CAN YOU HAVE TO MUCH SCOPE ?

[williamlayton]

Here is the criteria for the question.
It is not about money spent !!!
It is not about the size of the scope.
It is about magnification--only.
It is a question about the options on a scope.
Blessings

[pastorp]

Yes William, IMO you can have too much scope. When you reach the point where you cant hold the reducle on target in your shooting position then you have too much scope..

For me thats about 3x for offhand shooting and 6x for shooting from a rest in the field....................shooting off a bench I can use more maybe about 12x.

Regards,

[Glanceblamm]

I believe that the answer is Field Of View which decreases with the higher magnification William.

The "handicap" is not so much about trying to get the hairs on a Coyote at a dead run under 100yds but rather something a lot larger and dangerous at even closer ranges.

[Dave in WV]

IMHO yes. At some point too much magnification becomes a handicap. My reasoning is the standard for military snipers for many years was 10x to hit a man at 900 meters for a one shot kill so 10x max should be all that's really needed for large game hunting and usually less. My max magnification for any of my scopes is 9x (3x9), followed by 2x8, and 2x7 (soon to be a fixed 4x). BTW, I perfer a bold reticle and not something that looks like it came out of a U-boat periscope. I don't shoot long range.

[JimFromTN]

Here is a test that will give you your answer.  Go in the woods with a scoped rifle with at least a 3-9 scope where the longest shot possible is 50 yds and leave your scope on the highest power.  When a deer walks out, try to find the kill zone in your scope.  

[williamlayton]

OK---I got the jest of all the opinions.
Now--is 4.5 x14 too much magnification for .22 range ?
Blessings

[woodchukhntr]

One of our GBO guys posted that he shot a coyote at 100 yd. from what I can figure after deliberately cranking his scope up to 18x.  I guess that he can hold a lot steadier than me.  The field of view had to be very small.  I prefer low power variables and generally keep it at the lowest power.  I don't want to see individual hairs.  Shooting at 300 yd. is another matter.

With a .22 used in the field, I use 4x fixed power and recently picked up a Leupold 2-7X rimfire scope that I haven't mounted.  If you have a 4.5-14X scope is what you have, use it.

[SHOOTALL]

I would miss 3X on the low end . When you go higher in power you not only increse range you increase definition . So a guy shooting a 22 at 100 yards with a scope on 14X would have a clearer look at the target than a guy with a 9 X scope. The bullseye would be bigger and clearer. He would be or should be able to line up the cross hairs more accurate. In the field I crank up the power to check deer that may be a buck but low power just dosen't give enough definition. On a combat type scope or one for close in hunting a low power scope would seem just right for fast shots up close.
 I shot a 24 power once and it could make you dizzy watching the dot make W's . That said you can see your movement and correct for it .

[williamlayton]

Well, that is the reason for the conversation.
I have one  already and will get two more--and they don't have to be twins.
You folks do good with your thoughts.
Blessings

[JimFromTN]

If you are shooting targets, a 4.5-14 is fine.  For hunting squirrels and other small game, 4.5 is borderline too much but you can get away with it.  I doubt you would ever crank it up above that to hunt with.

[Catfish]

I have a .22 with a 20X scope on it. The gun is a bench gun and that is all I use it for. My favorite scope for 22 hunting rifles is the 2 1/2 x 7 Leupold with the parllex set for a .22. You could live with a 3 x 9 scope, but I would recomand you not go larger than that. The fied of view gets smaller and tragets get harder to find.

[williamlayton]

Am I reading that ya'lls opinons are for target/stationary shooting a scope cannot be too large---but for hunting, the answer would be yes ?
I think I agree---to a point---but I can still find vaue in a large scope for hunting----you don't have to crank it up to max magnification----and the extra is not a hinderance to ownership.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

I am adding this as an addendum--and shedding some light on my own conservative thoughts.
Many of the scopes you folks find favor in are scopes that I seem to distrust.
I think that some of this comes from "old time" reputation.
I think some of them just don't offer the reliabilty of change/accurate/quick change that I find in some of the scopes I have studied.
I will admit to likeing scopes that I find to be most reliable with the options I likes.
I admit to being somewhat enthralled by variable and large magnifications---says something about my old eye-sight doesn't it.
Blessings

[pastorp]

William,

I submit this thought with all respect for you as a individual and fellow poster here on GBO. But I don't think you views speaks to your eyesight as much as your inexperience with 22rifle hunting.
High magnification gives you a dim scope that's hard to see through or hold on target especially during prime hunting times. I'm sure you'll try them and realize your mistake in time. jmo.   

Regards,

[Swampman]

Sure you can have too mach scope.  It can be too big for the rifle or too high in power for the task at hand.  Jack O'Conner prefered 4X scopes on his sheep rifles.

[Swampman]

OK---I got the jest of all the opinions.
Now--is 4.5 x14 too much magnification for .22 range ?
Blessings

If you only shoot off a bench it might be fine.

[williamlayton]

PastorP
It is not that I don't have experience with scopes or rim fire.
When I was young--and squirrel hunting a lot + plus plinking at most anything in the river bottom, I had good eyesight and scopes just kinda got in the way---besides, i couldn't afford em.
My experience with scopes goes back to my old Redfield 3x9 I had in the 60's and deer hunting.
The scope was good technology for the day and Redfield's were good'un's.
I am remembering the difficulty of setting up that scope with its compression settings---this was a rememberance brought back to my memory by another here.
I also am finding that my eyesight is a hinderance.
I was shooting anothers 3x9 the other day--50 yards---and how amazed I was at the power I cranked it to in order to get a clear sight picture.
I will not know how it will work out free handing because I just am not shooting free hand now---hell--I have hard enough time just standing, these days---standing still is only a thing of my memory.
What I used to could see at 3x is now a lot smaller.
Blessings

[tangob5]

I think you can have to much scope.  I use a 4.5-14x40 VX-3 on my 17 HMR to shoot ground squirrels at 100 to 200 yards and at the range so I can see the tiny hole at 100 yards.  My .223 sports a 4.5-14x40 VX-3 so if I have to hit a coyote at 300 yards in the brush I can do it.  My deer rifles all have 3-9x40 VXII's which rarely get off the 3x setting.  .22 Long rifle sports a 2-7x32 because I can't use open sights anymore and I like varible powers.  What I'm getting at is that it depends on what your using the rifle scope combination for.  For a benchrest shooter 24x might be right and a 1x instead of open sights for deer in dense brush may be just the thing because of eyesight.

[bulletstuffer]

Am I reading that ya'lls opinons are for target/stationary shooting a scope cannot be too large---but for hunting, the answer would be yes ?
I think I agree---to a point---but I can still find vaue in a large scope for hunting----you don't have to crank it up to max magnification----and the extra is not a hinderance to ownership.
Blessings

I totally agree with your premise!

When I was a kid my Dad offered to buy a 22 from a friend for me.  He said he wouldn't sell it.  He turned around and gave me the 22 with a 4x scope with 1/2" or 3/4" tube on it.  That gift still holds a special place in my heart and will be something I will never forget.  Scope was very low end and I dreamed of replacing it with a 1" tube someday.  I still own that rifle

So many years have passed and now a different 22 carries 6.5 x 20 x 50 AO simmons whitetail scope that I purchased for $100.   If I used that gun for hunting it might sport that 4.5 x 14 x 50 on it   Would I put that simmons on a big game rifle, NO.  You always get what you pay for!  My big game rifle sports a 4.5 x 14 x 50 on it and I have never pulled up on an animal and wished I had less magnification or clarity.

Good glass costs alot of money but the value is definitely there for me   Will less expensive scopes work, you bet!  If all optics were created equal the markets would not allow such a huge discrepancy in price!

Remember, you can’t take it with you and if you could the wealthy people would have already figured it out.  Wish you the best!

Bulletstuffer

[Land_Owner]

Higher magnification:

1. begs the use of the scope for scouting, which is NEVER RECOMMENDED.  Use binoculars.  Then and only then put the rifle scope on it.  Always keep the muzzle point in a SAFE direction.
2. increases weight and fatigue.
3. decreases field of view.
4. increases initial cost.
5. introduces complexity with the inherited potential for error and maintenance.
6. accentuates the visual effect of vibration, which decreases accuracy.
7. looks really cool though.
8. makes for a great conversation piece at the range and check station.
9. will perform 9 out of 10 times in the manner for which it was chosen.  After that, ever scope is just like all the rest.

But what "is" 'too much scope'?  I can not answer that directly.

Ever see anyone with a "Celestron Telescope" (or equal) mounted on their rifle? Or a high power spotting scope?  Why not?

[williamlayton]

From what I see of the bench rest guys at our range--I am not sure they are shooting--just pulling a trigger. In these instances and the way some of the bench rest things are made I don't see why they don't mount a Hubbel---the machine will hold it.
Now if you have more power that you need, is that not better than not having enough power when you want it?
I never did carry binoculars when I hunted--course--I could actually see then.
I don't want to get a spotting scope and I am finding I don't need one with the Hubbel Jr. that I have mounted.
I want a range finder before a spotting scope--course I can justify that purchase because I would use it on the golf course.
It is a fun arguement.
Blessings

[bulletstuffer]

Mr. Layton,

Better have it and not need it than need it and not have it  Wish I came up with that saying as they are good words to live by  Those range finders are fun on the course and in the field too.  Keeps me entertained anyway;D

Good luck!

Bulletstuffer

[pastorp]

William, it's considered bad form to point guns at people and those that don't carry binoculars sometimes do.

Regards,

[tuck2]

At some power level yes, it depends on shooting and hunting conditions. My semi auto 30-06 has a Leo 1-4X on it for hunting in the woods while a Leo 6-18 X is on my bolt action 204 Ruger prairie dog rifle.  A Weaver J 4 scope was mounted on my Remington 121 22 RF rifle back in 1950. As a teenager I learned to shoot runing jackrabbits with that fast shooting pump rifle 22 rifle with the 4 X sope but most of my shooting with it was at setting cottentail rabbits and prairie dogs. The lowest power scope on my rimfire rifles now is still 4 X but on the high side on an other scope it can be set at 14 X. My 220 Swift and 243  W each have Leo 6.5-20 X scopes on them but the feild  view at 20X is to small for me so they are set at 18X.  Much of what power scope a person uses depends upon  the persons own skill leavel.

[williamlayton]

Skill level---what is skill level and where do I buy it?
I have never advocated pointing a rifle at anything I was not planning on shooting.
I have used a scope to track deer in heavy brush to determine when I had a clear shot.
If you keep the booger finger off the trigger and safety on until time for ignition then a scope is a good way to follow your prey--not look for it.
Blessings

[woodchukhntr]

I just saw a .30-30 Marlin 336 with a Redfield 4 - 12x scope on see-thru rings.  It's not what I would do (mine has a 2-1/2x scope on it), but the guy claims to have killed 2 deer with it.  He probably had a stand where he could take the time to aim properly, but around here a 100 yard shot is a long shot.

[mcwoodduck]

William,
I think you can have too much magnification.
Depending on what and where you are shooting you can have too much.
I have a 6-18X40 on a little 22LR.  the 6x is fine for small game and the 18 is way too powerfun for finding tree rats and rabbits.
But just right for drilling holes in paper from the bench or Bipod.
the 6-24 X42 I have on a 223 is great for off the bench but the 24X will allow me to see my heart beating when standing.  the 10 pounds of rifle may have something to do with it but any movement on my part is a wild looking swing on the target.
A 36X scope is practicle if you are shooting 600 yards, but not so at 100 yards.
a little math.  a 36X bench rest fixed power scope makes things at 600 yards apear to be 17 yards away, and objects at 100 yards 2.78 yards away.  In ther words, if you can read a newspaper headline at 20 yards you will be able to read the same headline at 600 with a 36X scope.  With the media today either will be a lie but it is just and example.
I guess if you are trying to shoot the flys off a road apple at 100 yards the 36X will be handy.  Other than that it will be hard to find the road apple with a limited field of viewexcept off a bench rest or bipod.
I would look for a scope that will aallow you to vary from your near to your far.  4.5, 6 or 8X to what ever you want, would be a good low end based on what you want as a high end.

[williamlayton]

Since i don't hunt in Idaho--well since I don't hunt anymore--anything greater than 14X is more than I can use though if I do this 400 yard thing I might take a longer look.
I agree that there are limits--what I am saying is if there is a chance you might could use it once, there is justification.
If idon't use it is it wasteful?
Blessings

[moorepower]

Honestly, it looks like you have already decided. I have V-16 Weaver scopes on a couple of my rimfires, the Sako Quad and Savage 17hmr and I love them. They mainly, 90% of the time punch paper, as I mostly use centerfire rifles for hunting/varminting. My 10/22 sports a 3X9, and I like it also. The V16 is my all time favorite small bore, ".17-.22" scope.

[Freezer]

  William, when I grow up I want to be just like you   I wish some folks would remember what they've read, this is a paper punching question not a hunting question.  I've really enjoyed this post as I'm having a custom 6.5x06 built as a long range hunting/varmint gun not a gun I intend to walk with.  This post has convinced me that a Leupold 4.5x14 is the way to go for both of us. 
  The worst problem high magnification will cause is wiggle, inability to hold steady on the target.  From a bench or bipod I don't think you'll have a problem.  Get the best you can afford and enjoy it.  For my money Leupold! The VX III (4.5x14) has matched lenses which gives a clearer picture especially at high magnification.  JMHO