Opinion: Minimum scope magnification for 1000 meters and thoughts on specific scopes

S

SigSavage

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Location
Winnipeg
What are people generally using to reliably see and hit MOA at 1000m? I'm talking your average Joe, decent shooter with the right rifle and cartridge, not your eagle-eyed long distance champions. I have a Bushnell Elite 6500 (2.5-16x50) on my hunting rifle, and I just don't think it magnifies enough for me to move it over to a long distance shooter (which I do not yet have but hopefully will soon), and get a smaller scope for hunting with. What are people generally puting on their long distance shooters? I don't need a big magnification range because I would not be shooting less than 300 yards with it anyway (well, maybe 200 ;D).

That leads to the following question: What are some decent lower priced scopes (i.e $500-1000) that will perform admirably in the 300-1000m range that won't break the bank? I hear people raving about Vortex, Lucid, and other less expensive scopes that perform just as well in most people's hands as the multi-thousand dollar scopes. Just looking at Cabela's I see (from least to most $):

Vortex Viper - 6.5-20x50mm PA (Mil Dot) for $660
Nikon Monarch 3 - 6-24x50 BDC
Vortex Viper HS-T VMR-1 - 6-24 x 50mm
Bushnell Elite Tactical - 6-24x50mm G2
Vortex Viper HS LR XLR - 6-24 x 50mm
Vortex Viper PST - 6-24x50mm EBR-2C MOA
Steiner GS3 - 4-20 x 50mm
Zeiss Conquest HD5 - 5-25 x 50mm Rapid Z-1000 for $1600

Is it worth getting a less expensive scope if it only magnifies to 20X when my current one can do 16X? Do I want to go at least to 24x?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
A hit on paper? You will never be able to see that. A hit on steel on the other hand depends a lot on the caliber your shooting. Seeing a the small mark that a 223 leaves may need 60 power or more. Seeing the mark a 338LM leaves should be possible with some where around 16 power I think.

It also depends on the quality of your glass. Tough question to answer but I tried my best.

My go to magnification range is 6-24 or so.
 
Yeah, it's for paper for as far out as you can see with a spotting scope (hopefully 1000m using the reactive targets if unable to see on regular paper), then an MOA (or less, eventually lol) gong beyond what can be visualized. No use shooting if you don't know if your hitting, right? lol
 
scope quality has more to do with it then magnification, a leupold on 12 power is clearer then a tasco on 18 power, a high quality fixed 10 power scope is all you need as a basic tool, it will be more clear then a 100 dollar tasco or bushnell, when wanting clarity with magnification the price will go up exponentially with the magnification ring. Sightron SIII scopes will get you there and be the best bang for the dollar offering both clarity and magnification, there are of course better but very very few cheaper options that will give you both the clarity and the magnification, the only exception to this rule is the chinese knock off leupold Mark 4 tactical scope, although not for everyone because of the astigmatism attached to it but it will trump over half of your examples, color me biased but I just can't stand vortex lol
 
SigSavage said:
Yeah, it's for paper for as far out as you can see with a spotting scope (hopefully 1000m using the reactive targets if unable to see on regular paper), then an MOA (or less, eventually lol) gong beyond what can be visualized. No use shooting if you don't know if your hitting, right? lol
Click to expand...

Look into putting together a wireless target camera. That may be your best bet and will cost 1/4 of a quality spotting scope.
 
I forgot about the Sightron- thanks! would you go the 8-32x56 or 10-50x60?

What is this Chinese Leupold Mark 4 knock off that you refer to?

yodave said:
scope quality has more to do with it then magnification, a leupold on 12 power is clearer then a tasco on 18 power, a high quality fixed 10 power scope is all you need as a basic tool, it will be more clear then a 100 dollar tasco or bushnell, when wanting clarity with magnification the price will go up exponentially with the magnification ring. Sightron SIII scopes will get you there and be the best bang for the dollar offering both clarity and magnification, there are of course better but very very few cheaper options that will give you both the clarity and the magnification, the only exception to this rule is the chinese knock off leupold Mark 4 tactical scope, although not for everyone because of the astigmatism attached to it but it will trump over half of your examples, color me biased but I just can't stand vortex lol
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Go with what you've got. 16 power will work.
Unless you are just looking for an excuse to buy another scope...
 
10-16 is fine. Clarity is better than magnification. I do all my 600-1200 y shooting at around 16-18x.

As some have mentioned, I'd suggest trying out what you have first. It'll become apparent on what is more important.

For "cheaper" scopes, don't go above 24x. You're just running into clarity problems after that and spending money on useless magnification.
 
Op, your optic is beyond adequate for what you want to do. Almost all shots can easily be accomplished with a 10-16 max power. I will use higher magnification to Maybe see details of something but, when it comes to the shot, you can bet I am on 10x to be able to help spot splash and swirl (if I am very lucky) if my Spotter is missing it. He is the one who needs the magnification. I regret selling my 2-16 when I did. Your scales are easily slipped for click of the day adjustment and it is a decent optic, so unless you really want to upgrade (which by all means do it if you want), you already have what your looking for.
 
Awesome! Good to know.

duncansuds said:
Op, your optic is beyond adequate for what you want to do. Almost all shots can easily be accomplished with a 10-16 max power. I will use higher magnification to Maybe see details of something but, when it comes to the shot, you can bet I am on 10x to be able to help spot splash and swirl (if I am very lucky) if my Spotter is missing it. He is the one who needs the magnification. I regret selling my 2-16 when I did. Your scales are easily slipped for click of the day adjustment and it is a decent optic, so unless you really want to upgrade (which by all means do it if you want), you already have what your looking for.
Click to expand...
 
I use Sightron SIII 10-50x60. I prefer higher magnification for long range, depending on the mirage which you can see inside the lens.

I believed this one is about 40x.
Sightron-reticle_zpsdrl0qixj.jpg
 
Optical quality will pay you off more than a few more X of magnification. But you still need some Xs to see what you're doing out there. When I first built my LR 300 WM I put a Mark 4 3.5-10x on it and it turned out to be WAY less power than I needed so I traded up, CGN style, for an NXS 5.5-22x56 (I put the Leupold in the safe for a rainy day). Much better choice, though I wish I had a 5.5-22x56 and an 8-32x56 rather than the 3.5-15x50 that I currently have but not so badly that I'm actually going to change my situation. I wouldn't feel handicapped with my current situation but more good power doesn't often hurt.
 
The HD5 is more of a hunter's scope. The reticle is very thick, 1" tube and lack of turrets doesnt help. I had one before I upgraded to a PMII 5-25
 
SigSavage said:
What are people generally using to reliably see and hit MOA at 1000m? I'm talking your average Joe, decent shooter with the right rifle and cartridge, not your eagle-eyed long distance champions. I have a Bushnell Elite 6500 (2.5-16x50) on my hunting rifle, and I just don't think it magnifies enough for me to move it over to a long distance shooter (which I do not yet have but hopefully will soon), and get a smaller scope for hunting with. What are people generally puting on their long distance shooters? I don't need a big magnification range because I would not be shooting less than 300 yards with it anyway (well, maybe 200 ;D).

That leads to the following question: What are some decent lower priced scopes (i.e $500-1000) that will perform admirably in the 300-1000m range that won't break the bank? I hear people raving about Vortex, Lucid, and other less expensive scopes that perform just as well in most people's hands as the multi-thousand dollar scopes. Just looking at Cabela's I see (from least to most $):

Vortex Viper - 6.5-20x50mm PA (Mil Dot) for $660
Nikon Monarch 3 - 6-24x50 BDC
Vortex Viper HS-T VMR-1 - 6-24 x 50mm
Bushnell Elite Tactical - 6-24x50mm G2
Vortex Viper HS LR XLR - 6-24 x 50mm
Vortex Viper PST - 6-24x50mm EBR-2C MOA
Steiner GS3 - 4-20 x 50mm
Zeiss Conquest HD5 - 5-25 x 50mm Rapid Z-1000 for $1600

Is it worth getting a less expensive scope if it only magnifies to 20X when my current one can do 16X? Do I want to go at least to 24x?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I got into sightron. They are really clear, adjust really accurately, have been compared to nightforce in quality and are half the price! I like my a lot! Unfortunately I have to sell one to fund a particular custom build :( oh well, they make more everyday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom