What is the best mil dot scope for the money?

[ap.tolfa]

Hey guys i am looking at mil dot scopes for my .308 (cz750) and i was wondering what the best scope is for the money?

[Tomcat088]

Hey guys i am looking at mil dot scopes for my .308 (cz750) and i was wondering what the best scope is for the money?

Nice rifle, albeit, a bit on the pricey side for a stock rifle. I hope that you're enjoying it. Some of us will be happy to give you recommendations about "mil-dot scopes", but we need a LOT more information. first off, what is your budget for the scope? "Best scope for the money" is a very vague term, and part of that is dependent on what the price range that you want to spend is. On top of all of that, we need to know what other features may be key, other than mil-dots. Were you wanting a particular objective size, magnification range, First Focal Plane or Second Focal Plane, mil/moa, moa/moa, or mil/mil, illuminated reticle, side focus or objective adjustable, etc? There's a LOT that goes into picking the proper scope for a rifle, and price range for features also effects the "best scope for the money".

What kind of shooting do you honestly plan on doing with the rifle? "Long Range shooting" isn't the correct answer, you have to be more detailed in your answer. I need to know ranges, conditions, from the bench, prone, etc. Will you be shooting in tactical competitions? Will you be just shooting at paper or steel? Will you possibly be hunting with this rifle, and if so, what kind of animals? From the rifle that you bought, it sounds like you're interested in precision rifles, possibly long range shooting, but don't know much about it. I can tell you that you can spend as much on a good tactical scope or MORE than your rifle cost. Then again, if you're gonna be shooting paper, or at closer ranges, you may not need a $2,000-3,000 rifle scope. Either way, more information would be really aid in helping you choose the right scope.

[SevenSixTwoX39]

Well since your question is pretty general and lacks any specifics or price ranges, I'll suggest the SWFA super sniper since that's what I think of first as a low-cost/good-quality scope. It's a fixed 10 power with tactical style turrets. Your options are either this, which is the non adjustable objective scope for $300, or this, which has an adjustable objective for $400

[A_Wrench]

Just get the ACOG and be done with it. *snirk*

I kinda gather that your shooting around 2 or 3 hundred yards? Just long enough that the Mil-dot would be useful?

The biggest reason for a true scope vs. today's high-tech red-dot/holographic sights is the magnification benefit. Unless you plan on a trip to Wyoming for some cross-county ballistics practice, any brand-name scope with your favored retical will probably work fine.

Just my opinion.

[MaDuece]

An open ended question when it comes to price range etc.

So, in my opinion. Leupold MK4 6.5x20x50! 30mm tube for increased elevation,50mm obj. for better field of view. Low end of 6.5 so your good at shorter ranges but a high end of 20 so you have plenty of mag. for the range limits of the 308 round.

Clarity is excellant, very robust scope, good warrentee program if you ever need it!

A little pricey but you get what you pay for! Never have a need for "more" so its once and done!

[Tomcat088]

An open ended question when it comes to price range etc.

So, in my opinion. Leupold MK4 6.5x20x50! 30mm tube for increased elevation,50mm obj. for better field of view. Low end of 6.5 so your good at shorter ranges but a high end of 20 so you have plenty of mag. for the range limits of the 308 round.

Clarity is excellant, very robust scope, good warrentee program if you ever need it!

A little pricey but you get what you pay for! Never have a need for "more" so its once and done!

I'm not gonna disagree with you about the quality of the scope. I sometimes think there's better bang for your buck when you start getting into scopes that are around this price range, but it's still a good robust quality scope.

Your answer is even a little vague though. Which Mark 4 6.5x20 are you talking about? Which turret knobs? Should he go with MOA knobs on a mil reticle? How fine of adjustment do you think he should go? They make "single turns" for Mark 4's. Illuminated or not? Should he go Mil turrets, so that they match the reticle? Does he need to also go FFP? Since we're talking about this much money, maybe even the TMR reticle instead?

I'm curious about some of the finer details of your recommendation. I mean even in the Mark 4 line, buying the wrong scope CAN result in someone wanting more.

[MaDuece]

I'm not gonna disagree with you about the quality of the scope. I sometimes think there's better bang for your buck when you start getting into scopes that are around this price range, but it's still a good robust quality scope.

Your answer is even a little vague though. Which Mark 4 6.5x20 are you talking about? Which turret knobs? Should he go with MOA knobs on a mil reticle? How fine of adjustment do you think he should go? They make "single turns" for Mark 4's. Illuminated or not? Should he go Mil turrets, so that they match the reticle? Does he need to also go FFP? Since we're talking about this much money, maybe even the TMR reticle instead?

I'm curious about some of the finer details of your recommendation. I mean even in the Mark 4 line, buying the wrong scope CAN result in someone wanting more.

The OP stated his interest is the std Mil-Dot so I would recommend the Leupold MK4 6.5x20x50 LR/T M1.

Turrets?
The std. 1/4" per click turrets work fine for the std. Mil-Dot retical. I don't see any sense in recommending 1/8" per click target turrets with a retical the thickness of the std. Mil-Dot. The 1/8" per click turrets may give a minor advantage on the TMR due to its finer cross and they are definately an advantage on an ultra fine plex retical like in my fixed 45x45. But it appeared the OP was asking about the std. Mil-Dot.

If down the road the OP settles in on a pet load for the rifle then I would recommend he call Leupolds custom shop and order a BDC elevation turret for the scope. They are owner installed (easy) and in my opinion they give quite the advantage for elevation adjustments.

Illuminated retical?
The only advantage of them is during the low light of dusk or dawn. In the noon sun they become basicly useless so in my opinion they are a waste of money.

The TMR retical?

In general and JMHO. Glock needed thier own cartridge so Leupold may as well have thier own retical. I lump it right in with the 45 GAP and the piston op AR15. It was the answer to a problem that didn't exist! I try to stay away from "cool" factor when I recommend something. After all, it's a tool. Not a toy!

Thats JMHO

[LightningMcQueen784]

Tomcat has some really good advices. Knowing what you want to do will help you narrow down what you need, and what you may want in a scope. Going blind is a gamble.... how far/long will you be shooting? in what setting(s)? ..etc. these are all important decisions before you choose a scope.

Paper, plinking, or hunting? Competition?

I would say turrets is a very important decision:
MOA turrets to your mil- based reticle? or Mil-based turrets to the mil- based reticle? That's a very subjective choice. Some think MOA instinctively because they've been shooting MOA and thinks in inches all their lives. I've worked with both, and prefer mil adjustments with my mil reticle.. but that's MY preference, but maybe also because I'm more a metric person over fractional.

Iluminated reticles are nice, but not a necessity. If you plan to hunt, sometimes it can help when non-illuminated reticles may blend into the darker shades. Again, it's not necessary, but could be nice to have. Is it a waste of money? that's your own call.

The Leupy TMR reticle is nice, IMO... I wouldn't call it a total gimick.... having lines instead of thick round or oblong dots for mil-markers has its advantages as well as disadvantages. Lines certainly are finer markers, and a bit more precise; but at the same time, you sacrifice the speed and visibility the thicker round or oblong dots offer. Again, it's a very personal choice/preference.

I have a scope with all these "gimicky" and "waste of money" features, but I like it, and I don't think it was a waste of money. I did have to save up a good bit for it, but that's what I wanted, and I'm not left wanting more.

I hear there's been a delay in shipping the Vortex Viper PST line of scope, but it's because the manufacturer wanted to improve the design from their prototypes, and make sure they do it right before they release it. for the price, the specs look really good. I don't know if that's in your budget or not tho.

[arrrrgh15]

TMR reticle is superior to standard mil dot. I think that had a LOT to do with Leupolds decision. In fact, most of the high end rifle scope manufacturers are dropping the standard mil dot. It might have been fine back in the 80s, but better options are available.

In fact, once my new scope shows up I'm sending my old leupy to have the mil dot reticle replaced with a TMR.

the one unanswered question that will narrow this down for everybody is the OPs budget. Is it $300.00 or $3000.00? Are we talking Super Sniper or S&B?

Once that's been determined then it can be narrowed down some.

[Tomcat088]

The OP stated his interest is the std Mil-Dot so I would recommend the Leupold MK4 6.5x20x50 LR/T M1.

Turrets?
The std. 1/4" per click turrets work fine for the std. Mil-Dot retical. I don't see any sense in recommending 1/8" per click target turrets with a retical the thickness of the std. Mil-Dot. The 1/8" per click turrets may give a minor advantage on the TMR due to its finer cross and they are definately an advantage on an ultra fine plex retical like in my fixed 45x45. But it appeared the OP was asking about the std. Mil-Dot.

If down the road the OP settles in on a pet load for the rifle then I would recommend he call Leupolds custom shop and order a BDC elevation turret for the scope. They are owner installed (easy) and in my opinion they give quite the advantage for elevation adjustments.

Illuminated retical?
The only advantage of them is during the low light of dusk or dawn. In the noon sun they become basicly useless so in my opinion they are a waste of money.

The TMR retical?

In general and JMHO. Glock needed thier own cartridge so Leupold may as well have thier own retical. I lump it right in with the 45 GAP and the piston op AR15. It was the answer to a problem that didn't exist! I try to stay away from "cool" factor when I recommend something. After all, it's a tool. Not a toy!

Thats JMHO

Don't use tactical rifle scopes much do you? If you do, you don't "stay with the times" very much. There are quite a few different turrets than just a 1/4 MOA or 1/8 MOA adjustment. It's not a very accurate phrasing to say 1/4" adjustment, because that only applies to 100 yards. If you were making 1 click at 50 yards, it only moves the impact 1/8". If you were are adjusting at 200 yards, 1 click moves the bullet 1/2". So it helps other people watching the thread to use the proper term of MOA adjustments. I would NEVER recommend 1/8 MOA turrets to someone wanting a tactical scope, and apparently you did not understand what I was saying. I'll try to be a bit more clear in this post.

There are Leupold Mark 4 models that have M2 turrets. The M2 turrets are 1/2 MOA turrets for the windage and elevation, where each click moves the reticle 1/2 MOA as opposed to 1/4 MOA on the M1 turrets. The M2 turrets are also marked for bullet compensation for a particular load. There are also M3 turrets that are also different. The M3 turrets are 1 MOA adjustment on the elevation, and 1/2 MOA adjustments on the windage. Those are just the variations of MOA turrets that you can get for Mark 4's. So which one of those do you recommend, still the M1 turret? There's also a false assumption that you make about the TMR having an advantage in 1/8 MOA turrets. The 1/8 MOA turrets really have no relation to the reticle gradation or accuracy from it. All they do is move the the reticle 1/8 MOA, instead of 1/4 MOA. Most people don't use reticles for strictly hold over, they're used more often to hold wind. The super fine gradations are only there in the last mil anyway. So you're not really using them to aim with.

I guess since you think it's perfectly logical to use MOA with a Mil reticle, you're opposed to the M5 turrets? The M5 turrets adjust .1 mil per click. Hmm, that's interesting, now why in the world would you want mil adjustments with a mil reticle? Oh wait, they're the same units, that could be really handy and lead to a lot less math. I don't know many professionals that call corrections in MOA. They usually tell you that you hit however many mil's low or high, and so many off on your wind call. Then you either have to hold kentucky windage, or you make the correction on the turrets. When the spotter calls the correction in mil's, and they usually do, because very few spotting scopes have MOA reticles, they're usually mil reticles. So when he calls it in mil's and you have MOA turrets, then you have to do the math to convert MOA to mils, and then dial it. Doing it in a high stress situation, in a hurry, to put the shot on target, can sometimes get sloppy, especially when it isn't whole mils or more than 1 mil. You ever tried to multiply 2.3 by 3.5 in your head in a hurry? It's a lot easier if he tells you that you missed by 2.3 miles, and you dial that many on the rifle and send it. You still wouldn't recommend M5 turrets though?

You're right though, illuminated reticles are pretty nice for lowlight conditions. It's funny that you assume that nobody would use them, lots of us shoot and hunt in lowlight conditions. It just so happens that lots of animals are crepuscular. So when you see animals in twilight (dusk and dawn), well looky there, that illuminated reticle comes in pretty handy. Illuminated reticles also give a decent little contrast on black targets, even when there's pretty bright light. Either way, if you don't need it in bright light (because it doesn't work), you just turn it off. Matter of fact, most of us that have illuminated reticles leave them off most of the time, until we need them in lowlight conditions. I suppose how often one shoots in these conditions would determine whether it's a "waste of money" or not.

There's kind of a big difference between GAP having to have it's name on it's own cartridge, that basically performs like the .40 S&W; and Leupold developing the TMR. Have you ever heard of company called "Premier"? Well a long time ago, before they made scopes, they developed the "Gen II Mil-dot" reticle, and they patent it. The nice thing about the Gen II Mil-dot was that you were able to subtend to .2 mil's or less (depending on the ability of the user). Because the reticle still had mil-dots, it was also still very usable in lowlight conditions. Premier was retrofitting Leupold scopes with their reticle, and they got so good at it that they became an authorized Leupold repair store. They would also share their reticles with Leupold, so that they could repair scopes sent to them with the reticle, and so they could offer it as an option in their custom shop models. This relationship went sour, and eventually turned into a lawsuit that ended up with pretty much nothing happening. Leupold also knew that since they weren't going to be able to install Gen. II mil-dot reticles, they would have to come up with something to compete. The last thing they wanted to do was have to pay Premier, so they came up with the TMR.

Since that time, the TMR has gained a LOT of favor with shoters, and people just like the "less cluttered" look without the dots. Without the illumination, most people think that the TMR doesn't quite perform as well in lowlight because they're fine gradations. With illumination, it's not an issue at all, and makes for a very clean professional look. So you can think that it's a "toy" all that you like, but there's a reason that real professionals (including U.S. Military snipers) and others around the world use TMR or TMR style reticles. Like others have said in this thread, back in the day, mil-dots were THE thing. Nowadays, times have changed and progressed, and we're seeing many more TMR style reticles.

I try to stay away from recommending "toys" also. It helps to have a fair amount of knowledge and a good knowledge base before you make recommendations to people to spend over a thousand dollars. I agree that scopes are tools, but sometimes a tool that costs the same price but can make finer measurements and aids in speed without losing accuracy; that is usually a superior tool. Sadly though, with those features, the scope does cost more, and it's because they really are beneficial and not just some gimmick. I won't even get into FFP, because if you aren't familiar with using mil adjustments on a mil reticle, then this will just muddy the thread more so than it already is. Best of luck to you.