The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Gear and Accessories

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 28, 2004, 11:31 AM   #1
FirstFreedom
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2004
Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A.
Posts: 12,451
Super Sniper scopes?

Whaddya know about them? Sound like a value maybe....

http://www.riflescopes.com/departmen...per_scopes.htm

However, I'm always skeptical of anyone who claims an obvious lie (our aluminum is as "strong as steel"). I also find it odd that they highlight the feature of "recessed objective lens" for reduced glare and to help keep the lens clean, as if it's some innovation - lol, that's been a standard feature of all riflescopes for how many decades now? But for the price, it seems like a good scope.
FirstFreedom is offline  
Old September 30, 2004, 12:41 AM   #2
wintermute76
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2
Not really a lie, 7075-T6 aluminum does have a comparable if not higher yield strength than low carbon steel (1018). Granted, 7075 is "good" aluminum and 1018 I wouldn't use for much.

As far as teh scopes go, I"ve heard good things about them. I thougth about picking one up for my Savage 10FP-LE1, but opted for a Sightron SII 3-10x42 as a wanted a variable. I know there were a few threads at THR about them if I recall.
wintermute76 is offline  
Old September 30, 2004, 08:16 AM   #3
Jake 98c/11b
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 1999
Posts: 471
Not any kind of "obvious lie" about the strength of the tube, if you look into it they are saying that their aluminum tube (with it's thicker walls) is stronger than many scopes made with (thin) steel tubes. The recessed objective lens is mentioned only because the original military specification required an objective lens that was not recessed, allowing the lens to be easier to clear of water and mud. It was originally made for a Navy contract so they were concerned with clearing any water off the lens quickly on the beaches. I think they mention it because some did not like the lens of the original models exposed to harm, they are saying that they have addressed that concern for most shooters.

I have never used them but I am familiar with it, I have heard some good things about it.
Jake 98c/11b is offline  
Old October 1, 2004, 01:49 PM   #4
MLC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2001
Location: New Hope, PA
Posts: 230
I have one and it was worth the money for a 30mm mildot scope.
I can't say the optics are better than my Weaver 15x or Bausch and Lomb 6x24.
But then again my Kahles 3-9 isn't as clear as the Bausch and Lomb.
MLC is offline  
Old October 13, 2004, 06:16 PM   #5
Danindetroit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 757
MLC it looked like in some of the pics of the reticle that the mil-dots were smaller than most. How big do you think the dots are?
Danindetroit is offline  
Old October 13, 2004, 08:28 PM   #6
Danindetroit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 757
Sucess!

I believe I found my answer. I read an article that said the dots on the Super Sniper scope are .25 MOA. At $299 sounds like an excellent scope. If you find out different MLC please post TIA.
Danindetroit is offline  
Old October 31, 2004, 09:15 PM   #7
NovaSS
Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2004
Posts: 34
Great scope for the price. I had one ( 20X version ) on a .50 BMG for a while and replaced it when I had funds for a night force. I put over 700 rounds threw it with no problem. It then sat on an AR15 for a year ( another 500 rounds ) and is now on a 17HMR and I can hit paint balls at 100 yards with it
NovaSS is offline  
Old October 31, 2004, 10:03 PM   #8
ocabj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2000
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 205
Quote:
I believe I found my answer. I read an article that said the dots on the Super Sniper scope are .25 MOA. At $299 sounds like an excellent scope. If you find out different MLC please post TIA.
The dots are not .25 MOA. They are .25 MIL. The dot size used by the Army is .20 MIL.

In case you were wondering, 1 miliradian is 36 inches at 1000 yards, or 3.6 inches at 100 yards. .25 MIL or a quarter miliradian at 100 yards would be approximately .9 inches.
ocabj is offline  
Old November 1, 2004, 03:06 AM   #9
1 shot, 1 hit
Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2004
Posts: 46
ooooooooooooo they realy look great to me. (aspecialy because of their mil-dot). the price irritates me though. they look realy professional and when i first looked at them, the first thing that came to mind was $$$$$.
but when i looked i was suprised to see how cheap they are so i dont real know if they are as good as they look.
i would cirtanly try one thoug.
__________________
precision is the way to success
1 shot, 1 hit is offline  
Old November 1, 2004, 07:47 AM   #10
NovaSS
Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2004
Posts: 34
SWFA had the original contractor make them after tasco went belly up. Last I heard this is the only way to get one, that is though SWFA. Check out the reviews at the bottom of the link.

http://www.riflescopes.com/departmen...per_scopes.htm
NovaSS is offline  
Old November 1, 2004, 09:23 AM   #11
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,384
I just purchased the 20x version and haven't gotten it mounted yet. Basically in checking other boards, I found about the same as noted here. It is a really good scope for the money and is extremely durable. My only beef is that the crosshairs are a little thick for my liking, but should not be a problem for mid range shooting - inside 600 yards.

As for the issues of being stronger than steel, that always needs to be qualified in various manners. Steel is strong, but heavy for the strength it has compared to many other materials. Is the aluminum stronger than steel for the same weight or same thickness? How strength is measured is another issue. Is it in regard to tensile strength, shearing, crushing, hardness, or what? Where hardness is not a significant factor, aluminum is often a much better product to use for many applications. A rifle scope tube, aircraft structure, etc. are good examples.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 1, 2004, 11:53 AM   #12
ocabj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2000
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 205
I have the Bushnell 3200 Elite 10x Mildot scope and I'm happy with it. It's very repeatable. I constantly adjust elevation for various ranges between 100 and 600 yards and returning to 100 yard zero is always in the same notch on the elevation knob.

The only thing I wish the Bushnell had is a threaded objective for the sunshades.

I've heard that people are unhappy with the tacticle-less feel of the the Super Sniper adjustment knobs. I've never handled one before, so I can't give an opinion about it. Guy's on The Sniper's Hide have replaced the o-rings inside the elevation knob to give the knobs a more postive feel in each click, but many argue this could affect the weatherproof seal of the scope. If anything, you could always order one. Play with the adjustment knobs before you mount it. If you don't like the feel, you can always return it.

BTW: The Bushnell 3200 Elite 10x Mildot is $144.99 at Graf's with dealer discount (before shipping).
ocabj is offline  
Old November 1, 2004, 12:18 PM   #13
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10,985
Does said Bushnell Elite have enough range of adjustment to get to 1000?
A friend took me to an F-class shoot this weekend and I was able to get 600 and 1000 yard zeros with a tapered base but my Leupold will not now go down to 100.
I was considering the Super Sniper if I wanted to make a moderate effort and expenditure and not go hog wild with a Leupold Long Range or Nightforce.
Jim Watson is online now  
Old November 1, 2004, 12:56 PM   #14
ocabj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2000
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 205
Quote:
Does said Bushnell Elite have enough range of adjustment to get to 1000?
A friend took me to an F-class shoot this weekend and I was able to get 600 and 1000 yard zeros with a tapered base but my Leupold will not now go down to 100.
I was considering the Super Sniper if I wanted to make a moderate effort and expenditure and not go hog wild with a Leupold Long Range or Nightforce.
My Bushnell 10x Mildot is on a Savage 10FP .308 with a Ken Farrell 0MOA flat base. I need between 11-13 minutes of elevation to get from my 100yd zero to 600yds (varies depending on bench or bipod, front-to-back or back-to-front wind conditions, etc).

According to the Bushnell specifications page at http://www.bushnell.com/products/rif.../32-1040m.html, it has 100 inches of adjustment at 100 yards, which means 100MOA. I doubt that's the case. I'm guessing it's 50MOA up or down from the scope's centered optical axis. If you're shooting a load recipe that can make 1000 yards with less than a 40MOA drop from a 100 yard zero, then you should be able to use the Bushnell for 100-1000 yard shooting and maintain zeros at both distances with a flat base.
ocabj is offline  
Old November 3, 2004, 11:31 PM   #15
IronLance
Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Location: Dakotas
Posts: 71
I currently have one (10X42) on the rig I'm using for F-Class matches. I like it better than the Leupold I used to have on it.

I plan on acquiring another for the new rig I'm buying. While SWFA is the only place to get these scopes, any warranty work will be done by B&L as they've bought out Tasco. For the money they are a darn good scope.
__________________
Freedom restricted by personal conscience is a choice. Freedom restricted by legislation or regulation becomes a privilege that can be taxed or taken away.
IronLance is offline  
Old November 4, 2004, 10:13 AM   #16
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 10,985
Thanks for the poop. I have seen the Bushnell in a store and thought it was pretty clear. And the price is down in the petty cash range. An advantage of a fixed power scope. I had no idea you could get that much adjustment in a 1" tube, my mentor says 30mm is needed.
I need 39 minutes from 100 to 1000. I am shooting a .30-06 with what is now a top handbook load, but is below what I have been told is accepted. 48.5 gr IMR 4064 + 175 gr MK.
Jim Watson is online now  
Old November 7, 2004, 01:49 PM   #17
1 shot, 1 hit
Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2004
Posts: 46
something i'm confused with is:
on the bushnell proformence optics page, it says, the length (429mm) and the 'mounting length'(620mm) of the elite 4200 6-24x40 MIL-DOT scope.
what is the difference?
__________________
precision is the way to success
1 shot, 1 hit is offline  
Old November 24, 2004, 02:31 PM   #18
out4trout
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2002
Location: State of Utter Confusion
Posts: 4
For an entry level scope they are a fair for the price. However no matter how you good the price you pay, as they say, "You get exactly what you pay for". Excellent optics demand a premium price. My LM barreled Remington 700 in .308 has a Horus Vision Scope that is optically outstanding. My M-14 National Match has an Illuminated Mil-Dot 3.5X10 Leupold Mk4. It is also excellent. My point is you should get the best scope you can afford. Shoot it often and when you can afford a better quality piece of glass, buy it!
__________________
My first childhood was okay but this second one is really cool!
If you reach fifty and are still alive … it’s okay you don’t have to grow up!
out4trout is offline  
Old December 2, 2004, 03:13 PM   #19
MAUSER88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2004
Posts: 108
I have the 10x mounted on my RRA NM AR-15. It's perfect for picking off Coca-Cola cans at 200 yards.
MAUSER88 is offline  
Old December 11, 2004, 12:33 AM   #20
rrgeezer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2004
Posts: 1
sort of related....

New here - great site. Sorry if this is bad form.

I just ordered the 10x version of the Tasco to put on my 5-R barreled Rem 700, and plan to use Warne rings. I'm guessing that the med. height is the lowest I can go without objective lens bell touching the barrel. Anyone know?

I am putting Butler Creek pop-ups on the scope, so that will take up a bit of clearance.

Thanks for any help (and let me know if there is a more appropriate section of the forum to post this in).
rrgeezer is offline  
Old December 12, 2004, 04:44 PM   #21
IronLance
Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Location: Dakotas
Posts: 71
rrgeezer,

I'm using medium height Leupold rings with a standard base and my clearance is about 3/16" gap between the objective and the barrel(I also am doing a no-no and placing a .060 shim under the rear of the base to give me a bit more 'up' elevation adjustment, making the clearance less than it normally would be).

Be aware, though, that not all manufacturers' ring heights are the same. Even the same manufacturer's rings may be different heights. Leupold 's standard rings in medium are listed as .77" while their Mk 4 rings are listed as .84". Nightforce medium: 1" Badger 'standard' (only standard and high are listed so I'm going on the assumption standard compares to medium): .885".

Your base will make a difference, as well. If you're using a flat base and decide to switch to a 15+ MOA base, you may lose some of that clearance depending on how tall the manufacturer makes the base. And, again, not all Picatinny bases are the same height when going from manufacturer to manufacturer.

As far as I know, no one is making the standard bases (i.e. dovetail front and windage adjustable rear) with a MOA cant.
__________________
Freedom restricted by personal conscience is a choice. Freedom restricted by legislation or regulation becomes a privilege that can be taxed or taken away.
IronLance is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11534 seconds with 9 queries