Quick question. It seems most guys will shoot matches using around 15x or so. With that in mind does it not make more sense to have a scope with only 15x? Example Athlon Ares has both a 15x and 27x. Wouldn’t the 15 have better glass and be easier to use at matches? Thanks for the guidance.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes If matches are mostly shot using 15x or so why have a 27x scope?
- Thread starter Shawn1492
- Start date
No scope (Spotting nor Rifle) will be at it's peak at maximum magnification. They start to lose a bit at about 85% power so if you're intention is to not use over 15x you'd be best served with a scope of at least 18x in order to be at optimum quality at 15x
It’s nothing more than personal preference but most lean to the “would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it” mentality. The additional mag can also take on a ‘spotter’ role as well, depending on distance.
Only time I really go over 15-20x is for KYL racks or LD. Otherwise I’d be happy with 16-18 on the top end.
Only time I really go over 15-20x is for KYL racks or LD. Otherwise I’d be happy with 16-18 on the top end.
I'm personally in the camp of "better to have it...." mentality. I've tried using scopes of 15X magnification. Too many instances when I wanted or needed more magnification to only run a 15X anymore. Paper stages, KYL, target arrays that are all at LR, etc. The extra mag is used a few times almost every match. I can easily say I've never shot an entire match without using the extra mag since changing over to higher mag range scopes.
The 2.5-15x Ares BTR and 4.5-27x are the same scope externally - size, weight, etc. I'd much rather have 27x available for zeroing and very small targets than 2x extra on the low end.
Now, when you're talking about scopes like the Vortex Viper PST Gen 2, where the 3-15x is much smaller than the 5-25x, going for the lower magnification option has some benefit if you don't expect to need more than 15x on the high end.
Now, when you're talking about scopes like the Vortex Viper PST Gen 2, where the 3-15x is much smaller than the 5-25x, going for the lower magnification option has some benefit if you don't expect to need more than 15x on the high end.
Because only 25% of my shooting is done in matches, and even when I'm at a match, sometimes I need more magnification than 15x. It's like saying, "Why did you buy that sports car that can do 150 MPH? If the speed limit is only 65, wouldn't it make sense to have a car that only goes 65?"
I often start at low/mid magnification and then dial up higher if I want to see the target more clearly. 10 to 15x for the entire stage from a barricade that requires movement between shots. Start low and dial up to max on prone stages that require minor adjustments between targets. And, max mag is great for those rare paper stages...
Every once in a while you'll run across a stage that requires identification. The few I can think of....one being we were trying to make out the suit and the number on mini playing cards so we could shoot the best hand and using that same card layout we were shown which card to engage in another stage.
Another one was we were shown pictures of both good guys and bad guys, you were penalized for shooting the wrong one and of course gained points for shooting the one you were shown.
Shooting groups which include load work.
If mirage is down you can see where the misses land easier.
Higher mag helps on occasion.
Another one was we were shown pictures of both good guys and bad guys, you were penalized for shooting the wrong one and of course gained points for shooting the one you were shown.
Shooting groups which include load work.
If mirage is down you can see where the misses land easier.
Higher mag helps on occasion.
Because "mostly" still leaves those "sometimes its not" moments. What do you need a dick for if youre only going to use it to make one or two kids?
Hi,
Because a 27x can be used at 15x but there is no way a 15x is ever going to be used at 27x.
Follow the law of the land:
2 is 1 and 1 is none.
Sincerely,
Theis
Because a 27x can be used at 15x but there is no way a 15x is ever going to be used at 27x.
Follow the law of the land:
2 is 1 and 1 is none.
Sincerely,
Theis
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
If you don't have all that magnification available, then what are you supposed to waste all your time finger fucking with before you get the shot off?
I am going to give you a reason that is going to blow your mind something very original that you probably have never ever heard of..........Get ready you might want to sit down for this......Ok here goes.......BECAUSE IT'S BETTER TO HAVE IT AND NOT NEED IT THAN TO NEED IT AND NOT HAVE IT...........Let that sink in for a moment.......
Sniper Hide has a lot of field match shooters - or is that the same as PRS to you??
I think a lot of people just lump everything into PRS even NRL - ok that last part was supposed to be humor
I'm not a huge fan of these type of statements. Because to gain capability in one area nearly always means you sacrifice in other areas or you increase price. So just saying that you want a capability even though you don't have a need for it is an expensive way to make decisions.
Sort of humor, sort of serious. I'll say this - the PRS shooters seem to often forget that anything else exists. And for 90%+ of SH, when you say "match", you may as well be saying PRS. Or at least that's how the responses come across to me, and apparently others.
Last edited:
After bouncing between a lot of optics, the highest mag I currently own is 16x. Do I prefer 20x+? Yes, as a lot of shooting for me was ground squirrel or group shooting.
The only time I shoot anymore is 100 yards and then man sized targets out to 400 yards, where a freaking 4x acog will do just fine.
The only time I shoot anymore is 100 yards and then man sized targets out to 400 yards, where a freaking 4x acog will do just fine.
I shot a NRL match last night with a 4-16. I'll be replacing it with a 6-24. I never went below 8x, and that was only because I couldn't get the parallax to focus on a 25 Yard target on 16x.
My 5-25 Mark 5 showed up at my door about a day after they announced the 7-35. Had I waited a week to order it I would have the 7-35, since I haven't used it below 12, but commonly use it over 20.
I'll probably be ordering myself a 7-35 when I get another rifle built.
My 5-25 Mark 5 showed up at my door about a day after they announced the 7-35. Had I waited a week to order it I would have the 7-35, since I haven't used it below 12, but commonly use it over 20.
I'll probably be ordering myself a 7-35 when I get another rifle built.
@lash what the hell is this guy talking about? Does he mean like in third world countries? Other planets maybe? I don’t understand!!!! What the fuck is “Other Matches?” Is that how you say PRS in your native language? I need a nap now.
As far as prs/nrl goes with magnification in my opinion it depends more on match style than anything. If it is heavy positional lower magnification higher fov is nice but a field match with little targets being able to zoom in is really nice. I've ran a 15x for a year or so and it was fine but not ideal imo.
For me, I love big objective lens, for the simple reality that a bigger objective lens brings in more light. (For example, my 56mm outperforms the 50mm lens such that I no longer like the 50mm). More light, better image in low light and I engage a lot of targets that are sitting back in heavy shade, so I need that performance even in good weather. The additional weight/cost is worth it IMO. Does not answer the 27x mag question, just pointing out that scopes in that mag range typically have 56mm objective lens.
The issue with higher magnifications at longer distances is image degradation/dance when mirage comes out to play (mostly all the time).
But not all shooting is done at such extreme distance. The higher magnifications come into their own when targets are closer in.
Back when I was more deeply involved in distance shooting, at 1Kyd I would use a 6-24 scope and seldom go above 18x in significant mirage conditions. These days, my shooting seldom goes beyond 300yd, and my precision rifles now bear 8-32 scopes.
Exit pupil; this is a crucial factor that many miss.
That is the measurement of the image diameter at the eyepiece-to-eye relief distance. It is determined by dividing the objective lens diameter by the adjusted magnification power. For example, a 44mm objective at 32x derives an exit pupil diameter of 1.3mm-1.4mm.
That's way too small. At 8x, it's about 5.5mm; big difference.
The exit pupil diameter should be no smaller than the diameter of the eye's own pupil, generally considered to be in the range of 4mm-6mm. When its smaller, we get vignetting; a condition that shows the image to be surrounded by a dark ring/band, and which can be pretty distracting.
Bearing in mind that the eye's pupil grows when the other eye is closed/blocked from receiving light, and we begin to see why squinting harms performance. The eye's pupil becomes bigger than even a good exit pupil diameter, and vignetting becomes a more serious factor. This growth is a reflex brain response to light reduction; as one pupil's overall light value becomes degraded, the brain subconsciously opens up the other pupil in compensation.
We were taught at the Marine Corps Teams facility in Quantico that a black eye patch is a mistake for this reason. What the Teams were taught to do was to use translucent tape (I.e. Scotch Magic Tape, etc.) across the optical center of the off-eye's safety glass lens. This allows the off-eye to remain open and receive light, while removing its informational contribution to overall image processing. The corollary is that the other eye's pupil diameter shrinks, reducing/eliminating vignetting. It's not just about the scope, the eye itself is also a critical part of this phenomenon.
...And no, I was never a member of the Marine Corps Teams. I was very fortunate to be among a handful of Marine Corps League shooters from NJ who were invited to spend a week training at Quantico with the Marine Corps Pistol Team. We held up our end by taking them to dinner each night at the Mickey Finn Detachment MCL, just outside the Quantico main gate.
Those were very special days.
So why use such a scope even when the penultimate exit pupil is so deficient? Well, it's a variable; and as stated above, the maximum magnification usually doesn't provide the best image, but lower mags are more useful.
Also, take the time to adjust out parallax; otherwise, you're increasing your circular error probability. My final adjustment when setting up is to do this. It's what buys me that last bit of accuracy.
Optics are not just something you look through. They have adjustments that can bring your scores up quite a lot. Learn how, and use them.
Greg
But not all shooting is done at such extreme distance. The higher magnifications come into their own when targets are closer in.
Back when I was more deeply involved in distance shooting, at 1Kyd I would use a 6-24 scope and seldom go above 18x in significant mirage conditions. These days, my shooting seldom goes beyond 300yd, and my precision rifles now bear 8-32 scopes.
Exit pupil; this is a crucial factor that many miss.
That is the measurement of the image diameter at the eyepiece-to-eye relief distance. It is determined by dividing the objective lens diameter by the adjusted magnification power. For example, a 44mm objective at 32x derives an exit pupil diameter of 1.3mm-1.4mm.
That's way too small. At 8x, it's about 5.5mm; big difference.
The exit pupil diameter should be no smaller than the diameter of the eye's own pupil, generally considered to be in the range of 4mm-6mm. When its smaller, we get vignetting; a condition that shows the image to be surrounded by a dark ring/band, and which can be pretty distracting.
Bearing in mind that the eye's pupil grows when the other eye is closed/blocked from receiving light, and we begin to see why squinting harms performance. The eye's pupil becomes bigger than even a good exit pupil diameter, and vignetting becomes a more serious factor. This growth is a reflex brain response to light reduction; as one pupil's overall light value becomes degraded, the brain subconsciously opens up the other pupil in compensation.
We were taught at the Marine Corps Teams facility in Quantico that a black eye patch is a mistake for this reason. What the Teams were taught to do was to use translucent tape (I.e. Scotch Magic Tape, etc.) across the optical center of the off-eye's safety glass lens. This allows the off-eye to remain open and receive light, while removing its informational contribution to overall image processing. The corollary is that the other eye's pupil diameter shrinks, reducing/eliminating vignetting. It's not just about the scope, the eye itself is also a critical part of this phenomenon.
...And no, I was never a member of the Marine Corps Teams. I was very fortunate to be among a handful of Marine Corps League shooters from NJ who were invited to spend a week training at Quantico with the Marine Corps Pistol Team. We held up our end by taking them to dinner each night at the Mickey Finn Detachment MCL, just outside the Quantico main gate.
Those were very special days.
So why use such a scope even when the penultimate exit pupil is so deficient? Well, it's a variable; and as stated above, the maximum magnification usually doesn't provide the best image, but lower mags are more useful.
Also, take the time to adjust out parallax; otherwise, you're increasing your circular error probability. My final adjustment when setting up is to do this. It's what buys me that last bit of accuracy.
Optics are not just something you look through. They have adjustments that can bring your scores up quite a lot. Learn how, and use them.
Greg
Last edited:
Finally someone who understands that high magnification at shorter distances means you can target a gnats ass and actually see it. I recently moved up to a 10-40X56 and when running at 30X or so the scope looks amazing in clarity and I can see stuff at 100 - 300 yards that allows me to place a round at specific locations with in a 1 MOA circle.
Then I can dial it back to deal with mirage at a 600-1000 yards shot. Higher power means you have it if you need it. Many modern scopes coming out have some *really* good glass and getting 30-40X (or more) does not automatically mean magnification without clarity.
My 40X looks very good at 30-32X.
VooDoo
Then I can dial it back to deal with mirage at a 600-1000 yards shot. Higher power means you have it if you need it. Many modern scopes coming out have some *really* good glass and getting 30-40X (or more) does not automatically mean magnification without clarity.
My 40X looks very good at 30-32X.
VooDoo
Let's summarize the benefits of having more magnification than the average used in matches.
Pros:
Pros:
- Zeroing at 25x-35x : more precise POA = better zero = truer data = more hits
- KYL : generally tons of time so easier to spot exact impact = better correction = more hits
- Long Range (1000+): easier to spot impact = better correction = more hits
- Image Quality: all else equal, being in the middle of mag range tends to produce better image quality with forgiving eyebox = less fatigue = more hits
- Clarity/brightness : (in general) higher mag scopes tend to be longer and have better image quality edge to edge than short compact versions than Shorty's = cleaner FOV = faster to identify dirty targets late in day = more time = more hits
- "What if" : you never know when a 25x or 30x scope will help = better to have it ...= More hits
- Weight: generally, higher mag scopes weigh more = higher weight = lower recoil/muzzle movement = easier spotting trace/impact = more hits
- *Possibly* more money but always and usually not much more within the same family of scopes (i.e NF ATACRs 5-25 vs 7-35 is a $400-500 difference)
- Maybe a bit heavier (also listed in the pro's section) for walking stage to stage.
- Possibly forget to set magnification lower and lose time on stage (entirely trainable and 100% avoidable)
- Larger Size : possible that larger size makes it harder to get into tight position/hole/barricade = lost time = fewer hits
Last edited:
On the cons, I would add slightly larger footprint on the rifle, making it harder/slower/impossible to insert rifle into barricades, other tight holes. Otherwise, great list.
Updated list. But in practice, it doesn't seem to hurt too much. Most scopes are going to be about 60-68mm at the front objective. We shot out of 3" tall slits at our match this weekend and half of the objective was "obscured" by wood. Didn't matter though because target was fully visible and the larger Objective let more light in actually creating an advantage for larger scopes. Didn't matter how small the scope was; you couldn't get the scope into the slot.
Doesn't have to be more money...
Mueller 8-32x 44mm. The JarheadAZ review is mine.
This scope first caught on with the rimfire competition crowd, who use it to shoot really tiny at 100yd. But it's really a great scope across the board for folks who shy away from the ones that require one to pawn one's firstborn in order to own that scope of scopes. Yes, a 50mm (or larger) objective should work better, but then I'd probably be eyeing the firstborn in a whole new way (actually, there may be a way after all, but it's a fixed power)
Product Information
Mine are the Target Dot/MOA version, but MilDot is also available. I own three of these, starting maybe six or seven years back. They have always worked, and the lower price is why I can afford the three.
My first two scopes underwent some pretty humongous battering during the move from NY to AZ, but despite the dings and gouges, they still work fine. IMHO, that was an unintended, and beyond the pale torture test. 34 driving hours, just over 2200 miles, in gun cabinets on a U-Haul trailer. Blame me, I was downright stupid; but the scopes held up to even me.
You won't find Mueller advertising, which is a large part of why they are so affordable. They depend solely on word-of-mouth advertising. This is my mouth wording. When you see that green ring, you're looking at a Mueller.
Greg
Mueller 8-32x 44mm. The JarheadAZ review is mine.
This scope first caught on with the rimfire competition crowd, who use it to shoot really tiny at 100yd. But it's really a great scope across the board for folks who shy away from the ones that require one to pawn one's firstborn in order to own that scope of scopes. Yes, a 50mm (or larger) objective should work better, but then I'd probably be eyeing the firstborn in a whole new way (actually, there may be a way after all, but it's a fixed power)
Product Information
| Finish | Matte Black |
| Waterproof | Yes |
| Weight | 26 Ounce |
| Tube Diameter | 30mm |
| Power Variability | Variable |
| Minimum Power | 8 |
| Maximum Power | 32 |
| Adjustment Click Value | 1/8 MOA |
| Adjustment Type | Click |
| Exposed Turrets | Yes |
| Finger Adjustable Turrets | Yes |
| Turrets Resettable to Zero | Yes |
| Zero Stop | No |
| Turret Height | High |
| Fast Focus Eye Piece | Yes |
| Lens Coating | Fully Multi-Coated |
| Warranty | Limited Lifetime Factory Warranty |
| Rings Included | No |
| Sun Shade Included | Yes |
| Lens Covers Included | No |
| Reticle | Target Dot |
| Reticle Construction | Wire |
| Illuminated Reticle | No |
| Holdover Reticle | No |
| Reticle Focal Plane Location | 2nd |
| Parallax Adjustment | 10 Yards-Infinity |
| Fog Proof | Yes |
| Shock Proof | Yes |
| Overall Length (A) | 16.25 Inches |
| Eyepiece Bell to Objective Bell Length (B) | 6.15 Inches |
| Objective Bell to Turret Length (C) | 2.7 Inches |
| Eyepiece Bell to Turret Length (D) | 2 Inches |
| Eyepiece Length (E) | 3.85 Inches |
| Objective Bell Length (F) | 6.25 Inches |
| Objective Diameter (G) | 2 Inches |
| Eyepiece Diameter (H) | 1.71 Inches |
| Objective Lens Diameter | 44 Millimeter |
| Eye Relief | 4 Inches |
| Exit Pupil Diameter | 5.5-1.37 Millimeter |
| Field of View @ 100 Yards Minimum Power | 9.3 Feet |
| Field of View @ 100 Yards Maximum Power | 2.5 Feet |
| Sun Shade Length | 3 Inches |
Mine are the Target Dot/MOA version, but MilDot is also available. I own three of these, starting maybe six or seven years back. They have always worked, and the lower price is why I can afford the three.
My first two scopes underwent some pretty humongous battering during the move from NY to AZ, but despite the dings and gouges, they still work fine. IMHO, that was an unintended, and beyond the pale torture test. 34 driving hours, just over 2200 miles, in gun cabinets on a U-Haul trailer. Blame me, I was downright stupid; but the scopes held up to even me.
You won't find Mueller advertising, which is a large part of why they are so affordable. They depend solely on word-of-mouth advertising. This is my mouth wording. When you see that green ring, you're looking at a Mueller.
Greg
Last edited:
There is a way to get those impacts into the image faster.
I use a bipod and a slack sling.
The sling hangs just clear of the ground when the rifle is supported by the bipod and rear bag. The non trigger hand is passed through between stock and sling to grasp the buttstock; and the upper body's weight is applied to the sling, anchoring the rifle against recoil hop. There is some initial rearward rocking movement under recoil, but no hop; so the image stays just about perfectly on target.
In time, the shooter can even learn how to spot both boil trace and glint trace, and actually follow the bullet on in to impact.
Greg
Thanks! Went with the 27x on sale. Now to find a comparable scope mount for an AR15 Valkyrie. Any ideas? I’m thinking Seekins MXM, that is the very top end of my budget.
If you want a one piece mount, I've got a Leupold Mark 8 34mm mount ($350-400 new) I'm selling for $200.
The technique is not mine.
When I first mentioned it here, maybe over ten years ago, I was informed that it had been seen at the US Army MTU.
