# Firearms and Shooting > Firearms, Optics and Accessories >  Scope for F-Class and a bit of everything else

## Shamus

Looking for a decent big scope as I am planning to get into F-class shooting and also want to use it for a bit of general long range stuff  - hares, etc. If I buy new I can probably stretch the budget to $1000 -1500. A few things I am pondering

Magnification
6-24 would be heaps I would think. I know a few of the F-class guys shoot with up to 50-60x magnification but I want something a bit more general purpose at this stage

Turrets: 
Probably better off with 1/4 MOA turrets than 0.1 Mil? 

Reticle
MOA hash reticle would be useful - ie. dial for elevation and hold for wind using the hash marks. If you go that way that narrows the choices down to those scopes with an FFP reticle.
Target dot - dial for elevation and dial or hold for wind?

Which Scope?
Suggestions? I have looked at the Sightron SIII with target dot reticle and the FFP one with MOA hash reticle, Leupold VX3 8.5-25x50 with target dot.

----------


## 7mmsaum

Keep saving
5.5-22-56 Nightforce

Cheap becomes expensive in the long term.

----------


## ebf

Shamus, the ICFRA targets are MOA based, so there is no real need for FFP, unless you intend to use the scope to range at various magnifications when hunting etc. The 5 ring is 1 MOA away from the center etc. So you can easily work out how far you are out, or hold off on the rings if you choose not to dial.

6-24 magnification is fine to start with. With mirage you tend to dial back from max in any case.

Turrets, does not really matter either way, you just learn the system you have and work with that. Having said that, it is much better to have matching reticle/turrets so mil/mil or moa/moa.

Some popular options:
Nikko Stirling 6-24, a lot of the club guns have these, they are perfectly capable of producing high scores.
Sightron S3 6-24x50 or 8-32x56

I currently use a Clearidge XP-5 4.5-22.5, glass in the Leupy VX-3 type of quality, it has really positive target turrets, main limitation is 48 MOA dial.

Try to get something with at least a 30mm tube (more light is good), and get something that has a sun shade...

Personally, I would avoid target dot reticles. Easier to frame stuff using a duplex.

----------


## Proudkiwi

> Try to get something with at least a 30mm tube (more light is good), and get something that has a sun shade..


Tube diameter has zero impact on light transmission, only erector travel.

Glass/lenses and coatings dictate light transmission, nothing else.

To the OP - I believe that NSX scopes are being discontinued in the not so distant future so there may be some deals to be had. Certainly not from the NZ distributor though! If that is the case I would totally agree with Andrew/7mmsaum.

----------


## K95

Sightron with minute turrets. Sweet fuck all people I've seen use mil scopes for target shooting. Probably is a lot of people using them but I haven't seen many on the range. A lot of the F-class guys hold off for the wind once they're roughly on centre.

----------


## Beetroot

Vortex Viper PST. A mate of mine has a FFP one with mil/mil and is the 6-24x50. He shot it a few weeks ago at just over a K with his 284win and was out shooting people with Nightforce scopes on 338 Lapua rifles, a Savage one and a TRG42. 

He has shot his at 600 yards quite a few times and at 1km a few times and it has always tracked perfectly for him.
Sure a Nightforce will be better, but I saw a Schmidt and Bender PMII on trademe the other day for $3800ish, and that would be another class above a Nightforce.
For $1500 you could look at some of the Bushnell elite scopes, they seem to have an extremely good reputation, as well as looking into Vortex scopes.

Either mil or moa will do you fine, just make sure that you have the same thing in the turrets as what is on the scope. By having the matching pair if you are shooting F class if you don't quite dial what you needed to, you can see where your shot hit and what reads in the reticle, adjust that into the scope. Or if you shoot at a 600m bunny, see that your shot went left 2mils you can just dial it into your scope for the next shot, instead of trying to convert it into moa for your turrets. 

If you don't go for an moa or a mil reticle than get what ever you want. Also either one will work as at the end of the day, it's only an angular measurement and provided you have your drop chart in the same moa or mil then it isn't going to matter. The only time it will make a difference is if you are trying to range find with your reticle, in which case in may make more sense to you reading that a 10cm target at 100m is equal to 1mil, opposed to 4" one at 100yards being equal to 4moa.

----------


## ebf

> Tube diameter has zero impact on light transmission, only erector travel.
> 
> Glass/lenses and coatings dictate light transmission, nothing else.


You learn something new every day, I was under the impression it was a combination between objective and tube, cheers  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Shamus

Good stuff guys really helpful. Target ring size was the reason I thought MOA turrets would be the best option plus you get a sightly finer click increment with 1/4 MOA vs 0.1Mil. The Sightron S111 is looking like a pretty good option. 

Top end stuff is nice and I have had the big Zeiss and S&B scopes in the past but I have to keep the budget realistic. They aren't without their issues either - I have personally had a broken reticle on one S&B scope and oil or similar contamination on internal lenses on another one (brand spanking new)

----------


## Proudkiwi

> You learn something new every day, I was under the impression it was a combination between objective and tube, cheers


A common misconception  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## ARdave

wouldnt get hung up on moa being more precise than mils broski it only equates to 0.1 difference in adjustments at 100 yards or 1 of at 1,000 yards...

----------


## BRADS

> wouldnt get hung up on moa being more precise than mils broski it only equates to 0.1” difference in adjustments at 100 yards or 1” of at 1,000 yards...


Marmite is your maths ok?

----------


## Shamus

> wouldnt get hung up on moa being more precise than mils broski it only equates to 0.1” difference in adjustments at 100 yards or 1” of at 1,000 yards...


Fair comment on the difference although MOA still probably better for F-class targets as they are MOA based as EBF pointed out. Otherwise yeah not much in it

----------


## Shamus

Any one got a good scope in the 6-24 range with target turrets and decent reticle that they are looking to sell?

----------


## DAF

Hiya
I shoot FClass occasionally and use both Mil ( Nightforce) and MOA ( March) scopes 
I find little difference with either so go with what you are more comfortable with.
The MIL MOA argument is a bit naf

As for scopes I feel you could not go wrong with a  Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50  I have a couple of these and find them reliable and repeatable with reasonable glass
Sightron appear to also be a good choice and have friends that run these successfully.

good luck  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Savage1

> Tube diameter has zero impact on light transmission, only erector travel.
> 
> Glass/lenses and coatings dictate light transmission, nothing else.
> 
> To the OP - I believe that NSX scopes are being discontinued in the not so distant future so there may be some deals to be had. Certainly not from the NZ distributor though! If that is the case I would totally agree with Andrew/7mmsaum.


I find that hard to believe, simple physics. Would a 5mm tube allow the same light through as a 50mm? I would think not, it's the same theory as a water pipe, just with photons. Maybe having a bigger tube allows for slightly lower lens quality.

----------


## Savage1

I have a Sightron SFP SIII 6-24 mil/mil. It's a great scope and suits the F Class shooting I do well. I just wish it had the Mildot reticle with the halfway hash thingys. Nibblet on here has a 8-32 SIII and he is happy with that to.

I would defiantly go with mils, they're just so much easier to work with in the field. MOA does my head in. And on the F Class targets I just adjust using the reticle, never wished I had MOA as it's not an issue.

I may be looking to sell mine as I want to upgrade to a NF, I don't know why because I truly don't need to. But I haven't saved the money/brownie points for the upgrade yet.

----------


## DAF

As for the above comment don't be swayed by the us should use mil/moa points arguments. Work out what works best for you and your comfortable using and go with that. It will save any regrets later

----------


## ebf

DAF, any comments about reticle preferences ? Target dot, duplex, hash ?

----------


## gadgetman

> I find that hard to believe, simple physics. Would a 5mm tube allow the same light through as a 50mm? I would think not, it's the same theory as a water pipe, just with photons. Maybe having a bigger tube allows for slightly lower lens quality.


The photons are that far apart it makes no difference. The bigger tube, as far as I'm aware, gives you a bigger space to move the reticle around in giving you a bigger adjustment range.

----------


## DAF

> DAF, any comments about reticle preferences ? Target dot, duplex, hash ?


personally I like hash marks so I use MLR in my nightforce scopes and MTR on my March.

I feel as long the recticle and adjustments are the same and you can measure/correlate the bullet strike to an accurate adjustment without having to guess / think about an actual measurement in cm or inches its all good

for example my cross hair is on the centre, my bullet strike is the up and left. as long as i can keep my scope centred and clearly see from the recticles hash marks/system what my adjustment is and dial the correction then again all good 
(I see 1 hash mark high and 2 hash marks right, then I know be it mils or moa i need to adjust that amount) I hope that makes sense

----------


## Shamus

Whatever I end up getting it will have a hash reticle MOA or Mil

----------


## ebf

Yup tx, that makes sense.

I am using a plotting sheet, so get the vertical and horizontal offset by plotting the strike on a MOA grid plotting sheet. But then I am still fairly new at this game and concentrating on learning (and recording) wind calls, so shooting a lot more slowly that the top guys and dialling rather than holding off (mostly).

Shamus, that excludes a bunch of Leupy scopes then...

----------


## Shamus

> Shamus, that excludes a bunch of Leupy scopes then...


True ...

Anyway looking at one of these unless something nicer comes up secondhand

----------


## Dead is better

I'd look at your mounting options before deciding on your scope. What are you planning to use?

----------


## Nibblet

> True ...
> 
> Anyway looking at one of these unless something nicer comes up secondhand


Great scope. I have that on my 308 and the 8-32x56 on my 338. Accurate dialing with positive clicks. Both of mine a mil rad with mildot and find it fine for FTR. Like DAF said though just comes down to personal preference.

Cost of importing vs buying from Dead Eye Dicks is bugger all now, maybe $100-$200 max? (Have never brought anything from them though).

----------


## Shamus

Yes it seems like a pretty good option I haven't heard too much negative on them. Unless something decent secondhand turns up in the next couple of weeks it will either be that one or the FFP version - probably the mil hash one

----------


## Dead is better

Gotta be honest that looks like really solid value. It has a good reticule, the turrets would be great for competition (lots of room to stick stuff on) and above all its light as a feather. Comparing that to my latest squander on a march 3-24x42 it rates pretty bloody well stats wise. I mean i you're looking at 2 grand nz for that yeah? I paid another chunk more and what I got in return was lower profile turrets (meh), 600gram weight, a reticule that i prefer (but you prob wouldnt like it) and smaller front lens, if that actually really means anything.

As for FFP - I've found it just works better with my metric brain. I mean a 1.3 mil error into the dirt at 800m is the same 12 click adjustment as it would be if i was 'tarded enough to be out that far at 300m. Not saying that has never happened....

----------


## steven

Sightron S3 6-24x50 or 8-32x56.  Well worth considering, around $1500, our club just got a Sightron to replace the nikko as it was getting dodgy in its turrets (no longer clicking).  For $1500 of course there are some good choices. I wouldnt personally go any higher, I'd spend the money on a better gun/barrel or action.  eg A barnard action is around $1600 and one of the best made rather than say $3.5k on a Nforce slapped on a remmington 700 with a 24inch factory barrel which just looks naff.  

Just some things to consider with F class, a barrel will be about 700~1000 rounds before needing replacing at $1000 a pop.   FTR class on the other hand which is limited to 308winchester, 4000 maybe 5000 rounds, so 1 to 1.5 barrels per season v 3 ~ 5 seasons, big difference in costs. Brass life is a lot better with 308w as well.  I would suggest a Krieger barrel and Barnard combo would be worth considering as a very competitive combo. Stocks well $800 to $4.5k.

regards




regards.

----------


## DAF

Just a note with barrel life, those numbers get put about but I don't feel it's an accurate picture, my 7/300 has had over 700 rounds and still looks and performs well
My 6.5x284 has done about 1500

With barrels of f-class size you have the option to set them back and do another season so I believe this replacing every 700-1000 a bit of a fallacy. Just my experience

----------


## Shamus

> ...
> 
> I'd spend the money on a better gun/barrel or action.  eg A barnard action is around $1600 and one of the best made rather than say $3.5k on a Nforce slapped on a remmington 700 with a 24inch factory barrel which just looks naff.  
> 
> Just some things to consider with F class, a barrel will be about 700~1000 rounds before needing replacing at $1000 a pop.   FTR class on the other hand which is limited to 308winchester, 4000 maybe 5000 rounds, so 1 to 1.5 barrels per season v 3 ~ 5 seasons, big difference in costs. Brass life is a lot better with 308w as well.  I would suggest a Krieger barrel and Barnard combo would be worth considering as a very competitive combo. Stocks well $800 to $4.5k.
> 
> regards
> 
> regards.


