Scope problems, need advise on replacement!

[smokinbobf4]

No. They are a normal scope, the erector system isn’t designed or built for dialing.






How far far are you currently shooting regularly now? How far are you realistically going to hunt deer, elk, etc?

I currently shoot out to 750 and have just meet someone who has the space to get to 1200. Now I’m not even sure I can do that but it will be fun to try. Our local range only goes to 400. Realistically I would like to be comfortable to shoot game at 6-700 yards. I am shooting pretty good at those distances now but want to get more comfortable before shooting at game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smokinbobf4]

What is the consensus on the pst gen 2? Anyone run it long enough to tell


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ramont]

I've had a PST II for about a year and so far I'm happy with it. I do dial my drops but I've only really played with it out to 400 yards, it seems consistent but I've never done a box test on the knobs so I can't say if it's dead on and repeatable with any true test but for target shooting and steel I've had no problems with dialing it in.

 

[Formidilosus]

I currently shoot out to 750 and have just meet someone who has the space to get to 1200. Now I’m not even sure I can do that but it will be fun to try. Our local range only goes to 400. Realistically I would like to be comfortable to shoot game at 6-700 yards. I am shooting pretty good at those distances now but want to get more comfortable before shooting at game.

You do not need nor want a high power SFP scope for those ranges. Additionally why are you stuck on MOA? That severally limits suitiple scope options, and eliminates options for wind/drop corrections.

What is the consensus on the pst gen 2? Anyone run it long enough to tell
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have the same issues as the previous generation.



Nightforce
SWFA SS
Bushnell LRHS (maybe)

 

[smokinbobf4]

I use moa because that is what I am used to using and it makes sense to me. Why does that not work for making corrections and also why not have the ability to zoom in? I am not arguing here, just asking questions. I am no expert but am learning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smokinbobf4]

Also what is your opinion on first and second focal plane. I was thinking I needed first, but the reticle is so small when on low power and I am starting to think that if the shot is far enough that I need to dial, I need to take the time to range, dial, and make a good shot. It won’t and shouldn’t be a rushed shot if it’s at distance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

PM me.

 

[smokinbobf4]

PM me.

Pm sent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robie]

I fall in the bucket of not enough experience to tell you what is the best.

I'll just tell you I'm using a Burris veracity and have enjoyed it. In my tracking test it has held true. Glass is clear. Not as clear as my Swaro binos or spotter but also not closer to the same price.

The Burris XTR2 is what you will see reviewed by the PRS guys.

My other scope is a vortex hslr and I wouldn't buy it again. Doesn't track well and I've had to use the warranty. Lifetime warranty's are nice but not when you have to plan to use.

In the 700 to 900 price point the veracity is tough to beat.







Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

 

[smokinbobf4]

Thanks. I have seen Burris in the mix more and more. Never have had one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robie]

Thanks. I have seen Burris in the mix more and more. Never have had one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was at the range today and the guy next to me let me look through his nightforce nxs. It is brighter and clearer but it's double the price.

Another guy let me look through his vortex razor2. I'm just not a fan and the weight of it is a deal breaker.

If you can swing it the nxs would be my choice if keeping it sub $1k you won't be upset with the Burris.

Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

 

[ramont]

...MOA? That severally limits suitiple scope options, and eliminates options for wind/drop corrections...

I too am confused why you say that MOA limits wind/drop corrections.

 

[Brent]

How much personal use do you have on the V6?

I've had one for a year now. I've hunted hard with it through some of the worst weather conditions alaska offers from early May to late August. It took some nasty punishment while chasing dall sheep, but it still tracks and returns zero like it's supposed to.

 

[Brent]

I too am confused why you say that MOA limits wind/drop corrections.

It doesn't. Both are units of angular measurement that accomplish the same thing.

 

[sneaky]

It doesn't. Both are units of angular measurement that accomplish the same thing.

But each click is a different numerical value. MOA is 1.047in at 100yds, MIL is .36in at 100yds. Takes 4 clicks to get that 1.047 if you are running a 1/4 click MOA rifle, would only take 3 clicks on a MIL scope. A hundred clicks on an MOA scope would get you 25 MOA of adjustment 25x1.047=26.175in. 100 clicks on a MIL scope would get you 100x.36=36in. If you have two scopes that will give you the same amount of clicks, the MIL scope will give you more elevation or windage adjustment.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Rifles And More]

I think you need to check some decimal points.

 

[ckleeves]

I have never ran out of adjustment on MOA scopes that are meant for long range. I just ran 2 of my scopes up and I don’t run out till 2055 yards on one and 1580 yards on another with current environmental conditions on the rifles they are on. I’m not shooting that far with either one.

Most scopes aren’t limited by a certain amount of “clicks” anyway. Look at a NF ATACR 4-16x50. 110 MOA of total travel in the MOA version or 30 mils in the mil version.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I think you need to check some decimal points.

Such as?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[ramont]

It doesn't. Both are units of angular measurement that accomplish the same thing.

My question was for Formidilosus, he said that MOA is less capable of adjusting for come-ups.

It's good that it was clarified how MOAs and MRADs reflect different numbers of inches but you have to remember that MRADs (Mildots) were developed for the military and the need for fast range adjustments took precedence over precision, if I hit a guy in the chest at 1000 yards it doesn't really matter to me if I hit him in the lungs or the heart, he'll still be out of the game. So yes, MOAs are more precise but you have to turn the knobs more at longer ranges than you with Mils. The question is do you need the precision or the speed? I use Mildots for my long range target shooting scopes and MOA for my hunting scopes. My precision at 1000 yards on paper isn't good enough to overcome the comparative lack of precision that Mils create. On paper I have no real guilt if I'm off by a few inches but on an animal I want every bit of precision that I can get, I don't want to think that I missed an ethical shot because the equipment wasn't precise enough.

 

[sneaky]

Ah, the .1mil is .36, a full MIL is 3.6in@100 yds, 3.4377 MOA to equal a MIL@100. I was in a hurry when I typed the other response.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk