I posted earlier that I want to get into long-range shooting, out to 2000 yrds. The general thought might be the more magnification the better, however, too much of a good thing can be bad. So for ranges out to 2000 yrds, is there a general accepted zoom/magnification that would be acceptable for distances that I'm talking about. 4.5x25-ish, 4.5x14-ish, etc.?
- Thread starter missin44
- Start date
Magnification is one aspect of the equation but it gets more complex than that. Feel free to give us a call at 916-670-1103 and we can help find the best option for you!
How much usable magnification is often dictated by environmentals. The more open space you put between you and the target, the greater effect it has.
Looking for an optic over 25 or 30x never seemed like a reasonable choice. I think 20x is the highest magnification I have ever used on targets over a mile. We had a Mile Shoot competition at my range and I shot the 1760, 2000, and 2200 yard targets on 10x and 12x.
Looking for an optic over 25 or 30x never seemed like a reasonable choice. I think 20x is the highest magnification I have ever used on targets over a mile. We had a Mile Shoot competition at my range and I shot the 1760, 2000, and 2200 yard targets on 10x and 12x.
I agree with @Birddog6424 . The highest I've gone, for shooting a mile, was about 12x. Above that, the mirage became too bad.
I probably won't buy anything higher than 25x.
I probably won't buy anything higher than 25x.
I will always prefer higher quality optics/clarity to magnification. 15x-18x is more than enough mag if the sight picture is clear enough. Over magnifying blur and distortion isn’t a good thing.
I’ll take a clear bright 15x with the extra FOV over a dark narrow blurry Chinesium mess at 24x.
I’ve noticed that I was able to better spot my hits on steels with my VX6HD 1-6 at 6x out of a 24mm objective over my vxr patrol at 9x with a 42mm objective.
I’ve noticed that I was able to better spot my hits on steels with my VX6HD 1-6 at 6x out of a 24mm objective over my vxr patrol at 9x with a 42mm objective.
I have started migrating the majority of my optics to +30x with my highest zoom being a 5-42 HighMaster and I have ZERO regrets about it. Probably going to be looking at a ZCO 8-40 as soon as I fall in love with one of their reticles.
I can say I've never used 42x in a match, but I've never used 5x either.
Having 30 to 35 on the top end is great to have when you want to have it IMO, but there is always a trade off.
It's not 2005 where getting a higher zoom optic meant the reticle would be too heavy, the elevation adjustment would be to little, or the low end would be too high (within reason)
I think the 6-36 and 7-35 ball park is a GREAT middle ground...but that's just me.
I can say I've never used 42x in a match, but I've never used 5x either.
Having 30 to 35 on the top end is great to have when you want to have it IMO, but there is always a trade off.
It's not 2005 where getting a higher zoom optic meant the reticle would be too heavy, the elevation adjustment would be to little, or the low end would be too high (within reason)
I think the 6-36 and 7-35 ball park is a GREAT middle ground...but that's just me.
i agree 100%
although for 1 mile you wont go that high, when you want it...its there
shooting in closer with high mag is like cheating, current high mag stable
march 10-60 HM
2 SB 5-45
kahles 10-50 MOAK (darkest of them all, but physically looks the the coolest...like a tank)
if the price is reasonable/ comparison i dont plan on buying a 25X top end ever again
I'll use the top end for shooting groups at 100. Otherwise you'll find my zoom ring set somewhere between 12x and 15x 99% of the time.
The question of magnification comes down to a few factors most of which have already been brought up.
The first comes down to atmospheric conditions. You need pretty clear air to use very high magnification for long distance. I have a couple of March 5-42x56 and in the Southwest where I live, most of the year, there is enough heat for me to keep the magnification fairly moderate.
I do use high magnification with precision rimfire scopes since for the targets can be really tiny and there is a lot less air between me and the target. It is easier to use high magnification.
Lastly, for me, it has to be a pretty steady shooting position to want to dial up. If I am shooting from improvised field positions, I'll use the lowest magnification at which there is sufficient reticle separation and target resolution. I prefer a steadier image.
As an observation, paper shooters tend to like more magnification than steel shooters, although there are certainly exceptions to that.
I tend to shoot a good bit from wobbly poorly supported positions, so I probably use lower magnification more than most. That's why I generally prefer scopes with the low magnification of 6x or less. If it is a wide FOV scope, 8x is OK. A lot of this is personal preference, of course. On the high end 25x is enough for me most of the time, but it does not hurt to have more if you do not sacrifice something else. The scopes I have been shooting the most with have been Tangent 5-25x56, March 5-42x56 and Vortex Gen3 6-36x56. Other than rimfire, 25x is usually enough for me, but more does not hurt.
ILya
The first comes down to atmospheric conditions. You need pretty clear air to use very high magnification for long distance. I have a couple of March 5-42x56 and in the Southwest where I live, most of the year, there is enough heat for me to keep the magnification fairly moderate.
I do use high magnification with precision rimfire scopes since for the targets can be really tiny and there is a lot less air between me and the target. It is easier to use high magnification.
Lastly, for me, it has to be a pretty steady shooting position to want to dial up. If I am shooting from improvised field positions, I'll use the lowest magnification at which there is sufficient reticle separation and target resolution. I prefer a steadier image.
As an observation, paper shooters tend to like more magnification than steel shooters, although there are certainly exceptions to that.
I tend to shoot a good bit from wobbly poorly supported positions, so I probably use lower magnification more than most. That's why I generally prefer scopes with the low magnification of 6x or less. If it is a wide FOV scope, 8x is OK. A lot of this is personal preference, of course. On the high end 25x is enough for me most of the time, but it does not hurt to have more if you do not sacrifice something else. The scopes I have been shooting the most with have been Tangent 5-25x56, March 5-42x56 and Vortex Gen3 6-36x56. Other than rimfire, 25x is usually enough for me, but more does not hurt.
ILya
It’s never fun when koshkin shows up in optics…we all have to shut up now 
Three in the stable that are of my personal favorites. Must be doing something right.
It’s never fun when koshkin shows up in optics…we all have to shut up now
Please accept my sincerest apologies...
I'll crawl back into my cave now.
ILya
Musta been some big targets.
Everyone has their preference and applications.
As an avid western varmint hunter, it's a bit hard to see a small rock chuck head on 14x at 700 yards.
I agree though for 3 MOA or larger targets, I find my sweet spot to be 12-20x..................that is prone. If i'm in a "wobbly position", the less mag is beneficial.
But, shitty optics on 30x are worse than mediocre optics on 12x..............that is for sure.
FYI............I just got a few new Sightron S8 5-40 with LRM reticle and they are absolutely astonishingly good at 30x in heavy mirage. 40x is crystal when mirage isn't so devilish.
What a great optic from Sightron!!
Had the Sightron Side x Side with a Gen 3 Razor today for an hour or so.................I'm not a fan of Tree Reticles, so the Sightron won out for my uses. Both incredible optics. However, I paid $750 less for the Sightrons..............both from Liberty. Glass is up to personal preference, both of which are incredible. I actually thought the Sightron won out, but I could have been the reticle. Either way, glass quality is getting quite interesting these days for under 2K.
And drink some single malt Scotch...
I have been really on the Single Malt American whisky band wagon lately. American distilleries are making some serious progress.
ILya
How would you compare the two scopes based on other characteristics, such as turret/click feel, eyebox, depth-of-field, ease and smoothness of adjustments, etc.? Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but there dont seem to be a lot of side-by-side reviews of the S8 with similar scopes.
I looked at the S8. Need to publish the video. It was very good optically. Gen3 was a little better in terms of contrast and FOV, but Sightron was good, especially in terms of resolution. The MH-6 tree reticle was really not great, but the simple mil scale reticle would work fine. The turrets had a touch of slop to them, but they were still reasonable. It is a pretty large scope, so it will absolutely overwhelm some rifles.
At $3k they originally wanted for it, I did not think it was a good option. At around $2200, if the reticle works for you, it is a nice design.
ILya
Turrets:
Vortex no slop, not really any "play", very stiff lock/unlock.........kinda "thunky"
Sightron very slight "play", both my examples have very nice fairly "light" audible clicks, kinda "snappy".
Turret feel is very personal preference, I like the Sightron Turrets for varminting and plinking. I'd probably prefer the Vortex Turrets for competition as they are locking and have a little more resistance when dialing.
Eyebox:
Vortex..........better than Sightron. More forgiving on the higher end, from say 25-36x
Sightron.........barely more fickle than Vortex. Very good.
Comparison was on a tripod, where it's exaggerated. Neither scope has a "picky" eyebox on any power. They are both well done. Vortex a little better.
Depth of Field:
Vortex...... slightly better than Sightron.
Sightron.......better resolution in heavy mirage than Vortex. However, the side focus parallax needs "tuned" more often for maximum clarity.
Vortex has always been really good with G2 and now G3 razors in offering a very forgiving parallax adjustment.
Ease/Smoothness of adjustments:
Vortex.....
parallax adjustment a little stiff, mag ring a little "too light" for my taste, the easiest scope to change powers that I've ever used.
Turret feel is a little heavy for my preference.
Sightron......
parallax adjustment is very nice and smooth, just right. Mag ring is a little too stiff (maybe will lighten a bit with more use). Turret feel is "nearly perfect" for my preference. Turret clicks could provide a slight bit more resistance.
Image quality and characteristics:
Vortex....
Very Warm. Rich colors. Browns are enhanced, greens are enhanced. All shades seem to be a bit "rose colored" glasses "enhanced" in a way. More notable when comparing with Bushnell DMR3 (USA Made Burris XTR3) and Sightron S8.
Very good glass. Very good contrast. I don't prefer "too rich" or over "warm" color in a scope. The New Burris XTR Pro is the same as the Vortex here.
Sightron......
Very "clean", bright as hell. White and yellow are bright and don't look "enhanced", just beautiful. Colors are more "natural". Not cold, not blue, not dark. Bright/Clean..... AMAZING to my eye. Greens/Browns are "natural"
Very good glass. Good natural colors, great contrast (maybe a bit less than Vortex.....but better pure image resolution) Very good resolution in heavy mirage. Bested the G3 from 30x-36x in these conditions.
Resolution......
Better than G3 (Yep, I said It)
Conclusion
At under $2.5K for the Razor it's a bargain.
At under 2K for the Sightron it's a bargain.
Personal preference is the deciding factor. Both are AMAZING>
So are the new DMR3 from Bushy and XTR Pro from Burris.
Amazing optics under 2K out there these days.
Hope that helps.
P.S.
I really like the new Bushy DMR3. The Sightron glass is "better overall", however the glass characteristics are very similar. The Bushnell DMR3 is a stunner for under $1200 new (With Affiliate link discount)
Really appreciate your writing out those detailed impressions @screaminweasil. When you've had more time with your examples of the S8, please let us know how their tracking performance rates.
Overall, it sounds like Sightron has finally made a truly competitive scope for general precision shooting. About time, too!
Overall, it sounds like Sightron has finally made a truly competitive scope for general precision shooting. About time, too!
I'll take clear glass, good field of depth and a forgiving parallax well before higher magnification. I've shot an entire season with a 12x max scope. I spend 95% of my time at 15/18x when I use a scope that has more mag.
Edit: will also make a huge difference where you are and the humidity. In the SE here goo luck using anything 20x and above....he'll even 20x can look like soup.
Edit: will also make a huge difference where you are and the humidity. In the SE here goo luck using anything 20x and above....he'll even 20x can look like soup.
Will do. Sightrons have always tracked very well. This will be no different, and reports out there (as few as there are right now) are claiming dead nuts tracking and reliability. It's a new model for Sightron, but as you know, not their first rodeo. I have an old 1" Tubed Sightron 4-16x "Big Sky" model on a Kimber 22. I've dialed the crap out of it, and it's been perfect and reliable for nearly 8 years now.....since I've owned it.Really appreciate your writing out those detailed impressions @screaminweasil. When you've had more time with your examples of the S8, please let us know how their tracking performance rates.
Overall, it sounds like Sightron has finally made a truly competitive scope for general precision shooting. About time, too!
Had a few S3 sightrons 6-24x and they were very reliable as well.
Sightron truly out did themselves with this new S8. Assuming you don't want a "tree reticle"........(I hate Trees). The LRM1 is a beautiful, simple reticle that is very, very well balanced. I could shoot with it comfortably from 7.5 all the way to 40x.
I spent some time looking at the 2nd S8 I have today. It is just as fantastic as the other one (I took a leap of faith and bought 2x at once). No regrets.
In fact, I just bought a 3rd..................
For long range Varminting on a heavy gun, long range plinking.....................these things will suit me fine.
What a bargain they are right now on sale. Stupid good.
You will need to upgrade rings though. The ones that come in the box are a Joke.
I bought two sets of Warne Mountain Tech 40mm (in Low height) and they look super nice for what I paid.
I've got a set of mountain techs in 34mm and they work, pretty well.
Not a lot of 40mm Options and I didn't want to spend $300 so, I went with Warne. They should work fine, and Low Height too!
We have a 40x40" and a 24x24" hanging from chains in a big steel frame.
Similar threads
Rifle Scopes So I bought a “Just As Good”, Burris XTR3
