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”

 

[EdP]

Please define:

“scientific controls”.

“Properly controlled experiments”

“controlled scientific experiments”

Sure, at least what it means to me in regard to the subject at hand. All quoted terms refer to the controls applied in any experiment to ensure consistency in the testing methodology.

All variations in input forces, such as amount of force, angle of application, and speed of application, are controlled to be the same for each item exposed to the input. Equipment differences that can mitigate the effects of the input are eliminated such as differences in mounting (both rings used and where they are located on a scope), tightness of screws and any other factor that can absorb the input forces. Post input testing is done on equipment independent of that used for application of the input forces and is likewise controlled to ensure differences between tested items are eliminated.

Much of what I am describing on the input side for scopes can be done on a shaker table, and is done for seismic qualification testing of equipment for nuclear power plants. Other aspects can be done in a manner similar to how Charpy V-notch testing is done. Given the issues your testing has made obvious, I don't understand why the mfgs have not developed a standard testing methodology for scopes as has been done for so many other equipment items.

 

[glock233]

Without a spotter, whatever allows me to spot the shot. That’s usually 10x with my main rifle.

In magnums (where I’m not spotting the shot anyway) or with a spotter, I’ll zoom in a good bit more. Especially on smaller game.

Some people take economizing zoom as some proxy for manliness. Like liking spicy food or drinking shitty beer. It’s overrated.

 

[Wprinkle]

2025 ELk at 740 on 6X. On MOA sized targets and larger out to about 1400 yards I stay between 6-9X (I would probably use a higher power past 1,000 but my scopes don't go that far) But it also has not been an issue. When I'm getting a 20-30 shot zero at 100 I max em out... I dont shoot good enough to spot my shot on really high power inside of 300ish with my Fast 6mm, I can get away with it at longer distances or at any distance with a 223 but there really is no point. Aside from spotting shots, a couple reasons I like a lower power is.. I can see where the animal moves if its not a bang/flop, and I can see what is Infront, behind, around or may move into my shot ie other animals.

 

[nuffgun]

I spent last season with a fixed 10x on my hunting rifle. Practiced on steel out to 1000 quite a bit leading up to hunting season. I have zero issues with that scope out to 1000, but keep in mind that I practice and hunt in pretty wide open country. Longest shot taken at an animal last season was 400 yards on a mule deer buck.