Too Much Magnification?

FISMA

Is anyone out there baffled by the size of scopes out there being used by the new generation of shooters in the hunting sports?

I have been hunting for a while and have come to the conclusion that a fixed 4x magnification is all that you need in deer hunting (30mm bell).

Here's the general rule: big game - low magnification: you're shooting not too far away (max 400y) and will get a follow up shot, wider field of view necessary. Small game-big magnification, if you miss the first, they're gone.

I was watching a show the other night about the Battle of Fallujah. The sniper was taking 800 yard shots with a fixed 8x magnification. I think the scope was a Schmidt & Bender. If that's what can be done with an 8x @ 800y, how much more magnification could you want in deer hunting?

Also, I am not sure about the bell sizes I am seeing with the new shooters. I like a 30mm as opposed to anything. The smaller bell gets the scope closer to barrel and on the bullet trajectory. Although, my general purpose scope is a 3-9x40mm. It drops deer within 400y and takes foxes (9x) at the same distance.

True, a bigger lens will gather more light and for those rare overcast dreary days, mornings, or evenings, they are worth it. My personal preference is to sacrifice light gathering ability for closeness to the bore.

So am I alone here in my thinking? Do you see a general trend with the new shooters towards over-scoping their kit? Note, I have purposely stayed away from competition shooters.

Perhaps, it is just the relatively low cost of scopes today? Why not get that 3-9x40 Burris for under 150. The cost and range of scopes today is amazing even compare to just ten years ago, let alone 20.

FWIW, I have also noticed that many shooters, as they gain experience and range time, tend to go down from the original scope, as opposed to up. That is, start off with the bigger 8-12x42 or 12-24x50 and end up with a 3-9x40 or less.

So what is your optimum magnification with respect to distance?

johngalway

8x for me. Bought my scope before I had much of a clue, so I've a 5.5-22x that pretty much stays at 8x lol. Take the odd shot at 12 or 14x but that's it. Something like 3-12x would be ideal for me.

It wasn't me!

I think a fixed 8x is hard to go wrong with for just about any stalking, though lower would be nice for close in work. My own is a 4-16x50 Schmidt and Bender, but I'd love something a wee bit smaller, like a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 or similar. 3-12x or 4-16x is perfect for all varieties of shots, which could be tricky neck shots to comfortable body shots, with a bit of extra magnification for zeroing, which saves either a spotting scope or walks to and from the target. When I'm just wandering around I tend to keep the scope set on about 6x, and I'd be comfortable shooting at just about any distance I'm happy to shoot animals with that level of magnification. So while I'm definitely guilty of what you say in terms of magnification, I think the larger variables definitely have a place as a utility scope (even for whacking clays or paper out to 300 I think about 10x is about right, so you don't see too much movement), but you tend not to use mad magnification for hunting anyway, so it doesn't matter much.

dan17

ya i use a fixed 8x56 schmidt and bender. find it perfect. althought it has a big front lense but do lots of night shooting on the red fellas. capable of shots on foxes at up to 250+ yrds so cant comlain one bit. a little pricey but definately woth it.

Tackleberrywho

I'd have to say 6 I would prefer than 8.
I had a 2.5-10 Nikon which I kept normally @ 6

I have a 5.5-22 on my stalking rifle and I keep it at 5.5
I have an 8-32 on my varmint rifle and I find 8 is a bit fussy once light starts to fade.

I do feel it is a lot to do with the person.
Some people can focus better at night than others.

Best scope I used was a Zeiss 6-24x72 Serious in low light at 10 mag or more

reddeer1

Good point, 12 magnificantion is plenty to shoot most game quarry, some shooters like the whole 'sniper' image when out hunting.

clivej

I have 6-24x50

you can't look for it if you aint got it

jwshooter

stalking forestry i would leave it on 6 power on the hill usually i shoot off 16 power .with my swaro 4-16x50

i dont body shoot as a norm and the extra magnification allows me to place my shot .

my first descent scope was a 6x42 S/B with a A7 ret . there all most a thing of the past now .

pedroeibar1

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I'd have to say 6 I would prefer than 8.
I had a 2.5-10 Nikon which I kept normally @ 6
and
Best scope I used was a Zeiss 6-24x72

I'm curious. Excuse the direct questions (I'm 'larnin meself' about scopes at the mom)
(a) excluding their top-end scopes, why does Nikon have a poor rep for scopes (OK, maybe 'mediocre' is more correct), when their camera optics are highly regarded?
(b) why did you get rid of the Nikon?

The front of that Zeiss must have looked like a jamjar:eek:
Tnx
P.

Tackleberrywho

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I'm curious. Excuse the direct questions (I'm 'larnin meself' about scopes at the mom)
(a) excluding their top-end scopes, why does Nikon have a poor rep for scopes (OK, maybe 'mediocre' is more correct), when their camera optics are highly regarded?
(b) why did you get rid of the Nikon?

The front of that Zeiss must have looked like a jamjar:eek:
Tnx
P.

Nikon have scopes and optics made in China, and some in americia.
Nikon Precision europe make there high end stuff.

(b) the Nightforce scope did more for me than the Nikon, the Nikon had a very thick reticle good at boiler house shots in low light but not so good at head shots.
The Nightforce scope I use iis 5.5-22x56 the Nikon was 2.5-10x56
I personally prefer higher mag of my target.
Some of my shooting of deer is on barley fields where a 200-300 yard shot is required.

I do not like shooting at some thing i cannot see.
I use Nikon all the time in work, however their scopes are not as good as Nightforce.
The Nightforce has an illum reticle and MOA derivations on the reticle.

The Nikon had a big heavy reticle which blocked a lot of the target.

Many thousands love Nikon scopes, i would recommend them if you are on a budget of around €500 as many Nikon will be picked up for that.

The Zeiss was quiet awkward in the 72mm bell.
And very expensive, I had a trial of it for a week, i left it back and got the Nightforce instead.

All scopes over €500 are good, some are better suited to different situations.

As my shooting is very varied, I like to have a scope with good vary power. Some guys shoot fixed 4x, so it's a personal thing really

pedroeibar1

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Nikon have scopes and optics made in China, and some in americia.
Nikon Precision europe make there high end stuff.

(b) the Nightforce scope did more for me than the Nikon, the Nikon had a very thick reticle good at boiler house shots in low light but not so good at head shots.
The Nightforce scope I use iis 5.5-22x56 the Nikon was 2.5-10x56
I personally prefer higher mag of my target.
Some of my shooting of deer is on barley fields where a 200-300 yard shot is required.

I do not like shooting at some thing i cannot see.
I use Nikon all the time in work, however their scopes are not as good as Nightforce.
The Nightforce has an illum reticle and MOA derivations on the reticle.

The Nikon had a big heavy reticle which blocked a lot of the target.

Many thousands love Nikon scopes, i would recommend them if you are on a budget of around €500 as many Nikon will be picked up for that.

The Zeiss was quiet awkward in the 72mm bell.
And very expensive, I had a trial of it for a week, i left it back and got the Nightforce instead.

All scopes over €500 are good, some are better suited to different situations.

As my shooting is very varied, I like to have a scope with good vary power. Some guys shoot fixed 4x, so it's a personal thing really

Thanks Tack,
I've yet to graduate to something bigger than a semi-auto .22 with a 4x Leupold. I'm seriously considering a Sako hunter/bavaria in .308 and something like a 3-10x40 (maybe 50) for the top. Probably have to limit scope to a grand - ish. Where I hope to get my shooting perms will be shooting mainly inside 200 yrds due to terrain. Also, I still have sika coming into my back garden, need to get the 35mms developed/printed before I can post pics. Back fence is 40m from bedroom window;).
Rs
P.

Tackleberrywho

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Thanks Tack,
I've yet to graduate to something bigger than a semi-auto .22 with a 4x Leupold. I'm seriously considering a Sako hunter/bavaria in .308 and something like a 3-10x40 (maybe 50) for the top. Probably have to limit scope to a grand - ish. Where I hope to get my shooting perms will be shooting mainly inside 200 yrds due to terrain. Also, I still have sika coming into my back garden, need to get the 35mms developed/printed before I can post pics. Back fence is 40m from bedroom window;).
Rs
P.

The Nikon is super clear at low power at the backgarden range.
http://www.wcoyoteoutdoors.com/Nikon-Monarch-Gold-2.5-!0-X-56SF-Riflescope-6620.html

I shot my first head shot deer with it. It took me 45 mins before I took the shot, on the ground 1st November 2006.
I had not the confidence to go for a head shot before than on a deer.

It did make up my mind that I wanted more mag as I like to be able to clearly make out the head if shooting the head.

The Nikon is broad reticles for clear visibility of the reticle in low light.
I used a swarofski 6-24x50 before that.
It had the mag for long range, but was not as good as the Nikon in low light.

So then I went to NF to get the best combo to suit my requirements.

You will not go wrong with Sako, although Tikka(sister company) are a more affordable offering. Not as fancy but just as accurate.

The .308 is a great round.
I see the sako comes in a huge variety of rounds.
http://www.sako.fi/pdf/specs/85Bavarian.pdf
.270 .308 6.5x55 .25/06 or 7mm-08 are all great choices in that rifle for deer.
the 7mm-08 is a knecked down .308 an amazing round as it has less felt recoil.
the .270 and .25-06 are the flatter shooters of the group.

The .308 is shorter than .25-06 and .270 but it is fatter and prob has the cheapest ammo &/or greatest availability of ammo of all.

The Sako Bavaria looks to nice to be dragged through the bushes though lol

cavan shooter

for what its worth, I recently bought a 4x32 Nikko Stirling (mildot) for my 22 lr and I am absolutely over the moon and can shoot rabbits and vermin out to 100 yards no problem.

I have a 8x56 on my hornet and find it excellent, have to say that I'm not too pushed on vary power anymore for hunting. Especially if you look at the range I'm shooting over.

Tackleberrywho

cavan shooter wrote: »

for what its worth, I recently bought a 4x32 Nikko Stirling (mildot) for my 22 lr and I am absolutely over the moon and can shoot rabbits and vermin out to 100 yards no problem.

I have a 8x56 on my hornet and find it excellent, have to say that I'm not too pushed on vary power anymore for hunting. Especially if you look at the range I'm shooting over.

Thats it in a nut shell. If range is not an issue, I'd go with a big front bell and low mag.

100yards or less 8 is great fixed 6 would be slightly better at night foxing, but the 56mm 8x are not to bad.

The first scope I had was a 1.5-4, can't even remember the name of it. It had no bell at all.

It's all what the user requirements are really rabbits at 50 any scope will do, so too with foxes.

underthetumb

i have a s/b 6 by 42, find it great. was goin to upgrade for coming season but funds wont allow. maybe santa might give me a dig out. dont know bout the quenn tho,