View Full Version : Which Scope?

January 9, 2000, 10:08 AM
Wanting to get into long range shooting (200-800 meters) I have a few questions for those on this board who are involved in this kind of shooting.
I have narrowed my choice of scopes to the Leupold Vari-X III 4.5-14x40mm or the Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x40mm Long Range M1, both with 3/4 mil dot.
The M1 has a 30 mm tube and I am told that this would let more light in giving me a better sight picture. I am also told it would be stronger. Is this true?
Which one would you go with and why?
Pros/Cons of each?
Thanks for the help.

Gale McMillan
January 9, 2000, 10:32 AM
e amount of light transmitted is not a function of the diameter of the tube. The reason that the 30MM tube is to allow more travel of the erector cell thus more elevation and windage. With few exceptions the 30MM scope has 1 inch optics. This means the erector lens are aprox. .300 diameter. On our tactical scope the diameter of the erector lens was .5 and on the scope listed on our web page they were 1 inch. A lot of unethical companies use misinformation as a marketing tool. I have said it over and over that most optical designs are generated on the same computer software and the lens use the same computer driven machines to make the lens out of the same type of glass. As for 800 yard shooting I personally feel that 14X is not enough magnification to make consistent hits in all kinds of conditions. I worked very closely with Carl Fetty in the development of the Ultra and will say that If I were putting together a package I would send an Ultra to Premiere Reticule and have the magnification boosted to 18 or 20 X.

January 9, 2000, 11:51 AM
It is eveident that you know what you are talking about but wouldn't it be possible to use the 4.5-14 and put on a base with 20moa built in such as a Badger giving you elevation that you might need for distance shooting?

The Marine snipers use 10x I am told and make shots that are over 600 meters. I could not possibly do it but if that is true then 10x could possibly be enough correct?

You mention "on our tactical scope and our web page" - what web page are you talking about?

I think that you answered his question to some degree but probably confused him thinking that he now needs something in the 20 x range thus adding another set of questions/problems/cost for him.

Gale McMillan
January 9, 2000, 02:50 PM
Our web page is www.mcmfamily.com. (http://www.mcmfamily.com.) I was in the premier scope manufacturing for about 10 years until the first of last year. When I sold the company to Seiler Inst. As for the scope for long rang shooting. It would do little good to have a rifle capable of shooting ½ MOA if sighting error was ½ MOA. I find it very easy to hit small items as bowling pins at 7 to 800 yards with our sniper rifles if you have the optical capability to see small changes in mirage and range conditions and hold accordingly. To do this is it is necessary to make corrections of 1 to 2 inches and to see that small of sighting adjustments with a low magnification scope. What I am trying to explain is If a increase in mirage dictates a hold over of one inch to insure a hit then you must be able to see when you are holding over that inch. Small changes in mirage will cause a 6 inch change in impact and never be visible with a 10X scope and if you can't see the mirage you can't read it.

January 9, 2000, 03:31 PM

I appreciate your help explaining why I should go with a higher power scope if I want to shoot at long ranges.
If I may, let me ask you if I were to use one of the scopes that I listed in my initial post, what is the maximum distance that one could shoot and still be effective given that if I do my part shooting, reading distance, and mirage. Josh

Gale McMillan
January 9, 2000, 05:47 PM
I would select the 4.5 to 14 and have Premier Reticule raise the power up to 20