Scope magnification?

[CraigC]

Front sight shouldn't cover up what you're shooting at. It's a common misconception that you have to be able to see a tiny target to shoot a tiny group. It's a misconception that your front sight needs to be smaller than the target. If I can shoot MOA with buckhorn sights (benchrested) then any good rifleman should be able to knock a deer over at 200yds if light permits. IMHO, the greatest benefit to a scope is light transmission at dawn and dusk, not magnification.

Shooters with failing eyesight are another matter.

 

[HOOfan_1]

It's a misconception that your front sight needs to be smaller than the target.

Well, you have to be able to see your target to shoot it...maybe my eyesight is just horrible, even with glasses, but I don't think I could see an 8 inch circle on a deer at 200 yards well enough to place my front sight on it.

500 yards...maybe the 6 million dollar man could see well enough, to me a deer is a speck at 500 yards, at that distance someone would be shooting for achievement and not for a clean kill.

 

[CraigC]

That's true and if you can't see a deer at 200yds, then you do need a scope.

 

[HOOfan_1]

That's true and if you can't see a deer at 200yds, then you do need a scope.

Well, I am just sitting behind a keyboard speculating. I think it would be something interesting to go out in the field and test. I could at least test my eyesight, if not my shooting. Sadly 100 yards is the extent I have for a shooting range.

 

[mainecoon]

A heavy scope will also reduce recoil somewhat. So if you're recoil sensitive but can't stand hunting without a huge caliber, just slap a massive scope on it and everyone will admire how quick your follow-up shot is.

 

[jrdolall]

At 100 yards with iron sights I can consistently hit paper but I cannot consistently group 3-4" because I simply cannot focus with my eyes at my age. I don't practice at 200 yards but I doubt I could consistently see the target much less hit it without a scope.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Well, you have to be able to see your target to shoot it...maybe my eyesight is just horrible, even with glasses, but I don't think I could see an 8 inch circle on a deer at 200 yards well enough to place my front sight on it.

An 8" target at 200yd is 4MOA. Same as the 1" targets we shoot at Project Appleseed. Should be easy to hit that from a decent prone or sitting position.

Now, I will grant that a 1" black square on a light background makes things easier to see than real game in the real world but 2x or 4x magnification on a 200yd shot will make the deer look 100yd or 50yd away. 10x magnification will make the deer look 20yd away. I guess it all depends on your eyesight.

 

[Orange90]

Well I basically decided that I will either grab a scope that is 3-9x40 or 4-12x40. Just seems to make sense since my rifle does not have any sort of iron sights. Thanks for all of the advice!

 

[tuj]

benchrest shooters routinely use 36x or higher at 50 or 100 yards (rimfire and centerfire respectively). It does make you more accurate having more magnification.

I have compared shooting groups from the bench with a 16x and a 32x and a 36x and the 36x wins every time.

But for practical purposes, any magnification magnifies shakes as well, therefore practical hunting-type shots, a 3-9 is perfect because the target is large and the position is less than stable.

You'll see guys in position shooting however using 16x and higher scopes. They have amazing holds though....

 

[CraigC]

What happens in benchrest shooting is really irrelevant in the field.

 

[ttheel]

Never have seen the Need for the ultra high magnification scopes. Now my rifles are all used for hunting. I have 3-9's on every one of them except my 300 WSM which has a 3.5-10 on it. When you get into those high powered scopes you usually get into adjustable objectives which in my opinion can be a pain in most hunting situations.

 

[tuj]

What happens in benchrest shooting is really irrelevant in the field.

The OP said one of his intended uses was paper-punching. IMHO, paper-punching rifles and hunting rifles don't usually mix all that well. You want that wide field of view on a hunting rifle and less magnification to minimize shakes.

But the OP also asked if magnification was 'overkill'. IMHO, if you are a paper-puncher (like the benchrest guys), then *no* it is not overkill to have 36 or 45x scopes on your gun; it *is* beneficial to accuracy.

My good friend shoots an Unertl 16x at 50' off-hand in smallbore position shooting. He shoots Master level scores. He uses the most magnification he possibly can.

 

[redneck2]

The OP said one of his intended uses was paper-punching.

Unfortunately, many responses in most threads have little to do regarding the original question

 

[GunBugBit]

Benchrest shooting has its place in helping one prepare for the field. In fact, it's just about mandatory. Do you go to the field before you zero your rifle? Nuff said.

 

[CraigC]

Benchrest shooting has its place in helping one prepare for the field. In fact, it's just about mandatory. Do you go to the field before you zero your rifle? Nuff said.

Nuff said? Not hardly. The point is that requirements for accurate shooting in benchrest really have zero bearing on hitting deer in the field. A 24x or 36x scope might be the best for shooting tiny groups but it makes a rifle useless in the field.

 

[Orange90]

Just so everyone knows, as I previously stated somewhere on the second page of this thread (I am the OP) I will be using a traditional 3-9x40 to benchrest shoot AND hunt with. I would like to get comfortable with my new rifle while enjoying the comforts of the range, then use it to go varmint/large game hunting WHILE using the same exact scope.

Y'all answered my question beautifully. I will post pictures once I find a scope thats of a quality i can live with. Thank you all!

 

[ttheel]

Orange, it is hard to beat the tried and true 3-9x40 for all around use. I don't think you will regret your purchase.

 

[jim243]

What is your preferred variable magnification for your bolt gun for general use?

6-24 x 50 mm 1 inch tube on all of them.

Jim

 

[browningguy]

Target shooting and hunting are two different things. My target rifle scopes range from 6.5-20 up to 8-32, and I wouldn't want to use less. Depending on the hunting rifles I have fixed 4 and 6 on a couple, and up to a 4-12 on some others. My FNAR .308 precision rifle wears a 2.5-10 though.

 

[itsa pain]

That's true and if you can't see a deer at 200yds, then you do need a scope.

if you cant see a deer at 200 yards I do not want to be near you lol.

 

[itsa pain]

The OP said one of his intended uses was paper-punching. IMHO, paper-punching rifles and hunting rifles don't usually mix all that well. You want that wide field of view on a hunting rifle and less magnification to minimize shakes.

But the OP also asked if magnification was 'overkill'. IMHO, if you are a paper-puncher (like the benchrest guys), then *no* it is not overkill to have 36 or 45x scopes on your gun; it *is* beneficial to accuracy.

My good friend shoots an Unertl 16x at 50' off-hand in smallbore position shooting. He shoots Master level scores. He uses the most magnification he possibly can.

16x at 50 feet? your heartbeat would move the crosshairs 6 inches away from aim.

 

[itsa pain]

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)

I do not understand where a more powerful scope would improve blurry vision when you can set the focus on any scope to suit your vision wether it is 1x or 40x

 

[itsa pain]

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.

you must know you have to aim at the bottom of the bull. I can do the same as you at 61 with my M1A and AR 10-15

 

[deerhunter61]

Yes, it is really necessary. I deer hunt with a 3-12x50 Swarovski on my 6.5x55 swede and a 4-14x50on my 25-06. It definitely makes it easier to see your target. Will it make a bad shooter a good shooter? I doubt it.

I have never been able to see well enough with open sites to shoot MOA and am amazed at those who can with irons. If you can then my hat is off to you.

 

[husbandofaromanian]

Modern optics are so good... It's excellent the choices we have...
I shoot a Contender pistol in 22lr & .223
I have a SS 16x42 that I use on both barrels...
I have a sightron red-dot that I use on the .223 for fast shooting...
I am going to trade in my sightron for an Aimpoint when finances allow it...

I am very pleased with my SS 16x42... It is everything I wanted in a scope
1. 100-minute vertical adjustment
2. 16x is great for the distances I shoot at (300-yards with 22lr)
3. Adjustments are dead on (I think fixed magnification helps with this)
4. Optics quality is good
5. Wasn't too expensive ($299 swfa)