I've been able to set aside some spending money for something that I don't need and have decided to pick up a bolt action 308. What I'm hoping the wise and/or experienced people here can do is offer up opinions on what scope and rings to put on top.

I've started price watching the internet for a new or barely used T3x CTR in 308 and I'll be honest that I have no idea what I need for a scope. (Going to Leupold's website and looking at their reticle options was an overwhelming mistake) I'm pretty sure that I want an illuminated reticle and some sort of mil-dot or ranging reticle but after that I'm mainly looking for value. I don't care if I don't have a cool name on the scope and would like to cap the price to $700 IF that's realistic and I'm not above sitting and waiting for deals on some scopes that might be slightly over this price range. This gun will likely spend a bulk of it's time punching holes in paper (0-500yds) but having the ability to use it on the once every few years hunting trip would be nice.

With all that being said, what would you buy if you were spending my money?

If by "ranging reticle", you mean a reticle with evenly spaced dots or hash marks, I expect it will be hard to find one that's illuminated and under $700.

If a reticle calibrated for 100 yard intervals (i.e. not even spaced in angle measurements) is okay, the Leopold VX-R line offers scopes with illuminated Ballistic Firedot reticles. You can go up to 3-9x50 for under $700.

If you're willing to give up the illumination, the SWFA SS HD 3-9x42 comes with a "Mil-Quad" ranging reticle, for $600.

If you're willing to give up some magnification, the SWFA SS HD 1-4x24 comes with an illuminated "Mil-Quad DM" reticle.

In my past searches, I've yet to find a moderately priced (<$700) scope that offers the combination of of illumination, a mil reticle, and mil turrets. I'm interested to see others' suggestions.

A place to start:

riflescope primer

I have some scopes with illuminated reticles, but only because I might need to use them under low light conditions. Although professional shooters got along without them until they were developed, a sight with large (light-gathering) objective lens and heavy, easy-to-see reticle is still not as good for the purpose as a reticle that’s actually lighted. The question circles back, however, to whether they’re actually going to be used under conditions when they would be necessary. If so, and that includes situations when the background is very dark even though it’s not at night, then they are useful.

As for reticles, I much prefer something similar to Leupold’s “Tactical Milling Reticle” (TMR). The traditional mildot reticle was one of the first reticles in that category that was adopted by the US military, but the TMR type has finer divisions that are more precise, and are more intuitive and easier to use. Many manufacturers have adopted similar designs; some are better than the TMR, some aren’t as good.

Many ignorant shooters dismiss the “milling” type reticles such as the TMR because they don’t understand how they’re used and for what purposes. They can be used for range estimation, but that requires practice and skill, and usually isn’t as accurate as a good laser rangefinder. That doesn’t mean the feature might not ever be useful, but even though I’ve probably experimented and practiced with the technique more than most shooters, it’s not something I rely on.

What the milling reticles are good for is adjusting one’s point of aim or adjusting the windage and elevation settings if we know a missed point of impact. If my spotter says, “You were half a mil low,” because he’s also using a milling reticle, it’s easy to adjust my sight or my point of aim to compensate.

Sights with windage and elevation adjustments and reticles calibrated in minutes of angle are becoming more common, but even though they may have their advantages, I still prefer the ones calibrated in milliradians (mils or MRADs).

I am no fan of the “bullet drop compensating” (BDC) reticles that are calibrated for specific distances and ammunition, and that includes reticles with wind “trees” that clutter up one’s field of view. They may be fine for someone like a soldier who will never fire anything but one specific load, but I prefer more flexibility. For example, in 5.56mm NATO and 223 Remington, I fire everything from 55 grain to 77 grain loads, and others in between. Their ballistics are not the same, and therefore a scope that’s calibrated for just one load isn’t what I want. In addition, such sights are calibrated for specific ranges like 100, 200, 400, … yards (or meters). If the target is at 450 yards, the hold-off necessary isn’t halfway between the 400 and 500 yard calibration marks.

I develop specific ballistic tables for the different ammunition I use, and use that data as necessary. If my target is at 375 yards, I will know how many mils of adjustment I must make from my zero setting either by holding off or adjusting the elevation itself. At longer distances with a load like the 308 Winchester, for example, a 10 yard range difference can require a 0.1 mil elevation change; doing that with a BDC reticle would be about impossible.

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

Unfortunately the question you ask is like the three blind men visiting the circus and then describing the elephant after their first experience with one. Our recommendations all depend on our perspective and how we use them. Getting the perfect scope the first time is like a fan walking on the field and hitting the game winning homer in the bottom of the 9th in the world series, probable but not likely. After you digest Nikonuser's primer then assess your situation and decide what you really want in a scope and then start looking at glass. Go to the range, go to the stores or wherever the scopes are and look through them, also talk to people about what they have. If you have the opportunity to shoot with them take it. Understand that a large part of the cost of the scope is determined by features so be realistic in your expectations and be prepared to spend $$ to get what you want. Don't be surprised if you go through more than one scope getting there. But that was not your question. As to recommendations since you put a $700 limit on your purchase then I would make a spreadsheet of what every manufacture offers in that price range with their specs and then pick the one that came closest to my desires.

A few months back I went with the Leupold Mark AR Mod 1 for my Semi-auto .308. I am completely happy with the selection. Your criteria is about the same as mine.

https://www.leupold.com/tactic...k-ar-mod-1-3-9x40mm/

I went with the Green Firedot Tactical Milling Reticle (TMR) in 3x9x40. The green dot is daylight visible for hunting and you can turn it off for range work if you like. Once you get your load dialed in you can order custom elevation/windage dials directly from Leupold.

Almost forgot. The price was sub $600. I got mine from Eurooptics web site and it might have even been sub $500.

Edited below:

http://www.eurooptic.com/115370-7223683.aspx

$449 with free shipping.

Having owned many scopes so far in my shooting career, and having been behind dozens and dozens more, I honestly wouldn't buy a $700 scope, with VERY rare exceptions, and for very specialized applications, which yours does not seem to be.

I would maybe save a few more pennies and try to get to a grand. Your options will increase dramatically. I hear VERY good things about the Gen 2 Viper, try to take a look through one of those if you can.

Also, the fact that you want a "ranging" reticle.. In order for that to be useful, you're going to need a ffp scope so the reticle is accurate at any magnification, which is going to put most scopes out of reach for you at the $700 mark. You could probably pick up a Gen 1 Viper for that, but honestly I wouldn't. I enjoyed the one I had, but their quality, honestly, is a little hit or miss. The warranty is awesome, so if you don't mind *possibly* having to return it once or twice, you might be OK.

Side note, why not go with 6.5 over 308?

quote:

Originally posted by WARPIG602:
Side note, why not go with 6.5 over 308?

Barrel burn of course

I like your choice for the bolt rifle. .308 should be fine out to 500 yards or longer. But the 6.5 CM would have less recoil. I would increase the scope budget to a $1000 which will give better scopes choices. I like the Vortex Viper PST Gen II MRAD in the 3-15X for $999.00. If your looking for more power, move up the 5-25X PST Gen II. Vortex's glass is good with a great warranty.

On my 700P in .308 I put a Leupold 3.5-14x40mm, target turrets, mil-dot reticle. I've done under 1/2 MOA at 100 yards with that combination, using plain old FGGM. I mounted it in Burris Signature scope rings. Don't recall whose bases I used. Burris, too, I think.

If I had it to do over, I think I might go with a 50mm objective for the improved performance in low light.

As for the illumination: I didn't bother because I figured it the target illumination was low enough to require reticle illumination, I wouldn't be able to see the target well enough, anyway.

As for the mil-dot: I got to admit: I did it because I could. I'll be damned if I can ever remember how it works

Features like reticle illumination are obviously a matter of individual choice and perceived need. I can personally attest, though, that without it, and under some conditions, it is definitely possible to see certain targets and yet not be able to see a reticle clearly enough for precise aiming.

I would never try to talk anyone into the feature, and it may matter only in military, law enforcement, or end-of-the-world self-defense situations, but it can make a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Features like reticle illumination are obviously a matter of individual choice and perceived need. I can personally attest, though, that without it, and under some conditions, it is definitely possible to see certain targets and yet not be able to see a reticle clearly enough for precise aiming.

I would never try to talk anyone into the feature, and it may matter only in military, law enforcement, or end-of-the-world self-defense situations, but it can make a difference.

It can also matter in hunting or competition situations. More than once I've been at a competition where they try to get in ONE LAST stage for the day since the weather the next day is supposed to be bad, and if you're the last guy in the squad, you really do need that illuminated reticle.

Would I buy a scope without one? Sure. But it just so happens that pretty much every scope with the other features that I require, in the price ranges I shop, comes with an illuminated reticle already.

As for regular use... Well, let's put it this way: I never even put the battery in the scope that's on my practice rifle. Take from that what you will.

quote:

Originally posted by exx1976:
Having owned many scopes so far in my shooting career, and having been behind dozens and dozens more, I honestly wouldn't buy a $700 scope, with VERY rare exceptions, and for very specialized applications, which yours does not seem to be.

I would maybe save a few more pennies and try to get to a grand. Your options will increase dramatically. I hear VERY good things about the Gen 2 Viper, try to take a look through one of those if you can.

Also, the fact that you want a "ranging" reticle.. In order for that to be useful, you're going to need a ffp scope so the reticle is accurate at any magnification, which is going to put most scopes out of reach for you at the $700 mark. You could probably pick up a Gen 1 Viper for that, but honestly I wouldn't. I enjoyed the one I had, but their quality, honestly, is a little hit or miss. The warranty is awesome, so if you don't mind *possibly* having to return it once or twice, you might be OK.

I have to agree with exx on all of these points. I started my long range shooting hobby with budget components and budget optics. I've owned just about everything I can think of between a Rem 700 SPS Tactical with a Vortex HS 6-24 second focal plane scope and my current custom setup with NF optics. I consider my rifle close to perfect, and my $2800 Nightforce to be above average/very good. Not even excellent if you compare it to some other optics.

Scopes I've tried and quickly tossed:

Vortex Viper HS 6-24 (no thanks)
Vortex Viper HS-T (negative)
SWFA 10x (not bad - didn't meet my needs)
Vortex Viper HS-LR (nope)
Vortex Viper PST 6-24 1st Gen second focal plane (worked adequately, but tracked like shit. Optics made as many errors ad I did)
Vortex Razor HD AMG (worked really well, didn't like eye relief, or "eye box")

Current scope: Nightforce ATACR F1 - I'm finally completely satisfied with my optic.

Now, I've only ever had one precision rifle at a time. I've bought, sold, built, and sold rifles frequently until I finally wasted enough time and money, and got my current custom build that I'm extremely happy with.

What I would do in your situation is see if you can make room for about $1,800 in your budget and buy a used Vortex Gen II Razor. I know that seems like a lot of money, but if you intend to even be halfway serious about this hobby/sport, I promise that you will spend all of the time and money I spent when I didn't listen to the advice given here.

Every single scope I've used in your price range was disappointing - and I was just shooting my own steel targets for fun. At the time, I wasn't doing ANY competition. That would have been extremely frustrating.

EDIT: I re-read your OP and realize that we may have different intended uses for our rifles/optics. I will still say that Leupold is really REALLY behind the times on technology in optics, and pricing. They are really popular with hunters and they have mil contracts.. but you don't see a ton of them in competitions for a number of reasons.

Punching holes in paper at 500 may not require a Gen II Razor, but I won't make a recommendation for straight paper punching bench shooting since it's not something I know or participate in much.

My recommendation was based more on practical rifle or tactical steel type matches or even just fun.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:

quote:

Originally posted by WARPIG602:
Side note, why not go with 6.5 over 308?

Barrel burn of course

I pulled the Bartlein barrel in my 6.5 Creedmoor at 3,200 rounds. The rifle still shot groups at 1/2" or less at 100 yards, but I was losing confidence at distances at 1,000 yards and beyond. I had three precision rifle matches essentially back-to-back, and I didn't want to have issues with a barrel approaching 3,700 rounds and having to shoot accurately out to 1,800 yards.

My gunsmith said I made a good choice. The old barrel's throat showed extensive fire cracking and bullets had a long jump to the lands.

My 308 precision rifle's Bartelin barrel currently has 4,200 down range. It too is likely near its effective precision life. The rifle's replacement barrel is already waiting in my basement.

The definition of a barrel burner is based on personal use. For someone not requiring gnat's-ass accuracy, barrel life is longer. Hunters of medium/large-ish game in North American would likely be very happy with the performance of my 3200-round 6.5 Creedmoor barrel. But such a hunting rifle may not even see 1,000 rounds down a barrel in 3 or 4 generations of family hand-me-down shooting.

Certain calibers are known to eat barrels for lunch. For precision/tactical matches a 243 Win probably won't last past 1500 rounds, maybe less. On the other end of the 308-ish case capacity spectrum, 338 Federal will make 308 Win look like a barrel burner.

OP -- I recommend looking at calibers other than 308, too. Be realistic about your shooting goals, shooting distances, accuracy requirements, ammo costs, shooting volume, and recoil sensitivity. The TX3 has a lot of caliber options.