What magnification for long shots?
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
big al hunter
New member
I like a variable scope. Low end around 3 or 4x. High end from 9 to 12x. I haven't had problems at very close range (25 yards). And 10x is plenty for any longer shots I want to take.
Your likely to get a wide variety of answers. But you probably know that already. I will be checking to see what others say
Your likely to get a wide variety of answers. But you probably know that already. I will be checking to see what others say
My wife and i like the Vortex Crossfire II 4-12X44 with BDC for reaching out to 500 yards.
Lately have been using some Sightron scopes.
I really like the STAC 4-20X50 but it is heavy for a hunting scope.
Their SIH 3-9X40 has really surprised me with the quality at the price point.
Lately have been using some Sightron scopes.
I really like the STAC 4-20X50 but it is heavy for a hunting scope.
Their SIH 3-9X40 has really surprised me with the quality at the price point.
I like about 2X +/- on the low end. For the larger game, 6X will do at the upper end, perhaps 8X or so on coyote. More mag is fine for target/sight-in, but I prefer as little mag as necessary for field shots on game. Plus a lower mag scope generally means a smaller/lighter scope that can sit lower over the action and provide faster sighting with typical stock comb heights. And I also seem to be able to hold a lower power scope steadier when not using a bench.
Lots of good reasons for “lower” power scopes on hunting rifles. One drawback is the lesser ability to judge rack size at long range.
Lots of good reasons for “lower” power scopes on hunting rifles. One drawback is the lesser ability to judge rack size at long range.
LineStretcher
New member
Lots of talk about max power but for hunting you really need to consider field of view also. At max power you significantly reduce field of view so while you might be able to pick the fleas off a buck with a high power scope, if he moves you will probably loose it. This is where a long distance hunting scope shines. I have a Swarovski X5 long distance 3.5x18-40mm that I love. It's clear as a bell at 25 yards and 500 yards and has an improved BDC reticle with both hold over and hold under graduations. Yes, it is an expensive piece of glass but I felt it was a worthwhile investment. It is also a first focal plane scope . My shorter distance scopes rarely exceed 9x and for those I've come to like the Vortex Diamondback hunting series. They have good glass and good field of view and won't break the bank. They are second focal plane scopes but I still like them. I'd take one over my Leupolds any day, and I have several which sadly, I just cant recommend anymore.
The magnification issue(the scope weight is irrelevant) is about the field of view. That 17.2 ounce, Vortex Crossfire II 4-12X44 has a FOV of 8.4 feet at 100 yards on 12X. That'd be considerably less at excessive distances. Most hunters set the scope on one magnification and leave it there anyway. There's no time for fiddling with the scope when hunting unless you're sitting in a blind.
"...too much at 50-200 yards..." More about 50 or less.
It's not about ethics either. It's about ballistics. Most typical deer/elk cartridges with any bullet weight drop like bricks past 300 yards. Most, but not all, do not have enough remaining energy either.
And Wiley really shouldn't be on that list. He's waaaay smaller than any of the other critters.
"...too much at 50-200 yards..." More about 50 or less.
It's not about ethics either. It's about ballistics. Most typical deer/elk cartridges with any bullet weight drop like bricks past 300 yards. Most, but not all, do not have enough remaining energy either.
And Wiley really shouldn't be on that list. He's waaaay smaller than any of the other critters.
Gentlemen, the OP asked what magification was required at ~500yds.
The answer is based upon 4x being considered sufficient/standard detail/discrimination for most all hunting targets (woodchucks to deer) at 100 yds.
Multiply that 4X by the relative yardage for the same detail/discrimination:
200 yds --> (200/100)*4X = 8X
300 yds --> (300/100)*4X = 12X
500 yds --> (500/100)*4X = 20X
This is the answer to the question.
Makes, models, variable-powers, field-of-view, ballistics, drop calculators, etc are interesting . . . but the answer at 500 yds is 20X
The answer is based upon 4x being considered sufficient/standard detail/discrimination for most all hunting targets (woodchucks to deer) at 100 yds.
Multiply that 4X by the relative yardage for the same detail/discrimination:
200 yds --> (200/100)*4X = 8X
300 yds --> (300/100)*4X = 12X
500 yds --> (500/100)*4X = 20X
This is the answer to the question.
Makes, models, variable-powers, field-of-view, ballistics, drop calculators, etc are interesting . . . but the answer at 500 yds is 20X
Mehaveys thought process is interesting. I don't believe 20 is needed for 500. I have and many others have made successful, repeatable shots out to 1000 with 10x. Now this is paper or steel that is smaller than the avg deer. FOV is more useful, along with low light performance. So my answer is 10x for upper end. At that setting FOV is still decent.
FrankenMauser
New member
300-500 yards?...
That depends upon your personal preference. Most of my scoped rifles are topped with variables or fixed 4x. I'm fine with 4x for as far as the rifle will shoot.
But if I slap a variable on top of something likely to see potential kill shots on edible game at 300-600 yards, I usually go 10x to 14x on the top end. (And 3x or 4x at the low end.)
The rifle doesn't change the way it shoots if you use more magnification, it just makes you feel better about the shot because the target appears larger*.
The only scope that I have with greater than 14x on the top end is a 6.5-20x on a varmint rig. I find that much magnification to be unnecessary on big game rifles. (They weigh more, too.)
*Higher magnification also allows better/easier identification of potential targets. But that may be worthy of a separate discussion; and I don't care to address it further right now.
That depends upon your personal preference. Most of my scoped rifles are topped with variables or fixed 4x. I'm fine with 4x for as far as the rifle will shoot.
But if I slap a variable on top of something likely to see potential kill shots on edible game at 300-600 yards, I usually go 10x to 14x on the top end. (And 3x or 4x at the low end.)
The rifle doesn't change the way it shoots if you use more magnification, it just makes you feel better about the shot because the target appears larger*.
The only scope that I have with greater than 14x on the top end is a 6.5-20x on a varmint rig. I find that much magnification to be unnecessary on big game rifles. (They weigh more, too.)
*Higher magnification also allows better/easier identification of potential targets. But that may be worthy of a separate discussion; and I don't care to address it further right now.
500 yards isn't long range. A common 3-9X40 hunting scope is more than adequate. There are people who shoot at 1000 with 10X scopes.
I like 2X or 3X on the low end for fast close range shots. I've shot out to 600 yards at targets and didn't feel at all handicapped with 9X on the top end, and have taken deer at 200 with 2X scopes. The quality of the scope is far more important than the number of X's. Having fine crosshairs helps at distance, while heavy cross hairs work better in low light. That is the reason why duplex style reticles are so popular.
Going to scopes with more than 10x has quite a few disadvantages. There is weight, they don't work as well in low light above 9X or 10X, and they cost a LOT more if you're seeking equal quality. A 3-9X40 scope is where you get the most scope for the dollar. And above 10X you have issues with mirage making it harder to see the target.
I like 2X or 3X on the low end for fast close range shots. I've shot out to 600 yards at targets and didn't feel at all handicapped with 9X on the top end, and have taken deer at 200 with 2X scopes. The quality of the scope is far more important than the number of X's. Having fine crosshairs helps at distance, while heavy cross hairs work better in low light. That is the reason why duplex style reticles are so popular.
Going to scopes with more than 10x has quite a few disadvantages. There is weight, they don't work as well in low light above 9X or 10X, and they cost a LOT more if you're seeking equal quality. A 3-9X40 scope is where you get the most scope for the dollar. And above 10X you have issues with mirage making it harder to see the target.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I’ve never felt the need for less than 5x at any range. I like my Minox 5-25x for... well, any range.
Everything about optics in terms of usability is preference and experience. Where one guy might have target acquisition problems, another won’t. Where one guy is comfortable at 3x, another might want 10.
There is no “right” answer.
Everything about optics in terms of usability is preference and experience. Where one guy might have target acquisition problems, another won’t. Where one guy is comfortable at 3x, another might want 10.
There is no “right” answer.
In my more than 50 years of hunting I have used a magnification factor between 6X and 9X. I find these settings regardless of the distances which easily exceed what you posted work best for me. Though my scope has a 16X max magnification I have never used it to shoot deer. I do use it to see and count the antlers or to insure there is nothing behind the deer that would keep me from shooting. In reality if the scope is a good quality scope not necessarily a $2000, all you really need is a 3-9X40 scope for hunting deer to the distances you posted.
Last edited: