Thread: How to choose a rifle scope

I want to share my thoughts on this subject. It helps me processing my own view and shall serve as a note-to-self. Maybe it can be useful for other people as well.

As is the case with any selection process, the first step is asking the right questions to establish what you need/want/can have.

* what is the budget?
* how good is your eye sight?
* how far will you shoot realistically? 250 m shooting a rabbit is far by some people's standard, and is average by others' standard.
* do you mind weight?
* will you be shooting from a stable position (e.g on top of a truck, always prone, or shooting off a tripod), or free hand?
* do you want to buy locally or do you not mind buy from overseas and weight for a month to get your purchase?

Here are some of my views and tips which I learned through trial and error:

1. MIL is easier to calculate in the head, easier to use for range estimation, and easier to remember. If all else is equal, buy MIL scope.

2. Unless it is for a centrefire gun that is to be used within a range with no bullet drop, reticles with mil/moa markings are useful. Dialing is nicer if you have time to do it, but sometimes you do not, and sometimes one can forget the starting point (on a non-zero stop scopes) or lost count of clicks. Use reticle hold over is quicker and easier.

3. Having said the above, they do not matter on cheap scopes where : 1, the reticle markings are not accurate, and/or 2, the turret clicks are not accurate. It may be surprising to a new shooter (and not at all surprising to experienced shooter) that the vast majority scopes do not have either or both accurate. Usually nothing under $1,500.

4. I like light weight as much as the next guy but light weight often comes at the expense of either cost or quality of the internals. Leupold makes the lightest scopes in each class it competes in but at the same time has the worst reputation of all mid-high end scope makers in terms of turret accuracy. Take the weight advantage if you choose not to dial. A further point on this subject, the weight saving/burden is somewhat muted when compared with other gear that you may be carrying. Sometimes I wonder why worry about extra 300 gram in the scope when i am wearing cheap and heavy Warehouse gumboots that weighs a kilo?

5. People tend to put too much emphasis on glass quality. While high end scopes are nicer to look through, past the "above average" point, image quality really means very little in a scope. I am a photography hobbyist too, while resolution, CA, colour cast, distortiona ll matter to photography - because you want a nice image hanging on your wall - they do not matter when you shoot. You simply need the scope to clear enough so you can see the target and place the target over the crosshair. Even scopes of image quality "below average" can do this adequately. nicer image quality usually is far more noticeable to customers than dialing accuracy or reticle accuracy, that is why most manufactures put more effort in image quality than they do mechanical quality. Leupold for example, generally have excellent image quality when compared to other scopes of the same class. That business strategy has proven to be successful.

6. Having said point 5, you look through your scope a lot, the better the scope's image quality, the more pleasing it is. Since shooting and hunting is a hobby in the first place, buying something that is pleasing may be the right way to go anyway.

7. The main advantage with FFP is that you can use different magnifications and the reticle lines still work. Most scopes lose image quality at maximum magnification. This presents a problem for SPF, for example in a given scope the reticles is only correct at x24 being the maximum magnification, but the shooter may prefer x20 because the image is sharper and brighter, has less CA, less haze, more FOV and better contrast. Whereas if it was an FFP scope, the reticle is correct at 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24.

8. A point to remember about FF is that FFP is great for 10x~30x. But below 5x, FFP is definitely a compromise regardless of the brand and model. The center of the reticle can be too small to see clearly, especially in poor light, when you shoot at minimum magnification you may have to guess where the centre is (because you cannot see it). illumination is the most effective way to mitigate this, restricting magnification range is the second. For example, a 4-16 FFP scope will have thicker low end (thus more clear) reticle lines than a 3-24 FF scope.

9. A lot of scope reviews make a big deal about the quality of turret "click" - how tactile, how much resistance, how smooth, how loud etc. While i am sure these qualities are tangible, I am not sure of their value. the focus on these is similar to that on image quality, because it is immediately tangible, it gets a lot of attention. This is not dissimilar to camera reviews making a big deal about of the quality of the shutter sound. It is nice to have nice shutter sound (and turret clicks), but adds little functional difference once it is "above average".

10. Adjustment range is pretty important for a scope that is intended for longer range shooting. but adjustment range generally comes at a cost, usually in the form of scope weight, tube size, and price. Also generally speaking, the larger the magnification the less adjustment range. 40MOA is generally quite low by today's standard. Some Leica scopes have abysmal range. from my research Vixens' range is also on the low end. Leupolds are usually on the low side (VX5HD 3-15 and 4-20 only has 75MOA/22Mil). Some of the new players that try to compete against the established brands often focus and promote their adjustment range advantage. Riton is a relatively new american brand. its X7 3-24 has 35Mil of travel, its x7 3-18 has a whooping 46Mil of travel. They use 34mm tubes and are heavy. Delta Titanium is also to be mentioned, despite being only a 30mm tube and has x24 power magnification, has a very respectable 100 MOA (29Mil) range, and it manages to keep the weight down. Titanium's weight is inline with Leupold VX6HD.

If it has NF on the side buy it and use it

dont agree with No.5 on your list . . definition, colour is everything ( to me )
when your looking for an animal and trying to see it against the background you will struggle with an average bit of glass .. . with good glass it willl stand out like dogs balls . . in my experience

Originally Posted by 7mmsaum

If it has NF on the side buy it and use it

Great to see your talking sense today!

Sent from my SM-A025F using Tapatalk

unless you intend to "twiddle n fiddle" just about all those points dont mean diddle squat.

you forgot field of view.....
bush hobbits top 5

#1 reliable(holds zero ,doesnt fog up)
#2 field of view
#3 field of view
#4 field of view
#5 cross hair you can see in dim light

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

I want to share my thoughts on this subject. ...it can be useful for other people as well.

..

