What is too much magnification?

[Edarnold]

CeeZee:
The kind of "target shooting" I was referring to has nothing to do with pop bottles thrown in the air or shooting squirrels: not 'just shooting', as you term it, but organized paper target matches such as the many NRA high power rifle courses of fire. To me, THAT is target shooting, depending much more on the skill of the marksman than on equipment. Why this difference of definition sent you into a rage, I can't explain. My concern is that Americans seem to be turning into a nation tied to the shooting bench, where the only criterion of excellence for a rifle is how small a group it will shoot. You have your favorite game, and that's fine. Assuming it's the only game worth participating in seems to me narrow sighted.

 

[coloradokevin]

"Target shooting" is such a broad term that it is often hard to define exactly what the end user intends to do with a rifle.

I can say that it seems like people who are trying for the smallest possible groups at static distances seem to prefer higher magnification, while people who want to shoot at targets at a variety of distances tend to prefer (relatively) lower magnification. For example, shooting a match where a single stage involves engaging targets in field conditions at 5-10 different distances makes it tough to use a scope that has only high magnification (it's hard to acquire targets that way).

Where I shoot the mirage is usually pretty bad. For me I often have trouble using my full 20x magnification, and having much more than that probably wouldn't do much for me (I could realistically see having a 25x top end, but don't feel as if I'm handicapped with 20x in most cases). Plus, in competition stages I've found that I like to dial the magnification down quite a bit when I'm searching for my next target. But, in other conditions, particularly F-class or benchrest disciplines, I could see why someone would want more magnification.

Also, think about the targets you intend to shoot, and don't go overboard on magnification (a common mistake for many shooters, I think). I mostly shoot steel plates, ranging from 3" plates to plates the size of an IPSC target. I've used my cheap 10x scope out to 800 yards (where it runs out of adjustment range on the rifle it's mounted on), and I've used my 20x scope beyond 1,250 yards with my .260 Remington.

EDITED TO ADD:

Cheap scopes and high magnification are often a recipe that leads to disappointment. In my opinion, if you're going to get a scope with more than 10x magnification, you should pay for a scope of high quality.

 

[ironworkerwill]

Cheap scopes and high magnification are often a recipe that leads to disappointment. In my opinion, if you're going to get a scope with more than 10x magnification, you should pay for a scope of high quality.

Absolutely.

I use a Weaver 40/44 6.5-20x44mmAO on my long range rifle. It is an inexpensive scope, not what I'd consider cheap but is probably the minimum. It has a small to fine varmint reticle with no dots. The image remains clear out to 20x and that's what we look for. The adjustable objective can be a real hassle if engaging targets at multiple ranges with higher magnification.

 

[fotheringill]

Interesting set of replies.

I shoot at paper only.

I have used everything from a Leupold 3-9 x 32 up to a fixed Leupold 45x with two Weavers (4x16 and 36x fixed), a no name, and a few borrowed scopes in between.

I found the Leupold 45x to be my preferred scope out of the whole batch. More magnification without any manufacturing negatives works for me.

 

[Shooter973]

To much Magnification?

I find that if I go much over 10x that i see my heart beat. To much. It does make it easier to shoot between beats but some times I fiind my self hurrying to get the shot off before the next beat. Maye it's just me.

 

[Cee Zee]

Why this difference of definition sent you into a rage, I can't explain.

LOLOL yeah right. What makes you think that anything you say could make me angry? You're just somebody commenting on a board. You don't buy my groceries or pay my bills. Trust me it's laughable to think I got "sent into a rage". Oh lordy the things some people think.

I POINTED OUT how people who shoot bench rest do things. I didn't demand that everyone agree to never shoot anything but bench rest ever again. I don't protest all other forms of shooting. Imagine what I must be like on a skeet range running around screaming "nooooo........". Thanks for the laughs. But enough is enough. My side is hurting. Chill out. You're the one who went off on that "getting up on your hind legs and shooting like a man" stuff. What's with that? Does your mom make you sit down to pee or something?

As for noticing my heart beat with a stronger scope I use that to my advantage. Shooting between heart beats is a key to really good shooting. It takes practice but it can be done. I know my groups got considerably tighter when I learned that trick. But now I mostly can concentrate and feel when my heart beats so I know when to shoot.

 

[Sunray]

"...jump around, making it hard to settle on target..." That's not the magnification. That's the hold and/or the weight of the rifle plus a lack of experience. Mostly muscle tone.
High magnification does reduce the field of view though. IE a Leupold 7 to 42 x scope has a field of view of 2.7 feet at 100. You'll see less at longer ranges. Not really as big deal for most target shooting, but sure is in some courses of fire.
"...When the mirage sets in..." That happens with iron sights too. Something you can learn to read anyway.

 

[tuj]

Us USBR benchrest guys use 36x scopes at 50 yards; some guys use 45x but those get mirage too easily. T-36's are the standard in price/performance.

If you are target shooting 200-300 yards in variable conditions, I would highly consider a scope with:
-at least 20 magnification max or higher
-at least 8 magnification min or lower
-side focus

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

It was interesting to see the comments about magnification allowing a person to see the effect of his own heartbeats in the scope.

Many years ago I shot NRA competition, and did fairly well at it. One of the things that I had to learn was to control my own heartbeat. And, yes, you can do that. You can consciously slow the pulse rate and then learn to trip the trigger between beats. I do strongly doubt that you'll learn the technique in a weekend's range session. You can also learn to minimize the effect of the pulse on the stability of the gun, and I found that harder to do than merely slowing the pulse rate in four-position shooting.

900F

 

[FiveInADime]

Fella's;

It was interesting to see the comments about magnification allowing a person to see the effect of his own heartbeats in the scope.

Many years ago I shot NRA competition, and did fairly well at it. One of the things that I had to learn was to control my own heartbeat. And, yes, you can do that. You can consciously slow the pulse rate and then learn to trip the trigger between beats. I do strongly doubt that you'll learn the technique in a weekend's range session. You can also learn to minimize the effect of the pulse on the stability of the gun, and I found that harder to do than merely slowing the pulse rate in four-position shooting.

900F

Bingo. One of the first lessons we learned when I was shooting youth NRA smallbore (prone and 3p) was using our breathing and conscious control of our heart rate to steady out before exerting a consistent squeeze on the trigger. I used to practice slowing my heart rate down all the time. I never really thought of it as consciously making the gun go off between heart beats however that's what we were taught to do inadvertently.

 

[Cee Zee]

One of the things that I had to learn was to control my own heartbeat. And, yes, you can do that.

Getting your heart rate down is essential. What's harder is learning to shoot between beats but like you said (and I said earlier) it is possible. And it improves your shooting a good bit.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I found 16 x to be far too much for hunting with a centerfire. 12x is about my upper limit for shooting and seeing my hits.

 

[Cee Zee]

12x is about my upper limit for shooting and seeing my hits.

I can't even do that much for hunting. I do use a strong scope for shooting varmints a few hundred yards away but the varmints can be hard to find with those strong scopes.

 

[George Dickel]

I shoot .22 rimfire silhouette with a fixed 16X Weaver and find that magnification to be at the upper limit of my ability to hold without too much distracting wobble. I started out with a variable 6-24X but 24 power was too much. Many of the big dogs in the small bore silhouette do use 36X but I tried my 36X scope and it was just too much for me. If I was 27 instead of 67 it might be a different story.

 

[strambo]

Too much magnification is way to situational dependent to ever put a number to it.

It is too much if the target is too dim. Too much if the mirage makes it too hard to see. Too much if you no longer have enough field of view and situational awareness to do what you are doing (hunting, moving targets, military/self defense).

It is hard to go wrong in the 2.5-10, 3-9, 4-14 range for general purpose target shooting and hunting. Longe range may demand more magnification, extreme precision will demand more magnification.

My 300 WM has a 6.5-20x on it, shooting at 20x on a sunny day at 100yds and beyond from a steady rest is no problem. If I hunted with it, I'd crank it down to 6.5x, up to 12x max (that is also where the mil-dots are calibrated).

 

[George Dickel]

I'm kind of saddened by the term "target shooting" automatically being assumed to mean bench-rest shooting. We used to be a nation of riflemen, which meant getting up on your hind legs and shooting like a man. For that, an 8x scope for any distance is plenty for offhand or sitting. Benchrest is a test of equipment, which means the guy with the most bucks often wins. In three-position target work, an excellent marksman with a modest rifle can mop up a mediocre shooter with the fanciest gear. Guess this level of skill is just too much trouble for today's shooters.

I used to shoot .22 lr bench rest but now "stand on my hind legs" and shoot small bore silhouette. Rimfire bench rest is an equipment race but skill in reading the wind is what wins the match.
You can have me and the top shooter in bench rest setting on the bench with the same rifle, ammo and equipment shooting a target. I don't read the wind for diddly and will lose to the top shooter because he knows how to read the wind. When you are shooting at a 10 ring that is the diameter of a .22 round with a small dot in the center of the ring it isn't nearly as easy as it sounds. In the two of the games I shot, IR 50/50 and RBA, you have a 25 bull target which is 250 points total if you hit the 10 ring on each bull. You are allowed one shot at each bull. The dot in the center is called an X. If you want to shoot at the top level of benchrest and win, you better consistently shoot 250 with 23-24 X's . That isn't easy by any stretch of the definition of easy. If you can't read the wind you ain't gonna win anything.

What shooting sport isn't an equipment race? Actually what sport isn't an equipment race? The big dogs use top of the line equipment because that is what wins in addition to skill. As I stated I now shoot silhouette. You don't see Savages or CZ in the top levels, you see Anschutz 1712's and if you don't think a 1712 isn't top of the line check out the price for one. A friend of mine shoots NRA high power matches and low end rifles aren't in the winning circle either.

 

[Slamfire]

What shooting sport isn't an equipment race? Actually what sport isn't an equipment race? The big dogs use top of the line equipment because that is what wins in addition to skill.

This is a very good question and to be competitive you have to have good equipment. I am a regular small bore prone competitor, sometimes I win a match, but rarely. The current TN state small bore champ is using a 1978 Anschutz, only the sights are no longer stock box, and there are many others who do very well with 70's, 80's, 90's, Anschutz rifles. There are many who do very well with the latest Anschutz rifles, the AMU shooters next to me at the Nationals out shot me by many points and they have the latest and greatest equipment.

I enjoy shooting vintage rifles,

I shot a 400-32X at 100 yards, and was 100 yard winner, in competition with this M37.





Recently I took this M12 out and shot it in a 1200 point match and shot an 1195.



While I can shoot the occasional good score with these rifles, the horrible stocks, heavy trigger pulls, will always work against me and I will lose points with these relics. However, you can surprise your self, and your fellow competitors with excellent condition vintage rifles.

 

[strambo]

Those rifles are awesome Slamfire! Skill always beats equipment...but the very best combine both to squeeze out every minute advantage. For the non-paid pros among us, Its easy to sit out the equipment race and just enjoy what we like and compete to have fun.

 

[Cee Zee]

You don't see Savages or CZ in the top levels,

Maybe not in rimfire but in certain competitions you will see Savage rifles. F/TR Class in particular you will see some Savage rifles and some even in stock form according to the people that shoot them. I don't inspect them myself but that's what they say.

As for high powered scopes revealing how much you are moving I'd just point out that the movement is exactly what you want to eliminate. That's the difference in being a good shooter and not being a good shooter. Obviously no one can completely eliminate the problem but I like being able to see how well I'm doing. If you can see that you're moving you can see when you aren't moving too and when you get to where you aren't moving you'll be shooting a lot better.

The only time a high power scope becomes a problem in target shooting is when mirage becomes an issue. You don't see people using 36X scopes for 1000 yard shooting because you get too much mirage. But for close range "target" shooting you really can't beat a strong powered scope. Of course certain type os shooting demand a less powerful scope but if it's strictly see who can shoot the best targets the higher magnification scopes are definitely an asset. It would be totally useless to try to use a 36X scope to hunt squirrels unless you were hunting them from 100 yards away and they weren't moving around (they do sit and eat at times). If you had your scope lined up on a tree and you followed the trunk of the tree and then the branches you might locate a squirrel before it moved. But it seems like a waste of effort IMO since a less powerful scope will do it much easier.

 

[Driftertank]

The rule of thumb I was always taught was 1x for every 100yds/meters you intend to be shooting, but that's based on the assumption that what you are shooting at has the ability to move. For paper shooting, it seems that higher magnifications are generally preferred. Nothing wrong with that, but from only my own personal experience, a lower magnification level can yield better results on paper sometimes, as I find that I often tend to "chase the bull" as my own body rythms change my aim point. But again, as I usually shoot from field positions rather than benchrest, YMMV...