LebbenB
Member
For the most part, you FIL is correct. a modern 3-9x40-50 is still a good general purpose scope. But the devil's in the details. Reticles, focal plane, and turret type all play a big part in the usability of the scope.
Scope magnification?
- Thread starter Orange90
- Start date
- Status
I hunt in the woods where a long shot is going to be 100 yards. My main deer gun uses a 4-10x50mm scope. I generally have it set around 5 or 6 power which allows for quick acquisition and is enough magnification to put my shot exactly where I want it at my normal ranges. "Aim small miss small" works for me. If I need to crank it up to determine which animal I am going to shoot(in the event of more than one deer back in the woods) then I do so. If a deer is standing still I will often crank it up to 9 or 10 so I can put the cross-hair (reticle for you youngsters) exactly where I want it. Instead of shooting at a shoulder I am shooting at a 1" patch of fur.
I have killed an awful lot of deer using a Weaver 4x scope but the greater magnification allows for greater precision assuming a standing target. If the deer is moving then the lower magnification works much better for me but I very rarely shoot at a moving deer. Coyotes and bobcats I often shoot while they are trotting.
I have killed an awful lot of deer using a Weaver 4x scope but the greater magnification allows for greater precision assuming a standing target. If the deer is moving then the lower magnification works much better for me but I very rarely shoot at a moving deer. Coyotes and bobcats I often shoot while they are trotting.
Saleen322
Member
It depends.....
I have and continue to hunt with straight 4X scopes for the most part. Good field of view, very bright and easy to pick up a moving animal. I have made shots to just over 300 yards with the 4X. However target shooting is different. I shot indoor, 50 feet smallbore for years. My most common scopes there were fixed 20X and 24X scopes at just under 17 yards. They work great but it takes some time to learn to shoot standing with a 24X as that can bother a new shooter.
I have and continue to hunt with straight 4X scopes for the most part. Good field of view, very bright and easy to pick up a moving animal. I have made shots to just over 300 yards with the 4X. However target shooting is different. I shot indoor, 50 feet smallbore for years. My most common scopes there were fixed 20X and 24X scopes at just under 17 yards. They work great but it takes some time to learn to shoot standing with a 24X as that can bother a new shooter.
Last edited:
Pete D.
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,658
Yep
Another idea referred to in general terms a couple of times has to do with what happens to an image as it is increasingly magnified. It grows dimmer. Any objective gathers in a finite amount of light. That light is reflected by the object being viewed.....lets say a whitetail. That amount of light is also finite. The larger one makes the image, the more spread out that bit of light becomes. The object appears increasingly dimmer.
Pete.
Yah. Especially considering that the 10 "ring" is just a dot about as wide as a pin.
Another idea referred to in general terms a couple of times has to do with what happens to an image as it is increasingly magnified. It grows dimmer. Any objective gathers in a finite amount of light. That light is reflected by the object being viewed.....lets say a whitetail. That amount of light is also finite. The larger one makes the image, the more spread out that bit of light becomes. The object appears increasingly dimmer.
Pete.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
I agree with the many posts saying you should not need more than a 3-9X40 scope for hunting and until recently that's all I ever used but like I said, my eyes are getting old. On some of the longer shots I find it comforting to be able to place a shot more precisely when using a 4-12X40 scope instead. I refuse to fire unless I can see the cross-hairs placed dead center where I want them on Deer. It's still a fact I usually don't have the scope set over 6X or 7X but having the 12X when needed isn't a bad thing. You younger guys will understand years from now when things that used to be perfectly clear become just a little more blurry these days.
That said, I'm use a straight 4X32 scope on my 22LR and that still works just fine for me. (although years ago I was using only iron sights lol)
That said, I'm use a straight 4X32 scope on my 22LR and that still works just fine for me. (although years ago I was using only iron sights lol)
You make a good point
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Most would do just fine with a 1-4x to no more than a 2-7x but most think more is better. As evidenced here, a lot of folks think they need a 3-9x to shoot deer at 150yds.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Just because we own a 3-9X40 scope doesn't mean it's always used @ 9X power. Our cars can push 150 MPH but it's rarely legal to exceed 65. The extra horsepower is nice to have if needed though.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I'm more concerned about those deer that come trotting by at 20yds. 
22-rimfire
Member
Hunting deer sized targets, I seldom raised my variable scope power above 4x. I generally like 3-9x scopes for hunting, but usually only use the high power sighting in. Higher powers encourage you to use the scope as binocs and that is not a good thing unless you can see your quarry.
As you extend the variable power, you usually get a bigger heavier scope. It is a trade off. 100 yd shots on a deer is a long shot for me. I usually use a handgun now anyway with a 2x scope.
If you can't see it, you can't shoot it. There is some wisdom in this statement. I think if you limit the power of your rifle scope to allow adequate sighting at normal distances and then add a couple x's, you're good to go.
It depends on the kinds of distances you are likely to shoot. I deal with 100 yd shots on deer sized targets at 4x or 6x very comfortably. Hence, the 3-9x or 2-7x works for me. But if I were shooting wood chucks at 300 or 400 yds, and I'm primarily shooting from a stationary point, all the power you're willing to carry is good for me.
My answer is IT DEPENDS.
As you extend the variable power, you usually get a bigger heavier scope. It is a trade off. 100 yd shots on a deer is a long shot for me. I usually use a handgun now anyway with a 2x scope.
If you can't see it, you can't shoot it. There is some wisdom in this statement. I think if you limit the power of your rifle scope to allow adequate sighting at normal distances and then add a couple x's, you're good to go.
It depends on the kinds of distances you are likely to shoot. I deal with 100 yd shots on deer sized targets at 4x or 6x very comfortably. Hence, the 3-9x or 2-7x works for me. But if I were shooting wood chucks at 300 or 400 yds, and I'm primarily shooting from a stationary point, all the power you're willing to carry is good for me.
My answer is IT DEPENDS.
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Just bat um out with the butt stock, no??I'm more concerned about those deer that come trotting by at 20yds.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Big knife.
steveo452
Member
I have a 3-9x33 rimfire scope on my .22 rifle and a 2.5-8x36 scope on my main hunting rifle. I use my .17 HMR for long range target shooting and have a 6.5-20x50 on It. For deer huntig I think a 3-9x is as much magnification as you need, where I live 200 yards is a very long shot. Like many others my age ( 56 ) my eyes are not as sharp as they use to be. I have found higher quality glass to help more than extra magnification.
When I am in the woods my scope is down to 3x. When I am on a hill side over looking a field I am at 6x. Last deer I shot at 250 yards, there was no way to aim at the vitals below 7x.....Andrew Leigh's images pretty much point that out. You would be aiming at the deer...not the deer's vitals. When I shot that deer at 250 yards it was standing still and I had plenty of time to get in a prone position and crank the scope up to 9x.
When I am groundhog hunting I leave my scope on 12x. Much easier to make a head shot on a tennis ball sized target at 200 yards at 12x versus 4x.
When I am groundhog hunting I leave my scope on 12x. Much easier to make a head shot on a tennis ball sized target at 200 yards at 12x versus 4x.
Last edited:
The higher magnification of my Nighforce 12-42X56 is nice for developing handloads. When I use that rifle/scope for varmint hunting, it almost never is set higher than 12X. For hunting deer, I usually have my Nightforce 3.5-15X56 set at 5X. I also own scopes in 1X, 2.5X, 4X 1X-4X, 2.5X-10X, 3.5X-10X, etc. They all nicely fulfill their intended purpose. I have successfully harvested whitetail deer at 300 yards with a 4X, so no, even 9X is not a necessary scope for my point of view...so long as the optic has a crosshair, I'm good to 300 yards on deer sized game.
Geno
Geno
If I "hunted" something as large and easy-to-hit as a deer, I'd probably use a non-magnified red dot. However, I do a lot of shooting for groups @ 100 yds and occasionally like to shoot crows out to 300 yds. I need/prefer higher magnification scopes for hitting small targets at a distance. Besides, I like being able to see my hits @ 100 yds, and I need significant magnification for that.
I never have understood threads like this. Yet, here I am, tapping out a response.
I never have understood threads like this. Yet, here I am, tapping out a response.
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
I have a 6-18x40 Nikon and a 6.5-20x50 Simmons and love them both dearly. The higher magnification makes it easier for me to hit what I'm aiming for. Better to have and not need.
The_Armed_Therapist
Member
I have a fixed 10X on my long-range target rifle. It's a darn silly choice for practical shooting inside 200-300 yards. However, I bought it for targets from 200-800, and it's great for that.
Anything larger than the 4-16Xs out there really don't make much sense, except maybe if you're shooting long-range competitions or something. On the other hand, I also have top-notch vision... So I'd hate to make these comments and have someone with poor vision get upset. LOL
For inside 200 yards (99% of everything practical), I prefer no magnification if possible, or perhaps up to 4X if I'm hunting anything smaller.
Anything larger than the 4-16Xs out there really don't make much sense, except maybe if you're shooting long-range competitions or something. On the other hand, I also have top-notch vision... So I'd hate to make these comments and have someone with poor vision get upset. LOL
For inside 200 yards (99% of everything practical), I prefer no magnification if possible, or perhaps up to 4X if I'm hunting anything smaller.
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
Sure, the deer is big and easy to hit. The vital area, however, is about the size of a football and not so easy to hit. I would prefer to aim at the animals front shoulder than at the brown thing 150 yards away.
I have a Redfield (US-made) 2-7X with a rare Euro type 4A reticle, which has the lower three crosshairs thicker than the top one, for greater speed in aiming in forests or other low light situations.
I usually leave it on 3X unless the range suggests the need for more power, at the expense of a smaller field of view.
I have also used Zeiss and Swarovski scopes with that sort of reticle. Those 'scopes are very bright, indeed, and are premium quality. But I see no real need for over 9X in an ordinary hunting 'scope. Very few people have much business shooting at ranges that a 4X can't handle. Leupold makes/made a 2.5-8X 'scope that seems a very fine value and in the right power range. I was very favorably impressed with it. I think it's in their Vari-X III line.
I usually leave it on 3X unless the range suggests the need for more power, at the expense of a smaller field of view.
I have also used Zeiss and Swarovski scopes with that sort of reticle. Those 'scopes are very bright, indeed, and are premium quality. But I see no real need for over 9X in an ordinary hunting 'scope. Very few people have much business shooting at ranges that a 4X can't handle. Leupold makes/made a 2.5-8X 'scope that seems a very fine value and in the right power range. I was very favorably impressed with it. I think it's in their Vari-X III line.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
How do iron sight shooters ever make it past 50yds without a 4-16x???
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
They can probably see the sights and the target. I could too until I turned about 45 but now my eyes don't work so good.
I am okay with using any quality scope on my hunting rifles but I normally prefer a variable. If I want to leave it on 3x and shoot then it works. If I want to crank it up then it works. I can use any adjustment I need to fit the particular scenario. Nothing at all wrong with a fixed power scope, I used them for many years, but the variable gives me options. I like options!
SilentStalker
Member
It just depends on the purpose. I often use a Leupold 6.5-20X50 for target practice. I shoot 12" plates at 509 yds roughly and I crank that bad boy all the way up to 20 power and believe me I could use more. That 12" plate is not so big even at that power at that range. Simply not controlling my breathing can put me way off target, try that at 1000 yds and its even worse. So, in my mind I might want that 32 power scope but if I am shooting deer at 200 yds or less then not so much. A lot of it depends on the situation and the user. Supposedly, there are guys out there that can hit targets at 1000 yds with iron sights. I have never seen it but I have heard of people doing it. So, one could argue that some people might not need a scope at all :0.
Also depends on the sights and the target and the distance.
I find it no big problem to hit a 8"-10" circle at 100 yards with A2 sights on an AR type weapon. But, how much of the target does the front sight cover? You have red dots which range from 2MOA on up. Meaning they cover 2" or more of the target at 100 yards.
I read somewhere that the front sight post of an A2 sight is about 12 MOA. So at 100 yards if covers 12" of your target. So at 200 yards, it is covering 2 feet of your target.
I've seen people say they can make ethical shots at 500 yards with buckhorn sights. I am not a believer. No way you can aim for the vitals, when your front sight would cover up the entire deer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
