Looking to buy a scope! Help!

Atti_Mac

New Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
3
Maybe I want to much, but I was looking over every major scope models, and options and I can't find a scope what will match with my thoughts :)
- Under $1000
-30 mm tube
-max 16X
- FFP
-Side focus

- and the most important, the reticle...
I am looking for something like Zeiss Rapid-Z Ballistic or Bushnell Doa 600 , so you know what type of reticle I am talking about.

The problem with the Bushy is second focal ... and the Zeiss is 1" tube.
Any recommendation ?
Thanx guys.
 
Maybe I want to much, but I was looking over every major scope models, and options and I can't find a scope what will match with my thoughts :)
- Under $1000
-30 mm tube
-max 16X
- FFP
-Side focus

- and the most important, the reticle...
I am looking for something like Zeiss Rapid-Z Ballistic or Bushnell Doa 600 , so you know what type of reticle I am talking about.

The problem with the Bushy is second focal ... and the Zeiss is 1" tube.
Any recommendation ?
Thanx guys.

Get a Zeiss Conquest and live with the 1" tube
 
Maybe I want to much, but I was looking over every major scope models, and options and I can't find a scope what will match with my thoughts :)
- Under $1000
-30 mm tube
-max 16X
- FFP
-Side focus

- and the most important, the reticle...
I am looking for something like Zeiss Rapid-Z Ballistic or Bushnell Doa 600 , so you know what type of reticle I am talking about.

The problem with the Bushy is second focal ... and the Zeiss is 1" tube.
Any recommendation ?
Thanx guys.

Under $1,000; that's easy.

Sixteen X on the top end is easy but ask yourself if you really need or should have that much. If you're using it for bench rest shooting then maybe. If you're using it for hunting, at different ranges you'll have to fiddle with parallax. I've found 7X adequate for a 300 yard shot on a crow, racoons, etc. On a deer sized animal 10X should do out to 500 or 600 yards anyway. I've had 16X and even higher powered scopes before and I now own one 15X scope; the ones I use the most are from 7X to 10X on the top end.

A 30mm tube is easy.

FFP for the price you wish to pay is not easy. The only reason for a FFP scope is if you wish the reticle to be good for rangeing at any power setting. If you wish to use mil dots to calculate a range based on the known size of a target, then there is some use for a FFP scope. On the other hand, with a SFP scope, you have accurate rangeing at the highest power setting usually which you would probably be on for a long shot anyway. FFP sound good but I don't think many need it or would even use that feature.

Side focus is easy to get in a scope in your price range.
 
check out the pride fowler rapid reticle scopes, I love mine, they designed the rapid reticles for zeiss.
 
Under $1,000; that's easy.

Sixteen X on the top end is easy but ask yourself if you really need or should have that much. If you're using it for bench rest shooting then maybe. If you're using it for hunting, at different ranges you'll have to fiddle with parallax. I've found 7X adequate for a 300 yard shot on a crow, racoons, etc. On a deer sized animal 10X should do out to 500 or 600 yards anyway. I've had 16X and even higher powered scopes before and I now own one 15X scope; the ones I use the most are from 7X to 10X on the top end.

A 30mm tube is easy.

FFP for the price you wish to pay is not easy. The only reason for a FFP scope is if you wish the reticle to be good for rangeing at any power setting. If you wish to use mil dots to calculate a range based on the known size of a target, then there is some use for a FFP scope. On the other hand, with a SFP scope, you have accurate rangeing at the highest power setting usually which you would probably be on for a long shot anyway. FFP sound good but I don't think many need it or would even use that feature.

Side focus is easy to get in a scope in your price range.

I agree, the 30mm tube will give you more elevation for those 1000m shots and a FFP is ONLY if you are using the scope to range at any power setting. A bullet drop compensator is fine as long as you set the scope up well. otherwise the stuff is just window dressing. The BDC is also if you DONT want to wind the elevation setting up to make that long shot. You just hold over and shoot.
Ive got a Zeiss 6.5-20 x 50 with Rapid Z 2nd focal plane that allows me to range accurately at 12x. At 12x 1MilRad is 100mm at 100m (I use metric as it is easier than moa.
I use the ranging marks for elevation with an optimal magnification setting of 14x for my .223 Rem. That means the scopes hash marks are pretty close to the trajectory of the cartridge.

So how do I hunt?
At 0-225m I just shoot straight at whatever is there. Bullet rise and fall is less than 40mm. Mostly head shot foxes, rabbits goats and roos. Any further out I use the ranging marks at 12x to estimate the distance and hold over using the BDC at 14x. A bit fiddly but seems to work ok. I have the average fox, rabbit and roos head sizes in my head and can get pretty close to the distance out to 370m using milradians. After that the .223 isnt a viable option. Accurate but likely to wound.
The rifle will soon be a heavy long barreled 6.5x55 Swede so the really long shots (500m+) will be viable. Thats when the scope will come into it's own.
Scope plus postage to Australia was $750 from Eurooptic.com.

Correct me if I am wrong here but:
The BDC in a FFP scope has to be used for the cartridge or load that it is designed and set at the factory for.
Thats it, if you are NOT using that exact load you have to use elevation adjustments to get on target, so; a BDC is no good to you. if your round is not matched to the scope,
Ranging in MOA or MilRads will work but not the BDC.
 
Last edited:
Bushnell Elite 6500 2.5x-16x 50mm w/30mm tube. Have this glass on my 280AI and have been very happy with it.

jrg
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top