MissionaryMike Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 When choosing an AR scope for 3-gun, what are the main properties that I should be looking for? In my research so far, it seems like the focus of discussions revolve around, in no particular order: 1) Reticle shape, but is BDC and/or illumination (daylight bright or not?) necessary? 2) Eye relief 3) Eye box 4) Weight 5) Quality of glass 6) First or Second focal plane There must be other considerations to be made in choosing a scope, so what are they? Also, how would you personally prioritize the properties you're looking for from most to least important? When it comes time for me to pull the trigger, I'd like to stay under $1000, and that's a pretty hard and fast limit. I know there's the Vortex Razor HD 2 that's just a few hundred dollars more than my budget, but I find that if I continue to tell myself that Brand X is just a little more expensive than Brand Z, then I'll end up spending 3 times as much as I wanted to begin with, and my wife will kick me out of the house, my kids will run away, my business will fail, and my dog will hate me. So far, I've heard of the Leupold, VX-6 1-6, Bushnell Tactical Elite 1-6.5, Burris XTR2 1-5. Any others I should consider? What would be your choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchris4769 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I just picked up a Nikon M-223 1.5-6 illuminated with the BDC600 reticle. Really solid feel, lightweight, clear glass, bright dot. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thermobollocks Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 You forgot rule #1 of 3-gun: Reliability. If your glass poops its pants, then the reticle shape, weight, and illumination all don't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 You forgot rule #1 of 3-gun: Reliability. If your glass poops its pants, then the reticle shape, weight, and illumination all don't matter. LOL and +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgj3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Also the option of picking up a scope that's a little above your price range new, but someone on here has upgraded and is turning it loose for a bit of a discount. I picked up by backup Bushnell 1-6.5 on here that way. Got a good deal on a Bushnell 1-8.5 as well. See the Vortex's on here a bit too. They all still have great warranty coverage. Don't rule out used as long as the glass isn't scratched up. I have 3 of the Bushnell low-mag scopes and 3 of the higher-mag options as well. I've been pleased with the value for the cost of both new and used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonytheTiger Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 1) low end of 1x 2) BDC reticle with a bold fast aiming point but still a fine dot or otherwise for precision 3) capped or locking turrets 4) decent glass 5) reasonably light and compact, 30mm to fit common mounts I don't give a turd about illumination or lack thereof, and I've found FFP to be worthless on low power variables. Reliability and zero retention go without saying, all scopes need to be capable of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Reliability and parallax. The less expensive options have a lot of parallax. It is important. I can't tell you how many people I have seen in an odd position turning money into noise with no idea they are missing due to parallax. Of course consistent positions help. Reliability and parallax are two topics almost no one considers, but they are two of the most important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in TN Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Reliability and parallax. The less expensive options have a lot of parallax. It is important. I can't tell you how many people I have seen in an odd position turning money into noise with no idea they are missing due to parallax. Of course consistent positions help. Reliability and parallax are two topics almost no one considers, but they are two of the most important. Interesting - I've never seen anyone mention parallax before, but it makes sense. When you say "the less expensive options have a lot of parallax", do you mean that they are set to the wrong distance? Or is it that the more exensive scopes are adjustable for parallax? How can one scope have "more" parallax than another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrswanson1 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I'd prefer a true 1x for close up shots. I'd rather not have to cant the rifle for offsets, as offsets add weight and complexity to the rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 "turning money into noise" My new favorite phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Reliability and parallax. The less expensive options have a lot of parallax. It is important. I can't tell you how many people I have seen in an odd position turning money into noise with no idea they are missing due to parallax. Of course consistent positions help. Reliability and parallax are two topics almost no one considers, but they are two of the most important. Interesting - I've never seen anyone mention parallax before, but it makes sense. When you say "the less expensive options have a lot of parallax", do you mean that they are set to the wrong distance? Or is it that the more exensive scopes are adjustable for parallax? How can one scope have "more" parallax than another? Glass aberrations, mechanical adjustment imperfections, and some with springs, even oscillation and wear. It is all about alignment and the focal plane intersections. The better the scope, the better the QC, the less the errors and therefore the less the error on target. One of the "vaunted" inexpensive scopes I played with last week, at 200 yards had about 7" of on