.264 Winchester Magnum, Remington 700 Sendero, Please suggest optics.

**SCBaldr** · August 28th, 2011, 12:11 PM

So I have a build in mind. I'm set on .264 Winchester Magnum and the Remington 700 Sendero SF II for the round / rifle combination. It has all the features I want, 26" stainless, fluted, heavy barrel. H S Precision stock with overmolded grip and full length bedding block. 1 in 9" twist. Provisions for bipod and sling, etc.

http://www.remington.com/products/fi...ero-sf-ii.aspx

Optics are something of an ignorance of mine. My other two rifles, an H&R Model 12 and a Springfield M1A scout are both happy with iron sights. I prefer the Irons for what I use those rifles for. The H&R is a pure benchrest target rifle and the M1A is an out-of-state, walking through WV or SC woods with rifle on sling, see critter, up rifle and shoot critter rifle. The Irons are best in both cases for these applications.

So I need an optic that will suit the Sendero. I prefer not to pay an arm and a leg. I anticipate quite a few low light shots so it needs at least a 50mm objective. I don't mind fixed power scopes and I can use one happily. I prefer simple reticles, no BDCs or confuse-o-plexes. I use Mil-Dots regularly and am comfortable with them. The scope should be built to stand up to heavy recoil and field conditions. I was looking at a Leupold VX-3L 4.5-14x56mm Long Range Illum. Reticle scope, but I don't like the pricepoint.

I need suggestions for optics that fit the bill in the $500-$1000 range. Also do you guys have any suggestions for mounting systems and rings? I would like a mounting setup that will be as solid and robust as possible.

Thanks for the help in advance.

**Tomcat088** · August 28th, 2011, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by SCBaldr

So I have a build in mind. I'm set on .264 Winchester Magnum and the Remington 700 Sendero SF II for the round / rifle combination. It has all the features I want, 26" stainless, fluted, heavy barrel. H S Precision stock with overmolded grip and full length bedding block. 1 in 9" twist. Provisions for bipod and sling, etc.

http://www.remington.com/products/fi...ero-sf-ii.aspx

Optics are something of an ignorance of mine. My other two rifles, an H&R Model 12 and a Springfield M1A scout are both happy with iron sights. I prefer the Irons for what I use those rifles for. The H&R is a pure benchrest target rifle and the M1A is an out-of-state, walking through WV or SC woods with rifle on sling, see critter, up rifle and shoot critter rifle. The Irons are best in both cases for these applications.

So I need an optic that will suit the Sendero. I prefer not to pay an arm and a leg. I anticipate quite a few low light shots so it needs at least a 50mm objective. I don't mind fixed power scopes and I can use one happily. I prefer simple reticles, no BDCs or confuse-o-plexes. I use Mil-Dots regularly and am comfortable with them. The scope should be built to stand up to heavy recoil and field conditions. I was looking at a Leupold VX-3L 4.5-14x56mm Long Range Illum. Reticle scope, but I don't like the pricepoint.

I need suggestions for optics that fit the bill in the $500-$1000 range. Also do you guys have any suggestions for mounting systems and rings? I would like a mounting setup that will be as solid and robust as possible.

Thanks for the help in advance.

First off, great choice on rifle an caliber. It'll be an absolute hammer on the animals. I'm a big fan of the Sendero rifles and have always had good luck with them. You don't quite mention what types of ranges you're exactly thinking about using this combination. That will probably effect my recommendations a bit for magnification, and some of these scopes have different adjustment ranges. So elaborations on that would be nice and may change my recommendations a bit.

It sounds like you're looking for a relatively "simple" hunting scope. One that will perform well in lowlight, be dependable, and hold up on the rig. I'll just give you some ideas and other options to consider besides the Leupold.

The first thing that I want to ask is have you ever used or seen a 56mm objective lense rifle scope? Have you ever used a rifle scope with even a 50mm objective lense? The reason that I ask is because lots of times people think that's what they want, but they don't realize how large the rifle scopes really are. I have owned and still own 50-56mm objective lense rifle scopes, so I do have experience with them, and have NOTHING against them. I just know they're a much larger scope than what most people prefer to take on a hunting rig in the woods. I've been teased several times about having the "hubble telescope" mounted on a rifle. So I want to verify that you've actually looked at a mounted up 50-56mm objective riflescope. If you haven't handled and used a 50-56mm objective rifle scope, did you think that's what you needed because you read somewhere that they're better for "low light" hunting/shooting? The reason I ask is because a 50 or 56mm objective may not be exactly what you want, or help as much as you think. Honestly, a 56mm objective IS huge, I'm telling you from experience.

The larger objectives are able to gather a bit more light than a scope that is the same brand, design, lenses, etc. and is a smaller objective size. They do allow a bit more light, but it doesn't always make as big of a difference as people think it will. A true measured benefit of a larger objective size is related to the resolution. The larger the objective lense, the better the resolution will be. So you'd be able to make out smaller objects or details compared to an identical model, lenses, etc. with a smaller objective size. You'll notice that I keep mentioning "same make, model, lenses, etc." The reason is because when you start comparing different glass qualities, brands, sizes, etc. things get quite complicated and aren't all that simple. What you do need to know is that one of the most important things to getting good lowlight performance from optics is NOT the objective size, although to an extent it does make a difference. The optical quality of glass in the scope, and especially the lense coatings are what makes the largest impact on lowlight performance. There are lots of more expensive brand scopes with better lense coatings that can have a 40mm objective scope be brighter than someone else's 50mm objective scope.

The first thing I want to mention is that these days, I'm not all that impressed with Leupold's optical quality. I'm not saying it's bad optical quality, because that would be a flat out lie. I do believe that for the money that their scopes cost, you should get better quality glass. There's plenty of scopes that cost less that have glass as good or better than Leupold. For a while, Leupold has been banking on their name, and not making innovations, or trying to go anywhere new. They've finally had to start picking up their game a bit, and things are finally starting to improve a bit. I still think for the features, optical quality, etc. they're overpriced. The first thing I wanted to ask is do you think that an illuminated reticle is a necessary feature? Illuminated reticles aren't necessary for lowlight shooting, but they can be nice in certain situations. Some people don't like it and even if they have it, they won't use it in lowlight shooting. So that's why I'm curious.

Before I spent $1,000-1,150 on that Leupold, I'd look at something like a Zeiss Conquest 4-14x44mm Objective. Lots of tactical guys don't like typical Zeiss hunting scopes for the money because they don't have all the bells and whistles, they're just relatively "simple". Which to me, it sounds like that's exactly what you're looking for. The Zeiss optics are superior to Leupold in EVERY SINGLE WAY. They will have better optical quality, better resolution, and better lowlight performance. The Zeiss may even track a little better than the Leupold, although Leupold scopes typically track very reliably and consistently. You just have to remember that Zeiss and other German glass is some of the top in the world, and some of the top military grade optics in the world are made by Zeiss (Hensholdt). It doesn't have the illuminated reticle, but you can get it in a basic duplex reticle for $799, or with the mil-dots for $849. http://swfa.com/Zeiss-45-14x44-Conqu...cope-P618.aspx Especially for less money, I'd definitely take that over the Leupold for a higher end hunting scope.

I'm adding this scope in after I thought about it real quick. I've never priced Swarovski scopes because they didn't have the features I preferred. I thought about it and figured you were jumping into that territory also. I went and looked, sure enough, you can get a nice simple swarovski scope for cheaper than what that Leupold costs. http://www.opticsplanet.net/swarovsk...flescopes.html 4-12x50mm Objective with your choice of reticle, some of the more complicated ones cost a bit more. Swarovski are some of the top optics and crystal makers in the world, and I assure you that their optics will put Leupold to shame. They're top notch quality, and I can't recall any stories right off hand of anybody ever having trouble with their Swaro scopes. I'm sure that it happens, I mean I hear stories about people having problems with scopes that cost 3x as much as this Swarovsky, but I just can't think of any at the moment. For the kind of money that you're talking about spending and the features that you're looking for, it just seems almost silly to go with a Leupold.

If you were considering something a bit "cheaper", that would still probably fulfill your needs, I'd look at a Nikon Buckmaster. They're pretty bright glass, sometimes even brighter than Leupold's just in normal light. I don't have any experience with Leupold's new XT coatings. Either way, the Nikon Buckmasters have 92% light transmisson, which is close to the theoretical 95% light transmisson limit with multiple lense elements. They hold up to recoil well, I've tested them on .300 winmags in pickup guns. They track well, and the color renditions are great. You have to remember that Nikon makes some of the world's top photographic lenses. They are a very usable, reliably and "cheap" hunting scope. http://swfa.com/Nikon-4-12x50-Buckma...pe-P42207.aspx You can get a 4-12x50mm Objective with side focus and the basic "duplex" reticle for pretty cheap ($360).

If you want something that's even better/higher quality, you could consider a Nikon Monarch 4-16x50mm. It has the theoretical maximum of light transmission at 95%. I haven't looked through a Nikon Monarch in the field (in stores), but lots of people I trust tell me they do look better than the Buckmaster glass. As I said, I've used the Buckmaster scopes quite a bit, and their glass is definitely nothing to sneeze at. So if it's better, and everything else just as reliable and consistent, it's a good scope. I also really like the way that their side focus has the ability to lock. It keeps it from shifting or moving when you don't want it to, and it's very easy to go back to adjusting it; push/pull the knob out type of system. http://swfa.com/Nikon-4-16x50-Monarc...pe-P11159.aspx You can have that scope for less than $500 ($490). Honestly, I'd probably rather have 2 of those scopes than the one Leupold.

If you feel that the illuminated reticle is "necessary", then the Nikon scopes won't quite fit that bill. If you want the feature in some of the Zeiss scopes, it can get costly, so it just depends on what you want. If you are looking to have a scope with tons of travel, like the Leupold LR model, depending on the ranges you're shooting and how far off zero is from the optical center of the scope; you may have to use a 20 MOA base or choose a different scope. I noticed that just by chance, the recommends scopes are 1" tubes, which is fine. The body tube doesn't really effect how much light is able to pass through the scope, it's actually a narrow column as it passes through the body. Typically the adjustment range is what is effected by the body tube diameter. Depending on your requirements, it may or may not be an issue. Part of the amount of travel is related to the erector assembly design, placement of it, and the lense elements, and some other things. I don't think it's a huge issue, but it's something else I wanted to mention. I honestly just think for the money, especially on a hunting rig that doesn't require all the "tactical features", there's better scopes for the money. I mean you're starting to get into Zeiss, and used Nightforce territory.

Now in terms of how to mount the scope up, a good heavy duty mount and quality rings is what you want. Right off the top of my head, for good robustness and quality, 2 names jump in my head real quick. For the money, both are great. I'd look at some Seekins Precision rings, they come in 1" or 30mm (and other sizes), they're very heavy duty, nice 4 allen screw design, and are precision machined and lapped. http://www.seekinsprecision.com/inde...&id=3&Itemid=7 . Then I'd look at a nice picatinny rail, just so that you have lots of options about where to place the scope and rings on the scope body. The other nice thing is that since it's a solid one piece base, it's very rigid. A good quality rail that's a good buy is from EGW (Evolution Gun Works). If you truly are looking for as robust as you can get, you'll sacrifice just a bit on weight, but I'd go with one of their HD (Heavy Duty) bases made of steel.http://www.egwguns.com/remington-700-722-40x/

I hope that all of this helps. If you have a particular magnification range in mind (or fixed), or have certain requirements about scope travel, etc, just let me know. There's always more options, but I think these are some options to consider for a good hunting rig.

**SCBaldr** · August 28th, 2011, 06:22 PM

Wow. That's quite a bit knowledge to take in. (My brain is belching from digestion...) This rifle will almost never take any shot past 500 yards. Even then, it will be at a range. My hunting experience tells me that most of the shots on animals this rifle will take range between 160 and 370 yards. If the critter is beyond 375-400, I try to sneak in closer. (which I'm good at) I've never taken a shot below 123 yards on an animal before. So that is the kind of range I'm going to be using. Most of my shots happen between 220 and 300 yards. So magnification of 2.5-15x or something in that neighborhood sounds about right.

My hunting experience also tells me that when I actually get the chance to take a shot, it is either dusk or dawn. Incredibly frustrating to say the least, but that is the best time to put a stalk on a critter. I know how big the objectives of 56mm scopes are, and truth be told, I'd rather have a 44mm objective if it can give me a low light picture as well as larger objective can. From what you say, that depends on other optical factors too, so I'm inclined to believe that a 44mm can. In the case of the Zeiss or Swarovski, it probably does. I expected to end up spending between $800 and $900, but I didn't expect to be able to buy a Zeiss or Swarovski for that little.

Great recommendations, the Nikon Monarch is looking awfully good for around the $500 mark. I don't need the scope to have an illuminated reticle. It just seemed like an attractive feature. A regular crosshair or Mil-Dots would suit me just fine. As for the "tactical" scopes. I have always thought that "tactical" meant how something is used, not what something is, but that's another conversation.

I chose the .264 Winchester Magnum for several reasons. First, I think its probably one of the most versatile cartridges currently available. You can use mid-weight 130 gr. bullets that are down loaded several hundred feet per second to achieve 1/4 MOA accuracy or better. You can use those same 130 gr. bullets and load closer to the maximums to go after thick skinned mid-sized game like wild pigs or rams. You can use a lighter 95 gr. Hornady V-Max bullet loaded to 3600 FPS for whitetails. You can load even a 140 gr. Hornady Interlock to 3240 FPS for bigger, tougher game. Second, there is a good chance that wherever you go or hunt, you'll be the only one with a .264 Win mag. Third, it's easier on the shoulder and the optics than any of the big 30 cal plus magnums.

**dk99358** · August 28th, 2011, 08:36 PM

I'm glad Tomcat did all that typing and I second his comments about the sewer pipe scopes. I'll just add a few comments in no particular order.

For a simple hunting scope that would be useful for low light situations, check out the Leupold FXIII 6X42. I've run an older M8 6X36 on a 270 for nearly 30 years doing exactly what you say your most common shots are. My longest shot is 350, my closest is 15. Deer and groundhogs both.

My last 2 scope purchases were Bushnell Elite 4200 in 3-9X40. They are on a 7mm-08 and a 30-06. Very bright and have the Rainguard coating. There are other models in the Elite line too.

I don't own one but the Sightron Big Sky's have a good reputation and a Rainguard type coating. Weaver Grand Slams are supposed to be good but heavy.

For mounts, I have settled in on Burris Signature Zee Rings and Weaver style bases. The Signature line has inserts that prevent ring marks and they have offset ones that can be used to 'adjust' the scope in the rings if your mounting holes are off and you run out of adjustment room with the internals.

The V Max bullet is for varmints, I wouldn't use one on deer. With the velocity the 264 can produce, I would look at Barnes TTSX or Nosler Accubonds. The Hornady Interbond would be similar construction to the Nosler but I have read plenty of comments along the line of "can't get them to shoot". YMMV

Dale

**SCBaldr** · August 29th, 2011, 06:35 PM

Thanks for the link to the scope store. I think I found my rail and my scope.
Ziess 4.5-14x 50mm conquest, standard plex reticle. The rail is going to be a silver remington long action 0 MOA unit from EGW as suggested. Looks to good to pass up for the money.

The Jury's still out on the rings, I'll have to give that some consideration.

**jwhop** · February 25th, 2012, 01:41 PM

Well, I'm happy to find some shooters who are familiar with the .264 Win Mag. There really aren't that many who are.

I've owned the same .264 Mag since 1969 and shot everything from 85gr hps to 142gr MatchKings. Most group under an inch and some..the heavier 140gr MatchKings sometimes group 1/2MOA.

I've been thinking about something since the mid 1970s. Considering the high ballistic coefficient and high sectional density of the relatively new Sierra 142gr MatchKing, I think the .264 Mag is capable of being or becoming an exceptional long range match caliber...but with a heavier HPBT bullet of say 200 grains.

Someone please tell me I'm crazy!!

I've checked and no factory makes a 200gr HPBT .264 bullet. I've checked some custom bullet makers of odd calibers and odd weights and they don't have the dies. I've checked to see if a 7mm 200gr HPBT bullet could be sized down to .264. While the custom bullet maker could produce a 200gr 7mm bullet, he advised that sizing it down to .264 would force lead out the point end and it wouldn't wind up being 200grs and that in fact the finished bullet weights would vary widely.

These are ballistic facts.

The Sierra 142gr MatchKing has a sectional density of .291 and a ballistic coefficient of .595.

A 200gr HPBT .264 bullet would have a sectional density of .410 and a ballistic coefficient of .802. That sucker should cleave the air like a needle, retain a high degree of velocity and not be nearly so susceptible to cross winds currents at long ranges.

So, tell me I'm crazy...or someone else would have already done it...or did do it and what sounds good in theory was a flop in reality!

Tell me I'm crazy because at this point, my only option seems to be to buy the right dies, press, jackets and lead core and make my own. I don't really wanna do that.

PS: Pennsylvania is beautiful country! I live in Florida...where a tall sand dune is called a mountain.

**Tomcat088** · February 25th, 2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by jwhop

I've been thinking about something since the mid 1970s. Considering the high ballistic coefficient and high sectional density of the relatively new Sierra 142gr MatchKing, I think the .264 Mag is capable of being or becoming an exceptional long range match caliber...but with a heavier HPBT bullet of say 200 grains.

Someone please tell me I'm crazy!!

I've checked and no factory makes a 200gr HPBT .264 bullet. I've checked some custom bullet makers of odd calibers and odd weights and they don't have the dies. I've checked to see if a 7mm 200gr HPBT bullet could be sized down to .264. While the custom bullet maker could produce a 200gr 7mm bullet, he advised that sizing it down to .264 would force lead out the point end and it wouldn't wind up being 200grs and that in fact the finished bullet weights would vary widely.

These are ballistic facts.

The Sierra 142gr MatchKing has a sectional density of .291 and a ballistic coefficient of .595.

A 200gr HPBT .264 bullet would have a sectional density of .410 and a ballistic coefficient of .802. That sucker should cleave the air like a needle, retain a high degree of velocity and not be nearly so susceptible to cross winds currents at long ranges.

So, tell me I'm crazy...or someone else would have already done it...or did do it and what sounds good in theory was a flop in reality!

Tell me I'm crazy because at this point, my only option seems to be to buy the right dies, press, jackets and lead core and make my own. I don't really wanna do that.

PS: Pennsylvania is beautiful country! I live in Florida...where a tall sand dune is called a mountain.

I wouldn't call you crazy. I would say that you're being unrealistic, and just trying to wish the cartridge into something that it's not. I mean sure, it sounds like a good idea, and cool if it would work the way you may think it up in your head. I'm sorry to tell you, but it just doesn't work that way. I realize that you may really like the caliber, etc. but it doesn't mean that it will perform the way you expect it to, or be as easy as a transition at you expect it to.

You talk about "sizing down" some 200 grain 7mm bullets, and it's just not easily done that way. It's an unrealistic idea from someone that may not be too familiar with the bullet making process. Either way, it's almost impossible to find 200 grain 7mm projectiles to begin with. There was a company years ago named Wildcat bullets that made 200 grain 7mm bullets. As far as I know, they haven't done a whole lot recently, and they say they have a webpage coming soon, but that hasn't been updated for over a year and a half. I mean realistically, most manufacturers are putting 180 grains as the practical level that they make even 7mm bullets. I mean honestly, if it's even possible to have a .264 caliber 200 grain projectile, I would guess that it would have to be guilded metal, lathe turned solid. At that point, you're just spending a lot of money, for something that may not give the kind of performance you expect, and not make the gains you expect.

What you have to understand is that when you're starting to get to 200 grains, the bearing surface on the bullet is greatly increasing. I mean even if you look at a .300 winmag in factory loadings, lots of manufacturers are only pushing 200 grain bullets around 3,000 fps. So sure, it would be nice if you could get that kind of performance out of a .264 with that same weight of bullet because it would have such a high BC. The problem is, the bearing surface is so long, on a bullet that long, you're going to have less velocity and higher pressures. So with that in mind, just with only that as consideration, it's just not going to perform the way you expect it to. There are lots of other problems that will arise from your idea though. The bullets are so long, that with a standard chamber, the bullets would be set WAY back in the brass, so you wouldn't even come close to having the powder capacity to push the bullet that fast. So then you'd have to start considering going with a custom chamber and having it "long throated" for the special projectiles that don't even exist. At that point, you're getting bullets that are so long for the caliber diameter, that they may not want to engage the rifling square and true. So when you start looking at jamming into the lands, you start looking at even high pressures on the cartridge, on top of what it would have with the greatly increased bearing surface of such a long bullet. The other complication and problem that would arise with a bullet that long would be stabilization. I mean with convention bullets, and the densities of the metals, the bullets are getting extremely long. So then you'd need a custom barrel, made based on calculations to stabilize a projectile that long, and you'd probably end up also starting to look into gain twist barrels. I can tell you FOR A FACT that factory barrels, or standard barrels would simply NOT cut it for stabilizing these projectiles.

There's just a lot of things that you haven't considered. Even if you could make the projectiles yourself that you're talking about, you'd at the very least need a new custom barrel, spec'ed perfectly, and installed by a qualified gunsmith. Even then, it's still not going to perform the way that you want. I mean the solution to the "problem" that you're looking at isn't simply to make the bullet longer. I mean, if you're looking at 200 grain projectiles, sure, they exist in .308 caliber; although, obviously they don't have the BC. At that point, you're getting better performance from a VLD or Berger Hybrid design, in the 180 grain flavor. With less bearing surface than the bullet you have thought up in your head, it would probably outperform what you have in your head. It wouldn't be excessively long, like you have dreamed up, so it would have less bearing surface, and less bullet in the brass. So basically, what I'm saying is, other calibers will do what you want, better without being so radical.

It sounds to me like you have this dream, of having some projectile that has a G1 BC in the .800's. If that's the case, I mean honestly, there's no substitute for mass, that's just how it is. The reason being that in practical terms, and what works in the real world, you MUST have bullets that are able to be stabilized, pushed at the speeds you need to make them usable, and that are feasible to produce. So what that means is that if you want a higher BC, you gotta have the mass, which also helps in it retain energy and velocity. I mean, if you seriously want to get a bullet that has a G1 BC in the .8's, you're going to have to take the punishment for the performance; that includes in recoil, expense, etc. So if that's what you're really looking for, I assure you, it's already been done. Look at the new 300 grain Berger Hybrids in .338. The average G1 BC on the 300 grain Berger Hybrid in .338 comes out to .891, which is phenomenal and way above what you were talking about. I mean if those are the kind of BC's you're looking at, there's just no way around it man.

So to answer your question, no you're not crazy. You are trying to approach getting a "high BC" bullet, in a very impractical manner. If that's really what you want, do it right, and in a way that is tried, true, and proven. The other way, you'd be spending a lot of time, money, etc. on a project that has a fairly high rate of failure, or that won't perform in the way that you want. I think you have to look at what you're wanting to do, and see if you really even know what you want. I mean in small arms projectiles, and their performance, you'd be hard pressed to beat a 180 grain bullet with a G1 BC of .674 and push it hard. I mean it's not uncommon to push 180 grain 7mm bullets, supersonic to a mile. Depending on your accuracy requirement, platform, and shooter, it may or may not fit your needs. Still, I think you're hoping and dreaming, and not really being all that practical. I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but I'm just trying to tell you what you're getting yourself into, and trying to be realistic about it.