Talk me into your favorite riflescope for 6.5 Creedmoor gas gun

[98Z5V]

12 hours ago, carverelli said:

I'd like to know if and when the app goes away or your phone is too old to support the program....then what? Is there an actual  crosshair that moves with manual clicks from a turret. 

I preach that very thing all the time, and it's why I push being able to do this manually - without gadgets.  You can train anyone to use the cool electronic gear, and they'll probably shoot pretty well - until a battery dies or something.  Then they can't shoot.  If you know how to estimate range, read the wind, and run the windage and elevation controls in your scope - then you can do all this already, to moderate distance. 

It's like Land Navigation - anyone can get there, looking down at a GPS.  If I take away the GPS, can you get there with a compass, protractor and a map?  Know your pace count?  Can you read terrain, and navigate by terrain association? 

No matter how fancy the gear is, it still comes back to the basics. 

[carverelli]

I'd be interested in a workbook that teaches how to do exactly what you're talking about. 

Using a known size of the target and mildot ro approximate range then again using mild to holdover and engage the target. Once you do it 15 -20 times it should become old hate

[98Z5V]

54 minutes ago, carverelli said:

I'd be interested in a workbook that teaches how to do exactly what you're talking about. 

Using a known size of the target and mildot ro approximate range then again using mild to holdover and engage the target. Once you do it 15 -20 times it should become old hate

We taught exactly that at the Fall Shoot last year.  Matt.Cross and I do it all the time,  and we'regetting more into it atthis Spring Shoot coming up, to further refine this year's coming Fall Shoot.  Shiit, we had whiteboards out,  markers...  

Here's the chaos, from beginning to end:

 

Here are some great videos from Ryan Cleckner - his experience is self-explanatory, if you research who his is:

https://www.nssf.org/tag/ryan-cleckner/

He has his own website, with all that info and more, here:

https://gununiversity.com/

This video series right here is invaluable - but it will lead you down that rabbit hole.  You will lose weekends watching this, if this is something you're serious about:

 

All this info is well and good - but if you don't get out and do it, it's worthless.  Shooting distance has taken me 30+ years to get good at, on the gun.  It's not easy, and there is not shortcut for it.  Taking classes helps tremendously, and shortcuts the time involved in learning techniques, but it takes serious time-on-gun to get good at it - and it takes alot of ammo.  I short-cutted my learning curve with 20+ years in the Army, doing a LOT of cool shiit that most people pay ALOT of money to go do, as an "adrenalin sport."  It is what it is.

Come to a Fall Shoot, and we'll short-cut that learning curve. 

Edited February 21, 2019 by 98Z5V

[98Z5V]

49 minutes ago, carverelli said:

I'd be interested in a workbook that teaches how to do exactly what you're talking about. 

Using a known size of the target and mildot ro approximate range then again using mild to holdover and engage the target. Once you do it 15 -20 times it should become old hate

I just did that very thing last weekend, breaking in a new gun.  Shifted a "stolen scope" from another rifle just to shoot it.  Zero'd the scope in 12 rounds at 100, confirmed with 10 rounds on steel at 100, and got first-round hits at 500 immediately.

We took that target out there, and just planted it - distance wasn't a concern, at the time.  Get it OUT a little bit.  Got back to the firing line, sighted on it through the mil-dot scope...  Damn, isn't that thing an even ONE MIL WIDE right now.  Sweet, 500 yards, exactly.  That target is 18" wide, so when it turned up 1 mil wide in my scope, I knew exactly how far out it was. That's the magic "mil-math" right there.  That's all from training, over time. 

It's all here, in this link:

That comes down to 2 years on this specific cartridge, knowing what it does, how it acts, how it drops - and shooting it through 4 other different guns of the same caliber at distances to 845 yards before.  Even the 12.5" gun get's to 845 yards on this load. Nothing is impossible.   It just takes time, practice, and patience. 

Edited February 21, 2019 by 98Z5V

[Phantom30]

If you want long range at a reasonable price, how about a 6-25 x56 MIL dot second focal plane reticle.

https://www.amazon.com/Ade-Advanced-Optics-6-25X56-Illuminated/dp/B00CUOLXFU/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=ade+long+range+scope&qid=1550858428&s=sporting-goods&sr=1-1

This is basically a Millett clone LRS-1 guts in a TRS-1 tube.  It has the 140 MOA turrets which you will need to get the crosshairs on 1650 yards with Hornady 147gt ELD.    It comes the 6 screw 2000g rings and the its $238

[98Z5V]

13 hours ago, Phantom30 said:

If you want long range at a reasonable price, how about a 6-25 x56 MIL dot second focal plane reticle.

https://www.amazon.com/Ade-Advanced-Optics-6-25X56-Illuminated/dp/B00CUOLXFU/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=ade+long+range+scope&qid=1550858428&s=sporting-goods&sr=1-1

This is basically a Millett clone LRS-1 guts in a TRS-1 tube.  It has the 140 MOA turrets which you will need to get the crosshairs on 1650 yards with Hornady 147gt ELD.    It comes the 6 screw 2000g rings and the its $238

Just the fact that they tell you it's a "mil-dot bar reticle" with MOA adjustment - I'm out.  Any scope that mixes those two - I'm out. 

If you're mil reticle, you have mil adjustments.  Cool

If you're MOA reticle, you have MOA adjustments. Cool.

3.4377 is the number to make mils into MOA - I can deal with that.

(mil) = (inches) in target (height or width) x 27.778 / observed mils in the reticle (height or width) = yards to target.

(moa)= (inches) in target (height or width) x 95.5 / observed moa in the reticle (height or width) = yards to target.

27.778 x 3.4377 = 95.4924306. 

Fucking Nerd Magic Math, right there. 

Now, I'll take that, to convert from mil to MOA, when I'm spotting mils, and my buddy is shooting MOA.    I'm not going through that garbage inside my scope, with mil this and MOA that, inside the same scope, just to get a shot.  It's either mil/mil, or it's MOA/MOA in the scope itself.  You couldn't pay me enough to run a scope that's  got a reticle in one of them, and adjustments in the other.  That's a junk scope, right there, IMHO. I'm not so humble about that opinion, either. 

[Phantom30]

Well I would have recommended a Millett LRS-1 with 1/10 Mil turrets but they stopped making them, so this clone was a close as I could get.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Phantom30

[Phantom30]

First of All, I prefer the MIL/MOA scope, it is the better choice, cheaper and more accurate.  Let me explain IMHO.

The Clarity and cleanness of the reticle is important.  You don’t want a lot of cutter trying to help you with range calculations.  The MIL Dot reticles have been a military standard for a long time.  The techniques for using that reticle type for range estimation can be investigated at these links.

http://www.millettsights.com/resources/shooting-tips/

Multiple topic at the Millett site all relevant to choosing a scope.  The image below shows the precision of measurement in a Millett reticle.

Nerd Math lets us compare recommended scopes.  140 MOA is 40.7 mils of correction.  You have an AP AR so you rail is flat no MOA bias.  So all the correction limits are scope based.  If your 6.5CM is using Hornady 147gr ELD-M, with a 22” barrel your typical supersonic range limit will be around 1650 yards on a standard day. 

Notice that the max range correction is 71.6 MOA or 20.8 MILs.  If you want a scope the give you this capability you need to have that level of performance.  The problem with cited turret elevation values is they don’t reflect the fact that half the value is usually available after mounted and zero.  So a 28 MIL elevation scope only has a + 14 MILs or a 140 MOA scope has + 70 MOA or 20 MILs.  To squeak out maximum range performance you need a scope that will do that without reverting to holdover techniques.  A MOA turret scope has more sensitive corrections.  A 1/10^th MIL click is 0.36 inches at 100 yards, while a 1/4^th MOA click is 0.251 inches.  The key here is that corrections are measured in CLICKS not MILs or MOA.  When you think of it like that all the six digit math is reduced to simple integers.  As shown below.  The clean reticle example has the click values overlaid that is all you need to remember.  Each tick mark is 7 clicks on this second focal plane reticle set at 25 power.  There is a one click round off adjustment at 35 clicks but you can compensate of ignore it.  Reading the reticle in terms of ticks whether bars of dots and determining the adjustments in clicks make math simple.  Therefore, the preferred MIL/MOA scope more accurate and simpler to use for range estimation and adjustments.

Finally the cost, the lower cost higher performance choice

So The more accurate, lower cost choice would be the ADE. in MIL/MOA

 

[98Z5V]

Thanks for the education - you're missing something, though, and it's big.

The problem with cited turret elevation values is they don’t reflect the fact that half the value is usually available after mounted and zero.  So a 28 MIL elevation scope only has a + 14 MILs or a 140 MOA scope has + 70 MOA or 20 MILs.  To squeak out maximum range performance you need a scope that will do that without reverting to holdover techniques. 

You buy a mount that's got the elevation built into it, if you intend to shoot long distance.  LaRue OBRs have that built right into the upper and rail.

Solved. 

I was shooting 17+ mils of drop to 800+ yards on the 25/45.  Not a big deal.  One thing you don't want to do is mix mils and MOA, like you're suggesting.  If I observe an impact downrange that's one mil off, dial that in for me in MOA...  Doesn't make any sense...

[Phantom30]

OK if I am using my reticle shown above and I measure the shot at one mil off as you say, I would say that's two tick marks which is 14 clicks.  When you look at it in terms of tick marks with a know separation in clicks then its easy. The adjustment is clicks not MOA.  MOA is just the scale value which you can skip over thinking about. 

[Phantom30]

My original picture is not what I should have used the reticle image is for a 12.5 power setting not the normal 25 power.  Below is the proper pairing.t

. 

[98Z5V]

You still don't get it.

[Phantom30]

I do get it MIL MIL or  MOA MOA is easier when you are working within the same scale system, very valid point.  However, when you understand the only thing that matters is how many clicks are needed in any correction, then you can recover the simplicity with a MIL MOA and have the benefits of both.  The classic MIL reticle for traditional range estimation and the more precise MOA turrets.  May be I should say it this way.  I have a Click reticle with click turrets so I have a Click Click scope.  When I look at the reticle I see tick marks that each have a value of 7 clicks.  My holdover range is 70 clicks on the reticle.  My elevation limit is + 280 clicks on the turrets.  There are 60 clicks per turret revolution.  The value of a click is .251 inches at 100 yards.  So a Click Click Scope is within the same scale system.  And that's how you get cost effective utility out of a "junk" scope IMHerO

[98Z5V]

6 hours ago, Phantom30 said:

I do get it MIL MIL or  MOA MOA is easier when you are working within the same scale system, very valid point.  However, when you understand the only thing that matters is how many clicks are needed in any correction, then you can recover the simplicity with a MIL MOA and have the benefits of both.  The classic MIL reticle for traditional range estimation and the more precise MOA turrets.

It's like having a mile-an-hour speedo in your car, yet you're driving in an area that's nothing but km/h.  You're always doing more math in your head, and it never stops.  What's the point of going through the extra (completely unnecessary) steps in the first place? 

It makes ZERO SENSE.   Z.E.R.O. 

You're sitting here trying to pimp this like it's the next best thing - and the reality is, everyone in the long distance world pushed to have that kind of crazy crap eliminated!  If one is mil - then make the other one mil, so we don't have to take the EXTRA UNNECESSARY STEPS.  If it's MOA, then make the other one MOA...  Cool, we like it.

You're acting like this is the next best thing now, because you read some shiit from Millett.  It's complete nonsense.

[98Z5V]

You real quick tell me how many MOA turret clicks I need to shift 2.5 mil left at 845 yards in order to account for my wind...

I can tell you real quick that I need to turn 2.5 mils on my MIL DIAL and I'm good.  And you're sitting here doing math to figure it out, which is nonsense.

I bet you'll get it, and you post up the answer - I'm not going to figure it out, because I don't have to worry about it. But you will post it - with the luxury of time.  Then you'll tell everyone that you just did it off the top of your head, which will be bullshiit.

I will tell you that I will observe the bullet strike 2.5 mils left or right, off-target, and I will just SIMPLY dial quickly, and it's done.  I don't even have to think about it.  I don't even have to do unnecessary math in my head.  My follow-up shot is already on the way.

If I'm running an MOA scope, and I need to shift 8.59425 MOA left to account for my wind, I'll dial up 8.5 MOA and get it on.  That's 2.5 mils, by the way.

Fucking nonsense.

[SimonSays]

On 2/20/2019 at 10:56 PM, carverelli said:

I'd be interested in a workbook that teaches how to do exactly what you're talking about. 

Using a known size of the target and mildot ro approximate range then again using mild to holdover and engage the target. Once you do it 15 -20 times it should become old hate

May I suggest Long Range Shooting Simulation (https://www.shooterready.com/)

This is Not a video game. There are no missions to complete. It is a computer simulation that teaches one how to range a target of known size using the scopes reticle in either mildot or MOA. It's the best $50 educational tool I've used.

[carverelli]

On 3/5/2019 at 9:44 AM, SimonSays said:

May I suggest Long Range Shooting Simulation (https://www.shooterready.com/)

This is Not a video game. There are no missions to complete. It is a computer simulation that teaches one how to range a target of known size using the scopes reticle in either mildot or MOA. It's the best $50 educational tool I've used.

Thanks for the info. I've been battling pneumonia the last week and I'm getting bored watching TV and sleeping. I'll check this out tomorrow

[SimonSays]

Pneumonia. Wow. Please take care, and I’ll pray for you. ?