Long Range Target Interdiction

[NousDefionsDoc]

Best optics for SWS?
1. Military applications - semi-rural and rural
2. 7.62 bolt gun such as M40B and perhaps gas gun such as AR10
3. 100-800 meters

[The Reaper]

Best optics for SWS?
1. Military applications - semi-rural and rural
2. 7.62 bolt gun such as M40B and perhaps gas gun such as AR10
3. 100-800 meters

Opinion thing here.

I have shot quite a bit and tend to be an equipment nut, but always enjoy a spirited discussion. There are some bonafide experts on here.

The weapon, targets, and probable ranges would drive my optics selection.

For dedicated CQB only, the Aimpoint or the EOTech.

I personally like the ACOGs for carbines and light rifles with varied engagement ranges from CQB out to 600 meters or so.

For the SPR and other 5.56 precision gas rifles, the Leupold TS-30A2 (MRT?).

For 7.62 gas guns like the AR-10 or SR-25, the Leupold M3.

For precision on a budget, dedicated long range bolt guns .30 and up, the Leupold M1. Less constrained budget, the Leupold Mk IV Ultra or Nightforce NXS.

I own and shoot all of the above optics.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[longrange1947]

Why not go high end and get a Schmidt & Bender PMII? Mil dot reticle, cm clicks, mine goes 43 moa in a a single spin, 4 x 12 power. That is more than enough to get you where you want to be. BUT, over 2000 dollars to own. :eek:

I would be wary of multi spin .25 moa turrets in a tactical situation. Too easy to be a spin off. That is a good for a miss.

Have fun NDD. :D

[Peregrino]

I don't know about NDD but I was hoping to get a more spirited discussion on this subject. Two heavy hitters weigh in and nobody else has a contribution? Somebody has to stir the pot. LR1947 - I wish I could afford your tastes, the rationale is flawless. Haven't used that scope personally, my tastes run towards TR's list. I can get the Leupold Mk 4 M1 or 3 and a quality mounting system for a little less than you can buy just the scope. NDD - whoever you listen too, make sure they're part of the "toolbox" crowd. One size does not fit all (course you didn't ask your question that way either :) ). I find that I now prefer variable magnification on the long range scopes vs the fixed 10x or 16x. Sometimes it's better to dial it down to get a wider FOV, especially if the target is suddenly a lot closer. I tend to break my stuff down like TR does. For short range work I like the EOTech - the Aimpoint went on the wife's carbine. I'm looking at an ACOG (probably a TA-31 to replace the ART IV I bought 15 years ago) for one of my M1As (it's only good for about 6" at 400M anyway). If I get the AR-10 the wife promised me it'll have the aforementioned Leupold. THEN, if I get the AR-50 the wife also promised me (she was pissed when Arnie banned them in The Peoples Republic of CA) it'll have a NightForce. (Now that I have a job she's generous!) The wish list is based on personal use or the recommendations of trusted sources (tempered by my budget). FWIW - Peregrino

[NousDefionsDoc]

I don't know about NDD but I was hoping to get a more spirited discussion on this subject.
+1. I have found the older I get, the better I am at stalking (I move A LOT slower than I used to :) ) so the less scope I need (can't see anyway).

We recently had a discussion. A young man missed badly from about 125 meters. Badly. After checking the weapon, we discovered that he had dialed up the magnification from 2X to 6X (zeroed at 2X). There was a school of thought that this was responsible for the miss. Now I just don't see this. In my mind, it doesn't make much difference. Am I wrong?

[Peregrino]

NDD - A quality scope "shouldn't" have a POI shift at different magnifications. The first formal "sniper" schooling I got was at Mott Lake the second time my team went to SOT. We were using the M21 w/ART II and nobody knew from one shot to the next what was going to happen. I went through three scopes in that class. I still remember Ben Butler teaching us to (making us) check our zeros at each power setting though. I still do that with new scopes (Ben was an impressive teacher - more than just an instructor) but I haven't noticed a significant shift in years. I'm still willing to spend money on the best scope I can afford. In the field I like low magnification to find the target (going from bino's or spotting scope to the gun it takes me longer to reacquire the target if the scope is at high magnification). For a stationary target I'll dial it up, if it's moving I might not. Depends. Personally I would rather be limited by the ballistics of the cartridge than the quality of the glass. Isn't it amazing how maturity (old age) brings its compensations. Stalking is a good point. I see a lot more when I'm in the woods now than I ever did as a kid just because I'm moving slower. I'm looking forward to next deer season, I've been spending way too much time on ranges and not enough in the woods. Peregrino

[longrange1947]

NDD - Doubt seriously that the power setting caused the miss. Even at its worse, in old scopes, the zero shift was not enough to cause a miss at that range. I have seen 2 to 3 moa shifts in older vari X scopes, weavers and Redfields. Never more then that and at 125 that would translate to only about 3 - 4 inches. Even a head shot would have received a nick.

Understand and agree on the varibles. Gives more settings and tools in the bag. You can go form a wide FOV for spotting intial indicators to full power for ID. Also can dial down at longer ranges when the mirage is killing you and the target is "swimming in the deep end of the pool."

NDD, for tactical pure sniper I would go with the M3LR by Leupold with the Premier Gen II reticle.

[The Reaper]

+1. I have found the older I get, the better I am at stalking (I move A LOT slower than I used to :) ) so the less scope I need (can't see anyway).

We recently had a discussion. A young man missed badly from about 125 meters. Badly. After checking the weapon, we discovered that he had dialed up the magnification from 2X to 6X (zeroed at 2X). There was a school of thought that this was responsible for the miss. Now I just don't see this. In my mind, it doesn't make much difference. Am I wrong?

Not at 125 meters with anything better than a Tasco.

LR, I think that the M3 you mentioned is the best bet for 90% of the marksmen, and is reasonably affordable.

TR

[longrange1947]

TR - I agree but I love to throw that S&B PMII out there. It is one hell of a scope. I just wish the thing did not cost what three M3LRs cost. And for those that wish to to go hog wild, on the side rail of an AR10 mount an acog or the S&B 1.1 x 4. That way you can have 4000 dollars worth of scope on your weapon AND you can switch to close is by turning the weapon on its side and using the CBQ scope to deal death up close and personal. :munchin

[The Reaper]

TR - I agree but I love to throw that S&B PMII out there. It is one hell of a scope. I just wish the thing did not cost what three M3LRs cost. And for those that wish to to go hog wild, on the side rail of an AR10 mount an acog or the S&B 1.1 x 4. That way you can have 4000 dollars worth of scope on your weapon AND you can switch to close is by turning the weapon on its side and using the CBQ scope to deal death up close and personal. :munchin

What, no NODs to run up the price further?

Which NOD do you prefer for shooting? :munchin

TR

[longrange1947]

Cripes, now you are asking for a can of worms to be opened up. For the tactical, and the advantage of not disturbing your day scope, I vote PVS22 for now. It is going fusion shortly and that will be even better. It is a small scope, light and easy to mount and remove. It has the drawbacks of a small tube as well. It is not as clear as a Raptor, a SIMRAD or some of the other super sized scopes, however, I do not have to worry about them splashing light onto the hill side and my objective lens lighting up like a headlight of a car.

Of course, the cost just went to over 11,000, happy days are here again.

Which do you like TR? Back at cha. :p

[optactical]

OK, I'll bite on this one.

1. Military applications - semi-rural and rural
2. 7.62 bolt gun such as M40B and perhaps gas gun such as AR10
3. 100-800 meters

For all applications on a dedicated SWS, I prefer the Leupold M3 3.5-10 power with the Gen 2 reticle, it also comes in a Mark 4 version, elevation in 1 moa, windage at 1/2 moa clicks. It is a great made for combat scope, is well compatible with the PVS-22 and is based on the system I have trained on since I began shooting SWSs in the military.

