Rifle Scopes Higher Magnification in PRS

[Tiny86]

I want to preface this with I am very new and still have huge amounts to learn!

Anyway, it seems to me that the NF 7-35 ATACR is getting really popular, especially in PRS (case in point, https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/21/best-scope/)
I know that NF is one of the best and that they make bomb proof stuff. But why the 7-35? It seems like from what I have read that the majority of people do most of there shooting at around 10 power. Same goes for me as well.
In my own experience it is difficult to use a tree reticle at lower powers.
I have zero experience with the 7-35 but I feel like it would be tough to use the reticle if your only going to 10 or 15 power.
So what am I missing?

 

[Reload10]

Long distance prone stages is about the only time I'm cranking up the power. A 5-25 will suffice.

 

[Mxridr]

Why limit yourself. Nice to have the extra magnification. I shoot f class for fun and it is nice to have the extra power in my scope.

 

[just browsing]

Nice to have, certainly not needed.

 

[Austinjunks]

I have a 4.5-30 on a gas gun I use for field matches ??‍. I don't ever run 30x, but I have the option to run extra mag if necessary.

 

[hk dave]

On my bolt guns, I also generally shoot at 10-15x.

I never shoot below 7x for certain.

I also rarely shoot above 25x but it doesn’t bother me having the extra 10x one bit.

 

[hlee]

I tend to stay around 12x or so. However, there is usually at least one stage where I'd like to have a bit more than the 20x in my razor.

 

[Danattherock]

Perhaps the field of view or clarity is better with the Nightforce at 25 x as opposed to other optics that max out at that number. Also the occasional long-distance target or kyl rack, often shot prone, the extra magnification would probably come in handy. With that said most folks I know including myself stay between 15x and 20x most of the time.

 

[danbar54]

My scope tops out at x25 (Kahles 525i), my naivete may be showing, but why wouldn't you use the full magnification at long distances, especially if the targets are not very large? At 300 yards, I go 25x, just so I could see as much of the desired impact point as I can. I guess I am missing something......thanks

 

[davere]

My scope tops out at x25 (Kahles 525i), my naivete may be showing, but why wouldn't you use the full magnification at long distances, especially if the targets are not very large? At 300 yards, I go 25x, just so I could see as much of the desired impact point as I can. I guess I am missing something......thanks

Higher magnification makes mirage that much more apparent. To the point where it may be very difficult to see the target at higher magnification, but if you back the mag down, you can suddenly aim quite well without the mirage being anywhere near as much of a factor.

On an FFP scope, the target will always be the same size vs. the reticle. For most PRS use, that means you can adequately see the target (1 MOA at smallest, typically - up to 3-4 MOA) when you can adequately see enough of the reticle to aim at that target. So, 12-16x for most things works out pretty well and still keeps enough field of view to find other targets. If I have a stage that has targets past 800y, and they're grouped together, or something, I'll occasionally jump up to high mag once I'm on target so I can see splash on the target better for the purposes of making adjustments. I don't need it to aim, though.

 

[ken4570tc in WY]

My scope tops out at x25 (Kahles 525i), my naivete may be showing, but why wouldn't you use the full magnification at long distances, especially if the targets are not very large? At 300 yards, I go 25x, just so I could see as much of the desired impact point as I can. I guess I am missing something......thanks

My experience at long range (1000yds) was that mirage was so bad during the heat of the day, it made the target bull dance at higher magnification. When I reduced my magnification to 10x the mirage effect was more manageable. My best 1000 yard group was shot at 10x, 7.6" with 10 shots.

 

[A&8's]

The problem with such a broad range is when turned all the way down, the mil'ing aspects of the reticle are all but completely useless. Also, from what I have seen in local PR style matches, generally the only time topped out magnification is used is on really small targets, like groundhogs and such. However, a lot of MD's make these small targets the last or 2nd to last target on a stage. So, mirage becomes an issue after cranking off 8 rounds in July heat.

Plus the fact that perfect parallax is much more critical at higher magnification.

Like most new match shooters, I, too, learned quick, fast and in a hurry that high mag is not your friend (by and large) in PR style shooting. I ran 18x (+/-) at 1st. Now, I rarely go over 15x, with ensuring my scope is on 12x during my pre-stage check list.

 

[danbar54]

Higher magnification makes mirage that much more apparent. To the point where it may be very difficult to see the target at higher magnification, but if you back the mag down, you can suddenly aim quite well without the mirage being anywhere near as much of a factor.

On an FFP scope, the target will always be the same size vs. the reticle. For most PRS use, that means you can adequately see the target (1 MOA at smallest, typically - up to 3-4 MOA) when you can adequately see enough of the reticle to aim at that target. So, 12-16x for most things works out pretty well and still keeps enough field of view to find other targets. If I have a stage that has targets past 800y, and they're grouped together, or something, I'll occasionally jump up to high mag once I'm on target so I can see splash on the target better for the purposes of making adjustments. I don't need it to aim, though.

OK, got it!!! Makes perfect sense. I do run into mirage issues at 300 yards, but since I am not competing and have a pretty solid benchrest set up, I guess full magnification is not much of an issue. I joined a club that has a 600 yard range, (only one in NJ) and will be taking your advice. Thanks again!!

 

[jg6.5]

Why limit yourself. Nice to have the extra magnification. I shoot f class for fun and it is nice to have the extra power in my scope.

You're not 100% wrong, but F-Class and PRS/weekend plate ringing are two completely different animals.

When I was more into F-Class than I am now it was routine for some of the guys to request that their shots be marked with golf tees as opposed to the big quarter sized marker discs that they normally use, because they were using incredibly high powered scopes (I think one guy was using a NF 40x or 50x competition scope if my memory serves). In that particular world, you want to see all the detail you can.

In the other world, where FFP scopes with christmas tree/graph paper reticles are common, you're not normally trying to hold in a 3" x-ring at a fixed, known distance - you're trying to hit 2 MOA or larger targets at varying (sometimes estimated or unknown) distances, and your better off keeping your magnification dialed back so you have a little more use of your H-59/G3/EBR/etc. reticle in a FFP scope. I run a 3.5-21x scope, and I rarely dial it up past 10-12x even on plates out around 1000 yards.

OP, if you're wanting to use the optic for multiple roles, it might be good to have something with a little more magnification as Mxridr suggested - it's there if you want it or need it. If you're only goal for it is PRS/plate ringing and dragging it out in the woods when you can, I wouldn't get too carried away worrying about magnification - other things like usable reticles and clarity mean more.

 

[wade2big]

Does anyone actually use a grid reticle on 10-12X? Seems the reticle would be too small and too crowded to be much use. The thin FFP reticles that are optimized for the higher mag ranges are counterproductive for 10-12x shooting.

 

[jg6.5]

Does anyone actually use a grid reticle on 10-12X? Seems the reticle would be too small and too crowded to be much use. The thin FFP reticles that are optimized for the higher mag ranges are counterproductive for 10-12x shooting.

Sure do - as stated above, I typically run mine around 10-12x with an H-59 reticle. I'm not a competitor or anything, it's usually just hogs/coyotes or steel with buddies on the weekends, but it works well enough for them and myself (a few friends have the same scope as I do).

 

[wade2big]

Sure do - as stated above, I typically run mine around 10-12x with an H-59 reticle. I'm not a competitor or anything, it's usually just hogs/coyotes or steel with buddies on the weekends, but it works well enough for them and myself (a few friends have the same scope as I do).

If you are shooting the dmrii then you make my case. That scope has a much thicker reticle than most all others which is a plus for me. I would bet money you would struggle with a razor at 10x with the same reticle.

 

[jg6.5]

If you are shooting the dmrii then you make my case. That scope has a much thicker reticle than most all others which is a plus for me. I would bet money you would struggle with a razor at 10x with the same reticle.

Yeah, good point. Something like an EBR-2C reticle would be a little tough at that mag.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I’m one of the odd ones out. I run max power or close to max power anytime I can. The exceptions are high mirage, movers, or multiple targets not in the same FOV.

When I need to, I have no issues using tree in zco, theta, Skmr3, or vortex as low as 8-10x.

 

[b6graham]

Yeah, good point. Something like an EBR-2C reticle would be a little tough at that mag.

not really.

and neither is a milxt

 

[Mooncake]

35x is nice to have, even if it is rendered useless a lot due to mirage. Being able to use your scope somewhat like a spotter is useful at times.

 

[jg6.5]

not really.

and neither is a milxt

?‍ Your experience I'm assuming...if it works for you then great. Perceived thickness/fineness/usability is going to be a bit subjective, given that everyone is gifted with varying degrees of optical prowess.

[edit: spelling]

 

[Dthomas3523]

FWIW, I’ve never had a 5-25, 5-27, 7-35 etc etc etc and wish I could turn the magnification down lower than minimum power.

I have had 15x max power optics that I wish I could turn up higher.

(At around 25/27x I also don’t find myself wishing I had more. But wouldn’t turn it down)

 

[NW Valkyrie]

Some of the very best PRS shooters run above 20x. Dave Preston typically shoots 25-27x, Jon Pynch 25x etc...

Obviously you need to have your fundamentals nailed down to do this.

 

[wade2big]

Some of the very best PRS shooters run above 20x. Dave Preston typically shoots 25-27x, Jon Pynch 25x etc...

Obviously you need to have your fundamentals nailed down to do this.

And shoot a 6mm something with a brake out of a rifle weighing 20lbs.

 

[b6graham]

And shoot a 6mm something with a brake out of a rifle weighing 20lbs.

well this is a PRS specific thread...so yeah

 

[wade2big]

well this is a PRS specific thread...so yeah

I know. That’s why I said it. The rifles get heavier, the triggers lighter, and the caliber gets smaller. Makes shooting the thing more forgiving and relies on fundamentals less. I understand why its that way though.

 

[WATERWALKER]

I guess I’m the oddball in the group. I use a Vortex Razor (Gen II) & out to 500 or so I’m usually somewhere between 5 - 8X. Past 500 to 1K I usually run between 12 - 16X. The only time I power 20X + is shooting paper for groups / zero.

I’ve never thought “I wish I had less power” but I also favor a larger FOV to spot impacts, finding targets, etc. Obviously if mirage is an issue I power down more. There have been a few times I’ve wished I had a bit more power as far as spotting game in the distance.

*I don’t find the reticle too thin to use at 10 - 12X in a FFP scope. I have no issues w/ using the reticle for holds, etc.

 

[B-P-UU]

I run 16-20x most of the time, but plenty of applications where the 35x is useful at matches.
Also, the 35x ATACR is optically very good in the 24x range where most scopes are nearing their max magnification with tighter eyeboxes, etc.

 

[HEnrI]

5-25 is plenty!

 

[littlepod]

Reviving this thread - I shot my first match where targets were on rolling hills with about 160 degree of field. I ran it I believe too high, I am guessing around 16-20x. I spent way too much time on target acquisition, maybe it's fundamentals and knowing how to quickly point my rifle accurately at a target before getting on the scope. After the match everyone said that magnification is not your friend, and that a few people generally run around 10-12x.

I ran my next match at 10x. Wow I was a lot quicker on target acquisition, it was great. Along with that though was using holdovers, and my reticle has very thin hashes for the .2 hash marks. At 10x I could barely see my holdovers, and now I was spending too much time ensuring I was on the right holdover.

It looks like the sweet spot on my scope with the way the hashmarks are laid out (how wide they are) is to be running it at 15x. But if it's better to be running at 10-12x, then I should consider returning the scope and swapping to a scope with larger width hashmarks.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Reviving this thread - I shot my first match where targets were on rolling hills with about 160 degree of field. I ran it I believe too high, I am guessing around 16-20x. I spent way too much time on target acquisition, maybe it's fundamentals and knowing how to quickly point my rifle accurately at a target before getting on the scope. After the match everyone said that magnification is not your friend, and that a few people generally run around 10-12x.

I ran my next match at 10x. Wow I was a lot quicker on target acquisition, it was great. Along with that though was using holdovers, and my reticle has very thin hashes for the .2 hash marks. At 10x I could barely see my holdovers, and now I was spending too much time ensuring I was on the right holdover.

It looks like the sweet spot on my scope with the way the hashmarks are laid out (how wide they are) is to be running it at 15x. But if it's better to be running at 10-12x, then I should consider returning the scope and swapping to a scope with larger width hashmarks.

Work on getting rifle pointed properly. Find landmarks near target you can see without optic and use those for pointing.

15x should be zero issue finding targets. The few times it is, you can power down and then back up pretty quick.

 

[A&8's]

Reviving this thread - I shot my first match where targets were on rolling hills with about 160 degree of field. I ran it I believe too high, I am guessing around 16-20x. I spent way too much time on target acquisition, maybe it's fundamentals and knowing how to quickly point my rifle accurately at a target before getting on the scope. After the match everyone said that magnification is not your friend, and that a few people generally run around 10-12x.

I ran my next match at 10x. Wow I was a lot quicker on target acquisition, it was great. Along with that though was using holdovers, and my reticle has very thin hashes for the .2 hash marks. At 10x I could barely see my holdovers, and now I was spending too much time ensuring I was on the right holdover.

It looks like the sweet spot on my scope with the way the hashmarks are laid out (how wide they are) is to be running it at 15x. But if it's better to be running at 10-12x, then I should consider returning the scope and swapping to a scope with larger width hashmarks.

Depending on the mag range of your scope, the lower power will make the reticle smaller. Ex: 4-20 on 10x the reticle will be more useful than, say, a 3-32 on 10x.

 

[Gil P.]

Reviving this thread - I shot my first match where targets were on rolling hills with about 160 degree of field. I ran it I believe too high, I am guessing around 16-20x. I spent way too much time on target acquisition, maybe it's fundamentals and knowing how to quickly point my rifle accurately at a target before getting on the scope. After the match everyone said that magnification is not your friend, and that a few people generally run around 10-12x.

I ran my next match at 10x. Wow I was a lot quicker on target acquisition, it was great. Along with that though was using holdovers, and my reticle has very thin hashes for the .2 hash marks. At 10x I could barely see my holdovers, and now I was spending too much time ensuring I was on the right holdover.

It looks like the sweet spot on my scope with the way the hashmarks are laid out (how wide they are) is to be running it at 15x. But if it's better to be running at 10-12x, then I should consider returning the scope and swapping to a scope with larger width hashmarks.

Which reticle are you having trouble seeing at 10x?

 

[littlepod]

Tract's 4.5-30x56, the holdover hashes are only .1mil wide. I read some other threads and it looks like more people are running around 15x which works out well. I guess target acquisition is what I just need to improve on. Jon Pynch run's at 25x!

 

[Gil P.]

I think I shot with him in Tennessee a few years ago, he did really well.

25x is high but whatever works.

 

[littlepod]

I think I shot with him in Tennessee a few years ago, he did really well.

25x is high but whatever works.

Going to run a few practice stages and try to get out to another match, will try it out at 15x.

 

[SSSamurai]

When I was shooting matches, I would generally start a stage at no more than 10-12x, and once I was on target I would spin the mag up for more detail if I wanted it. This is why you see switchviews on a lot of scopes these days.

Starting on high mag requires a good natural point of aim, or you get lost in the weeds because the FOV is so much smaller. Guys like Jon have enough time on their rifles to point them right onto the targets so they don't have to search. I've watched other guys search for minutes looking for a target, while the clock is ticking, until they finally turn down their mag or get lucky and find a target...

 

[littlepod]

When I was shooting matches, I would generally start a stage at no more than 10-12x, and once I was on target I would spin the mag up for more detail if I wanted it. This is why you see switchviews on a lot of scopes these days.

Starting on high mag requires a good natural point of aim, or you get lost in the weeds because the FOV is so much smaller. Guys like Jon have enough time on their rifles to point them right onto the targets so they don't have to search. I've watched other guys search for minutes looking for a target, while the clock is ticking, until they finally turn down their mag or get lucky and find a target...

That guy searching for a good 30s on a 120s stage was me I kept dialing down and dialing back up. Shooting on rolling hills with blended ass gets was such a pain. My other scope has .2 mil width on the hash marks and I'm able to clearly see them at 12x, but my new scope has .1mil width on the hashmarks which makes my eyes fumble a bit trying to hold over anything besides obvious half/whole #'s until I'm about 15x.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Tract's 4.5-30x56, the holdover hashes are only .1mil wide. I read some other threads and it looks like more people are running around 15x which works out well. I guess target acquisition is what I just need to improve on. Jon Pynch run's at 25x!

A lot of guys run higher mag than you would think. A lot don’t say it because they get flamed for it.

 

[Tiny86]

Depending on the mag range of your scope, the lower power will make the reticle smaller. Ex: 4-20 on 10x the reticle will be more useful than, say, a 3-32 on 10x.

I use a gen II razor 3-18 because of this. I can run at 12 to 15 mag and the tree is big enough that I can use it.
I have a hard time trying to use a tree on a 4-25 at 10 or 12 mag.

 

[Tiny86]

A lot of guys run higher mag than you would think. A lot don’t say it because they get flamed for it.

So true!

 

[littlepod]

I use a gen II razor 3-18 because of this. I can run at 12 to 15 mag and the tree is big enough that I can use it.
I have a hard time trying to use a tree on a 4-25 at 10 or 12 mag.

I thought that given most reticles are still mil subtensions, the width of the horizontal lines usually being .2mils, etc, a 3-18, or the razor 4.5-27, when running at 12 mag, the reticles should be identical.

 

[beetroot]

I thought that given most reticles are still mil subtensions, the width of the horizontal lines usually being .2mils, etc, a 3-18, or the razor 4.5-27, when running at 12 mag, the reticles should be identical.

I believe the EBR 7c reticle is the same thickness in both scopes but the EBR 2c was thicker in the 3-18 vs the 4.5-27.

 

[beetroot]

I shot a mid range match today, maximum range was 630 meters.
Due to my new scope not having arrived I used my PST 3-15.

Most of the match was shot at 8-12x with only using 15x on a few stages, one being a KYL type stage.
For the most part I did not feel under scoped, I wouldve used up to 20x on the KYL if I'd been able to but none on my misses for the day I would attribute to lack of magnification.

I'd say for the most part in matches I've shot using different scope options, I'll only use 8-20x 95% of the time and down to 6x or up to 25x on very rare occasions.

Do what works for you but I generally find less magnification and more FOV is beneficial most of the time, especially when moving through a lot of targets under short time allowances.

 

[Birddog6424]

I have a 30x XTR3 on my PRS comp rifles, I think I have been to 30x twice. Both times were prone at 1200 yards plus in cool winter/spring weather.

9 months out of the year and for 99% of the targets, anything over 25x isnt terribly usable. Nice to have just in case. But it's a very small niche.