Why do we need high scope magnification

[tangolima]

20x or above is high. I used to think it is good thing to have. I tried that and I became skeptical. I almost always go back to below 15x or even 10x. Lately I started using fixed 4x and 10x. I simply fell in love with fixed power scopes.

That begs the question. Why do people pay extra for 24x or even much higher? Long range? Sure. But they shoot at pretty large steel plates. Either ding or no ding; no rings to score on. Even at 1000yd, 10x scope brings the target to 100yd we equivalent. One should see it.

There must be a reason for higher power. Silhouette shooting is one I can think of. But what else? People who run huge high power scopes on their rifles hardly do silhouette.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[MarkCO]

I shoot/compete at long range, which I consider to be 600 to about 1500 or so. My highest mag on a Centerfire is 20x, and that is plenty to a mile for me on steel. I'll probably swap out to a 5-25 for an ELR match sooner or later.

But my .22LR precision has a 5-25, and I only shoot that out to 400 yards. But the targets are really small in comparison to centerfire targets at that distance.

I shoot my 3Gun rifle out to 600 yards, mostly going 1 for 1 on the long targets and use a 1-6.

Seeing better is better, but that means better glass as opposed to more mag. The masses just don't understand the issues and the marketing of the scope manufacturers is happy to take people's money giving them what they want, even if it is not suitable.

 

[tangolima]

22lr with small targets falls in silhouette category, so it is valid. My 22lr rifle has a 4x fixed. I use it regularly to train for long range center fire. Soda can at certain distance. 2 cold bore shots. Currently I am at 125yd. I think we can reach 200yd one day. Anyway 4x is adequate for that.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[taylorce1]

Pretty simple, it's what people want and your opinions don't match what sells for manufacturers. I've always been use what works for you, and if you like fixed power then by all means use them.

 

[MarkCO]

Anyway 4x is adequate for that.

Precision .22, I've shot at 1/2" targets at 125 yards and 1" targets at 200 yards. 4x won't be anywhere near enough.

 

[jmr40]

I have a friend whose vision has always been sub-par. He kept buying cheap sub-$100 scopes and tried more and more magnification to see targets better. I finally convinced him to up his budget to $300 and get a quality 3-9X scope. When he finally took my advice he literally "saw the light."

More quality always trumps more X's.

For big game hunting 1X per 100 yards is acceptable. I've shot 3/4 MOA (4" groups) at 600 yards with a fixed 6X scope. But 1.5X or 2X per 100 yards is better for most people. A 3-9X scope is plenty of magnification for 400-500 yard shots on big game.

If you're shooting farther or shooting smaller varmints or targets then more X's start to make sense. And while 1MOA sounds great to most of us, there are people whose goal is .1-.3 MOA.

There certainly is a place for those scopes, but most of the people buying anything over 9X or 10X would be better off with less scope.

There are negatives that come into play when you get over 10X. They are usually poor in low light. And more X's mean more money to get the same quality. I can buy a decent 3-9X40 scope for $150-$400. When you get into the really high magnification scopes you need to add another zero to that for a quality scope.

I don't really care for fixed power scopes though. When I'm hunting I leave my variable scopes on the lowest setting 99% of the time. I've taken deer at 200 yards with a scope set on 2.5X. And I'd find a fixed 4X too much for most of my hunting. A fixed 6X or 10X would be a handicap to me when hunting. At the range maybe not.

 

[44 AMP]

A high magnification scope is a benefit when you're shooting off a range bench and are too cheap to have a spotting scope.

My big game rifles wear 2,5x posts or 2-7 or 3-9x variables. My favorite varmint rig is a .22-250 with a 6x-18x scope. 18x is neat for looking at the small critters, but sucks for shooting and hitting them from FIELD positions. I always dial it back to about 9x or less to actually take the shot.

Heat shimmer (mirage) is worse at higher powers. My heartbeat bounces the crosshairs around more at higher powers. Its actually more difficult to shoot and hit at higher powers, UNLESS you're shooting from a solid, bench rest type situation. Higher power magnifies ALL your errors, and weather conditions (haze, heat shimmer, etc.)

