Go Big or Go Home Survey

[Glassaholic]

Now that SHOT is wrapping up and we've seen some higher magnification FFP optics come out, I am curious if there is interest in an even higher magnification, why stop at 36x or 40x? Or do you feel we've reached "the top", either due to mirage issues at long range limiting higher magnification, you are perfectly content with what is already offered or some other reason. Feel free to respond with why you chose what you chose, and if choices are different for PRS long range comps vs. NRL22 style short range comps vs whatever style of shooting you prefer.

 

[jinxx4ever]

like lowlight mentioned the other day, my eyes like his are getting worse yearly. I never shoot below 16x and i like the higher mag to look at hits. Saves me getting a spotting scope.

 

[moosemeat]

Good crisp 25-30 for F/TR rifle.
Resolution beats magnification.

 

[PinesAndProjectiles]

I’m ok with my 4.5-27, but if I was going to up my game, I’d go 7-35.

I haven’t shot a match in a while but I like match style shooting so the 7-35 for me would work well.

The only time I use the max magnification is off a bench for load development or in the event I’m prone and shooting at 7-800 or more.

 

[Crabcore]

I would love to see that 12-72, even as just a proof of concept. How much elevation travel would a 72x optic have or need? You would be able to see a long long ways.

 

[Onewolf42]

So, 12-72X. To have an exit pupil of 2mm it would require a 144mm objective lens. 5.66" diameter objective lens. Sounds good to me.

 

[PBWalsh]

I just want a compact, lightweight, 2.5-10x32 FFP Mil/Mil optic.

But I‘m not a PRS or 1,000+ yard shooter.

 

[ma smith]

If you need a spotting scope functionality, but also need ability to take a field shot in the woods...6-36 imho is more interesting than 5-30 or 7-35.

Add a low profile turret and rds at 12 position for rapid acquisition options.

But in general, i really want a 20 oz option not another 35 oz one...

 

[wigwamitus]

I didn't see 2-10x on the list, so I went with 3-27x

 

[Steel head]

My next scope will probably have a 35 or 36x top end.
I spend a lot of time at 20-25x but he extra power would be nice occasionally.

 

[cjs88]

I have a 3-15 and a 525 coming next week. 15 seems good enough to me but the 25 will probably help more once I start trying 1000+

 

[MOUNTIC]

I was going to pick a 3-20 and for anything 1000 and in stay in that 15x range. But for the choices availabe I'm in the 3-27x camp. I'm ideally shooting in the 20x range at most for LR shooting.

 

[mi223]

The new vortex razor lht is exactly what I have been waiting for. It is to bad the turrets suck or I would own one.

So my vote is for a <4 x >18 at about sub 25 Oz. Something for hunting but would get me by for the maybe one match a year I shoot

 

[hafejd30]

5-27 is almost completely useless

Real snipers shoot 8-40

Now off to the px section for my “ZCO owner pressured into an upgrade” discount

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

4-20 area.

Living in the south with humidity and sun you aren't using high mag and I spend 95% of my time at 15x

 

[Conqueror]

I'm fine with higher mag at the top end but I don't want to sacrifice too much at the low end either. I know some mfrs are sneaking up on 10x ratios so a 3-30 or 3.5-35 would be awesome by me. I have no use for something with a 12x low end.

 

[n2ishun]

I'm fine with higher mag at the top end but I don't want to sacrifice too much at the low end either. I know some mfrs are sneaking up on 10x ratios so a 3-30 or 3.5-35 would be awesome by me. I have no use for something with a 12x low end.

Fully agree.
It's nice having 25x+ on the high side, but more useful having 3-4x on the low side for the field of view and close in shots on Bambi or whatever.

 

[J Scott]

For the cartridge, distance and type of shooting I do: 3-12(low end) 4-20(high end) with useable reticles at the lower magnifications and wide field of views are preferred.

Thanks for putting this together and it's interesting to see/read the results and requirements of other Hide members.

 

[beetroot]

3-20 never felt the need for more magnification for 99% of the shooting I do.

 

[ArTeeKay]

Still having young eyes, a scope that has a useable reticle down to 3-5 power is still a big asset to me, as I like being able to scan and take a shot in that low range if necessary. I like the concept of a dual focal plane reticle for that reason, but in practice, the few I've seen aren't executed all that well, and it does seem to add a lot of expense for fairly little added utility. So... 3-27 is fine, so long as the reticle is still easy to use at least as a duplex down on the bottom end.

