Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Scope for a 308 24” Tikka CTR?

I’m leaning toward keep it simple with a 6x MQ.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

I also have a spare Athlon 2-12 coming.

I’d Athlon myself since you have it.

Bushnell LRTSi or Trijicon.

What kind of uses do you have planned for it?

My CTR's wear Nightforce. This is the longrange forum, but I have to ask how far do you intend to shoot? Everyone's eyes and preferences are different, so you are going to get a schidt load of answers. A CTR is not a lightweight hunting rifle, so why limit yourself to a 6x scope? If shooting real small targets out real far, I'd go with something with magnification. Fill us in on what you are wanting to use this rifle for. The scopes I use, are great for the shoots I do, which are small targets out to 600+ yards. An example is a rabbit silhouette at 611 yards, a yote at 800 yards.. For my eyes, the 5-20x56 SHV are a minimum.. Those are sweet rifles, you will be happy with how it shoots. My buddy has an older T3 stainless varmint model with a 24" barrel and it is scary accurate. The CTR is pretty much the same way, but with a better bottom metal and magazine.

I’d use a 6x Leupold.

THIS

The SS 3x9 is a good scope. I have it on my tikka 308. Shot about a 4" 500 yd group with it prone the other day. That's fairly common with this set up.

Swfa 3-15, 3-9x, bushnell lrhs2, trijicon tenmile, etc. (Maybe eotech vudu)

Out of the 2 you have. The 2-12.
Also what BSA said was spot on

My 260 CTR has a NSX 5.5-22 on it. I really just play with this gun as opposed to hunting it much. I do like the fact that I can turn it down for closer shots or crank it up to take a good look horns at longer distances.

I've shot to 1000 with a SWFA 6 MQ. I personally prefer the 6 over the 10 because of the superior clarity. It's Definately a workable option

Trystan

When the target is as big as a sheet of plywood, a 6x will work just fine. Just sayin..

Depending on the reticle and its subtensions, MOA targets are doable out to beyond 1000 with a 6x. Is it my preference for that kind of shooting? No. But it can be done.

When the target is as big as a sheet of plywood, a 6x will work just fine. Just sayin..

^this at 1000 sounds about right.

Yes, and as big as a big truck tire at 500..


I don't think the OP has really given any details on what type of "targets" he intends to shoot at. I asked earlier. Maybe he is still thinking that one out? It's as simple as this: Do you want to shoot the yote in the head, or make a pop shot with minimum power scopes and hope and pray you hit the body? What kind of precision are you after? None of this "reticle subtension" bull shidt.. We all know that if you pair the right sized target with a certain magnification and reticle, you can hit said target, but how precise do you want to be? You want to be able to hit an egg at 3 or 400 yards? You aren't going to be doing that with a 6x scope. Some of the guys I shoot with will hit a golf ball at 500 yards. Again, you aren't going to be doing that with a low power scope. Lets hear from the OP what his intended target is and that will give us a better idea of what the optimum choice may be. Again, this is the "long range" forum. Maybe the question should have been asked in the optics forum or regular hunting forum??? I can only relay what I use on my Tikka CTR's for shooting long range targets..





The CTR's are some of my favorite rifles. Very precise shooting, why limit them with a low powered scope?

I need to learn how to post pics with this site.
Lol.
12 power on man size silhouette at 850ish
https://imgur.io/n8jcekt

The question "how precise do you want to be" is a good one. IME, as I mentioned, MOA or a bit under is consistently doable with a 6x scope and the right reticle. Whatever target you intend to shoot, figure out the distance at which it is 1 MOA in size, and you should be able to get consistent hits out to at least that distance.

600 yards, 6" plate for discussion's sake. More for plinking than real long range.

Although, I have access to an NRA high-power 1,000 yard range and will take it up there every once in a while.

I would prefer more magnification than 6x, but you can get it done for sure with 6x.

For discussion say, Have you actually ever looked at 6” plate at 600 yards with 6 power?
A Lot to ask for
Good luck

Each to their own, but I want more power. I can always turn my 5.5-22 down to 6 power but you can't turn a fixed 6 up

Yes. The target is not large, but the image with a 6x MQ is very clear.



I'm leaning in this direction.

Good call.

I’d want at least 14 power.

I'll reiterate that my point was what is possible, but just because something is possible doesn't mean that it is preferable.

We have a 18x24 plate at 600 yrds. We put a 1" red sticker as an aiming point. While I prefer more power the aiming point is very visible with a 6X MQ SWFA. More power makes it a bit easier but any thing over 6mm impacts easy. .22cal are a bit tougher to see the impact. 10x is quite good.

The steel plate we use at 1000 measures 12" square and painted with white paint. The 6MQ picked up the target and would put 3 shots from a plain jane tikka on that target. 3 shots is statistically what a factory tikka T3 will drive reasonably well.

At 600 yards where the OP is talking about shooting there is an advantage to the 6 MQ in that it has sufficient magnification for that distance and will record less mirage. In fact I have demonstraighted to the long range group I shoot with how they can tighten up there group at 500 yards many times by simply turning there scope down in magnifaction. I realize you understand all of this however for the general shooting community this gets lost in the noise and sometimes even among more experiences shooters it can get lost to a degree and they will open groups up by turning the magnification UP!

Magnification has a feel good effect on the eyes that can be somewhat deceiving to a degree IME

Trystan

Very true.

You’re full of scheit.

Pics of said range, rifle and long range shooting group.
You’re full of scheit.

Playing around 7 years ago...I cheated and used a 8X long eye relief pistol scope.
Plus, it was at 500 yards, not 600 yards.
But even with a 357 Magnum revolver, you can do pretty good.

No doubt it’s possible.

Trystan is FOS though.

I can’t believe we have to go through this schit again.

Anyone who thinks a 6X scope is optimal for a long range rifle is a Fuggen moron

Yes

Shooting for precision vs shooting for hits seems to be the line between the two arguments.

Hard copy on you can dial magnification down if necessary but not up with a fixed scope.

David, you are getting some good advice. Some of it is mixed, though, as we would expect. I think the guys running 6x scopes have eyes like an eagle. I myself would be searching around just to find the target, even a huge target at 600 yards. You just have to figure out how much you are willing to pay, quality of glass and scope brand. What I see a lot of where I shoot longrange varmint silhouette is high power scopes. A lot of Nightforce, Vortex, high end Leupolds (very few though), US Optics, Schmidt and Bender, and even some Athlon and Tract Toric's as of late. These guys shoot well enough that if they had scope issues, they would not be using them. I play it safe and rely on my Nightforce rifle scopes. Even the lesser SHV models track well and have pretty good glass. The reticles are excellent for bracketing the targets I shoot at, which tend to be smaller than what most guys shoot at, I guess.. Yesterday I was tagging a 2" diameter plate with one of my CTR rifles that wears a 5-20x56 Nightforce rifle scope. To be fair, I was also hammering it with my new 22-250 running a new Zeiss V4 4-16x44 with #94 reticle. The lesser magnification and somewhat lesser glass had me straining a bit more, trying to focus on the 2" diameter steel plate. I'm not going to argue with the guys that say they can use a 6x rifle scope at 1,000 yards, more power to them. My eyes are just not capable of that. I'd have to use brail or a white cane to find the target. I'm surprised you aren't getting more suggestions for some of the newer scopes, like the Athlon and Tract Toric's. They really seem to track well, from what I've seen and they are not super high priced. One I'd stay away from are the first gen Vortex Razors, as I have seen a few fail. The newer 3rd gen Razors seem to be exceptional though. Going back to my shooting yesterday, I remember quite clearly as I went from one rifle wearing the new Zeiss V4 to the CTR wearing the SHV Nightforce, that I thought to myself the glass in the Nightforce is much better. The Zeiss cost's around $1,000.00 where the NF is in the ballpark of $1,200.00. I'd gladly spend the extra $200 to get the better glass. Tracking seems to be close to the same, but I have not taken the Zeiss past 400 yards yet. I've dialed the SHV to 1,400 yards and it tracks like a blood hound and returns to zero perfectly every time.


My best suggestion is to play around with both scopes you ask about and see which one works better for you. If neither one tracks well enough, or you are struggling to see the target at 600 yards, send them down the road and upgrade.

BSA. Good post.

I think I’ll move one of my higher magnification scopes on this CTR and see how that works.

I have another, a CTR-ish in 6.5 Creedmoor that’s a sporter barrel cut down to 20” threaded and in a CTR stock.

Probably drop the Athlon 2-12 on that one just to keep the weight under control.

How much magnification works depends on many factors. You mentioned a 6" plate at 600 yards. I haven't used an Athlon scope so I can't comment directly on that. With respect to the 2-12 magnification range, 12x would be plenty if the resolution of the scope and reticle are suitable.

Good Call.
E

I agree. Sounds like a sound solution.

Picked up a Athlon Helos BTR 2-12x42...extremely impressed with it. I think it would serve your needs well.

Sounds fishy. Hint.





Fhuqking LAUGHING!................

Stick...my eyes aren’t what they once were. Between the Arken and Athlon, glass quality? Which one gets your vote for clarity?
I’m liking the Athlon better than my Arken side by side. Same two models you are showing. Not by much but noticeable.

The best thing to do with a 24” barrel is cut 6” off of it.

For Utility Killing,the Athlon. Hint.

"Glass" makes zero fhuqks,but locking turrets do. I think most folks would opine an erector that yielded 10 Mil's per revolution too,if only to keep Base Ten a thang. Hint.

The 30mm tube on the 12x,shirks a fair mount of mass,yet retains more erector travel. As magnification increases,the view tends to take a hit,along with parallax being more fickle. All of which,tends to grease Athlon skids in direct comparison. Hint.

Everyone who gawks the Athlon,tends to comment upon the brilliance of the view and that don't suck. It's a friendlier platform,with milder mannerisms. No question. Hint.

The reticles are VERY different and that can lead folks to take sides. With acclimation,I gun the Athlon differently now,than I did a dozen of 'em ago. If/when eeking finite precision,on a subject unfavorable to it's centerpoint's subtension,I simply Straight Eight it ala Heinie. Doing thusly,I can hold hard and have my way upon things,WELL shy of centerpoint subtension. Hint.

At like magnification,in like ambient light,I find the 12x faster too. Hint..................

Appreciate the input.