Newbie Scope Questions

[Mike D]

Baby Huey / Mary,
I couldn't find a used one, so I ordered a Sightron SII Big Sky 6-24X42 Sil scope from my local FFL dealer. I should have it in a couple of days; I can't wait to put it on and get it sighted in.Do you have a suggestion for the height of rings I'll need to mount this on a Ruger 10 22 ? Baby Huey, I saw on one of the posts that you had a great weekend shooting; congratulations. I'm going to start a new post and ask shooters who have the Sightron about approx clicks for the different silhouette ranges (afetr sighting in at 40 meters).
Mike

[CZforlife]

Great news, and thanks for the congrats! You should be very happy with the sightron scope you picked out. As far as clicks go, once you find your 0 on chickens pigs are about 2moa up then turkeys another 3 and rams anywhere between 2-3moa up off turkeys. Just remember 0,2,5,8, those are the general adjustments. As far as rings go I'd go with just regular BKL's or BKL highs. Just not sure if they make them for a weaver rail?

[JDBraddy]

Thanks everyone for the guidance/suggestions. I do prefer either a fine crosshair or a duplex/multi x reticle over a dot; just easier for me to use. Mary, I do understand where you're coming on scope quality (Leopold); I just need to figure out if I can justify (to myself) the expense of the Leopold (about $650 from my local FFL dealer) over either the Bushnell (about $425) or the Clearidge (about $320). By the way, I have a Leopold Mark AR 6-18 on a custom AR-15 paltform and love it; crystal clear. One thing that does concern me is the elevation adjustments with the Bushnell and Clearidge; are they sufficient for rimfire silhouette ? Does anyone have any experience with either the Bushnell or the Clearidge ? From some of the reviews I've read concerning the Clearidge; the clarity is comparable to both Bushnell and Nikon. If I did choose the Clearidge, should I go with one of the bases with MOA (+5, +15, +20 are the one I've seen) built-in to gain some more elevation ?
I want to get a scope soon, but I'm not in so much of a rush to order a scope that might not suit me or silhouette shooting. Thanks and please keep the information coming.
Mike

I understand where you're comming from, I'm stingy SOB, but consider also, a scope is it's own seperate piece of equipment. It takes all three elements to shoot well, an accurate rifle, good ammo, and good sights. An Anschutz isn't going to perform like it should, if you feed it cheep bulk ammo, and it's not going to perform with a cheep scope either! You need all three legs on a stool before you can depend on it to support your weight. The same is true of shooting, you need all three ingredients, an accurate rifle, good sights, and quality ammo! I struggled trying to get by with quite functional inexpensive scopes for years, and was always frustrated. With what I spent trying almost every inexpensive scope made, I could have had a dozen or more "Good Scopes". Either the image had astigmatism and was slightly warped or distorted, or they would fog up, or the focus wasn't quite right, either the target was in focus and the rhetical wasn't, or vice/versa, or because the clicks wheren't consistant, I'd move it two clicks and the point of impact wouldn't seem to move, then one more click and the point of impact would move almost an inch, or I'd change elevation, and the windage would be affected also. Once I got a scope sighted in, I was loath to touch it. I'd try holding over, or using Kentucky windage rather than touch the knobs. This drove me absolutely nuts! I finally shelled out for a "Good" scope, and WOW! all those frustrations went away! I now have a small handfull of "good" scopes, all tried and tested, and most of them have worn numerous rifles, and while the guns come and go, the scopes remain the same! I still haven't ventured into the world of "High End" scopes, like those by Schmit & Bender or US Optics, but many of the folks I know who have, tell me they'd rather have a $3000 scope on an $1000 gun than a $1000 scope on a $3000 gun. Maybe someday!

[Mike D]

JD,
With my aging sight I think the scopes with good glass make a world of difference to me. Like you I've tried several makes of scopes that I just couldn't get focused or get the correct eye distance to make them comfortable. I did get in the Sightron scope I mentioned above, and I love it. It took me about 6 shots to get it zero'd in at 40 meters, and then I started playing. I had about 10 different types of .22 target ammo that I tried to see which one or ones would give me the groups I desired. The scope was crystal clear and made the comparisons fun to try. I found my rifle likes several brands at ranges from 40-100 meters, but doesn't like RWS R50 or federal gold medal too much. The R50 didn't group well and had a few fliers and the federal gold medal started vertical stringing on me. The ones that worked well are as follows: CCi Green Tag (good group, 1 flier), Eley Benchrest Gold (great group), RWS Special Match (great group, 1 slight flier), Eley International Match (outstanding group), Eley National Match (outstanding group), Eley Match Xtra (outstanding group, especially at $5.00 per box), Federal Ultra Match ( outstanding group), and believe it or not some Winchester std velocity white box that a guy at the range gave me to try ( shot a .340 x .990 group). As I said I had alot of fun trying these out; it took me two sessions at the range to run through them all. I have a couple bricks of the Eley Match Xtra; I'll use that until my supply runs out. I'll shoot my first SB silhouette match in a couple weeks; now I just need some more practice standing and trying to get a steady sight picture that doesn't look like I'm on a rocking ship.
Mike

[baldy223]

Along the same line, I wonder if anybody has experience using 50mm objective diameter for silhouette? Here is one kind of similar but with side focus adjustment, but bit heavier though:
http://www.sightron.com/index.php?actio ... d=15&id=31

Any benefits? Any disadvantages besides the cost?