Not sure what this "$3.5k on a Nforce slapped on a remmington 700 with a 24inch factory barrel which just looks naff" is about - where did that come from?

----------


## Dead is better

Night force would be my other choice. I really like the feel of the clicks and the reticules are cool too. Not really fussed on S&B which is just as well (cant afford one anyway)

----------


## Shamus

Ended up getting a Sightron SIII 6x24-50 LR MOA

----------


## Savage1

> The photons are that far apart it makes no difference. The bigger tube, as far as I'm aware, gives you a bigger space to move the reticle around in giving you a bigger adjustment range.


That makes even less sense.

----------


## Maca49

Information overload, I'm old school, a vari power is my limit! And country of manufacture cause I need to see thru them! Thanks guys enjoyed that read! :Thumbsup:

----------


## veitnamcam

> That makes even less sense.


Think burning paper with a magnifying glass  :Wink: 

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

----------


## Savage1

> Think burning paper with a magnifying glass 
> 
> Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2


Yup, the bigger the magnifying glass, the more light passing through, more heat.

----------


## sneeze

> Yup, the bigger the magnifying glass, the more light passing through, more heat.


A bigger scope tube doesn't mean bigger lenses though. Just more space internally  to move so more adjustment is available for any given design.

----------


## veitnamcam

> A bigger scope tube doesn't mean bigger lenses though. Just more space internally  to move so more adjustment is available for any given design.


Yes was my point and also that the lenses focus the light down in the middle of the scope so tube diameter is irrelevant in respect to light transmission.

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

----------


## Nibblet

> Yes was my point and also that the lenses focus the light down in the middle of the scope so tube diameter is irrelevant in respect to light transmission.
> 
> Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2


Yuuurp. I like 30mm tubes as they make better handles for my lanky hands.

----------


## Proudkiwi

Yeah, I think 30mm is where it's at as well. It's a good compromise between weight and elevation adjustment. Also 25mm tubes look stupid with big obj lenses ie 50mm and above.

I always shake me head when I hear some retard say "yeah, I went to a 30/34/35mm tube and now my scope is WAY brighter" idiots!
Unfortunately it happens a lot!

----------


## gimp

Well most 30-34mm tube scopes are better quality than most 25mm tube scopes, and have larger objectives, so it probably is brighter...

----------


## Proudkiwi

I meant purely like for like as for as obj size goes.

----------


## ChrisF

You may want to look at the new Burris XTRII line , in particular the 8-40x50mm fclass , has a neat reticle , FFP, for f class , has a 10moa per turn knob , and 1/8 moa clicks , price is 1200 usd

----------


## Shamus

> You may want to look at the new Burris XTRII line , in particular the 8-40x50mm fclass , has a neat reticle , FFP, for f class , has a 10moa per turn knob , and 1/8 moa clicks , price is 1200 usd




That is a pretty busy reticle - from the little I have witnessed of F-class most people don't seem to use anything like that. Mostly target dot, or fine crosshairs or similar ...

----------


## ChrisF

I think , yes , most in NZ donot use anything other than a crosshair/dot etc , BUT some of thats because thats all that was available to them in scopes they liked .
Thats changing , if you look at the new 2014 NF comp scope made for Fclass/target shooting , you will see a lot of features that use to be the domain of sniper scopes , ie hashmarked reticles , highspeed knobs & zeros stop etc .
The reticle thats in the new NF is a hashmarked moa reticle , numbered ever 5 moa , and made so its correct at 40x ,  the scope is stil SFP , and its 15-55x52mm , the reticle , FCR-1 , is a direct result of what the US fclass team wanted .
We donot set trends , we follow usually , just because you have not seen many NZ shooters use them , dosnt mean much , as we tend to be conservative bunch , just like the 6.5/284 then the 284shehane & 7/300WSM cals for fclass , we just follow on what the rest of the world shooters do , and the biggest single number of shooters reside in the US , so we just follow them usually , just a few yrs or decades behind .

The reticle on the Burris fclass scope does get very small when on 8x , however , odds are it will not ever be set so low , probably 16x and up .

