Should I pick 6-24x50 or 4-16x50 (both Nikon FX1000 Black) for .308 semi-auto

[juha_teuvonnen]

I am debating which scope to buy, both are Nikon FX1000 black. One is 6-24x50 the other one is 4-16x50.

The rifles is question are M1A with JAE chassis and Criterion medium profile stainless barrel and AR10 with 20 in stainless target barrel. Both are accurate for a semi-auto.

Field of view at 100yds:
6-24x50: 18 – 4.7 ft
4-16x50: 27.2 - 6.8 feet

Both seem like nice clear glass. I am wondering if I would be sacrificing too much field of view by going 6-24x50 in return for being able to clearly see things at ranges that a semi-auto .308 won't be able to hit anyway?

I am over 40, my eyesight is not as good as it used to be. Good glass makes a difference. I struggled at 800-1000 yards with my .308 bolt gun that had Leupold 4-10x40, so I took my Leupold 8.5-25x50 from my .338 bolt gun and moved it to the .308. It made all the difference in the world.

On one hand, I accept the fact that my eyes need help at this age (I had no problem shooting 3.5 and 4x fixed power 25 years ago). On the other hand I don't want to give up too much field of view. I am leaning towards 4-16x50, but wondering if I will regret it. Not looking to hunt with it, mostly target shooting.

 

[citoriguy]

If your Leupold 8.5-25 worked, then take the 6-24. At least that’s what I’d do if I was primarily going to be target shooting. First off, I’m not good enough to hunt at 1K yards, but that notwithstanding, field of view would seem to be a bonus, not a priority for long distance target shooting.

 

[Rate_of_Twist]

Personally, I would pass on the Nikon line. Yes, they are a good price right now because they are getting out of the scope business, but that comes with reduced support as well. The Black series didn’t take off in the PRS world as they didn’t hold up as well (from internet reports, of course. I don’t have first hand experience) Good glass from a good company will last a lifetime

 

[308rifleman]

3X to 9X Leupold would be my choice. 800 yards max for .308 and I am a .308 man. Beyond that it drops like a rock.

 

[Queen Bee]

I have a 6-24 Athlon on my scar 17 308

 

[granitestater]

Leupold Or Nightforce, —- buy once, cry once

 

[highlander]

Burris 8-32 on my 700 sps 308,if I ever get my Grendel Athlon Talos 4-16 x 40.

 

[Davidk]

3X to 9X Leupold would be my choice. 800 yards max for .308 and I am a .308 man. Beyond that it drops like a rock.

I have shot, and hit, 14" targets with 308 out to one mile. Its routine for long distance shooters

 

[citoriguy]

If you do want to consider premium glass, consider Steiner too. I have that on my .308 and love it (though I shoot to 200 yards max).

 

[juha_teuvonnen]

I have shot, and hit, 14" targets with 308 out to one mile. Its routine for long distance shooters

Just out of curiosity, what kind of bullet weight and load were you shooting and at what elevation? I have a 700P bolt gun, and in my experience 1000 yards is doable with Federal GMM 175 gr. on a typical New England day. The 168 gr may or may not work depending on atmospheric conditions, in my experience. My training predisposes me to heavily discount options that may or may not work, depending on conditions that I can't control.

Many years ago, in a country far, far away, they taught me that a rifle+ammo+shooter system is considered "capable of shooting a certain distance" if it can hit a target roughly the size of a human torso with about 75% - 80% probability. I have occasionally hit things with my SVD that were beyond what is considered the effective range of that rifle. It had nothing to do with my ability as a shooter or the quality of my rifle and ammo, and everything do with my luck at that point in time. The probability of success for some of those shots was probably in the 10-15% range. It didn't cost me anything to try my luck, and so I did.

 

[Davidk]

I was using Hornady Superformance 168. Long range shooting is an art and a science. In the last few years, knowledge has been acquired on calculating trajectory though transonic and into subsonic ranges. It is best accomplished by truing the ballistic calculator to the rifle/cartridge combo, but that's a whole subject on its own.

The 308 cartridge is capable of 100% hits at 1000 yards, but its the shooter that is the question. Can the shooter maintain the constancy? Can the wind be calculated properly?

Another element is the rifle. A stock Rem 700 in a factory stock is not the best choice for precision shooting. My factory Rem 700 was a 1.25 MOA rifle. A custom rifle, heavy barrel and quality chassis/stock will out perform the factory gun. My custom guns shoot 3/8 MOA. Thats a huge difference at 1000 yards.

Once trajectory is calculated, the rest is wind calculation and that's the art of long range shooting. The problem with wind is that it varies between the shooter and the target. At long ranges it can be stlll at the shooter and windy at the target and in-between and it changes constantly. Land mass variations also effect wind. Reading wind is the real challenge of long range shooting regardless of caliber.

One outing, I hit 3 shots in a row at 1200 yards, the 4th was off my 15 feet due to wind gust.

By the way, the scope that I PMed you about was the one that I used to 1700 yards

 

[Rockrivr1]

If this is purely a range gun I’d go with the 6-24.

 

[teamRR]

I don't claim to know how to shoot but some of what I am reading is along the lines of folks who tell me they can take a 2.5x or even iron sights out to an actual target (ie not man minute) out to 400 yards. I'm not saying I don't believe them just I can't fathom how to do it well.

Granted I do have a slight astigmatism, my vision is otherwise better than 20/20 and I can't distinguish the center of a target enough to group well beyond about 50 yards - this I know: mechanics don't matter if you can't see what you are shooting at.

If it was a combat application, field of view probably matters, sure for hunting it might as far as losing track of an animal but you probably have the time to find it again at these ranges we are speaking of. Shooting at a target you got all day to figure it out. I'd go for the 24x, especially given you have a clue of what you need already.

 

[308rifleman]

I have shot, and hit, 14" targets with 308 out to one mile. Its routine for long distance shooters

I am former USMC. Our snipers do 1,000 yards on enemy combatants with .308 and highly customized sniper rifles but complain about erratic performance at that distance. This is real-life battlefield performance, not Sunday afternoon target practice at your local gun club rifle range with your off the rack .308. The.300 Win Mag is the preferred choice for 1,000 yards and beyond.

 

[juha_teuvonnen]

I was using Hornady Superformance 168. Long range shooting is an art and a science. In the last few years, knowledge has been acquired on calculating trajectory though transonic and into subsonic ranges. It is best accomplished by truing the ballistic calculator to the rifle/cartridge combo, but that's a whole subject on its own.

This is awesome info, thanks for sharing. Back in the day, we used to write off the transonic/subsonic area as "beyond effective range". I was taught that the transition from supersonic bullet flight to subsonic (through transoic area) caused significant changes to the trajectory and that they were not well understood. I am behind on my knowledge, and I am glad that the science has made some progress in this area. If you could share some pointers as to where I can learn more about this I'd really appreciate it.

The 308 cartridge is capable of 100% hits at 1000 yards, but its the shooter that is the question. Can the shooter maintain the constancy? Can the wind be calculated properly?

Wind calls are all about experience, IMHO. In some areas, like mountains or next to large bodies of water it can really mess with the bullet flight. Having glider pilot experience helps understand how and why the air moves, but being able to make a solid wind call takes practice.

Another element is the rifle. A stock Rem 700 in a factory stock is not the best choice for precision shooting. My factory Rem 700 was a 1.25 MOA rifle. A custom rifle, heavy barrel and quality chassis/stock will out perform the factory gun. My custom guns shoot 3/8 MOA. Thats a huge difference at 1000 yards.

My 700P is from the time before Remington started having quality problems. It sits in an AICS 2.0 chassis. It wasn't cheap, but it was worth every penny. It is a sub-MOA gun, it came with a heavy barrel from the factory, being a police model. I am not in love with a factory trigger, it seems to behave somewhat inconsistently. To add insult to injury it was subject to a safety recalled, so I really need to get it done. I am contemplating a timney or triggertech trigger, just haven't had the time to make up my mind and install it. I shot a lot with a 2-stage trigger, and this is the kind of trigger I want.

Once trajectory is calculated, the rest is wind calculation and that's the art of long range shooting. The problem with wind is that it varies between the shooter and the target. At long ranges it can be stlll at the shooter and windy at the target and in-between and it changes constantly. Land mass variations also effect wind. Reading wind is the real challenge of long range shooting regardless of caliber.

One outing, I hit 3 shots in a row at 1200 yards, the 4th was off my 15 feet due to wind gust.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

By the way, the scope that I PMed you about was the one that I used to 1700 yards

I didn't realize I had a PM, I'll check it and get back to you ASAP.

 

[Davidk]

I am former USMC. Our snipers do 1,000 yards on enemy combatants with .308 and highly customized sniper rifles but complain about erratic performance at that distance. This is real-life battlefield performance, not Sunday afternoon target practice at your local gun club rifle range with your off the rack .308. The.300 Win Mag is the preferred choice for 1,000 yards and beyond.

Absolutely correct. Any larger cartridge would be better than 308 at long ranges. I was just pointing out that it is possible

 

[Davidk]

"This is awesome info, thanks for sharing. Back in the day, we used to write off the transonic/subsonic area as "beyond effective range". I was taught that the transition from supersonic bullet flight to subsonic (through transoic area) caused significant changes to the trajectory and that they were not well understood. I am behind on my knowledge, and I am glad that the science has made some progress in this area. If you could share some pointers as to where I can learn more about this I'd really appreciate it."

Yes, the transition to transonic to subsonic does cause significant changes. I used a Kestral meter with the Applied Ballistic calculator. Trueing involves shooting at super, trans and sub sonic distances. then changing the velocity settings in the calculator to match the actual results. Once trued, the calculator will be accurate at all ranges.

I learned it at a class with Todd Hodnett of Accuracy First. Might want to search for truing a Kestrel meter.

 

[mac1911]

I am debating which scope to buy, both are Nikon FX1000 black. One is 6-24x50 the other one is 4-16x50.

The rifles is question are M1A with JAE chassis and Criterion medium profile stainless barrel and AR10 with 20 in stainless target barrel. Both are accurate for a semi-auto.

Field of view at 100yds:
6-24x50: 18 – 4.7 ft
4-16x50: 27.2 - 6.8 feet

Both seem like nice clear glass. I am wondering if I would be sacrificing too much field of view by going 6-24x50 in return for being able to clearly see things at ranges that a semi-auto .308 won't be able to hit anyway?

I am over 40, my eyesight is not as good as it used to be. Good glass makes a difference. I struggled at 800-1000 yards with my .308 bolt gun that had Leupold 4-10x40, so I took my Leupold 8.5-25x50 from my .338 bolt gun and moved it to the .308. It made all the difference in the world.

On one hand, I accept the fact that my eyes need help at this age (I had no problem shooting 3.5 and 4x fixed power 25 years ago). On the other hand I don't want to give up too much field of view. I am leaning towards 4-16x50, but wondering if I will regret it. Not looking to hunt with it, mostly target shooting.

There both under $500 shipped from amazon, as long as you know what to expect like reticle/FFP ect ect I might get both.
That said I have a few scopes I really like in that ball park Athlon
Midas BTR GEN2 4.5-27×50 AHMR SFP IR MOA HD

, next step up is a sightron...there are so many good scopes. Figure out what you really want to do with it.
Small groups in the X ring or hits on 10x10 target. Some folks like me dont like the FFP maybe its just 30 plus years of 2nd FP etched into my retina

I like the small cross hairs and dots. The more I can see the target the better. my Sightron has a center aiming dot thats 1/4 moa on 24X
at 100 yards on 24X the reticle sits nice on that dot on the target. My other scope. bushnell 4x16 or some shit the intersecting cross hairs covers like 5 moa....

M1a with sightron SSIII 8x32- The bipod is just braced under there to hold it up. Could use a lower set of rings but my intention was not to scope this rifle.


Here was my first attempt at accuracy 5 shots lower left then shot at each O from top left to right then right to left until you miss. objective is to get at least 10 in a row. I wasted 5 checking my zero!

 

[Davidk]

"beyond effective range"
There is not much energy left on a 308 at 1000 yards, but it can hit the target. If i remember, it's about the same as a 45acp at muzzle.

 

[Broc]

I don't claim to know how to shoot but some of what I am reading is along the lines of folks who tell me they can take a 2.5x or even iron sights out to an actual target (ie not man minute) out to 400 yards. I'm not saying I don't believe them just I can't fathom how to do it well.

Soule sights will naturally center. Very easy and fast to aim, very easy to hit your target.

 

[mac1911]

I don't claim to know how to shoot but some of what I am reading is along the lines of folks who tell me they can take a 2.5x or even iron sights out to an actual target (ie not man minute) out to 400 yards. I'm not saying I don't believe them just I can't fathom how to do it well.

Granted I do have a slight astigmatism, my vision is otherwise better than 20/20 and I can't distinguish the center of a target enough to group well beyond about 50 yards - this I know: mechanics don't matter if you can't see what you are shooting at.

If it was a combat application, field of view probably matters, sure for hunting it might as far as losing track of an animal but you probably have the time to find it again at these ranges we are speaking of. Shooting at a target you got all day to figure it out. I'd go for the 24x, especially given you have a clue of what you need already.

it does come down to if you can/cant see it you can/cant hit it.

NRA high power with a AR, MR-1 , 600 yard target bullseye is 36" the X ring is 6 inches or 1 MOA. There is a trend moving to optics for service rifle away from the aperture style sights found on the M1a, AR, Garands ectect. going with 4.5x scopes

If your having trouble discerning the front sight post in the center of the bullseye try a six oclock hold

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gyO5QrYzNw&feature=youtu.be

 

[juha_teuvonnen]

"beyond effective range"
There is not much energy left on a 308 at 1000 yards, but it can hit the target. If i remember, it's about the same as a 45acp at muzzle.

It will do the job that a bullet is usually required to do, and I don't mean punching holes in paper. A .45 bullet at point blank range has a good chance of ending the life on the receiving end of it. The bullet will remain lethal for quite a few yards after it crosses the "effective range" threshold i.e. the range at which I have a reasonable expectation of hitting the target that I am shooting at. Even at subsonic speeds, a 168 or 175 grain bullet can kill. Russian special-purpose suppressed rifles shoot subsonic 9x39 rounds. A subsonic 260 grain bullet isn't fast, nor will it travel far, it's good for about 300, may be 400 meters tops. Nevertheless, it's plenty deadly within this range.

 

[dcmdon]

I have these exact same scopes.

Really the question is whether you will be shooting so close that 4x is preferable to 6x. If not. Then just get the 6-24.

I will tell you that with any scope with any scope at 24x with a 50mm objective, the exit pupil is very small. So head position is critical, which means that stock fit is critical.

As for these scopes specifically, I jumped on them when Nikon announced they were getting out of the scope business. $375 is a steal for the quality. By the way, I've also checked the tracking across the full width of the scope's travel and it comes right back to where it should be.

I also picked up a much less expensive Nikon 3-12x42 scope to put on my 10/22. Its got a mill hash reticle, with mil marked exposed turrets. This lets me practice at 100 and 200 yards dialing for distance with my .22.

Nikon M-TACTICAL Riflescope 3-12X42SF Matte MK1-MRAD 16520

Buy Nikon M-TACTICAL Riflescope 3-12X42SF Matte MK1-MRAD 16520 from Scopelist. Authorized Dealer - Call (866) 271-7212 or contact us for more information.

www.scopelist.com

Its second focal plane, but at only 12x maximum magnification, that's not a big deal.

 

[dcmdon]

I was using Hornady Superformance 168. Long range shooting is an art and a science. In the last few years, knowledge has been acquired on calculating trajectory though transonic and into subsonic ranges. It is best accomplished by truing the ballistic calculator to the rifle/cartridge combo, but that's a whole subject on its own.

David - how do you find those compared to something loaded with 175 gr SMKs??

I ask because when I took the long range scoped rifle class at Sig, I brought both 168s and 175 handloads. Playing around with each, the 168s were more accurate within 400 yards.

400 to 600 it was a toss up and beyond 600, the 175s were more accurate, with a real advantage at 1000. (as far out as we went).

Our instructor Dave Hinkel, told me the 168s were going transonic near 1000 and the slight wobble caused by that is probably why I lost accuracy out farther.

Is the 168 gr Hornady Superformance loaded with a bullet with a higher BC than a SMK?? I know Superformance is loaded hot but my loads were hot also. When I was doing load development the hotter I went, the more accurate I was. I eventually stopped. (Chrono'd MV of 2750 fps for the 175 SMKs)

As a side note, Dave was amazed at my reloads. I had a SD of 3 fps with an extreme spread of 8 fps over (I think) 10 shots. He told me that I was a decent shot but an exceptional reloader. ha.

 

[Pilgrims Pride]

I am former USMC. Our snipers do 1,000 yards on enemy combatants with .308 and highly customized sniper rifles but complain about erratic performance at that distance. This is real-life battlefield performance, not Sunday afternoon target practice at your local gun club rifle range with your off the rack .308. The.300 Win Mag is the preferred choice for 1,000 yards and beyond.

Devil Bro you are and always will be a Marine.
Not x, not former.
Just Marine.

Semper Fi!

 

[juha_teuvonnen]

I found a thread about Nikon FX1000 on another forum. Looks like some of them were problematic. I am having second thoughts about Nikon.

a side note, Dave was amazed at my reloads. I had a SD of 3 fps with an extreme spread of 8 fps over (I think) 10 shots. He told me that I was a decent shot but an exceptional reloader. ha.

As a total side note, Dave Hinkell is pretty awesome. I found his class at SIG to be very educative and highly enjoyable.

 

[Davidk]

I found a thread about Nikon FX1000 on another forum. Looks like some of them were problematic. I am having second thoughts about Nikon.

It depends on the quality of scope that you want. You can buy a scope at that magnification range from $250 to $4500. Right now, my precision rifle is running a Tangent Theta

 

[Davidk]

David - how do you find those compared to something loaded with 175 gr SMKs??

I ask because when I took the long range scoped rifle class at Sig, I brought both 168s and 175 handloads. Playing around with each, the 168s were more accurate within 400 yards.

400 to 600 it was a toss up and beyond 600, the 175s were more accurate, with a real advantage at 1000. (as far out as we went).

Our instructor Dave Hinkel, told me the 168s were going transonic near 1000 and the slight wobble caused by that is probably why I lost accuracy out farther.

Is the 168 gr Hornady Superformance loaded with a bullet with a higher BC than a SMK?? I know Superformance is loaded hot but my loads were hot also. When I was doing load development the hotter I went, the more accurate I was. I eventually stopped. (Chrono'd MV of 2750 fps for the 175 SMKs)

As a side note, Dave was amazed at my reloads. I had a SD of 3 fps with an extreme spread of 8 fps over (I think) 10 shots. He told me that I was a decent shot but an exceptional reloader. ha.

Unfortunately, I didn't have a long range to test and compare before I left for the class. The heavier bullets will be effected less by the wind which would show as more accurate. All bullets will wobble in transonic.

Hodnett found that 1:8 twist will increase stability through transonic with no negative effect in supersonic. All my long range guns are now 1:8. I have not seen any factory guns with 1:8, and custom manufacturers push the standard 1:10. You have to specify 1:8 from a custom builder if thats what you want.

 

[juha_teuvonnen]

I have these exact same scopes.

Really the question is whether you will be shooting so close that 4x is preferable to 6x. If not. Then just get the 6-24.

I will tell you that with any scope with any scope at 24x with a 50mm objective, the exit pupil is very small. So head position is critical, which means that stock fit is critical.

As for these scopes specifically, I jumped on them when Nikon announced they were getting out of the scope business. $375 is a steal for the quality. By the way, I've also checked the tracking across the full width of the scope's travel and it comes right back to where it should be.

I also picked up a much less expensive Nikon 3-12x42 scope to put on my 10/22. Its got a mill hash reticle, with mil marked exposed turrets. This lets me practice at 100 and 200 yards dialing for distance with my .22.

We think very much alike. I jumped on this deal shortly after I heard about it. I was planning to use the m-tactical for my .223 trainer (Rem 700P, bone stock).

Did you have any issues with ghost clicks, or any other mechanical problems with them? With all the insanity going on I have not had the time to mount them and take them to the range.

Back in the old days Nikon used to be pretty reliable. Especially the ones made in Japan.

I read a bunch of complaints about FX1000 on snipers hide. People complained about ghost clicks and magnification getting sloppy. I am wondering if it's PRS shooters used to much more expensive scopes. I mean, I am not planning to shoot a PRS competition with a gas gun, and I was contemplating getting these for my .308 semi-autos.

 

[dcmdon]

Hmm. What is a ghost click. I watched a youtube video titled "ghost click" with no explanation and didn't see much.

It did seem like the click was louder every other click. As long as every click moves the reticle I don't care.
I was zeroing one this weekend and took this pic just to document the knob setting, but it turned out to be a pretty cool photo.

Don