Last Cheap Scope Finally Died :-(

[MarcSpaz]

Sure, or you measure from outside edge to outside edge, then subtract the diameter of 1 hole. Unless you need to make a new hole X amount off center from an existing hole, then its outside edge plus half the diameter.

For the sake of illustration, since we are supposed to measure center to center and we are talking group size of bullet holes, not engineering a precision machine, I figured it would easier for the majority to follow. Besides, do you know how hard it is to hold the calipers still with one hand and take a picture with the other. I should have laid them on the table instead of tapping the to my closet door. LoL

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[jdonovan]

Should I be making adjustments at minimum focus, maximum focus, does it matter as long as I see my intended target clearly?

there is a focus for the retical and that should be set and not adjusted.

Target range/paralax/target focus:

Adjust until you get the clearest target image, then move your eye around the eyebox and make sure you don't have excessive reticle vs target movement. It is unlikely that you will get 100% paralax free, what you are trying to do is minimize it.

The other thing that helps is you should have your head position/scope position adjusted so you can see a small, but sharply defined black ring around your view through the scope. You should be able to adjust your head position so this ring is uniform around the image, that will help to center your eye in the eye box.

Remember consistency is what you are striving for. Even if you miss-position your eye very time, as long as you do it the same each time, you can adjust for it. Its when you do it randomly that you'll have trouble getting consistent results.

[MarcSpaz]

The other thing that helps is you should have your head position/scope position adjusted so you can see a small, but sharply defined black ring around your view through the scope. You should be able to adjust your head position so this ring is uniform around the image, that will help to center your eye in the eye box.

I want to be sure I am reading this correctly, as that sounds like a good idea...

So, you are not referencing the scope eyepiece making the ring, but rather, have my head in such a way that inside the eyepiece, I see a black ring (being a lack of light) around the pupil? And center the image in the black ring?

[jdonovan]

So, you are not referencing the scope eyepiece making the ring, but rather, have my head in such a way that inside the eyepiece, I see a black ring (being a lack of light) around the pupil? And center the image in the black ring?

yes

move your eye closer, and then further away. You can do this without a target even. Just move back and forth, you will hit a spot where you have full view down range, and there will be a very sharp, well defined edge to the image. As you move your head left/right up/down, the centering of that image will change, and the edge will become thinner on one side, and thicker on the other.

One of the things the eye/brain is VERY good at is centering circles inside circles. So once you know how to get the right view, let your eye guide your body to get things lined up.

For most scopes you will be 2-3/4 to 3-1/4 from the eye piece. But try getting 1" away and backing off to 4-5" so you can see the change in the view through the scope.

Once you have your eye in the right place, you can focus the cross hair sharpness by turning the focus ring on the eye piece.

Then after all that is figured out, then you can go to the range and use the focus on the side of the scope to bring the target into sharp focus. This should get your scope to a low parallax view of the target.

[grumpyMSG]

The other thing that helps is you should have your head position/scope position adjusted so you can see a small, but sharply defined black ring around your view through the scope. You should be able to adjust your head position so this ring is uniform around the image, that will help to center your eye in the eye box.

I want to be sure I am reading this correctly, as that sounds like a good idea...

So, you are not referencing the scope eyepiece making the ring, but rather, have my head in such a way that inside the eyepiece, I see a black ring (being a lack of light) around the pupil? And center the image in the black ring?

I am not the greatest with Microsoft Paint, but I did some artwork. The reticle is as drawn simple as possible, but it gets the point across.

Scope reticle.jpg (20.6 KiB) Viewed 6996 times

This example shows what you should see looking through the scope, a crisp clear reticle and a clearly defined tube edge and centered in the tube.

Scope reticle bad eye relief.jpg (33.63 KiB) Viewed 6996 times

This is what it is going to look like looking through a scope that is too close to your eye or way too far from your eye. It has what I am going to refer to as a shadow inside the clearly defined tube. If you are seeing this and it is because it is too close and it is on your .308 rifle, sooner or later it is going to "bite" you... Right in the eyebrow probably, and you will bleed, a lot.

Scope reticle, head misaligned.jpg (22.97 KiB) Viewed 6996 times

This third picture shows what you will see if your head is misaligned to the tube. The "shadow" is off to one side, high, low or even at an angle. move your head in toward the shadow until it disappears.

I still stand by the estimation you have your scope mounted too far to the rear. I took a look at where my Leupold Mark 2 (a predecessor to the Mark AR series) 3-9X is mounted in a Larue SPR 1.5 mount. The rear of the back bell is just forward of the charging handle latch notch. Mine is mounted on a .223/5.56 rifle, so the upper is shorter in length than yours, but the front of my mount is even with the front of the upper's rail end.

[MarcSpaz]

That first image has been what I strive for.

[grumpyMSG]

That first image has been what I strive for.

The next questions are, How do you get to that image?
Do you just shoulder your rifle, lean your head over and obtain a good cheek weld ( with an AR, sometimes it is more on the jawbone than cheek) and look through the scope? Once you have that cheek weld, do you have to push your head forward, stretching your neck to get that image through the scope? Or once you have your cheek weld, do you have to pull your head back to get a good scope image? If it is the first, your scope is mounted to far forward. if it is the second your scope is too far to the rear. You don't want to have a "turkey neck" or a "turtle head" when you squeeze the trigger. Doing either will lead to muscles straining, discomfort shooting, big groups and hating that particular rifle or firearm. The real problem won't be the weapon, but the nut behind the stock.

[MarcSpaz]

I try to make it so I bring the rifle to my head, not my head to the rifle.

I saw this video I while back... maybe a year or so ago. it's about 50 minutes long, but this link is queued up to the part that best describes what I try to do with my head position. I think the whole video was pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rLfYLM48Ms&t=44m17s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... 534#t=2658

[MarcSpaz]

So, is anyone willing to go the the range with me on Tuesday if I cover range fees? I need someone who is a good shot to confirm that either I suck as a shooter or this new scope did the same thing that all the previous scopes did.

Today was the 3rd day I took the rifle to the range wit this scope. On the first day, after I learned how to adjust the parallax for that scope, I was shooting 1.5 - 2 MOA groups. On the second trip, I sent 200 rounds down range and maintained a 2 MOA group or better. Today, it started off with a nice 2 MOA group and by the time I left I was lucky to get a 5 MOA group. With the point of aim dead center, some shots completely missed the paper and some shots would hit the bullseye. It completely defies logic

I did some research. With a 50mm objective lens, if the parallax is set to 50 yards, the sight drift is only 25mm or 1 MOA at 100 yards. Same results if I focused at 200 yards and shot at a 100 yard target. The parallax sight drift would be 25mm or 1 MOA at a 100 yards.

Its proportionate too. If I am set for 100 yard parallax and shoot at a target 200 yards away, I should have a max sight drift of 50mm or 1 MOA.

I tried shooting groups with the focus at 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 300 and infinity. No matter where I set the focus, it had zero impact on the group results.

I really need help figuring out if its me or the scopes are failing. I am fine if its me, but how is it that two trips in a row, I shoot fine and every trip after is a disaster until the next new scope gets mounted, and then I'm fine for 2 trips?

[jdonovan]

sure. I could to that.

[MarcSpaz]

Awesome! I really appreciate it! Is Elite Shooting Sport going to be okay? They have the only range open during the week nights with a 100 yard range.

I'll send you a PM in a few.

Thanks JD... I really appreciate it.

[MarcSpaz]

Well, I have a lot more confidence in myself as a shooter today. JD met me at the range and experianced the same problem I did. First 20-30 rounds were okay (sort of) then the group started expanding to 5 minutes.

So, I'm not nuts or as bad a shot as I thought. LoL

We are going to try again with a bench rest on another day to eliminate human error. As it stands now, very odd.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Well guys, the scope is on its way to Burris for repair. Had the armorer take a look at it to see if he could confirm the scope is damaged. He agree and recommended I send it back for repair.

I am starting to think I am never going to get a good DMR in an AR10 platform.

The armorer did say that running a suppressor on high powered rifles will act like a muzzle brake and reduces recoil by as much as 30%. He also said that even though I have a QD mount, I should make the latches tight enough that I can't open it by hand. He said I should make it so I need to put some para-cord around it to pull it open.

I am starting to think I should have purchased the NightForce. Maybe I will move the Burris to my M4 and buy a NightForce for the AR10.

[grumpyMSG]

Well guys, the scope is on its way to Burris for repair. Had the armorer take a look at it to see if he could confirm the scope is damaged. He agree and recommended I send it back for repair.

I am starting to think I am never going to get a good DMR in an AR10 platform.

The armorer did say that running a suppressor on high powered rifles will act like a muzzle brake and reduces recoil by as much as 30%. He also said that even though I have a QD mount, I should make the latches tight enough that I can't open it by hand. He said I should make it so I need to put some para-cord around it to pull it open.

