Fixed versus variable scopes

[elktrout]

I have noticed that even expensive variables from the typical manufacturers all seem to lose resolution on the higher powers in their magnification range. Also, I have noticed that the higher you turn up the magnification, the more critical the eye relief becomes, even changing considerably in most makes.

Meanwhile, the typical fixed power scope, if you can find one, maintains consistently great resolution; and, its eye relief is constant.

I have hunted with both, shot with both (out to 400 yards), and know the limitations of each. But, what is your experience? In reality, what can the typical 3 to 9 variable do that a good fixed 6x scope cannot do, in most hunting circumstances?

 

[WardenWolf]

Many have an adjustable eyepiece for that reason.

 

[RPRNY]

You raise good points and an important qualification, "in a hunting situation ". Ethics dictate that live animals not be used for target practice. As hunters, we want humane kills. For the majority of hunters, myself included, 150 yards is probably about the farthest distance at which we can consistently place humane kill shots in deer sized animals in the field. I know, I already hear our Western colleagues and
Sendero hunters protesting, but the fact is that the average hunter, not the above average hunter undoubtedly over -represented on this forum ;-) just isn't a great shot. For that average hunter, a decent ququality 4x32 scope is as much as they could ever need or adequately use.

But, humility (or realism) are not as widely held character attributes among hunters and shooters as we might like to believe. And marketing folks are Hell - bent on making you believe that you need MORE. So, for hunting purposes for the average hunter, I agree with your conclusion. For target shooters and those hunters that can regularly make 200 yard plus humane kill shots in the field, not so much. I will however say that I think there are faaaaaar fewer of this class of hunter than there are those who think they belong in it.....

 

[JEB]

personally i really prefer variable scopes. my '06 wears a 2-7x32 this is just perfect power wise as far as i am concerned. while actually hunting i keep the power low, usually around 2-3 and almost never more than 4. a few times i have had a deer come out right on top of me and have had the magnification set way too high so i have learned to love lower power. for me, the top end of the magnification range is almost exclusivly for sighting in. i may crank it all the way up if i have a 100+ yard shot at a totally stationary deer and a rock solid rest, but that is an extreme rarity.

 

[TonyAngel]

elktrout, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, but it sure sounds to me like you're describing a Leupold. In any case, none of the scopes that I've owned and would call expensive have exhibited the characteristics that you described above.

There was a time when I preferred fixed power scopes for their reliability; but variables have come a long way. These days, I prefer variables for their flexibility.

Maybe it's time that you tried a Nightforce, Vortex Razor or Swarovski. If those are out of your budget, perhaps a Vortex PST.

 

[elktrout]

RPR:

You are correct in your assertions about those are really accomplished long-range shooters and those who think they are simply because of today's advanced equipment. I have often wondered if hunters are taking excessively long shots because they have scopes of high magnification which make the target look closer (the illusion of easily hitting the target). I used to hunt with a fixed 6x. If the target animal was excessively small in the sight picture, I concluded the range was definitely too far.

TonyAngel:

I had a Leupold Vari-X III 2.5-8x for a number of years, and it had the problems I listed in the post. I now have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x, and it has some of the resolution and critical eye relief problems also but not to the same extent. Happily, Zeiss solved the changing eye relief problem. It remains constant through the power range. But, I have found it simply too big and heavy for my type hunting, so I am considering selling it and buying either the fixed power scope or a high quality variable of lower power range. How do you compare the Zeiss products to the ones you mentioned?

 

[x_wrench]

a decent variable power scope is far superior to a fixed 6 power scope in many hunting situations. in medium ranges (50-80 yards) the fixed 6 would be faster. but try shooting a critter that pops its self out of the thick stuff at 15 yards with that 6 power scope. all you are going to see is fur, and you will have no idea of where that bullet is going to hit. at distances around 150 and beyond, the extra magnification is really helpful as well. i have had to remove a scope because of to much magnification hunting one year. we hunted an area that was unfamiliar to me, but not to my brother. and even a 4 power scope was to much. if i cam across a 40 yards shot in that area, it would have been a long shot. now that rifle wears a 2-7 power variable.

 

[T.R.]

I prefer a good 2X-7X scope for my hunting. My antelope rifle has a Simmons Aetec 2.8X-10X.

TR

 

[jmr40]

I'll take a quality varible every time. I've never noted any issues with resolution chaging as power changes. Focus it at highest power and it will still be focused at low power. If you focus on the low end, then when you move up to higher powers you might discover that it was not truly focused and you could not tell at the lower powers.

Almost all scopes have too little eye relief to suit me. Zeiss scopes are a constant 4" at all powers and that is good enough for me. I run Leupolds on all my serious guns except for the one Zeiss and eye relief is a major reason why. They do have less eye relief at higher powers, but with Leupold I still get more eye relief on the high end than most fixed powers and most any other variable on the low end. Almost 5" at the lower settings compared to 3"-3.5" with most other brands.

My biggest complaint with most fixed powers is that they have too much magnification for my needs. I use 1-4's, 2-7's or 3-9's and they are set on 1X, 2X or 3X 90-95% of the time. I cannot remember the last time I shot at game when not on the lowest setting. 4X is just too much and limits the field of view for most of my shooting. I have been tempted to try a fixed 2.5X, but they cost exactly the same, and weigh exactly the same as my 1-4X scopes. If I need more than the lowest power I go straight to the highest. I never use anything in between.

At one time variables were considered less rugged, and heavier not today. You almost never hear of any QUALITY scope failing unless there was severe abuse involved. Leupolds tend to keep working even after severe abuse. Weight is no longer an issue either, my Leupold scopes weigh 8-11 oz. The Zeiss is 16. A 4X32 fixed Leupold weighs 10.5 oz. Only 1/2 oz lighter than a 3-9X40 VX-2 and they are exactly the same price.

In todays market a fixed power scope just doesn't offer any advantages, and there are no disadvantages to buying a variable. Some just like the simplicity of a fixed power. The real key is to buy quality either way you go.

 

[stsimons]

I have hunted with both, shot with both (out to 400 yards), and know the limitations of each. But, what is your experience? In reality, what can the typical 3 to 9 variable do that a good fixed 6x scope cannot do, in most hunting circumstances?

...well, nothing... but, I would not hunt within 100yds with a fixed 6x and I would not hunt past 300 yds with a fixed 6x.

I would suggest something like 4x16.

 

[Offfhand]

Quote from above:
"I have noticed that even expensive variables from the typical manufacturers all seem to lose resolution on the higher powers in their magnification range."

Sir, Define "resolution" and where you get your numbers thereof. There seems to be something missing here.

 

[Art Eatman]

I started out some 62 years back with a K2.5 on my '06. Worked okay on jackrabbits. Time went on--as it always does--and I wound up with a K4 on a .270. That worked fine for deer hunting. So my billfold improved and I moved up to a Vari-X II Leupold 3x9x40. 9X for sight in; 3X for deer hunting. Outside of saving money by not buying a spotting scope for bench rest use, 3X or 4X was plenty-nuff. 3X allows a one-shot Bambi kill at 350 yards, I found.

A 2x7 does fine for prairie dogs to 300 yards on 7X. On 2X or 3X it's plenty good for night-time coyotes at 40 to 50 yards.

I've never been all eat-up with the oh-wows for hunting scopes. Precision target shooting and long-distance target shooting is a whole 'nother deal.

 

[TonyAngel]

elktrout, I had a feeling that you were talking about a Leupold. The reasons you listed are why I quit using Leupolds. It seems that all of their scopes have the same problems, no matter how much of you spend. Of course, I haven't tried them all, but the ones I did try left a bad taste in my mouth.

As for the Zeiss Conquest line. It think that they are a better than OK scope, but make no mistake, the Conquest line is nothing like their upper lines.

If you ever decide that you want to just get yourself the last scope you will ever need (maybe an over sell, but I hope you get my point), take a look at a Nightforce 2.5-10X32. They are relatively compact, easy to use, even with gloves, they have very good glass and are VERY tough.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Like everything else, the first question should be, "What do you want to use it for?"

For hunting -- everything from squirrels to elk -- I prefer a fixed power scope. The emphasis in a hunting scope should be reliability, and in all other categories, "good enough." You can get a good, rugged fixed power scope for less than a variable.

I like 4x as the best all-around magnification, with 2 1/2X not far behind. And I know some people who like 6X better.

For varmiting, I like a bit more magnification. For example, I have a 6X Weaver on my .22 Hornet and a 3X9 Burris on my Ruger 77/22M. Out west, where longer shots are the rule, I'd favor a .223 Rem or a .22-250 with a 4X16 variable.