Rifle Scopes Millett trs-1 replacement

[D Richardson]

I have been doing a lot of research, looking for a replacement for my Millett TRS-1. unfortunately I haven't been able to pinpoint what I want exactly. I have looked through the Zeiss Conquest line and love the glass and really like the the idea of the Z1000 reticle but would like to have a FFP scope. I also saw that midway has a great price on the Bushnell 6-24x50 FFP scopes, unfortunately no where around me has any in stock that I can go look through to compare glass. Is the glass in the Bushnell 4200's a step up from the Millett I already have? I realize both are elevation limited, but realistically I won't be shooting much over 600yrds any time soon (I'm still very much a Newbie and have a lot to learn) and it will be mounted on a 20moa rail. Future use calls for possible competition use when I get more trigger time and my skills improve. Sorry to ramble but I really want to make the right decision this time and not need to replace it for a long time.

Thanks for any help.

 

[fdkay]

Re: Millett trs-1 replacement

Absolutely, the Bushnell is an upgrade in every way.

Better glass, better workmanship, more functional scope.

This from a TRS-1 owner. I am absolutely pleased with my TRS-1, it is what it is. A 300 dollar scope packed with features that you would be hard pressed to find on a 700 dollar scope.
It depends on if you are in a hurry or not and what your budget is.
The bushnells are being discounted heavily right now, as they are being discontinued. The biggest drawback to it is the standard mil-dot, I much prefer the enhanced mil-dot found on my Falcon 4-14 and the MP-8 on my IOR.

What is your budget?
Do you require FFP?
Do you need a ranging reticle?

For shooting small groups at long range on PAPER, a SFP is usually the best bet.

 

[D Richardson]

Re: Millett trs-1 replacement

Funny you mentioned IOR I just bough a older used 4-14x50 FFP with the mp-8 reticle off the classifieds here. Hope Its everything the guy said it is. only thing that isn't exactly what I wanted is that the parallax adj. is on the objective. Oh well if it is as nice as I'm hoping it is i'll get over it.