- Thread starter Schw15
- Start date
I agree with you but that + on the burris seems way smaller than the coss on the cronus it looks like from the pics anyways.
Vortex gen 2 razor HD 4.5-27x for a fair while. Switched to a March 5-42x momentarily but have just picked up a Leupold mk5hd 7-35 and had one PRS club match to get used to it, and will have it for one of my primary long range (3km /2mi) in the coming weeks.
If you zoom out a little it looks like a dot. Its 1mil across with .5 mil gap around it.
Last edited:
Never seen a cronus but I have an Argos BTR on a semi gun that I can pull out and compare later.
Yeah im very curious to see how theres compare
So the cross is very small
That is a nice break down
Much smaller than the Cronus cross. I'm sure you can look up the ret subtensions.
Awesome thank you for info. Are you keeping that zco lol
Would an ugly dude keep a hot chick? Probably keeping, although haven't mounted it yet, unlike the ugly dude who got the hot chick - mounted her immediately
Schmidt & Bender 5-45 x 56 PMII w/Tremor3 on a Spuhr mount.
My 2¢ is that you need to start with defining what distance ELR is to you. To some that number might be 1 mile and to others longer. When you start approaching 2 miles + I think reticle becomes more important, especially if you don't want to buy a charlie tarak. My 2 mile rifle (33xc) wears a TT 5-25 w/ the T3 reticle. That gets me to 2 miles without having to use the charlie unit and has plenty of windage available as well. My 3 mile specific rifle wears a 7-35 atacr with the T3 as well, not so much for the elevation adjustment but for the windage marks available. Last time I shot at that distance I was holding just over 18 mils of windage. Of course the charlie tarak is required at that distance along with a delta tarak to see around the barrel. The T3 reticle is not my favorite reticle (I dislike the wind dots), but it does have the most useful amount of elevation and windage hash marks of anything else I've tried. Hope that helps!
Todd
Todd
I knew Todd was gonna say this. He shoots bolt rigs at ranges many would consider a Howitzer for.
Yes that is very true. My set up is for 2000 yards. Hopefully farther one day just lacking a place to do so. Great scopes never looked at a tt. I would love to eventually move to something like that
Yeah i dont like the trm 3 either. The h59 is hard enough to get behind for me
Am I allowed to say that I have an ATACR 5-25 with H59 -- Let's just say "me and NF" on not on the best of terms-- and a new Razor Gen ll 4.5-27 (never mounted) with an H59 available..?
Optics- you need to spend time behind the scope. Eye fatigue is a major issue often overlooked- Can the scope adjust to fit your specific eye requirements? Or perhaps it cannot. View detail at distance for minute(s) (at least your shooting cycle- or observation periods) and you will start to determine if the optics of the scope will fit your eyes. If the sight picture starts to become blurry, eyes water, eye muscles hurt, if you blink and you loose detail the scope is either not set to your eye or it's optical "recipe" just does not work for you. Many times on the high end scopes the ray transmitted to your eye is a higher quality. Example: as I move away from the optical center towards the edge and a scope has "roll off", barrel, astigmatism etc... your eye will unconsciously try to correct for it (along with your brain). That correction is fatigue.
Another indicator is if I look thru my scope for an extended period I should be able to look at objects without the scope with my bare eye with no effort. The viewing from with or without the scope should be seamless.
In short its like a pair of glasses. If they don't work blurry vision and head aches will result. Its like buying a pair of glasses from CVC versus a top optical lab...
Another perception is "hues". Optics are coated to function in specific wave lengths- the broader the spectrum the more costly the coating. Your "clock time/ day time" to shoot can help guide you in which spectrum value you want to shoot. Or just plain prefer.
The exit pupil is in the end where the quality is- the total of all components. It is not just distance or size. Within that exit pupil is a transmitted wave front. A perfect transmitted wave front (as compared to a standard) is what your eye wants to see, a distorted wave front will not match your eye and your eye will struggle to focus on different areas of that wave front and its varying projected "focal length(s)" (using that term loosely).
We see distortion in single arc second values in our optics. Our advantage is we can correct for them- a lens assembly is not so easy to correct.
Another- check parallax to your "eye". Its not just left to right head movement its movement in all directions. Many scopes can adjust a left or right parallax (example) but vertical will not be settled. Or vice versa as you try to adjust. Some scopes are not capable of removing parallax in all directions. If the parallax is "out" you are expanding your group.
For those with actual eye astigmatism- you must train yourself on focusing on which part of your eye you will focus on reticle to target. If your astigmatism is severe enough you can "bounce" your reticle location on the target by large fractions of an moa- I know I have a large astigmatism and can instantly shift my perceived impact point by 1/2moa.
In the end that transmitted wave front of each optic and the coatings are dollars. No substitute.
