How far does 12x get you?

[Macintosh]

At 500yds 14x looks like:

Sitting at the computer as usual waiting for a report to run. Happen to have a dial caliper here, so…
If the torso pictured is 18” wide, then it’s about 14 feet from the torso to the edge of the field of view. Thats only one hop of a deer, which will happen in a fraction of a second, before its lost outside your field of view. That might not matter in an open environment as pictured, but if you were talking about mixed openings, clumps of trees, etc. it’s very easy to lose an animal under such circumstances, especially when you introduce recoil. I think there’s specific situations when having a little more magnification is helpful. My aging eyes, and trying to pick a window through grass or brush being case in point, but overall I think it has to be a balance between having enough magnification to be precise ENOUGH, while maintaining enough field of view to not lose an animal because you can’t see where it went after you lost it from the field of view. My answer on whether 12X is too much or too little or whatever, probably should also include what the gun and cartridge is, in order to take recoil into account. More recoil=less magnification before its too much.

 

[xsn10s]

Yeah I’m hunting deer in the mountains so no prairie dogs…

Thanks everyone, a lot of great info. I’ll be good to go with 12x max then.

If you're thinking about a SWFA fixed powered scope I had a 12X but got rid of it. The FOV was just a bit tight for shorter range for MY vision and it seemed to be harder to get behind. Other people loved the 12X, I just wasn't happy with it. The 10X is easier for ME to use and as a general purpose coyote rifle from close it to 1100 yards so far. But on my big game rifle I opted for the fixed 6X. Just a better FOV and brighter scope in my eye. YMMV.

 

[N2TRKYS]

The Field of View gets smaller for the more magnification used.

At 500yds 6x looks like:

View attachment 924412



At 500yds 9x looks like:

View attachment 924395


At 500yds 12x looks like:

View attachment 924397


At 500yds 14x looks like:

View attachment 924402

Great example. It really shows the benefits of higher magnification.

 

[atmat]

Great example. It really shows the benefits of higher magnification.

How is that your takeaway?

 

[Nine Banger]

We were shooting an 8" circle and waterlines at 840yards with fixed 6x yesterday. No problems.

I have a buddy that is a good shooter that comes over and says he is uncomfortable aiming at my 12x20 IDPA target at 300 yards in the same scope...He needs to lean in and get used to it.

 

[N2TRKYS]

How is that your takeaway?

It’s pretty obvious. You can see your target way better with higher magnification. How is that not your takeaway?

 

[atmat]

It’s pretty obvious. You can see your target way better with higher magnification. How is that not your takeaway?

Uhhh, cause I shoot and recognize that FOV and keeping your target in the sight picture on recoil has more value when hunting than trying to count the grey hairs on an animal?

 

[N2TRKYS]

Uhhh, cause I shoot and recognize that FOV and keeping your target in the sight picture on recoil has more value when hunting than trying to count the grey hairs on an animal?

Hitting the target the first time is more important to me. However, I don’t have any problems with follow up shots with the lower fov. Maybe your rifle doesn’t fit you properly? Maybe if you set it up properly, you wouldn’t have so much trouble with it. I guess until then, you’ll have to settle for the lower magnification to compensate for the poor fit. I hope you can get it figured out one day.

 

[eric1115]

Great example. It really shows the benefits of higher magnification.

Do you ever get curious about why others do things the way they do? Or do you just assume that if their preferences and methods are different from yours that they are wrong?

 

[N2TRKYS]

Do you ever get curious about why others do things the way they do? Or do you just assume that if their preferences and methods are different from yours that they are wrong?

Not really interested in what works for others cause I’m the one that will be using it, not someone else. I try different things and only use what works for me. Others try to tell me that it doesn’t work for me and their way is the only way. Why don’t you go ask them why they tell me my methods don’t work like you just asked me?

 

[Macintosh]

Not really interested in what works for others cause I’m the one that will be using it, not someone else. I try different things and only use what works for me. Others try to tell me that it doesn’t work for me and their way is the only way. Why don’t you go ask them why they tell me my methods don’t work like you just asked me?

No one said your way doesnt work. They said given the tradeoffs less magnification is usually better. Different priorities maybe, who knows. But just because it works for you doesnt mean they’re wrong. High magnification has its place, but as you said its very recoil dependent. Hard to make a perfect generalization with the variety in what people hunt with, where, different eyes, etc.

Do you use a 40x or other very high magnification scope at max power for hunting? If not, is it safe to say that the principle applies, even if the line between enough and too much isnt universally agreed on? Given the OP already owns the scope, and given the number of people just here that successfully use lower powered scopes at the ranges in question, would you suggest the OP should run out and buy a new scope before trying 12x at longer range?

 

[Nine Banger]

Do you ever get curious about why others do things the way they do?

Most shooters are self-taught beyond the basics...and stubborn.

 

[eric1115]

Not really interested in what works for others cause I’m the one that will be using it, not someone else. I try different things and only use what works for me. Others try to tell me that it doesn’t work for me and their way is the only way. Why don’t you go ask them why they tell me my methods don’t work like you just asked me?

I think it's mainly because of the absolute way you often state your positions. If you prefer Product A over Product B, Product B is bad and people who prefer it over Product A are wrong. I've seen you do it on archery stuff, rifles, optics, and more.

Additionally, the "I don't like it and I don't care why you do like it" stance combined with the dismissive and often insulting attitude toward people who disagree with you makes it tough to find value in your input. Just to make sure I was not being unfair, I picked a half dozen different random pages in your post history, and every page has multiple absolute "this is what you should do" or "this is absolute garbage" or "I've never personally experienced this so it's not an issue" statements on things that have valid arguments on both sides.

Obviously it's hard to be 100% objective and I'm sure the fact that we're often on different sides of a debate/discussion on what works the best does color my perceptions, but it seems to me that the exchange often goes something like this:
FNG - "I'm trying to decide between X, Y, and Z. What should I do/get?"
WKR - "I used to be an X and Z guy, but I've found A or B to be a better way to do what you say you want to do."
N2T - "I tried A and it sucks. Don't let the cult members talk you into it."
WKR - "What sucks about it? I've had good success with it."
N2T - "I just didn't like it. X is better."
WKR - "I really found A to have these benefits."
N2T - "I never saw those benefits/didn't need them. Really a shame that you fanboys so incompetent as to need those crutches. Also I don't care what you think, I only care what works for me."

I'll absolutely admit to having a similar attitude at times (I think carbon barrels are stupid and I think 99% of the arguments people make for them are dumb. I think they're trying to rationalize wanting barrel that has the Cool-Guy look but want to imagine there are functional benefits). I'm probably as dismissive of them as my perception is of your dismissiveness of the benefits found in low recoil, lower magnification, excellent functioning no-drama rifles/scopes.

I think what seems like people's dismissiveness toward you (Others try to tell me that it doesn’t work for me and their way is the only way) stems from the difficulty in engaging with your "I only care about what I have personally experienced" stance. If you don't care what others have experienced or what they prefer, how are they supposed to care about what your preferences are?

 

[Nine Banger]

I think it's mainly because of the absolute way you often state your positions. If you prefer Product A over Product B, Product B is bad and people who prefer it over Product A are wrong. I've seen you do it on archery stuff, rifles, optics, and more.

These threads read clean if you punch the ignore button a half dozen times or so.

 

[TaperPin]

Unless someone is shooting less than 1/2 MOA, the rifle has essentially the same accuracy and point of impact if the shooter sees a nice crisp image showing dandruff coming off the fur or the image is so bad all you see is an outline. One thing humans are good at is visually aligning one thing inside another.

Prove it to yourself. Pull out 10 sheets of printer paper and guess at the exact center of each one and put a dot. Then measure how far off you were on the long way. This is roughly half the vertical depth of a big mulie chest. You don’t have the benefit of reticle hash marks or anything other than your eyeball in a sea of white paper, so most people say it sounds hard until they try it.

90% of the time I’m within 1/16”, 5% are within 1/32” and 5% are 1/8” or larger. Assume it’s half size for a deer chest depth so double it and it’s still a minuscule amount.

Hopefully if nothing else folks who try this will see without the shadow of a doubt accurately aligning the scope with the animal isn’t the issue shooters should be worried about.

I first discovered this by printing out black squares in 1/4 MOA increments from too small to see well, to giant size, for targets from the bench with an accurate rifle. It didn’t really matter which target was used except for 1-1/4 MOA, which is my sweat spot with a 1/2 MOA reticle and shrunk my group size by. . . wait for it. . . about the exact same error shown above. Makes sense right?

 

[atmat]

Hitting the target the first time is more important to me.

You couldn’t hit the target at 500 with a 6x?

I don’t have any problems with follow up shots with lower fov.

You would be the first person I’ve ever met who can shoot in field positions and stay totally on target with a very limited FOV.

Maybe your rifle doesn’t fit you properly? Maybe if you set it up properly, you wouldn’t have so much trouble with it.

It’s not a ‘fit’ issue. It’s an issue of recoil + field position + moving animal + wanting quick follow-up shots.

If you’re just bench shooting, that’s a different story.

I guess until then, you’ll have to settle for the lower magnification to compensate for the poor fit.

I have never met a hunter who uses a lot of zoom on animals who shoots better or quicker than guys who use ‘just enough’ zoom. But who knows, maybe you’re a unicorn.


Edit: Just realized you’re the guy who also says Maven Rs1.2 mil is a bad scope. Haha this all makes sense now. I’ll stop responding.