[paul4utica]

I have two remmy M700 Tacticals, one in .308 and the other (still building it) in .223.

I shoot the .308 all day long and obtain sub MOA groups using TAP 168 gr A-max ammo (I also used USGI and was lucky to hold 1.5" group). I use a Barska 8-32x50 scope and it seems that using a scope with less magnification (I have tried using 24 power with sucess) would not be the way to go to obtain sub MOA groups at 100 yeards.

I still have to obtain a scope (I like low profile scopes) for the .223 and I want to maintain my sub MOA performance.

1. What are your scope brand recos. (I already been told Barsla stinks)?
2. What is your magnification recos (to get 1/2" groups at 100 yeards)?

Thank you all in advance of heloing me out,,,,I am willing to spend upwards of $400 - $500 for a scope.

 

[ekaphoto]

Its the shooter not the scope that will shoot sub moa. There are people capable of shooting sub moa with metalic sights.

 

[Longshot38]

I posted this in the Baraska thread but I'll post it here because I feel it is that important:

Guys shoot sub MOA everyday with irons at distances from 100 to 1000 yards (the guys that do it at a grand are mostly old timers with tons of practice). The point is that you don't NEED super high magnification to get this kind of accuracy. In fact it is much more about your skills as a rifleman then the equipment you use. The army can give a grunt a M16 and have him hitting man sized targets out at 300 yards, but they can turn around and give that same rifle to a rifleman and he can make solid shoots out to 600 plus yards.

With this being said. I like high magnification for long range work (600 plus yards) however I routinely use 10 power or less for distances under 400 yards and under. In fact the other day I was messing around at the 300 yard line and was cutting my shots on 4.5 power.

 

[POGO57]

It's not the tool. It's the craftsman using it.

Your only concern needs to be that the scope doesn't detract from your shooting for example by shifting, fuzziness, or anything that bothers your concentration.

 

[ekaphoto]

I would like to add 8-32 is too much scope IMHO. I like something in line with 4-20 or 6-24x but again you are the deciding facter. You are better off with a quality 3-9x then with a low quality 6-20x

If you want to really learn to shoot buy a .22 rifle and basic 3-9x scope and shoot it at 100 yards using both the iron sights and the scope. You can shoot 1000 rounds of .22 for the same price as 20 rounds of .308 match ammo.

 

[EVOlutionary]

I agree with all that's been said. If you are holding the rifle steady and center of target, it doesn't matter how big the target "looks" in the scope. In fact, if you try shooting a 32x scope at 100 yards every little micro-wiggle will be amplified and probably distract you mentally. . .

A quality 4x scope and rings will give you better results at 100 yards than a low-quality huge maginfication 56mm objective scope in crappy rings. . .

For a good, relatively inexpensive scope that's probably a step up from the Barska, look at the Nikon Buckmaster 4-12x50mm scope with side-focus. You can find them for around $300 shipped . . .

That's what I use on my Savage 10FP. Sub-MOA out to 400 yards (farthest I've shot so far) and has put alot of meat on the table. . .

EVOlutionary

 

[EVOlutionary]

. . .

 

[sailnaked]

Its the shooter not the scope that will shoot sub moa. There are people capable of shooting sub moa with metalic sights.

I shoot sub MOA with my M4 carbine at 100. There's a about a 6 in drop at 100. It may take a couple shots to get there.

 

[cheeko]

I use the Vortex Venom 5-25x56mm on an RPR 300 Winmag and on a Tikka T3x lite, also 300 Winmag with great results out to 300 meters so far.
Sub MOA at 100 is a piece of cake.
I have a Vortex 5-20x on a Savage Model 110, MDT Chassis, a Vortex Razor HD, 4-16x on a Browning BAR 243 and a Nikon 5-20x on a Savage Model 10, MDT chassis in 308.
Even a Vortex 4-16x on a Ruger 10/22.
I'm getting up in years and iron sights are fun but I love my scopes and even considered a Burris Eliminator 4.
Although I do agree with what has been posted above, I am looking at getting a Vortex Golden Eagle 15-60x52mm for the RPR 300 Winmag for 1000+ meter shots.
There is no way in heck I'd be able to judge holdover with iron sights beyond a couple hundred yards.
To each their own...

 

[cheeko]

I use the Vortex Venom 5-25x56mm on an RPR 300 Winmag and on a Tikka T3x lite, also 300 Winmag with great results out to 300 meters so far.
Sub MOA at 100 is a piece of cake.
I have a Vortex 5-20x on a Savage Model 110, MDT Chassis, a Vortex Razor HD, 4-16x on a Browning BAR 243 and a Nikon 5-20x on a Savage Model 10, MDT chassis in 308.
Even a Vortex 4-16x on a Ruger 10/22.
I'm getting up in years and iron sights are fun but I love my scopes and even considered a Burris Eliminator 4.
Although I do agree with what has been posted above, I am looking at getting a Vortex Golden Eagle 15-60x52mm for the RPR 300 Winmag for 1000+ meter shots.
There is no way in heck I'd be able to judge holdover with iron sights beyond a couple hundred yards.
To each their own...

And to add a couple of comments I remember for years now:
1) Aim small to miss small
2) you can't hit what you can't see

 

[straightshooter1]

I have two remmy M700 Tacticals, one in .308 and the other (still building it) in .223.

I shoot the .308 all day long and obtain sub MOA groups using TAP 168 gr A-max ammo (I also used USGI and was lucky to hold 1.5" group). I use a Barska 8-32x50 scope and it seems that using a scope with less magnification (I have tried using 24 power with sucess) would not be the way to go to obtain sub MOA groups at 100 yeards.

I still have to obtain a scope (I like low profile scopes) for the .223 and I want to maintain my sub MOA performance.

1. What are your scope brand recos. (I already been told Barsla stinks)?
2. What is your magnification recos (to get 1/2" groups at 100 yeards)?

Thank you all in advance of heloing me out,,,,I am willing to spend upwards of $400 - $500 for a scope.

There's other things more important to address in order to obtain sub MOA groups, mainly the ammo being used and the quality of the barrel being used. If one has a quality barrel and quality ammo tuned to the gun, I'd say it's pretty easy to shoot sub MOA groups with any siting system. . . . for 100 yds. When going small, like obtaining sub .5 MOA, then a good scope with plenty of magnification with a thin reticle will help in addition to the aforementioned. While a scope is not a key element for the goal you've stated, you might like to take a close look at Vortex's Diamondback Tactical as I find it works well along this line and can be had for less the $400 at some places.

Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 FFP

Please Select Reticle | 30mm Tube

vortexoptics.com

 

[cheeko]

There's other things more important to address in order to obtain sub MOA groups, mainly the ammo being used and the quality of the barrel being used. If one has a quality barrel and quality ammo tuned to the gun, I'd say it's pretty easy to shoot sub MOA groups with any siting system. . . . for 100 yds. When going small, like obtaining sub .5 MOA, then a good scope with plenty of magnification with a thin reticle will help in addition to the aforementioned. While a scope is not a key element for the goal you've stated, you might like to take a close look at Vortex's Diamondback Tactical as I find it works well along this line and can be had for less the $400 at some places.

Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 FFP

Please Select Reticle | 30mm Tube

vortexoptics.com

We have the Vortex Diamondback Tactical, 4-16x44mm in MOA on a 10-22 Ruger for the local 100 yd range, nice scope.
6-24x50mm would be great for 100, 200, 300 yard shots, too.
Personally I would go for 35x magnification beyond 300 yards but I am getting older and my vision is not what it used to be.

 

[Frenchman]

Im not a big Vortex fan for several reasons. I have an Arken 6-24 on a .22 that is in the Vortex price bracket, and I would say it’ll take a beginner quite a while before the need to upgrade this scope arises. But in the end, like others have said here, it’s the Indian, not the arrow. I’ve seen people with sporter barrels and Tasco optics shooting sub MOA 3 shot groups from cold bore.

 

[ChuckP65]

Scopes aren't what allow a sub MOA group at 100 yards. Many brands can do it. What is important is barrel, ammo and trigger quality. USGI isn't going to group like an AMax match bullet. That's why Amax costs more. I agree with people that it's the shooter but disagree that it's not the gun. If you want to improve using any round buy a match barrel and an upgraded trigger. I transformed a Stag from a 4 MOA gun to a 10 shot sub 1 inch gun with a change from a mil spec to an Odin Works barrel.

 

[Soren1]

I have a Leupy MKIV TMR M3 3.5-10x40 on my built .308 (Hart 26" 1/12, McM A2, Surgeon DBM, 175gr SMK...) I've shot it out to 1000yds at Badlands here in OK. Made repeat hits on a 4x5" flapper at 900. I rather have a good quality lower power scope than a high power piece of junk. Save your money for a decent scope. Yes, I do have higher end scopes with more magnification on some of my other rifles....also have a few Vortex PST's they are decent.

 

[slingshot]

The scope's quality (not magnification) matters in those cases where you dial it in and then dial back and expect it to hit the same spot again. That's where you could see a difference between cheap and really good scopes.
E.g., you shoot 3 rounds at 100, then 3 rounds at 500, then another 3 at 100, and you expect all those 6 rounds at 100 to be in the same spot (and that spot to be sub-MOA). But that has to do with the accuracy of the turrets, not with the magnification of the scope. It's purely a matter of the quality of the mechanics inside the scope.
If you don't turn those turrets, your bullets should land in the same place every time, even with a cheap scope - plus/minus what your abilities are, and obviously within the limits of what the combination of your rifle and ammunition can do.

That being said, I personally like a 12x-24x zoom for precision shooting at 100m (~109yd). I have sometimes zoomed out on the 24x, to ~16-20x. And I got some of my best results when I didn't care too much about being super accurate.

 

[montigre]

I agree with what many have already stated. Sounds like you may be putting the cart in front of the horse. Getting a larger scope with more magnification is not going to resolve what you're experiencing. I and many that I know can shoot MOA or better (if their eyes are younger than mine) out to 300 yards with iron sights alone.

I would recommend removing any scope and shoot just using your iron sights paying particular attention on perfecting trigger and breath control and in making sure you have not gotten into the habit of making unconscious adjustments to your upper body after each shot. Once you're solid in the basics, pick up a lower magnification scope and continue these exercises.

I personally have a 5-25x50 scope on my rifle (I have old geezer eyes) and shoot 95% of the time at the lowest magnification. Remember, the more magnification you use, the more movement you're going to see through the scope which could affect your shot.

 

[Martino1]

Get the best scope you can afford. A cheap scope that can't hold zero won't get you where you want to be regardless of how accurate the weapon it sits upon is. . Sub MOA especially bug hole shooting is a combination of shooter skill and good equipment. Skill doesn't usually come without some training and practice, and good equip is seldom inexpensive. I noticed my groups shrank a great deal when I started spending $ on good scopes. They got even smaller after I learned how to match the ammo to the weapon with proper load development which requires some investment. I was lucky I had an Army gunny take an interest in improving my shooting.

 

[Frenchman]

I was lucky I had an Army gunny take an interest in improving my shooting.

that’s not luck. You know what REAL luck is? It’s the fact that no Marine read this and ripped you a 12 inch new one.

 

[Martino1]

that’s not luck. You know what REAL luck is? It’s the fact that no Marine read this and ripped you a 12 inch new one.

I know he was infantry, I still called him gunny. He didn't take offense.