As for the UNS, PVS-22, whatever you want to call it. If you back the power on your system to 6x instead of 10x, you will get a much better picture, but I have found more consistent groups happen at 10x. Either way when using the system making sure there is dope shot with YOUR NVG at all distances is a must, don't rely on your day dope being the same as your night dope and that you can just slap it on and make a night shot because you can do it during day. Optics do funny things that make everyone scratch their heads, consistent mounting position, and optic settings with that system are imperitive. Having a spotter who can make target ID at night at ranges beyond 100m is a must too.

On non-dedicated SWSs, I kind of like the Elcan, BDC on the glass, and from what I have heard less parallax issues than the ACOG has. I shoot better with irons than with an ACOG, at least last time I shot one I did. All non-SWS systems should have BUIS, no matter what, a reflex that the shooter is comfortable with is a plus. If they are using any sort of optics they should shoot them at all distances to find out what variances there are in the system as opposed to what they would expect, they do exist, tarining everything at 25 meters doesn't always mean you will hit at 300. Of course, have a capability to accurately engage to range at night.

I do not have any experience with civilian side scopes or NVGs, I go with what I know and what my pocket book allows, also I live in a country with total gun control, so what works at work is what I use. My civvie guns are mothballed stateside and will remain so for a long time.

[longrange1947]

Optactical - Why do I think I know you? Your drawing is familar. :munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

Optactical - Why do I think I know you? Your drawing is familar. :munchin
You probably trained him, just like you did the rest of us.

[optactical]

You probably trained him, just like you did the rest of us.
Indeed he did, plus many alumni from my team have worked side by side with him.

Longerange1947: I didn't realize who you were till yesterday, I checked your profile after reading some posts and thinking "This mofo knows what the hell he is talking about" and when I saw the name, I says "Well that figures, right on". I never talked to you outside the capacity of student to instructor, and that was 3 years ago, but we have a lot of mutual friends.

The symbol comes from an old team sticker, modified a little and sterilized of course. You may have seen some around the office where you work. I'll bring some by next time I am out there.

[Peregrino]

LR1947 (and anybody else with an opinion) - A couple issues to stir the pot with. Rather than PM you, I hope to solicit/incite discussion in an open forum so everybody can benefit. Since we all seem to be in relative agreement about the scopes/reticles/etc. I thought I would explore a couple of related subjects that might be of interest to the group at large. It has been so long since I used an M24 that I would probably embarrass myself severely in an unknown range field shoot. What can I do to get back up to speed (with the scope)? Are there training aids/job aids that will assist me? I specifically had two things in mind: #1 - Unless I really screwed the pooch w/my search command, I couldn't find where anybody had discussed the Mildot Master sliderule thingy. You teach this stuff - is the Mildot Master worth getting for those of us who don't use the reticle for a living? Is it a crutch for Walter Mitties or a legitimate tool? And #2, check out this site -
http://www.shooterready.com/lrsdemolow.html. Have you seen this program and does it work? The demo makes for a neat game but the calculations don't seem quite right. I haven't seen the full program so I don't know if that's a feature of the demo. Inquiring minds want to know :munchin - Peregrino

[longrange1947]

MilDot Master. We issue it to the students now and anyone wishing to use mil dots would be well served using that little handy device.

One way to aid in your miling is to reverse the formula so that you can "simulate" a range at another range. Example, if you only have 50 meters, then you make little 'E' types and print them up, Mil them and compute the range. Then measure them and see if you were right. Remember to use exact measurements and not averages. A mil has 3.427 moa, and 1 moa is worth 2.87 cm at 100 meters or 1.087 inches at 100 yards. Convert the size of the target in actuality into mils and then see what it would have equaled if it was really 1 meter tall as a real 'E' type.

I do not like the program on the internet as it does not compute and it can casue errors.

[Peregrino]

Muchisimas Gracias! I'll check some sources and see where I can get the MdM for the best price. As for the program - a friend sent me the link and I had some fun playing with it until I stopped playing and started doing the math. I was wondering why my calculations weren't getting the hits I thought they should. I'm glad it wasn't (all) me. It also sounds like I need to add a calculator to the range kit. Thanks again - Peregrino

[longrange1947]

Peregrino - Actually for range work you can use 3.5 moa for mils and 1 moa equals 1 inch every 100 yards or 100 meters. The error is not enough to matter at normal ranges. Use 25.4 as a constant to change inches into meters, or 27.7 if you like to work in yards. If your target is in meters then use 1000. The formula words by chagning the sizr of the target into millimeters and dividing by the measured mils. Hence 25.4, number of mm in an inch and 1000 number of mm in a meter. The 27.7 is a formula number to trick the formula into giving yards as an answer. Use the calculator for figuring practice targets at shorter ranges. Make the targets anysize you wish and then measure them to see what they would be if they were a 1 meter 'E' type at that a simulated range. An example is that the target is used at 50 meters. Make the target out to be 10 cm and you have a target that is 2 mils tall or 500 similated meters away. .10 x 1000 / 2 = 500.

Desert Fox - What you are talking about is matching the exit pupil of the scope with your pupil size. Divide the Objective lens in mm by the power fo hte scope and you have the exit pupil. As an example 50mm divided by 8x equals 6.25mm, this would be slightly smaller then your pupil at night so you would have a hard time locating the true center axis of your lens. Go too large and you are wasting light on other than your pupil.

[Sacamuelas]

Thanks for the explanation LR1947.

If I'm reading you right, then my Leupold 3x9x40 should give me the best lowlight visibility right around the 5.5x- 6x power setting as that gets me close to the 7mm average for a human dilated pupil. Right?

[Peregrino]

LR1947 - I/we need to get you in the "professor mode" a little more often. Time to turn your info into a 3x5 and laminate it. Then I get to haunt SWFA http://samplelist.com until I find the scope I can't live without (or somebody points me towards a better deal). Thanks - Peregrino

DF - That's why the 7x50 bino's have always been the "gold standard" for military/naval low-light use. The package is an acceptable compromise for size and optical characteristics; the exit pupil is the optimal size, the objective lens is large enough to gather adequate light, the magnification is adequate - and about all you can stabilize in a hand-held optic. Any time you stray from that position the legs of your triangle start getting unbalanced. Notice the key here - compromise. To get more of one characteristic you have to give up something somewhere else. The only thing that seperates individual examples from each other is the quality of the glass (optical properties/light transmission/grind) and ergonomics. Price and name brand are "usually" good indicators of quality. FWIW - Peregrino

[BMT (RIP)]

DAMN! I was thinking about using a 105 w/ VT fuze!! :D

BMT

[Desert Fox]

LR1947,
you should write a book! I would be the first to buy it!

[longrange1947]

First off, there is a typo in my post on the mil to moa, it should have read 3.437 not 3.427. Sorry about my lousy typing and it slipped past my lousy editing. could be a reason I don't write a book. :D

On the exit pupil. watch how big you get the exit pupil as the bigger it is the less light falls on the retina. It is like the adjustable beam flashlights, the wider the beam the less light there is on the subject. Conversly the narrower the beam, the more difficult it is to find the exit pupil at night and the easier it is to shadow the scope. As the beam becomes tighter, and brighter, the more the pupil constricts, BUT that only works to a certain degree and that is dependant upon that particular shooter's physiology. With this comes more rapid eye fatigue. Another words, experiment. Each person will find that they have better operating condtions with a certain power setting on their scope that may not work worth a dam for me or someone else.

However a good quality scope with the correct power setting will allow you to shoot well after sunset and even later on a bright moon lit night. It is possible to better engage a target with the day scope under certain circumstances then with the NVD.

BMT - In many instances I have to agree on the bigger is better, even 155 seems very handy at times! :D

[Tuukka]

One informative thread, very fortunate to be able to follow discussion done by professionals.

longrange1947, if i am not mistaken, i believe we have mutual friends, Major W. Stewart sends his regards!

[longrange1947]

Tuukka - Have a beer with him for me. He is a good man, even if he does love those Sakos. :D

[Tuukka]

I met him at the IWA weapons expo where i was representing the suppressor company i work for, didnt have the chance to have few beers though.

About those Sakos, guess who got the TRG for him a few years back ;)

[longrange1947]

Yes, I had heard that rumor. We played with the SAKO 338 and I liked it better than the AI.

Oh well, time will tell. :munchin