I just want to see more folks have this other option.
The Leupold above looks like a serious bargain.
Once again, being the resident cheapskate, I put these Nikon mounts on my two AR Stoner 6.5 Grendel Uppers. They also make one in 30mm, but I could not find any for 34mm.
I had reasons beyond the very low cost:
I had been using Nikon P-Series 1 inch individual mounts, which allowed adding a mounting lug on the rail for my Caldwell brass catchers in between the two mounts. But the P-series mounts slide onto the rail, and for some reason the AR Stoner rail was oversized (o/o spec?) and the mounts would not go on. The Monstrum mount uses a different fastening method, and does not have issue with the AR Stoner rail. So, rather than butchering the Nikon mounts, I could save them for other builds.
The Monstrum mount's cantilever design allows the mount to remain completely over the receiver and not extend onto the handguard rail. I mount my scopes with the eyepiece bell directly even above the rear end of the receiver. Even in this position, the cantilever allows the Caldwell lug to be mounted on the handguard rail with enough rearward positioning that the brass catcher will still work OK. That was a gamble, but I got lucky with that one.
This catcher can save brass when it is required that one leaves one's brass where it lies.
Greg
When I first mentioned it here, maybe over ten years ago, I was informed that it had been seen at the US Army MTU.
I just want to see more folks have this other option.
The Leupold above looks like a serious bargain.
Once again, being the resident cheapskate, I put these Nikon mounts on my two AR Stoner 6.5 Grendel Uppers. They also make one in 30mm, but I could not find any for 34mm.
I had reasons beyond the very low cost:
I had been using Nikon P-Series 1 inch individual mounts, which allowed adding a mounting lug on the rail for my Caldwell brass catchers in between the two mounts. But the P-series mounts slide onto the rail, and for some reason the AR Stoner rail was oversized (o/o spec?) and the mounts would not go on. The Monstrum mount uses a different fastening method, and does not have issue with the AR Stoner rail. So, rather than butchering the Nikon mounts, I could save them for other builds.
The Monstrum mount's cantilever design allows the mount to remain completely over the receiver and not extend onto the handguard rail. I mount my scopes with the eyepiece bell directly even above the rear end of the receiver. Even in this position, the cantilever allows the Caldwell lug to be mounted on the handguard rail with enough rearward positioning that the brass catcher will still work OK. That was a gamble, but I got lucky with that one.
This catcher can save brass when it is required that one leaves one's brass where it lies.
Greg
Last edited:
That’s a great deal. The Ares is a 30mm tube though. You still working on your Valkyrie?
Not really working on it... Just shooting it. ? It's shooting .5 -.8 and that's plenty good. 88s at 2750.
To the original post question. I may need the 27x to get a good looking person next to the pool. Yes, my obj is 56mm and my scope is longer than yours.
I prefer a lower end magnification and most 25x are 5-25x. I dig the 3.2-17x LR17 I have the best as far as mag. range goes. There are new ones that go both low and high AND are fairly compact, but the good ones like S&B are expensive. USO makes a budget line now I guess and they make a 2-27x. I like that range but I'd rather have that in a higher end scope personally and I'd rather save and wait vs. going budget.
I guess in short I don't mind having the high end, it's nice, it's a want, but for me the lower end is a need and comes first. The only 5-25x I own is on a .50 BMG, and I never feel wanting for magnification with any of my other rifles/optics. It's up to the user really and is also in part dictated by what you plan on doing with it.
I guess in short I don't mind having the high end, it's nice, it's a want, but for me the lower end is a need and comes first. The only 5-25x I own is on a .50 BMG, and I never feel wanting for magnification with any of my other rifles/optics. It's up to the user really and is also in part dictated by what you plan on doing with it.
100%, my 3 higher mag scopes (all newest gen)
5-45 SB changes at around 39-40x
10-60 march HM changes around low 50's x
10-50 kahles moak changes in the low 40's (darkest of the bunch to start, but built like solid block of steel)
