2.5-10x40 or 3.5-14x40?

[hjcruger]

Hi, folks. I'm in the market for a scope to throw on my "big sky" rifle. Here in Vermont, things are generally up close and personal, and the power of one's scope isn't very important, so long as the lowest level of magnification isn't too high. In the last couple of years, however, I have spent about six months in northwest Wyoming, and it looks like hunting situations in the northeast aren't the only ones I need to consider from now on. The first three months of my time in the west was from September 1 to December 7. I tagged along with my cousin elk and deer hunting, and learned that a scope needs to be versatile enough to take close shots in the timber, as well as shots out to 400 or 500 yards (maybe more for many of you). My question for all of you is: would a 2.5-10x40 or 3.5-14x40 scope be more appropriate for hunting both timber and open areas? I've shot 400 yards with a 3-9x40 in the past, and 9x seemed to be sufficient for that range, though shooting at a large, bright white piece of paper is much different than shooting at an animal. Thanks for any knowledge you have for me. Shoot straight.

Hunter Cole

 

[GKPrice]

either is fine - I prefer my top magnification to be 10X but that's ME, you might like the 14X option better - Leupold VX3i 3.5 x 10 or 4.4 x 14 both with 40mm obj would be my first stop

 

[elkguide]

Also being from Vermont, I truly understand where you are coming from. I have spent most every fall in the Rockies since the '80's including a ten year stint guiding elk hunters.

My go to rifle is topped with a Swarovski 3-12X56. Works just fine for me. Just this evening I received a scope via UPS that I had ordered that is a 3-10X42 that I am going to put on a different, more "hill climbing friendly" rifle for next year.

The elk that I shot this past fall was shot with my rifle set on 8 power at 360 yards and it worked just fine so to me it is really just a matter of what your personal preference is but I would suggest just plain spending time out there and looking through as much different glass as you can and see what works for you.

 

[hjcruger]

either is fine - I prefer my top magnification to be 10X but that's ME, you might like the 14X option better - Leupold VX3i 3.5 x 10 or 4.4 x 14 both with 40mm obj would be my first stop

Thanks. Those are some very nice scopes you mentioned. Unfortunately, I likely won't be able to buy any of those without sacrificing some essentially gear I am working toward getting before I head west for my master's degree. I am currently looking at the Nikon Prostaff 5 series. I think these scopes are well made and have decent glass (I own a standard Prostaff 2-7x32), and they will probably be my most affordable option for MOA turrets.

 

[hjcruger]

Also being from Vermont, I truly understand where you are coming from. I have spent most every fall in the Rockies since the '80's including a ten year stint guiding elk hunters.

My go to rifle is topped with a Swarovski 3-12X56. Works just fine for me. Just this evening I received a scope via UPS that I had ordered that is a 3-10X42 that I am going to put on a different, more "hill climbing friendly" rifle for next year.

The elk that I shot this past fall was shot with my rifle set on 8 power at 360 yards and it worked just fine so to me it is really just a matter of what your personal preference is but I would suggest just plain spending time out there and looking through as much different glass as you can and see what works for you.

Thanks. I work at a small sporting goods store in Middlebury, VT once a week after class, and can play around with the scopes we have there a bit. Unfortunately, we don't have a huge selection of scopes, and I may have to draw mostly from past experiences with scopes. While I haven't shot with any scope over 10x, I can say that I don't think I've ever needed more than 10x, and certainly appreciate scopes with 2-3x magnification available for hunting in the deep, dark holes of timber one may find in elk and muley country. Glad to hear that the conclusion I have drawn is not wildly different from the responses I have received thus far.

 

[topher89]

2-3x magnication is perfect for the low end. I shot my first buck at 40 yards with a 3-9 scope and my first elk at 320 yards with the same scope.

 

[hjcruger]

2-3x magnication is perfect for the low end. I shot my first buck at 40 yards with a 3-9 scope and my first elk at 320 yards with the same scope.

I definitely have experience on the low end, and I'm glad to hear that folks concur with what I'm thinking for longer shots as well. Thanks.

 

[Mr Drysdale]

While the 10X is probably all you need in most situations, I like having the 14 to size my animal up when I have time. I have two scopes that are 14 on the high side and those are the ones I take when I hunt bean fields. Grant you my longest kill was 315 yards with a 10X Prostaff. I am expecting a 4.5 x 14 x 40 VX3i tomorrow from Grabagun at a great price of $395.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I've been using a 3.5-10x50 for well over 20 years. Regardless of how close something is, I always seem to crank it to the highest power. I ride it in the lowest power, but never use it there.

I've just bought the first 40mm that I've had since I was just starting out. I don't know if I'll like it as well or not.

 

[belly-deep]

Either or. I'd pick the lighter one.

 

[hjcruger]

While the 10X is probably all you need in most situations, I like having the 14 to size my animal up when I have time. I have two scopes that are 14 on the high side and those are the ones I take when I hunt bean fields. Grant you my longest kill was 315 yards with a 10X Prostaff. I am expecting a 4.5 x 14 x 40 VX3i tomorrow from Grabagun at a great price of $395.

What exactly do you mean when you say you size them up? Also, that's a nice scope that you mentioned you are getting. Leupold has kind of been in a class of their own, selling great optics with a lifetime warranty at middle of the road prices. Vortex seems to be butting in on their business, however. It would be neat to read a side by side review of a scope like the one you are getting and a comparable Vortex.

 

[hjcruger]

I've been using a 3.5-10x50 for well over 20 years. Regardless of how close something is, I always seem to crank it to the highest power. I ride it in the lowest power, but never use it there.

I've just bought the first 40mm that I've had since I was just starting out. I don't know if I'll like it as well or not.

My buddy once told me that he keeps his scope on the lowest magnification, and cranks it up if need be. The rationale behind this was, if he was far enough away that he had to turn the magnification up, he probably had enough time and cover to do so. I've lived by that rationale since, and, like you, generally end up twisting my magnification up to at least 4, and sometimes up to 7 or 9. If you're busting through thick brush or timber, however, it's nice to have that low magnification available to just pull up for quick target acquisition and relatively intuitive shooting.

 

[hjcruger]

Either or. I'd pick the lighter one.

While I wasn't thinking about weight before, I think what I'm going to end up choosing will be lighter. Perhaps it's because I'm young and dumb operating on a college student budget, or maybe it's because I was brought up in a more redneck than high tech New England hunting community, but I've never paid much attention to a few extra ounces here and there if they give me something that I deem is worth the weight.

 

[Formidilosus]

Thanks. Those are some very nice scopes you mentioned. Unfortunately, I likely won't be able to buy any of those without sacrificing some essentially gear I am working toward getting before I head west for my master's degree. I am currently looking at the Nikon Prostaff 5 series. I think these scopes are well made and have decent glass (I own a standard Prostaff 2-7x32), and they will probably be my most affordable option for MOA turrets.

SWFA SS 6x42mm with mil quad reticle. It crushes every scope thus far mentioned.
SWFA SS 6x42 Tactical Riflescope | SWFA

 

[GKPrice]

My buddy once told me that he keeps his scope on the lowest magnification, and cranks it up if need be. The rationale behind this was, if he was far enough away that he had to turn the magnification up, he probably had enough time and cover to do so. I've lived by that rationale since, and, like you, generally end up twisting my magnification up to at least 4, and sometimes up to 7 or 9. If you're busting through thick brush or timber, however, it's nice to have that low magnification available to just pull up for quick target acquisition and relatively intuitive shooting.

YOur buddy uses good rationale I think - I use 3.5 x 10 and those are the only 2 powers I have ever used, 3.5 and 10

 

[GKPrice]

SWFA SS 6x42mm with mil quad reticle. It crushes every scope thus far mentioned.
SWFA SS 6x42 Tactical Riflescope | SWFA

while a good 6 x 42 is a fine scope that I would not shed a tear if forced to use only that for life, "crushes" ? I hardly think so

 

[Paradactal]

My buddy once told me that he keeps his scope on the lowest magnification, and cranks it up if need be.

Very Sound advice. Always keep scope on lowest power while moving.

 

[hjcruger]

SWFA SS 6x42mm with mil quad reticle. It crushes every scope thus far mentioned.
SWFA SS 6x42 Tactical Riflescope | SWFA

The type of hunting that I do would be pretty handicapped by a fixed 6x. My closest shot so far was 15 yards on a moving buck. 6x would makes shots like that near impossible, in my opinion. I'll keep that scope in mind, however, should I be in need of a strictly open area rifle. Thanks.

 

[16Bore]

3.5-10 Leupold is plenty of glass. Just know your Dope.

 

[Formidilosus]

while a good 6 x 42 is a fine scope that I would not shed a tear if forced to use only that for life, "crushes" ? I hardly think so

I have several hundred rounds this year alone, on every scope thus far mention save the Nikon Prostaff and that's because they're not even in contention to be taken seriously. Scopes are aiming devices. They are used to steer bullets to point of aim/point of impact. They are not binos, spotting scopes, or observation devices. As aiming devices go- the 6x SWFA SS crushes every scope mentioned. Throw in trying to use the turrets to adjust for elevation in the field and it is the only one so far mentioned that will do so reliably, consistently and without fail. It will also hold zero through extreme abuse, return to zero correctly every time, and the adjustment values will be correct.

The type of hunting that I do would be pretty handicapped by a fixed 6x. My closest shot so far was 15 yards on a moving buck. 6x would makes shots like that near impossible, in my opinion. I'll keep that scope in mind, however, should I be in need of a strictly open area rifle. Thanks.

Have you ever tried a fixed 6x? They are no handicap at feet nor at 600 yards. Granted the closet I've ever used one on a mover was about 20 feet. I have seen 8 year children do the same.

For some one reason if you still won't try it, the 3-9x42mm SWFA SS is the best 3-9x scope (aiming decive) currently made. If you are planning on/trying to shoot 400+ yards, zero retention and a means to compensate for range is critical. The best most consistent way to compensate (and the fastest way to get a hit in all conditions) is to dial. The precision of the adjustments, their reliability and consistentcy are what matters.


When hen someone tells you how great a scope is- ask them about use, round counts, zero retention, adjustments, return to zero, etc. those are what matter to scopes, not some obsession with "glass".