Scope on a .243 (opinions wanted)

2»

Replies

  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,851 Senior Member
    jbohio wrote: »
    You've shot your Redfields out to 500-600?

    Read it again. I never said I shot anything at 600 yards. I said when I scoped out that far it was still clear. I don't allow myself to be tempted to try anything much over 400 yards and if I tried that I better have a super steady rest and a good clear shot, nothing obstructing my line of sight. But that's just me. I don't have a place to practice that distance so I don't even attempt . But I can see very clearly from my deer blind to where the sendero it's on turns and that is right in the neighborhood of 600 yards. Two years ago I killed a pig at what I later measured to be 320 yards with a lowly .270 yet. He ran about 15 yards after being hit in the heart and lungs. And I think I could have nailed it DRT at another 100 yards farther. It was a clear shot and I had a good rest. On second thought, I will try shooting a hog at any range if I can see it, but not a deer. We don't hold a hog in very high esteem. I limit deer to around 400 because I'm not that steady anymore.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,233 Senior Member
    The more glass on the inside, the less light that will come through. Coating (I think) means a lot, so does grinding the lenses and the quality of glass. I think a fixed power scope will allow a better quality of light to go through because it doesn't have those internal lenses. BR shooters don't use adjustable scopes because they don't need them and because the want as much light transmission as possible.

    The 60-30-10 thing is good for manufacturing cost, but does not account for the wholesale cost of the final product, for which I think laboris at least 50% or more by itself.

    There appear to be fewer secrets in optics than there were a while ago. Japan and Germany have always made good lenses, America has as well, but thanks to industrial espionage, China is coming along nicely. About any modern mid-range scope is brighter than a good American scope of ten years ago. I don't know how well they hold up or if the scopes answer to the adjustments, but boy, are they bright. Redfield scopes to me are very bright and if I needed a scope, I probably would buy one on that score alone. I don't have any hard-kicking rifles to challenge their durability.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,508 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Read it again. I never said I shot anything at 600 yards. I said when I scoped out that far it was still clear. I don't allow myself to be tempted to try anything much over 400 yards and if I tried that I better have a super steady rest and a good clear shot, nothing obstructing my line of sight. But that's just me. I don't have a place to practice that distance so I don't even attempt . But I can see very clearly from my deer blind to where the sendero it's on turns and that is right in the neighborhood of 600 yards. Two years ago I killed a pig at what I later measured to be 320 yards with a lowly .270 yet. He ran about 15 yards after being hit in the heart and lungs. And I think I could have nailed it DRT at another 100 yards farther. It was a clear shot and I had a good rest. On second thought, I will try shooting a hog at any range if I can see it, but not a deer. We don't hold a hog in very high esteem. I limit deer to around 400 because I'm not that steady anymore.

    I read it fine the first time. Just clarifying.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,851 Senior Member
    jbohio wrote: »
    I read it fine the first time. Just clarifying.

    If you really really really could get inside my head you would see that I don't really hold with anybody shooting at game animals much over 400 yards. I know what 400 yards looks like and it is a long way to be chancing a clean kill.

    I know there's all kinds of scope technology out there nowadays and rifles and bullets on the whole are more accurate right out of the box,and then there's a lot of good range finders and range finding optics out there, but even still, there's just too many variables over and beyond equipment and equipment reliability that play into it. There's enough things to go wrong at even 200 yards much less 600 or God forbid 1000 yards.

    I know there's people that have mastered long distance shooting on here, but I always wonder how many shots they blew before the got good at it. But that's just me and I'm not out to change the world.

    Now things like Hogs and Prairie Dogs, and of course paper, knock yourself out. You won't ever hear a complaint or a mumble from me. In fact If I have any of those opportunities I'll more than likely go for them. But for me, shooting at game at extreme range goes past skill into the world of ifs and buts.

    It's one thing to shoot at targets at 1000 yards, but when you're hunting you don't have wind flags and you really don't have much clue of what the wind is doing down range, at least not well enough to judge a shot. That's hard enough to judge at 400-500 yards. And at 1000 yards how much breeze would it take to move your bullet off target from say the heart-lung area to the guts? I mean if you're shooting at paper, no harm done. But if you're shooting at an animal it's a whole nuther issue.

    If this is a person's cup of tea to shoot at game at 600, 800, or 1000 yards away, that's between you and God and the ethics committee. But I can't get that warm and fuzzy feeling doing it, if I did have the skill. Anyway, that's my take on it.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • NotHisRealNameNotHisRealName Member Posts: 57 Member
    I agree with what you're saying, Snake. At my early stage, I can't imagine hunting anything much outside of 300 yards. Far too many variables for my liking. I'd like to have a record of clean kills if/when I get the chance to hunt - regardless of the target species.

    I took a good look at Redfield and Vortex scopes today.
    For your reference, the Redfield Revolution 4-12x40 with 4Plex reticule is AUD$369.00
    Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 MRAD is $775.
    Vortex Viper HS-LR 6-24×50 is $935.

    ...too many options.

