Experience with mid-range variable scopes for AR builds?

[JJMarsh]

I'm in the process of putting together a new AR build primarily for mid- to long-range use (100–500 yards), and I'm looking into variable magnification scopes in the 6-24x range. I've seen a few options with different reticles and mounts, and I’m especially interested in getting feedback on eye relief, clarity, and how well they hold zero under moderate use.

If anyone’s running a setup like that — especially with a 30mm tube and a mount height around 1.5" — I’d appreciate any insight.
How’s the tracking performance? Any issues with parallax or turret repeatability? Also curious how people are balancing magnification range with field of view for this kind of use.

Thanks in advance!

[m&p45acp10+1]

I have a new AR in route to my FFL that should be delivered in the middle of next week. It is a 24 inch heavy barrel 6mm ARC. The scope I am going to be using I had on another rifle. A Cabelas Covenant 6-24 x 50. I purchased it a few years ago, and put on a Savage Model 12FV in 6.5 CM. I upgraded the Savage to a better scope for closer in hunting. So I had the scope and rings handy.

The scope has worked well on the Savage. I am sure it will work well on the new rifle when I get it. The cost of the scope at the time I bought it was I the area of $300 to $400.

[bamaranger]

That's a big AR and what seems a correspondingly appropriate big scope. Cut those magnification numbers in half, and that is what I put on my recently acquired (smaller) AR-6ARC rifle

I have a 30mm, 6-24x50 on a .308 match bolt rifle that I've shot in competition (poorly) to 1000 yds. Getting that big 6ARC -AR to 500 should be no problem.

[Shadow9mm]

That is not what I would consider to be a mid range variable scope. From what I have read you want somewhere between 1-2x per 100yds for long range shooting. Seeing as your wanting to shoot between 100-500yds I would say your scope should max out around 12-14x.

I have an arken 6-24x50. Amazing scope, but also super big and heavy, and 6x minimum is an awful lot for 100yds. Also weights a ton. I have it on a heavy 20in 6mm arc ar build that I am hoping to shoot out to 1000+ yds. with a heavy barrel it weights in at 10lb empty and is very top heavy.

[FrankenMauser]

Are you sure about that 1.5" height?
That's pretty low for an AR.

[tangolima]

Magnification comes with price, money-wise and performance-wise. One could be paying extra money for lousier performance; counter-productiveness.

To me magnification is for positively identifying target. I don't need to see anything more to hit it. Say I have a red dot sight with 1x magnification, and a given target. What's the maximum distance of the target that I can hit it consistently? 100 yd for instance. Then 5x scope suffices for 500yd.

Magnification not only increases the target's size in moa, it also magnifies errors of all sorts. Too much of it can even make your vision worse.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Rimfire5]

On my Les Baer Super Varmint .223, I have a Bushnell 6500 4-30x50mm scope with a target reticle and it performs great from a bench when I am shooting for accuracy, which the Les Baer is known for.
A large front optic provides good light gathering for early morning or late evening shooting and high magnification lets you see your rounds hit the target and allows you to "aim small and hit small".

TL,
I would understand your concern about high magnification causing problems if you are trying to shoot freehand. Then, I agree that having more than a few power magnification amplifies shooter motion to the point of distraction.
But from a bench with a solid front and rear rest, magnification improves being able to aim at precisely the same spot for each shot and improves the ability to hit exactly where you aim without the reticle or red-dot obscuring a very small aim point. It all depends upon how you are trying to shoot and what accuracy you are trying to achieve.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Rimfire5

On my Les Baer Super Varmint .223, I have a Bushnell 6500 4-30x50mm scope with a target reticle and it performs great from a bench when I am shooting for accuracy, which the Les Baer is known for.

A large front optic provides good light gathering for early morning or late evening shooting and high magnification lets you see your rounds hit the target and allows you to "aim small and hit small".



TL,

I would understand your concern about high magnification causing problems if you are trying to shoot freehand. Then, I agree that having more than a few power magnification amplifies shooter motion to the point of distraction.

But from a bench with a solid front and rear rest, magnification improves being able to aim at precisely the same spot for each shot and improves the ability to hit exactly where you aim without the reticle or red-dot obscuring a very small aim point. It all depends upon how you are trying to shoot and what accuracy you are trying to achieve.

No disagreement to that. High magnification market exists for a reason. Some applications required that. But as usual, high magnification comes at expense of other things.

I can only speak for myself. High hit rate on a designated target trumps a small but off-target group. High magnification beyond certain level doesn't help, and it starts to under cut. For instance a 50mm scope at 24x has 2mm exit pupil. My eye pupil is 3mm in dim light. The image in scope grows dimmer than 10x. If I don't set parallax right on, the error is magnified by the magnification etc.

-TL



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Rimfire5]

My most accurate rifle has a 45X Leupold Competition scope. One of my others has a 42X56mm NightForce scope and 4 others have 32x56mm NightForces.

Many shooters who rarely shoot high magnification scopes have trouble finding the optical plane behind a high power scope. They are used to low power scopes with a wide optical plane. The problem with low power scopes is that you never know you are in the center of the optical plane with a wide optical plane and, if you aren't, the bullet doesn't go where you think you are aiming, because you are looking at slight angle to the optical center line.

I normally get behind the 45X scope on my rifle to take a shot and I am right on, but I have been shooting high powered scopes for over 20 years. With a 45mm front optic the image is bright and the image is about 3 1/2 to 4 inches across at 100 yards. The reticle dot is slightly less than 1/10th of an inch.

The beauty of a high power scope is that you can lean your head slightly back and see a black ring around the perimeter of the image. When the ring is concentric, you can move your head slightly forward until the ring just goes away and you know that you are precisely in the same position for every shot. Amazingly, if you do that for every shot, an accurate barrel will put the first round at the point of aim and every additional round in the same hole. Unfortunately, the human mind gets confident after multiple rounds and I tend to shoot at least one shot without completing the process and it opens up my groups.

My 45X scope is on a .223 bolt action, and the overall average is 0.225 inches for 5-round groups at 100 yards. But 17.6% of my groups are under 0.175 inches. Usually three in one hole and two slightly out.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Rimfire5

My most accurate rifle has a 45X Leupold Competition scope. One of my others has a 42X56mm NightForce scope and 4 others have 32x56mm NightForces.



Many shooters who rarely shoot high magnification scopes have trouble finding the optical plane behind a high power scope. They are used to low power scopes with a wide optical plane. The problem with low power scopes is that you never know you are in the center of the optical plane with a wide optical plane and, if you aren't, the bullet doesn't go where you think you are aiming, because you are looking at slight angle to the optical center line.



I normally get behind the 45X scope on my rifle to take a shot and I am right on, but I have been shooting high powered scopes for over 20 years. With a 45mm front optic the image is bright and the image is about 3 1/2 to 4 inches across at 100 yards. The reticle dot is slightly less than 1/10th of an inch.



The beauty of a high power scope is that you can lean your head slightly back and see a black ring around the perimeter of the image. When the ring is concentric, you can move your head slightly forward until the ring just goes away and you know that you are precisely in the same position for every shot. Amazingly, if you do that for every shot, an accurate barrel will put the first round at the point of aim and every additional round in the same hole. Unfortunately, the human mind gets confident after multiple rounds and I tend to shoot at least one shot without completing the process and it opens up my groups.



My 45X scope is on a .223 bolt action, and the overall average is 0.225 inches for 5-round groups at 100 yards. But 17.6% of my groups are under 0.175 inches. Usually three in one hole and two slightly out.

I see where you are coming from. But I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Rimfire5]

Understand.
We have different goals in shooting and different experiences.
That colors our conclusions.
I appreciate your experience and your opinion and look forward to hearing more of your insights.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by Rimfire5

Understand.

We have different goals in shooting and different experiences.

That colors our conclusions.

I appreciate your experience and your opinion and look forward to hearing more of your insights.

Likewise. Thanks.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JJMarsh]

Originally Posted by JJMarsh

I'm in the process of putting together a new AR build primarily for mid- to long-range use (100–500 yards), and I'm looking into variable magnification scopes in the 6-24x range. I've seen a few options with different reticles and mounts, and I’m especially interested in getting feedback on eye relief, clarity, and how well they hold zero under moderate use.

If anyone’s running a setup like that — especially with a 30mm tube and a mount height around 1.5" — I’d appreciate any insight.
How’s the tracking performance? Any issues with parallax or turret repeatability? Also curious how people are balancing magnification range with field of view for this kind of use.

Thanks in advance!

Updated: ended up going with the SIG Sauer Tango SPR https://gritroutdoors.com/sig-sauer-...cope-sots46000. Crystal clear at 24x even at 500yd, the reticle handles wind holds perfectly, and turrets maintain zero after hundreds of rounds. Only downsides - illumination washes out in sunlight, and required some tweaking with Warne SKEL 1.5" mounts to get the height right.

Anyone else run this optic on an AR? Curious how it handles recoil over time.

[tangolima]

Not bad at that price. Illumination is for dim light only. I never use it, so I don't install the battery at all.

I like one-piece cantilever mount for AR. Recoil on an AR is never a problem, even for cheaper no-name scope with harder kicking rounds.

The turrets are low. Do you need to be off cheek weld to read the markings? The reticle is how many moa per tick for wind hold, and at what magnification? Not a big fan of BCD but it will work. A clamp-on level bubble is a good add-on.

Where is the scope made?

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[jmr40]

I've shot some 4" (.75MOA) groups at 600 yards with a fixed 6X scope. A thin reticle can be as important as a lot of X's. IMO 2X to 3X per 100 yards is enough magnification for most people. A 3-9X scope on 9X should be capable of 1 MOA out to at least 300-450 yards.

Anything above 10X and the negatives start overtaking the positives and to keep the same quality cost goes up exponentially. I think most people would be better off buying a high-quality scope with less magnification.

I have a friend who is fast approaching 70 and has always needed glasses. As he got older, he kept trying to compensate for his vision by buying cheap scopes with more and more magnification with poor results.

He finally broke down and spent the money for a 3-9X Zeiss. His shooting improved considerably because he could see the target so much better through the better-quality scope even though it had about 1/2 the magnification.

The really high-powered scopes do have their place. But it takes a pretty darn accurate rifle, load, and shooter to take advantage of anything over 10X.

[Shadow9mm]

Whats important is that your happy with it and it meets your needs. I suspect if you shoot it regularly, and or from positions other than a bench, you will wind up with a lower power, and lighter scope in the not too distant future. Sig tango are good scopes based on my limited experience with their 1-6.

[georgehwbush]

"I like one-piece cantilever mount for AR. Recoil on an AR is never a problem, even for cheaper no-name scope with harder kicking rounds." tango recoil is not what destroies cheep scopes on ar-X wepons, it's the bold slaming shut, the forward hammer action of the bolt returning to battery that eats them up. and it's not real bad on ar's but i will eat some cheep scopes. i have seen it.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by georgehwbush

"I like one-piece cantilever mount for AR. Recoil on an AR is never a problem, even for cheaper no-name scope with harder kicking rounds." tango recoil is not what destroies cheep scopes on ar-X wepons, it's the bold slaming shut, the forward hammer action of the bolt returning to battery that eats them up. and it's not real bad on ar's but i will eat some cheep scopes. i have seen it.

For old fashioned wire reticle perhaps, similar to what spring piston air rifle would do. But it is no problem with newer etched reticles. At least I haven't seen one yet.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by tangolima

For old fashioned wire reticle perhaps, similar to what spring piston air rifle would do. But it is no problem with newer etched reticles. At least I haven't seen one yet.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I like the cantilever mounts.

They have a longer base, which allows for more clamping surface ensuring a secure mount. The longer base also helps ensure the base is mounted straight on the rail. The one piece design also ensures the rings can be perfectly aligned with each other and with the base. Imho the design removes a lot of of potential error that can be caused when mounting. Granted this is all subject to the quality control of the manufacturer.

[tangolima]

https://youtu.be/ylRw8rC3FOU?si=E9sB-QTHubMDxXnF

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by tangolima

https://youtu.be/ylRw8rC3FOU?si=E9sB-QTHubMDxXnF

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Great video!

