PRS: Lowest Viable Magnification Range?

[jkrispies]

My learning curve for PRS is in its infancy, but I'm gathering that folks are gravitating towards higher magnification variable scopes.  I've always been one to preach that the average shooter tends to "over-scope" their rifles when it comes to choosing their variable power range, as higher magnification means a smaller field of view.  Personally, I'd love all of my scopes to start at 1x and go up from there... but I'm not shooting PRS yet!!!

 

So, my question to those who are actually shooting it:  what''s the lowest viable power range of scope that will work in PRS?  4.5-30x?  1-8x?  Somewhere in between?  

 

I know that this is extremely variable depending on individual shooter preferences as well as various match designs, weather conditions, etc., etc., but I'm also curious if there's a preponderance of folks who have 25x scopes and never dial them up higher than 15x in competition because the narrowed field of view hurts them too much when transitioning from one target to the next... or maybe there's a bunch of shooters with 14x scopes who really wish they had a 25x because there's so many little targets waaaaay out there.  Or maybe there's one crazy dude at everybody's club who shows up with a 1-8x on a .308 bolt, and he inexplicably kicks everybody's butt with it month in and month out.  THAT is the data/advice I'm looking to gather.

 

Thanks,

J

[titandriver]

NightForce 5.5x22 here - rarely, and I mean rarely, exceed 18X during a match.

[TonytheTiger]

I'm also relatively new to Precision rifle as a sport, but I've been shooting long range off of every possible prop or barricade I can find for a couple years now. I've never exceeded 15x on my 6-24x scope except during load development. I've only shot to 600 in a match (where the scope stayed at 12x) so it's possible more magnification helps further out and I just don't know it yet.

[jkrispies]

So based on these couple of responses, something in theb16-18x range such as a Leupold VX-6 3-18x or Razor HD 3-18x might be ideal?

[mpthole]

Assuming that PRS stands for Precision Rifle "Shooting"?  I really don't know.

 

From my experience, it all depends on what you're trying to get out of your rifle.  I have made 1,000+ yard shots with a fixed 10x Leupold and (very recently) a 1,560 yard shot with a 6.5-20x50 Leupold.  In both cases the target was steel, not paper, and no score was involved.

 

If you're shooting for score, whether that is 600-1,200 yards, you'll likely want more magnification.  Many of those shooting that sport are shooting Nightforce in higher magnification ranges.

[TonytheTiger]

6 hours ago, jkrispies said:

So based on these couple of responses, something in theb16-18x range such as a Leupold VX-6 3-18x or Razor HD 3-18x might be ideal?

Yes and no. Being a 3 gunner at heart I also wish all scopes started at 1x and went from there. And I do believe 3-18x is probably the most versatile mag range out there and could do everything from 50 yards to as far as I'll ever shoot. All that said, I've never shot my 6-24x on 6x, even though my brain keeps saying a 3-18x or 4.5-27x would be better because of the lower minimum magnification. And I hate to admit it but there has been a few times during load development that I was glad to have the higher top end.

[TonytheTiger]

12 minutes ago, mpthole said:

Assuming that PRS stands for Precision Rifle "Shooting"?  I really don't know.

Precision Rifle Series.

It's really just a point series that helped bring a certain type of rifle shooting to the spotlight, and has now become synonymous for that kind of match. Kind of how for a while 3 Gun Nation was so big that people thought the 3GN moniker was a catch-all name for all 3 gun matches. Both sports existed before and will exist after the big name has gone, but for now the correlation seems inseparable.

[jkrispies]

14 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:

All that said, I've never shot my 6-24x on 6x, even though my brain keeps saying a 3-18x or 4.5-27x would be better because of the lower minimum magnification.

So that begs the question of what folks are actually using for magnification on the very bottom end?  

 

Or maybe the more appropriate question might be:  what are the closer targets looking like in terms of distance and size?  I could more easily guesstimate my low end magnification with that info than far targets.   

[TonytheTiger]

I went and asked some accomplished PRS shooters I know, the small group surveyed all have multiple guns that have 3-18x, 4.5-27x, 5-25x or 6-24x scopes on them and they all switch between optics without hindrance at either end of the mag range because they all use 10-16x in matches.

Sounds like the closest targets could be at 200 yards but would be small enough that you would still want 10x magnification at least.

[jkrispies]

7 hours ago, TonytheTiger said:

I went and asked some accomplished PRS shooters I know, the small group surveyed all have multiple guns that have 3-18x, 4.5-27x, 5-25x or 6-24x scopes on them and they all switch between optics without hindrance at either end of the mag range because they all use 10-16x in matches.

Sounds like the closest targets could be at 200 yards but would be small enough that you would still want 10x magnification at least.

Now that's an answer!  

[ShooterSteve]

There is a reason that a ton of top shooters have higher magnification on their scopes. Yes, most stages are shot around 14 power, but occasionally you will have the opportunity and need to turn one up. You can use a scope in the 3-18 range, and most of the time it will be ok, but there will be a point where you will want more. During load development you will probably want more. I went with a more affordable  model for my small AR, a Vortex HST with a max power of 16. It only had 5 mils on the top knob, so I was having to fight with remembering where I was revolution wise. This scope only lasted a few months on my rifle before it got passed to my son (fresh out of college and glad to get whatever he can), and the scope was replaced by what I should have bought the first time. This is no slam on Vortex, a ton of top shooters use the Gen II Razor, I just didn’t buy enough scope while trying to save a few dollars. There will be people who come on here and say you don’t need this or that, but there is a reason that the good shooters use the equipment that they do. I’m not an expert, but I have about 25 long range matches under my belt, including PRS matches, and have ROd several PRS matches this year, so I’m just passing along what I see. Bottom line-if you are going to play this game, you need to buy the best scope that you can. If you can’t afford something great, buy the best that you can, but if you DO buy something in the smaller magnification range, you will be looking for an upgrade before long. Go over to snipers hide and look in the for sale section for a used Gen I Razor or PST. You won’t be sorry. 

[jkrispies]

On 10/12/2018 at 8:26 PM, mpthole said:

Assuming that PRS stands for Precision Rifle "Shooting"?  I really don't know.

 

From my experience, it all depends on what you're trying to get out of your rifle.  I have made 1,000+ yard shots with a fixed 10x Leupold and (very recently) a 1,560 yard shot with a 6.5-20x50 Leupold.  In both cases the target was steel, not paper, and no score was involved.

 

If you're shooting for score, whether that is 600-1,200 yards, you'll likely want more magnification.  Many of those shooting that sport are shooting Nightforce in higher magnification ranges.

 

2 hours ago, shooter steve said:

There is a reason that a ton of top shooters have higher magnification on their scopes. Yes, most stages are shot around 14 power, but occasionally you will have the opportunity and need to turn one up. You can use a scope in the 3-18 range, and most of the time it will be ok, but there will be a point where you will want more. During load development you will probably want more. I went with a more affordable  model for my small AR, a Vortex HST with a max power of 16. It only had 5 mils on the top knob, so I was having to fight with remembering where I was revolution wise. This scope only lasted a few months on my rifle before it got passed to my son (fresh out of college and glad to get whatever he can), and the scope was replaced by what I should have bought the first time. This is no slam on Vortex, a ton of top shooters use the Gen II Razor, I just didn’t buy enough scope while trying to save a few dollars. There will be people who come on here and say you don’t need this or that, but there is a reason that the good shooters use the equipment that they do. I’m not an expert, but I have about 25 long range matches under my belt, including PRS matches, and have ROd several PRS matches this year, so I’m just passing along what I see. Bottom line-if you are going to play this game, you need to buy the best scope that you can. If you can’t afford something great, buy the best that you can, but if you DO buy something in the smaller magnification range, you will be looking for an upgrade before long. Go over to snipers hide and look in the for sale section for a used Gen I Razor or PST. You won’t be sorry. 

So what’s the magnification range you would recommend?

Edited October 15, 2018 by jkrispies

[Keyst0ne]

5-25 or similar is pretty standard. Yes 10-18 is used more often but a 3-18 scope will have a darker image and less adjustment than a larger 34mm higher power scope.

[jkrispies]

Here's a summary of what I'm gathering fro this thread, if folks would like to chime in if I'm off-base or not:

 

1. 10-18x is the most commonly used powers within actual competition.

2. Greater than 18x is preferable for accuracy testing, and while it is not excluded from competition purposes, it is unlikely to be used in most competitions.

3. 34mm or 35mm body allows greater adjustment and light gathering capability.

 

And, not in this thread, but from what I've gathered elsewhere and just on my personal want list:

4. First/Front Focal Plane

5. An excellent reticle like a Horus

 

So, now to put this into a potential scope purchase...  I've been impressed with a previous Burris XTRii 1-5x I've owned.  While I'm not ruling out going a 5-25x route, since the thread topic revolves around potential use on the low end of magnification, what are PRS folks' thoughts on:

 

Burris XTRii 4-20x50, 35mm Tube, First Focal Plane, Horus reticle https://www.opticsplanet.com/burris-201044-xtr-ii-4-20x50mm-obj-25-8-5-4ft-100yd-fov-34mm-dia-g2b-md-il.html?_iv_code=BR-RS-42050XTR2-201041

Edited October 21, 2018 by jkrispies

[Keyst0ne]

For $1,100 I'd buy the Atlon Ares ETR 4.5-30x50. I bought one for my rimfire trainer (Vudoo) replacing the Kahles 624i I had on it (and have on my match rifle). My take on it is that if Athlon tried to clone the 624 they couldn't have done much better for the price.. Cheaper glass to be sure but IMO it is the hot ticket at $1,100. I have both and like it better than the comparably priced Bushnell LRTSi 4.5-18x44 for sure.

 

 

[TonytheTiger]

10 hours ago, jkrispies said:

3. 34mm or 35mm body allows greater adjustment and light gathering capability.

Technically true but overrated. 10 mils should get every popular cartridge beyond 1k yards. 

5. An excellent reticle like a Horus

The Horus appears to be dead in PRS, and I understand why. There's so much grid It's likely to obscure a puff of dirt next to the target especially when you're on a rickety barricade, and it's hard to use fast. Something like the Vortex EBR-7 gives plenty of reference points without covering the whole field of view. 

FWIW, most of the PRS wizards I pester with questions prefer to dial elevation and hold wind, so even though they like the flexibility of a tree reticle they can live without it.

 

[jkrispies]

1 hour ago, TonytheTiger said:

 

More good info— thanks!  I actually thought the Horis was busy, and I didn’t think about it obscuring misses.  Wouldn’t be a concession at all for me to go with a simpler (and less expensive) reticle.  

[Keyst0ne]

I like holdover reticles (in standard units MIL or MOA, not BDC) like the Kahles SKMR3 or Vortex EBR-2c but I've never paid the $200 premium for a horus reticle.

 

Some stages and ammo combinations make holding over very easy -- two targets a mil apart require one less dial adjustment and that saves time, especially if you are going out and back target-wise. I also like having the clear holdovers because it makes estimating a miss or taking a measurement of a target (zeroing is simple, just measure with the reticle and adjust) a lot easier. SKMR3 is a favorite and one reason I like my 624 scopes.

[JonSnow]

I have a Burris XTR-II with the Horus reticle on my RPR and I like it.  Glass is very nice compared to the Athlon on my rimfire gun (although I'm not sure it's "twice the price" nice).  The only issue I'm having with it is that it's taking me longer to get used to MILs than I expected.  I have a LOT more experience dialing in MOA and, despite using metric at work, still think of distances in inches and yards.  One click being .36" at 100 yards makes the mental math a little uglier.  If I were doing it over I might opt for a scope with MOA adjustments/reticle.

[TonytheTiger]

@JonSnow It's only harder because you're doing it wrong. You need to dispense with inches and feet entirely. Your reticle is a calibrated measuring device that matches your turrets. It's the only unit of measurement you need to know. When you're sighting in, measure the adjustment needed with the reticle and dial accordingly. When you miss a target measure the correction with the reticle and correct. You don't need to convert anything.

Edited October 22, 2018 by TonytheTiger

[JonSnow]

39 minutes ago, TonytheTiger said:

@JonSnow It's only harder because you're doing it wrong.

 Honestly that's probably true but it's still different from all my other rifles.  I'm not convinced that MIL is so much better than MOA that it's worth having a different system than the rifles I shoot more often.  It would be one thing if PRS was the only scoped rifle shooting I do, but it's not.

[TonytheTiger]

I wouldn't say MIL is better, it's just the most commonly spoken language by far so it makes communication easier at matches. The smaller numbers are easier for me to memorize too, but that still doesn't make it better. The one thing MIL scopes excel at is resale value. MOA scopes sit on the used market till you give them away, the same scope in MIL not so much.

[Keyst0ne]

Mil is only more common in precision rifle shooting because the targets are large enough that the rougher measurement of a tenth mil is fine. If the sport were 100yd benchrest shooting at the head of a pin then I would certainly be looking for a high mag scope with 1/8 moa adjustments.

 

It's just a lot easier to remember to come up 7.3 mil rather than 26 and a quarter MOA.

[joelpend]

I like others normally have my variable in the 15-16X range when shooting a match. If target transitions are easy then I may bump it up a bit or if the target is way out there. Don't ever remember going under 12X during a match.

[gmantwo]

For those who haven’t seen one, you should check out the Burris Veracity & XTR lines. Offered in 4-20 & 5-25 powers. Best reticle setup I’ve seen