Advancements in silicon photonic and micro-optic technologies are driving the need to perform precision alignments down to sub-micrometer levels. As cutting-edge optical and photonic processes demand increasingly smaller, nanometer-scale tolerances, precision motion control is more important than ever. Achieving these alignments is crucial to quality – misalignments of even a few micrometers can result in significant power losses. As emerging chip-level functionalities and device miniaturization intensify the demand for nanopositioning technology, there is a correlated need for solutions that balance speed and precision – reducing process cycle times without compromising on quality.

yanggu supply professional and honest service.

Precision Motion Fundamentals

When considering a precision motion control solution for any high-tolerance photonics or optics application, it is helpful to think in terms of accuracy and repeatability. Accuracy describes how close a measured or achieved position is to the true or desired positional target. Repeatability characterizes the range of actual positions attained when the motion system is repeatedly commanded to a specific location. Because repeatability is inherent to a stage’s design and construction, a repeatable stage’s accuracy can be improved by means of error-mapping and calibration.

Several methods exist to define accuracy and repeatability, but not all supplier specifications are created equal. Metrology standards such as ISO 230-2, ASME B5.64 and others apply statistical treatments to a set of specifically defined positioning data. Beyond this, many motion suppliers have developed their own reporting methods. When in doubt, ask your motion supplier how they are defining this and request sample performance plots.

Sources of Error Motion

Accuracy and repeatability relate to errors in the direction of motion (X), but there are also five other degrees of freedom (DOF) to evaluate. For the linear stage, undesired linear motion perpendicular to the direction of travel is called straightness error, and it can occur in both the horizontal (Y) and vertical (Z) directions. Further, rotations about the X, Y and Z axes are called roll, pitch and yaw, respectively, as shown in Figure 1.

In the rotary stage, motion in the Z-direction along the axis of rotation is called axial error motion, while translation in the X and Y directions is known as radial error motion. Finally, rotation about the X and Y axes is referred to as tilt error motion, as shown in Figure 2. Note that error motions are different from total indicated runout (TIR) or often referred to simply as “runout.” Error motions describe the deviation of an axis from its ideal trajectory, whereas runout describes the measured deviation of a surface.

Understanding the causes of error motion is critical to achieving nanometer-level performance. Motor and amplifier heating result in errors related to thermal expansion and bimetallic effects. Bearing friction and cable drag forces appear as disturbances to the controller, while off-axis motor forces (e.g. cogging), sensor and electrical noise, and non-ideal bearing behavior can also generate errors. External factors including environmental temperature variation, insufficient vibration isolation and contamination further contribute. These are only a handful of possible error sources; that is why it is vital to work with a motion supplier who understands how to minimize them.

Error Budgeting

In a 6-DOF motion system, as illustrated in Figure 3, there are 36 total error motion contributions – one for each axis and degree of freedom.

For multi-axis assemblies, any deviation in orthogonality and rotation-axis intersections further contributes to the total functional working point error. Estimating the total error from all of these sources is paramount to ensuring the chosen stages can achieve system-level requirements.

To begin estimating functional point error, gather fundamental information about the candidate positioning stages, including accuracy, repeatability and off-axis error motion, plus the distance between the functional point and each stage. The travel range of interest and axis alignment tolerances are also needed. Look for these details on supplier datasheets, and request clarification about how these items are defined and reported.

Next, calculate the contribution of each axis’ error motion in the X, Y and Z directions at the functional point, noting that each stage has a different distance to the functional point. Then, account for error contributions resulting from axis misalignment and intersection errors. Finally, sum the resultant errors of all axes in the X, Y and Z directions individually and combine using a root sum of squares technique. This technique provides a reasonable estimate of the functional-point error in Cartesian space. Slocum 1 provides a detailed exploration of this topic using homogeneous transformation matrices.

Compare the estimate to your process’ maximum allowable error. If you need to reduce the error estimate, first consider relocating the functional point closer to the stage assembly’s center to reduce off-axis error contributions. Additionally, operating the motion system over the smallest possible travel region can help. Further, single- and multi-axis error mapping together with precision assembly and metrology techniques should be considered. Lastly, you may need to reevaluate higher-performance stages and technologies. An experienced motion supplier can guide you through this analysis.

Stage Technologies and Selection

When considering high-performance stages for photonics applications, expect to navigate tradeoffs in bearing technologies, drive mechanisms and the kinematic architecture. Bearings constrain the motion to the desired degree of freedom and minimize unwanted motion in the other directions. Rolling-element bearings are often used in stages for photonics applications. Crossed-roller bearings deliver smoother motion and tighter geometric performance, whereas recirculating ball bearings offer longer allowable travel ranges, higher stiffness and load capacity, and tend to have a lower price point. Air bearings yield the smoothest and most precise motion performance, but they are more costly, require a clean, dry air supply and are more sensitive to debris and contamination. Flexure bearings also offer excellent geometric performance but are limited to short travel ranges, typically 1 mm or less.

Drive mechanisms play a key role as well. Indirect drives including ball screws, lead screws and belt drives are cost-effective and capable of generating considerable force or torque. However, they are susceptible to backlash and drive-screw pitch errors, require regular maintenance and lubrication, and can exhibit wear over time. Plus, they are connected to a drive shaft via a coupling, resulting in windup-related errors. Direct-drive mechanisms not only eliminate such errors but also require virtually zero maintenance and achieve higher speeds and smoother motion. Direct-drive stages are advantageous in photonics applications because the high speed and smooth motion contribute to increased throughput and quality, resulting in a lower ownership cost over time. Ultimately, multi-axis systems can use both direct- and indirect-drive stages, with the former allocated to the most critical-performance axes and the latter reserved for less critical supporting or adjacent motion.

Serial- and parallel-kinematic architectures are a key consideration in selecting positioning mechanics. In serial-kinematic arrangements stages are stacked, with each stage’s orientation corresponding to a direction of motion. Parallel-kinematic architectures, such as hexapods or Stewart platforms (shown in Figure 4), use multiple actuators in parallel to position a single platform. Hexapods require six linear inputs – one for each strut – and kinematic transformations transpose these inputs into three linear and three rotational outputs of the moving platform.

Both architectures facilitate three-dimensional programming and virtual pivot-point rotations. Serial-kinematic arrangements offer intuitive visualization and straightforward programming, and they can be more accurate and repeatable at the functional point. They also offer superior design modularity and greater efficiency in 6-DOF use cases. In contrast, parallel-kinematic architectures can provide higher stiffness, smaller form-factors and clearer payload access. Because most hexapods are screw-driven, they tend to be slower than direct-drive, serial-kinematic architectures. Choosing the optimal architecture depends on the application’s priorities. An experienced motion supplier can help guide this decision.

Contact us to discuss your requirements of Precision Optics Solutions Provider. Our experienced sales team can help you identify the options that best suit your needs.

Controller Technologies and Selection

The controller choice and setup are equally as important as stage selection. Deciding between pulse-width modulation (PWM) and linear power-stage amplifiers is key. Linear amplifiers offer extremely low noise and sensitivity to electromagnetic interference, making them ideal for nanometer-level stability and minimum incremental motion. However, they are larger and costlier than PWM drives. While PWM drives are smaller and more economical, they can exhibit switching noise. Opt for a controller architecture in which linear and PWM drives can coexist within a system.

Trajectory and servo feedback rates are another important consideration. A high trajectory generation rate, on the order of 20 kHz or faster, helps to facilitate high speed and precision. Slower trajectory rates result in having too few points to fully define the desired path, resulting in dynamic position errors. Remedies include operating at a slower velocity or increasing the trajectory rate. Some controllers even allow for a spline interpolation between trajectory points to further minimize the following error.

Choosing a controller that offers automated alignment algorithms is an enormous benefit to throughput. These algorithms are especially useful for identifying first light and then efficiently searching for peak power transmission. Many different alignment techniques exist, such as spiral, raster, hill-climb scans and more. Leading motion suppliers can assist with choosing and optimizing a search routine for your unique process. Still, alignment algorithms can only be as precise as the stages they’re controlling.

Working with Motion Suppliers

Defining a motion system for optical and photonic alignment applications requires working closely with a supplier who understands your technical and commercial challenges. A proficient supplier asks detailed questions to evaluate your priorities and offers multiple solutions with clear tradeoffs, helping you make informed decisions. A supplier who recognizes your needs and is invested in your success will likely present a framework of multiple solutions, especially if the tradeoffs are nuanced. Do not hesitate to ask how a supplier has addressed similar motion challenges in the past, and be sure to request relevant test data and performance plots to reduce technical risk. Assess a supplier’s ability and experience to help you transition from the lab to the fab. Scaling up in a technically and economically sound manner is critical but often overlooked. Furthermore, consider the supplier’s global footprint to ensure they can service localized R&D efforts and larger, global production facilities.

Precision motion control is a fundamental aspect of many cutting-edge photonic processes, and it deserves ample consideration. Whether you are manufacturing, inspecting, aligning or bonding, it is essential to have a fundamental understanding of precision motion principles to effectively engage with suppliers and choose one who will maximize your effectiveness. An ideal motion supplier will navigate your precision motion control journey alongside you as a partner who is invested in your longterm success.

This article was written by Brian M. Fink, Product Manager, Aerotech, Inc., (Pittsburgh, PA). For more information, visit here  .

References

1. Slocum, A. (). Precision Machine Design. Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

Best Long-Range Scope: Buyers Guide & Features To Look For

Related Articles

Advertising around long-range scopes can be misleading, or at least marketers try to get you to focus on features that differentiate them from their competitors … even if they aren’t really that important. I created this post to boil it all down to the biggest features you should focus on when comparing long-range scopes. Of course you are likely going to have to make trade-offs between different features, unless you are willing to pay $3,000+ for a scope (which many shooters do). But if you’re on a budget like most people, this list should help you make sense of all the different specs, give you an idea of which are more important, and help you filter out some of the marketing noise when researching rifle scopes.

Most Important Features To Look For In Long-Range Riflescopes

1. Repeatable Adjustments & Return To Zero – While most people might first think about optical clarity, the real priority when it comes to long range should be repeatable mechanics. If you dial 10.0 mils of elevation, ideally it’d be exactly 10.0 mils and not 10.05 or 9.9. There are ways to correct for error like that, but it just adds an additional layer of complexity and something you have to manage to something that is already complex. The most important thing is that when you dial back to 0, it has the same point of impact as it did originally. Repeatable turret adjustments and return to zero are the biggest things that separates a cheap scope from one that is truly capable of hits on-demand at long range.
2. Milling Reticle – You need a reticle that has evenly spaced dots or hash marks (in either mils or MOA) along the vertical and horizontal axis. Essentially for long range shooting, most people “hold for wind” and “dial for elevation”. Dialing for elevations means you estimate or measure the distance to the target, calculate what the drop would be, then rotate the turrets on the scope to account for the drop so that you can put the crosshairs dead center on the target like it was at 100 yards. However, people “hold for wind” because wind changes so fast, that you can’t really turn the turrets for the adjustment and get back on the gun in time to fire the shot before the wind changes (especially in west Texas). So they make the adjustment on the scope for vertical drop, which allows them to hold dead center on the vertical axis … but just hold a little to the left or right to account for wind (always in the direction the wind is coming from). They calculate how much they need to adjust for a 10mph wind for example, and maybe that adjustment is 3 mils at whatever distance they are shooting. But right before they pull the trigger they feel the wind die down just a little, so they shift to a 2 mil adjustment at the last second and hit dead center. If they would have kept the 3 mil hold they originally had in mind, they may have missed the target completely. The diagram below shows what “holding 2 mils” would look like in this example.
   
   If you look at the different reticles below, there are only two that have marks on the horizontal axis. The Bullet Drop Compensation reticle has a few on the vertical axis, but that doesn’t help you “hold for wind”. That just makes it so that you could “hold for elevation” and in long range shooting most people don’t do that. I personally prefer the finer hash marks and “floating crosshair” like the Nightforce MOAR reticle shown.
   
3. Zoom Range/Power – I think you need at least 18x for long range shooting. The difference between 18-25 is not as much as you think it would be. If you are using the rifle for hunting, the low end of the zoom range is important too. If an animal pops up at 50 yards it is hard to find in a scope that can only be zoomed out to 8x. The sweet spot is probably 5-25.
4. Elevation Adjustment Range – This is simply how much adjustment does the scope allow internally. When you are shooting long range, the more the better. I prefer something with at least 100 MOA (27.3 mil) of elevation adjustment. If your ballistics say you need to adjust by 55 MOA for the shot you are about to take, but your scope bottoms out at 50 MOA of adjustment … uh oh. You end up having to hold for elevation for 5 MOA, and if you are also holding for wind you end up with the target floating out in the middle of nowhere in the reticle. It is difficult to make those shots. One thing that can help the amount of elevation adjustment available is a larger tube diameter. Common scope tube diameters are 1”, 30mm, 34mm, and 35mm. According to OpticsPlanet.com, “The larger main tubes are most useful for allowing for a greater range of elevation adjustments, not greater light transmission. In fact, most 30mm scopes have the same size lenses that are in one inch tubes.”
5. Front Focal Plane – This is a debatable point, but is a big feature on long-range scopes. Reticles are on either the front focal plane or the second focal plane, which just means it is located in front of or behind “the zoom” on the scope. On front focal plane scopes, when you adjust the zoom on the scope the reticle will appear to change size. When you zoom in it will get bigger, when you zoom out it will get smaller. That might mean the reticle is “too thick” when zoomed all the way in, which can obscure the target … or it might be “too thin” when zoomed all the way out, which can make it hard to see, especially for closer, quick reflex shots. The advantage to front focal plane scopes is that the lines are always the same relative distance apart. If you are using a mildot scope, the dots are always 1 mil apart regardless of the zoom setting on your scope. This is a big deal, because it essentially takes out one more thing you have to check or think about before taking a long range shot. On second focal plane scopes, when you adjust the zoom the reticle remains the same size. However, that does mean you have to be at a very specific zoom setting for the marks to be the correct size. That is just one more thing to remember before you take a shot, but some people prefer it in order to avoid the too thick/thin reticle issues.
   
6. Quality Glass – High-end glass that produces a clear, sharp image can be really nice to have in a long-range scope. Glass quality is also one of the biggest differences between a $200 scope and a $ scope. This is especially important for reading mirage, which is how you can judge what the wind is doing near the target. In long-range shooting, the wind may be very different at the target than it is at your shooting location. Unfortunately there isn’t really a good spec that quantifies how good of glass a scope has. It is just a subjective factor, but is usually obvious when you compare scopes side-by-side. I tried my best to do an quantify optical clarity through double-blind tests in a large scope test I did, and you can see the results here. Unfortunately specs like “Light Transmission” don’t have a standard test methodology and most manufacturers game the system to make themselves look better. After talking with multiple scope manufacturers, my suggestion is to ignore that spec all together. The best way to go about this is side-by-side comparison with your own eyes, but when you don’t have that luxury … the next best approach is to stick with one of the manufacturers that is known to use high quality glass:
   • Schmidt & Bender
   • Nightforce
   • Kahles/Swarovski
   • Higher-end Leupold models
   • Higher-end Zeiss/Hensoldt models
7. Matching Reticle & Turrets – If you decide to go with a mildot reticle, you should make sure the turret adjustments are in mils (typically 1/10th mil clicks). If you get a MOA reticle, you should make sure the turret adjustments are in MOA (typically ¼ MOA clicks). Lots of scopes (especially low to mid-range scopes) have a mildot reticle with MOA adjustments … that doesn’t make a lot of sense, and can make life a lot harder. Essentially if they match, you can watch your bullet impact … and if you were off, you can measure the distance using the reticle then make that adjustment to the scope. If they don’t match, you get to do a lot of complex math and/or have a dope sheet with both units. There is no major “inherent advantage” to the mil or MOA system (see MIL vs MOA comparison for more details on this), but whichever one you pick … make sure the reticle and turret adjustments match, either MOA/MOA or mil/mil. The only argument that might be able to hold water between the two systems is that MOA is more natural if you think in “yards” and mils are more natural if you think in “meters”.
8. Objective Size – More light is always better, so it makes sense that a larger objective lens (56mm) would be able to gather more light than a smaller one (40mm). But there is a diminishing return the benefits of a large objective size, and once you start getting over 50mm the only scenario where you might notice a slight difference in the amount of light is in very low-light conditions when the scope is set to the highest power. Of course for hunting, low-light conditions are the most critical (dusk and dawn), so that does matter some. There is also the problem of being able to mount the scope low enough to get proper eye alignment. Without a stock that has an adjustable cheek rest, its hard to get good alignment with the bigger objective lens sizes. I personally prefer a 50mm objective, although 56mm are more popular among long-range shooters.
   
9. Other Features – There are a lot of other wiz-bang features marketing tries to get you to focus on, like Zero Stop, Locking Turrets, 1/8 MOA adjustments, illuminated reticles, and a million other things. Some are cool, but none are in the same class as these features. I do like the Zero Stop for using a long range setup in hunting scenarios. I hate 1/8 MOA adjustments … most people can’t shoot between those numbers, so ¼ MOA is almost always enough fine control and is more speedy and less error prone to dial the correct adjustment. I have a scope with an illuminated reticle, and I never use it … ever. It’s one of those things that seems like a good idea, but you probably won’t ever actually use.

Best Rifle Scope For The Money

I make updates to this list regularly … so rest assured, these are still my current recommendations.

Under $500:

• SWFA SS 10×42 Tactical ($300 street): In my opinion, there is only one scope below $500 that truly offers the repeatable mechanics necessary to be considered a long range scope, and that is a fixed 10x power scope from SWFA lovingly referred to as the Super Sniper. If you read enough forums, you’ll eventually come across someone who won’t shut up about this scope. I’d go so far as to say there is a little cult following. It is very capable, especially for the price. The scope design is vastly simplified by it being a fixed magnification, which meant they could spend the money necessary for the mechanics to have a return to zero you could have confidence in. It being fixed power is pretty limiting on the applications you can use it for, but you can make 10x work. I often run at 10-12x magnification in matches on stages that require me to shoot off barricades. I actually hit a target at yards with a first round hit in an ELR competition while I was at 9x magnification – so you just don’t need 25x to hit a target. Is 10x ideal? No, but if you’re on a very tight budget this is the only scope I’d trust below $500. The $300 version has a mildot reticle with MOA turret, but you can get a model with matching MOA reticle/MOA turret for $100 more.

$500-:

• Leupold Mark AR 6-18x40mm Mildot ($550 street) – I personally used this scope for long range shooting while I was saving up for a higher-end scope, and it is legit. I was able to hit at yards on a rifle setup with this scope before some other shooters that were with me could, and they were using Nightforce scopes and even a $ Schmidt & Bender. Honestly, it might have been luck … but it shows this scope is capable of a lot for the price. The newest version features a mildot reticle with mil-based turret adjustments, which is ideal. It does feature a 1” tube and 40mm objective, which are a little small. But the glass is good (not great), and the zero is fairly repeatable … not like a high-end scope, but better than most in this class. This scope is a HUGE value for the money, and I’ve recommended it to a ton of my family and friends. Don’t let the “AR” in the name fool you, this scope pairs well with bolt-action rifles too.
• Sig Sauer Tango 4 6-24×50 DEV-L ($870 street) – Sig has made an aggressive entrance into the optics world, and is currently offering some pretty staggering deals. I’ve heard rumors that they hired a bunch of the long-time engineers from Leupold, and a lot of their products seem eerily similar. I’d assume those guys brought a lot of experience from Leupold’s Research & Development that Sig may have put to use to build these new products. It seems like Sig may be trying to establish their brand in the market by offering products at extremely competitive prices, and I’d expect them to go up at some point … but you might be able to get a deal for now. The DEV-L reticle is a big step up in terms of features from the standard mildot reticle, and this model seems to have a lot of the features shooters are looking for. Is the glass as good as the other more expensive scopes on this list? No. Are the mechanics as repeatable or bulletproof as the more expensive scopes? Nope. But you have to make some compromises to get to this more budget-friendly price, so this is a good option for the price point.

$-:

• Nightforce SHV 5-20×56 MOAR ($ street) – This scope packs a ton of value. I think of it as affordable, but it isn’t “cheap” … if that makes sense. Nightforce basically tried to peel back to the basic features a civilian would need, without all of the overbuilt features that were originally created for actual combat conditions. The reticle choices are limited, but the MOAR reticle is a solid design. The zoom range isn’t quite as wide as others, but it gives you enough that you can make it work in virtually any scenario. I honestly agree with a lot of the design choices Nightforce made to get to this price point. It seems to have all the must-have features, and won’t disappoint. It may be the lowest priced scope on this list that doesn’t require you to make a big compromise in terms of features or quality.
• Bushnell Elite Tactical 3.5-21×50 G3 ($ street) – This has become a very popular scope, because of its incredibly wide range from a impressive 3.5x on the low end, and 21x magnification at the top end. It has a quick Horus-style reticle that was designed in conjunction with GAP (i.e. G.A. Precision). It is used by a few of the top shooters in the Precision Rifle Series. I’ve looked through this scope side-by-side with a Nightforce NXS and a Schmidt & Bender, and it isn’t in the same class as those guys. But, its undeniable that this scope packs a lot of punch for the money. It has all the must-have features for long-range shooting. You compromise some on image quality, but it’s unlikely you’ll miss a shot because the image was razor sharp.
• Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56mm MOAR-T ($ street) – This is an older scope design with a smaller zoom range than most, but it seems to be a huge value for the price. The image clarity on these are very good through the entire zoom range, although not as clear as the Schmidt & Benders. The zero is very repeatable, even if you adjust all the way out and then back down to zero … you are dead on. They have high-speed turrets, which have 20 MOA of adjustment per revolution. You can get the NXS in mil-based reticles as well, with the MLR being the most popular. There are a ton of serious shooters out there like Bryan Litz that swear by Nightforce scopes. In Bryan’s new DVD training he mentions that he has seen a lot of bad scopes in his career, but he has never had a single Nightforce scope that didn’t track well. They are machined from a single piece of aluminum that is thicker than all other scopes out there (that I’m aware of), so they are very, very rugged as well.

More Than $:

• Schmidt & Bender PMII 5-25×56 DT ($ street) – This is what I personally run on my match precision rifles. I’ve tried 50+ models of scopes, so that says something. I know some people have strong opinions about S&B, but this is the best glass … period. I performed the most thorough scope test ever published, and the S&B PMII 5-25×56 was the undisputed king of scopes. I personally use this scope, and love it. Just in case it sounds like I’m a fan-boy, I did buy this scope out-of-pocket from a retailer. Schmidt and Bender doesn’t sponsor me, and haven’t given me anything. I also own Nightforce, US Optics, Leupold, and Nikon scopes … but this is my favorite. It does have a couple drawbacks, including the fact that the elevation only allows two revolutions of adjustment, meaning the elevation range is more limited than most scopes in this class. It is also very heavy, and I think a few other companies might have a slightly better choice of reticles. But those are all nit-picky things compared to the glass, mechanical precision and repeatability, amazing turret design, and overall easy of use. This scope pretty much has it all. Now, is it the best value? Probably not … but Schmidt has dropped the price of this model by $ in the past couple years, so it’s no longer obscenely more than the other scopes in this category. But it is the best (at least for now). A ton of the top shooters in the Precision Rifle Series use this scope (view the data), and lots of top tier military snipers use it as well. It’s just an exceptional product.
• Vortex Razor HD Gen II 4.5-27×56 ($ street) – I’ve heard that Vortex is now the largest optics company in the world, recently passing both Leupold and Bushnell. Their popularity has grown not just because of good marketing, but because they make solid products for the price point and have a best-in-the-industry warranty that they stand behind. This scope design was released in and was specifically designed for long-range, tactical shooting. It is one of the most popular scopes among the top 50 shooters in the Precision Rifle Series (view the data). Schmidt & Bender glass is better … but you’d have to spend a lot more to get it. Vortex has good reticle selection (you probably want the EBR-2C), the turrets are easy to read and use, and the scope has all the features precision rifle competitors look for.
• Nightforce ATACR 5-25x56mm F1 (starts at $ street) – This is a newer scope that has outstanding clarity, and all the features long-range shooters are looking for. Nightforce makes some of the most durable scopes on the market, and this one is no different. They also offer it with Horus reticles, like the outstanding H59 reticle, but the Horus reticles add to the price. This is also available in an ATACR 7-35x56mm ($ street), which is also a great option. Both of those model offer more elevation travel than just about any other tactical scope on the market, which is a big deal if you want to shoot way out there. A couple top tier military snipers use this same scope, and told me they love it.

People Who Liked This Post Also Read …

Results for the High-End Tactical Scope Field Test: This is an epic scope field test focused on 18 long-range, tactical rifle scopes in the $1,500+ price range. It’s an unprecedented, data-driven approach to evaluating the best tactical rifle scopes money can buy. Hundreds of hours have gone into this research, and both the scope line-up and the tests I conducted are built on advice and feedback from some of the most respected experts in the industry. My goal with this project was to equip fellow long-range shooters with as much hard data as I could reasonably gather, so they could see what they’re paying for.

Best Tactical Scopes – What The Pros Use: This post shows the scopes and reticles the best precision rifle shooters in the country are using. It is based on what the top 150 long-range shooters use in PRS & NRL rifle competitions. Target engagements for these matches are typically 300 to 1,200+ yards, but there is definitely a focus on the “precision” rifle part regardless of the range. This is some unique “hard data” about what optics the pros are using.

Long-Range & Short-Range Optics Setup: Lots of people have asked me about what the best scope setup is for a long-range rifle that they plan to use hunting. The problem with most long-range scopes is that it can be almost impossible to engage targets that pop-up at close ranges unexpectedly. Nothing is more frustrating than bumping up a trophy animal at close range, and struggling to find them in your scope to take the shot. There are a couple other options for handling the combination of long-range and close-range shots with the same gun, and I explain a few options in this post.

MIL vs MOA – An Objective Comparison: There are a lot of articles and forum threads out there comparing MIL and MOA, but most either aren’t objective or they’re overly complex. I’ll try to avoid both of those pitfalls in this article. Includes contributions from Bryan Litz, author of Applied Ballistics for Long-Range Shooting and Chief Ballistician at Berger Bullets.

© Copyright PrecisionRifleBlog.com, All Rights Reserved. Bushnell Elite Tactical Leupold Mark 4 Leupold Mark AR Leupold Scopes Long Range Scope Nightforce Nikon Scopes Schmidt and Bender Scope Reticle Swarovski Scopes US Optics Vortex Razor HD Zeiss

Tags Bushnell Elite Tactical Leupold Mark 4 Leupold Mark AR Leupold Scopes Long Range Scope Nightforce Nikon Scopes Schmidt and Bender Scope Reticle Swarovski Scopes US Optics Vortex Razor HD Zeiss

About Cal

Cal Zant is the shooter/author behind PrecisionRifleBlog.com. Cal is a life-long learner, and loves to help others get into this sport he's so passionate about. His engineering background, unique data-driven approach, and ability to present technical and complex information in a unbiased and straight-forward fashion has quickly caught the attention of the industry. For more info on Cal, check out PrecisionRifleBlog.com/About.

Check Also

Wyoming ELR Scopes & Mounts – What The Pros Use

This article shows what scopes and scope mounts/rings the competitive rifle shooters were running at this year’s Nightforce ELR Steel Challenge in Casper, Wyoming. That is a one-of-a-kind, 2-day, flagship match with 20+ stages featuring targets from 720 to 2,091 yards. The average target distance is year was 1,180 yards, with 70% of the targets beyond 1,000 yards! When you’re reaching out to that kind of distance your scope and mount must be rock-solid! This article is based on a survey of 100+ competitors and shares what brands and models these guys trusted to make first-round hits.

Are you interested in learning more about Optical Component Products? Contact us today to secure an expert consultation!