Originally Posted by ShagNasty1001
It's the Trophy Hunter XP. It comes with with a Nikon 3-9x40 and yes it's included in the price. I have not shot the 11/111 in a 6.5 but I have in a 30-06 and used to own a Model 10 in .308. The 6.5 diameter bullets are known for their extended range performance in general. I just picked the creedmoor since it can fit in an AR lower. I'm sure JPatterson or someone more versed in bullet coefficients than I am can elaborate further
6.5 is a great choice, but since I like 18" accuracy at range for targets, 6.5x55, .308 all are really 800 yard rounds. The OP posted an article that stated a 1" group at 50 yards equals a 20" group at 1000. It really is not that simple. With even a 5mph cross wind a 168gr .308 w/ a MV of 2700fps has a drift of 66" at 1000 yards. Pull that shot with what would be the equivalent of 1" at 100 yards and you are 132" off. If the 6.5 Caliber I have had a bit more velocity, such as the Creedmore of 6.5-06, It could stretch the range.
Originally Posted by JonM
The problem you find with most optics and why you can't get a good 1000+ yardage is elevation. I can't think of a single sub 500$ scope that tracks true with enough elevation to get to 1000 yards much less over other than the pu and posp soviet style. That's why I said mosin pu sniper. The probkem comes from scope design where the entire image moves for windage elevation. In the pu posp designs the reticle moves around not the whole image.this gives a lot of room for elevation that tracks true which is why the pu can be so cheap for its ruggedness and reliability.
Your hurdle isn't the gun its the optics. Pretty much any credible caliber can be done pretty cheap in a decently accurate rifle. Its when you go looking at optics the real problem with scope offerings arises.
When you buy a budget scope they are designed to be zeroed and left alone for hunting purposes. When you start expecting each click to be a certain value each time ESPECIALLY at near the end of the dial you run into issues with cheap scopes. They simply don't track well.
I've been through a LOT of optics and tracking at the end is always the problem. I do my testing on a 80 inch target with the aim point at the base I start at max or near max elevation shoot a group move 2 moa and shoot again groups should be two inches apart. I've yet to see anything other than trijicon aimpoint rds and nightforce optics succeed doing this and do it accross the entire range.
That being said you can work around by zeroing at those ranges and try and count clicks needed but they aren't going to equate to the advertised click setting.
I do have cheaper scopes like nikons (a favorite of mine) but I don't expect them to perform at extremes.
Anyway my point is you can find a cheap rifle capable of hitting at distance but your not going to find a cheap optic that can do what I'm assuming your wanting.
Great post! The only Mid range scopes I've used that are repeatable as far as clicks are Sightron SII big sky. Even then, to achieve 1000 yards with my HB .308 I would need a 10MOA base. The other big factor is passing 800 yards the bullet goes subsonic, making it more unpredictable because of natural forces.
Old, as in WW2 era scopes all have one thing in common, except U.S. made optics. The Reticule moves, not the sight picture as Jon stated. PU and PSO scopes have many advantages to the shooter. PSO scopes have a great manual rangefinder in the lower corner. I've got a PU 91/30 and a Zeiss Zeilver that are both 800 yards scopes at 3.5 and 4x respectfully. The fact that they are cammed for a specific round and platform make them superior in ways to what is produced today. Simplicity! They let the shooter concentrate on the target.