I am looking to put a scope on my M1a Loaded. I have the Springfield scope mount to install.

I am looking at 50mm or 56mm objective lens optics with at least a 30mm tube.

I am thinking Vortex or Sig as I believe Sig took over the Nikon rifle scope line (I may be mistaken).

budget is under $1000.00

Two immediate questions:
What magnification (range) are you interested in?
If you don’t have a firm idea about that, what do you intend to do with the rifle, especially what distance(s) do you plan to shoot at and what type(s) of targets?

Are you interested in first or second focal plane reticles?

There are so many options today, those questions would help narrow the choices.

Or are you just seeking recommendations about scope makes?

And FWIW as you may already be aware of the facts, maintube diameter affects (or can affect) the total amount of elevation and windage adjustment available. A common misunderstanding is that it affects the amount of light transmitted through the scope, which it doesn’t. Most “serious” scopes these days have at least 30mm tubes.

Larger objective lenses do affect the amount of light that enters the system, but at least one (sort of) YouTube authority recommends smaller objective lenses because he believes the scope will then have a larger depth of field and of course the scope will be lighter and possibly less expensive as well as better optical quality (all else being equal). His opinion is that most people don’t need larger lenses unless they’re needed for better low light resolution at higher magnifications.

I am seeing a bunch of 6x24 magnification scopes in my price range.

I plan to use it for hunting and some 1000-yard contests. As to hunting I am unlikely to take a shot at a Mule Deer over 600 yards as it is desert here in Boardman OR (pretty flat at 300 feet above sea level).

I plan to use 165 or 168 grain rounds.

I have an 8x32x50 on my old Savage 110 in 30-06, but I rarely run it past 18 power.

Based on what you posted, some thoughts.

Depending on target size, of course, I believe 24× would be sufficient magnification for 1000 yards. When I had access to that distance, I and a friend were using less magnification (18-20×) for the purpose.

Again, depending on the target and conditions, I wouldn’t think you’d need the exceptional quality glass that would require a significantly greater expenditure. But hopefully shooters who are more experienced will chime in about that and the necessary magnification.

With that cartridge load, engagements from short ranges to 1K yards will require significant elevation dialing, so accurate and consistent tracking are important plus the total elevation adjustment range that the scope permits. Using factory ballistics data for the Federal 168 grain 308 Win Gold Medal Match load, my calculator says that to go from a 100 yard zero to 1000 yards requires an elevation adjustment of about 45 minutes of angle or 13+ milliradians.

To check an example scope I looked at the Leupold 6-24×52mm 4HD and according to the factory specs, it might not be possible to dial that much elevation even though it has a 34mm maintube. If so, it would be necessary to dial all the way up, plus add some holdoff elevation with the reticle.
(I’m somewhat confused by the data, so don’t take that as what that specific scope is actually capable of, but just an example of what we need to be aware of.)

By way of random comparison, I looked at the Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24 that has a 30mm maintube. Its full elevation range (up and down; divide by 2 for up only) is 19 milliradians or 65 MOA. That scope would not come close to the elevation adjustment required for my above example.

I have a Leupold 5-25× 5HD with a somewhat unusual 35mm maintube and if I’m reading the specs correctly, it would allow an up elevation adjustment of 15 milliradians, or would be just enough for 1000 yards with the Federal load. (Again, don’t take that figure as gospel; it’s just an example of how a larger maintube permits greater adjustment ranges.)

Although I hesitate to even mention scopes made by our main enemy with whom we are actually in a nonshooting war, some brands have many online fans. If they would be a consideration, I strongly recommend seeking reviews by people who are not the usual influencers. For example, I found one reviewer of 22LR rifles and ammunition who was willing to say that the one scope he had was actually blurry and he couldn’t see the target clearly. Did he just have a bad specimen? Perhaps, but it would not surprise me in the least if legions of influencers are given various incentives to talk up certain brands to help that country drive other optics manufacturers out of business before the shooting war(s) start.

Don't over magnify. 24x or even 20x is plenty for 1000 yards.

Shooting long range requires a lot of regular dialing for elevation. Choose a tough scope that can handle lots of turret twisting. I would rather have a scope with so-so optical quality and absolutely excellent tracking, rather than excellent glass that didn't track or retain zero.


I have a 6-36 scope that I bought for the turrets and the reticle (glass is great too), but I never use it over 24x, even when zeroing.


I have not really spent a lot of time recently researching optics in your price range, but the Vortex Viper Gen2 PST 3-15 is an excellent optic. I had one but sold it and upgraded. Not for magnification or glass, but for the turrets.

https://www.eurooptic.com/burr...il-riflescope-201204

Worth a look.

Take a hard look at DNT Optics “The One”. 7-35x56. Good clean Japanese glass. 34mm tube with plenty of adjustment to get you to 1k. I have the scope on my GAP 6GT and shoot with 4 other guys who have the same scope. We take them to 850 with 6GT, 6 ARK, 6 Grendel, 6.5 and 6mm Creedmoor and never go past one revolution. They are around $600 delivered which leaves plenty for nice rings and some ammo.

Google them and the many positive reviews.

As stated above, you do not need super high magnification to shoot to 1k. This group was shot on 15x. It is a 5 shot 3.5” group at 850yds with 6GT.

Thank you all for the information.

Keep it coming please.

I suspect you probably already know all this, but for anyone who doesn’t:

If planning to use a rifle for hunting, and which is probably a more “serious” purpose than target shooting, consider what the lowest power magnification will be and how well it will work for the purpose.

Long ago when I got my first centerfire rifle, a Ruger 77 in 270 Winchester, and variable power scopes were still looked upon with some suspicion as well as being somewhat expensive for a staff sergeant, I decided on a fixed 6× Lyman scope. That was considered a little odd at the time because the vast majority of hunting scopes were fixed 4 power models.

Forward shortly thereafter to a hunt with friends in the wide open desert of Arizona, a place where a little more magnification would have been warranted, if anywhere—no? As it turned out, I jumped the quarry, a javelina, in a gully at a distance of probably 25 yards. Yeah: nothing but hair through the scope. I hit it just where I wanted, but there was more than a little chance involved in the outcome.

One of the most common criticisms I have read about less-experienced hunters is the tendency to use too much magnification when hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
One of the most common criticisms I have read about less-experienced hunters is the tendency to use too much magnification when hunting.

Yep. I've been on many a hog hunt where somebody invites one of their buddies for the first time, and the new guy shows up with a rifle sporting a huge scope with high magnification... To shoot hogs in brush-filled timberland at 100 yards max and most often sub-50 yards, and sometimes on the move.

Meanwhile everyone else is using LPVOs, red dots, or even just irons.

On the other extreme, the guys I shoot with are using at least 36X second focal plane scopes with big objectives. But we are shooting tiny 1/4"-1/2" targets with .22 cal rifles at 50-100 yards.

So it truly does depend on what you intend to do with your rifle when considering scopes. Good news is there are lots of good glass for sale now. With many reticle choices. Good luck with your new scope.

quote:

Originally posted by usncorpsman:
Take a hard look at DNT Optics “The One”. 7-35x56. Good clean Japanese glass. 34mm tube with plenty of adjustment to get you to 1k. I have the scope on my GAP 6GT and shoot with 4 other guys who have the same scope. We take them to 850 with 6GT, 6 ARK, 6 Grendel, 6.5 and 6mm Creedmoor and never go past one revolution. They are around $600 delivered which leaves plenty for nice rings and some ammo.

Google them and the many positive reviews.

As stated above, you do not need super high magnification to shoot to 1k. This group was shot on 15x. It is a 5 shot 3.5” group at 850yds with 6GT.

I looked that scope up after seeing it on your 6GT build thread. It gets very good reviews indeed.

just remember the scope that was used on the M14 was a Redfield 3-9x40
with a cam to calibrate it to 900yrds

https://imgur.com/a/la69U1X

Must contribute. (A friend's.)

quote:

Originally posted by got2hav1:
On the other extreme, the guys I shoot with are using at least 36X second focal plane scopes with big objectives. But we are shooting tiny 1/4"-1/2" targets with .22 cal rifles at 50-100 yards.

a 15x unertl will do that, and some, on a good small bore rifle,

no disrespect intended, and sorry if that seemed rude,

but that is an incredibly easy thing to achieve, at that distance, with the right rifle of course, and depending on bench vs position


we have started an informal small bore shoot after our normal high power/ service rifle match at the club I belong to , to get youth shooters interested,

working too, a few of the guys that shoot have kids that are interested, and they are scoring well,
one started after shooting an AR, she is a Sharpshooter now, and will likely improve to expert this year, (and like 14)


and pardon the drift a bit, but I have a friend that is running some PRS events in VA that are using expensive 22's to go to 600,

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Must contribute. (A friend's.)

great scopes, have one of those too

quote:

but that is an incredibly easy thing to achieve, at that distance, with the right rifle of course, and depending on bench vs position

And ammo and wind and.... it all has to come together. Or maybe I'm just a bad shooter. That could very well be by the way!

I would strongly suggest that you get onto Eurooptics sight and search for Riflescopes under $1000 and start looking at a few that fit the Specs you are looking for. Find 2 or more that you think you might like and go to you-tube and watch a review or two on them. Be suspicious of paid reviews that can be absolute shills for one brand but there are some good honest guys out there.

A couple I noticed with a quick glance through were these:

https://www.eurooptic.com/bush...iflescope-mp53056dmi

I've had excellent luck with the higher end Bushnell (former Bausch and Lomb) scopes. The cheaper Bushnell's are garbage but their higher end scopes are quite good. I think C-does had an excellent review of this scope on You-Tube.

Another to check out and is on sale is Athlon ARES:

https://www.eurooptic.com/athl...il-riflescope-212100

I actually bought a couple of the Athlons on sale from EuroOptics. For the money they are really good scopes! They are heavier than the Swarovski Leica and Kahles scopes I normally prefer but they are like 1/4 to 1/8th the Price! A high end Swaro is a better scope but it's not 5 times as good! For $500-$800 you can have a quality and useable scope that doesn't set you back $4,000!

I haven't tried an ARKEN yet I've heard they are good but there are a few absolute shills out there harping about them so I got a little suspicious. I'm pretty sure they are OK for the price they charge but I've seen reviews where some had smudges internally on the glass etc.

I also bought a Couple DiscoveryOpt scopes for some range toy guns I had.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BL...ix=discovery%2B&th=1

This scope is huge and heavy but in all honesty it should not be as good as it is for $360. I'm amazed at how good some of the inexpensive scopes are these days. I might not want to carry one these too far on a hunt but I'd certainly use one on a Prairie Dog hunt or the like where I'm using a heavy rifle from a rest.

Anyway there's lots of good scopes out now. Some are definitely better than others but usually you have to double in price to get significantly better. I would highly recommend Eurooptics, I don't want to mention how much I've spent there but they have been really good to me for years. Their prices run from good to Excellent if you can find something on sale like the high end Athlons.

Good luck! DM or check back here if I might be able to help on anything........

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:
Thank you all for the information.
Keep it coming please.

SportOptics.com is a good source. They have discounts of 10-12% off list, sometimes more. Their "open box" and "demo" deals are good to go -- I have a couple of such scopes and a pair of LRF binos.

Consider carefully where your potential scope is manufactured. As Americans, we don't need to support commie China.

quote:

Originally posted by usncorpsman:
Take a hard look at DNT Optics “The One”. 7-35x56. Good clean Japanese glass. 34mm tube with plenty of adjustment to get you to 1k. I have the scope on my GAP 6GT and shoot with 4 other guys who have the same scope. We take them to 850 with 6GT, 6 ARK, 6 Grendel, 6.5 and 6mm Creedmoor and never go past one revolution.

That's a function of the cartridge, not the scope. Those cartridges (not sure about the Grendel) shoot a lot flatter than a .308 Win and will require less elevation change at any distance, regardless of what scope you're using.

One other thing you might think about that I don't think has been mentioned yet, is using a scope base that includes a +20 MOA angle. It angles the scope down at the forward end, so you have to elevate the muzzle higher to zero the scope. It won't changed the amount of elevation range that the scope has, but it will shift the high end of it further away from the mechanical top of the scope. You'll have less down adjustment range at shorter distances before you hit mechanical bottom, but more at the high end. The advantage here is that at longer distances the same wind velocity requires greater windage adjustment, and moving the reticle down from mechanical top gives you more windage range to play with. You'll have less windage adjustment at the shorter distances, but you don't need as much there.

There's a stickied thread here that goes into a lot of technical detail about scopes, if you're interested.