Thread: Tactical High Powered Scope Confusion

In the 'Buy, Sell or Trade' yesterday @Beetroot posted this in regards to a high magnification scope for sale:

Originally Posted by Beetroot

The scope market has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.
A SFP tactical scope with a Mil reticle and MOA turrets doesn't really cut it anymore in 2020.

Not saying the scopes don't perform but the options available now in the $1000-$2000 range as worlds apart from what used to be available.

So that leads to my question of "Then what tactical scope specs does cut it in 2020?".
As I was of the opinion that a 2nd FP was better for hunting as with 1st FP the reticle is too thin at low power to see against an animal and too thick at high power...

Originally Posted by Hermitage

As I was of the opinion that a 2nd FP was better for hunting as with 1st FP the reticle is too thin at low power to see against an animal and too thick at high power...

Depends entirely on the reticle. The target rifle reticles are the ones that are too thin generally speaking.

A decent quality tactical reticle like the Bushnell G2DMR or similar is good for all magnifications. On a 6-24x scope, I use it at ~10-16x for deer, or at 24x for long range varminting, and the reticle thickness is simply not an issue. This is on a longer range, 300m-700m type rifle.

The issues arise in low light, which is where the illuminated reticles come into play. A low power illumination is amazing on an animal at the last of the light. I have one scope relatively new to me with a Tritium illuminated dot and a 56mm objective - holy shit I can see animals perfectly clearly on 6x or 10x mag at 150m that I can't even see with the naked eye.

There are as many answers to this as opinions, very much a personal preference. I like tactical reticles for shooting multiple animals quickly, so I holdover on the reticle instead of trying to adjust the dials. I've yet to use a tactical reticle that was either too thick, or too thin.

Originally Posted by Hermitage

In the 'Buy, Sell or Trade' yesterday @Beetroot posted this in regards to a high magnification scope for sale:



So that leads to my question of "Then what tactical scope specs does cut it in 2020?".
As I was of the opinion that a 2nd FP was better for hunting as with 1st FP the reticle is too thin at low power to see against an animal and too thick at high power...

In practice the thick/thin of the reticle in FFP scopes is a non issue in my experience.

Greetings All,
The main problem with the SFP scopes and mil dot or multipoint reticles is that they are only correct at one magnification, usually 10 power so the mil dot or multipoint reticle is kneecapped by the SFP. I am amazed how many do not know this. The SFP scopes can show some reticle shift as power changes especially the less expensive ones.
That said I have three mil dot SFP scopes with moa turrets but all are fixed 10 power scopes which gets over the problems.
Regards Grandpamac.

The reticle on that night force scope is also pretty good:
https://www.nightforceoptics.com/rif.../nx8-1-8x24-f1

Just a ashamed that it is not available in higher magnification scopes

Originally Posted by Friwi

The reticle on that night force scope is also pretty good:
https://www.nightforceoptics.com/rif.../nx8-1-8x24-f1

Just a ashamed that it is not available in higher magnification scopes

I've looked through those reticles and they are probably the best hunting rets yet. Very fast to centralise

The ffp reticle that is harder to see at a lower magnification is a non issue if the manufacturer want to do something about it.
Burris did it well with there veracity reticle .
https://www.burrisoptics.com/scopes/...cope-2-10x42mm

The Schmitt and bender Millot reticle on their 4-16 classic is another exemple.
Thick side bars at low magnification and thinner detailed lines on the center for the higher magnification.

The bushnell lrhs is also a very good one:
https://www.precisionoptics.net/Elit...H_p/e3124h.htm

The G2 reticle in the bigger models is a bit too complicated for real hunting situations.( I own both!)



The reality is that a lot of "tactical" scope are used mostly during the day time for target shooting , and the bright daylight luminosity is a non issue when using the fine reticle. The ones with illumination alleviate the problem, and the ones with the thicker reticle on the outside edge as mentioned above also mostly resolve the problem for real hunting conditions.

And this one even better
https://www.nightforceoptics.com/fil...-COMM-v4_1.pdf

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.

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.

Yes thats true but you cannot be guaranteed of the accuracy of the values of subtensions/hash marks as you cannot guarantee that the magnification markings on scope are indeed true. Ie 10x may only be 9 or 11 and therefore messing up your doubled mill/moa calculation.

Originally Posted by Dermastor

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

Lots of people do long range gong/target shooting or various field shooting competition where these types og scopes are useful.

Originally Posted by GWH

Lots of people do long range gong/target shooting or various field shooting competition where these types og scopes are useful.

I see no issue with the hardware, it's the need for it to be classified "tactical". Tactical to me says "I have an inferiority complex and need to bolster my image". Often reserved for lesser brands as a marketing gimmick, or that guy who has never shot a deer but makes out he has.

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.

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.

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