Scope Magnification: Not created equal?

[GunXpatriot]

So I'll make this quick...

I went to a small local shop/range recently. I had never really went into testing this gun much, or it's scope... It is a Marlin XL7 chambered in .30-06. A while back, I had bought for it, a Bushnell Banner Dusk & Dawn 3-9x40. I know there are multiple variants of that scope, but either way, here's what I noticed...

You guys may be familiar with those red diamond targets with one central diamond, and the smaller diamonds off to the corners? I had those at 2 distances... 50 yards, and 100 yards.

At 50 yards, for my second time shooting the gun, I'd say I did alright. My group was about 1 inch wide on all sides, which wasn't bad, considering it was my second time shooting it, and the first time, I had been flinching... Bad... I was on a rest, but in an awkward position. Still, I was happy with that 1 inch, with so little experience with the rifle.

I had also been using the scope to spot my shots with my SKS. I wasn't doing as well as I'd like with that one, but I'll get better, I'm sure.

Now for the 100 yard... I started running into difficulties... The diamond was small enough that precision adjustments were very difficult. I couldn't see the holes in the paper, but of course, I kept aiming dead center. After checking that group, which I think was about 4 shots (the other was 4-5 as well), I had about a 2"-2.5" group.... At 100 yards!!! I could hardly see the target...

I had been looking around different forums and found that people had issues with magnification on other scopes as well. Like, on 14x max scope, they had to zoom in to 12x to see what they could see on another 9x scope... Why is that? Would it have something to do with diameter of the... lens? Or, objective, or? Not sure of scope terminology. I was also having difficulties with getting a proper sight picture, as the eye relief was very... specific. I fear paralax may have been an issue here as well...

I don't know how to adjust the objective, or maybe... Ugh, maybe someone can help me out... It would just suck knowing I wasted $100 on a garbage scope that will only have a realistic max range of like 150 yards for hunting (my original purpose of the rifle, but not so sure now).

I do like the rifle. It has more recoil than I'd bargained for, when I got the thing, but wearing a sweatshirt or winter-type jacket certainly reduces, or at least cushions recoil, because with only a T-shirt, 10 shots and I'm done.

Anyway... I'm starting to think I just bought a crappy scope, but maybe I need to adjust the scope back slightly, as it seems like I have to move my head a little too far forward for the eye relief...

Sorry, I'm kind of all over the place, but I'm a complete optics noob... Also, on the other hand, does anyone have any experience with that BSA tactical... Scope... SKS and AR mount package thing? I heard that comes with the receiver cover mount, which apparently, a lot of people don't like. If I had that side-type mount, would I still be able to use the standard sights by looking underneath, or would that not be possible?

Like I said, just a little butt-hurt about the whole thing. I didn't get a whole lot of time to shoot, as it was late and getting dark, and I kind of half-assed it in general. Anyway, thanks for any help you guys can give me. Much appreciated.

 

[Boomer58cal]

I don't even know where to start.

Bushnell Banner = garbage ( no offense )

Honestly unless you're getting a smokin deal, if you're paying less than $200 for a scope its probably junk.

If you want a reasonably priced scope check out Redfield( Revolution not revenge ), Leupold VX-1, or a Nikon in that price range ($175-250).

Image quality is all about the quality of your lenses. You're way better off buying a 4 power with excellent lenses than a 12 power with crummy lenses. I'd rather have a small crystal clear image than a giant blurry one.

Boomer

Edit. Avoid the BSA. Both the scope and mount are cheap for a reason. They're cheap.

 

[GunXpatriot]

Guess it really is "you get what you paid for" when it comes to glass, at least for the most part, anyway... Well I suppose if it continues to bother me, I could always take a loss of like $50, sell it used and maybe go for something better.

And no offense taken, I just should have known. Because it really does LOOK like a decent scope. but in practice the eye relief is difficult to find and image isn't wonderful. To be honest though, in this case, my head position had something to do with it. The way the bench was, I had to force my head downward to find the eye relief, so the position was a little un-natural. I've tried this while prone with a bi-pod at a set height at home, and everything seemed OK. I'll have to give the Bushnell another chance or two, because it could be circumstance, in part.

I do hear good things about the name Redfield, but never knew much about them, or much about any optics, really. Guess that's why I'm here.

I even overpaid for the Bushnell, as the scope is really only an $80 scope.. Around here, it's "you have to learn your lesson". I had went against one of my most solid, time-proven methods. Don't buy something you know nothing about. Guess it's my loss...

Thanks for the tip on that BSA... Um, now I know it's also cheap, but how about BSA's "sweet" series? Sweet .22, Sweet .17, etc? Probably not much different, huh? Seems like even though both get generally high reviews, the ones that are bad are BAD, like falling apart, disintegrated crosshairs.

I will avoid them for now, and all cheap glass for that matter. Actually, the only decent optic I ever got for cheap was that Tasco Red Dot. I mean, paralax seems to be an issue, but keeping it in the center, it's a fun little sight to use, but that's a little different, and there is no precision involved, so I guess I can't really speak with that in mind.

The thing I don't get is why magnification would different on different scopes, even with the same diameter. If anyone knows about that, it's be cool.

 

[Art Eatman]

A 9X magnification has always been plenty good for me--as "Old Four-eyes"--to see 30-caliber holes at 100 yards. I also use the grid-type targets with the diamonds.

So: Have you adjusted the eyepiece for sharp focus? That might be a part of the problem.

 

[Boomer58cal]

Guess it really is "you get what you paid for" when it comes to glass,atleast for the most part, anyway...WellI supposeifitcontinuesto bother me, I could always take a loss of like$50,sell it used and maybe go for something better.

Don't feel bad I bought about a dozen before I learned my lesson.

And no offense taken, I just should have known. Because it really does LOOK likea decent scope. but in practice the eye relief is difficult to find and image isn't wonderful. To behonest though, in this case, my head position had something to do with it. The way the bench was, I had to force my head downward to find the eye relief, sothe position was a little un-natural. I've tried this while prone with a bi-pod at a set height at home, and everything seemed OK. I'll have to givethe Bushnell another chanceor two,becauseitcould be circumstance, in part.

Higher quality scopes are also less picky about eye position, but sometimes the height of your scope and its relationship to your eye has to be a compromise. Unless you only shoot from one shooting position you'll have to find the spot where you can shoot decent from all positions instead of really good from one position and not very good at any other positions.

Sweet .22...
Mostly a gimmick. Does the ballistic compensating turret work? Yes, but... you'll need to try about a dozen different brands of ammo and different bullet weights to find the one that matches your particular rifle/scope combo. The lenses aren't that great but they seem to be pretty tough.

I'm not sure I understand your question about magnification. Lens diameter has nothing to do with magnification.

Boomer

 

[GunXpatriot]

Art, yeah, that's the thing, I'm not 100% sure on full use of the scope, I'll admit that. I think I'll spend a few mins just looking over the thing and figuring it out.

Boomer50cal, what I meant is...

And I only heard this from someone, not from personal experience... Why would one brand (or specific scope) at 9x be able to see the same distance that another would need 12x for? Like, why is there variance in the amount of zoom a different scope will have? I read on a forum, someone talking about how their different scopes had different levels of magnification at the same magnification setting on each scope.

Maybe that helped... I might not be explaining it in the clearest way possible, but I hope that made it a little clearer.

 

[Been there]

Stay away from BSA, they are not as good as the scope you are having trouble with. The cheapest scope of any quality is the Vortex Diamondback, the Redfields are good, Sightron or Nikon are options & but I wouldn't touch a VX1 with a barge pole, as the failure rate with these has been quite high.

 

[big al hunter]

I read on a forum, someone talking about how their different scopes had different levels of magnification at the same magnification setting on each scope.

You asked it fairly clearly. The difference is not scope power. The difference is clearity of the glass. Clear glass allows you to see fine details, not so clear glass....well you've seen what you see. Compare a cheap scope with a good, more expensive scope, side by side. Next time you are at the gun store look at both. Pick something on the far side of the store and look at it with each one. You will see the difference.

 

[Ricklin]

Bushnell's differ greatly

The upper end (made in Japan) Bushnell scopes are excellent. The Banner is not one of them.
The good Bushnell scopes compare quite well with other high end scopes. The cheap Bushnell scopes are just that, cheap scopes.

 

[CarJunkieLS1]

If you are on a budget you can always check locally or online for used scopes. Good quality scopes can be had for way less than retail. I have a Redfield 3-9x42 and a Nikon 3-9x40 and both of them can easily see .243 diameter holes at 100yds. This is using the "splatter" type targets though. I got the Redfield NEW local for less than $150 and it has a lifetime warranty through Leupold. I bought the Nikon used online for $110 shipped (cost ~$175 new) and it also has a lifetime warranty. Hope this helps you.

 

[Boomer58cal]

Boomer50cal,what I meant is...

And I only heard this from someone, not from personal experience... Why would one brand (or specific scope) at 9x be able to see the same distance that another would need 12x for? Like, why is there variance in the amount of zoom a different scope will have? I read on a forum, someone talking about how their different scopes had different levels of magnification at the same magnification setting on each scope.

Maybe that helped...I might not be explaining it in the clearest way possible, but I hope that made it a little clearer.

I'm sure they were talking about lens clarity. A $1000+ Top of the line scope will have a crystal clear image at much longer ranges than a $100 Walmart special even if it's a 20 power.
A small clear image is almost always better than a giant blurry one.

Think of it this way. Take a picture of something with your cell phone camera. Then zoom in on something and see what happens. It got blurry right? Then you take a picture with my $500 Nikon hi def camera. The picture is so clear you don't even need to zoom in, but when you do you can count the hairs on someone's head. Does that make sense?

Boomer

 

[jmr40]

The magnifications listed on scopes are approximate. If you look closely at technical data for scopes you will find that brand "A"'s 3-9X scope might actually be something like 2.6-8.8X. Brand "B" might actually be 3.2X-9.5X. In otherwords they round off. All scope brands do this, some never tell you the exact magnification, others make you really dig through the info to find it. But it is usually close enough not to matter.

Being able to see bullet holes, or the target clearly has more to do with the quality of the glass than how many X's you scope has. Many people don't properly focus their scopes either. If it is unfocused it will not be clear. I can often see bullet holes with a good 7x scope when I cannot see them through a budget scope on 12X.

 

[sc928porsche]

Each individual is a bit different. That is one reason that I dont have someone mount a scope for me. If you have to "scrunch" down, the rings are too low. The eye relief must be set for YOU. Once you have the height and relief set, then adjust your focus ring (back objective) on low setting if you have an A/O scope. If not, adjust focus on medium setting. Once you have a good sight picture set for YOU, then sight the rifle in. Scopes with A/O adjust parallax and focus at different distances. You will see the markings on the front bell. If you use this for a fine adjust for focus, it usually corresponds for the yardage.

 

[taylorce1]

For a short while I ran a Vortex Viper 2-7X32 on a .204 Ruger until I could buy better scope. Once I got it focused properly I was able to see the .20 caliber bullet holes in the targets at 100 yards most of the time. Most of my other scopes that I've upgraded to as well allow me to see my bullet holes at 100 yards as well without having to always be on the maximum power setting.

These days unless it is a Bushnell Elite I simply don't buy the brand, I tend to stick to Leupold, Nikon, and Vortex for my needs. I have a couple of the Redfield Revolution scopes as well but I doubt I buy anymore since the VX1 scope has been significantly upgraded. Like I wouldn't but the Revenge scope from Redfield, I won't buy the Crossfire from Vortex or the Prostaff from Nikon. I just won't save a whole lot of money by using them for the few extra dollars to go up to the next level of performance.

 

[Kimber84]

I didn't read through all this, but optical clarity trumps power all day long. I have a friend with a cheap 20X and its always hazy and hard to see at longer ranges. I have a VX-3 that at 14x is much crisper and actually gives a better sight picture.

A low powers scope with great lenses will out perform a high power scope with cheap lenses all day.

 

[jehu]

Many have learned your lesson the hard way wasting their $ on optic junk when they should have been spending 2-3 times what they paid for their rifle on good glass. Your having the problems in good light, what do you think is going to happen at dusk when the big one steps out? You can't shoot what you can't see and you shoud'nt shoot at what you can't see clearly. Save your money and buy the best you can aford.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Many have learned your lesson the hard way wasting their $ on optic junk when they should have been spending 2-3 times what they paid for their rifle on good glass. Your having the problems in good light, what do you think is going to happen at dusk when the big one steps out? You can't shoot what you can't see and you shoud'nt shoot at what you can't see clearly. Save your money and buy the best you can aford.

It's up to 2-3x now!?

Holy smokes! It used to be the same amount, then I started seeing 1.5x as much, now 2-3?!

Here's what I've never understood...
If you have a $500 .308 rifle, by that logic it would need a $1000-$1500 scope. If you have a $1000 .308 rifle, it would need a $2000-$3000 scope. (who uses such a thing anyway?)

Why is the $1000 scope good enough for the $500 gun but woefully inadequate for the $1000 gun shooting *the exact same cartridge*?

It makes no sense to compare the cost of the gun to the cost of the scope. None at all. 2-3 times is just ludicrous beyond imagination.

If a $200 scope is adequate *for the task*, it's adequate for the task on a $100 gun or a $1000 gun. If it's not adequate *for the task*, it doesn't matter if the gun cost $50. The scope doesn't know it cost 4x more than the gun and suddenly gets better if the ratio is high enough.

The task matters. The price of the gun does not.

In the case of the Bushnell Banner Dusk and Dawn. I have one with the Circle-X reticle, which is my favorite reticle for deer hunting. My uncle has the same exact scope on his Browning Gold 12ga. (Imagine, the gun cost 7 or 8 times what the scope cost) He has $500+ scopes, Sightron SII Big Sky, Bushnell Elite, etc on all his other guns but he won't replace the Banner because he also loves the reticle.

Those Banners have served well for a number of years. Each year, he has fired 2 or 3 shots at 200 yards with Remington Accutip slugs. It's about a foot low (sighted max 3" high) but 2-3" "group". Pretty good for a "crappy" scope on a 12ga shooting 200 yards.

I'm betting Art has the right answer with the focus. We routinely shoot at 100 yards with the 12ga and have no trouble properly seeing the target.

The Banners are not equal to $500, or even $200 scopes but they are more than adequate for average users.

 

[zukiphile]

The task matters. The price of the gun does not.

In the case of the Bushnell Banner Dusk and Dawn. I have one with the Circle-X reticle, which is my favorite reticle for deer hunting.

I would echo both points.

A rifle scope is a sighting device, not a spotting scope. I use my rifle scopes to determine where the bullet will land, not to see whether the fly that landed on a target at 200 m has all six legs. If guys a century ago were hitting a man sized targets at 1000 m with iron sights, it would not be reasonable for me to require $1000 optics to hit objects within a couple hundred yards.

I have no doubt whatsoever that on average a $2000 scope is clearer and has better repeatability than a Bushnell Banner. However, I am also very fond of that circle X reticle, and I find my old, cheap Bushnells to be bright and clear with a comfortable range of eye relief. They are sufficient for anything I do with a rifle.

My purpose in writing this is not to deride optics snobbery. To one degree or another, we all like our gadgets, and a better gadget is a better gadget. However, there is little utility in telling a budget conscious shooter, one that worries about wasting $100 on a scope, that he should be spending many hundreds of dollars more.

In my world, if a fellow has $100 to spend on a scope, with reasonable guidance he can expect to get a good and serviceable item for his money.


GunXpatriot, I have an old BSA I like, but it isn't "tactical". My very approximate sense of the market is that the word tactical adds features to a scope that do not directly pertain to looking through it and shooting.

 

[rebs]

Not to derail this thread but what is the proper way to adjust the focus on a 3-9x40 scope ?

 

[Kimber84]

If I spent 2-3 x on a scope what I did on the gun I would be a single man paying alimony... My thoughts are unless you're into serious competition or your life is routinely on the line, then its hard to justify that kind of dough for a scope/rifle setup.