what power scope ?

[rebs]

I will be putting it on a Colt match target AR and shooting out to about 300 yds for target shooting and a few ground hogs. II have been thinking about the Nikon P223 in 4-12 x 40 because of it compatibility with 223 ammo.
Should this be enough or what would you guys recommend ?

[Brian Pfleuger]

It's "enough" but scope power is almost entirely a matter of personal preference.

Personally, I wouldn't consider being limited to 12x for 300 yard shooting but there are guys who shoot to 1000 with 9x, or even open sights.

My woodchuck guns have never worn less than 25x. I'd prefer more but having both high magnification and quality optics gets cost prohibitive.

I recently put a hundred rounds or so of American Eagle 556 through a Delton AR with the Nikon P223 on it. I can't really speak to the weakest link in the chain (except that at least I'm not it in this case) but the over-all accuracy was unimpressive.

What I would do is consider the highest LOW power you will accept and then find the (reasonable quality) scope with the highest high power in your price range.

For instance, the Mueller Eradicator (8.5-25x50) is a pretty good scope and can be had for about $240. It's the best scope in that magnification and price range that I've ever used. I'm not a huge fan of the reticle, but it's serviceable. The Tactical (8.5-25x44) gets good reviews too and is cheaper but I've never used one. They also have an 8-32x44 Target model that gets good reviews.

[zukiphile]

For varminting, would it work to use a spotting scope to locate the target, and a lower power for shooting it?

I've never shot an animal from more than a 100m away, but the two scope solution is what I use for paper.

[10-96]

I've got a couple of the Mueller Tactical 8.5x25's- they are a great scope. The good part about one with such a range in power is that you can scan at lower settings and move up a bit when you really want to focus in on a particular area (or critter). Personally, over prairie dog towns, I think I would be hindered with 'toomuchstuffosis' if I was to try to bounce between a spotter and a rifle scope. The Mueller Target model is 30mm tubed and has a side focus which makes it nice- but it's a BIG hunk of scope. I don't know that I prefer my 8.5x25's over them, but I do try not to overbalance my rifles with scopes that just look too big.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

For varminting, would it work to use a spotting scope to locate the target, and a lower power for shooting it?



I've never shot an animal from more than a 100m away, but the two scope solution is what I use for paper.

Most of the time you can see them with out an aid, at least woodchuck sized critters. High magnification is for precise shot placement more than anything.

In any case, that seems like too much trouble and also expense if you don't already have one.

There's no downside to extreme magnification with stationary targets. I hear about mirage but I've never noticed it nor had trouble hitting small targets at 400 yards plus a little. Maybe out farther it's a problem, I don't know. I know some folks use 50x at 1000 yards.

[rebs]

I have $150.00 in bass pro gift cards and that made me think about a new scope and I like the idea of the Nikon p223 because I would be putting on an ar. I just wasn't sure about the 4-12 power being enough to warrant the cost over the 3-9 that I have now. How much more does 12 give you over 9 power ? I also like the turrets on the Nikon p223. The current scope I have is an older Leupold rifleman 100 year commemorative which I had sent back to Leupold and it was all rebuilt to new condition.

[603Country]

I had a 4-12 on my 223, but finally decided that the 12 was not enough for some applications. I put a 6-18 on it but wish I had put a 6-24 on it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

12x is 33% more than 9x.

If an object appears to be 12" wide at 9x, it will appear to be 16" wide at 12x. All else being equal, in terms of pure relative size.

[jmr40]

If you have a quality 3-9X scope, and are shooting groundhogs at no more than 300 yards, you are set. For smaller targets, and/or longer ranges more magnification could come in handy. If you didn't already have a scope and were buying anyway then going up to the 4-12X might be a consideration. But 9X is more than enough for 300 yards.

You get more quality for the dollar at 3-9X anyway. I always choose quality over X's. A bright clear 9X scope will be much easier to shoot than a poor quality 24X scope.

[Brian Pfleuger]

That might be true but I've used a pretty good mix of low and high power optics costing anywhere from under $50 up to near $1000 and I can tell you that for making a shot at 300 yards I'd rather have the crappiest high power scope I've ever used than the best 3-9x.

Heck, I had a $125 Tasco 10-40x that was virtually unusable above ~32x. It would simply grey out in all but the absolute brightest, mid-day summer sun. I'd still rather use that one than any 3-9.

[603Country]

I also had a Tasco for a number of years. It was a 6-24 and worked just fine until it got a little dim in the evening. I could easily spot 22 caliber holes in 200 yard targets. These days, for what I do and where, I use a variety of scopes, but nothing maxes out at just 12 power. I have 4.5-14's and a new 4-16 Vortex PST FFP and a Leupold 6.5-20x50 with a 30mm tube. The Leupold is just a super scope. Just had the TMR reticle added to it. I have a 4-12 Bushnell that I don't need any more. Got no use for it. If you're gonna spend the money and shoot at 300, go ahead and get a 6-24 from a decent maker. You don't need the best, but don't buy the worst (Barska, I think).

[jeager106]

I avoid Tasco & Simmons like they were the plague.
I'm older than most here & remember when Tasco spelled jap junk but maybe they are good now?
I have 5 AR rifles, three in 5.56, a 6.8 & a .308.
All but one wear Nikon Buckmaster 6 X 18 with A.O.
No complaints.
There are many, many, good scopes on the market these days.
Back in the day Weaver was top quality along with Lyman.
Weaver scopes were prefered for rifles used on African big game.
Can't beat Leupold but they are hi bucks these days.
I have 3 CenterPoint 6 X 18 with A.O. that cost just under $70 bucks at Wally but I only use them on .22 rimfires where a scope failure would only cost me a tin can or squirrel.
Serious rifles deserve serious glass & your Colt is a serious rifle.

[loic]

I put this on my ar and love it. I can hit a 10 inch pkate at 600 yards (if no winds)

[Brian Pfleuger]

Guys... He's got a budget. A few bucks more is one thing. Scopes that are triple are probably a little silly.

[loic]

Sry I had to re read , but at the same time the gift card can be used on other stuff..LoL I also have 2 redfield that I like , a smaller revolution which I mounted on my son 30-30 and a revenge that I mounted on my bolt 22-250. I bought them also from amazon as they were the cheapest.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

Well, yes, a 4-12 is a pretty darned good choice - BUT, as mentioned, 300 is a long way and you're talking varminting, so a high end of 14 or 16 might be appreciated; maybe even 20, but you start to get into mirage and tiny exit pupils - diminishing returns past 16, IMO.

Of course the higher the quality of glass, the less magnif. you need. A S&B on 10 power resolves better than a $150 scope on 16 power, so it's kind of a sliding scale. So on a budgety scope, yeah, I'd look for a bit more.

Also, go with a 50mm objective, or at least a 44mm, rather than a 40 or 42 or smaller. On an AR15, due to the high sight line, the space from the sight line down to the rail is "wasted" on a sub-50mm scope, if that makes sense. Why not fully use that space (unless the extra weight is an issue - might be)? Gets you a bigger exit pupil and more light gathering.

Also, IMO, do not rely on these ballistic reticles - even if they supposedly match your chambering, they probably won't *really* match your exact load - not precise enough, except maybe man-sized targets to 200-ish. IMO, unless you're paying high dollar to get a reticle that's installed tailor-made for you or your rifle-builder, specifically for a pre-developed load known to shoot well in the rifle, you are wasting your time with ballistic reticles, for real precision.

[SSA]

I just looked this scope up to see what price range we're talking about. Amazon has the Nikon P-223 BDC 600 4-12x40 for under $200.
I don't know of any scope that would be better for your purpose at that price.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

Hey Rebs, Look!

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=547737

[rebs]

I clicked on the thread and got a message that I don't have permission to view that page

[Unlicensed Dremel]

What?

This is what it says:

Nikon M-223 4-16X42 SF Matte BDC 600 Riflescope, was mounted on a safe queen rifle never used at the range or field, looks perfect with one tiny rub mark of the bottom of the tube where the rings were in contact, would not show on the pictures. Scope covers, kill flash for objective end, paperwork, box, instructions,

The Nikon M223 Rifle Scope is a tactical scope designed for use on AR-style rifles or tactical bolt action rifles. The scope features Nikon's Ultra ClearCoat Optical System to provide up to 95% light transmission, 4 inches of constant eye relief and a sturdy 1-piece tube, side focus. Another feature of the M223 4-16x is the locking, return to zero Rapid Action Turret that is calibrated for the .223 with a 55 grain projectile out to 600 yards. The Nikon M223 Rifle Scope is covered by a lifetime factory warranty.

$400 delivered to USA, can take a personal paypal gift or money order, Optics Planet price is $100 more.

go here to PM the seller:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/priv...=newpm&u=21769