One thing you've certainly got going for you, is that you seem to have a pretty good idea of what you want.
I would say the objective matters less than the clearance for the eyepiece/iron sight interface.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!
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 would say the objective matters less than the clearance for the eyepiece/iron sight interface.
I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps a quick explanation? I shoot PRS with mil scope, pretty familiar with holding and wind dope.if you estimate the span between ten mils, add to zeros to that and you have a yardage estimate, easy peazy,
I think it is a good point that knowing your stuff can overcome any extra steps.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?
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...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.