[Innocent]

Baldy, the biggest disadvatnge that I have seen repeatably for 50mm diameter is that it requires high mounts and usually causes the cheek weld to the comb to be very light or non exsistent, resulting in inconsistent sight picture through the scope and thus a much large shot spread. This is not always true for those with long necks (Joel Huddelston comes to mind) and actually need a higher mount for proper balance in their position.

Mary

[CZforlife]

Your forgetting someone!

[baldy223]

Mary, that is I think very valid point. I was looking at some data to quantify this thing and found following guideline table:
http://media.midwayusa.com/charts/ring_height.htm

Basically it says that for either 42mm or 52mm objectives 0.27 inch ring height should be enough. In the same time everybody advices that in most cases med. high rings should be good. medium height rings from Burris are .44inch
http://www.midwayusa.com/Product/547603 ... tte-medium

So, does it mean that 40-50 objective on med rings should have kind of similar feel?

Thanks!

[Innocent]

Baldy, I did a quick check to see what you are mounting this on and didn't find it. On a CZ 452 Lux (for example) there is a sight where the scope bell usually ends up for proper eye relief. This requires more height to the mount, or removal to the sight/mounting the scope too far forward or aft to be optimal for eye relief. Most people need the medium to low mounts for proper cheek weld, thus the 50mm objective causes some issues. There are exceptions, as I mentioned Joel Huddelston. Baby Huey, apparently thinks his neck his long enough, to justify higher mounts, but then he isn't through playing with tweaking everything, and just finding a rifle that fits a natural stance, and learning to shoot it.

SO in short what I am saying there, is rilfes that don't fit properly can be shot well for short periods of time. Any time you introduce strain on the muscles/body structure over long matches you will see your performance suffer.
YMMV but for what it is worth the hassle of dealing with some form of compensation for high mounts (unless you truly need them) for the option of having a 50mm objective is not worth it in the long run.

Mary

[teetertotter]

Let me add. Three years ago when I took up the sport I found an old Simmons 44 Mag, but new in box, 6-20X44 with fine cross hair[Duplex] at our local gun show for $100.00. This past Spring, 2 years later, I bought a Vortex Viper, 6-20X44, target dot, on sale for $289.00 at discontinued price. I wanted better optics with small size target dot. What I didn't realize with the new scope, until a couple months later, the parallax only goes down to 50yds. What about 50 foot indoor? OOPS!

I just put on my old Simmons for winter indoor practice that begins January as can focus down to 50 feet and have sighted in. I have to readjust to duplex vs dot. Should not be a problem, but prefer dot. I'm now saving for Sightron's SIL 6-24 as want the extra 4X at 100m and can use both outdoor and indoor w/o changing scopes.

I also have 1 inch tall BKL 30mm rings for the Vortex and 1.5inch tall Leupold 1 inch dia rings for the Simmons. I have a long neck and still have cheek rest with my rifle stock.

Fortunately my 9 year old granddaughter does not like indoor paper where I had the Simmons on her youth Savage .22. w med rings

[CZforlife]

I do believe I have a longer than average neck But Mary is right, I change things back and forth on my rifle almost as often as I change underwear I am starting to settle in I think though, with the rifle that is . If the scope fits on medium rings, that's probably your best bet, highs I think are just safer to recommend, as they will pretty much hold any scope application! Just my opinion though.

[teetertotter]

When I went to the tallest height allowed, 1-1/2 inches, I found myself being more erect[straight] and comfortable. My gun stock is not angled down to a big degree, but flatter in line with the barrel. When raising and positioning the stock on my shoulder, the scope is perfectly lined up with my eye. No having to scrunch my neck or position stock higher up on shoulder where there would be little contact. Stock angle in relation to the barrel may effect the height of rings you will require with your scope. My butt stock rests pretty high on my shoulder and could use 2" tall rings. I might have tall face feature too. I'm only 6' 1"
Again, my 2 cents!

[baldy223]

[quote="teetertotter" What I didn't realize with the new scope, until a couple months later, the parallax only goes down to 50yds. What about 50 foot indoor? OOPS!
[/quote]

Exactly! And unfortunately not that many scopes offer that range of adjustment. I shoot 50/50 indoor/outdoors now. The sightron you mentioned is just about it. I herd people were saying good thing about Leupold VX-3 Long Range, but I could not find their range of focus. And it's a bit more expensive of Sigtron SIL scope.

[CZforlife]

The bushnell 4200's are nice but only if you've got the weight to spare. They do go down to 10yards too.

[teetertotter]

When I bought the VortexViper, 6-20, I thought I would try the side focus too. I don't like the side focus as not as easy to read and adjust as on the left side when I am left handed. Also, I want to stay with 1/4 inch MOA. I like things as simple as possible at my A skill level, almost AA. I will get through the winter with my Simmons old 44 Mag, 6-20, with fine cross hair with front barrel focus adjustment. I had sent the Simmons scope into Bushnell a year+ ago as elevation went haywire in the middle of a match as reason for buying the Vortex Viper at nearly 1/2 price at discontinued price. To repair the Simmons was $15.00 in postage and only took 10 days. I might like the cross hair better on the Simmons too. The optics on the old Simmons are quite good, too , at 100m @ 20X. Still will be saving for the Sightron III SIL version 6-24. Simmons would remain as back up and try and sell the Vortex Viper to a hunter at the club via bulletin board.
Being left handed, have to think more when buying equipment!