I have just recently been introduced into the world of long range shooting. For years I have been doing the "hold over" with my 30-30. Well last week I went out and bought a .300 WSM. It sits with a junk tasco scope on it I am unable to use the rifle basically because I have been reading about ballistics and optics for days now and feel like I am more lost now than I was when I began researching about scopes.
I thought I had the perfect scope picked out. Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50. I kept getting confused because they had the same exact scope marked at $200 higher with the letters "FFP".
Well now I have researched and understand how Front Focal Plane and Second Focal plane work, I am at a complete loss on what I should get in a scope. I understand to accurately mil a target with a SFP scope it must be at a certain magnification but on the other hand it would be just as quick to whip out a range finder and range it.
I am not a fan of hold over. I know guys argue that dialing your scope in takes too long but honestly at that long of a range shot the animal has no clue you are even there and is often grazing which gives you plenty of time to figure the MOA and get dialed in.
I have no preference when it comes to using Mils or using MOA and dialing a scope in as I am brand new to long range shooting. My initial thought of making accurate long range shots were to distance the target, figure trajectory and use a scope with adjustable finger turrets and dial it in to be zeroed in at that yardage.
However, I now understand that you can just as accurately make long rang shots using Mils and figure hold over to be just as accurate as dialing in a turret.
I am absolutely boggled at which route to go. If I choose to go with using mils I would prefer a FFP scope. The ones I am looking at a FFP scope is $200 more but would cut the cost of a $300-$400 rangefinder and be one less piece of expensive equipment to pack through the woods.
By the way most of my shooting will be practicing long range long before I test my luck in the field on a 500+ yard deer.
I thought I had the perfect scope picked out. Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50. I kept getting confused because they had the same exact scope marked at $200 higher with the letters "FFP".
Well now I have researched and understand how Front Focal Plane and Second Focal plane work, I am at a complete loss on what I should get in a scope. I understand to accurately mil a target with a SFP scope it must be at a certain magnification but on the other hand it would be just as quick to whip out a range finder and range it.
I am not a fan of hold over. I know guys argue that dialing your scope in takes too long but honestly at that long of a range shot the animal has no clue you are even there and is often grazing which gives you plenty of time to figure the MOA and get dialed in.
I have no preference when it comes to using Mils or using MOA and dialing a scope in as I am brand new to long range shooting. My initial thought of making accurate long range shots were to distance the target, figure trajectory and use a scope with adjustable finger turrets and dial it in to be zeroed in at that yardage.
However, I now understand that you can just as accurately make long rang shots using Mils and figure hold over to be just as accurate as dialing in a turret.
I am absolutely boggled at which route to go. If I choose to go with using mils I would prefer a FFP scope. The ones I am looking at a FFP scope is $200 more but would cut the cost of a $300-$400 rangefinder and be one less piece of expensive equipment to pack through the woods.
By the way most of my shooting will be practicing long range long before I test my luck in the field on a 500+ yard deer.
