6-24 vs 8-32, Pros & Cons

PSXDupe

Guys

I am looking to buy a new scope, haven't decided on a brand etc but I want to use it for target shooting and eventually out to distances 200+ 300+

I know with higher powered scopes you lose field of view but not sure if that really matters for target shooting as you are not trying to acquire a target, you know where it is.

So should I go with a higher powered ie 8-32 over 6-24

Any opinions welcome

Cass

If target shooting is your ultimate goal then i'd look at 8-32.

An 8-32 scope can go, obviously, from 8 to 32 power. Now 8 is a little high for some types of hunting, but overall it's no different than a fixed 8 power scope which a lot of lads use for hunting. So you're good on that end.

For target shooting you want as much zoom/mag as possible. The 32 power will offer more than enough to reach out to 1,000 yards. I've used a 32 power scope very well for years. I even went from 42 down to 32 power.

The 6-24 will give you enough to do competitive shooting out to 600 yards. Some lads are better than others with the mag on their scopes. I shot beside a young lad one day who was using a 9 power scope at 600 yards. He done better than most. I couldn't live with that though. My point being i've used my 6-24 at 1,000 and having used the 32 and 50 power scopes found myself wanting more mag.

So if you're starting off with one or the other i'd go 8-32.

What scope have you in mind?

PSXDupe

I haven't really decided, just looking at reviews and costs.

I don't want something two expensive but then again I don't want rubbish, one lad at the range was singing the praise of the Hawke Sidewinder and was saying the price for that scope is quite good. Think they run about €350

Was looking to buy new, my luck with secondary hand stuff is not good.

Cass

I have Hawke Sidewinders and i like them. Great scope for the money. However prices have gone up and new they run an average of €460.

The new Frontier runs around €700 and comes with 5-30 mag, and much better glass than the Sidewinder.

Other choices in the 8-32 range (other brands) will run you much more. Possibly an average of €1,000+. Anything else i can think of in €700 mark won't have the mag you want. Maybe 6-24, but i'd sooner hold out for the 8-32.

FISMA.

PS,
Can you give us more information about your shooting? What size targets do you want to hit? Will you need precision shooting or is accuracy enough?

Will the shooting always be a fixed distance or vary? Will you need to shoot close up targets: for example inside of 100ya?

clivej

I have shot targets out to 600y and deer at under 200y (as you do) with my Sako 75 in .308.

The scope is a Bushnell 6-24x50mm 4200 tactical elite, cost €460 second hand, I also use the same scope on my CZ 547 varmint .223.

It will do all I want and need it to do. I have had a 8-32x60mm but it was always to much scope for my type of shooting, I never needed that extra zoom. At 300y you can see the centre of a target as well you will need to see it IMO and still have a hunting scope that's usable in everyday conditions.

How well will my setup shoot??? Well I won the Stalking Rifle competition shot at 100y/200y/300y this year, scored 147/150, in the Phoenix competition and the UK champion as well.
And shot into 9th place in FTR 400y/500y/600y last year in the same Phoenix competition.

Also remember that a bigger objective lens will give you a better brighter view over a smaller objective lens. So IMO a 6-24x50mm is the way to go

Cass

An 8-32 has the range of magnification that a 6-24 and an 8-32 has. IOW an 8-32 can do the job of both a 8-32 and 6-24.

Once again its better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

clivej

Cass wrote: »

An 8-32 has the range of magnification that a 6-24 and an 8-32 has. IOW an 8-32 can do the job of both a 8-32 and 6-24.

Once again its better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

"its better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

That's what I ALWAYS said but with the 8-32 I found I was carrying around more zoom on my rifle than a actually needed ;)

Cass

But you could set it at 24 power. 18 power, 14 power, 12, 10, 8.

With the 6-24 you can go as high as 24, and thats it. If the OP is only shooting to 600 or so then this would be fine, but trust me, at distances of up to 1,000 you'd really want the extra mag.

Now if the extra mag came by means of an attachment or something extra to carry i can see the point in going for the 6-24. But there is no difference in the scopes by having the extra mag.

clivej

PSXDupe wrote: »

Guys

I am looking to buy a new scope, haven't decided on a brand etc but I want to use it for target shooting and eventually out to distances 200+ 300+

I know with higher powered scopes you lose field of view but not sure if that really matters for target shooting as you are not trying to acquire a target, you know where it is.

So should I go with a higher powered ie 8-32 over 6-24

Any opinions welcome

Cass wrote: »

But you could set it at 24 power. 18 power, 14 power, 12, 10, 8.

With the 6-24 you can go as high as 24, and thats it. If the OP is only shooting to 600 or so then this would be fine, but trust me, at distances of up to 1,000 you'd really want the extra mag.

Now if the extra mag came by means of an attachment or something extra to carry i can see the point in going for the 6-24. But there is no difference in the scopes by having the extra mag.

BUT the OP is not looking to shoot out to 1000y only 300y max for now, so your answers are moot

Cass

The OP wants to shoot to 200 - 300 yards. What happens when he wants to go further. Buy another scope, this time with 32 (or higher) mag?


Your advice is to go for the scope that can ONLY go to 24 power, as opposed to the scope that can go to 24 power, but also to 32?

Explain the logic in that for me? Seriously, explain it to me.

clivej

Cass wrote: »

The OP wants to shoot to 200 - 300 yards. What happens when he wants to go further. Buy another scope, this time with 32 (or higher) mag?


Your advice is to go for the scope that can ONLY go to 24 power, as opposed to the scope that can go to 24 power, but also to 32?

Explain the logic in that for me? Seriously, explain it to me.

"Explain the logic in that for me? Seriously, explain it to me."

I gave an answer to the OP's question.

You are giving answers to questions you anticipate he will ask in the future. >> I did not
You are surmising the OP has a rifle that can shoot out to 1000y >> I did not

Now you Explain the logic in that for me? Seriously, explain it to me.
True or not????

Cass

Thats not an answer. thats avoiding an answer.

Please explain why 6-24 is better than 8-32?

Cass

Its been over an hour so i guess you're not going to answer my question. I'll do you the courtesy of answering yours so.

clivej wrote: »

You are giving answers to questions you anticipate he will ask in the future. >> I did not

Exactly. I'm not limiting my responses to only what will work for now, but for something that will work long term.

You are surmising the OP has a rifle that can shoot out to 1000y >> I did not

Nope.

Don't care what rifle the OP has now, or whether it can reach out to 1000 yards. An 8-32 scope can be used on any rifle, and the OP can put the scope onto his current rifle, or future rifles including those that can reach out to 1,000 yards.

So the 8-32, as said above, can do everything an 8-32 can do and everything a 6-24 can do.

Perhaps now you'll answer. How is a 6-24 better than an 8-32 scope? What is your reasoning for saying it is? What can it do that the 8-32 cannot?

FISMA.

Back on track...

PSXDupe wrote: »

Guys

I know with higher powered scopes you lose field of view...

Y'up and you also have to fight mirage too.

At some point, you may find that there's too much magnification.

One of the lads I shoot with regularly shoots 5.x" groups at 1000ya. He uses an 8-80x scope with an optical booster.

The lad that rivals him shoots a fixed scope with power in the high teens or low 20's.

Thus, a lot depends on you.

If I were you, I would find a magnification and reticle that "clicks" with your eye-brain and then get the scope that has that mag right in the center.

If you like shooting around 15x, get the 6-24. If you prefer 20x, get the 8-32.

You also need to think about the reticle in comparison to the target.

At 300ya, you probably should not have to worry about moa on the scope.

I have an 8-32x56 NF BR on my 1000ya rifle. I am not sure if I am going to get the NF Comp or March in 8-80x. I am actually concerned there is too much mag on the March and that I may be fighting mirage in the (not in Eire) summer heat too much.

Again, if you have the chance, let us know more about the targets you plan to shoot and if the scope is going to be a jack-of-all-trades scope or dedicated-purpose-in-life!

Cass

FISMA. wrote: »

If you like shooting around 15x, get the 6-24. If you prefer 20x, get the 8-32.!

I asked a simple question and through all the bullsh*t above it still hasn't been answered. So maybe you can answer it as you've touched on it too.

Why go for the 6-24 if the OP wants to shoot on 15 power, when an 8-32 scope can also be brought down to 15 power. (i know you only used 15 as an example)

This is as simple a question as it gets. Why go for the lower powered scope when the higher one can do the same and more.

Now if we're talking about different brands, so be it. Some simply don't come in anything as high as 30+ power. But the OP has asked about Sidewinders. The price of the 6-24 and 8-32 are the same. The reticles are the same. The features are the same. The only difference being one is 6-24 and the other 8-32.


So why not go with the 8-32 and cover all bases?

Cass

My posts above are coming across as confrontational and frankly that is not what i want. So Clivej, sorry.

I genuinely only wanted an answer. I don't get the logic, yours or anyone elses, of going for the lower powered one when both are pretty much identical in every other aspect.

FISMA.

More mag = more money. If you know you aren't going to use the magnification, why not spend the funds on better glass, coatings, and such?

Personally speaking, I do not like to lose the low end magnification. 8x is a lot of mag when your target is 25 or 50ya away.

One of the lads I shoot with is a Marine that has shot a 5 and 3/8" group. During his time in the Corp, he used a fixed 10x scope at 1000ya.

Generally speaking, I think too many people are over obsessed with big magnification and should spend more time pulling triggers that googling glass.

I hope that I do not end up as one of them if/when I purchase the March 8-80.

Also, you may have to worry about making weight for competition.

I would love to shoot in the light-gun competitions where I am. However, with my rifle weighing in at 34lbs itself, I am out of the 32.5lb total weight limit.

A lighter scope would definitely get me closer to the lower weight without having to spend $1000 on the custom carbon stocks I see at the range.

Cass

FISMA. wrote: »

More mag = more money. If you know you aren't going to use the magnification, why not spend the funds on better glass, coatings, and such?

In terms of the Sidewinder, not the case. Same price.

Better glass usually has a significant bump in price tag here. To anything decent you go from €450 to €750 or €800. Then you face the problem of getting something in any mag over 15. So the higher the mag with better glass leads you into the €1,000 + price range.

Personally speaking, I do not like to lose the low end magnification. 8x is a lot of mag when your target is 25 or 50ya away.

It was pointed out to me that the OP is intedning it for 100 to 300 yards. So as unlikely as 25 to 50 yard targets will be, how much difference is there in 8 power to 6 power. Feck all. I know because i have scopes in both ranges.

Also, you may have to worry about making weight.

That could be a consideration, but not sure for what comps. F-Class has a healthy limit even with a Nightforce (one of the heavier scopes) you can still make weight with heavy barrel, stock, action, bipod, etc.

For sporting rifle, well i couldn't tell ya. I don't know enough about the rules of those comps.

I would love to shoot in the light-gun competition. However, with my rifle weighing in at 34lbs itself, I am out of the 32.5lb range total weight limit. A lighter scope would definitely get me closer to the lower weight without having to spend $1000 on the custom carbon stocks I see at the range.

Without touching on the fact that a 50 cal is "out there" for shooting in Ireland, i doubt you'll drop 1.5 - 2 lbs by changing scopes. Some of the heavier scopes run around 36 - 40 ounces (2.25 - 2.4 lbs) with the lighter ones running 27 - 29 ounces (1.6 - 1.8 lbs). Total saving of 0.5 - 0.8 lb.

However the OP is most certainly not shooting a 50cal so it's most likely the rifle is somewhere between 7 - 9 lbs without a scope.

clivej

Cass wrote: »

My posts above are coming across as confrontational and frankly that is not what i want. So Clivej, sorry.

I genuinely only wanted an answer. I don't get the logic, yours or anyone elses, of going for the lower powered one when both are pretty much identical in every other aspect.

Horses for courses, what you like/want is what you like/want.

I don't see me shooting out to 1000y as the MAJORITY of people won't be. And if your shooting out to those distances then it will be more than a 8-32 scope you'll be needing, add a rifle, ammo, rests etc..

As I said I've been there and done that with a 8-32 scope and as you know MOST of peoples shooting will be done with a scope power of a lot less than 32X.

Ask a lot of people and they will tell you that even a 6-24 power scope is far too much for most shooting.

And as you know most of the cheaper, and some not so cheap, 8-32 scopes at 32X are sh!te with white-out, blurred edges, etc. That's not to say the 6-24 cheaper scopes are any better. So yes you are correct that the 8-32 will do everything a 6-24 will do but in the end will the 32X get used, not a lot. And after a while the 32X novelty will wear off.

And as I've said before my two €1000 plus, 6-24x50mm scopes do everything and more that I need them to do. I've never in all the years of shooting looked for more from them.
When stalking it's set at 6X and only increased if the Deer is relaxed and I have the time to set myself up. When target shooting I'd use the scope at at a higher zoom setting, BUT not at full power until needed.

I think you would agree with most of what I've said here as I know you to be out hunting during the season but also long range target shooting as well.

FISMA.

clivej wrote: »

So yes you are correct that the 8-32 will do everything a 6-24 will do

Not sure if I agree with that 100%. I will grant it to you in a general sense, however, would disagree in particular instances.

Maybe I'm wrong, who knows. It's 90ºF right now and we're drinking - toasting the Brexit!:p

Vegeta

Lower mag scopes tend to have better field of view and often more forgiving eye relief/eye boxes. Not written in stone of course but that's two differences a potential buyer might value.

I had a 12-42 NXS and the brother had a 5.5-22 NXS. Extreme case I know as the mag range doesn't overlap as much. Mine was clearly better for accurate shot placement but his had better eye relief/eye box, more field of view so as a result his felt a little more user friendly. Could get a clean sight picture more quickly.

Saying that, in a battle of 6-24 versus 8-32, for me, it would completely depend on what each scope looked like as I brought my eye up to them. I have two 6-24 scopes right now. A Bushnell 6500 and a Kahles K624i. The difference is night and day, and so it should be considering the price difference. My point is though, that even in the same mag range scopes can feel and behave drastically differently.
So if the 8-32 presented better eye relief and I could secure a nice sight picture more quickly than the 6-24 then I'd love that extra mag thank you very much.

Another example is the Nightforce ATACR 5-25 mag scope and the improvement in eye relief/eye box/sight picture over the NXS 5.5-22, it is seriously impressive.

zeissman

The op says he wants the scope for target shooting so I think he may as well get the 8-32
Power scope.
I had a 6-24 scope on my target rifle and changed it to a 8-32 scope and I have it on 32 power most of the time.
I only use it for targets and it works great.
I have a 6-24 power scope on my 204 and a 4-14 power scope on my stalking rifle and I find these scopes work well for foxes and deer.

garv123

Is the rifle and scope going to be for just target shooting or a bit of deer/vermin shooting too?

One thing to check if not just for targets is is the field of view.. I had a nightfoce 8-32x56 and on 8, a 4-16x56 S&B had a better FOV at x16..
Although an awesome scope and you could make out a tick on a deer at 500 yards the field of view was so terrible I had to get rid of it.
just something to keep in mind.. if its just for targets your grand.