target error based on where your eye was, all still while "IN" the specified eyebox. As magnification increases, so does the potential for parallax error. No one mentions it because very few people practice and shoot at distance, know what it is and make any effort to adjust for it. But some people do. Take a look and the stocks, cheek weld and head positions of almost every top 3Gunner (and ALL the PRS shooters). Even though they typically have better than average optics, they understand that consistency is part of the elimination of parallax errors. We shoot odd positions in 3Gun, so cheek weld errors do occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thermobollocks Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Another advantage of shooting Limited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HCH Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Step one: Vortex razor or Burris MTAC. Step two: repeat step one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashDodson Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Step one: Vortex razor or Burris MTAC. Step two: repeat step one. Ive been satisfied with my mtac 1-4 but a vortex 1-6 would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan 45 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Reliability and parallax. The less expensive options have a lot of parallax. It is important. I can't tell you how many people I have seen in an odd position turning money into noise with no idea they are missing due to parallax. Of course consistent positions help. Reliability and parallax are two topics almost no one considers, but they are two of the most important. Interesting - I've never seen anyone mention parallax before, but it makes sense. When you say "the less expensive options have a lot of parallax", do you mean that they are set to the wrong distance? Or is it that the more exensive scopes are adjustable for parallax? How can one scope have "more" parallax than another? Glass aberrations, mechanical adjustment imperfections, and some with springs, even oscillation and wear. It is all about alignment and the focal plane intersections. The better the scope, the better the QC, the less the errors and therefore the less the error on target. One of the "vaunted" inexpensive scopes I played with last week, at 200 yards had about 7" of on target error based on where your eye was, all still while "IN" the specified eyebox. As magnification increases, so does the potential for parallax error. No one mentions it because very few people practice and shoot at distance, know what it is and make any effort to adjust for it. But some people do. Take a look and the stocks, cheek weld and head positions of almost every top 3Gunner (and ALL the PRS shooters). Even though they typically have better than average optics, they understand that consistency is part of the elimination of parallax errors. We shoot odd positions in 3Gun, so cheek weld errors do occur. This is why I've always thought that "eyebox" size is seriously over-rated, sometimes hazardous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosiershooter Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Wanted to bump this. I've been looking at new glass lately. I've been leaning towards a XTR 1-5, but also interested in the Leupold VX-6 with CM-R2. Has anyone had both in hand? If so how would you compare illum? Weight the Leupold is a winner. Any thoughts? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic2377 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I have not handled a XTR 1-5 but have a VX-6 with CMR-2. If you search my posts, there are a couple about it. The good: light weight, great glass, useful reticle that is good for precision, good eyebox, and sturdy. The bad: illumination is not that bright, and some people have a tough time getting the diopter right to get a "flat" 1x image. It also has covered turrets which I prefer in a low-power optic. From what I have briefly seen the illumination is awesome on the XTR, and the mil-mil reticle is very good. It is cheaper too. I have had other Burris optics in the past and they have all been great. If I had to go shopping and pay full price I would buy a Burris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birddog6424 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I just said this on another post, but I love the XTR II in the 1.5-8. The difference between 1x and 1.5x is non-existent to me. I leave both eyes open and hose. But I very much like the 8x on top. I shoot exponentially better on the long hard targets than I used to. Glass is excellent. I love the BDC reticle for 3 gun. I also really like the daylight bright illumination, I flip it on for close stuff. I know everyone values features differently, but for me, it's a perfect feature set. And it's under $1000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissionaryMike Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Thanks for keeping this thread alive. I've really enjoyed Leupold optics in the past, but it seems like the Burris is a better value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosiershooter Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I'm happy to keep it going. This is a question that always comes up. Scopes are subjective, but it's nice to hear someone else's opinion on them. If it was financially feasible I'd own them all and tent them out. Maybe when I hit the lottery. To the point, I like the mil reticle in the Burris, there is a hash for almost every yardage. Looking at the leupold on strelok, it appears that a lng shot might require a hold in the middle where there are no hashes, just have to guess and hope. I know MarkCo seems to be a big proponent of the XTR and has great things to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now