Help me to choose best rifle in .223

[SCJ429]

I think any educated hunter would be able to use a 6 - 20 scope successfully on any caliber. Sure a 3 - 9 will do the job but extra magnification may come in handy.

The same hunter will also appreciate the difference in the quality of glass used by the European manufactures compared to Tasco or Nikon. Best to look through a few at the range in different lighting conditions before making your decision.

[bladeracer]

How critical/important is it to choose the right reticle? Should I care at all for my needs (100-200m max range)?

I just watched a video on youtube on how to use mil-dot reticles, looks very easy, cool and not overly complex (that's probably the reticle I would prefer as a complete noob), however, what are other types for?

I found this used scope with BRH reticle, looks like a good deal, anyone can tell me why I should't buy it?

https://www.usedguns.com.au/Product.aspx?p=141091

P.s. Do I get it right, that normal post can be used for the scope, without the need to go through firearm shop?

P.P.S if buying second hand, is lifetime warranty transferrable? I've heard it is for Leupold, and that you don't even need to have original receipt etc... Is it same for Swaro and other main players?

All that really matters is that the crosshair is fine enough to allow you to see your target. For longer-ranges it's handy to have hold-over and windage marks but not essential. If you are shooting at 300m you are probably prone or well-supported, have time to accurately range your target, and time to dial in the elevation required so you can hold the reticle dead-on.

Yes, all states allow posting of firearm accessories. The only thing that can't be posted is powder. Ammunition and primers can be sent via TNT with a Dangerous Goods fee. Firearms can be posted between dealers. WA is a whole different country when it comes to firearms though.

[Flyer]

Looks like the link to the Z5 BRH has gone, so I'm assuming it must have sold pretty quick.

I had the BRX on my 3.5-18 and sold it to a mate who also has the BRH. There's not a huge amount of difference between the two, but the BRX is very fine and may be a bit more difficult to see in low light conditions, or with a bit of scrub in the background. I know I recommended it initially, but I mainly shoot targets (I have the BRX and 4W reticles on my 5-25 Z5s).

Scopes can go through the post - they're classified as an optical device, like a camera lens or pair of binoculars.

The Z5 has two different models - one with a Ballistic Turret, the other without. The BT is fine for the range or when you have enough time to adjust your elevation, and can be quite handy at known distances. The BT comes in either Plex (simple crosshair) or 4W (windage) reticles. The 4W reticle is a bit thicker than the Plex.

At shorter ranges, as knowsnothin explained, your point of impact (POI) isn't going to change a lot - you'll learn to hold over at longer distances. The BRX reticle can be useful, once you learn it, as it has windage notches and Swarovski has a handy ballistic guide on its website that shows you where your POI will be. "Christmas tree" reticles, as they're sometimes known, are handy for quick shots at known magnifications and approximate distances.

You need to know that the hashmarks on the reticle change the POI as the magnification changes. At 18x, each hashmark might for worth, say 6 inches of elevation. But at 9x magnification, each hashmark is now worth 12 inches of elevation - double.

It sounds complicated because it can be, until you get used to your scope and rifle.

Mildots are the same principle. Unless you have a first focal plane scope which alters the reticle spacing with the magnification, each mildot represents one milliradian at maximum magnification. Halve the magnifiaction, and you double the distance between mildots on the target.

Now that I've confused you - lol! - it sounds to me like you'd probably get the most out of the BRH reticle. It certainly won't be a disadvantage, and it has a couple of advantages over a simple Plex reticle when it comes to windage and spot elevation.

Here's the Swarovski Ballistic Program: https://ballisticprograms.swarovskiopti ... ic-Program

Of course there are other scopes out there, and if you don't wish to spend $1800-1900 on a Z5, then some of the other suggestions might suit you. Leupold make good scopes in the $1000 or so range (VX3i 4.5-14x40 or 6.5-20 etc), and for less than $1000, my favourite scope (as mentioned earlier) is the Weaver Grand Slam 4-16x44 V-EBX (800656), but I also think the Meopta Meopro 6-18x50 is one of the biggest bargains out there, as I haven't seen better glass on scopes costing almost twice as much. I'm a big fan of the Meopta for the money, and that 50mm objective lets in a lot of light.

[PoorShot300]

Having just gone through the process of buying a new .223 myself, I was attracted to this thread, and you have had some great info. BTW..for a second language, your English is terrific.

As you've settled on the firearm, I will just throw in my recommendation for a scope, though my experience is way below many on here for technical advice. My advice would to go to your LGS and look through as many brands as possible once you decide on the magnification field, as the one thing not mentioned to date is how we all see the world through different eye's. Be aware that once you hit 40yo your eyesight begins to diminish (I don't know your age, but hazard a guess from your posts you'd at least be approaching that era) and what works for you may not for me and vice versa. Somewhat like camera lenses.

Having said that, for my eye's (and budget) I found a happy medium on my .22 with a Sightron SII 2.5-10x32 which is superseded now. Here's a write-up rather than hear my ineffectual description...
https://www.chuckhawks.com/sightron_SII_25-10x32.htm

Updated models can be found here;.. https://sightronusa.com/riflescopes/

The attraction was that it is a solid built item with positive feel turrets and for my eye's gave great clarity and illumination, though only being 32mm objective 'may' be less suited to late, late arvo shooting. I haven't sussed out low level light as I only range shoot day-time atm, but like yourself having played around with camera glass a number of years, I found it suited my taste in quality, budget and eyesight "for what I use it for".

There is also a lifetime guarantee should it develop issues. I would rate it in the mid-upper value in the mid range $$ of choices. No, it's not a March/Swaro/NF, but it's also not a lightweight/cheap item either, and perhaps a 42mm (which is on my 4-16) may have been more suited, but again, I don't shoot low level light atm so no foul.

Good luck with your choice, and let us know how you get on.

Cheers

[Bill]

if I was scoping a hornet it would be hard to go past 2-12x50 Meopta, Ive got a few of them and crystal clear they are, a step up from a VX3 to my eyes and superior to the Swaro Z3 if you believe the NIOA boys on youtube lol

[JimTom]

Yep nothing wrong with he Meopta scopes.

[Islander7]

Thanks guys for all your answers, and Flyer - really appreciate your very long post, very imformative, I'll probably have to read it 2 more times to fully understand everything

Looks like the link to the Z5 BRH has gone, so I'm assuming it must have sold pretty quick.

Yep, it was near new condition Z5 BRH for $1300, was going to buy it that night, but it was gone by then.
Today, found another Ad for same scope brand new for $1500... Messaged the seller as soon as I saw it - already sold.
I still have plenty of time until I get my rifle, so will try to get a deal on second hand market. In worst case snenario will have to buy new. Looking at Swarowski and Leupold at this stage, but will check out Meopta as well.

I spent yesterday evening walking around my property with 8.5x56mm binoculars spotting wallabies and rabbits until darkness. Very happy with the level of light in my binoculars, so I definitelly want the brightest scope I can get, maybe I should be looking into 50mm ones even..

[SCJ429]

There is a Nightforce 5.5 to 22 NXS on abusedguns, he wants $1,800, why not make him a cheeky offer?

[Flyer]

All I'd say to that is - nice scope, shame the bloody thing weighs 31oz! The Swaro is half the weight at 16oz. Just sayin'

[Flyer]

Thanks guys for all your answers, and Flyer - really appreciate your very long post, very imformative, I'll probably have to read it 2 more times to fully understand everything

Looks like the link to the Z5 BRH has gone, so I'm assuming it must have sold pretty quick.

Yep, it was near new condition Z5 BRH for $1300, was going to buy it that night, but it was gone by then.
Today, found another Ad for same scope brand new for $1500... Messaged the seller as soon as I saw it - already sold.
I still have plenty of time until I get my rifle, so will try to get a deal on second hand market. In worst case snenario will have to buy new. Looking at Swarowski and Leupold at this stage, but will check out Meopta as well.

I spent yesterday evening walking around my property with 8.5x56mm binoculars spotting wallabies and rabbits until darkness. Very happy with the level of light in my binoculars, so I definitely want the brightest scope I can get, maybe I should be looking into 50mm ones even..

A 44mm Z5 is going to be brighter than a mid-range 50mm, simply because they are so clear edge-to-edge. A lot of the mid-priced scopes are very clear in the middle - and rightly so, as that's where your eye spends most of its time focusing. But it's when you start to look at the edges of a scope that you really see the difference between a good scope and a better scope. You mostly see it at full magnifcation, and you also pick things up when you look into the sun (not directly into the sun, but in the sun's direction) - things like chromatic aberration and flare ("sun spots") that are most likely to appear at dusk and dawn, when the sun is low. That's why I like the Swarovski so much, because when you really look through it, you notice how good it is compared to lesser scopes

I know I sound like a shill, but you can see where the money goes. Nightforce are more a of a tactical/benchrest/long range target scope. They are very tough (hence heavy) and have great features - which is why they are so popular with serious shooters - but I'd also argue the glass (which is made in Japan by LOW) is not quite at the same level as the Swaro Z5/Z6. Again, my 2c

[bigfellascott]

Ol mates only interested in shooting a few sheep each year for food and a few rabbits too, not exactly requiring high mag scopes to do especially if he's using an outdated cartridge like a 22 hornet which is good for around 200m or so, not exacly something that needs high mag unless ya mr magoo, then it might be necesary?

[SCJ429]

The big old Nightforce will help tame the barking recoil of that fire breathing Hornet. That NXS is world class optic, worth keeping for life. I have a couple of S&B and Ziess which have fantastic glass but I would not call Nightforce, Japanese, glass inferior just different. That said I don't have a low magnification Nightforce to compare apples with apples. However when comparing high powered Khales and S&B with Nightforce I preferred the latter and voted with my feet. Almost every competition shooter has done something similar and even March has failed to capture much market share.

[bigfellascott]

The big old Nightforce will help tame the barking recoil of that fire breathing Hornet. That NXS is world class optic, worth keeping for life. I have a couple of S&B and Ziess which have fantastic glass but I would not call Nightforce, Japanese, glass inferior just different. That said I don't have a low magnification Nightforce to compare apples with apples. However when comparing high powered Khales and S&B with Nightforce I preferred the latter and voted with my feet. Almost every competition shooter has done something similar and even March has failed to capture much market share.

Predominately a target shooter mate? seems to be a lot of scopes I'd recommend for target shooting more so than the average hunting situation?

I see flyer finally admitted to being more target shooting orientated rather than what his poor bastard need which is a scope for hunting use at short ranges.

[SCJ429]

I don't do much hunting in summer, more of a winter sport for me. I find I am a much better hunter after practicing at the range. After seeing the poor standard of shooting displayed by hunters I would encourage them to practice regulally at the range. There are specific disciplines for hunters such as field rifle and Metalic shillhoutte. It is also a great place to get use to your scope, learn how to read wind and to find a load that delivers the best accuracy.

I also enjoy competing against the best shooters in Australia. I understand that this is not everyone's cup of tea. This does not mean that I have no clue for what works in a hunting situation. I have had my fair share of success in the field, even with scopes you may consider unsuitable.

[Flyer]

Yeah, can't argue with that - there's a reason you see so many Nightforces on the line. But for carrying around, I just prefer something a bit lighter myself.

Ol mates only interested in shooting a few sheep each year for food and a few rabbits too, not exactly requiring high mag scopes to do especially if he's using an outdated cartridge like a 22 hornet which is good for around 200m or so, not exacly something that needs high mag unless ya mr magoo, then it might be necesary?

Haha! Yeah, we know. I hope I don't sound like a scope snob. Living in the People's Republic of Western Australia, owning a lot of rifles is a luxury most of us don't have. As a consequence, I've ended up with fewer firearms, but a bit more money to spread between them. I spend a fair amount of time behind my scopes at the range, so it's better for my eyes. That's my excuse, anyway

[Flyer]

Hey, full disclosure - I said I was mainly a target shooter on Page 12. Or was it Page 120???

Like SCJ429 said, Field Rifle is hunting practice.

[bigfellascott]

Hey, full disclosure - I said I was mainly a target shooter on Page 12. Or was it Page 120???

Like SCJ429 said, Field Rifle is hunting practice.

Without saying it was obvious, the recommending high mag scopes for a 22 Hornet which will be used for Hunting purposes was a dead giveaway

[bigfellascott]

I don't do much hunting in summer, more of a winter sport for me. I find I am a much better hunter after practicing at the range. After seeing the poor standard of shooting displayed by hunters I would encourage them to practice regulally at the range. There are specific disciplines for hunters such as field rifle and Metalic shillhoutte. It is also a great place to get use to your scope, learn how to read wind and to find a load that delivers the best accuracy.

I also enjoy competing against the best shooters in Australia. I understand that this is not everyone's cup of tea. This does not mean that I have no clue for what works in a hunting situation. I have had my fair share of success in the field, even with scopes you may consider unsuitable.

Yeah I'd imagine a lot of those people who visit ranges to shoot would mainly be from the city/suburbia and never really grew up around firearms and hunting in general so they need all the help they can get I'd imagine.

What are you hunting in Winter?

[Flyer]

I shoot next to - literally - the best Field Rifle and 3P shooters in Australia. They hold national records and often shoot perfect targets. I don't think they need much help.

[bigfellascott]

I shoot next to - literally - the best Field Rifle and 3P shooters in Australia. They hold national records and often shoot perfect targets. I don't think they need much help.

[Flyer]

Just sayin'.

We've seen your results, so we know you don't need the practice, either

[Daddybang]

Ol mates only interested in shooting a few sheep each year for food and a few rabbits too, not exactly requiring high mag scopes to do especially if he's using an outdated cartridge like a 22 hornet which is good for around 200m or so, not exacly something that needs high mag unless ya mr magoo, then it might be necesary?

Yep I use two 3-9x40 a set 6x and a 1x red dot. ..never felt the need for more magnification .. recently starting to stretch out on target shooting(something I've never really done much of) I can see the need for more but not when hunting/culling unless you deliberately set up for five hundred yard shots which is not gonna happen with a .22hornet !!

[bigfellascott]

Just sayin'.

We've seen your results, so we know you don't need the practice, either

I’m no target shooter that’s for sure I go alright in the paddock though.

[SCJ429]

Of course hunting is much more than being able to hit what you are aiming at. Nothing can make up for time spent in the paddock reading sign, understanding where your animal will be at particular times of day. Making sure the wind does not give you away and using cover to conceal your presence. Then you might get to make a shot.

For the skills of making that shot their is nothing like practicing to help you improve. Many people don't like to do this in competition. You cannot hide your results and everyone gets to see them. It can be very humbling and you need to be open to new ideas. The average guy will find it hard to believe how well some people can shoot or how poor their results are when they try. I see Metalic Silhouette shooters knocking over the Rams at 500 with ease, try to do it myself and at first I could not hit a single one.

The good thing about the range, and the Internet is you get new ideas and ways of doing things. It is up to the individual to keep an open mind and make an informed choice. I commend the OP for listening to the posts and considering all the options.

[Member-Deleted]

I don't shoot targets as a hobby I get my practice from hunting more and can hit a bread and butter plate @ 600yds with 7mm mag
so don't think everybody has to practice on the range to shoot well
It goes without saying practice makes perfect but there are people out there that are exceptional shots from the start because they have
grown up with rifles and don't have all the things to fine tune ammo for shooting competition
Hunters use pretty much run of the mill ammo so how can you compare them to a comp shooter ? Big statement

[Flyer]

Well I guess the question is, when you shoot that dinner plate, are you using a bipod or rest?

We shoot metallic silhouettes at 500m . . . offhand. No support. The targets are a bit bigger than a dinner plate, but they also weigh 70kg, and if you hit one and it doesn't go down, it doesn't count, so you need to use a large enough calibre to do it.

There are "big statements" and then there are results. Target shooters hand-load because some put a couple of thousand rounds or more downrange each year. Talking about ammo is a bit of a non-sequitur in any case, because if your ammo is s**t, you're not going to hit anything - except by chance or luck. And certainly not consistently. Round after round after round into an X ring.

I picked up two gold medals in my class at the last state field rifle championships. Both by one point. Out of 400. After coming from behind both times on the last target. That's not a brag, it just shows how close it can be and how much you have to keep your nerve in competition. Medals are decided by fractions of an inch over 42 shots. And it's all offhand or leaning against a post - no bipods, benches or supports.

I'm not taking anything away from hunters. And I wasn't joking about bigfellascott - he's a good shot. But I totally agree with SCJ429. I've been that humbled guy (many, many times). But you truly don't know what a rifle and shooter are capable of until you stand next to a guy who can shoot the eye out of humming bird at 100m offhand 19 times out of 20 in 3P. And that's not even an exaggeration.

[solarpak]

My personal opinion....
shooting targets and hunting........completely different scenarios and exercises......

There is no consequence if you shoot at a paper or steel target poorly.......but shoot at an animal poorly and the consequences can be a wounded animal ....
which is something NO ETHICAL HUNTER would ever want.

However the current boom in Long Range target shooting is a great one at that for shooting sports in general but when these sportsmen try to emulate long range shots at distances 300m + in a hunting scenario , you must be 100% sure of your ability as well as equipment and reading the wind and environmental conditions.

I do know of quite a few highly experienced hunters who can shoot out to 800 metres - mostly on varmints- with complete success but to see the amount of great they use makes their task much easier. But for the inexperienced long range shooter - keep shooting at paper and steel ....

Personally - i dont see the need to shoot any animal over 300 metres - thats why they call it hunting and stalking.....

CK

[SCJ429]

I don't shoot targets as a hobby I get my practice from hunting more and can hit a bread and butter plate @ 600yds with 7mm mag
Hunters use pretty much run of the mill ammo so how can you compare them to a comp shooter ? Big statement

Nice shooting, I shot a fly at 500 metres with a factory Tikka in 223, that same rifle has shot heaps of foxes one at nearly 400 metres. I could not have made that shot without practicing.

Most of the hunters I know reload and they try to get the most out of their hunting ammo. One told me that he liked his ES to be under 20 fps for hunting. I find half the fun is getting it right in the reloading room.

If factory ammo allows you to bring something home to put in the freezer then that is great and more power to you. Everyone gets different things out of the sport. Sometimes I go on a hunt and don't fire a shot, still have fun and see some interesting things.

[marksman]

a lot of the debates about what is needed or acceptable for hunting comes from people thinking of the way they hunt
some people think that the only real form of hunting is stalking through the bush sneaking up on game, shooting then tracking
most people do not practice for this type of hunting but I have come across a couple who go to the range and set up dots at 50m shooting off the shoulder with very low magnification scopes, I take my hat off to these guy's who get very proficient by doing this
I myself think that varminting and precision hunting at distance is hunting as well, and this is where you would get good experience from target shooting
because you learn how to shoot at distance and shoot in all real world conditions, especially if you are using the rifle intended for hunting
I have never shot in a competition ever, the reason being I cannot afford to do it to a level I would like be shooting at
I get my practice on paper, hunting and culling, when culling it has to be done with precision, but I try to do the job the same as if I were group shooting on paper, there is no mediocre, I believe to practice like you hunt and you will hunt like you practice
I use Leopold, Meopta and a couple of Nightforce scopes for hunting

IMHO get the best you can for what you are doing
my daughters 22 hornet wears a Zeiss conquest hd5 3-15x50 scope and I dont see that as to much scope for her

[Oldbloke]

"IMHO get the best you can for what you are doing
my daughters 22 hornet wears a Zeiss conquest hd5 3-15x50 scope and I dont see that as to much scope for her "

I would think it's plenty.
Personally using a 3-9 x 40 on my 223. For distances up to about 200 yards. Depends on use of course. And I could see the use for a 4-12.