I'm looking for a mil-dot, target-turret scope in the $500 range for a duty precision gas gun. (If that's even possible)
I am a current LEO with 21 years of service and 10 years on a metropolitan high-risk warrant team. I have only served in a long marksman role for 3 years.
I shoot primarily three scoped rifles:
1. a precision bolt action .308,
2. a match-grade AR-308,
3. and a match-grade AR-15.
I shoot the .308s out to 500 yards and the .223 out to 350 yards, and they are all sub-MOA shooters at those ranges. The bolt gun, in particular, will shoot 5 shots in 1 MOA and sometimes 1/2 MOA out to 500 yds. It is the one gun I have 100% confidence in and the one I always take on call outs. I would like to have the option of taking a semi-auto if the situation called for it, but I don't feel confident with the cheap glass I have on them.
1. The bolt gun wears a $1100 Leupold Mk4 3.5-10x40.
2. The AR-308 wears a $350 Burris FullField II Ballistiplex 3-9x50.
3. The AR-15 wears a $120 Nikon Prostaff BDC 3-9x40.
We get a pretty healthy budget, but we still can't justify anything we dream up. I feel pretty lucky to have my bolt gun set up the way it is. Plus, I would like to save a good chunk of my budget left for buying match ammo. I have to justify ordering another scope, or I need to just get it out of my own pocket.
I want to get a scope similar to the Mk4 for one or both of the ARs but I'm not convinced it's worth the money.
You are welcome to beat me up, but here are a couple things I hear and my thoughts about them. I'm not an expert, so let me have it.
"More expensive optics are more accurate:"
I can consistently shoot 5-shot 1-inch groups with all three rifles/scopes off a bi-pod at 100 yards with match ammo. That's about as far as I'll need operationally, really...but we do qualify out to 200. I put the Mk 4 on the AR-15 once and I shot about the same accuracy (1 MOA) at known 100-yard intervals as I did with $120 Nikon!
"More expensive optics have clearer glass":
I hear that more expensive glass is clearer under waning light, but I am issued a universal NOD that mounts on the picatinny rails forward of the scope on all 3 rifles. I wonder if that consideration is just for hunters who need to see game in the early dawn. I don't see it being a huge factor in LE work when I have a PN/PVS in my kit.
Would a Leupold Mk-AR or Nikon M-223 be sufficient for precision work at a better price point? I don't like the 1/2 MOA adjustments or friction turrets on the Leupold, but that seems to be the only option from Leupold with target turrets other than the $1100 Mk4. I shot an AR with an M-223 and the turrets seemed sloppy to me.
I am on the knobs quite a bit so I am concerned that cheaper glass might fail a box drill and not come back to zero.
I guess what I really want is Leupold Mk4 turrets without the price tag for the Mk4.
Sorry for the long question. I appreciate any pointers.
I am a current LEO with 21 years of service and 10 years on a metropolitan high-risk warrant team. I have only served in a long marksman role for 3 years.
I shoot primarily three scoped rifles:
1. a precision bolt action .308,
2. a match-grade AR-308,
3. and a match-grade AR-15.
I shoot the .308s out to 500 yards and the .223 out to 350 yards, and they are all sub-MOA shooters at those ranges. The bolt gun, in particular, will shoot 5 shots in 1 MOA and sometimes 1/2 MOA out to 500 yds. It is the one gun I have 100% confidence in and the one I always take on call outs. I would like to have the option of taking a semi-auto if the situation called for it, but I don't feel confident with the cheap glass I have on them.
1. The bolt gun wears a $1100 Leupold Mk4 3.5-10x40.
2. The AR-308 wears a $350 Burris FullField II Ballistiplex 3-9x50.
3. The AR-15 wears a $120 Nikon Prostaff BDC 3-9x40.
We get a pretty healthy budget, but we still can't justify anything we dream up. I feel pretty lucky to have my bolt gun set up the way it is. Plus, I would like to save a good chunk of my budget left for buying match ammo. I have to justify ordering another scope, or I need to just get it out of my own pocket.
I want to get a scope similar to the Mk4 for one or both of the ARs but I'm not convinced it's worth the money.
You are welcome to beat me up, but here are a couple things I hear and my thoughts about them. I'm not an expert, so let me have it.
"More expensive optics are more accurate:"
I can consistently shoot 5-shot 1-inch groups with all three rifles/scopes off a bi-pod at 100 yards with match ammo. That's about as far as I'll need operationally, really...but we do qualify out to 200. I put the Mk 4 on the AR-15 once and I shot about the same accuracy (1 MOA) at known 100-yard intervals as I did with $120 Nikon!
"More expensive optics have clearer glass":
I hear that more expensive glass is clearer under waning light, but I am issued a universal NOD that mounts on the picatinny rails forward of the scope on all 3 rifles. I wonder if that consideration is just for hunters who need to see game in the early dawn. I don't see it being a huge factor in LE work when I have a PN/PVS in my kit.
Would a Leupold Mk-AR or Nikon M-223 be sufficient for precision work at a better price point? I don't like the 1/2 MOA adjustments or friction turrets on the Leupold, but that seems to be the only option from Leupold with target turrets other than the $1100 Mk4. I shot an AR with an M-223 and the turrets seemed sloppy to me.
I am on the knobs quite a bit so I am concerned that cheaper glass might fail a box drill and not come back to zero.
I guess what I really want is Leupold Mk4 turrets without the price tag for the Mk4.
Sorry for the long question. I appreciate any pointers.
</a>
.....fucking IL. Also, one could argue the change in sound signature could help to designate who is shooting, good guy or bad guy. Believe it or not SWAT teams have shot it out with their own teammates when doing multiple entries and shots fired.
