[kis2]

This obviously depends on application, so lets say practical targets in some kind of field type match where time and follow up shots are a factor:

What's your rule of thumb for magnification level at 100, 500, and 1000 yards? Or distances in between those? Another way to ask this would be, what magnification do you need to meet the accuracy of your rifle at those distances?

I have my own ideas, I just want to see what everyone else is doing to compare. I've also been window scope shopping, and want to make sure I'm getting what I need in mag levels.

Thanks!

[Zerodefect]

100-300y=1x
250-500y=1-4x
500y= anything from 3x to 20x
1000y= 32x

[JoeMal]

100-300y=1x
250-500y=1-4x
500y= anything from 3x to 20x
1000y= 32xI question that...

How accurate can you really be at 500 yards with only a 3x scope?

[cougar1717]

Is this going to be like the guy who says 10x at 500 yds isn't nearly enough, yet has no problem with shooting 1x at 50 yds? :)

All I can say is that I could have used a little more than the 9x I had shooting at prairie dogs up to about 400 yds.

[USSR]

100-300y=1x
250-500y=1-4x
500y= anything from 3x to 20x
1000y= 32x

Nope. It may seem counter-intuitive, but, 32x is TOO MUCH magnification at 1000 yards due to mirage, and IF you are going to use that much magnification, it would be better used at close range.

Don

[M-Cameron]

theres no "correct" answer because its entirely subjective........


one person might be comfortable shooting with 4X @ 100 yards where another person might like 20X @100....the bare minimum is enough so you can see the target.....but anything after that is up to the shooter..

its like buying a T-shirt.......at least buy a shirt that physically fits you.....but if you want a tighter or looser fit is entirely up to you.




as for what works for me......
it really depends on my mood and the weather honestly.

somedays at 100yds i like shooting at 6x....other days im at 20x

[taliv]

for me, it's not based on distance so much as target size. i have to be able to see the target. that's all.

i can see 10" steel plates at 500 yrds with a 4x acog just fine.
when i'm shooting bugs walking across my paper targets at 100 yrds, or 1000 yrd f-class, i crank the NF up to 42x (most days i don't have too much problem with mirage at that power)

if i'm shooting small plates like 3-6" (or balloons, eggs, bottles of tannerite, etc) between 300-600 yrds, i get as much magnification as i can.
if i'm shooting an 19x30" ipsc silhouette from 300-1000 yrds, 10x is fine

[Zerodefect]

I question that...

How accurate can you really be at 500 yards with only a 3x scope?

Combat effective. Noone gave an accuracy qualifier.

Seen plenty of folks use irons out to that range on man sized targets. This range varies alot. Henceforth why I mentioned anything from 3-20x.

[Zerodefect]

Nope. It may seem counter-intuitive, but, 32x is TOO MUCH magnification at 1000 yards due to mirage, and IF you are going to use that much magnification, it would be better used at close range.

Don

It would of course be a variable magnification scope. I haven't seen a 32x that isn't.

It appears that 5-32x scopes rule F-class in my area.

[Effigy]

x4 works pretty well at 100 yards for me shooting at a 6" target. You can probably extrapolate that out to greater yardages, but it seems like you don't want to go beyond x20 or x22 in general due to mirage.

Keep in mind that Palma shooters can hit a bullseye at 1000 yards with iron sights. It's hard to believe, but I've seen it.

[chrome_austex]

More magnification simply doesn't give you more accuracy. Period.

Magnification does help with target identification tho...

Anyway, I'll play along...
100 - 4x
500y - ~7x
1000y - 10x

With good glass, I can see, align, and hit a ~2 MIL target (2 ft target at 300y or 2y target at 1000y) with a 4x scope.

If we're talking bench queens, and not practical rifles, then I'd want 12x for 100y up to 20x for 1000y (the more magnification, the better).

[TonyAngel]

Man, this is really subjective. It also crosses over to what makes you feel comfortable too. For minute of angle size targets, I've been very happy with my 5.5-22X. For practical size targets, like game size targets and steel and stuff, I was really surprised at what I was able to hit with my 2.5-10X32.

I do have to admit that a lot of my shooting lately has been at paper and when doing that, you kind of crave magnification. More magnification just makes me FEEL as though I can be more precise when the size of the group can really mess with your head. When all you're doing is listening for the "ding" and the size of the group doesn't matter, I feel very comfortable with the 10X.

To be honest, the Nightforce 2.5-10X32 is my favorite scope of all that I've owned. It's pretty compact, has very good glass and is very tough. It's also what I would call just on the borderline of what you'd need to shoot tight groups at 100 yards for testing.

I know that you've been considering the 5.5-22X Nightforce. It's a nice scope, but it's a LOT bigger than the 10X and it weighs a good bit more too. If I found myself in a bind and had to choose between selling a 5.5-22X or the 2.5-10X, it would be a hard decision in deed.

Just to throw this in, I read that a general rule of thumb is 1X mag for every 100 yards for practical shooting.

Don't you just hate having to make these decisions? An easy answer would be to get both.

BTW, have you checked out the Vortex Razors? I know two guys that sold their Nightforces to get the Razors. They say that they don't regret it.

[Zak Smith]

I regularly shoot a 3-12 S&B from mid ranges (300-700) out to 1000, 1400 yards. I could use a little more at 1300+ yards.

[1858]

kis2, when I decided to buy my first PRH, I was trying to choose between the 3-15x and 5-25x models. I set up one of my Leupold Mark 4s on 15x to see if I could make out and hold on the center or edge of wheels on cars 1,000 yards away (ranged with my Swarovski). I realized that I'd have no problem holding on 10" targets with sufficient contrast to the background. So I chose the 3-15x PRH and found that I could easily see and hit a LaRue reactive target at 800 yards, but then I used that scope to shoot some F-Class matches and it sucked at 300 yards. I simply couldn't make out the X-ring, 10-ring or 9-ring and my scores reflected it. I then mounted a 6.5-20x Mark 4 on the rifle and it was night and day difference. I was able to make out the rings at 300 yards and shoot a 149-4X. I now have an 8.5-25x on that rifle but haven't used it in a match yet.

So my point is, for high contrast targets 15x is more than enough out to 1,000 yards, but if you're trying to get inside a 1/2 MOA ring in a large black boiling blob, you'll need quite a bit more magnification. This is why I no longer try to find one scope to do it all. However, if I had to compromise with just one scope, based on what I have, it would be the PRH 5-25x56mm because it'd work for everything that I do at present. The PRH 3-15x has found a permanent home on my AI AW which I'll use for practical shooting and my F-Class rig has the 8.5-25x Mark 4. Practical shooting and match shooting have different requirements in terms of optics, at least, in my experience shooting 300, 500 and 600 yard F-Class and "practical" shooting on steel out to 900 yards.

[mrbro]

+1 on depends on target size.

[Zak Smith]

I've hit an approx 10" plate at 1670 yards with a 12x S&B. It was hard to see at that distance.

[USSR]

I use 6.5-20X and 6-24X scopes on my rifles when shooting F Class at 1k. However, I always find myself turning the magnification down to 16-18X to dial out the mirage somewhat.

Don

[kis2]

thanks for the replies all, I know it's a bit subjective.

What I was sort of driving at is there has to be a balance between how precise you aim (meaning magnification here) and the ability to make quick follow up shots (having a wide field of view), and was curious how others approached that.

Paper is different than a practical field match obviously.

1858 - For the forseeable future, this will be my one and only high precision rifle and given my purpose, I think something that tops out around 17x would be good enough. My F-Class might suffer a bit though, I can see what you're saying.

Interesting thoughts everyone, thanks!

[jeepguy]

1-2@100yds 3@200yds 4@300yds 5@400yds 6@500yds thats about as far as i will ever shoot, please keep in mind that these are minimums.

[Art Eatman]

Critter experience: 3X was plenty good for precision placement on a buck at 350 yards. Hit within an inch or so of where I intended. 7X was adequate for prairie dogs to 300 yards, by laser measuring.

Target: 10X let me get sub-MOA groups at my 500 yard range.

[pdd614]

For field type practical shooting matches inside 1200 yards. I think a variable with 3 or 4 power on the low end and 14-16 on the upper end would be ideal. All that really matters is being able to identify the target clearly in your scope. If you can see the target, and it's within your dope, you can hit it.

[1stmarine]

it depends on the size of the target.

Maybe I can divide it like this:
Large target (deer)
-minimum power 3-5 up to 300 yards.
-5-10 up to 700 yards.
-over 10 past that.

Small target (small fox)
-minimum power 8-10 up to 300 yards.
-10-14 up to 600 yards.
-from 14 to max power over that along with a good prayer.

I am actually in the hunt ( and saving money) for a new one for a .338 lapua and I want to keep it very simple. Might well be a vortex viper pst in 4x16 magnification.... http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-pst-4-16x50-riflescope-with-ebr-1-moa-reticle

I consider a good magnification range 3-12 or 4-16 to be practical in most scenarios up to 1200 yards, even more.

I also have a couple of 5-20 and 6-25 but the low setting is already too high for some scenarios and for long range I don't need that much. Only if I want to read a book at 300 yards or I forgot my spotting scope! lol!

I have seen through a benchrest that a friend uses up to x60 but those felt very estrange and are for very specific purposes. Seeing too much detail of the target can actually work against you as you do not see anything around of the target and whether there is something close that it is going to affect that target when the bullet gets there. It feels like watching a 52" flat screen 2 feet away. weird.
Seen "more" doesn't really mean that you can pixelate where the bullet is precisely going to hit. I see how some small varmint long range hunter might want to use a little extra power but x32 not for me. Everyone is different though so you should stick with what you like first and you are good at.

This really depends on the purpose but for me anything over 16 is rarely hard to justify in regular hunting and tactical scenarios.

Cheers,
E.

[gamestalker]

There is nothing subjective about shooting a target at 500 yds. using a 3x magnification. Heat waves are always a consideration with optics. If it was subjective, bench rest shooters and other professional competitive shooters wouldn't use high powered optics for seemingly close distances such as 200 yds. Try to shoot a single hole group at 200 yds. using a 3x optic, it isn't happening.
I live in Arizona and we have some pretty serious heat wave issues to deal with, but it doesn't become any easier to shoot 200 yds. much less 500 yds. with a low power scope of 3x. At 200 yds. 9x is just about as low as you would want to go if your trying to shoot sub MOA groups. And at 500 yds. a 9x optic seems almost useless unless your just trying to put them in a paper plate sized group.

[35 Whelen]

More magnification simply doesn't give you more accuracy. Period.


Exactly.

[Afy]

I use a NF 8-42 to shoot at 100 meters normally cranked up to about 35x. But that is me.

[1858]

More magnification simply doesn't give you more accuracy. Period.

All things being equal ... yes it does. All you have to do is walk the line at an F-Class match or a Benchrest match to see what's being used and realize that this is proven technology. If you can hold inside 1/4 MOA rather than 1/2 MOA you will shoot higher scores. Period.

Other shooting disciplines may not benefit from a lot of magnification because they're shooting at high contrast targets.

[35 Whelen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrome_austex
More magnification simply doesn't give you more accuracy. Period.

All things being equal ... yes it does. All you have to do is walk the line at an F-Class match or a Benchrest match to see what's being used and realize that this is proven technology. If you can hold inside 1/4 MOA rather than 1/2 MOA you will shoot higher scores. Period.

Other shooting disciplines may not benefit from a lot of magnification because they're shooting at high contrast targets.


I have to respectfully disagree. Of it will to degree, but generally speaking, and especially from a hunting standpoint, more magnification doesn't help.
35W

[1858]

I have to respectfully disagree. Of it will to degree, but generally speaking, and especially from a hunting standpoint, more magnification doesn't help.

How many prairie dog hunters use a 9x scope? How many deer hunters use a 25x scope? We all know that you need to match the magnification to the target and application of interest. My hunting rifles have 9x or less optics on them because an 8" plate at 300 yards doesn't need a 25x scope. But that doesn't change the fact that greater magnification increases accuracy when it allows you to reduce the area of hold on the target.

[dom1104]

10x fixed power Leupold LR/T w/ offset 45 degree Aimpoint Micro.

All the time, and for everything.

[35 Whelen]

How many prairie dog hunters use a 9x scope? How many deer hunters use a 25x scope? We all know that you need to match the magnification to the target and application of interest. My hunting rifles have 9x or less optics on them because an 8" plate at 300 yards doesn't need a 25x scope. But that doesn't change the fact that greater magnification increases accuracy when it allows you to reduce the area of hold on the target.


Odd...I hunted prairie dogs years ago with my Ruger 77V 220 Swift. It wore an old Weaver 3-9X. I also shot a few with a Winchester Mod. 70 that wore an old B&L fixed 6X. I've only hunted prairie dogs once, but both these scopes worked perfectly.
What I have done quite alot of (30+ years) is hunt hogs deer and elk. My first deer rifle acquired as a teen is a Ruger 77 in 6mm Rem. It has always worn an old Redfield 4X. I killed my first few deer with it as did my wife and both daughters. It's also my loaner rifle for new hunters. No one's ever needed more magnification.
My current "go to" deer rifle is a Scout configuration and wears a 2.75X scope. My elk rifle, a 35 Whelen, wears a Burris straight 4X. My most recent bull was killed at a lasered 355 yds.The highest magnification scope I own are a couple of Burris Fullfield II's in 3-9x40. the one that gets the most use is on my Ruger 77 .280. It stays set on 3X 99% of the time and lots of game have fallen to it.
The point of all this is my hunting experience has taught me that high magnification scopes are for the most part unnecessary unless a hunter deliberately hunts at extremely long ranges. High magnification scopes in the field are the result of nothing more than marketing. Scope companies would have you believe that you MUST use, say, a 6-18X scope with a trash can sized objective to be successful. In my experience, it just ain't so.
35W

[1stmarine]

Well I think one could hunt a deer with a bench rest x60 scope in order to count the fleas in the buck's back before you pop it but how is this going to be practical?
Jokes aside the size and purpose determines the appropriate magnification almost naturally.
If something doesn't feel right, it is probably the wrong thing to be doing.

[chrome_austex]

I wouldn't object to someone saying that a sufficiently high-power scope is needed for top-tier accuracy when you're pushing the limits of benchrest competition. They're also a huge help if you're eyes are less than 20/20.

I've been around precision shooters for long enough to know encounter more than a few superstitions out there. I've also seen some incredulous feats of accuracy from guns with only iron sights.

The problem here is that the OP didn't specify the target, nor the support for the gun. So any debate is kind of pointless. Probably best to stick to the original question.

[Pete D.]

I stopped reading at post 17 or so. Lots of good info. Nice to see mention of things like mirage that affect the effectiveness of scopes.
As important as magnification - probably more important - is clarity. The quality of the optics in the tube matter more than how big the image can be made. How close to theoretical resolution does the scope get?
You can buy a cheap scope at 32X that will give you an image that is unusable. You can buy a better optics that will give you all you need at half the magnification. Clarity is what you should pay for, not magnification.
Pete

[Maverick223]

As important as magnification - probably more important - is clarity. The quality of the optics in the tube matter more than how big the image can be made. How close to theoretical resolution does the scope get?
You can buy a cheap scope at 32X that will give you an image that is unusable. You can buy a better optics that will give you all you need at half the magnification. Clarity is what you should pay for, not magnification.That. Prioritize a good scope. Make sure that it is not only reliable and tracks well, but also has good glass...then worry about magnification, and other features/details.

There is no set magnification for distance, you have to suit the optics to the quarry or target. IMO magnification is best broken down into three groups:
1. Low Magnification: for big game hunting, close range, and plinking (I usually end up with a 1-4x, 2-7x, 3-9x, or the like to fill this need; I find that my Kahles 2-7x32mm is exceptional in this category)
2. Moderate Magnification: for practical shooting, varmint, and long range hunting (I prefer a 3-15x, 4-16x, 5-25x, or similar for this task; the PRH 5-25x56mm is the best I have found in this class of shooting)
3. High Magnification: for precise target shooting [e.g.: benchrest] (magnification beyond 24x with a fine reticle meets my requirements for this category)

:)

[TonyAngel]

kis2, how often do you shoot at 100 yards? At what distance is most of your shooting done? Maybe you should look at this from a perspective of what your low end needs to be.

I shoot .308 for the most part and didn't build my .308 to shoot at 100 yards. Whenever I get the opportunity to let it stretch its legs, it's usually at ranges of 250 yards or so and beyond. Of course, I don't shoot any practical matches where you may have to make relatively short shots, so I didn't need a bottom end lower than 5X. If you are going to be making shots at 100 yards or less and target acquisition is a factor, then you might be better served with something that has a 3X bottom end.

My point is that if you can determine what your bottom end NEEDS to be to meet your speed and target acquisition needs, then it's a simple matter of chosing that scope and getting the biggest high end that you can get. I mean, why not get more magnification if you can get it without it costing you anything.

When I purchased my last NF, the 5.5-22X, I went down to the shop to check out the 3-15X. When I got there and actually saw the scope, I realized that I didn't need the low end to go that low and that the 15X was about the same physical size as the 22X, so I got the 22X. For my needs, I didn't have to sacrifice anything to get the extra magnification.

As far as the mirage goes, yes, I do get it and more of it at higher magnification, but you don't always have to use it. Besides, I found out a short time ago that some guys actually use the mirage to read the wind. Go figure. I have a lot more learning to do.

[kis2]

TonyAngel, I think approaching scope buying from deciding what bottom end you need is a great idea, since that would probably limit what kind of top end you'd get. good call. the uso I've been eyeballing is 3.5-17x, which I think would work bottom end and good enough for the long shots.

For the purpose I listed in the OP, I think you should probably choose a magnification that allows you to hold an accurate point of aim on the target, while having the most field of view surrounding it you can. so essentially as far zoomed out as you can be and still see the target well enough for an accurate hold. that would make follow up shots, calling your own shot, and target acquisition easier whilst scoped.

And I think with the exception of benchrest, everyone is saying the same thing in different ways. and rightfully so I think, benchrest competition is so different than hunting or the like.

thanks for the inputs all

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

To 100 yards I like a 1-4 power, or a fixed 4 power.

To 500 yards I would want at least a 9x optic.

To 1,000 yards I have no idea... but it would be a lot.

[Maverick223]

the uso I've been eyeballing is 3.5-17x, which I think would work bottom end and good enough for the long shots.The SN-3 is a good, solid scope (though I would take a look at PRH as well, as it is a better value IMO). Just make sure and get the "T-PAL" version, as it will make parallax adjustments much easier. You also want to match the adjustments and reticle (I prefer Mil/Mil, but there's nothing wrong with MOA/MOA); additionally you should also consider the EREK elevation knob which allows you to go all the way to 1k yds. in one revolution (a feature I love).

:)

[kis2]

Mav- I looked at the erek knob, and not sure it's worth the 175 extra dollars, though I do think they look awesome! I think the m40 knobs would work fine for me.

thanks for the advice!

[Maverick223]

Mav- I looked at the erek knob, and not sure it's worth the 175 extra dollars, though I do think they look awesome! I think the m40 knobs would work fine for me.

thanks for the advice!It is a great deal more, and more convenient (for dialing in long range anyway), but whether that added convenience is worth it is up to the rifleman. Personally I would go ahead and forgo the additional cost, but only because I'm already spending a small fortune and my PRH is set up similarly (have the "double-turn" MTC knobs). FWIW, I plan to put that exact scope on my next LRPR (.260RemAI), mainly because PRH has gone up by a fair margin (I paid $2250 for 5-25x56mm no. 257 about 2yrs back) and Liberty Optics no longer carries them (which has more than a little bit to do with the increased cost).

Happy to be of some service!

:)

[TonyAngel]

kis2, you came up in a conversation that I had today. I was talking to a guy that is preparing to take some instruction from a guy that is a long range instructor. My friend is an avid pistol and rimfire shooter, but hasn't messed with long range much and wanted to get into it. In any case, he's putting his rifle together and we started talking about optics. He was told by his instructor that something in a 3-15X magnification range with a mil/mil setup would be ideal for practical/tactical type of shooting. My friend has decided to go with a Nightforce F1.

If you do get the USO, I'd ask them if the EREK knob is an option that can be added later. If not, you may want to rethink not getting it. I know that $300 is $300, but that USO that I last shot had an EREK knob and I have to say that it's nice and FAST. Although I haven't spent a lot of quality time with the rig, I can think of a few times when it would make things a bit more simple and allow you to have to think less about things.

The key here is that you are considering making a serious long term investment in some nice glass. I know that we all (almost) have some budget that we have to stay in, but this may be one of those things where you should just get what you want. It would suck to later regret not having gotten exactly what you wanted.

[kis2]

"but this may be one of those things where you should just get what you want."

you know TonyAngel, the more I think about it, the more I think I should just get the erek knob. I mean, what's that, like 5% of the total cost of the scope? just get it and be done with it.

I'm still shopping around, but all signs indicate I'm going to land with USO. I can't believe in that kind of price range they are the only company I've found that will let you customize it!

Speaking of customizing, my rifle is coming back FDE, so I'm thinking FDE for the scope. probably also a good time to invest in a scope/crown cover too.

[TonyAngel]

kis2, if I recall, that scope has the parallax adjustment on the bell, doesn't it?

USO seems like they do cater to their crowd with all of the options that they offer. As long as you're happy.

I also wanted to tell you this. Don't sweat spending the money. Even if you are, that's going to go away as soon as you have the scope in your hands. Every time I walked into my local Nightforce shop to peel off a small stack of hundreds for another scope, I always had a little bit of a sick feeling in my stomach; but I still always smile every time I get behind the rifle.

[Maverick223]

the more I think about it, the more I think I should just get the erek knob. I mean, what's that, like 5% of the total cost of the scope? just get it and be done with it.Bingo!

kis2, if I recall, that scope has the parallax adjustment on the bell, doesn't it?The SN-3 T-PAL 3.2-17x44mm (and the still quite popular 5-25x58mm) comes with a side focus, and is probably their most popular model for that very reason. I believe their SN-9 (which has virtually no competition in the marketplace) would do quite a bit better if they would add a side focus.

:)

[kis2]

Mav got it, I'm looking at the TPal (side focus)versions. I don't really care what amount of ruggedness is added with the bell focus, I don't want to have to reach all the way up there. ...lazy?

They have a 5-25x tpal model, but it costs a good bit more and I'm not convinced I need the extra magnification. My current scope max's out at 16x, and it's able to see the plates out at 1k yards. Stepping up to USO quality at 17x should be a big enough improvement.

"Don't sweat spending the money. Even if you are, that's going to go away as soon as you have the scope in your hands."

Thanks for that TonyAngel. It's a daunting purchase, so I absolutely need the encouragement.

[kis2]

on a similar note, funny story:

Told the wife I was considering buying a $3k scope, and she simply said, 'it's a lot of money, but yeah, ok.'

I said, 'just like that? you're ok with this?' :scrutiny:

She says, 'Well, I figure it'd get you to stop talking about it. That's got to be worth about three thousand dollars.' ;)

[Maverick223]

They have a 5-25x tpal model, but it costs a good bit more and I'm not convinced I need the extra magnification. My current scope max's out at 16x, and it's able to see the plates out at 1k yards. Stepping up to USO quality at 17x should be a big enough improvement.The 5-25x58mm is probably a good scope too, but it is massive. Great for certain applications, but just too big and heavy for most. Forget magnification, the improvement in glass quality alone will be a big step up. A lot of folks think they need 42x to reach out a ways, when all they really need is better glass and perhaps a better reticle (one that's reasonably fine but easily found). FWIW I hold my little 2-7x36mm Kahles Helia in higher regard than my 6.5-20x44mmAO Nikon Monarch (which isn't a bad scope and serves it purpose well, but it can't compare with the best of Europe).

She says, 'Well, I figure it'd get you to stop talking about it. That's got to be worth about three thousand dollars.'Hehehe, i'd start talking about the new rifle now. :evil:

[Waywatcher]

I would use a rule of twos for minimums:

100-2x
200-4x
300-6x
400-8x

[Pete D.]

when all they really need is better glass and perhaps a better reticle (one that's reasonably fine but easily found).

True. Nice to read that.
Remember and consider another optical truth - there is a finite amount of light that comes through the objective lens. The more the image is magnified, the more the available light is spread out and the dimmer the image becomes. Better glass (and coatings) allows more light to be transmitted and preserves the image as it is magnified.
Pete

[Picher]

Magnification also depends on the time factor. If there isn't sufficient time to adjust parallax for different distances, a variable with not more than 10x would suffice.

Another factor is objective lens diameter. The larger the objective, the higher the need for parallax adjustment, to a degree.

For hunting certain types of game, especially where time is a factor in getting off a shot, it's hard to beat a 3-9x scope, parallax adjusted to 100 or 150 yards.

The target plays a big part in being able to shoot accurately with low-powered scopes. A target with four squares, separated by two inches, works well out to 200 yards for low-powered scopes. beyond that, white or other high-contrast circular or square targets can work pretty well in many conditions.

When some of us started varmint hunting as practice for deer hunting, I used a K2.5x Weaver on my 30-06. Woodchucks were spotted with binoculars, then the rifle scope was usually adequate for the shot. One season, I averaged over 200 yards for the kills. The longest being 450 yards, but that was a side hill with a huge new mound that was visible with the naked eye. I merely held about 5 feet over and a bit to the left and hit the mound. The second shot got the chuck, which was laying across the mound, only half-visible. Luck? Certainly some, but the first one wasn't all luck. I knew my trajectory table very well. That was around 1961, when variable scopes were very dear, and young eyes were very clear.

JP

[Maverick223]

Magnification also depends on the time factor. If there isn't sufficient time to adjust parallax for different distances, a variable with not more than 10x would suffice.True, which is why DMR optics typically have moderate magnification.

Another factor is objective lens diameter. The larger the objective, the higher the need for parallax adjustment, to a degree.How so? I've never heard of the objective affecting the parallax.

:)

[1858]

Better glass (and coatings) allows more light to be transmitted and preserves the image as it is magnified.

Let's be clear about the role of coatings on optical lenses, they attenuate specific wavelengths of light. In other words, they don't allow more light to be transmitted, in fact they reduce the transmission which in turn, if done well, improves the quality of the image, not the quantity. The amplification of noise has been an age old problem for any device that amplifies a signal.

[1858]

How so? I've never heard of the objective affecting the parallax.

The exit pupil is typically calculated by dividing the objective lens diameter by the magnification. The larger the objective, the larger the exit pupil at all magnifications. If the eye is centered in the scope tube there is no parallax. Intuitively, you'd think that the smaller the exit pupil the greater the chance of good alignment between the center of the tube and the eye. Perhaps this is why a larger objective could result in more parallax issues compared to a scope with the same magnification range but smaller objective. Just a thought.

[Zak Smith]

That's true. A trick to reduce parallax error is to put a cardboard "reducer" in front of the objective that has a smaller aperture than the objective lens.

[TonyAngel]

I haven't seen kis2 post anything about this, so I'll just spit something out and he can correct me if I'm wrong. I've kept up with some of his posts and it appears to me that he does shoot some competitions using a .308; and when he talks distance shooting, he isn't talking about 450 yards either. From the pics I've seen, his "shooting range" extends to distances of as far as the eye can see. Yeah, I'm jealous.

[kis2]

^^^That's true TonyAngel! I've only been to one of Zaks competitions, but plan to attend more regularly, it's just such good training. I think I learned more about my rifle in 60 rounds at one of those comps than 300 on my own. F-class is a good experience too, just different. and less scenic.

Though I've had some success, I'm revamping my bolt to come back built for 600+yd shooting. The longest place I've found with a real good solid backstop is about 1250yds, and I plan to try and touch it. As best a .308 can do that.

Don't be too jealous though TonyAngel, the only places where one can see as far as the eye can, are places without trees :(

I've learned a lot in my past two threads or so, and most of you have been posting in them, so thanks for the new knowledge! lots of good learning happening.

[TonyAngel]

In my experience, trees are overrated.

1250 yards? I see a long action in your future.

Hey, I shot a .338 Ultra Mag a couple of weeks ago. Man, that thing hurt so good!!

[kis2]

yeah, I think if I stepped up, I'd step up big. Like to a .338LM. something where it's extremely difficult just for me to find a place that has room for it to stretch its legs.

that said, .308 is so gosh darn entertaining, I think it'll be awhile before I'm bored :)

[1858]

yeah, I think if I stepped up, I'd step up big. Like to a .338LM. something where it's extremely difficult just for me to find a place that has room for it to stretch its legs.

I've been going back and forth between an AWM chambered in .300 Win Mag or .338 Lapua Mag. I finally decided that .338 LM would be a waste for me. Our longest range is 1,000 yards and the USMC base I shoot on doesn't put any reactive targets out past 900 yards. I can nail those targets with my .308 Win and considering that I have dies, cases, bullets and powder for .300 Win Mag, that's what I'm sticking with.

[kis2]

sounds like a good call 1858. 300winmag is a pretty awesome round, what's the bc on the bullets you plan to use?

man, I wish I had a range around here with set reactive targets out to 900yds, that'd be great! pretty nice set up.

[Zak Smith]

"Get Both"-- get it in .338LM and then buy a .300WM bolt body and shoot 7RM... best of both worlds. I am tempted by the AX338, but smaller bolt heads are not available.

[1858]

kis2, this is your thread so I apologize for getting off topic a bit.

300winmag is a pretty awesome round, what's the bc on the bullets you plan to use?

I forget the BC of the 208gr A-MAX but it's over 0.5 I'm sure. That's what I use with Reloder 22 in my current .300 WM and get excellent results. I bet the load I have worked up will shoot great in the AWM too.


"Get Both"-- get it in .338LM and then buy a .300WM bolt body and shoot 7RM... best of both worlds. I am tempted by the AX338, but smaller bolt heads are not available.

There's a switch barrel kit for the AWM with two bolts, two barrels and two magazines for .300 WM and .338 LM. It adds $2,000 or so to the cost and that was my plan initially, but I figured that the .338 LM barrel, bolt and mag would just sit in the safe. If I buy the .300 WM, I could simply order a 7RM barrel for it ... right?

[Zak Smith]

What I suggested is what I did. You can just buy the bolt body, magazine, and then an aftermarket barrel in 7 - might even be able to find a "used" bolt body. I've been shooting the 7 setup for the last couple years, but before that I shot thousands of .338 through it. I do like the 7, but the 338 has a special appeal.

But to your last question- yep, simple barrel change.

[Maverick223]

Thanks for the info, 1858 & Zak Smith. I always thought that the "cardboard (or duct tape) reducer" was an attempt to reduce glare and aberration when a sunshade wasn't available.

300winmag is a pretty awesome round, what's the bc on the bullets you plan to use?Can't speak for '58, but I like the 190SMK (0.533), 208A-Max (0.648), 240SMK (0.711). I haven't gotten around to it, but I want to try 210SMKs (BC of 0.629) in the near future. So far I like the A-Max the best, with the 190SMK being a close second (I believe the 240s are just a bit too heavy and long to reach a decent velocity so I doubt that I'll buy more).

"Get Both"-- get it in .338LM and then buy a .300WM bolt body and shoot 7RM... best of both worlds.I am considering a 7mmRM after I wear out my .300Winnie...I take it you think that is the right move?

:)

[Zak Smith]

7rm : .300wm :: .260 : .308

;)

[Maverick223]

7rm : .300wm :: .260 : .308Ain't no way! The .300WM isn't that bad...the three-oh-8 is a poor excuse for a LR rifle cartridge [ducks*].

*Then realized I didn't need to because the poor folks were shooting those wee little .308s that couldn't reach out this far. :p

[Zak Smith]

You're right-- it's not proportionally as bad ballistically. But it does burn 10gr more powder.

[Maverick223]

You're right-- it's not proportionally as bad ballistically. But it does burn 10gr more powder.True, but it doesn't burn up barrels quite as fast either, so that should even things out a bit. That said, I still believe that is destined to be my future barrel, because ballistics are a bit better, with less recoil/blast, and bullet choices increase by a fair margin. If offered in the rifle to begin with, it is almost certainly the route I would have went.

:)

[kis2]

"kis2, this is your thread so I apologize for getting off topic a bit."

No apologies needed 1858, I think it's a great discussion.


"*Then realized I didn't need to because the poor folks were shooting those wee little .308s that couldn't reach out this far. "

HA

[Maverick223]

HAI figure i'll be fine till I get within tomato range. :neener:

[Pete D.]

Let's be clear about the role of coatings on optical lenses, they attenuate specific wavelengths of light. In other words, they don't allow more light to be transmitted, in fact they reduce the transmission which in turn, if done well, improves the quality of the image, not the quantity. The amplification of noise has been an age old problem for any device that amplifies a signal.

Thanks for that clarification. Good info.
Pete