Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Despite having my NICS check delayed (again) I picked up a nice FN TSR XP Rifle in 7.62x51. Had been looking at the Remington SPS tacticals but didn't like the ergonomics of the stock. Its a wee bit heavy for a full day of hunting/stalking but the weight isn't bad for the bench or even a blind.



Now I just need to figure out what optics to put on it... Have been eyeing the Trijicon AccuPoint until I ran across the Leupold VX-R 3-9x40mm CDS (the latter is just over 1/2 the price for the former).

Anybody here use a VX-R and if so what do you like/dislike about them?

TIA
Chris

How do you plan on using that rifle? It sounds like more of a hunting gun than a long range target rifle?

gunderwood

The primary hunting would be deer in WV/PA or out west again if the opportunity presents itself but I expect it to be for 'casual' paper puching out to no more than 300 yards . For optics I'm leaning towards a 3x9 as it covers most of distances I'd shoot at. And even with a 20" barrel performance with 7.62 doesn't seem to suffer based on a number of sources I've read.

When I was stationed in 29Palms in the early 80's I did most of my hunting with a 7mmMag. Long-distance is no stranger to me as our range had a true 1000 yard (not meters) line. I worked up a variety of loads with a variety of bullets/weights to cover most North American critters ranging from long-distance 'yotes to deer/elk under 500 yards. I've done a lot of long-distance shooting and cleanly took several 'yotes over 500y and one at a measured 800 yards (they got wary of us and stayed out of .223/.222 range). Also took several CA & CO mulies out to 500 yards and a few javelinas(sp?) in TX with some light 110gr loads and didn't waste any meat!

I don't expect the same long-range performance with the .308 nor am likely to hunt over 100 yards. I do like to wring whatever accuracy I can out of my firearms so with handsloads and good bullet selection I'm expecting to be able to work tailor loads to handle anything larger than a 'yote or feral hog within reasonable distances.

Cheers
Chris

I don't have experience with the Leupold in question, but Trijicon makes some great field scopes IMHO. Not the best for target shooting, but I love the ACOGs on medium range SHTF rifles...not quite your requirements though.

I too like a .308 bolt in 20-22". IMHO, they point so much better and the velocity loss isn't that much. I hunt with a 1x reddot and a .45/70 which is good out to 200-300 yards, but then again I'm against putting target optics on top of hunting/field rifles unless you are building a "sniper rifle." Even than 1x for ever 100 yards is plenty. YMMV.

I haven't used any of the VX-Rs, but I have used the VX-IIIs, Mark 4s and a Mark 2 3-9. I think you would like the scope. The choice of 3-9 would be a good one out to 300 yards and afford easy use at much closer ranges. The disadvantage to the VX-R is that it is battery powered, but that is also it's advantage. The other good part of the scope is the 30 MM tube which will allow for more light transmission in early morning and late evening hunting.

One of the sources that the Accupoint uses for illumination is Tritium which slowly looses it's glow over a few years. I know some folks will say "but the fiber optic uses sunlight". In my own experience most deer are taken within an hour and a half of dawn or dusk, not during the middle of the day when the sun is shining brightly. I once did the research on how much renewing the tritium in an ACOG would cost and the magic sum of $400.

grumpyMSG wrote:The other good part of the scope is the 30 MM tube which will allow for more light transmission in early morning and late evening hunting.

The objective diameter, lens quality/number and coatings determine how much light gets through. The larger (30mm vice 1") tube is for more adjustment range, that's why the long range scopes come with tubes are large as 34-35mm.

grumpyMSG wrote:One of the sources that the Accupoint uses for illumination is Tritium which slowly looses it's glow over a few years. I know some folks will say "but the fiber optic uses sunlight". In my own experience most deer are taken within an hour and a half of dawn or dusk, not during the middle of the day when the sun is shining brightly. I once did the research on how much renewing the tritium in an ACOG would cost and the magic sum of $400.

Yup, it isn't cheap. For a hunting gun the worst case is the batteries are dead or failing and I can't take a shot. If I were betting my life on it, I'd take the tritium every day of the week. It's a trade off either way.

