The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

It is only fair to point out one of the advantages of the Sightron is weight which is probably a more important factor than cost to many shooters as it means more weight can be allocated in other areas such as the barrel (Longer barrels = Higher MV's = More weight) Choice of reticule is important to many and of course elevation range.

Lower magnification 'scopes will invariably seem clearer than higher magnification 'scopes of the same make due to the greater ability to gather light also colour tone which is down to glass coatings plays an important part to the perception of clarity. The bottom line is the average target shooter is only interested in the white bit in the middle of the black and peripheral distortion has less of an impact than to other types of shooters, equally the ability to operate at dawn and dusk is also of less importance to the average F/TR or Open shooter.

Ok, for the info, guys.

It's just something I'm thinking about is all. Looking to get a .308 sometime next year. Maybe I'll just get a rifle with a scope? I dunno, just seems annoying that I can buy a s/hand .308 for £400 and then have to spend £1K on a scope for it to be decent. sign01

You don't have to spend that kind of money.

Bushnell's 10x40 will get you started and has 100 MOA of adjustment so you can shoot to 1K.

Falcon are bearable and cheap (but equally you might get a bad one). Then you are on to Leupold and Sightron though.

Oohh. Some folks say Weaver are OK. I cannot comment there.

You'll know that the scope is cheap when it blows out on you. Someone lent me a very cheap Chinese scope to get going on the SLR. Worked OK the first day, next time I used it the lens came out. It is indeed a false economy to buy at the cheap end, especially with a large calibre rifle.

Sightrons seem particularly well regarded amongst my .50cal friends.

ovenpaa wrote:It is only fair to point out one of the advantages of the Sightron is weight which is probably a more important factor than cost to many shooters as it means more weight can be allocated in other areas such as the barrel (Longer barrels = Higher MV's = More weight) Choice of reticule is important to many and of course elevation range..

Fair point.

ovenpaa wrote:............. The bottom line is the average target shooter is only interested in the white bit in the middle of the black and peripheral distortion has less of an impact than to other types of shooters, equally the ability to operate at dawn and dusk is also of less importance to the average F/TR or Open shooter.

Nah, not agreeing there. What you're basically stating is the shooter's ignorance and the fact that they can't use their scopes to their full potential. It's been my exprience that serious target shooters on the whole are much more knowledgable and adept at getting the full use out of their scopes than the military. However even we were taught how to get the most from ours. I've since learned a shed more skills with scopes from civy shooters.

Just out of interest. Kahles used to be owned by Swarovski (not sure if still the case). It was the method by which Swaro marketed some of their military orientated scopes without impacting on the sensitive consciousess of their traditional German civy market. Its similar to how Zeiss functions with Henstoldt . I learned this when training alongside other nations. A few of the kahles scopes i saw and shot with were truly awsome yet never graced i the inside of a catalogue. One of Kahles biggest customer is Israel - go figure emrolleyes

Also, how many times have you attended a competition in which the light conditions have changed completely between cycles? A scop which is designed to get the best, no matter what or how the light changes will always out perform a limited one. Evenn at 12 noon on a sunny day.

Mr Logic, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're obviously content with inferior optics. Also, the guy stated at the beginning that funds were really limited, a few scopes costing a couple of hundred quid were suggested, I stated that buying these was a false economy and you chime in with a supporting statement using a £800-900 Sightron!
What i really can't understand is how you can champion known s.h.i.t.e. scopes like Falcons, Bushnells,, etc when i suggested a very real, good branded scope at an affordable price. At present, a 2min search on the stalking site found:

- Schmidt & bender 3-12 x50 with the a7 retcle, 30mm tube - £675 ono
- Schmidt & bender hungarian 6x42 1" tube with an A4 reticle - £260
- Meopta 7x 50 fixed scope ret 4 price - £280
- Zeiss Duralyt 3-12x50 IR - £650
- Schmidt & bender 8x56 hungarian - £290
- Swarovski Habicht AV 6-18x50 - £750

All of these scopes will still benefit from long guarantees (at least 10yrs i'd imagine) and will p.i.s.s all over the budgets scopes optically(and your Nighforce :55: )

Scotsgun, I am finding your comments about Nightforce offensive. If you want to discuss the relative merits of Nightforce against Schmidt then fine, but schoolyard crap has no place thank you.

You are missing I think the intended use for these scopes. As I understand it, Tower wants to be shooting targets on a range, not animals in the field. So he will be needing to dial from a short range zero to a distance in a repeatable way. This is far more important on a range than the optics.

For target work on a reasonably serious basis you're talking 20x and upwards mag really. I suggested the Bushnell because it has good, repeatable adjustments and optically it will do what is being asked of it.

Optics are not where the Chinese scopes fall down - ruggedness and repeatability are. i know - I have had the lot, from el cheapo chinese tat to Schmidt and Bender.

The only scope you suggest which is suitable for Tower's use is the 6-18 Swaro. The rest are hunting scopes - optically great but not fit for this purpose. My Schmidt was terrific, but you couldn't reset the turrets and it didn't say how much wind/elevation you had on. This is common to all those you specify and makes them useless for range work!

Ultimately hunting and target are different beasts and that is why the two types of scope exist.

When you are talking target scopes, there are a few really budget ones but then cheap = Leupold and Sightron. Not really cheap but comparatively so. I shoot a Bushnell 4200 4-16x50, and it takes foxes at 250+ at night easily.

I had a Falcon and used it to drop 223 rounds into the v bull at 600x all afternoon on several occasions, with perfect adjustments.

I recommend them because I have used them. They work. They're not the best, but they are affordable and they do the job. That's what Tower asked for! Incidentally, Meopta 4-16x44 is also damn fine and is a target scope.

So, Nightforce... They give me a perceptible benefit over the others and I do not need lightweight as my barrels are not massive. I prefer the eye relief and the adjustments over Sightron, and Leupold's eye relief is amazingly annoying as 20series said.

If I had limitless funds I'd buy a schmidt PMII. but I don't. And I have to fund the other half shooting as well.

Nightforce vs Schmidt comparison BTW, at 8mag under the lamp - I'll take the Nightforce... But mainly because of the reticle. Optically, there was nothing in it.

Mr_Logic wrote:Scotsgun, I am finding your comments about Nightforce offensive. If you want to discuss the relative merits of Nightforce against Schmidt then fine, but schoolyard crap has no place thank you.

Geez, get a life and grow a sense of humour! Obviously you are the only Nightforce owner left on the planet who is unaware of the love/hate saga sourounding them.

emmm......can't comment on the rest of your post as i lost interest and stopped reading - immediately after you exposed your b.i.t.c.h t.i.t.s to all.

I suppose i should refraim from goading the inflicted. What with that huge chip on your shoulder and liking s.h.i.t.e scopes. You don't drive a BMW too, do you?
:55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55:

I never use scopes on rifles meself, I just duct tape a pair of binos to my head and use the iron sites. It kinda works as long as you can get used to bumping into things when you aren't shooting tongueout

Blu

Oh and it's good for driving as well, you can see cars coming from miles away. razz

Blu

Scotsgun wrote:

Mr_Logic wrote:Scotsgun, I am finding your comments about Nightforce offensive. If you want to discuss the relative merits of Nightforce against Schmidt then fine, but schoolyard crap has no place thank you.

Geez, get a life and grow a sense of humour! Obviously you are the only Nightforce owner left on the planet who is unaware of the love/hate saga sourounding them.

emmm......can't comment on the rest of your post as i lost interest and stopped reading - immediately after you exposed your b.i.t.c.h t.i.t.s to all.

I suppose i should refraim from goading the inflicted. What with that huge chip on your shoulder and liking s.h.i.t.e scopes. You don't drive a BMW too, do you?
:55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55: :55:

Scotsgun you're bad, go stand on the naughty step and then say sorry to Mr Logic. emrolleyes

Blu