SCJ429 wrote:Bushnell make an AR series which goes up to 18x, it has target turrets and is under $160. The only downsize is a fairly thick retical but it is hard to find something better for under $500.
TassieTiger wrote:I have the AR scope on 223 and have two issues - with the higher powers (8 and up), you have to have your eye length within 1-2mm to get the full scope picture. It is the most finicky scope I’ve ever used and just moving the slightest tiniest amount, you will be looking at a black wall...of nothing.
On a bench, it’s not really a huge issue, but hunting is a frustrating-pain on even the lower power settings.
On the bench, the reticle thickness does become something of a problem as others have said as well, the point of impact does hide behind reticle- but, the dots in the scope, for compensating - are huge and could hide a group and because of this they are pretty useless...
The Bush banner dusk/dawn 4-9 is much more usable in my book for hunting - similar eyebox to Leupold 6.5-20 on higher power and fantastic in low light. If anyone wants to swap my ar for a banner - no worries...
bladeracer wrote:TassieTiger wrote:I have the AR scope on 223 and have two issues - with the higher powers (8 and up), you have to have your eye length within 1-2mm to get the full scope picture. It is the most finicky scope I’ve ever used and just moving the slightest tiniest amount, you will be looking at a black wall...of nothing.
On a bench, it’s not really a huge issue, but hunting is a frustrating-pain on even the lower power settings.
On the bench, the reticle thickness does become something of a problem as others have said as well, the point of impact does hide behind reticle- but, the dots in the scope, for compensating - are huge and could hide a group and because of this they are pretty useless...
The Bush banner dusk/dawn 4-9 is much more usable in my book for hunting - similar eyebox to Leupold 6.5-20 on higher power and fantastic in low light. If anyone wants to swap my ar for a banner - no worries...
That's interesting. I'm using it to shoot out to longer ranges on the .22 currently, with so much elevation that I have no cheek weld, and I'm not having any trouble at all with the eye relief at max power. Hold-over dots are useless for precision shooting anyway, dial the crosshair onto your point of aim. I haven't found any problem with the "thick" reticle either. I was shooting today at a penned cross at 50m, bloody near impossible to see it, and the reticle definitely hides that (near as I can measure the pen lines are about 0.2mm or less in thickness). But I was also shooting at 14mm adhesive dots, which are huge under the reticle - the reticle only covers 0.125MoA at 50m - that's 3.625mm wide. I forgot to do the crosses at 45-degrees so they'd show in the reticle quadrants On the pieces of tape I aim for one of the lower corner points, on the dots I tried at the dot centre and a six-o'clock hold on the bottom centre of the dot, which gave me better results.
I shot some groups at 50m, 100m and 150m yesterday before I cleaned the bore, then I shot 180rds this arvo at 50m to see if there was any improvement. Prone from the bipod without any rear support, and the 100m and 150m groups I was aiming through tall grass so didn't have a great sight picture, although the bulets were lobbing over the grass. I shot the first "cleaned" groups the same way and didn't see any measurable difference. Then I put a rear bag under it and shot a lot of 5rd groups to see if there was any measureable change as the bore fouled. I finished off with a 40m and 25m group to check point of impact at very close ranges. I also shot some silhouettes nearby which sprayed fragments across my targets.
Apollo wrote: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.
SCJ429 wrote: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.
SCJ429 wrote: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 wrote: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.