Optics decisions

Discussion in 'Firearm Related' started by foxtrotterz, Nov 18, 2010.

  1. foxtrotterz

    foxtrotterz New Member

    1,054
    0
    0
    So I have studied these to death, but haven't held or looked through either.

    I am pretty much set on a Leupold MK4 MRT 2.5-8 or the LRT 3.5-10. I plan on going with the M2 turrets either way, and probably going with the illuminated reticule.

    Anyone have any opinions of which is best to go with? I am 25, with decent eyesight, so the 8x vs 10x doesn't seem like a great difference to me now. Also, I am in Ga, I don't see the opportunity presenting itself for me to shoot out past 800-1000 yards in a real life situation. The adjustable parallax seems to be the main difference, but I have hardly done any shooting with a scoped rifle, so I am not sure how much this would bother/please me.

    I still have a special place in my heart for the 2.5-10 IOR Valdada, but I am thinking the service here in America for the Leupold is a major factor that has to be considered.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. JiG

    JiG Awaiting censure

    7,204
    7
    38
    What are you putting this scope on? What kind of rifle?
     

  3. foxtrotterz

    foxtrotterz New Member

    1,054
    0
    0
    It will be going on an NM M1A with a Bassett picatinny mount. Not sure what rings yet.
     
  4. JiG

    JiG Awaiting censure

    7,204
    7
    38
    I used Warne rings on my M1A. I really like them. I got the quick release ones. Zero holds true.

    I've only shot long distance with my M1A once, my scope is 4x-14 and I was wishing I had more magnification. Targets get small at those distances.
     
  5. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,335
    612
    113
    The increased magnification isn't just for distance.
    It's so you can detect the smallest possible movement of the crosshairs on the target at any distance, even 200 yards.
    And it's so that you can be sure you're aiming at the "exact dead center" of the target, which is easier to tell at higher magnification levels.

    Now for me, it doesn't matter. I'm not a benchrest shooter. I'm not a handloader. I shoot for practical accuracy using real-world practical shooting positions and using standard ball surplus ammo.

    My M1-A National Match wears a fixed 4x scope, and it's all I need or ever wanted out to about 300 yards.
    From 300 to 600 yards, more magnification would have helped on some targets, but what would have helped a lot more would have been a more solid bench rest / sandbag setup, higher quality ammo (think $1.50 per round instead of 25 cents), and just more practice (trigger time) on this weapon.

    Bottom line: A low-magnification scope is plenty accurate for most purposes at reasonable distances and most targets.
    That is, if you use the gun like a battle rifle or deer hunting rifle. If you want to make a benchrest competition rifle out of it, go higher power on the scope.

    P.S. .22 rimfire shooters who win competitions often use 10 power or greater scopes to shoot 50 yards or 100 yards.
    Benchrest shooters might use a 12X to 20X scope at 100 or 200 yards.
     
  6. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,335
    612
    113
    This isn't mine, but mine looks a lot like this.
    Scope is just a $50 Bushnell (or Weaver? Or Tasco?) deer rifle scope, circa 1985,
    fixed 4X, parallax set for 100 yards (and it still has some parallax error even at 100, according to my tests).
    [​IMG]
    This rifle with this scope will shoot better than I can hold it unless I have a real benchrest setup.
     
  7. foxtrotterz

    foxtrotterz New Member

    1,054
    0
    0
    This rifle will purely be used for hunting, practice and SHTF scenarios. I have no interest in benchrest shooting, so mega power is not needed. Now after reading some more, I am leaning toward the IOR.

    I could still go either way, but want to make the purchase in the next week.

    Still open to others input. TIA