 

[Glassaholic]

I didn't see 2-10x on the list, so I went with 3-27x

Well the title is “go big or go home” . But maybe I should expand the range, I was trying to keep to 25x or more at top end and get a feel for whether or not there is really that much demand for higher magnification.

So far seems like some appreciate the higher end for rare situations, one of those “nice to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it” - kind of how I feel about illumination.

For those of you mentioning you don’t want to have to sacrifice low end FOV for high end magnification is it safe to assume you’d also prefer a “lighter” weight scope, I’m thinking you might be more the crossover crowd, or are there any competition shooters out there who also want the low end FOV and if so what circumstances do you encounter where you need that “low”?

The Schmidt 3-27 has always appealed to me, but the weight has always kept me away. For the past couple years I have become an AI fan and have an AXSA, this is by no means a light weight rig, so putting a heavy scope on it does not bother me; however, for my long range crossover “Hunter class” style rigs I prefer a lighter scope because “weight matters” in this arena.

 

[Glassaholic]

If you need a spotting scope functionality, but also need ability to take a field shot in the woods...6-36 imho is more interesting than 5-30 or 7-35.

Add a low profile turret and rds at 12 position for rapid acquisition options.

But in general, i really want a 20 oz option not another 35 oz one...

Just to be clear, are you saying you’d like to see a 20oz 6-36 or just a 20oz anything?

 

[Glassaholic]

I'm fine with higher mag at the top end but I don't want to sacrifice too much at the low end either. I know some mfrs are sneaking up on 10x ratios so a 3-30 or 3.5-35 would be awesome by me. I have no use for something with a 12x low end.

Let me ask this, if someone made a 3-30 or 3.5-35 FFP there are going to be lots of compromises optically unless the scope is long and heavy. Would you be fine with long and heavy as long as it held up optically or would you be willing to accept the compromises with a shorter/lighter design?
Compromises with high erector and short bodied scopes are usually IQ falloff, shallow DOF, finicky parallax and finicky eyebox - are these acceptable compromises or a no go?

 

[stello1001]

I'm a FOV whore. I don't do competitions. I occasionally shoot steel and I also hunt with all my rifles so I like lower mags. I chose the 3x option!

 

[7WSMShooter]

No go. Who is going to shoot a 35x at 3.5 power. I’d rather have a 5-6x erector 4-20, 4-24, 5-25, 5-30, 6-36 etc with great glass, great field of view, nice DOF.
It Doesn’t have to be 12 inches long, but 13.5-14.5 long would be nice.
Fit The best you can engineer in this size with a 34-36 tube, 56mm obj
with as little compromise as possible in 28-34oz weight range and give up the 7x-10x
erector.

 

[ArTeeKay]

Well the title is “go big or go home” . But maybe I should expand the range, I was trying to keep to 25x or more at top end and get a feel for whether or not there is really that much demand for higher magnification.

So far seems like some appreciate the higher end for rare situations, one of those “nice to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it” - kind of how I feel about illumination.

For those of you mentioning you don’t want to have to sacrifice low end FOV for high end magnification is it safe to assume you’d also prefer a “lighter” weight scope, I’m thinking you might be more the crossover crowd, or are there any competition shooters out there who also want the low end FOV and if so what circumstances do you encounter where you need that “low”?

I don't mind the weight that much, I don't have any light rifles where a heavy optic makes the rifle unbalanced when carrying or shooting. I guess I might consider myself a crossover shooter, as the matches I've shot have all been team challenge/field type matches, not so much the "barricade benchrest" PRS style matches. I spend a lot of time finding targets on the clock, then needing to range and engage them, so the wide FOV is a big plus. At higher mags, I often find myself getting lost in the scope as well, and so do my best to keep magnification down as low as I can and still maintain a consistent POA on a target.

 

[ma smith]

Just to be clear, are you saying you’d like to see a 20oz 6-36 or just a 20oz anything?

Two scopes

Tactical/ long range.
6-36 @35 oz
15-17 lb+ rifle etc.

Tactical/ hybrid
2.5-16 x42 @20 oz
20 in bolt guns, Dmr etc

 

[texag0842]

The S&B 3-27 is perfect for my use. I still really prefer the S&B 3-27 over my TT 5-25

 

[SQ54]

2-10x40

 

[avidflyer]

My biggest problem with even the current batch of low to high power FFP scopes on the market is, the reticle is almost unusable at low power.... especially with a clip on.

