Is 5x "good enough" for close range target acquisition for hunting?

[Lawnboi]

My scopes all normally live on 6x on a hunt. I shot two fox at under 15 yards at just that. I think knowing your rifle plays a much more critical role than 4x is going to go.

 

[Navyhunter]

Sitting in a blind or stand, 5x no problem for close shots depending on the reticle. You mentioned wisconsin so I assume thats where you live, although that still covers a variety of types of hunting. Still-hunting or tracking in eastern bigger woods, shots are routinely well-under 50 yards and frequently fast, reflexive shots on a moving animal against a very busy background. In this case 5x is way more magnification than I would want especially assuming thats a ffp scope. For this situation your bird hunting experience is closer to reality than your elk hunting experience—there, I would rather have it in 300bkout or similar but your AR with a rds or lpvo may be much more appropriate than a 300winmag precision rifle. I would say 3x is usually my maximum low-end magnification, and that’ll need to be with a reticle thats very useable at that magnification. You can clearly do with a little more, but not at all ideal to me. Aso keep in mind its more about field of view than magnification. Us mil acog is a 4x optic that I see people mention relative to this topic—“if the army uses it for cqb you can use it at 30 yards in the woods”— but it has a field of view wider than many 3x scopes.
Just food for thought.

Thanks!

 

[Navyhunter]

Say you’re in grizzly country, and hunting in both open country and thick timber for elk. While in the timber, you hear something, turn around and see a grizzly charging inside of 50 yards.

What minimum power would you want?

Does this affect your decision on the scope you take on your hunt?

Great point.

 

[Navyhunter]

The only negative anyone can usually say, is Nightforce scopes are not lightweight. You can hit them with a hammer and they’ll still be on, but they ain’t light. Around 28oz +/- depending on exactly what you get.
But the same guys that tell you Nightforce are too heavy are usually 20-30lbs overweight. I’ll pack a few extra ounces of scope on my incredible lightweight carbon rifle.
Their customer service is excellent. The last wait time when I ordered was quoted at 90-120days, but they are always earlier than later.

Great info. Thanks.

 

[DangerRanger]

Good enough? Yes

I shot a buck moving at 9 yards with a 6-24 the other year. Preferred? No I’d rather have 3 or so, but doable absolutely

 

[Navyhunter]

Good enough? Yes

I shot a buck moving at 9 yards with a 6-24 the other year. Preferred? No I’d rather have 3 or so, but doable absolutely

9 yards is close! Big buck?

 

[DangerRanger]

No, garbage with half a front leg lol

9 yards is close! Big buck?

 

[Thinkingman]

I always say you need to pay attention to the low end of the magnification than the upper.
3X is good...2.5 is better.
Plenty of options in the 3-15/3-18 universe.

 

[prm]

I’ve hunted with 6x scopes I thought I’d be fine. But it always left a doubt, and now I just know I want a low end of about 3 to have no doubts.

 

[Firehawk]

If you are hunting in the trees and have a chance at "jump shooting" an elk, you would likely enjoy the less magnification. If your style is more of a spot and stalk/ambush style, the 5x on the low end would be fine. I have been using a 3-9 or 3.5-10 for most of my 35+ years of hunting. Very rarely have I wished for more magnification. And I most commonly carry my rifle at 4x.

The RS1 would be my choice. My buddy would feel severely handicapped with that little mag though. I guess each person has to decide.

One time, I shot a buck at 9x at around 400 yards. When I walked up to it, it jumped up and took off trying to run. I had forgotten to turn down my scope, and boy did I struggle to find him in the scope again. I did, and I killed him, but it would have been much better at 4x or 3x or maybe even from my hip.

 

[sndmn11]

Is it low end magnification, or field of view that is the quest?

 

[roosiebull]

I always say you need to pay attention to the low end of the magnification than the upper.
3X is good...2.5 is better.
Plenty of options in the 3-15/3-18 universe.

agree. in the actual woods hunting, inside 600yds, i have zero need for more than 10X, but do value lower powers a good amount.... i have probably shot half of my rifle critters under 4X...most shots, 200 and in, i most likely won't go above 4X because i need the FOV more than more magnification.... when i'm hunting, my scope is always on the lowest magnification.

 

[FLATHEAD]

My favorite scope is a 1.5x5.......stays on 1.5

 

[Navyhunter]

If you are hunting in the trees and have a chance at "jump shooting" an elk, you would likely enjoy the less magnification. If your style is more of a spot and stalk/ambush style, the 5x on the low end would be fine. I have been using a 3-9 or 3.5-10 for most of my 35+ years of hunting. Very rarely have I wished for more magnification. And I most commonly carry my rifle at 4x.

The RS1 would be my choice. My buddy would feel severely handicapped with that little mag though. I guess each person has to decide.

One time, I shot a buck at 9x at around 400 yards. When I walked up to it, it jumped up and took off trying to run. I had forgotten to turn down my scope, and boy did I struggle to find him in the scope again. I did, and I killed him, but it would have been much better at 4x or 3x or maybe even from my hip.

Ha! Nice shot! Thanks for the input.

 

[roosiebull]

My favorite scope is a 1.5x5.......stays on 1.5

for perspective, personal max hunting distance aside, how far would you be comfortable shooting a deer sized animal at 5X without feeling like magnification is a hinderance? 500yds is reasonable i think, maybe 600...

i had a fixed 4X on a rifle years ago i didn't have it long because at the time, i thought i wanted more... in reality, the biggest hangup of that scope for hunting purpose was 4X was the lowest power. to date, i have not shot anything that 4X wouldn't have been totally fine.... granted i don't take long shots in the woods, my furthest being 497yds on a lion while spring bear hunting.

i understand people wanting higher magnification for shooting paper, that's the only time i really turn my magnification up, but i also wouldn't compromise my low end magnification on a rifle that's primarily a hunting rifle, it would become less practical

 

[FLATHEAD]

I'm not a long range guy, as you can guess from my favorite scope.
I live in the SE-US, where conditions are more like a jungle.
The longest shot I've ever taken with that scope was on a feral hog @ around
400 yards. Cranked it up to 5x and never gave it a second thought.
That said, when I head West I pick up my 300 Win with a 2.5x8 leupold.
The least used rifle I own is a 25-06 with a 4.5-14x50. And thats due to
the scope. I find the 4.5 just isnt low enough for my preferences. I reserve
it for hunting clearcuts, and looking over greenfields late in the afternoon
till dark, which doesnt happen very often. I would probably take it if I ever
go after Pronghorn or Coues.
Personal preferences.

 

[ChrisAU]

Don't get stuck on minimum magnification, when people say low mag is important they really mean FOV is important at lowest mag, and that can be deceiving. Lets look at three scopes with the "same" 2.5x on the bottom:

Leupold 2.5-8x36 - 37.5' FOV @ 2.5x
Trijicon Credo 2.5-15x42 - 41.2' FOV @ 2.5x
NF NX8 2.5-20x50 - 41.8' FOV @ 2.5x

I know that doesn't seem like a big difference, but if you are buying a scope with a lower power minimum magnification because it has a low power minimum magnification, then it makes all the difference in the world - the Trijicon and NF can see more than 10% more area at minimum mag than the Loopy can.

So long story short, compare FOV not magnification ranges. There are some eye opening revelations when you look at some examples - compare a 4.5-14x50 Leupold to a 6-24x50 Vortex AMG for instance - there is a 6x that would be more useful at 6x then that 4.5 would be at 4.5.

 

[BjornF16]

Don't get stuck on minimum magnification, when people say low mag is important they really mean FOV is important at lowest mag, and that can be deceiving. Lets look at three scopes with the "same" 2.5x on the bottom:

Leupold 2.5-8x36 - 37.5' FOV @ 2.5x
Trijicon Credo 2.5-15x42 - 41.2' FOV @ 2.5x
NF NX8 2.5-20x50 - 41.8' FOV @ 2.5x

I know that doesn't seem like a big difference, but if you are buying a scope with a lower power minimum magnification because it has a low power minimum magnification, then it makes all the difference in the world - the Trijicon and NF can see more than 10% more area at minimum mag than the Loopy can.

So long story short, compare FOV not magnification ranges. There are some eye opening revelations when you look at some examples - compare a 4.5-14x50 Leupold to a 6-24x50 Vortex AMG for instance - there is a 6x that would be more useful at 6x then that 4.5 would be at 4.5.

ok...

What is the FOV for a 5x versus a 2.5x?

I think that is really what the OP was getting at...call it FOV or magnification (or whatever).

Even if a 5x were to have same FOV as a 2.5x at same distance, I'm willing to bet it would still be harder to find a moving target at close range with the 5x.

 

[ChrisAU]

ok...

What is the FOV for a 5x versus a 2.5x?

I think that is really what the OP was getting at...call it FOV or magnification (or whatever).

Even if a 5x were to have same FOV as a 2.5x at same distance, I'm willing to bet it would still be harder to find a moving target at close range with the 5x.

My point was that asking if 5x is enough is objective to the ability of the optic to display the field to the user.

What is the FOV for a 5x versus a 2.5x? That depends on the scope, they are not all the same, which is the point of my post.

Even if a 5x were to have same FOV as a 2.5x at same distance, I'm willing to bet it would still be harder to find a moving target at close range with the 5x. I wholly disagree with that. You are telling me that if you could see the exact same amount of information at one time that you think it'd be easier if the information was presented to you smaller vs it being larger?

Stand in a room and look at a wall 10 feet away. What you see is your FOV. Now, read a newspaper at arms length. Now, put the newspaper on the wall 10 feet away and read it from the same location 10 feet away. Now you've changed magnification of your target even though your FOV has not changed. Why can't you read the newspaper now?

Kind of a crappy example, but when FOV of Scope X = FOV of Scope Y then higher magnification is giving you the same amount of information with more detail.

And in no way am I arguing for higher magnification - I'm all about super wide FOV and low base magnifications. Again my whole point was to say don't just look at a magnification number, look at FOV. Most all of my scopes are 2.5-15, 2-12, 1.5-5, 1.5-12 etc. I don't even like 3x on the bottom. I shoot a lot of critters on the lowest magnification with those scopes pretty routinely.

 

[BjornF16]

My point was that asking if 5x is enough is objective to the ability of the optic to display the field to the user.

What is the FOV for a 5x versus a 2.5x? That depends on the scope, they are not all the same, which is the point of my post.

Even if a 5x were to have same FOV as a 2.5x at same distance, I'm willing to bet it would still be harder to find a moving target at close range with the 5x. I wholly disagree with that. You are telling me that if you could see the exact same amount of information at one time that you think it'd be easier if the information was presented to you smaller vs it being larger?

Stand in a room and look at a wall 10 feet away. What you see is your FOV. Now, read a newspaper at arms length. Now, put the newspaper on the wall 10 feet away and read it from the same location 10 feet away. Now you've changed magnification of your target even though your FOV has not changed. Why can't you read the newspaper now?

Kind of a crappy example, but when FOV of Scope X = FOV of Scope Y then higher magnification is giving you the same amount of information with more detail.

And in no way am I arguing for higher magnification - I'm all about super wide FOV and low base magnifications. Again my whole point was to say don't just look at a magnification number, look at FOV. Most all of my scopes are 2.5-15, 2-12, 1.5-5, 1.5-12 etc. I don't even like 3x on the bottom. I shoot a lot of critters on the lowest magnification with those scopes pretty routinely.

You're right...that is a crappy example.

But thanks for your clarification. The OP was really asking about 5x versus say 3x. You answered that with your latest post.

I agree, when you start looking at 2, 2.5 or 3x scopes comparatively, it is important to look at the FOV.

If however, you are contemplating 5x vs 2x, FOV discussion really isn't necessary.

Of course, this is all IMO.