7 Scope Myths Most Shooters Believe

GEAR I LIKE
Hearing Protection: goaxil.com/pages/gs-extreme-a...
Shooting Glasses: www.gatorz.com/discount/K0909...
My favorite scopes (blog post) backfire.tv/scope
My favorite rifles (blog post) backfire.tv/best-hunting-rifle/
Above links, or the pages referenced, contain affiliate links. Commissions earned.
______________________________________________
The Backfire KZbin Channel is owned and operated by Backfire LLC, a Utah limited liability company.

[@etoineschrdlu9382]

It's like audio equipment. If you can't appreciate the difference between listening to $25 ear buds through an iPhone versus a $10,000 audiophile setup, then you've just wasted $9,000.

[@blunderbus7791]

$9975 ftfy

[@mostachiocam1598]

What about the price of the phone?

[@etoineschrdlu9382]

@@blunderbus7791 You got it!

[@etoineschrdlu9382]

@@mostachiocam1598 about $975.00

[@brucetec6597]

​@mostachiocam1598 Well, he did say an I Phone so yeah it's a waste too.

[@taylorsimmonds9957]

The Christmas tree is nice to spot misses. You can see where on the Christmas tree the splash is and you immediately know your adjustment...

[@Sageofthe16]

indeed....

[@ellynlee5541]

Yep, that’s how I use mine. Dope, dial, splash, oops, adjust, impact. Nobody wants to admit the ooos part, but it happens.

[@TMega5612]

First point he makes and it's wrong lol. Quite the incredible expert.

[@DD-gi6kx]

I'm an optical engineer and just getting into long range shooting, its kind of horrifying to watch most of the videos on scopes, so much misinformation even from gun experts. I like how quickly and simply the guy shot down the tube size myth

[@foff-666]

okay but @ 1:37 - "... the curvature of the lens" -- the curvature is FIXED and does not change with the environment - hence a GOOD scope will have the tree lines compensated for any (fixed) curvature effects, making it accurate. So I haven't watched the entire video but right off the bat I can say this guy is talking crap. As an optical engineer you must surely note the same, at least for this point.

[@SigmaBallistics]

@@foff-666agreed, disappointed to see a crap opinion right off the bat on a video thats supposed to help disprove "myths". telling new shooters that these reticles aren't accurate is such a load of bs.

[@DD-gi6kx]

@@foff-666 honestly I missed that parts but yes holy crap thats nonsence....you do not come into the curvature of the lens at the edges of the FOV (field of view) aberrations do get worse the further off axis you get but if thats what he was trying to say he mixed it with mumbo jumbo

[@user-nw1sq8vj8c]

Agreed. The Hyperbole of the initial “expert” was over the top. Scope these various “complicated” reticles are compensated for end plane curvature optic dynamics that DO occur at VERY high angles of incidence and also at the edges do the scopes, but the rationale and explanation for this “problem”. The biggest issue in my opinion (L O L) with complicated radicals is simply more of a site picture and image/psychological one. Meaning, especially in a tactical situation with 99% of even high-end upper tier, tactical operators, the overly complicated radical can be extremely valuable, but in a high stress situation even if it is a one shot Cold War, or even more so a second follow up shot is very much more difficult for the vast majority of long range, tactical or long range shooters not because of this curvature and high angle of incident physics issue, he extract belated, but simply because there’s too much information. Under duress/stress, even the most experienced long range, rifleman, will not take advantage of that radical, which is overly complicated, particularly for vintage but also for elevation. Follow up shots and quick shots maybe elevation and definitely windage, but those complicated Horace type Christmas tree radicals are difficult for tactical operators. Even experience ones. They’re great for prone benchrest. Long range shooters.

[@jk-kr8jt]

We used to "shoot the box" to check the tracking of a scope. Zero the rifle/scope, go to a clean target, fire a shot, turn a number of clicks up (let's say 10.), fire a shot, turn 10 clicks right , fire a shot, turn 10 clicks down, fire a shot, turn 10 clicks left and fire the 4th shot. The 4th shot should be right in with the 1st. If you have the 4 corners of a box, your scope is tracking properly. Plus it's fun. Cheers, Jeff.

[@thehoneybadger8089]

The 5th shot should be in with the 1st shot.

[@jk-kr8jt]

@@thehoneybadger8089 correct 5th shot.

[@kurtnaugle]

I have always been told that is the Difference in Spending $400 vs $2k on a Scope! If you are not making adjustments every time you shoot! You don't need a $2k scope! If you sight your rifle in, and DO NOT touch your turrets. A $400 scope is Perfect! This is just my 2 cents!

[@m444ss]

although, most ammo doesn't shoot 0 MOA or 0 Mil accuracy. that last shot could be 1/2 over at 100 yds if you have 1/2 MOA accuracy with that ammo thru that rifle.

[@BANDERSJR]

On the cost topic, I heard a saying a long time ago about this. “Just because you bought the most expensive French Horn, doesn’t mean you will automatically be playing at Carnegie Hall.” Equipment means nothing if you don’t have the requisite skills.

[@no_regerts5176]

As a guy who doesn’t shoot at game beyond 400 yards, I have to give respect to people who spend the money and time to be proficient beyond that. I’ve been using a fixed 6x, 1 inch tube, set and forget, MOA 1/4 click scope. I use dual dovetail mounts that I bed and I lap the rings. I’ve never had a scope crap out on me, but I’m shooting at limited ranges.

[@nateh2652]

My hunting rig is also my long range plinking rifle. Its a Springfield 2020 Waypoint with the CF barrel, wearing a Vortex Viper pst gen2 5-25x50 ffp and magpul sling. I know the dope on that rifle out to 1,200 yards. It makes hunting whitetail at 500 yards and in a piece of cake. Definitely recomend stretching your rifles legs on steel/paper if you get the chance. Itll vastly imrpove your results in close

[@BigSmartArmed]

After decades of research it has been determined that for combat purposes 6X is optimal out to 800 meters in DMR role. It provides good field of view, clear wind and bullet trace tracking. Higher magnification becomes relevant in precision rifle systems deployed in highly trained sniper teams.

[@spicywolf6718]

I shoot out to around 500m open sight, fitting a scope so that the 300m+ shots are a little more comfortable or in lower light conditions when my iron sights become harder to use. Pecar Berlin 4x81, fixed 4 power 26mm tube with a non constantly centred, interchangeable reticule system. Currently #14 but desperately trying to get a German #1. Rifles windage is zeroed through the rings that way in field adjustments keep the reticule relatively central, while it may not hold zero perfectly it also means I could zero the scope at 400m and leave my sights at 100m so in the event I see a larger group of pig it only takes a few seconds to remove the scope and start smashing stripper clips.

[@carfvallrightsreservedwith6649]

Every scope I mount get the alignment dowel rods (WHEELER Pro scope kit) set in the rings, with caps torqued 10-12"#, to verify vertical/horizontal orientation. Usually also switch to one piece EGW rail and bed if necessary before checking alignment. 2-3 quick strokes with lightly coated lap rod tells me if 80%+ contact exists or not.

[@jtc406]

Good info but I think the Christmas tree reticle topic needed some qualifications to his statement. If you’re zooming in ALL the way and trying to use the absolute bottom of the reticle then yeah, you’re going to see distortion. However, if you use them like 99% of users do, dialing to your dope and using the reticle for faster follow ups, they are a fantastic tool. I’m not saying what he is trying to portray is wrong. It just left a lot on the conversation table.

[@Notjay95]

It’s a very tall claim. I would expect a some data to accompany a claim like that. How many tenths will I miss by and at how many yards? I’m pretty sure it’s some fudlore bs or he’s employed by leupold to sell more duplex reticles lol

[@FourT6and22]

Except when you're zoomed in all the way, you CAN'T use the very bottom of the reticle because you're only able to see the very center anyway. So any distortion caused by the very edges of the lens aren't visible to begin with. Not to mention most modern scopes have aspherical lenses that eliminate or greatly reduce any distortions or aberrations. The guy's advice in the video is antiquated. Ask any PRS shooter if they have trouble holding for elevation and wind while going from a 400-yard target to a 1400-yard target. No problems. MAYBE he was talking about the sight picture going dark while zoomed in all the way and how the edges are harder to see clearly because the exit pupil is so much smaller? I dunno.

[@benson8686]

Just the way he spoke gave me the impression that he was overconfident in a baseless claim.

[@michaelshuey1614]

The point on magnification verses reticle distortion is well made. The corollary to that is that not all turrets are created equally. The tall target test is required to verify the accuracy of your turret. In contrast, the reticle is laser etched on the glass and is not subject to mechanical variances. Finally, I can range with my reticle very quickly to determine if the quarry is within my point blank range. There’s nothing as fast as a reticle.

[@copper12heavy69]

Can't disagree with any of the replies above. Well covered.

[@BionicRusty]

Having worked for 40yrs for a company which makes IR/II/Thermal scopes for the military, I will say it’s all about the optical/mechanical/coating designs and tolerances. Whether night vision or visible applications. A $2k scope that sings and dances is nothing if the design is poor or the tolerance is compromised. And in the design, I count the optical materials used and the transmission quality. For a novice shooter, you’ll never know if it’s the rig or you causing the miss. Buy to your limit, look through as many as you can and try to find unbiased reviews. The sponsored videos/reviews makes this aspect very difficult imo. I’ve looked through many $1k+ scopes that track poorly and contain inferior materials to sub $350 scopes. Only when you become a competent shooter will you know if your scope is at your level or not. 😂

[@MattDonkin430]

I agree, look through as many as possible. I have S&B, Leupold, Vortex, Zeiss, Eotech and NF. I have NF and Eotech now as my main scopes and the rest are relegated to the safe (until my daughters come of age). They are all great scopes (high end versions), but for me the NF just looks and feels better and holds a zero like no ones business. The Vudu 1-10 is fantastic for my hunting rig.

[@tiziocaio8657]

Are Leica scopes any good?

[@accur81]

Word. Check my link for a discount code! = this video is an add and not a review. I wish I had time to make and edit videos because once people get sponsored they are compromised.

[@mlone7]

@@MattDonkin430you named off several scopes......have you ever tried an Arken? I have an EPL-4-6240 VHR that has clear Japanese glass and the 0 checks are spot on. I think I paid between 3 and 4 skins for it but I have to say that this thing does everything that many of the 2000 skin scopes do.

[@Deerslayer1912]

On the first topic, it generates some additional questions. 1: How much is the image actually distorted? 2: wouldn’t holding wind have the same issue as holding elevation and windage since the distortion effect is radial not only up and down? 3: when you dial your turret, you move the reticle up and down from the optical center of the scope, so wouldn’t you still have the same issue anytime you leave the true optical center of the scope?

[@colelawton4901]

Yes. To everything you just said.

[@WJamesBeoch]

What he was probably getting at is that ammunition/bullet drop his more consistent than the atmospheric wind conditions. Most shooters ability to accurately read wind has more errors than the distortion of the image. That's probably why the suggested dialing up for elevation and holding for wind.

[@theodorehunter4765]

Another thing I'd like to point out: On most "christmas tree" reticle scopes I have seen, at the lowest magnification, they look like a duplex, meaning the entirety of that reticle is basically close enough to the optical center for any realistic shooting.

[@mrjeffjob]

Here’s another two more issues to factor in. Reticles don’t move around while turrets MAY introduce errors depending on quality. Dialing moves the erector tube while starts chipping away at light transmission. For hunting I don’t dial at all. For shooting on bright days a little less light doesn’t affect things much.

