1000 yard + scopes

[Criticalt]

I have a couple guns that are capable of shooting well over 1000 yards. Im looking for advice on scopes. Mainly looking for a new scope for my 338 Lapua Magnum. Right now I have a Burris Eliminator digital. It is a good scope but it is broken, it fogs inside for days and the electronics are screwed.
I do not want another digital scope. I dont want batteries or electronics. Price range $1000-$1500.
I want at least 100 MOA of elevation.

 

[MilesTeg]

I would look into any of the big names. Vortex, Night force, US Optics, schmidt and bender, zeiss. I know I forgot some but any of the big names in the industry will do. the key is to know what features and power magnification you desire then shop around.

I'll go a little against the normal train of thought. I agree good glass is a must for long range precision style of shooting, but your goal still can be accomplished with lesser products. It will make it harder succeed, but it's doable if you know your equipment. I use a cheap millet on my 308 and I have no problem stepping it out to the 600 yard range. I guess my point is good glass is important but the most important factor for this type of shooting is the human element.

Here's a website I like to read that covers the science behind a lot of long distance shooting. I like his what the pros use sections on different gear. It shows what the people who make their money from this us. He also does some good reviews and test I like to read up on.

PrecisionRifleBlog.com - A DATA-DRIVEN Approach to Precision Rifles, Optics & Gear

 

[Celt]

Miles, i agree with you that you can get away with less (and i dont run high end optics either), but better optics will help more under extreme circumstances, etc.. but most bench rest shooters dont need to worry so much about that. With that said, if i won the lotto id own the best optics money could buy.

And tjose names you mentioned are all the high end names that come to mind as well.

@meketrefe needs to get in this thread.

 

[meketrefe]

I have been dealing with the same dilema for 25 years. Bought a lot of different scopes and some worked and some didn't.
Sometimes the cost is not the determining factor for a scope to be able to work well. A good scope is not going to be
inexpensive but by spending a lot more it doesn't mean you are going to be happier. In fact one can put a lot of money into
glass and be totally unsatisfied.
There are a lot of myths about glass. You can shoot 1000 yards with a huge number of scopes but the key is to know how
are you going to use it and what system / method is your preferred choice. Once you know this you then find the scope
that support your method. Did you get any training in long range from a professional? This is a good way to answer many
of the initial questions.

These are the things I value the most:

A) The most important thing is a scope must hold zero. If it doesn't hold zero then it is garbage no matter how expensive it is.
We understand this might be in regular use but also harder conditions including the constant and heavy pounding of
magnum cartriges.

B) Does the scope track? Can I trust a correction to be true and if there is an error is a predictable and acceptable error
that doesn't confuse you? Every scope has an error, the key is to know how much and if it is something repeatable and acceptable.

C) Does the scope has good contrast and easy to read reticle under any conditions? I must look though the scope by myself.
Things like clarity, eye relief, color, etc... are all subjective because what I see one way you might see in a different way
because our eyes are different and all must be checked by the actual shooter after proper ocular adjustment of the scope.

D) Is the scope made by an optics maker and has a good reputation of service. Nobody is planning to use this but in case this is needed can we trust good support. Some companies do a good job, others they do not care.

Other things that are very important to me are:

E) First focal plane with an easy to read scale and nice stadia design.

F) Adjustments must be consistent with the stadia and predictable audible and easy to read clicks. Return to zero is not
huge but if it comes with it then I welcome this.

As of today perhaps one of the best values continues to be the Vortex Razor Gen 1 that came down in price after the Gen 2
came out. I bought 3 of them at 1,400 each during the crazy altough they can be found for 1,600 or so that still is a good price.
These are heavy bad ass scopes.

Vortex Optics Razor HD Rifle Scope 35mm Tube 5-20x 50mm Side Focus

but if you want something lighter that will work the Weaver tactical with standard mil dot. These came up at the same time than the Vortex PST FFP that is another nice one but I still feel the weaver gives more with less. And also once you try the Razor you don't want to look though a Vortex Viper PST anymore.

Still is a heavy scope but not as heavy as the Razor G1. plus it uses 30mm tube that is great in terms of options.

Weaver Tactical Rifle Scope 30mm Tube 4-20x 50mm 1/10 Mil Adjustments

I think the Weaver tactical is what inspired the new Burris Extreme tactical but I would still stick to the Weaver that I also have. Perhaps because the way I perceive them but they do work great, mil mil ffp and track to the T. So why go look for something else? I simply do not need illumination nor any other fancy features.

So the key here is how are you going to use it? Because these are great for ranging and practical use but perhaps you are looking for a finer higher magnification target scope and ranging is not critical to you?

 

[Jaywmustang]

Don't forget bushnell and nightforce. I would also look for a scope with matching turret and reticle. Mrad/mrad or moa/moa.

 

[Criticalt]

I have been dealing with the same dilema for 25 years. Bought a lot of different scopes and some worked and some didn't.
Sometimes the cost is not the determining factor for a scope to be able to work well. A good scope is not going to be
inexpensive but by spending a lot more it doesn't mean you are going to be happier. In fact one can put a lot of money into
glass and be totally unsatisfied.
There are a lot of myths about glass. You can shoot 1000 yards with a huge number of scopes but the key is to know how
are you going to use it and what system / method is your preferred choice. Once you know this you then find the scope
that support your method. Did you get any training in long range from a professional? This is a good way to answer many
of the initial questions.

These are the things I value the most:

A) The most important thing is a scope must hold zero. If it doesn't hold zero then it is garbage no matter how expensive it is.
We understand this might be in regular use but also harder conditions including the constant and heavy pounding of
magnum cartriges.

B) Does the scope track? Can I trust a correction to be true and if there is an error is a predictable and acceptable error
that doesn't confuse you? Every scope has an error, the key is to know how much and if it is something repeatable and acceptable.

C) Does the scope has good contrast and easy to read reticle under any conditions? I must look though the scope by myself.
Things like clarity, eye relief, color, etc... are all subjective because what I see one way you might see in a different way
because our eyes are different and all must be checked by the actual shooter after proper ocular adjustment of the scope.

D) Is the scope made by an optics maker and has a good reputation of service. Nobody is planning to use this but in case this is needed can we trust good support. Some companies do a good job, others they do not care.

Other things that are very important to me are:

E) First focal plane with an easy to read scale and nice stadia design.

F) Adjustments must be consistent with the stadia and predictable audible and easy to read clicks. Return to zero is not
huge but if it comes with it then I welcome this.

As of today perhaps one of the best values continues to be the Vortex Razor Gen 1 that came down in price after the Gen 2
came out. I bought 3 of them at 1,400 each during the crazy altough they can be found for 1,600 or so that still is a good price.
These are heavy bad ass scopes.

Vortex Optics Razor HD Rifle Scope 35mm Tube 5-20x 50mm Side Focus

but if you want something lighter that will work the Weaver tactical with standard mil dot. These came up at the same time than the Vortex PST FFP that is another nice one but I still feel the weaver gives more with less. And also once you try the Razor you don't want to look though a Vortex Viper PST anymore.

Still is a heavy scope but not as heavy as the Razor G1. plus it uses 30mm tube that is great in terms of options.

Weaver Tactical Rifle Scope 30mm Tube 4-20x 50mm 1/10 Mil Adjustments

I think the Weaver tactical is what inspired the new Burris Extreme tactical but I would still stick to the Weaver that I also have. Perhaps because the way I perceive them but they do work great, mil mil ffp and track to the T. So why go look for something else? I simply do not need illumination nor any other fancy features.

So the key here is how are you going to use it? Because these are great for ranging and practical use but perhaps you are looking for a finer higher magnification target scope and ranging is not critical to you?

As far as training, 8 years in the Army, 5 with the 75th Ranger Reg. I shot with some of the best long range shooters our country has. This was mostly on off duty time but I took it seriously.
I can make tight 2in groups at 400 yards with my setup now but to tell the truth, ive only shot my Lapua at about 600 yards, I want to double that. At 600 its dead on, I want maybe 2000 yards, these bullets want more air time.
Ive looked at the Bushnell Elite 3.5-21x50. I like the 3.5 but not sure if 50 is enough.
I do still want to be able to shoot close range(50yards) if I must.......you know for zombies.
And whats up with the Secozoom Optics 4-50x75 long range scope??? It has good reviews but a $300 bucks seems a bit far away from the competition in price.

