5-25x56 or 7-35x56 optic?

[bscullane]

Looking at purchasing a Leupold Mark IV this week. It's in-between getting the 5-25x56 or the 7-35x56. Application I would use it in is both hunting and competition. My personal opinion is the 7-35x56 is the no brainer for the advantages of the magnification and the small loss in field of view. Is there something I'm missing here?

 

[Wheres-Waldo]

Do you mean competition or shooting small groups and leisure long range steel?

For competition stuff I’m rarely above 20x

For leisure small groups and long range steel, I’m usually at max magnification.

It’s nice to have more magnification than you need and not always use it, but don’t expect more magnification to always equal better in competition.

 

[bscullane]

A PRS Stage and Hunting Deer and Elk. That seem's to be the overwhelming opinion I get back from my question. You'll rarely use it but it's nice to have to much than not enough. Thank you for your insight Wheres-Waldo.

 

[Junco Grande]

Each has the usable range you need, but I always say if you're going to hunt with it it's nice to have the extra magnification. Keeps me from dragging the spotter along.

 

[DownhillFromHere]

I'm not familiar with this scope, but, speaking from experience with my Vortex Razor and ZCO scopes which top out at 27x, the reticles in a 35x FFP scope may well shrink to the point of being too hard to see at 12x or so.

I shot my first match with my ZCO 5-27x56 this past weekend. Cloudy and drizzly. Finding shot-up-gray targets quickly was best done at 12-14x; this seems to be the average for most shooters. I had expected the 0.2 mil elevation subtensions to be helpful, but it took a couple seconds more to use them in the dim light because they were close together at that magnification (I simply didn't think of using the ZCO's illumination).

Fwiw.

 

[FN-Whitney]

I have the 5 x 25 I use for PRS matches and 95% of the time I'm 10 x 16. I only go over that for the long prone stages. Just my opinion.

 

[hlee]

Except for paper, and 22lr matches, I rarely find myself above 12x or so. PRS and hunting, wide field of view trumps flea spotting magnification...

 

[Andrew07]

I guess I’m a power whore I rarely go below 15x. I would like having extra magnification just to be able to see the fine details of a animal if I need to

 

[squishee]

Both those scopes have 5x zoom ratio so i doubt the reticle would be too small on the low end of the 7x35.

 

[cjs88]

I always though for hunting you wanted lower magnification for better FOV? I am not a hunter but built a gun to hopefully try and go elk hunting with my dad and his friend at some point. I got the Z8i 2.3-18 for my hunting rifle and have a ViperHST 6-24 for targets.

 

[msstate56]

5-25 with CCH is my match scope. However, in low light I have to zoom in to 14x or so to see the reticle on my target (i.e. a deer at 200 yards). I really like it for PRS, and its usable for hunting, but not ideal. For hunting I much prefer the 3.6-18 with an illuminated TMR.

 

[hlee]

I always though for hunting you wanted lower magnification for better FOV? I am not a hunter but built a gun to hopefully try and go elk hunting with my dad and his friend at some point. I got the Z8i 2.3-18 for my hunting rifle and have a ViperHST 6-24 for targets.

Depends on a lot of factors, including your definition of “low magnification.”

How far are you shooting?
What is the size of the vitals area?
How are you hunting? You’ll want a vastly different optic for driven pigs than you will for hunting a “bean field” or a sendero.
Is your rifle scope doubling as your spotter? If you are judging trophy quality with your rifle optic, you’ll want more mag.
Environmentals? Long range + high mirage will have you wanting less mag.
More on how you hunt? High mag optics weigh more- all else equal. If you are being dropped off at your box blind in a pick up, you have more reasonable options than if you are carrying everything 5 miles into the wilderness on your back. Then again, a high mag optic can double as a spotter- except where a dedicated spotter is required by regulations (big horn sheep?), so maybe high mag mages sense...

Everything is a trade off and there is no one size fits all solution for ”hunting.” Hell, the optic you pick for cous deer in Arizona will probably be different than what you choose for Florida white tails, and they’re both small white tail deer subspecies...

 

[McMillan]

I'm not familiar with this scope, but, speaking from experience with my Vortex Razor and ZCO scopes which top out at 27x, the reticles in a 35x FFP scope may well shrink to the point of being too hard to see at 12x or so.

I shot my first match with my ZCO 5-27x56 this past weekend. Cloudy and drizzly. Finding shot-up-gray targets quickly was best done at 12-14x; this seems to be the average for most shooters. I had expected the 0.2 mil elevation subtensions to be helpful, but it took a couple seconds more to use them in the dim light because they were close together at that magnification (I simply didn't think of using the ZCO's illumination).

Fwiw.

Thats not how ffp scopes work. If you take a 35x max power scope and a 25x max power scope and Put them both on 12x the reticles are exactly the same you just have the ability to go to higher mag on the 35x

 

[Eostech]

Thats not how ffp scopes work. If you take a 35x max power scope and a 25x max power scope and Put them both on 12x the reticles are exactly the same you just have the ability to go to higher mag on the 35x

Unless the manufacturer changes aspects of the reticle like line thickness to suit certain magnification ranges. Which some manufacturers do, Like s&b with the msr iirc.

 

[McMillan]

Unless the manufacturer changes aspects of the reticle like line thickness to suit certain magnification ranges. Which some manufacturers do, Like s&b with the msr iirc.

Oh I didn't realise any of the high end brands were doing that. I thought it was only some lower end brands like athlon

 

[elwarpo]

It really depends on how far you shoot while hunting. I find that unless you are super steady, 35x is too much magnification for a lot of hunting. I also prefer 5x over 7x for closer range shots or on moving animals. That said, I am running a 4-28 scope.

 

[Loyal2no1]

Looking at purchasing a Leupold Mark IV this week. It's in-between getting the 5-25x56 or the 7-35x56. Application I would use it in is both hunting and competition. My personal opinion is the 7-35x56 is the no brainer for the advantages of the magnification and the small loss in field of view. Is there something I'm missing here?

Interesting question. Essentially it's to do with the area(s) you're going to hunt - if it's a wide open area and you're shooting over 100m at a minimum and you like alot of detail then a 35x could be very useful. However there are drawbacks (read on).

I've used 5 to 25x's for hunting alot and overall they've been great, but they have one fatal flaw - if you're shooting less than 50m standing unsupported, snap shooting on the move and/or hunting in a tight woodland/bush or at night (legal in NZ but maybe not in America) they are next to useless. Also at high magnification you become very self conscious of reticle 'shake' and scope shadow which can create doubt when you're about to pull the trigger. This can be overcome with training, but I find I'm alot less hesitant to snap a round off with my Nightforce 2.5-10x32 NXS than I am with my Bushnell 5-25 Tactical. I make good shots on both scopes, but again I feel very self aware on a the 25x magnification.

Having not used either scopes you're referring to I can't comment on the glass quality or field of view, but I imagine the 35x wouldn't be that crash hot at the shorter ranges and probably a bit bulkier. And as mentioned previously reticle 'shake' and scope shadow will likely also be increased. On the flip side the extra magnification of a 35x would be awesome and I'd happily take that for really long ranges as you can never get enough target detail IMO.

However it ultimately depends how far you want to send rounds both at a max and minimum range and can practically and ethically shoot. For feral birds shot placement is not an issue with a centrefire caliber, but for deer etc you really want to hit them in the right place. And after about 300 to 400m it does get alot harder... I'd probably lean to a 25x if those are the ranges that you want to stick to, but if you can work a 35x then rock on.

Hope this helps!

 

[HellcatActual]

my k624i is maxed out when im doing load workup and dev. during matches its rarely over 12. .

for load work I have often wished I had a little more mag for doing longer work for groups.

 

[AirborneOkie]

Personally I rarely go over 20x power. Has always been overkill for me but it is still a great optic

 

[chevy_man]

5-25 has more travel.

Granted, I've never come remotely close to the limits with a 6.5 on a 20moa base, but it's a consideration.


I was surprised how little the difference was between 25x and 35x out to 800 yards. Looking out at 2500 yards it makes a fairly noticible difference.


Bad thing is the place it makes a difference is also where you'd need the travel. I'll probably own a 7-35 at some point, but I never feel like I'm missing anything with the 5-25 because I can't see.

 

[aljones_315]

Both guys i know that bought 7 to 35. Wish they had gone the 5 to 25 route. Several reasons. 1 reticle size at higher magnifications second rarely find them self using anythjng higher than 20x anyway

 

[Dthomas3523]

I rarely use the sub 10x on any optic. But at some point I’ll always use the top end. There are plenty of people out there running 27x on many match stages and doing very well. It’s all personal preference. There’s a lot of “I can’t do it, so they can’t either” when max magnification is concerned, so most don’t bother bringing it up. I personally don’t pigeonhole myself into a preferred magnification. I let the environment and targets dictate this. Sometimes it’s 12-15x and other times it’s 27x.

If you’re hunting with it, the 35x may help with finding and identifying animals or watching them move at distance as they or you get closer.

Unless I absolutely needed the 5x, I’d get the 35 as it won’t hurt to have it.

 

[aljones_315]

I rarely use the sub 10x on any optic. But at some point I’ll always use the top end. There are plenty of people out there running 27x on many match stages and doing very well. It’s all personal preference. There’s a lot of “I can’t do it, so they can’t either” when max magnification is concerned, so most don’t bother bringing it up. I personally don’t pigeonhole myself into a preferred magnification. I let the environment and targets dictate this. Sometimes it’s 12-15x and other times it’s 27x.

If you’re hunting with it, the 35x may help with finding and identifying animals or watching them move at distance as they or you get closer.

Unless I absolutely needed the 5x, I’d get the 35 as it won’t hurt to have it.

On ffp the useable size of the reticle suffers on hirger magnification just sayin to me and the guys i shoot with that was more of an issue than. Only having 25x magnification

 

[Dthomas3523]

On ffp the useable size of the reticle suffers on hirger magnification just sayin to me and the guys i shoot with that was more of an issue than. Only having 25x magnification

I run 27x on multiple optics/rifles without issue.

 

[JustSendit]

If you’re considering the 35, I would just get the 35, I’ve never heard anyone say “I wish this had less magnification.”

 

[Vaportrail22]

The Nightforce ATACR 5-25x56 FFP has 35 mils of elevation versus the 7-35x56 with 29 mils.