More zoom or more practice???

Robotack

My my rifles (.17 & .243) are fitted with max x9 scopes. They are both quality scopes but of late I'm craving more zoom... should I resist?

I like to head / neck shoot deer and foxes alike. But at ranges beyind 150ish yards I find that instead of aiming at said particular body part, I'm aiming at the general body type area like a big grey blob in the distance.

So I reckon I must need more zoom. But then I look to US web sites and see that they are obsessed with low zoom as opposed to the high zoom European made glass. And snipers use fixed 10 power to shoot lads a mile away. So do I just need range time or do any of you have a view on the merits of high zoom.

silverfox1

Robotack wrote: »

My my rifles (.17 & .243) are fitted with max x9 scopes. They are both quality scopes but of late I'm craving more zoom... should I resist?

I like to head / neck shoot deer and foxes alike. But at ranges beyind 150ish yards I find that instead of aiming at said particular body part, I'm aiming at the general body type area like a big grey blob in the distance.

So I reckon I must need more zoom. But then I look to US web sites and see that they are obsessed with low zoom as opposed to the high zoom European made glass. And snipers use fixed 10 power to shoot lads a mile away. So do I just need range time or do any of you have a view on the merits of high zoom.

Stick with what you have I think. I've wasted a load of money in the past on scopes with high mag and target turrets and the like. Besides the odd bit of messing around shooting targets and stuff I never used the mag. They always let me down in low light too.

deerhunter1

silverfox1 wrote: »

Stick with what you have I think. I've wasted a load of money in the past on scopes with high mag and target turrets and the like. Besides the odd bit of messing around shooting targets and stuff I never used the mag. They always let me down in low light too.

+1

cookimonster

Rule of thumb, small targets more zoom, big targets less zoom. Yes your right our cousins across the great pound use smaller scopes then us 3-9 x 40 ish for deer etc. But for longer shooting for coyotes they use bigger glass with more zoom.
After years of bunny busting with a .22 using a 3-9 x 40 at 55 to 75 yards, I recently changed over to a bigger optic with high zoom and side parallex ' ya de ya de ya', and now enjoy shooting out to 150 metres onto steel plate.
My old scope 3-9x40 is on my .243 and my longest shot is not much more than 150m. I shoot 100gr and know my bullet drop out to 200m so give or take an inch or two up or down I know I can neck a deer or put one cleanly in the chest of a fox. But a longer ranges I will push the stalk or take a boiler room shot or even fore go a shot in that order.
Heard a good one the other day, remember their telescopic 'sights' not telescopes.

clivej

I have a Bushnell 4200 Elite 6-24x50 on both my .223 varmint and .308 stalking rifle. I use it at 8 ish power to acquire and get on the target and then I can turn it up if I want or need to.

If you ain't got it then you can't use it.

I had a fixed x10 on the 22lr and that was all I required for rabbit head shots out to 130y. I could see all I needed to see with it.

My advice is to get a higher powered scope if you need to shoot at a greater distance 'cos your only miss a clean kill overwise.

Just my opinion

Cass

Forget the sniper thing. Different skill set, and they are trained for years with only one purpose in mind.

Your scope has fixed parallax which lets it down past 150 - 180 yards. At 300 yards your movement can cause a miss quite easily. Like clivej i use up to 24 power scopes on my rifles. Start on a lower power, and i have the option of the higher power for the longer shots. Meaning i can shoot happily all day at out to 150 yards on 8 - 10 power then if the situation calls for it zoom up to 24 power, and take a very accurate shot out to 600 yards. Now that have never arisen with my longest shot (hunting) at 300 yards or so.

If i were you i would stick with the scope on the .17, but for the .243 go for something in the 4-16 to 6-24 range. I'm of the mindset that i'd rather have it than need it.


All that being said. You can have a March 60 power scope, but practice is part and parcel of shooting. So go for the new, higher powered scope, but keep up with your practice.;)

silverfox1

Cass wrote: »

Forget the sniper thing. Different skill set, and they are trained for years with only one purpose in mind.

Your scope has fixed parallax which lets it down past 150 - 180 yards. At 300 yards your movement can cause a miss quite easily. Like clivej i use up to 24 power scopes on my rifles. Start on a lower power, and i have the option of the higher power for the longer shots. Meaning i can shoot happily all day at out to 150 yards on 8 - 10 power then if the situation calls for it zoom up to 24 power, and take a very accurate shot out to 600 yards. Now that have never arisen with my longest shot (hunting) at 300 yards or so.

If i were you i would stick with the scope on the .17, but for the .243 go for something in the 4-16 to 6-24 range. I'm of the mindset that i'd rather have it than need it.


All that being said. You can have a March 60 power scope, but practice is part and parcel of shooting. So go for the new, higher powered scope, but keep up with your practice.;)

If you do end up getting the new scope save up and buy a good one, one of the top European ones. Nothing as bad as a high powered pile of ****e.

Cass

I'm not actually buying one.

In case you quoted my post just to reply then i'd say yeah, try and buy as best you can.

Some of the cheaper brands of scopes do the job just fine, and when you are not looking for crystal clarity at 1,000 yards they do their job perfectly. However with times as they are sometimes the Zeiss, S&B, etc is just not possible. Also i've found that for some of the good Euro scopes you get a trade of in terms of price -v- mag power. Fixed S&B's can cost more than double some of the "cheaper" branded variable powered scopes. So while you have great glass you are no better off than what you already have in your 3-9.

For up to €400 - I'd go for Hawke Sidewinder30 6-24.
For up to €700 - I'd go for Bushnell Eite series (4200, etc.)
After €700 you really have your choice of whatever scope you want.

Second hand you have more options for the same money. So S&B, Zeiss, etc. can be gotten for under €600.


However you will not get "out of it" on the cheap. Do and you may find yourself, as said above, with something that is little more than a paper weight.

silverfox1

Cass wrote: »

I'm not actually buying one.

In case you quoted my post just to reply then i'd say yeah, try and buy as best you can.

Some of the cheaper brands of scopes do the job just fine, and when you are not looking for crystal clarity at 1,000 yards they do their job perfectly. However with times as they are sometimes the Zeiss, S&B, etc is just not possible. Also i've found that for some of the good Euro scopes you get a trade of in terms of price -v- mag power. Fixed S&B's can cost more than double some of the "cheaper" branded variable powered scopes. So while you have great glass you are no better off than what you already have in your 3-9.

For up to €400 - I'd go for Hawke Sidewinder30 6-24.
For up to €700 - I'd go for Bushnell Eite series (4200, etc.)
After €700 you really have your choice of whatever scope you want.

Second hand you have more options for the same money. So S&B, Zeiss, etc. can be gotten for under €600.


However you will not get "out of it" on the cheap. Do and you may find yourself, as said above, with something that is little more than a paper weight.

Sorry cass hit reply to the wrong quote meant that for the op.

Cass

Thought so. :cool:

Robotack

cookimonster wrote: »

Rule of thumb, small targets more zoom, big targets less zoom. Yes your right our cousins across the great pound use smaller scopes then us 3-9 x 40 ish for deer etc. But for longer shooting for coyotes they use bigger glass with more zoom.
After years of bunny busting with a .22 using a 3-9 x 40 at 55 to 75 yards, I recently changed over to a bigger optic with high zoom and side parallex ' ya de ya de ya', and now enjoy shooting out to 150 metres onto steel plate.
My old scope 3-9x40 is on my .243 and my longest shot is not much more than 150m. I shoot 100gr and know my bullet drop out to 200m so give or take an inch or two up or down I know I can neck a deer or put one cleanly in the chest of a fox. But a longer ranges I will push the stalk or take a boiler room shot or even fore go a shot in that order.
Heard a good one the other day, remember their telescopic 'sights' not telescopes.

Thanks for the opinions folks. Two different schools of thought here. Cass, I too would prefer to get more zoom on the bigger rifle as it's capable of shooting so much further. But the logic of the quote above would suggest that the smaller species I shoot with the .17 would make a case for upgrading it... I cannot afford to upgrade both unfortunately

Still though, this year I've been stalking some very open ground with a spot that you simply cannot stalk in any closer than 225 min to 285+ yards depending on where the deer are standing. I've been passing up shots at those ranges since a rotten missed shot earlier in the season. This is primarily because I simply cannot properly see the animal I'm trying to shoot.

Cass

Robotack wrote: »

But the logic of the quote above would suggest that the smaller species I shoot with the .17 would make a case for upgrading it... I cannot afford to upgrade both unfortunately
.

Not to contradict cookimonster, but it's caliber respective. A .17 has no where the same range as the .243. So if you had a scope capable of shooting out to 1,000 yards what good is it on a rifle that is least effective after 150 or so yards.

So keep the ,17, and upgrade the .243. Plus the .243 does the job of both whereas the ,17 can only do the job of the ,17.

cookimonster

Contradict away, sure it would not be boards with out it.
The school of thought here is relative target size. The kill zone on a deer either neck or heart / lung is roughly a 5 inch square. A .243 striking a fox square on in the fore quarter is a mortal wound. Whereas a rabbits head can be less then 3 inches round. The higher zoom will give you a detailed placement of the point of aim, but remember with higher magnification comes image shake.
At ranges up to 150 - 200 yards your point of aim on a deer will be with in this 5 inch squares, put a round through any point of the square and the jobs done. Smaller POA, low scope mag and large reticles can very easily add up to misses or poor shoot placement.
I tried an aim point style sight at 100yards shooting clays, its very doable but the red dot covers the standard clay completly and IMO if you can burst a clay at this distance you'll take a large animal with the same set up. But try shooting the same set up at the same sized paper targets and you'll find the grouping very very open.
This train of thought lends itself to the argument of more mag power for longer shots, but remember try not to shoot out beyound the effectiveness of the round. 'If you can see you can hit' is not always the realistic approach.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

Contradict away, sure it would not be boards with out it.

When i say i don't want to contradict you i mean it is not my intent, as i believe you are right. I only wanted to add to it by saying about the effectiveness of the round. So no point having a hugely powerful scope on a .17 that cannot shoot a quarter the distance the scope can range to. You actually said it yourself;

............... but remember try not to shoot out beyond the effectiveness of the round. 'If you can see you can hit' is not always the realistic approach.

See. :cool:

Robotack

'If you can see you can hit' is not always the realistic approach.

You're dead right... My problem is the other way around. The rifle can shoot way farther than I can effectively see.

Even on x9 a 300 yard adult sika is just a little blob in the scope... Looks like I'm in the market for a replacement!

silverfox1

Robotack wrote: »

Even on x9 a 300 yard adult sika is just a little blob in the scope... Looks like I'm in the market for a replacement!

If you are going to be shooting at deer at long range put a lot of practice in to make sure your shot placement is perfect. The 243 is loosing a lot of power at that distance. There is nothing as bad as loosing a deer you know you've hit.

cookimonster

I think this is down to a few things; personal choice, hunting conditions and the shooters ability.

Long range shooting requires good optics and good skill sets, it also requires the right caliber.
Each calibre has its effective range hunting and IMO that range is far shorter than most people believe. On the range and in the right conditions the shootabilty of the caliber can be pushed out way beyond this distance.
I agree with silver fox practice makes perfect

This is by no means aimed, pun, at any one, but there is another skill set that should be honed. That is 'hunting', modern firearms, ammo and optics can allow us to shoot out over long ranges, but hunting is hunting and shooting is shooting both worlds apart

zeissman

I use a 4.5-14x50 scope on my stalking rifle and think its ideal.
I tried my 6-24x56 zeiss but it it just made the rifle heavier and unbalanced.
If you dont think 9 power is enough for you then you should go ahead and get something bigger.

lb1981

zeissman wrote: »

I use a 4.5-14x50 scope on my stalking rifle and think its ideal.
I tried my 6-24x56 zeiss but it it just made the rifle heavier and unbalanced.
If you dont think 9 power is enough for you then you should go ahead and get something bigger.

4.5-14x50 is ideal with parrellex adjustment , i normally keep the scope on between 10-12 and then adjust the parrallex to the target.Good clear glass will not haze up at the longer distance.If it is a low budget scope with high zoom your after then a hawke sidewinder is a good option , i picked up a second hand one on here for small enough money and have been impressed with it,it is on the .17.It is nowhere near my s&b but for 1/8th of the cost it is not that bad,it is a bit on the heavy side but with all the bells and whistles on the scope you have to expect that.

It wasn't me!

I personally like low magnification at the bottom end, and pretty modest magnification at the top. 2.5-10x is about perfect for me. 10x is more than enough to resolve on head or neck out to further than I have any intention of taking those shots. For chest shooting, it's plenty for far further than I intend to shoot at animals. At 500 yards, 10x is the same as shooting iron sights at fifty, which I think most would feel is absolutely trivial. At the same time, 2.5x is nice and handy for shorter ranges, good field of view and not so much shake that it becomes awkward. I've got a 4-16x50 at the moment and it's heavy, bulky and while 4x is okay, I'd rather have less at the bottom end, personally, and have no use for 16x at the top, on deer sized animals. Shooting at coloured dots on paper at the range, it might not be so perfect, but that's just for practice.

silverfox1

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I personally like low magnification at the bottom end, and pretty modest magnification at the top. 2.5-10x is about perfect for me. 10x is more than enough to resolve on head or neck out to further than I have any intention of taking those shots. For chest shooting, it's plenty for far further than I intend to shoot at animals. At 500 yards, 10x is the same as shooting iron sights at fifty, which I think most would feel is absolutely trivial. At the same time, 2.5x is nice and handy for shorter ranges, good field of view and not so much shake that it becomes awkward. I've got a 4-16x50 at the moment and it's heavy, bulky and while 4x is okay, I'd rather have less at the bottom end, personally, and have no use for 16x at the top, on deer sized animals. Shooting at coloured dots on paper at the range, it might not be so perfect, but that's just for practice.

+1 on all the above. I don't normally turn down the scope that low though. All my scopes are set at 10x and very rarely change. More often than not you won't get time to adjust the scope for deer anyway.

It wasn't me!

silverfox1 wrote: »

+1 on all the above. I don't normally turn down the scope that low though. All my scopes are set at 10x and very rarely change. More often than not you won't get time to adjust the scope for deer anyway.

That's exactly my thinking, to be honest. If it's far enough away to require high magnification, I'll have time to turn it up. If it's close enough to require low magnification though, chances of getting to turn it down are pretty slim. I once couldn't pick up a deer in low light at 100 yards or so because I'd left the scope at 16x after zeroing. If I'd had it down at 4-6x, it would have been easy enough, and if I could carry it at 2.5x with a nice, medium thickness reticle, I'd be delighted.

4200fps

I use 10 power at the very least on head shots on deer under 150 yards and up to 20ish if past but seldom would take long shots on deer. I mainly have it at 16 power all the time for clean head shots. A deers head at 150 yards is quite small and at 9 power it be like shooting an apple. You will hit using 9 power but its a small target. Try practice on turnups at them ranges giving yourself 5-10 seconds or so to take the shot. Give you an idea of what your facing. They don't stay still for long

Feisar

What brand of scope had a deer looking like a blob at 300m at 9 power?

I'd give up zoom in favor of optical quality any day of the week.

It wasn't me!

Feisar wrote: »

What brand of scope had a deer looking like a blob at 300m at 9 power?

I'd give up zoom in favor of optical quality any day of the week.

I did wonder about that. At 9 power, the deer would look about 35 yards away. Now, I understand that some people are shortsighted, but at that distance?!

Feisar

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I did wonder about that. At 9 power, the deer would look about 35 yards away. Now, I understand that some people are shortsighted, but at that distance?!

Well was it a foggy overcast day? Did the shooters breath fog up the rear lens? Is the scopes seal damaged and allowing moisture in? Or was there glare from the sun while the deer was in darkness along the edge of a forestry.

I shot a deer at 270 yards this year on an overcast day with a Nightforce 8-32x56. Now I can't remember what the zoom was exactly at but I think it was around 14ish.
On the same day I met a lad out with a Schmidt and Bender 3-12x42 Klassik and couldn't get over the brightness/clarity of the scope. I reckon it was way ahead of the Nightforce.

A lad wouldn't leave much behind him with one of them.

Cass

Makes me laugh how people are scoffed at for wanting higher zoom as though the "traditionalist" low power should be used, and is the default correct choice. Sure why not go all the way and tell them they should be using iron sights.


I like high power, and use it when i can. From my years of target shooting i can adjust a scope almost instantly. Plus this crap about leaving it on higher mag, etc. Never done it. I walk with the scope on low power, zoom in, if and when necessary, then immediately drop it down to low power again for stalking, scanning, or the unexpected close shot.

Simply because lower powered scopes were favoured before does not mean they are the correct or better choice. It's a personal opinion. So just as people don't like, understand or use high power i cannot be arsed with a scope that makes me work harder to clearly see my target, and the point i wish to hit.

silverfox1

Cass wrote: »

Makes me laugh how people are scoffed at for wanting higher zoom as though the "traditionalist" low power should be used, and is the default correct choice. Sure why not go all the way and tell them they should be using iron sights.


I like high power, and use it when i can. From my years of target shooting i can adjust a scope almost instantly. Plus this crap about leaving it on higher mag, etc. Never done it. I walk with the scope on low power, zoom in, if and when necessary, then immediately drop it down to low power again for stalking, scanning, or the unexpected close shot.

Simply because lower powered scopes were favoured before does not mean they are the correct or better choice. It's a personal opinion. So just as people don't like, understand or use high power i cannot be arsed with a scope that makes me work harder to clearly see my target, and the point i wish to hit.

Hard to argue with that. If it works for you carry on. The op will just have to try guess how often he will be shooting past 150 yards and take it from there. I reckon though if your going to change save up and get a good one. Buy once and buy right.

Longranger

I currently have a 3-12x50 leupold on my hmr and it does me grand out to 200+ yards for bunnies. I have a nice old reconditioned S&B 6x42 on my 6.5 and although it does the job out to a couple of hundred yards for deer and foxes,first chance I get, I'll be sticking a 20 power S&B or Zeiss on instead. It's all good and well being able to say I can hunt well with a Loleta little scope, but if I can afford to improve my gear, then I will improve my game. It probably wont go above 8 or 10 too often, but when I see that long range shot I can up the ante and take it cleanly.

Cass

This is the thing. I'm not saying anyone using a lower powered scope is wrong nor that higher power is the way to go. I;m saying to go with what you know, and is comfortable.

My Father uses low power as does my neighbour. They are not target men, and in the case of my Father have never had big mag scopes. So it works for them (although my Father is becoming a convert).

However i don't like or agree with the sentiment that one way is inherently right. If it were we would all be using the same caliber, and powered scope. Also, as said above, this thing of Safari hunters, or snipers using low powered scopes out to Go knows what distance. That's fine for them. in one instance it's a profession, and they don't get to choose.

There are drawbacks for each argument. In my case lower power annoys me. I prefer to use the maximum mag i can in each given shot. if that's 6 power or 24 power then so be it. However with scopes with hug mag capabilities you have issues such as less light or clarity due to the make up of the scope (as is the case with nightforce they have an extra lens).

silverfox1 wrote: »

I reckon though if your going to change save up and get a good one. Buy once and buy right.

Best advice.

ive a 5.5-22x56 nightforce on my 223, and shot a heap of foxes its mostly on 5.5. i found i miss more on higher mag

zeissman

Robotack wrote: »

My my rifles (.17 & .243) are fitted with max x9 scopes. They are both quality scopes but of late I'm craving more zoom... should I resist?

I like to head / neck shoot deer and foxes alike. But at ranges beyind 150ish yards I find that instead of aiming at said particular body part, I'm aiming at the general body type area like a big grey blob in the distance.

So I reckon I must need more zoom. But then I look to US web sites and see that they are obsessed with low zoom as opposed to the high zoom European made glass. And snipers use fixed 10 power to shoot lads a mile away. So do I just need range time or do any of you have a view on the merits of high zoom.

From reading your post robotack I think you should get a scope with a bit more mag.
I usually leave my stalking scope on 6 power when I start stalking in case something pops up at close range. When I get the chance of a longer range shot I will turn up the mag as high as light conditions will allow to take the shot.
Another thing thats important is reticle choice. It needs to be fine enough to allow accurate shot placement but not that fine that you cant see it in low light conditions . I prefer scope with the reticle in the 2nd image plane. I once had a 2.5-10x50 high end scope with a 1st focal plane reticle and hated it. The reticle was so thick it made accurate shooting difficult.
I also enjoy shooting a few targets with my stalking rifle and I can do this with the scope I have which goes up to 14 power.
I have shot some good groups at 200 yards with this rifle which gives me great confidence when I go hunting.

zeissman

Deleted User wrote: »

ive a 5.5-22x56 nightforce on my 223, and shot a heap of foxes its mostly on 5.5. i found i miss more on higher mag

This shouldn't happen.
Shoot at a few targets with the scope set at different mags.
If the point of impact is changing between mags then you have a scope problem, if not its just you.

zeissman

zeissman wrote: »

This shouldn't happen.
Shoot at a few targets with the scope set at different mags.
If the point of impact is changing between mags then you have a scope problem, if not its just you.

point of impact never changes, i find it alot easier to stay on target at lower mags, less wobbles

Robotack

Do any of you find that the 24ish zoom scopes make your stalking rifle an unbalanced pig of a thing to carry? My 700 sps is pure lightweight down to the Atec mod etc.

The 4-16 bracket is appealing to me from the point of view of the smaller size and lighter weight... but then I don't want to buy a x16 and wish I'd gone all out on the x24.

I'm currently looking at the hawke sidewinder in 4-16x50 or 6-24x56
Or a vortex viper 6.5 - 20x50. Decisions decisions! !......

yubabill1

Given that you choose high quality glass before anything, after that more mag makes it easier.

zeissman

Robotack wrote: »

Do any of you find that the 24ish zoom scopes make your stalking rifle an unbalanced pig of a thing to carry? My 700 sps is pure lightweight down to the Atec mod etc.

The 4-16 bracket is appealing to me from the point of view of the smaller size and lighter weight... but then I don't want to buy a x16 and wish I'd gone all out on the x24.

I'm currently looking at the hawke sidewinder in 4-16x50 or 6-24x56
Or a vortex viper 6.5 - 20x50. Decisions decisions! !......

I had my 6-24x56 zeiss scope on my stalking rifle for a while but did find it heavy and unbalanced compared to the zeiss conquest 4.5-14x50 I have now.
14 power is more than enough mag for me for stalking.