Rifle Scopes still don't understand why less magnification is better

[10ring'r]

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.

I really do get it and like I said, I'm really not trying to be "that guy", BUT since Mr. Haas hasn't spent a whole lot of time behind a rifle and he is with, or having instruction, given to him, he really needs to get some rounds downrange and experiment with his equipment and learn and apply the basics of the fundamentals, then all the rest, will start to fall into place. I'm sure the Instructor could actually show him the reasons why, while behind his rifle/scope, along with the possibility of environmental conditions, how and why, high/low magnification works or doesn't, hence, the answer to his question(s). Lots of folks on here, really, really, had great explanations to the High/Low mag. "whys". I'm an Info. kinda guy myself and I'm NOT begrudging Mr. Haas any expertise that he may gain from this site, I've gained much myself, I learned the rifleman trade from my ol'man and a pissy R.O. in the Mil., all the rest of my knowledge came from spending a lot of money on lead and the farthest I've been able to shoot, is 600yds (never had any mirage to worry about, even with a cheap Nikon). I'm envious of the folks that can drive out to a range, or hell, BLM land and shoot 1K or even 2K yards, that's fantastic, just not available to me. Again NOT trying to be "that guy". I guess I would start out with the basics first, get them down, then move up the ladder to the next rung. Mac

 

[Walter Haas]

I really do get it and like I said, I'm really not trying to be "that guy", BUT since Mr. Haas hasn't spent a whole lot of time behind a rifle and he is with, or having instruction, given to him, he really needs to get some rounds downrange and experiment with his equipment and learn and apply the basics of the fundamentals, then all the rest, will start to fall into place. I'm sure the Instructor could actually show him the reasons why, while behind his rifle/scope, along with the possibility of environmental conditions, how and why, high/low magnification works or doesn't, hence, the answer to his question(s). Lots of folks on here, really, really, had great explanations to the High/Low mag. "whys". I'm an Info. kinda guy myself and I'm NOT begrudging Mr. Haas any expertise that he may gain from this site, I've gained much myself, I learned the rifleman trade from my ol'man and a pissy R.O. in the Mil., all the rest of my knowledge came from spending a lot of money on lead and the farthest I've been able to shoot, is 600yds (never had any mirage to worry about, even with a cheap Nikon). I'm envious of the folks that can drive out to a range, or hell, BLM land and shoot 1K or even 2K yards, that's fantastic, just not available to me. Again NOT trying to be "that guy". I guess I would start out with the basics first, get them down, then move up the ladder to the next rung. Mac

Truthfully I learned a lot, especially about mirage and wind, but I never got the answer I was really looking for in this thread. Olympic shooters know that low mag works better because for some reason the subconscious mind knows how to aim better than the conscious mind does, but what I don't understand is why that translates into low mag being better. Why isn't high mag helping the subconscious to aim? That should have been the real question. It has something to do with the conscious mind seeing "what's at stake" with the aimpoint wobbling and wanting to interfere with the process, I think. I don't know and I was hoping someone here could explain it.

 

[KYpatriot]

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

Sounds like you just wrote a while paragraph to say this thread isnt relevant to your interests. Thanks for letting us know. The OP and others in this thread are having a discussion they are interested in.

 

[steve123]

Truthfully I learned a lot, especially about mirage and wind, but I never got the answer I was really looking for in this thread. Olympic shooters know that low mag works better because for some reason the subconscious mind knows how to aim better than the conscious mind does, but what I don't understand is why that translates into low mag being better. Why isn't high mag helping the subconscious to aim? That should have been the real question. It has something to do with the conscious mind seeing "what's at stake" with the aimpoint wobbling and wanting to interfere with the process, I think. I don't know and I was hoping someone here could explain it.

Olympic shooters use aperture iron sights and on big round black bulls, as far as I know they don't use rifle scopes, but I could be wrong??? If using irons at long range on steel, you can't identify where you missed like you can with a scope, that is unless you have someone spotting for you. Also it doesn't work well aiming over for wind with irons, it's much better dialing in the windage and staying centered up on the bull. And often have spotters that are calling wind adjustments for the guys using irons in other sports.