Optics- you need to spend time behind the scope. Eye fatigue is a major issue often overlooked- Can the scope adjust to fit your specific eye requirements? Or perhaps it cannot. View detail at distance for minute(s) (at least your shooting cycle- or observation periods) and you will start to determine if the optics of the scope will fit your eyes. If the sight picture starts to become blurry, eyes water, eye muscles hurt, if you blink and you loose detail the scope is either not set to your eye or it's optical "recipe" just does not work for you. Many times on the high end scopes the ray transmitted to your eye is a higher quality. Example: as I move away from the optical center towards the edge and a scope has "roll off", barrel, astigmatism etc... your eye will unconsciously try to correct for it (along with your brain). That correction is fatigue.
Another indicator is if I look thru my scope for an extended period I should be able to look at objects without the scope with my bare eye with no effort. The viewing from with or without the scope should be seamless.
In short its like a pair of glasses. If they don't work blurry vision and head aches will result. Its like buying a pair of glasses from CVC versus a top optical lab...
Another perception is "hues". Optics are coated to function in specific wave lengths- the broader the spectrum the more costly the coating. Your "clock time/ day time" to shoot can help guide you in which spectrum value you want to shoot. Or just plain prefer.
The exit pupil is in the end where the quality is- the total of all components. It is not just distance or size. Within that exit pupil is a transmitted wave front. A perfect transmitted wave front (as compared to a standard) is what your eye wants to see, a distorted wave front will not match your eye and your eye will struggle to focus on different areas of that wave front and its varying projected "focal length(s)" (using that term loosely).
We see distortion in single arc second values in our optics. Our advantage is we can correct for them- a lens assembly is not so easy to correct.
Another- check parallax to your "eye". Its not just left to right head movement its movement in all directions. Many scopes can adjust a left or right parallax (example) but vertical will not be settled. Or vice versa as you try to adjust. Some scopes are not capable of removing parallax in all directions. If the parallax is "out" you are expanding your group.
For those with actual eye astigmatism- you must train yourself on focusing on which part of your eye you will focus on reticle to target. If your astigmatism is severe enough you can "bounce" your reticle location on the target by large fractions of an moa- I know I have a large astigmatism and can instantly shift my perceived impact point by 1/2moa.
In the end that transmitted wave front of each optic and the coatings are dollars. No substitute.
Athlon Ares ETR 4.5-30x57
That is one im currently running and playing with. Hopefully take it to 1 mile in a few weeks to see how i like it
Argos doesnt have a floating X.
The XTRIII reticle. Not a representation of picture quality as trying to take a picture with a phone through a scope is stupid difficult.
30x
10x
If Bushnell comes out with their new ELR scope I'll upgrade but till then I'm set
I have not heard any news on that but very curious myself about that
Im on board for that....
Hopefully they announce it soon enough. Feels like a beast
Yeah im waiting to see....
Tangent Theta on DT SRS
and ATACR SFP on DT HTI 375/50 BMG
Honestly for the work I do, all long range, I wish I had not gotten the TT and stuck with the SFP ATACR.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I just don't need FFP, and I hate the skinny reticle of FFP on lower power; I also don't think that the other features of the scopes in this range justify going over about $2500 - the returns are markedly diminishing over that level.
Don't get me wrong, the Tangent is awesome, and I'm keeping it, if for no other reason than I don't want to start over setting up another scope (which with proper calibration on a 12 foot ruler, leveling, mounting, re-Zeroing, etc. is like a 10 hour affair for me.)
and ATACR SFP on DT HTI 375/50 BMG
Honestly for the work I do, all long range, I wish I had not gotten the TT and stuck with the SFP ATACR.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I just don't need FFP, and I hate the skinny reticle of FFP on lower power; I also don't think that the other features of the scopes in this range justify going over about $2500 - the returns are markedly diminishing over that level.
Don't get me wrong, the Tangent is awesome, and I'm keeping it, if for no other reason than I don't want to start over setting up another scope (which with proper calibration on a 12 foot ruler, leveling, mounting, re-Zeroing, etc. is like a 10 hour affair for me.)
So i put my list of scope on here and i had a few more. My buddies have had razor gen 2 nightforce nxs and nightforce actcr. Might just be me or im crazy from the cronus to the atacr i cant tell any difference in glass. It seems like once you get to the tt or zco or minox the glass really comes into play. I know the nxs glass compared to the midad tac i thought the midas tac won. The etr is in middle then i lump- razor gen 2 cronus xrs2 and atacr glass in next category. And from reading the leupold mark 5 burris xrt3 all fit in this range. It just seems crazy to me because the price range but once again im no pro and dont break them down all crazy just from shooting them and finding targets ect.
