Long Range Scope for .308?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • MrWhiteRabbit

    Firefighter Gone Awry
    Sep 23, 2007
    1,122
    This is primarily directed toward E.Shell, but I figure we could all benefit from the discussion:

    I recently picked up a Remington 700 PSS in .308 and am looking to get into some long-range target shooting with it, so now I'm looking for recommendations on optics before I start plinking paper.

    Brand names aside, I'm looking for an education. For example, is there a purpose to a variable magnification? It's not like I'm going to need to use a 5x magnification to find a target and then zoom to 22x to place the shot on paper, am I? Don't most shooters leave it at maximum magnification anyway? And I don't hunt, so I can't think of a need for illuminated reticles or such.

    Your thoughts?
     

    HoChiWaWa

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 27, 2007
    1,414
    Montgomery Village
    I think a lot of people are a bit ridiculous with how much magnification they use, a 3-9 will do pretty much anything you need it too unless you're shooting ridiculously far.

    The main benefit to a variable magnification is more light gets through the tube at a lower magnification making for a clearer picture, not a huge deal on the crazy high objective scopes you see but on the more compact ones it makes a difference if the lighting isn't optimal.
     

    mdjamesd

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 6, 2007
    1,726
    Towson
    I had a Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x40, and it was a great scope. Very clear, just didn't have mil-dots, and I wanted more magnification.

    About 8 months ago I got a Falcon Optics Menace 4.5-18x56 and couldn't be happier. Mil-dots, great eye relief, clear glass. I usually use it between 10x and 18x, but have found myself using the lower magnifications more. A giant benefit of a variable power is you can use lower magnification for both closer ranges, and moving targets, and then use a higher magnification at longer ranges and for helping with smaller groups at any range.

    If you're near the timonium area, drop me a line, and I'll bring it out for you to take a look through it.
     

    MrWhiteRabbit

    Firefighter Gone Awry
    Sep 23, 2007
    1,122
    Thanks for defining the reasons behind a less-magnification-more-light and more-magnification-less-light scenario. That makes sense.

    ... unless you're shooting ridiculously far.

    Define, please. Is 1,000 yards ridiculous? Would a 3-9x do that?

    Ever see the movie SWAT? My goal is to play poker at 1,000 yards. (But it was my goal first! They stole my idea!:envy:) The typical playing card is 2.5" wide, so 2.5" at 100yd is 2.5MOA. Throw that out to 1,000 yards and it's 1/4MOA.

    The 700 may not be the best rifle for this, but from what I've seen, it should be a good start. I'm just wondering what glass would be best for this application.
     

    MrWhiteRabbit

    Firefighter Gone Awry
    Sep 23, 2007
    1,122
    If you're near the timonium area, drop me a line, and I'll bring it out for you to take a look through it.

    Thanks for the offer. I'm down near Catonsville, but I'll drop you a line the next time I head up toward Continental.
     

    JeepDriver

    Self confessed gun snob
    Aug 28, 2006
    5,193
    White Marsh
    Leupold 4.5-14x50 LR/T

    You bought a rifle capable of 1000 yard shooting, don't skimp on the scope.

    The Leupold scope isn't cheap, somewhere around $1000-1100, then add in a set of Badger rings for another $170-200) But once you are set up and zero'ed you'll be set for life.

    Once you figure out where most of your shooting will be done (what distance) then you will find what magnification works best for you. Chances are you'll be shooting it on 14x most of the time out at 300 and beyond, but coming in to 100 you don't need over 9x.

    I've only shot 500 yards, and I was zoomed into 14x and was hitting the 8" plates and seeing the hits clearly with a 223.

    You are going to want 1/4 MOA adjustments and target turrets so you can dial in windage and elevation changes easily

    If you want to try and play poker at 1000 yards, you might want to look at something in the 20-25X range
     

    Bang

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 3, 2008
    1,113
    Baltimore Co.
    After a conversation with our resident long range target shooting expert E.Shell a few months back, he recommends nightforce optics. He is personally using the 5.5-22X50 I believe.
     

    MrWhiteRabbit

    Firefighter Gone Awry
    Sep 23, 2007
    1,122
    he recommends nightforce optics. He is personally using the 5.5-22X50 I believe.