Edit: Unless the battery option lasted as long as the Aimpoints do, but they really don't have many competitors there. Lit reticule scopes won't last anywhere near that long, but for hunting do you care? Probably not.

gunderwood wrote: Yup, it isn't cheap. For a hunting gun the worst case is the batteries are dead or failing and I can't take a shot. If I were betting my life on it, I'd take the tritium every day of the week. It's a trade off either way.
Edit: Unless the battery option lasted as long as the Aimpoints do, but they really don't have many competitors there. Lit reticule scopes won't last anywhere near that long, but for hunting do you care? Probably not.

If I were betting my life on it, it would be an Aimpoint Comp M4S not an ACOG. 5 to 8 years of illumination and then needing to have a $400 service in a scope, would be $50 to $80 a year. I would have to kill a few extra deer to justify that. I figure a battery powered scope that needed a new battery every year would be far less expensive. Heck, I have Bushnell Holosight (cheaper, less durable precursor to the Eotech) on a shotgun it has the type N batteries, they get replaced once a year and it has been on there for about five years. The cost of the Leupold is close to the cost of getting the tritium replaced, assuming it is similar in cost to service an ACOG. One other minor bit about the tritium is that it is radioactive and the HazMat aspects of shipping it if it has been damaged would be a nightmare. I don't fear the minor bit of radiation they put off, it is that HazMat that bothers me, like the mercury in the flourescent light bulbs.

Ah hell man, just buy a zeiss scope and forget the rest of the advice! (If you can find one that won't make you get a second mortgage!)

Ps. nice looking gun, it's one of the one's I'm eyeing right now. Congrats!

davasmith wrote:Ah hell man, just buy a zeiss scope and forget the rest of the advice! (If you can find one that won't make you get a second mortgage!)

Ps. nice looking gun, it's one of the one's I'm eyeing right now. Congrats!

Zeiss is really nice glass, but overall they are just middle of the road. Their military line, Hensoldt, uses their awesome "glass" and provides a better overall package. I like the S&Bs features/reticle options better, but both make a Zeiss look ho-hum.

gunderwood wrote:...but then again I'm against putting target optics on top of hunting/field rifles unless you are building a "sniper rifle." Even than 1x for ever 100 yards is plenty. YMMV.

gunderwood, excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Wouldn't you want the most accurate shot either way?

bryanrheem wrote:

gunderwood wrote:...but then again I'm against putting target optics on top of hunting/field rifles unless you are building a "sniper rifle." Even than 1x for ever 100 yards is plenty. YMMV.

gunderwood, excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Wouldn't you want the most accurate shot either way?

Well I am not gunderwood (so this reply will be much shorter than his would have been ), but I will try and answer your question.

The reason you don't need/want the target optics on a hunting/field rifle are two fold. One is over amplification. When you zoom in on something you are reducing your field of view down the scope. That means you won't see the tree that the deer is heading behind if you are zoomed in on its head until you lose sight of it. (Boom head...., oops tree shot???) The second reason is that most target optics can be sensitive to shock, ie: being knocked into a tree, dropped on the ground ect. When you are in the back country you need optics that will take a pounding and still keep going. That is why iron sights are king even out to 300+ yards that some people train at. (I think the appleseed project pushes the targets out to 500 to 600 yards with iron sights.) It would take you smashing a rock repeatedly against most iron sights to damage them enough that they become nonfunctional. So in the end you still get accurate shots.
Hope that helps.

Very nice! I can't help with optics I'll leave that to guys that know what they're talking about.

what about the green mil dot for $99 with free shipping on the banner at the top of the page? 4-16x50 ir. Anybody play with one? I have yet to purchase a scope myself. Guns that I have them on came with them so I have never shopped around for a better one. Not that I don't have a good scope or two, which is a reason to always buy a used gun off a marine as far as I'm concerned.

totes6 wrote:

bryanrheem wrote:

gunderwood wrote:...but then again I'm against putting target optics on top of hunting/field rifles unless you are building a "sniper rifle." Even than 1x for ever 100 yards is plenty. YMMV.

gunderwood, excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference? Wouldn't you want the most accurate shot either way?

Well I am not gunderwood (so this reply will be much shorter than his would have been ), but I will try and answer your question.

Now I have to one up you. Target magnification is not necessarily positively correlated with accuracy.