    Expect stupid.
    -Real.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,213 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Not sure I understand much of this post, which is confused and confusing. Why wouldn't a scope be good out to 1000 yards if it's good at 400 yards?
    I said 2-300 yards and only bought the scope with a fixed 100 yards in mind. But the distance between 400 and 1000? The crosshairs are now 2 1/2 times larger vs. a fixed sized object at those two distances. It makes it more difficult to aim concisely. The same goes with the resolution of the scope-- how sharply you can focus on an object. If you were to make a target, set it out at 400 yards, then make a second target-- and make it larger so it looks like the same size at 1000 yards that the one at 400 yards looks like through the scope, you should notice a bit of deterioration of the image quality-- some scopes more than others.

    Some optics have the resolution to work out to 1000 yards and beyond. Some may only work out to 400 yards.
  • Jeff in TXJeff in TX Senior Member Posts: 1,583 Senior Member
    Just my $0.02 worth on the subject. You might look at the Leupold VX-6 in 2-12 or 3-18 for around $1100. It's a lot cheaper than the MK-6 and will certainly get you out to 1K for hitting steel or paper. I have the VX-6 1-6 on my .243 win for night hunting hogs and deer hunting during the day. I'm gonna put a VX-6 3-18 on my .300 WSM for elk hunting in KY if I get drawn for the permit this year.
    Distance is not an issue, but the wind can make it interesting!

    John 3: 1-21
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,508 Senior Member
    I agree with what you're saying, Snake. At my early stage, I can't imagine hunting anything much outside of 300 yards. Far too many variables for my liking. I'd like to have a record of clean kills if/when I get the chance to hunt - regardless of the target species.

    I took a good look at Redfield and Vortex scopes today.
    For your reference, the Redfield Revolution 4-12x40 with 4Plex reticule is AUD$369.00
    Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 MRAD is $775.
    Vortex Viper HS-LR 6-24×50 is $935.

    ...too many options.

    Expect stupid.
    -Real.
    Forget the 12x Redfield. Look at Leupold VX. II. 6-18x40 AO T
    FWIW, I have a Viper HS-LR, not bad.


    One thing you must consider, is how thick the crosshairs are (subtension).
    It's really hard to shoot a 5"group at 500yards, when your crosshairs are covering 5" of the target.
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,508 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    If you really really really could get inside my head you would see that I don't really hold with anybody shooting at game animals much over 400 yards. I know what 400 yards looks like and it is a long way to be chancing a clean kill.

    I know there's all kinds of scope technology out there nowadays and rifles and bullets on the whole are more accurate right out of the box,and then there's a lot of good range finders and range finding optics out there, but even still, there's just too many variables over and beyond equipment and equipment reliability that play into it. There's enough things to go wrong at even 200 yards much less 600 or God forbid 1000 yards.

    I know there's people that have mastered long distance shooting on here, but I always wonder how many shots they blew before the got good at it. But that's just me and I'm not out to change the world.

    Now things like Hogs and Prairie Dogs, and of course paper, knock yourself out. You won't ever hear a complaint or a mumble from me. In fact If I have any of those opportunities I'll more than likely go for them. But for me, shooting at game at extreme range goes past skill into the world of ifs and buts.

    It's one thing to shoot at targets at 1000 yards, but when you're hunting you don't have wind flags and you really don't have much clue of what the wind is doing down range, at least not well enough to judge a shot. That's hard enough to judge at 400-500 yards. And at 1000 yards how much breeze would it take to move your bullet off target from say the heart-lung area to the guts? I mean if you're shooting at paper, no harm done. But if you're shooting at an animal it's a whole nuther issue.

    If this is a person's cup of tea to shoot at game at 600, 800, or 1000 yards away, that's between you and God and the ethics committee. But I can't get that warm and fuzzy feeling doing it, if I did have the skill. Anyway, that's my take on it.

    Trust me, I don't want inside your head!:tooth:
    Nobody ever said anything about shooting game. We're talking about paper.
    Try it! Go hang a target up at 500- 600 yards down the sendaro, take a few shots. It's fun, and humbling. It really lets you know if your gear, and you are cutting it.
  • NotHisRealNameNotHisRealName Member Posts: 57 Member
    jbohio wrote: »
    Forget the 12x Redfield. Look at Leupold VX. II. 6-18x40 AO T
    FWIW, I have a Viper HS-LR, not bad.


    One thing you must consider, is how thick the crosshairs are (subtension).
    It's really hard to shoot a 5"group at 500yards, when your crosshairs are covering 5" of the target.
    Yeah. Reticle size is something I'm mindful of. It slips my mind, however, if ffp or sfp is better for variable focus optics.

    Expect stupid.
    -Real.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    Yeah. Reticle size is something I'm mindful of. It slips my mind, however, if ffp or sfp is better for variable focus optics.

    Expect stupid.
    -Real.

    FFP. Then your subtensions remain constant throughout the magnification range.

    But SFP works fine if your target ranges don't vary rapidly. Stay on the magnification the reticle is calculated for and work from your dope information.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • HAWKENHAWKEN Senior Member Posts: 1,688 Senior Member
    I have two .243's, both are Model 700 BDL Remington's. One has a sporter barrel and is primarily used to deer hunt and the other has a bull barrel and is used for targets and varmints. The first rifle wears a Simmons 3 x 9 and the second wears a Weaver 4 x 12. The farthest shot I have taken with either was 400 yards on a groundhog., and that was with the sporter. There was no wind and the hold was about 36" over its head, DRT.........Robin
    I don't often talk to people that voted for Obama, but when I do I order large fries!
    Life member of the American Legion, the VFW, the NRA and the Masonic Lodge, retired LEO
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,851 Senior Member
    I agree with what you're saying, Snake. At my early stage, I can't imagine hunting anything much outside of 300 yards. Far too many variables for my liking. I'd like to have a record of clean kills if/when I get the chance to hunt - regardless of the target species.

    I took a good look at Redfield and Vortex scopes today.
    For your reference, the Redfield Revolution 4-12x40 with 4Plex reticule is AUD$369.00
    Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 MRAD is $775.
    Vortex Viper HS-LR 6-24×50 is $935.

    ...too many options.

    Expect stupid.
    -Real.

    Check out Nikons too. I have both a cheapo Prostaff and 3 medium priced Buckmasters. The Buckmasters are comperable to Leupold VX-2s, but a bit cheaper. Most of their scopes are made in the Philippines. But don't let that stop you. I find that the quality of a product is more a function of the QC of the company selling the product more so than the country in which it's made. Besides, Filipinos make some pretty good stuff. I'll take something Made in the Philippines over something made in China any day and a lot of other places as well. But then I'm a bit biased because my wife is from there and I have seen what those people can do. They have a work ethic from hell and can display a great amount of pride in their work.

    BTW, I'm not suggesting any of these scopes for 1000 yard shooting. But they are a good starting place.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,508 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    FFP. Then your subtensions remain constant throughout the magnification range.

    But SFP works fine if your target ranges don't vary rapidly. Stay on the magnification the reticle is calculated for and work from your dope information.

    SFP works fine for target shooting, especially if you get plain old crosshairs. And target turrets.
    FFP glass and complicated ballistic reticles probably aren't something he needs to worry about for awhile.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    jbohio wrote: »
    SFP works fine for target shooting, especially if you get plain old crosshairs. And target turrets.
    FFP glass and complicated ballistic reticles probably aren't something he needs to worry about for awhile.

    Simple USMC or US Army mil-dot isn't complicated.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,508 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Simple USMC or US Army mil-dot isn't complicated.

    No, it's not. But, it also isn't very accurate for target work. It's great for shooting man sized targets, not so much for small groups.
    At least that's my experience.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,213 Senior Member
    jbohio wrote: »
    No, it's not. But, it also isn't very accurate for target work. It's great for shooting man sized targets, not so much for small groups.
    At least that's my experience.
    Yep.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 20,612 Senior Member
    Actually, standard mil dots rather suck for shooting vertical 2-Legged targets as well. The dots themselves are fine. It's the "between dots" that sucks. Try holding 3.7 mils on something relatively small and moving. Without between stadia lines.............that .7 mil is darn near impossible to precisely aim with.

    That's why the new reticles that include .2/.4/.6/.8 mil hash marks in both vertical and horizontal holds are such an improvement. But, even they are wrought with complexity. Follow up shots on moving targets holding 5.7 mils up and 1.5 mils right force you to REALLY pay attention to counting and returning to the same hold after recoil. It's very possible to be 1 mil off on your follow up shot because you counted wrong.

    So, while better........improvements bring along their own problems.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • Ernie BishopErnie Bishop Senior Member Posts: 7,043 Senior Member
    Jerm said it well.
    I would look for a Sightron S-III 6-24 (reticle in SFP) and it will do everything you want it to. The VX-3 LR/T's will do the same.
    A 1-8 twist 243 Win will easily shoot at a grand (105-107 VLD's) and will have less recoil and less wind drift than the 308 Win.
    Sounds like you want a distance shooting rig more than a hunting rig. The 243 Win will do a good job of killing critters if you put the bullet in the right place.
    Not sure what the twist rate of your barrel is, but for the distance practice us the heavier/higher BC bullets that will stabilize in your barrel.
    Very valid comments with regards to my ability to shoot at 1000 yards, and crawling before I walk.
    1000 yards is my long term goal. My initial goal (in shooting) is a sub-MOA group at 100 yards. As with my request for a caliber that 'does everything' (and being put onto the .243 by the kind folk here - and the rest of you), I am after a scope that will also 'do everything'. 1000 yards will be a long way off (excuse the pun), and I might be better putting my time and effort into a larger caliber (like a 308 or 338) and getting glass for that specific role. ...I'm just hoping to find something that will sit atop my .243 and let me toy with the four-figure range.

    I am glad to see that some of the scopes I'd shortlisted from my gun magazine research have been mentioned above. I've been led to believe that Leupold are one of the better quality brands, with Redfield being owned by Leupold, and the scopes coming from the same factory. Not sure if that's 100% or not, but I have seen quite a few Redfield being used on review guns.
    Ernie

    "The Un-Tactical"
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.