It's like audio equipment. If you can't appreciate the difference between listening to $25 ear buds through an iPhone versus a $10,000 audiophile setup, then you've just wasted $9,000.
@@TMega5612 That was not the point he made. The point he made was about holding over at the furthest positions is distorted by the lens, not that the tree can be used as data when youre centering the reticle on target _and then dialing after..._
I'm an optical engineer and just getting into long range shooting, its kind of horrifying to watch most of the videos on scopes, so much misinformation even from gun experts. I like how quickly and simply the guy shot down the tube size myth
okay but @ 1:37 - "... the curvature of the lens" -- the curvature is FIXED and does not change with the environment - hence a GOOD scope will have the tree lines compensated for any (fixed) curvature effects, making it accurate. So I haven't watched the entire video but right off the bat I can say this guy is talking crap. As an optical engineer you must surely note the same, at least for this point.
@@foff-666agreed, disappointed to see a crap opinion right off the bat on a video thats supposed to help disprove "myths". telling new shooters that these reticles aren't accurate is such a load of bs.
@@foff-666 honestly I missed that parts but yes holy crap thats nonsence....you do not come into the curvature of the lens at the edges of the FOV (field of view) aberrations do get worse the further off axis you get but if thats what he was trying to say he mixed it with mumbo jumbo
Agreed. The Hyperbole of the initial “expert” was over the top. Scope these various “complicated” reticles are compensated for end plane curvature optic dynamics that DO occur at VERY high angles of incidence and also at the edges do the scopes, but the rationale and explanation for this “problem”. The biggest issue in my opinion (L O L) with complicated radicals is simply more of a site picture and image/psychological one. Meaning, especially in a tactical situation with 99% of even high-end upper tier, tactical operators, the overly complicated radical can be extremely valuable, but in a high stress situation even if it is a one shot Cold War, or even more so a second follow up shot is very much more difficult for the vast majority of long range, tactical or long range shooters not because of this curvature and high angle of incident physics issue, he extract belated, but simply because there’s too much information. Under duress/stress, even the most experienced long range, rifleman, will not take advantage of that radical, which is overly complicated, particularly for vintage but also for elevation. Follow up shots and quick shots maybe elevation and definitely windage, but those complicated Horace type Christmas tree radicals are difficult for tactical operators. Even experience ones. They’re great for prone benchrest. Long range shooters.
We used to "shoot the box" to check the tracking of a scope. Zero the rifle/scope, go to a clean target, fire a shot, turn a number of clicks up (let's say 10.), fire a shot, turn 10 clicks right , fire a shot, turn 10 clicks down, fire a shot, turn 10 clicks left and fire the 4th shot. The 4th shot should be right in with the 1st. If you have the 4 corners of a box, your scope is tracking properly. Plus it's fun. Cheers, Jeff.
I have always been told that is the Difference in Spending $400 vs $2k on a Scope! If you are not making adjustments every time you shoot! You don't need a $2k scope! If you sight your rifle in, and DO NOT touch your turrets. A $400 scope is Perfect! This is just my 2 cents!
although, most ammo doesn't shoot 0 MOA or 0 Mil accuracy. that last shot could be 1/2 over at 100 yds if you have 1/2 MOA accuracy with that ammo thru that rifle.
As a guy who doesn’t shoot at game beyond 400 yards, I have to give respect to people who spend the money and time to be proficient beyond that. I’ve been using a fixed 6x, 1 inch tube, set and forget, MOA 1/4 click scope. I use dual dovetail mounts that I bed and I lap the rings. I’ve never had a scope crap out on me, but I’m shooting at limited ranges.
My hunting rig is also my long range plinking rifle. Its a Springfield 2020 Waypoint with the CF barrel, wearing a Vortex Viper pst gen2 5-25x50 ffp and magpul sling. I know the dope on that rifle out to 1,200 yards. It makes hunting whitetail at 500 yards and in a piece of cake. Definitely recomend stretching your rifles legs on steel/paper if you get the chance. Itll vastly imrpove your results in close
After decades of research it has been determined that for combat purposes 6X is optimal out to 800 meters in DMR role. It provides good field of view, clear wind and bullet trace tracking. Higher magnification becomes relevant in precision rifle systems deployed in highly trained sniper teams.
I shoot out to around 500m open sight, fitting a scope so that the 300m+ shots are a little more comfortable or in lower light conditions when my iron sights become harder to use. Pecar Berlin 4x81, fixed 4 power 26mm tube with a non constantly centred, interchangeable reticule system. Currently #14 but desperately trying to get a German #1. Rifles windage is zeroed through the rings that way in field adjustments keep the reticule relatively central, while it may not hold zero perfectly it also means I could zero the scope at 400m and leave my sights at 100m so in the event I see a larger group of pig it only takes a few seconds to remove the scope and start smashing stripper clips.
Every scope I mount get the alignment dowel rods (WHEELER Pro scope kit) set in the rings, with caps torqued 10-12"#, to verify vertical/horizontal orientation. Usually also switch to one piece EGW rail and bed if necessary before checking alignment. 2-3 quick strokes with lightly coated lap rod tells me if 80%+ contact exists or not.
On the first topic, it generates some additional questions. 1: How much is the image actually distorted? 2: wouldn’t holding wind have the same issue as holding elevation and windage since the distortion effect is radial not only up and down? 3: when you dial your turret, you move the reticle up and down from the optical center of the scope, so wouldn’t you still have the same issue anytime you leave the true optical center of the scope?
What he was probably getting at is that ammunition/bullet drop his more consistent than the atmospheric wind conditions. Most shooters ability to accurately read wind has more errors than the distortion of the image. That's probably why the suggested dialing up for elevation and holding for wind.
Another thing I'd like to point out: On most "christmas tree" reticle scopes I have seen, at the lowest magnification, they look like a duplex, meaning the entirety of that reticle is basically close enough to the optical center for any realistic shooting.
Here’s another two more issues to factor in. Reticles don’t move around while turrets MAY introduce errors depending on quality. Dialing moves the erector tube while starts chipping away at light transmission. For hunting I don’t dial at all. For shooting on bright days a little less light doesn’t affect things much.
Thank you very much for a very informative video. I own a Springfield armory m1a and a Burris 2-7×32 scout scope. I have taken a basic rifle class, to get zeroed in. The video stopped me from wanting to buy a expensive scope, illumination, massive magnification, and everything else that I don't need to shoot two or three hundred yards. What I liked the most is when the gentleman said take that money and put it into training and then you will know what you need for what you want to do.
Christmas tree reticles are nice for instances when you don't have time to dial your scope, such as hunting, competition shooting, tactical shooting, or basically any kind of shooting outside of "let me go sit at the range and spend 2 hours printing a perfect 5x5." In other words, christmas tree retiles are PRACTICAL. Dialing on the fly is a luxury for target shooters.
If you're taking a shot (hunting speaking) within 250yd, then you don't need a tree. If you're going farther out, then you have time to dial, because the animal likely doesn't know you're there. I'll stick with dialing - accuracy
@@ryanpeine759 I respectfully disagree. If you need to take a follow up shot, the quicker you can take it, the less likely you will have environmental changes (ie. wind), and using a reticle for the holdover is faster than coming out of the optic, dialing, and getting back on target.
Having worked for 40yrs for a company which makes IR/II/Thermal scopes for the military, I will say it’s all about the optical/mechanical/coating designs and tolerances. Whether night vision or visible applications. A $2k scope that sings and dances is nothing if the design is poor or the tolerance is compromised. And in the design, I count the optical materials used and the transmission quality. For a novice shooter, you’ll never know if it’s the rig or you causing the miss. Buy to your limit, look through as many as you can and try to find unbiased reviews. The sponsored videos/reviews makes this aspect very difficult imo. I’ve looked through many $1k+ scopes that track poorly and contain inferior materials to sub $350 scopes. Only when you become a competent shooter will you know if your scope is at your level or not. 😂
I agree, look through as many as possible. I have S&B, Leupold, Vortex, Zeiss, Eotech and NF. I have NF and Eotech now as my main scopes and the rest are relegated to the safe (until my daughters come of age). They are all great scopes (high end versions), but for me the NF just looks and feels better and holds a zero like no ones business. The Vudu 1-10 is fantastic for my hunting rig.
Word. Check my link for a discount code! = this video is an add and not a review. I wish I had time to make and edit videos because once people get sponsored they are compromised.
@@MattDonkin430you named off several scopes......have you ever tried an Arken? I have an EPL-4-6240 VHR that has clear Japanese glass and the 0 checks are spot on. I think I paid between 3 and 4 skins for it but I have to say that this thing does everything that many of the 2000 skin scopes do.
I am shooting half inch groups with my Burris $230 dollar scope on my winchester 6.5prc thumbhole varmant 24inch rifle. Not the best shooter bit with practice I have gotten competent to use them to their ability. Practice,practice,practice
Good info but I think the Christmas tree reticle topic needed some qualifications to his statement. If you’re zooming in ALL the way and trying to use the absolute bottom of the reticle then yeah, you’re going to see distortion. However, if you use them like 99% of users do, dialing to your dope and using the reticle for faster follow ups, they are a fantastic tool. I’m not saying what he is trying to portray is wrong. It just left a lot on the conversation table.
It’s a very tall claim. I would expect a some data to accompany a claim like that. How many tenths will I miss by and at how many yards? I’m pretty sure it’s some fudlore bs or he’s employed by leupold to sell more duplex reticles lol
Except when you're zoomed in all the way, you CAN'T use the very bottom of the reticle because you're only able to see the very center anyway. So any distortion caused by the very edges of the lens aren't visible to begin with. Not to mention most modern scopes have aspherical lenses that eliminate or greatly reduce any distortions or aberrations. The guy's advice in the video is antiquated. Ask any PRS shooter if they have trouble holding for elevation and wind while going from a 400-yard target to a 1400-yard target. No problems. MAYBE he was talking about the sight picture going dark while zoomed in all the way and how the edges are harder to see clearly because the exit pupil is so much smaller? I dunno.
The point on magnification verses reticle distortion is well made. The corollary to that is that not all turrets are created equally. The tall target test is required to verify the accuracy of your turret. In contrast, the reticle is laser etched on the glass and is not subject to mechanical variances. Finally, I can range with my reticle very quickly to determine if the quarry is within my point blank range. There’s nothing as fast as a reticle.
I've been using Leupold scopes for over 30 years... I've carried them to hell and back from the Brooks Range in Alaska, to some of the most remote wilderness areas in North America, and put endless miles hunting plains game and Buffalo on the open savannahs of Africa. Never had a single issue with them. This includes surviving the abuse of baggage handlers, TSA, and Customs. Several missteps resulted in serious falls and hours of bouncing around in trucks going to and from hunting spots. I don't really know much about other scopes. I do know that I picked the right brand over 30 years ago... and I'm going to stick with them...
That's fine. I hope you never have to replace those 30 year old Leupold scopes with something made by Leupold in the last 5-10 years, because they are crap. I used to think like you do and now I have enough Nightforce scopes to last me the rest of my life (and probably several other lives too based on how well they are made)
Its pretty simple the average joe is not going out to shoot at 800 + yards. Get a relatively flat shooting set up with some good down range knock down power, zero the rifle at 400 yards, with a pretty elementary wind and hold over chart you should be able to hit from 600 yards and under with out playing with anything. But and I will double emphasize this you have got to range verify your data, considering most hunters are not carrying a wind meter, and the latest ballistic software on there phone little alone crongraphing there ammo this is the easiest way i have found to get the average guy shooting that far with a relatively inexpensive range finder.
Leupold used to be a great scope, and maybe still is. That said, there are MANY more affordable,yet comparable optics on the market now than there were even a decade or two ago.
Sorry all parts of Alaska and wild North America are heaven; to say you carried something to hell and back while in Alaska or Canada is doing a disservice to Gods creation.
you don't know about other scopes, but you think you made a great choice? now thats funny. ever hear of meopta SB trijicon swarovski? they all beat the looopold to pieces. funny guy!
Very educational. I really like the new reticles, have not had any issues with lens distortion on paper. Vortex Razor is spot on with elevation and windage out to 700 yrds. After that it’s just shooter errors. 😊
Something most people (outside of Alaska) don't consider is that the seals in many scopes will not withstand internal pressure. They can be rugged in other ways and withstand getting banged around, but any decent hunt in Alaska has you crossing a mountain range out of Anchorage in an unpressurized bush plane and once you get above 8 or 10 thousand feet many scopes will pop the seals and immediately fog up. I worked at a gun store in Alaska and would warn people about certain budget scopes (Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons come to mind). They were fine for the average hunt on the road system, but if you were thinking of a bush hunt where you'd fly in you were going to be screwed when you landed. Scopes are one item where you get what you pay for. If you cheap out on a scope and don't have iron sights on your rifle you may just ruin a hunt.
I have seen this happen on very expensive euro scopes which it shouldn't have. My advice to anyone is to take a second and sighted in scope with ring's attached and which is suited to quick attachment bases.
I like how in the comments of a video debunking scope myths, and without any objective scientific data, you decided to unilaterally declare the reason for the scope fogging up, thereby adding yet another scope myth to the list. I seriously doubt a change of roughly 4.5 psi, as a result of an altitude increase of 10,000 ft, was enough to pop any seals. Also, the change in pressure resulting from temperature extremes seen in closed vehicles would generate a more significant pressure differential than 10,000 ft of elevation change. It's roughly 1 psi per 10 degrees Fahrenheit. With a scope going from being stored in your house around 75 degrees Fahrenheit, to being stored in a closed vehicle at about 145 degrees Fahrenheit, that would be a 7 psi increase. If the plane ride was popping scope seals, wouldn't everyone's scope seals already be popped from sitting in their hot vehicle?
@@4WDriver I can only tell you that I had to deal with these customers when they wanted us to reimburse them because their scopes were ruined after fly-in hunts. Any Alaska bush pilot could tell you more about the 'why' than I, but I don't think it's the increase in pressure (like a hot car) it's the sudden decrease in pressure going from sea level to 10,000 feet in a few minutes. I saw this only in the cheapest brands. Tasco was the most common, but also Bushnell and Simmons. I did not see it all in mid-priced scopes.
@@kodiakkeith the pressure inside the scope is what is increasing, relative to the ambient pressure outside, and it is doing so in BOTH cases. In the case of going from sea level to 10,000 ft, the ambient pressure outside is decreasing, meaning the internal pressure is higher relative to the ambient. With the hot car, the internal pressure of the scope is increasing as ambient pressure remains the same, meaning there is again an increase of internal scope pressure relative to the external Ambient pressure. And I doubt a bush pilot would be any better at explaining the why than yourself. In this case, experience doesn't mean anything; only the scope manufacturers and/or a test lab could definitively say why it happens. All you or the bush pilot can say with certainty, is that it does in fact happen.
Fabulous video, very instructive. Thank you for the great interviews with the gurus of scopes, each one offering their sincere expertise to us neophytes. Stay well.
Yes but those experts in the video would most likely disagree if all were addressing one subject. So much of this is about what each individual is taught and personal opinions that may not work for everyone.
Near the end of the video, at 12:40 is one of the best tips I've heard in a long time....and it even makes sense on all price levels of scopes. I've also become a big fan of Element Optics. I own several models from a Helix HD all the way up to the Theos. I wish you would have asked the guests about their opinions on the scope properties regarding: eye relief, ocular adjustment and why different scopes have a more forgiving sight picture. Your channel is great.
The same can be said for MANY translating or rotating devices used in the world. If you have directional adjustment, there is often lash/slack/take-up when you go the other way. A great way to mitigate this is do exactly as he said. Usually, as long as you run something the same way every time the result will at the very least be precise, even if not accurate.
Honestly, if all your doing is hunting within a few hundred yards, a duplex is plenty. You don't need a fancy reticle and exposed turrets. Just learn your holdovers at any realistic distance you plan to shoot at.
When I bought my latest deer rifle, I asked the store owner (a pretty knowledgeable shooter) what reticle he recommended. Basic duplex, even though he knew I was salivating for something more complex. He was right. He knew how I hunt, no long shots, probably never get out to 400 yards, mostly under 200, usually about 100.
I agree! And way to much hype about having a first focal plane scope. I can't make out the hash marks much below 18 power on a 24 power scope. So what's the use? Not everybody shoots PRS.
Some of the best rings I've ever used are the TRS series rings from TPS Products. Never needed to lap a set and they are priced well below some that required lapping.
I don't believe the Christmas tree reticle was ever meant to completely replace dialing the turrets. It was meant to be a faster way for military shooters to make corrections and engage targets in a "time is life" environment. I also don't believe mil is better than moa or vice versa. They're both systems of angular measurement and they both work. I've run into a couple optic snobs. Most recently the instructor in a LR class i took a few months ago. We were just talking during down time and he was telling me about his super awesome Viper PST Gen 2 but the second i mentioned I've got an Arken SH4 Gen 2 he yells "ok, everyone get ready". I'm not as good a shot as he is but if i were I'd be willing to bet my $400 optic can function as well as his $1300 one.
@@oif3vetk9 The Athlon Midas Tac (6-24x50) is probably the best most reliable Chinese made scope for budget minded folks. Their Chinese HD glass are phenomenal and tracking are perfect and is a better quality option for sure than the Titan and Helix and some may even say on par with the Nexus. I prefer the Athlon Ares BTR Gen 2 4.5-27x56 over any of these 3 lines of Element Optics scopes. Try one out for yourself to see what I really mean it's incredible scope even though they're made in China. It's in fact IMHO also better than any other Chinese made Vortex, Bushnell, Vector Optics, Arken, Zero Tech, Riton, Blackhound and Hawke as well as many more Chinese made scopes too many to mention.
8 of 36 years African hunting(with trees), and this weeks 3 oryx, 5 springbuck, 2 impala and going all shot with a tree recticle.... one Springbuck at 363m head shot.... I am not convinced by your theory.... and we are still busy bringing the meet home. There is just no time to turn turrets....listen to the ranged calls hold and squeeze.... all in a couple of seconds.
So I hunt in Texas where shots are rarely over 200 yards. I always prepare for a 300 yard shot as a max long range shot just in case, I haven’t had one yet. Most shots in the field are less than 300 unless you want to go longer on purpose. With that in mind any scope that will hold a zero, with decent glass, can be used with maximum point blank range method with great success. It doesn’t take long to master MPBR especially with a flat shooting rifle/cartridge. Precision long range shooting is another matter but few people hunt that way. High dollar scopes for hunting are a little gimmicky to me. If you can’t kill it with a $500 scope then you may have other problems. But I’ve only been hunting for forty years so I’m still a novice. Longest shot to date, 350 on a prairie dog and it took six tries!😂
I also hunt in Texas and the farthest shot I could range for was 250 yards. That being said, I don't bother with MPBR. I dial for distance because even though I have a rifle that can shoot .39 MOA, there is that dispersion. If I introduce the rise and fall of MPBR, I could miss. Especially with one of my other rifles that is out to 1 MOA. So, by dialing to aim with the crosshairs, I should be no more than a fraction of an inch off the PoA. And yes, my scopes do not cost more than 500. But I do spend on the rings. The match precision rings I buy do not need lapping and they hold well.
Sounds right to me. Where I hunt, 400 yds. might someday be possible. 200 is a more realistic max, usually 100 or less. I sight-in for the 200 yd. max and know I will kill anything under that. Your idea of MPBR is a more sophisticated version of that, and really the better way to sight-in, if you have access to shoot at varying ranges to determine MPBR for your rifle/load. Also, at those ranges, $300 glass and duplex reticles do a pretty good job.
@ronws2007 MPBR is related to your target size, so the same rifle using the same ammo it is different for a Prarie dog, a coyote, a deer, an elk, and an elephant. Of course you wouldn't want to use the same rifle for all those, but the point is MPBR is dependent on the area of your target that you must hit. Gunblue explains this very well and his very practical, no-frills approach to shooting and gear selection is a breath of fresh air when everyone and their mother is trying to sell you the latest gizmos.
Great reply. So, to recap what I wrote before, I prefer to dial distance or hold over in the reticle. The dispersion of the round can be enough plus MPBR to miss. That being said, I certainly value your experience. Beware the man with only one rifle. He probably knows how to use the one very well. And so, my newest rifle is a 7 mm PRC and it shoots very flat. My scopes were less than 500 dollars and really hybrids. Priced for hunting but capable of long range.
Topic suggestion: Show us EXACTLY what the differences are between lower-priced and higher-priced rings. I've heard many times here, and elsewhere, that cheap rings may damage or wreck a scope. I'd love you to show EXACTLY what that means, and how much correlation there is between price and performance.
Simple mil dot and MOA dials is the way to go for literally a multitude of reasons. This expert has it right. Shooters just need to practice ranging using mil formula and bullet drop in MOA applied by elevation adjustment. Then learn wind with MOA wind constant formula and apply with hold.
Sometimes good deals can be had. For example, I picked up a $1,400 Vortex for $800 because it was a floor model. When I received it, it looked as if it had never been touched.
Element Optics scopes have been on sale for close to half price at a couple of retailers and also some price friendly dealers offer them for you for half price sometimes fir free if you post favorable reviews for them.
No, you picked it up for that price because they massively mark up MSRP and sell everything at a "discount". Never buy anything from vortex if it's not at least 40% off.
It depends on when, what caliber and distance you shoot. In sunny weather Shooting 223 over 200 yards even a 100 $ scope is enough...you wouldn't even notice the difference using a 4000$ Swarovski scope. Shooting in the middle of the night 500 yards with 338 is a completely different story. Need a range finder? Options to attach thermal or night vision? Variable magnification? Variable sight? Illuminated sight with color changing? Night vision compatible sight? Parallax compensation? Towers with zero setting, quick adjustable? HUD in the scope? Ballistic computer? And even a simple cheap single shot spring powered air rifle can destroy a 4000$ scope when dry fired.
It is what it is. I understand your plight but that isn’t theirs or anyone else’s problem. If you want it bad enough, you’ll find a way to afford it but whining about the cost of something because it’s out of your price range, with all do respect, is a “you” problem.
Hey. Great video. Some great tips and information. I agree with the guy who said to go and compare optics side by side. I did and ended up spending 50% less for a scope that I absolutely love. Not that the more expensive one wasn’t what I liked. It didn’t do anything more than the less expensive one. One also has to look at the quality and warranty . weight if mountain hunting. Or bench rest and not needing the highest light gathering. Thanx for letting me babble. Lol
I’m a big fan of Leupold. When I got into long range shooting I really wanted Leupold but for the features I wanted it would be around $2k. A friend convinced me to look at a Vortex Razor. I got the same features as the Leupold for $1,200 and performance has been perfect. Still a big fan of Leupold but I think the lesson is, there are options if you have a budget.
Same features but the quality of clarity is night and day. Vortex distorts natural light and causes a bluish hue around the outlines of objects. And they sometimes don’t track accurately. I have a few vortex scopes. Lotsa bang for the buck. But I’ve got a 60mm 12x40 leupold spotting scope that boggles people’s mind with its clarity. And vortex has nothing that can compare to leupolds MK5 HD
@@zackzittel7683 I can reliably hit a target at 1,200 yards with my Vortex and am working my way up to 1,760 yards. So far the tracking has aligned perfectly with what the Hornady app has told me to dial it to. I’ve considered testing the tracking but haven’t seen a need to when it aligns so well with the app. I haven’t compared scopes side by side for clarity but seeing the target at 1,200 yards has not been a problem. From that, all I can say is it seems to get the job done.
I always dial when I can but when I need to hold for no dial stages at PRS matches, I don’t have any issues hitting targets. I’m not sure the first guys claim is that substantial
Larger scope body tubes are not only utilized for recticle travel. Tube size can be a major requirement in the optical calculation of a scope construction in regards to allow for high zoom factors, low chromatic aberration, paralaxis depth, field of view etc. etc.
My current long range scope for my 6.5 PRC Browning X-Bolt is a BUSHNELL Elite LRTS 4.5 - 18 x 44 scope WITH an illuminated G3 small "Xmas tree" reticle. At 500 yards it is great for BOTH vertical and wind hold. I HOLD and do NOT dial! That goes for competition as well. BUT... I am likely going to sell that scope and buy a BURRIS ELIMINATOR 6 (2nd focal plane withMANY sensors for its ballistic engine.) The "6" is a very advanced scope giving the shooter the best firing solution except for windage. It is a HOLD type of scope, NOT a dial type. I love that.
The comments about main tube diameter made me think. If I’m buying a 1-4x or 1-6x LVPO, do I ever intend to use the turrets to adjust for windage or elevation? Not for hunting - so a 1” tube would be fine and would save weight. The LVPO market is moving toward 1-8x or even 1-10x now. I wish someone would make a really high quality 1-6x and concentrate on making it as lightweight as possible while keeping a big field of view. Unfortunately, consumers always want the latest & greatest…
@@chipsterb4946 what brand was it, that’s about all I put on my rifles anymore, I like the short compact size. Just don’t like the Christmas tree.. lol
@@alcantrell5340 it was an expensive Leupold: VX5-HD 1-5x24mm weight 13.4 oz. The Vortex Razor Gen II-e 1-6x24mm costs more, weighs 21.5 oz. and is available with a fairly simple BDC reticle. Please note I am *NOT* saying that Vortex is a bad scope. I just have different priorities.
6:55 *Gotta debunk this one. MILS is **_NOT_** a metric system measurement. Milliradians is a unit-less measure; it is not Imperial (inches, feet, yards, etc.) nor is it metric (centimeters, meters, etc.). The reason this myth of its own persists is because of the similarity between (MIL)liradians and (MIL)limeters.* *However, this is merely linguistic; MILS in Greek stands for **_"one-thousand"._** In the case of millimeters, it means **_"one one-thousandth of a meter"._** With respect to milliradians, it means **_"one one-thousandth of a radian."_** That's where the similarity ends.* *To repeat: milliradians has **_NOTHING_** to do with the metric system. There is no correlation between them. You can convert milliradians to a linear metric measurement, just like you can convert it to a linear Imperial measurement. But it is **_NOT_** metric.* *It is precisely for this reason milliradians was settled on as the standard of Western militaries. Due to the fact NATO nations follow different measuring systems (Imperial and metric), the neutral, unit-less milliradians was chosen so as not to appear to be favoring one over the other. Users of either system (Imperial and metric) had to learn a new system (milliradians) to promote standardization and avoid preferential treatment.* *I own scopes in both, I know the conversion math for both, I've shot using both. When I was a younger man I jumped on the MILS bandwagon. However, as time goes on I'm leaning more and more to making all my scopes MOA. Imperial is the system I grew up with, it's the system I don't have to think about. I can immediately picture in my mind's eye the approximate distance of an inch, a foot, a yard, 100 yards, etc. without any mental gymnastics or math conversion. MOA, with its approximation of 1 inch per 100 yards (technically 1.04 inches), dovetails effortlessly with that system of measurement for **_ME._* *Understand I'm not promoting one over the other. What I'm promoting is finding what works for **_YOU_** and then sticking with it. I fully appreciate the standardization MILS brings to the table. If you're part of a group, it's of paramount importance you all agree to a single measurement system so you're not confusing the issue by trying to translate apples to oranges. If that's MOA, great. If that's MILS, that's fine, too. The point is to pick one so everyone is talking the same language. But if you're working alone, you have the luxury of picking what works best for you, personally, rather than what works best for everyone in a group situation.*
The Burris XTR signature rings (6) sets, and here is what I look for in scope rings: sloppy. The rings mounted, how much movement is there back and forth on the picatinny rail. Now, if I am worried about the screws rusting, I can replace them with S/S screws but they too can rust. Another big plus for Burris XTR scope rings: the plastic inserts can add MOA to your rifle set up. Weatherby MK 5 300 Weatherby Magnum S/S, I have found rust spots after hunting rainy weather - Alaska.
Good education, I’ve been shooting my whole life i have high end scopes and i have low end, on all calibers. Better scopes tend to perform better. It’s also about your application, less expensive scopes perform great for different types of shooting
Where the christmas tree comes in handy is when you are shooting disciplines that dont allow for adjusting the scope other than the parallax. Hunter field class in air guns is an example. You set your magnification and confirm your zero. Once the match starts you range find with your parallax. Then you use your dope sheet to determine your holdover/hold under.
I consider a $600-$999 mid range. I have a primary arms 3-18 x 44 on the bagara 100-500 yrd rifle and a vortex pst gen 2 on the tikka tac A1 that is sighted 500+.
I own a .270 rifle that came with a 3-9 x scope for $600. in 2012. I have never missed with this combo up to 400 metres on Moose and deer! Works for me!
Nope on the horus type reticles. I’ve had years of experience with a tree reticle and they are far better than cranking turrets and I have them too. To date I would choose a tree reticle because it also gives a precise correction reference
I picked an MOA reticle so I can converse with other shooters at the range. In the USA we try to avoid the metric system or anything in a base 10 structure. We measure our target distance in yards. We measure our muzzle velocities in feet/second. We make our scope adjustment decisions based on how many inches our holes are from the point of aim. (rounding 1" = 1 MOA at 100 yards, 2" at 200 yards, etc.) We might shoot a metric caliber/cartridge, but the bullets we buy are labeled in decimal inch diameters. We trim our brass and seat our bullets down to the thousandth of an inch. (or even 0.0005") For some of us, our goal is to shoot a mile -- hitting a target at 1760 yards. And I almost forgot, we measure our wind speeds in miles per hour. Don't get me started on the units we use for measuring our powder and our bullet weights.
In Canada we use both metric and imperial systems… and we mix n’ match… Shooting ranges typically have targets at 100m increments. We measure bullet velocity in fps and bullet energy in ft-lbs. we use both MOA and milrad scopes depending on application. We measure cartridges and bullets and clearances in thousandths of inches (mils). Powder and bullet weights in grains. Wind velocity in km/hr. When evaluating groups at 100m we divide the group size in inches by 1.145 to get MOA because 1.047”=1moa at 100yd and 100m = 109.36yd so 1MOA=1.047x1.0936= 1.145” at 100m. Oh and I almost forgot… the length of your johnson is measured in inches. Cheers!
You may want to change your pants because you're we'ing all over them. In the USA I can pick whichever unit I want to use for my rifle scope,& I prefer mil/mil for my reticle/turret set up. Imperial & metric based systems have been used in the US for quite sometime,in fact,if you've worked on a car in the last 40/50yrs. you're quick to find a ⅝ or ¾ bolt head next to a 9mm or 12mm. Like it or not,its just the way it is
That's a pretty big "we," bud. I don't do metric either, but I use MILs. Machinists use 1000/ths of inches. MILs are easier to range with. {[(target height in inches)/36 (convert to yards)] x 1000} / (measurement in MILs) = (distance to target in yards). 18" target measures 2 mils? [(18/36=.5) x 1000 = 500]/2 = 250 yards. Super simple. Now the same 18" target is 5 MOA. How far away is it?
My rule of thumb is spend as much on your scope, as your gun is worth (retail, obviously). That being said, I hunt with the $750 Vortex StrikeEagle 5-25x56mm on a $420 stainless Ruger American .270Winchester. Absolutely LOVE the scope. Amazing combo.
I have an old Weaver scope mounted on a semi-auto Remington .243 😂 I like it because the reticle doesn't have the top vertical bar. I usually hit whatever I'm aiming at.
I've been shooting a Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 gen 1 scope for YEARS with my .308 out to 800ish yards and am extremely happy with it. I can tell you, first hand, that you do not need a $2000 scope to get accurate hits. I think I paid 700 bucks for this scope. Training/practice is a lot better use for your money than an expensive optic. These guys are spot on.
1:05 he comes off sounding like a fud. I believe this would happen on cheap scopes that try to mimic the Horus reticle style, but on a quality scope, I don’t buy it. These have been out for decades and is even the official reticle fitted to the M24E1 used by the Army since 2010. I don’t think that would be the case if what he said was true.
On the cost topic, I heard a saying a long time ago about this. “Just because you bought the most expensive French Horn, doesn’t mean you will automatically be playing at Carnegie Hall.” Equipment means nothing if you don’t have the requisite skills.
Hey BionicRusty cool stuff we worked with right! And Backfire!, As a retired owner operator of a optical thin films (coatings) lab. It does boil down to the specification tolorences and what you need. I love your videos Backfire and it was so nice to hear the adjust it past then back it down to the value, when talking about the adjustments of the reticle. Keep in mind you will have to figure out which direction of the turn of the knob is the correct direction to take out the slack in the tolorance that is the correct one to give you the most accurate results optically. Good lesson on having a accurate reference point down wind to calibrate to. To any one hunting don't forget up close with iron sites and a good caliber will get the job done! Be well every one,T
If your scope doesn't track and you miss, it's still YOUR fault. You should check your scope's tracking as described. Most sight-in targets have a grid on them to check the tracking, it can be confirmed by shooting after adjustment. If the click values are correct, one can dial in the adjustments based on the grid(ex. You are 3 inches low and 2.5 inches left, you should be able to dial 12 clicks up and 10 clicks right, on 1/4 moa click value and your next shots should be point of aim) Of course those adjustments are wind dependent and a calm or parallel wind is best for such verification. Good tips overall.👍👍
It would be far from the first time that companies were selling an inferior product because it looks cool so people not knowing better would favour it. That said, depending on your purpose they can probably be very useful or a big disadvantage. If you are able to carefully dial in every shot, doing so and cleaning up your view is probably going to be better. But if you need to shoot more quickly, it provides a quicker method to adjust your aim, if less precise.
I’m new to the turret method. I’ve always only hunted in 200 yard shot max, areas. Now I’m going to places that have 4-500 yards and i invested in a turret optic. I just assumed you were to dial your scope to your dope card you created. I figured it defeated the purpose of the turret scope, if you didn’t dial it and used the Christmas tree. Good to know my assumption before this video was correct lol
Also new to dialing went to 411 with an arken 5-25 in 300 prc. I looked up the reticle hold over and kept missing, until I dialed. I need more practice. Cheers
@@chadperry4021 man that turret method is a whole new animal lol but it’ll be worth it for sure once I get an accurate dope card made up for it. I jumped on a Black hound they had on sale so hopefully I’m not disappointed. I was going to put it on my 270 WSM but now im thinking im going to put it on my 6.5 creedmoor. Im only going to be deer hunting this year. I didn’t draw for mule deer or elk so i should be good with the 6.5 this year if i have a 300+ yard shot
I've an old benchrest rifle that shoots sub 1/4 minute groups with a sub-$100 scope from Weaver. El Paso. Tracks beautifully. I have other scopes that won't hold in a bucket. There are, however, some tricks involved.
Jim almost always equates hunting with long range shooting. Long range shots and hunting do blend in some instances/areas but are not hand in hand. Where I live shots at whitetail deer are almost always 40-125 yards. Definitely not distances where hold over or windage are going to matter with a low mounted scope (over the bore) zero'd at an appropriate range.
@@kadenmikesell87seems like it to me. Plus there’s been a real bias in shooting media to long range this and that in the past few years. For shots 300 yards and in 270 or 308 are perfectly acceptable. Heck 200 yards and in you can use 30-30, but that doesn’t sell new rifles, new cartridges, or spiffy scopes does it?
I have a bore sighter that has a grid...and observe clicks and ensure the cross hairs move and return to place of origin. I have found dead spots in several scopes over the years. Good tips. Thank you.
Yes, with that type bore sighter you can find a lot of scope problems , the old Weavers used to shift about a foot, each time you changed the direction you turned the power , couldn't figure out what was the matter until I used the bore sight , also tap the scope real hard and see if the reticle moves , etc.
1:20 - Yeah, but it just doesn't though, does it? It's pretty damned easy to test for yourself. He uses technical phrases like "angle of incidence", yet doesn't seem to understand how lenses bend light or how scopes work.
I am 70 years old and I love scopes for another reason - at my age I cannot even dream of getting these eyes to focus on a front sight, a back sight and a target. Now, thanks to Burris, I still got a bear and a whitetail this year, one shot each.
Heres one for you. You dont need to spend $700 on your scope. Ive known many people who bring down deer with scopes under the $200 mark. Hell, one of my coworkers fills his tags every year with a $60 scope on a Winchester 270. Honestly, it comes down to distances. I live in Northeast Texas, in the area known as the Piney Woods region. Most wooded areas are choked with HEAVY undergrowth. Most shots are well within 200 yards. Hell, you could easily get by with good ol' iron sights, if hunting rifles other than lever actions still came with irons
Sometimes you get lucky and find a scope for almost no money that works, year after year, with no headaches too. I have an old Redfield scope (pre Nikon) on a Browning 243Win that is like that. I got it new and cheap, old stock, from a store that was moving. It had to have been 10 years old when I bought it but never made it to the showcase in the store. Once I had it sighted in I have never had to adjust it. It is sighted to 150 yards and hits point of aim at 200 with no change. It hits half an inch high at 100 yards. I took a coyote at 300 yards with a 3 inch holdover, 90gr bullet. I don't live in an area that affords long shots thanks to dense woods and heavy development. I also have a 4x tasco AR scope that mounts on the carry handle. That cheap scope (used $20 Ebay find) is dead on. I haven't adjusted it in 10 years. I removed it twice and it was reinstalled and retained zero each time.
Excellent informative video ! I find that the x-mas tree is too cluttered for me except maybe for aiming artillery - I prefer minimal good'ol cross hairs only - call me old fashioned !!
