Rifle Scopes Magnification: is more always better?

[Iwillylike2shoot]

For a PRS/NRL gun:
I'm about to buy a Vortex Razor and now that I saved enough for the 3-18 I'm wondering if I shouldn't just hold off and save up for the higher magnification model. From what I can see the 2 ounce weight difference is a wash. Right now I'm thinking I would be silly not to save for another month or so.

So my question is: Is there any benefit to having a lower level of magnification or should I continue to save and get the 4.5-27?

 

[Geno C.]

Seeing as the bottom of both aren’t too far from each other, I don’t see a raw back to the higher mag. I’ve had both and both do well though. In a match it is really rare for me to go over 15x. I still have the 3-18 on my sons gun because he’s learning and likes the large field of view

 

[Diver160651]

To add to this you'll never really go much below 10x..

The high power is great when load developing mostly..

the truth is is is really about what you really "want" if you wish you had the 4.5-27 you'll always wish you waited.. It least that is how I am.

 

[Iwillylike2shoot]

To add to this you'll never really go much below 10x..

The high power is great when load developing mostly..

the truth is is is really about what you really "want" if you wish you had the 4.5-27 you'll always wish you waited.. It least that is how I am.

That's true, I'll always wonder if I should have waited. I think that is enough on it's own to wait.

 

[brianf]

You can always turn it down ...
You can’t turn it up if you don’t have it.

 

[Pilotscrappy]

Keep saving for the 4.5-27, you can always dial lower mag if you want to...

 

[Deleted member 113831]

On the other hand, if you can't hit it with 18x, then you probably can't hit it.

 

[DetroitRearView]

Amazing how well you can do @ 10X

 

[M_16_4_REAL]

Get the 27x. You can always use it on 16x for prs matches, and then power up for load development or long range precision. With the 18x max, you’ll eventually want to get a 25 or 27x scope just to try it. Experience speaking, listen up lol.

 

[koshkin]

If you do not need to go to lower power than 4.5x, then save for the large rmodel.

The difference between 3x and 4.5x is exactly the same as the difference between 18x and 27x. Magnification is multiplicative not additive.

Figure out what is more improtant to you: FOV on low end or close-up on the high end and work with that.

ILya

 

[patriot07]

If the 3-18 weighed less, I think it could be really popular. Given that they're both boat anchors, I'd only go with the 3-18 if FOV at low mag was important. Otherwise, there's no compelling reason to pick it over the 4.5-27 except cost. And the 4.5-27 has gotten so cheap (relatively speaking) that it's an obvious selection in its new price range.

 

[demolitionman]

I personally would go with the 18. Because i prefer 12 to 16 power most of the time and it seems when I’m above 15 power I shoot like shit anyways and I’m afraid my temptation of just slamming it to full magnification would be too great ?full mag 18x is way more than I’d ever need.

 

[Triple D]

Huge gain on the top end vs a very small difference on the low end. Go 4.5x27.

The vast majority of optics that you’ll see at a match have a top end of 25x or greater. There’s a reason for that.

 

[koshkin]

Huge gain on the top end vs a very small difference on the low end. Go 4.5x27.

The vast majority of optics that you’ll see at a match have a top end of 25x or greater. There’s a reason for that.

Not that it matters much in this case, but the difference between 3x and 4.5x is exactly the same as between 18x and 27x. It is multiplicative, not additive.

ILya

 

[acudaowner]

it has to be worth it to you to want . Me i like having more considering the cost of having to buy 2 or 3 scopes could run more than just getting what i wanted the first time . Paying more for more mag and better glass the first time to me is better . buy once cry once sort of thing .

 

[Luvman]

When I first got into precision rifles many years ago I had to have a lot of mag. I got an 8-32x scope and soon realized it was too much. I didn’t know what I didn’t know.

My precision rifles also pull double duty hunting. Since then I’ve learned to value FOV.

My glass since then has had 3.5x max on the bottom. And my current glass is the 3-18 razor. Which I shot my first match with last month. I was never over 15x. And shot out to 1K. On one stage I had trouble finding the 2nd target and had to dial all the way down to find it. That FOV was great.

With all that said the 3–18 won’t limit you at matches. The 4.5-27 won’t either. If you’re only going to be doing precision rifle type stuff the 27x razor is likely the better choice.

If you’re doing anything that would require fast target acquisition under 100yds like hunting. The 18x razor would be my choice. And currently is.

 

[Triple D]

Not that it matters much in this case, but the difference between 3x and 4.5x is exactly the same as between 18x and 27x. It is multiplicative, not additive.

ILya

When going for small targets, the added magnification seems to have a greater impact. I suppose you would disagree?

The point was, you only give up a small amount on the low end and gain quite a bit on the upper.

 

[koshkin]

When going for small targets, the added magnification seems to have a greater impact. I suppose you would disagree?

The point was, you only give up a small amount on the low end and gain quite a bit on the upper.

I underlined the portion of your post that I fundamentally disagree with. In terms of human perception, you gain exactly the same on the top end as you lose on the low end with these two scopes.

Now, which is more important depends on the application, so I can't tell you which has more impact. That depends on what you are doing with it.

ILya

 

[sleeplz]

Another vote for 27, spot hits for your buddy or target identification. Also good for zeroing where it's almost like cheating at that point.

 

[5RWill]

I started with a 3.2-17x44 SN-3, have ran 3-21x50 ERS, HDMR II, DMR II, Mk5 5-25, K624i, and now run K318i and K525i. 18x is plenty as most said 25x helps with load development. I've rarely if ever used it in a match. Hell i ran a lot of stages a week ago at 12x with my K525i as a disclaimer it's FOV is rather small compared to the competition but 12-16 is where i reside most of the time in matches. Seeing your misses is by far more important than being able to see the cracks in the paint on the target. If you want the 27x get it, if you're thinking the 3-18 will in someway hinder you, it will absolutely not.

 

[swage2712]

I'm in the minority. I like having more magnification. It's there is you need it. Probably why I have three NF 7-35's

 

[Triple D]

I underlined the portion of your post that I fundamentally disagree with. In terms of human perception, you gain exactly the same on the top end as you lose on the low end with these two scopes.

Now, which is more important depends on the application, so I can't tell you which has more impact. That depends on what you are doing with it.

ILya

Considering I’ve never used any of my match rifles at the low end, it’s really of no use for me when comparing the two. 6-7x is about as low as I go, so the 1.5x magnification difference between the 2 on the low end isn’t of concern. The 9x additional magnification on the top end is.

Or, are you saying that 18x is the same as the 27x?

 

[beetroot]

I tend to prefer lower mounted scopes, either 44mm or 50mm which typically limits me to 3-18ish power scopes.
You would be surprised at how little practical difference there is between 15x, 20x and 25x.
I like having extra magnification for shooting groups and and load development, but appreciate having a larger FOV out in the real world, be that hunting or practical shooting.

If you don't see yourself needing the larger FOV and aren't worried about objective diameter then go for the 4.5-27.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I rarely go above 16x though my scopes go up higher. Mostly 1.5 MOA silhouette targets out to 600 yards in this case.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Considering I’ve never used any of my match rifles at the low end, it’s really of no use for me when comparing the two. 6-7x is about as low as I go, so the 1.5x magnification difference between the 2 on the low end isn’t of concern. The 9x additional magnification on the top end is.

Or, are you saying that 18x is the same as the 27x?

He’s saying it’s not really 1.5x vs 9x.

Magnification is multiplicative not additive.

 

[Longbow06]

He’s saying it’s not really 1.5x vs 9x.

Magnification is multiplicative not additive.

Exactly. Think of the change in FOV on the low end. The 100 yd FOV at 3x (37.8 ft) is 50% greater than the FOV at 4.5x (25.3 ft). On the top end, going from 18x to 27x is a 50% increase in magnification.

They are both 6x erector scopes. The OP just has to decide which is more important, top end magnification or low end FOV.

 

[Triple D]

He’s saying it’s not really 1.5x vs 9x.

Magnification is multiplicative not additive.

Yes, but we’re saying the same thing. I’m referring to the power listed on the scope. A 9x increase on the scope is still a 50% increase over 18x, in the power range that I would use.

 

[koshkin]

Yes, but we’re saying the same thing. I’m referring to the power listed on the scope. A 9x increase on the scope is still a 50% increase over 18x, in the power range that I would use.

Correct, going from 3x to 4.5x is the same 50% change as going from 18x to 27x. It is sort of a terminology issue. A 9x increase means nine times higher, while the actual change is 1.5 times.

ILya

 

[oneshotmike]

The longest range I have shot on was 1000 yards and I did that comfortably with a 3.5x21 at full magnification. There is something to be said about having the higher magnification....I would get the 4.5x27 should funds allow. Its nice to have in the event that its needed.

 

[87stang]

I started off in the “more mag is better” camp. I think most people start off there. I have found that for most applications I’m rarely much over X12. While there are instances where higher mag is useful, like PID, there are also negative issues that come into play. For me, I have found that I shoot better 100yrd groups below X10. It seems once the mag increases to where I can see my impacts I subconsciously start chasing them and my groups open up. Also at higher mag mirage becomes a concern. Like has been said before, FOV when scanning for targets is very important. I’ve never missed a target because I didn’t have enough mag. If I missed it on x15 - 18 power, I would have missed it on x25-27 power. I value FOV, overal size, and glass quality more highly than mag range so the majority of my scopes are a max of x18. That being said, I do have a S&B 3-27. I like it quite a bit. I didn’t have to sacrifice anything on the low end other than reticle size to get the higher mag. I can compensate for that with the illumination. It is something to be concerned with. A scope with a wide mag range will inevitably have either a very small reticle on the low end or a very large reticle on the high end. There’s always a compromise and to me the compromises on the low end are not really worth the higher mag.

 

[hlee]

Except for the rare paper stage, I'm generally shooting somewhere in the middle of the mag range. The increased field of view is really nice. But, I sometimes reach up and crank it up on small targets. "Better to have and not need..." and all that.

I shoot a 5-20 and wouldn't mind having a bit more top end on occasion.

 

[garmil]

Is it worth considering that the 3-18 on 18x has more usable holds on the reticle than the 4.5-27 on 18x?

 

[koshkin]

Is it worth considering that the 3-18 on 18x has more usable holds on the reticle than the 4.5-27 on 18x?

Explain that please.

If it is the same reticle, it will have the same number of holds on 18x in these two scopes.

ILya

 

[garmil]

Explain that please.

If it is the same reticle, it will have the same number of holds on 18x in these two scopes.

ILya

It will have the same number of holds yes. Both scopes are designed to have roughly the same size reticle at full power, so at 18x on the 27 power model the holds are going to be smaller/harder to see than the 18x on the 18 power model. It's subjective if that's good or bad I guess but either way the reticle will be finer on the higher power model.

 

[Iwillylike2shoot]

It will have the same number of holds yes. Both scopes are designed to have roughly the same size reticle at full power, so at 18x on the 27 power model the holds are going to be smaller/harder to see than the 18x on the 18 power model. It's subjective if that's good or bad I guess but either way the reticle will be finer on the higher power model.

If I use both scopes at 18x then it shouldn't matter. Like Koshkin said the reticles are the same so at 18x the holds will be the same on both scopes. If I don't have enough holds at 27 power then I will bring the power back down. I will be dialing rather than holding anyway especially if I have a target far enough and small enough to use 27 power.

 

[Iwillylike2shoot]

Thanks for the answers everyone. I will be going with the 4.7-27 because: "it's better to have more and not need it" and "you will always wonder if you should have gotten the 27x." Those aren't exact quotes but that is what I gathered from the answers. I will also keep in mind the recommendations to keep the power down so I don't start thinking to hard about what I see appearing on the paper.

 

[koshkin]

If I use both scopes at 18x then it shouldn't matter. Like Koshkin said the reticles are the same so at 18x the holds will be the same on both scopes. If I don't have enough holds at 27 power then I will bring the power back down. I will be dialing rather than holding anyway especially if I have a target far enough and small enough to use 27 power.

 

[garmil]

Read the very bottom writing on those pictures. That's the only point I was making.

"The overall reticle image will vary with changes in the magnification"

If you like a thicker reticle you're better off with the one that will be used closer to it's max magnification.

 

[beetroot]

View attachment 7057510

Something thats never mentioned in these kind of threads is reticle thickness.
Of courses all holds will be the same as we are looking at ffp scopes. But will the reticle thickness be the same with both scopes on 18x? One would think the 3-18 would have a thicker reticle?

If you see yourself using 18x or less 90% of the time, would it be worth considering whether the reticle thickness in the 3-18 may be better suited for intended use?

This is a question not a statement, wanting to know if my thinking is correct or am I missing something?

 

[CBDR]

For a PRS/NRL gun:
I'm about to buy a Vortex Razor and now that I saved enough for the 3-18 I'm wondering if I shouldn't just hold off and save up for the higher magnification model. From what I can see the 2 ounce weight difference is a wash. Right now I'm thinking I would be silly not to save for another month or so.

So my question is: Is there any benefit to having a lower level of magnification or should I continue to save and get the 4.5-27?

You just answered your own question. Trust your gut, go with the higher mag.

 

[wade2big]

Read the very bottom writing on those pictures. That's the only point I was making.

"The overall reticle image will vary with changes in the magnification"

If you like a thicker reticle you're better off with the one that will be used closer to it's max magnification.

That doesn't make since. The reticles on these two scopes have the exact same thickness at .03mils. At any matching magnification the reticle thickness will be identical. FOV may change.

Some scopes have thicker reticles on their lower power scopes like the vortex pst gen ii. The 5-25 is .03 mils thick and the 3-15 is .05 mil thick. Both set at matching powers, the 3-15 reticle will appear thicker and cover more of the target. I prefer the .05 mil thickness and wished the Razor would offer it as another option.

 

[wade2big]

It will have the same number of holds yes. Both scopes are designed to have roughly the same size reticle at full power, so at 18x on the 27 power model the holds are going to be smaller/harder to see than the 18x on the 18 power model. It's subjective if that's good or bad I guess but either way the reticle will be finer on the higher power model.

not true as you are thinking. It is true they both have the same size reticle at max power. They are FFP scopes and have a .03mil reticle at every power including max power. The 27X razor's reticle will appear larger on max power due to the images being magnified but the reticle will cover no more of the target than the 18x at max power or the 27x at 18x.

Reticle thickness as it subtends and how dark the etching is will dictate visibility on lower magnifications.

 

[patriot07]

Read the very bottom writing on those pictures. That's the only point I was making.

"The overall reticle image will vary with changes in the magnification"

If you like a thicker reticle you're better off with the one that will be used closer to it's max magnification.

The reticle image on both scopes at 18x will be literally identical. That holds true at any common mag level between both scopes (anything between 4.5x and 18x that you put both scopes on will make the reticle look identical on target). They didn't alter reticle design between models.

 

[koshkin]

The reticle image on both scopes at 18x will be literally identical. That holds true at any common mag level between both scopes (anything between 4.5x and 18x that you put both scopes on will make the reticle look identical on target). They didn't alter reticle design between models.

Exactly.

"The overall reticle image will vary with changes in the magnification" means that it will look different on 16x than it does on 18x and so on. With these two scopes, if both are set to the same magnification, the reticle will look the same.

ILya

 

[Iwillylike2shoot]

not true as you are thinking. It is true they both have the same size reticle at max power. They are FFP scopes and have a .03mil reticle at every power including max power. The 27X razor's reticle will appear larger on max power due to the images being magnified but the reticle will cover no more of the target than the 18x at max power or the 27x at 18x.

Reticle thickness as it subtends and how dark the etching is will dictate visibility on lower magnifications.

If 1 MOA equals roughly .3 mils, then .03 mils is roughly .1 moa. I don't know the exact math but it will cover roughly 1 inch at 1000 yards. I'm ok with that

 

[garmil]

Okay thanks for clearing that up. Learned something.

 

[koshkin]

Okay thanks for clearing that up. Learned something.

It is a good thing your brought it up. The only way to make sure a question is never answered is to never ask it.

ILya

 

[wade2big]

If 1 MOA equals roughly .3 mils, then .03 mils is roughly .1 moa. I don't know the exact math but it will cover roughly 1 inch at 1000 yards. I'm ok with that

Well you should be. Your spread will cover the whole target plus paint outside the lines.

 

[aSilk_Suit007]

For me 10x, no more than 15 is more than good for shooting out to a mile and more. I also look at the company. Its totally common to have a high end optic with High mag, and to find out youre zooming in on dead pixels. But it definantly has its place, I think high mag optic fits with MIL/LE applications do to the need to be able to gather as much information as possible.
So far the best High mag optics companies that I shot are;

US Optics
S&B
Nightforce

I would risk any other company when my cash is on the line.

 

[beetroot]

Exactly.

"The overall reticle image will vary with changes in the magnification" means that it will look different on 16x than it does on 18x and so on. With these two scopes, if both are set to the same magnification, the reticle will look the same.

ILya

Why would Vortex make the reticle the same size in both of those models?
Surely you would want a thicker reticle in the 3-18, the reticle will be tiny on 3x.

They made the reticle roughly 1.5x the size on the 3-15 PST vs the 5-25 PST, which you would think makes sense.