Also forget any kind of accuracy if a close, fast shot is needed, or a shot on game moving at more than a slow walk.
Variables are great for hunting, left on LOW power for quick shots. Left on high power, you might be in "all I saw was brown" (or green) territory.

As to those idiots who think that a high power rifle scope is for "glassing" the countryside LOOKING for game, use binoculars or a spotting scope for that!!! Some folks don't take kindly to having a rifle pointed at them.

 

[Shadow9mm]

Never shot anything higher than a 14x. Really depends on 2 things. How far away is your target, and how small is your target. Higher magnification can also aid in working on technique as it magnifies your instability.

 

[tangolima]

So far I have read, shooting small targets is the only valid reason for high magnification. It makes sense to have the target appear bigger than the reticle lines. Magnification helps in second focal plane scopes.

For myself, my target is a soda can about 3.5"x5", not quite qualified as anything precision. 4x works fine out 200yd or a bit more. I don't need to read the logo on the can in order to hit it.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[bamaranger]

need v. perceived need

High magnification scopes follow the interest and trend in long range shooting and hunting that has developed in the past years. I think this interest is the result of all the publicity and attention sniping and long range hunting has gotten from various media sources, now available at the push of a button to anyone.

I do believe that alot of whitetail hunters are over scoped these days. And with all that X power comes more weight and bulk. But.... a lot of folks shoot more than whitetails (and coke cans and steel). Varmint hunters have run higher magnification scopes for years, my 1970's era heavy varmint rig has an old K12 on it. Competitive shooters run a lot of magnification as the scoring rings can be quite small. An F-class shooter has a 1/2 MOA "X" ring, ie 5 inches at 1000 yds, In my limited foray into Fclass I ran a 6-24X rig and my set up was usually one of the smaller scopes on the firing line.

The more accurate your rifle, the more higher magnification can help you utilize the precision the rig can deliver. A heavy barreled .22lr I own is very accurate and wears a 4-16x scope. The optic is big and the rifle is heavy and a bit awkward as a result, but the increased magnification allows me to hit very small targets (well most of the time) at 100 yds with surprising ease.

 

[tangolima]

That's another vote for shooting small target, I suppose. In other words, you would do better with lower magnification if the target is not small.

How small is small? The may be the real question. MOA subtension may be a better way to put it. I think the target should substantially bigger (say 10x) than the reticle stadia thickness. Reticle stadia is about 0.075moa thick. Target should be 0.75moa or bigger, say 1moa. Man is shooting 1/2” target at 200yd, or 0.25moa. Magnification of 4x ok? 10x should be quite adequate, is it not? A 24” plate at 1000yd is 2.4moa. 10x makes it equivalent to 24moa. Mighty big, I think.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Shadow9mm]

So far I have read, shooting small targets is the only valid reason for high magnification. It makes sense to have the target appear bigger than the reticle lines. Magnification helps in second focal plane scopes.

For myself, my target is a soda can about 3.5"x5", not quite qualified as anything precision. 4x works fine out 200yd or a bit more. I don't need to read the logo on the can in order to hit it.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

think golf ball, or spent 12ga hull at 100yds+ with a 22, can make for some challenging shooting.

 

[44 AMP]

Want a real shooting challenge? Crowsniping at 300yds.

Your target is about 6" long, doesn't stand up straight, doesn't lie down flat, leans over at an angle that changes A LOT, and doesn't stand still for more than a few seconds at a time.

.22-250 with at 6- 9x works well, (provided you do). At 18x one small crow hop can take the crow out of your field of view. Higher powers are even worse in that regard.

Prairie dogs are easy in comparison.

 

[tangolima]

I'm not good enough to shoot at moving targets yet, but I'm getting a bit close lately. The soda can is dangling on a string. It dances around some in the wind. Once I can hit it regularly in 2 shots, I will move down by 25yd more.

The flight time is over 0.3s. Easily drops several inches for every additional 25yd. A slight wind would push poi by a couple of inches. I think it is a good tool to train for long range center fire. Cheap rifle and cheap scope. I'm having fun. One day I will reach 200yd.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[kmw1954]

At an informal local rifle league I shoot we shoot to 100/200/300yds with many times the X Ring is 1/2MOA and the 10 ring is only 3/4MOA. One of the targets we shot this year was at 200yds and it was a 4" diameter occluded circle. So the X Ring was 1/4MOA. Any bullet hole touching the occlusion did not score.

I shot with an Athlon Argos 8-34X56 mostly set at 20-24X. Any lower than that and the reticle became too heave and would obscure the bull. Hard to hit what you can't see.

 

[tangolima]

At an informal local rifle league I shoot we shoot to 100/200/300yds with many times the X Ring is 1/2MOA and the 10 ring is only 3/4MOA. One of the targets we shot this year was at 200yds and it was a 4" diameter occluded circle. So the X Ring was 1/4MOA. Any bullet hole touching the occlusion did not score.

I shot with an Athlon Argos 8-34X56 mostly set at 20-24X. Any lower than that and the reticle became too heave and would obscure the bull. Hard to hit what you can't see.

Again it is for shooting very small targets.

You must have a SFP scope. Reticle stadia in FFP thickens with magnification, so it won't help. X ring is 1/4moa. 10x makes it 2.5moa equivalent, which is 33x of stadia thickness. It would be quite enough for me. 56mm objective lens with 24x magnification, the exit pupil is 2.3mm. Except in bright daylight, it won't work for me. I would stay below 14x to keep >4mm exit pupil. Probably 10x.

I don't know. Sounds like the top range of 24x - 34x of that scope is not doing anything.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Nathan]

I think I add a unique viewpoint to this.

Let’s say you have a 0 moa gun. The thing is a laser. If I give you a fine crosshair 45x scope at 100 yds, you will likely shoot 0’s or close.

If I give you a 20x, probably the same.

A 1x? How will you shoot? Consider, the crosshairs likely have to cover 0.5 moa to see them…how big is the group??maybe 0.5moa

A 3 moa dot on a 1” dot….yea, likely you will shoot 3moa.

How will you shoot this imaginary gun capable of zeros at 1000 yds? Seems like it depends some on target size, target visibility, target alignment marks, magnification and cross hair size….odd, but several of those are greatly impacted by magnification and clarity.

Out to 600, I’m ok as long as I can go to 15x. Beyond that, I want to go to 20 or 25x. At 100, I really like my 45x on the ppc for bugholes.

You have to be able to see when minute of moose isn’t good enough!

 

[44 AMP]

And, on the other side of the coin, when you need minute of moose and a high power scope only shows you hair in its small field of view, you're unlikely to be able to make an accurate shot.

I've got nothing against high power scopes for some shooting, and don't have an issue with variables only the way some folks will use them.

If your target (target or game animal) is far enough away you don't need to take a snap shot, you've got the time to "zoom in" as much as you wish. The reverse is rarely true.

 

[stinkeypete]

I will just pile in on this one- for a range gun when you're shooting sub-moa .22 LR or .17 I really like an 18x scope at 100 yards. This is from a rest, of course. I can see the fun in popping varmints from the next county with a setup like that, too.

My deer rifle has a fixed 6x Burris scope on it only because I could not find a fixed 4x.
My squirrel gun has a $30 4x Simmons and ... well... I took an optics class in college because of my degree, and I was a technical photographer for 8 years.

The superiority of a fixed lens over a zoom lens can only be shown to really explain it. I don't care what you say, let's take a look through them both. One is much brighter, sharper, clearer at the edges, lighter, more robust and reliable. The other has a lot of moving parts.

I will grant that at the range, a zoom something to 18X is fine because you don't always need 18x, but for the hunting I do... if I need more than 4x, it's too long a shot. You guys in the mountains and Western Plains.. I am not talking about you... you might need a tad more.

 

[tangolima]

Reticle stadia are 0.075moa thick. Mil dots are bigger, 0.25moa. Good time for me to give up if target is still covered with 10x magnification. Ammo is expensive.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk