What is the best mil dot scope for the money?

[MaDuece]

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.

Well I won't go from an "opinion" thread to a pissing contest thread by posting 3 pages of "info" so I'll try to make it short and sweet.

First off "assuming" anything about anyone on the net would be assinine! As far as me not using "tactical" scopes often? you are right! I haven't touched one in probably a month!

A scope with 1/2 or 1 MOA click adjustments is as usefull as a red dot in my opinion (notice I said my opinion). I guess a 1 MOA scope works fine for 1" groups at 100 yards if that is what you are looking to achieve! OR 1/2 groups at 50 yards. or 5" groups at 500 yards. After all the scope and rifle is wasted if it is better than the man pulling the trigger!

As far as the way I explain things? I tend to explain them in a way that gives enough info in one shot without becoming overwellming to someone just starting out and then let them ask questions as they learn and digest the info.

As for "not keeping up with the times"? No I guess I haven't! I guess I am stuck in the past in using what has worked for me for the past 25 years! So I will bow out to you and keep my opinion to myself! I keep forgeting that in todays day and age 10 years infront of a computer trumps 25 years behind a trigger!

Enjoy yourself and If I can be any further help to the OP? Feel free to PM me.

[Tomcat088]

Well I won't go from an "opinion" thread to a pissing contest thread by posting 3 pages of "info" so I'll try to make it short and sweet.

First off "assuming" anything about anyone on the net would be assinine! As far as me not using "tactical" scopes often? you are right! I haven't touched one in probably a month!

A scope with 1/2 or 1 MOA click adjustments is as usefull as a red dot in my opinion (notice I said my opinion). I guess a 1 MOA scope works fine for 1" groups at 100 yards if that is what you are looking to achieve! OR 1/2 groups at 50 yards. or 5" groups at 500 yards. After all the scope and rifle is wasted if it is better than the man pulling the trigger!

As far as the way I explain things? I tend to explain them in a way that gives enough info in one shot without becoming overwellming to someone just starting out and then let them ask questions as they learn and digest the info.

As for "not keeping up with the times"? No I guess I haven't! I guess I am stuck in the past in using what has worked for me for the past 25 years! So I will bow out to you and keep my opinion to myself! I keep forgeting that in todays day and age 10 years infront of a computer trumps 25 years behind a trigger!

Enjoy yourself and If I can be any further help to the OP? Feel free to PM me.

I wasn't trying to turn this into a pissing contest either, but apparently you took it that way. Apparently you don't appreciate a "longer post" or a "3 page post". I was just hoping for some clarification for the OP, who probably didn't know which questions to ask. It's obvious from my post that there are LOTS of options in the Leupold Mark 4 line. When you recommend a scope that costs $1,000 or more to someone else who may be "new to the game", it helps if you're a bit more specific. While the OP may be quite an experienced shooter, he may not be that experienced with feature or needs for long range shooting or precision rifles. I know that if I was reading a recommendation from someone that I don't know, to go out and spend $1,000 or more, I'd like it if they elaborated and gave me a lot more information to support their claim. Maybe that's just me, but I think there's others that share the same sentiment.

I wasn't aware that I made any large assumption about you or the OP. It seemed pretty obvious to myself and probably some others, that you weren't aware of all the turrets available for Leupold Mark 4's. Some comments in your post only seem to verify the previous observation. I made no assumption about you, and I wasn't trying to be "asinine" either. I'm even going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you spelled the word incorrectly to try to make a reference to "ass". While not touching a tactical scope in a month might seem like a short period of time for you, for lots of others, it's not. Ok, maybe you were busy, on vacation, etc. It doesn't matter, either way a month is a pretty reasonably short amount of time. It's funny that you talk about assumptions though, and then you think that I've spent 10 years behind the keyboard to your 25 years behind the trigger. I'm not trying to sound cocky, but I've taught LOTS of people who have 25 years behind the trigger how to shoot better. If you think that more years behind the trigger means you're a better shooter, that's an asinine assumption. More spent rounds downrange, doing perfect practice, is the way that people become better shooters. It doesn't happen because people have been into firearms for 27 years, or even shoot all the time, but do so incorrectly. While I'm only 27 years old, I can assure you that I've spent over 20 years behind the trigger of centerfire firearms myself. I'm a shooter thank you, and there's of people on this forum who are happy to vouche for that.

Now about the turrets, your comments prove without a doubt to myself and others, that you don't really have much of a comprehension about what they do. It's funny that you find 1/2 MOA or 1 MOA turrets as useful as a red dot. It's funny that they're MUCH more useful than that to U.S. Army snipers. They still use Leupold Mark 4 scopes with M3 turrets (that's 1 MOA elevation and 1/2 MOA windage). http://www.leupold.com/tactical/prod...0x40mm-lrt-m3/ You can take a look for yourself at that link. I've never known a military sniper that had that much trouble shooting a half inch group at 100 yards, with a capable rifle and load.

From the looks of things (I don't know for sure), you don't understand the difference between the adjustment value, and the capability of the rifle/scope. Having 1 MOA adjustments has NOTHING to do with 1" groups at 100 yards, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. A rifle that can shoot 1/4 MOA groups at 100 yards with 1/8 MOA turrets, can still shoot 1/4 MOA groups at 100 yards; even you put a different scope on it that has 1 MOA turret adjustments. The adjustment of the scope is NOT limiting to the group size, it is only limiting to how far you can move that group. What 1 MOA adjustments mean is that you can fire a group, and then if you put 1 MOA click on the scope, the ENTIRE GROUP will shift 1 MOA (1"@100 yards). If you fire a .25" group at 100 yards, and then dial 2, 1 MOA clicks on the scope, the next group will shift 2", BUT if the shooter was capable of shooting the same size group, it would still be .25". The scope, or travel of the scope has NO EFFECT on group size, only how much you can move the group over. So please explain to me why a scope with 1 MOA turrets is only capable of 5" groups at 500 yards, or 1" groups at 100 yards.

I completely agree with you that a precision rifle, in the hands of someone that is not a competent shooter is useless. That goes for any type of tool when you put it in the hands of someone that isn't able to use it properly. Either way, that's a completely different point than the adjustments on the rifle. 1 MOA turrets are not a limiting factor of group size; the rifle, load and shooter are. If the scope will hold zero, focus properly, and have zero parallax error, then a person can shoot small groups. So again, please explain to me how a 1 MOA or 1/2 MOA turret is as useful as a red dot to you. I'm glad that you want to help people, but it appears that you've stepped beyond your field of expertise.

[dc dalton]

Amazing some of the 'experts' around here, simply amazing.

[MaDuece]

I wasn't trying to turn this into a pissing contest either, but apparently you took it that way. Apparently you don't appreciate a "longer post" or a "3 page post". I was just hoping for some clarification for the OP, who probably didn't know which questions to ask. It's obvious from my post that there are LOTS of options in the Leupold Mark 4 line. When you recommend a scope that costs $1,000 or more to someone else who may be "new to the game", it helps if you're a bit more specific. While the OP may be quite an experienced shooter, he may not be that experienced with feature or needs for long range shooting or precision rifles. I know that if I was reading a recommendation from someone that I don't know, to go out and spend $1,000 or more, I'd like it if they elaborated and gave me a lot more information to support their claim. Maybe that's just me, but I think there's others that share the same sentiment.

I have gone into "longer" posts and I have seen people get overwelmed with to much info in one shot

I wasn't aware that I made any large assumption about you or the OP. It seemed pretty obvious to myself and probably some others, that you weren't aware of all the turrets available for Leupold Mark 4's. Some comments in your post only seem to verify the previous observation. I made no assumption about you, and I wasn't trying to be "asinine" either. I'm even going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you spelled the word incorrectly to try to make a reference to "ass". While not touching a tactical scope in a month might seem like a short period of time for you, for lots of others, it's not. Ok, maybe you were busy, on vacation, etc. It doesn't matter, either way a month is a pretty reasonably short amount of time. It's funny that you talk about assumptions though, and then you think that I've spent 10 years behind the keyboard to your 25 years behind the trigger. I'm not trying to sound cocky, but I've taught LOTS of people who have 25 years behind the trigger how to shoot better. If you think that more years behind the trigger means you're a better shooter, that's an asinine assumption. More spent rounds downrange, doing perfect practice, is the way that people become better shooters. It doesn't happen because people have been into firearms for 27 years, or even shoot all the time, but do so incorrectly. While I'm only 27 years old, I can assure you that I've spent over 20 years behind the trigger of centerfire firearms myself. I'm a shooter thank you, and there's of people on this forum who are happy to vouche for that.

Why I haven't "touched" a tactical scope in a month is really not important. You have however made MANY assumptions about me and my ability and THAT is what turned this thread into a useless pissing contest! My reference to 25 years behind the trigger wasn't as a "SHOOTER, HUNTER, etc etc" If that it was makes it then fine. I have been pulling the trigger on centerfire rifles for 33 years! So what? I got serious about it 25 years ago. Maybe the hundreds of rounds a week I shoot isn't much for you but that works for me! How many I shoot in a day at the range depends on how things are going? Too much coffee, Not enough sleep the night before etc etc. wasted ammo is just that if your having a bad day.

Now about the turrets, your comments prove without a doubt to myself and others, that you don't really have much of a comprehension about what they do. It's funny that you find 1/2 MOA or 1 MOA turrets as useful as a red dot. It's funny that they're MUCH more useful than that to U.S. Army snipers. They still use Leupold Mark 4 scopes with M3 turrets (that's 1 MOA elevation and 1/2 MOA windage). http://www.leupold.com/tactical/prod...0x40mm-lrt-m3/ You can take a look for yourself at that link. I've never known a military sniper that had that much trouble shooting a half inch group at 100 yards, with a capable rifle and load.

When I zero a rifle, I prefer it be zeroed! The M3 Turrets are no better than a red dot. If my shots are hitting a 1/2 high of center then having a scope with 1 MOA turrets is useless if I want Center. If my groups are 2 1/2 low at 500 yards then what good does it do to come up 1 click? As for the link? I spent enough time selling Leupold that I have no interest in reading it. A military sniper shooting 1/2 groups at 100 yards? Whats your point? Again, zero is zero and if the scope doesn't having the ability to adjust to zero then it doesn't! If a half inch group, 1/2 inch above or below center is good enough for the shooter then so be it! Some of us want better than that.

From the looks of things (I don't know for sure), you don't understand the difference between the adjustment value, and the capability of the rifle/scope. Having 1 MOA adjustments has NOTHING to do with 1" groups at 100 yards, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. A rifle that can shoot 1/4 MOA groups at 100 yards with 1/8 MOA turrets, can still shoot 1/4 MOA groups at 100 yards; even you put a different scope on it that has 1 MOA turret adjustments. The adjustment of the scope is NOT limiting to the group size, it is only limiting to how far you can move that group. What 1 MOA adjustments mean is that you can fire a group, and then if you put 1 MOA click on the scope, the ENTIRE GROUP will shift 1 MOA (1"@100 yards). If you fire a .25" group at 100 yards, and then dial 2, 1 MOA clicks on the scope, the next group will shift 2", BUT if the shooter was capable of shooting the same size group, it would still be .25". The scope, or travel of the scope has NO EFFECT on group size, only how much you can move the group over. So please explain to me why a scope with 1 MOA turrets is only capable of 5" groups at 500 yards, or 1" groups at 100 yards.

That you are right about but again I say what good are 1MOA turrets? If close enough is good enough then so be it. Some of us want better! I prefer my groups to be as close to center as possable no matter what range I am shooting at. So again if you have a .25 3 shot group at 500 yards thats 2 1/2 inches low then what good would 1 MOA turrets be?

I completely agree with you that a precision rifle, in the hands of someone that is not a competent shooter is useless. That goes for any type of tool when you put it in the hands of someone that isn't able to use it properly. Either way, that's a completely different point than the adjustments on the rifle. 1 MOA turrets are not a limiting factor of group size; the rifle, load and shooter are. If the scope will hold zero, focus properly, and have zero parallax error, then a person can shoot small groups. So again, please explain to me how a 1 MOA or 1/2 MOA turret is as useful as a red dot to you. I'm glad that you want to help people, but it appears that you've stepped beyond your field of expertise.

If the shooter is the type of person that feels "zero" is "zero" then the limited adjustment of 1/2 MOA or even worse 1 MOA turrets are as usefull as a red dot!

This WAS an opinion thread and in MY opinion the M1 1/4 MOA turrets are the best way to go! To the right shooter I can see an advantage in the mil turrets but to the average shooter? Lets face it, most guys will never need,use that kind of adjusting ability.

[ap.tolfa]

hey Guys, Thanks for the input and i apologize for not getting on here sooner as i have been very busy with work. My original question is just to find out what the best overall value in a mil dot tactical rifle scope is, i do not want to spend over $1000, chances are i wont be shooting past 400 yards very often and frankly, more than anything i just think mil dot scopes are cool, whether or not i will ever use it the way it made to be used is yet to be seen. i just want to go out and enjoy the gun, i shoot in competitions every now and then but for the most part i am a recreational shooter/hunter. thank you, madeuce i appreciate your short and sweet input on the matter. i have been considering a bushnell elite 4200 tactical 6-24x50mm, any thoughts on this scope?

[MaDuece]

hey Guys, Thanks for the input and i apologize for not getting on here sooner as i have been very busy with work. My original question is just to find out what the best overall value in a mil dot tactical rifle scope is, i do not want to spend over $1000, chances are i wont be shooting past 400 yards very often and frankly, more than anything i just think mil dot scopes are cool, whether or not i will ever use it the way it made to be used is yet to be seen. i just want to go out and enjoy the gun, i shoot in competitions every now and then but for the most part i am a recreational shooter/hunter. thank you, madeuce i appreciate your short and sweet input on the matter. i have been considering a bushnell elite 4200 tactical 6-24x50mm, any thoughts on this scope?

To stay within your budget and for the distance you plan on using it for. The 4200 series will serve you well. They are not quite as clear as the Leupold but at distances out to 400yrds it will work fine and serve you well. I used the scope you are looking at on a Barret 99 and due to the push/pull recoil pulse of the 50 BMG, the retical failed within 100 rounds but that wasn't the fault of the scope but rather the impulse caused by the muzzle breaks on the 50. For use on a 308 or 300 win. mag. That scope will give many many years of service.

Another scope in your price range and a good value for the buck is the Burris Black Diamond. The Burris is comparable to the Bushnell elite in Value for the buck. In my opinion, The Black Diamond has a little better clarity in low light environments so it may serve you better in an early morning hunting environment.

Either scope will work well for what you are looking for.

[SevenSixTwoX39]

hey Guys, Thanks for the input and i apologize for not getting on here sooner as i have been very busy with work. My original question is just to find out what the best overall value in a mil dot tactical rifle scope is, i do not want to spend over $1000, chances are i wont be shooting past 400 yards very often and frankly, more than anything i just think mil dot scopes are cool, whether or not i will ever use it the way it made to be used is yet to be seen. i just want to go out and enjoy the gun, i shoot in competitions every now and then but for the most part i am a recreational shooter/hunter. thank you, madeuce i appreciate your short and sweet input on the matter. i have been considering a bushnell elite 4200 tactical 6-24x50mm, any thoughts on this scope?

If you're looking at Bushnell, I'd get the fixed 10 power 3200 with mil-dots. The glass on the 4200 isn't that great when you get on the higher magnification settings and you really don't need that high of a magnification for under 400 yards. You can shoot 1000 yards with a 10 power just fine.