Scope Magnification

[PacificNWhunter]

Well I am out shopping for a new scope and was wondering what magnification you all shoot with. Currently right now I have 3x9 scopes on all my rifles. I am not sure if I need to go up to a 4x12, I think that might be a little big for Deer and Elk. I am really considering a 3.5-10 power. Anyhow like I said open to all suggestions. I have always hunted the West side until this last year, I plan on doing more hunting on the east side and will also being going out of state for muleys too. Thanks.

[bobcat]

I wouldn't go with any more magnification than a 3-9 or a 3.5-10. I have a Leupold 3.5-10x40 on a 270 and a Burris 3-9x40 on a 30-06. I think a max of 9 or 10 is more than enough for a deer/elk rifle.

[MountainWalk]

i can agree with bobcat... more mag. more weight.. i used to shoot all my elk with a k-4 fixed four power, and was totally happy with it.. elk are big, so its not really a handicap to me. but now im with a nice sinsible burris 3x9... i see no real advantage using 50 mil scopes either.

[PacificNWhunter]

Thanks for the input so far. I am looking at getting the new Vortex Viper scope and if the web site is correct the 4x12 scope is actually lighter then their 3.5x10, only by an ounce or so. But the 4x12 is 40mm and the 3.5x10 is 50mm. Historicly I have never shot anything over 400 yards so I am really leaning towards the 3.5x10. Keep it suggestions coming!

[bobcat]

I wouldn't recommend a 50mm objective. Can't you get a 3.5-10 with a 40mm objective?

[Red Dawg]

i would not go with 50mm unless you have poor eyesight. Or you are buying less than quality optics. But I would even go as far as saying you need to go up to 14 power. you may never need it but you will have it if you ever do need it. that is how i role anyway. I dont think a few ounces in weight will make a big difference anyway.

[MountainWalk]

i think you cant go wrong with a brand like leupold, burris, or nikon.. i have never even seen a vortex.. there is a fellow around here who sells them. first time i ever heard of them.. i would buy something that has been around awhile.. again,, you would be smart to avoid the 50

[bobcat]

Vortex is fairly new but has a very good reputation. I'd give them a try if I was in the market for a new scope, for sure. The problem with going up in power is that you will generally lose eye relief. To me eye relief is much more important than extra magnification.

[Red Dawg]

I will only have a Leupold on my scope. Everything that company stands for is enough for me. You will not be disappointed with a Leupold scope. No matter what you buy. My next choice would be a Burris though. They also make a good product.

[PacificNWhunter]

Thanks guys, I am still unsure of what brand I will be going with. Just have been reading alot about Vortex and was looking into it.

Red Dawg- Your dead on with leupold...love my 3x9, it's taken some abuse over the last couple years and always performs awesome.

[Head-shot]

I wouldn't recommend a 50mm objective...

Why not?

[MountainWalk]

too heavy,, too much money,, cant get as low to the barrell, receiver

[LongTatLaw]

WOW now fellas.....WTH?

whats this avoid 50mm discussion?

The objective lens determines the amount of light collection. less than 40 sucks... and 40 is almost as good as my eyes but 50mm means I can see better than with my naked eyes!!!

I normally find myself mid-pack on most of these discussions but I gotta interject!

Heres my 2 cents, if ya have... then ya have it if ya need it.   but...if ya dont got it... better hope ya dont need it!

I currently have a 6.5-20x50 on my 300 win mag and although its a lesser brand it lasted me 10 happy years. It died this season and Im back in the market and I promise regardless of the pain of cost... I REFUSE to go below 18 power or 44mm obj lens!!!!!!!!!

The sexiest scope on the market as far as Im concerned?
 Leupold VX-L 6.5-20x56mm with BDC  = 1,000$

Its got quality glass, substantial power, and amazing light collection ... oh did I mention the low profile which in my opinion is the ONLY reasonable complaint about the larger obj lens!

Even with a normal profile... the light collection is well worth the weight, high profile, ect!

thats my 2 cents...   I gotta ask who has owned a high power 50mm obj and then traded down in mag or size???  anyone?

[MountainWalk]

i have...a khales.... nice scopes for sure.. but,, for all the reasons i said,, sold it,, and went back to my k-4... im silly like that.. im really into the fixed powers.. plenty for me..i like a low profile on my scope. the fixed is pretty short, and i get tons of eye relief.. but i did retire it.. it would be hunky dory with me if all the scope companies would take a year or two offf..LTL diff'rent strokes

[Intruder]

Unless you're really getting into long range shooting you really don't need more than a 3-9 or 3.5-10.  Both will work just fine for 98% of the hunting you're likely to do.  As far as brands and options and things like that I would suggest focusing on glass/coatings first.  While you can argue BDCs, 30mm tubes, and 50mm objectives may offer advantages you're generally paying a significant amount of $ for a very marginal increase in capability. 

Check out the Bushnell Elite 4200 and the Ziess Conquest.  In the 3-9 power I'm not sure there's anything that can touch these scopes for the $.  The Sightron is a nice scope for less $.  I believe Vortex is a good scope too although I haven't seen enough of their rifle scopes to give a first hand account.  I like the binos and spotters though.

[Bofire]

I have no use for the 50's at all, or high power scopes. I traded away a 4.5X14 VXIII recently for a 2.5X8 VXIII, I have another I would trade for a 3.5X10 VXIII Leupold. All these were Leupolds. Quality scope means way more than objective lens. From what I understand the human eye cannot use the extra light gathered by a 50 anyway.
 I have never wanted more power hunting, many times I have wished for less.
Carl

[LongTatLaw]

Maybe Im the only one here that hunts areas where u are allowed to squeak out extra minutes of prime time hunting with larger objectives.

While quality scopes are better than cheap... i never maid a claim for big obj on a cheap scope over a high qual scope with smaller obj. When you discuss the topic at hand... magnification...

by definition the higher power does more than the lower power all other things being equal.

like I said, I prefer a high power scope with large obj... but I guess thats not a great choice for jump shooters

[MountainWalk]

the khales i had was a good scope, even if it was a 50,,,but still,, i like the fixed power scopes.. i have slayed 3 elk with it in montana, logest shot was not quite 320 yards, lazered....with a fixed power.. elk are huge.. like i said, i never have found it to be a handicap.. my only gripe about my k-4 was the cross wires were a little too thin.....

besides the 50 is sooo european....

[boneaddict]

I use 2x-7x on everything

[huntnphool]

Your right on as far as I'm concearned Longtat. Where I hunt the larger objective will give you those last few minutes that a lot of times makes all the difference. You can tell by a lot of my field photos that we are hunting right up to last light, and that extra 10 on the objective really comes in handy. I seldon go past 6 mag though, although in Montana it helps having the little extra when sighting down a good buck at 300+. I think just as important as the added magnification is a good quality par of stix, I use the Stoney Point Bipod and they are worth their weight in gold for those longer shots.

[LongTatLaw]

Dont get me wrong...I can shoot a deer at 200 yards with a 9 power scope...

But, a 20x scope allows me to pick the particular hair that is hiding my entry hole

Ya know, Aim small miss small.

Lots o' mag also allows me the ability to field judge a deer at 350 yards to see if that lil kicker is big enough to get him killed w/o transitioning back and forth with binos

huntnphool.... glad someone is on board,  I gotta tell ya id give up the high mag before the big obj... some states I hunt you can stay until ya simply cant see any more... and that 50mm lets me see better than I can with the naked eye... to me its the next best thing for success to truck lights on a field at midnight...lol  jk

I have no idea what the low profile really adds or saves for people...hell, I seam to be the only one in the state of washington that climbs in and out of a climbing tree stand on public land and thats the only time Id ever think twice about the profile of my scope....?

to each his own I guess... I mean I remember it being hard at first to really be able to throw up in 20x power and be right on game without a 20 minute where's waldo but thats not a hard trick to learn!

[robodad]

some states I hunt you can stay until ya simply cant see any more... and that 50mm lets me see better than I can with the naked eye...

I just hope that I am not the one walking in front of you while you are looking through that scope since you can't see me with your naked eye !!

[LongTatLaw]

Nah Robodad...lol

you seem like a real nice guy so I wouldnt shoot ya.

Im not shooting at shapes...

but, that 50mm will tell me if that 4x4 20 yards from me is a 2 year old with spindles or a 4.5 year that was alive 30 seconds ago...lol

no movement/brush shooter here!!!

[Red Dawg]

you may like 50mm scopes but you only need them if you are going blind. If you buy quality glass there is no reason to have that. To each his own though. I dont think it is worth the extra money for that.

[robodad]

I know buddy, just giving you a hard time !!

[MountainWalk]

i may not agree with red dawg on everything, but on this im with em. just doesnt seem alltogether worth it to me. good glass can make up for so many things.. but that is ok. i d ont shoot your rifle.

[LongTatLaw]

mtnwalk338...do ya wanna shoot my rifle? weirdo....lol

you boys may be right...once ya get into 1,000$+ glass I havent been able to field test them head to head...

for us mere mortals that think 300$ is a lil much to spend on hunting scopes...the 50mm comes in handy

Im trying to convince myself the Nikon Monarch 20x (((((( 50 MM )))))  is worth the money...

its not khales, zeiss, Swarvski   LOL   

but the monarch is big bucks to me!

Ive been shooting multiple versions of simmons for 10 years.

[Red Dawg]

that nikon would be a good choice.

[MountainWalk]

i have had some monarch field glass, and they were well worht the money.. i would get them. nikon makes a decent piece of 'quipment

[MountainWalk]

the khales was bought second hand    but seriously, the monarch is pretty good

[Head-shot]

TaT and Phool, I'm with you guys, I know that there are certain type of situations where the extra magnification and especially the larger objective really helps. I have been down in a draw on the backside of bigger mountains and it gets dark many times before shooting hours are up. 

 I think many people here are thinking primarily of big game scopes only. What about yotes at dusk and dawn? I'll Take any advantage I can get.

I know what you mean about hunting in states until you just can't see as well. Try pig hunting in Texas. With that big 50 turned down to about 4x-6x you can see very well on a full moon, without having to spotlight them.

I hunted with a very good fixed 4x scope for almost 20 years and never had the coin to go bigger, once I did I went with a Burris Black Diamond 4x16x50. The difference was like dial up and cable internet. It was nice to be able to take a look at an animal a mile away with out breaking out spotting scope or some gigantic binocs; not to mention being able to judge it as worth persuing before you got all the way over to it. Not missing those days.

As for the going blind thing Red, well I've got better sight than most people I know. So for me I think that's But I'm sure when my sight starts to fail me I'll have some sort of telescope strapped to my shooter just to make me feel better

As stated earlier in the thread somewhere, it is all what you are comfortable with and what you prefer.