what power scope?

And I hadnt noticed that this was for an AR platform so Im not sure about ring height, call dpms and Im sure they will give you the most accurate info as far as the best ring heigh or when you figure out what rings call that manufacturer
 
Im not really a fan of those burris rings, either way with your scope I think you could use lows but medium height at the most.

Maybe Burris cleaned up their act or I got something good. I bought two sets and no problems.

I bought tall mounts because I was thinking about the future and big barrels. :) My guns with 8.5 & 9 pound 28 and 29 inch long target barrels barley clear 56 mm objective lenses with 1 inch tall mounts
 
:D 980yrds w/10 pwr that was one very large ground hog not to be covered by the cross hairs at that range. Very good:rolleyes: 400 was about all I could see w/12 pwr redfield w/a fine hair.If you want to have fun try a 6x32x50 and you can watch their nose wigglegun)lightbulb

It depends on how fine your reticle is. With my NF set to 5.5 power, the width of the reticle is less than 6" @ 1000 yds (my guesstimate). I could easily hold on a groundhog @ 1K with 5.5x, but would prefer 22X.
 
I believe that people that love and brag on low powered scopes have never used a higher power with big objective lenses. So they just don't under stand.

I don't base my preference for lower powered scopes on having only used them. I've tried Nightforces both 15x and 22x. Schmidt and Benders both 16x and 25x, and USO's at 22x. I don't shoot prairie dogs and just like lower power scopes after trying a bunch of them and finding I don't need the high X's I thought I did.
 
I don't base my preference for lower powered scopes on having only used them. I've tried Nightforces both 15x and 22x. Schmidt and Benders both 16x and 25x, and USO's at 22x. I don't shoot prairie dogs and just like lower power scopes after trying a bunch of them and finding I don't need the high X's I thought I did.
My granddad had a saying about most things, "If it works for you it's right".
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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