Scope magnification

[Tucker Schwab]

Hi, I was wondering how much magnification I would want to kill deer easily. I would like to keep this thread free of arguments about how far you should shoot deer. So, how much magnification would you want for every 100 yards?

Thanks, Tucker

 

[Plater1]

The average scope is around 3-9x for rifles. If it's on a shotgun even less power is needed as range is around 100yards or less.

 

[Saltwater60]

I’d say 3-9 or 3-12.

 

[spat]

4x should be enough to comfortably take a deer at any range it's ethical to try around here.

More is nice sometimes, but unnecessary.

Lower can be good for better field of view sometimes.

I would say any decent scope with a "4" in the range bracket somewhere should work.

Now something else might be better in some particular area, but that would depend entirely on where your hunting.

This leaves a *very* wide range of scopes that are acceptable.

Also, probably more deer have fallen to old school iron sights over the years than any optic, so bear that in mind.

 

[ManrisFrack]

I've got a 3 - 10 on my rifle right now. The only thing I use 10x for is seeing what's coming across the field. Most of my shots are somewhere in the middle of the range.

I'm starting to think less is better. I've had a few come within 25 yards and they're impossible to track on 3x at anything faster than a walk. Really thinking about setting up a 1-6x for next year.

 

[Robin]

Around here a High quality fixed 4X would be my choice. Take all the money they put into zoom lenses and other unnecessary gimmickry and put it into making a high quality, rugged 4X with good glass.
Robin

 

[Jaywmustang]

I use 4-15 and 3-9 powered scoped on my hunting rigs.

 

[Podmonkey]

The rule of thumb claims 1x for every 100 yards.
More magnification may be better but as magnification increases field of view decreases which will make tracking moving, changing or multiple targets more difficult.
If you hunt deer primarily in the woods you might be better off with a red dot or irons, or a low powered variable scope with 1x magnification at the low end.

 

[ProgSpear]

For good quality on a budget, a Leupold 2-7x33 works well for typical NE woodland range.

 

[Will556]

A good quality 1-6x or 1-8x should work well. Instead of spending the extra money for magnification that you most likely won’t need you can use that same amount of money on a scope with a little less magnification that has higher glass quality.

 

[2WheelGnnr]

remember as the magnification goes up your feild of view gets smaller too.........but im sure you know...I would say 3-9 for sure..any more magnification will be tought to find the sucker in the FOV....

Good luck.

 

[Michael]

Just don't be a dummy (like me) and leave it set on 10x where shots are going to be 50yds in brush. I usually leave them set to somewhere between 4-6x. Too high and any wobble is magnified to the point it's hard to keep on target.

 

[1911guy]

Hunting deer in NY for years with a 1.5-4 power variable. Rarely used more than 2 power.
Got a deer in TX at over 400 yards with a fixed 4 power. The point I'm making is that much too much emphasis is placed on the scope. Know your rifle's and load's ballistics.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Also maybe spend the extra money on a scope with first focal plane reticle.

 

[Podmonkey]

Also maybe spend the extra money on a scope with first focal plane reticle.

FFP is not the first thing on the feature list to be looking at.
Reticle, glass quality, tracking are all more important.
Also at lower magnification ranges its largely irrelevant.

 

[SomeSoldier]

FFP is not the first thing on the feature list to be looking at.
Reticle, glass quality, tracking are all more important.
Also at lower magnification ranges its largely irrelevant.

Might be nice a 1-8

 

[Jaywmustang]

Problem with ffp scopes at close range is it can be hard to see your reticle with your magnification on low. Now if your optic has illuminated reticle, you can use it as a red dot.

 

[meketrefe]

One doesn't need magnification to kill a deer within 200 yards but if you want to make it a tad easier with a tad more control 2 to 4 magnification is more than plenty.
Things like quality of the optics and field of view is more important than magnification specs "on paper" that can be a rather arbitrary measures.
The best thing is to try the scopes with quality lenses and you have options in 1-8 and popular 2-7 that are better suoted for both glassing and hunting in the woods.
Up to 2 mafnification you can still adquire a clear picture with 2 eyes open and excellent fov in tipical forest situations.
Very rarely one hunts over 100 yards and if so x7 and even x4 is more than plenty for deer. Is not like shootin pds at 500 yards.

 

[fnfalguy]

Same as @Podmonkey I’m not sure where I heard this originally, but I believe a decent rule of thumb is 1x per 100m. So 300m is 3x, 500m is 5x and so on.

 

[meketrefe]

Same as @Podmonkey I’m not sure where I heard this originally, but I believe a decent rule of thumb is 1x per 100m. So 300m is 3x, 500m is 5x and so on.

It could be but it also depends a lot on....
- size of the target /deer
- background and light conditions and how well the optical components handle that.
- how accurate the rifle is and how fine or coarse the aiming system / stadia design is in a way to minimize additional errors.
- safety. Means in certain conditions one might need a larger FOV to be safe.
- if one is shooting beyond 300 yards how reliable is the correction system. Bdcs are not that reliable w/o a lot of practice and side corrections so it doesnt matter if one has a cinemax like view if one cannot hit it.
Again, there are several other things to consider.
A good quality x7 or x8 scope might present a more clear and effective picture than a cheap x12 magnification as defined on paper specs.

 

[meketrefe]

...one more thing ...
some people might lean towards a higher magnification that allows one to see the hits on a 100 zero even for small 22 caliber but
the problem is one many times ends up sacrificing optics quality and FOV of a more versatile woods hunting scope in favor of the
convenience of use as a target or varmint scope w/o the need to use a secondary optics for spotting progress.
The best value continues to be in the 2-7 and 3-9 department due to the huge assortment but as I said IMO there are advantages
of a superior glass and lower starting magnification for the task at hand, that involves deer in the northern woods.
there are some exceptions with 1-8 and 2-8 or 2-10 scopes but mostly new tubes and tactical and one always has to take
into account eye relief for the caliber and mounting options according to ergonomics and size of the bell that can be large with 30mm
tubes. you want to accommodate ergonomics as close as possible to the center of the bore and why rings and mounts are ordered last after
buying and measuring the scope height and position on the rifle.

I hope this helps.

 

[mca90guitar]

I have a 3-9x40 on the muzzleloader
3.5-10x on the rifle

Only time they might see the upper end is if I'm hunting a field, otherwise I keep them around 4x

 

[Robin]

I pretty much keep them on 4X. All the zoom and tactical bullshit that comes with them is ignored till I'm at the range, in better weather, trying to figure it all out and amusing myself with it all.
Oh yeah, fine crosshairs are a must as well.
Robin

 

[Vapor]

Most of the time in ny you're going to have it set to 5-7×.

I honestly prefer 2-7x now. The high the magnification, the more complex, and the better ground the lenses have to be for the money.

2-7 is. Good sweet spot unless its going to double as a varmit fun.

A fixed 6x would probably be fine.

On a lever gun I like the lines and light weight of a 1-3, 1-4, or fixed 2.5.

 

[Robin]

Fishing lures are marketed to catch buyers. Scopes are marketed so buyers will look past the price.
Robin

 

[Podmonkey]

Fishing lures are marketed to catch buyers. Scopes are marketed so buyers will look past the price.
Robin

I would say that with optics, more than many other products, you get what you pay for. Its just there is a point of diminishing returns.