Thread: Pros and cons of scope magnification.

Why do so many assume that cos we like lower powered scopes we cant "aim small to hit small"? When the 3x Weaver was all I had or could afford, rabbits at 250 were no problem and hares in the spotlight were out further. You dont need high powered sights to "aim small". It may make it easier for some shooters in some situations, but for a standard hunting situation with an animal within 250 metres, its very easy to "aim small".

Kathryn (a NZ rep shooter so not "an average shooter) from our club shot the Mtn challenge quite a few years ago with Greg from Custom Guns as her partner - she used her range rifle with iron sights. I dont know if she used a aperture front element. They finished above mid field as I recall.

Originally Posted by Husky1600#2

Why do so many assume that cos we like lower powered scopes we cant "aim small to hit small"? When the 3x Weaver was all I had or could afford, rabbits at 250 were no problem and hares in the spotlight were out further. You dont need high powered sights to "aim small". It may make it easier for some shooters in some situations, but for a standard hunting situation with an animal within 250 metres, its very easy to "aim small".

Basically due to either ignorance of the wider aspects of shooting, or believing everything gun writers produce (who as touts for the gun industry are aiding it to function as a fashion industry - basically selling shit to Muppets)

The "iron sights" on a target rifle have been micrometer adjustable for at least 100 years, giving totally repeatable "dialing" at any known range with good dope, just the same as a modern scope (which as I recall only really got this capability in the last 20 years or so)

This pic is from Leupolds pdf of reticle subtensions of vx5hd and others. It is worth noticing the change in fine line(i.e. Crosshair) subtensions ay low vs high mag. These are second focal plane hunting scopes of high resolution and a common high end hunting scope. That said, you will notice the actual large moa coverage at low mag, (like 2moa or 10 inches at 500yards). The more precise crosshair exists at high mag. This indicates that in low light when you need to reduce mag to about 5,6 power the crosshair obscures considerably more of the target area. Convetsely a low powered second focal plane scooe luke 4-6 power will have finer crosshairs making more precise aiming feasable in low light. ( This aslo strenfthens the case for ffp scopes because in those the subtensions remain constant.

Originally Posted by Husky1600#2

Why do so many assume that cos we like lower powered scopes we cant "aim small to hit small"? When the 3x Weaver was all I had or could afford, rabbits at 250 were no problem and hares in the spotlight were out further. You dont need high powered sights to "aim small". It may make it easier for some shooters in some situations, but for a standard hunting situation with an animal within 250 metres, its very easy to "aim small".

I still remember "not" zooming past 3 power on the 3x9 you had on your 7mm back in the day...

While I struggled with my fixed 6x...

While I use 3-24x scopes, I treat them as a 3-18x in reality, and I shoot most animals on lower than 10x - to maintain field of view for various reasons.

Anyway, good iron sights have always been adjustable, and deer in the open are the easiest without a scope. It's not the sights that are the issue, its estimating distance, the same as with a scope you need a rangefinder.

I think you guys should just use whatever magnification makes you happy and stop worrying about what other people use

Originally Posted by mark_k

I still remember "not" zooming past 3 power on the 3x9 you had on your 7mm back in the day...

While I struggled with my fixed 6x...

Still got that rifle, think it may even be the same scope. Man that thing shot a lot of animals.