Jump to content
308AR.com Community
  • Visit Aero Precision
  • Visit Brownells
  • Visit EuroOptic
  • Visit Site
  • Visit Beachin Tactical
  • Visit Rainier Arms
  • Visit Ballistic Advantage
  • Visit Palmetto State Armory
  • Visit Cabelas
  • Visit Sportsmans Guide


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About benjammin

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Just another gun nut
  1. Yep, lots of fun, and challenging. 1 MOA is the same whether you are shooting 50 yards or 1,000, except for the forces acting on the bullet during flight time. Knowing how to read the wind etc. at 200 yards shooting subsonic 22 lr is as critical as it is shooting 223 or even 308 at extended ranges. The proof for me is how comparable the match scores are for both. The skills required to do it well are fairly consistent. The big difference for me is simple economics. Even with reloading and fanatically frugal shopping for components, I will never be able to get close on cost shooting high power compared to shooting rimfire. I acknowledge the importance of regular practice/competition with my centerfire guns in keeping my skills up to snuff, because there are differences that have to be accounted for that won't show up shooting rimfire alone. But there is still great value in shooting what some would call the "kiddie" guns, otherwise why would it be such a popular event?
  2. So yesterday I took part in my first competition of the year, a 22 lr slow fire prone event for 100 and 200 yards. I tried out my newly acquired, slightly used Savage Mark 2 with the fluted heavy barrel wearing a Leapers AccuSwat 8-32 x 56mm telecsopic sight. I had sighted it at 50 yards after buying it off my brother in law, one of the other competitors at the event. Recalibrating for the 100 yard course using Wolf Match Extra ammo, I unloaded my 20 shots and managed a 197 with 10 X's. This was not the high score at that range, because my brother in law bested 1 point and 2 X's. Moving to the 200 yard line, I shot a 191 and another 5 X's, this time overtaking my brother in law and all other takers, taking top prize, and setting a new match record. Now the Savage Mark 2 is a fine rifle, and quite a capable tool for the price, and with the Leapers scope I put on it, there was no problem dialing in the target at either range with enough clarity to witness every hole those little Wolf pills put in the black. We were shooting NRA smallbore targets, so the X being 1 MOA at either range made it quite sporty, even with only a 2-5 mph cross wind. I must admit I was lucky making adjustments for the wind at least two times to get back on the mark. In any case, I shot against known experts with much better equipment than I and shooting the top line ammo (Eley Tenex and such). So I am quite satisfied that my performance was up to the task. Of course, the twenty dollar prize bought lunch for slightly miffed brother in law, while affording me a day's braggin' rights.
  3. The mount didn't seem too bad on the wife's 223, but it might not like the recoil on the 308s as much. I blue glued (loc-tite) all the mounting screws so it wouldn't just wiggle loose. I hate it when that happens.
  4. I just got word from the folks at Del-Ton Inc that they are scheduled to begin selling their new AR platform 308 this summer. Hopefully more details to follow.
  5. I got the chance to shop for it at a local retailer and it compared well to other optics. The wife liked it, and despite her lack of technical background in such things, I encourage her to make her own decisions so she has some stake in it, since her enthusiasm for the shooting sports is not as intense. The little circles are pretty handy for bdc determination, and if you calibrate the drop of the round you are shooting with the markers, it should be fairly easy to acquire a target at different ranges and put the shots where you want them. I believe the bdc is calibrated to a standard spec 5.56 55 gr load in an M4 from 200 to 600 yards as is (Something like XM193 or thereabouts). You can use the bdc for any round, you just have to determine the co-incidence of the drop to the markers is all. The unit is rubber armored and TIGHT, as in the turret caps, the objective focus, etc. It rides well on the SU-16 and is not at all encumbering, about 30% larger diameter than a mini mag flashlight and about as long. It is lightweight and the illumiation of the reticle in red or green does make it stand out well. I don't always care for illumination on fine reticles for my long range target work, but in this case the circles really benefit in lower light conditions. I did not find the thickness of the circles to be particularly distracting from target acquisition. The 3x magnification is appropriate for this scope, and I had little problem staying indexed to the objective properly. The eye relief is a little short compared to some of the 3x ACOGs I've worked with, but it is sufficient. Witnessing through this scope would not be the most practical, since the bdc would tend to be obscured under longer distance shooting situations. I believe this little scope is a good value for money. I would prefer something a little more robust for the LR-308, but on an M4 it would be ideal.
  6. I put one on my wife's SU-16 and she really likes it. It is BDC for 223. That doesn't mean much, but it is a decent scope for the money.
  7. survivalshop, I believe you are spot on with your assessment. I think that is exactly the case, and the Timney simply does not have the same interface as the original trigger group did. The safety hits and locks on the detents just fine, just the travel at the detents is noticably sloppy compared to before. It should be fine and I could not find any burr or other obstruction that was interfering with the detent or the spring. Unexpected loose fitting parts when I have worked on something get my hackles up. There's always that slight paranoia that I've done something bad and it is going to bite me. Not a good place to be with a firearm.
  8. Will you find any negative posts about the quality of Nightforce optics? I doubt that. What you will find is a plethora of posts about how expensive they are. Expensive is fine if the quality is there AND you have the money for it. Speaking for myself and maybe a couple other competitors, I can't justify the added cost yet for a Nightforce for the simple reason that it doesn't add any quality to the shooting I do. I will admit I am not the best shot in town, so perhaps if I work at it and get real good, someday I will feel the need to spend that much for a quality optic. Until then, I will make do with less expensive quality optics. I read the entire thread of the Snipers Hide forum and their rant did not convince me that the Counter Sniper scopes I've been using are somehow inferior. Yes, the reticle is busy, no it does not interfere with my target shooting. As for the double cross hairs, I believe someone else on this forum addressed the notion of calibrating the scope to the drop of the bullet for a given load so that once the primary poa is established and the drop is known, the distance for the secondary poa can be accurately determined. Whether the secondary cross hairs are adjustable or not is irrelevent, if you know at what distance the bullet intersects that point once you've sighted in the primary aiming point. But I digress. To reiterate, my experience with the CS product to date does not corroborate the conclusions and rantings of other shooters who may or may not have field tested one. I am not yet finished with my evaluation completely, but feel comfortable with my findings so far. The optics are clean and clear, the zero is repeatable, and the graduations are precise. I feel it is adequate for the price and therefore compares well to the Nightforce on that premise. It is neither as expensive and perhaps not as durable, but I have yet to make that determination. I haven't broken it yet, and that is under conditions that other less expensive scopes have failed under. I do not subscribe to the notion that CS is all marketing, nor do I believe that all Nightforce scopes ever built are perfect and none have ever failed under any conditions. I believe each is ideal in it's own niche of the market. If I have a problem with my Counter Sniper scope, I will be happy to post my experience here and elsewhere, as I have no stake in the company and nothing to gain from any endorsement. I do not believe that bashing a product line just because it is the popular thing to do is very constructive, but I do believe all are entitled to an opinion, and I respect that others might be averse to owning anything other than the highest quality money can buy. I would not fault anyone for that. If anyone does not like my opinion, please feel free to ignore it. I learned long ago that free advice is worth about what you pay for it. I am certainly no authority when it comes to scopes, so please determine for yourself what will work for you. If I ever get enough moolah together, I may have to put an NXS on one of my rigs so I can have some bragging rights up at the range.
  9. My experience with both the Counter Sniper and the Nightforce is comparable. Sorry to hear yours may not have been, but then I am relatively new to both, having only recently acquired a Counter Sniper scope and having only shot about 200 rounds with it. I know of others who have also had moderate success with the Counter Sniper, but I understand not everyone has, and they had some quality issues early on. I would like to think that is not the case now, and that the quality I am witness to is exemplary of some improvement to their product line. In terms relative to value for money, I believe the Counter Sniper is comparable to the Nightforce, as is the Leapers brand, which is at the low end economically. The three are certainly worlds apart when it comes to the question of $. I am no expert, I speak only from my own experience and from the limited objective criteria that can be researched. You get what you pay for, and if you can afford the cost of a Nightforce scope, then I suggest that you should consider that as a viable purchase, and realize that you will be paying mostly for a name brand, albeit with a solid reputation, but certainly not the best bargain out there. I would be happy to use nothing but Nightforce optics for all my long range shooting, but I cannot afford it, and have to look for practical alternatives. Counter Sniper is one of those. If the 3-25 x 56 CS that I am using is any indication, I have high hopes for the 4-48. On that measure, I stand by my original comparison.
  10. I put a Counter Sniper scope atop my LR-308 recently, and have had no complaints as yet with it. Mine is the 3-25 x 56 and the optics are on par with the Leupold, Nikon, and Bushnell optics I use on other guns. It is superior to the Leapers, Osprey, NcStar, Vortex, and Alpen stuff I've used. It's return to zero after 200 rounds and 5 major adjustments is spot on. Maybe I am a lucky shooter, but I've noticed I am not the only one using CounterSniper scopes at the high power range in competition. If they had quality issues before, I am thinking they've been making improvements. I have no big credentials, just reporting what I experience. I have yet to really stress the optic like my others have been. Time will tell, I suppose, but I have no problem recommending them at this point. On specifications I have no problem comparing them to Nightforce. I have insufficient experience with either brand at this point to base more subjective comparisons on. I would say at this point CounterSniper is value for money, but so is Leapers, Leupold, Nikon and Nightforce.
  11. For a short barreled LR-308, a Trijicon TA33-9 would be ideal for run and gun stuff. A Counter Sniper 2-16 compact for more delicate work, and a Leapers Accushot 3-12 x 44 compact for a budget conscious compromise. For a long heavy barreled LR-308, a Nightforce NXS in 8-32 x 56 will get you to 1,000 yards, although the new Counter Sniper 4-48 x 56 will give it a good run for the money. Again, on the low-price end the Leapers Accushot 8-32 x 56 will work okay.
  12. Enjoy these blessings. They are your treasure for later. Good job.
  13. I have to think the Trijicon ACOG TA33-9 would be one of the most sought after, if such were allowed. Here's the link: http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TA33-9 Looking at the USPSA rules, appendix A4 and A5 has two divisions for Heavy Metal; one is "Limited" and the other "Tactical". Apparently the former does not allow optics, while the latter does. I guess around here most all of those events are governed by the limited rules. Higher magnification in a run and gun event I find less desirable. When I am moving, the higher power optics tend to bounce around in my vision far too much, and make it hard to lock onto the target. It is not so much the magnification anyways, as it is the resolve of the sights when superimposed on the target that allows for more accuracy. Being able to find the desired point of aim reference and lay it on the target quickly tends to yield the desired results for me anyways. Your mileage may vary. I find 3-4 x magnification to be ample out to 600 yards for such events. A suitable Aimpoint optic in 1 or 2 MOA with 3 x should also do the trick. On the lower price range are more conventional compact scopes with standard mildot crosshairs and perhaps variable power in the 2-10 or 3-12 range. They require more experience to gain the proficiency with, but they can get the job done as well.
  14. So I have installed (with help) the AR-10 Timney trigger group into my LR-308. The install wasn't bad, but not what I'd call easy. Here are my observations after shooting with it in. The safety leve now has noticable play in it. I don't know why this has occurred, but we have disassembled and reassembled it twice now looking for a cause. Fortunately it still works, but I do not care for the slop in the mechanism. If anyone has any insight into this, maybe you could share with me. The sear is okay, but not nearly as good as the RRA two stage match trigger group I had installed in my AR-15. That is a tad disappointing, but not a deal breaker. I can live with what the Timney will do in this platform. It would not be acceptable in a competition bolt gun, but that is not what this trigger group was intended to be anyways. It is still a vast improvement over the stock trigger pull. I missed an opportunity to proof the gun at a competition this weekend, as I was conscripted to do some cooking for a crowd instead. So many social engagements, so little time. I will avail myself of the next opportunity, and hopefully also have what I need to complete the 16" Oracle upper assembly so I can test it out on the range as well.
  15. Which I believe indicates how precarious any sense of stability in the firearms/ammo market is under the current administration. So long as certain people remain in power, we should expect any sort of gun-control insinuation to foment a run on products. The threat, whether real or perceived, is nonetheless tangible at the marketplace.
  • Create New...