    Yeah, we've had that chat, too regarding other calibers. I wanted to make sure it was the right thing for .308, too, but felt selfish keeping that conversation in PM channels. :)
     

    E.Shell

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 5, 2007
    10,244
    Mid-Merlind
    I more or less agree with most parts the posts above, and JeepDriver is spot on.

    I like a variable for it's flexibility, the trade off is weight, bulk and cost. If you get enough magnification in a fixed scope, you lose a LOT of close range capability

    Two big factors:
    1) How are you going to use it?
    2) How much do you want to spend?

    1) If your shooting varies, and you plan to shoot some of the tactical style matches or take some of the precision rifle classes around, you're going to want a variable so you can dial down the magnification fairly low for fast target acquisition on the movers and other closer targets. This is the single most compelling reason to use a variable on the lower settings. A 3.5-10x is, IMHO, dead minimum for this, and will present a major challenge when using the reticle to range targets. A 3.5-15x or 4.5-14x will be noticeably better to use and provide noticeably better precision.

    The 4.5-14x50 suggested by Jeep is a good scope for this stuff, enough magnification for fairly precise ranging and placement, yet the 4.5x setting isn't so great as to be a problem with movers, multiples and/or low light.

    Low light use does come into play when considering the limitations of high magnification glass, but seldom do we actually shoot low light events in any of the commonly attended comps. The biggest problem as we reach our light threshold usually is seeing the reticle anyway, vs overall light transmission. My crosshairs are typically long gone long before I cannot see my target, and there is actually a little more light available though a good scope than the naked eye. If you can't see your target, it's just plain too dark and, with commonly used sizes, objective size or magnification are probably not your problem. In any case, I would not suggest anything bigger than a 50 mm objective.

    If you shoot mostly static targets and plan to shoot more competitions along the lines of F-Class, or want to varmint hunt with it you'll want to lean toward the higher magnification ranges. A 6.5-20x, 5.5-22x, 8.5-25x will be welcome when holding on the 1k bull, and there is plenty room to dial down should mirage be a problem, the second most compelling reason to want to reduce magnification.

    The higher magnification will allow more precise bullet placement, and will also aid in finding varmints that might be partially obscured by hay or other cover. Being able to dial back to 5-6-8x makes finding moving game in the scope easier, but is still a bit much if one expects to hunt foxes or coyotes coming to a call.

    It will be a compromise, driven by your priorities.

    2) Money . . .

    Yes, I DO like NightForce. Having used and looked through Leupold for years, I see an improvement in going to the NF NXS series. I personally believe they offer slightly better color transmission, reduce eye fatigue and definitely offer slightly greater zoom ratio. I have also used and looked through more expensive scopes (IOR, USO) and just can't see enough difference to make that next $400-500 jump.

    I have two 5.5-22x50 NF NXS scopes, and one 3.5-15x50 NF NXS. They are big, heavy and expensive, but the image quality is *excellent* and the adjustments are very solid, very certain and dead nuts throughout their range. Eye relief and latitude is more generous than Leupold, and way better than USO. Another advantage of the NXS series is that they ALL have illuminated reticles, and if you add that awkward extra-cost option to a big tactical Loopy, guess what you could have had? (Not a V8).

    I also have several of each model Leupold tactical/Mark 4s, the 6.5-20x40 & 50, several 4.5-14x40 & 50s, several 3.5-10x40s and a fixed 10x. Leupold has long been my favorite hunting scope, and all of my hunting rifles have some sort of Vari-X III on them, from 1.75-6x through a 6.5-20x. I also have a few Vari-X IIs, a 1-4x20, a couple 3-9x32s and a 4-12x40. . . . I think.

    http://www.pillicustomhomes.com/eshell/213/PrecisionHerd01s.jpg

    I believe that the Leupolds are very decent long range scopes for the money, but they do have few limitations, the most serious of which is often mushy and always non-linear adjustments. The adjustment clicks are not as crisp as many scopes and when moving the adjustment to the extremes, the .25 moa becomes .23, then .21 . . .

    When shooting long, one gathers field data . . ."dope" ("data of previous engagements") and applies this to the adjustments next time a similar engagement is encountered. Because we recorded our previous results with the same gear, this non-linearity isn't too bad to deal with and is only a problem when you try to extrapolate and/or share data. Even then, if you are aware of the problem, you can apply a correction and life is good again.

    If I were considering a new upper end Leupold Mark 4 and weight wasn't an issue, I'd not eat for a day or two and spring for a NightForce.

    A less costly scope is going to be . . . well . . . less scope.

    Nikon and Redfield both offer very good scopes in a slightly lower price bracket, and all one really gives up is a little image quality. I've also heard good things about mdjamesd's Falcon, a relative newcomer to the tactical market.

    The SuperSniper marketed by SWFA is actually a surprisingly good scope for even less money. The older ones had issues, but with function and subsequent factory support, but SWFA usually has good CS and the product has evolved quite a bit as well.

    There is an article over at LongRangeHunting.Com that gives a very good rundown on getting glass for the long range game without spending all of the milk money, but that link is at my office computer and I won't be near that for a few days. It should be easy enough to find if one goes over to LRH and pokes around a bit. ETA: Links added in post below

    The reticle is largely a matter of personal preference, but some sort of graduations will be required. Foremost, you'll want to be able to measure how far off the miss was, to provide viable correction. The mildot based (mildots, MLR, TMR) reticles doa good job of this without being too busy. There are some MOA based reticles that are faster to use with less head math, but I find them too cluttered. My 5.5-22x50 NFs both have MLRs, and most of my Leupolds have either mildot or Gen-II mildots (discontinued by Premier Reticles), and one of my 6.5-20x scopes has the new TMR, which is slightly more precise to range with than the very similar NF MLR, since it provides .2 mil tics, vs the NF .25, but both are quite adequate. Other uses of graduated reticles include ranging targets and holding over, vs spinning turrets.

    One of the matches I shoot has a stage in which 7 targets between 200 and 700 are shot in a two minute time limit, and no adjustments are allowed once one assumes the firing position. I set my zero to 400 yards, and hold under the close ones and over the far ones and ace it. How? I have a chart worked out for my rig with various zero ranges, like this:

    Stock-Book-0005top.jpg


    At 200 yards, I'd hold .1.2 mils under, at 500, I'd be holding .7 high, and at the 700 yard plate, I'd be holding 2.3 over. As you can see, this is very quick, and I can lay my book at my elbow and make center hits with a glance.

    Whatever price range you find yourself shopping in, get the 30mm tube. Tube diameter dictates elevation and windage adjustment range, and I know from experience that a 1" tube will rarely be sufficient.

    You'll need a base and set of rings. Badger, Farrell, Mark4, Seekins and others are all Picatinny style bases and available with a slight slope to give you a head start on the huge amount of elevation needed at longer ranges. Most hunting scopes simple will not dial in at 1k, and a lot of tac scopes won't either. An average number for the .308 is 38-40 minutes "up" from a 100 yard zero, and my 20" LTR needs 44, so one can see this adds up. A "20 moa" base is very popular and should be sufficient for a .308 at and beyond 1k with most tac scopes. I regularly shoot my LTR to 1,200 with my Leupold Mk4 4.5-14x50 using a 20 minute base.
     
    Last edited:

    nebula8080

    Active Member
    Dec 30, 2007
    153
    Another plug for the nightforce scopes. I have the 3.5-15x50 on my .308 precision AR and a 2.5-10x24 on a RECCE. The quality on these scopes is hard to describe in words.

    I wholeheartedly agree with what E.Shell said about the hard to justify $400-500 jump over the NXS series to S&B/etc.
     

    shadow116

    2nd Class Citizen
    Feb 28, 2008
    1,542
    Emmitsburg
    If you want to try and play poker at 1000 yards, you might want to look at something in the 20-25X range

    +1 for the 20-25X for playing poker at 1000 yards. But you had better get one heck of a rifle and be a heck of a shot. Shooting a 1/4 minute group at 1K is not impossible, but it damn hard. As a former Marine Scout-Sniper, hitting a standard E silhouette at 1K was difficult enough. The old M40s were plenty accurate enough and the 10X Unertl scopes were good enough to hit a man sized target. Granted most M40s averaged about 3/4 a minute accuracy and this was with the old M118 Special Ball. But having a constant wind direction and speed, and it staying constant from the muzzle all the way to the target is never going to happen.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,296
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom