How much optic does one really need for longer range hunting?

H

hawk-i

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
For hunting say out to 600 yards or a little more and just for fun target shooting out to say 1000 yards, how much magnification does one really require?

Reason I ask is this last summer I bought one of the Bushnell LRHS 3-12x44 Elite Hunter FFP with the G2H reticle scopes that were on sale for some great prices.

Now after using it for a bit I thinking, am I really gaining any in field measurable advantage with my higher power optics?
 
12 power is plenty for 600 to 1000 meters. Slapping the highest magnification scope you can on a rifle doesn't make up for lack of skill. Better to use that money saved on ammo and long range courses.
 
Depends on how good or bad your eyes are and how much definition you requirte at distance.
With really good eyes you may be able to differentiate a legal buck/ram or elk from one that has not enough horn to be a legal shoot.
The difference between a 3 or 4 power and a 5 or 6 power optic on lowest setting is usually marginal, the difference between 12 power and 24 power on the top end is significant.
Quality of glass is also a of huge importance. A 24 power tasco can be detrimental for LR hunting where as a 22 or 25 power Vortex, Leupold or NF will enable you see distant objects very clearly.
 
The Bushnell LRHS 3-12x44 has very good glass in it with fantastic clarity so you will easily be able stretch it out to 600 yards for hunting purposes assuming of course your eyes are up to the task.
 
Most of the time when shooting at the range at 1K, my optic is sitting about 15-18X max, and often times 12X depending on the conditions. My scopes can go above 20X, but they rarely do.
 
hawk-i said:
For hunting say out to 600 yards or a little more and just for fun target shooting out to say 1000 yards, how much magnification does one really require?

Reason I ask is this last summer I bought one of the Bushnell LRHS 3-12x44 Elite Hunter FFP with the G2H reticle scopes that were on sale for some great prices.

Now after using it for a bit I thinking, am I really gaining any in field measurable advantage with my higher power optics?
Click to expand...

My hunting/shooting buds and myself have been using several of those scopes, in the scenarios you mention, for years. Furthest we've shot so far with that scope is 1800+ meters. Still super happy with them.

In terms of important attributes of a long range scope, magnification is overrated, IMO.

(On the other hand- you should decide you hate it, want more magnification, and sell it to me cheap... ;) )
 
I think quality of glass will always be more important than high magnification. I love my leupold vx6hd its only 3x18 but is much clearer than my viper pst 5x25.
 
My mainstay is a Swaro 3-10 with the BRX. I have other Swaro with bigger zoom but I tend to stick to the 10X. One of the most common 1000-1500 metre tactical scopes is a Mark 4 fixed 10X.
 
LittleBoyLefty said:
My hunting/shooting buds and myself have been using several of those scopes, in the scenarios you mention, for years. Furthest we've shot so far with that scope is 1800+ meters. Still super happy with them.

In terms of important attributes of a long range scope, magnification is overrated, IMO.

(On the other hand- you should decide you hate it, want more magnification, and sell it to me cheap... ;) )
Click to expand...

No, actually I really like the scope! Its my first Mil/Mil FFP scope, I was always a die hard SFP MOA guy and only decided to give this a try because of the price

I've got other Bushnell Elite tactical 6-24's, leupold vx5hd 3-15, Vx6hd 3-18, a Swaro 3-12, and a Sightron 8-32...but after using the LRHS Bushnell I'm thinking is there really any advantage for the higher mag. scopes.

My wife said I should buy two of them at the price they were going for when they were on sale, I think she was right! :)
 
870supermag said:
I think quality of glass will always be more important than high magnification. I love my leupold vx6hd its only 3x18 but is much clearer than my viper pst 5x25.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Like the adage that you cant miss fast enough to win a gunfight, you cant magnify a target enough to offset poor optical clarity.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
Depends on how good or bad your eyes are and how much definition you requirte at distance.
With really good eyes you may be able to differentiate a legal buck/ram or elk from one that has not enough horn to be a legal shoot.
The difference between a 3 or 4 power and a 5 or 6 power optic on lowest setting is usually marginal, the difference between 12 power and 24 power on the top end is significant.
Quality of glass is also a of huge importance. A 24 power tasco can be detrimental for LR hunting where as a 22 or 25 power Vortex, Leupold or NF will enable you see distant objects very clearly.
Click to expand...

This is your number one factor, you can't hit what you can't see.

Glass quality , reticle and then magnification range(within reason, don't expect 1.5-4 to do what a 4-12 does). Don't want a crosshair that covers an econoline either at 100 yards.I've got a 6X Leupold on a BLR , it's taken more LR coyotes than my coyote guns!
 
I use a Nikon 3-12x42 alot,,, plenty good enough for the range you suggested,,, I'll probilibly sell mine since its a SFP and replace it with a FFP,,,

This season I'm using a 3x15 since it has a super wide FV on 3 power,,, I like it alot...

I shoot alot of free hand,,, so the lowest power optic fits my needs,,, the benefit to crank it up to check out the horns is a plus...

Cheers from the North
 
I’m reading “Inside the Crosshairs” which mainly deals with snipers in Vietnam. The initial contract awarded was I believe the rem 700 topped with a redfield 3-9x. I would love to compare the optical clarity of those with today’s offerings in that magnification range.
 
Those LRHS 3-12 are real nice scopes. I have 3 of the newer version that replaced them (LRTSi), one on an accurized M14, one on a 6.5Creed Stag-10 and one on a R700 with a 26" Benchmark .308 barrel. I've taken the gas guns out to 830 yards with success on a 2/3 IPSC (20"tall by 12"wide) and will take the Stag out further (it's new) and shoot the .308 out to 1000 routinely. Those scopes don't give up much performance to high end, higher mag scopes and for the uses you describe, you really don't need more mag.

For comparison, I've got a pair of Leupold Mk5 5-25s on my PRS guns and they're nicer scopes (and also way more expensive) but I rarely go higher than 16x unless I'm zeroing them. They mostly stay at 11-13 for positional and max around 16 when prone. If the cost was similar, I'd run Mk5s on all my rigs because they're actually light and the extra mag, although not needed, doesn't hurt. But the cost isn't close to similar, haha.
 
As mentioned, glass and reticle are major factors, but generally speaking 3-9 gets you to 1000yds or at least close. Funny how hunters tend to go smaller and higher quality as they gain experience.
 
Magnification isn't close to everything in a scope. Having said that, I can sort through the fleet and make an argument that around 2X per 100 yards must suit most of my needs most of the time.
 
Personally, I don't think 10 power is enough for 1000 yards. If your target is small (1 moa) and have thick hunting crosshair reticle, it would be hard to aim and identify target.
Might be ok if you shoot giant competition targets.
You might be able to use your hunting scope for target shooting. but tactical scope should not be used for hunting. Too heavy, and subpar optical quality for the same price.
15 -20 max power is good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom