quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
You should NEVER use your rifle mounted scope as a spotting scope, it SERIOUSLY violates safety rules about not pointing your gun at things you don't want to shoot.

Using the scope on your rifle to spot targets is quite common in steel/tactical/precision matches. Common scenarios:
- The RO assigned to the stage is struggling to call hits or misses. The RO asks other shooters in the squad to help spot the target. The RO generally asks those who have already shot, but when conditions are challenging, the spotters may include anyone on the squad. This scenario could be a combination of:
-- heavy long-distance targets which don't move much with impacts,
-- targets aren't painted and don't show hits well,
-- the wind is blowing targets around, making it difficult to identify hits,
-- the long distance hit indicator flashers aren't working,
-- the wind is blowing enough that audible hit indication isn't reliable.

- To keep large squads moving and minimize down time, the RO may ask 1 or 2 other shooters on prone stages to set up on either side of the current shooter -- while that shooter in engaging targets. In this manner, when one shooter is done with the course of fire, the next shooter can engage the targets with minimal delay.

- In team matches, the non-shooting partner commonly spots hits and misses for the shooting partner.

In the above scenarios there is strict safety protocol. The person spotting from the rifle must use proper muzzle control, must not place himself or his equipment in a harmful position, must have mag out / bolt back / chamber empty, must have fingers off the trigger. I don't see this as an issue.

fritz: You beat me to it. We do similar things in F-class competition at the National or World level. In those instances you are paired with another shooter for the day (or the target depending on the COF.) We both set up all our equipment and the rifles are on the line with ECIs inserted. When one competitor shoots, the other one scores. The scorer may elect to use his or her spotting scope (if they have one) or look through their riflescope, again with the ECI inserted.)

I've done it both ways, my spotting scope and my riflescope are both excellent optics and they are easy to look through and do not induce any eye strain or fatigue. It's usually a question of equipment management, especially when it gets to the last relay.

Once again, djPointless inserted himself into this conversation for what some might view as virtue signaling.

My shooting is a little different than most in that I don't do competition and only shoot the prairie dog fields. At 75 I am still blessed with 20/20 with no color blindness. I have gone through a lot of different scopes looking for one that I am completely happy with. Most of my dog shooting is done in South Dakota where high winds and heavy mirage are the norm. The first thing I look for is a scope that lets me clearly see the PD down range. In doing this I need help getting through the mirage and I have found the ED glass is superior for this and allows for higher scope settings. The second is a reticle that is easy for me to understand and use so that I can change shots over a wide variety of targets including cross wind shots. The third thing I want is durability. While I don't expect my rifle to get abused in the field doesn't mean it won't and I want one that stands a chance of surviving the occasional mishap and still keep functioning. Unfortunately, have experienced this a few times on my own rifle and others in the party. The fourth thing I want is good eye relief. The occasional odd position one find oneself in does not always lend to perfect head position on the stock. The last thing I want is the mechanics to work and be consistent.

quote:

Originally posted by kyoung:
I am 66 year old shooter with dootan extreme according to that test. I have known this for 60 years. Recently I have been trying to shoot PRS competition locally and I have been struggling with being able to get a consistant sight pic. It is especially bad shooting prone, I wear glasses and am having a heck of a time finding my target. I started out with a Zeiss ConQuest 6X24 but it was a second focal plane in MOA, so I recently bought a Burris XTR II 5-25x50 34 tube FFP mil.
My first outing with the Burris was not very good I keep flopping back and forth with wearing glasss and than throughing them off nd trying to shoot without . Needless to say I am having a hard time deciding how I need to setup my scope. Are there any recommendations out there?

kyoung: You and I are virtually the same age and I have glasses (bifocals) also. It's always a bit of an issue getting behind a scope and when the glasses fog up, stuff gets weird.

I reported on another thread here some time back (I think it was here, but it could have been on another forum,) that I sometimes look over the top of my glasses and through the riflescope. But one of the things I insist on is a set of tall rings. I like my scope higher on the rifle; for my viewing comfort. My LOS is 2 inches high on my F-TR match rifle, and that's because those were the tallest 34MM XTR Signature rings I could get. I know a lot of people try to keep the scope low, as close to the barrel as possible. They are fools. You want it comfortable for you, not the barrel.

quote:

I'll will announce it here when it's available and where to get one.

NikonUser, thank you so much. I can't wait to get my hands on one of these. I am a Nightforce fanboi for now, but am really starting to want a March scope based on your information. I have the opportunity on a regular basis to shoot in all types of conditions and have found twilight/dawn and night shoots to be very challenging. I mostly shoot alone or with a very small group of people and we look at precision as a fun game. Mathematics, skill, equipment, & the voodoo of wind are things that interest me the most. I like trying new things after research and your knowledge along with fritz and offgrid (I am sure I missed someone too - sorry) have helped me move to a new level for long distance precision shooting.

Once again, apologies for the thread drift for the above. The color test was interesting since my Father is red-green color blind and I am not. The results confirmed I am not and he is severely color blind and it shows up in his shooting in various conditions with my scopes.

As for the comment never using a rifle mounted scope as a spotting scope, I am just going to say, HUH?

I use my scope as a spotter for myself. Perhaps the wrong way to say that since that is part of my shooting process: observe, fire, recoil, recover, observe (impact), reset, and then repeat or scan for new target in addition to looking at conditions (observe). How is that not spotting?

The group I shoot with all rotate through being the "spotter" using the dedicated spotting scope with higher magnification and/or set to observe mirage, spot impacts, etc. Everyone else safely uses their scope to observe the "current" shooters impact so they can make notes for themselves or provide advice. We are all looking down the same range so unless someone is breaking a cardinal rule, I don't see how using a rifle mounted scope for spotting is an issue at all. Perhaps I am missing something and this an opportunity to learn. No rifles are used behind the line so perhaps that is what is being referred to here. I'd truly like to understand.

A quick reply from my college days of 45+years ago. Colorblindness is a recessive gene inherited from the female. I seem to remember that 10% of males suffer from colorblindness, compared to 1% of females. But they are the ones who pass it on. That explains why your father is colorblind but you're not.

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

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
You should NEVER use your rifle mounted scope as a spotting scope, it SERIOUSLY violates safety rules about not pointing your gun at things you don't want to shoot.

Using the scope on your rifle to spot targets is quite common in steel/tactical/precision matches. Common scenarios:
- The RO assigned to the stage is struggling to call hits or misses. The RO asks other shooters in the squad to help spot the target. The RO generally asks those who have already shot, but when conditions are challenging, the spotters may include anyone on the squad. This scenario could be a combination of:
-- heavy long-distance targets which don't move much with impacts,
-- targets aren't painted and don't show hits well,
-- the wind is blowing targets around, making it difficult to identify hits,
-- the long distance hit indicator flashers aren't working,
-- the wind is blowing enough that audible hit indication isn't reliable.

- To keep large squads moving and minimize down time, the RO may ask 1 or 2 other shooters on prone stages to set up on either side of the current shooter -- while that shooter in engaging targets. In this manner, when one shooter is done with the course of fire, the next shooter can engage the targets with minimal delay.

- In team matches, the non-shooting partner commonly spots hits and misses for the shooting partner.

In the above scenarios there is strict safety protocol. The person spotting from the rifle must use proper muzzle control, must not place himself or his equipment in a harmful position, must have mag out / bolt back / chamber empty, must have fingers off the trigger. I don't see this as an issue.

OK I should have said WHILE HUNTING! Using it in a competitive match is a completely different thing.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:


Once again, djPointless inserted himself into this conversation for what some might view as virtue signaling.

Don't be an jerk. I've had slob hunters point their loaded rifles at me too many times when using their riflescopes as spotters to not make an IMPORTANT POINT about safety. I noted you as providing a safe way to do so WHILE HUNTING and also changed my original post to note that I didn't intend it to include competitive matches.

I was sitting in a deer blind with a friend of mine glassing the fields for deer. My buddies pointed as whispered to me if those guys aiming their rifles at us shoot me please shoot them back! Sure enough I looked through my Bing's and 2 idiots were aiming right at use. I'm sure I'm not the only hunter here who has had the same thing happen to them all too often.

Not using your rifle as a spotting scope when HUNTING is Gun Safety 101. Too many slob hunters haven't learned this yet.

quote:

Originally posted by l33571:

quote:

I'll will announce it here when it's available and where to get one.

NikonUser, thank you so much. I can't wait to get my hands on one of these. I am a Nightforce fanboi for now, but am really starting to want a March scope based on your information.

There is nothing wrong with Nighforce and you do not have to apologize for being a fanboi. They are heavier than they need to be and the glass is not the very best, but they have a good overall reputation and they have a huge following.

That said, keep an eye here as there may be a special Sigforum reason to want a March scope. I'm not talking about special prices or anything like that, I don't want to set false expectations. Let's just be patient and see if it comes to fruition.


In the meantime, back to you post

quote:

I have the opportunity on a regular basis to shoot in all types of conditions and have found twilight/dawn and night shoots to be very challenging. I mostly shoot alone or with a very small group of people and we look at precision as a fun game. Mathematics, skill, equipment, & the voodoo of wind are things that interest me the most. I like trying new things after research and your knowledge along with fritz and offgrid (I am sure I missed someone too - sorry) have helped me move to a new level for long distance precision shooting.

Once again, apologies for the thread drift for the above. The color test was interesting since my Father is red-green color blind and I am not. The results confirmed I am not and he is severely color blind and it shows up in his shooting in various conditions with my scopes.

I'm very happy that you feel I've contributed in any way to furthering your knowledge of riflery; I agree with you that fritz, offgrid and others here contribute a lot of knowledge and lore to this forum and they're some of the reasons this forum is really excellent.

quote:

As for the comment never using a rifle mounted scope as a spotting scope, I am just going to say, HUH?

I use my scope as a spotter for myself. Perhaps the wrong way to say that since that is part of my shooting process: observe, fire, recoil, recover, observe (impact), reset, and then repeat or scan for new target in addition to looking at conditions (observe). How is that not spotting?

The group I shoot with all rotate through being the "spotter" using the dedicated spotting scope with higher magnification and/or set to observe mirage, spot impacts, etc. Everyone else safely uses their scope to observe the "current" shooters impact so they can make notes for themselves or provide advice. We are all looking down the same range so unless someone is breaking a cardinal rule, I don't see how using a rifle mounted scope for spotting is an issue at all. Perhaps I am missing something and this an opportunity to learn. No rifles are used behind the line so perhaps that is what is being referred to here. I'd truly like to understand.

I think we can all agree that it's best to simply ignore the comment that tried to distract us from the purpose of this thread.

I will say again that I am looking forward to getting that gizmo that turns a riflescope into a spotting scope. I already have plans to set one up on a VERY sturdy tripod of mine (yes, another Manfrotto, but this one weighs a lot,) and set it up the upcoming TSRA Long Range Championship coming up in April. I will be able to let people look through it in exact match conditions. Should be great.

I think brand loyalty has a lot to do with it. I work about 2 miles from the Luepold factory and we sometimes get some of their optical engineers to come and work for us and vice-versa. No, I'm not in the scope business; my company is in the laser drilling industry.

Needless to say, there's lots of Leupold and Redfield fans locally. Recently, Sig opened their optics facility 20 miles south of here, so they show up regularly at the local gun club to test their new scopes. I've been there several times and run into the staff while they're testing something, getting ready for a trade-show or an article. When the range has a public event, Sig Optics will have a tent set up with their optics, since their office is only 5 miles from the range.

I never see Leupold at the range because I believe they have an underground range onsite.

So you've got guys, that for years, saw dad and grandpa using Leupold and it would be blasphemy if they bought anything other than Leupold. I recently overhauled a Remington 700 hunting rifle and the guy had to have a Leupold. It was a great shooter when we were done and he couldn't believe the light gathering quality compared to his Tasco, but he was dead set on Leupold because it was a classic hunting scope. I tried to convince him to go with Zeiss.

For me, the first quality piece of glass I owned was a Zeiss Conquest. It blew my mind away how an affordable scope in the $600 range could deliver such clarity. Now I also own a Leupold MK4 ER/T and a Vortex Razor HD. I've had the opportunity to handle NightForce and US Optics as well.

For me, it all boils down to what I can afford, the light transmission, the magnification, and if the reticle is in MOA versus Mils since I'm not familiar with mils. I've had a chance to compare both Vortex Razors and Vipers and I see why the Razors cost much more. I also prefer 1/4 MOA adjustments. Mil adjustment

And since the M14 is brutal on scopes, having a good warranty and a scope rated for 50 BMG is wise.

I'm very open about my optics options, but many are set in their ways.

Tony.

When I started this thread, it was with the intention of discussing why people liked the view through some scopes better than the same view through other scopes. I spent some time explaining my thinking that people view the same image differently and that the optical technologies used in one scope would be more (or less) suited to a particular user and so comparisons between scopes coming from one person would be skewed to reflect that person’s vision preferences.

Then all of a sudden people are posting about various things, non-optics related, that they like about their scopes. Why can’t these people stick to the subject, to wit the IQ of the scope as it applies to that person?

After reading benny6’s post, I looked at the subject line again and realized that I left it wide open for interpretation; it doesn’t say anything about IQ, it just says “why do some people like some scopes better than others?” What a lame subject line.

Anyway, it is what it is, and I’m not going to change it now; but I will try to stay on message, IE the IQ of a scope and why it can be different for various people.

Well, I mean try to stay on message, but benny6’s message will send me careering off message for just a little bit.

I believe I have mentioned already that at SHOT, Leupold folks come to visit the March booth. They come in force and they do not hide their badges and they are very nice. They come to see what the new models are and we talk a lot, like I said, they are very nice. March is not a threat to Leupold; the markets are totally different and Leupold offers nothing that comes close to any March scopes. The Leupold folks do like to look through the various March offerings and they like to feel the controls and so on. You can see the awe in the eyes when they look through the very high-end March scopes. Before you ask, no; I do not go visit the Leupold booth. I have zero interest in their products. But as I said, there is no competition between March and Leupold; just like there’s no competition between Lamborghini and Chevrolet. Now, could Leupold build a scope that is equal to a March? I don’t see why not, but I also don’t see why they would even bother; that’s simply not their market.

Up until last year, we also would have a lot of Nikon folks come by the booth, doing the exact same thing as Leupold folks. Again, different markets but they did like to look through the March scopes. Nikon used to have the biggest booth at SHOT and now they are gone.

I completely understand all the technical information in your post since I work in the laser and optics industry. It's very well laid out and thorough but it's probably going way over most readers heads. Highly technical threads usually have only a few or a couple of active members with an ongoing dialogue between each other and the thread can be short lived.

I don't think there's anything technical to debate over what you've posted, so I answered the overall question as to why some people like one scope over another.

The truth is that only highly experienced optics users will be able to tell the difference between high end glass makers. Most shooters see a clear image and immediately move on to other features, like the knobs, reticle usability, magnification and reputation for durability.

When speaking to a mass group, I try to simplify things.

Tony.

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
I completely understand all the technical information in your post since I work in the laser and optics industry. It's very well laid out and thorough but it's probably going way over most readers heads. Highly technical threads usually have only a few or a couple of active members with an ongoing dialogue between each other and the thread can be short lived.

I don't think there's anything technical to debate over what you've posted, so I answered the overall question as to why some people like one scope over another.

The truth is that only highly experienced optics users will be able to tell the difference between high end glass makers. Most shooters see a clear image and immediately move on to other features, like the knobs, reticle usability, magnification and reputation for durability.

When speaking to a mass group, I try to simplify things.

Tony.

I get that, I know that I sometimes get into somewhat technical issues where the interest (and perhaps even understanding) is low, but judging from the various private notes that I get and even visits at SHOT (and other places,) I know that a lot of people read the posts and gain knowledge from them, even if they do not participate in the discussion. And those notes and various recognition gestures make it all worthwhile to me. I am a published author on many subjects, (usually very highly technical crap) and I try hard to explain complex subjects, and even if I don't understand it all myself, I try to ask the proper questions or peek into the difficult areas to see if I can understand it.

This forum has been very accommodating to my predilection and there are people here who do follow and who know much more about things than I do. Actually more than you might think, which is what makes it fun for me as I learn things from everywhere and I try to share with everyone.

Recently, I have had the opportunity to learn a great deal about a very high end optics manufacturer and I am learning a lot and trying to take everyone here along for the ride and we will see how far it goes.

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:

The truth is that only highly experienced optics users will be able to tell the difference between high end glass makers. Most shooters see a clear image and immediately move on to other features, like the knobs, reticle usability, magnification and reputation for durability.


Tony.

Well said. I think that's pretty much what I said in my original post. "I like scopes that don't break, adjust consistently, I can see better through, are easy to focus and have useful reticles."

I also agree that most people aren't going to really study all the technical optical differences. I might add MOST people aren't able to AFFORD the truly optically superior scopes. It is VERY GOOD however that there are manufacturers that push the quality envelope higher and higher. I think that the ultra expensive ultra high quality scopes have trickled down and improved less expensive lines such as the Zeiss Conquest series as an example....

My apologies for the thread drift as I was a major contributor. I lurk more than comment and it shows. I have a preference for Nightforce after having looked at many scope in classes I have attended and also in the small group I shoot with. We all have the means to purchase just about anything we want and a couple of the guys rotate, trade, & buy/sell all the time.

I went the all NightForce route since I am an MOA shooter and really like the MOAR and MOAR-T reticles. Being able to have the same reticle on various scopes across "value" lines is worth it to me. I have ATACR & SHV models of varying powers in both SFP and FFP. I do many things from prone shooting (both known and unknown distance) to made up "run & gun" events similar to PRS but at my (or our pace when in the group). The glass is as good or equivalent to everything else I have had the opportunity to look through in a "shooting environment." That is outdoors, at our home range with our targets in multiple light conditions.

The moment I became a true fan of NF scopes was after watching my Nephew drop a Rem 700 5R that has been worked over by Accurate Ordnance (it was safe, he was learning and the bolt was not in the rifle nor was ammo nearby) right onto the NF 5-25 ATACR scope (turret no less) and then watching the rifle bounce and onto the barrel, the stock, the scope, etc. ON CEMENT!

I thought I was screwed with that rifle and scope. Instead of getting upset or anything, we had a teaching moment, and then went on to shooting. That scope was still zeroed, passed a box test, and other than some scratches and some small dents, I have done nothing other than shoot and clean that rifle. That is what made me a NightForce fan.

All that being said, I want to look through both March & Tangent scopes. I'll buy them if I have to, but would prefer to observe first if possible as that's a lot of cash for 2 scopes. The fact that March is making a device that add on for use a spotter with a reticle is just once more thing to like about them.

l133571 Yours was not much of a thread drift, unlike some other people. Yes, I did notice that you lurk a lot more than comment, which is why I am happy to continue the discussion.

Your story about incident with your nephew using a Nighforce scoped-rifle as a bouncing ball was excellent. With such vivid examples are our opinions formed.

In 2011, I was at Camp Swift in Texas, not too far from Austin for the Texas State Midrange championships. This was the year before I significantly upgraded rifle and scope for F-TR. At any rate, I was already formulating my plans for the coming upgrade and spec'ing out the components. The main one I was on the fence about was the scope. I was considering a Nightforce NXS 12-42X56 for my upcoming build. So you can be sure that I was paying attention to these scopes at matches. There were about 200-250 shooters that weekend in Bastrop and as luck would have it, 3 separate shooters had their NF NXS 12-42X56 go out of commission during the weekend. Not one, not two, but three different shooters, three different scopes, all NF NXS 12-42X56, the exact one I was lusting after. Whoa. I had been told that NF was bulletproof and three went down at Camp Swift. My faith was shaken, but I still went ahead and bought one a few months later when I was building my match rifle. It gave me no troubles at all, but the glass was not the best, which caused me to go to March a few years later. (I did not know about March at that time.)

For a competition shooter, having the scope go down during a match is very bad juju. You can spend thousands getting to a match and it's once a year or in some cases like the Worlds, maybe once a lifetime. That's unacceptable. I have always dragged my NF along for the ride when going to big matches but my March has never let me down in 6 years and 100+ competitions and about 20,000 rounds. Now that I have the March-X 10-60HM on the rifle, the March-X 5-50X56 is my backup and, like you, I look forward to getting that adapter that will make my March-X 5-50X56 into a spotter and yet still be instantly available as a backup scope for my rifle. I can now dispose of the NF NXS 12-42X56 that has been sitting in its box for a few years now. It's a fine scope, no flies on it, but I don't need it anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by chessiedog1:
great discussion! I took the test and can see colors normal.

Concur. I too scored "normal color vision" test result.

My only issue with scopes and sights is that I'm left eye dominant but right handed.


low8option does a nice job of describing what it takes to create red mist at long range out here in my neck of the woods.

quote:

Originally posted by low8option:
My shooting is a little different than most in that I don't do competition and only shoot the prairie dog fields. At 75 I am still blessed with 20/20 with no color blindness. I have gone through a lot of different scopes looking for one that I am completely happy with. Most of my dog shooting is done in South Dakota where high winds and heavy mirage are the norm. The first thing I look for is a scope that lets me clearly see the PD down range. In doing this I need help getting through the mirage and I have found the ED glass is superior for this and allows for higher scope settings.

I've been meaning to highlight the above statement by low8option. Let me just say right there and and now, that I agree with you. I find that ED glass helps conquer the mirage in a riflescope. I have been making that exact point on other forums, more dedicated to competition for the last few years now. I think I've stated it here also in the past.

The way I explain it to people is that to my eye, ED glass removes what I tentatively term "the sparkle" in the mirage. If you experience mirage in your riflescope you can see that when it's shimmering of fixin' to move, it seems like you get light sparkles from all over the image. Maybe there's something in Gatorade, but that's how I remembered it in my NXS at 40X. It was even worse in my Weaver T-36 to the point of the image being totally useless. When I look at it now with my March-X 5-50X56, the "sparkle" is diminished, and the mirage has a better, more coherent definition. Also, whereas the target would look like a crazed amoeba on crack through the Weaver and the NXS, the March-X 5-50X56 presented a proper image. At the last match, my first time with the March-X 10-60X56HM with Super-ED lenses, the mirage was really just a like a river, easy to see the flow, but not corrupting the image of the target. The target was still shimmering, but it was not bad at all.

I am looking forward to upcoming matches with my new scope and will be playing with the MD reduction disk to see how that goes.

My working hypothesis for now is that the elimination of chromatic aberration really dampens the effect of mixing the colors like crazy in the mirage.

Further on the colorblindness thing, I believe that ED and Super-ED glass helps colorblind shooters in ways that we may not have anticipated. The issue behind colorblindness is the problem with discriminating between colors like red and green, especially when they are close together. Super ED and ED lenses actually make the colors more distinct especially when they are next to each other by removing the color bleed between them. This increases the contrast which makes things more perceivable, if than means anything. So where a normal vision person sees all the colors with more "pop" through ED and even more so with Super-ED, some colorblind people may perceive a better color separation between objects. Of course, that would not work for all colors and combinations, but it certainly would not make it worse for anyone.

quote:

The second is a reticle that is easy for me to understand and use so that I can change shots over a wide variety of targets including cross wind shots. The third thing I want is durability. While I don't expect my rifle to get abused in the field doesn't mean it won't and I want one that stands a chance of surviving the occasional mishap and still keep functioning. Unfortunately, have experienced this a few times on my own rifle and others in the party. The fourth thing I want is good eye relief. The occasional odd position one find oneself in does not always lend to perfect head position on the stock. The last thing I want is the mechanics to work and be consistent.

Yep, all good points, but for me, the mechanics are crucial; I need the knobs to work exactly as advertised each and every time and I cannot have the scope shifting zero on its own. Reticle is another issue best covered separately.

NikonUser, your discussion of the effect of higher quality glass on “mirage” was an eye-opener (NPI) like nothing else I’ve read about top tier scopes thus far. Thank you!

(I think, because now I am no longer so certain that I don’t need something like a March.)

I was one of the guilty ones who responded with an answer that created a little of the drift and I apologize. My current scope on my long range gun is a Nightforce ATACR and I came to it after a series of other scopes including other NF scopes of which one is a NXS which did not give me the sharpness of a PD at longer ranges. The ATACR has been by far the best in clarity that I have experienced. I pointed out that the rifle the scope was on took a hard tumble and came back shooting on target. I am looking forward to checking out a March as I can always use more clarity.

Bald1, I shoot about 20 miles NE of Rapid. Great country you have out there.