[@Notjay95]

People shoot accurately with Christmas tree reticle all the time. The biggest drawback for me is getting lost and using the wrong hash marks.

[@theodorehunter4765]

Christmas tree reticles are nice for instances when you don't have time to dial your scope, such as hunting, competition shooting, tactical shooting, or basically any kind of shooting outside of "let me go sit at the range and spend 2 hours printing a perfect 5x5." In other words, christmas tree retiles are PRACTICAL. Dialing on the fly is a luxury for target shooters.

[@ryanpeine759]

If you're taking a shot (hunting speaking) within 250yd, then you don't need a tree. If you're going farther out, then you have time to dial, because the animal likely doesn't know you're there. I'll stick with dialing - accuracy

[@robertschweppenhauser9891]

Correct you know what you talking about.😅

[@piercer2]

It’s a theme of preference and that’s all

[@LKN4WAR]

Exacly. There is a reason SOCOM and Todd Hodnett of Accuracy 1st use the Horus in the ASR rifles.

[@jn-gmail3140]

@@ryanpeine759 I respectfully disagree. If you need to take a follow up shot, the quicker you can take it, the less likely you will have environmental changes (ie. wind), and using a reticle for the holdover is faster than coming out of the optic, dialing, and getting back on target.

[@jamiebaker1035]

I've been using Leupold scopes for over 30 years... I've carried them to hell and back from the Brooks Range in Alaska, to some of the most remote wilderness areas in North America, and put endless miles hunting plains game and Buffalo on the open savannahs of Africa. Never had a single issue with them. This includes surviving the abuse of baggage handlers, TSA, and Customs. Several missteps resulted in serious falls and hours of bouncing around in trucks going to and from hunting spots. I don't really know much about other scopes. I do know that I picked the right brand over 30 years ago... and I'm going to stick with them...

[@JohnDoe-hu9ve]

That's fine. I hope you never have to replace those 30 year old Leupold scopes with something made by Leupold in the last 5-10 years, because they are crap. I used to think like you do and now I have enough Nightforce scopes to last me the rest of my life (and probably several other lives too based on how well they are made)

[@jamesstrachan7417]

Its pretty simple the average joe is not going out to shoot at 800 + yards. Get a relatively flat shooting set up with some good down range knock down power, zero the rifle at 400 yards, with a pretty elementary wind and hold over chart you should be able to hit from 600 yards and under with out playing with anything. But and I will double emphasize this you have got to range verify your data, considering most hunters are not carrying a wind meter, and the latest ballistic software on there phone little alone crongraphing there ammo this is the easiest way i have found to get the average guy shooting that far with a relatively inexpensive range finder.

[@lancekrystoff9619]

Leupold used to be a great scope, and maybe still is. That said, there are MANY more affordable,yet comparable optics on the market now than there were even a decade or two ago.

[@T410ce]

Sorry all parts of Alaska and wild North America are heaven; to say you carried something to hell and back while in Alaska or Canada is doing a disservice to Gods creation.

[@bandit99515]

you don't know about other scopes, but you think you made a great choice? now thats funny. ever hear of meopta SB trijicon swarovski? they all beat the looopold to pieces. funny guy!

[@jeffbetts4254]

$700. Is not cheap for me, I have a hard time coming up with $200.00-- $300.00 for a scope.

[@CandelarioSanchez-ji1qq]

Really 😮

[@mammutMK2]

It depends on when, what caliber and distance you shoot. In sunny weather Shooting 223 over 200 yards even a 100 $ scope is enough...you wouldn't even notice the difference using a 4000$ Swarovski scope. Shooting in the middle of the night 500 yards with 338 is a completely different story. Need a range finder? Options to attach thermal or night vision? Variable magnification? Variable sight? Illuminated sight with color changing? Night vision compatible sight? Parallax compensation? Towers with zero setting, quick adjustable? HUD in the scope? Ballistic computer? And even a simple cheap single shot spring powered air rifle can destroy a 4000$ scope when dry fired.

[@gregkrueger331]

It is what it is. I understand your plight but that isn’t theirs or anyone else’s problem. If you want it bad enough, you’ll find a way to afford it but whining about the cost of something because it’s out of your price range, with all do respect, is a “you” problem.

[@marvinhenderson6379]

Thank you very much for a very informative video. I own a Springfield armory m1a and a Burris 2-7×32 scout scope. I have taken a basic rifle class, to get zeroed in. The video stopped me from wanting to buy a expensive scope, illumination, massive magnification, and everything else that I don't need to shoot two or three hundred yards. What I liked the most is when the gentleman said take that money and put it into training and then you will know what you need for what you want to do.

[@kodiakkeith]

Something most people (outside of Alaska) don't consider is that the seals in many scopes will not withstand internal pressure. They can be rugged in other ways and withstand getting banged around, but any decent hunt in Alaska has you crossing a mountain range out of Anchorage in an unpressurized bush plane and once you get above 8 or 10 thousand feet many scopes will pop the seals and immediately fog up. I worked at a gun store in Alaska and would warn people about certain budget scopes (Bushnell, Tasco, Simmons come to mind). They were fine for the average hunt on the road system, but if you were thinking of a bush hunt where you'd fly in you were going to be screwed when you landed. Scopes are one item where you get what you pay for. If you cheap out on a scope and don't have iron sights on your rifle you may just ruin a hunt.

[@warpspeednow]

I have seen this happen on very expensive euro scopes which it shouldn't have. My advice to anyone is to take a second and sighted in scope with ring's attached and which is suited to quick attachment bases.

[@4WDriver]

I like how in the comments of a video debunking scope myths, and without any objective scientific data, you decided to unilaterally declare the reason for the scope fogging up, thereby adding yet another scope myth to the list. I seriously doubt a change of roughly 4.5 psi, as a result of an altitude increase of 10,000 ft, was enough to pop any seals. Also, the change in pressure resulting from temperature extremes seen in closed vehicles would generate a more significant pressure differential than 10,000 ft of elevation change. It's roughly 1 psi per 10 degrees Fahrenheit. With a scope going from being stored in your house around 75 degrees Fahrenheit, to being stored in a closed vehicle at about 145 degrees Fahrenheit, that would be a 7 psi increase. If the plane ride was popping scope seals, wouldn't everyone's scope seals already be popped from sitting in their hot vehicle?

[@kodiakkeith]

@@4WDriver I can only tell you that I had to deal with these customers when they wanted us to reimburse them because their scopes were ruined after fly-in hunts. Any Alaska bush pilot could tell you more about the 'why' than I, but I don't think it's the increase in pressure (like a hot car) it's the sudden decrease in pressure going from sea level to 10,000 feet in a few minutes. I saw this only in the cheapest brands. Tasco was the most common, but also Bushnell and Simmons. I did not see it all in mid-priced scopes.

[@4WDriver]

@@kodiakkeith the pressure inside the scope is what is increasing, relative to the ambient pressure outside, and it is doing so in BOTH cases. In the case of going from sea level to 10,000 ft, the ambient pressure outside is decreasing, meaning the internal pressure is higher relative to the ambient. With the hot car, the internal pressure of the scope is increasing as ambient pressure remains the same, meaning there is again an increase of internal scope pressure relative to the external Ambient pressure. And I doubt a bush pilot would be any better at explaining the why than yourself. In this case, experience doesn't mean anything; only the scope manufacturers and/or a test lab could definitively say why it happens. All you or the bush pilot can say with certainty, is that it does in fact happen.

[@utley]

@@4WDriver dont think you really understand how significant 4.5psi is. Just fyi, airliners can explode with 8 psi above sea level.

[@brentfrank7012]

Very educational. I really like the new reticles, have not had any issues with lens distortion on paper. Vortex Razor is spot on with elevation and windage out to 700 yrds. After that it’s just shooter errors. 😊

[@tomfrommichigan]

Thank you for the great practical advice.

[@Strawman333]

Thanks for the info. Especially at the end about dialing past then back to counteract the spring tension.

[@amadomata459]

Fabulous video, very instructive. Thank you for the great interviews with the gurus of scopes, each one offering their sincere expertise to us neophytes. Stay well.

[@tubeonline629]

Yes but those experts in the video would most likely disagree if all were addressing one subject. So much of this is about what each individual is taught and personal opinions that may not work for everyone.

[@Sageofthe16]

Christmas trees are good for measuring stuff.

[@TMar129]

How often do you use your reticle to measure stuff?

[@LifeisGood-ye8rl]

@@TMar129I use such method, whenever I operate solo behind enemy lines, as expedition scout sniper. 😅 happens a lot in my fantasy

[@headshot8888]

Good for quick shots in combat situations. Obviously not for long range precision shooting..

[@TheSuburban15]

You don't need a tree to "measure stuff". A mil-dot reticle, or something similar will do.

[@wizzle0979]

I wouldn’t say they’re good for measuring stuff. I commonly use that reticle style for PRS matches when there’s no time to dial

[@coyotiess]

I have a 6x18 44 Vortex crossover that is the brightest and clearest I have ever looked thru!

[@jseaz]

Great advice and info thank you!

[@Rembettis]

Brilliant video. Thanks a lot for putting it together.

[@jrcampos1952]

I believe that the quality and price of optics purchased is as important as the actual amount of time spent looking through them. I can't sacrifice $2800 on a RifleScope. But, I had no problem investing $3600 on my Binos. 🤷‍♂️Hunter vs Shooter I guess 😅

[@sweetdrahthaar7951]

Great video. I’m no expert but I like the good old fashion crosshairs. Duplex Is acceptable for me

[@theodorehunter4765]

Honestly, if all your doing is hunting within a few hundred yards, a duplex is plenty. You don't need a fancy reticle and exposed turrets. Just learn your holdovers at any realistic distance you plan to shoot at.

[@chrisgunsandguitars1403]

Perfectly fine if you determine your rifle’s MPBR as it’s all you need.

[@wdtaut5650]

When I bought my latest deer rifle, I asked the store owner (a pretty knowledgeable shooter) what reticle he recommended. Basic duplex, even though he knew I was salivating for something more complex. He was right. He knew how I hunt, no long shots, probably never get out to 400 yards, mostly under 200, usually about 100.

[@rustynut1967]

I agree! And way to much hype about having a first focal plane scope. I can't make out the hash marks much below 18 power on a 24 power scope. So what's the use? Not everybody shoots PRS.

[@cailoebphillips9444]

The simple crosshairs is my favorite. Im not a recon sniper special forces chad just a simple patriot.

[@dannyhawman2865]

This was an incredibly informative video. Thanks Jim!

[@frankywalter2997]

Very informative thanks Jim

[@jdmbraceyourself9860]

Excellent, thanks for the videos

[@paulsimmons5726]

Great job with the subject, especially when it comes to the cost of your new scope!

[@philhardwick100]

Great advice. Thanks

[@noahmercy-mann4323]

Some of the best rings I've ever used are the TRS series rings from TPS Products. Never needed to lap a set and they are priced well below some that required lapping.

[@douggiek9]

They're all I own.

[@kennydanz1715]

Totally agree. Started using these rings a few years ago and I am now slowly converting all my rifles to these rings.

[@politicallyinsensitive4200]

I don't believe the Christmas tree reticle was ever meant to completely replace dialing the turrets. It was meant to be a faster way for military shooters to make corrections and engage targets in a "time is life" environment. I also don't believe mil is better than moa or vice versa. They're both systems of angular measurement and they both work. I've run into a couple optic snobs. Most recently the instructor in a LR class i took a few months ago. We were just talking during down time and he was telling me about his super awesome Viper PST Gen 2 but the second i mentioned I've got an Arken SH4 Gen 2 he yells "ok, everyone get ready". I'm not as good a shot as he is but if i were I'd be willing to bet my $400 optic can function as well as his $1300 one.

[@oif3vetk9]

Funny part is, the PST Gen ii isn't the end all of glass. I have one. It's ok but I'll take my Athlon Midas TAC over the Vortex any day.

[@commonsense5709]

@@oif3vetk9 The Athlon Midas Tac (6-24x50) is probably the best most reliable Chinese made scope for budget minded folks. Their Chinese HD glass are phenomenal and tracking are perfect and is a better quality option for sure than the Titan and Helix and some may even say on par with the Nexus. I prefer the Athlon Ares BTR Gen 2 4.5-27x56 over any of these 3 lines of Element Optics scopes. Try one out for yourself to see what I really mean it's incredible scope even though they're made in China. It's in fact IMHO also better than any other Chinese made Vortex, Bushnell, Vector Optics, Arken, Zero Tech, Riton, Blackhound and Hawke as well as many more Chinese made scopes too many to mention.

[@beresheeth]

8 of 36 years African hunting(with trees), and this weeks 3 oryx, 5 springbuck, 2 impala and going all shot with a tree recticle.... one Springbuck at 363m head shot.... I am not convinced by your theory.... and we are still busy bringing the meet home. There is just no time to turn turrets....listen to the ranged calls hold and squeeze.... all in a couple of seconds.

[@amadomata459]

Happy Xmas and New Year to you and yours. Great videos and narrative(s). Be well.

[@gsitzkowitz]

So I hunt in Texas where shots are rarely over 200 yards. I always prepare for a 300 yard shot as a max long range shot just in case, I haven’t had one yet. Most shots in the field are less than 300 unless you want to go longer on purpose. With that in mind any scope that will hold a zero, with decent glass, can be used with maximum point blank range method with great success. It doesn’t take long to master MPBR especially with a flat shooting rifle/cartridge. Precision long range shooting is another matter but few people hunt that way. High dollar scopes for hunting are a little gimmicky to me. If you can’t kill it with a $500 scope then you may have other problems. But I’ve only been hunting for forty years so I’m still a novice. Longest shot to date, 350 on a prairie dog and it took six tries!😂

[@ronws2007]

I also hunt in Texas and the farthest shot I could range for was 250 yards. That being said, I don't bother with MPBR. I dial for distance because even though I have a rifle that can shoot .39 MOA, there is that dispersion. If I introduce the rise and fall of MPBR, I could miss. Especially with one of my other rifles that is out to 1 MOA. So, by dialing to aim with the crosshairs, I should be no more than a fraction of an inch off the PoA. And yes, my scopes do not cost more than 500. But I do spend on the rings. The match precision rings I buy do not need lapping and they hold well.

[@wdtaut5650]

Sounds right to me. Where I hunt, 400 yds. might someday be possible. 200 is a more realistic max, usually 100 or less. I sight-in for the 200 yd. max and know I will kill anything under that. Your idea of MPBR is a more sophisticated version of that, and really the better way to sight-in, if you have access to shoot at varying ranges to determine MPBR for your rifle/load. Also, at those ranges, $300 glass and duplex reticles do a pretty good job.

[@RailRoad188]

​@ronws2007 MPBR is related to your target size, so the same rifle using the same ammo it is different for a Prarie dog, a coyote, a deer, an elk, and an elephant. Of course you wouldn't want to use the same rifle for all those, but the point is MPBR is dependent on the area of your target that you must hit. Gunblue explains this very well and his very practical, no-frills approach to shooting and gear selection is a breath of fresh air when everyone and their mother is trying to sell you the latest gizmos.

[@ronws2007]

Great reply. So, to recap what I wrote before, I prefer to dial distance or hold over in the reticle. The dispersion of the round can be enough plus MPBR to miss. That being said, I certainly value your experience. Beware the man with only one rifle. He probably knows how to use the one very well. And so, my newest rifle is a 7 mm PRC and it shoots very flat. My scopes were less than 500 dollars and really hybrids. Priced for hunting but capable of long range.

[@jakehaugen899]

Outstanding video, loved every minute.

[@conradjooste4002]

Great video! Thank you!

[@ianwoodward1554]

Great variations, great review.

[@lz3572]

Hey. Great video. Some great tips and information. I agree with the guy who said to go and compare optics side by side. I did and ended up spending 50% less for a scope that I absolutely love. Not that the more expensive one wasn’t what I liked. It didn’t do anything more than the less expensive one. One also has to look at the quality and warranty . weight if mountain hunting. Or bench rest and not needing the highest light gathering. Thanx for letting me babble. Lol

[@AllThingsLoud_]

Vortex podcast did a in depth I’ve of common myths and misconceptions of optics. It was a good listen.

[@outdoorswithroostercurrie6984]

Awesome video with lots of great content / info.

[@brorjordas1979]

An awesome video! Thanks!

[@DBuss-om8sh]

Very interesting video! Thanks

[@judelarkin2883]

I’m a big fan of Leupold. When I got into long range shooting I really wanted Leupold but for the features I wanted it would be around $2k. A friend convinced me to look at a Vortex Razor. I got the same features as the Leupold for $1,200 and performance has been perfect. Still a big fan of Leupold but I think the lesson is, there are options if you have a budget.

[@zackzittel7683]

Same features but the quality of clarity is night and day. Vortex distorts natural light and causes a bluish hue around the outlines of objects. And they sometimes don’t track accurately. I have a few vortex scopes. Lotsa bang for the buck. But I’ve got a 60mm 12x40 leupold spotting scope that boggles people’s mind with its clarity. And vortex has nothing that can compare to leupolds MK5 HD

[@judelarkin2883]

@@zackzittel7683 I can reliably hit a target at 1,200 yards with my Vortex and am working my way up to 1,760 yards. So far the tracking has aligned perfectly with what the Hornady app has told me to dial it to. I’ve considered testing the tracking but haven’t seen a need to when it aligns so well with the app. I haven’t compared scopes side by side for clarity but seeing the target at 1,200 yards has not been a problem. From that, all I can say is it seems to get the job done.

[@jasono2139]

Same goes for Leopold's stupidly overpriced red dot sights. Their Delta Point is no better than the Voetex venom or any other $200 red dot.

[@aldean6333]

Nope on the horus type reticles. I’ve had years of experience with a tree reticle and they are far better than cranking turrets and I have them too. To date I would choose a tree reticle because it also gives a precise correction reference

[@patrickdolan5885]

Great video! I learned a lot

[@daveknowles3055]

Great video, some great information, I'll be watching again I'm sure

[@Cruiser777]

thanks for the insights

[@Nudnik88]

As soon as you have looked through a Swarovski, Kahles or Schmidt Bender, you never go back to a 700$ scope.

[@Wyo2Wis]

And Zero Compromise, Tangent Theta, Nightforce, Valdada. You'll never go back.

[@ernestoruizar4598]

Excelente video amigo, muy instructivo, gracias por compartirlo con nosotros 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@charlesludwig9173]

Simple mil dot and MOA dials is the way to go for literally a multitude of reasons. This expert has it right. Shooters just need to practice ranging using mil formula and bullet drop in MOA applied by elevation adjustment. Then learn wind with MOA wind constant formula and apply with hold.

[@Notjay95]

I always dial when I can but when I need to hold for no dial stages at PRS matches, I don’t have any issues hitting targets. I’m not sure the first guys claim is that substantial

[@anthonyjaparks]

Thank you, you have one of the best podcasts for us average joes on guns again thanks

[@richardw8392]

I consider a $600-$999 mid range. I have a primary arms 3-18 x 44 on the bagara 100-500 yrd rifle and a vortex pst gen 2 on the tikka tac A1 that is sighted 500+.

[@Breezer56]

Good to know info....Thx

[@bobyjones3905]

Deer hunting in Georgia a 300 dollar scope is the most you need to spend. I have 200 dollar scopes that work very well

[@michaelyoung7911]

Such a great video!!!

[@stedyone1090]

Great info 👍

[@knutpohl339]

Larger scope body tubes are not only utilized for recticle travel. Tube size can be a major requirement in the optical calculation of a scope construction in regards to allow for high zoom factors, low chromatic aberration, paralaxis depth, field of view etc. etc.

[@robertjackson1407]

Thank you 😊

[@SpetsnazBear-3710]

Great scope/glass talk.

[@chipsterb4946]

The comments about main tube diameter made me think. If I’m buying a 1-4x or 1-6x LVPO, do I ever intend to use the turrets to adjust for windage or elevation? Not for hunting - so a 1” tube would be fine and would save weight. The LVPO market is moving toward 1-8x or even 1-10x now. I wish someone would make a really high quality 1-6x and concentrate on making it as lightweight as possible while keeping a big field of view. Unfortunately, consumers always want the latest & greatest…

[@alcantrell5340]

I wish Vortex offered in the 1x6 LPVO a plain Duplex cross hair for hunters like me. No fancy crap we are never going to use.

[@chipsterb4946]

@@alcantrell5340 lol the last LVPO I bought was a 1-6x with a nice, simple reticle. It also weighs at least 8 oz less than Vortex.

[@blackhawk7r221]

They are marketing to the tacti-cool buyer, so they may add unnecessary things like oversized drum turrets or mil dot reticles. Rediculous.

[@alcantrell5340]

@@chipsterb4946 what brand was it, that’s about all I put on my rifles anymore, I like the short compact size. Just don’t like the Christmas tree.. lol

[@chipsterb4946]

@@alcantrell5340 it was an expensive Leupold: VX5-HD 1-5x24mm weight 13.4 oz. The Vortex Razor Gen II-e 1-6x24mm costs more, weighs 21.5 oz. and is available with a fairly simple BDC reticle. Please note I am *NOT* saying that Vortex is a bad scope. I just have different priorities.

[@shooter8364]

Good education, I’ve been shooting my whole life i have high end scopes and i have low end, on all calibers. Better scopes tend to perform better. It’s also about your application, less expensive scopes perform great for different types of shooting

[@troywalters2867]

Great information, keep putting out great educational information. Could you please put out content on custom dial scopes. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Ad well ad any myths.

[@ericb.4358]

My current long range scope for my 6.5 PRC Browning X-Bolt is a BUSHNELL Elite LRTS 4.5 - 18 x 44 scope WITH an illuminated G3 small "Xmas tree" reticle. At 500 yards it is great for BOTH vertical and wind hold. I HOLD and do NOT dial! That goes for competition as well. BUT... I am likely going to sell that scope and buy a BURRIS ELIMINATOR 6 (2nd focal plane withMANY sensors for its ballistic engine.) The "6" is a very advanced scope giving the shooter the best firing solution except for windage. It is a HOLD type of scope, NOT a dial type. I love that.

[@squarefour1]

Great Information

[@thomaswall4285]

Hey BionicRusty cool stuff we worked with right! And Backfire!, As a retired owner operator of a optical thin films (coatings) lab. It does boil down to the specification tolorences and what you need. I love your videos Backfire and it was so nice to hear the adjust it past then back it down to the value, when talking about the adjustments of the reticle. Keep in mind you will have to figure out which direction of the turn of the knob is the correct direction to take out the slack in the tolorance that is the correct one to give you the most accurate results optically. Good lesson on having a accurate reference point down wind to calibrate to. To any one hunting don't forget up close with iron sites and a good caliber will get the job done! Be well every one,T

[@brycehiigel235]

Very informative I feel like less is more. Especially on the reticle. Even for bow hunting. I went from a multi pin to a single pin. Just learnt my holdovers or unders.

[@robertboyd3863]

I agree as old john Taylor used to say , simply hold higher .

[@claudiodelcastillo893]

Great video on scopes

[@cpe2729]

Good Video, great expert talk 👍🏻

[@br4713]

😂

[@christopherkingsland4604]

Excellent informative video ! I find that the x-mas tree is too cluttered for me except maybe for aiming artillery - I prefer minimal good'ol cross hairs only - call me old fashioned !!

[@hopewilliams6705]

Awesome video!!!

[@darrencorrigan8505]

Thanks, Backfire.

[@patcassidyOutdoors]

I never worry about the edges being slightly fuzzy ... the center is where you aim.

[@paulpalmer5264]

Very helpful

[@EDavis-bu7cx]

Topic suggestion: Show us EXACTLY what the differences are between lower-priced and higher-priced rings. I've heard many times here, and elsewhere, that cheap rings may damage or wreck a scope. I'd love you to show EXACTLY what that means, and how much correlation there is between price and performance.

[@dennisholle1005]

Thanks Jim.

[@TheDMaddog]

I have a bore sighter that has a grid...and observe clicks and ensure the cross hairs move and return to place of origin. I have found dead spots in several scopes over the years. Good tips. Thank you.

[@robertboyd3863]

Yes, with that type bore sighter you can find a lot of scope problems , the old Weavers used to shift about a foot, each time you changed the direction you turned the power , couldn't figure out what was the matter until I used the bore sight , also tap the scope real hard and see if the reticle moves , etc.

[@THall-vi8cp]

Sometimes good deals can be had. For example, I picked up a $1,400 Vortex for $800 because it was a floor model. When I received it, it looked as if it had never been touched.

[@commonsense5709]

Element Optics scopes have been on sale for close to half price at a couple of retailers and also some price friendly dealers offer them for you for half price sometimes fir free if you post favorable reviews for them.

[@difficult_aardvark]

No, you picked it up for that price because they massively mark up MSRP and sell everything at a "discount". Never buy anything from vortex if it's not at least 40% off.

[@THall-vi8cp]

@difficult_aardvark It was a floor model (technically, a store demo). The unopened stock, same model, cost $1,400 at the same store.

[@X4Alpha4X]

on the topic of MIL over MoA, i really dont like it when people refer to MIL as "metric". MIL is beautiful because its unit agnostic. You can use MIL in ANY unit of measure, because MIL is simply 1/1000 the width as the distance. So 1 MIL measures 1 inch at 1,000 inches away, 1 yard at 1,000 yards away or 10cm at 10,000cm (100 meters) away. I personally prefer MIL because if i measure something say 2 MIL then i know its 2/1000 (500) of that something away. Say the height of a man in boots and a helmet is 6' or 2 yards, and he measures 2 MIL tall, then i know he's 500x his height away, or 250 yards.

[@edwardfinn4141]

You are right. But that is the underlying principle of the entire metric system 1 millimeter is one thousand of a meter. 1.0 ml is 1 millionth of a cubic meter

[@X4Alpha4X]

@@edwardfinn4141 you are simply referring to the prefixation of the metric system. The definition of a meter or liter has no bearing on if something is 1/1000 of another. In imperial measurements for machining people often use a 'thou' to refer to 1/1000 of an inch, but that's not the metric system. would you say binary is part of the metric system because it uses kilobytes and megabytes which refer to 1,000 and 1,000,000 bytes respectively?

[@jcjustice3786]

Good stuff young man. I give you👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍 Stay healthy

[@johngeorgopoulos2568]

So ALL of the biggest names in scopes around the world who have a Christmas tree reticle are wrong because this guy says so. Interesting

[@88porpoise]

It would be far from the first time that companies were selling an inferior product because it looks cool so people not knowing better would favour it. That said, depending on your purpose they can probably be very useful or a big disadvantage. If you are able to carefully dial in every shot, doing so and cleaning up your view is probably going to be better. But if you need to shoot more quickly, it provides a quicker method to adjust your aim, if less precise.

[@user-sl4hx8vs9w]

He knows experts tho

[@CatDaddySteve]

SIGHTRON Made in Japan with LOW =light optics works best Japanese glass at very affordable prices

[@MysticalDragon73]

Where the christmas tree comes in handy is when you are shooting disciplines that dont allow for adjusting the scope other than the parallax. Hunter field class in air guns is an example. You set your magnification and confirm your zero. Once the match starts you range find with your parallax. Then you use your dope sheet to determine your holdover/hold under.

[@williamgaines9784]

If your scope doesn't track and you miss, it's still YOUR fault. You should check your scope's tracking as described. Most sight-in targets have a grid on them to check the tracking, it can be confirmed by shooting after adjustment. If the click values are correct, one can dial in the adjustments based on the grid(ex. You are 3 inches low and 2.5 inches left, you should be able to dial 12 clicks up and 10 clicks right, on 1/4 moa click value and your next shots should be point of aim) Of course those adjustments are wind dependent and a calm or parallel wind is best for such verification. Good tips overall.👍👍

[@mactopia2372]

I’m pretty noob noob to scopes. Thank you for making this and sharing.

[@erikalmighty]

Good vid!

[@MrSabram07]

I'm not spending $700 on a scope holy cow

[@12vibaba]

that is a cheap one😂😂

[@bryanmoore9257]

We can't group 99% of hunters with long range competition shooters. For "most" hunters a decent scope and a good rifle with a point blank zero is ALL that is needed. Take a ruger mk2 7mm mag, $500 athlon scope with a single dot reticle centered in crosshairs, zero for 200 or so and never change your aim point on a whitetail and you're good from 50 yards to 300 with the right rifle and ammo you're fine. No need to adjust your turret, aim high or low, this is what 99% should be doing. I've guided for 35 years and seen it all. In the deer woods there's little time to adjust and think in most situations. Keep it simple, use decent glass and above all else just practice. Good info and appreciate your interviews.

[@JohnDoe-zl6qw]

6:55 *Gotta debunk this one. MILS is **_NOT_** a metric system measurement. Milliradians is a unit-less measure; it is not Imperial (inches, feet, yards, etc.) nor is it metric (centimeters, meters, etc.). The reason this myth of its own persists is because of the similarity between (MIL)liradians and (MIL)limeters.* *However, this is merely linguistic; MILS in Greek stands for **_"one-thousand"._** In the case of millimeters, it means **_"one one-thousandth of a meter"._** With respect to milliradians, it means **_"one one-thousandth of a radian."_** That's where the similarity ends.* *To repeat: milliradians has **_NOTHING_** to do with the metric system. There is no correlation between them. You can convert milliradians to a linear metric measurement, just like you can convert it to a linear Imperial measurement. But it is **_NOT_** metric.* *It is precisely for this reason milliradians was settled on as the standard of Western militaries. Due to the fact NATO nations follow different measuring systems (Imperial and metric), the neutral, unit-less milliradians was chosen so as not to appear to be favoring one over the other. Users of either system (Imperial and metric) had to learn a new system (milliradians) to promote standardization and avoid preferential treatment.* *I own scopes in both, I know the conversion math for both, I've shot using both. When I was a younger man I jumped on the MILS bandwagon. However, as time goes on I'm leaning more and more to making all my scopes MOA. Imperial is the system I grew up with, it's the system I don't have to think about. I can immediately picture in my mind's eye the approximate distance of an inch, a foot, a yard, 100 yards, etc. without any mental gymnastics or math conversion. MOA, with its approximation of 1 inch per 100 yards (technically 1.04 inches), dovetails effortlessly with that system of measurement for **_ME._* *Understand I'm not promoting one over the other. What I'm promoting is finding what works for **_YOU_** and then sticking with it. I fully appreciate the standardization MILS brings to the table. If you're part of a group, it's of paramount importance you all agree to a single measurement system so you're not confusing the issue by trying to translate apples to oranges. If that's MOA, great. If that's MILS, that's fine, too. The point is to pick one so everyone is talking the same language. But if you're working alone, you have the luxury of picking what works best for you, personally, rather than what works best for everyone in a group situation.*

[@choomanfoo157]

I'm always so impressed on how you get these various types of guests in your videos, great job on that man! I don't know how, but it's workin!

[@villagelightsmith4375]

I've an old benchrest rifle that shoots sub 1/4 minute groups with a sub-$100 scope from Weaver. El Paso. Tracks beautifully. I have other scopes that won't hold in a bucket. There are, however, some tricks involved.

[@James-cv5tx]

MoA scope adjustment is essential, if you shoot on targets which are specified in MoA. If hunting or informal target shooting, it makes no difference

[@brostelio]

Finally. Thank you.

[@chaecoco2]

Wish I would have seen a video like this about 10 years ago. Would have saved myself alot of money.

[@rudolphferdinand3634]

The Burris XTR signature rings (6) sets, and here is what I look for in scope rings: sloppy. The rings mounted, how much movement is there back and forth on the picatinny rail. Now, if I am worried about the screws rusting, I can replace them with S/S screws but they too can rust. Another big plus for Burris XTR scope rings: the plastic inserts can add MOA to your rifle set up. Weatherby MK 5 300 Weatherby Magnum S/S, I have found rust spots after hunting rainy weather - Alaska.

[@blackhawk7r221]

Lower quality 304 stainless will develop light rust spots. Better 316 and others will not.

[@commonsense5709]

Burris has a lifetime warranty on their rings if you have any issues they will take care of it.

[@mick312]

Met the Element Optics guys at IWAm friendly guys, considering getting one or 2 for some of my rifles.

[@Suprentus]

I don't buy the explanation against christmas tree reticles. I was a trained designated marksman, and we used both measurements and holdovers with mil dots. We didn't touch the elevation/windage knobs, we were pretty consistent on target, and we didn't "defeat the purpose of the design of the rifle scope." We didn't have any problems with image distortion because of lens curvature or whatever. I'm not saying this guy doesn't know what he's talking about though. He's probably a way better shot than I am, and he probably has a point when shooting beyond 1000 yards. But at least in my experience and my training within 1000 yards (which is still a pretty great distance), aiming at a point that's not in the center of the lens was actually the intended way of doing it. So for that reason, a christmas tree reticle would actually make that much easier.

[@mikelundrigan2285]

I own a .270 rifle that came with a 3-9 x scope for $600. in 2012. I have never missed with this combo up to 400 metres on Moose and deer! Works for me!

[@thatguy2383]

Right, that's a very important comment because this video is totally about hunters that only shoot at close ranges with cheap 3-9s.

[@brettlandon8624]

Thanks

[@TheBeefSlayer]

“Rectal Linear” 1:55 🤔 Like the angle of poop projection? So many thoughts…… so many😂😂😂

[@CharlieMikeNS]

1:20 - Yeah, but it just doesn't though, does it? It's pretty damned easy to test for yourself. He uses technical phrases like "angle of incidence", yet doesn't seem to understand how lenses bend light or how scopes work.