 

[VandelayIndustries]

I’d like to see more FFP 2-12 options with a usable reticle at 2x either through illumination like vortex 1-10 or a donut like LRHS.

 

[wigwamitus]

... Well the title is “go big or go home” ...

Haha, then I guess I was goin' home !!

... For those of you mentioning you don’t want to have to sacrifice low end FOV for high end magnification is it safe to assume you’d also prefer a “lighter” weight scope, I’m thinking you might be more the crossover crowd, or are there any competition shooters out there who also want the low end FOV and if so what circumstances do you encounter where you need that “low”? ...

I just got invited to a "competition" yesterday. The inviter called it a competition, so it must be true, right ! Specs sounded like, "Hike 10-ish miles per day through the woods, shooting targets out to 600yds. In a team of 2, one guy with a bolt gun, the other with a stoner type rifle/carbine. He's going with a stoner, we discussed 14.5 or 16 inch and I sent him my short list of scopes for same sorts of guns. The longest is under 12" and the heaviest is 22 OZ.

We stay on "Low" while moving, so we have lots of FOV for rapid target acquisition if something suddenly appears that needs to be shot (we call this the "patrol rifle" case). We crank up to higher as required to make longer shots.

... The Schmidt 3-27 has always appealed to me, but the weight has always kept me away. For the past couple years I have become an AI fan and have an AXSA, this is by no means a light weight rig, so putting a heavy scope on it does not bother me; however, for my long range crossover “Hunter class” style rigs I prefer a lighter scope because “weight matters” in this arena ..

Light and short for me please ... I just picked 3-27x as it had the lowest "low" power. But yes, the S&B 3-27x is too long and too heavy for me !

As to how to make the low power have a usable reticle, I like the solid small bright red dot like on the VO G2 1-6x (es) ... don't need much, just a usable aiming point, the low power shots are within PBR or what I can hold slightly beyond, using target as the reticle.

I've tried
VO PST g2 2-10x
Credo 2-10x
The VO had a usable aiming point on 2x but the glass was murky, I guess I've already gotten "spoiled" by clearer glass and it was rather long and heavy.
The Credo illum was not sufficiently daylight bright in my conditions. I had high hopes for this one. If you can live without daybright illum, this one works IMHO.

... I'm a FOV whore ..

I'm goin' with this !!

 

[Franko]

I'm not a PRS shooter but have delusions that someday I will get involved with rimfire PRS and perhaps NRL hunter or regular PRS.

I'm getting older and find myself wanting more and more magnification. I'm not shooting at people or hunting with my target optics so I don't need to accept the compromises that comes with a high erector ratio (E.G., S&B 3-27) to get low magnification for faster target acquisition. I really want things like wide FOV, good DOF, and a forgiving eyebox. Good optical quality is also a must.

I just sold an un-illuminated XTR3 and bought a Razer 6-36 for my rimfire optic because I have two other guns wearing an LHT 4.5-22 and I like the benefits of having a common reticle (I also really like the reticle in the G3 and LHT). The shorter parallax and locking turrets also helped. I also really really like the new zero set feature on the turrets.

My main centerfire rifle has a ZCO 5-27 and I love it. However, my inner magnification whore is acting up and I am now seriously considering the S&B 6-36 and ZCO 8-40. I also may consider another Razer 6-36 (depending on how much I like it on my rimfire) or the new Burris XTR Pro (I really liked the eyebox and FOV of the regular XTR3).

In short, I think a 6-36 or 8-40 is going to be the new hotness.

 

[LRRPF52]

We’re spoiled with magnification range and have been for many years now.

We’re also spoiled with glass quality from the known companies, and some of the emergent companies.

What I want is more compactness without sacrificing the performance and light transmission plus exit pupil we have seen.

I want smaller scopes that will smoke what most of the 10yr-old top-line scopes could do, but in compact packages.

For example, my Gen 3 Razor 1-10x is a much better scope than most of the scopes we had for LR in the 1980s and 1990s, but is LPVO.

Think something like a March Mini 1-10 but with less knob bulk that can top the emerging market of lightweight, compact rifles.

Sig Cross, Q Fix, chassis blasters with short barrels suppressed for packing, exotic hunting rifles with carbon fiber dominating more and more structures and barrels, pistol and SBR AR-15s and small frame AR-10s made with lightweight composites, etc.

I want .50 BMG performance in a .22LR package relative to optics basically.

We’re far closer to that than ever imagined before.

 

[Glassaholic]

No go. Who is going to shoot a 35x at 3.5 power. I’d rather have a 5-6x erector 4-20, 4-24, 5-25, 5-30, 6-36 etc with great glass, great field of view, nice DOF.
It Doesn’t have to be 12 inches long, but 13.5-14.5 long would be nice.
Fit The best you can engineer in this size with a 34-36 tube, 56mm obj
with as little compromise as possible in 28-34oz weight range and give up the 7x-10x
erector.

Just curious, would the ZCO 4-20 not fit this goal, or are you saying you'd prefer something in this range with a 56mm objective? A scope I've followed for a long time is the Blaser Infinity 4-20x58, problem is "Blaser" - as is typical for a hunting oriented company from Europe - they don't understand long range, and I've been hoping sister company Minox would be able to get hold of the scope design and simply put their ZP5 turrets and reticle in it - would buy that in a heartbeat.

 

[schmi015]

I just want a compact, lightweight, 2.5-10x32 FFP Mil/Mil optic.

But I‘m not a PRS or 1,000+ yard shooter.

Trijicon makes one.... https://www.trijicon.com/products/details/cr1036-c-2900038

 

[5RWill]

I’m undecided. I agree with @FUNCTIONAL that down down here you’ll rarely use anything above 15x however most scopes seem to exhibit their best optical performance in the intermediate mag range. Which makes me curious if the high mag optics are better in those ranges.

 

[7WSMShooter]

Just curious, would the ZCO 4-20 not fit this goal, or are you saying you'd prefer something in this range with a 56mm objective? A scope I've followed for a long time is the Blaser Infinity 4-20x58, problem is "Blaser" - as is typical for a hunting oriented company from Europe - they don't understand long range, and I've been hoping sister company Minox would be able to get hold of the scope design and simply put their ZP5 turrets and reticle in it - would buy that in a heartbeat.

ZCO 4-20 does in fact. I think it should be a few oz lighter, but that size with a 56-58mm obj would be one light gathering SOB.
And you’re right about the Blaser, they could sell that. Minox turrets and a decent reticle and here’s my money.
Overall I think most of the manufacturers reach to far to stretch “x“ instead of just trying to produce the best scope that can be made in this size. What quality
scope and specs would we have from March if their already good 4.5-28x52 High Master if the erector was a little less, say a 5-27, 56MM obj, and not trying to squeeze it into a shorty design of 12 inches. Maybe a little more from like 14 to 14.5 inch in length. What improvements would that lend itself too. Not trying to make a great shorty scope, but make the best scope. Prob why TT 5-25, Minox 5-25, ZCO 5-27
are all long baseball bat length scopes.

 

[Glassaholic]

I hear you 7WSM and you and I think a lot alike.

 

[Josh1978]

I have never looked through a scope that has anything close to 50x or 60x. I am not sure what the functionality of something that has that kind of magnification would be but I would like to check one out sometime. Out of curiosity, what magnification do those guys use that go out and shoot at targets that are 2500 yds away?

 

[rlsmith1]

25x does it for me but I'd like 35x as long as the reticle doesn't suck at lower mag ranges. I run clip ons so I'd probably own a couple 3-27's and one 7-35. Maybe when clip on technology gets to where it can support a wide mag range like that then I'll think differently but that's where I'm at.

A 12-72 would be going big which would be sweet to see though

 

[hafejd30]

I have never looked through a scope that has anything close to 50x or 60x. I am not sure what the functionality of something that has that kind of magnification would be but I would like to check one out sometime. Out of curiosity, what magnification do those guys use that go out and shoot at targets that are 2500 yds away?

I’ve seen numerous 10-50 Sightrons and a decent amount of 15-55 NF comps (which is what I use) on 1,000 yd Fclass lines. I’ve used mine maxed out to 55 on numerous relays pending the weather/mirage etc

 

[acudaowner]

none I am a 5x50x56 type of person 5x25 won't cut it neither will a little 7x35 in the last 2 years I have not had to come off 40x's mag summer through winter and if it's over 1,600 it's over priced

 

[moosemeat]

Let me ask this, if someone made a 3-30 or 3.5-35 FFP there are going to be lots of compromises optically unless the scope is long and heavy. Would you be fine with long and heavy as long as it held up optically or would you be willing to accept the compromises with a shorter/lighter design?
Compromises with high erector and short bodied scopes are usually IQ falloff, shallow DOF, finicky parallax and finicky eyebox - are these acceptable compromises or a no go?

I would be fine with long and heavy, depending on how heavy we are talking. Like Razor gen 2 heavy would be fine. Maybe even up a few ounces.
Everybody else who straps 16# of weight on their rifle will complain....

 

[Conqueror]

Let me ask this, if someone made a 3-30 or 3.5-35 FFP there are going to be lots of compromises optically unless the scope is long and heavy. Would you be fine with long and heavy as long as it held up optically or would you be willing to accept the compromises with a shorter/lighter design?
Compromises with high erector and short bodied scopes are usually IQ falloff, shallow DOF, finicky parallax and finicky eyebox - are these acceptable compromises or a no go?

Yeah I understand there might be compromises. I suppose it would depend on how much was sacrificed. 15 years ago we would have said a 9x ratio S&B was science fiction but we have them now. Who knows what some clever optical engineers could cook up in another 15.

 

[357Max]

I didn’t vote. Too big. I have a Leica 5-30 & Razor G2 4.5-27’s but for PRS type comps I prefer less mag. I really don’t get the draw of 7-35 for that style of shooting. For my aging eyes anything below 12x on the G2 Razor & reticle sub-tensions aren’t usable. For me the lack of low mag reticle usability is a bigger handicap then having lower top end mag range. I like the MK 5 3.6-18. Mag range is great for me. I’m down around 8x for movers & as high as 15x for 1000y. A lot of stages have 400-1050 arrays with back and fourth. Just run them at 12ish. Reticle is usable in the full band I’m running.

Next mid tier scopes for me will be.
1. LHT 4.5-22x50
2. Burris XTR3 3.3-18x50 SCR2 if they ever Illuminate the damn thing.

Next high end scope will likely be the ZCO 4-20

For a wish list I’d like to see a Minox/Optronica
2.5-20 x 56 ill. dual focal (sim to ZP8) shifting from 2nd to 1st at about 6x, 14” max length, 34mm tube, MR4 or very sim reticle, & 36oz +- on wt. I’d be all over that.

Leica should also do a mid mag like 3.5-21.

For F class or 1200+ shooting I could see myself becoming a mag whore, but not for PRS style shooting. 27-30 is almost too much.
ZP 5 with MR4 is about max and IMO about the best High mag PRS option.


Field of view & usable reticle rule for me.

 

[rnlzkbrs]

There is a nice saying about motorcycles: "there is no replacement for big displacement". You may never use the full power but it's nice to know that it is there in case you need it. I guess the same logic can be applied for scopes.

 

[Glassaholic]

Here's some preliminary thoughts

1. Seems like more people would like an option that has lower bottom magnification.
2. Seems like the traditional 5-25ish range is still the most sought after
3. The new 6-36/7-35 shows great promise
4. The 8-40 range received almost 2/3 less votes than 7-35 when they are very close in mag range, does this indicate a greater fan base for Nightforce vs. ZCO or is it representing something else - possibly that 35/36x is really as high as anybody prefers to go?
5. Virtually nobody would like to see an 8-48 but a few would like to see 12-72 (maybe out of curiosity)

 

[lennyo3034]

For a competition specific scope, I'd go for a 7-21 or 8-24.

If keeping to a 3x erector means larger dof or other IQ benefits, I'm all over it.

Hell I'd buy a 10-20 as I never go outside that magnification range on a match scope.

 

[ma smith]

I think you should have put a control group like 2-16 or 3-20

3-27 is a 9 x erector and is either going to suck or cost $5,000

The exit pupil on x56 glass is 2.0 at 28x power and on a one way train going down above that....

Again, that is either going to suck in bad weather/ ad light or cost a fortune to upsize the objective.

NF was very clever to put 5x erector on S&B effective 7x low end...theres really no downside in that instance....in a head to head contract bid, eg like the ASR where you know your end users etc

8-40x you are losing FOV on the low end and exit pupil on the high end...either way its a guaranteed compromise ( at least on paper)

Then again nothing matters until there are real units to evaluate. Kowa makes a nice compact spotter, maybe with good enough glass there will be no need to buy or carry one...

Its good to keep an open mind

Just a few thoughts. Feel free to flame away