Here are some of my views and tips which I learned through trial and error:

1. MIL is easier to calculate in the head, easier to use for range estimation, and easier to remember. If all else is equal, buy MIL scope.

2. Unless it is for a centrefire gun that is to be used within a range with no bullet drop, reticles with mil/moa markings are useful. ..
7. The main advantage with FFP is that you can use different magnifications and the reticle lines still work......

This sales pitch for FFP ignores the fact that MIL v MOA are just different numbers and if you're deficient in basic arithmetic or memory, neither will save you. Get a rangefinder and it really doesn't matter what you choose. Having said that, I'd prefer the constant reticle size in SFP scopes.

I base my decisions when assessing and procuring new equipment with one simple acronym, POU (philosophy of Use)

In regards to scopes, once I've established where/what/when, this then helps me narrow it down exactly.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

unless you intend to "twiddle n fiddle" just about all those points dont mean diddle squat.

you forgot field of view.....
bush hobbits top 5

#1 reliable(holds zero ,doesnt fog up)
#2 field of view
#3 field of view
#4 field of view
#5 cross hair you can see in dim light

Good to see other people have different priorities.

To me field of view is something that is not easy to compare. Because of the different magnification range. Scope A's x3 may have slightly more FOV than scope B's x4, but A's x4 has less FOV than B's x4. Which one do you go for?

In terms of reliability, I think it is a given that all modern scopes are supposed to be reliable. And at the same time, there are always lemons with any brand. Expensive brands usually comes with good enough guarantee to make good on when they fail.

I look out window at pailings on front fence...and count how many fit across scopes field of view......its rather eye opening to do so...really love my fixed 4xM8 as a bush scope it is ideal,plenty enough light gets in,plenty good simple post n rail,plenty field of view and eye relief which suits long actions..... the 3x9x40 and 3x9x50 mm loopies both JUST beat if for field of view screwed down to 3x it doesnt matter a shit on anything other than lowest power,because you wont be walking around with it screwed up in power....well you wont do it twice after loosing close animal because of it....
the loopy lifetime guarantee has always been good......so far,touch wood Ive never needed to use it,killed plenty of other scopes over the years,but so far the loopies have stood up to punishment.

my average range to animal would be close to 50 yards if you added them all together,Ive shot animals on run a lot closer than that ,trying to find them in scope just doesnt cut it, spot animal,ID it,up and bang....no time for anything else when its up and off for safer territory. rifle fit comes into it too,and that is where some scopes just MAKE a rifle.....others make it horrid to use.EG I tried a 4-14 loopy and hated it..the bushnell 3x9x40 is a good scope and worked well but compared to wee M8 4X on same rifle ,was a poor cousin.
horses for courses

I don't know Micky, I had to shoot a tahr at 5m after the dog indicated on it and it jumped out of the scrub with 4.5x. worked really well. But in fairness you don't really expect that hunting up there.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

I look out window at pailings on front fence...and count how many fit across scopes field of view

I count the number of visible fence battens on the neighbours boundary fence about 100 yds away.

I think something important is to look for a scope that suits your action/rifle, I see a heap of setups with VX5/6 and NX8 (as an example only as these two stand out to me on a lot of setups) and when mounted on for example a Sako, the user has had to make a sacrifice as to how the scope sits on the rifle due to the relationship between the tube and location of the turrets and to a degree the objective bell, not being suitable, you then often see these setups running a rail as a "fix" where in my opinion a rail is just another part that isn't needed on a dedicated hunting rifle, adding extra weight, lifting the scope higher than necessary and having a detrimental affect on rifle balance, an extra junction to come loose, affecting the rifles ability to top load (and sometimes its ability to eject fired cases effectively) etc etc. In my opinion it's a well overlooked factor that should be right up at the top of the list.

Zero stability
Waterproofness
Durability

FFP Mil Mil. Massive magnification isn’t really a requirement. I have shot (on paper) at 1000m on 4 power with a FFP scope. 1/4 Moa click is actually a finer adjustment that 1/10 mil. 1/10 mil is 100mm at 1km, so your finest adjustment at that distance is 100mm, or 4 inches. Add a bit of room for ballistics error and some wind, it gets very hard to guarantee hits on the chest of a deer that measures, say, 16 inches. I enjoy long range shooting as a sport, but it often runs into some issues when hunting. Low weigh is only important if you have to carry it. Heavier rifles tend to be easier to shoot accurately. Military DMR systems are very heavy. Reliability of the zero and the accuracy of adjustment is critical. Glass, really depends on the shooter. Good glass to one eye is rubbish to another. The real reason that the consistent value of FFP reticle scopes offer an advantage to the hunter is that just on dusk or daylight, you can’t run full magnification anyway on most high power scopes, and that’s when you really see animals in the open.

There is something you have missed here however. In a hunting scenario, velocity is king. A rifle and a scope are a system. Barrel life isn’t really relevant for a hunting rifle, as if it’s only used for hunting you would have spent more on reloading components before the barrel is worn out than the barrel by quite a large margin. Speed minimises a lot of room for error in a ballistic sense. Lobbing large projectiles isn’t really that necessary in NZ where the game isn’t that large. A good 30 cal magnum is more than enough for anything in New Zealand. A 6.5 or 7mm on a 30 cal mag case has some positive merits too. Longer barrels have better velocity for any given setup. A huge amount of shooting here is in the bush or on small clearings, say, less than 200m. A 308 works fine for that. Stalking is fun, and you are a lot closer as inevitably, your going to have to walk over there anyway. Bow hunters still shoot deer and they have to get real close.

Originally Posted by Bagheera

Zero stability
Waterproofness
Durability

This.

If a scope loses zero (confirm not mounts) then it's either into the bin or back to the factory for a service before being sold on.