How much magnification for long distance shooting is really needed?

[Trigger73]

A bit of background for me before I ask the question as per title.  For a good number of years I was shooting air rifles mostly for target purposes, the more I got into it the higher end my equipment got, my natural progression took me to shotguns , then I had some land to shoot on and I got myself my ticket and now have various rifles for different disciplines.  I've been shooting informal bench rest at 50m with my 84 Supermatch and my 457 MTR, 1 has the Big Nikko scope and the other the new Falcon X50, my 455 that I use for field is equipped with a Hawke sidewinder, as is my 223 T3  (upto 32 mag but seldom used at said magnification unless its targets set up in the field).  

My question is, I use high mag (between x40-50) when shooting benchrest @50m which as expected lets you zoom right in but as the whole FAC scene is new to me I'm trying to understand why most scopes used for long range tend to be around the x25 magnification?  Now granted I don't expect anyone shooting at say the 1000 yards range to be hitting the bull with every shot as that would be some amazing feat but why such a lower magnification Vs. a much farther distance?

Hope my question makes some sort of sense and hasn't been 'lost in translation'?

thanks.

[Popsbengo]

I use a Nightforce comp which is 15~55 second focal plane on my 308 target rifle with a simple target reticle.  I like the ability to see the fall of shot (upto 600m) and I don't need to use the reticle for any measuring as the target rings suffice.  The added magnification is a "nice to have" as often I will only use about 25x.  A large magnification also has problems with heat haze.

On my .338 I have  S&B PM11  5~25 with a first focal plane mil reticle.  I shoot at +1 mile so it's highly likely I'll miss the target so it's important to see the splash and to be able to calculate the error with the reticle and apply it to the turrets.  As field of view is related to magnification, too large a magnification means I may miss seeing the fall of shot so I can't correct.

Too large a mag can be a pain to quickly regain a sight picture due to limited field of view and heat haze can wash out the sight picture entirely.   It's Swings and roundabouts dependant on what you're shooting

[Popsbengo]

41 minutes ago, saddler said:

Apologies for the mixed units in the following

You may need to redefine high magnification/long distance

Most WW2 sniper scopes were between 2 1/4 power & 4 power. These for rifles used up to around 1000 yards
Most modern small-arms scopes are similarly around 4 power or less

A rule I was told some time back, which makes some sense, is that IF you want a more custom high power then choose a scope which matches the target distance - so a 10x for 1000 metre work, a 6x for 600m, etc.

The naked eye can pick out 1" at 100 yards - so you want a scope that lets you do at least that at the longer distances
You can obviously choose a higher power, but the trade off is more exaggeration to the hold and other effects such as mirage, etc.

Interesting.  A military scope must cope with a trade-off between field of view and magnification.  WW2 scopes were limited by technology so it's not an overly fair comparison I think. Also, a soldier's target is a crouching man unlike a target shooter that needs to aim much more finely if he/she expects good scores.

If by "exaggeration to the hold" you are referring to unsteadiness of aim being shown up with greater magnification, that's a good thing isn't it?  The wobbles there either way.

[DaveT]

This is just my 10p worth.

A 10x scope will be enough to get you hitting at 1000 yards.

I mostly shoot 1000 at about 20x with a S &B PM2.....  plenty of mag , not too much re mirage, decent eyebox , ni e and light image.

Higher mag will cost you in £ , image will be dimmer and eye position more critical....obviously scopes will vary re glass quality and image brightness ...usually related to how your budget can stretch.

Hi mag is nice to have but I bet you shoot mostly with it backed off to between 20x and 30 x.

[Andrew]

I shoot 10X at 1000.~Andrew

[One on top of two]

Not as much as you would think , if you just shooting fixed distances and as Long as you can see the shot marker  on your target , You really don’t have to spend a deal on your scope . Like Andrew and otherS said x10 will do the Job 👍 

 

[Popsbengo]

1 minute ago, One on top of two said:

Not as much as you would think , if you just shooting fixed distances and as Long as you can see the shot marker  on your target , You really don’t have to spend a deal on your scope . Like Andrew and otherS said x10 will do the Job 👍 

 

Couldn't agree more with 10x being ok. Not optimum for target shooting IMHO as I don't think the OP was suggesting a budget constraint hence a wider choice is open ?

[One on top of two]

Nut behind the trigger pops 😉 

[Popsbengo]

22 minutes ago, One on top of two said:

Nut behind the trigger pops 😉 

Indeed.  That's why all those F class lads use 10x scopes 😁

[No i deer]

I use a vortex golden eagle for f class out too 1200yds..

SFP with a really small dot.

It has 60x magnification.

I've never used more than 40 mag..

Summertime with miraging about 20 at most.

[Trigger73]

Like I mentioned earlier, I'm so used to high mag at such a short distance, it kind of frazzles my brain why someone would only need 10x for 1000 yards? Granted the target is bigger but I can't get my head around 10x mag being enough 😁

[VarmLR]

I can't speak for anyone else nor do I claim what I use is the best wrt mag etc.

What I can say is that for years I shot at 1000 yds with "just" 17x mag and that was plenty.  For BR where the rifle is usually very  solidly supported on some sort of fixed rest, and FOV is less of an issue, ditto shake, then higher mags (the higher the better) are more usual.

However, I've found that once the weather warms up a little, you can start to have issues with mirage as distances go out and mag goes up, and also you compromise depth of field and field of view.  With poorer quality glass you also have less light transmission and a poorer resolution image to start with so winding up the mag makes things often worse instead of helping.

The real key is not just mag' but glass quality.  Give me a really good 10x optic and I'd way rather that at 1000yds than a mediocre one with twice the mag.

The other issue if you are using an all round rifle, not just one built for the range, is all up weight and the last thing you want is a 50x monster with a 34mm tube sat on your rail.  It's all a compromise.

After 35 years of shooting, I have settled on my own compromise which suits me and addresses all the issues above, with all my rifles shod with weights of extras that I can cope with in the field as well as on the range, which give me good image quality, and importantly, very good mechanical reliability and precision.  That matters as much as image quality imho.

My most "rangey" rifle is shod with a S&B PMII 5-25 which still cuts the mustard amongst the latest and greatest and I'd happily use it to 1500yds or more because the glass is up to it as is the mechanical precision and repeatability.

My hunting rifles, also used on the range have respectively a Nightforce NXS and a Bushnell DMR Elite fitted to them.  Both with modest upper reach but both easily 1000yd capable and with great clarity.  Not in the PMII league but what the Nightforce lacks in transmission it makes up for in clarity plus with both those scopes you could bash a fencepost in with the things and they'd probably still work fine (don't try this on Dad's rifle at home kids....he won;t be pleased and would have to explain "turn of phrase" to you in probably painful terms....).

You're spoiled for choice these days and best to do some in depth research and if possible try out the optics before you spend your hard earned.  Good glass can be had relatively modestly with scopes such as the Gen 2 Vortex scopes.  Where scopes are concerned I do think it's a case of buy once, cry once.  Only a rich man can afford to buy cheap glass...

 

 

 

[Popsbengo]

VarmLR has introduced a really important factor: mechanical reliability and repeatable accuracy.  This is also what you pay for along with excellent glass.

100% agree "buy once, cry once.."   There's a rule of thumb about spending the same on the glass as the rifle, and don't forget quality rails and mounts.

[One on top of two]

1 hour ago, Popsbengo said:

Indeed.  That's why all those F class lads use 10x scopes 😁

F class ... all fart and no 5hit 

[No i deer]

The main reason I use my GE on 40 mag is the subtensions on the reticle measure in 1 moa and I can then measure my poi to make adjustments to my mean wind and elevation.

[One on top of two]

The vortex Golden Eagle is a fantastic long range target scope. To the OP .... imho the scope would do everything you want and meet every expectation you could possibly have  . 👍👍

and all backed up with just about the best warranty there is to offer ! 
 

[Trigger73]

Yeah I'm looking into a couple of optics.  I've had some good scopes (Swaro, Leupolds etc) but I sold them on to buy the BR scopes. 

I'm going to keep an eye out on optics warehouse to see if anything pops up for a reasonable price once all this madness dies down, I've got a boxed Hawke Frontier (actually pretty good glass and they track well for the money) which is sitting around doing nothing, that may do for the time being? 

[VarmLR]

Try it and see.  It may be fine and no harm in trying.

My money would never go on another Hawke though..once bitten twice shy...I had a rather pricey one a few years back and it developed a tracking fault.  I noticed that the elevation turret was very graunchy and removed the top cap and dial top screw to remove the dial only to find another piece of alloy plate dial had been snipped roughly to act as a shim and crudely placed underneath it.  Appalled, I sent that one packing and when offered another told them what they could do with it.  Looked nice, glass was very average compared with just about anything Euro or American or Japanese and I'd never buy another.  You can only say it as you find it and plenty are pleased enough to buy one...just not for me.

[Trigger73]

3 minutes ago, VarmLR said:

Try it and see.  It may be fine and no harm in trying.

My money would never go on another Hawke though..once bitten twice shy...I had a rather pricey one a few years back and it developed a tracking fault.  I noticed that the elevation turret was very graunchy and removed the top cap and dial top screw to remove the dial only to find another piece of alloy plate dial had been snipped roughly to act as a shim and crudely placed underneath it.  Appalled, I sent that one packing and when offered another told them what they could do with it.  Looked nice, glass was very average compared with just about anything Euro or American or Japanese and I'd never buy another.  You can only say it as you find it and plenty are pleased enough to buy one...just not for me.

I bought it from OW when they had a sale as I was going to pop it onto my HW100, that's got a Lightstream on it now so the Frontier is still sitting in its box. 

I've had a look at OW earlier and they have the PST Gen 2 FFP for 1K, and a IOR.  I think I may go that route? 🤔

[MarinePMI]

IME, the average 25x top end power for LR (tactical) is due to a couple of reasons.

First off, when zeroing or going after really small targets a higher magnification does help.  That being said, most shoot somewhere in between 12-16x (on average) because field of view is important when performing PID (postive I. D.) of a target.

Too much power gives a shooter tunnel vision, and may have them firing on the wrong target without realizing it.  It also (high power) is much more susceptible to mirage, or the distortion of mirage to be more accurate (Snell's Law).  It is very easy to suddenly start missing high, and not realize it is because of mirage (hence the old saying "sun's up, sight's up...").

The other reason for the 25x fetish is (until recently) is was the capability of a 5x erector, which has been a standard for LR scopes for some time now.  Though admittedly, 6x and 7x erectors that are robust enough to withstand the rigors of tactical long range are coming on the market now.  I'm not an optics expert, so can not explain why, or how this came to be, or what new manufacturing techniques are allowing this, but they are coming out not (NF 7-35x and Leupold Mk5 7-35x for example).  As ELR becomes more popular, I think you will see more 35x top end scopes, but think 25x will continue to be a baseline standard for most.

 

IME, it really comes down to practical useable power, ruggedness and manufacturing practices as to why 25x seems to be the defacto baseline for most LR shooting.

 

JMTCW...

[lee w 118]

3 hours ago, VarmLR said:

I can't speak for anyone else nor do I claim what I use is the best wrt mag etc.

What I can say is that for years I shot at 1000 yds with "just" 17x mag and that was plenty.  For BR where the rifle is usually very  solidly supported on some sort of fixed rest, and FOV is less of an issue, ditto shake, then higher mags (the higher the better) are more usual.

However, I've found that once the weather warms up a little, you can start to have issues with mirage as distances go out and mag goes up, and also you compromise depth of field and field of view.  With poorer quality glass you also have less light transmission and a poorer resolution image to start with so winding up the mag makes things often worse instead of helping.

The real key is not just mag' but glass quality.  Give me a really good 10x optic and I'd way rather that at 1000yds than a mediocre one with twice the mag.

The other issue if you are using an all round rifle, not just one built for the range, is all up weight and the last thing you want is a 50x monster with a 34mm tube sat on your rail.  It's all a compromise.

After 35 years of shooting, I have settled on my own compromise which suits me and addresses all the issues above, with all my rifles shod with weights of extras that I can cope with in the field as well as on the range, which give me good image quality, and importantly, very good mechanical reliability and precision.  That matters as much as image quality imho.

My most "rangey" rifle is shod with a S&B PMII 5-25 which still cuts the mustard amongst the latest and greatest and I'd happily use it to 1500yds or more because the glass is up to it as is the mechanical precision and repeatability.

My hunting rifles, also used on the range have respectively a Nightforce NXS and a Bushnell DMR Elite fitted to them.  Both with modest upper reach but both easily 1000yd capable and with great clarity.  Not in the PMII league but what the Nightforce lacks in transmission it makes up for in clarity plus with both those scopes you could bash a fencepost in with the things and they'd probably still work fine (don't try this on Dad's rifle at home kids....he won;t be pleased and would have to explain "turn of phrase" to you in probably painful terms....).

You're spoiled for choice these days and best to do some in depth research and if possible try out the optics before you spend your hard earned.  Good glass can be had relatively modestly with scopes such as the Gen 2 Vortex scopes.  Where scopes are concerned I do think it's a case of buy once, cry once.  Only a rich man can afford to buy cheap glass...

 

 

 

No true a word spoken 😁

[Chris-NZ]

I agree that 25X is generally adequate for most work, certainly varmints, but F-Class can be another story. Round here, our Clubs generally have a small white aiming square on the target two minutes above the centre for F and FTR shooters to aim at. Its dimensions are roughly an inch at 300 and maybe 1.8" for 5/600.

