Hunting Scope Magnificiations

[stiggy]

1.5-6x42
2.5-10x50
3-12x56

Which of these magnifications would be optimal for hunting deer/elk. It will be going on a .30 caliber hunting rifle. Mule deer in southern arizona in the open desert. Elk in the Northwest in a valley, possibly in a wooded area.

Thank you in advance

 

[cottswald]

Mule deer in southern arizona in the open desert. Elk in the Northwest in a valley, possibly in a wooded area.

Those are some very different applications. For starters, here's a pretty good article:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/thoughts_scopes.htm

 

[Loosedhorse]

I like 2.5 or 3x @ 100m; 5 or 6x at 200; etc. Some will say I'm over-scoped, and that's fine, but I like what I like.

Figure your max yardage, and go from there. Of course, if that leaves you with a 3x lowest power for a 30 yard shot, you could have a problem!

 

[stiggy]

Thanks Cottswald! Great article, great information!! I was a little skeptical, but maybe the small scope listed would be the best (for lack of for better terms) choice.

 

[Random Discharge]

Have you a particular rifle in mind? How far are you comfortable shooting?

I've been very pleased with a Bushnell 2-7x32 on a short action 308. At one time I thought I might need more, but I never have. I can't imagine you would need more than a 3-9x40 for the ranges you would shoot with a 30-06.

Think about what you are willing to carry around all day, and think about how far you are comfortable shooting without a scope. I forget who posted it, but somewhere on THR I read some good advice as follows. If you are comfortable with a 50 yard shot with iron sights, ask yourself why you need more than a 2X scope for 100 yard shots, or a 4x scope for 200 yard shots, or a 6x scope for 300 yard shots. Then ask yourself if you are even going to attempt a shot over 300 yards on big game?

The pupil of your eye can open up to about 7mm, and that might be optimistic. So if you want to match your eye's light gathering capability for that 6X scope for that 300 yard shot, you want about a 42mm objective (7x6). That way, the exit pupil of the scope, 42/6=7, matches the exit pupil of your eye.

That economical 3-9x40 sweet spot is looking pretty good now, isn't it? And the 1.5-6x42 you listed. Why, that is just perfect!

A 3-9x40 may be slightly dim cranked up to 9X, but it will be OK at the range at 9X. Are you going to take a 300 yard shot in dim light? Probably not. How about a 200 yard shot in dim light at 4X? The 3-9x40 gives you an exit pupil of 10 for that shot. Just something to think about.

The 1.5-6x42 on your list...Great for those close range woods shots at 1.5, and fine for those long shots too, while still delivering enough light to the eye.

You listed some larger objectives in your post. Nothing wrong with that, if you don't mind lugging them around all day, but maybe more than you need or will ever use. You are hunting, not targeting shooting.

 

[NM Mountainman]

Very good ideas and info. from RandomDischarge

There is a common tendency for hunters to choose too much magnification for their hunting rifles. One reason for this is that many hunters are using their scope instead of binoculars for finding and identifying game. Buy binoculars (or a compact monocular.)

Another reason is that many shooters and hunters mistakenly believe that they can see more detail and shoot more accurately with a higher power scope. That is true, but only up to a certain level of magnification. For seeing detail, high quality optics is usually more important than high magnification.

A wide field of view at the lowest power setting is more important than a little more magnification at the highest setting. A wide field of view enables you to take quick shots at short ranges. I wouldn't buy a hunting scope that does not offer a FOV of at least 40 ft at the lowest magnification. Even in an area where long shots are common, many hunters still find that more than 50% of the game they take is taken at less than 150 yd.

A 6 power scope is completely adequate for hitting the vital area of deer sized game out to 300 hundred yards. (Many shooters find a 4x adequate at 300 yards.) A 2 to 8 (or 2 to 7) power is ideal for most deer and elk hunting. It offers a wide field of view at 2x and all the magnification you will ever really need at 8x.

A 2.5 to 10 can also be a good choice if you are skillful enough to take shots at ranges greater than 300 yd.; if the field of view at 2.5x is 40 feet or greater; and if the scope is not too heavy or bulky.

The common 3x to 9x often offers a FOV of 30 to 33 feet at 3x. A 3x to 9x is fairly versatile and is certainly usable. But IMO, there will be more occasions when you will appreciate a larger FOV than when you will notice any advantage of a 9x over an 8x (or perhaps even a 7x).

A 1.5x to 6x also makes a great hunting scope. But at ranges > 250 yd. I prefer to have the option of a little more magnification.

A 3x to 12x scope offers more disadvantages than advantages when compared to scopes with lower power ranges. Rarely will such a scope will be the best choice for a deer and elk rifle.

Under field conditions, it is often difficult to hold your rifle steady enough to benefit from a magnification over 6x (unless you are using an improvised rest.) An 8x gives you a little extra magnification when you need it, so a 2x to 8x is a great choice. Scopes in the 2x to 8x range are not as common, but Nikon makes a very good one at a reasonable price.

 

[CraigC]

IMHO, most hunters buy too much glass. I've seen 4-16x's and 6-20x's on rifles that never get used beyond 100yds. A low to mid-powered variable, from a 1-3x to a 2-7x is plenty. Be realistic about your needs, if you never shoot beyond 100yds, you don't need the ubiquitous 3-9x. If you're hunting antelope on the plains and 300yds is "short range", then you probably need more than a little Weaver 1-3x. Choose your optic for your actual use. Don't overscope your rifle just for the range.

Buy the best you can afford and skimp on extraneous features before skimping on quality. Best to buy a very good but basic 1-4x than a cheap 4-16x50mm with illuminated reticle.

 

[Geno]

Based on my own such similar experiences, I would go with a 1.5-6x42. Since I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn since a few years, your opinion may vary.

Geno

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I've got one hunting rifle with a fixed 2.5x scope and another with a fixed 4x scope. Both are more than adequate for my hunting needs with a max shot of no more than 200 yards. Ealier this year, I had a chance shott 400 yards at steel (I'd never take that long of a hunting shot). I felt the 2.5x was enough for that distance.

 

[BrocLuno]

Of the ones listed, I'd go with the 1.5~6x42 for pure hunting

Since you will be going to the Northwest and it may be damp to very wet (?), I'd be thinking about a Bushnell Elite with "RainGuard" coating. It does work and it helps with fogging in damp conditions. I use one on my 308 brush gun for foggy days on the Calif coast

 

[rcmodel]

+1 on the 1.5~6x42.

Many more folks go hunting with way too much glass then go hunting with not enough glass.

I had a Weaver K4 on my old 30-06 for about 40 years.
And it's killed everything from 20 yard deer to 400 yard crows & coyotes.

rc

 

[22-rimfire]

There is a reason why scopes in 2-7x or 3-9x magnification ranges are so popular. They work and offer a balance between the weight/bulk and magnification. That would be my suggestion for you if you want flexibility.

In the past, I almost always mounted fixed 4x scopes on 22 rifles (centerfire rifles too) because I believed that the 4x magnification offered the best balance between weight/bulk and maginfication for practical ranges. This magnification is good for quick shots at close range and okay for longer range shots. You have to remember that the basic comparision was open sights versus a scope and the 4x gave me the advantages of a little maginfication and fewer restrictions that you encounter with higher magnifictions. Apply that to your situation as you wish.

Now I lean toward 2-7x to 3-9x range scopes for those same rifles because I like to see better where I am aiming but still limit the size/weight of the scope. I still believe the 4x scope is the best magnification for all around use at practical ranges. I am more comfortable with a higher magnification scope at ranges over 100 yards because I simply can see the target better.

I have higher magnifcation scopes mounted on rifles used almost entirely for target shooting. But I hesitate to tote that rifle with the really big scope out in the field unless I am not walking far or I am hunting from a fixed position such as scanning a large field for wood chucks from one shooting location. For larger game, I almost always lean toward the 2-7x to 3-9x scopes and keep them set at 4x until I need more magnification. I would suggest you practice "snap shooting" with the scope you choose so you are comfortable getting on target quickly and see at what magnification you are comfortable with in that scenario. Keep your scope set at that power and adjust to higher magnifications when you feel the need.

 

[CraigC]

There is a reason why scopes in 2-7x or 3-9x magnification ranges are so popular.

I would NEVER judge anything shooting-related judged solely on popularity. Just because everybody is doing it, doesn't make it right. At all. Ever.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I personally like a low power scope with a small objective lens. Bigfoot Wallace, my custom '03 Springfield in .35 Brown-Whelen, wears a Leupold 4X. When I use a variable, I keep it set on the lowest power.

 

[22-rimfire]

Craig, you conveniently parsed my paragraph. Are you grumpy today?

 

[Coal Dragger]

My general purpose scope on my primary hunting rifle is a 3-10X42 and I really like the combination of a reasonably sized rifle (Cooper M52 .280AI) and a trim light weight scope of medium size that will mount in low mounts but still offer reasonable magnification and objective size to support it in poor light. The scope is a Swarovski Z3 3-10X42 by the way, although a Leupold or other good quality scope would be perfect.

I have found that magnification levels much over 10X really show a lot of mirage and atmospheric conditions. I find that to be distracting, so I don't use a scope with more than 10X on my hunting rifle. Your preferences may vary, and there is not really any wrong or right answer here.

 

[CraigC]

Craig, you conveniently parsed my paragraph. Are you grumpy today?

Not at all, I just reject the notion that what is popular is good and/or right.

 

[stiggy]

Well thanks everyone for information and advice. Decided to go with the lowest powered scope.

 

[rori]

I did all the magnification stuff and still dont want anything more than 4X on my hunting rifles that I will use out to 300 yards or so if necessary. In over 45 years of big game hunting with over 100 kills from whitetail to elk and moose I've never needed or wanted more than a fixed power 4X scope. Its also alright for dark timber but I actually prefer a peep sight in those close hunting situations. Frank

 

[redneck2]

Part of the answer depends on the quality of the glass. I just got back from a prairie dog hunt. One of the guys always told me that cheap scopes were just as good as expensive ones. He's changed his mind after using mine.

Cheap scopes won't collect as much light and tend to be fuzzy, particularly at higher magnifications. This makes one of higher magnification a hinderance rather than a benefit.

One of the totally overlooked factors in most of the answers above is the lower end magnification. The first thing most want to concentrate on is the top end setting. None of your choices have a low end setting above 3x. Unless you are dangerous game hunting, I find it difficult to see how anything at 3x would be too much scope. And yes, I deer hunt in heavy cover (sometimes). I use a 2x7 on my slug gun.

Personally, I look at the lowest end setting. If I can live with that, anything of more magnification is gravy. You can have a 400 hp engine in your car, but that doesn't mean you have to use it.

YMMV

 

[TonyAngel]

The 1.5-6X is a good choice among those listed, but what's with all of the huge objectives? A hunting rifle is supposed to be handy, not bulky.

I'd look for something with a 32mm objective; but my favorite handy scope is a 2.5-10X32. Small, compact and flexible.

 

[chrome_austex]

Agreed, the 1.5-6x is a good choice.

 

[Art Eatman]

Since stiggy has made his decision...