FN Herstal Firearms banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
After I think I want a Leupold Mark M5C2 low turret model 6 3-18x44 for my Scar 17 with an RMR on top.

Optical instrument Monocular Lens Material property Carbon


I down to this scope choice because my eyes are aging and weak and I need the extra magnification for range fun past 100 yards, but I also want the 3x power for hunting. The idea being one scope that can fulfill the most roles adequately. The Mark 6 is the smallest and lightest of any scope with this wide of a magnification range. It weighs around 24 ounces (about 32 ounces or 2 pounds with an ADM mount):Leupold Optics Mark 6 3-18x44mm (34mm) M5C2 - | Leupold Optics

I'm looking at one online that has the 7.62 CMR-W retical which is apparently not listed on the Leupold website or no longer made that way. My concern is I have never sighted this setup so I have no way to know whether I will actually like it in 3-18x or not:

Font Circle Diagram


I was able to sight a Mark 6 1-6x with this retical at my LGS and I did not like it at all compared to my SWFA SS HD 1-6 retical which functions almost as well as a red dot at 1x:

Circle Line Parallel


I found the Leupold 1-6x 7.62 CMR-W retical was too fine at lower magnification for my old tired eyes. It disappeared when I traversed my line of sight through dark or shadowy areas. It was fine at 6x. Also I am concerned about just how well the BDC grid is going to work when my ammo selection varies considerably from type and brand? I've never used a scope with Bullet Drop Compensation, but it doesn't sound like my thing.

Leupold also makes the Mark 8 with the Tactical Milling Retical, but I suspect the mill lines may be too fine for me as well.


So I'm leaning towards the Mill Dot Retical developed for the USMC:

Symmetry Symbol Circle Cross


But the Mid Dot it seems to only come with the M5B2 tall turrets which appear to be on the tall side for running an RMR at 12 o'cock:

Optical instrument Monocular Cylinder


If the Mark 6 wasn't so expensive I wouldn't worry so much about buying in a configuration I will later come to regret.

Your thoughts, experiences and/or advice is appreciated...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Have you ever tried the RMR at 1-2 O'clock/10-11, my turret is not as tall and I'm good at 12 but I also like 1-2, I have seen where guys have it mounted at the 4 O'clock position and it looks like it's mounted right to the scope base but I can't find a base like the ones I have seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
If your going to spring for the glass - spring for this mount by spuhr:
ISMS? ? IDEAL SCOPE MOUNT SYSTEM? | Spuhr

Plenty of options to mount a rmr or aimpoit micro at various positions - built in level bubble - plenty of room to still read your dials (even SB larger dials) - wedge system to make it idiot proof to install your glass square to the mount - light but will take ANY recoil abuse the 17 can throw at it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
After I think I want a Leupold Mark M5C2 low turret model 6 3-18x44 for my Scar 17 with an RMR on top.

View attachment 38727

I down to this scope choice because my eyes are aging and weak and I need the extra magnification for range fun past 100 yards, but I also want the 3x power for hunting. The idea being one scope that can fulfill the most roles adequately. The Mark 6 is the smallest and lightest of any scope with this wide of a magnification range. It weighs around 24 ounces (about 32 ounces or 2 pounds with an ADM mount):Leupold Optics Mark 6 3-18x44mm (34mm) M5C2 - | Leupold Optics

I'm looking at one online that has the 7.62 CMR-W retical which is apparently not listed on the Leupold website or no longer made that way. My concern is I have never sighted this setup so I have no way to know whether I will actually like it in 3-18x or not:

View attachment 38722

I was able to sight a Mark 6 1-6x with this retical at my LGS and I did not like it at all compared to my SWFA SS HD 1-6 retical which functions almost as well as a red dot at 1x:

View attachment 38723

I found the Leupold 1-6x 7.62 CMR-W retical was too fine at lower magnification for my old tired eyes. It disappeared when I traversed my line of sight through dark or shadowy areas. It was fine at 6x. Also I am concerned about just how well the BDC grid is going to work when my ammo selection varies considerably from type and brand? I've never used a scope with Bullet Drop Compensation, but it doesn't sound like my thing.

Leupold also makes the Mark 8 with the Tactical Milling Retical, but I suspect the mill lines may be too fine for me as well.


So I'm leaning towards the Mill Dot Retical developed for the USMC:

View attachment 38725

But the Mid Dot it seems to only come with the M5B2 tall turrets which appear to be on the tall side for running an RMR at 12 o'cock:

View attachment 38728

If the Mark 6 wasn't so expensive I wouldn't worry so much about buying in a configuration I will later come to regret.

Your thoughts, experiences and/or advice is appreciated...
BDC reticles are quicker on target, but the holdovers are matched to the trajectory of a specific loading; any deviation becomes more pronounced as range increases. The Mark 6 1-6x20mm you examined is designed to be used like an RDS @1X with the illumination on, so the reticle is intended to be faint. Where as, the reticle on a Mark 6 3-18x44mm @3x is fine but clearly visible. I prefer a crosshair type reticle like a TMR or Mil dot, but that's what I've always used. Now a days, the Horus reticle with its grid style is all the rage. It allows one to use the point of impact as a precise aiming point for a follow up shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,097 Posts
I was extremely interested in that glass right up until I saw the price. I would say they are very proud of it. Good grief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mityno1

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
ranger56528: I could settle for an RMR at even 45* but low turrets leave all my options open.

bayonet14: I shoot left handed and I saw comments about the SPHR ISMS mount being biased for right handers, I'm not sure what that's about. It looks like an awesome mount, but I could find nothing on what kind of metal it is or how much it weighs. The deal breaker for me is that while I have no doubt it is more solid mounting system than any Quick Detach mount, I want a QD mount for maximum flexibility and the ability to easily move what will be the best and most expensive scope I own to other rifles. And I am very pleased with the ADM QD latch system. It seems to clamp securely enough but doesn't kill my rails and seems to return to zero better than my abilities as shooter can find fault with. The ADM's are around 8.5 ounces, which is more than double the weight of a good set of rings, but a scope mount is the last place I'm looking to save weight. I need the mount to not break, not break my scope, not allow my scope to move, detach and return to zero when remounted. When I eventually look to build a dedicated competition bolt gun (when I retire in a few short years), the SPHR ISMS mount will be at the top of scope mount list.

fnfalman: Keeping it simple is always solid reliable advice. I admit two things that are complicating my decision. First, despite being an old dude I am a noob with scopes. The second problem that I admit is complicating this process for me is that I'm trying to do too much with one single scope. But I blame FN for creating and selling me a Scar 17 for this problem. For a few extra pounds it does everything my AR's do, but it does it better, and it does many things they can't do including encroaching into bolt gun territory. I want to set up my Scar 17 to be the the one rifle if I can have only one. I want mine configured to perform the widest variety of different shooting challenges adequately rather than specializing to excel in any particular types of shooting challenges. Is that too much to ask of a rifle? Of course it is, but that doesn't stop a knucklehead like me from trying anyway.

00stormbringer: I appreciate the explanation of the 1-6x recital, the one I sighted did not have the battery installed so that makes sense now. Illumination is a nice feature, but I don't want a scope dependent on it and my SWFA 1-6x illuminated isn't. I also appreciate you reinforcing that any BDC is not going the right choice for me because they are going to fall short on versatility. As far as the Horus reticals, I have discounted them because here in north Georgia there are not a lot of places to shoot past a couple hundred yards, and the consensus is a Horus type retical is too cluttered, busy and distracting for short to medium range work. But you caused me to google them to see what all the rage is about and now I'm thinking it might be a mistake for me to overlook them because of how simple they are supposed to be to learn to use:


For Arabic press 3...

I'll see if any of my LGS's have a Leupold Mark 6 (or similar scope) with a Horus retical on the shelf to see what I see before I make a final decision.

Patton250: Part of my own justification of the price is the 10 ounces less weight that the Mark 6 offers over most any other similar scope except those from March brand. March is just as pricey but not yet widely known in the USA and as much as I love the March specs on paper, there are no Local Gun Shops here in Atlanta that are going to have one on the shelf. I figure I'll be paying about $100 per ounce of weight the March 6 will save me. The March 6 with an RMR (or 45* GNG iron sights) and 25 rounds in a PMAG with my Atlas bipod attached, will still let me have just over a 13 pound Scar 17 ready to run. You can't do all of that for less money in a reliable mil-spec semiauto .308. But none of that means anything to my wife of over 25 years. To her I justify it as being cheaper than a midlife crisis Corvette, Harley or mistress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,628 Posts


sorry not the best picture in the world but that gives you an idea of what the TMR reticle looks like at 200 yards. The hash marks are a lot more pronounced when looking through the scope in person. It's extremely easy to get on target at various ranges with the TMR. Once you have a decent amount of time behind it you know where to hold and it becomes second nature. It's definitely the finest scope I have had the pleasure of using and owning. Here's an example of engaging targets at 100,200, and 300 yards with this optic.

@ the 50 second mark.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
KameronTKelly: I'm digging your TMR. I really like the missing dot in the hollow center. And I may be able to get one with the low turrets.

How does the TMR look without the illumination turned on?

Line Parallel Symmetry Circle Diagram


Line Parallel Circle Diagram Symmetry



I like the looks of the Front Focal TREMOR 2, it doesn't look too cluttered to me and would do the Horus tricks... and as useful as that might be, I think I would rather give that up for the hollow missing center dot because I will still probably be doing most of my shooting at 100 yard ranges. Like you said, I think I can get used to estimating the holdover.

Front Focal TREMOR 2:

Black Darkness White Sky Light
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,628 Posts
I don't have a picture of it. What I can tell you is that the last time that I was home I had so many things going on with so many different rifles that I spaced and didn't put the battery back in the MK6 (took it out for long term storage). The fact that the illumination was turned off didn't bother me one bit. In that video the illumination was turned off. There is a reason the non illuminated version still sells for $2K. If the scope was useless without illumination Leupold wouldn't make a version that leaves it out and folks damned sure wouldn't be buying them.

The hash marks are extremely effective and easy to see during daylight hours. Illumination helps me pick out the reticle at night and will certainly help when I get my night vision clip on in the future. Illumination also helps on moving targets because it's easier to pick out the red color when the scope is in motion. Same concept as red dot sights. Imagine the dot being black on an aimpoint and etched into the glass. It would be useable during daylight hours but the same could be said about trying to hit moving targets. The moving targets thing is relevant to me Because I hunt hogs and will occasionally shoot them while they are on the move. If I was purely shooting at stationary targets I wouldn't have shelled out the extra cash for the illumination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
That's the problem I've had also being an older guy is seeing the reticle clearly at a lower power illuminated or not. I mean with the FFP optics, it seems once you go below say 3x the reticle gets so fine it's just hard to use very well. I think you would be better off with a SFP optic if your going below 3x on the low end. I would also say to keep the reticle as simple as possible some of these optics have so much clutter in the reticle that its mind boggling to say the least.

My Uso 1.8x10 FFP scope was a great optic but once you got below 3x the reticle was soooo! fine you could hardly make it out very well with over 50 year old eyes. Ymmv, It would be nice to have access to be able to look through all the different optics and be able to pick and choose but that'll never happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
As much as I don't want to admit it d762nato,I think you are right.

When I was younger I could count the red, blue and white fibers in a dollar bill with my nakid eyes.

Now I have to hold them at arms length to read "FEDEMAL RESEBVE NOTF" across the top.

With FFP eliminated, I'm left with the ~19 ounce SFP March Tactical 2.5-25x42 MIL dot (MML) reticle as "the one" that will probably serve me better for everything I am trying to do with it, with the eye I have to do it with:

http://marchscopes.com/tactical-25-25-x-42.html

Gun Optical instrument Air gun Gun barrel Trigger


Line Circle Parallel Diagram Symmetry


Sport venue Land lot Soil Shooting sport Photography



It too is a fine reticle, but has adequate duplex and illumination will make it easy to see as long as there is power in the battery. Also SFP does not change in size like you pointed out so the more I use it, the more I will instinctively "know" where to find the cross hairs crossing even if I'm not illuminated and I can't see parts of the reticle because of shadow or lack of contrast. I think that more or less satisfies the Keep It Simple Stupid principle that fnfalman advised.

As I looked into the Horus reticles, my take is they are what you probably want for bench work, desert or plains shooting where you have large areas of similar colors, lighting and brightness. Here in the forested woodlands of the South, the undergrowth is almost pixelated in appearance with splotches of leaf and limb color that vary in how brightly they are lit by beams of light flickering down through the tree canopy obstruction above. In other words the background itself is very busy in forested woodlands (and in some urban environments.) The Horus is so busy and cluttered itself that it makes it difficult for me to pick out target details when the Horus is superimposed over the the target picture. The Horus tends to obstruct or otherwise help to camouflage the target because of how busy and cluttered the combination of both the Horus and woodland environment becomes. Pretty much what most of the people I talk to say around here, the Horus is just not what you want to hunt with in this part of the country.

It looks like the MIL (MML) illuminated version of this March scope will be around $2,500 or so which is right there with the lower end Leupold Mark 6's in price. But the March is lighter in weight while giving a wider range of magnification and it has low dials that should work well with an RMR. I think it has a 5 year warranty. It is still a fairly new scope and a fairly new brand to the US market so March has not established a reputation here, good or bad, and so few are running this particular scope model that there is little feedback and no history, good or bad, about its longevity. So in my book it is a gamble, but I'm at the point where the promises are too great to not take that gamble. It won't be the first time I have been a guinea pig, I have been a medical research patient before and that tends to more of a gamble if things don't work out than just loosing a pile of benjamins. So I think I'm going to roll the dice on the March.

Here is a pretty good review/comparison of the March against some other reputable scopes:
http://opticsthoughts.com/?page_id=120
 
  • Like
Reactions: d762nato

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Dang I knew I shouldn't have got involved in this thread now I'm looking into that March 2.5x25x42 or the 1x10 myself. I'm not sure about the reticle though as I'm going to look their reticles over some more. The japanese have been making cameras and lens for a very long time and with their discipline and work ethic it should be a very good optic I would think. It seems to be very well thought out from what I've read so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
As much as I don't want to admit it d762nato,I think you are right.

When I was younger I could count the red, blue and white fibers in a dollar bill with my nakid eyes.

Now I have to hold them at arms length to read "FEDEMAL RESEBVE NOTF" across the top.

With FFP eliminated, I'm left with the ~19 ounce SFP March Tactical 2.5-25x42 MIL dot (MML) reticle as "the one" that will probably serve me better for everything I am trying to do with it, with the eye I have to do it with:

Tactical 2.5-25 x 42

View attachment 38748

View attachment 38749

View attachment 38747


It too is a fine reticle, but has adequate duplex and illumination will make it easy to see as long as there is power in the battery. Also SFP does not change in size like you pointed out so the more I use it, the more I will instinctively "know" where to find the cross hairs crossing even if I'm not illuminated and I can't see parts of the reticle because of shadow or lack of contrast. I think that more or less satisfies the Keep It Simple Stupid principle that fnfalman advised.

As I looked into the Horus reticles, my take is they are what you probably want for bench work, desert or plains shooting where you have large areas of similar colors, lighting and brightness. Here in the forested woodlands of the South, the undergrowth is almost pixelated in appearance with splotches of leaf and limb color that vary in how brightly they are lit by beams of light flickering down through the tree canopy obstruction above. In other words the background itself is very busy in forested woodlands (and in some urban environments.) The Horus is so busy and cluttered itself that it makes it difficult for me to pick out target details when the Horus is superimposed over the the target picture here. The Horus tends to obstruct or otherwise help to camouflage the target because of how busy and cluttered the combination of both the Horus and woodland environment becomes. Pretty much what most of the people I talk to say around here, the Horus is just not what you want to hunt with in this part of the country.

It looks like the MIL (MML) illuminated version of this March scope will be around $2,500 or so which is right there with the lower end Leupold Mark 6's in price. But the March is lighter in weight while giving a wider range of magnification and it has low dials that should work well with an RMR. I think it has a 5 year warranty. It is still a fairly new scope and a fairly new brand to the US market so March has not established a reputation here, good or bad, and so few are running this particular scope model that there is little feedback and no history, good or bad, about its longevity. So in my book it is a gamble, but I'm at the point where the promises are too great to not take that gamble. It won't be the first time I have been a guinea pig, I have been a medical research patient before and that tends to more of a gamble if things don't work out than just loosing a pile of benjamins. So I think I'm going to roll the dice on the March.

Here is a pretty good review/comparison of the March against some other reputable scopes:
High End Tactical Scopes: East vs West » OpticsThoughts
I think the Nightforce 2.5-10 is a better option without having any time with one of these, it's magnification range is about perfect. With its small exit pupil the x25 will be hard to use and being SFP it is the only magnification you can range with or use hold overs effectively, it also costs $$$$$.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
I see what you mean with the 25x top end Scarface. I think the only time I'd use it if I had it would be for a spotting scope type deal or at the range. I do like the 1x10 though but it probably wouldn't have as much light gathering capabilities as a bigger objective type optic. If its going to be for hunting in the woods a 25x wouldn't be needed either, although I think the OP is trying to get all the x's he can for his $$$. I hunt in the thick woods in Mo. and I've really gone to a lower powered optic myself. That's the problem though so many choices and so little $$$.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
In the real world, more than 99% of the time my Scar will shoot at paper targets set up on designated shooting ranges, both public and private. Those rare few times my targets won't be paper, they are most likely going to be glass or metal beverage, paint or other similar containers. 100 yards is the minimum range I will waste a dollar's worth of .308 on. I have other "intermediate" cartridge rifles that are cheaper and arguably more fun to shoot at closer ranges. My vision is getting more and more out of focus as I age, both near and far. I need glasses but refuse to wear them. In a couple of years I may look into to having LASIK or the lenses replaced in my eye balls. I'm waiting for my mid-life vision changes to finish changing or at least stabilize more so hopefully I will never need glasses after corrective surgery. Until then, 10x for someone with good vision is probably as effective as somewhere between say about 4x to 6x for me. I would guess 25x for me would be about 10x to 14x for someone with good vision.

Ideally something like a 20-80x specialized bench rest scope would be the ideal scope for what I actually will be doing.

Now while I would never select my Scar 17 over a bolt gun to hunt deer, I am determined to require that my Scar be configured in such a way that I could effectively and ethically take deer with my Scar 17, if it was the only rifle I had. If I could have only one rifle to do anything and everything, my Scar 17 is THAT rifle.

So the problem with hunting around here is that a wide field of view is just as important as magnification. Scopes in the 1-4x range are probably recommended for hunting white tail deer here in the Southeast more than any other powers because I would guess most deer are taken down here at around 50-150 yards. Here there are not many areas where you are going to have a shot at anything over 300 yards because of the lay of the land, trees and undergrowth. If someone handed you a rifle and said go kill us something big to eat, what power scope would you hope that rifle had? 1-10x would definitely cover it, but 2.5x to say 6x should get the job done around here. You might find an RMR a nice addition. My point is I want my Scar 17 to meet my specific needs, but to also be as generically setup as possible so that others could employ it in the widest variety of roles as well.

2.5-25x42 is a compromise to accommodate my vision. I would much prefer the 1-10x-42 if I could still see normally because I could do everything I want to do and live without an RMR.

8 pounds is about the limit for a rifle I have to lug around any distance and not cry about it. So every ounce I add to my Scar totally sucks and is what keeps me coming back to the Leupold Mark 6 and March Tactical for FFP, and just the March for SFP. If there was a similar $200 dollar scope that was barely good enough to do what the Mark 6 or Mach Tactical's can do at a similar weight, I would much rather buy a couple or three of them instead and put the two grand saved to better uses.

You are right, there are way too many scope choices for people who can actually see what they are shooting at. Good scopes are going to sting your wallet. Really good scopes are going to burn a hole right through your wallet. The very best scopes are going to hold you down and run a prison train on your wallet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: d762nato

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Well it doesn't sound like you'll be hunting with or dragging your scar 17 around for hunting so I say go with all the power you want/need for range fun and stuff. In the end its your scope and if it makes you happy that's the one you should go with. Then if you get eye surgery later and decide on a different optic you can always sell the march or put it on another rifle. You sure don't see many if any march optics for sale on the secondary market if that means anything.

Cptdaz has one and he's quite satisfied with his march in your other thread. I wouldn't mind having the same march he has myself.

http://fnforum.net/forums/scar-accessories-scopes-mods/70400-march-scopes-scar-17-a.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
They told me that because they only stock MOA version reticles, a MIL (the MML) would be about 3 months from when I order the Mach that way until it is built for me in Japan, shipped to them and then shipped to me. I surely hope there are not a lot of Scar owners on this forum looking to order March scopes that they are going to have to wait several months to receive... there might not be enough bandwith on all of the internets to handle the posting traffic that would result here :?:
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top