USO new long range hunting scope
- Thread starter jason USO
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Camshaft
Well-Known Member
I see. My mistake.
LouBoyd
Well-Known Member
What does that hurt? Even at 66 I have enough focus accomidation in my eyes that once the focus is set I don't need to change it for months. Only the parallax setting is critical and frequent.
Last edited:
Camshaft
Well-Known Member
If you use flip up scope caps i can see this being a pain in the ***.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
Ok, I'll expand on my mean'n.
First Camshaft, what the heck does 6-24 matter over 8.5-25? I see this as insignificant.
W/resp to the eyepiece differences I was talking about, there are a couple that are significant.
#1 The eypiece on an NXS turns with POWER changes.
#2 The focus setting of the NXS eyepiece to it's reticle can greatly affect it's magnification.
#1
I don't prefer to EVER clean lenses myself. Never had any luck doing this without damaging the lens surface or coatings a little each time. I find that flip-up covers which are kept in place and only opened while in the shooting position, have reduced my lens cleaning needs to near never.
I mentioned earlier the importance(to me) of threading for Alumina flip-up covers/filters. These covers are way nicer than Butlers. If you ever used them you'd agree, I'm sure.
Leupold one-up'd everyone there.
But anyway, while flip-ups are used, a rotating eyepiece with power changes becomes a real pain. This is espescially true with fitted Butlers as they can't really counter rotate to hold position as an eypiece turns, and then the cover interferes with bolt operation, view of ACI or Level, or even the power change itself(as hanging up on the stock).
The Mk4 eyepiece does not rotate with power changes, and the Alumina flip-ups freely allow counter rotation, while installed, in any event.
#2
I wear glasses. For a solid reticle focus on a Mk4, my eyepiece setting is pretty normal at about half the available adjustment. But on NXS scopes I always have to turn the eyepiece all the way in. This on atleast the 5.5-22, and 8-32 scopes. I notice also that when going back and forth between [MY] NXS at 32x, and [MY] Mk4 at 25x they are EXACTLY the same magnification.
So I don't actually get 32x with an NXS.
I don't know why this is, but it's there for you to test for yourself.
First Camshaft, what the heck does 6-24 matter over 8.5-25? I see this as insignificant.
W/resp to the eyepiece differences I was talking about, there are a couple that are significant.
#1 The eypiece on an NXS turns with POWER changes.
#2 The focus setting of the NXS eyepiece to it's reticle can greatly affect it's magnification.
#1
I don't prefer to EVER clean lenses myself. Never had any luck doing this without damaging the lens surface or coatings a little each time. I find that flip-up covers which are kept in place and only opened while in the shooting position, have reduced my lens cleaning needs to near never.
I mentioned earlier the importance(to me) of threading for Alumina flip-up covers/filters. These covers are way nicer than Butlers. If you ever used them you'd agree, I'm sure.
Leupold one-up'd everyone there.
But anyway, while flip-ups are used, a rotating eyepiece with power changes becomes a real pain. This is espescially true with fitted Butlers as they can't really counter rotate to hold position as an eypiece turns, and then the cover interferes with bolt operation, view of ACI or Level, or even the power change itself(as hanging up on the stock).
The Mk4 eyepiece does not rotate with power changes, and the Alumina flip-ups freely allow counter rotation, while installed, in any event.
#2
I wear glasses. For a solid reticle focus on a Mk4, my eyepiece setting is pretty normal at about half the available adjustment. But on NXS scopes I always have to turn the eyepiece all the way in. This on atleast the 5.5-22, and 8-32 scopes. I notice also that when going back and forth between [MY] NXS at 32x, and [MY] Mk4 at 25x they are EXACTLY the same magnification.
So I don't actually get 32x with an NXS.
I don't know why this is, but it's there for you to test for yourself.
My .02----must be FFP, like a little shorter 30 mm tube (I know why they are long), power 5-25, keep robust build weight means nothing to me, at least option for MOA reticle, overall a lower and gentler look--less angular or "tactical". I had the first "low profile" SN3 btw used existing turrets and the tested in the box to .17 MOA (ask Arnold he has 2 sets left for me).
Above all objective to be no larger than what is already offered.
Above all objective to be no larger than what is already offered.
Mike I totally agree with you. I always check the diopter range on a scope before I buy.
If you are wearing 1.75's or 2.25 glasses a diopter adjustment that goes from -2. to +1.5
isn't going to cut it. Scope makers that hide that kind of info are doing themselves a real
diservice. Just like makers not listing total moa of adjustment could get away with it a
few years ago diopter ranges are going to have to be published. USO will custom set it
for you. One more reason I like them. ( and as you have noticed it changes the image size)
If you are wearing 1.75's or 2.25 glasses a diopter adjustment that goes from -2. to +1.5
isn't going to cut it. Scope makers that hide that kind of info are doing themselves a real
diservice. Just like makers not listing total moa of adjustment could get away with it a
few years ago diopter ranges are going to have to be published. USO will custom set it
for you. One more reason I like them. ( and as you have noticed it changes the image size)
scottryana
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1
Hey USO,
I know that you have asked what would make the best long range scope. To me that is like asking what is the best car. Really it comes down to use. If you are sticking to the theme of this website and LONG distance shots I say 24+ power, weight on a true long range gun isn't that big of a factor but vertical adjustment is so go with a 35mm tube. Use large objective (60mm) and ocular, with a long eye relief.
Ryan
I know that you have asked what would make the best long range scope. To me that is like asking what is the best car. Really it comes down to use. If you are sticking to the theme of this website and LONG distance shots I say 24+ power, weight on a true long range gun isn't that big of a factor but vertical adjustment is so go with a 35mm tube. Use large objective (60mm) and ocular, with a long eye relief.
Ryan
Camshaft
Well-Known Member
It matters because the Leupold MK4 8.5-25 has a FOV of 11.2'@100yds @8.5x
The Sightron SIII LRMDCM 6-24 has a FOV of 16.1'@100yds @6x
The Nightforce NXS 5.5-22 has a FOV of 17.5'@100yds @5.5x
The Sightron SIII LRMDCM 8-32 has a FOV of 12.2'@100yds @8x
The Mk4 falls pretty short in my opinion, in this area.
I use my scope for long range hunting, but still like to have some effectiveness at close range if the opportunity arises. Once again, Im not saying the Mk4 is a bad scope, but its not the "be all, to end all". For the cost of the Mk4 I really think they could use an update, including 4-5x magnification, and maybe even a zero stop. And the NXS, well, I have stated multiple times that I would never spend the money on a new one, they simply don't impress me the way a scope with that price tag should, used and discounted, maybe. But their glass is just not up to par with their price tag. I like my sightron for what it cost me. It could use firmer turrets and a zero stop, but hey you cant win them all.
Last edited:
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
There are a bunch of scopes out there with one or two attributes that exceed the 8.5x25 Mk4, but I haven't found a scope yet (at any cost) that atleast matches it in every single regard, -and then exceeds it in some way from there.
I'm not a brand person. Truly, I don't like anything about Leupold, their business model, or their ridiculous lineup of scopes -except for the 8.5-25 Mk4(which I expect they'll wreck any day now).
If I knew Sightrons, or Schmidt & Bendertrons, or Marchtrons were actually better(not in just one or two areas), they'd be on my guns.
This may not matter, it's just my input.
Jason, never trust a notion that weight doesn't matter.
Cost USUALLY matters, weight ALWAYS matters.
Also, if USO is capable of making an 8-25 Mk4, you could not go wrong making a USO Mk5, even at twice the price.
Market it about any and everyway you like, as one scope actually could do it all.
I'm not a brand person. Truly, I don't like anything about Leupold, their business model, or their ridiculous lineup of scopes -except for the 8.5-25 Mk4(which I expect they'll wreck any day now).
If I knew Sightrons, or Schmidt & Bendertrons, or Marchtrons were actually better(not in just one or two areas), they'd be on my guns.
This may not matter, it's just my input.
Jason, never trust a notion that weight doesn't matter.
Cost USUALLY matters, weight ALWAYS matters.
Also, if USO is capable of making an 8-25 Mk4, you could not go wrong making a USO Mk5, even at twice the price.
Market it about any and everyway you like, as one scope actually could do it all.
LouBoyd
Well-Known Member
Some thoughts and opinions on long range scopes. My backround is a long range hobby target shooter and build automated astronomical research telescopes as my professon.
Scope resolution at distances over about 600 yards in the daytime is limited by the atmosphere, not by the optical quality of the lenses. There are a few really junk scopes on the market.
Lack of contrast caused by internal reflections is the major thing which separates excellent scopes from so-so ones, but it's never seen as a specification in advertising.
More magnification at long range just makes the blur look larger. magnification beyond the point where the eye/scope/atmosphere resolution is less than aboout 1/4 of the rilfes group size at that distance is just a waste. More magnification just reduces the field of view and hurts target acquistion time. For target shooting at fixed distances magnifications over 20x >may< offer an advantage at moderat range. In my opinion only short range benchrest benefits from magnifications over 24x. High magnifications may help overcome some types of eye defects.
When scintillation is dominant larger objectives make the blur smoother. but it makes detail less visible. The image with a smaller objective will have more jitter, but more detail can be seen during brief moments.
The primary function of a riflescope should be aiming the rifle. Having a long eye relief guarantees a small field of view for a given magnification. If you want to search for game use a spotting scope or binoculars which can have a huge field of view compared to riflescopes.
That's not a matter of scope qualty, just basic optics.
Range can be measured accurately with several methods. Drop is easy to calculate precisely knowing range and air density. What isn't easy to measure is downrange wind deflection. It is THE major error source in long range shooting. Many shooters are simply in denial of that reality. They think expensive rifles and scopes will make wind deflection irrelevant. . High velocity rifles with low BC bullets does help but never makes wind deflection unimportant.
No scope on the market makes it easy to determine downrange cross winds. however, choosing a scope which will assist in determining crosswinds is better than one which won't.
Seeing the effects of "mirage" is easiest with moderate magnifications, moderate objective size, and the ability to adjust the scopes focus quickly and easily to known distances. The optimum scope is dependent on the conditions. Mirage may not be visible at all in cloudy conditions where the sun isn't heating the air near the ground. Mirage can be so bad that the target becomes invisible. A riflescope may be used or a separate spotting scope. Doping wind (with presently availabe scopes) can only be learned with lots of practice shooting. It's easy to see the air currents. Whats difficult is converting what you see to crosswind velocities and distance, and from that determining the bullet deflection.
Electronic croswind anemometers exist and they give about as good of performance at doping wind as a skilled human. The advantage of electronics is measurement speed. Skilled shooters rely on pattern recognition, not high speed calculations. I know of only one hand held instrument made to measure remote wind speed. It's sold for yachting, not shooting. . They are not a lot more complex than a laser rangefinder. Some R& D is needed to make a usable unit for shooters.
Scope resolution at distances over about 600 yards in the daytime is limited by the atmosphere, not by the optical quality of the lenses. There are a few really junk scopes on the market.
Lack of contrast caused by internal reflections is the major thing which separates excellent scopes from so-so ones, but it's never seen as a specification in advertising.
More magnification at long range just makes the blur look larger. magnification beyond the point where the eye/scope/atmosphere resolution is less than aboout 1/4 of the rilfes group size at that distance is just a waste. More magnification just reduces the field of view and hurts target acquistion time. For target shooting at fixed distances magnifications over 20x >may< offer an advantage at moderat range. In my opinion only short range benchrest benefits from magnifications over 24x. High magnifications may help overcome some types of eye defects.
When scintillation is dominant larger objectives make the blur smoother. but it makes detail less visible. The image with a smaller objective will have more jitter, but more detail can be seen during brief moments.
The primary function of a riflescope should be aiming the rifle. Having a long eye relief guarantees a small field of view for a given magnification. If you want to search for game use a spotting scope or binoculars which can have a huge field of view compared to riflescopes.
That's not a matter of scope qualty, just basic optics.
Range can be measured accurately with several methods. Drop is easy to calculate precisely knowing range and air density. What isn't easy to measure is downrange wind deflection. It is THE major error source in long range shooting. Many shooters are simply in denial of that reality. They think expensive rifles and scopes will make wind deflection irrelevant. . High velocity rifles with low BC bullets does help but never makes wind deflection unimportant.
No scope on the market makes it easy to determine downrange cross winds. however, choosing a scope which will assist in determining crosswinds is better than one which won't.
Seeing the effects of "mirage" is easiest with moderate magnifications, moderate objective size, and the ability to adjust the scopes focus quickly and easily to known distances. The optimum scope is dependent on the conditions. Mirage may not be visible at all in cloudy conditions where the sun isn't heating the air near the ground. Mirage can be so bad that the target becomes invisible. A riflescope may be used or a separate spotting scope. Doping wind (with presently availabe scopes) can only be learned with lots of practice shooting. It's easy to see the air currents. Whats difficult is converting what you see to crosswind velocities and distance, and from that determining the bullet deflection.
Electronic croswind anemometers exist and they give about as good of performance at doping wind as a skilled human. The advantage of electronics is measurement speed. Skilled shooters rely on pattern recognition, not high speed calculations. I know of only one hand held instrument made to measure remote wind speed. It's sold for yachting, not shooting. . They are not a lot more complex than a laser rangefinder. Some R& D is needed to make a usable unit for shooters.