----------


## zimmer

> Attachment 26657
> 
> That is a pretty busy reticle - from the little I have witnessed of F-class most people don't seem to use anything like that. Mostly target dot, or fine crosshairs or similar ...


Agree with you Shamus - that is a very busy reticle. It would drive me nuts. I prefer a v fine crosshair or a very small dot.  The dot needs to be so small it doesn't cover your spotter which you often will use as an aiming point, otherwise a dot is useless. I dial for wind and will only aim off if there is a last second minor change before I take the shot in which case I will do a small aim off correction.  I don't need hash marks for that as I fully understand the target ring dimensions (which I can see them clearly, except when there is heavy mirage) I am shooting at. Dialing requires skill in remembering how much wind you have off or on but as an old full-bore shooter that is all stored in my head shot for shot ie second nature. Or run a plotting sheet. It is more natural for your brain to aim at something dead centre rather than off to one side. And to make it even easier my club now has electronic target marking which gives you the strike point and the MOA position of the shot.  You just need to understand your scope and know exactly what its 1 MOA (or MILS) correction actually gives.
My scope for the coming season will be a March 8-80x56 with a 1/16 dot.

----------


## Shamus

ChrisF do you shoot F-Class? I would love to hear from an experienced F-Class shooter what they thought of that Burris reticle for shooting F-Class ...

Opps I just saw @zimmer's post there now

----------


## ebf

ChrisF, interested to hear why you think ffp is good for f-class ?

Personally I can't really see a use for it, the targets are known dimensions, the distances are known, you can very easily work out the distance to centre just by looking at which ring your shot fell on...

I prefer cross-hairs rather than a dot. Easier to bracket stuff in the viewfinder.

----------


## ChrisF

1 ) I donot shoot fclass , have shoot a couple of FTR matches
2 ) I can see no reason why you cannot use a FFP reticle , as long as its thin at the optimim power , ie towards the top end (40x ), this means it will be virtually unusable at low power , but then so what , you are not going to be using it in that power setting .
3 ) The NF comp scope is SFP & its reticle is only correct at 40x.
4 ) The f class shooters I have seen , use a wide range of different scopes , from cheap ones to dear , most the very old NF benchrest type or sightrons , as they are cheaper , then a few NF NXSs , and at the top , likes of S&B & March etc .

5 ) The more complex reticles that you seem so set against , still can be used like a normal crosshair , but can also be used to measure fall of shot , or used for aimoff , something a old simple crosshair cannot do .

6 ) The new NF 2014 comp scope was virtually designed from the ground up by the top US F class shooters & that includes the complex reticle , obviously they are wrong .

7 ) Me , I  like the fact that there are new interesting scopes , as thats progress , hopefully .

Later  Chris

----------


## ebf

I am not saying you can not or should not use a FFP scope, what I am saying is that it does not give you any real benefits in f class shooting. Maybe if you use the rifle for other types of shooting like long range NZDA, gunslinger etc where ranging is more relevant...

If you do a bit more talking to f class shooters, I think you will find that just about everyone is using "simple crosshair" type reticles for holdover. The known dimensions of the rings on a NRA target allows you to do this quickly and easily.

Considering the fact that we are going to super v targets next season, I would rather spend money on higher magnification and clear glass, than on ffp - but my target rifle is dedicated to FTR and match shooting.

----------


## ebf

Chris, are you talking about the 2014 15-55x52 ?

2 of the 4 reticles options are what I would call simple, the ddr2 is effectively a target dot, so only the fcr1 is "complex" and being sfp only subtends correctly at x40

I had a look thru a March 80x at Hamilton champs, interesting experience, looking at small rocks on the stop bank at 1000yds  :Grin:

----------


## DAF

I can't agree with you ebf most of the f class guys i shoot with have hash marked scopes. 
IMO The FFP scopes give you the benefit of always knowing the correct adjustment needed at any magnification, I have both types and love my FFP scopes for this fact


My SFP I need to be on a set magnification to perform the same job and as you would know the conditions can set your maximum magnification for you lol  :Wink:

----------


## ebf

Must be an open thing  :Psmiley: 

DAF, from a practical point of view, what is the difference between aiming for the centre using a hash to hold off and aiming for a ring to hold off ?

When Nik was coaching the north team guys during nationals, they just used a system where he would tell them something like 2 o'clock on the 4 ring.

----------

