Build ideas

[AtlMedic]

so I'm planning my next build. I want a precision gun but I don't have anywhere to shoot super far or the time to put into getting real good at it.

I would like something good to 300 yards to hit steel and do some hunting with. Not really looking for poking very groups in paper, but if it does even better. I think I want to stick to the AR platform in either a 16 or 18 inch barrel.

Where I'm stuck is in caliber and optics. I'm thinking 6.5 Gredel (sp?) or maybe .300 or 6.8. I want relatively inexpensive ammo for practice and I don't think quality ammo will be an issue in any of those calibers. It would be used on hogs, coyotes, and maybe white tail.

For optics I think I'm leaning toward a 1-6x, probably from vortex. Would I be better served with a more standard style scope?

Any other suggestions on calibers, optics, barrel lengths? How would y'all build out a rifle like this if you were building one?

@cmshoot would a build like this be adequate for your class you posted about a while back that was a "sniper" class? I can't remember the course name.

 

[1776]

At 300yds, you'd be just fine with 5.56. I can pop man size targets with a non-magnified optic and a 10.3" 5.56 barrel all day.

 

[dial1911]

Another vote for 5.56/.223...

6.8 and .300BLK aren't cheap. And the 6.5 is a pretty cool caliber, you won't notice much difference between it and 5.56 at short range according to things I've read- I have never owned a 6.5. Dad has one and likes it a lot- but he likes all the oddball calibers.

For hunting at least, a more traditional scope with a bigger front lens will pass more light- which is more useful for those dawn/dusk shots. Although on budget scopes, I'm not sure how much difference that is really going to make. AR's require high scope rings, so the big scopes don't bother me at all.

Oh- and I bought one of these on clearance at Midway. So far it feels nice...but haven't mounted it yet, so I have no idea how it's going to do on a gun.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/1325281052/bushnell-legend-ultra-hd-rifle-scope-45-14x-44mm

 

[Laufen]

For hunting at least, a more traditional scope with a bigger front lens will pass more light- which is more useful for those dawn/dusk shots. Although on budget scopes, I'm not sure how much difference that is really going to make. AR's require high scope rings, so the big scopes don't bother me at all.

They will allow more light to pass through all things being equal, like glass quality, quality of glass coatings (glass naturally wants to reflect light), number of coatings, and whether or not the lenses are coated on both sides (fully multi-coated).

An adults pupil will dilate to about 4mm (equal to the size of light passed through a 40mm lens to the eye), any light that cannot reach the pupil will not make a difference as far as brightness goes, it just falls around the outside of the pupil . You can prove this to yourself by looking at the size of the dot projected onto a piece of paper of you aim your scope at a light source. Don't expect larger objective lenses to be brighter just because they are bigger, and NO....scopes do not "gather" light. The glass is a hindrance to light passing to your eye, all of those $$$ are meant to make the glass cause as little reflection and refraction as possible.

The aforementioned reasons (quality of glass and coatings) are why a 32 mm objective lens on a Swarovski is much, much brighter than a 56mm lens on a Tasco. The larger objective lens WILL get you a greater field of view, and that's important on higher power scopes, but most manufacturers appropriately match magnification to lens size.

In short, there's no real bargain in optics. Glass is graded like diamonds, and good glass is expensive. Good coatings are also expensive, and this is where inferior manufacturers really cut corners. With optics, you pretty much get what you pay for.

 

[1776]

I'll differ from @dial1911 on the scope. There's a reason 1-4 and 1-6 scopes have become as popular as they have. If you aren't planning to shoot past 300 often, I'd go with a 1-4.

 

[dial1911]

They will allow more light to pass through all things being equal, like glass quality, quality of glass coatings (glass naturally wants to reflect light), number of coatings, and whether or not the lenses are coated on both sides (fully multi-coated).

An adults pupil will dilate to about 4mm (equal to the size of light passed through a 40mm lens to the eye), any light that cannot reach the pupil will not make a difference as far as brightness goes, it just falls around the outside of the pupil . You can prove this to yourself by looking at the size of the dot projected onto a piece of paper of you aim your scope at a light source. Don't expect larger objective lenses to be brighter just because they are bigger, and NO....scopes do not "gather" light. The glass is a hindrance to light passing to your eye, all of those $$$ are meant to make the glass cause as little reflection and refraction as possible.

The aforementioned reasons (quality of glass and coatings) are why a 32 mm objective lens on a Swarovski is much, much brighter than a 56mm lens on a Tasco. The larger objective lens WILL get you a greater field of view, and that's important on higher power scopes, but most manufacturers appropriately match magnification to lens size.

In short, there's no real bargain in optics. Glass is graded like diamonds, and good glass is expensive. Good coatings are also expensive, and this is where inferior manufacturers really cut corners. With optics, you pretty much get what you pay for.

I'm learning. And for what it's worth, every scope I've owned has been a 40mm up until this recent Bushnell.

 

[1776]

Optic, barrel and bolt are the 3 places I wouldn't cheap out. Fancy triggers are over-rated and often used as a crutch to compensate for poor form. I know plenty of guys who are surgical with an stock AR trigger.

 

[Laufen]

I'm learning. And for what it's worth, every scope I've owned has been a 40mm up until this recent Bushnell.

Yeah, below 9x there isn't much need for it, over 9x there kind of is. You'll get a wider field of view. Also, the more you crank up the power, the more you magnify not only the image, but the effect that impurities in the glass have on the quality of the image. That's why scopes seem brighter and clearer on low power versus higher power, and it's also part of the reason you should spend more money (or quality grades up) on higher power scopes versus lower powered ones.

Kids have it great, their pupils can dilate to over 6mm. They can really take advantage of higher end optics with large objective lenses.

 

[1776]

Yeah, below 9x there isn't much need for it, over 9x there kind of is. You'll get a wider field of view. Also, the more you crank up the power, the more you magnify not only the image, but the effect that impurities in the glass have on the quality of the image. That's why scopes seem brighter and clearer on low power versus higher power, and it's also part of the reason you should spend more money (or quality grades up) on higher power scopes versus lower powered ones.

Kids have it great, their pupils can dilate to over 6mm. They can really take advantage of higher end optics with large objective lenses.

 

[Laufen]

Optic, barrel and bolt are the 3 places I wouldn't cheap out. Fancy triggers are over-rated and often used as a crutch to compensate for poor form. I know plenty of guys who are surgical with an stock AR trigger.

I kind of agree, but a good trigger really helps, no matter your skill level. I kind of see it as an unnecessary hindrance to good accuracy.

 

[AtlMedic]

At 300yds, you'd be just fine with 5.56. I can pop man size targets with a non-magnified optic and a 10.3" 5.56 barrel all day.

Another vote for 5.56/.223...

6.8 and .300BLK aren't cheap. And the 6.5 is a pretty cool caliber, you won't notice much difference between it and 5.56 at short range according to things I've read- I have never owned a 6.5. Dad has one and likes it a lot- but he likes all the oddball calibers.

For hunting at least, a more traditional scope with a bigger front lens will pass more light- which is more useful for those dawn/dusk shots. Although on budget scopes, I'm not sure how much difference that is really going to make. AR's require high scope rings, so the big scopes don't bother me at all.

Oh- and I bought one of these on clearance at Midway. So far it feels nice...but haven't mounted it yet, so I have no idea how it's going to do on a gun.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/1325281052/bushnell-legend-ultra-hd-rifle-scope-45-14x-44mm

Only concern with .223 is I don't know if I trust it enough for hunting. I wouldn't want to use it in deer. I know .223 is enough for coyotes but what about hogs?

If I can't use it on deer I'd be fine with it, but I want something that would work on hogs for sure.

 

[AtlMedic]

I kind of agree, but a good trigger really helps, no matter your skill level. I kind of see it as an unnecessary hindrance to good accuracy.

That is a given. It will have a good trigger for sure.

 

[1776]

I kind of agree, but a good trigger really helps, no matter your skill level. I kind of see it as an unnecessary hindrance to good accuracy.

A good trigger can definitely help, it's just very often used by people who haven't hit proficiency with a stock trigger as a crutch.

It's *kinda* like taking your first Crack at a track with a 911. Yeah, you'll be fast, but you'll be way the fuck faster in the long run if you learn how to drive fast in a beat up old miata.

 

[1776]

Only concern with .223 is I don't know if I trust it enough for hunting. I wouldn't want to use it in deer. I know .223 is enough for coyotes but what about hogs?

If I can't use it on deer I'd be fine with it, but I want something that would work on hogs for sure.

There are plenty of HP options for 5.56 these days that are pretty devastating.

 

[Laufen]

Only concern with .223 is I don't know if I trust it enough for hunting. I wouldn't want to use it in deer. I know .223 is enough for coyotes but what about hogs?

If I can't use it on deer I'd be fine with it, but I want something that would work on hogs for sure.

Choose an appropriate bullet and you'll be just fine. The 55 grain Hornady GMX load is awesome. I also used the 64 grain power point on big Nebraska whitetails inside of 100 yards with zero issue whatsoever.


These are all one shot, one kill with the .223.

 

[Laufen]

A good trigger can definitely help, it's just very often used by people who haven't hit proficiency with a stock trigger as a crutch.

It's *kinda* like taking your first Crack at a track with a 911. Yeah, you'll be fast, but you'll be way the fuck faster in the long run if you learn how to drive fast in a beat up old miata.

Yeah, but if all you ever drive is the Miata, you'll never beat the 911's.

 

[karlvv]

Only concern with .223 is I don't know if I trust it enough for hunting. I wouldn't want to use it in deer. I know .223 is enough for coyotes but what about hogs?

If I can't use it on deer I'd be fine with it, but I want something that would work on hogs for sure.

It will work on deer, but I'm in the same boat. I like my 7.62x39. I have no hesitation going after deer or hogs with it.

 

[War Paint]

I'm wanting to do a build also but for 400 yards. Erick down in swaynesboro is going to start having a 400 yard shoot once a month. AR platform only. I wanna play. Ideas. Did not mean to high jack OP

 

[AtlMedic]

I'm wanting to do a build also but for 400 yards. Erick down in swaynesboro is going to start having a 400 yard shoot once a month. AR platform only. I wanna play. Ideas. Did not mean to high jack OP

Hijack away, the more info the better

 

[Laufen]

Don't worry about ammo price too much, you have your 5.56 for blasting. Build up something a bit off the wall. That stuff is always fun. My vote is for a 25-45 Sharps, or 6.5 Grendel.