TassieTiger wrote: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?
TassieTiger wrote: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.
Apollo wrote: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.
TassieTiger wrote: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
TassieTiger wrote: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.
Ziad wrote: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.