[wpsdlrg]

4runnerman,

Not disputing what you say, in fact, I agree with most of it. Obviously, a smaller target, at any given distance, if that distance is too far for accurate shooting with the naked eye, will require magnification if the target is to be seen clearly. I did allude to that in my post, though I did not go into any detail (which perhaps I should have).

However, you have somewhat missed my point.....or rather, it appears that I did not make my point CLEAR. What I meant was - higher magnification does NOT make one a better shot - and THAT is the silly assumption made by far too many people. I see now that I should have stated that, in exactly those terms. "My bad", as they say.

Your point about "the shakes" is somewhat correct, but not entirely. Yes, we all have them - BUT, higher magnification in fact "magnifies" them - making it harder to stay on target. That is accepted fact. Certainly using a rest for one's rifle is a compensating factor and can nullify the problem, just as a machine rest (taking the shooter almost entirely out of the equation) will virtually eliminate any such problem. That, however, serves to obscure the real issue. I seriously doubt that you spend much time shooting your "6mmBR" OFF HAND into pencil-sized bullseyes, at 300 yards (or any other distance).

A rifle rest, in this instance, merely serves to confuse the issue. Once again, however, I did not go into that kind of detail - and did not make myself clear. My apologies for that.

A simple conceptual proof for what I am saying can be constructed by only considering a basic scenario: any shooter, with a scoped rifle, shooting at any target, at any given distance - OFF HAND (so to eliminate the "crutch" effect of the rest - and place the onus entirely on the SHOOTER). 1st, assume the shooter is using 3X, with a 4" diameter target, at 100 yards. Compare that situation to the same shooter/ same rifle, etc.....using 9X, also with a 4" target at 100 yards. A true "apples to apples" comparison. Surely you don't believe that in those two scenarios, the shooter will likely be more accurate with his scope set at 9X !? I would venture to insist that there is likely NO ONE that could accomplish that.

If we consider further, the scenario above, except that the shooter is using a good, steady rifle rest in both circumstances....then he MIGHT do better with 9X. MIGHT. I myself would do better with 3X, or even less. It depends on the individual. However, that narrow example only really indicates that using a good rest makes it easier to shoot - that's all. The rest takes most of the skill OUT of the equation, in this example. There are many more variables to be considered - and it is pure fallacy to assume that, if the hypothetical individual happened to shoot better at 9X, then that proves that higher magnification is "better". Nonsense.

THAT is the heart of the matter. Higher magnification does NOT make one a better shooter, nor capable of better accuracy, except in very limited, specific circumstances, especially if using a rest. The unfortunate problem is that too many shooters assume exactly the opposite - and further assume that equipment will make up for lack of practice, etc. That is really all I meant - but, again, I did not go into enough detail to make myself clear before. Sorry.