Need some advise: AR-10 .308

[KW Driver]

Im looking at buying an Armalite AR-10 (.308) with match grade barrel-trigger, ect,,,questions are as follows.

Were it you, what scope would you mount on it and why?

Shooting will be varmit, 300-700 meters, deer, and general shooting.
Give me some details and your thoughts.

I fucking hate you...

well fuck, why not just call him an asshole?

and while I don't hate him, I am a jealous bastard....

[Rock Island Ranger]

Start hooking. Id like to see it. $2500 doesnt scare me if the price is justified by the quality.

[Rock Island Ranger]

Im looking at buying an Armalite AR-10 (.308) with match grade barrel-trigger, ect,,,questions are as follows.

Were it you, what scope would you mount on it and why?

Shooting will be varmit, 300-700 meters, deer, and general shooting.
Give me some details and your thoughts.

I fucking hate you...

well fuck, why not just call him an asshole?

and while I don't hate him, I am a jealous bastard....

He already called me an asshole, he is just getting to phase two of the "make the Pastor cry" scene.

[KW Driver]

so um, you need any tax deductions, like an addopted son there Pastor?

[VengefulIcebox]

Ranger Abell9, I have owned several types of Leupold scopes.
All variable target type. They all seem to have a narrow margin of eye relief tolerance. Which for me, even if my stocks length of pull was set to my size I had to find the small sweet spot to fill the ocular lens with a borderless picture.
I have no experience at all with range finding. I do know the Leupold factory scopes reticle is in the rear focal plane.
I believe, and someone may know for sure, that Leupolds must be set at 10x magnification to allow reticle rangefinding to be accurate. Premier Reticle Leupold's are available, at least when I purchased mine, from SWFA as mentioned by Veteran borebrush. SWFA LINK
The Premier Reticle is etched and placed in the front focal plane, which allows for reticle range estimation at all magnification. Leupold factory reticles are also wire type and may break. Which sounds like a minor consideration in the varied distance described. The eye relief tolerance of the Leupold is the only thing I ever found to dislike of them.

At a visit to Cabela's (scope page link) store near me I found a Zeiss american assembled scope that felt pretty solid. Regarding the windage and elevation clicks, and weight. The most outstanding characteristic was the broad range of eye relief. I was able to maintain a full ocular picture with maybe an inch of movement or more. Pretty generous considering the Leupold I was used to. Zeiss Conquest 1" Riflescope in 6.5-20x50mm was the model I was looking at. They didn't have the Mil-Dot in stock, but was available to order. I never purchased the Zeiss so I can't speak of it's real shootability, only of the eye relief and picture quality.

In summary, I liked the eye relief tolerance of the Zeiss over my Leupold's. I think it would go a long way to relieving some eye strain associated with the few hour durations of bench shooting time I was conducting at that time. I know the 1" tube was more light restrictive, but the glass quality seemd very good, maybe not enough to overcome it directly compared to an off brand 30mm however. The price of the Zeiss was comparable to my 6.5-20 50mm LR/T scope from Leupold as well.

I never owned a Armalite myself, I did have an Stoner SR-25 that I traded a Steyr USR for at one time. It's comparable as it's a box fed .308. I enjoyed it a great deal, but I preferred my 700 Remington's accuracy so the SR and I parted company. I just couldn't get the accuracy out of it I enjoyed from my bolt action.

Not alot of info, but I hope it helps. Enjoy your new rig Ranger Abell9.

[Rock Island Ranger]

Well, young brother.....I dont know who you are but your insight and explanation was excellent and appreciated. So in the event you think all Rangers are assholes without keen appreciation for reasonable expertize,
thought I would dispel that notion and thank you. Yuda man.

Now, kneel before the thrown whilst I grant thee prayer before GRITS. (Great Ranger In The Sky)

O' God of war and maker of pain and recreational killing. This young fucker speaks well and gets to the point. GIve him many TRIM sessions, blow jobs, good sammichs and beer. Amen

[blueridge]

Tons of good suggestions here, Ranger ABell.
Whatever you decide, I'd stongly suggest having the rings lapped-in first thing, marking the rings for position and orientation, and investing in a good torque wrench if you don't already have one.
Improper installation of high-dollar glass will negate its benefits.
Happy shooting.

[blueridge]

Couldn't agree more with your points, Borebrush...lapping for lapping's sake CAN do more harm than good, and has become merely a marketing ploy in many cases. Modern machining does indeed nearly negate past problems with variations in the ID bores of the rings themselves.
My concern, however has always been with the concentricity and run-out ring-to-ring after they've been attached to the base/bases, a problem not with the quality of individual rings, but with the inherent variation in the ring-to-base interface. in other words, no two rings are ever going to attach to the base the same way, and many require lapping to become a matched set and provide optimum grip at reasonable torque.
I still maintain that it's a good idea to use a high-quality, calibrated lapping tool (SANS COMPOUND) to ensure alignment while attaching the rings to the bases, and then checking the rings for witness marks that indicate non-contact areas. IF lapping is required, GO SLOWLY (better yet, have a pro do it), to prevent blowing ring ID past the "oh shit" point.

[Creeping Death]

I'd just look around and see what you like the best. What some of the others have said needs to be factored in, which all of the quality tactical optics are going to have nowadays: 30mm tubes, nitrogen filled, quality glass, reticle choices to fit your personal preferences, etc.

Personally, I like a variable power optic, illuminated reticle for low light work since I can't afford night vision for it, and I like a 1/2 MOA optic with exposed target turrets, vs having a 1/4 MOA optic and counting all those damn clicks.

I get all of that with my IOR with one exception - the target turrets. My target turrets are under caps, kind of like the Loopy M3A is. I have to unscrew the caps then click in my dope. I don't like that. I'd rather shit can the caps, and have exposed turrets. Some Loopys and other makes have this feature that I wish mine did. However, I actually like the glass in my IOR better than the MkIV series Loopys I have used, and having glass I liked better was more important to me than the target turrets.

If you stick with IOR, Loopy, Nightforce, SnB, or US Optics you won't make a wrong choice. You can get into a good quality optic for as low as about $800, plus mount and rings which will bring you up another couple hundred bucks. Or, if you just want to get sick with dropping money, you can get one of the 10x Unertl Optics the Corps uses for about $2500.

I'd give Scott over at snipercountry.com a call. Tell him what you want and he will give you his no shit opinion. He is the one that advised me to get the IOR when I bought, and everything he told me was spot on accurate intel.

Which IOR do you have? My 2.5-10x42 is sweet, very clear, sturdy, reliable. I have the FFP illuminated MP-8 reticle.

Scott is also at snipers paradise, my $50 premium membership fee has already payed for itself many times, I saved $90 on the IOR, $50 on a TC rifle, $20 on a Burris laser/light.

A guy I know that has a AR-10T was using a Nightforce NXS and since getting the IOR he hasn't gone back to NF.

It's the same optic I have. To this point, I could not be happier with it. I like it much more than I do the Loopy M3A that I used back in the day. Although, I have negligible experience with Nightforce to really compare it to.