The New Classified Ad System is live. Please head here for details: https://gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/new-classified-ad-system-tutorial.112735/
The known would be distance. This would require a range finder. The unknown would be spread or tine length. 1 mil=3.6” at 100 yds or 4 moa=4.25” at 100 yards or .5 mil=5.25” at 300 yardswhen measuring in mils or moa don't you need a known measurement for determining distance? what calculations do you use to measure spread, tine length and main beam length?
That scope has won a lot of matches... so does the old Japanese Tasco fixed 36 FCH. I have both!When I was shooting BR-50 those 36X Weavers were mighty good at 50 yards. That's been a while a go though.
the only flaw with FLT's logic, if you will, is everyone doesn't hunt within 200 yards in trees...otherwise it is spot on.Before buying the $3K scope everyone should apply FLT logic.
and don't forget the biggy, the budgetIt all still falls into the shooters needs.
that is included in needsand don't forget the biggy, the budget
Read the opening post... USUALLY is the operative word.My guess the Weaver or the Tasco are not $3K scopes. However, they brought home the bones. So back to the OP.
"Should your scope cost more than your rifle?". . . . . It's complicated.
I would be curious, where you are find such good deals. Please share, if you can. LOLLike mentioned... depends.
It's an old saying that really doesn't hold much water now days with the affordable quality scopes out there, especially in the used scope market.
I just got a LNIB Vortex Viper PST in the box with all the factory goodies for $325 shipped. I didn't need the Vortex but I know a killer deal when I see one. While not a top line scope, it's more than enough to meet the shooting needs of most folks. My last Leupold MK IV was $750 shipped.
The saying isn't as applicable as many want to think.