It would be cool to be a great shooter with open sights. I could see switching to that someday.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes still don't understand why less magnification is better
- Thread starter Walter Haas
- Start date
Okay, but suppose there's zero mirage and at highest mag you see wobble and jitter, and at lowest mag you barely see the target. Where in the range are you going to set the mag? I would think at the highest mag that doesn't produce ridiculous amounts of wobble and jitter, but what say you?
I like the high mag to chase my jitter. I use high mag to teach myself to be better. If you can’t hold steady with 40x you are not improving shit if you drop back to 12x.
I have learned from this thread and I appreciate the responses but now I wish I could rephrase my question more like this: If you're zeroing at 100 yards on a cold morning with no mirage, why would some shooters choose to zero at low mag and some at high mag? I googled this and it was about 50/50 low vs high. I can't understand why you would choose low mag to zero with, assuming a scope with perfect "tracking"(if I'm understanding that term right).
In that situation (zeroing a rifle on paper or testing ammo for group size) you would want the max magnification available. But practically speaking, 25x is plenty for such situations. What you have to understand about the magnification debate is it's all about picking the right tool for the job. What do YOU want to do with the rifle? Once you define that, you pick your optic, but you have to understand the limitations and advantages of each choice. A lot of people on this site can't get past the type of shooting THEY do, so when someone offers a different opinion or perspective they can't comprehend why.
Sir... you need to get out and shoot. Some of the responses here have been tongue in cheek, and some appear to be going over your head. If you think the mirage picture looks better at the higher power, I would be terrified to be in a hunting area with you.
Stop reading, go try shooting out to 600, 800, 1000 yards in different conditions. It will make way more sense than any words on the internet.
Stop reading, go try shooting out to 600, 800, 1000 yards in different conditions. It will make way more sense than any words on the internet.
You are waaaay overthinking this. Use whatever zoom level you feel is best based on your eyes, your scope and prevailing environmental conditions. Stop worrying about what everyone else says or does.
You still haven’t answered my question from the previous page even though I answered both of yours.
A lot of things are arbitrary.
You have a goal, and tools to accomplish it. Whatever works for you is "better".
If you think there is truly a correct way or wrong way, you will have a hard time adapting to situations. Lets say you determine through wise internet words that 25x is the best magnification to zero an optic. Does that mean someone with iron sights can't zero their sights correctly? Red dots? Acogs? 1-8x variables?
I always grab the max I can when I zero, but that doesn't mean someone else is wrong in their preference. Definitely odd and questionable, but not wrong.
I always grab the max I can when I zero, but that doesn't mean someone else is wrong in their preference. Definitely odd and questionable, but not wrong.
I see why you would draw the distinction between static and dynamic accuracy but I don't think static actually exists, since a golfer is also in motion and even a bench rest shooter is not static even if he appears to be frozen in the same sitting position, your body never repeats anything exactly even though we think this, its always different. Your distinction is big movement vs subtle movement, but the brain handles both equally well.
Throwing a projectile vs throwing a projectile while running or moving? Either way is covered by the same 3 million year old capability. Without this a thousand things such as the cant of the rifle would be a big issue, but we "know" when something is vertical, we just don't know how we know. This is not a "nice to have" capability..we owe our existence to this capability and its very real. We owe our existence to the hunter. We first hunted by throwing rocks by hand, hard and accurately, very often while running, could be running or from standing position. The spear evolved into the arrow. The precision rifle is just another format like the bow and arrow. The mind and body will still become one with the weapon even though it seems too high tech to be natural.
My instructor told me to read Olympic shooter Lanny Bassham's book, "With Winning in Mind". He talks about some really interesting things, such as how your mind will hose the shot if you don't truly believe its "like you" to make the shot. Self doubt will hose your shot. (that's speaking from archery experience, not shooting)
All I'll say about that is that you need to be doing that while you're young...and/or still have young eyes. At least with A2 style irons, or really anything else with a very short eye-to-front sight radius, you need to have excellent acuity, and durability of that acuity throughout a day on the range. Blood sugar, astigmatism, dehydration, neurological status, eyebrow "build", medications, eye hydration, and personal stress levels are just a few of the things that can drastically affect your performance on irons, even from 7:30 am until 5 pm on the same day.
Really, those things affect shooters on scopes as well, but it's less likely to be noticed quickly...gee, imagine that: scopes make shootering more-easier...
But if you wanna shoot irons, best be doin' it. It's not an old man's game, and it's not something you learn overnight.
That said, irons can cut down on the time to improve some aspects of shooting where a scope actually handicaps your development, they put hair on your chest, and they are very rewarding when you can steer 'em pretty good.
Who knows...might come in handy someday, too.
I dont know if this matters in your context or not, but lower magnification optics tend to be lighter and less bulky...
If they are light and trim and high magnification (i.e. March), they tend to be spendy.
But I care about weight and bulk, you may not.
If they are light and trim and high magnification (i.e. March), they tend to be spendy.
But I care about weight and bulk, you may not.
You’re using ‘static’ way too literally and out of context. Yea, “static” doesn’t exist unless we are all in a vacuum chamber at absolute zero. But that isn’t reality.
Practically speaking, taking the shot is a static activity unless you plan on running and gunning at targets hundreds of yards away with your 40+ inch long precision rifle at max magnification, lol.
Neither golfer nor precision shooter are displacing in any direction at the time the shot is made/taken 99.9999% of the time. For example, in PRS you move from stage to stage and to get into position. But that moment spent actually taking the shot, you are static relative to your surroundings. Then after follow-through (golf and shooting), you move again and repeat. Everything you just described (hunters, spear chucking, throwing projectiles, etc) relates to short-range dynamic shooting.
Aiming in this context means proper position, sight alignment, synching your natural point of aim as seen on the center of the cross hairs with the center of the target while focusing on the cross hairs just before squeezing the trigger. It requires significantly more cognition than mere instincts.
Aiming is important in long range precision shooting and needs to be practiced if you want to hit your targets consistently at or near your system’s max effective range. Your teacher seemed to be stating otherwise but I needed to know the broader context before making any assumptions about what he was really teaching.
He’s right with respect to general mindset.
Last edited:
Shooting is like 97.6% mental, 25% physical, 391% subjective, and 11.37% other.
Hammer home the PROPER fundamentals with QUALITY repetitions until you apply them without thinking EVERY SINGLE TIME you get on the glass and take the shot. Then you can start to worry about random magnification advice from the internet. Your eyes are different than mine and mine are different than the next shooter. Your ability to ID and quarter a target and break the shot while doing everything correctly is going to matter more and influence your results greater than if you’re at 35x, 25x, 12.57x, or 5x.
Straight up, the magnification shit doesn't matter if you’re slapping the trigger, flinching before it breaks, dialed the wrong direction, ignoring your environmentals, muscling the weapon into position, throwing NPA out the window, and/or don’t have the glass set to your eye let alone the parallax removed.
A competent shooter doesn’t go to shit just because of what his magnification is set on. He goes to shit because he disrespected the target by failing to do what was required to make the proper hit.
Shoot more, relax, and take it in small bites man.
Hammer home the PROPER fundamentals with QUALITY repetitions until you apply them without thinking EVERY SINGLE TIME you get on the glass and take the shot. Then you can start to worry about random magnification advice from the internet. Your eyes are different than mine and mine are different than the next shooter. Your ability to ID and quarter a target and break the shot while doing everything correctly is going to matter more and influence your results greater than if you’re at 35x, 25x, 12.57x, or 5x.
Straight up, the magnification shit doesn't matter if you’re slapping the trigger, flinching before it breaks, dialed the wrong direction, ignoring your environmentals, muscling the weapon into position, throwing NPA out the window, and/or don’t have the glass set to your eye let alone the parallax removed.
A competent shooter doesn’t go to shit just because of what his magnification is set on. He goes to shit because he disrespected the target by failing to do what was required to make the proper hit.
Shoot more, relax, and take it in small bites man.
I thought about replying earlier, but was too lazy. But, if I had, this is exactly what I wanted to say!
Excellent reply.
Excellent reply.
I will answer the question as a hunter:
- Lower magnification makes target acquisition easier as your field of view is wider you are not looking down a soda straw.
- In general the light transmission is better at lower powers making those early and late minutes of the hunting day more productive.
- In situations where you need to crank up additional magnification you generally have time and concealment than when you need to crank the magnification down, unless I am strictly shooting over a field I run my scopes at their lowest powers.
This sounds dangerously close to a famous quote.
"Go be poor somewhere else"
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Can anyone explain why mirage is "worse" at higher magnifications? I'm not disagreeing that it seems that way, but is it how our brain interprets the distortion, does lower magnification providing more field of view allowing the brain to better "estimate" where the target is, is there more optical distortion at higher power zoom etc. making it seem worse?
The scope magnification is not changing the mirage itself, you are still looking through the same amount of atmosphere at the same target, from the same position/angle, so the mirage itself and the optical distortion between the target and the shooter is the same regardless of scope magnification . Whatever seems to make it worse to the user has to be either in how our brain interprets the distortion with relation to field of view, or perhaps mirage appears worse due to increased distortion of the optics itself at higher magnification. Perhaps it's like shooter "wobble" that seems better at lower magnifications because it's harder to see, even though the stability of the shooter has not changed at all.
The scope magnification is not changing the mirage itself, you are still looking through the same amount of atmosphere at the same target, from the same position/angle, so the mirage itself and the optical distortion between the target and the shooter is the same regardless of scope magnification . Whatever seems to make it worse to the user has to be either in how our brain interprets the distortion with relation to field of view, or perhaps mirage appears worse due to increased distortion of the optics itself at higher magnification. Perhaps it's like shooter "wobble" that seems better at lower magnifications because it's harder to see, even though the stability of the shooter has not changed at all.
I agree but the distortion magnitude in relation to the target itself does not change, in that the amount of mirage distortion while magnified is equally magnified in relation to the size of the target. Which leads me to thinking that it's more of a "trick" of the brain in that the brain feels more comfortable seeing "less" mirage/movement etc. at lower magnifications.
I'm sure someone around here can give an accurate, scientific answer, but i would guess it's just about perception. Kinda like how a photo at 5"x7" can look crisp and sharp and in focus, but blow it up to poster size and it looks terrible. All those imperfections are still in the smaller photo, but either you can't see them or your brain does a better job of smoothing it out or ignoring it.
When you see a rainbow going across the sky its coherent even though each droplet of water acts as an individual prism. The light source, the sun, is coming in from a specific angle such that the net effect is coherent to your eye.
In a mirage, the variation of air density is causing boundary conditions between different air pockets that cause the light to bend at different angles as it is transmitted through the boundary, sort of like a prism. In the wide field of view the coherency is maintained because the net random scattering cancels out photons leaving on average more or less the picture you would see if there was no mirage. The scope at high zoom is cutting out the photons that would cancel out the distorting effect of the mirage and leave you with a more coherent picture.
In other words, in wide view you're NOT looking at only photons reflected line of sight back to you.
That's just off the top of my head, I could be wrong.
This.
Take a Nikon D2 and a D5. They both make great 5x7s. Only one makes a great 24x36
Ever seen a billboard up close? You cant tell wtf it is
Take a 3-9 simmons and a 3-18 razor. Under very good conditions that 5x probably looks pretty decent for both scopes. Drop the light and it's a huge difference
It's always in the scope. You're just not seeing it. Why do F class guys who shoot 20 shots in 10-20 minutes use mirage bands and PRS guys who can light off 15 in 90 seconds dont? 12-20x versus 40-50x is a massive difference when talking barrel heat/mirage
I can tell you that the better the glass quality, the better it handles mirage - within reason of course. Even with the most expensive glass it still presents a problem. That is not something your brain is tricking you about... I cannot inform you in a scientific manner what is going on beyond seeing thermal air currents and distortion. It is an environmental effect to be factored in and dealt with.
^ it’s not wide FOV. Wide or Narrow are how much area you see. DOF (depth of Field) I think is what you’e explaining.
I see more mirage at higher mag, but I also see more target. I feel I can more accurately determine the center of a dancing target at higher mag than lower. In either case, the target is still moving with mirage, just because it is smaller and we dont see it moving as much doesnt seem like a help to me, because you cant aim as accurately with a smaller apparent target size as you can with a large one. I tend to think dialing back for mirage is more mental. I havent shot in really heavy desert mirage though.
Smaller wobble is just a mental thing. You have the same amount of wobble no matter what magnification. You have to train yourself as to what an acceptable sight picture is all all magnification.
Many people prefer less magnification primarily for larger FOV and mirage purposes.
With the FOV particularly, with free recoil or partial free recoil becoming popular, a larger FOV is better for spotting shots.
It’s also situationally dependent on:
Number of targets.
Proximity of targerts
How much wind
Free recoil or recoil management
Mirage
Etc etc
Many people prefer less magnification primarily for larger FOV and mirage purposes.
With the FOV particularly, with free recoil or partial free recoil becoming popular, a larger FOV is better for spotting shots.
It’s also situationally dependent on:
Number of targets.
Proximity of targerts
How much wind
Free recoil or recoil management
Mirage
Etc etc
Lets say you have a white desert and an orange target and there's no mirage. The orange photons are reflecting line of sight to every angle, not just to your objective lens. The orange photons are reflecting straight out in every direction and you only see the ones that reflect directly toward you. Now lets say you have mirage, some of the orange photons that would have been heading for your objective lens now get bent to the left and to the right because of the varying pockets of air density. So the ones that had originally been headed for you get bent and may or may not ever get to you. But now the orange photons that were not before going to be headed toward you are being bent also in the same random fashion and some of them wind up hitting your lens. If you zoom in to high mag these photons are still hitting your lens but your scope is cutting out them out because of the deep focus arrangement. What you're left with is distorted. Maybe I didn't say it right before, but when you are zoomed out in wide view, the apparent improved clarity of the target is an illusion in the sense that those are not directly reflected photons from the object.
You’ve skedaddled way past practically thinking.
Most prefer lower mag because it has more advantages over higher mag.
It’s not like guys haven’t tried higher mag. They have and it has a lot of disadvantages in a lot of situations.
I run at max mag any chance I get. But it has to check a lot of boxes.
This one is interesting to me, so in a nutshell when you increase magnification even though your optic lenses stays the same size and the photons striking the lens do not change, the optical path internally at higher magnification is "tighter" and you have a much narrower depth of field effectively removing some of these photons that you'd see at lower magnification. Which makes sense really, for example the lens sizes don't change but a scope appears much brighter at dusk when it's at a lower magnification because you are significantly reducing the exit pupil diameter (which is partly why the eyebox is reduced at higher mag). It would be hard to test but it would be interesting to see if depth of field is the greater culprit or the narrower image path and if a certain scope design would reduce perceived mirage.
I lol’d but this is true.
I’m not going to repeat what others have said, because I agree with them, especially about adaptability. There’s more than one right answer.
I usually start at 25y at the lowest mag range I have on a given scope, and get her on paper. I set up at 100 and use about 10ish power and drop into about where my zero is going to be.
That said, “I” finalize my zero in max’ish mag on a FFP.
I say finalize as in I’m already in a 1 inch square, ideally while conducting a no wind zero.
I crank her up to differentiate .36 inch off, or if I’m done. Optically and mechanically it makes no difference. I also said max’ish is because I don’t need 25x to split what .36 inches (.1 mil) and zero looks like, and I also don’t want to obstruct my aiming point with the some reticles. I’m usually around 16-18ish power, and this is my way, it’s obviously not a requirement. Thousands and thousands of dudes have gotten a good zero with less mag @ 100.
@Walter Haas ……..Not just wind direction.
Mirage shows the cross wind component of the true wind vector. Meaning it shows you the wind that affects the sideways drift of your bullet. And once you learn how to correlate the "roll" of the mirage with wind speed, and that you can change how far downrange you look at mirage by changing the focus on your optics, a whole new world of wind calls that goes far beyond a Kestrel at the firing line opens up.
@Walter Haas more experience shooting under field conditions will further your understanding much more rapidly and much more broadly than theoretical discussions on the internet ever will.
I suggest doing everything you can to accumulate that experience as quickly as possible.
I suggest doing everything you can to accumulate that experience as quickly as possible.
Yesterday I had my scope cranked to hopefully try and pick up some mirage.
Wind was mild and snow on the ground so reading trees and ground effects was no bueno.
It was pretty much a shoot and see day.
Plus of the day was my app was almost dead nuts on the elevation.
21.43 mils on app and 21.5 was perfect.
Wind was mild and snow on the ground so reading trees and ground effects was no bueno.
It was pretty much a shoot and see day.
Plus of the day was my app was almost dead nuts on the elevation.
21.43 mils on app and 21.5 was perfect.
Sad, but shooting my old 40x with the old period correct apertures, I can't hit well anymore aiming at small and odd shaped targets(steel), especially as the sun moves, changing lighting, and causing shadows to shift. I can see and shoot large round black bulls decently but I don't do that much because I don't shoot those kind of matches anymore. A year ago I could, but - age and eyes getting funky.
So I decided I'd get a Athlon 1-4.5x24 service rifle scope to make better use of the 40x. It has adjustable side focus parallax which I like and I can hit those targets I was talking about much more often. Plus it's more appropriate I think, short of buying an expensive old Unertal.
Man, the most severe mirage I've seen through a scope is shooting prone in a cinder pit that has black cinders! This place is 7 minutes from my house so it's convenient but I have to get there just before the sun rises - or else.
Op, everything has compromises, decide on the application and buy the scope to suit it with the least compromises.
Story - I used to use my S&B 3-20 on my rimfire that I use for NRL22. One time we had paper targets with darker colors that were placed father out. I could see the bullet holes when I hit out of the darker higher scoring area but when I corrected I couldn't see where exactly in the 8, 9, or 10 ring I hit???!!! Darn if it didn't cost me the match that day! So I put my S&B 5-25 on that rifle and using 25x I haven't had trouble seeing where I've hit.
Since I will likely never have this scope below 10x??? for the "application" of NRL22, the choice I've made has no downsides to it, and actually the extra weight of the 5-25 helps when shooting off of obstacles so it provides 1 more benefit as well.
I have a SFP 4-16x40 on my little carbine coyote rifle. 20 cal 32 grainers at 3735 fps, so out to 300Y I can hold on a yotes body. I also use this for other varmints and for shooting steel. I chose SFP and a thick-ish mildot reticle to pick up the reticle quickly and easily on 4x, taking advantage of the wider FOV in the junipers. I like using holdovers a lot so I put it on 10x for that purpose, which is where mils are correct, purpose is mostly for shooting steel. I put it on 16x to check zero or to dial for when I need to see better for shooting long range. Again - "application" I wanted a lightweight, lower mag variable scope for hunting, and other uses.
That S&B 3-20 I mentioned, even though it is a far superior scope, doesn't work well for me because the H59 reticle isn't well suited on 3-4x for fast snap shot shooting. And now it's extra weight has become a downside if it were used on that little rifle.
If I were a Benchrest or F-class shooter, I'd get a very high mag variable scope, like a 10-50 or similar, also with 1/8th minute turret adjustments. In F-class the scoring rings are spaced in moa, and in BR it's all about exact bullet placement so 50x or whatever comes in handy. "application".
For 3 gun or close in self defence, you can take a guess which type of scope to use. I'd personally pick a RD for self defence and I'd pick a 1x-?x for 3 gun.
I have learned soooo much from this thread, that I'm surprised I ever hit a target in my life or even took a game animal/predator, for that matter. Really not trying to be a total smart-ass, but, for Christ-sakes, buy as good of equipment that you can afford, learn how to use it, with training/instruction, if need be and go shoot and experiment to see what works for YOU. I will admit, I'm not , in NO way, a competitive shooter and don't plan on being one. I shoot to relax, put meat in the freezer(logistics of doing that is getting harder, nowadays) and have some fun, with friends and family. I just didn't realize shooting a simple scoped rifle could be that hard and require so much of a thought process, especially with the quality of equipment that we have available to us today, shit, anymore, it's like cheating. I must really suck at the shooting sports and I must needlessly be wasting my money and time on the range. Good luck Mr. Haas and and hope all works out for you in your shooting endeavors.
Mac
Mac
I have learned soooo much from this thread, that I'm surprised I ever hit a target in my life or even took a game animal/predator, for that matter. Really not trying to be a total smart-ass, but, for Christ-sakes, buy as good of equipment that you can afford, learn how to use it, with training/instruction, if need be and go shoot and experiment to see what works for YOU. I will admit, I'm not , in NO way, a competitive shooter and don't plan on being one. I shoot to relax, put meat in the freezer(logistics of doing that is getting harder, nowadays) and have some fun, with friends and family. I just didn't realize shooting a simple scoped rifle could be that hard and require so much of a thought process, especially with the quality of equipment that we have available to us today, shit, anymore, it's like cheating. I must really suck at the shooting sports and I must needlessly be wasting my money and time on the range. Good luck Mr. Haas and and hope all works out for you in your shooting endeavors.
Mac
In Walter's defense (not that he needs me), there are a lot of people in our hobby that have a high level of technical curiosity and aren't satisfied necessarily with "that's just the way it is" explanations.
Believe it or not, there are pursuits with a rifle where a high degree of technical understanding is not only desirable but necessary. It may not be so for you, and that's fine; but that doesn't make it any less important for others.
I'm much like Walter in this regard, except I have the benefit of 20 years of mid and long range rifle marksmanship to be able to temper the technicality with the practicality.
That pretty much says it right. The guys with the "just do it" attitude and don't care about details are valuable, I would say even more valuable, to society than my type, overanalytical. When they blow their cork on the forum it amuses me and I don't mean that disrespectfully. The nerds will always get out of the way of the tough guys, thats just the way it is. I usually get the answers I need on this forum, but you have to be thick skinned because some of these guys don't play and they'll let you know it.
And by the way, Wednesday I will shoot at my first 1000 yard range with my new instructor, a marine. I have two instructors, one for skill and one for knowledge. One to teach me how to shoot ultra tight groups, and one to teach me how to shoot targets at distance.
Similar threads
