r/canadaguns • u/CKY350 • Jun 08 '26
Shooting Hitting a wall at 200/300 yards. Glass getting fuzzy at 16x (Tikka T3x TAC A1 + Vortex Diamondback)
Hey everyone,
I’m still pretty green to the precision game—only have about 150 rounds through my setup so far—and I’m running into some optical frustration that I could use some guidance on.
My Setup:
Rifle: Tikka T3x TAC A1
Optic: Vortex Diamondback Tactical 4-16x44
The Problem:
Once I try to shoot past 200 yards, things get tough. At 200 yards, I really struggle to see my points of impact on the target. By the time I push out to 300 yards, seeing impact holes is completely out of the question.
To try and fix this, I naturally crank the magnification up to 16x, but the image gets pretty muddy and fuzzy at the high end. It feels like I'm fighting the glass just to get a clear picture.
My Question:
Am I missing something fundamental with my adjustments (like diopter/eyepiece focus or parallax), or am I simply hitting the physical limitations of this glass?
If it's an adjustment issue, what steps should I take to clean up the image? If it's a gear limitation, I'm open to suggestions on what I should replace it with to actually grow into this rifle.
Appreciate any advice you guys can throw my way!
Update 1:
I decided to go with the Bushnell Match Pro 5-30x56mm
19
u/CurlyWurly61 Jun 08 '26
My Venom is barely good enough for 300 yards. Your diamondback is a tier below.
If you shoot a lot at 200 and 300 I suggest investing in a PST or even a Bushnell Match Pro ED
9
u/some_guy2024 Jun 08 '26
That’s a strange take. I’ve run multiple classes for guys with similar setups where they stretch them out to well past 500. I used to teach a scoped carbine class that culminated with guy successfully engaging 12” targets at 625 and a common optic was a Strike Eagle 1-6.
Both of your optics are fine for engaging targets well past 300 (which you can do with a red dot), just not for seeing bullet holes on paper at 300, which is asking a lot of any optic.
3
u/CurlyWurly61 Jun 08 '26
Yes you have a good point. I think the furthest I would expect to see bullet holes with a .30cal would be 300 yards.
5
u/some_guy2024 Jun 08 '26
Even that is honestly pushing it depending on the day’s atmospheric conditions.
2
u/CKY350 Jun 08 '26
I will lower my expectations and skip the bullet holes portion. But I am impressed that someone can aim for bullseye on a paper target at 500yds. At 16x, I would basically aim at small white rectangle. And maybe that is how it works lol
1
u/some_guy2024 Jun 09 '26
Targets are scaled for distance. F-class isn’t my wheelhouse but I believe their targets have a 1 moa 9-ring and 1/2moa 10 ring. So at 500yds you’d be aiming at a 5” 9-ring (and trying to keep it in the middle of that which would be the 10-ring).
You can apply the same principle to your targets. I only really shoot paper at 100 yds (and steel past that) but I have different targets for different optics. For 20x and up I used a 1/4” dot in the centre of a 3/4 diamond. It works well since all those optics have a floating centre dot that I can “float” in that 1/4” dot. 12-19x I just use the 3/4” diamond as my point of aim and for 10x and below, I use a 1” diamond with thick edges. For your uses, a 3” diamond with thick edges (on a regular sized piece of paper) would probably be a great target at 300yds. Big enough to easily resolve at 15 or 16x and the diamond would let you hold precisely by “quartering” the diamond with the reticle.
You still won’t see the bullet holes reliably without a great spotter and good atmospheric conditions or a target cam though.
2
u/CR123CR123CR Jun 08 '26
Just snagging onto this comment a bit out of curiosity.
What problems do you have with the venom at 300+? I run the 5-25 on my .22lr and shoot to around 300m regularly with it and don't have issues. But might just not know what I am missing xD
I came from a bunch of old ass fixed power optics before this so my comparison set is pretty... Off
6
u/CurlyWurly61 Jun 08 '26
I also have the 5×25. I was dumb enough to shoot my buddies Razor Gen III so I know there is levels to scopes 🤣 it just puts the Venom to shame
1
u/CKY350 Jun 08 '26
Any specific magnification recommendations?
I mean, I cannot go with the Vortex Scope finder tool as it recommended 3-9x for 300 yds.... What the hell... I guess I'm blind
7
u/CurlyWurly61 Jun 08 '26
The way I think of it is "you can't have too much magnification"
If you buy the 3-15x for example and you max out at 15x... it will be blurry
Whereas if you buy the 5x25 and use the 15x, it won't be as fuzzy
0
u/AndyTheWoman Jun 08 '26
Was just looking at the bushnell last night! Have you tried it before? It looks like a great scope for the price point. I’ve read some iffy things about bushnell warranty and support though.
1
u/CurlyWurly61 Jun 08 '26
I personally haven't used it but it gets recommended so often and i've seen some great reviews. If I didn't buy my Venom, I think I would've gotten the Match Pro ED
1
u/SalamiRocketship Jun 08 '26
I've got 2, and I sincerely think they can't be beat for the price point you can get them at. I haven't had to use Bushnells warranty so I can't speak to that part.
1
1
u/CKY350 Jun 09 '26
What's your usual target distance? Which model do you own? 3-18 or 5-30?
1
u/SalamiRocketship Jun 11 '26
Both 5-30. One on a 6.5CM the other on a 338LM. Ive only got around 700 yards on my property so if I'm being honest the 338 doesn't get much use aside from the shits and giggles aspect. I actually just recently moved that scope to my 22 so I can mess around with that more for now. Lobbing those little bullets long range is a lot of fun
1
6
u/therowdyirishman Jun 08 '26
I don't shoot PRS, that being said here's some basic wisdom that I can offer. Image quality tends to suffer at the highest magnification level. Generally people try to stay a few levels below the max to avoid this. If you aren't adjusting your parallax (aka side focus) to the corresponding distance this will make a huge difference in clarity. Seeing bullet holes at 300yds is a tall order though. Using splatterburst targets makes it easier. I suspect most folks rely on a spotting scope for this instead of their optic at 200+ yards. Having a spotting scope is also a great way to make friends at the range. You can let people check their targets, take turns spotting while zeroing or just check out what's going on down range while waiting for your barrel to cool. A spotting scope can even prevent a cease fire if someone is only walking out to see where their impacts are.
4
u/swift_gilford Jun 08 '26
or am I simply hitting the physical limitations of this glass?
IMO, yes. As much as a Vortex fan i am, the diamondback tactical is the only scope i regret buying. That said, it is a serviceable and useable scope but it just has a lot of shortcomings, especially at max magnification. Like others have suggested a Viper PST or MPED would be good upgrades - but between the two i'd go PST.
3
u/blueline731 Jun 08 '26
You’ll need a better optic. If you like Vortex you might want to look into the Gen 3 Razor
-1
u/ExplorerEnjoyer Jun 08 '26
Fantastic optic but a massive waste of money for plinking at 300 yards lol. Vortex has viable options like the Venom for a fraction of the cost
3
u/blueline731 Jun 08 '26
I bought a Tangent Theta for my rifle which has never seen more than 200 yards. Waste of money yes but extremely satisfying to look through.
1
3
u/Acc4Wtf Jun 08 '26
Surprised no one recommended you a spotting scope. I can see 30 cal holes with ease at 200m with my Vortex Diamondback HD 20-60x85mm, never tried 300m.
. Maybe on a clear day with splatter targets, should be doable as I've seen other reviews say they can. Also pair it with a decent Tripod, you can get lower ones that sit on the bench for pretty cheap. This spotter comes with an arca rail so it works right out the box on a Tripod (assuming it accepts arca plates).
. You won't reliably see the holes with your 16x scope, also wasn't a fan of the clarity on that scope line. The other suggestions of the Bushnell Match Pro ED 5-30x56mm are good, but I still don't think you'd clearly see the holes at 300m.
. The BMPED is great and if your rifle is just a target rifle and you can afford it, go for it. But I'd still say get a spotting scope + Tripod. If you're interested, shoot me a PM and I can give you links to my exact setup.
2
u/TKB-059 bc Jun 08 '26
Spotting scopes are a waste of money for him. He's better off buying good glass to begin with.
1
1
3
u/Low-HangingFruit Jun 08 '26
Have had two Diamondbacks with the same issue. They are pretty bad glass.
Don't expect crystal clarity if you dont spend big bucks. I have a $1000 leupold 5x that is easier to shoot at 200 yards than my 24x Diamondbacks at max zoom.
1
u/Scary-Detail-3206 Jun 08 '26
I had a diamondback HP, still pretty bad glass though slightly better than the regular diamondback.
I upgraded to a Nightforce SHV and it’s a whole different ball game.
3
u/Quantis_Ottawa Jun 08 '26
I think the mistake is you're trying to see your hits. That's what a spotting scope is for. Most PRS shooters only run 10-12x and are looking at the target as a whole. I can pound steel all day with a red dot at 300.
3
u/Penguinbotxv Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
The glass does not match the gun. Would suggest any of the premier budget Chinese scopes or an mped. Would suggest you check some of the suggestions in the r/longrange subreddit on optics
2
u/somewhitemail Jun 08 '26
I have 2 of those scopes on my 7 prc and 300 prc you arent going to be spotting bullet holes at 300 yards in that scope or very few scopes for that matter
2
u/Defiant-Bass9034 Jun 08 '26
I have that scope, I put it on my .22wmr bolt gun. It's not a great scope. I lose a lot of contrast even with the sunshade on when the sun is in front of me. Image quality is ok but kinda soft, it's got longitudinal chromatic aberration, the eyebox is atrocious and the parallax adjustment doesn't read close to accurate. Just ignore the numbers on the knob and twiddle it until you have it focused as best you can get it. It is useable out to range, I make mine work, but you'll have to get used to its limitations. You get what you pay for. And a lot of scopes in that magnification will have trouble spotting bullet holes at that range. A spotting scope will suit you better, or you can be cheap like me and just walk out there to take a look. Good for the cardiovascular system lol.
Better glass is always a good investment, although it's pretty easy to spend $3000+. If you wanna go the budget route I have the Bushnell match pro ED 3-18, and they also make a 5-30 which I'm planning on also getting. Solid budget options, both around $1200ish. Very pleased with mine.
2
u/GasMan1021 Jun 08 '26
Vortex PST Gen 2 and Bushnell Match Pro are great options if its in your budget.
1
1
u/Murray3-Dvideos Jun 08 '26
You need to switch to shooting small steel targets and watching splashes in dirt. In that shooting situation you'll discover even a 1940s 3.5 power optic will effectively direct shots out to 500m!
Even the 1960s tech 4 power SVD scopes with the dinky little 24mm objectives can effectively reach 1000 plus meters.
1
1
u/hafetysazard Jun 09 '26
Eye box on a lot of scopes zoomed to the max are picky. You’ll need a reliable means to keep your eye relief in the perfect spot. I put a little square of velcro on my buttstock as a reference and reminder where my cheek needs to be. It helps. As others have said, seeing hits on paper at those distances are tough. Could try the shoot-n-see targets, see if that helps.
1
u/CKY350 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
FYI, in the meantime I also reached out to Vortex and they recommended the Vortex Viper HD 5-25.
Now I'm debating between the Bushnell Match Pro ED 5-30X and the Viper HD.
If you have any feedback, I'm listening
Here the answer from Vortex:
The Viper PST Gen 2 will be a large improvement, no doubt. The other optic I was going to suggest is the Strike Eagle 5-25x56, but note that this optic has a 34mm tube, so would require different rings. Given the ring purchase, it would likely put both of these optics at the same price point.
The Viper HD 5-25, offered in both first focal plane and second focal plane will provide even better glass than both Viper PST Gen 2, Strike Eagle, and Diamondback Tactical. You may be able to find these at a better deal, given their popularity.
What I would look for is an optic with a Zero Stop mechanism at minimum. Locking turrets can be beneficial from a hunting standpoint, which the Strike Eagle and Viper HD both have.
****** Update, pulled the trigger on the Bushnell Match Pro 5-30x56mm
0
0
u/BrotherLefthand Jun 08 '26
Your scope is fine. You can stretch is way further. Get yourself a decent spotting scope to see your hits. Bring a buddy to spot for you if you don't want to do it yourself.
0
u/epnk420 Jun 08 '26
After owning Vortex and Bushnell, then getting the wife a Leupold, I’ll only buy Leupold from now on the glass is just a much better tier. Also depends if you got a first focal plane or second
2
u/CKY350 Jun 08 '26
My Vortex is FFP
I'm not stuck on Vortex, I want the best bang for my bucks since I'm not a millionaire. I'll look at other brands. Any suggestions on the Leupold?
2
u/epnk420 Jun 08 '26
Even the cheaper sfp plane ones are clear I known they get pricey pretty quick if you have a local gun store near you best to check them out in person the eye relief is fantastic on Leupold too
1
u/Specialist_Chard5231 Jun 08 '26
Scope quality goes up with cost. Vortex is fine. Just move to a higher their scope.
0
u/TKB-059 bc Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
MPED. Skip Vortex entirely other than the Razor or specialized optics like the LHT.
I'd honestly say just sell your entire setup and start over. The Tac A1 isn't a good option for the amount of money it costs.
2
u/CKY350 Jun 09 '26
What's wrong with the TAC A1 ?
1
u/TKB-059 bc Jun 09 '26
Overpriced and outdated. A tikka in a decent chassis of your choice is similar in price and better.
26
u/some_guy2024 Jun 08 '26
Are you expecting to see bullet holes at 300yds with your optic? If so, your expectations are just not in line with reality (and not just because you have a budget optic).
Depending on the day’s conditions, you might be able to see bullet holes (on white targets, not in the black) at 300 with a very high quality spotting scope or optic (for reference I have multiple gen 2 & gen 3 Razors of all flavours and the biggest Razor spotter) but it’s not a given.
The point of your optic is to be able to resolve the target that you are shooting at and to track precisely and reliably. You can easily stretch your setup to 1k yds plus. If you’re concerned about seeing holes at 300 a target cam is a better investment than anything else.