A
Ackman
Guest
Pretty funny coming from you. So mr. windbag, the usual demands for "proof" can't be far off.
Pretty funny coming from you. So mr. windbag, the usual demands for "proof" can't be far off.
Quote from VarmintGuy - "Yet I wonder why none of these aloof types dare answer (or EVEN DENY!) my contention, that indeed, a particular Rifle/loading will shoot more accurately with MORE scope power!!!"
Quote from VarmintGuy - "The other half of the answer is BECAUSE they can obtain more accuracy with more scope power!!!"
VG - It seems as though you are confusing magnification with accuracy and group size.
Let's take a look at this way - if you take a bench rifle, load, and shooter that shoot .250 groups and put a lower magnification scope on the rifle, the rifle/load is still capable of shooting .250 groups. But, the groups may be slightly larger due to not being able to hold quite as precisely. Putting a scope with more magnification on may reduce the groups slightly because the aiming point can be defined better.
However the scope magnification has nothing to to with accuracy, the rifle/load combination is still capable of .250 grouping with either scope - that is accuracy. It may be possible to shoot smaller groups with more magnification, but it is incorrect to say that a rifle will shoot more accurately with more magnification.
Does this clear it up some for you?
Quote from VarmintGuy - "The other half of the answer is BECAUSE they can obtain more accuracy with more scope power!!!"
VG - It seems as though you are confusing magnification with accuracy and group size.
Let's take a look at this way - if you take a bench rifle, load, and shooter that shoot .250 groups and put a lower magnification scope on the rifle, the rifle/load is still capable of shooting .250 groups. But, the groups may be slightly larger due to not being able to hold quite as precisely. Putting a scope with more magnification on may reduce the groups slightly because the aiming point can be defined better.
However the scope magnification has nothing to to with accuracy, the rifle/load combination is still capable of .250 grouping with either scope - that is accuracy. It may be possible to shoot smaller groups with more magnification, but it is incorrect to say that a rifle will shoot more accurately with more magnification.
Does this clear it up some for you?
Butch Lambert
Active member
Mr. varmint person,
You have provided us with much needed entertainment. You seem to be somewhat sensitive to disagreement with your views. A scope has nothing to do with the accuracy of a rifle. It can help you resolve a more exact aiming point in some circumstances.
With the many words that you wrote above, is this what you are trying to say or are you just intent on berating us for our views.
Butch
You have provided us with much needed entertainment. You seem to be somewhat sensitive to disagreement with your views. A scope has nothing to do with the accuracy of a rifle. It can help you resolve a more exact aiming point in some circumstances.
With the many words that you wrote above, is this what you are trying to say or are you just intent on berating us for our views.
Butch
B
beemanbeme
Guest
Sounds like everybody is scrambling. 
I believe the accuracy potential of a rifle or a load can be better revealed with a higher powered scope.
This doesn't mean that the relative accuracy of loads can't be compared with a 3x9. And FWIW, I don't think BR was mentioned.
I believe the accuracy potential of a rifle or a load can be better revealed with a higher powered scope.
This doesn't mean that the relative accuracy of loads can't be compared with a 3x9. And FWIW, I don't think BR was mentioned.
C
CHRIS.T
Guest
Varmintguy,You obviously subscribe to the "If a little is good a lot is better"theory.I will state if you put a 9x power scope on an accurate rifle it will still shoot accurately,If you put a 45X on an inaccurate rifle guess what............................yep who'd have guessed..........it's still an inaccurate rifle.So Varmintguy what do you consider the maximum scope power needed is,and how did you arrive at this figure.Varmintguy have you had your vision checked recently,you might be compensating for poor vision????.
Varmint guy,when I am wrong I will be the first to admit it.....................................................................the silence is deafening.
Here is a little test that Im sure you wont be interested in put a 9x scope on one of your accurate 40x's and fire a couple of group's and tell use how you went...................or fire at 5x individual targets that have no aiming point,use the crosshairs to quarter the circle ,when finished overlay all five over one another and tell me the results,not that hard to quarter a circle really is it now,but seeing that I dont share your opinion I am sure that you will think your right and I am still wrong.
Regards Chris.
Varmint guy,when I am wrong I will be the first to admit it.....................................................................the silence is deafening.
Here is a little test that Im sure you wont be interested in put a 9x scope on one of your accurate 40x's and fire a couple of group's and tell use how you went...................or fire at 5x individual targets that have no aiming point,use the crosshairs to quarter the circle ,when finished overlay all five over one another and tell me the results,not that hard to quarter a circle really is it now
,but seeing that I dont share your opinion I am sure that you will think your right and I am still wrong.Regards Chris.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone got Tony Boyer's number handy??? I gotta ask him a question....when was the last time he used a 6x or 3x9 on his benchguns to ring out accuracy...darn it...it's gotta be his long hidden secret. He just uses them pesky 45X leupolds in competition to throw everyone off.
Come on guys...does anyone think a rifle can be shot consistantly as accurate or load developement done as well with a 6x scope vs. 20x or more??? If it can't be shot better with the higher magnification..the rifle's a real turd or the scopes bad. The original poster didn't say the gun was or was not a BR gun or any other gun...just that he seemed to need more scope.
Sure it won't make the rifle more accurate...just shot more accurately. If HBR didn't have the scope restriction...do you think they would all be using 6x's
I'm not trying to piss anyone off...just stating the obvious.
Higher magnification:
1. Won't make the gun more accurate
2. Will let a person more easily reach the guns accuracy potential.
Hovis
Come on guys...does anyone think a rifle can be shot consistantly as accurate or load developement done as well with a 6x scope vs. 20x or more??? If it can't be shot better with the higher magnification..the rifle's a real turd or the scopes bad. The original poster didn't say the gun was or was not a BR gun or any other gun...just that he seemed to need more scope.
Sure it won't make the rifle more accurate...just shot more accurately. If HBR didn't have the scope restriction...do you think they would all be using 6x's
I'm not trying to piss anyone off...just stating the obvious.
Higher magnification:
1. Won't make the gun more accurate
2. Will let a person more easily reach the guns accuracy potential.
Hovis
S
sicero
Guest
Well put Hovis
I don't think they understood the question. He He Kenny
I don't think they understood the question. He He Kenny
C
CHRIS.T
Guest
Still reckon that seeing this question was asked in the Factory/Hybrid forum that 9x should be enough for most people.So to answer your original question,yes I think the scope you have would do the job without knowing any more details such as rifle,cartridge,use for rifle,and seeing that you had to ask this question I would guess that you don't have a higher magnification scope at your disposal??
Regards Chris.
Regards Chris.
S
sicero
Guest
Chris
I will make this short and easy. Do you do load developement with a 3X 9 scope. Yes? No ? Kenny
I will make this short and easy. Do you do load developement with a 3X 9 scope. Yes? No ? Kenny
J
jaybic
Guest
Hello fellas,
I have wondered that same question about the 3x9 thing for along time. What I found out after buying a 6x18 Vx II instead of the 3x9 VX II is that bolted on the same rifle, the groups got smaller. Nothing else changed. Not the load, rest or anything else other than the day, but it has been consistantly better over time. I just load test with the big scope, find out what the rifle likes and then bolt the smaller scope back on for my coyote hunting purposes. I actually bought the 6x18 as a "load testing scope". Please keep in mind that this is for varmint hunting applications and hardly of benchrest level accuracy but I am still trying to get all my bullets in as small a hole(cluster more often and pattern sometimes!) as possible.
So, what little I know is this:
1. More glass does not improve the inherent accuracy that the rifle posesses.
The Hubble telescope bolted to a smoothbore flintlock will still not shoot MOA at 1000 yards.
2. More glass will improve accuracy achieved by the shooter because he can see better. One way to know would be to take your favorite 1000 yard gun with that 45x on it and shoot a group of 5 @ 1000 yards, and then replace the scope with a 1.75x4 shotgun scope, shoot another group and see which is tighter.
3.I think that Butch, Alinwa and Varmintguy are all correct in their own way but not talking about the same thing and Hovis summed it up best.
Just my laymans .02
Take is easy all,
Jamie
I have wondered that same question about the 3x9 thing for along time. What I found out after buying a 6x18 Vx II instead of the 3x9 VX II is that bolted on the same rifle, the groups got smaller. Nothing else changed. Not the load, rest or anything else other than the day, but it has been consistantly better over time. I just load test with the big scope, find out what the rifle likes and then bolt the smaller scope back on for my coyote hunting purposes. I actually bought the 6x18 as a "load testing scope". Please keep in mind that this is for varmint hunting applications and hardly of benchrest level accuracy but I am still trying to get all my bullets in as small a hole(cluster more often and pattern sometimes!) as possible.
So, what little I know is this:
1. More glass does not improve the inherent accuracy that the rifle posesses.
The Hubble telescope bolted to a smoothbore flintlock will still not shoot MOA at 1000 yards.
2. More glass will improve accuracy achieved by the shooter because he can see better. One way to know would be to take your favorite 1000 yard gun with that 45x on it and shoot a group of 5 @ 1000 yards, and then replace the scope with a 1.75x4 shotgun scope, shoot another group and see which is tighter.
3.I think that Butch, Alinwa and Varmintguy are all correct in their own way but not talking about the same thing and Hovis summed it up best.
Just my laymans .02
Take is easy all,
Jamie
When I do load development on varmint or target rifles I use the scope I am going to run on the gun, usually a 6.5-20 or a 6-24, on my bench rifle I use a 35. On a big game hunting rifle I also use the scope that I going to be on it when I hunt, ususally a 3-9.
What is the point into going into the last thousandth of an inch for load development on a big game hunting rifle, if the rifle shoots withing an inch or so that is more than adequate for hunting purposes.
But to put another spin on this topic, a friend just gave some shooting magazines that he had read and as I was going through the Oct, 2007 issue of Shooting there was an article by Hugh Birnbaum (one of the few writers who seems to tell things the way they are), the title of the article is Magnification and Group Size. I will not try to repeat the whole article but instead will give a quick summary. For the test he used a heavy barrel Remington, in 223, with an optimum handload of known accuracy, it has been his test bed for evaluating riflescopes and he had data for comparison from the scopes he has tested on the rifle throughout the years.
I will quote from the article -
"I found the data, and I also found that the 100 yd group sizes the load yielded in years of field testing a wide variety of scopes were strikingly uniform. With scopes ranging in power from about 4X to 36X, 5-shot groups nearly always stayed between 0.625 and 1.00 inch under favorable shooting conditions. In normal careful shooting, as opposed to supermeticulous benchrest competition, for example, there didn't seem to be any signifcant group-size penalty associated witht the lower-powered scopes. That appeared to contradict the conventional wisdom".
Some more quotes - "Although it is undeniable that the 1.5X ran about 1/4 inch larger than the others, the difference in group size between the 6X and the the 35X series is, in my opinion, insignificant.
"The bottom line, for me, is that scope magnification within very broad limits is probably less determinate of group size than is generally believed".
He perfomed a test using this rifle/handload combo with three scopes and fired three 5-shot groups. The results were, a 1.5X gave an average group of 0.96, a 6X gave an average group of 0.76, and a 35X gave an average of 0.708. His conclusion was that "Group sizes were more similar than gross differences in magnification would suggest".
Interesting and more food for thought, but it does more or less mirror my personal experiences. It is possible to shoot small groups with less magnification, but it is also more difficult. I also concur that when you step up to the plate to shoot benchrest it becomes a whole different game - since this question was posed on the factory/hybrid forum I am assuming that the question was about a factrory/hybrid rifle, not a benchrest rifle.
This was an interesting read, if you can find a copy of the Oct, 2007 Shooting you may want to read the whole article.
What is the point into going into the last thousandth of an inch for load development on a big game hunting rifle, if the rifle shoots withing an inch or so that is more than adequate for hunting purposes.
But to put another spin on this topic, a friend just gave some shooting magazines that he had read and as I was going through the Oct, 2007 issue of Shooting there was an article by Hugh Birnbaum (one of the few writers who seems to tell things the way they are), the title of the article is Magnification and Group Size. I will not try to repeat the whole article but instead will give a quick summary. For the test he used a heavy barrel Remington, in 223, with an optimum handload of known accuracy, it has been his test bed for evaluating riflescopes and he had data for comparison from the scopes he has tested on the rifle throughout the years.
I will quote from the article -
"I found the data, and I also found that the 100 yd group sizes the load yielded in years of field testing a wide variety of scopes were strikingly uniform. With scopes ranging in power from about 4X to 36X, 5-shot groups nearly always stayed between 0.625 and 1.00 inch under favorable shooting conditions. In normal careful shooting, as opposed to supermeticulous benchrest competition, for example, there didn't seem to be any signifcant group-size penalty associated witht the lower-powered scopes. That appeared to contradict the conventional wisdom".
Some more quotes - "Although it is undeniable that the 1.5X ran about 1/4 inch larger than the others, the difference in group size between the 6X and the the 35X series is, in my opinion, insignificant.
"The bottom line, for me, is that scope magnification within very broad limits is probably less determinate of group size than is generally believed".
He perfomed a test using this rifle/handload combo with three scopes and fired three 5-shot groups. The results were, a 1.5X gave an average group of 0.96, a 6X gave an average group of 0.76, and a 35X gave an average of 0.708. His conclusion was that "Group sizes were more similar than gross differences in magnification would suggest".
Interesting and more food for thought, but it does more or less mirror my personal experiences. It is possible to shoot small groups with less magnification, but it is also more difficult. I also concur that when you step up to the plate to shoot benchrest it becomes a whole different game - since this question was posed on the factory/hybrid forum I am assuming that the question was about a factrory/hybrid rifle, not a benchrest rifle.
This was an interesting read, if you can find a copy of the Oct, 2007 Shooting you may want to read the whole article.
T
tylerw02
Guest
I came to the conclusion that in many cases, I can shoot BETTER with less magnification. Oftentimes my 25x scopes leave me wiggling trying to hold in the same spot, I simply cannot hold that steady. Meanwhile, if I'm shooting on 14x, the whole dot is pretty much covered and I my wiggles aren't amplified and I'm more calm and more confident.
I've also noticed my best group ever from my AR 15 was with an Aimpoint with a 2 moa dot, no magnification. The group measured .3xx". Meanwhile, the best group ever with a magnified optic on it was somewhere around .65x".
I've also noticed my best group ever from my AR 15 was with an Aimpoint with a 2 moa dot, no magnification. The group measured .3xx". Meanwhile, the best group ever with a magnified optic on it was somewhere around .65x".
P
papapaul
Guest
Life used to be so simple. My "good" scope was a Weaver V7. Then I had a couple of 3x and 4x fixed.
VarmintGuy
New member
Tylerw02: If you are noticeably wiggling while using your 25 power scope you need to improve your bench rest technique and/or equipment.
I only approach my trigger when I am absolutely steady on my bench rests - ESPECIALLY when I am using my 24 power, 25 power and 36 power scopes.
There are all manner of ways to establish a dead steady resting position for your Rifle with high power scopes - you have to find one you are comfortable with.
Tylerw02 - would you say that you always shoot smaller groups with your Aimpoint and 2x dot than you do with your "magnified optics" on it, or was that .3XX" grouping with the Aimpoint a one time event?
Certainly YOU are not suggesting the Aimpoint's take the place of high powered scopes during br competitions or the search for most accurate loadings - are you?
Your calmness and confidence would both be enhanced with a better bench rest and better bench rest technique - that would get you easily and repeatedly to a dead steady sight picture and reticle alignment when you are shooting for accuracy.
By the way that was some kind of special grouping there with the aimpoint and the .3XX" group, good for you - I assume that was a 5 shot grouping at 100 yards - please correct me if that assumption of mine is not correct.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
I only approach my trigger when I am absolutely steady on my bench rests - ESPECIALLY when I am using my 24 power, 25 power and 36 power scopes.
There are all manner of ways to establish a dead steady resting position for your Rifle with high power scopes - you have to find one you are comfortable with.
Tylerw02 - would you say that you always shoot smaller groups with your Aimpoint and 2x dot than you do with your "magnified optics" on it, or was that .3XX" grouping with the Aimpoint a one time event?
Certainly YOU are not suggesting the Aimpoint's take the place of high powered scopes during br competitions or the search for most accurate loadings - are you?
Your calmness and confidence would both be enhanced with a better bench rest and better bench rest technique - that would get you easily and repeatedly to a dead steady sight picture and reticle alignment when you are shooting for accuracy.
By the way that was some kind of special grouping there with the aimpoint and the .3XX" group, good for you - I assume that was a 5 shot grouping at 100 yards - please correct me if that assumption of mine is not correct.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
Oh Boy
Here is a fact that will just make eyes roll:
I have a tape of G. David Tubbs, on this tape he states he always uses receiver sights when testing loads, because they can be trusted.
Once again.......it is not the power of the scope, it is the size of the target.
Guess what, we do not use the same size targets at 100 yards as we do at 1000 yards.
So with a 3X9 scope I can make a target that looks the same size as if I was using a 24X.
The questions was not if a 3X9 was affective for shooting rats with a .338 at 600 yards.
However if those rats were the size of some jackasses then a 3X9 would work.
Here is a fact that will just make eyes roll:
I have a tape of G. David Tubbs, on this tape he states he always uses receiver sights when testing loads, because they can be trusted.
Once again.......it is not the power of the scope, it is the size of the target.
Guess what, we do not use the same size targets at 100 yards as we do at 1000 yards.
So with a 3X9 scope I can make a target that looks the same size as if I was using a 24X.
The questions was not if a 3X9 was affective for shooting rats with a .338 at 600 yards.
However if those rats were the size of some jackasses then a 3X9 would work.
My results
I am not the best shooter. I just got into shooting and reloading again a few years ago after a 15 year absence. Brought several nicer rifles and had a couple of blue-printed with premium barrels. I am learning to shoot better. I have a factory Rem 700 VS in a 308. The rifle has been bedded in the HS Precision with a Shilen trigger. With its pet load of Lapua brass, Fed 210M primers, RE-15, and 168 SMK it will agg 5-5 shots at 100 yds in low 0.5s. I have done several times. Some times a little better. This was all done using a fixed power 10x SuperSniper. Not the best optic clarity, but it ain't that bad. I recently purchased a 16x SuperSniper and replaced it and went and shot an agg with the pet load. Same 0.5x" agg. Humm..... I expected a little better. I pulled the T36 off of 30BR, put it on the 308 and fired an agg. Same 0.5x agg.
Conclusion - Rifle was only capable of a 0.5x agg. Scope made no difference with me.
Now I need to do the same experiment with all 3 scopes on my 30BR once I get it tuned up. I might even add my old Weaver K4 to the mixed.
Not many factory rifles will exceed an agg. that 9x scope would benefit in shooter ability to agg. if you have good eye sight. If you have a gun that will agg in the 0.2s, many this is not true. The key for me and a lower power scope is find a symmetric target (round bulleyes or square) and keeping the target centered. As I suffer from eye fatigue with a long day at the range, the lower power scopes are easy on my eyes.
My 2 cents, tiny
I am not the best shooter. I just got into shooting and reloading again a few years ago after a 15 year absence. Brought several nicer rifles and had a couple of blue-printed with premium barrels. I am learning to shoot better. I have a factory Rem 700 VS in a 308. The rifle has been bedded in the HS Precision with a Shilen trigger. With its pet load of Lapua brass, Fed 210M primers, RE-15, and 168 SMK it will agg 5-5 shots at 100 yds in low 0.5s. I have done several times. Some times a little better. This was all done using a fixed power 10x SuperSniper. Not the best optic clarity, but it ain't that bad. I recently purchased a 16x SuperSniper and replaced it and went and shot an agg with the pet load. Same 0.5x" agg. Humm..... I expected a little better. I pulled the T36 off of 30BR, put it on the 308 and fired an agg. Same 0.5x agg.
