In an interesting coincidence, I (re)read this today:

“A cheap £50 ($85) telescopic sight manufactured in China today has better resolution, magnification and light gathering properties than the very best optical scopes of 50 years ago, and in all probability it is not even using glass for its lenses, but optical grade plastic.”
Martin Pegler, Out of Nowhere: A History of the Military Sniper — written 16 years ago.

Another commentator recently pointed out that only a few years ago a $1200 Leupold would have been considered a top tier scope, but the same one would be a mid grade optic today.

Thanks for the input on what to look for in scopes. I read that link on Sniper's Hide that sigfreund posted as well as a few others and they were all very enlightening. What really resonated with me is the comment that you never really need to convert angular measurements to linear measurements. Just always think in the angular measurement of your scope and you'll be fine. That's some great stuff.

I've been doing a lot of research on scopes lately, looking various models and feedback on various forums on specific models. There are so many options. I do agree that I should increase my budget for a scope, to perhaps around the $800-$900 range (not including rings/base). Does anyone have specific scopes they'd recommend that has good glass clarity, repeatable adjustments, and good overall quality? I've heard lots of good things about SWFA SS 3-15x scopes. They are made in Japan. My eye likes their Mil reticle as well. I've also heard good things and not-so-good things about the Vortex Vipr PST Gen 2 line. They are made in China, and have strong warranties. The negative comments on them is that they have good warranties for a reason... they break. Burris XRS II and Bushnell LRTS scopes also seem well-regarded. Other brands I tend to trust: Trijicon and Leupold. Also heard good things about Steiner and Meopta.

Any specific recommendations?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Chris17404,

I prefer Seekins rings and have used them on several rifles. They are very precisely machined, bolt rigidly to the base, don't have large protrusions sticking out, and have several height options available:

https://seekinsprecision.com/p...rings-30mm-tube.html

You will probably want .92" or .97" high depending on your cheek weld and scope objective diameter. The Vortex Precision rings are the same as Seekins, they are just rebranded:

https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-...s/dp/B003GSOHW0?th=1


If you plan to dial for elevation and/or wind then having a scope that tracks accurately is one if your most important requirements. For this I would look at the Nightforce SHV 4-14x50 F1, I prefer the MOAR reticle.

https://www.sportoptics.com/ni...fle-scopes-c556.aspx

If you call Sport Optics they will often have sale prices that they aren't able to advertise online, which will get you closer to your target price. I have this optic on my Sako Long Range in 300WM, I shoot it out to 1200 yards frequently so it's plenty of glass for your desired use. The biggest drawback of the 4-14 SHV is that the eye relief and eye box aren't as forgiving as my other NF scopes when you dial above the 10X mag range. The nice thing is that since it's FFP you don't have to be at 14X mag for the reticle to be accurate for holds.

If you don't plan to dial other than to set your initial zero, and will just use the reticle for elevation and wind holds, something less expensive like the Vortex Viper PST line will be ok. Several local friends have these scopes and they do not track accurately. They compensate by just using the reticle for both elevation and wind holds which removes the mechanical tracking from the equation. You will definitely need to buy a FFP scope from the PST line since the image quality really degrades at the higher mag ranges, and a SFP reticle is only truly accurate at max mag range. Either a 3-15x44 or 5-25x50 PST will be enough scope to get you started though.

https://www.eurooptic.com/vort...st-rifle-scopes.aspx

Eurooptic is another excellent vendor who ships fast and frequently had good sales.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
I do agree that I should increase my budget for a scope, to perhaps around the $800-$900 range (not including rings/base).

I've heard lots of good things about SWFA SS 3-15x scopes. They are made in Japan. My eye likes their Mil reticle as well.

The steel/precision/tactical game is best played with FFP scopes, and when people think in angles. The only linear measurement you need is distance to target. Both MOA and mils work. A scope budget of $800-900 is much more reasonable.

I've looked through a few SWFA scopes. I thought they were OK, but nothing special. Not my first choice at all. I believe the mil reticle you note is a very old-school mil dot reticle. Simple -- yes, but the industry has moved on from that many, many years ago. Look for something better.

Vortex Viper scopes are made in the Philippines, and the glass is good. Lower priced scopes -- such as Strike Eagles -- are made in China. I have a PST II 2-10x on a 16" AR15. Very good scope for the money -- glass is clear, colors are bright, elevation and windage tracking are spot on. One of the best shooters in Colorado also has a PST II 2-10x on an AR. Uses it a lot -- won the last four 2-rifle matches in Raton, NM with it. His Viper has been through a lot, and yet it holds zero and tracks flawlessly. From what I've heard, the Vortex warranty issues seem to occur more with the 5-25x models. I don't really hear of issues with 2-10x and 3-15x models.

I've contacted Vortex once, when I lost a set screw on the windage knob. My fault, as I backed out the screw too far and lost it in the dirt. I called their CS line and asked if I could buy a couple replacements. They said no, but they would ship me 3 new set screws for free. I had the new screws in a couple of days.

Burris XTR II scopes are an option, in 2-10x or 3-15x. I think the Vortex PST is a little nicer, but the XTR seemed decent enough in the demo shoot I attended. I've heard the 5-25x models have glass clarity and color issues, so I don't recommend them.

I have no experience with Bushnell, Meopta, or Trijicon tactical scopes.

I have owned 2 Leupold Mark 4 scopes. Older models, yes. I essentially gave them away. Best if I let the Leupold fans tout their models.

Most of my scopes are Nightforce, and their upper end scopes are more than your price guidelines. The one possibility is the SHV line -- I have the F1 4-14x on a 22lr trainer. Best price you will likely see on it is about $1000, for an open box or demo from Sportoptics.com. That's how I bought mine. Sportoptics is a good company, and you can often get the prices down from the website amount by calling their CS line and asking for a discount.

Bottom line -- I think you'd like the Vortex PST or Burris XTR in 2-10x or 3-15x.

The SWFA “MIL-QUAD” reticle is very similar to the Leupold Tactical Milling Reticles that I like.

I will also add my vote for doing business with EuroOptic if they have anything you like. I’ve purchased many rifles and scopes from them and they always give prompt service. If one meets their “military/LE/first responder” criteria (I forget the details) they offer discounts for that, and will even knock off a few bucks if paying by check rather than CC. (It’s necessary to call and talk to them about the check deal, but they take all the information over the phone so there’s no delay in sending a physical piece of paper.)

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
Thanks for the input on what to look for in scopes. I read that link on Sniper's Hide that sigfreund posted as well as a few others and they were all very enlightening. What really resonated with me is the comment that you never really need to convert angular measurements to linear measurements. Just always think in the angular measurement of your scope and you'll be fine. That's some great stuff.

I've been doing a lot of research on scopes lately, looking various models and feedback on various forums on specific models. There are so many options. I do agree that I should increase my budget for a scope, to perhaps around the $800-$900 range (not including rings/base). Does anyone have specific scopes they'd recommend that has good glass clarity, repeatable adjustments, and good overall quality? I've heard lots of good things about SWFA SS 3-15x scopes. They are made in Japan. My eye likes their Mil reticle as well. I've also heard good things and not-so-good things about the Vortex Vipr PST Gen 2 line. They are made in China, and have strong warranties. The negative comments on them is that they have good warranties for a reason... they break. Burris XRS II and Bushnell LRTS scopes also seem well-regarded. Other brands I tend to trust: Trijicon and Leupold. Also heard good things about Steiner and Meopta.

Any specific recommendations?

Ive had several of the SWFA mil dot scopes over the years, I still have a few and I have several friends who use them for everything. They are excellent scopes, probably not the best glass but I don't care, its an aiming device not an observation device and as aiming tools, they work very well. The only downsides are that they are heavy and you need to get an aftermarket zero stop kit (20 bucks or so) for that weight though, you get a tank of a scope and SWFA is a great company to do business with. I think their mil dot reticles are great, I wish my nightforce NXS had that mil dot reticle rather than the MILr.

quote:

Originally posted by newmexican:
its an aiming device not an observation device

Thank you for that perceptive observation that applies to most sights. I will definitely remember it for the future.

Sometimes scopesights are observation devices in the true sense of being used to locate and identify targets, but not always. And, I would bet a nickel, in practice that's very seldom.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by newmexican:
its an aiming device not an observation device

Thank you for that perceptive observation that applies to most sights. I will definitely remember it for the future.

Sometimes scopesights are observation devices in the true sense of being used to locate and identify targets, but not always. And, I would bet a nickel, in practice that's very seldom.

The OP specifically stated he wants to shoot 8" steel targets at 200-500 yards. With his goal of improving technique, the OP's primary observation device for spotting hit/miss locations will be his rifle scope. Time of bullet flight to 200 yards will be around 1/4 second, with time of flight of maybe 2/3 second to 500 yards.

If the OP uses unpainted steel, he will likely never see after-the-fact where the impacts were on steel for targets closer than 300 or 350 yards. There will be too much plate movement with a 6.5CM, the splash will be difficult to isolate, and it will take time and training before he keeps sights on target prior to the bullet's impact. If he repaints the steel every few rounds, he can locate the impacts after the plate stops moving. If the OP doesn't have a spotting scope or quality binos, then his scope is absolutely his only after-impact observation device. Unless he wants to walk down to the target to inspect it after each shot. Or unless he has a dedicated impact-spotting buddy.

Using the riflescope as an observation device to track his own impacts, he can make corrections (if necessary) for aiming subsequent shots. There is no more fundamental rule in increasing shooting skills with steel targets.

His scope will be an important device to view wind speed and direction. That's observation, to assist in aiming.

If the OP ever gets into multiple target training/practice/competition, the scope will be an observation device to help him locate the next target. At which point he can use the scope for aiming.

If the OP starts shooting steel with others and doesn't have a spotting device, his riflescope becomes his observation device to give them feedback.

Regardless of what type of shooting he does, the scope has a critical safety function -- "Know your target and what's beyond." And I must add, "..what's to the right & left, and above & below" the target.

I spend more time "observing" through my scopes than "aiming" through them.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by newmexican:
its an aiming device not an observation device

Thank you for that perceptive observation that applies to most sights. I will definitely remember it for the future.

Sometimes scopesights are observation devices in the true sense of being used to locate and identify targets, but not always. And, I would bet a nickel, in practice that's very seldom.

The OP specifically stated he wants to shoot 8" steel targets at 200-500 yards. With his goal of improving technique, the OP's primary observation device for spotting hit/miss locations will be his rifle scope. Time of bullet flight to 200 yards will be around 1/4 second, with time of flight of maybe 2/3 second to 500 yards.

If the OP uses unpainted steel, he will likely never see after-the-fact where the impacts were on steel for targets closer than 300 or 350 yards. There will be too much plate movement with a 6.5CM, the splash will be difficult to isolate, and it will take time and training before he keeps sights on target prior to the bullet's impact. If he repaints the steel every few rounds, he can locate the impacts after the plate stops moving. If the OP doesn't have a spotting scope or quality binos, then his scope is absolutely his only after-impact observation device. Unless he wants to walk down to the target to inspect it after each shot. Or unless he has a dedicated impact-spotting buddy.

Using the riflescope as an observation device to track his own impacts, he can make corrections (if necessary) for aiming subsequent shots. There is no more fundamental rule in increasing shooting skills with steel targets.

His scope will be an important device to view wind speed and direction. That's observation, to assist in aiming.

If the OP ever gets into multiple target training/practice/competition, the scope will be an observation device to help him locate the next target. At which point he can use the scope for aiming.

If the OP starts shooting steel with others and doesn't have a spotting device, his riflescope becomes his observation device to give them feedback.

Regardless of what type of shooting he does, the scope has a critical safety function -- "Know your target and what's beyond." And I must add, "..what's to the right & left, and above & below" the target.

I spend more time "observing" through my scopes than "aiming" through them.

Don't know about the world of competition but from the practical side I would have to agree with this statement that the scope is an observation devise too and would claim that nickle bet. As a varmint hunter I spend more time looking for targets through my rifle scope than I do shooting them. Early on I learned that I lost too many targets going from spotting scope to rifle scope so now I just use the rifle scope. Also, on long shots, out past 1000 yards where my son and I spot for one another we find it easier to call shots looking through the rifle scope than the spotting scope.

Quick and dirty: use your current AR. Or get a new .223/5.56 upper with a 18" to 20" barrel. The extra length will give enough of a cushion in bullet flight stabilization that you could go beyond 500 yds when the time comes. Certainly you will learn how to deal with crosswinds with such a light round like .223, all good within the goal of developing your marksmanship skills.

Preferred choice: pretty much anything in 6.5CR. I have a Ruger Predator in 6.5 that's been the veritable tack driver at 300 to 400 yds, even with me behind the scope. I haven't had an opportunity to take it beyond 400 thanks to the craziness at work, and the extreme dry conditions where I would go to shoot at distance. Even the relatively inexpensive S&B 140gr does extremely well in this rifle (and I've been told in a great many other guns as well).

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:

I've been doing a lot of research on scopes lately, looking various models and feedback on various forums on specific models. There are so many options. I do agree that I should increase my budget for a scope, to perhaps around the $800-$900 range (not including rings/base). Does anyone have specific scopes they'd recommend that has good glass clarity, repeatable adjustments, and good overall quality? I've heard lots of good things about SWFA SS 3-15x scopes. They are made in Japan. My eye likes their Mil reticle as well. I've also heard good things and not-so-good things about the Vortex Vipr PST Gen 2 line. They are made in China, and have strong warranties. The negative comments on them is that they have good warranties for a reason... they break. Burris XRS II and Bushnell LRTS scopes also seem well-regarded. Other brands I tend to trust: Trijicon and Leupold. Also heard good things about Steiner and Meopta.

Any specific recommendations?

As Fritz mentions below, the Vortex PST Gen2 optics are made in the Philippines. I don't think there is a more feature rich and reliable option for what you are looking for in your price range.

I have a 3-15x with the EBR-2C MIL reticle. It does exactly what it is supposed to do. Tracks well and the glass is good. I don't have experience with the kind of glass in the $2500 plus type range, so maybe I don't know what I am missing.

It would be more than adequate for 8 inch plates out to 500 yards.

The reticle and the turrets are well thought out. The zero stop is easy to set, and it is easy to keep track of where you are in your adjustment range. You can hold, or dial, or some combination thereof.


Yes, you will want to think in terms of the angular measurement going forward. If you are spotting your own misses, or someone is calling them for you. Whether you are holding or dialing, someone telling you that you were half a mil left on your wind call is an easy adjustment to make.


MOA can be used the same way, but I find it easier to work in the MILs now that I have become accustomed to it.

Hi all,

Wow, thanks again for all the information. I appreciate it. It's great to get such good real-world feedback based on experience here. Based on this info and my own research I think I've narrowed my choice of optic down to (all in Mils):

Vortex Viper PST Gen 2 3-15x44 FFP EBR-7C
Nightforce SHV 4-14x50 F1 FFP
Burris XTR II 3-15x50 FFP SCR
Steiner P4Xi 4-16x56 SCR

They all have great aspects and reticles that make sense to my eyes. The only thing I'm not quite sure of with the PST is the "christmas tree" aspect, but I'm sure I can learn to use it effectively over time. It seems that aspect is used when holding for both elevation and windage, instead of dialing for elevation. Which I guess is a good option to have.

I'm planning to visit a few local stores today and hopefully take a look at some of these. I like the Nightforce "name", and the Steiner seem to "fit" a Tikka rifle. But I need to be objective and just find the right scope for me.

I also very much agree with everyone who made the point that the optic is very much used for observation even more than aiming.

Oh, and one other question...

When comparing the barrel profiles of the Tikka CTR vs the Lite, what real-world differences are there when shooting? For example, how much slower pace would one need to shoot the Lite in order to prevent heat from affecting accuracy vs the CTR? Of course, the extra weight of the CTR barrel will lessen felt recoil and allow my eye to stay on target better. Anything else?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Chris17404,

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
For example, how much slower pace would one need to shoot the Lite in order to prevent heat from affecting accuracy vs the CTR?

It would be interesting to know if any non-professional shooters/ballisticians have conducted sufficient comprehensive enough experiments to answer that question with any semiscientific certainty.

The only thing approaching that basis of knowledge I’m familiar with is in chapter 11 of Bryan Litz’s book Modern Advancements In Long Range Shooting, volume II. In it he reports an extensive series of tests to determine how various barrels react to heating due to long strings of fire. The tests consisted of firing 50 rounds each over 20 minutes, with each five shot group fired in 90 seconds. Although, strangely, I can’t find the cartridge identification stated clearly, it was evidently 6.5 Creedmoor and the ammunition was Hornady 140 grain A-MAX Match.

He reports that the “light Palma” contour barrel started showing POI shift of as much as 0.8 MOA by the third group (shots 11-15), and the shift continued to grow throughout the test to a total of 1.35 MOA by the end.
A “heavy Palma #2” barrel showed much less total POI shift, ending at 0.35 MOA.
(What those barrels are, exactly, I can’t say; but I imagine they are described on the Internet someplace.)

I personally have never fretted about excess rifle weight (short of one of my acquaintance chambered for 50 BMG), but I’ve never spent 10 hours toting one up and down the mountains hunting sheep, either. As a consequence I like the idea at least of heavier barrels rather than lighter ones, but that’s just personal preference.

That's interesting, sigfreund. Thanks. What prompted me to ask the barrel profile question ( totally unrelated to this thread, and don't want to de-rail it ) was my recent very unscientific test using my BCM AR-15 rifle with a 16" cold hammer forged lightweight barrel (not the ELW profile). Note that I was shooting Federal XM183, which as you noted in your recent thread is not very accurate. AE223 does better in my rifle too.

So anyway... I ran this test. I shot 5 rounds from a cold bore prone at 50 yards using my Aimpoint T-2 and 3X magnifier. The group was approximately 1 inch (or 2 MOA). That seemed fine to me for XM193. I get better groups with my chosen load of Speer Gold Dot 64gr.

Then I proceeded to shoot 100 rounds of XM193 over the course of approximately 15-20 minutes in a more "combat style" of shooting. The barrel and KMR handguard got quite hot, and this was on a 93 degree day.

I then shot another 5 rounds prone at 50 yards. Now maybe it was just me and I wasn't on my game, but this group was around 4-5 inches (8-10 MOA). That really surprised me how much the heat affected the barrel's accuracy. So much so that I almost considered calling BCM to see what could be up. But this rifle runs like a scalded ape, so I'm not worrying about it.

I should try the test again using my Speer Gold Dot.

Hi all,

While continuing to research my choice in optic, I noted something different about the Nightforce MIL-R F1 reticle compared to the reticles on the other optics I'm considering. Here's the reticle:

https://www.nightforceoptics.c...mil-r-shv-f1-reticle

What I noticed was the lack of .2 Mil hash marks within the first 1 Mil of both the horizontal and vertical crosshairs. I would think that having marks at those increments would be desirable since that would be the most common place you'd use that fine of adjustment. The .2 Mol marks don't start until you get past the 4 Mil mark. Am I wrong?

What are your overall thoughts on this reticle when compared to the Vortex EBR-7C and Burris SCR? Both of the other reticles have finer hold-off lines. I'm curious what the thought process is behind the Nightforce MIL-R F1.

I’m not a Nightforce designer or other insider, but I have given some thought to reticle designs. The most common complaint I’ve read about modern reticles is that some are “too busy,” i.e., too complicated. Evidently some people find it hard to understand what their markings mean or they are distracting when trying to aim at a target. On the other hand, some shooters like the markings to be as fine as reasonably usable for more precise holds and estimates.

One factor that may affect people’s preferences is the magnification power of the scope. Because the shooters who are really concerned about reticle design for whatever reason will probably be using first focal sights, higher powers increase the separation between calibration marks and therefore 0.2 mil increments will be more usable at 15× than at 5×.

The two most recent scopes I purchased this year have magnification ranges of 3-15× and 5-25×. The lower power model has a reticle similar to the MIL-R you linked with marks at every 0.5 mil; the other has a reticle whose 1 mil segments are divided into 0.2 mil intervals. Those seem to be sensible designs for the individual scopes because of their magnification ranges. In my experience, 0.2 segments tend to blur together at magnifications much below 15×. Segments at half mil (0.5) intervals, however, are readily visible down to 8× or so.

Higher power scopes are also more likely to be chosen for shooting at longer distances, and therefore the finer intervals of the calibration marks become more important for wind or other holds or range estimates. (Note that I’ve expressed my opinions about using calibrated reticles for range estimates and don’t believe it’s a very good method. Some people may disagree, but I’ll try to stay out of that bunch of weeds.)

And with judicious use, a reticle with 0.5 mil marks can easily be used to estimate intervals to 0.25 mil, and then 0.2 mil with a little tweaking. That method is of course not absolutely as accurate as using the 0.2 mil markings (and they can sometimes be used to estimate 0.1 mil intervals), but for many purposes 0.25 mil will be close enough.

I have used reticles marked in 0.5 mil segments to estimate wind holds down to 0.1 mil many times. Sometimes successfully.

If finer measurements are desired, then many reticles like the Nightforce also include segments with finer intervals. Also, reticle specifications usually give the measurements of the individual segments, such as the thickness of the crosshairs or various dots. I don’t know how many shooters actually use that information in practice, but it’s there if one wants it.

Added: The Vortex EBR-7C reticle is interesting. It’s the only one I recall seeing that has 0.2 interval marks on the top of the horizontal crosshair and 0.5 marks on the bottom. That might be a good way of dealing with the variable magnification issue, but I’d have to see it in practice. It might hinder effective use of both sections, or it might work fine.

I was also going to comment on your test with barrel heating. I have never tried anything similar, but it would be interesting, so thanks.

Thank you for your thoughts, sigfreund. That all makes a lot of sense. And when I think about it... can someone really maintain accurate holds of .2 Mils in real-world shooting environment? And does it make a practical difference at the distances I plan to shoot (500 yards and in)? I don't know the answer to that.

Edit to add: The older Vortex EBR-2C reticle only has marks down to the .5 Mil. So a PST optic with that reticle could be a consideration as well. It also doesn't have the "tree", making it simpler.

I'm glad you liked my barrel heat test. Hopefully your barrel fares better than mine did.

Well, at 500 yards, 0.2 mil is 3.6 inches, so that would be nearly to the edge of an 8" plate, so it’s not inconsequential.
But with a target of a known size like that, it would simply be easier to hold based on that 3.6" rather than focusing on the mil marks on the reticle.

That does not mean, though, that calibration marks are not useful. I most commonly use mil holds in conjunction with what I term “standard wind units” (SWU). That’s a concept for estimating wind holds on the basis of wind speed and target distance when I don’t have exact values from a ballistics calculator.

For many loads and rifles at sea level, a 4* mile per hour “full value” wind will deflect the bullet by about 0.1 mil per 100 yards. I.e., if the wind is blowing at 4 mph from 3:00 o’clock and I’m shooting my 308 Winchester rifles, at 500 yards the bullet will be deflected about 0.5 mil. If the wind were constant at 7 mph, at 500 yards the deflection would be 0.9 mil (rounded), and therefore estimating 0.1 mil less from a full mark would be useful.

Although specifics vary, the SWU method of estimating wind deflection is usually accurate out to 600 yards or so.

* At the altitude where I live that SWU speed increases to 6 mph because the air is less dense and wind has less effect on the bullet’s flight.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris17404:
When comparing the barrel profiles of the Tikka CTR vs the Lite, what real-world differences are there when shooting? For example, how much slower pace would one need to shoot the Lite in order to prevent heat from affecting accuracy vs the CTR? Of course, the extra weight of the CTR barrel will lessen felt recoil and allow my eye to stay on target better. Anything else?

I have a few Tikka/Sako rifles with light barrels for hunting, and a couple with heavy barrels for distance target shooting.

A big part of how quickly it heats up is the round you are firing. My lightweight barrel Sako in 300WSM is very hot after only 3-4 rounds (~1 mag) of slow fire. By the end of the second mag groups have opened noticeably at distance. I have to set it aside and shoot another rifle for probably 15 minutes while I let it cool down.

With normal precision rate of fire I can shoot several 10-round mags through my .308 heavy barrel Tikka Varmint (same profile as CTR) and not notice any barrel heat issues. Keep in mind if you have a miss at distance due to wind you will often want to send another round immediately before the wind shifts again dramatically. Having less barrel heat sensitivity is very useful.

When diagnosing why you missed (or why your groups are inconsistent), especially as a new shooter, it's helpful to have complete confidence in your setup maintaining it's core accuracy (barrel is temp stable, rings/base are solid, scope is reliable and tracks accurately, ammo is good, etc).

For your intended use I would 100% get the CTR over the Lite. The only reason I have light barrel bolt-guns is because I am hiking substantial distances while carrying them on hunts.

Good, useful comments, Brett B.