Scope my .260

[varmintH8R]

I am a creature of habit - when I find things I like, I rarely deviate. Sometimes I wonder what I'm missing out on. I'm hoping you all can give me some well informed recs on new optics.

I currently have 2 "go-to" scopes for bolt action rifles. I have several of each, depending on application.

My lighter weight, <700 Yd rifles wear Swarovski Z5's, 3.5-18x44 with the Ballistic Turret and 4W reticle. I like that they are light, durable, low profile, and have great glass. I don't like the zero-stop on the BT (it limits to one rotation of elevation) and the covered windage adjustment.

My heavier, larger caliber long-range rifles wear NF NXS, 5.5-22x56 with the MOAR (and MOAR-T) reticles. I like that they are bulletproof, have fantastic tracking & dialing, and are simple to use with a ballistics app. I like the 22x. I don't like that they are big and heavy. (Maybe the right way to say it is that the trade-off is that they are big and heavy).

So, I've got a "dual-purpose" .260 rem in the safe that needs optics. I'd like to have the ability to dial to 1000, but with something lighter than the NF. Any hunting I do with it will probably be 600yd max, but I'd like the flexibility to target shoot longer. For hunting, I'll be packing it all over so it still needs to be durable. I want to stay MOA (vs mil), and I prefer SFP but as per my opening line it might be time to expand my horizons. Budget will be $2k or less.

Let me know what you like and why.

Appreciate your input

Brandon

 

[Txhillbilly]

Sightron SIII S-Tac 2.5-17x56 would be one to look at.

 

[ShtrRdy]

That Swarovki Z5 3.5-18x looks like a good choice. I was reaching out to 1000 yds with my .260 and 18x magnification.

 

[varmintH8R]

That Swarovki Z5 3.5-18x looks like a good choice. I was reaching out to 1000 yds with my .260 and 18x magnification.

Are you dialing for elevation or do you have the BRX reticle? My only issue with the BT is that it limits me to one rotation for elevation (around 13MOA)

 

[Barrelnut]

Check these out. They are 1" scopes, so they are light. Glass won't make you laugh. And they are versatile.
I use an old Conquest with the RZ-800 reticle on a 25-06 and like it. Light and dependable. I think the scope below would be awesome.

Zeiss - Camera Land NY

 

[jpd676]

+1 on the Sightron S-Tac. Also consider the Sightron SIII; it comes MOA/MOA, is lighter than NF, tracks awesome, can take abuse and has a lifetime warranty. Glass in both is excellent.

 

[varmintH8R]

Thanks guys!

I think the SIII and the Conquest HD5 both look interesting. I'll spend some time looking into both. The S-Tac is heavy enough I'd probably just go with what I know (NF).

Any other ideas or hands-on experience with these two scopes are welcome.

 

[Greyfox]

While I use NF scopes on my ELR rigs that the heavy weight is a hopeless cause anyway, for over 5 years I have been using two Huskemaw Blue Diamond 5x20x50's on primary LR hunting rigs that run 10-11#, balance nicely, and are carried more than shot. It's smaller, and lighter than my NF's, and has the same turret precision and optical quality(to my eyes). It's one of the few scopes I have used that actually has a yardage calibrated, fast ratio side parallax knob that is accurate, a good zero stop, and a nicely weighted reticle which includes an MOA windage scale. Both scopes have seen hard use and have proven to be rugged and dependable.IMO.

 

[varmintH8R]

While I use NF scopes on my ELR rigs that the heavy weight is a hopeless cause anyway, for over 5 years I have been using two Huskemaw Blue Diamond 5x20x50's on primary LR hunting rigs that run 10-11#, balance nicely, and are carried more than shot. It's smaller, and lighter than my NF's, and has the same turret precision and optical quality(to my eyes). It's one of the few scopes I have used that actually has a yardage calibrated, fast ratio side parallax knob that is accurate, a good zero stop, and a nicely weighted reticle which includes an MOA windage scale. Both scopes have seen hard use and have proven to be rugged and dependable.IMO.

I'm not sure why Huskemaw has not been on my radar. I will give them a hard look - appearances are that they have exactly what I am looking for. I appreciate you taking the time to share your experience.

Brandon

 

[geo4061]

Greyfox, I think I read somewhere that the clicks on the Huskemaw were one third per inch. I quit looking at these after that. Brandon, I don't think you can beat what your using.

 

[varmintH8R]

Greyfox, I think I read somewhere that the clicks on the Huskemaw were one third per inch. I quit looking at these after that. Brandon, I don't think you can beat what your using.

Geo,

Thanks for posting that. After Greyfox posted I went to the Huskamaw website and noticed the same thing. My first reaction was the same - deal killer.

But then I started thinking about my own shortcomings. When I started shooting more seriously, I wanted 1/2MOA groups at 100 off the bench. Then at 200. Then I realized (with some LRH guidance) that was useful for proving loads, but not practical for field use.

Now I spend most of my time prone, and my most convenient practice range is 200 yds. My "good" rifles will shoot 1/2MOA groups - BUT - shooting single shot / cold bore the best I am (currently) capable of is about 1/2 MOA from point of aim. This is "Max miss" minus called flyers, not on average, because average doesn't really matter to me in field conditions ...

So getting hypothetically out to 1K yds, the maximum (worst-case) difference in fidelity between 1/4 clicks and 1/3 clicks is 0.88". That's about as good as I am capable of holding "every time" vs POA at 200.

I'd prefer 1/4 clicks because that is what I have on everything else. But it's not a deal killer for me....until my skills improve dramatically.

 

[ShtrRdy]

The 1/3 per inch would be similar to a mil turret with 1/10th mil clicks.

 

[Greyfox]

Greyfox, I think I read somewhere that the clicks on the Huskemaw were one third per inch. I quit looking at these after that. Brandon, I don't think you can beat what your using.

Yes, they are .33MOA/click, .08 MOA difference from .25 clicks. In reality, it basically immaterial for all but the most demanding benchrest shooters amounting to a max difference of under an inch at 1000 yards. Average on a doped shot is less. Also having been a MRad scope shooter, which is about .35/click, it never seemed to make any difference in my LR shooting. The .33 on the Huskemaw does have a 20MOA turret revolution which is a nice feature.

 

[varmintH8R]

I spent most of the evening on the computer comparing scopes. My wife loves this.

I eliminated the Zeiss because it has the same zero stop limitation as my Swaro's. They look like great optics, but in this case didn't meet my need.

I was pretty set on the Huskamaw, but at (literally) half the price I had to rule out the Sightron SIII. I went forth with the intent of finding some negative reviews. There are very few. There is tons of very positive feedback, on stuff I care about (like repeatable adjustment and durability).

So I went looking at Huskamaw for the same, and also found virtually no critical reviews. However, their limited distribution leads to many fewer reviews in general. Not a huge deal, but a consideration on a $1500 optic.

I am a firm believer in buy-once cry-once. But with a current sale I can get an SIII to my door for $755. In the end I simply wasn't $745 "more sure" about the Huskamaw.

Based on the positive reviews, I ordered an SIII and am going to put it through the paces. If it doesn't meet my expectations, you'll hear about it here....

Hopefully my "bargain" scope pays off, and I'll "invest" the difference on that Bench Source I've been eyeing....

Thanks for all of the comments on this, all were helpful and gave me 3 great options to review that I otherwise would not have.

Brandon