Magnification per Yardage

[MCMXI]

More magnification simply doesn't give you more accuracy. Period.

All things being equal ... yes it does. All you have to do is walk the line at an F-Class match or a Benchrest match to see what's being used and realize that this is proven technology. If you can hold inside 1/4 MOA rather than 1/2 MOA you will shoot higher scores. Period.

Other shooting disciplines may not benefit from a lot of magnification because they're shooting at high contrast targets.

 

[35 Whelen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrome_austex
More magnification simply doesn't give you more accuracy. Period.

All things being equal ... yes it does. All you have to do is walk the line at an F-Class match or a Benchrest match to see what's being used and realize that this is proven technology. If you can hold inside 1/4 MOA rather than 1/2 MOA you will shoot higher scores. Period.

Other shooting disciplines may not benefit from a lot of magnification because they're shooting at high contrast targets.

I have to respectfully disagree. Of it will to degree, but generally speaking, and especially from a hunting standpoint, more magnification doesn't help.
35W

 

[MCMXI]

I have to respectfully disagree. Of it will to degree, but generally speaking, and especially from a hunting standpoint, more magnification doesn't help.

How many prairie dog hunters use a 9x scope? How many deer hunters use a 25x scope? We all know that you need to match the magnification to the target and application of interest. My hunting rifles have 9x or less optics on them because an 8" plate at 300 yards doesn't need a 25x scope. But that doesn't change the fact that greater magnification increases accuracy when it allows you to reduce the area of hold on the target.

 

[dom1104]

10x fixed power Leupold LR/T w/ offset 45 degree Aimpoint Micro.

All the time, and for everything.

 

[35 Whelen]

How many prairie dog hunters use a 9x scope? How many deer hunters use a 25x scope? We all know that you need to match the magnification to the target and application of interest. My hunting rifles have 9x or less optics on them because an 8" plate at 300 yards doesn't need a 25x scope. But that doesn't change the fact that greater magnification increases accuracy when it allows you to reduce the area of hold on the target.

Odd...I hunted prairie dogs years ago with my Ruger 77V 220 Swift. It wore an old Weaver 3-9X. I also shot a few with a Winchester Mod. 70 that wore an old B&L fixed 6X. I've only hunted prairie dogs once, but both these scopes worked perfectly.
What I have done quite alot of (30+ years) is hunt hogs deer and elk. My first deer rifle acquired as a teen is a Ruger 77 in 6mm Rem. It has always worn an old Redfield 4X. I killed my first few deer with it as did my wife and both daughters. It's also my loaner rifle for new hunters. No one's ever needed more magnification.
My current "go to" deer rifle is a Scout configuration and wears a 2.75X scope. My elk rifle, a 35 Whelen, wears a Burris straight 4X. My most recent bull was killed at a lasered 355 yds.The highest magnification scope I own are a couple of Burris Fullfield II's in 3-9x40. the one that gets the most use is on my Ruger 77 .280. It stays set on 3X 99% of the time and lots of game have fallen to it.
The point of all this is my hunting experience has taught me that high magnification scopes are for the most part unnecessary unless a hunter deliberately hunts at extremely long ranges. High magnification scopes in the field are the result of nothing more than marketing. Scope companies would have you believe that you MUST use, say, a 6-18X scope with a trash can sized objective to be successful. In my experience, it just ain't so.
35W

 

[1stmarine]

Well I think one could hunt a deer with a bench rest x60 scope in order to count the fleas in the buck's back before you pop it but how is this going to be practical?
Jokes aside the size and purpose determines the appropriate magnification almost naturally.
If something doesn't feel right, it is probably the wrong thing to be doing.

 

[chrome_austex]

I wouldn't object to someone saying that a sufficiently high-power scope is needed for top-tier accuracy when you're pushing the limits of benchrest competition. They're also a huge help if you're eyes are less than 20/20.

I've been around precision shooters for long enough to know encounter more than a few superstitions out there. I've also seen some incredulous feats of accuracy from guns with only iron sights.

The problem here is that the OP didn't specify the target, nor the support for the gun. So any debate is kind of pointless. Probably best to stick to the original question.

 

[Pete D.]

I stopped reading at post 17 or so. Lots of good info. Nice to see mention of things like mirage that affect the effectiveness of scopes.
As important as magnification - probably more important - is clarity. The quality of the optics in the tube matter more than how big the image can be made. How close to theoretical resolution does the scope get?
You can buy a cheap scope at 32X that will give you an image that is unusable. You can buy a better optics that will give you all you need at half the magnification. Clarity is what you should pay for, not magnification.
Pete

 

[Maverick223]

As important as magnification - probably more important - is clarity. The quality of the optics in the tube matter more than how big the image can be made. How close to theoretical resolution does the scope get?
You can buy a cheap scope at 32X that will give you an image that is unusable. You can buy a better optics that will give you all you need at half the magnification. Clarity is what you should pay for, not magnification.

That. Prioritize a good scope. Make sure that it is not only reliable and tracks well, but also has good glass...then worry about magnification, and other features/details.

There is no set magnification for distance, you have to suit the optics to the quarry or target. IMO magnification is best broken down into three groups:
1. Low Magnification: for big game hunting, close range, and plinking (I usually end up with a 1-4x, 2-7x, 3-9x, or the like to fill this need; I find that my Kahles 2-7x32mm is exceptional in this category)
2. Moderate Magnification: for practical shooting, varmint, and long range hunting (I prefer a 3-15x, 4-16x, 5-25x, or similar for this task; the PRH 5-25x56mm is the best I have found in this class of shooting)
3. High Magnification: for precise target shooting [e.g.: benchrest] (magnification beyond 24x with a fine reticle meets my requirements for this category)

 

[TonyAngel]

kis2, how often do you shoot at 100 yards? At what distance is most of your shooting done? Maybe you should look at this from a perspective of what your low end needs to be.

I shoot .308 for the most part and didn't build my .308 to shoot at 100 yards. Whenever I get the opportunity to let it stretch its legs, it's usually at ranges of 250 yards or so and beyond. Of course, I don't shoot any practical matches where you may have to make relatively short shots, so I didn't need a bottom end lower than 5X. If you are going to be making shots at 100 yards or less and target acquisition is a factor, then you might be better served with something that has a 3X bottom end.

My point is that if you can determine what your bottom end NEEDS to be to meet your speed and target acquisition needs, then it's a simple matter of chosing that scope and getting the biggest high end that you can get. I mean, why not get more magnification if you can get it without it costing you anything.

When I purchased my last NF, the 5.5-22X, I went down to the shop to check out the 3-15X. When I got there and actually saw the scope, I realized that I didn't need the low end to go that low and that the 15X was about the same physical size as the 22X, so I got the 22X. For my needs, I didn't have to sacrifice anything to get the extra magnification.

As far as the mirage goes, yes, I do get it and more of it at higher magnification, but you don't always have to use it. Besides, I found out a short time ago that some guys actually use the mirage to read the wind. Go figure. I have a lot more learning to do.

 

[kis2]

TonyAngel, I think approaching scope buying from deciding what bottom end you need is a great idea, since that would probably limit what kind of top end you'd get. good call. the uso I've been eyeballing is 3.5-17x, which I think would work bottom end and good enough for the long shots.

For the purpose I listed in the OP, I think you should probably choose a magnification that allows you to hold an accurate point of aim on the target, while having the most field of view surrounding it you can. so essentially as far zoomed out as you can be and still see the target well enough for an accurate hold. that would make follow up shots, calling your own shot, and target acquisition easier whilst scoped.

And I think with the exception of benchrest, everyone is saying the same thing in different ways. and rightfully so I think, benchrest competition is so different than hunting or the like.

thanks for the inputs all

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

To 100 yards I like a 1-4 power, or a fixed 4 power.

To 500 yards I would want at least a 9x optic.

To 1,000 yards I have no idea... but it would be a lot.

 

[Maverick223]

the uso I've been eyeballing is 3.5-17x, which I think would work bottom end and good enough for the long shots.

The SN-3 is a good, solid scope (though I would take a look at PRH as well, as it is a better value IMO). Just make sure and get the "T-PAL" version, as it will make parallax adjustments much easier. You also want to match the adjustments and reticle (I prefer Mil/Mil, but there's nothing wrong with MOA/MOA); additionally you should also consider the EREK elevation knob which allows you to go all the way to 1k yds. in one revolution (a feature I love).

 

[kis2]

Mav- I looked at the erek knob, and not sure it's worth the 175 extra dollars, though I do think they look awesome! I think the m40 knobs would work fine for me.

thanks for the advice!

 

[Maverick223]

Mav- I looked at the erek knob, and not sure it's worth the 175 extra dollars, though I do think they look awesome! I think the m40 knobs would work fine for me.

thanks for the advice!

It is a great deal more, and more convenient (for dialing in long range anyway), but whether that added convenience is worth it is up to the rifleman. Personally I would go ahead and forgo the additional cost, but only because I'm already spending a small fortune and my PRH is set up similarly (have the "double-turn" MTC knobs). FWIW, I plan to put that exact scope on my next LRPR (.260RemAI), mainly because PRH has gone up by a fair margin (I paid $2250 for 5-25x56mm no. 257 about 2yrs back) and Liberty Optics no longer carries them (which has more than a little bit to do with the increased cost).

Happy to be of some service!

 

[TonyAngel]

kis2, you came up in a conversation that I had today. I was talking to a guy that is preparing to take some instruction from a guy that is a long range instructor. My friend is an avid pistol and rimfire shooter, but hasn't messed with long range much and wanted to get into it. In any case, he's putting his rifle together and we started talking about optics. He was told by his instructor that something in a 3-15X magnification range with a mil/mil setup would be ideal for practical/tactical type of shooting. My friend has decided to go with a Nightforce F1.

If you do get the USO, I'd ask them if the EREK knob is an option that can be added later. If not, you may want to rethink not getting it. I know that $300 is $300, but that USO that I last shot had an EREK knob and I have to say that it's nice and FAST. Although I haven't spent a lot of quality time with the rig, I can think of a few times when it would make things a bit more simple and allow you to have to think less about things.

The key here is that you are considering making a serious long term investment in some nice glass. I know that we all (almost) have some budget that we have to stay in, but this may be one of those things where you should just get what you want. It would suck to later regret not having gotten exactly what you wanted.

 

[kis2]

"but this may be one of those things where you should just get what you want."

you know TonyAngel, the more I think about it, the more I think I should just get the erek knob. I mean, what's that, like 5% of the total cost of the scope? just get it and be done with it.

I'm still shopping around, but all signs indicate I'm going to land with USO. I can't believe in that kind of price range they are the only company I've found that will let you customize it!

Speaking of customizing, my rifle is coming back FDE, so I'm thinking FDE for the scope. probably also a good time to invest in a scope/crown cover too.

 

[TonyAngel]

kis2, if I recall, that scope has the parallax adjustment on the bell, doesn't it?

USO seems like they do cater to their crowd with all of the options that they offer. As long as you're happy.

I also wanted to tell you this. Don't sweat spending the money. Even if you are, that's going to go away as soon as you have the scope in your hands. Every time I walked into my local Nightforce shop to peel off a small stack of hundreds for another scope, I always had a little bit of a sick feeling in my stomach; but I still always smile every time I get behind the rifle.

 

[Maverick223]

the more I think about it, the more I think I should just get the erek knob. I mean, what's that, like 5% of the total cost of the scope? just get it and be done with it.

Bingo!

kis2, if I recall, that scope has the parallax adjustment on the bell, doesn't it?

The SN-3 T-PAL 3.2-17x44mm (and the still quite popular 5-25x58mm) comes with a side focus, and is probably their most popular model for that very reason. I believe their SN-9 (which has virtually no competition in the marketplace) would do quite a bit better if they would add a side focus.

 

[kis2]

Mav got it, I'm looking at the TPal (side focus)versions. I don't really care what amount of ruggedness is added with the bell focus, I don't want to have to reach all the way up there. ...lazy?

They have a 5-25x tpal model, but it costs a good bit more and I'm not convinced I need the extra magnification. My current scope max's out at 16x, and it's able to see the plates out at 1k yards. Stepping up to USO quality at 17x should be a big enough improvement.

"Don't sweat spending the money. Even if you are, that's going to go away as soon as you have the scope in your hands."

Thanks for that TonyAngel. It's a daunting purchase, so I absolutely need the encouragement.

 

[kis2]

on a similar note, funny story:

Told the wife I was considering buying a $3k scope, and she simply said, 'it's a lot of money, but yeah, ok.'

I said, 'just like that? you're ok with this?'

She says, 'Well, I figure it'd get you to stop talking about it. That's got to be worth about three thousand dollars.'

 

[Maverick223]

They have a 5-25x tpal model, but it costs a good bit more and I'm not convinced I need the extra magnification. My current scope max's out at 16x, and it's able to see the plates out at 1k yards. Stepping up to USO quality at 17x should be a big enough improvement.

The 5-25x58mm is probably a good scope too, but it is massive. Great for certain applications, but just too big and heavy for most. Forget magnification, the improvement in glass quality alone will be a big step up. A lot of folks think they need 42x to reach out a ways, when all they really need is better glass and perhaps a better reticle (one that's reasonably fine but easily found). FWIW I hold my little 2-7x36mm Kahles Helia in higher regard than my 6.5-20x44mmAO Nikon Monarch (which isn't a bad scope and serves it purpose well, but it can't compare with the best of Europe).

She says, 'Well, I figure it'd get you to stop talking about it. That's got to be worth about three thousand dollars.'

Hehehe, i'd start talking about the new rifle now.

 

[Waywatcher]

I would use a rule of twos for minimums:

100-2x
200-4x
300-6x
400-8x

 

[Pete D.]

when all they really need is better glass and perhaps a better reticle (one that's reasonably fine but easily found).

True. Nice to read that.
Remember and consider another optical truth - there is a finite amount of light that comes through the objective lens. The more the image is magnified, the more the available light is spread out and the dimmer the image becomes. Better glass (and coatings) allows more light to be transmitted and preserves the image as it is magnified.
Pete

 

[Picher]

Magnification also depends on the time factor. If there isn't sufficient time to adjust parallax for different distances, a variable with not more than 10x would suffice.

Another factor is objective lens diameter. The larger the objective, the higher the need for parallax adjustment, to a degree.

For hunting certain types of game, especially where time is a factor in getting off a shot, it's hard to beat a 3-9x scope, parallax adjusted to 100 or 150 yards.

The target plays a big part in being able to shoot accurately with low-powered scopes. A target with four squares, separated by two inches, works well out to 200 yards for low-powered scopes. beyond that, white or other high-contrast circular or square targets can work pretty well in many conditions.

When some of us started varmint hunting as practice for deer hunting, I used a K2.5x Weaver on my 30-06. Woodchucks were spotted with binoculars, then the rifle scope was usually adequate for the shot. One season, I averaged over 200 yards for the kills. The longest being 450 yards, but that was a side hill with a huge new mound that was visible with the naked eye. I merely held about 5 feet over and a bit to the left and hit the mound. The second shot got the chuck, which was laying across the mound, only half-visible. Luck? Certainly some, but the first one wasn't all luck. I knew my trajectory table very well. That was around 1961, when variable scopes were very dear, and young eyes were very clear.

JP