3 gun scope questions

[JP221]

I've used high magnification scopes on bolt rifles, but always used EO Tech or Aimpoint on AR's. I'm building a 3 gun rifle that will also be used for general target shooting and was hoping to get some help on which variable power scope to buy. Targets will be anywhere from 5 yards to 300-400 yards.

The scopes I'm considering are:

Leupold 1-6x24 VX-6 Multigun 30mm Riflescope with CM-R2 reticle which uses a 50/200 yard zero for the reticle

Burris 1-5x24 XTR II 30mm Rifle Scope

Burris 1.5-8x28 XTR II 34mm Rifle Scope

Both Burris scopes use their Ballistic 5.56 reticle that needs to be zeroed at 100 years.

I ran both zeroes through a ballistic calculator with with 55gr ammo running roughly 3100 fps, and there isn't more than 2" of difference out to 200 yards so they seem like a wash. I realize the reticle probably won't be exact anyway.

Lastly, should I be using a true 1x scope for fast up close shooting? If so, that rules out the heavy 1.5-8 Burris and I am a bit hesitant of that model because of the 34mm main tube which makes mouting options more limited.

The Leupold Multigun seems to be what I'm looking for on paper, but I don't see anyone using them, and typically there's a reason for that.

Thanks in advance for any help!

[JonKC]

My vote is the XTR II 1-5

I've had the 1.5-8 and for me, it was noticeably slower than a true 1x

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hi-Power Jack]

Many more than just these three scopes - Vortex are Very Popular.

There's a posting here now entitled "1x - 8x scopes" - good read.

You need to decide if you need an 8x, how much are you willing

to spend, and how durable you need the scope to be (as opposed

to less durable, but fully covered with warranty).

Lots of good articles if you look at the old postings.

[JP221]

Thanks guys.

Jack, I have looked at the other options and have it narrowed down to those two.

I did look at the thread you mentioned before posting and never really found the answers to my 2 main questions:

1. Should I be using a true 1x scope for close targets, or is the 1.5x comparable?

2. Does anyone use the Leupold Multigun scope and what is everyone's impression of it?

The 8x would be nice, but my thoughts so far are that it's not worth losing the true 1x for close targets. Also, the 34mm main tube is a pain for mounting considerations and is heavier.

[jon49erfan]

Daniel Horner runs a VX-6. He seems to do well with it.

[Hi-Power Jack]

Lots of people run the 1.5x scopes, but many feel it slows them down over a true 1x.

[P.E. Kelley]

Daniel Horner runs a VX-6. He seems to do well with it.

Yes he has...and several other scopes just as well.

[P.E. Kelley]

I feel the Burris XTRII 1x5 is the best value in 3-Gun.

Edited December 20, 2015 by P.E. Kelley

[michael1778]

Daniel Horner runs a VX-6. He seems to do well with it.

Yes he has...and several other scopes just as well.

Exactly, he has been very successful with different calibers, barrels lengths, gas systems, barrel materials, handguards, socks, sighting systems, etc., etc.

Daniel is as far removed from me in 3-gun (or any shooting sport) as I am from him as a spacecraft engineer. So, he shouldn't look at my "gear" or solution methods in engineering too closely. Likewise, I should keep in mind that he could use a sling shot and a baseball bat and get better 3-gun results than I can. Just the nature of the things. There may be merit in him using something, but it may not be translatable to me and my abilities.

To the original post question, I'd go with the Burris 1-5x.

Edited December 20, 2015 by michael1778

[californiasushi]

I agree with Mr. Kelley that the Burris XTR II 1-5x is the best 1-nx scope for the money. It is high quality, especially for the price. I picked mine up for $575 lightly used and my friend picked one up for $560 used.

I wrote a quick comparison review on it here if you were interested:

http://gunpositive.com/leupold-mk6-1-6x-vs-other-1-nx-scopes/

On 1-nx scopes I prefer BDC reticles so I'd rather have the BDC model than the mil-based reticle. For me, it's easier and faster to keep track of yardages to targets rather than mil corrections.

I'm probably not Leupold's target user for the CM-R2 reticle but I don't like that the horizontal stadia refer to lead distance for targets going 5/10/15 mph. I think I would have just preferred something more generic like horizontal mil subtensions but that's just IMHO.

[HCH]

I like the MTAC 1-4 the best.

[armydad]

My only experience is with my Leopold Mark 6 1-5 CMR reitice - it's awesome. If your are LE or military, they have a fantastic discount program. PM me for the link/price list. My son just bought the Strike Eagle 1-6. It's pretty nice and for the money, he really likes it. The glass in the Leopold is significant, but the Strike Eagle gets the job done too.

[MarkCO]

The XTRII 1-5 is a great optic. Very good value with excellent glass. I prefer the mil version.

Realize that BDC reticles do not have to be zero'd at 100 yards.

[JP221]

Thanks so much for all the replies!

armydad, I really appreciate the info, but I get dealer pricing.

I've ruled out the Leupold. Now I keep wondeing back and forth between the 2 power ranges for the Burris. The extra 3x on the top half would be nice to have, but I'm not excited about the 34mm tube.

I'm not worried about the price difference, I just want to get whichever would work better for me. I'd probably be happy with either, so I just need to make a decision. It seems like everyone would pick the 1-5, so I should just buy that one and get training.

Thanks to everyone for the help!

Edited December 21, 2015 by JP221

[RiggerJJ]

I'm not sure what the problem with a 34mm tube is. JP makes 34mm mounts, Burris, and Warne also come to mind right off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other major mfgs that make 34mm mounts as well. I would get the scope I wanted, and then Find a mount for it...actually is getting more and more common for good scopes in the low-mid ranges to come with 34mm tubes.

jj

[MarkCO]

The 1x on the low end is much more valuable than the 8x at the top. I'd shoot a 1-4 in TacOptics before a scope that does not have 1x.

I have several of the 34mm XTRIIs and the weight difference is noticeable.

[ccoker]

Agree on the 1x at the bottom.

I have an S&B 1.5-8x42 but it is on a 6.8 I use for hunting.

I dig the Steiner 1-5 and just received a Trijicon 1-4 Accupower LED. I also hVe the 1-6 Accupoint mildot.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[reptoid]

Agree on the 1x at the bottom.

I have an S&B 1.5-8x42 but it is on a 6.8 I use for hunting.

I dig the Steiner 1-5 and just received a Trijicon 1-4 Accupower LED. I also hVe the 1-6 Accupoint mildot.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

I agee. I have the Steiner T5xi 1-5 3TR and a Vortex Razor HD 1-6 and both are Very Good glass. I'm not a "donut" fan so I like the reticles in the Steiner and the Vortex. Both have Very Bright illuminated dots and are quick on 1X while retaining excellant precision for shooting small targets at longer range on 6X. Both have huge "eyeboxes" and a non-critical eye relief window. They are not cheap but high quality glass never is

Edited December 21, 2015 by reptoid

[ShooterSteve]

Don't let the 34mm tubes slow you down for a minute. All of the manufacturers for long range scopes are going to those tubes, and there are lots of people making rings for them. Look very hard at 1x, there are a lot more targets that will need it than there are targets that need more power on the top. Understand when I say that, I am a big power guy. Have long range rifles and I like my powerful scope. I started three gunning with a Burris euro- dot 30mm 1-4. Had Burris put a custom bdc in it which then came out in the xtr line. I still use that scope and don't feel like I'm underscoped. Yes I would love another scope, but I'm pouring too much money into my long range stuff to go back and re-do. If you asked me to trade my 1-4 for your 1.5-8, my answer would be no, I want my 1x on the low end. Hope all that rambling makes sense.

[twowheels]

You definitely want a true 1x on the low end. I have both 1 and 1.5x scopes. When you look at specs, its easy to think that there isn't much difference between 1x and 1.5x. However, when you look through the scopes, there is a significant difference. 1.5x simply will not allow you to shoot quickly with both eyes open at close targets.

[AFguywhoshoots]

I disagree with you twowheels. I went from a 1X6 to the Burris 1.5X8 and I don't think it slows me down 1 bit. I shoot with both eyes open as well. Try to base your decision off of what you know your club will shoot. Mine goes out to 600 from time to time and also hosts the Ironman, so for me, I feel the extra magnification is worth it. I have another club I go shoot that tops out at 250 yards. If that was my only club, I would have probably went with a different optic. I will say I like the SCR reticle from Burris better than their BDC reticle, but that would be the only thing I would change on my 1.5X8 decision.

[Jim Norman]

I find it a little interesting about the 1.5 not being fast. Wasn't it the ACOG 4x that worked as a fixed 4x?

I don't remember it all that well, but it was something called the Binden Aiming Complex.

Your mind switches which eye is master as you fire. You keep both eyes open, scan across, pick up the target with your unaided eye, then as the target enters the field of view in the scope, your mind switches to the aided eye for the shot. I've done this with the 4x scope I used to use years back, it actually does work. Now for a 1.5x vs 1x I'd have to experiment a bit, but I am almost wondering about getting a 3-9X for my .308 BRO and seeing how that works. I've got a couple scopes like that around. Might be interesting.

I used to use a set of canted irons for the close stuff, got away from it with the new scopes with the illumination. Might see if the old school still works.

[peterthefish]

I find it a little interesting about the 1.5 not being fast. Wasn't it the ACOG 4x that worked as a fixed 4x?

I don't remember it all that well, but it was something called the Binden Aiming Complex.

Your mind switches which eye is master as you fire. You keep both eyes open, scan across, pick up the target with your unaided eye, then as the target enters the field of view in the scope, your mind switches to the aided eye for the shot. I've done this with the 4x scope I used to use years back, it actually does work. Now for a 1.5x vs 1x I'd have to experiment a bit, but I am almost wondering about getting a 3-9X for my .308 BRO and seeing how that works. I've got a couple scopes like that around. Might be interesting.

I used to use a set of canted irons for the close stuff, got away from it with the new scopes with the illumination. Might see if the old school still works.

The BAC (Bindon Aiming Concept) works with the ACOGs because;

1) your brain will superimpose a reticle seen by your dominant eye over the field of view seen by your non-dominant eye - same reason you can effectively use a red dot even if the end of the scope is covered or capped.

2) the magnification on the ACOGs is high enough that when you're moving the scope transitioning between targets everything but the reticle blurs - your brain naturally selects the larger FOV of your non-dominant eye to keep in focus (although you can consciously switch focus to the magnified FOV) - effectively you've blacked out the end of the ACOG while transitioning. Once on target, your dominant eye takes over allowing you magnified focus whether the target is near or far.

I wonder if the 1.5 wouldn't blur the FOV enough while transitioning to work effectively like a 3X + magnifier does.

[MarkCO]

For me at least, the BAC works from 4x up. At 3x down to 1.2x, it is just a mess. With illumination I can shoot well occluded, but that is a whole other skill set.

[ShooterSteve]

I should also add that different people are affected differently by their eyes looking at different powers. I'm one of those that might as well be five beers into a six pack trying to shoot two eyes open through a 1.5 scope. It may very well work for you.