Re: Need for \"tactical\" scopes
It is worth paying for reliabilty and repeatability the rest is icing on the cake. The hard part is once you know your price range and an idea of the features that suit you is getting the best option from a number of choices.
An example I have a S&B PM2 and a Nightforce NXS 12-42 x 56 R2. For paper punching the NXS is excellent, even for most of the "tactical" competions where I live it has advantages over the S&B, like not needing a spotter out to 200m. The reticle is finer but still visible so allowes for a finer aim. If you dont want all the magnification you can turn it down.
The S&B has some advantages also it has better depth of field, slightly better optics and seems easier to use at night (even without a lit reticle). What I am trying to say is that it depends on what you want to do. For LR shooting if you look at publications like PS magazine Nightforce or Leupold seem popular. I guess with good reason.
I would give thought to things like first or second plain reticle. turret adjustments, in relation to reticle choice. A mildot or MLR reticle suits 1cm adjustments (milrad reticle and .1 milrad adjustments)or an NPR2 type reticle (MOA based)with 1/4 MOA turret adjustments ( the Nightforce BR series has 1/8 MOA adjustments). Again "tactical" scopes may offer course adjustments 1/2 or 1 MOA per click but for LR paper or varmints it is hard to see the need and easy to see disadvantages. Parallax adjustment is a must, front or side, take your choice they both work with minor advantages or disadvantages over the other. Elevation adjustment, if you are this side of 1000m then 65 or so MOA seems more than enough with a 20MOA decline base so a 30mm tube should be fine. Much seems to be written on optical quality and this or that glass but good lens coatings seem to make the difference small. Just some thoughts.
If it helps a little I am happy, if it adds to the confussion I am sorry.
Ps. If you want sell something, make it black and call it Tactical.