Conclusion - Rifle was only capable of a 0.5x agg. Scope made no difference with me.
Now I need to do the same experiment with all 3 scopes on my 30BR once I get it tuned up. I might even add my old Weaver K4 to the mixed.
Not many factory rifles will exceed an agg. that 9x scope would benefit in shooter ability to agg. if you have good eye sight. If you have a gun that will agg in the 0.2s, many this is not true. The key for me and a lower power scope is find a symmetric target (round bulleyes or square) and keeping the target centered. As I suffer from eye fatigue with a long day at the range, the lower power scopes are easy on my eyes.
My 2 cents, tiny
Last edited:
Actual needed magnification -
At the risk of offending those of the "my mind is already made up so don't confuse me with the facts" crowd, the following is offered for those that may be interested in the physics of optics that may help answer the question.
For the basic physics of optics background please see:
http://www.twincityrodandgun.com/PDF%20files/ScopeRes-Mag1.pdf
To facilitate calculating values applicable to your caliber and target range (or use the size of a target feature of interest instead of the caliber) please use the following calculator: http://www.twincityrodandgun.com/Bullet%20Hole%20Res%20Req/Bullet%20Hole%20Res%20Req.htm
At the risk of offending those of the "my mind is already made up so don't confuse me with the facts" crowd, the following is offered for those that may be interested in the physics of optics that may help answer the question.
For the basic physics of optics background please see:
http://www.twincityrodandgun.com/PDF%20files/ScopeRes-Mag1.pdf
To facilitate calculating values applicable to your caliber and target range (or use the size of a target feature of interest instead of the caliber) please use the following calculator: http://www.twincityrodandgun.com/Bullet%20Hole%20Res%20Req/Bullet%20Hole%20Res%20Req.htm
Boyd Allen
Active member
The typical 3 - 9 doesn't have a parallax adjustment, and few scopes come with their objectives preset to be completely parallax free at 100 yds. Hunter Bench scopes have adjustable objectives. In my opinion a higher power scope, with an adjustable objective, makes shooting small easier, as do a trigger that has a frendlier pull weight, and a good bag/rest setup, and I am always amazed by shooters that claim to be interested in accuracy that have nothing between them and their targets too see what the wind is doing.
M
murphy
Guest
On Scope Power.
On a sporter weight rifle I don't think scope power makes much difference. When aiming at the corner of a square target a good scope of about 8x on a worthy rifle will yield groups of around .3" with no trouble at all. A big scope will make the group smaller but how much smaller? The bench rest boys need all the power they can get because they are trying to win a competition but there is a world of difference between what they are doing and developing a load for a 243 hunting rifle. By the way Varmint guy, I haven't tried that Swift out in the field yet because I have to help my mother move house but have developed a new load with 52g Speers and 748 powder that is an absolute cracker. Murphy.
On a sporter weight rifle I don't think scope power makes much difference. When aiming at the corner of a square target a good scope of about 8x on a worthy rifle will yield groups of around .3" with no trouble at all. A big scope will make the group smaller but how much smaller? The bench rest boys need all the power they can get because they are trying to win a competition but there is a world of difference between what they are doing and developing a load for a 243 hunting rifle. By the way Varmint guy, I haven't tried that Swift out in the field yet because I have to help my mother move house but have developed a new load with 52g Speers and 748 powder that is an absolute cracker. Murphy.
B
beemanbeme
Guest
With a higher magnification you can use a smaller aiming point which will make for a smaller group. (I know I said you are comparing the groups against one another but it's still nice to compare groups that are 1" against 1.25"s rather than 2" against 2.5") And you can see the bullet holes and the group develop which you sometimes can't with the lower powered scope.
And, as I pointed out, if I'm putting a 1.5x5 on a rifle, I may be able to shoot a accurately with it but I have to chase down range after each relay or squirm around or get up to look thru the spotting scope.
And, as I pointed out, if I'm putting a 1.5x5 on a rifle, I may be able to shoot a accurately with it but I have to chase down range after each relay or squirm around or get up to look thru the spotting scope.