# Magnification needs with LR shooting?



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm looking at buying the Vortex HS scope and have narrowed it down to either the 4x16x44 or the 6x24x50. I would want to shoot deer/ antelope out to 700 yards. The 4x16 is smaller and weighs less. Would the 24x make a big difference staying on target at that distance over the 16x?


----------



## Bo0YaA (Sep 29, 2008)

I would go no bigger than 6-18 but and then I would most likely keep it at 16x for the clarity. Seems like no matter how much a scope costs its never as bright when cranked up to full power.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I have a 6.5-20x Leupold on my 7STW, for hunting I don't like magnification really much over 14-15x. Off a bench I'll roll up to the full 20 but in the field, I like it a bit lower. 


-DallanC


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

I have the 4x16x44 and shoot 1000 yards all day. I absolutely love it and have since expanded my Vortex collection.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

I think 16x is plenty of top end on a hunting scope. Actually 14.5x is plenty. You start having issues with mirage and a tiny field of view with more than that.

Or look at it this way: Can you hit an antelope at 45 yards with open sights?
Because that is how close a pronghorn will look at 700 yards at either 14.5x or 16x (give or take 2 or 3 yards).

On the other hand, you might want to get on a target fast sometime with that very same scope. In this case the wider FOV of 4x over 6x makes a surprising difference in speed and acquisition for most of us. More important than using 20x.
Plus the scope is lighter and that is always nice for a hunting rifle.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I agree with the consensus. For shooting big game, 16X is good enough. If you were shooting varmints or golf balls, I would suggest more power. I shoot a 4.5-14 out to 700 all the time. -----SS


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

For big game I really don't see a need much above 12x even out to 700 yards. 

The only rifle that I have more power on is a Ruger #1V 22-250 and it has a Leupold 6.5x20 AO. I like to get ground hogs and parrie dogs head all in the field of view at 400 yards.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Critter said:


> The only rifle that I have more power on is a Ruger #1V 22-250 and it has a Leupold 6.5x20 AO. I like to get ground hogs and parrie dogs head all in the field of view at 400 yards.


Fantastic taste in guns and scopes Critter! 8)

-DallanC


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

DallanC said:


> Fantastic taste in guns and scopes Critter! 8)
> 
> -DallanC


When I read your post I was going to say that you must of been with me when I purchased mine. I bought that combo clear back in 1982 and it is still working fantastic and I haven't changed a thing.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Thanks for the input guys. I had a friend point out that anything higher than 15/16x will be a lot harder to hold steady too. 
I think I will go with the 4-16x44. 
I've been shooting with the same Leupold 3-9x40 for over 25 years now and it's been a great scope but I just don't feel good about trying to "hold over" on those longer shots, so I just haven't taken them.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

ridgetop said:


> Thanks for the input guys. I had a friend point out that anything higher than 15/16x will be a lot harder to hold steady too.
> I think I will go with the 4-16x44.


Good call, thats precisely my experience as well. Off a bench, 20x rocks... in the field? 14-15x is plenty.



> I've been shooting with the same Leupold 3-9x40 for over 25 years now and it's been a great scope but I just don't feel good about trying to "hold over" on those longer shots, so I just haven't taken them.


Stupid question I'm sure, but do you understand how to use the reticle's subtend for longer shots?

-DallanC


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Good call, thats precisely my experience as well. Off a bench, 20x rocks... in the field? 14-15x is plenty.
> 
> Stupid question I'm sure, but do you understand how to use the reticle's subtend for longer shots?
> 
> -DallanC


Sort of understand it but I just don't shoot enough to use it that way.
Don't get me wrong, I have shot a lot in the past but just don't do it much anymore. But I can shoot pretty straight under pressure, if I have a good rest.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

One little tidbit that I've noticed is that I prefer to hunt with a scope that will be used on the highest power. Over time, I have narrowed the perfect number for me to be somewhere between 12x and 14x as I can still make quick shots if I have to. I normally only turn the power down when I am lining up over the chronograph and want to be able to see the stadia wires.I have a few scopes that are more powerful and they are used almost exclusively for varmint/target/screwing around. One other thing to pay close attention to is the parallax adjustment. This must work good for you to be on at longer ranges especially from field positions where perfect head positioning doesn't always happen. Ok, I'm done blabbering------SS


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

SS brings up a good point. Follow up shots can be more tricky when the power is cranked up. So I usually prefer to hunt on the lower side of magnification and turn up the power as necessary.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Geeze, I move my magnification all over the place on variable scopes. Hey, I just wanna get my money's worth. 

Am I in trouble?


----------



## MKP (Mar 7, 2010)

I like to keep mine on the low end while hiking, I figure for close range I'll need speed rather than magnification, and at longer range, I'm more likely to have time to dial up the scope.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

MKP said:


> I like to keep mine on the low end while hiking, I figure for close range I'll need speed rather than magnification, and at longer range, I'm more likely to have time to dial up the scope.


Hiking? Are you nuts? We're talking about long range shooting, like from the road.............uh....I'm sorry, I'll switch to decaf. 

.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The weight difference is less than the weight of one loaded cartridge. If that is your concern, then put one fewer rounds in the magazine.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The weight difference is less than the weight of one loaded cartridge. If that is your concern, then put one fewer rounds in the magazine.


Are you OK? What are you talking about? Are you on the right thread?

This reminds me of what Richard Nixon once said, and I quote, verbatim:

_*"I don't think you quite understand that what you believe I may have meant isn't what you think I said."*_


*.*


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

OK Goob. I'll type this slowly so you can follow along. The point I was making, is the difference in weight between the two scopes is really a non-factor. Like that difference will make a guy too tired to set up a long distance shot, as was indicated. The weight difference between the two scopes mentioned, is 4 ounces. That's it. So maybe that is more than one extra cartridge. But the point I was making - it doesn't matter. 

So I do think I understood what I think it is that I meant to said. I'm just not sure that you understood what I said, when I said what I think I meant to say, when I said it.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GaryFish said:


> OK Goob. I'll type this slowly so you can follow along. The point I was making, is the difference in weight between the two scopes is really a non-factor. Like that difference will make a guy too tired to set up a long distance shot, as was indicated. The weight difference between the two scopes mentioned, is 4 ounces. That's it. So maybe that is more than one extra cartridge. But the point I was making - it doesn't matter.
> 
> So I do think I understood what I think it is that I meant to said. I'm just not sure that you understood what I said, when I said what I think I meant to say, when I said it.


Yeah, but 4oz is a quarter pound. As in, get the lighter scope and I can eat a quarter pound on the way up the mountain 

Edit: top o the mornin', errr uh, top o the page! (Above goob!)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Good point. AND top of page. Well played RandomElk16. Well played. Goob's going to be ticked!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> OK Goob. I'll type this slowly so you can follow along. The point I was making, is the difference in weight between the two scopes is really a non-factor. Like that difference will make a guy too tired to set up a long distance shot, as was indicated. The weight difference between the two scopes mentioned, is 4 ounces. That's it. So maybe that is more than one extra cartridge. But the point I was making - it doesn't matter.
> 
> So I do think I understood what I think it is that I meant to said. I'm just not sure that you understood what I said, when I said what I think I meant to say, when I said it.


Oohh, I got it now. Thank you.

I'm such a dope.

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

That's bull crap. I should have the top of the page. I was correcting a spelling error. 

G(&d Da(&m Canadian Forum ()&^54rds.

.


----------



## FULLHOUSE (Oct 1, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I'm looking at buying the Vortex HS scope and have narrowed it down to either the 4x16x44 or the 6x24x50. I would want to shoot deer/ antelope out to 700 yards. The 4x16 is smaller and weighs less. Would the 24x make a big difference staying on target at that distance over the 16x?


I'm in the process of building a new long range setup and decided to go with vortex. I think I am going with the 4x16x44 HST model. You might want to check out that model also.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

Springville Shooter said:


> One little tidbit that I've noticed is that I prefer to hunt with a scope that will be used on the highest power. Over time, I have narrowed the perfect number for me to be somewhere between 12x and 14x as I can still make quick shots if I have to. I normally only turn the power down when I am lining up over the chronograph and want to be able to see the stadia wires.I have a few scopes that are more powerful and they are used almost exclusively for varmint/target/screwing around. One other thing to pay close attention to is the parallax adjustment. This must work good for you to be on at longer ranges especially from field positions where perfect head positioning doesn't always happen. Ok, I'm done blabbering------SS


One sidenote about parallax adjustment, Don't trust the scale on your dial. Sometimes they are way off. Use the head-bob method while your slowly adjusting the parallax instead. Set your parallax dial at 100 while your gun is in a rest and look at a target 100 yards away. Now, without touching your rifle, bob your head up and down while you look through your scope. Does the crosshairs go up and down across your target. I'll bet on your cheaper models it does. Slowly turn your dial until the crosshairs stay still. Look at your dial. I'll bet it's different than the 100 yrd on your dial. At long distance this makes a big difference. Try it.
My cheaper scopes like the Vortexes all do this. All my NF, Mark IV and S & B scopes are spot on but most are not. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your scope, it's just something to be aware of.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

FULLHOUSE said:


> I'm in the process of building a new long range setup and decided to go with vortex. I think I am going with the 4x16x44 HST model. You might want to check out that model also.


I have the same scope on my 300Wby Accumark. For the money it's a great scope! It has a fine crosshair so dissecting small targets at distance is easy and it has pretty darn clear optics. It's a good scope.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

Springville Shooter said:


> I agree with the consensus. For shooting big game, 16X is good enough. If you were shooting varmints or golf balls, I would suggest more power. I shoot a 4.5-14 out to 700 all the time. -----SS


I agree. I little more power would be nice to help read the mirage at certain times while hunting. (SS, you know what I'm talking about.) You can get some pretty bad/good mirage with a 16 power though and it's quite useful for telling wind direction and speed.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

...


----------



## FULLHOUSE (Oct 1, 2007)

longbow said:


> I have the same scope on my 300Wby Accumark. For the money it's a great scope! It has a fine crosshair so dissecting small targets at distance is easy and it has pretty darn clear optics. It's a good scope.


Good to know longbow I was wondering how the fine crosshairs would be at long distances.


----------