Low magnification only helps give a sense of confidence because the actual wobble appears less, that all.

Mid to high mag helps to self spot easier on steel, as long as the recoil, or better put, the rifle's scope sight picture upset, is controlled. This mostly pertains to seeing where one misses in the dirt, etc, but also which area on the steel one hits. If you can see where to correct your next shot to the center of the steel you'll hopefully avoid misses, that is until the wind changes, .

There's no subconscious negatives going on if you are shooting off a steady rest like a bipod or off a benchrest. What we do is mainly put the magnification on that suits the FOV we perceive to need right then. It's easy to change up or down as we see fit. Also taking into consideration the amount of mirage at the moment.

It's when shooting in unsteady positions that sometimes I personally like to use lower magnification. Like in off hand I usually use 10x or 8X which is as low as I go when shooting matches, same with kneeling. Off barricades, fences, tank traps, etc, I use medium magnification, and I think that's the norm.

So in other words normally in the NRL or PRS type sports, we don't use the lowest magnification much.

Heck, the only time I've had my FFP competition scopes on 3-5x was to make sure I didn't shoot my chronograph.
Low mag is "NOT" better, it's only more useful according to the application. And like was mentioned, one being scanning with a wide FOV to locate steel all over the place.

 

[KYpatriot]

Truthfully I learned a lot, especially about mirage and wind, but I never got the answer I was really looking for in this thread. Olympic shooters know that low mag works better because for some reason the subconscious mind knows how to aim better than the conscious mind does, but what I don't understand is why that translates into low mag being better. Why isn't high mag helping the subconscious to aim? That should have been the real question. It has something to do with the conscious mind seeing "what's at stake" with the aimpoint wobbling and wanting to interfere with the process, I think. I don't know and I was hoping someone here could explain it.

Not everyone dials back.

One thing I have noticed in the shooting community is that many shooters simply do what others do. Replicating good shooters is not a bad idea, but good shooters also do certain things because they are copying techniques as well. Im not at all convinced I shoot smaller groups with less mag...in fact, Im quite sure I shoot smaller groups with as much mag as I can get. I dont dial back for mirage as much as many shooters do either. High mag works for me, and it may work for you too, but because of that I cant explain why others do better (so they say) with lower mag. I dont think that idea is set in stone as truth at all.

As an analogy....a ton of shooters on this site ten to twelve years ago ,if not most, were shooting 308 for long range, including me, even though much better options were available even then. A ton of innovation has happened in just the past ten years alone, so the moral of the story is try something new you might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Not everyone dials back.

One thing I have noticed in the shooting community is that many shooters simply do what others do. Replicating good shooters is not a bad idea, but good shooters also do certain things because they are copying techniques as well. Im not at all convinced I shoot smaller groups with less mag...in fact, Im quite sure I shoot smaller groups with as much mag as I can get. I dont dial back for mirage as much as many shooters do either. High mag works for me, and it may work for you too, but because of that I cant explain why others do better (so they say) with lower mag. I dont think that idea is set in stone as truth at all.

As an analogy....a ton of shooters on this site,if not most, were shooting 308 for long range, including me, even though much better options were available even then. A ton of innovation has happened in just the past ten years alone, so the moral of the story is try something new you might be pleasantly surprised.

My rule when I see a better shooter do or say something is simply and politely and “why do you do that?”

If they can’t answer without having to think about it or they say something dogmatic, I continue the conversation politely and then forget it.

I agree, there are really good shooters out there that either don’t know why they do something or can’t articulate it properly.

 

[Quarter Horse]

Any thoughts on this?

I thought about this years ago. My interest at the time was SXS shotguns and their use on birds at distance. Consider the variables that go into a shot. You can't tell the speed of the bird because you don't know the size, angle, acceleration, deceleration, etc. of the bird. Your shooting from a low gun so the speed of your gun mount becomes critical. Do you move your feet or just rotate your body to the bird? Is the bird losing or gaining elevation? Are you going to shoot sustained lead, pull through, or just point and shoot (Churchill)? There are many other inputs to solve the equation but of course the shooter has no time to consider any of them. None the less, a good bird-shooter will make the shot.

Now consider the variables in a three point jump shot. WTF, it obviously can't be done.

Two much simpler tasks come to mind. If you are carrying an overfilled cup of coffee and you look at it your going spill coffee everywhere. If you just carry it to the table and set it down you will, in all likely-hood, make the trip without incident. The use of a peep sight is another. If you try and center the the front sight in the peep and then put the sight on the target your toast. If you just put the post on the target, you win.

The subconscious minds ability to retain earlier inputs and resolve them into a solution that results in the desired physical reaction is stunning.

 

[Walter Haas]

I thought about this years ago. My interest at the time was SXS shotguns and their use on birds at distance. Consider the variables that go into a shot. You can't tell the speed of the bird because you don't know the size, angle, acceleration, deceleration, etc. of the bird. Your shooting from a low gun so the speed of your gun mount becomes critical. Do you move your feet or just rotate your body to the bird? Is the bird losing or gaining elevation? Are you going to shoot sustained lead, pull through, or just point and shoot (Churchill)? There are many other inputs to solve the equation but of course the shooter has no time to consider any of them. None the less, a good bird-shooter will make the shot.

Now consider the variables in a three point jump shot. WTF, it obviously can't be done.

Two much simpler tasks come to mind. If you are carrying an overfilled cup of coffee and you look at it your going spill coffee everywhere. If you just carry it to the table and set it down you will, in all likely-hood, make the trip without incident. The use of a peep sight is another. If you try and center the the front sight in the peep and then put the sight on the target your toast. If you just put the post on the target, you win.

The subconscious minds ability to retain earlier inputs and resolve them into a solution that results in the desired physical reaction is stunning.

That’s a great example about spilling the coffee. The body knows what to do but our mind doesn’t trust and interferes. I think that’s it in a nutshell.

 

[Gustav7]

That’s a great example about spilling the coffee. The body knows what to do but our mind doesn’t trust and interferes. I think that’s it in a nutshell.

Very good example. Although I think its not really our "body"...because our mind controls our body. Its different parts of our mind.

Regarding the coffee example... our eyes are used to help control our mind, or are used as inputs into our mind. If we hold the coffee and use our eyes to look forward like normal, our eye input is being used by the brain to just walk forward, normally. ALL OTHER functions are controlled by non-eye inputs (feel, muscle memory, involuntary static muscles). Which is why we don't necessarily spill the coffee. Everything is as it should be.

Its when we look at the coffee that now the COFFEE becomes the eye input.... which means the rest of our senses/brain input is now trying to walk...which is typically why we lose balance(both in legs and arms/equilibrium)...which is why the coffee spills.

This is a super interesting thread....and while it took a while to read lol, is a great discussion on why our brains are sometimes better at doing things without direct involvement with our eyes.

Other examples I came up with:
- When you try to jump from one log to the next and stare at the log and sometimes fuck it up...but you can run across 3-4 logs quickly without as much issue.
-When I park my car in my garage I don't stare at the mirror so it doesn't hit the edge, I stare forward and use my peripheral vision and judgement to make sure i'm centered, and the mirror doesn't hit. Side note on this...I've tried this with increasing speed over the course of a week and I can successfully park my car like this with to the point that if I go any faster I wont' be able to stop the car.

A shooting reference. I have a CZ 452 with open sights and can pretty much ding an 8in plate at 100 yards with relative ease....but using my scope on my savage...takes me to shake city where I can't ever seem to get steady on it.

 

[Walter Haas]

Not everyone dials back.

One thing I have noticed in the shooting community is that many shooters simply do what others do. Replicating good shooters is not a bad idea, but good shooters also do certain things because they are copying techniques as well. Im not at all convinced I shoot smaller groups with less mag...in fact, Im quite sure I shoot smaller groups with as much mag as I can get. I dont dial back for mirage as much as many shooters do either. High mag works for me, and it may work for you too, but because of that I cant explain why others do better (so they say) with lower mag. I dont think that idea is set in stone as truth at all.

As an analogy....a ton of shooters on this site ten to twelve years ago ,if not most, were shooting 308 for long range, including me, even though much better options were available even then. A ton of innovation has happened in just the past ten years alone, so the moral of the story is try something new you might be pleasantly surprised.

It makes sense to me that some people could shoot better at high mag if I'm understanding the concept that's beginning to gel in my mind. You can shoot high mag if you are someone who can trust yourself to take the shot. If you don't trust you'll try to compensate for what you're seeing and blow the shot. I used to experience this shooting archery, the sight would be bouncing and it seemed crazy to trust the surprise break but it was magic how well it worked.

 

[Walter Haas]

My rule when I see a better shooter do or say something is simply and politely and “why do you do that?”

If they can’t answer without having to think about it or they say something dogmatic, I continue the conversation politely and then forget it.

I agree, there are really good shooters out there that either don’t know why they do something or can’t articulate it properly.

A great pitcher can't necessarily explain how he does it.

 

[Walter Haas]

Very good example. Although I think its not really our "body"...because our mind controls our body. Its different parts of our mind.

Regarding the coffee example... our eyes are used to help control our mind, or are used as inputs into our mind. If we hold the coffee and use our eyes to look forward like normal, our eye input is being used by the brain to just walk forward, normally. ALL OTHER functions are controlled by non-eye inputs (feel, muscle memory, involuntary static muscles). Which is why we don't necessarily spill the coffee. Everything is as it should be.

Its when we look at the coffee that now the COFFEE becomes the eye input.... which means the rest of our senses/brain input is now trying to walk...which is typically why we lose balance(both in legs and arms/equilibrium)...which is why the coffee spills.

This is a super interesting thread....and while it took a while to read lol, is a great discussion on why our brains are sometimes better at doing things without direct involvement with our eyes.

Other examples I came up with:
- When you try to jump from one log to the next and stare at the log and sometimes fuck it up...but you can run across 3-4 logs quickly without as much issue.
-When I park my car in my garage I don't stare at the mirror so it doesn't hit the edge, I stare forward and use my peripheral vision and judgement to make sure i'm centered, and the mirror doesn't hit. Side note on this...I've tried this with increasing speed over the course of a week and I can successfully park my car like this with to the point that if I go any faster I wont' be able to stop the car.

A shooting reference. I have a CZ 452 with open sights and can pretty much ding an 8in plate at 100 yards with relative ease....but using my scope on my savage...takes me to shake city where I can't ever seem to get steady on it.

My instructor made the interesting comment that the real problem is that our "human" brain predicts the future while our "animal" brain does not. When you look at the coffee cup you fear a possible "bad" future in which the coffee spills, so you "override" the animal mind or animal brain which normally controls the body. You're right, calling it the body is not as good as seeing it as an "animal mind" vs your "human mind". The human mind is new but the animal mind has been hurling projectiles accurately for 3 million years. As my instructor says, 'you don't need to practice aiming, your mind already knows how to aim', which I take to mean the "animal mind". That instinct to "know" how to throw a ball accurately has to be brought into the shooting process, in his belief.

A lot of this is addressed in Olympic gold medal shooter Lanny Bassham's book, "With Winning in Mind", which my instructor has me reading. If you follow this book, it would imply that the real reason the coffee spills is because you don't "believe" that "its you" to look at the cup without spilling it. What you believe about your ability is severely limiting you, in other words. You can look at the coffee cup if you "know" your animal mind has it nailed and that its "like you" to walk without spilling it. I might try practicing that on a cup of coffee just to see if I can train myself into "believing 'its me'" to be able to look at it without spilling it.

 

[ubettcha]

The mind has the timing down so well it's scary. You just have to trust yourself. In shooting look to yesteryear. On this site you read about this is alpha glass and this is the greatest barrel steel and this is the best brass and bullets and yada yada. With all this great shit we have how come I don't see anyone matching Herb Parson and putting a 45 slug through a 1/2" washer with his old and crappy steel with iron sights. I don't see anyone lighting matches with there iron-sighted 22's. don't see many doing that with there alpha glassed 22s for that matter.
If you do just a little work you too can shoot tossed asprins with a bb gun. Hitting 75% from the people here really is on the low end of what I'd expect and that is not a dig in any way. Just about everyone here has a basic grasp of fundamentals with some obviously well above that. Most can shoot fast it would just take about a 10-minute explanation of what and how and the rest would take care of itself.

 

[_Raining]

Am I the only one who would spill the coffee UNLESS they look at it?

 

[10ring'r]

Truthfully I learned a lot, especially about mirage and wind, but I never got the answer I was really looking for in this thread. Olympic shooters know that low mag works better because for some reason the subconscious mind knows how to aim better than the conscious mind does, but what I don't understand is why that translates into low mag being better. Why isn't high mag helping the subconscious to aim? That should have been the real question. It has something to do with the conscious mind seeing "what's at stake" with the aimpoint wobbling and wanting to interfere with the process, I think. I don't know and I was hoping someone here could explain it.

I'm not a doctor/phycologist/brain surgeon or anything resembling that profession, but, here goes. Maybe the mind has been processing images at a certain size/dimension for so long, that it takes numerous times/views thru the scope before the mind is "tricked" into taking a larger/smaller image(magnification) and processing it to be more beneficial to/for a certain individual to be better at aiming. I think and it's only my "opinion", because I might be a dumb sh&^, but everyone's brain/mind is different, but, I do know a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Walter, you seem to be a very bright man and I probably should have just stayed out of this conversation, (I really d/n want to piss anyone off, not my purpose) but, I do know this is wayyyy deeper than I'm willing to delve into, because I'm the guy that "works smarter, not harder". I understand that some people really like to get into the finer points of why things are or aren't. I'm just not one of "those guys". I was raised by two 8th grade Hillbilly's, I graduated high school with a 3.0 and have a couple of college credits, other than that, I'm probably considered a dumba%^! Hope you find the answers you're looking for. Mac

 

[steve123]

I'd just like to mention that with anything physical to be mastered to the highest extreme, the mind and the body have to go through repetitions of tens of thousands, or more like hundreds of thousands of times, before that series of motions all come together at a almost supernatural level. Ever see extreme fast workers on you tube?

Nobody gets "there" otherwise. My favorite is Bob Munden, shooting two shots so fast out of a single action revolver, that it sounds like one shot.

And I betcha there wasn't a bunch of thought put into these processes. In fact when whatever it was that was mastered is brought to it's peak performance they don't think about it at all anymore.

Here's a story of mine.
When I was a boy my best friend was put on restriction for shoplifting for a looooog time. Though he was allowed to attend little league baseball. We both were trying out on the same team. He was a catcher and I was a pitcher. For the most part we didn't do much else than me pitch and he catch. At first we were just regular talent but by the time tryouts were over I had become first string pitcher and he first string catcher. I did develop a mean sidearm screwball that was hard to hit! We won our local division and our team went to allstars at state. We lost our first game because the other team's pitcher was 6ft tall and we couldn't even hit his fast ball, but that's another story. His team must of been named "THE GIANTS". lol

Anyway, all because of that restriction.

Uh, get out and shoot....

 

[KYpatriot]

It makes sense to me that some people could shoot better at high mag if I'm understanding the concept that's beginning to gel in my mind. You can shoot high mag if you are someone who can trust yourself to take the shot. If you don't trust you'll try to compensate for what you're seeing and blow the shot. I used to experience this shooting archery, the sight would be bouncing and it seemed crazy to trust the surprise break but it was magic how well it worked.

Yes. I see this when I teach pistol shooting (with tradition iron sights). I can tell who is actually focusing on the front sight even though the target is blurry and who looks at the front sight, lines everything up, and then shifts focus to the target to aim and break the shot. The first group shoots well even though the target was blurry. The second group feels they cant shoot a blurry target, dont trust me, and their shooting suffers.

I'm not a doctor/phycologist/brain surgeon or anything resembling that profession, but, here goes. Maybe the mind has been processing images at a certain size/dimension for so long, that it takes numerous times/views thru the scope before the mind is "tricked" into taking a larger/smaller image(magnification) and processing it to be more beneficial to/for a certain individual to be better at aiming. I think and it's only my "opinion", because I might be a dumb sh&^, but everyone's brain/mind is different, but, I do know a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Walter, you seem to be a very bright man and I probably should have just stayed out of this conversation, (I really d/n want to piss anyone off, not my purpose) but, I do know this is wayyyy deeper than I'm willing to delve into, because I'm the guy that "works smarter, not harder". I understand that some people really like to get into the finer points of why things are or aren't. I'm just not one of "those guys". I was raised by two 8th grade Hillbilly's, I graduated high school with a 3.0 and have a couple of college credits, other than that, I'm probably considered a dumba%^! Hope you find the answers you're looking for. Mac

Dont fool yourself...we are drawing you down the rabbit hole <insert evil laugh here> its probably too late to save yourself ?

 

[Aescobar17]

I'll say it, in most cases the best motivation and rationalization for "lower power" is simply so guys can simply save $ and feel good about doing it. If the 7-35x Nightforce ATACR cost the same as the 4-16x, almost no one would by the 4-16x, period. Some LEO/MIL maybe and perhaps hunters that might need a snap shot under 100 yards. There's only 6oz of weight between them, and no weight weenie is putting a 34oz scope on anyway.

You can always turn a 7-35x scope down to 7, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30x for conditions, field of view, eyebox, etc. but you can never turn a 16x scope up to 18, 20, 25, 30, 35x if conditions allow its use.

So you have to ask, do you think you'll do more of your shooting between 4-7x or between 16-35x, and if you are shooting longer range do you want the better optical quality being in the middle of the zoom range or worse quality at the max. The kicker is that extra magnification costs $$$.

Regardless of price I’d rather have the 4-16 ATACR. I usually shoot between 4-8x, and never shoot at 16X. I’ve shot past a mile on 12x, and regularly shoot 1000-1500 on 10-12x. I’ve had Gen II 4.5-27s and hated them. Traded them for Gen II 3-18s, and was much happier.

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).

Would you use a 12 lb hammer to drive finish nails? If not, then why not? The 12 lb hammer is so much more capable than a 12 ounce claw hammer.

 

[Dthomas3523]

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).

Why do some people like the color blue and others like red?

Personal preference goes a long way and that’s all the understanding thats needed sometimes.

 

[Rocketmandb]

Additional thoughts on the matter:

- On higher magnification, you see the wobble.
- You will tend to concentrate on the wobble in an effort to control it.
- You will tend to try and time the shot to coincide with when the wobble puts the reticle center over the target.
- This all takes away some of your brain's bandwidth and might speed the shot.
- Instead you should be concentrating on the process of pulling the trigger consistently shot to shot.

Purely my observation: I also feel that higher magnification and watching the wobble increases eye strain. When I used to fire on higher magnification, my eyes would go buggy much more quickly. ]

I know that when I started backing off on the magnification, my groups tightened up, and my eye strain was greatly reduced. Even just writing this my eyes are telling me "NO!!!!!" as I think about shooting at high mag.

 

[Rocketvapor]

Try mirage with a digital camera.
Zoom way in and each mirage wave has several pixels of width.
Zoom way out. Mirage waves have 1 pixel in width.
Can't see it.
High mag scope and the eye work the same way.
In addition to mirage waves, the wind can cause refraction and actually move the POA.
You might not see this with low magification. If the wind is steady you can hold for it but at high mag it's constantly varying and how do you hold for a constantly varying wind?
When I went from iron sights to a scope I found out I had a pulse
Here's a high mag video @ 600 yds.
You can see mirage waves and target displacement left/right/up/down.
Back off on the mag and the target is still.
BTW, that's my best ever string, it's usually worse.