Is this Special Purpose Reticle from Leupold seems like it would be good to me. It has the circle for close quick work and seems like it would be good for more precise work with the holdover marks.
Having better glass does not relieve the shooter of their obligation to maintain good form and hard hold on the rifle. If the scope holds its zero the shooter should be able to shoot tight groups assuming he/she can fix on a point of reference to aim at. There is no such thing as a “forgiving” scope. A good scope just allows the shooter to shoot to their full potential (and that of the rifle and ammo).
RE: VXII vs. VXIII vs. VX3
I believe that current VXII glass is the same as what Leupold puts on their new Mark AR lines of scopes, which are roughly in the same ballpark as far as price is concerned.
VXIII glass was the same as the glass put in the Mark 4 LR line. I think the latest incarnation, dubbed the VX3, has better than Mark 4 glass (though only marginally). Mark 4 is way more expensive, but you paying for expensive turrets and reticles. I think that structurally they are now otherwise the same.
The VX3 is Leupold’s flagship scope. VXIIIs are pretty close to the same thing and can be had for bargains now that the VX3 is out. Either way they are considerably more expensive than the VXII, but the glass is thought to be way better.
I also have a VXII on a hunting rifle. It takes a beating but its a killer.
Dom
I had the 2.5-16 version. Its actually a quality optic. However the down sides are. No illumination at all. Second the reticle options are not very fast to use. Mine had mil dots. So even if you did not require illumination you were stuck with a slow to use reticle design.
Pat
That has been something that I’m having to consider a reticle that can be fast, and has BDC for the 200-300 yds (or more, on very rare occasion). For those reasons, I’m considering the Burris XTR 1-4 and the Leupold MR/T 1.5-5 with the special purpose reticle. I like the extra magnification of the Leupold, and I think I like that reticle better.
No, not better then nightforce.
I am going to change out my 1-4 NF with the Vortex 1-4HD. I think it might actually be a better scope.
C4
Interesting. How do you base your claim? My buddy has a higher power nf and the glass is stunning on it. Personally, I’ve never looked through a vortex hd but have read lots of good things about them… but I have also read a few spotty reviews. Maybe I jumped the gun. With that being said, I (personally) wouldn’t buy either. If I was going to buy a 1-4, I’d go with trijicon’s offering… hands down.
The Sightrons have received good reviews.
I have an elite 4200 that I will never get rid of since I personally beat the piss out of it on my .50 before transfering to my 6.8… now its going on my 5.45 Saiga.
I was very interested in the elite 6500 1-8x but there is no illumination in the reticle. My 4200 has an illuminated dot.
It is japanese glass and it is very clear. They are heavy scopes too and very rugged.
Why not IOR 1.1-4X or 1.5-8x26???
Why not a Trijicon Accupoint 1.25-4x???
The IOR is a little heavy, but it’s damned near perfect. At $1359, there’s no way I could afford it:(.
I’m leaning more toward the Burris XTR or the Leupold MR/T 1.5-5 w/ no illumination. The illumination on scopes (except the trijicons) never show up in daylight. I like the reticle of the Leupold the best, and the added magnification, but I’m not at all a fan of the variable eye relief.
Although the trijicon accupoint 1-4 is more $ then the 1.25-4, I’d spend the extra $ and grab the 1x.
That is 100% wrong. The illumination on the Meopta and the Swarovski show up even in the brightest sun light. I have used my Swarovski in in the brightest conditions possible in Texas and the reticle is light very well. My friends Meopta also did fine. Sounds like you don’t have much experience in this area.
Pat
I should have said that the mid-priced scopes don’t illuminate well during the day. Although, the Meopta probably could fit into mid-priced category. Meopta’s reticle isn’t for me, as I think it is more geared for quick work than exact work. I’m sure many have good experience with it though. A reticle somewhere in between those two poles is what I’m looking for.
The illuminated Swarvoski’s start at $1800, I believe. It wouldn’t matter if the a Swarovski could jump off and fly300 yards, smack the target and fly back. At $1800, unless I win the lottery there’s no way I’ll be able to afford one.
The ill-dot on the elite 4200 shows up in daylight and has an intensity adjustment knob as well.
The IOR CRT 1.1-4x26 can be had for around 850.00 if one is frugal in shopping.
The illuminated reticle isn’t a big thing for me. I’m in AZ, and few will stand up to the sun, here. The Aimpoints and Trijicons (fober optic), of course work well. In fact, the fiber optic Trijicons can work a little too well, and you have to turn the cover over the fiber optic coils. That IOR 1.25-4 looks like a great scope, with a good reticle (even if the illumination doesn’t stand up to the sun).
If I were in your shoes, for a Noveske Recon (which I’m assuming is what it’s for), I’d go with the Leupold 1.5-5x. Solid mid-grade optic with good precision capabilities and decent illumination.
In response to the Accupoints, I personally dislike their reticle offerings for precision work (ACOGs are a different story).
What makes you say that? Have you handled a PST before? What did you like better about it over the NF?
I personally don’t like them at this point (although I haven’t handled one yet). From the specs alone, the combination of attributes just screams “tacticool.” It’s a 1-4x… but comes standard with target turrets that look like towering monstrosities on a scope that size; the reticle is super-busy, and the adjustments don’t make sense either (.2 mil/.5 MOA adjustments?). It’s like they tried to combine all of the attributes of what they deemed as tactical and threw them onto a 1-4x optic. I mean, turrets are ok, but virtually no one that needs them needs them on a 1-4x scope; and the few that do will need finer adjustments than 1/2 MOA / 1/5 mills. Also factor in that the reticle is SFP and the circular markings become a waste of reticle space (a simple red dot with on/off would have been better).
I really, truly wanted to like this scope, but after going over it, it seemed like they focused more on making another toy that sold into their “We’d list our clientele, but they’re classified” marketing line (yes, their brochure actually says that) instead of making a solid 1-4x optic that fulfills the shortcomings of current scopes.
Just my .02. Sorry for the rant.
Correction…
Its 1.1-4x26… I made an error by typing 1.25.
The CRT would be my choice.
OK, I’m thinking out loud here. I know this’ll sound funky. When I shoot for accuracy, or if I were to do a three gun or what have you I’d be shooting heavier bullets (75 gr.+) through this Noveske. I’ve heard (but still need to research a bit) that the 7.62 reticles and hold overs do allright with heavier 5.56 ammo. ??? Anyway, what if I got the Burris XTR 1.5-6 w/ 7.62 retifle? It has more magnification (which I’d like), is only 2 oz heavier than the 1-4x, has minimal eye relief shift, good reticle, the 1.5 won’t be that bad for close in, and w/ the Larue mounts comes in at under $900. Sounds like everything I want. Thoughts?
I think you should look at the trijicon accupoint Tr24.
You’re confusing precision shooting and practical shooting. What works for one is generally the opposite of what works for the other.
If you’re going to precision shoot (meaning making small groups at various distances), you want a scope that has:
[ol]
[li] a fine/thin reticle
[/li][li] the ability to dial in your dope via turrets (either exposed or capped)
[/li][li] the ability to range with your reticle (ergo TMR, mil-dot, etc)
[/li][li] If you must have a BDC, then the scope needs one that matches perfectly to the loads you’ll be shooting.
[/li][/ol]
In other words, everything is geared to making your round hit exactly where you want it.
Conversely, if you want to engage in practical shooting, then you want your scope to have:
[ol]
[li]a bright, medium-sized (2-4 MOA), preferably daylight-visible illuminated reticle that draws your eye to it immediately
[/li][li] capped turrets to avoid the scope getting knocked off zero
[/li][li] a more forgiving, generalized BDC that works with multiple loads (as you’ll probably be shooting whatever ammo is cheapest)
[/li][/ol]
The difference between the two is that precision shooting is geared towards slow, precise shots and practical shooting is hitting man-sized targets quickly within a general area.
There’s VERY few scopes that work for both roles. The S&B Short Dot, the new Leupold 1-8x, and (to a lesser extent) the Nightforce 2.5-10x32 with the Velocity reticle. In your price range, the Nightforce will probably be your best bet, although it lacks the daytime-visible illumination. The Trijicon TR-24 would also work, but it’s more of a compromise than a solution (though, for the money, you probably won’t find a better optic cheaper).
Unless going with one of the above scopes, it’s simply best to pick the role you’d like to perform more, pick a scope that fits that role, and get it. You can always buy another optic for a different role later.
On that note, a Noveske Recon is set up for precision shooting, so I’d go for a precision SPR-type optic, but that’s just me.