You’ve already gotten good advice from well qualified people, so here’s my unneeded observation.

I’ve gotten to the age where shooting 500 yards for fun means a Shiloh Sharps chambered in 45-70 with some quality aperture sights, some good friends, and a Saturday with nothing else to do.

Doesn’t meet your “practical” requirement, but it’s good fun, and that’s practical for me.

I got my caribou last weekend (and my wife got hers too) with a tikka T3x superlite 6.5 Creedmoor. Mine was at 310yds and hers 280, we used Ammo I loaded up with the Barnes 127g LRX and h4350. The scope is a nightforce nxs 2.5-10 MILr reticle.

It’s a great setup of course you don’t need a 1500 dollar scope for that sort of shooting.

Go with the Tikka T3X CTR in 6.5CM. It will be the best bang for your buck in terms of out-of-the-box accuracy and quality. It will also shoot amazing with a wide variety of factory ammo, which means you aren't required to start reloading right away. It has potential to stretch much further than your intended range when you are ready for it.

Thanks for all the feedback. All of the knowledge sharing is very appreciated. I'm starting to narrow down my considerations.

What I'm pondering now is... do I need a detachable box magazine? What are the pros and cons? I can see this as a nice convenience but also a liability in practical shooting. What are your experiences here? I realize that DBMs are very popular now, and I'm sure that's for good reason.

I like the Tikka rifles that use the lower profile 3-round and 5-round factory magazines, but those typically only come in the lighter-weight versions. The CTR has a 10-round magazine, but that seems like a specialized thing unique to the CTR. It also extends lower from the rifle.

Some Bergara rifles also come with DBMs, and they are AICS pattern which seems like a nice thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
What I'm pondering now is... do I need a detachable box magazine? What are the pros and cons? I can see this as a nice convenience but also a liability in practical shooting. What are your experiences here? I realize that DBMs are very popular now, and I'm sure that's for good reason.

Unless you have an unusual definition of practical shooting, I can't can see a problem with a DBM. Let alone a liability. Understand that practical shooting with long guns is generally usually done with AR-type rifles in 2-gun or 3-gun competition. Lots of shots are fired in a short time frame, and magazine reloads are mandatory. So yes, a DBM helps. But your BCM AR-15 is a better tool for this game.

DBM is pretty much mandatory for precision/steel/PRS/NRL type practice or competition. A DBM doesn't hurt on the square range, either. I have the AICS pattern DBM on three bolt action rifles -- 223 Remy, 6.5CM, and 308 Win. AICS is a system that just works -- in heat, cold, rain, windblown sand, snow.

The only time a DBM probably doesn't make sense is in hunting, but in your initial post you stated you don't hunt.

I believe the advantages of detachable box magazines far outweigh their disadvantages.

First their disadvantages:
If one is hunting or involved in other activities requiring moving through rough terrain, they could be dislodged and dropped. There are ways to prevent that, but it is possible in theory.
Malfunctions are more likely, e.g., if the mag is not seated properly.

Advantages:
The ability to load more than the fixed number of rounds that an integral magazine limits. Depending, of course, on what magazines are available.
Much faster reloads if a spare loaded mag is available. Pistol shooters have known that about forever, and unless one has an old military style rifle that takes stripper clips, there are no speed loaders for rifles.
It’s somewhat easier to check how many rounds are left/loaded in a DBM.
In certain competitions, live rounds cannot be loaded in the rifle until the time starts; that provides a huge advantage to the DBM over an integral magazine.
If the integral magazine is “blind,” to unload it requires cycling rounds with the bolt through the chamber. That can be a little dangerous and subjects the ammunition to the possible damage of being repeatedly forced into the chamber. If the integral magazine has a hinged floorplate, unloading it dumps a bunch of loose rounds in one’s hand or on the floor, ground, snow, dirt, etc. I much prefer dealing with ammunition that’s contained in a nice, sturdy box.
Different types of ammunition can be kept loaded in different magazines and switched very quickly.
If a malfunction does occur (failure to feed or chamber or eject), it’s usually much easier to clear with a DBM.

Those are the ones I can think of right now.

Although I never had any problems with them, I am not a fan of the plastic magazines used with most Tikka rifles. I prefer the metal mags used with the “tactical” rifles, including, I believe, the CTR. They are not cheap or inexpensive, but it’s not necessary to have boxes full of them either.

Thanks for the reply, fritz. Correct, I don't hunt, which was one of the situations I was referring to when I used the term practical shooting. I meant to imply any type of shooting that isn't in a pristine range/bench setting. What is it about hunting that makes a DBM not make sense? Is it simply the fact that in a hunting scenario you'd typically only make 1 or 2 shots?

Edited to add: Ah, I understand now, sigfreund. Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
Correct, I don't hunt, which was one of the situations I was referring to when I used the term practical shooting. I meant to imply any type of shooting that isn't in a pristine range/bench setting.

That's confusing, because right up front you say you don't hunt, but you are considering practical shooting. So....which one is it going to be?

It depends on what you want the bullet to do at 500 yards. Punching paper or ringing a gong is possible with a .223. For knocking something down at 500 yards, I prefer a .338 Win Mag.

Save all that money you were going to spend on another rifle and get a Larue mount for your red dot, and another for a good quality optic.


Your BCM AR15 is a 200-500 yard rifle.


I shoot 500 yard targets in 3-gun with a 1-6x optic. I have a 3-15 on a precision upper that makes it easy. The challenge with a 5.56 starts to rear it's head at 600 yards and beyond.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
Hi all,

I need a 200-500 yard rifle. It’s the only real gap in my collection. I chose 500 yards because it seems reasonable and my rifle range goes to 500. I don’t know what I don’t know, which is why I’m coming to you folks.

I already have a BCM AR-15 in 5.56mm with an Aimpoint T-2 and Vortex Micro 3X magnifier for what I consider the rifle’s (and my skill’s) effective range of 0-200 yards. I’m looking to purchase my first rifle that can tackle the longer range, and build my marksmanship skills. Due to budget constraints (and the current supply of guns in America) I’m primarily considering bolt action rifles. This will be my first bolt action rifle, as well as my first variable-power optic.

My goals:

• Budget for rifle and optic – around $1500
  
• Capable of allowing me to solidly and routinely smack an 8” steel plate at 400-500 yards after I build my skills.
  
• A rifle/optic combo that is as light/handy/portable as possible, yet allows me to comfortably shoot perhaps 20-25 rounds per shooting session without my shoulder taking too much of a beating.
  
• Shooting around 250-350 rounds per year.
  
• A rifle setup that is flexible in that I can shoot it prone, from the bench, or various other positions. Usable on shots ranging from 50 to 500 yards.
  
• A common and proven caliber. Leaning toward 6.5 Creedmoor or .308 Win.
  
• I will use factory ammo. I do not handload.
  
• I’d like to stick to around a 20” barrel, unless there’s a good reason to go shorter or longer.
  
• I do not hunt, so this rifle will not be out with me in the wilderness.
  

Everything in this post says:

AR-15.

You aren't seeking energy, you don't need a 6.5 or 306 to get to 500 yards.

Match grade 5.56/223 is cheaper than match grade 6.5 Creedmoor.

You are on a budget. So buying a new optic and match grade 223 ammunition will allow you to put more rounds down range than buying a new rifle in a new caliber AND a new scope.


Lack of recoil is conducive to training. Cheaper ammo is conducive to training. You will be better off with more trigger time with a slightly lesser caliber. The wind and drop and velocity advantages of 6.5 Creedmoor don't become particularly significant until you are well beyond 500 yards. I ran the numbers on a 5.56 shooting 73gr ELD bullets vs. 224 Valkyrie, 6.5 Grendel, and 6.5 Creedmoor a year or so ago. My upper limit of distance was 800 yards. I went with 223 Wylde.


$1500 doesn't get you much when that is your budget for a new gun, and an optic, and a mount, and new ammo, and a bipod or shooting bags, and perhaps a rangefinder, and perhaps a kestrel.



But if you only need to buy a new optic and mount, and whatever other gear you still need. That leaves money in the budget for ammo.


You don't even really NEED match grade ammo to whack steel out to 500 yards. 55gr FMJ will do it if you find a load that your rifle likes.

Just my 2 cents. If you had said 800-1500 yards I would be in agreement that you need a bolt action 6.5 Creemoor or similar.


Larue mounts return to zero. Get one for your red dot and for whatever optic you choose (take a look at the Vortex PST Gen2 3-15). You can swap optics with return to zero capability.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
Save all that money you were going to spend on another rifle and get a Larue mount for your red dot, and another for a good quality optic.


Your BCM AR15 is a 200-500 yard rifle.


I shoot 500 yard targets in 3-gun with a 1-6x optic. I have a 3-15 on a precision upper that makes it easy. The challenge with a 5.56 starts to rear it's head at 600 yards and beyond.

No problems with a stock M16A4 with an ACOG at 656 yards. Practice the fundamentals, learn to read wind, and the rifle will put bullets in the bad guys.

According to my son, Marines have no problem at 500 meters with an M4 and 4x scope. I think they are switching over to 1-6x soon though.

Me, I really like my pawn shop find, used 700 MilSpec .308 with a 30mm tube Leupold scope.
It makes tiny little clusters out to 300 yds, shoots less than MOA that far out, haven't gotten to a longer range yet.
A little more energy for the tougher zombies

quote:

Originally posted by ElKabong:
According to my son, Marines have no problem at 500 meters with an M4 and 4x scope. I think they are switching over to 1-6x soon though.

Me, I really like my pawn shop find, used 700 MilSpec .308 with a 30mm tube Leupold scope.
It makes tiny little clusters out to 300 yds, shoots less than MOA that far out, haven't gotten to a longer range yet.
A little more energy for the tougher zombies

Those targets are huge. We used to shoot them with iron sights at 500M, too. Try that on a 5" target at 500M, and it's not going to be very successful. With a match rifle, good optics, and light wind, it's easy.

How much did you pay for the 5R?

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:

quote:

Originally posted by ElKabong:
According to my son, Marines have no problem at 500 meters with an M4 and 4x scope. I think they are switching over to 1-6x soon though.

Me, I really like my pawn shop find, used 700 MilSpec .308 with a 30mm tube Leupold scope.
It makes tiny little clusters out to 300 yds, shoots less than MOA that far out, haven't gotten to a longer range yet.
A little more energy for the tougher zombies

Those targets are huge. We used to shoot them with iron sights at 500M, too. Try that on a 5" target at 500M, and it's not going to be very successful. With a match rifle, good optics, and light wind, it's easy.

How much did you pay for the 5R?

$550 w scope (had a cover on it hiding the gold ring)
I know, how do I sleep at night?
Best bang for the buck I've ever bought
Think the guns were like $1199 when they came out.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...170043954#9170043954
I misspoke, it was a 1" tube, swapped one my 30mm's on it, was a Leupold tho
Paid $535 out the door

Just for reference - I have shot my heavy barrel AR out to 1,000 yards.

I had the opportunity to shoot at Fort Meade, MD., on their range. There you could shoot at 600 and 1,000 yards. Flags were along side the range for determining wind and the bull was something like 2’ in diameter. We shot in pairs - one spotter, one shooter. To say the least, I was skeptical. I think we had some coaches on the range as well, giving some advice on scope adjustments which got us on the paper.
All shooting was prone and considering I had never shot at 1k before, I did pretty well.
Still, at the end of the day I couldn’t help but think that the little 223 could have been swatted out of the air at that distance if you could have seen it coming. That bullet had to be about spent.
Sadly, they no longer allow civilians on to that range.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
My goals

There is more to precision riflery than banging large steel targets at range.
Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise.

I’m not trying to sound snobbish and I’m certainly not in the same league as the true precision shooters here. And there is obviously nothing wrong with simply wanting to be able to hit large steel targets other than the fact that for me it becomes boring very quickly. I would no doubt feel differently if I had the opportunity of shooting at very long distances under challenging conditions, but that’s not the case. I can, however, test my mettle and develop my skills as a precision rifle shooter in other ways, including the dot drills that members like offgrid recommend. Those drills can be as demanding as we want to make them, and they are absolutely unforgiving. There is nothing like looking at a sheet of paper with 20 dots and 20 bullet holes that may or may not coincide to offer stark proof of our ability to make every shot go where we want it to.

Shooting at 200 yards with a cartridge like the 6.5 Creedmoor won’t test my wind-doping skills like shooting at 1200 yards, but I find that as the power of the cartridge increases other aspects of the activity become more difficult and demand a greater understanding and application of fundamentals that are less important when shooting lower powered rounds.

It is possible to start pursuing your goals with any gun; the inexpensive pellet gun my parents could afford to buy me as a kid eons ago got me going. At some point, however, being able to confidently tell whether an errant shot was due to me or my equipment becomes important.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
There is more to precision riflery than banging large steel targets at range.

Yes, I agree. And I think we are on the same page. I started out with a Ruger 10/22. I used it for plinking initially and can use it to hit 8" steel plates at 200 yards with a red dot. I then got my AR-15. I have used it for CQB/defensive-style shooting and manipulations. I can also use it to hit 4" steel plates at 200 yards with a red dot and magnifier.

When I've gotten down in the prone position with both of these rifles and really focused on marksmanship skills and shooting very deliberately, I found I really enjoyed it. I found it quieted and calmed my mind and I appreciated pure marksmanship. The goals were different than any other type of shooting I've done. Just trying to hit the distant target as accurately and repeatable as possible. That's why I'm looking for a different type of gun in a different caliber. One that I can continue to learn with and grow with.

After considering all of the valuable input from experienced members here, and based on my own research, I'm pretty confident that I've settled on a Tikka T3X CTR in 6.5 CM w/ 20" barrel. I think it's the best all-around rifle for me and my goals. It's a proven rifle, very accurate and serviceable out of the box, and can be easily upgraded later on if I so desire.

Now I need an optic. I also tend to agree with sigfreund's earlier perspective that I don't necessarily need a top-of-the-line optic at first. The majority of the budget can go to a quality rifle. The rifle and barrel will likely last me several years. If after say 2 years I find that the optic isn't meeting my needs, then I can upgrade he optic perhaps at the same time I upgrade to a chassis system. There will still be a lot of life left in the rifle at that point.

So given the Tikka T3X CTR is around $900 and my budget for both the rifle and optic is around $1500, what specific optics (and perhaps equally important, reticles) would you suggest? My initial thoughts were an optic in the 2-10X or 3-15X range. My thoughts on reticle are that it doesn't need to be overly complicated. I need to decide on MAO vs MRAD, certainly. But I think a reticle with easy-to-apply hash marks that isn't too busy would allow me to learn holds, make adjustments, etc.

What might you guys recommend, and what else should I take into consideration optic-wise? Thanks!

Chris

I have long used reticles calibrated in milliradians and despite the increasing popularity of minute of angle reticles, I’ve never felt the slightest wish to switch to that system. For me counting in units of 10 (the decimal system) is easier than in (sort of) base 4 (i.e., 1/4 MOA adjustments).

The long range shooting instructor/former Marine sniper who wrote the article at the below link agrees and does a good job of explaining the basis for his preference.

https://www.snipershide.com/pr...mils-vs-moa-vs-iphy/

There are so many reticle designs available these days that I’d probably first look at the scope I was interested in and then pick the reticle offered that I liked best. I have a scope with highly complex Horus reticle and another scope with a “Christmas tree”-like design, but I’m content with the simpler designs with two crosshairs marked with mils and half mils. The Nightforce reticles I’m familiar with are calibrated and marked at 0.2 mil intervals between the longer marks at 1 mil segments, and that’s a little unusual, I believe. More commonly the main parts of the crosshairs are at 1 and 0.5 mil intervals. The finer intervals allow for more precise estimates, but they require more concentration to use, I believe, because there are more marks to interpret.

Reticle design really is a personal preference, though.

Added: If I were purchasing a five to one zoom range scope, I’d pick 3-15 over 2-10. Having a not-too-great lowest power can be important for certain applications such as hunting or law enforcement sniping for when having a large field of view is critical, but for the type of shooting I envision your doing, I’d rather have a bit more at the top. When I got my 6.5 Creedmoor Tikka I first mounted a 3-15 scope on it, but then that one got moved to the less precise 308 Tikka. The 6.5 got a 5-25, and I’m happier that way. The JP Enterprises AR I’m working with most now has a 3.6-18× scope, and that’s working well for me.

There is one very knowledgeable optics guy who reviews many high tier scopes, and I found it interesting that he said he does most of his long range shooting at 12 power. He says that higher settings tend to cause people to try to fine tune their point of aim too much. I believe he has a valid point, and for some of what I do I’ve adopted that idea. But there are times when I like a little more magnification so that I can fine tune my point of aim more precisely.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
So given the Tikka T3X CTR is around $900 and my budget for both the rifle and optic is around $1500, what specific optics (and perhaps equally important, reticles) would you suggest? My initial thoughts were an optic in the 2-10X or 3-15X range. My thoughts on reticle are that it doesn't need to be overly complicated. I need to decide on MAO vs MRAD, certainly. But I think a reticle with easy-to-apply hash marks that isn't too busy would allow me to learn holds, make adjustments, etc.

OK, so now you have $600 for the optic and the rings/mount. Figure $100 minimum for a good set of rings, leaving you with a maximum of $500 for an optic. That's not much money for glass.

Ignoring MOA vs. mils for now, you state you want to use the reticle for holds. That implies a First Focal Plane ("FFP") scope, so that the hash marks are calibrated correctly for all magnification levels. FFP scopes tend to cost more than Second Focal Plane scopes.

You'll have a challenge in obtaining a reasonable FFP scope for your budget, especially with 3-15x zoom. The glass won't be from Europe, USA, Japan, or the Philippines -- it will be sourced from China. You're the buyer, but quality glass on an AR15 is a better option IMO.