Originally Posted by SoCalXD
Those two scopes you mention are pretty distant in price points. A BDC rectical is a bad choice for known distance target shooting at a range, period. Scratch the M308 off your list.
You should either dial for the known range, or hold over with mil or moa stadia.
BTW, I think your usage model needs a bit of review. an LR308 in an SASS configuration has a lot of capabilities, but it sounds like you are not planning on optimizing them based upon your scope selection. If you truly have no intention of using that as a personal defensive rifle, in which range estimation via reticle could be a lifesaver, fine. If you truly have no intention of shooting past 600 meters, even though the rifle can go to 900m, fine. So, you spent an extra $1000 on a 308 range rifle, to get a semi auto, when you could have just bought a bolt gun with better accuracy, fine. If you are fine with all those assumptions, then don't bother to spend money on first focal plane or a Mil/Mil solution.
If it was me, and I had $750-$900 to spend on a Mark 4, I wouldn't buy one. I'd buy a Bushnell 3-12 FFP G2, or a Vortex PST FFP Mil, depending upon how much I felt I needed the illumination, the option to go 24x and a "kinda" zero stop of the Vortex. You'll note that the veteran Calguns shooters (vs. collectors) above have also suggested these solutions... with good reason: experience!
But for your stated use model of 300-600 meters, known distance range use, I'd suggest saving a whole bunch of money and going with a Bushnell 5-15x40mm, a Nikon Buckmaster 6-18x40mm, or maybe even a fixed power Bushnell 10x Mil/Mil (depending upon what you define as a "target" (Type E targets vs. precision bulls-eye). My rule of thumb on magnification is a min. of 1x per 100m/y for Type E, 3x per 100m/y for precision; YMMV.
Thanks for the input! So you don't
have an M-308?
If I go M-308, it would be the Nikoplex reticle, I'm sorry I should've made that more clear. I wanted to hear from an actual owner if the M-308 was as good in reality as it looks on paper. It seems like a good value, especially as it comes with a 1-piece mount/rings. But it's a bad value if the optics aren't up-to-snuff.
I'm not following you though when you say my 'usage model' needs review? I wanted an AR-pattern .308. When I looked at the various ways I could put one together, I decided I liked the DPMS SASS. So starting last November, I ordered (backordered is more like it!
) all the parts I would need. The SASS barrel was the last piece of the puzzle and it finally arrived this week. So now it's time to put it all together, and I'll need some glass for it. The gun club I belong to has a rifle range that goes out to 600 meters. So that's what I have to work with.
Yes, I have ZERO intention of using it as a personal defensive rifle. It'll be in the safe, then in the truck, then on the bench at the range to punch holes in paper, then back in the truck, then back in the safe. Will I ever go past 600 meters? Maybe, if my gun club decides to make a longer-range rifle bay, and if they do, then I'll buy upgraded glass. I've got all sorts of guns that can be used for personal defense, this rifle is going to be used purely for recreational target shooting.
I already have a longer-range bolt action, a Rem 700PSS in .300WM, with the aluminum-bedded stock, big-a** glass, free float, etc, etc, plus a few milsurp bolt actions that hold their own in the 300-600 range (K-11, K-31, Swedish Mauser, Finn 28/76) and another Rem 700 in .308. Like I said, I wanted an AR-pattern .308, NOT another bolt action. I've got plenty of those!
My eyes aren't what they used to be, so I would like a scope with as much GOOD magnification as possible. I'm concerned that if I go too low on the quality scale, then I'm going to be frustrated as heck. It's sort of like in photography. A 300mm f/2.8 lens costs a bunch and is suited for the most demanding professionals. A 300mm f/4.0 costs a whole lot less, yet delivers the same results under ideal conditions. But a 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 starts to lose some image quality, even under ideal conditions.
So while I would love a USO LR-17 (just from the technical virtuosity aspect), a lot of the $$$ is going to Type-III anodizing, extreme weather sealing, tungsten detents on the turrets, etc. What I want is nearly equivalent image quality...under ideal conditions. I'm not going to be trying to hit a moving target, at dusk, in a 20mph cross-wind, at 20 degrees f, from a moving boat, from 850 meters.
I am going for bulls-eye targets, so your "3x for 100 meters" rule makes some sense. I may need to look for more magnification on top. That will push me in the direction of a MK4 6.5x20 or equivalent. The great thing about this hobby, you can try something out and if you don't like it, sell it and get something else!
Again, thanks for the input!