Looking at scopes

[hockeyref]

Looking at scopes for the Knight disc that followed me home. Looking at a Sightron S-Tac 3-16x42 30mm tube ~$300 or a Weaver Classic series 4-16x44 30mm ~$200. I'm leaning towards the Sightron. Budget will not allow for much over $300.

I plan to lob chunks of lead on target out to 500 yards and still take it out to deflate bambi. I will be adding a set of iron sights too at some point.

 

[michiganmuzzy]

I would go with that Sightron

 

[GM54-120]

Well, i would say the 4-20x50 is a better 4-16x scope than the 3-16x42. Its virtually the same weight but its a fair amount longer. So a long rail would be advisable. Both have the same eye relief too. Once you get past 14x or so the 3-16 eye box is more fussy. The 4-20 seems a fair amount better. You only give up about 9ft FOV at 4x vs 3x at 100 but you gain 10MOA of elevation adjustment on the 4-20 too.

Not sure you will have enough adjustment to dial up lobbing big lead at 500 yard targets so make that a 20MOA rail like the Murphy. Another thing is nearly all the sale pricing im seeing atm for the 3-16 is for the MOA reticle. I dont think you will be happy with it the first time you try to see bambi in low light. Its very very thin. No issue in daylight at the range but its thin.

So i say wait until you see the 4-20x50 duplex on sale and get a nice rail for it. Something like this............

It was less than $300 on sale if you deduct the price of the $90 rings that came with it. The rail is an extra long Murphy...aint cheap.

Next to my 3-16x42 on the standard length Murphy.

 

[hockeyref]

Good info. I do wonder if I would be happy shooting paper maxed out at 16x, I definitely would prefer the 4-20x but the 4-20x are running about $400 on sale now.... more than I can spend at the moment.

I have an EGW rail now that is the same length as the Badger Ord base on my M40a1 clone - not extended, but long enough to get started.I have not looked for\decided that I need an extended rail yet. The EGW is 0 MOA but can get a 20 MOA EGW rail easy enough (or shim and bed this one). At any rate, I have a few scopes I can swap on and off temporarily that should work on the EGW rail... Leupold LRM3 3.5-10x, Leupold 6.5-20x AO EFR, Tasco 8.5-24 SS (older japanese scope), 36x BSA (well maybe not this one, its dedicated to my 40x rimfire and probably couldn't take heavy recoil). I will start out using the LRM3 because I has enough internal elevation to take my 308 from 100 to 1k+ without a 20MOA rail while I watch for deals.

Edit to add that I just saw SWFA has The SWFA 20x42 SS 30mm for $300. I could deal with a straight 20x with rear focus but don't know anything about SWFA scopes. I would need an extended rail as the mounting length says 5.827" with 3.4" eye relief.

 

[GM54-120]

SWFA scopes are rugged. The 16x gets ok reviews for the upper end. Seen some complaints about the 20. Ive got one of them too. 6x42 and 10x42 are the most popular. Both in Mil-Quad. The 10x has like 140 MOA (40mil) of elevation adjustment. I think the 16x still has 100 or more. You will want the mil quad reticle. Compare them closely and see the differences. They even have measurements listed.

SWFA SS 10x42 Mil-Quad. Rings are as far out on the rail as they could go and nailed the relief. Thats the extra long Murphy rail.

 

[LBAhunter]

I would go with that Sightron

Well, i would say the 4-20x50 is a better 4-16x scope than the 3-16x42. Its virtually the same weight but its a fair amount longer. So a long rail would be advisable. Both have the same eye relief too. Once you get past 14x or so the 3-16 eye box is more fussy. The 4-20 seems a fair amount better. You only give up about 9ft FOV at 4x vs 3x at 100 but you gain 10MOA of elevation adjustment on the 4-20 too.

Not sure you will have enough adjustment to dial up lobbing big lead at 500 yard targets so make that a 20MOA rail like the Murphy. Another thing is nearly all the sale pricing im seeing atm for the 3-16 is for the MOA reticle. I dont think you will be happy with it the first time you try to see bambi in low light. Its very very thin. No issue in daylight at the range but its thin.

So i say wait until you see the 4-20x50 duplex on sale and get a nice rail for it. Something like this............

It was less than $300 on sale if you deduct the price of the $90 rings that came with it. The rail is an extra long Murphy...aint cheap.

Next to my 3-16x42 on the standard length Murphy.

Great advice!!!!

 

[hockeyref]

GM54 - The 10x SWFA reminds me alot of a "sniper scope" from back in the late 90's\early 2k's that everyone that couldn't afford a Leupold MK4 would put on their rifle. Don't recall if it was the original Tasco Super Sniper.... or a Nikon or Burris or..... Then folks started to realize that it actually made sense to use higher magnification for longer ranges and the Mfg's started putting mil dot reticles in them and coming out with alternative ranging reticles.... and Leica came out with a sort of affordable laser range finder and then ,,,,,,, I'll stop now, I'm rambling into off topic territory.

 

[GM54-120]

The 10x SWFA reminds me alot of a "sniper scope" from back in the late 90's

It IS the old Navy contract sniper scope. SWFA bought the rights to it from Tasco. They are built in Japan by Kenko. Same company that owns Sightron.

http://swfa-ss.com/history

The Crane Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center​

sent out a solicitation contract for a 10x sniper scope with very specific mil-spec features. Several companies (including Tasco, B&L and Leupold) submitted scopes specially built to the contract specifications. The Navy bought a large number of the Tasco product under the contract #N00164-93-C-205.


Many people did not take the scopes seriously because of the Tasco name. But you have to understand that Tasco is and was just a name, they own no factories. Normally Tasco would just buy off the shelf products from several factories in the orient and have them branded with their name. The SS scope was built from the ground up to the United States Navy's very specific specifications. All the specs are extreme in regards to durability, resolution, adjustment travel, etc.

The used to make a mildot reticle with a MOA turret. Now its either mil/mil or moa/moa. The Mil-Quad is superior....at least in the 10x. The reticles vary slighty from one model to the other. MOA is thicker for mine and the diamonds are solid on the MOA-Quad.