Thread: Tactical High Powered Scope Confusion

Originally Posted by Dermastor

What's with this "Tactical" bullshit. Does everyone want to be in the armed forces?

The answer is yes and no. Yes they want to be edgy and militaristic and the spartan gear that is all ugly and angular, good stuff.. No, they don't want to do a lot of sweating, getting yelled at and shitting to schedule. Also probably not too hot on running into machine gun fire.

I prefer "clicky dially scopes"

I've been sold on top end military grade scopes since I realised that while weighing a metric ton, you can drive a nail with it and it will hold zero.

Really nice to leave rifle in jet boat or 4x4 and not worry about the scope.

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

The limitation of a sfp scope with a mil or moa reticle is also potentially an advantage. Yes the reticle angles are only correct at one setting and by changing the magnification you alter their value but if not dialling and using holdovers like flyblown said by trading off a bit of magnification you get an increase in available elevation.
So by halfing the magnification you double the value of each hash mark. It's a very effective technique with slower cartridges.

Quite true Marty Henry,
But it adds complexity with more things to think about and possibly stuff up. I, for one, do not need any help with the latter. Being a simple soul I rather like the idea of being able to take a shot quickly at medium ranges. I have heard of instances of a shot being presented in open country where the hunter has carefully ranged the animal, dialed up the scope from it's 100 metre zero and settled his bipod only to find that the deer has wandered behind a tree never to be seen again. Some of these shots were well inside 300 metres and could have been taken with a rifle zeroed for 200 metres using a multipoint reticle to roughly estimate range. My days of hunting hard have slipped away so trips with a rifle are largely therapeutic so simple systems suit me best. As always your wants, needs and results likely differ. All the best.
Regards Grandpamac.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Quite true Marty Henry,
But it adds complexity with more things to think about and possibly stuff up. I, for one, do not need any help with the latter. Being a simple soul I rather like the idea of being able to take a shot quickly at medium ranges. I have heard of instances of a shot being presented in open country where the hunter has carefully ranged the animal, dialed up the scope from it's 100 metre zero and settled his bipod only to find that the deer has wandered behind a tree never to be seen again. Some of these shots were well inside 300 metres and could have been taken with a rifle zeroed for 200 metres using a multipoint reticle to roughly estimate range. My days of hunting hard have slipped away so trips with a rifle are largely therapeutic so simple systems suit me best. As always your wants, needs and results likely differ. All the best.
Regards Grandpamac.

You don't dial up from the 100m zero. You set hour medium range no hold zero and off you go.

If you ever get the chance to look through some of the higher end "tactical" scopes, like the Schmidt and Benders or the nightforce range of FFP scopes, you'll see that the issue of a reticle which is "too thin" isn't actually an issue at all.

As has previously been mentioned, the fact that reticle subtensions on FFP scopes remain the same over all magnifications is an advantage. No need to worry about what power you're on, the measurements are always the same.

Light transmission on the newer high end scopes is also pretty mind blowing. I use leica products for my binoculars and spotting scopes, and as good as they are, light transmission on a nightforce scope leaves them for dead.

Originally Posted by Tussock

You don't dial up from the 100m zero. You set hour medium range no hold zero and off you go.

Again quite true Tussock,
I expect you would be both surprised and disappointed to find how many still zero dead on at 100 metres or yards. This was the case in the examples I mentioned. In my long distant youth centre fire rifles were always zeroed at 200 or 300 yards (or 2 or 3 inches high at 100 yards) but when scopes became common many felt the need to zero dead on at 100 and some still do. Not for me however.
Regards Grandpamac.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Again quite true Tussock,
I expect you would be both surprised and disappointed to find how many still zero dead on at 100 metres or yards. This was the case in the examples I mentioned. In my long distant youth centre fire rifles were always zeroed at 200 or 300 yards (or 2 or 3 inches high at 100 yards) but when scopes became common many felt the need to zero dead on at 100 and some still do. Not for me however.
Regards Grandpamac.

This part of the world is littered with drench containers with holes all over them. Minute if drench container is normal shooting.

Originally Posted by Tussock

This part of the world is littered with drench containers with holes all over them. Minute if drench container is normal shooting.

In the Highlands of Scotland you will see 'Passing Place' signs on single track roads, some of which have nice groups on them.

I have all my center fire rifles zero'd at 100m if feel the need to have a 200m or 300m "zero" on for a pop shot would just dial it to 2 or 300m and carry on walking till game appears.

I have been using FFP scopes more or less exclusively for >10 years now and the idea that the reticle is too thin/thick at low/high power has never once been an actual problem in the real world for me with the scopes I've had