I have decided on the Nikon Monarch with Nikoplex reticle for my 700 SPS Varmint in .308. I essentially using this for long range target shooting. Should I go with the 6-24x50, or the 8-32x50? I was reading that the pupil in the eye can dilate from 2-7mm (min-max). Based on the formula of objective/zoom, that would be 8.3-2.08mm for the (6-24), and 6.25-1.56mm for the (8-32). Based off of this, the eye would be somewhat useless in effectively utilizing the 8-32 light transmission capabilities. That is my logic right now for leaning towards the 6-24. I wanted the 32x so that I could be right on the target am wondering if I would be wasting money.

Since I am a newbie at all this, what are some thoughts for scope mounts. I was thinking of getting a solid one piece and picatinny rail system. I saw that some say 20MOA scope mount, does that mean that there is an initial height increase of 20MOA and I have to compensate? Wouldn't I want the lowest clearance height possible along the bore? Not looking to spend a fortune, but don't feel like buying something of low quality either.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

Hi Lefty,
I would suggest you buy both scopes & try 'em out. Then you can send me the one you like the least! I've been wanting a Nikon for a while now.

when you get into really high magnification you run into some other problems. You already identified the lower light transmission, also you get a narrower field of view, which is not a huge deal for shooting stationary targets, but if you try hunting with it you can easily miss seeing some things.

Also, consider that as you increase the magnification you also magnify the perception of your own movements, and focusing on small targets in field positions can become very difficult. There truely is such a thing as too much scope.

Again if you are really focusing on shooting tiny groups on paper at long range, then high magification may be desireable to a point, but if you plan on any field work then 18-24 would be the upper limits I would consider (just my opinion, that you can take for what it is worth).

The 20 MOA mounts allow you more elevation adjustment at longer range by forcing you to compensate some right off the bat.

The most I use is a 3x9 variable. I can still make direct hits on small targets at extremely long range without any problems at all.
Like what was stated above, too much magnification is a bad thing. Every time your heart beats it will seem like earthquake tremors and you loose a tremendous amount of sight picture.
You are making a good choice with choosing a Nikon optic. I have a couple of them and find them to be good scopes for the money.

I have a 4-16 x 50 and a 6-24 x 50 Monarch. Not sure what your going to use a 8-32 for. How far you plan on shooting?

So I have decided with the 6-24 model. I am getting a brand new one priced around 500 with shipping and tax . I plan on getting a picatinny rail base 20MOA, question now lies with which rings. I am looking at the Burris XTR 1" (since the tube is 1") rings. I have heard good things about them, but with a 50mm objective, can I get the low rings? Or do I have to go with the medium or high rings? From what i understood, you want to be as close to the barrel profile as possible right? Also anyone have any suggestions on a more inexpensive rail base other than badger ordnance or the Farell (sp?)

Oak, I recently joined the Quantico Shooting Club which has up to a 1000 meter range. Now, I am not going to be starting off that range since I am a novice, however there will be a day where I would like to attempt.

Thanks all for the help.

I would go with the Nikon Monarch 5-20x44sf matte. you got 5x for close in work. the 20x is good magnification and 44 keeps it low profile (you don't want a large objective lens). check out https://www.stanberts.com/
http://www.dealerease.net/catalog/product....;ret_id=1106719