[MuppetMeat4Me]

One thing you've certainly got going for you, is that you seem to have a pretty good idea of what you want.

 

[Chris17404]

A question for those following this thread...

Let's assume I plan to mount this scope using a Sadlak mount (either steel or airborne) and as low rings as I can. That's a very well-known mount. Now, I ultimately do want the scope to be mounted as low as possible. We all do, especially on an M14. But I'm wondering if when using a Sadlak mount and given the physical characteristics of the M14 do different scope objective sizes really make much of a difference when it comes to how low it can be mounted? I mean, there's only so low it can go. Does a 32mm vs 36mm vs 40mm vs 44mm vs 50mm objective size make much of a difference? For example, is there a big difference between a Trijicon 2-10x36 and a NightForce SHV 4-14x50? Not talking weight or light gathering, just optic mounting height.

Thanks for any insights you can provide!

 

[HutchS]

A question for those following this thread...

Let's assume I plan to mount this scope using a Sadlak mount (either steel or airborne) and as low rings as I can. That's a very well-known mount. Now, I ultimately do want the scope to be mounted as low as possible. We all do, especially on an M14. But I'm wondering if when using a Sadlak mount and given the physical characteristics of the M14 do different scope objective sizes really make much of a difference when it comes to how low it can be mounted? I mean, there's only so low it can go. Does a 32mm vs 36mm vs 40mm vs 44mm vs 50mm objective size make much of a difference? For example, is there a big difference between a Trijicon 2-10x36 and a NightForce SHV 4-14x50? Not talking weight or light gathering, just optic mounting height.

Thanks for any insights you can provide!

I would say the objective matters less than the clearance for the eyepiece/iron sight interface.

 

[MuppetMeat4Me]

I would say the objective matters less than the clearance for the eyepiece/iron sight interface.

Yes, though the degree depends on the shape and location of the ocular bell, and how forward/rearward the scope sits when it works for you. Which begs the question, are you willing to remove the rear sight?

I don't know how it comes to the sadlak, but my rifle with Fulton's version of the 'Brookfield Type' itself is high enough so that even with the lowest rings, a 30 mm tube with a 50mm objective has plenty of space.

The Bula XM-21 with an integrated rail on the receiver though is much lower and has no rear sight, and requires medium rings to barely clear so...

Ultimately, try and see, though I think any sadlak owner with the same objective bell size could get you pretty reliable info on the front end.

 

[Chris17404]

Thanks for those insights and experiences. That helps a lot. No, I am not willing to remove the rear sight. I've researched and examined so many different scopes at this point my head is spinning. I think I've got them narrowed down to these 3:

SWFA SS 3-15x42 FFP Mil-Quad - $699
Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 4.5-14x50 TMR - $699
Bushnell LRHS-2 4.5-18x44 G2H - $939

These all have bold reticles. Two are FFP and one is SFP. Any thoughts on comparing the glass quality between them? Will I be bothered by the fact that the Mk4 is SFP? I'd be curious to hear any insights into how our military snipers used the Mk4 SFP reticles when deployed. What was their use case and process.

 

[MuppetMeat4Me]

I haven't tried any of them, though if I was using my own criteria, I think I mean lean towards the SWFA, because the eye relief is near 4", doesn't change much, and I like the reticle. The Bushnell has enough eye relief for me, though it's on the shorter end of what I prefer, though it doesn't have an easy 10 mill span like either of the others (if you estimate the span between ten mils, add to zeros to that and you have a yardage estimate, easy peazy, though with the Bushnell you could use the distance between the side bar and the '4' mark, and it'd work) and neither the Bushnell nor the Leupold have as much the vertical holdover capability, though that might not be relevant until you get way out there, and you can always just dial your turrets, but it's nice to have option. If the Leupold is the one I'm looking at, though, the turrets move in 1/4 MOA, so that adds a slight layer of complication in terms of the reticle being different from the turret adjustments, but you can always use the reticle to range and then consult your dope card on the turret adjustments, which you might do anyway, but if you're comparing impact to point of aim and you don't know the distance, you can't just count hash marks and correct on the turrets unless you're good at math.

I prefer FFP from the standpoint of knowing how the reticle relates to the target distance/size, though so long as you max it out before using it that way, there shouldn't be a problem.

So, inexperienced speculation based on available data which may or may not be accurate, I would ranks SWFA first, Bushnell second, Leupold third, at least for what I tend to like. They all look to be decent hardware.

 

[weshowe]

Chris,

I just received a Leupold MK IV 4.5 x 14 and am most impressed. It also has their lifetime warranty and is made in the USA. I'd go that route. The SWFA would be my second choice.

Wes

 

[Chris17404]

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Appreciate it.

MuppetMeat4Me, your thoughts on reticle use and how it works in conjunction with turrets really made me think. That's real usage stuff. Thanks.

Wes, what impresses you about the Leupold Mk4? How do you intend to use it?

I tend to be a traditionalist so that scope matches my emotional side. I'm only a hobbyist shooter, but using the Leopold "the way the military did/does it" would be a pretty cool thing IMO. This scope definitely seems to be the most complicated choice in terms of actual use. Non-matching reticle/turrets, SFP, etc. That's why I had asked previously what the military may have used as SOP for engaging targets with it. MuppetMeat4Me's input really confirmed the added complexity of using this scope. If I could just get M5/Mil turrets installed that would make a huge improvement.

In my real-world application, I'll be sticking to 200 yards and in for 95% of my shooting and out to a max 500 yards on occasion. All of this mostly from a static position (bench, prone, and some standing/kneeling for the fun of it).

The SWFA is a solid, reliable contender based on many online reviews and forum discussions, but I tend to think the image quality is not as high as my other 2 choices. That's the main downside I think since non-locking turrets and no zero stop are not a big deal to me. The FFP is nice with a usable reticle at low power.

The Bushnell really has no downside, except the price is more than the others.

 

[smoothy8500]

if you estimate the span between ten mils, add to zeros to that and you have a yardage estimate, easy peazy,

I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps a quick explanation? I shoot PRS with mil scope, pretty familiar with holding and wind dope.

I agree that mil reticle and 1/4 moa turrets adds a step, but I guess years of shooting NRA Highpower/ f class I just memorized my dope. Heck, doesn't everyone just use a kestrel or Strelok these days?

 

[Grizzman]

Can a Kestrel be set to provide elevation in MOA and windage in MRAD. In Ballistic AE, each is separately configurable.

I plan to get a 5500 (think that’s the number) before summer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smoothy8500]

Strelok show both measures side by side.

In PRS we use a wind hold formula that is similar to how the Horus reticle wind dots perform. They state it as their "gun mph" using a ballistic calculator to find what full value wind equals .1 mil per 100 yards. For instance, my 308 with SMK 175 is 4.5 mph. So a full value 4 mph wind drift is .3 mil at 300yds, .7 mil at 700yds, etc. If the wind is 8 mph, you just double it. If the wind is half value, use half as much.

It's not exact, but close enough when you're engaging multiple targets on the clock and using the reticle to hold elevation and wind corrections.

 

[blkcamaro1979]

Although I understand your using this for more target shooting from a stationary “DMR” position. If you think you’ll ever hike around with it or stalk hunt don’t forget oz=lbs. After having a SWFS 10x on a McMillan stocked rifle I switched out to a GI wood stock and a 10 oz Leupold Mk AR 1-4. No problems 0-500m.

 

[MuppetMeat4Me]

I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps a quick explanation? I shoot PRS with mil scope, pretty familiar with holding and wind dope.

I agree that mil reticle and 1/4 moa turrets adds a step, but I guess years of shooting NRA Highpower/ f class I just memorized my dope. Heck, doesn't everyone just use a kestrel or Strelok these days?

I think it is a good point that knowing your stuff can overcome any extra steps.

A radian is the angular equivalent to the length of the radius around the circumference. A miliradian is 0.001 radians. 10 miliradians is .01 radians. The radius is the distance to the target.

The angular spread of 10 mils is narrow enough that the circumference is close enough to a straight line, so one mil is of angular spread is equivalent to 1/1000 of the distance, be it meters, yards, inches, whatever. I.e., where 1 moa at 100 yards is near (but not really) one inch, 1 miliradian is 3.6 inches or 0.1 yard, and .1 miliradian .36 inches, or .01 yards. By extension 10 mils is 1/100 of the distance, or in the case of 100 yards... 1 yard. Work that backwards...

if you can get a size reference and use that to estimate the span of ten mils in your unit of choice, add two zeros and that is your distance. If your target is half a head shorter than two yards, imagine half a head more, and stack that between ten mils and see how many yards fit in that space. Half of that span is 1 yard, or 100 yards. 2 yards is 200 yards, a car 5 yards long is 500 yards. A full truck with a cab 6 yards long fits, or a 5 yard long car with 1/5 of a yard car length of space is 600 yards. The conversion is easy so long as you think of the target span in the same units as distance, or are running metric. If you need to convert inches to yards, you either have to be good dividing by 36, or you suffer from the legacy of our British overlords who saddled us with the Imperial system, and like abused spouses, we cling to what we know, because the more functional relationship seems too strange.

 

[smoothy8500]

Ok, I get it now. You just found a shortcut instead of doing the longhand math for calculating distance. I'll write that one down in my notebook for use if I lose my Mildot Master.

 

[Chris17404]

I'm really feeling pulled toward the Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 4.5-14x50 TMR at Midway USA. But it has those darn M1 turrets. I just emailed Leupold to see if they could install M5 turrets for me. Let's see what they say. Or does anyone know where I could get the M5 turrets and perhaps install them myself? If that's even feasible.

 

[smoothy8500]

I could get the M5 turrets and perhaps install them myself?

It's not just the turret knob, but the entire threaded erector assembly is replaced with a different screw pitch. You're better off with the Burris or other scope.

 

[weshowe]

Chris,

You asked what I like about the MKIV series of scopes. Actually, there are a lot of good things about them.
They are well designed to begin with. They track exceptionally well. They are rugged. Optics are fairly good for the cost of the scope. They can be had with a number of reticles...not just the mil-dot.
I've been using them for a long time and have yet to have one fail!
Last...I just plain like them.
Are there better scopes? Yes, and I have a few, but the M-14 and the MKIV Luppie go together like they were made for each other!

Wes

 

[weshowe]

Chris,

I forgot to tell you that I use my MKIV's (3.5 x 10) as scoped DMR rifles. Most of my shooting is from 100 to 600 yards. As I've gotten older most of my shooting is prone or from the bench. In days gone by I humped my M-14's and used them in the field. I miss those days...

Wes

 

[Chris17404]

Thanks for the info, Wes! Yeah, the purist/traditionalist in me really wants the Mk4 4.5-14x at Midway for $699. It just looks cool and speaks to me emotionally. I don't care if it's not ultra top-quality glass. It's a good price, but there are several things that make me pause. Mostly the MOA turrets. SFP is fine to me. But fixing the turrets could bring the price up to that Bushnell LRHS2 which is a very good scope.

 

[MuppetMeat4Me]

Ok, I get it now. You just found a shortcut instead of doing the longhand math for calculating distance. I'll write that one down in my notebook for use if I lose my Mildot Master.

Yes. I understand the math fine. Actually crunching numbers, as in this length measure these many mils, and then converting that to an equivalent distance... I'm slow enough to be an imbecile, so I look for alternative methods that require less number crunching brain power. The weakness of the shortcut, while it is technically exactly the same thing, is the precision with which you can estimate the span, so if you need to really really know for the first go, and you start stretching things out there where establishing that span requires more stacking of a smaller reference, or you don't have a handy known larger reference with known dimensions (sheets of plywood, whatever), unless you just happen to find an object with known dimensions that lines up easily, the distance calculation is only as good as your span estimate. You obviously know this, but you got my brain spilling into my screen/keyboard...

If you really want to know for sure, you have to do the actual math to convert your known object size to distance units (inches to yards), divide it by your measured mils to get you span units/mil (1/1000th of the radian/distance), and then multiply that by 1,000 to get you the radius length/distance. At least, if I'm figuring that out correctly. Spreadsheet time...

Check my math. That seems to line up for me, but who knows. I just realized I jumbled the order of the calculation, though I think it is the same thing in a different order. 6 or half a dozen.

I think that's right. Or at least, i think what I mean is right. If I said it correctly is an entirely different thing.

The weakness of doing the actual calculation is time, or at least if it isn't, it requires some brain skills/ability I don't really have, though I suppose you can do the work to improve it. For me, unless I did it regularly to establish it as a habit, I would also waste time over-thinking it, wondering, regenerating the equation as a sanity check, second guessing... basically getting in my own way.

It also requires an object of precise dimensions to actually milk the precision out of it. IF you're using biological dimensions as opposed to objects that have standardized manufactured dimensions, that precision advantage begins to wane. Either way, you've got options. A good range finder, and knowing how to use it, is a great one too.

Side tangent, as somebody who likes to talk about stuff in theory, but has spent relatively little time in execution, I had a series of funny moments with a guy who has at one point bragged, "If I can see it, I can hit it." The part he left off in that statement is "Eventually, if I can poke around enough and see where the misses land." When he said that, he had never spent time with a range finder, didn't know how to use a reticle to calculate distance, let alone gather data on actual distance/drop, and his yardage estimation has proven to be abysmal. When quizzed by an outfitter who was verifying zero prior to a guided pig hunt about how far he thought a ridge was, he guessed 750 yards at a 400 yard distance.

'Pick and Poke' works too, eventually, but if you're shooting for score or at a target that doesn't want to wait for you to figure it out... nothing trumps real world experience. Hopefully some time soon I can drag my spiffy steel targets I got for Christmas to a remote location and get on that. Watching others do it on the Interwebs, it looks like a lot of fun.