Best magnification for fixed power scope? 300WM 200-1000yds
- Thread starter CarbonLead
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
CarbonLead
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2016
- Messages
- 65
What do you guys thing about a fixed 12 power? All I have ever really had are variables up to 12-14x and I keep them on max power. I kinda like higher magnification.
Hondo64d
Well-Known Member
^^^^. This
I am sticking to my original response ...
... because you know your eyesight best. Some people like Dave can make those ridiculous LR shots with open sights ...
[ame]https://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM?t=2[/ame]
I harvested a bull elk in 2013 and I was at 14X (max, 4.5-14X scope). IIRC, montanamarine uses a 12X SWFA in one of his rigs at ~1500 yards.
Capt RB
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,994
If your going fixed power the swfa HD 10x would be a far better choice than the higher powered non hd versions. Same with the Mk4 leopolds or the military fixed 10's The better glass will give you the resolution and color fidelity needed in a hunting situation.
Another option but you only get #4 And7 and a couple lighted reticles is the 8x56 SB Klassic. Glass is outstanding and a 7mm exit pupil will allow you to see after legal shooting hours. In a hunting situation early or late it won't be beat by many and at the price point it's top shelf
Another option but you only get #4 And7 and a couple lighted reticles is the 8x56 SB Klassic. Glass is outstanding and a 7mm exit pupil will allow you to see after legal shooting hours. In a hunting situation early or late it won't be beat by many and at the price point it's top shelf
I think that the difference between 10x and 12X is close enough, but I would base the choice on the specific scopes field of view, clarity, light gathering, reticle design, etc. Not all scopes are created equal. That said, I would still go with a !0x because there are more choices available. Based on your struggle for choice of power, I do think in the long run you will wish you opted for a variable! IMO.
All these guys have good points:
Longer range- most guys want more power, lots of power equals better target ID and finer aimpoint. Great for hitting targets way out.
The trade off to power is smaller exit pupil which equals crappy lower light performance. Plus higher power makes target acquisition harder/slower. Neither of which makes for a good hunting scope, no matter the distance. The difference in exit pupil in the 3 scopes mentioned (10x, 12x, 16x) can add up quick. The 10x has 4.2, the 12x has 3.5, and the 16x has 2.625...none of which are ideal for what most consider prime time when hunting most animals. Unless my math is wrong, the difference between the 10 & 12 is 17% but jumps to 37% when you throw the 16 in there. That is a huge difference when it comes to performance. Now add the small exit pupil's "Can't hardly make out crap through the scope!" to the smaller field of view's "Can't find crap in the scope!" and you have the worst case scenario of a trophy animal (or an animal you just paid over $600 for the tag, drove 1300 miles, and hunted hard in the mountains for a week) feeding off into the wood line and never to be seen again!
A couple of times the quality of the lenses/coatings have come up and that is true. A lower power optic with better resolution and clarity will outperform and higher power optic with inferior qualities. The problem with that is that usually quality will cost you, and in the case of optics can cost A LOT really fast for even a small performance increase. Since we are on the subject on the SS line of scopes let's compare the 10x's: the 10x is $300 while 10x HD with just different lenses is $800!
I have the feeling that a smaller budget is presented, if not then the sky is the limit and the OP can do a lot better for a hunting/target scope.
Longer range- most guys want more power, lots of power equals better target ID and finer aimpoint. Great for hitting targets way out.
The trade off to power is smaller exit pupil which equals crappy lower light performance. Plus higher power makes target acquisition harder/slower. Neither of which makes for a good hunting scope, no matter the distance. The difference in exit pupil in the 3 scopes mentioned (10x, 12x, 16x) can add up quick. The 10x has 4.2, the 12x has 3.5, and the 16x has 2.625...none of which are ideal for what most consider prime time when hunting most animals. Unless my math is wrong, the difference between the 10 & 12 is 17% but jumps to 37% when you throw the 16 in there. That is a huge difference when it comes to performance. Now add the small exit pupil's "Can't hardly make out crap through the scope!" to the smaller field of view's "Can't find crap in the scope!" and you have the worst case scenario of a trophy animal (or an animal you just paid over $600 for the tag, drove 1300 miles, and hunted hard in the mountains for a week) feeding off into the wood line and never to be seen again!
A couple of times the quality of the lenses/coatings have come up and that is true. A lower power optic with better resolution and clarity will outperform and higher power optic with inferior qualities. The problem with that is that usually quality will cost you, and in the case of optics can cost A LOT really fast for even a small performance increase. Since we are on the subject on the SS line of scopes let's compare the 10x's: the 10x is $300 while 10x HD with just different lenses is $800!
I have the feeling that a smaller budget is presented, if not then the sky is the limit and the OP can do a lot better for a hunting/target scope.
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
For me "do overs" are the most expensive choices.
degreen
Well-Known Member
I have both the 10X and the 16X standard SS scopes. The 16X is on my Lapua and the 10X is on my 30-338 Win Mag. Both of these scopes work great for me. As far as finding game in the 16X, I have never had a problem from 50 yards to over 1000 yards. I am still working on loads with the 30-338 so haven't had it out hunting. I haven't looked through the HD scopes, and I really don't feel that I need to pay that much more when the standard SS work fine. I shot a sub 5 inch group at 800 meters with the Lapua, and could see the hits clearly on steel. Try the 10X, and if you don't feel it's enough go to 16X.
gohring3006
Well-Known Member
The most amazing thing I see about the Super Snipers.
Is, I see them sometimes sell used for as much, or even more than they actually cost, on eBay. So you can't go wrong with one.
Is, I see them sometimes sell used for as much, or even more than they actually cost, on eBay. So you can't go wrong with one.
MontanaMarine
Well-Known Member
I like 10X for an all-around fixed power.
Started off with 16X MK4's and an SWFA. Eventually I came to appreciate the brighter picture, bigger FOV, and roomy eye-box on the 10X.
Currently I have two of the SWFA 12X, both on dedicated long range rifles, and a SWFA 10X on a more all-around 308. All three are very capable to 1000 yards, and I've played out to a mile with the 12X.....and 10X for that matter.
Personal preferences are a big part of anybody's choice.
Shane
Started off with 16X MK4's and an SWFA. Eventually I came to appreciate the brighter picture, bigger FOV, and roomy eye-box on the 10X.
Currently I have two of the SWFA 12X, both on dedicated long range rifles, and a SWFA 10X on a more all-around 308. All three are very capable to 1000 yards, and I've played out to a mile with the 12X.....and 10X for that matter.
Personal preferences are a big part of anybody's choice.
Shane
CarbonLead
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2016
- Messages
- 65
Thanks for all the input guys!!!
