C-grunt
Member
Great shot, and great illustration of the advantages of high magnification and good optic quality. Target must be bigger than 66% IPSC if it’s at 1100, or it’s only around 670. 1/2 mil wide for a 12” wide target: 12/.5*27.8...
I will admit, a big disparity in glass quality can upturn the paradigm of more zoom = better visibility. But that gap in quality has to be pretty dang big. We’re not talking about the difference in a 3-9x $500 scope seeing better than a 4-16x $300 scope. I’m not terribly convinced a better quality scope within $500 of the counterpart even extends range substantially over magnification. I know I can shoot better with a relatively cheap, $600 6-24x at 1200 yards than I can with a $900 4-16x with notably better glass. Shooting both at 12-16x, no question, the better glass is better, but when targets get small and far, the 16x becomes a liability as I simply can’t see the target as well to reliably and repeatably place the reticle as I can in the higher magnification scope. Sure, I can see better at 1000 yards with my 15x with my $2500 Swaro binos than I can with my $1600 Bushnell Elite spotting scope at 20x with the same apparent angle of view, or even at 40x zoomed in more than twice as much, but that’s a massive discrepancy in optic quality; a hurdle most folks simply won’t clear when making decisions about which optic to buy. Magnification is a “bigger knob” to improve visibility with a lower relative cost than glass quality.
I went back and found the text from my friend. That target is 16 inches wide and 28 inches tall. Ill change the original post. I had it confused with the closer target. One thing about the photo that the camera doesnt show, there is a holding stand that is holding the target in that photo as well. When you dont have a camera phone shoved behind a rifle scope, it's much easier to see the two pieces.