Scout Rifle Optics

[1911nerd]

I've been reading the Scout Rifle thread with some interest: lots of new base rifle and optics options since I last seriously looked about 5 years ago. Rather than a traditional "scout", I'm interested in a "practical rifle" a la Randy Cain. The forward mounted IER scope doesn't do well in low light and sadly the red dots I've tried don't do the trick since I get significant bloom. Based on comments in the scout rifle thread and few optics threads, I recently picked up a Leupold VX-6 1-6 for about 25% off street price and so far am pretty happy with it; there's definitely more T&E to come.

In the practical rifle niche, is the LPV the school solution now? Or are folks still attached to higher magnification scopes, at least for the high plains (think WY)?

Is the illuminated reticle now common enough to be considered a practical necessity?

How should one be thinking about reticles for this application?

Is it worth worrying about optics weight for this application?

What about detachable scope mounts? Given the price point of something like the Ruger American it is easy to imagine putting a multiple into the optic.

I've perused a few other recent threads (below), but most seem to be more focused on 3-gun, LE, and carbine use cases.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ics-discussion
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-RDS-Magnifier
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....1-6-vs-Z8i-1-8

[John Hearne]

In the practical rifle niche, is the LPV the school solution now? Or are folks still attached to higher magnification scopes, at least for the high plains (think WY)?

I think that the LPV is pretty compelling. If it's a 16-18" .308, I don't see much need for magnification beyond 6x. If it's in the .300 Win Mag range then more magnification is warranted but that's leaving the "practical" category for me.

Is the illuminated reticle now common enough to be considered a practical necessity?

The illuminated reticle allows the LPV to stand in for a red dot. I think an illuminated daylight visible is mandatory if you're looking to maximize the short range snap shot.

How should one be thinking about reticles for this application?

I don't think that an intricate BDC reticle is really needed. For a practical rifle, I kinda like the Meopta 1-6.

Is it worth worrying about optics weight for this application?

Yes

What about detachable scope mounts? Given the price point of something like the Ruger American it is easy to imagine putting a multiple into the optic.

To access iron sights and swap in the field - probably worth it.

[1911nerd]

I think that the LPV is pretty compelling. If it's a 16-18" .308, I don't see much need for magnification beyond 6x. If it's in the .300 Win Mag range then more magnification is warranted but that's leaving the "practical" category for me.

Perhaps GJM will chime in here. He has commented on the .300 Win Mag for AK and on .270 Wby for the plains; I'm a little more pedestrian, but even so the .270 Win has its charm in open country.

I don't think that an intricate BDC reticle is really needed. For a practical rifle, I kinda like the Meopta 1-6.

Does the illuminated reticle obviate the need/desire for thicker reticle posts for brush/low light?

[okie john]

I think that the LPV is pretty compelling. If it's a 16-18" .308, I don't see much need for magnification beyond 6x. If it's in the .300 Win Mag range then more magnification is warranted but that's leaving the "practical" category for me.



The illuminated reticle allows the LPV to stand in for a red dot. I think an illuminated daylight visible is mandatory if you're looking to maximize the short range snap shot.



I don't think that an intricate BDC reticle is really needed. For a practical rifle, I kinda like the Meopta 1-6.


Yes


To access iron sights and swap in the field - probably worth it.

Lots to agree with here.


Okie John

[MistWolf]

I'll give you my opinion, based on the years of using optics on rifles and looking through a lot of scopes.

Back in the day, hunters put a lot of meat on the table using 2.5x and 4x fixed power scopes. When the 6x came along, there were those of the opinion that it was too much scope. Truth be told, the mistake some hunters make is using a scope with too much magnification. Choosing magnification is like choosing shoes. You gotta go with what fits you, but I think a 1x-4x/6x/8x is a good and versatile choice.

Glass quality is more important than magnification. Having a sharp, clear image at a lower magnification lets the shooter better see than a dull, fuzzy image at a higher magnification. It also places less strain on the eye. You will be able to see more with an LPV with good quality glass than you will through a mediocre optic of higher magnification.

A heavy optic will make a rifle feel heavy and a bit off balance, but some optics, like the Night Force are heavier because they're beefed up to withstand more abuse. Only you can decide if the weight penalty is worth it. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

I have only one optic in a QD mount and I rarely remove it from the rifle. I don't miss the lack of the QD feature on any of the other mounts

[GJM]

In every medium caliber hunting rifle I have (.270, .270 WSM and Weatherby, .300 WM), with reach out ability, I use a Leupold 2.5-8 with a Premier or Leupold custom reticle. That reticle gives me a zero at 200, and a drop dot for 300, 400, 500 and 600 yards. I have been using that model scope for 15 years with excellent success in the hunting fields on a bunch of different rifles. It is lightweight, durable and not too expensive.

On heavy caliber rifles and practical bolt guns, I lean to a LPV, ideally with illumination.

[Sigfan26]

In every medium caliber hunting rifle I have (.270, .270 WSM and Weatherby, .300 WM), with reach out ability, I use a Leupold 2.5-8 with a Premier or Leupold custom reticle. That reticle gives me a zero at 200, and a drop dot for 300, 400, 500 and 600 yards. I have been using that model scope for 15 years with excellent success in the hunting fields on a bunch of different rifles. It is lightweight, durable and not too expensive.

On heavy caliber rifles and practical bolt guns, I lean to a LPV, ideally with illumination.

What is considered a heavy caliber (I always thought 300 WM was heavy)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJM]

What is considered a heavy caliber (I always thought 300 WM was heavy)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

starts at .375 H&H and goes up. When I was younger, and regularly going to Africa, I called .375 my light rifle, .416 Rigby a medium and .458 Lott a heavy.

[Sigfan26]

starts at .375 H&H and goes up. When I was younger, and regularly going to Africa, I called .375 my light rifle, .416 Rigby a medium and .458 Lott a heavy.

That's semi sadistic...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SteveB]

I've been reading the Scout Rifle thread with some interest: lots of new base rifle and optics options since I last seriously looked about 5 years ago. Rather than a traditional "scout", I'm interested in a "practical rifle" a la Randy Cain. The forward mounted IER scope doesn't do well in low light and sadly the red dots I've tried don't do the trick since I get significant bloom. Based on comments in the scout rifle thread and few optics threads, I recently picked up a Leupold VX-6 1-6 for about 25% off street price and so far am pretty happy with it; there's definitely more T&E to come.

In the practical rifle niche, is the LPV the school solution now? Or are folks still attached to higher magnification scopes, at least for the high plains (think WY)?

Since you're asking about practical rifles, I would say yes on the LPV.

Is the illuminated reticle now common enough to be considered a practical necessity?

It is my preference hands down for a practical rifle; John Hearne explained this well. I also find the lit reticle to be occasionally helpful in low-light hunting; there have been a couple of times where I could see the animal but not the reticle without illumination.

How should one be thinking about reticles for this application?

Simpler is better. I have a Leupold VX-R 2-7X with a German #4 reticle and a custom elevation turret on one practical rifle; while this scope works really well, I strongly prefer a simple BDC-type reticle. This is much quicker than futzing with your elevation turret in the field. GJM's point about the Leupold Custom Shop reticles is gold for hunting rifles; they make you a BDC reticle based on your ballistic data, they are simple and ultra-fast, but not illuminated. I am currently trying out a Leupold VX-6 1-6X green dot with a mil-based BDC reticle.

Is it worth worrying about optics weight for this application?

For sure. Why plop a 25 oz. pig on a rifle you might carry all day when, as an example, the Leupold 1-6 weighs under 15 oz?

What about detachable scope mounts? Given the price point of something like the Ruger American it is easy to imagine putting a multiple into the optic.

Again, for a practical rifle, I think QD makes sense, if you have irons on the rifle, or if you want to slap an RDS on. If you have no irons, and can't use an RDS, probably not much benefit.