Why a lower powered fixed power scope.

[KMAX]

Why would one choose a lower powered fixed power scope over a variable power scope? I have my ideas but would like input from you folks. One thing I have noticed is that the fixed power is usually less expensive than the variable. Any other reasons?

[SSA]

Almost no one picks a lower powered fixed power scope any more. That's why there are very few lower powered fixed power scopes being produced.
The variables are better deals, because they make and sell so many more of them. The only lower powered fixed power scope that I can think of that might be better than a variable at the same price is the Weaver 4X.

[wogpotter]

Weight, size & balance.
Also matching it to the realistic capabilities of your rifle/cartridge.
There's no point in a high mag variable if you only have a 3.5 MOA rifle & only shoot it at or under 100yds.

Quality also, I use a Zeiss/Leitz fixed 4XZ & the optical quality is impressive. I'd honestly not spend the kind of money real high end European high power zooms command.

[HiBC]

I'll agree the market has not been real friendly to low fixed power scopes.
IMO,that does not reflect the merit of a fixed,modest power scope.

Its more of a comment on the buying public.

If the rifle's purpose is generally a big game rifle to be used at ranges out to around 300 yds something like a 3x or 4 x fixed is a perfectly good choice.
It worked from around the 1930's for several decades of big game hunters.
And a lot of military sniper rifles.Today,a 4x ACOG is a common choice on the battlefield.On my Pronghorn rifle I have a fixed 6x.It can place a shot on a prairie dog to 300 yds.
I can get a rifle sighted in just fine with iron sights.Any magnification will do.
I can sight in fine with a 3x.
I'm not putting down variables.For many,they are a versatile,practical,good choice.
Myself,I don't believe in using my rifle scope to check out"Whats that?".Many folks use the high magnification for just that.IMO,that violates "Never point your firearm at something you don't want to kill".I use binoculars.

A 1/2 in smaller bragging bench rest group might be an advantage to a 4x-12x variable....but I don't look at a deer rifle as a benchrest gun...

Crawling through bushes ,hopefully around cactus,etc,,poor weather,just general carrying,compact and light are both good.

Another advantage,the rifleman has fewer variables to cope with in an instant if the scope always looks the same,for range estimation,hold,etc.
There is no "Oops,wrong power.Darn"
A 4x is still a fine big game scope.

[JohnKSa]

A fixed power scope should have fewer moving parts than a variable scope.

Assuming a reasonable comparison (roughly similar quality level) that suggests that the fixed power scope would likely be less expensive, lighter/smaller and/or stronger/more durable.

It's also easier to use from the standpoint of operating it in the field.

If you know what you want, if what you want is really what you need, and if all of that can be satisfied with a lower-powered fixed power scope then why add weight, size, complication and expense?

[jmr40]

Less weight, less cost, and at least in theory better reliability. I've found, as have the vast majority of shooters that the small theoretical advantages don't out weigh the versatility of a low powered variable. I'll take a 1-4X or 2-7X variable any day over a fixed 2X, 3X or 4X scope.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by hibc

I'll agree the market has not been real friendly to low fixed power scopes.
IMO,that does not reflect the merit of a fixed,modest power scope.

I concur.

I think there is undue focus (only slightly punny) on very marginal improvements in scope utility. That happens in lots of hobbies, but it really comes through in scopes.

A rifle scope is a gun sight. It isn't a spotting scope. Does your fixed power scope let you hit the target? I use 2.5x shotgun scopes on ARs. They weigh 8 ounces give a clear focus on the target down to about 10 feet have generous eye relief, are clear and rugged, and give low enough magnification that my faults as a shooter do give me a distractingly wobbly poi zone. They are good enough to hit chipmunks at 100m, just like iron sights.

I concede that your swiss made, two pound, 1-8x with tactical target turrets and illuminated range finding reticle is better in many ways than my shotgun scope. I don't think it is a hundred times better, as the price might indicate.

They also possess a virtue you note:

Another advantage,the rifleman has fewer variables to cope with in an instant if the scope always looks the same,for range estimation,hold,etc.
There is no "Oops,wrong power.Darn"

Indeed. It takes a step out of the process.

Originally Posted by JohnKsa

If you know what you want,...

I think not wanting to commit to one solution may drive some of the variable power market. I have an old 4x-12x for tiny distant targets, and it is always set at 12x, but I was just starting to shoot when I bought it and might not have wanted to commit to a fixed 12x.

Some special applications make some kind of variable power sensible, but for a lot of us that variable power just lets us buy before narrowing down what we want.

[skizzums]

I didn't really know the advantage of a fixed power, but I had assumptions. I thought it was because the exit pupil diameter and the eye relief could be made to much larger/longer. didn't know why, that's just what I thought.

my wife has a fixed 4x on her 9mm carbine, because it's simple, has very easy relief and forgiving to the angle of eye to he axis, despite a small objective tube. I had assumed this was the norm for a low mag/fixed power scope.Being a 9mm she isn't really shooting anything smaller than clays at 50 yards and less. But it seemed to me that it didn't really matter where you looked through the scope, you could just about always see the reticle/light, wasn't too picky about being mounted juuust right to get a decent view or having to pain through getting just the right eye contact every time.

I have been discussing optics with my step-father for his first rifle. he has very poor vision due to a detached retina that occurred 5-6 yrs ago followed by numerous surgeries. He is getting first rifle as an AR15 that he is only interested in blasting in his yard which allows for 50 yard shots and possibly a few possibilities for 100 yards, though not many. I doubt he will shoot the thing more than 3-4 times before getting put away for years anyway, but I was suggesting with his poor eyesight, he either needed to go with a Leupold FX 6x 36mm, I assumed the 4" relief and the 8mm pupil would be generous enough to keep him from having to spend a minute lining up to the axis after every shot. or if he wanted something electronic he needed to look at a CQ reticle with drop comps like the 3x Burris Prism AR-332. I know the prism will not have the relief of a scope, but thought it may be tolerable with the low magnification and a 32mm objective, and although they don calculate the exit pupil on the prisms/dots, every time I play with one at the store it doesn't seem to matter where your eyes sit at since the focal plane moves with your eye.

Please tell me if my thinking on a low-power fixed power scope is incorrect and if increased exit pupil/eye relief is not part of the equation. I would hate for him to drop 3-400$ on something that's not going to work for him or just isn't necessary. If a variable power scope gives up no advantage to a fixed power than I would much rather see him into something like the Bushnell PCL 1x4. http://bushnell.com/tactical/rifle-s...throw-down-pcl (but now that I just looked at it, it's exit pupil is smaller than the fixed power's 6x.....so what gives? what's the reason for that?)

if I am incorrect that a fixed scope is going to have the advantage on the exit pupil, what then creates that measurement. is it a combination of the objective size and the magnification? does the relief have anything to do with it? does a longer relief, like 3" vs 4.5" make it easier to get on target or does that ONLY tell you where your eye needs to be for optimal viewing?

what would you recommend for a man with great difficulty getting focused on things? prism, low mag glass? any correlation between the two and ease of focusing? it's not that his vision is bad per se, it's that his eyes are slow to respond and slow to constrict/contract since e has some kind of incomplete circuitry between brain and optics.....you give him a couple seconds he can see just fine.

I hope this isn't sidetracking, I was thoroughly under the impression that for whatever reason that I never really delved into, that a fixed optic had easier/faster focus for the user.

[zukiphile]

The bushnell doesn't have a smaller exit pupil than the leupold.

Obj diameter / magnification = exit pupil, so

bushnell will be 24 / 4 = 6mm

leupold will be 36 / 6 = 6mm



Lower magnification should help with complete light transmission. When you get into high magnification the small exit pupil can make things dark.

This may explain why those high power scopes have Hubbell sized objectives. At the other extreme, look at this Leupold:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/136...ProductFinding

...that's an 8mm exit pupil from a 20mm objective.

Someone smarter can address eye relief. I've looked through some cheap scopes with a very brief range of clarity only rather close to the ocular bell.

[skizzums]

okay. thanks, that clarifies things. I was saying Bushnell had a smaller exit because it was the same at a lower magnification. I didn't know the formula was that simple.

SO......the answr to my drawn out question is........NO, a fixed power/low mag scope has no better pupil than a variable power. the formula won't change because of the design of the scope. thanks. Maybe now i'll talk him into the Bushnell since there isn't really a difference. He said he wanted a reflex type, I didn't get the chance to tell him what a real magnified reflex costs, which is more than he'll want to pay for a seldom used rifle. I think that Bushnell might be a good compromise. Ill need to see one in store though and compare it to Vortex magnified thingy with the etched reticle, forget what it's called ATM.

okay, back to your discussion, thanks again

[zukiphile]

Ill need to see one in store though and compare it to Vortex magnified thingy with the etched reticle, forget what it's called ATM.

You might even make him look. I've read that people with astigmatism can have problems using a red dot, and light transmission can be a problem as we age. What I take from this is that people can have their vision compromised in many different ways. I don't know the issue his condition presents.

I do know that I have some Bushnells from the 1990s that are very bright with generous eye relief and light out the very edges of the ocular bell. I'm confident that none were expensive.

That comes back to the general subject of the thread -- the virtue of a simple design that addresses what one needs in a gun sight.

[skizzums]

getting him to make a trip out will be difficult, but I will try to bring him "samples" of the best I have to offer. He and my mom decided to get started retring, although not done working yet, they live in the smallest town close to nothing. a good 25 minuts to the grocery, I ave yet to see a un store around there. but I hear gunshots, so they must be somewhere. interesting city, it's law that you cannot build a home on less than 10 acres of property, most folks have a ton more than that. big time gun country, I think that's why he wants one, he hears his neighbors blasting all weekend and I think he wants to be able to join in on the fun, you wouldn't believe the amount of firepower ringing through those woods on sundays, pretty dang cool. they're all a bunch of rich s.o.b.s out there with lots of land, 4x4's, firearms and gigantic mansions in the middle of nowhere. pretty cool place. i'll try to poke around and see if anything is close, but knowing him he'll just say "you pick what you think'll be best, here's my card"

I have all his rifle parts sitting here in boxes, he has no idea what he's getting yet, he's going to be pretty surprised, definitely a sweet lil rifle, enough to make me jealous every time I walk by it. Anyay, I have a very good relationship with the owner of my LGS where I live, he wouldn't have any qualms with me buying two optics and returning one so long as he understands what I am doing, and he stocks some pretty decnt stuff, vortex everything, Eo's, Aimpoints and lots of glass. But I would really like to find something in the 300$ range since he has already told me that "i just want something I can blast at tree stumps in the back yard and make a lot of noise" he also mentioned the word "zombies" a couple o times. My LS le me play with the 3x "Spitfire the other day with some kind of "DRT" reticle with two circles that looked almost 3-d, neat scope and may be just what he wants if I can't get him to go more traditional. I would much prefer a nice piece of glass with a fine reticle so we can wring this thing out, but to each his own.....if he wants a zombie blaster, i'll build a top of the line zombie blaster....But when he gave me his proposed limit for the build, I knew he was definitely getting something better than a stump buster, figured I might as well do it right.....since, hell, it'll end up coming back to me again one day

thank again.

[SSA]

skizzums
You might look at the Leupold 3-9x40 ultimate slam. Shorter parallax setting than most scopes, good sized objective for a good sized exit pupil, available with illumination.

[603Country]

I hunt with a few different rifles. All have variable scopes and I keep them mostly on about 8 power for the powerline and edge hunting that I do. I will crank up the power on coyote or pig shots out around 350 to 400 yards. I could do all of that, and I used to, with a fixed 6 Leupold. But...I shoot a lot of paper at 100 yards and I like to be able to see where the bullet hit without reaching for the spotting scope. For that, I need about 12 power. Over the years I've settled in on Leupold 4.5-14's and Vortex 4-16's, though I do have a Leupold 6.5-20 on my 220 Swift. A couple of years ago, on a perfect fall afternoon, I had a big male coyote respond to my calling, but he wouldn't get closer than 315 yards. So I cranked the scope up to 20 power and I could see bugs buzzing him just before I put him down. I could have done that with a 6 power scope, but I just like having more magnification if and when I want to use it. That said, buy what makes you happy.

[wpsdlrg]

Why does anyone choose anything ? In my case, when I used scopes on rifles (I've always preferred iron sights....and have since gone back to them exclusively)....I never wanted high magnification because I never took shots on game at much beyond 200 yards. I never saw much need to be able to count the hairs on the side of the animal, so low magnification did just fine for me. In addition, high magnification serves to magnify small movements, so a steadier shooting position is needed. I also hate large scopes with big objectives....makes the rifle look so unbalanced.

I like iron sights because I like the challenge and the rifles look much better that way (in my opinion). I no longer hunt...and mainly shoot at distances out to 150-200 yards maximum. Irons do just fine. In fact, I currently use FIXED iron sights on my rifle, just as on my handguns. I compensate for distance by learning the trajectory of the loads I use and aiming accordingly. Though I can't produce 3" groups at 200 yards, I love the challenge of zeroing in on targets such as clay birds at that distance, for example. Much more fun than being able to read the lettering on the birds with a giant telescope mounted on top of my rifle. Just my preference.

All issues of personal preference. Nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing "wrong" with someone choosing a 3-9 X 50 scope for shooting .22 rim fire at 50 yards, if they so choose.

[jmr40]

Eye relief is determined by how the scope is manufactured and sometimes the magnification. There is no mathematical way to figure it out, you just have to look at the manufacturers specs. As a rule Leupold usually has more eye relief than most brands regardless of whether it is a fixed power or variable. Bushnell is one of the shortest eye relief scopes.

On variable power scopes MOST of them will have greater eye relief on lower magnifications than higher. Some brands are consistent with the same eye relief on any magnification. Some only list the greatest eye relief on their website specs so it can be misleading.

Exit pupil ratings can be misleading. Dividing the scopes front objective size by the magnification tells you the diameter of a beam of light coming through the scope. Most people cannot use any more than 5-6 mm of light. If you are in your 20's with above average eyesight maybe 7mm. Any more is just wasted and most people can't tell the difference between 10mm and 6mm.

The advantage of larger objectives is that it allow more magnification in low light. A 20mm objective becomes pretty useless above 4X in low light. A 40mm objective doesn't have issues until you get above 8X, and a 50mm lense will allow exactly the same light through at 10X.

And exit pupil ratings only tell you how large the beam of light coming through the scope is. It does not tell you how bright it is. That is determined by the scopes light transmission rating. It can vary from 95+% to as low as 80%. A high quality 40mm scope with a 95% light transmission rating will work better in low light than a budget scope with a 50mm objective and an 80% light transmission rating.

If everything is equal a fixed power scope in theory should be ever so slightly brighter because the simpler lenses will allow more light through. It'd be hard to prove in the real world, but might show up in a lab test.

[bamaranger]

I run a small stable of fixed power scopes, mostly 6x's (3), a pair of 2.75x, and heirloom 4x on an heirloom rifle, a rimfire 4x on a .22, and a vintage 12x on a HB varminter. I've got another vintage full size 4x temporarily idle, that was on a '06 carbine for a number of years. It got oone of the 6x36mm's.

JohnKSa summed up my stance, lighter, simpler, and all I need. Well, the old 12x is NOT lighter, nor is it small, but it's an exception.

I often read that 6x is too much scope for whitetails in the woods, but that has not been my experience at all. The 6x gives me a tad more magnification for open areas and longer shots. In the woods, I can count points (necessary for QDM areas) and find holes in the brush to thread bullets through to deer. I don't find the 6x any worse for tracking moving deer, than the 4x, which was standard on so many rifles for so many years.

My latest 6x is a Leupold 6x42mm, mounted on a business like Hog Rifle, which is set up with one piece steel base and steel tac type rings. The object was to build a tough, no nonsense rifle that would hold up to a lot of shooting and be very reliable. The fixed 6x has fewer parts....theoretically, less to go wrong. The bigger bell should suck a bit more light than a smaller one.

The 2.75x numbers are both on stubby carbines, one in .44 and the other in .308, whose greatest virtue is not how far they can or cannot reach, but how easy they are to carry.

Sure, I own variables on other rifles, but don't plan on changing my fixed powers over.

[zach_]

I shoot paper. I like my fixed power swfa scope for the features and price. I guess it would not be considered low power. I also found that I never adjusted the power on my other scopes. I might have a use for a variable power if I were to hunt.
I am still experimenting with my AR between a red dot, and a 4-12 power scope. The red dot is smaller, and lighter. That makes for easier off hand shooting. That extra weight of scope and mount makes a difference.

[Polinese]

I only have one variable power scope and I just leave it on 7 power. I have 3 6x scopes I use, a 4x on my rimfire, and a 10x on my precision rifle. I've never been in a spot where I thought "darn I wish I could turn this down". Taking those extra parts out of the scope is a bonus to me as I generally like my stuff to be as simple and reliable as possible.

[Bucksnort1]

I didn't read, word for word, the encyclopedia responses to this thread so perhaps I'm being redundant but with greater magnification, when looking through a scope, a billionth of an inch movement on the part of the shooter looks like the shooter polished off a 5th of single malt scotch before the hunt and can't control the shakes. With that being said, I use my 3X9 Leupold (pronounced Loupold, not Leeopold) Vari X II at the highest power regardless of the type of hunting.

SSA is right, the Weaver fixed 4X is probably the finest fixed 4X power ever made. It's bomb proof. I bought my first and only Weaver 4X in 1962. Heck, my best friend has this scope on his 30-06, which has been there since dirt was formed and it still works beautifully.



"IT STARTED WITH AN RCBS PARTNER PRESS KIT THEN EVOLVED INTO MENTAL ILLNESS"

[lefteye]

I have hunted in several states since the mid 70s, and have been very pleased with Leupold Vari-X III 2.5-8x at ranges from 20 yards to well over 400 yards. They currentlly sell for about $400 (much more than I paid.) I typically carry a rifle with the scope set at 2.5x and that has paid off on a few occasions. If I needed more power - like a small black bear at 400+ yards - there was certainly enough time to adjust the scope power. I also have a Leupold shotgun scope 1-4x, and have similar experience hunting deer with that scope. I've taken deer at 1x while stalking or standing, and up to 4x from a tree stand. Based on my experience I believe a variable power scope with a range of 2.5-8x or 3-9x is ideal for most (but not all) rifle hunting for "big" game and coyotes in the lower 48.

Edit: Added "rifle" in the last sentence.

[jimbob86]

I'll agree the market has not been real friendly to low fixed power scopes.
IMO,that does not reflect the merit of a fixed,modest power scope.

Its more of a comment on the buying public.

Fewer parts=Fewer things to go wrong, as well as less weight.

For deer guns that won't be used beyond 300 yards, there's no need for anything more than 4X- if you can't see and find a point of aim on a target the size of a deer at under 300 yards with 4X magnification, then the problem is not with the scope!

Conversely, if you've ever had a buck come up behind you and you try to find that sweet spot right behind his elbow in a hurry ........when he's just 15 feet away and your scope is cranked up to 9 or 10x ..... then you'll wish you had chosen low power fixed magnification glass.....

[lefteye]

I've had deer and elk so close that a fixed power 4x scope would have taken more time (in seconds) than shooting with my variable scope set at 2.5x - honestly! I had nice whitetail buck run directly at me from my right side while I was in a tree stand. Scope was set on 2.5x. I fired, and worked the bolt action of my Rem 700 .270, turned 180 degrees, and fired again. The buck dropped instantly - hit twice, front to back, back to front. My best elk, a 5 x 5 in the Bob Marshall, was walking directly at me on a mountain side trail in response to the guide's calling. Again, I was very thankful I had the scope set on 2.5x. A couple of days later I needed the 8x setting to shoot a very small black bear (very typical for the area according to the guide and outfitter) at over 400 yards. I have nothing against a fixed power scope but I honestly believe my 2.5 x 8 has proven its value (at least to me.)

[jimbob86]

The two fixed scopes I have in the house are 2 and 2.5X.

My personal hunting rifle has a 3x9 on it..... stays on 3X unless the target is way out there, or so small as to be hard to see at normal ranges (prairie dog's head peeking out of the mound).

[lefteye]

My statement:

Based on my experience I believe a variable power scope with a range of 2.5-8x or 3-9x is ideal for most (but not all) rifle hunting for "big" game and coyotes in the lower 48.

Your statement:

My personal hunting rifle has a 3x9 on it..... stays on 3X unless the target is way out there, or so small as to be hard to see at normal ranges (prairie dog's head peeking out of the mound).

My conclusion:

We agree!