I am starting to think I should have purchased the NightForce. Maybe I will move the Burris to my M4 and buy a NightForce for the AR10.

For the money you spent on the Burris you could have gone to the site's sponsor and purchased a Leupold:
http://all-in-general.com/product_info. ... s_id=55602
It has different turrets, and is flat black versus flat dark earth. Other than that it is very similar to the issue scope with the M110 sniper rifle system, it went down the same production line that the military's scopes. I could be wrong, but the recoil from your rifle can't be that radically different from the M110's.

[MarcSpaz]

No offense to Rick... I met the man in person and chat with him here and he is a great guy, but I don't buy anything more than a couple hundred bucks online. I am really a "brick and mortar" kind of guy. Business done on a handshake still means something to me.

That looks like a nice scope, but not what I am looking for. My eyesight is not great, so I am looking for at least a 3-15x50, first focal plain reticle, side focus, mechanical zero stop, and tactical turrets. That one is close though.

[MarcSpaz]

.
Well, it looks like I found my answer. I bought a scope for a bolt gun. It was not designed for an AR and will not hold together. Likely, I made this mistake with every single scope I've tried.

Burris has 1 and only 1 scope model made for AR's that will take the beating of the AR. The model is literally called the "AR Riflescope". AND, its only $480.

I reached out to Leupold too. Looks like they are in the same boat. All their precision rifle scopes are designed around bolt guns. They too, offer 1 and only 1 model designed for AR's. And yes, like Burris... its in the name. Its called a Mark AR MOD 1. They start at $625 and go up to $690, depending on if you want the mil-dot reticle or the fine duplex reticle.

Looks like I need to pick which one and give it a shot... pardon the pun.

On the bright side, I have a really nice scope coming back to me that I can either sell or I can put it on a bolt gun some day.

[Vince]

Have you checked the Vortex line? I just purchased the "Spitfire" for my AR which is not what you are looking for but they are decently priced. Saved $100 buying on Amazon from one of Vortex's dealers.

[MarcSpaz]

Nope. Not a Vortex fan. I fired off an email to Burris and Leupold to see what that can do.

I need a purpose built scope. If I don't have any luck in the next few weeks, I stick my EOTech on it and just go buy a Remington 700 like everyone else.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Vince]

Ha, I am sure one of the two can help you out. I have faith brother so no need for that 700.

[grumpyMSG]

.
Well, it looks like I found my answer. I bought a scope for a bolt gun. It was not designed for an AR and will not hold together. Likely, I made this mistake with every single scope I've tried.

Burris has 1 and only 1 scope model made for AR's that will take the beating of the AR. The model is literally called the "AR Riflescope". AND, its only $480.

I reached out to Leupold too. Looks like they are in the same boat. All their precision rifle scopes are designed around bolt guns. They too, offer 1 and only 1 model designed for AR's. And yes, like Burris... its in the name. Its called a Mark AR MOD 1. They start at $625 and go up to $690, depending on if you want the mil-dot reticle or the fine duplex reticle.

Looks like I need to pick which one and give it a shot... pardon the pun.

On the bright side, I have a really nice scope coming back to me that I can either sell or I can put it on a bolt gun some day.

I don't know who you "reached out" to at Leupold, but you were fed some incorrect info. The Mark AR and it's predecessor the Mark 2 were made to handle the recoil of .223 Remington/5.56 MM NATO rifles, not .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO. Go back and look at the video you posted, look at the scopes mounted on the modified M14s they are being trained with. Those are Leupold Mark 4s, Look at the scopes that are part of the M110 sniper rifle system, a 7.62 NATO AR type sniper rifle made by Knight's Armament. They also come equipped with Leupold Mark 4s. Both of those rifles are equipped with 3.5 to 10 variable power scopes. You want to build a DMR type of rifle, this is the exact scope, color and all, that comes with the M110: http://all-in-general.com/product_info. ... s_id=55590
The other scope I pointed you towards earlier is slightly different, but it was in stock. With Leupold's variable power scopes and most other brands you can change power by multiples of three 3 to 9, 3.5 to 10, 4.5 to 14 (the 3.5 and 4.5 are actually rounded and not exact). There are others that get multiples of 6 or even 8, but they are more far more expensive.

I use Rick's information as reference point, If I can help him get a sale that would be great too after all he does sponsor this site. I am not telling you to buy or not to buy from him. What I am saying is he carries exactly what the US military purchases on a 7.62 NATO Stoner design sniper rifle and it works for them.