Optics help XCR-M - Page 11
Like Tree6Likes
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 130

Thread: Optics help XCR-M

  1. #101
    XCR Guru Bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,533
    Quote Originally Posted by EricCartmann View Post
    FFP is useless for the lower magnification range because it gets cluttered.. it's very useful at the upper half of the magnification range, but I find myself never needing it as I always range at the highest magnification range.
    Actually, that's the point.
    At the lower magnification (1X is great for shooting on the move), you shouldn't see any kind of reticle marks at all. Just the coarse crosshair, or the illuminated dot, whatever that scope has.
    As for ranging on highest magnification, I don't disagree. But I use the marks for more than just ranging - like leading movers. Sure, you could say "a 4 MOA hold, divided by the highest power of the scope, multiplied by the current magnification" is the hold for a walker at 300 - or just use the 4 MOA mark on a FFP scope.
    As well, at night, being able to adjust the magnification to get the best light column into your eye AND have the reticle at a usable power for ranging / holds / leads, well, in my opinion that's a good thing.

    If you've got time to do the math, then a SFP would work just fine. If you do stuff where you're rushed and trying to do "best work" under time restraints, then the FFP is the way to go. Just like multi-turn elevation turrets: for practicing on the range, they're just great. The first time you're under time constraints, and miss a full revolution (putting the round in the dirt instead of on target), the brilliance of a 1-turn elevation turret shines.

    JMHO, and worth no more than you paid for it.
    Do you really think we want laws to be observed? We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be crimes that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants law-abiding citizens? Pass the kind of laws that can’t be observed, enforced, or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers.

  2. #102
    Banned EricCartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My mom's basement
    Posts
    8,010
    Quote Originally Posted by fmunk View Post
    Huge FOV? Cough. Specter DR. Cough.

    With regards to -M, came across these and thought they could be fitting on the 16" or 18" -M.

    Steiner 6142 1.6-8x42mm 4A-i Nighthunter Xtreme Riflescope - Botach
    Steiner 6250 2-10x50mm 4A-i Nighthunter Xtreme Riflescope - Botach

    Do not know the specs on the Spectre, but those 2 scopes you listed...
    - one only has a about 15ft FOV on 4x at 100 meters...
    - the other one is about 30ft on 4x (estimate), which is still less than the ACOG.. and it has a 50mm objective, and it weights twice as much, and it is twice as long.

  3. #103
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,281
    Quote Originally Posted by EricCartmann View Post
    I myself like ACOGs for the compactness, and the huge FOV! The FOV on a ACOG is comparable to a huge scope with a 56mm objective. FOV on an ACOG is about twice the size of the FOV on a 1-Yx optic.

    Also, for a Rifle that is meant to be shot unsupported, 4x is more than plenty for man size target out to 800 yards (which is about the "limit" for a .308 anyways). A huge FOV is very critical for a field gun that is shot offhand (scanning for targets is very difficult on 10x... even very difficult on 4x if you do not have a huge FOV).

    If you feel you need 1x for the close quarters or rapid acquisition, mount a micro or any other mini-red dot at a 45 degree angle. This way you have both 4x and 1x available immediately with no adjustment.

    Oh and another thing about 1-Yx optics is they are not really 1x in 1x mode... more like 1.2x, so they require the proper eye relief. With a red dot such as a Aimpoint, the eye relief as it is infinite.

    Noveske N4 Light with ACOG-TA31-RCO and Aimpoint

    Is 3.5X enough for 800 yards?
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  4. Remove Advertisements
    XCRForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #104
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo View Post
    Actually, that's the point.
    At the lower magnification (1X is great for shooting on the move), you shouldn't see any kind of reticle marks at all. Just the coarse crosshair, or the illuminated dot, whatever that scope has.
    As for ranging on highest magnification, I don't disagree. But I use the marks for more than just ranging - like leading movers. Sure, you could say "a 4 MOA hold, divided by the highest power of the scope, multiplied by the current magnification" is the hold for a walker at 300 - or just use the 4 MOA mark on a FFP scope.
    As well, at night, being able to adjust the magnification to get the best light column into your eye AND have the reticle at a usable power for ranging / holds / leads, well, in my opinion that's a good thing.

    If you've got time to do the math, then a SFP would work just fine. If you do stuff where you're rushed and trying to do "best work" under time restraints, then the FFP is the way to go. Just like multi-turn elevation turrets: for practicing on the range, they're just great. The first time you're under time constraints, and miss a full revolution (putting the round in the dirt instead of on target), the brilliance of a 1-turn elevation turret shines.

    JMHO, and worth no more than you paid for it.

    There's a reason why those first hit comps use FFP.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  6. #105
    Banned EricCartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My mom's basement
    Posts
    8,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo View Post
    Actually, that's the point.
    At the lower magnification (1X is great for shooting on the move), you shouldn't see any kind of reticle marks at all. Just the coarse crosshair, or the illuminated dot, whatever that scope has.
    As for ranging on highest magnification, I don't disagree. But I use the marks for more than just ranging - like leading movers. Sure, you could say "a 4 MOA hold, divided by the highest power of the scope, multiplied by the current magnification" is the hold for a walker at 300 - or just use the 4 MOA mark on a FFP scope.
    As well, at night, being able to adjust the magnification to get the best light column into your eye AND have the reticle at a usable power for ranging / holds / leads, well, in my opinion that's a good thing.

    If you've got time to do the math, then a SFP would work just fine. If you do stuff where you're rushed and trying to do "best work" under time restraints, then the FFP is the way to go. Just like multi-turn elevation turrets: for practicing on the range, they're just great. The first time you're under time constraints, and miss a full revolution (putting the round in the dirt instead of on target), the brilliance of a 1-turn elevation turret shines.

    JMHO, and worth no more than you paid for it.

    you should be able to holdover with any reticle.. just put a shot down range.

    Now I do think having FFP is better than NOT having... but if I have to pay even $200 extra for it, not happening! With NF, you actually pay about $500 more for FFP.

  7. #106
    XCR Guru Bravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean K. View Post
    Is 3.5X enough for 800 yards?
    Not in my experience, unless you're talking about a stationary target in contrasting colors to the background. At 4X, under those conditions, I could hit at 800 pretty easy. Add in the other problems, and 600 became "difficult but doable" at 4X.

    Quote Originally Posted by EricCartmann View Post
    you should be able to holdover with any reticle.. just put a shot down range.

    Now I do think having FFP is better than NOT having... but if I have to pay even $200 extra for it, not happening! With NF, you actually pay about $500 more for FFP.
    Kinda-sorta.
    For instance, I know that I need to use the 14 MOA mark to make a first-round hit at 600. If I had a standard duplex reticle, I'd be in the position of "estimating" where 84 inches above the target would be, then hanging my duplex reticle in the air roughly somewhere around that, and hoping I get my hit. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant. Are you talking about 'bracketing' your target range with multiple rounds and holds? If so, yes, that works - but it takes time and rounds (not only for the extra rounds, but in reloads as well), which would set me squarely in the "LOSER" bracket. I hate losing.

    So I guess at the end of the day, it's all about getting the right tool for the task you're wanting to accomplish - that's what I was trying to convey before though. If you're working on rapid transitions between multiple targets, under somewhat adverse conditions and time constraints, then the FFP is the only way to fly. If you're shooting at the local range, enjoying the day and having fun with buddies, then there's no reason to shell out the extra dough for FFP.

    But that's just what I've done. I'm sure there are others out there that can do better with different equipment. But I do tend to end up in the top 10% of the shooters I run against.....
    Like you, I'm not "loyal" to any brand or thought. Typically I wind up buying a few of whatever before I figure out what works best for me too - learning the hard way.
    At the end of the day, everyone has to run what works best for them, and there's no reason that what works best for me HAS to be "the right / approved way" - it's just A way, and what works for me.
    Do you really think we want laws to be observed? We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be crimes that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants law-abiding citizens? Pass the kind of laws that can’t be observed, enforced, or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers.

  8. #107
    Banned EricCartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My mom's basement
    Posts
    8,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean K. View Post
    Is 3.5X enough for 800 yards?
    Q: Is 3.5x good enough?
    A: Depends

    3.5X is good enough... for an offhand shooter with a 16" barrel that is a field gun and your intended targets are of about the size of a man.

    3.5x is NOT good enough... If you need to make tight groups, on a stationary target, then no it will not be enough. However, change the gun before you change the scope. If you plan to shoot 800 yards on a regular basis with a short-action, probably go with the flattest trajectory possible, which is 6.5mm Creed or .260 Rem.

    Also remember, it has been shown that in real combat situations with small arms between Professional Armies, that 90% of the engagement is within 300 yards... and 90% of the "within 300" is within 100 yards.

    Pick and choose your poison.
    Last edited by EricCartmann; 12-18-2014 at 03:04 PM.

  9. #108
    Banned EricCartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My mom's basement
    Posts
    8,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo View Post
    Not in my experience, unless you're talking about a stationary target in contrasting colors to the background. At 4X, under those conditions, I could hit at 800 pretty easy. Add in the other problems, and 600 became "difficult but doable" at 4X.



    Kinda-sorta.
    For instance, I know that I need to use the 14 MOA mark to make a first-round hit at 600. If I had a standard duplex reticle, I'd be in the position of "estimating" where 84 inches above the target would be, then hanging my duplex reticle in the air roughly somewhere around that, and hoping I get my hit. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant. Are you talking about 'bracketing' your target range with multiple rounds and holds? If so, yes, that works - but it takes time and rounds (not only for the extra rounds, but in reloads as well), which would set me squarely in the "LOSER" bracket. I hate losing.

    So I guess at the end of the day, it's all about getting the right tool for the task you're wanting to accomplish - that's what I was trying to convey before though. If you're working on rapid transitions between multiple targets, under somewhat adverse conditions and time constraints, then the FFP is the only way to fly. If you're shooting at the local range, enjoying the day and having fun with buddies, then there's no reason to shell out the extra dough for FFP.

    But that's just what I've done. I'm sure there are others out there that can do better with different equipment. But I do tend to end up in the top 10% of the shooters I run against.....
    Like you, I'm not "loyal" to any brand or thought. Typically I wind up buying a few of whatever before I figure out what works best for me too - learning the hard way.
    At the end of the day, everyone has to run what works best for them, and there's no reason that what works best for me HAS to be "the right / approved way" - it's just A way, and what works for me.

    For what you are doing with the scope, FFP is definitely a big help. For 99% of the Population, it is of little use.

    If you are the 99% (me included), Not saying you should NOT get FFP either, because like I said, it's better to have than NOT to have. Also if this is a hobby, and we truly enjoy it, then we SHOULD shell out the dough for the best, with all the bells and whistles (FFP included). "HOBBIES ARE SUPPOSE TO COST MONEY" -- Ericc Cartmann, 10th Degree Diamond Belt Life Coach.

  10. #109
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,281
    Quote Originally Posted by EricCartmann View Post
    Q: Is 3.5x good enough?
    A: Depends

    3.5X is good enough... for an offhand shooter with a 16" barrel that is a field gun and your intended targets are of about the size of a man.

    3.5x is NOT good enough... If you need to make tight groups, on a stationary target, then no it will not be enough. However, change the gun before you change the scope. If you plan to shoot 800 yards on a regular basis with a short-action, probably go with the flattest trajectory possible, which is 6.5mm Creed or .260 Rem.

    Also remember, it has been shown that in real combat situations with small arms between Professional Armies, that 90% of the engagement is within 300 yards... and 90% of the "within 300" is within 100 yards.

    Pick and choose your poison.
    I was only asking b/c you were saying the 4X ACOG wasn't a good choice b/c of eye relief vs. the 3.5X....but apparently, it isn't a great choice if you're going to go really long distance either.

    This comment: "4X is plenty out to 800 for man sized targets" was what I didn't get in light of your recommendation for the 3.5X. Thanks for clarifying.

    I'm no long distance shooter...ain't much of one close in either....so I appreciate the help.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  11. #110
    Banned EricCartmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    My mom's basement
    Posts
    8,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean K. View Post
    I was only asking b/c you were saying the 4X ACOG wasn't a good choice b/c of eye relief vs. the 3.5X....but apparently, it isn't a great choice if you're going to go really long distance either.

    This comment: "4X is plenty out to 800 for man sized targets" was what I didn't get in light of your recommendation for the 3.5X. Thanks for clarifying.

    I'm no long distance shooter...ain't much of one close in either....so I appreciate the help.


    Back in my day, we were expected to shoot regularly at 300 yards with Iron sites for man size targets (ruskie targets)... 3.5 x 300yards = 1050 yards... so if you do the math, that means 3.5x is good enough for man size targets at 1050 yards.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Optics. What to Buy?
    By Quixtarblade in forum Sights
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-12-2013, 07:05 PM
  2. Optics for xcr in 7.62
    By REDCREW1 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-19-2011, 07:53 AM
  3. Optics for Sig SG 551
    By M993 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-14-2010, 11:08 PM
  4. Need help with optics
    By Submariner in forum Sights
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-24-2010, 05:03 PM
  5. Optics
    By shane45 in forum Sights
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-05-2007, 12:07 PM

Search tags for this page

bushnell smrs 1-6.5 review
,
bushnell smrs 1-8.5 review
,

forum bushnell tactical elite 1-6.5

,
ior pit bull 2 scope review
,

ior valdada pitbull for sale

,

ior valdada scope review

,
leatherwood 7.62x39
,
norden performance 1-6x24 crs vs leupold mk4
,

norden performance scope review

,

trijicon vcog for sale

,

valdada pitbull review

,

vortex razor hd gen ii vs swfa ss 1-6

Click on a term to search for related topics.