AABEN
Member
I like the 6x24 with a 40mm not over 44mm for target shooting.
What is the best scope magnification for shooting a 400 yards?
- Thread starter dbrown
- Start date
- Status
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I'm a hunter much more than I am any sort of formal target shooter. But I like to mess around "out yonder". I built a 500-yard range at my house. My pet '06 has a Simmons 44Mag 3x10 on it. I had no problem shooting groups of mostly around 0.8 MOA with my usual handloads.
I've use 10x out to 1/2 mile with good results. The scope itself was fine; what wasn't was my range of adjustment. I wished I had an inclined base; even maxed out, I had to make my point of aim a branch on a tree.. 16 feet above the target. Wind was blowing that day 30mph from the left, I had to also aim "8 fence posts left".. little trial and error there. Even on the 300 win mag recoil, I'd recovered by the time the bullet arrived, so I could see the puffs of sand where the rounds impacted and call my own adjustments. No spotter required. Was fun. 
At 400 yards anything will be fine - even no scope.
The holes will *probably* be too small to see without a spotting scope unless you're shooting a 50 cal, even if you got a 24x scope. Some of the shorter range guns I shoot, like the 22-250 or 223, I'll use high powered scopes on for 100-300 yard shooting, for the simple fact it lets me avoid taking a trip over to the spotting scope to look for the little .223 holes...
If you plan on hunting an adjustable 2-x+ or 3.5x+ would be good, that way you can dial it down to "look". I was really surprised how "claustrophobic" I felt with a high powered scope while scanning. Not enough field of view!
At 400 yards anything will be fine - even no scope.
The holes will *probably* be too small to see without a spotting scope unless you're shooting a 50 cal, even if you got a 24x scope. Some of the shorter range guns I shoot, like the 22-250 or 223, I'll use high powered scopes on for 100-300 yard shooting, for the simple fact it lets me avoid taking a trip over to the spotting scope to look for the little .223 holes...
If you plan on hunting an adjustable 2-x+ or 3.5x+ would be good, that way you can dial it down to "look". I was really surprised how "claustrophobic" I felt with a high powered scope while scanning. Not enough field of view!
ole farmerbuck
Member
These dots measure .262. Gotta have some magnification to see them.
I don't shoot paper targets at 300, but have shot some prairie dogs at 300+ with a Leupold 4.5-14X. With it set to 14X I get a fairly good sight picture of the dog. but shooting at 400, it would seem to me you should listen to these guys who shoot targets with a 24X.
Jim Watson
Member
I agree with redneck, that is the advantage of the high range variables; you can set them to what the snipers, hunters, and grandpa use; and then wind them up to where you can actually see what you are doing. I am ok with an 8.5-25X that spends nearly all the time between 20 and 24 depending on the conditions. But that is for F class shooting with a bipod and well defined target. I might crank it down for a field course on irregular targets in the countryside.
I put a straight 36X on a BR50 rifle. That was too much and I would be better off with a 24X at my level of skill.
I put a straight 36X on a BR50 rifle. That was too much and I would be better off with a 24X at my level of skill.
the count
Member
sorry but i can't believe that. at 1000 yards with 10x the crosshairs will totally cover a standard 100 yard bulls eye target.
This is a good point on the issue of precision versus magnification and aiming points, you do not need nor want a tiny aiming point to shoot accurately at 400 yards, or much farther out. The scope reticle will completely obscure it. A circle, square, diamond shaped aiming point large enough to show enough contrasting area outside of of the reticle will allow you to center your reticle with the aiming point evenly centered. And this is another reason you do not need high powered scopes.
Certainly good groups can be shot without magnification. Look at all the Service Rifle shooters who use irons to shoot matches across the country. They do well. They also have a target that is appropriate for their sights. The size of the target is adjusted for an optimal sight picture.
If on the other hand you place a 4" steel plate at 400 yards and the plate is a similar color to the background, having more magnification as well as a clear image will go a long way and make life a lot easier.
It seems to me that larger targets require less magnification, not because they are easier to hit but because they are easier to see. People have shown that if they can see it they can hit the center of it, again just look at Service Rifle shooters. But, you take that optimal target away and now magnification becomes a huge benefit. If you need to shoot a small target that's hard to distinguish and is stationary, the more the better until mirage gets heavy. If you are shooting a bold, easily identifiable target, such as say a 12"-12" steel plate with a high contrast background, hitting center may take less magnification.
When you look at the stationary paper punchers who get to use any optic they please, most go for high magnification. I can't remember many who have won an open optic class like this with a low powered optic. On the other hand, if I had to shoot steel targets in a timed event from ranges of 25-400 yards I sure wouldn't be running a fixed 36x optic either.
I play a lot with iron sights, mostly on .22lrs. It's amazing what a quality globe and aperture sight set can do on a fitting target. I've gotten groups I thought could only be shot with a high magnification optic. Now, if I toss up a 50 yard benchrest target up using those irons I can't distinguish a single bull from the next and each shot is a total guess. Matching your optic to the target is the key.
If on the other hand you place a 4" steel plate at 400 yards and the plate is a similar color to the background, having more magnification as well as a clear image will go a long way and make life a lot easier.
It seems to me that larger targets require less magnification, not because they are easier to hit but because they are easier to see. People have shown that if they can see it they can hit the center of it, again just look at Service Rifle shooters. But, you take that optimal target away and now magnification becomes a huge benefit. If you need to shoot a small target that's hard to distinguish and is stationary, the more the better until mirage gets heavy. If you are shooting a bold, easily identifiable target, such as say a 12"-12" steel plate with a high contrast background, hitting center may take less magnification.
When you look at the stationary paper punchers who get to use any optic they please, most go for high magnification. I can't remember many who have won an open optic class like this with a low powered optic. On the other hand, if I had to shoot steel targets in a timed event from ranges of 25-400 yards I sure wouldn't be running a fixed 36x optic either.
I play a lot with iron sights, mostly on .22lrs. It's amazing what a quality globe and aperture sight set can do on a fitting target. I've gotten groups I thought could only be shot with a high magnification optic. Now, if I toss up a 50 yard benchrest target up using those irons I can't distinguish a single bull from the next and each shot is a total guess. Matching your optic to the target is the key.
The longest that I get to shoot most of the time is about 600 yards or so. As a general rule of thumb, for larger game or shooting at targets that simulate larger game and shooting for hits only (not groups) I usually go for a 2.5-10X scope. For target shooting, either for groups or at small targets, I opt for a 5.5-22X.
Really, I believe that a lot of the arguments going on are moot. Even those touting that you don't need a lot of magnification admit that they shoot using a scope with 6X or greater magnification; so what's the difference between going with a 3-15X or a 5.5-22X, except that you can't dial the 15X up to 22X.
I settled on the 5.5-22X for a few reasons. First, at 600 yards, for the types of shooting that I do, I can see all that I need to at 22X. For those times when I'm shooting closer in, I've never found 5.5X to be too much. Second, 22X seems to be the dividing line where you start to sacrifice more that I am willing to in order to get more magnification. For me, the bottom end of the magnification is a bit too high and you start to loose some flexibility in the rig. You also loose a lot of range of adjustment. Lastly, the 22X is usually a good compromise in size.
As has been mentioned, clarity and resolution are more important than magnification. What is equally as important for me is repeatability. I usually dial for elevation, so my scopes being able to return to their zero is important to me.
If you are on a budget, but want good glass and internals, I'd check out the Vortex PST. I believe it is the 6-24X. It's a good scope for the money. I personally think the Nightforce scopes are the best bang for the buck.
Really, I believe that a lot of the arguments going on are moot. Even those touting that you don't need a lot of magnification admit that they shoot using a scope with 6X or greater magnification; so what's the difference between going with a 3-15X or a 5.5-22X, except that you can't dial the 15X up to 22X.
I settled on the 5.5-22X for a few reasons. First, at 600 yards, for the types of shooting that I do, I can see all that I need to at 22X. For those times when I'm shooting closer in, I've never found 5.5X to be too much. Second, 22X seems to be the dividing line where you start to sacrifice more that I am willing to in order to get more magnification. For me, the bottom end of the magnification is a bit too high and you start to loose some flexibility in the rig. You also loose a lot of range of adjustment. Lastly, the 22X is usually a good compromise in size.
As has been mentioned, clarity and resolution are more important than magnification. What is equally as important for me is repeatability. I usually dial for elevation, so my scopes being able to return to their zero is important to me.
If you are on a budget, but want good glass and internals, I'd check out the Vortex PST. I believe it is the 6-24X. It's a good scope for the money. I personally think the Nightforce scopes are the best bang for the buck.
slimfitter
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 12
I have hunted in Texas for 40yrs from south Texas to the hill country and hunted in the mountains of Colorado with 4x12 40mm and never needed any more. However I just bought a Burris 4.5x14 40mm for my son and was very impressed with the clarity and it is not that expensive.
steveo452
Member
Anywhere from 24-36 would be good.
roc1
Member
The benchrest shooters I shoot with use 36x. One of them shot on the national team that went to France last year. They shoot tiny targets and only shoot 100-200 yards but are trying to put every shot in the same hole. They all use high power scopes for target work to be very effective. Low power scopes you cant see the target. I have tried. I would get at least 20x for serious target shooting. I am planning to upgrade to better magnification myself.
Hope this helps
roc1
Hope this helps
roc1
- Status
