# Scope/long range help



## Markthehunter88 (Nov 5, 2010)

I own a winchester 270 model 70... its old school and i love it to death! my grandpa bought for me when i was 13 and i will never sell it... HOWEVER i want to get into a 7mm rem mag (weatherby vangaurd II) this will be used for long range hunting... What scope should i go with? i dont have lots of money but i want something that will adjust out to 1000+ yards....possible?

THANKS!

Mark


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Mark.... that is a loaded question with an explosive answer. If you are looking for a scope that is made for long range shooting you are going to end having to spend "some" money. When you say adjust out to 1000yds what are you refering to? Magnification? or Turret adjustment? There are a lot of scopes out there that have 16x or up to 20x and 24x magnification but do not have the turret adjustment capabilities nor do they have a reticle that will help you compensate for long range shots.

Here is my advice to you before you jump into long range hunting..... Get your rifle and put a scope on it, any scope like an average 3-9x. Go shoot with it and dial it in as best you can. This will help you figure out if your gun is accurate enough for LR. If you can save some cash I strongly encourage you to get it accurized by a VERY competent gunsmith. After you ge it accurized shoot it and dial it in as best you can at 300yds. if you can get close to 1 MOA at 300 yds you got yourself a good gun. Then you can start looking for a scope that will help you push beyond. Your scope should be the best you can afford. I saved for a whole year to buy my scope. LR shooting/hunting is one of those things that takes money/time and a lot of patince. Do a search on scopes here in the forum. Other guys as wellas myself have written on the topic and you will find some good info and advice. Good luck to you...


----------



## Gee LeDouche (Sep 21, 2007)

+1 MH I couldnt have said it better!


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

There was a good conversation on this topic a while back.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=37070


----------



## Markthehunter88 (Nov 5, 2010)

thanks for the advice! I guess i should have mentioned the Turrets... I dont really which ones are best 1/8'' MOA? 1/4''? etc... I was looking at the zeiss conquest for a first scope?


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

I have several Zeiss scopes. The only problem I see with them is their adjustment range. So if you go with a Zeiss you'll almost have to go the BDC route. My Nightforces have over 100 MOA of adjustment. That's way more than I'll use with my 20MOA picatinny rails. With these and my leupold Mark4s I use a balistic program. I also have range cards to match the NP-R1, NP-R2 and MLR reticles I run in the Nightforces and the millradian reticles in my Leupold Mark4s. That way when my programs take a dump in the field, (and they will) I can revert back to my range cards.
As far as 1/8 vs 1/4 goes, I have only a few guns that would benifit from a 1/8 MOA click scope. My 6mm AI shoots .14 - .25 groups. I could probably tell a difference in group shift if I had a 1/8 MOA scope. My 300 Wby shoots around 1" groups. Probably no benifit there.
I think Zeiss Conquest scopes are exellent scopes for that pricerange. Zeiss as a good balistic program on their website that will match your trajectory to the subtentions in your scope. My only problem with my Zeiss scopes is the crosshair thickness. They need to be a little thinner. Take a good look at Vortex scopes. I'll bet the price and quality of Vortex is better than most on the market.
Another thing to think about if you're going to start shooting longrange. You'll amost have to start reloading your own. Extreme spread is nearly as important as group size at long range. Without a low ES, you'll get bad vertical dispersion.
And, as always, my usual warnings. Hunting longrange is very rewarding but not much of a "hunt". If you are not well-practiced and familiar with your rig, stick to your max point-blank range while hunting.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

I'll second what MadHunter and longbow have already said, in that you will need a LOT of practice to be proficient out to 1000 yds. 

As far as scopes go, I would recommend target turrets over staging wires on a gun shooting out to 1k. Myself and my in-laws shoot Leupold MK IV, Nightforce and Vortex scopes. If I were buying a scope today, it would be the Vortex. You can't beat the Nighforce quality, durability and reliability, but the Vortex offer a very close second IMO at a better price point.


----------



## Stickboy (Oct 28, 2010)

You have recieved some really good advice so far. I will also suggest you look into the Vortex line. The PST has proven to live up to a lot of the hype that preceeded it. I would recommend the front focal plane. 

Long range work can be very rewarding. To be honest, it really takes a ton of time, effort and money to get "good enough" to take a shot with confidence past your max point blank. You can range and dope bullet drop with good results fairly quickly, with accuarate equipment. Reading the wind on the other hand, that is an art that can take years to get accomplished at. I would suggest looking up a tactical precision or F-class group. There is a group I used to shoot with out of Park City and another down in Price. Also, jump on the snipers hide website. You can browse for days........... 

Good luck in your pursuit.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Stickboy said:


> You have recieved some really good advice so far. I will also suggest you look into the Vortex line. The PST has proven to live up to a lot of the hype that preceeded it. I would recommend the front focal plane.


I would suggest that if you do go the Vortex PST route (I got the 6-24x50 FFP) you start looking for one. They are few and far between. I had been trying to get one for 4 months with no luck. I worked with VIP Optics and Sportsmans and it basically became a race between them to see who could get it first. I got mine at Sportman's in Murray by leaving a standing order with one of the guys there. Believe me they Hype is not really hype, its FACT! I love the darn thing. BTW it was just shy of a grand so save for a whole year like I did.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

> I own a winchester 270 model 70... its old school and i love it to death! my grandpa bought for me when i was 13 and i will never sell it... HOWEVER i want to get into a 7mm rem mag (weatherby vangaurd II) this will be used for *long range* hunting...


While the advice with "long range" scopes is all fine and good. NOBODY has pointed out the fallacy of your whole caliber change from the "old school" .270 Win to the "long range" 7mm Rem Mag. And that is - for long range work they are basically IDENTICAL!

If you take comparable bullets/loads for the two and run them into a good ballistic calculator like the Oehler Ballistic Explorer that allows you to compare the two, then you will find that the greater recoil will get you no gain in bullet path or trajectory.

The following graph shows similar two factory loads for both cartridges compared. 
The first in red is the *.270 Win 140-gr* Winchester AccuBond load (Winchester ammo specs)
The second in green is the *7mm Rem Mag 160-gr* Winchester AccuBond load (Winchester ammo specs) 
Both are zeroed at a common 250 yards (_about 2.5 inches high at 100 yds_).










Obviously the scope for one would be the scope for the other. Not mentioned is the wider field-of-view that you give up when power increases. FOV is a big factor for most shooters in getting game into the scope at closer ranges and aids you on running shots.


----------



## Markthehunter88 (Nov 5, 2010)

WOW!!! thanks AGAIN! Maybe the old school 270 can hold her ground after all... hmmmmm now i am REALLY THINKIN!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Frisco Pete said:


> While the advice with "long range" scopes is all fine and good. NOBODY has pointed out the fallacy of your whole caliber change from the "old school" .270 Win to the "long range" 7mm Rem Mag. And that is - for long range work they are basically IDENTICAL!
> 
> If you take comparable bullets/loads for the two and run them into a good ballistic calculator like the Oehler Ballistic Explorer that allows you to compare the two, then you will find that the greater recoil will get you no gain in bullet path or trajectory.


The velocity you are using for the .270 is well above the max Nosler lists on their website:

http://www.nosler.com/Reloading-Data/27 ... rains.aspx

Most hunting rifles are 22" barrels which means a 2" difference over Noslers 24" test barrel. That means another 50-60fps reduction. Thats not to say the .270 couldnt achieve these velocitys you are using, but it would take a hot load in a 26" barrel.

-DallanC


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I want to analyze this a bit more. I am going to get this calculator and do a few comparisons myself. But here are a couple of questionmarks that come up.

1.-


Frisco Pete said:


> While the advice with "long range" scopes is all fine and good. NOBODY has pointed out the fallacy of your whole caliber change from the "old school" .270 Win to the "long range" 7mm Rem Mag. And that is - *for long range work they are basically IDENTICAL!
> *


Does the calculator take into account the BC of the bullet? The 7MM enjoy a very vide variety of bullet sizes and BCs. The BC of a bullet needs to be take into account anywhere after 300yds. It can make the difference between hitting a deer at 1000yds and hitting the ground 10 ft short of the deer.

2.-


Frisco Pete said:


> If you take *comparable bullets/loads *for the two and run them into a good ballistic calculator like the Oehler Ballistic Explorer that allows you to compare the two, then you will find that the greater recoil will get you no gain in bullet path or trajectory.


If I understand physics correctly (and I should as an engineer). There is no way that a .270 can acheive the same loads a 7MM can acheive. The size of the casing alone allows the 7MM to have a higher powder capacity and consequently higher preassure behind it. This equates to more power pushing a bullet that can have a much higher BC to obtain longer distances and retain more energy down range.

I am not knocking your statement or your graph Pete. It just brought up some questions. My long range gun is a 7MM and one of my deer guns is a .270 so I just want to pit them against each other now that you brought this up. I had not even considered them in the same ball park let alone identical. I'll let you know what I come up with but it will probably be after the hunts. Stay tuned.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Free Ballistics Software: http://huntingnut.com/index.php?name=PointBlank

Frisco Pete can answer this himself, but he did use the Accubond bullet BC's and muzzle velocities (winchester velocities anyway). Bullets BCs need to be taken into account immediately as the bullet begins its trajectory and not after 300 yards as you state.

You are right that the .270 cannot achieve the same LOAD as a 7Mag, But Pete was comparing trajectories and used two different loads from the two calibers that had a near identical trajectory. IMO, its an apples and oranges comparison. If you compare similar weights and BC's, the one with the faster velocity will be the winner at long range. I have a rifle that can push 140grain bullets over 3500fps, much lower drop compared to the slower 7mag and 270.

For Hunting... you need to figure in bullet construction and Energy. Just because a bullet can hit paper accurately at 1000 yards doesnt mean it has the energy or construction to kill something. Thats where a heavier bullet wins as it will arrive on target with more power. FMJ bullets will be more accurate in long distance shooting but terrible for hunting.

Typically the trajectory comparison is correct. Jumping up to the next larger caliber will give you a larger bullet at the same velocity and more power.

-DallanC

-DallanC


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Markthehunter88 said:


> thanks for the advice! I guess i should have mentioned the Turrets... I dont really which ones are best 1/8'' MOA? 1/4''? etc... I was looking at the zeiss conquest for a first scope?


Just a few thoughts on the MOA adjustment. If you go with say a scope with 1/3" MOA adjustment you can dial to your desired yardage in less clicks and have more range with one full turn of the turret. You'll get 20 MOA with one turn with the Huskemaw for example. The Leupold only gives you 15 MOA with one full turn. Not sure on other scopes. With a 1/8" adjustment you would spinning your turret round and round to dial in your yardage and that's if the scope even has enough adjustment to do it out as far as you'd like. I've dialed out a scope before so it can happen.

Some say 1/3" MOA is too course but when compared to 1/4" MOA the difference is less than a half inch at 500 yds than an inch at 1000 yards, it's not much.

Just food for thought.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

_DallanC_ is absolutely correct of course. Those are Winchester Ammunition's factory specs. Of course rifles vary in actual velocity - and the 7mm RM is one of the worst offenders because of huge chamber variation due to the belted case chamber (_but 2950 is likely realistic for the 7 Mag_) - but I have no problem getting a chronographed 2950 fps with a 140-gr bullet in the .270 with my 22" bbl. Nosler's newest book may be different, but others sources say it is doable and safe. 
Hornady lists 3000 fps with their 140-grainers with 6 powders. Cut off 25 fps per inch of barrel and it comes out 2950; Speer has 2 powders with the 140 TBBC that are for all intents and purposes at 2950 with a 22" barrel. Sierra lists 9 powders that go 3000 fps from a longer barrel.
So Winchester is close enough.

SAAMI pressure spec for the .270 Winchester is 65,000 psi and 61,000 psi for the 7mm Remington Magnum. 


> The size of the casing alone allows the 7MM to have a higher powder capacity and consequently higher pressure behind it.


 Yes, the Magnum case is bigger, but it is not loaded to higher pressure. Think again about that statement. Case size alone is not an indicator of pressure - rather the amount of the powder charge (_and powder used_) vs. the size of the combustion chamber = pressure.
That is a simplification, but you should get the general idea.

BC is .471 for the .277" 140-gr and .512 for the 160-gr .284" bullet.

Unlike _DallanC_ - I believe this is a very Apples-to-Apples comparison - and intended it to be such. The .270 just spots the big case 20 grains of bullet weight, but BC and SD are reasonably close. The classic .270 vs 7mm Mag comparison is in 130 vs. 150 grain bullets (_first pointed out by Jack O'Connor_) and once again the trajectory is so similar that nobody could tell which one was flatter shooting in real life. Those bullets are basically in the same class ballistically, and because they are by the same manufacturer, who uses the same method to determine velocity and BC, they really are comparable. Now a 140 vs. 140 would not be. The larger caliber needs to spot the smaller a margin of bullet weight. Sectional Density is a marker some go by to do this - but it is obvious that the 140 vs. 160 weights are the mid-range of hunting bullet weights for their respective calibers.

Both calibers are known to be flat shooting with their hunting weight bullets, so I don't know why it is such a surprise to some. Must be the "Magnum" name, but that extra powder doesn't increase velocity-per-grain-of-powder as much as some think. In other words, the .270 is more efficient - just as the 7mm-08 is efficient with its smaller powder charge. If you go to the Ultra Mags, you will see that the percentage of charge increase is much greater than the percentage of velocity increase over a 7mm Rem Mag. That is just a fact of internal ballistics. It is a case of decreasing returns.

The bottom line is that there is no need to buy another rifle and bigger/harder-kicking caliber if the rifle you already have a good one in a well-proven caliber that will basically do the exactly same job - trajectory included. Choose a good bullet and hit the animal in the right place. A few grains of bullet weight or ft/lbs of energy one way or the other are not nearly as significant as we have been programmed to believe by the gun mags of the past.

The Oehler Ballistic Explorer is one of the best ballistic programs available and takes some of the BS factor out of cartridge comparison and trajectory etc as shown here. It is a great tool for the rifle nut, as are other ballistic programs.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

First, I will AMEN alot of what has already been said and only add my personal philosophy on long range shooting. Personally, I like to shoot as far as I can at every thing except game, then bring that experience to the table during the hunt and still get as close as possible to the game. Personally, I prefer longer shots as they generally give me more of a chance to look over the animal and take a relaxed, rested shot making a good clean kill. In my opinion, when the shot is taken, at whatever range, the hunt should be considered over. Meaning that the shot is simply the ending of the hunt after a decision has been made to take and animal and the best position has been attained by the hunter. I feel that ALL shots should be taken with the highest degree of certainty that the shot will result in an immediate and final killing of the animal. This year in Idaho I was presented with a 298 yard shot at a nice whitetail buck. I could get no closer due to terrain and lack of vegetation. I took this shot with total confidence as I had made shots at targets twice that far duing practice. These skills gave me the ability to place my bullet within a 2-3 inch circle anywhere on that deer. I picked out the heart and put the bullet right through the top of it. So......moral of the story is that all my practice at 600-1000 yards didn't help me make a long shot, but helped me perfect a medium shot. I think that this is how long range practice is best served.--------SS


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Dang! I am learning tons from you guys. Exceptionally well stated Pete. And SS - excellent point. Thanks.


----------

