night vision scope recommendations

[nun_hunter]

I personally never trusted a 50m/yard zero but each to their own

Yes I agree that 50m can hide inaccuracies and the further the better. When I zeroed this it was pretty windy so I settled with 50m. As soon as I can get out and stretch the zero I will just to be sure. The rifle and ammo combo have previously been tested out to 250m and I'm happy with the accuracy in general.

 

[zerovarm]

Yes I agree that 50m can hide inaccuracies and the further the better. When I zeroed this it was pretty windy so I settled with 50m. As soon as I can get out and stretch the zero I will just to be sure. The rifle and ammo combo have previously been tested out to 250m and I'm happy with the accuracy in general.

Agreed 100%. I've tried/used a 50m zero myself and off a bench it's perfect and in theory should leave you "on" at 200. When testing however in the field off sticks or tripod at 150-200m I was finding said inaccuracies. 2.5cm high at 100m has proved to be the sweet spot for mpbr. Crazy to think of the difference on a calm day or night at 150m when you've zeroed in windy conditions at 50m

 

[Foxyboy43]

Hmm. I don’t quite get this - if the rifle is sighted at the necessary range then shot at 50m and PoI noted then surely that will always be the case? The only variable will be down to the potential difference between bench, sticks, Quadsticks or whatever and of course how the shooter handles each?

 

[Foxyboy43]

As per above post:-
These are my 50m confirmation of what zeros are at 100 and 200 so I just replicate them and know I am good to go…

 

[kenbro]

As per above post:-
These are my 50m confirmation of what zeros are at 100 and 200 so I just replicate them and know I am good to go…

View attachment 351375

Looking at Hornady’s Balistics Calc. figures you should be 1.5” high at 100 to be zero at 200.
That’s assuming a scope height 1.5” above bore.
As some would say…go figure.
Cheers, Ken.

 

[nun_hunter]

Hmm. I don’t quite get this - if the rifle is sighted at the necessary range then shot at 50m and PoI noted then surely that will always be the case? The only variable will be down to the potential difference between bench, sticks, Quadsticks or whatever and of course how the shooter handles each?

For me the issue is one or two clicks at 50m doesn't really show up much of a difference but at 200m it can be the difference between a kill or wounding or even a miss.

With the Arken it's not a MBPR zero as the reticle is moved and adjusted dependent on the range, but if the drops aren't checked at 200m then there is no way to know for sure just how accurate the bullet will actually be at that distance

 

[Foxyboy43]

at 200m it can be the difference between a kill or wounding or even a miss.

Agreed (ish) but 1/2 inch grouping at 50 = 1 inch at 100; 2 inches at 200 etc… or call it MOA which is more than good enough for deer - and me!

 

[Foxyboy43]

Looking at Hornady’s Balistics Calc. figures you should be 1.5” high at 100 to be zero at 200.
That’s assuming a scope height 1.5” above bore.
As some would say…go figure.
Cheers, Ken.

Aye - puzzled me too so I went to Sako’s data which didn’t help my puzzling but it worked last month at 200 for 3 Perthshire does so…..

 

[kenbro]

Still can’t get me ed round it being so low at 100 yet zero at 200!
As you say, those deer won’t contradict you.
Ken.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Still can’t get me ed round it being so low at 100 yet zero at 200!
As you say, those deer won’t contradict you.
Ken.

Err, it gets worse better even more puzzling - 50gn Hornady Vmax from the sainted triple deuce - 100 yards zero shot at same 50 as the 6.5.
Well you flipping started it…..

 

[Smellydog]

Perfectly understandable old chap.

The higher from the bore the scope or other device is from the rifles bore the further out the first cross over point or vector or zero is.
That I turn casts the second zero further out.

Then mix in subtle variations from parallel to incidence between individual rifle barrels and actions, mounts and bases one soon has an accumulation of errors defeating the theory.

It's particularly why I don't get all this mounting scopes low JuJu. Your only going to get a higher mid trajectory!

The big clue is in assuming the scope centre is 1.5" above the bore. That is extremely rare today and out of date!

The only way in my opinion is to test your rifle and stay within it's and your limitations.

 

[Foxyboy43]

Perfectly understandable old chap.

The higher from the bore the scope or other device is from the rifles bore the further out the first cross over point or vector or zero is.
That I turn casts the second zero further out.

Then mix in subtle variations from parallel to incidence between individual rifle barrels and actions, mounts and bases one soon has an accumulation of errors defeating the theory.

It's particularly why I don't get all this mounting scopes low JuJu. Your only going to get a higher mid trajectory!

The big clue is in assuming the scope centre is 1.5" above the bore. That is extremely rare today and out of date!

The only way in my opinion is to test your rifle and stay within it's and your limitations.

Sound sense SD - a rare commodity nowadays! More discerning members will recall that the triple deuce (pause for a well-deserved sigh) has a Pard 008P atop - which makes it v high. However the 6.5 has a fairly standard 50mm Hawke on it with medium mounts so clearance is pretty low.
Academic really cos with both accurate shooting is the norm.

 

[kenbro]

With my 22Fireball the scope is 2.5” above bore.
1st x over at 68 yds.
2nd (Zero) x over at 165 yds.
Ken.

 

[Polar Lynx]

I use this chart. Good for thermals/boar i.e. <100 m. 2 inches high/100 m when zeroed at 45 yrds.

 

[Smellydog]

50mm Hawke on it with medium mounts so clearance is pretty low.

Yes so more than the common 1.5" high scope often used in charts.

You've done well with that PARD.
I hope my new Arken has as good a track record!

 

[Foxyboy43]

Yes so more than the common 1.5" high scope often used in charts.

You've done well with that PARD.
I hope my new Arken has as good a track record!

Thanks FB. I am a big fan of the Pard 008P - coupled with a Solaris it is absolutely brilliant.
Pal has the Arken - tried it at the range - very impressive in daylight - be very interesting to hear how it goes in the wee small pyjama-clad hours!

 

[BenBhoy]

I am a big fan of the Pard 008P - coupled with a Solaris it is absolutely brilliant.

Have you tried pard008 with an LED aftermarket FB?

 

[mealiejimmy]

Have you tried pard008 with an LED aftermarket FB?

The PARD 008 really needs a vcsel IR
An LED IR will only give a usable image at short ranges

Cheers

Bruce

 

[BenBhoy]

The PARD 008 really needs a vcsel IR
An LED IR will only give a usable image at short ranges

Cheers

Bruce

the LED retains a very smooth detailed image, but the VCSEL although having more intensity and further throw obviously from being laser based , has nowhere near as clean an image, diffused on non diffused makes no difference.

Thats why for C50, Alpex A50T, Alpex A50E , you don't need anything more under <200yds, they cost less than <£50 , the image on close range rats and rabbits and flood ability is unreal, pin sharp. They work much better also on the likes of an NV008S (transform them) and IMO the Zulus looks great with these also..

 

[Blackwood Outdoors]

I tested the Pard with a 50mm AS LED and it was much better than the inbuilt VCSEL of the Pard itself... Try one, see for yourself..

Anyone with an NV008S check yourselves also

I'm not talking outright power, I'm talking image overall ...