School me on optics for PRS-style long range

[Grant H.]

Tracking is number 1 , it's a gun sight first and a telescope 2nd .
Go look at a bunch of stuff at some matches first and then spend the money . There is a lot more options now than even 5 years ago and 2k buys a lot of scope now .

The big secret in rings and bases are EGW bases and Burris XTR rings .

This... 100x this...

I will through this out there as an additional point.

Once you get into the higher end glass, personal preference will come into play.

Some folks prefer S&B glass over other high end glass, and others prefer things over the S&B glass.

If the feature set is correct and the reliability is there, which all of the higher end glass (S&B, Steiner, Kahles, Vortex Razor HD, etc) has, then what your eye prefers is the key.

Me personally? It's really hard to enunciate, but the perception/image of the S&B reticle doesn't really work well for my eyes. I much prefer the image of my Steiners. My Razor GenII also appeals to my eyes better than the PMII that I had for a while.

Buying quality glass is worth it.

[Justin]

Tracking is number 1 , it's a gun sight first and a telescope 2nd .
Go look at a bunch of stuff at some matches first and then spend the money . There is a lot more options now than even 5 years ago and 2k buys a lot of scope now .

The big secret in rings and bases are EGW bases and Burris XTR rings .

On the scope base, for something like this, is it worth it to go with one of the 20 MIL elevated bases, or better to stick with a flat one?

Also, I see the EGW bases are very reasonably priced, which is nice.

[Justin]

Tracking is number 1 , it's a gun sight first and a telescope 2nd .
Go look at a bunch of stuff at some matches first and then spend the money . There is a lot more options now than even 5 years ago and 2k buys a lot of scope now .

The big secret in rings and bases are EGW bases and Burris XTR rings .

Are these the rings you recommend:

https://www.burrisoptics.com/mountin...ignature-rings

Are the inserts useful, or just a gimmick?

[Irving]

What is tracking?

[Wolfshoon]

What is tracking?

Movement of scope reticle matches what is dialed in with turrets, IE: move the turret five .1 MIL clicks and the reticle moves .5 MIL. (or MOA, depends on your preferences, but turrets should always match the reticle. MIL reticle get MIL turrets, MOA reticle get MOA turrets. Most scope makers have gotten away from MIL dot reticle with MOA turrets [leupold is famous for that shit])

With a quality scope there should be no screw backlash or cheap erector springs that have to be accounted for , such as dialing 2 clicks past your target then going back 2 clicks to "settle" the reticle. With cheap scopes some ppl even "tap" the scope with something like a small hammer to make the reticle "settle". Those cheap quality scopes are still being sold, but most of the quality manufacturers have come a long ways in the past 10 years.

Tracking test is easy to do for a scope, mark a 36" piece of whiteboard every .36" (for MIL scope) and put it at 100 yards (must be level) and put your rifle scope on the center dot and dial up and down, every click of the .1MIL dial should move one and only one dot. Dial up 50 clicks and then back down 100 clicks then back up 50 clicks and you should be at your starting zero point. Mount the target horizontally for windage testing, same process. IF it moves less or more then it isnt tracking very good. Friend of mine has a crappy barska that is out over 1 MIL for 50 clicks, shows more than 6 MIL travel for what should be a 5 MIL value and does not return to original zero when dialed back. He even admits that he knows it's a crappy scope but is still running it on a 308 for some perverse reason.

To the OP, Hoser and others are absolutely correct, go to a match and see what people are using and who is winning with what equipment. Everyone I've met will let you look through their set up. Every brand seems to have their own reticle and that is a very confusing part of selecting a scope. Good news is just within the last 2-3 years great scopes have become available at price points that are affordable now.

My scope shopping check off list:

First Focal Plane (reticle changes in size depending on magnification selected)
MIL reticle and knobs, I like XMAS tree reticles but do use hash marked cross reticles also
3-6x low end to 20-30x magnification hi end variable power
Adj objective focus knob on side
10 MIL elevation/windage per turn of knob preferred
24+ MIL elevation adjustment, this usually means a 30mm or bigger main tube
Zero stop on elevation turret
Decent glass, yea I like S&B image quality, out of my price bracket, but I'm not using Barska either.

[Irving]

Thank you. Seems like tracking correctly should be a minimum requirement for every scope made.

[CS1983]

Thank you. Seems like tracking correctly should be a minimum requirement for every scope made.

On snipershide, user killswitch engage built a scope tracking test setup with an I-beam, railroad tie, and welded a scope base to the beam. He then set about doing through-the-lens filming of scope tracking on a target board. The results weren't necessarily pretty for some high-end scopes, and yet one of the mid tier (Burris?) tracked flawlessly. A lot of people who paid a lot of money for their scopes got butthurt over the fact that in the end, they paid for pieces of shit.

Unfortunately, the thread was accidentally deleted when they were cleaning up from a Chinese hack.

Some of the videos are still available on his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnz...view=0&sort=dd

Since I have no desire to perform tracking testing at that level, I tend to be in the camp of "reticle" importance being high. I don't care that I can see a gnat's asshole clench in HD at 300 yards if the reticle is a useless afterthought.

I'll go after a "cheaper" scope if its reticle is more useful to me than something that is "better" simply because it has better glass or a fancy brand on it. The reality is that most scopes today, even mid-tier, are good to go.

I also think of Neil. Neil was a guy I knew 10 years ago. A student at the Colorado School of Trades for gunsmithing, he had very little money and only one rifle: a .243 hunting rifle from Savage with some lower cost scope. Neil knew his rifle. Neil shot well -- better than a lot of dudes whose accessories alone cost more than his entire setup. It wasn't unusual for him to get first round hits on steel at distance in weird situations because he focused on shooting, not doohickies. Be like Neil.

ETA:
I've owned: US Optics, Vortex Razor (1 and 2 Gen), IOR (just don't), Burris, Bushnell, Nightforce, etc. I've had friends who have gone through the range of high end (higher level Leupy, S&B, Hensoldt, etc.). In the end, for me, the only thing that mattered was the reticle. I'll take a $1500 scope with a useful reticle any day over some $4k hunk of "BuT tHe SoCOM UseS It!". Cool story, Spongbob.

[Justin]

On snipershide, user killswitch engage built a scope tracking test setup with an I-beam, railroad tie, and welded a scope base to the beam. He then set about doing through-the-lens filming of scope tracking on a target board. The results weren't necessarily pretty for some high-end scopes, and yet one of the mid tier (Burris?) tracked flawlessly. A lot of people who paid a lot of money for their scopes got butthurt over the fact that in the end, they paid for pieces of shit.

Unfortunately, the thread was accidentally deleted when they were cleaning up from a Chinese hack.

Some of the videos are still available on his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnz...view=0&sort=dd

Since I have no desire to perform tracking testing at that level, I tend to be in the camp of "reticle" importance being high. I don't care that I can see a gnat's asshole clench in HD at 300 yards if the reticle is a useless afterthought.

I'll go after a "cheaper" scope if its reticle is more useful to me than something that is "better" simply because it has better glass or a fancy brand on it. The reality is that most scopes today, even mid-tier, are good to go.

I also think of Neil. Neil was a guy I knew 10 years ago. A student at the Colorado School of Trades for gunsmithing, he had very little money and only one rifle: a .243 hunting rifle from Savage with some lower cost scope. Neil knew his rifle. Neil shot well -- better than a lot of dudes whose accessories alone cost more than his entire setup. It wasn't unusual for him to get first round hits on steel at distance in weird situations because he focused on shooting, not doohickies. Be like Neil.

ETA:
I've owned: US Optics, Vortex Razor (1 and 2 Gen), IOR (just don't), Burris, Bushnell, Nightforce, etc. I've had friends who have gone through the range of high end (higher level Leupy, S&B, Hensoldt, etc.). In the end, for me, the only thing that mattered was the reticle. I'll take a $1500 scope with a useful reticle any day over some $4k hunk of "BuT tHe SoCOM UseS It!". Cool story, Spongbob.

I've been reading through some threads on Sniper's Hide and there's a lot of good information there. So far I've shot one match, but need to get out to shoot some more and get more experience. I'd be curious to get your opinion on what you think is a good scope to consider for purchase.

Being able to look through good glass and maybe even try it out is important, but I'm also interested in the opinions of people who've spent more on optics than I have on my last car.

[CS1983]

I've been reading through some threads on Sniper's Hide and there's a lot of good information there. So far I've shot one match, but need to get out to shoot some more and get more experience. I'd be curious to get your opinion on what you think is a good scope to consider for purchase.

Being able to look through good glass and maybe even try it out is important, but I'm also interested in the opinions of people who've spent more on optics than I have on my last car.

It's ultimately up to you, man. Ya gotta see what's out there and offers your preferred features for your preferred budget. At the end of the day, the guy with a $5k rig who barely practices is going to get his clock cleaned by the guy with a $2k (Savage and a mid-grade Burris or Bushnell) rig that puts the 2500 extra dollars and however many extra hours into ammo, range time, and classes -- such as one w/ Brian Whalen (https://www.cprifle.com/about-us).

[Fentonite]

...I've owned: US Optics, Vortex Razor (1 and 2 Gen), IOR (just don't), Burris, Bushnell, Nightforce, etc. I've had friends who have gone through the range of high end (higher level Leupy, S&B, Hensoldt, etc.). In the end, for me, the only thing that mattered was the reticle...

Why the hate for IOR? I have one, 2.5-10 FFP mounted on a Larue, and like it. It?s been rock solid, tracks perfectly, and I like the reticle. Granted, it?s not in the same realm as my S&B, but when I was paring down, I chose to get rid of my US Optics before the IOR (granted, for more $ than the IOR would?ve brought). I?ve heard that their service dept is a pain to deal with, but I haven?t needed them. What do I need to know?