I robbed the 8-32 NXS off my spare 6.5x47L half way through the season to use on the new .284 which is just for 1000. While I was lining up another NXS, I temporarily threw on an old 16X Tasco SS which, while not having great optics, actually dials acceptably. What I discovered is that the slightly coarse reticle fully covers the aiming mark. Still managed some good scores but you definitely need at least 20X for this application. I should have robbed the 5-25 Swaro off my 6BR varmint gun as the finer reticle and hugely better optics would have done the job better.

[PhilM]

For 10 years I shot 900-1000 recreationally with a Nightforce NXS 3.5-15x50, mostly at 10-15x.

I’d place more value on glass and quality tracking than magnification. 

I have since upgraded to an ATACR 5-25x56, and I shoot the same now usually on 20-25x, it’s a little more comfortable, but I could easily shoot the same on the NXS at 15x.

 

[terryh]

Some interesting posts and perspectives here?

think the ‘around 25x’ as very useable being the best recommendation if you were only looking at magnification, but as other have pointed out tracking and the ret. is important.

Concur with the comment re. High magnification can be a pain re. FOV but can be easily mitigated with a co-witnessed ‘dot’ sight - added one to a scope after loosing the target at distance  after each shot down at Orion.

Not sure on all the high power and heat haze bit, you can always turn the mag down, I see that a lot where folks have the scope cranked right up all the time - again so long as your scope does not change zero while zooming (think FFP scopes suffer less with this?).

also finding it hard to agree with ‘less mag is better than more mag’?? Cannot see in any of the pure accuracy type of shooting, unless governed by rules, that winners choose a low x over a high x, even FT air rifle shooters use high X to help define target distance.

I have some comparatively high mag scopes, 5-40, 10-60 etc. Do I use the high mag, not often, but it’s there if I want to.

IMHO Something like a Votex or Sightron in the -25x range would be just fine and dandy for nearly everything and if you put warranty high up there as a feature then Vortex has a good reputation.

But try and get behind the scope(s) of your choice fist if you can?

Brgds Terry

[KABOOM]

On 4/10/2020 at 10:14 AM, VarmLR said:

I can't speak for anyone else nor do I claim what I use is the best wrt mag etc.

What I can say is that for years I shot at 1000 yds with "just" 17x mag and that was plenty.  For BR where the rifle is usually very  solidly supported on some sort of fixed rest, and FOV is less of an issue, ditto shake, then higher mags (the higher the better) are more usual.

However, I've found that once the weather warms up a little, you can start to have issues with mirage as distances go out and mag goes up, and also you compromise depth of field and field of view.  With poorer quality glass you also have less light transmission and a poorer resolution image to start with so winding up the mag makes things often worse instead of helping.

The real key is not just mag' but glass quality.  Give me a really good 10x optic and I'd way rather that at 1000yds than a mediocre one with twice the mag.

The other issue if you are using an all round rifle, not just one built for the range, is all up weight and the last thing you want is a 50x monster with a 34mm tube sat on your rail.  It's all a compromise.

After 35 years of shooting, I have settled on my own compromise which suits me and addresses all the issues above, with all my rifles shod with weights of extras that I can cope with in the field as well as on the range, which give me good image quality, and importantly, very good mechanical reliability and precision.  That matters as much as image quality imho.

My most "rangey" rifle is shod with a S&B PMII 5-25 which still cuts the mustard amongst the latest and greatest and I'd happily use it to 1500yds or more because the glass is up to it as is the mechanical precision and repeatability.

My hunting rifles, also used on the range have respectively a Nightforce NXS and a Bushnell DMR Elite fitted to them.  Both with modest upper reach but both easily 1000yd capable and with great clarity.  Not in the PMII league but what the Nightforce lacks in transmission it makes up for in clarity plus with both those scopes you could bash a fencepost in with the things and they'd probably still work fine (don't try this on Dad's rifle at home kids....he won;t be pleased and would have to explain "turn of phrase" to you in probably painful terms....).

You're spoiled for choice these days and best to do some in depth research and if possible try out the optics before you spend your hard earned.  Good glass can be had relatively modestly with scopes such as the Gen 2 Vortex scopes.  Where scopes are concerned I do think it's a case of buy once, cry once.  Only a rich man can afford to buy cheap glass...

 

 

 

You mention glass quality and that's a great point, poor glass may darken at higher mag levels ( variable scopes). I never have shot anything over 6x at deer or pronghorn here in the USA. I zero at 6x to 10x depends on the rifle in hand. target size may require more power, mirage exist's seen or not and is a windage factor. Small targets such as sage rats I start at 10x may go higher at long range 500yds or so.