I have read through the primer and numerous responses to advice-requested posts regarding riflescope choice. Several of you shoot in organized competition where the ability to locate and range targets is important. If you fall into this category, a FFP scope makes a lot of sense as does a magnification range in the 14 to 22/25 range in order to have a wide enough field of view to more quickly find the target and be able to use your reticle to range it at any magnification as well as hold for wind at any magnification. Are there other factors?

Others shoot at a known long range distance and know exactly where the target is and its range. I know that many of those scopes have very high magnification at 40 or 50X and more. These seem to often be SFP scopes and that makes sense too if the scope is always at the highest power and that is where the reticle is calibrated to be correct.

What about the non-competitor who shoots at known distances out to say 1000 to 1200 yards and knows where the targets are? It seems like making a recommendation for this group is a little more difficult. FFP would be helpful for holding for wind at any magnification but historically, these scopes have been more expensive. Would a SFP scope from an economics perspective be a better choice because you could purchase more magnification for similar dollars? Is there such a thing as too much magnification? Some high magnification scopes don't have a great deal of internal elevation adjustment so you'd need to make sure you have enough to glass both the nearest targets and the farthest targets that you intend to engage considering the ballistics of the caliber(s) you expect to use.

Here is a real example. I am not a competitor but have reasonable access to a 1000 yard range where targets are placed at every 100 yards. I am a member of a club with a 500 meter range and a 600 yard range. I generally shoot a 6.5 Creedmoor with hand loads using relatively high BC projectiles in the .3 - .31 G7 range at 2600-2650 FPS. It takes about 28-29 MOA to get to 1000 during the warmer months. Due to the location of the range and when we choose to shoot, wind is usually 10 MPH or less and often at 6:00pm or so there is no wind at all.

I have been using a 5.5-22X50 SFP scope and a 5-25X50 FFP scope. These both work fine but, I would like more magnification. I like the slightly higher magnification of the second scope but the glass is noticeably better in the first scope. I also like the ability to dial down the magnification some and still use the reticle for holdovers or wind holds. The targets are painted steel and you can usually see the projectile impact the target with a small puff of bullet fragments or maybe atomized paint but I'd like to see the impact a little better if possible. That leads me to a Nightforce 7-35X56 Atacr scope. Is that too much scope? It has as much or more internal adjustment than either of my current scopes, better glass and a larger objective lens. Other than cost, what other considerations would you put in the Cons column? What other choices would you consider given the purpose I described and why?

Thank you,
Henryrifle

This is a very subjective area of optics. There are so many dependencies and caveats and so on. The best we can hope for is some guidelines.

The first and main one is a rule that I do not remember ever seeing anywhere but one that is important to me: With optics, you can't hit what you can't see. The corollary is: people's eyes are different; match your scope to your eyesight.

If your target is a plate, as long as you can identify the plate and see it for what it is, that's all the magnification you need. On the other hand if your have to hit a certain spot on the plate, for instance, some type of special bullseye, then you need to be able to see that properly.

A riflescope projects the image of the objective in front of the erector tube. From that point on, the lenses in the erector tube and the eyepiece present the image right side up and allow you to zoom in on a specific area of that image. This is where your visual acuity comes in. Maybe you can distinguish the specific area you're aiming for with less magnification compared to someone else who requires more magnification to do the same. Only you can tell for sure.

The difference between 22X and 25X is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless; 3x extra when your in the 20X area already in like 10-15% more magnification.

If you're running at 25X already, to have some semblance of improvement in magnification, you need at least 50% more and 100% would be even better. That's 36Xto 40X (50%) and 50X (100%). Those magnifications bring in new challenges, not the least of which are your body tremors and breathing. That can only be tamed with practice, even on bipods. Then you have the fun with difficult conditions.

You mention the 7-35X56 ATACR. I've never used one but I must confess, I like the specifications. Let's review a few.

1- It's FFP. That's what you want for ranging and holding off with the reticle. On the other hand, at long distances, where you're more likely to do hold-offs, you can accomplish the same with an SFP at full power or for closer in, reduce to 1/2 of maximum magnification and the ranging is simply double on the reticle.

2- The zoom range is 5X, which means the reticle is going to be quite thin at low power and fairly thick at maximum zoom, just when to want to be more precise. That's the problem with the FFPs.

3- It's a 34mm tube, which means you'll get to pay a premium for rings and anticant devices. On the other hand you get quite a bit of adjustment range inside the scope, but without a 20MOa ramp, full half of that lovely 100MOA of elevation is wasted, so get a rail.

4- The reticles. They have the Christmas tree (Horus TReMoR3), which I would avoid like the plague. And they have the MOAR F1 reticle, which I find quite nice, even if still busy.

That's all I have for now. Maybe others will jump in.

My 2 cents for what it is worth. I do not shoot competition and my long range shooting for the last 15 years has been restricted to the prairie dog fields of South Dakota where I primarily shoot in the 800 to 1200 yard range. One of the things that plague the devil out of hitting the long dogs is the heat waves , mirages, I believe the competition shooters call it (check through the back post and there is some discussion on this issue). So far it hasn't mattered what the upper limits on our scopes has been as magnification beyond 17x-18x is rarely usable as we find ourselves dialing back to that to see the targets. Some of the manufactures are offering new glass that shows promise at cutting down on the mirage. I believe NikonUser has a March that has shown improvement at mirage reduction. The NF 7-35X56 ATACR scope that you mentioned I bought earlier this year only because of the new glass in it and its potential of seeing through some of the mirage and compared to the other NF scopes that I own it is showing promise but I won't know for sure until I field test this September. You definitely want the MOAR reticle if you go NF as I have tried several of the others and they are easy to get lost in. You might want to think through what your usage and needs are. The ATACT is a very nice scope but pricy and if all you are looking for is more magnification then you might consider alternatives.

In my opinion, your 2 cents are very valuable. You are totally correct in that competitors mistakenly call the heat waves or shimmering, mirage as in "the mirage is going left to right." In reality, mirage is an optical illusion engendered by, amongst other things, heat waves. We recognize that the term is wrong, but it's so well entrenched in our vernacular it's nigh near impossible to root it out now.

I had missed that the ATACR had ED glass, even though it's plainly stated right at the front. I blame the mirage. :-)

I will be interested in your opinion of how ED glass works out for you in the prairie dog towns of September. I *think* ED glass lessens the effect of mirage, but that's very iffy and only my opinion. It would be nice to have others confirm or infirm that belief. It doesn't eliminate it, but for me at least, it seems to take away the edge and tame the effect so that it's not as disturbing.

I'll be anxious to read your report.

We all have a preferences for our optics -- based on targets types & sizes, distances, rifles, atmospheric conditions, what we demand from our scopes, and the quality of our vision.

I play in a game that pretty demands FFP, variable magnification, accurate reticles, high quality glass, repeatable turret adjustments, the ability to see hits on steel & misses on dirt, and elevation adjustment durability. This game does not demand really high magnification, especially considering the distances to target.

I believe better glass reduces target distortion/obstruction by mirage, and better allows us to use mirage to judge wind speed. I believe there are practical limits to scope magnification -- where additional power adds nothing, and may even reduce accuracy. I can't prove either of these points.

The NF ATACR line has some really nice glass. Better than I've seen in any previous NF models. Purchasing my ATACR 5-25x scope was one of my better rifle decisions. The ATACR 7-35 is no doubt a good scope and it will certainly be a step up from your current optics. Probably the biggest question is how much you will use the settings between 25x and 35x.

Over the weekend I competed in a steel match, where target distances varied from 70 to 1300+ yards. My ATACR 5-25x was up to the task. Even if this is a different task than yours. The only time I used 25x was on the stage with targets beyond 1200 yards. On a 10" plate at 1000 yards I was likely dialed up to around 22-23x, after I transitioned from the 900 yard target at somewhere between 15x and 20x.

On one stage we had four 12" square plates at 800 yards, with maybe 30 yards lateral spacing between plates. I recall being just a touch over 20x on this stage. I could read dust signature on my misses to determine wind calls. Even though the plates had been virtually stripped of white paint from prior impacts, I could see my impacts on steel within a few inches. I knew elevation was good, and I could judge windage requirements as I transitioned from one plate to the next.

We had IPSC-sized plates at 1200 yards and beyond. I could not see my impacts at that distance, although I could see a slight shimmer of the plate upon impacts. The scorers for this stage had quality spotting scopes of at least 40x, and they couldn't see impact locations either. Flashing systems confirmed impacts.

Last month I shot in an Extended Long Distance ("ELR") match with my ATACR 5-25x. There were a handful of targets between 1400 and 1700 yards in the match, with a practice target of 1800 yards. I was at full 25X on all these targets. I saw my impacts within a few inches on the 1800 yard practice target (roughly 3' diameter circle) -- but the light was good, the target was a freshly painted white, and the steel moved nicely upon impacts. I missed both of the elk-sized-&-shaped targets in competition at 1700+ yards. I saw my dirt splashes well enough to joke with the scorer, "You know if that elk were hung a little better, that second shot the landed between his rear legs would have been a hit." I hit the 30" circle at 1700 yards on my second shot. I knew the impact was roughly on the 3 o'clock portion of the target, based on the way it moved. A flasher and a faint "ting" confirmed the hit.

If I were to get into the ELR game big time, the ATACR 7-35x would be my scope. But I doubt I'd use 30-35x at anything less than 1300-ish yards for the target sizes we see. So far, I'm pretty pleased with 5-25x glass for my current game.

FWIW, my eyesight is long past its prime. I've worn glasses since middle school, which was many, many moons ago. I now wear progressive lense glasses, which is the kind term for trifocals. I'm at the age where floaties in my vision just frickin' suck.

Your best optics are the optics which work best for you and your situation. Only you can determine that.

Thank you all for the replies. fritz, a follow-on question for you: Why didn't you purchase the 7-35 or, if you had the 7-35, how would your description above be different (better or worse)?

Henryrifle
P.S. I used to enjoy perfect vision until I hit 35. That was almost two decades ago. Add me to the club of okay distance vision but needing 2.5 diopter (that's the right measure right?) reading glasses just to see the iPhone.

I knew the 7-35X was ready to hit the market when I bought the 5-25x. I saw no need for that high of magnification. I had a 3.5-15x on my 6.5, so 25x was good enough. I looked both through and shot a number of other brands of scopes that were 25x on targets from 1000 to 1800 yards. I didn't feel any greater magnification was necessary for my game. Furthermore, sometimes dialing down the magnification to the bottom end is required to survey the field of fire, or to engage really close targets. ELR distances and 3+ seconds of flight time? Sure, 35x makes sense.

I have been around shooters who believe high magnification will magically fix whatever challenges they face. For the majority of us, it doesn't.

As for vision, I no longer recall the details. Uncorrected, I think it's -7 diopters or worse. Shooters around me using vision as an excuse often get "try these glasses on for size, home boy."

Are the takeaways from this that we all agree the scope has good specifications, will have a HUGE reticle at maximum magnification, may not be able to be used at its highest power settings due to mirage/heat waves and for PRS-style shooting 35X would not have an advantage over a 25X and could be disadvantageous?

If so, it doesn’t sound like any of those facts are Cons for my use. Unless I am misunderstanding it seems like I could turn down the magnification to 25 or less and enjoy the same goodness as the 25X and, if the right conditions exist, there is more there to use.

The difference in retail price is about 16% and even though it is a Nightforce, one can get a reasonable discount just by calling, very close to 10%.

Thank you all for the input—this is not a case of someone already having their mind made up and looking for validation. You all have some good points but I didn’t read any that indicated I’d be sorry if I was stuck with that scope. Maybe it’s maximum capabilities are unnecessary or unneeded for my intended purpose but not incorrect or an impediment.

As an aside, I am old enough and experienced enough to know that more magnification or more anything isn't going to magically fix __________ (fill in the blank).

Thank you again,
Henryrifle

I don't think you have spent much, if any, time behind a FFP scope while shooting. I recommend you do this before buying any FFP of any brand or magnification.

NF FFP reticles are designed to be "X" thickness in MOA or mils at full power. From what I've seen, across a given model line the appearance of the reticle thickness is similar at full power. This means the 5-25x reticle at 25x will appear to be about the same thickness as the 7-35x reticle at 35x. Now the 7-35x reticle at 25x will be noticeably thinner at 25x than the 5-25x reticle will be at 25x.

I have never found a NF FFP reticle that is too thick for precision shooting at full power. This is unlike some S&B FFP reticles which really can be too thick at full power. What I see is NF FFP reticles that are getting too thin for many uses at low power.

IMO FFP from any company for any scope are most useful over maybe a 3X range. Most scope companies design their FFP reticle sizing (line thickness and subtention size) for the top 3x of a given scope's magnification range. In the case of my ATACR 5-25x, the reticle subtentions are great for windage and elevation holds in the 15x through 25x ballpark. The subtentions are getting a little small for hold precise over/under & windage use in the 10x to 15x range. The subtentions are pretty much useless from 5x to 10x and the overall reticle is really quite thin.

Taking that to a 7-35X scope:
- reticle is most useful between 21X through 35X
- reticle is marginal from 14X to 21X
- reticle is a challenge from 7X to 14X

Beg, borrow, or do whatever to get behind some scopes before you buy.

Definitely shoot a ffp scope before you buy. I might add some practical field experience to what fritz has said as I have sfp NF scopes in several ranges and am just getting used to the ffp ATACR. For what I am seeing so far is that if I had to depend on just one rifle and scope in the dog fields then the ffp could be a real problem on the shorter ranges because the reticle is a challenge at low magnifications and quite frankly shooting at 100 yard paper I cannot really read the reticle accurately and find I have to dial up just to see it (I too am an old fart with bad eyes). With practice I found I could judge the reticle at low magnification quite well in the sfp, anyway good enough that I could get hits on follow up shots. At the higher magnifications short of max the ffp scope wins hands down so far on paper out to 500 yards. I shoot three different guns with scopes set for different ranges. I bought the ATACR to see if I could fix a problem I encounter going for the long dogs and it will be used at the higher ends almost exclusively where the ffp really shines. Knowing what I know now if I were going for just one scope on one gun to fit all three categories then I would go with the sfp ATACR in the 5x25 range. Again just another perspective. I will repeat again what fritz advised: shoot a ffp before you buy one.

You can always turn the mag down, but you can only turn it up so far. Buy a little more than you anticipate needing.

RMD

One of the things I always wonder about is the “Try before you buy” advice. Not that I disagree, but I am curious how other people manage that. If one is part of a competition circuit or club whose membership includes shooters who 1. have the type of equipment we’re interested in, and 2. are willing to let us use it for a meaningful trial, then I could understand.

But I’m not in that situation even though I know a number of different shooters, and when I think of someone’s being a novice just getting into an activity, it’s even less likely. I know there are a number of very active long distance shooters in Colorado who are also members of this forum, but I don’t even know where they shoot, much less would I be able to drive half way across the state to say, “Hey, do you mind if I borrow your gun and scope to try them out?”

As I say, I don’t disagree with the advice, but am I in that much different a situation from everyone else for believing it’s not especially practical?

One of our highly-knowledgeable and respected members here objects to the “buy [the best you can afford] once and cry once,” advice, and I’ve come to realize that I agree with him about many things. What I’ve discovered throughout many years of shooting is that my first opinions and decisions are almost always wrong, or at least subject to change. I nevertheless have an unfortunate tendency to buy more than one of something because I assume it’s always going to be what I think is the best.

If I really couldn’t be sure, for example, of whether I should have a first or second focal plane scope for the shooting I’d be doing, I’d make my best guess and get an inexpensive sight that had that feature. Yes, it might not have the best glass, or be the most rugged, or have the best customer service, or have the most reliable tracking, or have exactly the magnification I want, but it would allow me to better decide if I wanted FFP or SFP—assuming that’s the critical decision.

Would doing that be in essence a waste of money in the long run? Yes and no. Yes, because I would soon decide I needed all those other things, better glass, etc., and would be forced to buy a new sight. No, however, because I wouldn’t have spent a lot of money on a very expensive sight whose reticle system was wrong for me, and then I’d have to exchange not an inexpensive scope for what I want, but a very expensive one.

The best we can do is try to understand the pros and cons of different systems and how they relate to the shooting we intend to do. And keep in mind that if we ever change our interests, that may change what’s best for those purposes. I discovered that the equivalent of a first focal plane scope was best for me decades ago before variables with FFP reticles were even available, and that’s what I continued with once they were. In the past few years, however, my shooting demands have changed, and now I almost think I should have gotten one of those Nightforce scopes with the second focal plane reticle that I scoffed at when I first learned of them. Switching all my guns over now, however, would be a huge expense and that means I’ll stick with what I have.

Good luck with your decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
One of the things I always wonder about is the “Try before you buy” advice. Not that I disagree, but I am curious how other people manage that. If one is part of a competition circuit or club whose membership includes shooters who 1. have the type of equipment we’re interested in, and 2. are willing to let us use it for a meaningful trial, then I could understand.

quote:

Originally posted by henryrifle:
I am not a competitor but have reasonable access to a 1000 yard range where targets are placed at every 100 yards. I am a member of a club with a 500 meter range and a 600 yard range.

The OP should have this covered. I have found the vast majority of shooters in the clubs I have been to are willing let another person try their equipment on the mere mention of "What are you using?" Hasn't mattered if is was pistols, shotguns, or rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
The OP should have this covered.

True. Possibly.
I was responding more about shooters in general and to the type of general advice I’ve seen here that is almost always not based on knowledge about the questioner’s specific circumstances.

But more to my basic concerns (which I didn’t really make clear) is that while looking through a scope or even firing a few rounds at different ranges is certainly better than not, I have never found such limited experiences to be sufficient to educate me well enough about complex decisions. On the contrary, they can actually be misleading because of how restricted they are, for example, in target size, range and environmental conditions, etc.

My point would have been better stated if I’d said that trying is good, if we can, but don’t let it be the only basis for our decisions about expensive purchases.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
But more to my basic concerns (which I didn’t really make clear) is that while looking through a scope or even firing a few rounds at different ranges is certainly better than not, I have never found such limited experiences to be sufficient to educate me well enough about complex decisions. On the contrary, they can actually be misleading because of how restricted they are, for example, in target size, range and environmental conditions, etc.

My point would have been better stated if I’d said that trying is good, if we can, but don’t let it be the only basis for our decisions about expensive purchases.

I completely disagree with your premise above. I have played more sports in my life than I care to think about. Dabbled in activities that worked for me, and those that didn't. Bought all sorts of tools, toys, and devices. Made both mistakes and wise choices while buying.

Sure, research is valuable -- one just has to careful on the source. And when a person is completely without experience on a given activity, buying shouldn't even be in their vocabulary -- rent and borrow are the key words.

But there is one thing that been absolutely constant when I'm evaluating and buying something for me. It's me. I've never bought a scope without looking through a similar one. The vast majority of the time on the ones I purchased, I've actually dropped behind a rifle which had that optic on it. A handful of rounds was incredibly valuable in determining the utility of a given optic.

I've looked through many, many scopes mounted on guns to get a ballpark idea of their utility. For many of these I didn't fire a single shot. I played with the zoom and parallax, mentally moving between targets (could be a rock to a bush to a tree to a sign), evaluating how the dials and reticle worked. I played with the turrets to determine if I liked the feel of the clicks. I moved my head around in the eyebox to determine if it was tight or forgiving. I looked at low contrast items and high contrast items.

I don't understand how you discount the value of hands on experience with an optic.

I think I have good news. First, sigfreund nails my situation in that I don't know anyone that has these kinds of scopes. Our small group of shooters are/were primarily hunters and except for me are still shooting hunting rifles, Coopers (nice hunting rifles), with relatively low power (12X and 18X) Leupold SFP hunting scopes though one recently upgraded to a NF SHV but in SFP. I realize this affirms your point that you don't need high magnification to put accurate hits on steel at distance. Together we happened to have discovered the fun of shooting at longer ranges while experimenting with hunting loads and we are all learning longer distance shooting together. Also, it was sigfreund who suggested the Tikka T3X TAC A1 that I am having so much fun with. I predict that by the end of summer, sigfreund will have sold at least three of them for Tikka.

The good news: I do have two FFP scopes that I have been using. I have had a Sightron SIII 6-24X50 for over a year or more and, recently, I purchased a Burris XTRII 5-25X50 for the Tikka, also a FFP scope and a reticle very similar to Nightforce's MOAR reticle. I am not trying to use eyesight as an excuse for anything. I shoot without corrective lenses and, at this time, have no issue adjusting the ocular lens to give me a crisp and clear reticle and can consistently achieve a parallax free image (target and reticle are in focus and in the same plane). Not trying to be technical.

I have a few NXS SFP scopes and an SHV SFP scope and the glass in all of those scopes, especially the SHV, is noticeably brighter and clearer than the XTRII currently mounted on the aforementioned Tikka.

What I'd like to do is put better glass on the Tikka as that rifle is shooting very well for me. Replacing the XTRII with aother 5-25 FFP scope would, at best, represent an upgrade to the glass but not any other capability. This is why I continue to hammer away at the 7-35. It would give me a significant upgrade in glass quality, the reticle I like, the FFP capabilities I have been using and enjoying and the option of using higher magnification if that is helpful.

Recapping the latest responses, I still do not feel dissuaded from the 7-35 as I will be using the scope in the top third of 21-35X power as this is a target rifle that will be used almost exclusively for 400-1200 yard target shooting. low8option makes some good points but I don't expect to be using this rifle at close range and all of our targets are stationary. Also, I feel like I have taken sigfreund's good advice by having and using less expensive FFP scopes to determine if that works for my current purpose.

Thank you for your continued input. I will keep looking to see what else is available before purchasing the NF but I am canted heavily in that direction.

Thank you again,
Henryrifle

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
I've never bought a scope without looking through a similar one.

I congratulate you on your fortunate circumstances.

Unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity of looking through a similar scope, much less the same scope, before purchasing one. I suspect that more shooters, especially new shooters, are in my situation than in yours.

If, however, someone has such an opportunity to examine and experiment with someone else’s equipment to the degree you have, then they should by all means follow your advice. Your guidance on what to do in an extensive evaluation session would be very valuable. They should also be very grateful for being able to do all that; I would allow someone to look through my scopes, but the first click of the elevation or windage adjustments would be the end of that.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

I would allow someone to look through my scopes, but the first click of the elevation or windage adjustments would be the end of that.

And here I thought you were admiring my position behind your rifle when I was watching your buddy shoot. You were thinking, you best not touch my knobs

I'll let anyone look through my scopes, crank on the knobs, adjust my cheek rest, shoot my rifles. That is long as they don't spew out the phrase "1/4 MOA all day long if I do my part" and the like.

I've been fortunate to put my hands on, look through, shot through many different scopes in the last several years in all types of light conditions... I'm starting gather stuff to build a ELR rifle, 338LM Improved. I now have access to a private ranch, max distance 2600yds. We have 3 shooting positions, mile, 2150 and 2600. Shot several times there at a mile usually at 20-22X. Can easily see impacts on a 24" steel plate. Have not shot at the other distances. I have laid down behind my scope for a long periods of time looking at a steel target from those distances. ELR rifle will have a 5-25 on it. If I had higher magnification, I know I wouldn't use it because of mirage.

quote:

Originally posted by offgrid:
I'll let anyone look through my scopes, crank on the knobs ....

That’s because you guys have expensive scopes that will return to the original settings. My bargain basement stuff might never see zero again after someone thought about touching their knobs.

Sounds like quite a project, BTW.

quote:

Originally posted by offgrid:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

I would allow someone to look through my scopes, but the first click of the elevation or windage adjustments would be the end of that.

I'll let anyone look through my scopes, crank on the knobs, adjust my cheek rest, shoot my rifles. That is long as they don't spew out the phrase "1/4 MOA all day long if I do my part" and the like.

That is funny, I don't care who you are. LOL

After several years of F-TR competition with rifle that I had assembled from a donor action topped with a Weaver T-36 scope; I created a set of specifications for the rifle and the scope and then acquired the parts and brought everything but the rifle scope and the rings to my gunsmith and had the rifle built. The riflescope was a Nightforce NXS 12-42X56 because that's what all the range on the F-Class circuit at the time. The rifle and scope worked out great and I placed really well at some big competitions. At these big competitions, scope manufacturers or their resellers, bring out their wares so that you can look through them at the targets we use. One day, the March reseller came to our range with a series of March riflescopes to look through. They were not on a stock or rifle, but he had a number of them on one stand. You could compare them looking at out target.

My NXS is a fine scope, but like many other Nightforce scopes at that time, it did not have ED glass and its light transmission was average. I found that I struggled to see the target rings well in early morning competition, especially in wintertime. Looking through other peoples scopes at an F-class match is not the best time. When you're on the ground, you are shooting and there is a set time. When you're done shooting, you need to get off the line as they may be infiltrating other shooters or you time is nearly up. If you have a scope I would like to peer through, I should be on a different relay from you and I should be standing by as soon as you finish your string to drop behind the rifle before you have to pull it.

Also, if I just finished a string, the last thing I want to see done to my scope is for the guy or gal looking through my scope to start fiddling with it. But that's just me and just about every other F-class shooter I've met at a competition. Look but don't touch.

Getting a chance to shoot with one or play with one is definitely the best way to select your scope and reticle. But that's not always possible. Also, in smaller venues, it may well be that no one has that new-fangled scope you're considering buying.

At that point, you take your chances and pay the price of admission and see if you come up right.

quote:

(snip)
ELR rifle will have a 5-25 on it. If I had higher magnification, I know I wouldn't use it because of mirage.

Not sure why the mirage is preventing you from using higher magnification. I regularly shoot in mirage and never lessen the power. You learn to use the mirage and depend on it.