Long range rifles

Thanks for the insight. I have a Nikon on my AR and have been pleased with it for what it cost me. Thanks for the size comparison at distance its helpful to see it.

Thank you for all this information I read it a couple of times to digest it. My experience with any range is none 100-300 yards a handful of times. Thanks for explaining the usefulness of SFP/FFP with identifying shots I hadn't realized that. Also the simplicity of a reticle I overlooked that. I also did not realize the limits of the size of the objective lens and the relationship to the max power, and the limitations of tube size that is interesting information.

 

Do you plan to Swag it to 1000 yards or are you planned going down the deep rabbit hole of long range shooting?

 

This is, as @dfanonymous is leading to, a deeep rabbit hole. I wasn’t saying FFP is a waste, and a busy/current trend reticles are junk, so I hope I didn’t come off like that.

Like many things we do these days, there’s a large aspect of trends and peer pressure. I go to a long range competition and everyone is running a $1k chassis, well now I *need* one to be competitive too. MJ put his name and likeness on a shoe, must spend lots so my obese 5’6” self can be the next NBA great.

FFP allows for the reticle to remain in the same aspect ratio at all zoom levels. That means, 1.7mil observed at 5x is the same 1.7mil at 20x. So regardless of zoom power, you can range a target, or adjust your shots, the required 17 clicks to be on target. It’s convenient.

SFP has the reticle calibrated at one zoom level only. Let’s say the scope is calibrated for 16x. If you want to range/adjust, and running down at 8x, that 1.7 mil observed is actually 3.4 mil and you need to dial 34 clicks (edited, math is hard). As long as you keep this in mind, and/or just keep the scope at the calibrated power because lazy, this is a non issue. Heck a fixed power is easier in this sense.

FFP is more convenient, but more expensive. SFP tend to be cheaper, but less convenient. You can, and many do, get by with SFP. If you get hooked, eventually you’ll likely get FFP, because it’s the standard on higher end glass. But I wouldn’t make it my deal breaker. In fact, I’d gravitate to a really nice SFP before a lower end FFP. More important to me is the quality of the image, usefulness of the reticle, quality/repeatability of the adjustments, and a zero stop. The last one is because I’m lazy.

The science of the scope’s design is fascinating, and still fuzzy to me. There is a limitation built in, based on physical dimensions and power. Because I don’t fully understand I can’t speak on that subject in detail.

Research to make the right choice for you is the most important thing, and you are doing that. To me, $1 experience and training has more value than the newest whizbang caliber $3000 rifle with $3000 in glass. I have a friend that does this and he’s a damn good shooter. But, he lacks some of the basics and it shows downrange from time to time. Rather than learning, reading, and applying the physics of how that visible mirage will affect his 6.5mm.. he buys a new rifle, and more reloading gear in the newest 6mm barrel burner to compensate for the .5 min under-hold. But it’s his money, and he’s a friend, so I give him ribbing and mentor when he’s open to it.

In the end, the shooter who focuses on his/her technique will be further ahead then those that focus on their equipment. You have a great start now. The accuracy of the current offerings on the market are reigning in the custom builds, and both shoot far better than most of us can hope to. Learn to use your tools, and address the future in the future.

YMMV

 

Just got to say, this is well said! One of the few long posts I didn’t stop or hate reading! Also the point about the equipment, out performing the user, is so true. Not just in shooting either.

 

price isnt bad if it works as advertised...I may try it just to see..

 

@corprin was first, so credit goes to him. We just both had the link, I think he might have actually used them before though.

 

yeah I found the link also earlier, only thing is I was looking at the vortex scope and it doesnt look like it has a screw to hold the turret on? or does it pry off? I didnt want to mess with it till I know how to take off the turret properly.

 

I’d email the company or check snipers hide forum or something.

 

Agreed. One of the SWAT snipers our ROTC marksmanship team trained with would spend days on end at the .22 range. If you can master a .22 at 200 yards in a variable breeze, 6.5 is relatively point and click. That dude was a dang jedi with his work stick.

 

which scope?
ifen it has “target” turrets they should have set screws that allow you to set yer zero

 

The ONE thing I want to complain about on the bergara: You have to drop the comb riser to pull the bolt out. If you rock a stock pack like mine, its a PITA.

 

Well that was a quick way to end the thread

 

Can you post a pic of the scope?

 

.50 bmg, so what?

 

I finally heard back from my buddy on snipernest and he said he got custom turrets for a Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50mm but vortex gots them from gunwerks. That was 8 years ago... and it was those retarded ballistic turrets with mv/bc built in at xxxx elevation.

 

I just finished this yesterday (finished for now), I got some rounds/cleaning for break in too, I'll work on loads next outing. More for PRS/KYL will also pull double duty for a LR rifle. I really like the Gen 2 PSTs, hard to beat for $1k range, but I may get a Razor HD2 come tax time, don't know yet.

 

Origin?

 

Yeah, good eye! I'm not a high end rifle builder, but it seems to be the sweet spot of price and quality. Definitely try one at the range.

 

I agree with what both of you are saying the arms race rabbit hole is dangerous, and at my (lack of)experience level probably is better spent else where ammo and time mainly. The information you guys have provided is valuable no doubt about it. With the resources and information you guys have stated and, I thank you for the time you guys took to type all that out it truly is valuable, I feel I can make a better more informed purchased.

 

technology is just a big part of long range shooting. Before, launching a .308 at 1000m was extreme long range. Now we got kestrels with applied ballistics, and 34 mm tubes 20/ 30/40 moa bases, even better tacomhq’s Charlie TARAC that adds like 300 mils to your scope, and rifles more capable than the average shooter. It’s come light years ahead of the ol sniper days of doodling dicks in a dope book and long hand writing you drop tables per each DA. The point being, it’s expensive.