Over-scoping?

D

DA07

Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I left a question at the end of a thread the other day regarding high mag scopes. Thought I’d start a new thread to address my question.

Are high power scopes ie. 20x, 24x or 27+ really practical? In the context of long range shooting sports at what distance or size of target do the higher powers become useful? If these powers are only used occasionally, what is the average power setting used for common match situations?

I’m looking for a quality scope but don’t want to get sucked down the bigger is better hole. I’m not a competition shooter but wouldn’t be against getting into it one day. It’s just grass rats and steel plates for now, but I do get a kick out of the technical/ballistic game. Perhaps to counter any FOMO (fear of missing out), I’m looking for honest opinions about what the value of anything above a 4-16, or 3-18 may be.

FWIW, 223 20”HB,1:9. Balanced, practical and quality are words that come to mind for an optic. Not looking to mount a gargantuan 34mm tube on a somewhat compact rifle if I do not have to.
 
I run a 6-24x50 on my 20" 223. I don't feel over scoped or under scoped. It's nice having extra magnification from time to time. I use the higher mag during load development. Then for shooting steel I usually dial back to 16x or so.
 
You will get a variety of opinions. Some posters on this site have been shooting with double aperture sights - many can do the 1 MOA or better with that. I have done multiple sub-MOA with 3 power scope at 100 yards. Just need a target that you can see very small mis-alignments of your sighting system. Others will, I am sure, tell you that bigger magnification is so much better. Also have an issue with mirage / haze, etc. once your magnification gets too high. But what do I know about it... do not have any trophies...
 
I guess it depends on the situations and what is your goal, I for my part don’t like bulky heavy scope ne most of my shooting is inside 250m so peep sight or a 1.5-5, or 2-7 is plenty for me and keep the rifle light and compact.... that said I wish sometimes I had more at the time end but it would suck when you need quick target acquisition in close range and being stuck at 4-5-6x...
Maybe two scope is the way to go, one 1.5-5 for hunting up to 250m and then one 4-20 or something like that for long range and target.....
 
DGY said:
I guess it depends on the situations and what is your goal, I for my part don’t like bulky heavy scope ne most of my shooting is inside 250m so peep sight or a 1.5-5, or 2-7 is plenty for me and keep the rifle light and compact.... that said I wish sometimes I had more at the time end but it would suck when you need quick target acquisition in close range and being stuck at 4-5-6x...
Maybe two scope is the way to go, one 1.5-5 for hunting up to 250m and then one 4-20 or something like that for long range and target.....
Click to expand...

Agreed. I managed that with 2 rifles. Both 223 with 20” barrels. One light for walking/coyotes etc. The other heavy for shooting off a bipod in the field. The light has a 4-12 but I’m knocking it down to a 3-9 to slim it out some more.
 
It all depends on use . For example i use a straight 36x on my rimfire benchrest rifle at 50yds and 100yds and will be using a 10-50x on my centerfire benchrest at 100yds. Some guys i shoot with use 45x and 50x at 50yds a as well. from what i understand your use will be i dont think you would go wrong with a 6-24 or 8-32.
 
It depends more on the glass quality than magnification. That comes down to budget. I have an $1100 5-25 on a Rimfire I use for CRPS. Past 16X or so, it’s not great at clarity in flat grey light. Parallax is touchy too. Not bad for bench shooting at 100 at 25X though. A $4500 3-18 would be much nicer to use I think. Budget is your first decision I think.
 
emerson said:
It depends more on the glass quality than magnification. That comes down to budget. I have an $1100 5-25 on a Rimfire I use for CRPS. Past 16X or so, it’s not great at clarity in flat grey light. Parallax is touchy too. Not bad for bench shooting at 100 at 25X though. A $4500 3-18 would be much nicer to use I think. Budget is your first decision I think.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective. Thanks for your honesty about clarity. Seems that the higher power is useful for precision paper punching, but higher magnification puts extra demands on the glass.

As for budget I’d cap it at $1500. $4500 is out of my league. For the amount I’d use it I’d by happy spending no more. $750 would be great but I’m afraid I’d might want something better later on. Buy once, cry once I suppose. Besides, I could buy a lot of ammo for the $3000 difference and become a better shooter.
 
For target shooting, there's no such thing as over-scoped. For practical applications (hunting, varminting, action sports) there is definitely "too much scope", but that's up to each individual to decide, and is also based on the expected minimum and maximum range they expect to encounter "targets" at, and the ballistic potential of their firearm. A 34mm tube 8-32x56mm on a .357 Lever Action is over-scoped. That same scope on a .338 Lapua that you intend to shoot Elk at 1000 yards with, well not so much.
 
DA07 said:
Interesting perspective. Thanks for your honesty about clarity. Seems that the higher power is useful for precision paper punching, but higher magnification puts extra demands on the glass.

As for budget I’d cap it at $1500. $4500 is out of my league. For the amount I’d use it I’d by happy spending no more. $750 would be great but I’m afraid I’d might want something better later on. Buy once, cry once I suppose. Besides, I could buy a lot of ammo for the $3000 difference and become a better shooter.
Click to expand...

I’m shooting 1” dots at 100 on 14-16X. Considering the size of your aiming point helps too. I’ve found with hunting optics the low light performance is way more important to me than high magnification. I also like 1-3X on the low end for hunting, but I’m often in some thick bush.
 
I think that there comes a point when something becomes overscoped for a certain task.
The people here are essentially saying no, then talking about all doing the exact same task.
But consider hunting where some peripheral vision is a good thing and shots are 200m or less. X3 is ideal.
Or a 3 gun competition. It would be insane to have some of the magnifications people are mentioning.

So yes, overscopping is often not practical outside of a very narrow philosophy of use.
 
As said above, clarity is more important than total magnification.

As far as over-scoping, you really have to decide what the purpose of your rifle is going to be. A 5-50x scope is gonna be too much for a PRS rig, but ideal for a Benchrest rig. Ironically, when shooting PRS, most guys run scopes between 14-18x for the larger field of view so they can acquire targets quicker. The 25x is nice when trying to fine tune zero on a 100 yard range.
 
Clocked92 said:
As said above, clarity is more important than total magnification.

As far as over-scoping, you really have to decide what the purpose of your rifle is going to be. A 5-50x scope is gonna be too much for a PRS rig, but ideal for a Benchrest rig. Ironically, when shooting PRS, most guys run scopes between 14-18x for the larger field of view so they can acquire targets quicker. The 25x is nice when trying to fine tune zero on a 100 yard range.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback everyone. This is helpful.

I’m running a lower end 5-15X right now. It’s not the clearest at 15X and I do find the smaller FOV a hinderance when trying to track grass rats. I could see that only being worse with a 25X.

Considering my needs, experiences and equipment I’m confident Benchrest shooting is not where I’m headed. Im not knocking the sport; it’s just not what I’m set up for. A good quality 4-16 or 3-18 may just be the ticket. With the right reticle it will be plenty fine for load development/zeroing, and physically and optically it may be a more balanced package for my needs.
 
DA07 said:
Thanks for the feedback everyone. This is helpful.

I’m running a lower end 5-15X right now. It’s not the clearest at 15X and I do find the smaller FOV a hinderance when trying to track grass rats. I could see that only being worse with a 25X.

Considering my needs, experiences and equipment I’m confident Benchrest shooting is not where I’m headed. Im not knocking the sport; it’s just not what I’m set up for. A good quality 4-16 or 3-18 may just be the ticket. With the right reticle it will be plenty fine for load development/zeroing, and physically and optically it may be a more balanced package for my needs.
Click to expand...

Years ago I used to use "lower end / quality" scopes and found that at higher magnification they were worthless, soon learned that if you want to use higher mag scopes you have to buy better quality glass. The old saying, "you get what you pay for" was never more true than with scopes. After you use some quality glass, you won`t be able to get rid of the cheap stuff fast enough. Buy once - cry once. A good quality 3-15x is worth way more than a cheap 25x. Quality beats quantity every time.
 
Higher magnification has its fair share of uses. It helps for observing longer ranges, identifying game and allowing u to see holes in paper better. It better to have it and not need it then the other way around.
 
I see a lot of hunting rifles being over scoped... nice compact light rifles with a monster of a variable high powered scope making them much heavier and way ugly... most guys are looking at 300 years or less and are scoped for 1000 yards plus...
 
guntech said:
I see a lot of hunting rifles being over scoped... nice compact light rifles with a monster of a variable high powered scope making them much heavier and way ugly... most guys are looking at 300 years or less and are scoped for 1000 yards plus...
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. So many scopes in my price range that have a 34mm tube with a 56mm objective. There are 30/50’s but they’re either cheaper or way more expensive. Just looking for quality in a modest package that is wholly functional. I am having fun looking though.
 
Purpose and practicality should dictate your scope choice. You can certainly "over scope" or "under scope" a rifle depending on what role you intend it to be used for. Lots of good perspectives and advice in this thread regarding this.

For your .223 20" heavy barrel rifle used in the walking and stalking varmint or predator role a 4-12 or 4-16 would be ideal as the size of your targets can vary, with that extra magnification for small targets. A quick throw lever to change your magnification quickly will help too, in addition to a basic, easy acquisition reticle (Mil Dot, MRAD) and not a fine cross hair or overly complex long range shooting one (Horus, EBR). Parallax adjustment is also a good feature on a scope if shooting at varying ranges from 50 - 300+ meters (or yards).

"Over scoping" can not just be attributed to magnification, but complexity of use and features in addition to expense. I wouldn't put a Nightforce ATACR on a stock Ruger American .223 anymore than I would put a Tasco World Class on a Barnard action custom build .308, however I did put a Tasco Sportsman on a Remington XR-100 .223 once and was quickly educated on the clarity of cheap glass while trying to make 200 meter shots on gophers. The blurry vision still haunts me.
 
M3ayY5f.jpg
[/IMG]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom