I am looking at purchasing a used Springfield Gen3 4x16x56 with the illuminated bullet drop reticle. I am hesitant to make the purchase though based on the info I have seen on forums here and elswhere. Some of this info I realize is from folks who just like to bash regardless of personnal experience with an item. But there sounds like some credence must be given to this. Anyone with actual time spent behind one of these scopes please respond. Realize that my scope budget is in the $500-600 range and that mil-dots are preferred.
i have the same scope its fine as long as you dont try using the turrents for ranging they will not go back to zero but they are ok other than that spend the extra money and get a leupold you wont need to upgrade
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Re: Springfield scope are really that bad?
Yes they really are that bad.
This is not based on anything but pure experiance with not one, but 2 SA scopes. Both were the 4.5-14x56 with the 3rd gen 7.62 reticle. The first one I bought and after it failed I sent it to the factory and they had it for 8 months. I kept getting the run around from them until I lost it. They then sent me a brand new one and it went titts up faster than the first one. I sold the POS. I wont be having any more of those. Save you $$ and find a good used lupy or burris or something of that nature. You will be thankful.
Originally Posted by Broz
Please just answer one very simple question. Why would anyone shooting long range load a low BC , low SD 168 gr offering in a 300 win???????
My answer to this is. The only reason is to make the 7 RM look good. There is no other reason.