[JJMarsh]

Originally Posted by JJMarsh

I'm in the process of putting together a new AR build primarily for mid- to long-range use (100–500 yards), and I'm looking into variable magnification scopes in the 6-24x range. I've seen a few options with different reticles and mounts, and I’m especially interested in getting feedback on eye relief, clarity, and how well they hold zero under moderate use.

If anyone’s running a setup like that — especially with a 30mm tube and a mount height around 1.5" — I’d appreciate any insight.
How’s the tracking performance? Any issues with parallax or turret repeatability? Also curious how people are balancing magnification range with field of view for this kind of use.

Thanks in advance!

If you’re set on higher magnification, the Athlon Ares ETR 4.5-30x56 is worth a look—it’s overkill for 500 yards but tracks well and has a forgiving eye box. Still, for most shooters, a 3-15x or 4-16x scope is the sweet spot for 100-500yd work.

Either way, invest in a good mount (like a Badger Ordnance or Geissele) to ensure your zero stays solid. Let me know what you end up choosing!

[stagpanther]

Overkill?

This is a 7x 35 Leupold HD 5 sitting on my 22lr CZ 457. I do use it for targets as close in as 50 yards on occassion. I then might take it off and put it on my 338 lapua magnum to shoot out as far as I can (generally around 350 yards). Then I'll move it to another precision style rifle like the 30 BR. I use this scope on almost all of my rifles except for lever guns and ARs. I have lots of other scopes of various magnifications. I didn't intend to use this scope in this way (frankly it's a bit of a pain to frequently rezero it)--but just ended up this way because it's so well made and so versatile. I use it in rain, sleet and snow--as well as dusty summer blazing heat. It wears the scars of abuse, but the superb functioning remains intact while lesser scopes I have would have lost it under the same conditions.



The absolute range of magnification that a scope like the HD5 has really is not that important to me. What is important to me is the quality of glass on the scope--and how precisely and accurately linked the mechanical elements are to present accurate tracking and parallax adjustment for a given range (a large elevation and windage turret range also helps). A good quality scope of 10, 12 or 16 x magnification is perfectly adequate to use at the same ranges I use this scope for. But for me, a key difference that makes a scope like this worth it for me is that at its lower or minimum 7x magnifications the POA resolution in the HD 5 will be far superior to that of most lesser scopes I've used at their maximum magnification settings--and may in fact present a far better and more accurate sight picture than a lesser scope and its maximum magnification. It also lets me get down to very small target resolution which helps me a lot.

At the other end of the scale, one of my favorite optics for ARs is a Burris 3x prism scope which I use from close in to out to hundreds of yards for general use. The only beef I have with it is the micro slots for elevation and windage adjustments, not very practical in a changing environment, but I still love it.

I'm not hunting anymore, nor do I compete, and in my old age and deteriorating eyesight a scope like the HD 5 helps to compensate for the costs of the march of time.

[P-990]

Originally Posted by JJMarsh

I'm in the process of putting together a new AR build primarily for mid- to long-range use (100–500 yards), and I'm looking into variable magnification scopes in the 6-24x range. I've seen a few options with different reticles and mounts, and I’m especially interested in getting feedback on eye relief, clarity, and how well they hold zero under moderate use.

If anyone’s running a setup like that — especially with a 30mm tube and a mount height around 1.5" — I’d appreciate any insight.
How’s the tracking performance? Any issues with parallax or turret repeatability? Also curious how people are balancing magnification range with field of view for this kind of use.

Thanks in advance!

I see you've already purchased the SIG scope and mount, but I saw this question and really had to ask, how much were you willing to spend on this set-up?

The biggest issue I've run into mounting scopes up on my AR-15s is getting the eye relief set. Especially with the lower-power scopes I tend to favor, getting the $&@* thing far enough FORWARD can be an issue of trial and error. I have a 30mm Leupold Mark 3HD 1.5-4x20mm Firedot (I think?) scope mounted in a Leupold Mark AR mount on a rifle with an A2-length stock, and I really need to get a cantilever mount to get it far enough forward to be comfortable when shooting prone or sitting.

As for scope durability, AR-15 levels of recoil are very unlikely to damage any decent quality scope. Especially in the calibers you're likely to be using out to 500 yards. ARs just aren't known to be hard on scopes, or mounts for that matter.