I'm ignorant on ELR stuff. Maybe someone can school me here. Why is the March Genesis 6-60x56 not in the coversation? It seems like its got everything one would want to stretch out to a mile and beyond. 114 mils of elevation with .05mil clicks. Glass seems to be high end. Is it just not built to handle serious abuse?
Like with the 5-42x56 it is too new and March has not had great trees until now. I almost went with the genesis for the 300nmi, but it was just too much money. I expect these will be seen more and more for 1 mile+ competitions.
The March scopes just don't have that big of a following in the USA, bigger in Aussieland and NZ, maybe Europe. I think of them like USO, they seem like a worthy option but just don't have the following like NF, Vortex, Leupy, TT, ZCO, Kahles. Then there's S&B which, in the past 10 years, went from King of the Hill to an afterthought, a relic of history
While features and mag range are nice, they end up being commoditized over time, and the only lasting differentiator is glass. Long-term/all-encompassing warranty is also becoming a checkbox item. March is coming up with features including reticles finally, but I think the glass still falls in the 2nd tier with the rest of the best of Japan and the middle Euro glass. I expect high price and a more difficult warranty kick it off the radar for many.
If im going to spend that kind of money it would be zco or TT. Even a minox zp5
I know quite a few shooters here who prefer the March glass to ZCO or atleast consider them equals.
In about a month I will get to compare the wide angle March thoroughly with a ZCO before I get my next PRS scope. Will try to keep an open mind
I've been reading that more lately but can't seem to find what changed. New equipment, new coating(s), or just a bigger marketing budget... time will tell. Looking forward to your comparison.
What
What march scope?
They have two wide angle scopes. 4.5-28x52 High Master and 5-42x56 high master. I have the latter on order.
Last edited:
I'm using a S&B 5-45 with LRR Reticle I bought from @Glassaholic if he used to be wjm300. Which is superb, dialed and tracked well out to a mile with a. 300wm mrad.
I also have a 3-27 and a couple 5-25 Schmidts. Favorite reticles are thin ones such as LRR-mil, Gen2xr and p4f.
A buddy has a 3-20 msr2 on the way so that will be nice to check out.
I want to try a TT and ZCO.
Edit 11/17/21 I want to try one of the new Zeiss 5-25 scopes
I also have a 3-27 and a couple 5-25 Schmidts. Favorite reticles are thin ones such as LRR-mil, Gen2xr and p4f.
A buddy has a 3-20 msr2 on the way so that will be nice to check out.
I want to try a TT and ZCO.
Edit 11/17/21 I want to try one of the new Zeiss 5-25 scopes
Last edited:
Yep, that's me, glad you are enjoying the Schmidt, amazing scope with some of the best turrets out, certainly give TT a run for their money - the DT II+.
Can you tell me why the Schmidt and Bender? I find the best has low magnification (I think there is one that has a lot but I haven't heard much of it) and the ergonomics seem a bit outdated. I certainly respect the brand and that so many use or would like to use it but it just seems to me there are much better options out there. Like more "modern" and up-to-date scopes out there. (More features, better graphics on the turrets etc.)
As lowlight used to say S&B is the gold standard. Not sure, if that's still true today as you have competition with the NF 7-35, TT and ZCO. The Schmidt's with the new DT II turrets are pretty nice, feels like a ball detent clicking through as you adjust the elevation or windage. You solidly know where its at when you dial. There are also a ton of reticle choices. I've been happy with the tracking tests I've done on mine and have confidence in it. Only reason I've had to send one back was for the lithium grease spatter issue they had. Other than that I've been very happy with the tracking, accuracy and reticles choices. I believe the 5x25's use a 4 or 5x erector and the 3-27's and 5-45's use a 9x erector. The verbiage used is "the 5-45x56 High Power exemplifies massive magnification in a 9x zoom package." If you ever want to swap reticles you can call them and for $500 you have a new reticle in it. Overall just a solid choice, but really no frills or gimmicks.
Hi,
Because the people using S&Bs are not concerned with turret graphics, lolol....
They are though, concerned that if their rifle/scope get bangs around that when they pull the trigger the POA still equals POI.
They are though, concerned that when they hold or dial for firing solution corrections that what they are holding or dialing is what shift the POI will have from its' zero.
What ergonomics are we talking about that have been improved? We have scope body, eye piece, turrets...on pretty much every scope known to man. So what ergonomics are outdated on the S&B?
Sincerely,
Theis
Because the people using S&Bs are not concerned with turret graphics, lolol....
They are though, concerned that if their rifle/scope get bangs around that when they pull the trigger the POA still equals POI.
They are though, concerned that when they hold or dial for firing solution corrections that what they are holding or dialing is what shift the POI will have from its' zero.
What ergonomics are we talking about that have been improved? We have scope body, eye piece, turrets...on pretty much every scope known to man. So what ergonomics are outdated on the S&B?
Sincerely,
Theis
