New scope time

[cruze82]

Ok I have been thinking its about time I drop some big money on a high quality scope these are my choices I have narrowed it down to.

The hard thing I am finding is getting either of these scopes on my hand to fondle and I'm finding it hard to swallow the 4k price tag (with rings) on something I have never seen or held.

So my question is has anyone gone down this path and paid the money for top quality glass and how did you go about it?

The scope will be used for long range hunting and target shooting

5-25x56 B.E.A.S.T.™
5-25x56 PM II/LP/MTC/LT

Both first focal plain with a Horus reticle.

[Apollo]

Oh, are they that much. Both nice I would believe and a little under powered for me.

I just buy cheap March Scopes which have better than twice the magnification and foremost I'm not interested in FFP one bit, especially after being warned against the idea by a couple of Australia's best target shooters. Hunting maybe FFP but have a combination of both...

[cruze82]

both are around $3700 in Australia + rings
why no first focal plain its got to be so much easier to range targets
what was there argument against ?

[Noisydad]

The question you've got ask yourself is "Can I make use of all those dots and lines built into the reticle?" A mans got to know his limitations!

[petemacsydney]

Oh, are they that much. Both nice I would believe and a little under powered for me.

I just buy cheap March Scopes which have better than twice the magnification and foremost I'm not interested in FFP one bit, especially after being warned against the idea by a couple of Australia's best target shooters. Hunting maybe FFP but have a combination of both...

hey mate, what were you using on that nice rifle i shot?

[cruze82]

A mans got to know his limitations!

or the limitations need to be pushed! start to settle for ok that's far enough and you would never know

[MeccaOz]

The question you've got ask yourself is "Can I make use of all those dots and lines built into the reticle?" A mans got to know his limitations!

Funny you should say that. I been watching the Dirty Harry Movies

[cruze82]

Oh, are they that much. Both nice I would believe and a little under powered for me.

I just buy cheap March Scopes which have better than twice the magnification and foremost I'm not interested in FFP one bit, especially after being warned against the idea by a couple of Australia's best target shooters. Hunting maybe FFP but have a combination of both...

http://marchscopes.com/tactical-8-80-x-56.html
and I thought the nightforce was expensive
crazy magnification though I bet the mirage is crazy at 80 power

[petemacsydney]

ok... so i wont be buying one of those soon... ;-(

although... i could sell one of the kids...

[Apollo]

hey mate, what were you using on that nice rifle i shot?

Which one...????

I think you shot the Green Machine first up, (RPE) Stolle 30BR with it's 8-80x56mm March-X Tactical. Second would have been when I switched to 300m to fireform cases and that would have been the Blue rubbish Remington (Clancy) Custom in 6.5x47 Lapua with it's 10-60x52mm March Long Range. Both SFP with MTR-2 Reticles.

You haven't shot my rough Tikka T3 yet with it's cheap 5-50x56mm March-X Tactical , MTR-1 Reticle. In standard form it's a .243W Varmint but it's also a practise 6.5x47 Lapua.

The other comments.

As I said in my view and others the FFP is not an ideal Target Scope but Hunting is a different story, perhaps Tactical type match also. I was going to buy a March 5-40x56mm FFP but was talked out of even considering it by my friend, the Australian Importer and others. If one has only ever used SFP Scopes then adding a FFP I was advised would add more confusion than one wants and I will take the advice from one of the world's best.

As far as price goes, I have never paid close to four grand for a March but the exchange rate did change a lot awhile back. My only regrets are not having an Illuminated Reticle on the small one for really poor light conditions. Yes, no problems seeing critters that even the naked eye can't see in the gloom but it's hard to see the reticle under such low light conditions. Spotlighting not a problem, and I mean spotlighting properly keeping the critter outside the main beam.

What else.... Oh, Nightforce yep had one of those, a 12-42x56mm BR and the only scope I have ever owned that smacked me....my fault, trying free recoil and didn't realise the eye relief distance. The March is a bit longer, like 25mm longer which is a huge difference when using full power. Then there is the difference in weight with the Nightforce quite a bit heavier. Optics, well again, you get what you pay for.

[Chronos]

i'm not a fan of overly cluttered reticles, particularly if you're using a dope chart to click up to longer ranges. for target shooting i like fine duplex or target dots, my nightforce 12-42X56 BR has the NP-R2 reticle seen below with 2MOA sub tenons (?) but a mate has just bought an 8-32X56 BR with the NP-2DD reticle which would be ideat for target shooting in my opinion second image down

for hunting i would be spending a few dollars on a reliable range finder and develop some drop charts for your cartridge load

chronos

[Rippah]

i'm not a fan of overly cluttered reticles

"cluttered" is an understatement. Those Horus reticles are bonkers.

[MCLE]

I think that the March 8x80x56 are very good the glass is as good as my S&B PM II . I was shooting a Fclass comp on the weekend using a 6mm Dasher and at 600y a could easily see the holes in the spotter.I am that happy with the March that a bought 2 of them rather than another S&B.But they are all very good l think at that price level.

[lole]

"cluttered" is an understatement. Those Horus reticles are bonkers.

That's not even the busiest one.

Check out their H25 and H37 reticles half way down the page.

[bigfellascott]

What ya hunting at long range (what is long range anyway)?

[AusC]

(what is long range anyway)?

Arguable I'm sure.

Zero at 200m though and a regular old cross-hair will take you out to 300m no problem.

300m and beyond in this shooters opinion.

[cruze82]

What ya hunting at long range (what is long range anyway)?

Best distance so far is 546m on a skippy (used a gps to mark shooting potion and animal position so + or - 5m)

But I have a spot on the farm where they congregate its in between 900m and 1100m from shooting postion.

I've been holding out on the longer shots as some more practice is needed so a confident and ethical shot can be made.

That distance might not be a long shot for some people as some guys shoot F class and shoot 1000m every weekend but im chuffed if I can hit something at 1000m

Now I know a lot of guys don't like the Horus reticle or first focal plain but I had a play with one on the weekend and yes it took some getting used to but it had so many advantages to it once you used it for a while, and a lot of guys I have been speaking to that don't like it there excuse is its not what I'm used to or that seems complicated or ill just stick with what I know

It was so easy to range known height targets and to just use holdovers in stead of dialling MOA was great as I always get lost in where im at when dialling up as my bushnell 4.5 x 30 has no zero stop and having a mill turret and mill reticle was great

So yes I know its not for everyone but know I've used one I don't think I could go back to a duplex reticle.

Just my opinion.

[bigfellascott]

Thanks for that mate, long way to be shooting skips in the head! sounds like a good challenge, have fun.

[Aussier]

Now I know a lot of guys don't like the Horus reticle or first focal plain but I had a play with one on the weekend and yes it took some getting used to but it had so many advantages to it once you used it for a while

I do get appreciate advantages of first plane reticles (having used them on occasion).

The first few times you zoom in/out though it's definitely not what you're expecting though after you've been using second-plane scopes.

[cruze82]

have a look at this link you can zoom in to see what the rericle looks like on high and low power
https://www.horusvision.com/img/h59falcon.swf

[VICHunter]

I do get appreciate advantages of first plane reticles (having used them on occasion).

Having the holdover points remain constant is definitely a plus for hunting over difference distances.

[Lorgar]

The hard thing I am finding is getting either of these scopes on my hand to fondle and I'm finding it hard to swallow the 4k price tag (with rings) on something I have never seen or held.

So my question is has anyone gone down this path and paid the money for top quality glass and how did you go about it?

The scope will be used for long range hunting and target shooting

5-25x56 B.E.A.S.T.™

Just my personal opinion here (not having a go, not knocking the scopes etc. etc.)

I've gotta say that, for me, $4k for a scope is a waste of money to be blunt.

There are so many options for 1/3rd of the price that are excellent. Not 'good for the money' or 'not as good but half the price', just straight up great scopes.

I bought my Elite 6500 after much research and reviews and it is excellent all round. Comparing to the above for a sec...

