What magnification when pulling the trigger?

[Brandon.miller.4]

My point is that many hunters think they need more magnification than really necessary

I agree

he effectively fired 70 straight bullseyes at 1000 yards with an iron sighted 1903 Springfield service rifle

That is quite a feat. However that is one man, and technology combined with the necessary practice makes it a possibility for many. I am not capable of it myself but that doesn't mean others arent and how they choose to hunt is up to them!

 

[TaperPin]

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.

Our 50’s is sure a time of adjustment isn’t it! Bifocals, sore joints, overall sharpness of vision. Lol

This long range trend in optics isnt as radical as it seems at first with all the tactical looking gigantic wind age and elevation knobs - what most everyone has been using isn’t all that different from the 4x12 and 6x18 varmint scopes I grew up with. It seemed there was something I was missing, but it makes sense if a 3x9 is good for 400 yards, a 6x18 isn’t over scoped for 800 yards.

 

[TaperPin]

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!

I have to admit, reading Jack O Connor as a kid has impacted me all these years later. My first rifle was a 270 and 4x scope. Although I had a 4x12 and 3x9, eventually a deer rifle in 6x just seemed right and kept me close enough to those roots to feel good about it.

 

[TaperPin]

Carry on 6, shoot wherever I have a good fov


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s most likely what I’ll do.Q

 

[TaperPin]

Thinking through all this brought out memories from 35 years ago when 4x12 and 6x18 scopes were all the rage with varmint hunters of the day. Of course those had 1” tubes. Some had target turrets and some didn’t - unless it was a Leupold rarely did anyone trust dialling a scope, and often those weren’t that great. The hot varmint set up with the coyote guys was 22-250 and straight 12x without target knobs. Deer hunters didn’t trust the big variables 3 decades ago since they didn’t hold a zero very well - I won’t complain a bit if a scope weighs over 20 ounces if they beefed them up enough to be durable, and judging by the excellent scope drop tests some are doing quite well.

I guess, the more things change the more they stay the same - we’re just putting varmint scopes on our deer rifles now

Thanks to everybody - it really has helped a lot, even though it sounds like such a simple concept, the current crop of scopes and shooting styles really has some of us thrown for a loop. Thinking in terms of MOA or RADS rather than inches of adjustment is next - it will be hilarious the first time I call out a wind and elevation solution and the jaws of all the kids hit the dirt. Then I’ll smoke em with a fancy new varmint scope! *chuckle*

 

[TaperPin]

I often wondered what the reason for 34mm tubes was - then I read how March simply adds those extra 4mm to the thickness of the tube. Do the other companies do that as well?

 

[Reed104R]

I have to admit, reading Jack O Connor as a kid has impacted me all these years later. My first rifle was a 270 and 4x scope. Although I had a 4x12 and 3x9, eventually a deer rifle in 6x just seemed right and kept me close enough to those roots to feel good about it.

One thing worth mentioning might be that variable power scopes lacked reliability in the old days compared to fixed power scopes. I'm not sure what's going on today. I read alot of horror stories on this forum about modern scope reliability. I like the .270 as well, but wonder if it would have survived had it not been for O'Connor. I think there are better choices in the same arena. .280 Remington comes to mind.

 

[Leverwalker]

Carry a fixed 2.5 x 20 on my Marlin 45-70, but otherwise I hunt with 4X at most (my Ruger .338 WM, my son on his Savage 30-06 as well).

 

[TaperPin]

One thing worth mentioning might be that variable power scopes lacked reliability in the old days compared to fixed power scopes. I'm not sure what's going on today. I read alot of horror stories on this forum about modern scope reliability. I like the .270 as well, but wonder if it would have survived had it not been for O'Connor. I think there are better choices in the same arena. .280 Remington comes to mind.

It is odd that the 280 never gained the following it should have. Maybe with the success Remington had with the 7 mag it didn’t invest in as much marketing to the gun writers as it could have.

Its hard to keep up with all the new cartridges, and so many duplicate what’s already out there that I have little interest in the ballistics of the latest greatest.

 

[jc_at_aq]

My scope is a 6-24x, but I really only use the 24x for target shooting and occasionally for triple-checking that an animal is legal by measuring antler length using the MOA ticks in the reticle . I want to be able to see my impact and track the animal after the shot, so I'm usually zoomed to the point where I can see 3 or 4 times the length of the animal's body on all sides in the FOV.

 

[RifleDisciple]

I like a little magnification, even at 100yd. I usually set at the lowest setting, 2-4x, and turn it up a bit for a precise aim point. That lands around 6-7 power most times. I am working on prioritizing field of veiw lately, but I think I still like the 6x power range for 100yd shots. At that range I don't need followup shots with long action cartridges on whitetail deer.

I have never hunted beyond 150yd yet, but I could imagine I would be at max mag for anything over 200yd. My 3 hunting rifles all have max mag at 14 or 15x and are all SFP, so I would want accurate holdovers past 200.

Hunting hogs with LPVO on AR-15's has made me more aware that I don't need 10x mag for 100yd shots. But even still I turn them up to max to make the shot many times. Though my ability for followup shots on the hogs is limited since I'm hunting small clearings in the brush. If I have a good vantage point I'll turn it down a touch for better FOV and potential followup shots. Good practice for the future if I ever get to go after an Elk that may need more than 1 bullet.