 

[Eddie Gunks]

I find that busnell has great option to price.
I run theremore expensive optics an have never had an issue. I run FFP mil set ups only.

Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR Rifle Scope 34mm Tube 3.5-21x 50mm Side

Bushnell Elite Tactical ERS Rifle Scope 34mm Tube 3.5-21x 50mm Side

Bushnell 4.5-30x50mm XRS Elite Tactical Riflescope ET45305GZ w/ Free S&H

 

[NirvanaFan]

Swarovski has some of the clearest glass you'll ever see on a scope, but you're going to pay for it.
I'd seriously look at Vortex. They're going to be expensive as well, but their warranty can't be beat.

 

[Criticalt]

I find that busnell has great option to price.
I run theremore expensive optics an have never had an issue. I run FFP mil set ups only.

Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR Rifle Scope 34mm Tube 3.5-21x 50mm Side

Bushnell Elite Tactical ERS Rifle Scope 34mm Tube 3.5-21x 50mm Side

Bushnell 4.5-30x50mm XRS Elite Tactical Riflescope ET45305GZ w/ Free S&H

I really like the Bushnells.
The guys at the shop I go to are big fans of Nightforce but they are very expensive and I just dont see much of a difference in quality from Bushnell, Leopold and such.
I wish i could try before I buy but thats not possible. This is harder than choosing a gun!!
I think Ill just decide on optics and buy a quality piece. Ill let you know.

 

[NirvanaFan]

Are you going to be pushing the scope to the extreme? For example, there's no need to buy an expensive scope with the absolute clearest glass if you are only going to be shooting it at 1pm, with clear skies, from a bench. If you plan on pushing it a little (like for hunting), then you'll definitely want a larger objective lens size.

This is why I went with a 50mm scope on my hunting rifle. I can easily shoot until past legal shooting hours.

 

[Eddie Gunks]

I wish i could try before I buy but thats not possible. .

It took me 1 year to buy my 1st scope (2 years ago. I tan itons for 40 years). I tried every scope i could find at every 3 gun and other matcjes i attended.

If uou stop by you can check out some of the bushnells i posted above. I have a 3-12. My buddy has the 3.5-21, and i have a super nice 2.5-10x24 nightforce (which i dont like cause it is SFP MOA.....BUT it is super light so i keep it on my scar17).

Come by and try what we have.

Edit: i see you are in WNY. A long drive. But you are talking several $K. Come out and we will hit the 450 yard range and play. (Whispering: and i will bring some suppressed machine guns to sweeten the deal)

 

[meketrefe]

@NirvanaFan
Once you get to a certain level of glass "the clarity of glass" becomes something pretty arbitrary and subjective.
As you might now there is no such thing as 100% light transmission, not even 95%. In fact some of the top manufactures
advertise less transmission than some low tier manufacturers. The human eye cannot differentiate within a 3-4% variance
anyway. There is also the 50mm and larger objective myth that it gathers more light that is false, they only transmit it.
There are 25mm tube target scopes with 40mm objective that put an amazing quality picture of the target.
We all have a unique eyes that see colors, contrast and light in different ways. I think the usable exit pupil that changes
with our own eyes at the magnifications we intend to use the scope is more important than any advertised data.
Think of our own eyes as an important part of the optics system. Also the reticle design and contrast might be far
more important in low light conditions to see how the reticle stands out from the picture.

@Criticalt
The Bushnell tactical with the DMR is supposed to be a good scope too. I did try it and liked it but I could not check everything
in detail that might take a while like the tracking and accuracy of the holdover. If BG lets you try one that is very nice because you
want to look through the scope you want to buy and test it reliability.
When I say reliability I don't mean if the scope is going to break down that will not happen. I am saying to really find out
what the precision of the adjustment is and how you can correct it. Most scopes come with an error built in and the key
is to find out how much is it, is it acceptable for your use and the most important is consistent so you can adapt accordingly.
Without doing a thorough tracking and other testing you cannot tell what a scope can do.

I would also would not get hooked up in brand names. A brand alone doesn't say how good the scope is. It might be
an indication but all brands make scopes with different qualities and track records. If the company has good service
and warranty is all I need to know. Some Nightforce are built like tanks but some are not superior to the competition
and 2nd focal plane NF can run even more expensive than superior first focal ones.

If you could tell us how you intend to use the optics then this would narrow down your options. One can use a 3-9 scope
to shoot as far as a rifle can shoot. 1-4 scopes can be used to hit targets at 1000 yards but if the targets are smaller
and we want more definition of the target area most people will go with 12-18 high end magnification or more.
The question is also how much are you willing to sacrifice in the low end magnification and field of view depending
on other uses and average shooting ranges. Some people go with the higher end magnification of 28 or 30 for tactical/
practical use but then you have to sacrifice on the other end. If you have a decent side target with a modest magnification
yet reliable scope the actual scope performance becomes a small determining factor in the capability for one to
be able to connect with the target.

Also do you have a quality spotting scope to be able to trace your shots? Whoever is spotting should have either
a nice spotting scope or another rifle with high end power in order to trace the shots.

Is the extreme long range something you want to try once in a while or something that is the main objective?
There are considerations worth taken for extreme long range use only.

These answers will help you determine what would work for you best. That is why I propose a simple exercise to
evaluate what one wants to do and perhaps why before one decides how to do it.

 

[Criticalt]

@NirvanaFan
Once you get to a certain level of glass "the clarity of glass" becomes something pretty arbitrary and subjective.
As you might now there is no such thing as 100% light transmission, not even 95%. In fact some of the top manufactures
advertise less transmission than some low tier manufacturers. The human eye cannot differentiate within a 3-4% variance
anyway. There is also the 50mm and larger objective myth that it gathers more light that is false, they only transmit it.
There are 25mm tube target scopes with 40mm objective that put an amazing quality picture of the target.
We all have a unique eyes that see colors, contrast and light in different ways. I think the usable exit pupil that changes
with our own eyes at the magnifications we intend to use the scope is more important than any advertised data.
Think of our own eyes as an important part of the optics system. Also the reticle design and contrast might be far
more important in low light conditions to see how the reticle stands out from the picture.

@Criticalt
The Bushnell tactical with the DMR is supposed to be a good scope too. I did try it and liked it but I could not check everything
in detail that might take a while like the tracking and accuracy of the holdover. If BG lets you try one that is very nice because you
want to look through the scope you want to buy and test it reliability.
When I say reliability I don't mean if the scope is going to break down that will not happen. I am saying to really find out
what the precision of the adjustment is and how you can correct it. Most scopes come with an error built in and the key
is to find out how much is it, is it acceptable for your use and the most important is consistent so you can adapt accordingly.
Without doing a thorough tracking and other testing you cannot tell what a scope can do.

I would also would not get hooked up in brand names. A brand alone doesn't say how good the scope is. It might be
an indication but all brands make scopes with different qualities and track records. If the company has good service
and warranty is all I need to know. Some Nightforce are built like tanks but some are not superior to the competition
and 2nd focal plane NF can run even more expensive than superior first focal ones.

If you could tell us how you intend to use the optics then this would narrow down your options. One can use a 3-9 scope
to shoot as far as a rifle can shoot. 1-4 scopes can be used to hit targets at 1000 yards but if the targets are smaller
and we want more definition of the target area most people will go with 12-18 high end magnification or more.
The question is also how much are you willing to sacrifice in the low end magnification and field of view depending
on other uses and average shooting ranges. Some people go with the higher end magnification of 28 or 30 for tactical/
practical use but then you have to sacrifice on the other end. If you have a decent side target with a modest magnification
yet reliable scope the actual scope performance becomes a small determining factor in the capability for one to
be able to connect with the target.

Also do you have a quality spotting scope to be able to trace your shots? Whoever is spotting should have either
a nice spotting scope or another rifle with high end power in order to trace the shots.

Is the extreme long range something you want to try once in a while or something that is the main objective?
There are considerations worth taken for extreme long range use only.

These answers will help you determine what would work for you best. That is why I propose a simple exercise to
evaluate what one wants to do and perhaps why before one decides how to do it.

I have several long range rifles but my main intrest right now is testing the limits of the .338.
It would be nice to have the option to hit targets at close range also, but I will sacrifice that to find the limits of the Lapua.
Like I said, at 600 yards, its kinda boring....point and shoot.
I have a couple spotting scopes. My new one is a Vortex Razor HD 20-60x85.
Name brand means little to me, its just a starting point. Ive heard good and bad about ALL brands. I only look at actual user reviews about quality, service and options.

 

[meketrefe]

I think at this point you want to talk about features and specific models.
Would it help you if I describe the process I follow to select the scope and
test it?

 

[Jaywmustang]

I really like the Bushnells.
The guys at the shop I go to are big fans of Nightforce but they are very expensive and I just dont see much of a difference in quality from Bushnell, Leopold and such.
I wish i could try before I buy but thats not possible. This is harder than choosing a gun!!
I think Ill just decide on optics and buy a quality piece. Ill let you know.

Nightforce shv f1 is a nice scope for the money. U can pick them up for $1250

 

[Prudii]

The reddit long range shooting community is a pretty good source of info, they make a quarterly scope guide.
The rest of the subreddit is pretty good, just be warned they have a collective hard on for 6.5 cm and savage 10s.

 

[Criticalt]

I think at this point you want to talk about features and specific models.
Would it help you if I describe the process I follow to select the scope and
test it?

Yes, time for models and features.
A few ive been researching are.
Primary Arms Platinum series 6-30x56
Nightforce SHV 5-20x56
Nightforce Benchrest 8-32x56
Vortex Viper 6-24x50

Of course any brands and models you have experience with are the best, I trust you guys more than random internet people.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

Met's post, above, has some good wisdom in it.

A current video with what's top and what's a paperweight. You're probably interested in what he calls, Tier 2.







Cheers,

 

[Jaywmustang]

I own the following:

vortex pst ffp 4-16x50
Nightforce shv f1 4-14x50
Vortex razor hd gen II 4.5-27x56

If u are ever in the Oswego area, you are more than welcome to look through them. I have other scopes but they are not what u r looking for.

 

[meketrefe]

My scopes up with x20 max power work well for long range.
I think considering extreme long range and long range we are talking about a 25 or 26 power. I would not go over 30 power.
The actual power might not be 100% precise and the actual picture at different magnifications is far more important.
Some scopes introduce distortion and loose definition at super high magnification that is not just part of the scope only
but looking through the air normally at long distances. So just because we can get a x50 scope it doesn't mean it is better.
After all is not like we have to read a newspaper at 1000 yards. IMO good enough is better, good definition, ample FOV, etc...

Don't forget about the weaver tactical that gives huge value in mid-high tier. Then you have the weaver tactical 6-30 in the higher tier
that I don't have but will be looking at this and the Razor GII when I finish the 300 DK ultra long range wildcat.

Weaver Tactical Rifle Scope 34mm 6-30x 56mm SmartZero Side Focus First

For now the Razor Gen I works great for my 300 WM Match and no problems making precise adjustments to connect at 1,100 meters.
I also used the Gen I when I had the lapua magnum but if you want to take it ultra long range then perhaps you will enjoy a 25-26 max power.
Like I said the reticle is very important and it must be very fine so you don't end up cover large parts of the target area with
coarse or busy Christmas trees.

I could go on and describe several calibration methods but you can find some in this article below.
you can print some tests from other sights but you can also use paper, a level and a ruler that will also force you to practice with the math
that you want before you buy. I like to do all calibration in mils and metric system for simplicity.

Like always take it the review below with a grain of salt. These guys also sponsor brands but this will give you an idea...

Tactical Scopes: Field Test Overview & Rifle Scope Line-Up