I'm stuck on a scope magnification decision. Input, anyone?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

c919

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
747
Location
where else? TN.
So awhile back I started a "this scope vs. that scope" thread and settled on a Nikon Monarch. The problem is that I'm not too sure which one I want between the 3-12x42 and the 4-16x42.

I've always been an iron sight guy, or a really low magnification guy, now I'm wanting something with a bit more magnification. I'm just not clear on whether or not the cons would outweigh the pros in this situation because I can't really see that many cons to going with the higher mag range. However, I'd like to know if I'm missing something here.

This is going to be on my CZ 550 in 308, and it will be mostly a target gun that may see a little bit of hunting.

I know the field of view will be less with the 4-16x, but what other cons would there be to getting the 4-16x over the 3-12x? Is the eye relief going to be much different? At this time I don't plan on working my way out past a couple hunderd yards, but I would like to in the future.

The cost difference is negligible (about $20), so it's not like I'll be paying hardly any more for the 4-16x.
 
Last edited:
the 4-16 may be bigger and weigh more. I've seen them be up to an inch longer than the next step down within the same brand. check the specs. if it matters to you.
 
If target shooting is the number 1 use then the higher magnification will be nice, at the very least you will be able to see bullet strikes more clearly and reduce the need for a spotting scope.

The downsides are more magnification is hard to take advantage of on hot days or when your barrel heats up due to mirage, and give equal objective lenses a higher magnification scope will transmit less light and have a smaller exit pupil than a lower magnification scope. Of course modern scopes are so bright that actually taking advantage of their light transmitting abilities at their limits is pretty much illegal since you'll still be able to shoot well after legal light.
 
Yeah weight is no big deal. This rifle is going to be more of good looking range queen than a workhorse.
 
I would go 4 to 16. I would get a 4 to 12 if the next step higher was 6.5 to 20 but since you have the option go 4 to 16. 3 to 12 makes the 12 power a bit more appealing but i find that I rarely keep mine at anything les than max magnification...

one thing to consider. if you are going mil dots find out what magnification they are calibrated to. if both 3 to 12 and 4 to 16 scopes are calibrated to use the reticle at 12x then id go with 3 to 12. if its anything other than max zoom for both scopes then it comes back to preference
 
If it's mainly for targets, with hunting a secondary use, I'd opt for the 4-16 to have the extra magnification at the range.
 
4x16. 4 will still give you a wide field of view for hunting and 16 for precision.
 
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=746570 a Simmons 6.5-20x50 for $109. Will be here this week. Will compare and review against Vortex 6.5-20x50 when I can get around to it.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=547531

I have been going more and more to variable high power.

Hunting I just leave power settings on 4.5 or 6.5 unless something else is needed.. Higher magnification = longer and heavier the scope so just depends on the set up you want on your particular weapon.
 
The most scope I've ever used was a 3x10. I've found that I could put a bullet into Bambi right where I wanted at 350 yards with the scope set on 3X. I have had no difficulty in getting MOA groups at 500 yards at 10X.

I'd pretty much figure on the same results at 500 with 9X...

More FWIW: My .243 has a 2x7 on it. I had no trouble with being "under-scoped" for prairie dogs at 300 yards.

All that said, I once bought a match target AR which came with a 6x24x40 on it. It made precision aiming during sight-in at 100 yards to be a real piece of cake. IMO, great for paper punching. But I'd change to a lower power scope if I were going to go hunting. If the second scope is already sighted-in, it takes but a moment to do a final check. A medium-priced fixed 4X would be plenty good for that sort of system...
 
my vote 3-12, lower magnif selection is wider view & brighter than 4x.. lower mags suit me better if hunting game, faster target acquisition.. 12mag is plenty for paper-punching out to 150yds.. if shooting paper is all you do than get 4-16
 
Art how are your eyes? Just wondering?

Some of the older guy's eye balls do not collect light on their retinas as well as younger eyes. Dad who is 85 can't see in low light yet seems to function well on a bright sunny day.
 
As an offshoot, do you guys know much about Man Venture Outpost? They have really cheap prices on these Nikon's. Less than $350 for the 4-16's. They seem to get good reviews, so I'll probably order from them.
 
I've ordered three scopes from them. I saved so much money that I opted to pay the extra for "expedited handling" and got my scopes quickly. On two of the scopes that I bought, they were over $100 cheaper than everyone else.
 
If it's mostly going to be a target gun that will be shot from a bench, I'd go 4-16X. It's a nice range for target shooting. If you're going to be toting it around, a 10X or 12X usually works better for me, in terms of comfort. It isn't so much the weight as it is the bulk.

That having been said, I shot a Vortex 6.5-24X (I think) a couple of weeks ago and it is one hell of a scope. Very nice glass and it wasn't overly big for what it was. Again, very nice. I think the guy told me that they go for around $400.
 
I would go with the 4-16x for mostly target use...BUT, I would also go with the 42mm objective rather than the big 50mm one considering that you may use the rifle for hunting. The big 50mm will let in more light, but it will also sit too high, weigh more, and simply get in the way (and possibly get snagged), so it isn't worth the added brightness IMO. If you were determined to use the rifle mostly for hunting, I would skip both and go with the 2.5-10x42mm instead as it is a bit quicker with a wider FOV and greater brightness.

Also, it is important to remember that good glass often trumps high magnification (not much of an issue for you as Nikon Monarchs have pretty darn good glass).

:)
 
c919, I'd get the 3-12x, personally. 12x is a lot of magnification especially if you're used to irons. The extra power at 16x wouldn't help much, and the higher magnification gives you more potential for parallax errors, a smaller exit pupil and a shallower depth of field (area in focus when focused at a given distance). And while Monarch is a high quality scope line, if they're only charging $20 more for the 4-16 I have to guess that it doesn't have quite the same quality of glass as the 3-12.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=746570 a Simmons 6.5-20x50 for $109. Will be here this week. Will compare and review against Vortex 6.5-20x50 when I can get around to it.
Click to expand...

I have that scope - it came with a used gun I bought. It's surprisingly good for the money. Compared to higher quality (and more expensive) lower magnification glass (specifically: Nikon Team Primos 3-9x, Bushnell Elite 3200 10x, Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x), the difference is dramatic in favor of the higher quality scopes. The Simmons isn't very useful past 12x or so, and it's a really big and heavy scope. I don't think it really makes sense for most shooters, with the possible exception of varmint hunters on a very tight budget. It has no place for deer hunting.
 
Z makes a good point. What is your budget anyway? Don't get me wrong, Monarchs are good scopes, but what was the price on the ones that you were considrering?

It's just really hard to comment or make recommendations without knowing a bit more about you and your interests in terms of how addicted you are to the shooting sport. I do make positive comments about lots of scopes, because there are lots of good ones out there. On the other hand, I've owned lots of them and enjoyed them when I had them, but I can never go back to them.

I bought a Nightforce not too long ago, and it has ruined me on "lesser" scopes. First, I'll take quality glass over magnification any day. Being able to see something doesn't help if you don't have a clear view of what you're seeing.

If you have the budget, I would recommend that you ruin yourself too. Get a good scope and it will be one of those buy once, cry once situations.
 
I really do wish that I had the $ to ruin myself, but I definitely don't.

Here's my issue in a distilled form: I don't want to buy the 4-16x (vs a 3-12x) if everything goes to crap past 12x on the 4-16x anyhow. I'm fine with the 3-12x, but the extra magnification would be nice. However, if the scope is going to suck once I crank it up past 12x, then there's really no point in getting it, you know?

And Z-Michigan, The MSRP's on the two vary much more, but from MVO.com, I can get them at about a $20 difference. Nikon probably wants a bigger difference there, but that's what this retailer is charging at this time. Maybe they got a ton of the 4-16x's for cheap. Who knows...
 
Well a Monarch definitely shouldn't "suck" past 12x, but the exit pupil will be getting small and that's perceived as a dim view. There will probably also be a minor reduction in optical quality vs. the Monarch 3-12 at 12x, but it may be too small for you to notice. If you think the 16x is useful and you'll be using mostly in bright daylight, go for it.
 
I am sort of in the same place. I am debating on getting another Nikon Team Primos for a 223 or 243 or get something with a little more magnification. The Primos scope quality is hard to beat for the price when you can get it for $200 otd.
 
I don't want to buy the 4-16x (vs a 3-12x) if everything goes to crap past 12x on the 4-16x anyhow.
Click to expand...

This happens with really 'junk' units, maintain separation from the lesser quality stuff and it wont affect you.

Maybe they got a ton of the 4-16x's for cheap. Who knows..
Click to expand...

Yep....or maybe, they have a boat load of these things that have not sold, the 4-16X42 is a hard sell. Most folks will opt for a bigger objective when considering magnification much past 12X, when the optic is going on a rifle that will see field use, be used in varying lighting conditions or be used to identify the 'attributes' of the target in low light conditions...it's all about 'exit pupil' at this stage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Which scope?
Replies
2
Views
366
jmr40
jmr40
A
  • Locked
Scope for Long Range Shooting?
Replies
10
Views
713
hardluk1
H
A
  • Locked
Who uses a high magnification fixed power scope?
Replies
22
Views
4K
USSR
U
J
  • Locked
Too much magnification?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
JimJD
J
Z
  • Locked
  • Poll
Scope magnification on rodent rifles
Replies
6
Views
613
BigSlick
B
Back
Top