - 13X to clearly define the target at 300. The same 4" target on the same square box 300 yard range that I shoot at every day. If you had a fixed 20+X today you would have been wasting powder.

Reticles: I am partial to IPHY (Inch Per Hundred Yards) and the MDMOA reticle from USO for precision (not too dynamic) applications as far as I have been able to engage (1 mile + a bit).

Cheers,

Doc

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

Don't overthink it. Get a wquality scope inthe power range you want and have at it.
By "quality" I mean a)has repeatable and reliable tracking b)has a reticle that suits your needs and c)has repeatable and reliable tracking.

 

[USACS]

Re: Fixed-, High-Power Scope?

US Optics SN9 10-42x58. Do it. Do it.