How much zoom do you like on a 500 yard hunting shot?

[pathnz]

There are frequently comments here about "spotting your shot" and managing magnification to achieve this.

There is of course a spectrum of what "spotting the shot" looks like, and achieving different points on that spectrum requires different approaches.

I shoot a lot (hundreds-1k+) of animals per year with a .223, usually from 0 to 500 metres. If I am shooting groups of animals and wish to be able to locate the next animal rapidly, I will frequently use lower magnification - 6-8x for a wider field of view and faster transition. However this doesn't allow me to see the actual bullet impact on the animals very well; I can see the effect of the impact but not the exact location. To see this with a .223 at longer ranges (400+m) I usually need to be up in the 12-18x. At longer ranges with the .223 I like to see where the bullet has gone in to know that it's good as follow-ups on a poor shot are more difficult.

Seeing a miss in the dirt, or the general effect of the shot on the animal, usually requires less magnification.

A larger bullet makes a more obvious impact, but conversely is harder to watch through the recoil.

 

[Formidilosus]

What research are you referring to? Was it done with scientific controls?

I've read a lot of opinions, conjecture, and individual accounts attributing POI problems to a Leupold scope, but I have not read any scientific research or the results of properly controlled experiments that back up that conclusion. Empirical data is a starting point for research, not the end result. As I have said before, Form's drop tests have value, but they should not be considered controlled scientific experiments. Nobody, to my knowledge, is doing any properly controlled experiments nor have testing methodologies with repeatable conditions been established.

It is so unpopular to deviate from the anti-Leupold opinion often expressed on Rokslide that it is rarely done, but at times the Leupold users who have never had problems do speak up, and they are not few in number. This alone makes me wary that group think may be behind much of the Leupold bashing, but I am not close minded about it either. The bashing may be justifiable. With that in mind, as I said, if I were to buy another scope now, it would be a Trijicon.

Please define:

“scientific controls”.

“Properly controlled experiments”

“controlled scientific experiments”