Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Member |
I have an ATACR 5X25X56 with the MOAR-T reticle. As for durable, it rides around with me in my Dept 3500 Duramax. It is in a drag bag locked in a box in the back. So it is not a smooth ride to say the least. Every month I pull it out and check zero, never waivers more than .5 moa which I attribute more to monthly weather changes than the scope. I have been doing this for the last 4 years. I spent my own money on that scope and I don't regret the investment. I really like the precise MOAR-T reticle. My last scope was a Leopold with the TMR reticle. I hated it. Hard to beat that scope in my opinion. | |||
|
LIBERTATEM DEFENDIMUS |
Hey NikonUser, thanks for your input regarding my questions on March optics. Originally, I had pretty much set my mind on going with an ATACR 5-25 for my SCAR 20s, mounted in a Spuhr. Your experience and commentary with March optics had me looking into them as well. No doubt they make some excellent optics. I think they offer a lot of range also. I started looking into the FX line and it really seems they have a lot to offer. The new model you mentioned (5-42 with Super ED glass) seemed really interesting. My intended usage really isn't anything particularly demanding. Mainly, I want something I can go to the range and shoot on occasion and have a good time while doing so. My local range is only 200yds, but I may have some opportunities to shoot extended ranges on occasion in the coming years, possibly at the NRA range in New Mexico. I'm really looking for an optic that would be a good match on a .308 rifle with the potential of 6.5 Creedmore if FNH should release barrel options in the coming year. The 20s is pretty much a stationary rifle, not something I would envision hiking around with for extended periods. Regarding the SCARs recoil issues, the root cause seems a bit of a mystery, but I suspect it has to do with a combination of factors, a heavy BCG, abrupt stop on the rearward and forward travel. I'm not entirely sure there's the same level of cushioning effect seen with AR recoil buffers. Also, as SCARs have no piston rings on the bolt, there's really just an abrupt metal on metal contact when the BCG moves into battery. The only thing slowing its momentum is the feeding of rounds from the magazine. So, I suspect there's a bit of an airgun recoil going on which would be hard on optics not ruggedized for the unique recoil impulse. I also have an MR-762A1 that I was looking into the ATACR 4-16x42 for that one, but again March has some really compelling options there as well. I'm not as concerned about it's recoil properties as I am with my SCAR. As to my eyesight, I have to admit it really makes the entire optics question a bit moot. I have a macular hole in my right eye. To be honest, I likely couldn't tell the difference in resolution between a March-X and an old Tasco. It's as if someone smeared Vaseline in the eye piece. When I was originally diagnosed, the procedure required removal of the vitreous humor and an extensive "face-down" recovery period. (living, eating, sleeping, everything face down) I was married at the time but subsequently divorced. So, now it makes the surgery and recovery a more complex issue. This, combined with my hesitation of such a major surgery. However, if I started shooting left handed, which would take doing, I think I would be able to appreciate the benefit of really good optics. Again, I really have enjoyed your great commentary on optics. I've learned a lot from your posts. | |||
|
| Member |
Without being behind your rifle, it's tough to be certain what causes a few .5 MOA shifts in zero. I don't suspect it's temperature. For a few years I had a 5-25x F1 on my 6.5 CM bolt gun. Shot it in a January match in the town of Rifle, CO -- temp was -10 F. The following July I shot the rifle in the Steel Safari match in New Mexico, with the highs hitting 103 F for two days. No change in zero from January through July. Your mount/rings might be a contributing factor, given the bumpy ride. However quality mounts/rings can take quite a bit of jostling without a change in zero. Ammo could be a possibility. Changes in factory ammo lots, changes in bullets or bullet lots, changes in powders, changes in handloading procedures. If your zero changes by 1/2 MOA one time, then reverses back to the original zero a little later, then changes away from original, then jumps back later -- this is likely a technique issue. Could be parallax that's slightly off, could be inconsistencies in cheek weld, could be changing shooting positions -- and how well you adapt shooting fundamentals to different positions. But for many shooters with many targets & shooting situations, a 1/2 MOA here and there may not be an issue. **** As for the TMR reticle -- well, there are definitely better options on the market. | |||
|
| half-genius, half-wit |
Not likely, since my NEWEST rifle - the one with the NF scope on it - dates from 1986 - virtually Paleolithic by the standards of most posters here who seem to have nothing over a month old. | |||
|
| Member |
Ok, I'm not sure what your point here is. I have rifles that are old and I have some that are new. My oldest one that is still in use, I bought in the mid 1970s. My newest rifle is an AR-10 that I bought about 5 years ago. My oldest riflescope in use is from 2005; all other scopes are newer, with a brand new one inbound in a few weeks. I bought my first scope in, you guessed it, the mid-70s. I've bought many scopes over the decades as that is one aspect for which I have always diligent in staying close to the state of the art. That's a deformation I acquired as an inveterate photographer; optics are always evolving. And I can assure you they are evolving faster than ever. The top of the line riflecopes of the 60 and 70s and even 80s are what we would equate now to cheap Chinese optics. The top of the line from the 90s and early 2000s are midrange optics now; scopes that cost thousands in those days are about the same as those that cost a similar number of hundreds these days. Progress in lens technology, coatings, reticle, knobs, and overall design has been coming in leaps and bounds and it's not slowing down. So, even though your most recent rifle is from 1986, it does not mean your riflescope has to be from the same time period. I should point out that even though my match rifle is 7 years old, its current barrel is much newer and it's about to get a brand new riflescope; state of the art. ETA: BTW Nightforce started in 1992, so I figure the scope on your 1986 rifle is somewhat younger than the rifle itself. | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
He's just busting your ballz for being an optics and reticle snob.... if I translated his English into American correctly...  | |||
|
| half-genius, half-wit |
Mr NikonUser, please lighten up. I seem to have collected Victorian and early to mid-20th century rifles, none of which would look too authentic with any kind of a modern scope on top. All of them that have a need for scopes have the correct age-related and contemporary items on top, never fear. If you've mind to, and have forgiven me for making a light-hearted comment which seems to have set your hair on fire, please take a look at my Youtbe channel, tac's guns, and you'll see the kind of stuff I'm talking about. | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
No no no, it must be a March.  Just having fun with everyone, great discussion by all. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024