Yeah the kahles scopes are good.Quote:
Originally Posted by andyanimal31
Printable View
Yeah the kahles scopes are good.Quote:
Originally Posted by andyanimal31
the top line is the scope number tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst
razor gen1 next line down shows the 12 scopes tested and each result.
I zero at 600 yards and everything closer is fine, never spent more than 1k on a scope and I shoot reliable groups to that distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimitsu
I've had fair dialing from cheaper scopes but the question for me is how well it still works when its 5 years and 2000 308 rounds down the track.
Compared to 20 years ago, we now expect scopes to do a lot of things we didn't then:
Dial accurately.
Dial and return to zero
Reticle markings accurate at all magnifications.
No zero shift when changing magnification.
Parallax adjustment, accurate, reproducible, plus no change in point of impact.
waterproof (yes, most weren't back in the day)
Huge magnification zoom. In the day, Leupold scopes went 2.5x (eg2.5-6.5) and that was considered "state of" . Now its embarrassing if you're only offering 3-12x.
Larger objective, bigger field of view, better light transmission, sharper higher contrast image, higher mag.
So, what can you do without if you have a budget ?
Dialling is the first. You do still need good adjustments but only for sighting in once in a blue moon and they don't really have to match the reticle or be exact on paper as long as they hold zero through bumps heat cold and lots of shots.
Parallax is next.
Wide zoom range >4x
Top Mag >12x
Leaving off these features makes it a lot easier for the manufacturer to produce a high quality functional optic for under $1000.
I'd rather have a long established top brand with modest specs than a 5 year old company offering a "lifetime warranty" on a scope with every spec.
The great thing about the 270Win is its flat shooting and hard hitting, which gives you margin to do without a rangefinder and dialling (within reason say up to 250m).
Hey ebf yes they can be mounted skew but you never ever have to do a tall target test on any to confirm the elevation correction factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Apparently one of the very few brands in the market that does not need it.
This info is from the people that actually do this work testing high end optics for military use.
Sent from my SM-A025F using Tapatalk
To be fair, the scopes I've used like the Bushnell 4500 started life at a bit over 1k, and the Burris signature I got recently started its retail life at the same level, I would be nervous with anything inferior to them. And obviously the Chinese Burris is a punt but established company and good warranty, so far very impressed and got myself two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
The first thing I will do with a scope is set up a board at 100 and watch the travel to 12 moa then mess around a few nights at 600 yards finding a really good zero.
There is a Nz retailer for element optics. www.elementoptics.co.nz one of the helix would be a better option than the Burris or vortex ones in that price range. It has a proper zero stop to and a very good reticle.
Your fanboy is showing. yes they are close but the data clearly shows they are not perfect. And its not just a one off, its shows across multiple scopes and models.
data shows your better to buy a kahles if perfect dialing is whats needed. even the old older 6-24. Not a kahles fanboy-dont plan to buy one either. correcting a dialing error is easy a shifting zero not so much.
Phil243 would choose to differ how well his kahles scope works.Quote:
Originally Posted by blair993
Sent from my SM-A025F using Tapatalk
He has said most shooting he does is 100-150 and just want something for the occasional longer shot, id be more tempted to use the 3-15 as its does everything from 30 yards to dialing at 500Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy06
instead of tying to find close animals through a 6x power
exactly even the best brands have faults other wise we wouldn't need a warranty's. Just no point pushing just one brand as being so much better than everything else and all guns must have a nf on then or your just wasting your time. im sure there's even people out there that arn't completly happy with a tangent theta.
Love how a blokes post asking for opinions on scopes around the $1k mark for shooting 500yds turns into a NF vs Kahles conversation. All the scopes mentioned in original post will do all the op wants and more. Even a wee vx3 3.5-10 cds would be more than adequate. Minute elevation errors etc won't come into the equation for a hunting rifle shooting deer at 500yds and steel out to 600, the nut behind the bolt will be the number one factor at those ranges.
Agree. I have a leupold @ 2.5 - 8 * 36 with b&c reticle on my 308. It has proven very satisfactory out to 600 yards and is ideal in the forest as well.
This thread is not about whether you can shoot something at a long distance. It is entirely possible to shoot 30cm target at 500 meters with just a 3-9 powered scope - if you just spend your time zeroing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
What OP is asking is dialling. Dialling on the fly is a trendy but expensive game. Very few scopes can do it 100%. Most high end expensive scopes can do it within 1% of error. Most mid-ranged scopes cannot do it reliably at all.
Vx3 3.5-10 is all ya need
Do they dial?
What @Proudkiwi said back in 2014 may be applied to $1000 scopes or otherwise:
"If you want to test a scope for click values you need to remove the scope from the rifle, clamp it in a way that it will not be able to move at all, ideally in a vice mounted on a concrete bench for example.
Then place a measured chart at exactly the correct distance (100mtr for mil turrets etc) and wind away observing your ret against the chart. "
https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....34/index3.html
The setup I pictured part-way down this page will identify % error throughout the range (and this can be factored into the dropchart if needs be), backlash, elevation-windage interactions, most of what you'd need to know to determine whether the scope being considered is up to par. The thing it won't tell you - though there might be some indication - is whether the behaviour seen will remain consistent over future usage and in different and perhaps more adverse conditions.
I would never "shoot a square" or a "tall target" test, sorry. I don't see any reason to superimpose my shooting error and that of my rifle needlessly onto an assessment of a telescopic sight.
I didn't express myself well, I put the new Burris on the other night, quickly set up a 1.5 inches high at 100 yards, then back to 600 yards to dial in 11moa. Turns out I'm a good 6 inches low so I factored 1.047 for true moa rather than an inch, which takes me from 44 to 46 clicks (shooter is great for this)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimitsu
Three of six inches found. But next time I will take a board out and measure exactly what I get from 48 clicks (12moa). There was potentially a downdraft involved in the shots, I might naturally give away an inch in my setup etc. so I'm going to mess around quite a bit finding what I think is the best setting at 600yards.
After that the zero at 100 yards (and 400 yards) is what it is within reason but I need to know those elevations for future reference.
What I'm doing is minimizing any dialing errors inside 600 yards to the point they aren't relevant on deer sized game. It will involve multiple nights of shooting so I'm gonna get a pretty good handle if the scope dials repeatedly enough to do the job.
What I'm saying is if you do some work a mid range scope can get the job done. Having said that, I think that 600 yards on an animal is a long way, 500 is challenging and 400 is the very doable with a bit of work.
The best way is to have your hundred yard zero smack on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
Then with what info you have eg bc zero and estimated speed is to then shoot out to 600 then adjust so your hitting smack on your elevation.
You then enter that info of adjusted elevation into you validation software in shooter and it will adjust for real world velocities.
This is a very simplified version that will work for you.
Sent from my SM-A025F using Tapatalk
This is the validation pagehttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d869515726.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
Sent from my SM-A025F using Tapatalk
An even easier way is to zero at mid range, say 300. Any small dialing error back to 200 or 100 or up to 500 will be unlikely to cause a miss on a deers chest.