I believe that the quality and price of optics purchased is as important as the actual amount of time spent looking through them. I can't sacrifice $2800 on a RifleScope. But, I had no problem investing $3600 on my Binos. 🤷♂️Hunter vs Shooter I guess 😅
When you say budget scopes I think of what I own. I have never give more than $100 for a scope. The Pinty I bought fore $50 has just under 1k rounds on it and I have taken it to 1000 yards. Very clear and holds zero tracks very good and always returns to zero. Bushnell Dusk and Dawn scopes are awesome hunting scopes also. I guess to each his own.
I’ll tell you how we did it 40 years ago with tasco and bushnell scopes using a .270 or 30-06 . We practiced a lot and usually only had one rifle that we knew inside out. The ethical guy regarded as a top hunter back then around the campfire was the guy that had the skills to get within a suitable range to take a animal. My brother once crouched and crawled on his stomach for hundreds of yards through a milo field in NW Kansas during the 1980’s to get a 150 yard shot on a trophy Antelope using his .300 win . He was “king of the hunters” to us for years for being able to do that. Not recognized for “squeezing the trigger”, but for pulling off that long sneak in open country with no trees and little cover. No one I ever knew back then took shots past 300 yards . We would simply find a way to get a closer shot or let the animal walk. Long range shooting was reserved for targets, not attempted on a living animal who would be hobbling around for days till it died from a gut shot at 600 yards. Times and equipment have changed. However I still try to get the drop on a big game animal that puts me in a high percentage shot and use my years of Hunting skills to accomplish that. Then I squeeze the trigger which is the easy part.
@@TheBamayaker Tasco and Bushnell scopes used to be great back in the day decades ago but not anymore. These days they are selling Chinese made junk just to earn a quick buck and the more expensive Japan made Bushnells today don't seem to be as good as their competition sold by other brands.
@@commonsense5709 they were hit and Miss back then too. Most hunters used see through mounts because scope failure happened occasionally on a hunt. The main thing is we used to kill plenty of deer with sun standard equipment. Now days the Marketing gurus and gun writers have gotten deep in the modern hunters heads. They tell us we must have the latest greatest thing to succeed. I use dependable equipment that outshoots me. I really like and believe in good solid equipment- no junk. But for hunting a 1k - 3k scope is not for me. To each his own with his hard earned dollars.
Very informative I feel like less is more. Especially on the reticle. Even for bow hunting. I went from a multi pin to a single pin. Just learnt my holdovers or unders.
I made a big mistake. My advice that I now have is pay for a 5x scope. Such as a 3-15. I got a Burris 4.5-14. Love it until a deer came out at 45 yards and all I saw was shoulder.
You do not need anything more than a basic 10x scope until you have consistent batch of proven match grade ammo, ie custom loads. A 3 thousand dollar scope cannot fix stock ammo.
Something in shooting and reloading really do come down to it really is just as good: for example, the Primal Right bench priming system won’t help your SDs any more than a RCBS bench priming system at 1/6 the cost. Scopes are another thing however. If those cheap China made optics such as Arken really were just as good as a S&B or Tangent Theta, or Zero Compromise, or Nightforce, or what I shoot IOR, then these companies would simply go out of business. I wish someone would have sat me down and told me to save up my money for a 3500 dollar scope rather than $200 scope, sell for a loss, $400 sell at loss, $900, sell at a loss, $1500, sell at a loss to get to $3500 that does and performs at the level I need it to.
Up in northern wisconsin whitetail hunting my favorite scope of all time is the 1.5 to 7 nikon prostaff. Affordable and does the job real well without limiting my field of view.
That first guy, isnt the rifle scope designwd to be used with the Christmas tree reticle? Theyre not just slapping those things in there. I dont know that i believe what that guy has to say.
@Sageofthe16 in my experience people who are 100% right don't make arguments that take away from their credibility. There's no reason to give him the benefit of doubt when he's clearly wrong about something he used to make his argument
You can know what you think you know, and it might be more than the next guy, but it’s all about preference… find what your looking for in a scope(not what someone else is looking for), train with it, and you’ll do everything you need or want to do with it!
Can you please link for us the scope rings that are advertised to hold zero a 50MM bell scope on a rifle in the back of the truck for a month and then thrown into an ATV for a few miles of dog hole infested prairie? I 'd really like to buy a pair... and while you're at it, a varmint scope that can handle the same.
No expert, but talking to a custom gun builder and he told me swarovski and march scopes for holding and returning reticle back to zero is by their designs. Those are the only 2 scopes he recommends and he wasn't a scope dealer. Dont know if this helps or not?
@@djturnz I like the Sig Sauer Whiskey, Vintage scopes that I find on Ebay Etc. My scopes are for hunting purpose's only so I don't need all the new technology.
@garyh1449 gotcha. This R700 I'm building will be my first attempt at getting into "precision rifle" shooting. Most of my rifles are of the "semiautomatic, non- sporting" variety. I'll be limited to about 400yds, and just for fun. So I'd like some "tactical" features, but it's not for competition. Just dipping my toe in. I've watched so many videos where BUDGET BUILD still means $2k.
First off I want to say great informative video on a much needed subject. Now I read years ago that tube diameter has nothing to do with light gathering ability like you just stated and that its completely up to the objective lens diameter and quality of glass to perform that function but tube diameter does affect the scopes ability to transfer the gathered light to the pupil. This is a general assessment from what was found through testing. A 1" tube has the ability to transfer all of the light gathered by an objective lens up to 44mm. So if your going with a 1" tube there is no advantage to go larger than 44mm objective lens because the 1" tube can only transfer the full amount of light gathered by a 44mm lens. If a larger objective is desired it is also advised to step up to a 30mm tube or larger. This will also give more adjustment at the turrents desired in long range target applications where the largest objective lenses are desired.
Mils and MOAs are really just different measures of an angle. In a circle there are 2*pi radians or alternatively 360 degrees. MOA is Minute of Angle. There are 60 minutes in a degree so one MOA equals 1/60 degree. Mil is milliradian or 1/1000 of a radian. Its like kilometers and miles. Both are measures of distance, just different units. You can convert MILS to MOA and vice versa.
Tracking can be checked without using any ammo. Of course with bow hunting it is unlikely anyone would consider a 100 yard shot an option even with the best crossbow not an option in my opinion. I have eaten deer harvested or shot with a shotgun and a high power rifle (where it is like a switch just turned them off) and with a broudhead through the engine room. In my opinion a broudhead through the engine room bleeds them out better. I don't care what kind of projectile you are putting down range accuracy counts. Perfect practice makes perfect, consultation and communication with a good group will get the meat out of the field and into the hands of those you love and in the end isn't that what it is all about?
6 Scope Myths 1. 0:36 "Christmas-tree" reticles (by Ward Brien of Mountain Shooting Center) 2. 2:42 Bigger tube-size for more light to get through (by Kevin of Element Optics) 3. 4:45 Rings 4. 6:40 MIL vs. MOA 5. 7:48 Big money for good results (by Kevin of Element Optics) 6. 10:58 Turret tracking 7. ???
When I got into shooting mid 2000 I bought 2 nikon buckmaster 6-18x40 1/8 moa, target dot scopes. less than $500 each new. When I started with F-Class around 2008 one of them went on the f-class rifle and that rifle kicked a lot of butt. People are shocked when they realise they got beat by an entire setup that cost less than just their scope. I would love to get a higher mag scope but they pretty much just don't exist. 1/8 moa (1 want 8 clicks for your 3) target dot reticle side focus no BS like illumination, or funky reticles. So I still use the nikon... Unfortunately the tacticool garbage has taken over the market. The current scope market is a dick measuring exercise.
Let's not forget Carlos Norman Hathcock II (May 20, 1942 - February 22, 1999) was a United States Marine Corps (USMC) sniper with a service record of 93 confirmed kills. he didn't have a scope with all the bells and whistles back when he was one of the best Snipers during the war.
The only pertinent question is, "What would he use TODAY?". Of course he didn't have any of the whiz bang technology.... it didn't exist. Would he have had 100 kills if it did? Who knows. It's not relevant. In baseball, pitcher Adam Ottavino caused a big controversy by saying he would strike out Babe Ruth "every time". Of course he would. It's barely the same sport that Ruth played. The players are all bigger, stronger, faster, healthier. No contest. Babe Ruth was great *in his time*. Hathcock was great *with that equipment*... and he'd still be great and he'd be using modern equipment if he had it. He'd have to be a fool not to.
@@brianpfleuger the point I am making is everyone now days thinks you can't do anything unless you have all the bells and whistles, I am not against modern technology I just don't understand people saying you can't do anything unless you have it.
@@georgelewis7010 From my experience this "people say you can't do X unless you have the biggest,most expensive Y" is just a made up story that hunters tell other hunters. Never have I ever heard a shooter (not hunter) saying something even close to that, it's always been the people that only hunt and shoot only 150 yards or so.
It's like audio equipment. If you can't appreciate the difference between listening to $25 ear buds through an iPhone versus a $10,000 audiophile setup, then you've just wasted $9,000.
$9975 ftfy
What about the price of the phone?
@@blunderbus7791 You got it!
@@mostachio1958 about $975.00
@mostachiocam1598 Well, he did say an I Phone so yeah it's a waste too.
The Christmas tree is nice to spot misses. You can see where on the Christmas tree the splash is and you immediately know your adjustment...
indeed....
Yep, that’s how I use mine. Dope, dial, splash, oops, adjust, impact. Nobody wants to admit the ooos part, but it happens.
First point he makes and it's wrong lol. Quite the incredible expert.
@@TMega5612 That was not the point he made. The point he made was about holding over at the furthest positions is distorted by the lens, not that the tree can be used as data when youre centering the reticle on target _and then dialing after..._
I hadn't thought of this. Are there any other advantages of the Christmas tree other than it looking really cool?
I'm an optical engineer and just getting into long range shooting, its kind of horrifying to watch most of the videos on scopes, so much misinformation even from gun experts. I like how quickly and simply the guy shot down the tube size myth
okay but @ 1:37 - "... the curvature of the lens" -- the curvature is FIXED and does not change with the environment - hence a GOOD scope will have the tree lines compensated for any (fixed) curvature effects, making it accurate. So I haven't watched the entire video but right off the bat I can say this guy is talking crap.
As an optical engineer you must surely note the same, at least for this point.
@@foff-666agreed, disappointed to see a crap opinion right off the bat on a video thats supposed to help disprove "myths". telling new shooters that these reticles aren't accurate is such a load of bs.
@@foff-666 honestly I missed that parts but yes holy crap thats nonsence....you do not come into the curvature of the lens at the edges of the FOV (field of view)
aberrations do get worse the further off axis you get but if thats what he was trying to say he mixed it with mumbo jumbo
Agreed. The Hyperbole of the initial “expert” was over the top. Scope these various “complicated” reticles are compensated for end plane curvature optic dynamics that DO occur at VERY high angles of incidence and also at the edges do the scopes, but the rationale and explanation for this “problem”. The biggest issue in my opinion (L O L) with complicated radicals is simply more of a site picture and image/psychological one. Meaning, especially in a tactical situation with 99% of even high-end upper tier, tactical operators, the overly complicated radical can be extremely valuable, but in a high stress situation even if it is a one shot Cold War, or even more so a second follow up shot is very much more difficult for the vast majority of long range, tactical or long range shooters not because of this curvature and high angle of incident physics issue, he extract belated, but simply because there’s too much information. Under duress/stress, even the most experienced long range, rifleman, will not take advantage of that radical, which is overly complicated, particularly for vintage but also for elevation. Follow up shots and quick shots maybe elevation and definitely windage, but those complicated Horace type Christmas tree radicals are difficult for tactical operators. Even experience ones. They’re great for prone benchrest. Long range shooters.
@@user-nw1sq8vj8c Good on you for mentioning the big differences between target shooting and life or death situations. That matters.
We used to "shoot the box" to check the tracking of a scope. Zero the rifle/scope, go to a clean target, fire a shot, turn a number of clicks up (let's say 10.), fire a shot, turn 10 clicks right , fire a shot, turn 10 clicks down, fire a shot, turn 10 clicks left and fire the 4th shot. The 4th shot should be right in with the 1st. If you have the 4 corners of a box, your scope is tracking properly. Plus it's fun.
Cheers, Jeff.
The 5th shot should be in with the 1st shot.
@@thehoneybadger8089 correct 5th shot.
I have always been told that is the Difference in Spending $400 vs $2k on a Scope! If you are not making adjustments every time you shoot! You don't need a $2k scope! If you sight your rifle in, and DO NOT touch your turrets. A $400 scope is Perfect!
This is just my 2 cents!
although, most ammo doesn't shoot 0 MOA or 0 Mil accuracy. that last shot could be 1/2 over at 100 yds if you have 1/2 MOA accuracy with that ammo thru that rifle.
What if it's not tracking properly but holds zero for a long time? Would that make it a good scope for you?
As a guy who doesn’t shoot at game beyond 400 yards, I have to give respect to people who spend the money and time to be proficient beyond that. I’ve been using a fixed 6x, 1 inch tube, set and forget, MOA 1/4 click scope. I use dual dovetail mounts that I bed and I lap the rings. I’ve never had a scope crap out on me, but I’m shooting at limited ranges.
My hunting rig is also my long range plinking rifle. Its a Springfield 2020 Waypoint with the CF barrel, wearing a Vortex Viper pst gen2 5-25x50 ffp and magpul sling. I know the dope on that rifle out to 1,200 yards. It makes hunting whitetail at 500 yards and in a piece of cake. Definitely recomend stretching your rifles legs on steel/paper if you get the chance. Itll vastly imrpove your results in close
After decades of research it has been determined that for combat purposes 6X is optimal out to 800 meters in DMR role. It provides good field of view, clear wind and bullet trace tracking. Higher magnification becomes relevant in precision rifle systems deployed in highly trained sniper teams.
I shoot out to around 500m open sight, fitting a scope so that the 300m+ shots are a little more comfortable or in lower light conditions when my iron sights become harder to use.
Pecar Berlin 4x81, fixed 4 power 26mm tube with a non constantly centred, interchangeable reticule system. Currently #14 but desperately trying to get a German #1.
Rifles windage is zeroed through the rings that way in field adjustments keep the reticule relatively central, while it may not hold zero perfectly it also means I could zero the scope at 400m and leave my sights at 100m so in the event I see a larger group of pig it only takes a few seconds to remove the scope and start smashing stripper clips.
Every scope I mount get the alignment dowel rods (WHEELER Pro scope kit) set in the rings, with caps torqued 10-12"#, to verify vertical/horizontal orientation.
Usually also switch to one piece EGW rail and bed if necessary before checking alignment.
2-3 quick strokes with lightly coated lap rod tells me if 80%+ contact exists or not.
On the first topic, it generates some additional questions. 1: How much is the image actually distorted? 2: wouldn’t holding wind have the same issue as holding elevation and windage since the distortion effect is radial not only up and down? 3: when you dial your turret, you move the reticle up and down from the optical center of the scope, so wouldn’t you still have the same issue anytime you leave the true optical center of the scope?
Yes. To everything you just said.
What he was probably getting at is that ammunition/bullet drop his more consistent than the atmospheric wind conditions. Most shooters ability to accurately read wind has more errors than the distortion of the image. That's probably why the suggested dialing up for elevation and holding for wind.
Another thing I'd like to point out: On most "christmas tree" reticle scopes I have seen, at the lowest magnification, they look like a duplex, meaning the entirety of that reticle is basically close enough to the optical center for any realistic shooting.
Here’s another two more issues to factor in.
Reticles don’t move around while turrets MAY introduce errors depending on quality.
Dialing moves the erector tube while starts chipping away at light transmission.
For hunting I don’t dial at all. For shooting on bright days a little less light doesn’t affect things much.
People shoot accurately with Christmas tree reticle all the time. The biggest drawback for me is getting lost and using the wrong hash marks.
Thank you very much for a very informative video. I own a Springfield armory m1a and a Burris 2-7×32 scout scope. I have taken a basic rifle class, to get zeroed in. The video stopped me from wanting to buy a expensive scope, illumination, massive magnification, and everything else that I don't need to shoot two or three hundred yards. What I liked the most is when the gentleman said take that money and put it into training and then you will know what you need for what you want to do.
Thanks! great topic!!
Christmas tree reticles are nice for instances when you don't have time to dial your scope, such as hunting, competition shooting, tactical shooting, or basically any kind of shooting outside of "let me go sit at the range and spend 2 hours printing a perfect 5x5."
In other words, christmas tree retiles are PRACTICAL. Dialing on the fly is a luxury for target shooters.
If you're taking a shot (hunting speaking) within 250yd, then you don't need a tree. If you're going farther out, then you have time to dial, because the animal likely doesn't know you're there. I'll stick with dialing - accuracy
Correct you know what you talking about.😅
It’s a theme of preference and that’s all
Exacly. There is a reason SOCOM and Todd Hodnett of Accuracy 1st use the Horus in the ASR rifles.
@@ryanpeine759 I respectfully disagree. If you need to take a follow up shot, the quicker you can take it, the less likely you will have environmental changes (ie. wind), and using a reticle for the holdover is faster than coming out of the optic, dialing, and getting back on target.
Having worked for 40yrs for a company which makes IR/II/Thermal scopes for the military, I will say it’s all about the optical/mechanical/coating designs and tolerances. Whether night vision or visible applications.
A $2k scope that sings and dances is nothing if the design is poor or the tolerance is compromised.
And in the design, I count the optical materials used and the transmission quality.
For a novice shooter, you’ll never know if it’s the rig or you causing the miss.
Buy to your limit, look through as many as you can and try to find unbiased reviews. The sponsored videos/reviews makes this aspect very difficult imo.
I’ve looked through many $1k+ scopes that track poorly and contain inferior materials to sub $350 scopes.
Only when you become a competent shooter will you know if your scope is at your level or not.
😂
I agree, look through as many as possible. I have S&B, Leupold, Vortex, Zeiss, Eotech and NF. I have NF and Eotech now as my main scopes and the rest are relegated to the safe (until my daughters come of age). They are all great scopes (high end versions), but for me the NF just looks and feels better and holds a zero like no ones business. The Vudu 1-10 is fantastic for my hunting rig.
Are Leica scopes any good?
Word. Check my link for a discount code! = this video is an add and not a review. I wish I had time to make and edit videos because once people get sponsored they are compromised.
@@MattDonkin430you named off several scopes......have you ever tried an Arken? I have an EPL-4-6240 VHR that has clear Japanese glass and the 0 checks are spot on. I think I paid between 3 and 4 skins for it but I have to say that this thing does everything that many of the 2000 skin scopes do.
I am shooting half inch groups with my Burris $230 dollar scope on my winchester 6.5prc thumbhole varmant 24inch rifle. Not the best shooter bit with practice I have gotten competent to use them to their ability. Practice,practice,practice
Good info but I think the Christmas tree reticle topic needed some qualifications to his statement. If you’re zooming in ALL the way and trying to use the absolute bottom of the reticle then yeah, you’re going to see distortion. However, if you use them like 99% of users do, dialing to your dope and using the reticle for faster follow ups, they are a fantastic tool. I’m not saying what he is trying to portray is wrong. It just left a lot on the conversation table.
It’s a very tall claim. I would expect a some data to accompany a claim like that. How many tenths will I miss by and at how many yards? I’m pretty sure it’s some fudlore bs or he’s employed by leupold to sell more duplex reticles lol
Except when you're zoomed in all the way, you CAN'T use the very bottom of the reticle because you're only able to see the very center anyway. So any distortion caused by the very edges of the lens aren't visible to begin with. Not to mention most modern scopes have aspherical lenses that eliminate or greatly reduce any distortions or aberrations. The guy's advice in the video is antiquated. Ask any PRS shooter if they have trouble holding for elevation and wind while going from a 400-yard target to a 1400-yard target. No problems. MAYBE he was talking about the sight picture going dark while zoomed in all the way and how the edges are harder to see clearly because the exit pupil is so much smaller? I dunno.
Just the way he spoke gave me the impression that he was overconfident in a baseless claim.
The point on magnification verses reticle distortion is well made.
The corollary to that is that not all turrets are created equally. The tall target test is required to verify the accuracy of your turret. In contrast, the reticle is laser etched on the glass and is not subject to mechanical variances.
Finally, I can range with my reticle very quickly to determine if the quarry is within my point blank range. There’s nothing as fast as a reticle.
Can't disagree with any of the replies above. Well covered.
I've been using Leupold scopes for over 30 years... I've carried them to hell and back from the Brooks Range in Alaska, to some of the most remote wilderness areas in North America, and put endless miles hunting plains game and Buffalo on the open savannahs of Africa. Never had a single issue with them. This includes surviving the abuse of baggage handlers, TSA, and Customs. Several missteps resulted in serious falls and hours of bouncing around in trucks going to and from hunting spots. I don't really know much about other scopes. I do know that I picked the right brand over 30 years ago... and I'm going to stick with them...
That's fine. I hope you never have to replace those 30 year old Leupold scopes with something made by Leupold in the last 5-10 years, because they are crap. I used to think like you do and now I have enough Nightforce scopes to last me the rest of my life (and probably several other lives too based on how well they are made)
Its pretty simple the average joe is not going out to shoot at 800 + yards. Get a relatively flat shooting set up with some good down range knock down power, zero the rifle at 400 yards, with a pretty elementary wind and hold over chart you should be able to hit from 600 yards and under with out playing with anything. But and I will double emphasize this you have got to range verify your data, considering most hunters are not carrying a wind meter, and the latest ballistic software on there phone little alone crongraphing there ammo this is the easiest way i have found to get the average guy shooting that far with a relatively inexpensive range finder.
Leupold used to be a great scope, and maybe still is. That said, there are MANY more affordable,yet comparable optics on the market now than there were even a decade or two ago.
Sorry all parts of Alaska and wild North America are heaven; to say you carried something to hell and back while in Alaska or Canada is doing a disservice to Gods creation.
you don't know about other scopes, but you think you made a great choice?
now thats funny.
ever hear of meopta
SB
trijicon
swarovski?
they all beat the looopold to pieces.
funny guy!
Very educational. I really like the new reticles, have not had any issues with lens distortion on paper. Vortex Razor is spot on with elevation and windage out to 700 yrds. After that it’s just shooter errors. 😊
Love the last clip. Go past your adjustment and then back. Makes total sense.
Something most people (outside of Alaska) don't consider is that the seals in many scopes will not withstand internal pressure. They can be rugged in other ways and withstand getting banged around, but any decent hunt in Alaska has you crossing a mountain range out of Anchorage in an unpressurized bush plane and once you get above 8 or 10 thousand feet many scopes will pop the seals and immediately fog up. I worked at a gun store in Alaska and would warn people about certain budget scopes (Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons come to mind). They were fine for the average hunt on the road system, but if you were thinking of a bush hunt where you'd fly in you were going to be screwed when you landed. Scopes are one item where you get what you pay for. If you cheap out on a scope and don't have iron sights on your rifle you may just ruin a hunt.
I have seen this happen on very expensive euro scopes which it shouldn't have. My advice to anyone is to take a second and sighted in scope with ring's attached and which is suited to quick attachment bases.
I like how in the comments of a video debunking scope myths, and without any objective scientific data, you decided to unilaterally declare the reason for the scope fogging up, thereby adding yet another scope myth to the list. I seriously doubt a change of roughly 4.5 psi, as a result of an altitude increase of 10,000 ft, was enough to pop any seals. Also, the change in pressure resulting from temperature extremes seen in closed vehicles would generate a more significant pressure differential than 10,000 ft of elevation change. It's roughly 1 psi per 10 degrees Fahrenheit. With a scope going from being stored in your house around 75 degrees Fahrenheit, to being stored in a closed vehicle at about 145 degrees Fahrenheit, that would be a 7 psi increase. If the plane ride was popping scope seals, wouldn't everyone's scope seals already be popped from sitting in their hot vehicle?
@@4WDriver I can only tell you that I had to deal with these customers when they wanted us to reimburse them because their scopes were ruined after fly-in hunts. Any Alaska bush pilot could tell you more about the 'why' than I, but I don't think it's the increase in pressure (like a hot car) it's the sudden decrease in pressure going from sea level to 10,000 feet in a few minutes. I saw this only in the cheapest brands. Tasco was the most common, but also Bushnell and Simmons. I did not see it all in mid-priced scopes.
@@kodiakkeith the pressure inside the scope is what is increasing, relative to the ambient pressure outside, and it is doing so in BOTH cases. In the case of going from sea level to 10,000 ft, the ambient pressure outside is decreasing, meaning the internal pressure is higher relative to the ambient. With the hot car, the internal pressure of the scope is increasing as ambient pressure remains the same, meaning there is again an increase of internal scope pressure relative to the external Ambient pressure. And I doubt a bush pilot would be any better at explaining the why than yourself. In this case, experience doesn't mean anything; only the scope manufacturers and/or a test lab could definitively say why it happens. All you or the bush pilot can say with certainty, is that it does in fact happen.
@@4WDriver dont think you really understand how significant 4.5psi is. Just fyi, airliners can explode with 8 psi above sea level.
Christmas trees are good for measuring stuff.
How often do you use your reticle to measure stuff?
@@TMar129I use such method, whenever I operate solo behind enemy lines, as expedition scout sniper. 😅 happens a lot in my fantasy
Good for quick shots in combat situations. Obviously not for long range precision shooting..
You don't need a tree to "measure stuff". A mil-dot reticle, or something similar will do.
I wouldn’t say they’re good for measuring stuff. I commonly use that reticle style for PRS matches when there’s no time to dial
Fabulous video, very instructive. Thank you for the great interviews with the gurus of scopes, each one offering their sincere expertise to us neophytes. Stay well.
Yes but those experts in the video would most likely disagree if all were
addressing one subject. So much of this is about what each individual is taught and personal opinions that may not work for everyone.
Near the end of the video, at 12:40 is one of the best tips I've heard in a long time....and it even makes sense on all price levels of scopes. I've also become a big fan of Element Optics. I own several models from a Helix HD all the way up to the Theos. I wish you would have asked the guests about their opinions on the scope properties regarding: eye relief, ocular adjustment and why different scopes have a more forgiving sight picture. Your channel is great.
The same can be said for MANY translating or rotating devices used in the world. If you have directional adjustment, there is often lash/slack/take-up when you go the other way. A great way to mitigate this is do exactly as he said. Usually, as long as you run something the same way every time the result will at the very least be precise, even if not accurate.
Great video. I’m no expert but I like the good old fashion crosshairs. Duplex Is acceptable for me
Honestly, if all your doing is hunting within a few hundred yards, a duplex is plenty. You don't need a fancy reticle and exposed turrets. Just learn your holdovers at any realistic distance you plan to shoot at.
Perfectly fine if you determine your rifle’s MPBR as it’s all you need.
When I bought my latest deer rifle, I asked the store owner (a pretty knowledgeable shooter) what reticle he recommended. Basic duplex, even though he knew I was salivating for something more complex. He was right. He knew how I hunt, no long shots, probably never get out to 400 yards, mostly under 200, usually about 100.
I agree! And way to much hype about having a first focal plane scope. I can't make out the hash marks much below 18 power on a 24 power scope. So what's the use? Not everybody shoots PRS.
The simple crosshairs is my favorite. Im not a recon sniper special forces chad just a simple patriot.
Some of the best rings I've ever used are the TRS series rings from TPS Products. Never needed to lap a set and they are priced well below some that required lapping.
They're all I own.
Totally agree. Started using these rings a few years ago and I am now slowly converting all my rifles to these rings.
I don't believe the Christmas tree reticle was ever meant to completely replace dialing the turrets. It was meant to be a faster way for military shooters to make corrections and engage targets in a "time is life" environment.
I also don't believe mil is better than moa or vice versa. They're both systems of angular measurement and they both work.
I've run into a couple optic snobs. Most recently the instructor in a LR class i took a few months ago. We were just talking during down time and he was telling me about his super awesome Viper PST Gen 2 but the second i mentioned I've got an Arken SH4 Gen 2 he yells "ok, everyone get ready".
I'm not as good a shot as he is but if i were I'd be willing to bet my $400 optic can function as well as his $1300 one.
Funny part is, the PST Gen ii isn't the end all of glass. I have one. It's ok but I'll take my Athlon Midas TAC over the Vortex any day.
@@oif3vetk9 The Athlon Midas Tac (6-24x50) is probably the best most reliable Chinese made scope for budget minded folks. Their Chinese HD glass are phenomenal and tracking are perfect and is a better quality option for sure than the Titan and Helix and some may even say on par with the Nexus. I prefer the Athlon Ares BTR Gen 2 4.5-27x56 over any of these 3 lines of Element Optics scopes. Try one out for yourself to see what I really mean it's incredible scope even though they're made in China. It's in fact IMHO also better than any other Chinese made Vortex, Bushnell, Vector Optics, Arken, Zero Tech, Riton, Blackhound and Hawke as well as many more Chinese made scopes too many to mention.
8 of 36 years African hunting(with trees), and this weeks 3 oryx, 5 springbuck, 2 impala and going all shot with a tree recticle.... one Springbuck at 363m head shot.... I am not convinced by your theory.... and we are still busy bringing the meet home. There is just no time to turn turrets....listen to the ranged calls hold and squeeze.... all in a couple of seconds.
So I hunt in Texas where shots are rarely over 200 yards. I always prepare for a 300 yard shot as a max long range shot just in case, I haven’t had one yet. Most shots in the field are less than 300 unless you want to go longer on purpose. With that in mind any scope that will hold a zero, with decent glass, can be used with maximum point blank range method with great success. It doesn’t take long to master MPBR especially with a flat shooting rifle/cartridge. Precision long range shooting is another matter but few people hunt that way. High dollar scopes for hunting are a little gimmicky to me. If you can’t kill it with a $500 scope then you may have other problems. But I’ve only been hunting for forty years so I’m still a novice. Longest shot to date, 350 on a prairie dog and it took six tries!😂
I also hunt in Texas and the farthest shot I could range for was 250 yards. That being said, I don't bother with MPBR. I dial for distance because even though I have a rifle that can shoot .39 MOA, there is that dispersion. If I introduce the rise and fall of MPBR, I could miss. Especially with one of my other rifles that is out to 1 MOA. So, by dialing to aim with the crosshairs, I should be no more than a fraction of an inch off the PoA. And yes, my scopes do not cost more than 500. But I do spend on the rings. The match precision rings I buy do not need lapping and they hold well.
Sounds right to me. Where I hunt, 400 yds. might someday be possible. 200 is a more realistic max, usually 100 or less. I sight-in for the 200 yd. max and know I will kill anything under that. Your idea of MPBR is a more sophisticated version of that, and really the better way to sight-in, if you have access to shoot at varying ranges to determine MPBR for your rifle/load.
Also, at those ranges, $300 glass and duplex reticles do a pretty good job.
@ronws2007 MPBR is related to your target size, so the same rifle using the same ammo it is different for a Prarie dog, a coyote, a deer, an elk, and an elephant. Of course you wouldn't want to use the same rifle for all those, but the point is MPBR is dependent on the area of your target that you must hit.
Gunblue explains this very well and his very practical, no-frills approach to shooting and gear selection is a breath of fresh air when everyone and their mother is trying to sell you the latest gizmos.
Great reply. So, to recap what I wrote before, I prefer to dial distance or hold over in the reticle. The dispersion of the round can be enough plus MPBR to miss. That being said, I certainly value your experience. Beware the man with only one rifle. He probably knows how to use the one very well. And so, my newest rifle is a 7 mm PRC and it shoots very flat.
My scopes were less than 500 dollars and really hybrids. Priced for hunting but capable of long range.
My longest shot was 450 yards on a prairie dog using a .222 Remington bolt action. I needed more scope for that distance but I made it on 2nd try.
Topic suggestion:
Show us EXACTLY what the differences are between lower-priced and higher-priced rings.
I've heard many times here, and elsewhere, that cheap rings may damage or wreck a scope. I'd love you to show EXACTLY what that means, and how much correlation there is between price and performance.
Simple mil dot and MOA dials is the way to go for literally a multitude of reasons. This expert has it right. Shooters just need to practice ranging using mil formula and bullet drop in MOA applied by elevation adjustment. Then learn wind with MOA wind constant formula and apply with hold.
Sometimes good deals can be had. For example, I picked up a $1,400 Vortex for $800 because it was a floor model. When I received it, it looked as if it had never been touched.
Element Optics scopes have been on sale for close to half price at a couple of retailers and also some price friendly dealers offer them for you for half price sometimes fir free if you post favorable reviews for them.
No, you picked it up for that price because they massively mark up MSRP and sell everything at a "discount". Never buy anything from vortex if it's not at least 40% off.
@difficult_aardvark
It was a floor model (technically, a store demo). The unopened stock, same model, cost $1,400 at the same store.
$700. Is not cheap for me, I have a hard time coming up with $200.00-- $300.00 for a scope.
Really 😮
It depends on when, what caliber and distance you shoot.
In sunny weather Shooting 223 over 200 yards even a 100 $ scope is enough...you wouldn't even notice the difference using a 4000$ Swarovski scope.
Shooting in the middle of the night 500 yards with 338 is a completely different story.
Need a range finder? Options to attach thermal or night vision? Variable magnification? Variable sight? Illuminated sight with color changing? Night vision compatible sight? Parallax compensation? Towers with zero setting, quick adjustable? HUD in the scope? Ballistic computer?
And even a simple cheap single shot spring powered air rifle can destroy a 4000$ scope when dry fired.
It is what it is. I understand your plight but that isn’t theirs or anyone else’s problem. If you want it bad enough, you’ll find a way to afford it but whining about the cost of something because it’s out of your price range, with all do respect, is a “you” problem.
$200 Nikon scope off eBay is a good scope.
Layaway my friend. I have bought multiple top of the line rifles and optics with this tool. No debts. Own lots of cool toys!
Great job with the subject, especially when it comes to the cost of your new scope!
Hey. Great video.
Some great tips and information.
I agree with the guy who said to go and compare optics side by side. I did and ended up spending 50% less for a scope that I absolutely love.
Not that the more expensive one wasn’t what I liked. It didn’t do anything more than the less expensive one.
One also has to look at the quality and warranty . weight if mountain hunting.
Or bench rest and not needing the highest light gathering.
Thanx for letting me babble. Lol
I’m a big fan of Leupold. When I got into long range shooting I really wanted Leupold but for the features I wanted it would be around $2k. A friend convinced me to look at a Vortex Razor. I got the same features as the Leupold for $1,200 and performance has been perfect. Still a big fan of Leupold but I think the lesson is, there are options if you have a budget.
Same features but the quality of clarity is night and day. Vortex distorts natural light and causes a bluish hue around the outlines of objects. And they sometimes don’t track accurately. I have a few vortex scopes. Lotsa bang for the buck. But I’ve got a 60mm 12x40 leupold spotting scope that boggles people’s mind with its clarity. And vortex has nothing that can compare to leupolds MK5 HD
@@zackzittel7683 I can reliably hit a target at 1,200 yards with my Vortex and am working my way up to 1,760 yards. So far the tracking has aligned perfectly with what the Hornady app has told me to dial it to. I’ve considered testing the tracking but haven’t seen a need to when it aligns so well with the app. I haven’t compared scopes side by side for clarity but seeing the target at 1,200 yards has not been a problem. From that, all I can say is it seems to get the job done.
Same goes for Leopold's stupidly overpriced red dot sights.
Their Delta Point is no better than the Voetex venom or any other $200 red dot.
The Razor line is good.
I always dial when I can but when I need to hold for no dial stages at PRS matches, I don’t have any issues hitting targets. I’m not sure the first guys claim is that substantial
I never worry about the edges being slightly fuzzy ... the center is where you aim.
Larger scope body tubes are not only utilized for recticle travel. Tube size can be a major requirement in the optical calculation of a scope construction in regards to allow for high zoom factors, low chromatic aberration, paralaxis depth, field of view etc. etc.
My current long range scope for my 6.5 PRC Browning X-Bolt is a BUSHNELL Elite LRTS 4.5 - 18 x 44 scope WITH an illuminated G3 small "Xmas tree" reticle. At 500 yards it is great for BOTH vertical and wind hold. I HOLD and do NOT dial! That goes for competition as well.
BUT... I am likely going to sell that scope and buy a BURRIS ELIMINATOR 6 (2nd focal plane withMANY sensors for its ballistic engine.) The "6" is a very advanced scope giving the shooter the best firing solution except for windage. It is a HOLD type of scope, NOT a dial type. I love that.
Deer hunting in Georgia a 300 dollar scope is the most you need to spend. I have 200 dollar scopes that work very well
Vortex podcast did a in depth I’ve of common myths and misconceptions of optics. It was a good listen.
The comments about main tube diameter made me think. If I’m buying a 1-4x or 1-6x LVPO, do I ever intend to use the turrets to adjust for windage or elevation? Not for hunting - so a 1” tube would be fine and would save weight.
The LVPO market is moving toward 1-8x or even 1-10x now. I wish someone would make a really high quality 1-6x and concentrate on making it as lightweight as possible while keeping a big field of view. Unfortunately, consumers always want the latest & greatest…
I wish Vortex offered in the 1x6 LPVO a plain Duplex cross hair for hunters like me. No fancy crap we are never going to use.
@@alcantrell5340 lol the last LVPO I bought was a 1-6x with a nice, simple reticle. It also weighs at least 8 oz less than Vortex.
They are marketing to the tacti-cool buyer, so they may add unnecessary things like oversized drum turrets or mil dot reticles. Rediculous.
@@chipsterb4946 what brand was it, that’s about all I put on my rifles anymore, I like the short compact size. Just don’t like the Christmas tree.. lol
@@alcantrell5340 it was an expensive Leupold: VX5-HD 1-5x24mm weight 13.4 oz. The Vortex Razor Gen II-e 1-6x24mm costs more, weighs 21.5 oz. and is available with a fairly simple BDC reticle. Please note I am *NOT* saying that Vortex is a bad scope. I just have different priorities.
6:55 *Gotta debunk this one. MILS is **_NOT_** a metric system measurement. Milliradians is a unit-less measure; it is not Imperial (inches, feet, yards, etc.) nor is it metric (centimeters, meters, etc.). The reason this myth of its own persists is because of the similarity between (MIL)liradians and (MIL)limeters.*
*However, this is merely linguistic; MILS in Greek stands for **_"one-thousand"._** In the case of millimeters, it means **_"one one-thousandth of a meter"._** With respect to milliradians, it means **_"one one-thousandth of a radian."_** That's where the similarity ends.*
*To repeat: milliradians has **_NOTHING_** to do with the metric system. There is no correlation between them. You can convert milliradians to a linear metric measurement, just like you can convert it to a linear Imperial measurement. But it is **_NOT_** metric.*
*It is precisely for this reason milliradians was settled on as the standard of Western militaries. Due to the fact NATO nations follow different measuring systems (Imperial and metric), the neutral, unit-less milliradians was chosen so as not to appear to be favoring one over the other. Users of either system (Imperial and metric) had to learn a new system (milliradians) to promote standardization and avoid preferential treatment.*
*I own scopes in both, I know the conversion math for both, I've shot using both. When I was a younger man I jumped on the MILS bandwagon. However, as time goes on I'm leaning more and more to making all my scopes MOA. Imperial is the system I grew up with, it's the system I don't have to think about. I can immediately picture in my mind's eye the approximate distance of an inch, a foot, a yard, 100 yards, etc. without any mental gymnastics or math conversion. MOA, with its approximation of 1 inch per 100 yards (technically 1.04 inches), dovetails effortlessly with that system of measurement for **_ME._*
*Understand I'm not promoting one over the other. What I'm promoting is finding what works for **_YOU_** and then sticking with it. I fully appreciate the standardization MILS brings to the table. If you're part of a group, it's of paramount importance you all agree to a single measurement system so you're not confusing the issue by trying to translate apples to oranges. If that's MOA, great. If that's MILS, that's fine, too. The point is to pick one so everyone is talking the same language. But if you're working alone, you have the luxury of picking what works best for you, personally, rather than what works best for everyone in a group situation.*
Thank you for the great practical advice.
I have a 6x18 44 Vortex crossover that is the brightest and clearest I have ever looked thru!
The Burris XTR signature rings (6) sets, and here is what I look for in scope rings: sloppy. The rings mounted, how much movement is there back and forth on the picatinny rail. Now, if I am worried about the screws rusting, I can replace them with S/S screws but they too can rust. Another big plus for Burris XTR scope rings: the plastic inserts can add MOA to your rifle set up. Weatherby MK 5 300 Weatherby Magnum S/S, I have found rust spots after hunting rainy weather - Alaska.
Lower quality 304 stainless will develop light rust spots. Better 316 and others will not.
Burris has a lifetime warranty on their rings if you have any issues they will take care of it.
Good education, I’ve been shooting my whole life i have high end scopes and i have low end, on all calibers. Better scopes tend to perform better. It’s also about your application, less expensive scopes perform great for different types of shooting
This was an incredibly informative video. Thanks Jim!
Where the christmas tree comes in handy is when you are shooting disciplines that dont allow for adjusting the scope other than the parallax. Hunter field class in air guns is an example. You set your magnification and confirm your zero. Once the match starts you range find with your parallax. Then you use your dope sheet to determine your holdover/hold under.
I consider a $600-$999 mid range. I have a primary arms 3-18 x 44 on the bagara 100-500 yrd rifle and a vortex pst gen 2 on the tikka tac A1 that is sighted 500+.
I own a .270 rifle that came with a 3-9 x scope for $600. in 2012. I have never missed with this combo up to 400 metres on Moose and deer!
Works for me!
Right, that's a very important comment because this video is totally about hunters that only shoot at close ranges with cheap 3-9s.
Nope on the horus type reticles. I’ve had years of experience with a tree reticle and they are far better than cranking turrets and I have them too. To date I would choose a tree reticle because it also gives a precise correction reference
I picked an MOA reticle so I can converse with other shooters at the range.
In the USA we try to avoid the metric system or anything in a base 10 structure. We measure our target distance in yards. We measure our muzzle velocities in feet/second. We make our scope adjustment decisions based on how many inches our holes are from the point of aim. (rounding 1" = 1 MOA at 100 yards, 2" at 200 yards, etc.) We might shoot a metric caliber/cartridge, but the bullets we buy are labeled in decimal inch diameters. We trim our brass and seat our bullets down to the thousandth of an inch. (or even 0.0005") For some of us, our goal is to shoot a mile -- hitting a target at 1760 yards. And I almost forgot, we measure our wind speeds in miles per hour.
Don't get me started on the units we use for measuring our powder and our bullet weights.
In Canada we use both metric and imperial systems… and we mix n’ match…
Shooting ranges typically have targets at 100m increments. We measure bullet velocity in fps and bullet energy in ft-lbs.
we use both MOA and milrad scopes depending on application. We measure cartridges and bullets and clearances in thousandths of inches (mils). Powder and bullet weights in grains. Wind velocity in km/hr. When evaluating groups at 100m we divide the group size in inches by 1.145 to get MOA because 1.047”=1moa at 100yd and 100m = 109.36yd so 1MOA=1.047x1.0936= 1.145” at 100m. Oh and I almost forgot… the length of your johnson is measured in inches.
Cheers!
@@trevorkolmatycki4042 Thanks for stating mils as portions of an inch (1000ths!)
2.54 cm for Johnson increments sounds cumbersome....😊
So much disinformation here.
You may want to change your pants because you're we'ing all over them. In the USA I can pick whichever unit I want to use for my rifle scope,& I prefer mil/mil for my reticle/turret set up. Imperial & metric based systems have been used in the US for quite sometime,in fact,if you've worked on a car in the last 40/50yrs. you're quick to find a ⅝ or ¾ bolt head next to a 9mm or 12mm. Like it or not,its just the way it is
That's a pretty big "we," bud. I don't do metric either, but I use MILs. Machinists use 1000/ths of inches. MILs are easier to range with. {[(target height in inches)/36 (convert to yards)] x 1000} / (measurement in MILs) = (distance to target in yards). 18" target measures 2 mils? [(18/36=.5) x 1000 = 500]/2 = 250 yards. Super simple. Now the same 18" target is 5 MOA. How far away is it?
My rule of thumb is spend as much on your scope, as your gun is worth (retail, obviously). That being said, I hunt with the $750 Vortex StrikeEagle 5-25x56mm on a $420 stainless Ruger American .270Winchester. Absolutely LOVE the scope. Amazing combo.
Many of my scopes are about twice as much ,
I have an old Weaver scope mounted on a semi-auto Remington .243 😂 I like it because the reticle doesn't have the top vertical bar. I usually hit whatever I'm aiming at.
I'm always so impressed on how you get these various types of guests in your videos, great job on that man! I don't know how, but it's workin!
I've been shooting a Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 gen 1 scope for YEARS with my .308 out to 800ish yards and am extremely happy with it. I can tell you, first hand, that you do not need a $2000 scope to get accurate hits. I think I paid 700 bucks for this scope. Training/practice is a lot better use for your money than an expensive optic. These guys are spot on.
1:05 he comes off sounding like a fud. I believe this would happen on cheap scopes that try to mimic the Horus reticle style, but on a quality scope, I don’t buy it. These have been out for decades and is even the official reticle fitted to the M24E1 used by the Army since 2010. I don’t think that would be the case if what he said was true.
MoA scope adjustment is essential, if you shoot on targets which are specified in MoA.
If hunting or informal target shooting, it makes no difference
Finally. Thank you.
On the cost topic, I heard a saying a long time ago about this. “Just because you bought the most expensive French Horn, doesn’t mean you will automatically be playing at Carnegie Hall.”
Equipment means nothing if you don’t have the requisite skills.
like my guitar lol
Hey BionicRusty cool stuff we worked with right! And Backfire!, As a retired owner operator of a optical thin films (coatings) lab. It does boil down to the specification tolorences and what you need. I love your videos Backfire and it was so nice to hear the adjust it past then back it down to the value, when talking about the adjustments of the reticle. Keep in mind you will have to figure out which direction of the turn of the knob is the correct direction to take out the slack in the tolorance that is the correct one to give you the most accurate results optically. Good lesson on having a accurate reference point down wind to calibrate to. To any one hunting don't forget up close with iron sites and a good caliber will get the job done! Be well every one,T
If your scope doesn't track and you miss, it's still YOUR fault. You should check your scope's tracking as described. Most sight-in targets have a grid on them to check the tracking, it can be confirmed by shooting after adjustment.
If the click values are correct, one can dial in the adjustments based on the grid(ex. You are 3 inches low and 2.5 inches left, you should be able to dial 12 clicks up and 10 clicks right, on 1/4 moa click value and your next shots should be point of aim) Of course those adjustments are wind dependent and a calm or parallel wind is best for such verification.
Good tips overall.👍👍
“Rectal Linear” 1:55
🤔
Like the angle of poop projection?
So many thoughts…… so many😂😂😂
So ALL of the biggest names in scopes around the world who have a Christmas tree reticle are wrong because this guy says so. Interesting
It would be far from the first time that companies were selling an inferior product because it looks cool so people not knowing better would favour it.
That said, depending on your purpose they can probably be very useful or a big disadvantage.
If you are able to carefully dial in every shot, doing so and cleaning up your view is probably going to be better.
But if you need to shoot more quickly, it provides a quicker method to adjust your aim, if less precise.
He knows experts tho
Yea, I was confused by that. Why would they be wrong because of wind and elevation?? This makes no sense.
Thanks for the info. Especially at the end about dialing past then back to counteract the spring tension.
Asks old guy. Gets old guy answers. Bet he hates texts also. Just use phones as they where designed.😂
I'm an old guy 😂
Thank you, you have one of the best podcasts for us average joes on guns again thanks
I’m new to the turret method. I’ve always only hunted in 200 yard shot max, areas. Now I’m going to places that have 4-500 yards and i invested in a turret optic. I just assumed you were to dial your scope to your dope card you created. I figured it defeated the purpose of the turret scope, if you didn’t dial it and used the Christmas tree. Good to know my assumption before this video was correct lol
Also new to dialing went to 411 with an arken 5-25 in 300 prc. I looked up the reticle hold over and kept missing, until I dialed. I need more practice. Cheers
@@chadperry4021 man that turret method is a whole new animal lol but it’ll be worth it for sure once I get an accurate dope card made up for it. I jumped on a Black hound they had on sale so hopefully I’m not disappointed. I was going to put it on my 270 WSM but now im thinking im going to put it on my 6.5 creedmoor. Im only going to be deer hunting this year. I didn’t draw for mule deer or elk so i should be good with the 6.5 this year if i have a 300+ yard shot
I've an old benchrest rifle that shoots sub 1/4 minute groups with a sub-$100 scope from Weaver. El Paso. Tracks beautifully. I have other scopes that won't hold in a bucket. There are, however, some tricks involved.
GREAT INFORMATION ON THE OVER TRAVEL TO TRY AND CORRECT TRACKING PROBLEMS
Jim almost always equates hunting with long range shooting. Long range shots and hunting do blend in some instances/areas but are not hand in hand.
Where I live shots at whitetail deer are almost always 40-125 yards. Definitely not distances where hold over or windage are going to matter with a low mounted scope (over the bore) zero'd at an appropriate range.
Yes but isn’t most of his content catered for the long range enthusiast or western hunter where distance more of a factor?
@@kadenmikesell87seems like it to me. Plus there’s been a real bias in shooting media to long range this and that in the past few years. For shots 300 yards and in 270 or 308 are perfectly acceptable. Heck 200 yards and in you can use 30-30, but that doesn’t sell new rifles, new cartridges, or spiffy scopes does it?
Come hunt in Utah and you’ll change your mind
@@gagedavis4024 I’d love to hunt in Utah! But I live in southern Maine…
I have a bore sighter that has a grid...and observe clicks and ensure the cross hairs move and return to place of origin. I have found dead spots in several scopes over the years. Good tips. Thank you.
Yes, with that type bore sighter you can find a lot of scope problems , the old Weavers used to shift about a foot, each time you changed the direction you turned the power , couldn't figure out what was the matter until I used the bore sight , also tap the scope real hard and see if the reticle moves , etc.
SIGHTRON Made in Japan with LOW =light optics works best Japanese glass at very affordable prices
10:21 the real Pepsi challenge is trying to convince the wife what the difference is.
1:20 - Yeah, but it just doesn't though, does it? It's pretty damned easy to test for yourself.
He uses technical phrases like "angle of incidence", yet doesn't seem to understand how lenses bend light or how scopes work.
I am 70 years old and I love scopes for another reason - at my age I cannot even dream of getting these eyes to focus on a front sight, a back sight and a target. Now, thanks to Burris, I still got a bear and a whitetail this year, one shot each.
Heres one for you. You dont need to spend $700 on your scope. Ive known many people who bring down deer with scopes under the $200 mark. Hell, one of my coworkers fills his tags every year with a $60 scope on a Winchester 270. Honestly, it comes down to distances. I live in Northeast Texas, in the area known as the Piney Woods region. Most wooded areas are choked with HEAVY undergrowth. Most shots are well within 200 yards. Hell, you could easily get by with good ol' iron sights, if hunting rifles other than lever actions still came with irons
Wish I would have seen a video like this about 10 years ago. Would have saved myself alot of money.
Sometimes you get lucky and find a scope for almost no money that works, year after year, with no headaches too. I have an old Redfield scope (pre Nikon) on a Browning 243Win that is like that. I got it new and cheap, old stock, from a store that was moving. It had to have been 10 years old when I bought it but never made it to the showcase in the store. Once I had it sighted in I have never had to adjust it. It is sighted to 150 yards and hits point of aim at 200 with no change. It hits half an inch high at 100 yards. I took a coyote at 300 yards with a 3 inch holdover, 90gr bullet. I don't live in an area that affords long shots thanks to dense woods and heavy development. I also have a 4x tasco AR scope that mounts on the carry handle. That cheap scope (used $20 Ebay find) is dead on. I haven't adjusted it in 10 years. I removed it twice and it was reinstalled and retained zero each time.
Excellent informative video ! I find that the x-mas tree is too cluttered for me except maybe for aiming artillery - I prefer minimal good'ol cross hairs only - call me old fashioned !!
I believe that the quality and price of optics purchased is as important as the actual amount of time spent looking through them. I can't sacrifice $2800 on a RifleScope.
But,
I had no problem investing $3600 on my Binos. 🤷♂️Hunter vs Shooter
I guess 😅
Happy Xmas and New Year to you and yours. Great videos and narrative(s). Be well.
When you say budget scopes I think of what I own. I have never give more than $100 for a scope. The Pinty I bought fore $50 has just under 1k rounds on it and I have taken it to 1000 yards. Very clear and holds zero tracks very good and always returns to zero. Bushnell Dusk and Dawn scopes are awesome hunting scopes also. I guess to each his own.
I always ask myself how it is that hunters were able to take down game 40 years ago without the OCD of modern shooters.
I’ll tell you how we did it 40 years ago with tasco and bushnell scopes using a .270 or 30-06 . We practiced a lot and usually only had one rifle that we knew inside out. The ethical guy regarded as a top hunter back then around the campfire was the guy that had the skills to get within a suitable range to take a animal. My brother once crouched and crawled on his stomach for hundreds of yards through a milo field in NW Kansas during the 1980’s to get a 150 yard shot on a trophy Antelope using his .300 win . He was “king of the hunters” to us for years for being able to do that. Not recognized for “squeezing the trigger”, but for pulling off that long sneak in open country with no trees and little cover. No one I ever knew back then took shots past 300 yards . We would simply find a way to get a closer shot or let the animal walk. Long range shooting was reserved for targets, not attempted on a living animal who would be hobbling around for days till it died from a gut shot at 600 yards. Times and equipment have changed. However I still try to get the drop on a big game animal that puts me in a high percentage shot and use my years of Hunting skills to accomplish that. Then I squeeze the trigger which is the easy part.
@@TheBamayaker Tasco and Bushnell scopes used to be great back in the day decades ago but not anymore. These days they are selling Chinese made junk just to earn a quick buck and the more expensive Japan made Bushnells today don't seem to be as good as their competition sold by other brands.
@@commonsense5709 they were hit and Miss back then too. Most hunters used see through mounts because scope failure happened occasionally on a hunt. The main thing is we used to kill plenty of deer with sun standard equipment. Now days the Marketing gurus and gun writers have gotten deep in the modern hunters heads. They tell us we must have the latest greatest thing to succeed. I use dependable equipment that outshoots me. I really like and believe in good solid equipment- no junk. But for hunting a 1k - 3k scope is not for me. To each his own with his hard earned dollars.
Very informative
I feel like less is more. Especially on the reticle.
Even for bow hunting. I went from a multi pin to a single pin. Just learnt my holdovers or unders.
I agree as old john Taylor used to say , simply hold higher .
I made a big mistake. My advice that I now have is pay for a 5x scope. Such as a 3-15. I got a Burris 4.5-14. Love it until a deer came out at 45 yards and all I saw was shoulder.
Yeah I have found 3-15 is about as good of a trade off you can for hunting out west.
@@JNOSNOW yep and I’m in the east. I like a 1-3 on the low side and 12-15 on the high I’ve considered a 2-10.
8:46 - dude, those 3 fingers hahaha
As soon as you have looked through a Swarovski, Kahles or Schmidt Bender, you never go back to a 700$ scope.
And Zero Compromise, Tangent Theta, Nightforce, Valdada. You'll never go back.
it's like driving a car
You do not need anything more than a basic 10x scope until you have consistent batch of proven match grade ammo, ie custom loads. A 3 thousand dollar scope cannot fix stock ammo.
Something in shooting and reloading really do come down to it really is just as good: for example, the Primal Right bench priming system won’t help your SDs any more than a RCBS bench priming system at 1/6 the cost.
Scopes are another thing however. If those cheap China made optics such as Arken really were just as good as a S&B or Tangent Theta, or Zero Compromise, or Nightforce, or what I shoot IOR, then these companies would simply go out of business. I wish someone would have sat me down and told me to save up my money for a 3500 dollar scope rather than $200 scope, sell for a loss, $400 sell at loss, $900, sell at a loss, $1500, sell at a loss to get to $3500 that does and performs at the level I need it to.
Up in northern wisconsin whitetail hunting my favorite scope of all time is the 1.5 to 7 nikon prostaff. Affordable and does the job real well without limiting my field of view.
That first guy, isnt the rifle scope designwd to be used with the Christmas tree reticle? Theyre not just slapping those things in there.
I dont know that i believe what that guy has to say.
maybe he was just trying to say people put too much trust into the reticle. on most scopes, he is probably 100% correct.
@Sageofthe16 in my experience people who are 100% right don't make arguments that take away from their credibility.
There's no reason to give him the benefit of doubt when he's clearly wrong about something he used to make his argument
Depends on who is making the scope. Some manufacturers ARE just slapping those reticles in scopes.
100% Fudd.
@@Mr.Killswitch me? Or the dude in the video?
You can know what you think you know, and it might be more than the next guy, but it’s all about preference… find what your looking for in a scope(not what someone else is looking for), train with it, and you’ll do everything you need or want to do with it!
Can you please link for us the scope rings that are advertised to hold zero a 50MM bell scope on a rifle in the back of the truck for a month and then thrown into an ATV for a few miles of dog hole infested prairie? I 'd really like to buy a pair... and while you're at it, a varmint scope that can handle the same.
No expert, but talking to a custom gun builder and he told me swarovski and march scopes for holding and returning reticle back to zero is by their designs. Those are the only 2 scopes he recommends and he wasn't a scope dealer. Dont know if this helps or not?
@@johnarnold2278 Gut a cheap hard case and reline it with memory foam.
Brilliant video. Thanks a lot for putting it together.
Hell, I don't even spend $700.00. That would be an expensive scope. I'm totally happy with $175/$225 scopes
I couldn't agree more
What's your sub-$250 scope recommendations?
@@djturnz I like the Sig Sauer Whiskey, Vintage scopes that I find on Ebay Etc. My scopes are for hunting purpose's only so I don't need all the new technology.
@garyh1449 gotcha. This R700 I'm building will be my first attempt at getting into "precision rifle" shooting. Most of my rifles are of the "semiautomatic, non- sporting" variety.
I'll be limited to about 400yds, and just for fun. So I'd like some "tactical" features, but it's not for competition. Just dipping my toe in.
I've watched so many videos where BUDGET BUILD still means $2k.
First off I want to say great informative video on a much needed subject. Now I read years ago that tube diameter has nothing to do with light gathering ability like you just stated and that its completely up to the objective lens diameter and quality of glass to perform that function but tube diameter does affect the scopes ability to transfer the gathered light to the pupil. This is a general assessment from what was found through testing. A 1" tube has the ability to transfer all of the light gathered by an objective lens up to 44mm. So if your going with a 1" tube there is no advantage to go larger than 44mm objective lens because the 1" tube can only transfer the full amount of light gathered by a 44mm lens. If a larger objective is desired it is also advised to step up to a 30mm tube or larger. This will also give more adjustment at the turrents desired in long range target applications where the largest objective lenses are desired.
a HUGE issue is the alignment on the base on the top of the action.
And there isn’t any adjustment in weaver/picatinny style bases.
Outstanding video, loved every minute.
You need to look through the scope at low light. Thats the biggest difference. Thats why i spend the money.
Mils and MOAs are really just different measures of an angle. In a circle there are 2*pi radians or alternatively 360 degrees. MOA is Minute of Angle. There are 60 minutes in a degree so one MOA equals 1/60 degree. Mil is milliradian or 1/1000 of a radian. Its like kilometers and miles. Both are measures of distance, just different units. You can convert MILS to MOA and vice versa.
Tracking can be checked without using any ammo. Of course with bow hunting it is unlikely anyone would consider a 100 yard shot an option even with the best crossbow not an option in my opinion. I have eaten deer harvested or shot with a shotgun and a high power rifle (where it is like a switch just turned them off) and with a broudhead through the engine room. In my opinion a broudhead through the engine room bleeds them out better. I don't care what kind of projectile you are putting down range accuracy counts. Perfect practice makes perfect, consultation and communication with a good group will get the meat out of the field and into the hands of those you love and in the end isn't that what it is all about?
Tracking is key if not number one
6 Scope Myths
1. 0:36 "Christmas-tree" reticles (by Ward Brien of Mountain Shooting Center)
2. 2:42 Bigger tube-size for more light to get through (by Kevin of Element Optics)
3. 4:45 Rings
4. 6:40 MIL vs. MOA
5. 7:48 Big money for good results (by Kevin of Element Optics)
6. 10:58 Turret tracking
7. ???
When I got into shooting mid 2000 I bought 2 nikon buckmaster 6-18x40 1/8 moa, target dot scopes. less than $500 each new. When I started with F-Class around 2008 one of them went on the f-class rifle and that rifle kicked a lot of butt. People are shocked when they realise they got beat by an entire setup that cost less than just their scope.
I would love to get a higher mag scope but they pretty much just don't exist.
1/8 moa (1 want 8 clicks for your 3)
target dot reticle
side focus
no BS like illumination, or funky reticles.
So I still use the nikon...
Unfortunately the tacticool garbage has taken over the market. The current scope market is a dick measuring exercise.
Nikon quit making rifle scopes 2 years ago. Liberal politics.
Thanks, Backfire.
Let's not forget Carlos Norman Hathcock II (May 20, 1942 - February 22, 1999) was a United States Marine Corps (USMC) sniper with a service record of 93 confirmed kills. he didn't have a scope with all the bells and whistles back when he was one of the best Snipers during the war.
Excellent point
The only pertinent question is, "What would he use TODAY?". Of course he didn't have any of the whiz bang technology.... it didn't exist. Would he have had 100 kills if it did? Who knows. It's not relevant.
In baseball, pitcher Adam Ottavino caused a big controversy by saying he would strike out Babe Ruth "every time". Of course he would. It's barely the same sport that Ruth played. The players are all bigger, stronger, faster, healthier. No contest.
Babe Ruth was great *in his time*.
Hathcock was great *with that equipment*... and he'd still be great and he'd be using modern equipment if he had it. He'd have to be a fool not to.
@@brianpfleuger the point I am making is everyone now days thinks you can't do anything unless you have all the bells and whistles, I am not against modern technology I just don't understand people saying you can't do anything unless you have it.
@@georgelewis7010 From my experience this "people say you can't do X unless you have the biggest,most expensive Y" is just a made up story that hunters tell other hunters.
Never have I ever heard a shooter (not hunter) saying something even close to that, it's always been the people that only hunt and shoot only 150 yards or so.
Awesome video with lots of great content / info.