Jump to content

Optimum scope magnification @ range


jungle_re

Recommended Posts

I remember reading somewhere about a simple calculation for scope magnification selection related to aperture size although I can't find this anymore could some one point me in the right direction?

 

I understand that much of this would be subjective but is there a formula or rule of thumb to best select the mag setting at certain ranges and different applications?

 

My stalking rifles have traditionally stayed at 7x most of the time with a drop to x3 occasionally for close shots but I had more of an issue with the 25yrd lsr shooting in finding the balance between seeing as much of the bull as possible and shake in the standing position.

 

When shooting prone what mags are you using between 100 and 1000m/yrds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Will,

You are probably about right on short range stalking mags-and for that application the best light gathering matters if you need the last few minutes-otherwise,I don't think light transmission is such a big deal-I don't ever feel I've missed because I could not see a target clearly enough,and another scope would have been significantly better-it might have had more dependable adjustments etc-maybe my eyes are just not good enough to appreciate...I tend when shooting on a range to use as much mag as conditions permit-mostly I have Leupolds and NightForces,the Ls are up to 25x,and that is ok out to 3 or 4 hundred,and I'd probably use that at 100 too-Bench Rest of course was fixed 36x-absolutely great,except if there was mirage...At 1000,as much x as conditions allow-not often though could the 42x NF be used-more often 30-35x was the max-but at those distances,given you are aiming at an orange size mark,every x helps-so long as mirage does not shimmer it all.

So basically,as much x as you can get-especially as distance increases,for me.But I would not want a fixed 50x even if it were a March-you need some flexibility for conditions,as you say with your 7x,sometimes 3x,stalking scope.

I look forward to learning about the shortcomings of the NF etc-I am just naive,and can't see a serious weakness in the glass quality...under normal conditions?No doubt it is often subjective,perhaps objective in fine measurement-but the real pro and cons seem elsewhere to me-turrets,reticules etc.I don't remember missing much with a 6-24 tasco either,come to think of it-but that would not be at more than 300 y,because of the cartridge limits....

Use whatever you think suits you..but try as many as you can...big names mean quality build,not suitability per se....

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really looking at scope makes more about shooting technique/equipment use.

I've started to question my own use of wacking it up to the max when shooting paper (albeit only at max 100m as I'm currently still down to just my RF) as i've recently been roped into shooting .22lr target rifle it surprised me how quickly i could shoot better with the open target sights than with a 15x scope (both rifles will print just about the same off a rest as I tested them out of interest) and was beginning to put this down to the ability to keep the 'halo' on the front sight around the target being easier to keep consistency (very little movement as there is no mag at all) over the cross hairs at 15x in the scope and if zooming the scope out to minimal mag and using the area around the target in a similar fashion to the target sights would be better (not yet had the chance to test but may do tonight). It just made me question what magnification to use and that the highest may not always be the best. Obviously at long range the high mag is only making the sight picture like a low mag at close range.

 

Would you always shoot paper then (prone) at the full mag of your scope George?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really looking at scope makes more about shooting technique/equipment use.

I've started to question my own use of wacking it up to the max when shooting paper (albeit only at max 100m as I'm currently still down to just my RF) as i've recently been roped into shooting .22lr target rifle it surprised me how quickly i could shoot better with the open target sights than with a 15x scope (both rifles will print just about the same off a rest as I tested them out of interest) and was beginning to put this down to the ability to keep the 'halo' on the front sight around the target being easier to keep consistency (very little movement as there is no mag at all) over the cross hairs at 15x in the scope and if zooming the scope out to minimal mag and using the area around the target in a similar fashion to the target sights would be better (not yet had the chance to test but may do tonight). It just made me question what magnification to use and that the highest may not always be the best. Obviously at long range the high mag is only making the sight picture like a low mag at close range.

 

Would you always shoot paper then (prone) at the full mag of your scope George?

I'm not really looking at scope makes more about shooting technique/equipment use.

I've started to question my own use of wacking it up to the max when shooting paper (albeit only at max 100m as I'm currently still down to just my RF) as i've recently been roped into shooting .22lr target rifle it surprised me how quickly i could shoot better with the open target sights than with a 15x scope (both rifles will print just about the same off a rest as I tested them out of interest) and was beginning to put this down to the ability to keep the 'halo' on the front sight around the target being easier to keep consistency (very little movement as there is no mag at all) over the cross hairs at 15x in the scope and if zooming the scope out to minimal mag and using the area around the target in a similar fashion to the target sights would be better (not yet had the chance to test but may do tonight). It just made me question what magnification to use and that the highest may not always be the best. Obviously at long range the high mag is only making the sight picture like a low mag at close range.

 

Would you always shoot paper then (prone) at the full mag of your scope George?

Will,essentially yes-as much mag as conditions allow-of course at 1000 you need a reticule that does not cover completely your aiming mark,otherwise precision aiming is not possible,though such a fine dot (or crosshair etc) would be a liability for a stalker and maybe a varminter-just too hard to see it!

But it is precision of aiming that is the main driver-not to deny that some shooters can do very well with non mag sights,if the bull is big enough to see.A half moa orange disc isn't something I can see unaided.

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really looking at scope makes more about shooting technique/equipment use.

I've started to question my own use of wacking it up to the max when shooting paper (albeit only at max 100m as I'm currently still down to just my RF) as i've recently been roped into shooting .22lr target rifle it surprised me how quickly i could shoot better with the open target sights than with a 15x scope (both rifles will print just about the same off a rest as I tested them out of interest) and was beginning to put this down to the ability to keep the 'halo' on the front sight around the target being easier to keep consistency (very little movement as there is no mag at all) over the cross hairs at 15x in the scope and if zooming the scope out to minimal mag and using the area around the target in a similar fashion to the target sights would be better (not yet had the chance to test but may do tonight). It just made me question what magnification to use and that the highest may not always be the best. Obviously at long range the high mag is only making the sight picture like a low mag at close range.

 

Would you always shoot paper then (prone) at the full mag of your scope George?

I`ve always found that I shoot my best groups using the minimum mag x of whichever scope I`m shooting with! Seems to

differ with other`s views,but that`s what I`ve found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I`ve always found that I shoot my best groups using the minimum mag x of whichever scope I`m shooting with! Seems to

differ with other`s views,but that`s what I`ve found.

Probably unusual,but if it works for you....just to expand a little ,what distances and mag powers are you talking about.....it's hard to imagine a .25 moa group at say 400yards with a reticule that itself covers 1 moa ie 4inches at 400-so you might be 2 inches out either way in the actual point of aim...on each shot...((my comments were about using 15 to 40 mag range:6x at 1000 isn't viable,I don't think!)...and of course,a very steady rest..

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6x42, 4x32, 8x56, 7x50 are the most common fixed mag hunting scopes for good reason (light transmission) which is paramount stalking woodland. High mag target scopes are generally used between 10am and say 4pm so light transmission isn't so big an issue. Spotting your shots, ability to see mirage and the target clearly are a bigger deal so mags go higher to a degree the higher the better . On tactical type events like McQueens you might want to wind down a bit to get a wider field of view (say 18x?) but your going to be at a serious disadvantage with a 4x32 woodland stalking scope, yet try getting on that roe buck for a quick off hand shot with your 30x and far over target scope.

My opinion (others will vary) 7x max for deer 12x max foxes 20x long range crows etc. big as I can targets, even if I have to wind back to loose the mirage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don`t do paper punching,only as a means of zeroing! 100 yds usually .Don`t have anything more than 12x but can always do better with 3-4x .

I do tend to use top mag most of the time in anger,so to speak ,but have always shot my best groups wound down !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don`t do paper punching,only as a means of zeroing! 100 yds usually .Don`t have anything more than 12x but can always do better with 3-4x .

I do tend to use top mag most of the time in anger,so to speak ,but have always shot my best groups wound down !

 

In effect 100/6 is 16.66, so if your shooting a 6x scope at 100 its like peep sights / open sights at 16-17 yds. However the same works in reverse at 600 yds a 1" target that was easy to detect and get a sight picture on is like shooting same 1" target @ 100 yds with open sights. Now if your scope had nil mag and just the cross hair the aim point is relative to just under a .17 cal bullet at 100 yds.

Still all things equal if your target is 6" not 1" at said 600yds sight picture should be equal to 1" at 100 yds. The reason I suggest you do better with a lower mag is it suits the sight picture you have best ON THE TARGET YOU SHOOT AT. I therefore suggest that if you designed a "zero" target for your own scope that gave a good sight picture at 100 yds on 12x then your groups would be equal or better to the lower mag

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny nobody mention reticle substention ?

Surely that's plays a Hugh part in the equation .......

The most popular nightforce reticle in uk is the NP2-DD

Likely to be because of the cleaness, clarity and size of the centre dot

Agreed-that is why I mentioned it in some detail,though did not use that phrase,as perhaps the most important consideration-a reticule that covers your aiming mark is no way to achieve top precision.

I am not sure the small dot is the only popular reticule for very long distance target shooting-the NF fine cross hair is excellent too-indeed,it's possible to have both on the same reticule,and in 100 bench rest the small dot 36x Leupold was very popular-often used by just touching it on the bottom edge of the bull ring....ie a perfect figure eight.

Whatever you are quite right,the most precise reticule you can see is best for well rested target shooting.That is why there are fine crosshairs,small dots etc....these of course are a distinct disadvantage for varminters and even more so for stalkers-who need to easily pick up the reticule far more than they need an extra 1/4 moa from it.

Small equates to precise,ever more so as distance increases,and size of aiming mark diminishes-you can't get maximum precision from a reticule that blots out your aim point,though you might get acceptable accuracy for purpose,given the other requirements.

Gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told his week that the eye distinguish circles better than liner sights and that this was the reasoning for target rifle sights that its easier to put the black circle in the centre of the fore sight when keeping focus on the sight. If that really is the case then why haven't target scope got a circular ret which with mag variance changes size to accommodate target size at different ranges? Obviously would only be of use for events with standardised targets. Probably giving things far to much thought and shouldn't worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told his week that the eye distinguish circles better than liner sights and that this was the reasoning for target rifle sights that its easier to put the black circle in the centre of the fore sight when keeping focus on the sight. If that really is the case then why haven't target scope got a circular ret which with mag variance changes size to accommodate target size at different ranges? Obviously would only be of use for events with standardised targets. Probably giving things far to much thought and shouldn't worry about it.

 

The eye is quite good at discriminating-ie the black dot in the centre of circle etc-the advantage aperture sights may have over open blade/v type sights.

But all that advantage-including automatic centering of peep sight etc,does not get you into the precision that good magnification provides for distant targets-and bear in mind ,that you won't be able to see a small target at long range anyhow-look at the size the 1000 yard blacks have to be for 1000 yard aperture sight shooters to see them,and centre in their apertures.An orange will do for a suitably equipped scope shooter,though might need fair magnification ,4x won't really do! If you can't see the target,you won't be likely to hit it,so aperture sights,despite their advantages for some shortrange shooting,lose out to scopes-actually at any range-big time at distance,when the target is too small to see unaided....try a blaze clay pigeon at 1000 yards,35/40x will make it easy to see,and put a fine crosshair/dot on it.So you have a chance....

 

Gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reticules are very subjective to target. Its perfectly possible to shoot tighter groups on paper than you think your aim point allows, its about all the choice of sight picture. Fine reticules are horrible things in dark woodland and disappear in low light too quick for my likes unless they are illuminated which is not my personal preference. This is what scopes are "personal to the user and their requirements"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reticules are very subjective to target. Its perfectly possible to shoot tighter groups on paper than you think your aim point allows, its about all the choice of sight picture. Fine reticules are horrible things in dark woodland and disappear in low light too quick for my likes unless they are illuminated which is not my personal preference. This is what scopes are "personal to the user and their requirements"

As has been said-but try a very broad 'stalking' reticule at long range-NOT a recipe for precise groups!Nobody does it by choice.What is needed is as fine a Crosshair/dot as your target/light allows you to place precisely.That may well be a heavy 4x in dusk woodland,but will be more like a 40 x fine reticule at 1000 in daylight.

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading somewhere about a simple calculation for scope magnification selection related to aperture size

 

 

I think you're talking about exit pupil diameter. My understanding (willing to be corrected by the optics gurus I know are on here):

The human eye can take in a 7mm disc of light (like when someone on a film looks through a keyhole, or indeed a rifle scope, and you see the light dancing on their eyeball). Any more than 7mm is wasted on your rubbish human eyeball and smaller is an increasingly darker image.

 

 

Objective diameter (mm) / Mag (mm) = Exit pupil

 

 

Get a Nightforce NXS 8-32x56 set to minimum mag.

 

56 / 8 = 7 (nice bright picture)

 

Now crank the mag up.

 

56 / 32 = 1.75 (dark picture)

 

 

Loads of binos, where bulk is not as important as image quality (brightness), are 7x50. 7mm exit pupil (near as damnit).

Some popular fixed mag scope specs:

8x56 scope - 7mm exit pupil.

6x42 scope - 7mm exit pupil.

Coincidence? Nope. If you want the exit pupil you have to have the objectives that size. Something like 8x40 would be a compromise; smaller scope but darker image.

 

 

 

If this has already been covered or it turned out to be something else you were thinking of (I only skimmed the thread) then as you were!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More practically, turn your mag down and just fvckin' shoot. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

Does it not depend on the target size and distance

4x for a roe deer 100 yards away in poor light might be ok,

4x for the same size target-let's say 5''-at 1000 yards needs considerably more,even to see it,40x isn't too much(hence even bigger March scopes),but would be a handicap for the roe shot.

 

 

Why can't we just accept the basic but correct idea that different pursuits need different equipment.?

 

Gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're talking about exit pupil diameter. My understanding (willing to be corrected by the optics gurus I know are on here):

The human eye can take in a 7mm disc of light (like when someone on a film looks through a keyhole, or indeed a rifle scope, and you see the light dancing on their eyeball). Any more than 7mm is wasted on your rubbish human eyeball and smaller is an increasingly darker image.

 

Objective diameter (mm) / Mag (mm) = Exit pupil

 

 

Get a Nightforce NXS 8-32x56 set to minimum mag.

56 / 8 = 7 (nice bright picture)

 

Now crank the mag up.

56 / 32 = 1.75 (dark picture)

 

 

Loads of binos, where bulk is not as important as image quality (brightness), are 7x50. 7mm exit pupil (near as damnit).

Some popular fixed mag scope specs:

8x56 scope - 7mm exit pupil.

6x42 scope - 7mm exit pupil.

Coincidence? Nope. If you want the exit pupil you have to have the objectives that size. Something like 8x40 would be a compromise; smaller scope but darker image.

 

 

 

If this has already been covered or it turned out to be something else you were thinking of (I only skimmed the thread) then as you were!

Is not the quality of the light transmission critically important too,rather than just exit pupil size?

One reason that really good binos /scopes might be forty times the price of cheapo ones with the same nominal exit pupil size is how well they transmit the light within that same measure.All 6x42s ,or 8x56s etc,are definitely not equal......if anyone wants to discuss this,I am happy to exchange some Tasco,Burris,Weaver scopes for nominally equivalent S+Bs/similar quality ones (and as a bonus I can try this interesting theory that you can shoot long range with a 6x without disappointment.)

Gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is not the quality of the light transmission critically important too,rather than just exit pupil size?

One reason that really good binos /scopes might be forty times the price of cheapo ones with the same nominal exit pupil size is how well they transmit the light within that same measure.All 6x42s ,or 8x56s etc,are definitely not equal......if anyone wants to discuss this,I am happy to exchange some Tasco,Burris,Weaver scopes for nominally equivalent S+Bs/similar quality ones (and as a bonus I can try this interesting theory that you can shoot long range with a 6x without disappointment.)

Gbal

That argument could run and run, only a fool would think a plastic lens cheapy in 8x56 would best a poorer exit pupil in top grade glass. Twilight factor is an interesting one also and to be fair a guy in their 40's or upwards is unlikely to have an eye that matches a 7mm exit pupil anyhow, its just a guide to what might work

 

Plenty TR shooters do ok at 1000 yds without any scope or magnification on their rifles, this should also be borne in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That argument could run and run, only a fool would think a plastic lens cheapy in 8x56 would best a poorer exit pupil in top grade glass. Twilight factor is an interesting one also and to be fair a guy in their 40's or upwards is unlikely to have an eye that matches a 7mm exit pupil anyhow, its just a guide to what might workPlenty TR shooters do ok at 1000 yds without any scope or magnification on their rifles, this should also be borne in mind.[/quote

 

...agreed.Have you checked the size of their aiming black(the x bull is small, but the aiming black is rather large- several feet,otherwise they could not see it) .BR scope users have a 5 inch aiming mark,typically orange disc on the white target,and often shoot groups of 5shots around that size. I very much doubt that the TR experts would be able to shoot at a 5 inch disc placed somewhere on a ten foot white target,or even in the middle-they can't see it.I admire their shooting skills when they can see the target

Re exit size-exactly my point-per se it is useful only to compare scopes of similar optical quality,but the makers have usually done that anyhow.In itself,7mm means very little as a quality measure.But there are those who also think eg that NF scopes lack quality glass-perhaps they have not tried them at 1000 yards.They have proved good enough,though can be improved -progress Marches on!

Gbal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That argument could run and run, only a fool would think a plastic lens cheapy in 8x56 would best a poorer exit pupil in top grade glass. Twilight factor is an interesting one also and to be fair a guy in their 40's or upwards is unlikely to have an eye that matches a 7mm exit pupil anyhow, its just a guide to what might workPlenty TR shooters do ok at 1000 yds without any scope or magnification on their rifles, this should also be borne in mind.[/quote

 

...agreed.Have you checked the size of their aiming black(the x bull is small, but the aiming black is rather large- several feet,otherwise they could not see it) .BR scope users have a 5 inch aiming mark,typically orange disc on the white target,and often shoot groups of 5shots around that size. I very much doubt that the TR experts would be able to shoot at a 5 inch disc placed somewhere on a ten foot white target,or even in the middle-they can't see it.I admire their shooting skills when they can see the target

Re exit size-exactly my point-per se it is useful only to compare scopes of similar optical quality,but the makers have usually done that anyhow.In itself,7mm means very little as a quality measure.But there are those who also think eg that NF scopes lack quality glass-perhaps they have not tried them at 1000 yards.They have proved good enough,though can be improved -progress Marches on!

Gbal.

 

That argument could run and run, only a fool would think a plastic lens cheapy in 8x56 would best a poorer exit pupil in top grade glass. Twilight factor is an interesting one also and to be fair a guy in their 40's or upwards is unlikely to have an eye that matches a 7mm exit pupil anyhow, its just a guide to what might workPlenty TR shooters do ok at 1000 yds without any scope or magnification on their rifles, this should also be borne in mind.[/quote

 

...agreed.Have you checked the size of their aiming black(the x bull is small, but the aiming black is rather large- several feet,otherwise they could not see it) .BR scope users have a 5 inch aiming mark,typically orange disc on the white target,and often shoot groups of 5shots around that size. I very much doubt that the TR experts would be able to shoot at a 5 inch disc placed somewhere on a ten foot white target,or even in the middle-they can't see it.I admire their shooting skills when they can see the target

Re exit size-exactly my point-per se it is useful only to compare scopes of similar optical quality,but the makers have usually done that anyhow.In itself,7mm means very little as a quality measure.But there are those who also think eg that NF scopes lack quality glass-perhaps they have not tried them at 1000 yards.They have proved good enough,though can be improved -progress Marches on!

Gbal.

 

Suggest you try to shoot a scoped rifle of any mag against some of these guys and gals. My point is mag is only relevant against the given sight picture, you seem to agree from your comment? I have actually done this BTW, NF 8-32 x against top TR peeps- let us say it is enlightening what can be done

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That argument could run and run, only a fool would think a plastic lens cheapy in 8x56 would best a poorer exit pupil in top grade glass. Twilight factor is an interesting one also and to be fair a guy in their 40's or upwards is unlikely to have an eye that matches a 7mm exit pupil anyhow, its just a guide to what might workPlenty TR shooters do ok at 1000 yds without any scope or magnification on their rifles, this should also be borne in mind.[/quote...agreed.Have you checked the size of their aiming black(the x bull is small, but the aiming black is rather large- several feet,otherwise they could not see it) .BR scope users have a 5 inch aiming mark,typically orange disc on the white target,and often shoot groups of 5shots around that size. I very much doubt that the TR experts would be able to shoot at a 5 inch disc placed somewhere on a ten foot white target,or even in the middle-they can't see it.I admire their shooting skills when they can see the targetRe exit size-exactly my point-per se it is useful only to compare scopes of similar optical quality,but the makers have usually done that anyhow.In itself,7mm means very little as a quality measure.But there are those who also think eg that NF scopes lack quality glass-perhaps they have not tried them at 1000 yards.They have proved good enough,though can be improved -progress Marches on!Gbal.

 

 

That argument could run and run, only a fool would think a plastic lens cheapy in 8x56 would best a poorer exit pupil in top grade glass. Twilight factor is an interesting one also and to be fair a guy in their 40's or upwards is unlikely to have an eye that matches a 7mm exit pupil anyhow, its just a guide to what might workPlenty TR shooters do ok at 1000 yds without any scope or magnification on their rifles, this should also be borne in mind.[/quote...agreed.Have you checked the size of their aiming black(the x bull is small, but the aiming black is rather large- several feet,otherwise they could not see it) .BR scope users have a 5 inch aiming mark,typically orange disc on the white target,and often shoot groups of 5shots around that size. I very much doubt that the TR experts would be able to shoot at a 5 inch disc placed somewhere on a ten foot white target,or even in the middle-they can't see it.I admire their shooting skills when they can see the targetRe exit size-exactly my point-per se it is useful only to compare scopes of similar optical quality,but the makers have usually done that anyhow.In itself,7mm means very little as a quality measure.But there are those who also think eg that NF scopes lack quality glass-perhaps they have not tried them at 1000 yards.They have proved good enough,though can be improved -progress Marches on!Gbal.
Suggest you try to shoot a scoped rifle of any mag against some of these guys and gals. My point is mag is only relevant against the given sight picture, you seem to agree from your comment? I have actually done this BTW, NF 8-32 x against top TR peeps- let us say it is enlightening what can be done

 

I think I am prepared to say that a high mag scope is always superior to an aperture sight.

I was actually saying that at considerable distances(say 1000 yards as both disciplines shoot that),the aperture shooters could not shoot,if the aiming mark was small,but that is not an issue for the high mag,until we are sub 1/2

I think the aperture shooters are very skilled,but won't outshoot the BR high mag shooters of similar competence.

I have not seen many world or national records set by aperture users in competitions where hi mag scopes took part.

I have seen a very large number of world record groups etc from hi mag shooters.

I would have though that if the aperture was superior,it would be prominent in any competitions where it was allowed,and would be beating the high mag scopes.This does not seem to be so,nor are any high mag shooters going over to apertures to win or set better records than scopes have set.

I repeat,I admire the aperture shooters,and think theirs is a remarkable discipline,and they shoot quite remarkably well.

But I do not think they would outshoot the high mag guys and gals,under almost any conditions.And not if the aiming mark is small (1/2 moa),because they won't be able to see it,which is something of a prerequisite for shooting at something.

 

So far,I don't see any hint of contrary evidence.

 

If you want to hit a tennis ball at 1000 yards,best get a very good high mag scope on your suitable rifle,on a day without snow.

If you want to see a very nice group,but not smaller than a tennis ball,on a small dark,round barn door,a good aperture shooter can do that,if the barn is white.

 

Smile.Sounds fun,though I haven't actually shot the barn door condition.

Gbal

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't saying it was better to go scope less just sight picture (in relation to target dimensions and type)was the relevant thing not magnification. Having seen with my own eyes guys with good rifles, great calibres and great high mag scopes get trashed by a skilled .308 TR operator I am under no illusions. reticule thickness, magnification level etc. All depends on the sight picture, after that is down to the shooter. Higher mag and finer reticule can be better- equally it can be worse, it wont make a bad shot good though. If you can see it you can shoot it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horses for courses as they say while the open sight user may be at a disadvantage with a 5" target at 1000yds the reverse may be true if the high mag user had to use the large aiming mark (without an x ring)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy