Scope advice

[TassieTiger]

Boy, wouldn't you complain if you used one of my varminting scopes. The best is a March 8-80x56mm and the least power one is a 5-50x56mm. What you refer to and have difficulty with is the exit pupil size and it gets tiny as you go up in scope power. However, if you rifle is setup correctly then it gets really easy to grab the rifle and just look...no black, just a scope image of your target.

It's simply lack of experience and possibly incorrect equipment setup. I don't believe in high mounted scopes, nor do I believe in this tight cheek weld story. My scopes are mounted high and be it shooting off a bench or out in the paddock with a bipod I can instantly get a full scope picture with even the highest power setting.

Perhaps the thoughts are... the scope is not mounted correctly with the correct eye relief. You should be able to shoulder it and/or sit behind it without a hesitation of adjusting your eye relief. Perhaps too far away or too close to your eye.

Experiment by moving your scope closer or further away. On most rifles the rear of the ocular lens is about level with the rear of the stock pistol grip. With experience, you will determine if you are upon sighting behind a scope if you are moving forward or backward to get a sight image correctly. Move the scope to compensate and you will solve that problem.

In my view this mounting a scope as low as possible to the bore just makes the problem worse, jamming your cheek into a stock is not ideal for accuracy nor for a quick fire target/animal choice. Standing/sitting you should be able to shoulder a rifle and have an instant sight picture no matter how powerful the scope is or not. Just learnt over many years of use/practice in various positions.

Don't be afraid to experiment and you will come out the better from the tasks.

Yes, I agree it’s lack of experience and I’m still working at set up, it’s justbive noticed that the exit pupil problem ? I refer to is no where near as bad as in some other scopes...I think I have some 9 scopes here ranging from leos to Chinese crap to Tasco, to bushnel, redfield, Nikon, etc etc and the exit pupil issue on the bushy AR scope is the smallest and most frustrating for me.
It’s still not a bad scope - especially for the $$$ but it has limitations for my experience cmpared to some others.

I’d like to try a few other scopes - might put things into perspective for me lol

[Apollo]

I used a 36x Weaver for a number of years Apollo, it has a exit pupil just over one mm, the 80x March is another thing. What do you think of the March? I have spoken to a number of shooters who were not happy with theirs.

Well, I don't have a 36x Weaver but I do have a very modified Leupold version of the same magnification plus now a Leupold 40x45 Competition. Both I love for short range competition ie 100/200 metre Score shooting. Rimfire I use a 36-55x52mm March EP Zoom on a 30BR plus my 1965 Brno Model 2 .22LR for 200 Yard Fly.

Great scopes, great optics and clarity all of them. I might be retired from the workforce and have little reserve money but what I do have I spend on the hobby that I love being competition target shooting...even more so beating young pups that think us old guys can't shoot for s**t... Never out of 50 National Shooters have I come in the bottom half.

People say about what money they spend on a Firearm then how much to spend on a Scope.... If you are serious, spend as much as you can afford on a rifle scope. It was as much as your rifle cost, in my view spend much more. The scope will be with you for many more years than probably the rifle.

[Apollo]

An example...

The exit pupil size on my March 8-80x56mm is 0.7 - 1.75mm which is tiny.

I admit you are probably a long way from spending the sort of money I invest in scopes (like $4,000 plus) but... Think about it. We all started somewhere and the point I'm trying to make is spend more money on your Optics than you do on your Rifle. You'll wear the rifle out but you will never wear out your scope if it's top notch as best as you can afford at the time.

Leupold also make great scopes, BUT not the budget made in China cheap s**t.

[SCJ429]

That is great, I was interested that these guys had bought the March but gone back to using Nightforce.

I used fixed powered scopes for years, mainly Leupold but bought the Weaver because of price and had used one beforehand and it was pretty good. These days I have gone with the crowd and use Nightforce. Not been unhappy with them. I have been beaten many times but not because I was using an inferior scope.

[Apollo]

That is great, I was interested that these guys had bought the March but gone back to using Nightforce.

I used fixed powered scopes for years, mainly Leupold but bought the Weaver because of price and had used one beforehand and it was pretty good. These days I have gone with the crowd and use Nightforce. Not been unhappy with them. I have been beaten many times but not because I was using an inferior scope.

There is nothing "inferior" about Nightforce.

Do you know that Stuart Elliott (BRT Shooting) being the Australian/Asia Agent for March Scopes was a part of the initial team that devised with Nightforce to come up with the 12-40x56mm Nightforce BR which many, many competition shooters use. Then it's little sister the 32x but the idea was great optics and magnification at a reasonable price so that was the 12-40x. The story was a high quality powerful scope at an affordable price. The same power NXS was several hundred dollars more expensive with features not really used.

Now Nightforce have developed further and came out with the upgraded Benchrest versions at a huge increase in price. Personally, I haven't looked through one but at 500m Fly most are still using the older 12-40. We may be getting too cheap in thinking. Me, I have no regrets in spending $4,500 on a March and have had a few others at the range say to me "how do you see that" simple...Optics... BTW, I don't own a Spotting Scope, don't need one.

[SCJ429]

I do know Stuart, I bought one of my fixed powered Leupolds off him back in the 80's when he lived in Canberra. I own a 12-42 BR Nightforce and a Competition series 55x. My preference is the competition series but I don't feel handicapped when I use the 42x. I have looked through S&B, Kahles and March but don't feel they offered me anything more than the Nightforce. I also don't have a spotting scope.... I just look through some other generous competitors unit.

When the mirage starts to boil, everyone is winding their power back and the 42x seem to do as well as anything else on the line. What magnification range do you use when conditions start to get tricky?

[Apollo]

Well you probably know Ken M (Copperhead Bullets) and I can remember at one 500m Competition he was asking me what power I had set on my March 8-80 and at first I said very close to 80x then two details later he asked again since the mirage had come in and was switching from left to right and I said to Ken I have backed off to about 40-50 power. At 40x times I was in my mind seeing a better view of the "Fly Target" than Ken and my shooting mate who was also using a Nightforce 12-40x.

I know there is a big price difference, with probably not the same end story BUT.... I was seeing bullet holes that most others were not even with their spotting scopes. KM after the shoot said to me "I will never offer to Spot or Advise you ever again"....!!! He also said how could I see the target during the bad conditions. Yep, I had a guess...no not right. I believe the optics were better quality, enabled me to have the edge.

Well, that was my first ever 500m Fly Shoot. KM knew that I was as nervous as s**t and tried to help but I didn't need to be distracted. First ever time shooting a National Competition with 50 other shooters... Yeah, I came 4th overall of Light & Heavy Gun, shot the Best Target and Smallest Group (1.182") for the day...

I'm just an average benchrest shooter that knows nothing...

Boiling Mirage and Wind, yep.. I wind back from 80x to perhaps 40-50x and like in Canberra one Fly Shoot to about 30x when it was really wild.

The point might be big scores in the very early morning when there is very little to no mirage with a hint of verticle heat from the ground warming up.

[Apollo]

BTW... I'm sorry but I'm a very firm believer in quality expensive beautiful scopes.

Last time I spoke in person with Stuart/Annie Elliott was at Canberra and I just wish they had more time to come home to shoot.

Stuart passed onto me a Rifle/Scope setup from a mutual friend Alan Peake (deceased) who was also a HOF member.

These people are not only International Benchrest shooters but love their Varminting at distance and skills pass over when they just wanted a break away from competition.

People may start cheap but they ultimately end up regretting some cheap purchases. Not my belief, buy the best you can afford and it will stay with you from rifle to rifle in the long term.

What do I know, I'm just an old foggie with a few years at best to live...

Enjoy life whilst you can.

[TassieTiger]

Forgive me if I come off the wrong way here...
As a relatively new shooter with soooo so much to learn, I’ve been guided by an older hand in much of what I acquire. He is a strong advocate for Leupold scopes - for quality.

With 4 kids of my own, multiple hobbies and sports that span across many years - shooting was the last sport I thought I would move into.
So being on a limited budget and still working out how deep I intend to jump - I’m looking at multiple disciplines of this fine sport - as I’m sure many are/do. From clays, to varmint, to 3p with field .22’s to target shooting - there’s specialised variances in many areas and cost becomes a factor for most, at least at some level. I’m shooting clays with an ata 686, I’m tempting 3p with a cheap cz and redfield scope...very budget end equipment.

From reading some posts on here (and I’ll take a guess I’m far from alone) - there is now no way in hell im going to move on and try formal target shooting - because it comes across to me that it’s a sport full of elitists and if I don’t have a $10k plus bit of kit, I’ll be looked down upon as a simpleton with much to learn. Screw the fun that might be had on the “learning” pathway or from the actual sport of shooting long distances with simple equipment ? If Craig Lowndes takes his supercar to a local meet - he will win, but if he takes an old ****** and comes 2nd last, will he have had as much fun trying to compete with better equipment?
I’m sure everyone would love to have the best equipment in their chosen disciplines and sports - but for many, including myself - a $5k scope for paper is unjustifiable...there is nothing more satisfying than knocking down more clays than the guy standing next to you, when you know he has spent in some cases 20 times what you have on a gun.

Wow-thread officially derailed lol.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Mate, I don't think that way, think of you are competing yourself. And if you get better results than someone shooting with expensive equipment than it is living on the cake. Yes some go gaga on expensive stuff. But no one laughs at you for having a nikko Stirling scope, esp if you shooting decent.

And look at the second hand market you will get decent scores for 2/3 or 1/2 the price quote often

[SCJ429]

You may be surprised how helpful other competitors are when you are lost or have some equipment issues. I have seen guys all trying to help a new guy get onto the target or lending me a front rest when I left mine at home. Yes they want to do the best they can but also congratulate you when you shoot a personal best.

[bladeracer]

Interesting targets.

Not what I would use as I want a much better aiming point.

I can't post a PDF file on this Forum but the targets I use are printed at home on an A4 Sheet. I use these from as close as 50m for Rimfire to 500 Metres plus for Centrefire. There are 6 targets per sheet, 1" lines between and the circle is 2".

If you or anyone wants a copy of the PDF then snd me an email address and I'll attach to the reply the file.

The attach image is the initial test loads I did with a CZ 527 Varmint at 180 Metres, 52gr Berger Bullets.

Bottom right is the first shot then adjust for a better centre, top is 10 shots once sighted in.

I do occasionally shoot at printed targets. But I have to email the PDF to Rose so she can print them at the house, and then I have to find them when I'm heading up the paddock
As I have a huge stack of A4 and A3 paper (my brother-in-law is a Canon copier technician which requires running thousands of pages through the machines to calibrate them) I generally just grab a handful of paper when I head up the paddock. And I buy insulation tape in bulk for labeling stuff, so I always have tape in my pocket. And I buy bulk adhesive dots for patching targets, but they live in my range belt which I usually only take if I'm planning a lot of shooting - basically more ammo than I can fit in my pockets.

As for the aiming point, I aim at a corner of the tape, which is a pretty fine aim point, and why I prefer a diamond-shaped target.
And as I'm not a competitive shooter I'm not chasing one-hole groups anyway, minute-of-rabbit-head is more than enough for me.

[bladeracer]

I was shooting 1 inch orange adhesive dots at 120m and the cross hairs on my AR 223 scope was obscuring at least 40% of the dot...I wonder if reticle wire varies.

Have you got the reticle properly focused?

[bladeracer]

People say about what money they spend on a Firearm then how much to spend on a Scope.... If you are serious, spend as much as you can afford on a rifle scope. It was as much as your rifle cost, in my view spend much more. The scope will be with you for many more years than probably the rifle.

That's a good philosophy if you only have one rifle, but I don't want a dozen or more $2000 scopes resting in my gun safes.
I don't believe in spending more for something that is considered "better" than I need or want, and all my rifles and scopes are for life, I don't expect any of them to let me down.
If a $350 scope does everything I ask of it, and does it well, I'm not going to consider a $1000 or $2000 scope to be any "better".
If I were trying to shoot one-hole groups at 1000m I might well consider a more expensive scope would do a better job, and as I would likely be building one or two rifles just for that purpose, I'd be happier putting such scopes on them.

What I really don't understand is when you see a $2000 rifle, wearing a $2000 scope, for sale having fired "less than two boxes" or some such thing. That to me is like buying a boat, and taking it out once a year.

[bladeracer]

Yes, I agree it’s lack of experience and I’m still working at set up, it’s justbive noticed that the exit pupil problem ? I refer to is no where near as bad as in some other scopes...I think I have some 9 scopes here ranging from leos to Chinese crap to Tasco, to bushnel, redfield, Nikon, etc etc and the exit pupil issue on the bushy AR scope is the smallest and most frustrating for me.
It’s still not a bad scope - especially for the $$$ but it has limitations for my experience cmpared to some others.

I’d like to try a few other scopes - might put things into perspective for me lol

One thing that does make it difficult to judge one brand as better than another, is that all brands have lower- and higher-quality offerings.
If you try a Bushnell Banner series scope it might turn you off trying the same brand's higher-quality scopes, same with Tasco, Nikko-Stirling and such. When I was a kid with very limited funds, I figured all Tasco's and Nikko's were about as good as those I was using. Later I discovered both companies also make very good quality scopes, for a lot more money. One way to try different scopes is to ask around at ranges to see if people will let you have a look through whatever they have mounted. That'll show you the quality of the glass in daylight, and whether you like the type of reticle. You can probably also assume that if they have it mounted on a rifle they're shooting well with, that it probably holds a zero and that the turrets track accurately. But many, many shooters will zero a rifle and never touch the turrets again. If you are wanting to shoot longer ranges you will certainly be doing a lot of turret adjustment. And if you are going to be hunting you need to know if the glass is good in poorer light, whether it fogs easily, and whether the scope will stand up to being dropped and banged around.

I put something of an unfair restriction on my scopes. I wanted one scope that I could run on all of my rifles, including the .22's. There are a lot of scopes that would make a lesser job of it than mine do.

[bladeracer]

Forgive me if I come off the wrong way here...
As a relatively new shooter with soooo so much to learn, I’ve been guided by an older hand in much of what I acquire. He is a strong advocate for Leupold scopes - for quality.

With 4 kids of my own, multiple hobbies and sports that span across many years - shooting was the last sport I thought I would move into.
So being on a limited budget and still working out how deep I intend to jump - I’m looking at multiple disciplines of this fine sport - as I’m sure many are/do. From clays, to varmint, to 3p with field .22’s to target shooting - there’s specialised variances in many areas and cost becomes a factor for most, at least at some level. I’m shooting clays with an ata 686, I’m tempting 3p with a cheap cz and redfield scope...very budget end equipment.

From reading some posts on here (and I’ll take a guess I’m far from alone) - there is now no way in hell im going to move on and try formal target shooting - because it comes across to me that it’s a sport full of elitists and if I don’t have a $10k plus bit of kit, I’ll be looked down upon as a simpleton with much to learn. Screw the fun that might be had on the “learning” pathway or from the actual sport of shooting long distances with simple equipment ? If Craig Lowndes takes his supercar to a local meet - he will win, but if he takes an old ****** and comes 2nd last, will he have had as much fun trying to compete with better equipment?
I’m sure everyone would love to have the best equipment in their chosen disciplines and sports - but for many, including myself - a $5k scope for paper is unjustifiable...there is nothing more satisfying than knocking down more clays than the guy standing next to you, when you know he has spent in some cases 20 times what you have on a gun.

Wow-thread officially derailed lol.

In motorcycle racing I was never tempted to spend money to go faster, I just wanted to go as fast as I possibly could on what I had, and I rode all of my race bikes on the road while I wasn't racing them. For a long while I used to ride to the track, pull off the road gear, race all day, and then ride back home. I feel the same with shooting, or anything else.

For me, the only value in these sports is to improve your real-world skills. I see no value at all in winning a competition with a rifle that only has one purpose, to win that one competition. I love the concept of F-Class, but the thing that keeps me (and I'm sure many others) out of it is not being able to use the same rifles I use for everything else. I really like what Gwion(?) is doing with F-Class Hunter/Varmint, but I don't think we're seeing that up here yet.

[Sergeant Hartman]

I think one PRS catches on we will see a lot more normally type rifles. Saying that I think many fclass guys will likely enjoy and be bloody good at doing both once they get out of their comfort zone.

[bladeracer]

I think one PRS catches on we will see a lot more normally type rifles. Saying that I think many fclass guys will likely enjoy and be bloody good at doing both once they get out of their comfort zone.

I have been following the PRS and it looks like a blast.