Rimfire scope buying frustration - mil, MOA, reticles, focal plane etc

[Shuggy]

That's exactly the model that I have been eyeing for my next scope. Would you be kind enough to post a review at some point?

[Dunc]

 

Conclusion: Idiotically specified scopes in the majority at low price points (but still available at all price points).

What do you mean by this?

[snc_2010]

That's exactly the model that I have been eyeing for my next scope. Would you be kind enough to post a review at some point?

 

I'm no expert but I'll give it a go. Rings arrive Monday.

[snc_2010]

Conclusion: Idiotically specified scopes in the majority at low price points (but still available at all price points).

What do you mean by this?

 

A scope is poorly specified if it has a reticle with subtensions (hashmarks, dots etc) that are designed to measure angles (mil or MOA) and the adjustments are in a different unit of angular measurement. If there is such a reticle in the scope, there is a reasonable expectation that the knobs will adjust in the same unit of measurement.

Non-matching ret and adjustment units is less awful when the adjustments are hidden under caps on a scope designed to not be adjusted in normal usage (e.g. a conventional deer stalking rifle, zeroed once and used as is). But it is still awful. Considering the ease of redesign and the capabilities of optics companies (generally large ish outfits), using the wrong mechanism is frankly lazy.

 

A scope is equally poorly specified if it has a reticle with subtensions (hashmarks, dots etc) that are designed to measure angles (mil or MOA) but those subtensions only measure true at a certain magnification (i.e. a scope with the ret in the second focal plane). By all means have a plain ret (e.g. simple crosshair or Duplex) in the second focal plane to maintain ret thickness but when you've got a measuring ret (e.g. mildot, NP-R2) in a scope, there is a legitimate expectation that when you look at it, it measures correctly. Having to remember the magnification at which the ret measurements are true is a recipe for disaster. The shooter will forget to check where it is (or the zoom ring will get bumped or will need to be wound down/up for another reason). All totally avoidable error.

 

Cheap scopes are pretty much all poorly specified in either or both of the above ways. Top end companies (Schmidt, March, Nightforce etc) do a higher proportion of sensibly specified scopes but still do stupid ones. Presumably they do it because it makes money from relatively uninformed consumers.

[Dunc]

 

....

Having to remember the magnification at which the ret measurements are true is a recipe for disaster. The shooter will forget to check where it is (or the zoom ring will get bumped or will need to be wNo ound down/up for another reason). All totally avoidable error.

No. You have to be pretty stupid to do that. I've used SFP scopes for hunting for over 30 years and honestly, it's not hard to work it out.

 

I've taught a lot of people to shoot and I've never known anyone who has a problem with this.

 

Good luck with your new scope.

[gbal]

snc-I'm pleased-and even relieved-you found a scope close to your prefered specs- as said repeatedly,both reticule and turret in the same measurement system is (much) preferable. There are such-it's FFP that is the bigger price snooker. As also hinted,you will have to pay a bit more-Vortex is nice,but new around £600+ (?).That is a lot for a 22rf scope,so I hope it works well for you. It would be interesting to add the advantages for your 22 rf application if you do some review,as suggested.

Thankfully,it isn't a "Bushnell"-if you've been following the alternate-less technical rant (OPs correct descriptor) - you'd be even more frustrated,perhaps! Ref post just ending (please,dear god) "Bushnell-sweet and sour chinese scopes."

Anyhow,it's been interesting ,though I suspect potential converts to FFP and SFP are still looking for coherent,practical advantages that apply in their case(s). Mil/mil ; moa/moa; persian farahs/farahs;-let's hope the consistency issue is universally accepted as good spec. (you did know that there have been three different 'mil' measures used-but seems to be a standard one now.)

Wind readings above 5 (mph,Kph,knots) will seriously further degrade 22rf at 200 (y,m) and no scope on its own can sort that... :-) Good shooting.

g

[David Hancock]

Thank the Lord he's got a scope.