6500 (left) vs BEAST (right)

4.5-30x vs 5-25x

$950 vs $3,700

683 grams vs 1097 grams

30mm tube vs 34mm tube

50mm objective vs 56mm objective.

Pros for the 6500 - More magnification range, 1/4 the price, smaller, lighter, IMO better clarity (explained later on)


Pro's for the BEAST are arguable at best IMO...

The 34mm tube gives you 60moa of adjustment, while the the 30mm of the Elite gives you 52moa.

Doing some quick math here... (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

On the same fixed mounts... the Elite would take me out to about 1200ish metres before I ran out of drop adjustment. The BEAST would take me out to 1350ish metres.

Beyond that there is always adding a mount/rail with additional adjustment anyway to add range if you needed it. Personally I have the mildot reticles too which I can use to aim and effectively increase to 'drop adjustment' anyway. Having said all that I never shoot that far anyway so it's all a moot point for me, and you said your furthest shot so far is 546m so...


50mm vs 56mm objective... and on the subject of glass quality in general...

I have used the BEAST's a handful of times, can't say I'm intimately familiar with them but on the occasions I've used them there was certainly nothing to justify the cost of those lenses to me.

I picked up a few of the expensive Nightforce scopes at the Shot Show when it was here in Melbourne and I have to say I was pretty underwhelmed. To my naked eye (acknowledging that that's a completely subjective test and not scientific at all) they were not as clear/sharp as my scope.

My 50mm gathers light extremely well in low light conditions, has all the fancy glass coatings blah blah blah. Putting them to the test I would be seriously surprised if the BEAST did any better.


Didn't mean for this to be all negative and ripping on the Nightforce scopes but that's the way I see it. Open to hearing counter arguments...

Circling back to actual scope advice, following my train of thought with the Bushnells... The only thing is the 6500's have second focal plane reticles which you're currently not looking at. You could however look at the Elite Tactical series which has everything discussed above and first focal plane reticle like you're looking at,

XRS 4.5-30x 50mm with G2 reticle.

ERS 4.5-30x 50mm with Mil-Dot reticle.


Those are my thoughts.

[cruze82]

Some really good comparisons there mate and to tell you the truth, I had the same thought the other day.

I have the Bushnell 4.5-30x Elite Tactical in a Mil-Dot on the gun at the moment and I do like the scope.

I had thought about buying another Bushnell with the first focal plane reticle, it's really good glass for the price.

I'm hoping there are a few to hold at the shot show in Perth this year.

[gherx]

Just my personal opinion here (not having a go, not knocking the scopes etc. etc.)

Not sure that will be enough to stop the Nightforce goon squad ripping into you

[chicachicka]

He'll be right.

They couldn't find him through those heavy, blurry scopes anyway. OOOWWW BURN!

[MeccaOz]

He'll be right.

They couldn't find him through those heavy, blurry scopes anyway. OOOWWW BURN!

LMAO

[flap]

The 34mm tube gives you 60moa of adjustment, while the the 30mm of the Elite gives you 52moa.

Does a bigger tube always give more adjustment range?

[The Brass]

Does a bigger tube always give more adjustment range?

Yes, that's the primary purpose. Larger tube = more room for internal workings to move further.

There is argument that a larger tube is better for light gathering but I'm not convinced it adds any real benefit in that regard. On datasheet specs from manufacturers I've read numbers like 1-2% more light transmission, if they even mention it...

Putting it to your eye though I say there is no difference. With any decent quality scope anyway, and certainly not when you're starting with a 30mm tube. That's heaps for light. The only reason you'd ever need to buy a scope with a tube larger than 30mm is for extreme range shooting.

2c.

[Squiddy]

Im digging up an old thread here, but I'm scope shopping and managed to confuse the crap out of myself (which isn't hard).

Looking at the Bushnell Elite Tactical 6-24x50mm BTR MIL illuminated.

Is the mil dot good for long distance shooting (500m-1000m and possibly beyond?), or should I go with the G2 reticle? The mil dot reticle comes in almost $300 cheaper....

[knowsnothin]

S & B have a new high mag scope out this year 5 - 45. looking forward to looking through one.