Makes good sense! It's what I use on my
.338 too.
Optic recommendation
- Thread starter tikka7prc
- Start date
.338 too.
tikka7prc
Active Member
Thanks for the detailed response, very helpful.
Rifleman97
Well-Known Member
I've never understood the appeal of ultra short scopes. There's simply better ways to cut weight than by making the scope shorter, and in my experience it doesn't affect the "handiness" of the gun but forces you to add weight elsewhere (full length rail) and the compromises made for that scope to exist are just too much. Love the ATACR Nightforces, I loved the NXS when they came out but they need a glass update to compete these days. And with that HUGE magnification range, with an emphasis on usability on the high end rather than the low end, the scope is completely unusable for me under 4-5x as the reticle is too thin and just disappears.
What I personally think would be the perfect do it all Nightforce scope (as the speciality ones are already covered)
ATACR glass, 3-15x42, ≈3mm larger ocular than current models, 4.5-4" eye relief (the larger ocular helps with visibility and FOV when going for longer eye relief), windage hashes only going to 6 or 8 mils on each side to have the big bars come closer to the reticle for finding your crosshair on minimum magnification, .5 MOA floating dot crosshair, overall length around 13" with several inches between the turret and the front bell to be able to mount on ANTI X style rails on magnum length actions with proper eye relief, and ability to move it forward or back to fit you.
Longer scopes always have better eye boxes because the angle the light comes out of the ocular is less extreme, so the human eye can focus it from closer and further distances more easily.
Longer eye relief also helps with this, keeping the light more in line with the scope. Longer eye relief also limits the potential for field of view, but at the combination of 3x and a slightly larger ocular you can make up a fair amount of both of those things, the only downside is potential bolt clearance and about 1-2 ounces. Generally not an issue except for on really low mounts and 90° bolt throw.
Also a larger magnifier (6x, 8x, 10x) has to start with a smaller image and blow it up more, so a 3-15 with the same glass have better clarity at 15x than a 1.5-15 will have at 15x. Stretching the limits of the optics is when you get more chromatic aberration, fuzzier images, and less color saturation and contrast. That's why the 4-16 ATACR is considered one of if not the highest quality Nightforce scope. With only a 4x multiplier and starting at 4x, it's not working the glass nearly as hard.
Sorry for the rant, but might be helpful for any other readers who don't know a lot about the physics of optics and why nothing you can do outside of glass grinding and coatings is ever "improving" an image, but rather prioritizing something else for a compromise. More durability is more weight, bigger zoom ratio means lower quality image and greater change in reticle thickness from min to max, shorter scopes are lighter but have tighter eye boxes, bigger objective bells have bigger eyeboxes but add both weight and necessary height to the rings, sacrificing cheek weld, larger tubes work the optics slightly less but at the cost of significant weight, etc etc.
tikka7prc
Active Member
Thank you, that is great information.
The 4-16 42 or 50 mm objective?
I took a Zeiss conquest off a friend's rifle yesterday. Every time he pulled the trigger the impact climbed 3/4-1" at 100yds. Took the rings loose off the Anti-X rails. Everything was tight.
For simplicity sake I put a very well worn 12-42NXS on it, in NF rings and shot a 3/4" triangle. Just sayin…
For simplicity sake I put a very well worn 12-42NXS on it, in NF rings and shot a 3/4" triangle. Just sayin…
Rifleman97
Well-Known Member
I prefer the low mounting potential of the 42. "Technically" the 50 will give you a bigger eyebox due to the slightly larger exit pupil, and less edge deformity when maxing out your dial up, but the 42 is literally so good, and the difference is so small; that behind the scope is bet you could not tell a difference during legal shooting hours.
Kmccord
Well-Known Member
Take a look at the Tract Toric Eagleman LR Scope, the dials will have larger numbers that us that are getting old and decrepit can use without squinting. I don't know if you are going to find a better price point with what you will receive.
https://tractoptics.com/toric-uhd-4-25x50-34mm-ffp-moa-eagleman-long-range-hunting-rifle-scope/
https://tractoptics.com/toric-uhd-4-25x50-34mm-ffp-moa-eagleman-long-range-hunting-rifle-scope/
tikka7prc
Active Member
Several people recommended the Tract. Looks very appealing for the price.
lancetkenyon
Well-Known Member
Just have to be careful with mounting some scopes as low as possible. With Zeiss especially, the fat magnification ring is too large to clear a 90* bolt throw on a lot of actions when mounting even a 50mm objective in low rings. There are a few others that do the same thing, so a 40-44mm objective gives no benefit for mounting it lower sometimes. You also have to make sure the magnification throw ring does not hit the rail.
Nice and low w. .87" rings...bolt handle doesn't clear
Go to .97" rings, and barely clears, but it clears
Also, some scopes like Swarovski and SChmitt & Bender have a big turret bell and will not clear a full length Picatinny rail in low rings. So you end up having to either: 1. Mount it in taller rings, or 2. Mill down the Picatinny risers in the center section of the rail.
Last edited:
Kmccord
Well-Known Member
I had the same issue with a rifle I built using a Kelbly Atlas Lite with low Long Range Hybrid rings, using an Arken EPL-4. Ended up sending back in exchange for the High rings, even then the 90 degree bolt barely missed the magnification ring.
Rifleman97
Well-Known Member
Yep, the 50mm will be slightly heavier though even when mounted high, for those who care about weight.
Personally, I'm a fan of the negative comb and negative drop at heel stocks that let you mount the scope higher, and get the recoil more in line with the shoulder for less muzzle rise. But most people aren't using those yet.
There's also a slight benefit to depth of field (amount of distance at a time that can be in focus with reticle) with smaller objective lenses, although they make caps that effectively stop down larger objectives to have the same effect. I forget what they're called at the moment.
I have owned S&B PMII, Premier Reticle, Swarovski, Zeiss, Steiner, Vortex, Nightforce, and Tract. My favorite scopes for hunting rifles are NF ATACR 4-16x42 and Toric Tract 2.5-15x42. The NF is an amazing scope. The optical quality is quite good. There is a very nice snipers hide comparison between it, a Steiner 3-18x56, March 4.5-28x54, and a Schmidt and bender 3-20. Others have mentioned the toric. The ergonomics are great. Glass is not as nice as NF (not even close) however it is quite acceptable. If you have old eye like me you will especially like their turrets.
tikka7prc
Active Member
Great tip, thank you. Something I would have never known to consider.
