What magnification when pulling the trigger?

[TaperPin]

I’m the first to admit to not being familiar with the latest high magnification scopes, and for years it was possible to avoid the topic, but everyone has them so it’s time to see how they are being used and give one a try so I can keep up with the kids and nephews. For a decade I could smoke them with a 6x, but those days are over. Lol

In actual hunting what do you dial it to for a long shot? Are you guys setting it at a mid magnification for walking around and mid ranges, or low magnification and cranking it up? When practicing from field positions what magnification is used, or is common to vary the magnification?

What kind of accuracy improvement do you see from the low to high magnifications?

 

[nobody]

General rule of thumb: 1x Magnification for every 100 yards of distance, shooting a mildly recoiling rifle, while still wanting to see your impacts through the optic. I always seemed subconsciously to just do this, and then I read it online last year and noticed how true that seemed to hold for me personally.

If you're shooting your 338 Ultra-Louden-Boomer, then you'll want even less. But I've never worried about it because I don't shoot rifles like that.

 

[BBob]

I set mine at 6ish while carrying it around. Crank up when setting up for longer distance. Max magnification used might vary depending on conditions. Same for turret, adjust for 250ish yards (rifle dependent) and final adjust when setting up for an actual shot.

 

[Dennis]

I usually carry either a 2.5-10 or 3.5-18 scope on my hunting rifles and set them on 4 power but can adjust to 2.5 /3.5 in tight cover and 6 power in open country. Always go to max power for long shots/ windage holds to have correct windage or vertical hash marks on second plane scope.

 

[wapitibob]

I’m in the low 20’s but my rifle hunting is in open country.

 

[General RE LEE]

I have a 3-18x50 but rarely crank it more than 4-5 power when shooting game out to 400 yards. BTW I practice with it on low power at the range as well.

 

[nosajnh]

If there is a chance you could have a surprise shot inside 100 yds you want to keep it on the lowest power walking around and dial it up as necessary.

 

[Macintosh]

Depends on what you are shooting and how precise you want to be. The adage I have heard a lot is 1x per 100 yards for general use, 2-3x/100 yards for precision. Regardless of where I am hunting, my scope lives at lowest magnification and only gets turned up as needed when game is in crosshairs. The low magnification is more important to me than the max magnification, becasue it's more important for the vast majority of my hunting shots. A throw lever is habit for me now and I find very helpful for zooming in and out while settling into a shot. 200 yards x 2x/100=4x, but that deer in the scope is awfully small to my old eyes and I cant pick out twigs in the way. I tend to want a little more magnification in the woods than I might on the prairie, in order to pick out a clear shooting lane, and then I'll back off the magnification to keep the critter in the scope to see where it disappears to. Really high magnification is far more useable on a heavy gun. It might be easy to spot your shots through a 30 or 36x scope on a 20-ish lb PRS gun shooting a pipsqueak cartridge...not so much with an 8lb hunting rifle. For me, my lightish guns, and the way I hunt, even with failing 50+ year old eyes a scope with more than 12x magnification isnt helpful, and may even be harmful if I want to see what happens after I pull the trigger. 10x-12x seems about right to me on a unhurried 400-500 yard shot on a deer-sized critter. Probably excessive for most of my hunting, but I also appreciate it at the range on paper and practicing at longer range.

 

[roymunson]

amazing how accurate you can be zoomed out. I always zoomed way in thinking I get a better look at the animal and target, but this last weekend, probably mostly due to luck, I was using my scope at 10x out to 600 yards and doing surprisingly well.

 

[ElPollo]

A friend of mine says he likes to see the hair he is trying to hit. I think it’s more important to be able to get on target quickly, to spot your shots through the scope, and to see what the animal does after the shot.

 

[General RE LEE]

Let's not forget another benefit of shooting at lower power. There is less perceivable reticle shake. I was shooting a small plate at 1000 yards at 9x yesterday and at that range, 9x and my reticle was rock steady. I had just as many hits vs had my scope been cranked all the way up.

 

[roymunson]

Let's not forget another benefit of shooting at lower power. There is less perceivable reticle shake. I was shooting a small plate at 1000 yards at 9x yesterday and at that range, 9x and my reticle was rock steady. I had just as many hits vs had my scope been cranked all the way up.

i thought I was really doing it at 600 and my 10x. But I hit it...

 

[SloppyJ]

I walk around on the lowest setting, normally 3 or 4. If I'm testing loads I'm using as much scope as possible. If I had a long shot I'm probably 10x12 in the field.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I rarely, if ever, shoot below 10 power regardless of the distance.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

I sit anywhere from 1.5x to 2x per 100 yards. Carrying around I'm on 4x

 

[Reed104R]

Jack O'Connor said he never saw a big game shot a 4X scope couldn't handle, and I think he and Finn Aagaard both agreed a 2.5X scope would handle most big game shots. My primary big game rifle wears a 2.75X scope and has never failed me. Some good advice in this thread. Fast target acquisition is paramount when walking. The lower the power the better!

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

Jack O'Connor said he never saw a big game shot a 4X scope couldn't handle, and I think he and Finn Aagaard both agreed a 2.5X scope would handle most big game shots. My primary big game rifle wears a 2.75X scope and has never failed me. Some good advice in this thread. Fast target acquisition is paramount when walking. The lower the power the better!

Jack O'Connor would probably not believe animals could be effectively killed at 1000 yards yet here we are.

 

[General RE LEE]

This thread brings into question the FFP vs SFP reticle debate. Personally, I bought a Leupold Mark5 HD 3-18 and immediately sold it. Beautiful scope but reticle was useless at low power unless illuminated. I don’t want my hunt to rely on a battery.

 

[Reed104R]

Jack O'Connor would probably not believe animals could be effectively killed at 1000 yards yet here we are.

It's probably a good thing George Farr wasn't in disbelief at Wimbledon back in 1921 when at age 62, he effectively fired 70 straight bullseyes at 1000 yards with an iron sighted 1903 Springfield service rifle loaded with service ammo. Long range range shooting is nothing new. O'Connor chose to operate within his own ethical boundaries. Technology has certainly stretched the boundaries a bit. My point is that many hunters think they need more magnification than really necessary and think they need to dial their scopes to the target distance when the proper use of point blank range would suffice. If the shot is beyond these parameters, perhaps the hunter should move closer to the animal. This is not a new concept either! I call it hunting.

 

[amassi]

Carry on 6, shoot wherever I have a good fov


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk