PDA

View Full Version : Question on Scope Magnification


VirtualGreg
January 24, 2010, 12:47 PM
Hey Guys,

I had a search around and didn't find anyone asking this specific questions, so thought I would throw it out there.

I'm looking to assemble a rifle (.308 current choice) primarily (and initially solely) for range shooting to get proficiency. Later I'd like to hunt some deer. As such my initial ranges would be 100 yds, 200 yds but because of the characteristics of the .308 round I'd like to become as proficient as I can at longer distances. Probably no more than 600 yds.

Scopes come with a range of magnifications, and I'm looking at the Leupold Mark IV family of scopes. Stands to reason that at 100 yds I'm not going to need the same magnification as I am at 600 yds, but how much is a good range for both. The reason I ask is that whilst I am pricing up everything I want (which dulls the time whilst saving.... :( ) I see quite a range of magnifications for not that much more money. I doubt that more magnification is better, but that there are better magnifications for different ranges.

I was initially thinking of a 4x to 14x, but then noticed I can pick up the 6.5x to 20x for very little more. so I guess it falls on the min and max ranges... is 6.5x too much for 100 yds, or is 14x not enough for 600 yds. (looking at a 50mm objective lense if that makes a difference). I can tell you guys the total package I'm planning if it makes a difference...

Would love to hear what you guys think on the subject.

Thanks,
Greg

noyes
January 24, 2010, 12:52 PM
24x or 36x at 100 yds. No spoting scope needed to see the bullet holes, plus there good for longer ranges.

kraigwy
January 24, 2010, 01:00 PM
I've shot a heck of a lot of rifle matches up to 1000 yards with iron sights and haven't had a problem. On my 1000 yard any rifle / any sight gun I use a Weaver T-10. I dont think I've ever seen the need for anything more.

Hunting I like a fixed 4 X. You loose field of view with the high power scopes.

I do have a Lepy 2 X 7 on my 257 roberts for deer and antilope but I leave it on 3 X.

I guess its all just differant opinons.

fisherman66
January 24, 2010, 01:02 PM
I was initially thinking of a 4x to 14x, but then noticed I can pick up the 6.5x to 20x for very little more. so I guess it falls on the min and max ranges... is 6.5x too much for 100 yds

It isn't that 6.5x is too much at 100 yards, but 6.5x is way too much for a moving or wounded animal at much shorter ranges. I think your initial choice of 4-14x is better and a 3-9x is probably more realistic unless you are hunting in the seriously wide open west.

Doyle
January 24, 2010, 01:02 PM
Remember, the greater the magnification the less the field of view and the more your barrel movements are exagerated. In a hunting situation for 100 to 200 yd deer, you would never need more than about 6X. If you are in a tight area where shorter ranges are needed, then you'll need 2x-4x. Also remember that the distortion on most scopes increases as you crank up the power and the point of impact changes also.

That being said, if you want a scope to do double duty on both the range and the deer stand pick a scope for your hunting situation even if it means a less-than-ideal choice for the range.

VirtualGreg
January 24, 2010, 03:09 PM
Thanks guys... I was pretty much on the fence but will probably go for the lesser magnification due to the hunting requirements and improved FoV at shorter ranges. Cheers.

A/C Guy
January 24, 2010, 03:17 PM
Since hunting deer is a future plan, try a 2.5 -10x42
10x at 600 yards is plenty of magnification.
2.5x at under 100 yards is correct for deer.

You can always tell an inexperienced hunter at the shooting range by their super magnification scope.

sdj
January 24, 2010, 04:25 PM
I'll chime in about tube diameter as no one has chimed in on that yet: a larger tube diameter (e.g. 30mm) will mean the scope rides higher on the rifle (higher than a scope with a 1 inch tube). Scopes with 1 inch (2.5cm = ~ 1 inch) will ride a bit lower, making that cheek plant more secure.

VirtualGreg
January 24, 2010, 04:31 PM
Thanks for the input sdj. I was once told that a larger objective lense would allow for more light; is that not the case or is it just not necessary at those distances?

fisherman66
January 24, 2010, 04:40 PM
I'll chime in about tube diameter as no one has chimed in on that yet: a larger tube diameter (e.g. 30mm) will mean the scope rides higher on the rifle (higher than a scope with a 1 inch tube). Scopes with 1 inch (2.5cm = ~ 1 inch) will ride a bit lower, making that cheek plant more secure.

Perhaps, but normally the Objective Bell is the height determining factor.

I was once told that a larger objective lense would allow for more light; is that not the case or is it just not necessary at those distances?

The objective lens and the magnification power determine the exit pupil diameter. Divide the Objective diameter by the power of the scope to get that figure. The larger the lens the more power you can use and still have an exit pupil larger than your fully dilated iris/pupil (which is somewhere around 7mm for a healthy young eye).

Fully multi-coated lenses and "baffled" black out internal coatings make the biggest difference in light transmission.

I prefer to use a lower power on a smaller belled scope like a 1-4x32 or 2-7x33, but to each their own.

2rugers
January 24, 2010, 05:46 PM
The old stand buy 3x9 would probably be the best choice for your application.

Adventurer 2
January 24, 2010, 05:56 PM
I recently bought my first scope with a magnification greater than 10X. It is a Leupold Mark AR 6-18 x 40. I don't use the 18 power at 100 yards because it is too close to get sharp focus (16X is as high as I can go and remain sharp at 100). At 50 yards I have to drop to an even lower power to get a sharp focus. If I am shooting further than something past 125 yards I could turn up to 18X but I don't. The magnification is nice but what bothers me is that it is hard to have the view in a complete circle lit up. The focal length on 18X has got to be in a spot x distance from the bell within about 3millimeters. Move my head forward or back at all and I lose the scope picture. I don't crank up the scope unless I am shooting off a solid position. I don't know if other higher power scopes do this or not. It is definitely not a low light scope.
I would rather own the 14X Mark AR.

22-rimfire
January 24, 2010, 07:58 PM
The other factor to consider is the weight and length of a scope for hunting and the kind of hunting you might be doing in terms of honest target distances. For target shooting, it makes little difference from the bench. You sound like you're pretty "into" things, you might consider something in the x-24x maganification for target and 3-9x for hunting. Yes, two scopes.

Suwannee Tim
January 24, 2010, 09:25 PM
I have the Leupold 6.5 to 20 EFR on several airguns and 22s and I love it. Clear, bright, sharp but too much magnification for hunting anything that might be moving fast or moving at all. I have a Leupold 8.5 to 25 X 50 30 mm and it is too much magnification. The FOV and brightness really suffer at those magnifications. For hunting I think a 2.5 to 10 is excellent. I have a 30 mm Nikon that I like and it wasn't horribly expensive. I have several Leupold M8 4X with an inch tube, for general purpose use, hard to beat, light, rugged, simple and effective. That's what I have on my "Stopper", my 458 magnum and my most versatile rifle, my 30-06.

Toolman
January 26, 2010, 06:14 PM
Higher scope magnification affects everything else too,,,including heartbeat & breathing, ,,also means less field of view at high power.

Jimro
January 26, 2010, 06:28 PM
Glass quality is more important than magnification quantity.

I've shot 600 with a 4x scope and no complaints, done the same with iron sights.

a 4-12 or 4.5-14 variable is just fine. Keep it low for hunting, crank it up for target shooting.

And get a good spotting scope. When you start shooting longer ranges you'll appreciate it.

Jimro