I am wondering with the advancements in optics have the rules changed for a general big game scope??? I have always been from the mind set that quality is always better than max magnification. Now that the big optic companies have 6x magnification ability, we can now have a very high quality 3x18 power scope instead of the good old 3x9. I needed a good scope for my predator rifle so I moved my high quality big game Docter 3x4 to it. I then was looking for a new high quality big game scope and all the high quality glass has 6x capacity. I found the new Leupold VX 6 3x18 30mm tube with illuminated firedot with a 44mm lens that is incredibly attractive for my halo big game rifle in my collection. The field of view and eye relief are increadable. Its not too heavy and doesn't sit up high like a big 50mm typically would. It seems like there is no down side other than $$$$$. I asume this technology will eventually trickle down to the mid priced optics in time. Maybe I have been away from optics the last few years but I am amazed with the advancements. Has the bar been raised and now the good old 3x9 not the standard anymore???? What's you thoughts????
Has the rules of what scope is enough been changed?????
- Thread starter Mystro
- Start date
black mamba
New member
I believe the main thing that is changing is the hype and perception. There is no doubt that as rifles have gotten more accurate and scopes have become clearer and with higher magnification, that longer shots are possible than ever before. Specialized reticles have helped here, too. I can remember when a $300 Leupold 3-9x40 was the ne plus ultra of scopes available to the American rifleman, and it doesn't seem that long ago.
But the fact is, that with today's more accurate rifles, even that "old" 3-9x has enough magnification and accuracy for 95+% of all shooting at game. And that same $300 buys more scope today than it used to as well. People will always spend as much money as they want to, for all sorts of reasons, but the fact is that a $400 Mossberg or Savage rifle with a $200 Nikon variable scope is a better tool than 98% of rifle hunters used just 3 decades ago, and they (we) killed a lot of game back then.
But the fact is, that with today's more accurate rifles, even that "old" 3-9x has enough magnification and accuracy for 95+% of all shooting at game. And that same $300 buys more scope today than it used to as well. People will always spend as much money as they want to, for all sorts of reasons, but the fact is that a $400 Mossberg or Savage rifle with a $200 Nikon variable scope is a better tool than 98% of rifle hunters used just 3 decades ago, and they (we) killed a lot of game back then.
I was never a fan of the 50mm optics when they first came out because they sat so high. If a guy is gonna put together a higher end rifle/ optic package, its hard not to start out with one of these new super scopes. My eyes are older now and even my longer shots out to 300 yards was alway done with a 3x9 but I have to admit having the ability to dial it up twice that makes those shots ALOT more precise and easier for my old eyes.
There is no free lunch. Bigger scopes, 50mm lenses, and more magnification have downsides I'm not willing to put up with. A 3-9X40 is more scope than I'll ever need. In fact the 1-4X20's are becoming more appealing for most of my needs.
While the 50mm objectives look good on paper they offer absolutely zero advanantages in the real world that most of us can take advantge of.
More magnification costs a lot more money, or you give up a lot of quality if sold at the same price.
While the 50mm objectives look good on paper they offer absolutely zero advanantages in the real world that most of us can take advantge of.
More magnification costs a lot more money, or you give up a lot of quality if sold at the same price.
I'm old enough that I grew up knowing that 4X was all anybody needed on a hunting rifle, and a 3-9X40 was a big scope.
In recent years I noticed that more scopes had fully multicoated optics, and a lot of the scopes in the stores had 50mm lenses, and went up to 14X or 16X. I would guess that the average size for a hunting scope sold today is about 4-14X44.
For years I had 20, 32, 38, and 40mm scopes on my rifles.
A few years ago I bought a 3-10X50, to see what difference the larger objective makes. Put it in the same Leupold medium rings that had held a 2-8X32. For one season, I hunted with only the 50mm scope.
I've replaced several scopes over the last few years. I don't plan to ever buy another 20mm scope. They don't let in enough light. I like 32mm scopes better. I don't see the point of 40mm scopes any more. If I'm going over 32mm, I might as well go to 50.
I didn't used to trust 4X and 5X zooms (like a 3-15) but they must be all sorted out by now. All things in optics are tradeoffs, and one of the tradeoffs is cost. It looks to me that, for a good, full size scope, price is the only downside to a VX-6 3-18 or something similar.
In recent years I noticed that more scopes had fully multicoated optics, and a lot of the scopes in the stores had 50mm lenses, and went up to 14X or 16X. I would guess that the average size for a hunting scope sold today is about 4-14X44.
For years I had 20, 32, 38, and 40mm scopes on my rifles.
A few years ago I bought a 3-10X50, to see what difference the larger objective makes. Put it in the same Leupold medium rings that had held a 2-8X32. For one season, I hunted with only the 50mm scope.
I've replaced several scopes over the last few years. I don't plan to ever buy another 20mm scope. They don't let in enough light. I like 32mm scopes better. I don't see the point of 40mm scopes any more. If I'm going over 32mm, I might as well go to 50.
I didn't used to trust 4X and 5X zooms (like a 3-15) but they must be all sorted out by now. All things in optics are tradeoffs, and one of the tradeoffs is cost. It looks to me that, for a good, full size scope, price is the only downside to a VX-6 3-18 or something similar.
I believe that advancements in manufacturing techniques have improved scopes considerably over the last 30 years, to the point your statement is true. On the other hand my eyes have not gotten better and I'm finding I need more magnification each year. I never used to take my scope off of 3x, now I'm often using 5x or 6x, and dialing up to max when the game allows.
Over the years many of my friends have sang the praises of 50mm scopes. They're reasoning always seem to center around light gathering capabilities to which I never understood as I could, and still can see just fine through my 40mm scope at first light until well past legal shooting time. If you like them I would never knock you for using one but I'm not ready for one.....yet
Over the years many of my friends have sang the praises of 50mm scopes. They're reasoning always seem to center around light gathering capabilities to which I never understood as I could, and still can see just fine through my 40mm scope at first light until well past legal shooting time. If you like them I would never knock you for using one but I'm not ready for one.....yet
Boomer58cal
New member
My dad was always a big fan of 4 power scopes and I'd have to agree 4 power is plenty for 90 percent of hunting. 30 or 40 years ago single power scopes were tough and reliable, well variable power scopes were a bit fragile.
Today you can get a $200 scope better than anything you had back then. Today I generally stick with 3-9x40 & 4-12-40, but my new favorite is my Nikon Monarch 3 4-16x42. I still get my 4 power, but when I have a steady enough rest or I need to better identify my target I have 16 power when I need it.
Sure someday I'd love to have a 3-18, but until finances allow I'm very happy with my monarch 3.
4 power is still plenty but when you can have your cake and eat it too... why not.
Boomer
Today you can get a $200 scope better than anything you had back then. Today I generally stick with 3-9x40 & 4-12-40, but my new favorite is my Nikon Monarch 3 4-16x42. I still get my 4 power, but when I have a steady enough rest or I need to better identify my target I have 16 power when I need it.
Sure someday I'd love to have a 3-18, but until finances allow I'm very happy with my monarch 3.
4 power is still plenty but when you can have your cake and eat it too... why not.
Boomer
Last edited:
reynolds357
New member
Shooting long range has ruined me. I have become addicted to high power scopes. I love them. Its nice to dial up a deer and it look like I am shooting him at 50 yards.
I cant really see where the high quality 50's are any brighter than the high end 40's. I actually think the 40's might have higher clarity than the 50's.
I cant really see where the high quality 50's are any brighter than the high end 40's. I actually think the 40's might have higher clarity than the 50's.
Scopes have changed,but I'm not sure a hunter's requirements have.
A ballpark rule of thumb ,1x per 100 yds will be enough for good shot placement.
At this time,my favorite hunting scope is a 6x fixed Leupold,duplex,42 mm obj.It is in Weaver low rings.Rifle,scope,and all weighs 7 lbs.
Every time I look through the scope,its the same.The reticle measures the same.The 7mm exit pupil is all my eye can use.
For antelope this year,there is a 2 1/2 x Lyman Alaskan on the rifle I intend to use.
I prefer to carry trim,light rifles.I also carry very good binoculars.
Using a rifle scope as primary optic observation tool results in pointing your rifle at targets that have not been identified.(Sometimes this is why folks like big scopes)
I have seen people "glass" me with a scope.I do not like it.
A ballpark rule of thumb ,1x per 100 yds will be enough for good shot placement.
At this time,my favorite hunting scope is a 6x fixed Leupold,duplex,42 mm obj.It is in Weaver low rings.Rifle,scope,and all weighs 7 lbs.
Every time I look through the scope,its the same.The reticle measures the same.The 7mm exit pupil is all my eye can use.
For antelope this year,there is a 2 1/2 x Lyman Alaskan on the rifle I intend to use.
I prefer to carry trim,light rifles.I also carry very good binoculars.
Using a rifle scope as primary optic observation tool results in pointing your rifle at targets that have not been identified.(Sometimes this is why folks like big scopes)
I have seen people "glass" me with a scope.I do not like it.
As far as I know there are no rules, though there is some concurrence as to what works and what doesn't.
The reality is that there are some gun accurate enough to shoot out to 600 yards or better and to do that you need a higher power scope.
Bottom line though is you still have to be able to shoot accurately at those ranges and its a whole different ball game with major bullet drop.
Don't buy more scope or rifle than you can shoot.
I liked the 9X for scanning, I certainly would not use it to look at people. I did carry good binocs when I was at it but for a quick look the scope was preferred, binocs for solid sitting or long term scanning.
The reality is that there are some gun accurate enough to shoot out to 600 yards or better and to do that you need a higher power scope.
Bottom line though is you still have to be able to shoot accurately at those ranges and its a whole different ball game with major bullet drop.
Don't buy more scope or rifle than you can shoot.
I liked the 9X for scanning, I certainly would not use it to look at people. I did carry good binocs when I was at it but for a quick look the scope was preferred, binocs for solid sitting or long term scanning.
Boomer58cal
New member
Safety on, chamber empty. Plus if I saw a person in the scope I wouldn't put the crosshairs anywhere near them.
I'd rather have a few ounces of extra scope instead of a few extra pounds of binoculars.
When hunting I carry a two day pack because you just never know. I think of everything I carry as part of a system. This is a fire power vs mobility equation. By fire power I mean capability. Emergency food, the ability to make a fire, first aid kit, etc. No matter how big and strong you are you can only carry so much. I'm 6'4 290 lbs( ish) and I can carry a lot but I still have my limits. I don't intend on caring 80 or 90 pounds of gear hunting.
Then again if you hunt from your truck, suv or sit in a deer stand I guess weight isn't a big deal. I prefer to stalk my prey
Some people hunt with nothing but a rifle and a pocket full of shells. Some people carry enough BS to camp for a week. I'm somewhere in between. No one way is better than the other as long as you get your kill, you have fun and you make it home safe.
To each is own. This is just my philosophy.
Boomer
Last edited:
globemaster3
New member
Some great acknowledgements of the improvement in optics over the years. I agree, just over the last 20 we've seen some great leaps in what optic manufacturers can do at relatively low price points.
Just in reticles alone, look at what's offered today! Before you have either duplex or wire, and if you were really out there, a post. Today we have ranging reticles, bullet drop compensating reticles, lighted reticles, and the list goes on.
But an interesting point was made I agree with. For most hunters, the requirements have not changed! Most shots are still taken inside 100 yards or thereabouts. Although I must admit, I do like to dial in 9X at 100. I feel I can be more precise with my shot, which after all, is still the most important part of the equation: putting the bullet where it needs to go!
Just in reticles alone, look at what's offered today! Before you have either duplex or wire, and if you were really out there, a post. Today we have ranging reticles, bullet drop compensating reticles, lighted reticles, and the list goes on.
But an interesting point was made I agree with. For most hunters, the requirements have not changed! Most shots are still taken inside 100 yards or thereabouts. Although I must admit, I do like to dial in 9X at 100. I feel I can be more precise with my shot, which after all, is still the most important part of the equation: putting the bullet where it needs to go!
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
If a 4X scope worked for Bambi in 1950, it'll work on him today. Nothing wrong with "more scope", but that's really an issue of billfold size and the I-want--not "need".
No real difference for prairie dogs. Sure, a 3x18 is neat, but 7X works to 300 yards, quite easily.
So I figure you look at your intended use, look at your billfold, and buy what suits you.
No real difference for prairie dogs. Sure, a 3x18 is neat, but 7X works to 300 yards, quite easily.
So I figure you look at your intended use, look at your billfold, and buy what suits you.
Bushmaster1313
New member
3X does well for me:
100 yards 80 gr Federal Poweshok, aiming at bottom of the black circle
100 yards 80 gr Federal Poweshok, aiming at bottom of the black circle