What Is More Import...
 
Notifications
Clear all

What Is More Important-Higher Mag or Better Glass?

30 Posts
12 Users
0 Likes
8,682 Views
Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

If your budget was limited (whose isn't?) would you go for a higher magnification scope, say 32x and above to see your targets better and rangefind better, or would you go for a higher quality scope with better glass but at a lower mag, say 24x, because the clearer glass might let you rangefind better?  Let's say your budget is $450 and at this price-point, clicking elevations is probably out of the question for reliable repeatable results, so you would use holdover/under instead.

 

Thanks for your replies!


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@uglyjohn)
Minnesota
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 89
 

If you intend to use it in FT it probably depends on which class you will be shooting in. I’m in Hunter so with 16X limit I’d definitely go for better glass provided it met the other requirements.   Uj


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@marineo6)
North Carolina
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 77
 

Go with a quality fixed power scope.  You get much more bang for your buck. Not schooled on the lower-ish end ones, I use a March 48x52 but I know Leupold makes some highly rated fixed power scopes you might get used for somewhere near your budget.
Many people who use variable power scopes end up using them at one certain power most of the time anyway, and a fixed power lets you get a lot more scope for the money.


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@bill_s)
Wisconsin
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 460
 

What distances are you shooting at? If you're under 100 yards, i see no benefit to really high mag. 


   
ReplyQuote
straitflite
(@straitflite)
Ohio
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 764
 

Glass.

If the glass is of high order, then likely as not the scope will be as well.


   
ReplyQuote
Doug_Wall
(@doug_wall)
New York
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 297
 

"to see your targets better and rangefind better"

One thing that you have to remember is that the higher the magnification (for a given objective size), the darker the image is. Does that darker image interfere with you seeing the target- maybe. Larger objectives and better glass will help with this, so I guess that you could say that if you want to go with higher magnification, you should get better glass. Hunter Field Target allows magnification up to 16X (used to be 12X), and that allows for "reasonable" rangefinding out to the 55 yards that Field Target uses. I find that scopes like UTG are OK for that. Maybe the best way for someone to figure it out for themselves, would be to go to a good sporting goods/gun shop, and do a side by side of a bunch of their scopes.


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@_270windude)
Oregon
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 61
 

Lots of options in that price range. Excellent question though. I battle with this a lot. If it were centerfire I could make some great recommendations. For airgunning I’d say glass quality all the way over magnification. Any decent magnification should get the job done but looking through expensive glass vs lower cost is a huge difference. The extra magnification helps but won’t compensate. 


   
ReplyQuote

Avatar
(@hector_j_medina_g)
Maryland
Moderator
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 1301
 
Posted by: @scrench

If your budget was limited (whose isn't?) would you go for a higher magnification scope, say 32x and above to see your targets better and rangefind better, or would you go for a higher quality scope with better glass but at a lower mag, say 24x, because the clearer glass might let you rangefind better?  Let's say your budget is $450 and at this price-point, clicking elevations is probably out of the question for reliable repeatable results, so you would use holdover/under instead.

 

Thanks for your replies!

Scrench;

Since you posted this in the airgun section and not the FT section, I am going to assume that you are not an FT shooter, though your reference to "rangefinding" seems intriguing to me under this context.

"Seeing better" has two parts:

- on one side it's the acuity (capability to resolve small details) of the optical system (and that includes your eyeglasses, if any, AND your EYES). This part is mainly performed by the cones in your retina

- on the other side is the capability to discern the target's details under low lighting conditions (this is performed mostly by the rods, and the capability to feed your brain information about the stereoscopical aspect of vision by the rods is limited.

We all have slightly different mixtures of rods and cones; that is genetically determined, though there seems to be SOME indication that you can TRAIN your rods, but not your cones.

Given the above, there is no set answer to your question. I can tell you that for MOST shooters with reasonable, non-defective eyesights (no cataracts, floaters, or retinal disease), magnifications from 24X to 29X yields a "happy medium" where magnification is high enough to be useful, but not overwhelming. For example, some shooters that shoot at 35X and above, need a coaxial red-dot so that they can point the scope in the right direction AND THEN aim at the target. Some that refuse to do this "time out" on their shots, either because the pigeon/starling decided to move, or because the clock/timer started beeping.

As pointed above, the higher the magnification, the "darker" the sight picture is. A scope that can perform VERY well at 16X might be horribly dark at 32X. Since this is true, shooting in dark and light conditions MIGHT indicate some advantage to using a variable, as you can use it at high mags in good light, and then reduce the mag for low light conditions (this has an inherent problem with the reticle's hold off points that we will discuss later).

What has not been pointed here is that the Field of View also goes in inverse relation to the magnification. In "general application" guns, you need FoV's that are wide enough to locate, follow and determine if the shot is a safe shot to take, and that can only happen with relatively large FoV's, which come with lower magnifications in the range of 5X to 9X.

Another aspect that has been mentioned is the use of a fixed mag vs a variable mag scopes. Yes it is true that for the same amount of money, you can get better optics in a fixed mag scope than in a variable mag scope. AND, it also comes with the fact that then it does not really matter if you get a First Focal Plane scope or not. If you are considering NOT-clicking then, in a variable, it would be best to think of a First Focal Plane scope. A Second Focal Plane scope would be too complicated to use in the field, unless you select one magnification to use exclusively.

$450, is quite a "generous" budget, I would have no problem choosing a "do all" scope to go from a barn-pesting scenario, to an FT match; but I do have some experience in optics and have tested dozens of scopes. I have designed a few reticles and two of them are on offer in different scopes. I have also built quite a lot of custom guns for many different purposes, and so I have talked to dozens of shooters having more or less the same questions as you do.

Now, on the subject of reticles, IF you are more used to MOA's, then choose a reticle that was designed under MOA multipliers AND MOA turrets. If you are confident in using Metric, then use a MRAD reticle WITH MRAD turrets.

PERSONALLY, under the $450 budget, I would go for the Vortex Optics Diamondback 6-24X50 FFP in MRAD, but that is just because I am "native metric". The same scope is available in MOA units. The EBR 2-C reticle is a great reticle to use for hold-offs (both elevation and windage), and although it may seem a bit "busy" at first, it will take you less than a month to "learn" how to use it.

One more important point about using "busy" reticles is that they FORCE you to CONCENTRATE on the reticle. Which is the same as concentrating on the front sight when using metallic sights. For 95% of the persons THIS IS THE RIGHT way of aiming a gun (and that can be a different conversation). Though most shooters concentrate on the target when using a scope, those shooters that shoot more than one discipline fare better concentrating on the reticle.

You may find that the recommended Vortex is out of stock in many outlets, and there is a reason for that: it is one of the best scopes for the money, bar-none; and so it gets sold out almost as fast as the production runs come in.

We've had to wait up to 5 weeks to get one delivered, so by now, I order the scope in advance of the build. Yes, it is that good.

HTH and if I can be of further assistance, just drop me a PM, I will match any advertised price in serious websites.

😉

 

Keep well and shoot straight!

 

 

 

 

HM


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@marineo6)
North Carolina
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 77
 
Posted by: @hector-j-medina-g

One more important point about using "busy" reticles is that they FORCE you to CONCENTRATE on the reticle. Which is the same as concentrating on the front sight when using metallic sights. For 95% of the persons THIS IS THE RIGHT way of aiming a gun (and that can be a different conversation). Though most shooters concentrate on the target when using a scope, those shooters that shoot more than one discipline fare better concentrating on the reticle.

Interesting point which leads me back to a fixed power rig...The higher power fixed power scopes (Leupold Competition Series for example) are typically designed as bench rest target scopes with very fine target dot crosshair reticles with very small dots, generally 1/8-3/32 mil. This definitely makes you concentrate on the reticle cuz you can’t see it otherwise. There are no additional markings which for me is perfect as I rangefind, dial in the elevation, then simply have to hold off for any windage without extraneous clutter.
So if you’re going to use this for field target Open or WFTF I’d still go with a higher power fixed, but if it’s for general use or HFT Hector’s suggestion is probably better.


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@richeick)
Wisconsin
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 47
 

@270windude

I WOULD SAY BETTER GLASS, IT'S WORTH IT  !


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

Thank you for all of the replies!  I was deliberately a little vague to see where this would go, but here is the the rest of the story:

The purpose for the scope will be for 25m, 50y Benchrest primarily, but occasional FT and Silhouette, definitely a "one scope to do it all".  It's to be mounted on a HW97KT.  I have owned two Sightron SIII's, but do not want to put that kind of money into another scope (I know, I never should have sold them), nor do I want to feel guilty again about how much money I have tied up in this sport.  I'm sure that at the specified price range glass quality is going to be a compromise, and I know that tracking won't be so great either, which is why I will zero at 25m for BR, and just holdover for FT and Sil.  My inclination is to go for 1/8 MOA, but only a few at this price have it.  I'll need a full reticle, not a target dot.  I've owned several Bushnell 3200's and 4200's, a Weaver T-24, the two Sightron's, several Hawke's, a Nikko Nighteater, and a Mueller which was my first attempt at this, and although it had great specs, was a little too cheap for the job.  The prime candidates I see at the moment are:

Athlon Argos BTR Gen II 10-40x56 (Frontrunner, but is the glass good enough?)

Vortek Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 (Enough mag and quality glass for accurate rangefinding to 55 yards?)

Bushnell Match Pro 6-24x50 (Will they be there to back it up?  Enough mag?  Glass?) 

Your suggestion _______________________

 

I have no experience with the Vortek vs Athlon battle other than what I read on the net, but I get the feeling that 24x is not going to cut it, unless the glass were outstanding, which none of these are.

 

I am perusing the used market, but it's kind of bare right now, and since it will be mounted on a springer, I may need to make use of a warranty.

 


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@hector_j_medina_g)
Maryland
Moderator
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 1301
 
Posted by: @marineo6

Interesting point which leads me back to a fixed power rig...The higher power fixed power scopes (Leupold Competition Series for example) are typically designed as bench rest target scopes with very fine target dot crosshair reticles with very small dots, generally 1/8-3/32 mil. This definitely makes you concentrate on the reticle cuz you can’t see it otherwise. There are no additional markings which for me is perfect as I rangefind, dial in the elevation, then simply have to hold off for any windage without extraneous clutter.
So if you’re going to use this for field target Open or WFTF I’d still go with a higher power fixed, but if it’s for general use or HFT Hector’s suggestion is probably better.

M06.- We're all different, and a lot depends on how much practice/training you have. I started using Mil-dots and PSO-1 reticles in 1972, by 2000 I was using the first Horus-Vision scope (made by Hakko) with the "Xmas Tree". 

I've been teaching, coaching, and training shooters for over 40 years. IMHO and experience: in the field, practical, real-life shooting does not allow clicking. And since I do have the habit I shoot FT (WFTF) with hold-off's, besides, the OP did mention his intention to NOT use clicking.

Problem, when you do NOT click and you have to define in advance the aimpoint for elevation and wind-drift i the "simpler" reticles, is that sometimes you would need to hold in a "vacuum" and THAT is really hard. Not impossible, but takes more training and more practice.

Additionally, I always warn users of those scopes that have extremely fine reticles, aging eyes simply CANNOT resolve some of the really fine ones.

Again, we are all different and I was just trying to adjust to the OP's requirement/specs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

HM


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@hector_j_medina_g)
Maryland
Moderator
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 1301
 
Posted by: @scrench

Thank you for all of the replies!  I was deliberately a little vague to see where this would go, but here is the the rest of the story:

The purpose for the scope will be for 25m, 50y Benchrest primarily, but occasional FT and Silhouette, definitely a "one scope to do it all".  It's to be mounted on a HW97KT.  I have owned two Sightron SIII's, but do not want to put that kind of money into another scope (I know, I never should have sold them), nor do I want to feel guilty again about how much money I have tied up in this sport.  I'm sure that at the specified price range glass quality is going to be a compromise, and I know that tracking won't be so great either, which is why I will zero at 25m for BR, and just holdover for FT and Sil.  My inclination is to go for 1/8 MOA, but only a few at this price have it.  I'll need a full reticle, not a target dot.  I've owned several Bushnell 3200's and 4200's, a Weaver T-24, the two Sightron's, several Hawke's, a Nikko Nighteater, and a Mueller which was my first attempt at this, and although it had great specs, was a little too cheap for the job.  The prime candidates I see at the moment are:

Athlon Argos BTR Gen II 10-40x56 (Frontrunner, but is the glass good enough?)

Vortek Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 (Enough mag and quality glass for accurate rangefinding to 55 yards?)

Bushnell Match Pro 6-24x50 (Will they be there to back it up?  Enough mag?  Glass?) 

Your suggestion _______________________

 

I have no experience with the Vortek vs Athlon battle other than what I read on the net, but I get the feeling that 24x is not going to cut it, unless the glass were outstanding, which none of these are.

 

I am perusing the used market, but it's kind of bare right now, and since it will be mounted on a springer, I may need to make use of a warranty.

 

Scrench;

From looking through them side by side, I can tell you that you would have to go to the Helos or Midas lines in the Athlon brand to compare OPTICALLY with the Vortex.

In Optics, it is painfully true that you get what you pay for, and Visual Acuity is what will allow you to discern the small details that make rangefinding a precise, rather than an "approximate" exercise.

Whether you can shoot offhand at 24X or not is what will determine if you need a FFP or can deal with a SFP scope. And you will need to practice a LOT to take offhand shots with no clicking.

Bushnell has this recent history of putting great scopes on line, only to drop them a year or two later. But they have always allowed "upgrades", so they shouldn't be completely off.

Try locating a store that carries them and go one evening, when light starts to get low, and look through them.

Best of lucks and if I can be of further assistance, drop me a PM.

 

 

 

 

HM


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

I'm a set it at one power and forget it kind of guy, and I used to shoot silhouette at 24X.  How about a Vortex Strike Eagle, first gen, now on sale under $400?  From what I see online, the tracking is much better than the DB Tactical, the reticle looks very usable for my purposes, and the clarity looks like it's enough to distinguish yardages at 50-55.  It only focuses down to 20 yards, but a furry 10 yard FT target wouldn't bother me at all.  Seems like that would be it's only drawback. 


   
ReplyQuote

Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

I jumped on the Strike Eagle for $380 before they all disappear.  They have been replaced with a Gen II version.  Chad, at Vortex, went above and beyond testing one he had in his hand to see if it will do everything I want, including testing the clarity of the focus on signs and cars outside his store at 50-55 yards to make sure it can do it.  Man, what other company would do that, starting with just answering the phone?  Hope the scope works, because their customer service is stellar.  I have 15 days to return it for full refund.  Can't wait!

 

Forgot to add, now I need a new set of 30 mm rings.  Prefer high or super high for the HW97KT.  The last set I used kept slipping rearward on me because the rings were mounted on risers, and the contact point wasn't strong enough, I guess.  I think I also blew out my cheap-o Centerpoint scope in the process.  Any suggestions for good rings that won't slip or break the bank?  


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@marineo6)
North Carolina
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 77
 
Posted by: @hector-j-medina-g

besides, the OP did mention his intention to NOT use clicking.

Actually he said he assumed a scope at this price point would not allow reliable, repeatable clicking and would force him to use holdover which I assumed meant he’d like to click but thought the scope wouldn’t allow it. If he could have scored a better used fixed power scope it sounded like he’d prefer clicking.

Anyway good points on the fine crosshairs, I’m pretty old but have 20/20 so can make out the crosshairs but as you say it ain’t always easy!

I am no ways comfortable holding over, and in WFTF with those light pellets you’re not only holding over for elevation but also considerably for windage...your sight picture must get pretty interesting on windy days and farther targets!


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

I mentioned not clicking because as Marine 06 said, I assumed a scope at this price point would not be very accurate.  But, tracking tests I've seen indicate the Strike Eagle might be able to pull it off, so I'm certainly going to give it a try, for all the reasons M6 already outlined.  And I would not have minded a single power scope, say 32 or 40X, but that limits you to a Weaver, which I already had and didn't like the glass, or Leupold, which I would dearly LOVE to have but can't afford, even used.  The few other offerings seem to be on the cheap end or high end, neither of which interested me.  SE should be here mid-week, and I'll let you know how it works out. 


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@hector_j_medina_g)
Maryland
Moderator
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 1301
 

@ Scrench and Marine06.-

Tests have proven that some inexpensive scopes track better than VERY expensive ones (on the clicking side). Mechanics are not optics.

 

@ Scrench.-

I did not consider the Strike Eagle (Gen I) for two reasons:

1.- It is not focusable, at higher mags, to 10 yards. Now, THAT has a solution for FT: You set a target at 10 yards once you have setup your scope (AO and ER), and you put the parallax knob to the closest limit. You then reduce the mag till the target is clear. Then you will know that at that point you have a 10 yard target. If the mag ring does not do the trick, then you try at 11, 12, etc. until you have solid ground to stand on. From there, it becomes an exercise in "guesstimation". You do need to remember to reset the mag to max for holding off the wind, as you loose the FFP capabilities.

2.- For a springer, the Diamondback line is the one that has demonstrated supreme survivability. Vortex has the BEST warranty and customer service in the optics industry in the US, and that is why it is one of my three "go to" companies, just be aware. Tune your 97 to be as smooth as possible (as in vibrations free, the first shock is not as important), and let me know if you want to test an Accurized ZR Mount. It will give you the proper LOS height for FT, while still being within the realm of the logical for Metallic Silhouette and BR.

I am sure you will be happy with the glass, they are VERY good scopes, congrats on your find!

Keep well and shoot straight.

 

 

 

 

 

HM


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

Hector,

Something else just popped up right near my price range.  Do you have any experience with a Falcon T50 10-50x60?  Apparently the Brits consider them entry level for FT, but I know nothing about them.  No problem to return the SE if you think this would be a superior choice.  It's selling for under $500 including a 150 mm parallax wheel, and has the right specs, 1/8 moa, focus down to 9 yards, but if the glass is not as sharp as the Vortex, higher mag probably isn't going to help.

 

The Gen I SE is SPF, not FFP like the Gen II.  Surprisingly, this 97 does not have barrel droop like my first one did.

 

The phrases that seems to go along with inexpensive scope turrets is "mushy" and "indistinct" which implies imprecision.


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@hector_j_medina_g)
Maryland
Moderator
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 1301
 

Scrench;

For a time, we distributed Falcon in the US, we probably sold half a dozen scopes, MOSTLY T50's. Sadly, the support received for problems encountered simply made the commercial side of it untenable. SOME of them were very good, some of them weren't and, as a responsible supplier, I ended up fielding the shipping fees back and forth. To the UK, that made it a loosing proposition. We cut our ties to them about 7 years ago when we started working with SIGHTRON. I really cannot tell if the newer generation of scopes are much better than the older ones (which were already Gen II for them).

I've heard good things about the CURRENT S30 5-30X56 FFP scope, but at the WFTC's you don't see them.

From my recollection, the Falcon T-50 (the predecessor of the current X50) at 24X would be just as sharp / clear as the Vortex SE or Db/T (virtually the same glass) at the same mag. At 40X it started getting dark and fuzzy. At 50X you needed bright light/open sky light to really appreciate details (lost acuity).

IIRC, the 'new' price for those was about $500.

HTH

 

 

 

 

 

HM


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

Thanks Hector.

I think I'll pass on the T50.  After what I experienced with Vortex customer service, I don't even want to think about dealing with a company overseas. 

I experienced the same thing with both SIII's, mainly using them at 40x.  Beyond that clarity and light gathering started falling off rapidly.  


   
ReplyQuote

Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

Well, back to the drawing board.

 

I tested the 4-24X50 Votex Strike Eagle and it was found wanting in several areas.

 

Chromatic aberration was bad, distracting, and caused color shift.

The exit pupil at high power made eye alignment super critical with a very small window.

The clarity of the glass was no better than a $75 Clearpoint I got from Wal-Mart, and was not clear enough to make accurate rangefinding possible.

It only focused down to 20 yards, but I accepted that going in.  I really do need 10 yard minimum.

The numbers on the reticle got in the way of rangefinding.

 

Thank goodness for 15 day trial and full refund.

 

This tells me that the Athlon's and lesser Vortex's I was looking at would probably be a disappointment, and I need to scoop up something in the used market, but I'm going to give that Bushnell Match Pro a serious look. 

BTW, the whole thing about using holdover instead of clicking, in particular for field target, is because I found myself to be very slow for some reason at it, always finishing last with whatever group I was in, and I'm hoping holdover will speed things up enough for me to not be "that guy".


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@hector_j_medina_g)
Maryland
Moderator
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 1301
 

@scrench

I am sorry the Strike Eagle didn't met your standards, I hope you would test the Diamondback Tactical, but I would understand if you weren't willing to spend more time on the issue. Since you are getting full refund, for the store where you bought the scope from, it should be a simple thing to send you a DB Tactical to test, and only if you like it they can charge the difference. JMHO.

I have found people that tell me the SE's are not "color correct" meaning that the colors they see through the scope are not the colors they perceive directly. MOSTLY, it's been people with corrective glasses, and not true shooting glasses (that put the lens in a perpendicular plane to the scope's optical axis). But there was one instance of a non-glasses-wearing shooter that told me he found the colors a bit "shifted".

I am wondering if this is what you found. Color abherration is the distortion of colors around the edges of objects, or around the edges of the whole sight picture, different problems (optically speaking), but the same name.

And it is an important reason why we need to ensure that the scope is working at its optical axis. Color aberration is most noticeable when it is a lateral chromatic aberration, like this:

Chromatic Aberration Diagram

 

When the aberration happens all in the same line, the eye does not detect it as much. When it is shifted laterally, it becomes VERY apparent.

Anyway, apologies on behalf of Vortex Optics, and keep us posted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

HM


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

This is why I chose the SE over the DT.

Chad at Vortex agreed that the glass and overall construction of the SE would be the next level up from the DT.

Even though I saw the CA on the video, I didn't think it would be that bad.    

     


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@hector_j_medina_g)
Maryland
Moderator
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 1301
 

@scrench

Interesting review Scrench, thanks!

All in all, there is NOTHING in the video that would have told me to choose the SE over the DB. And the reason is simple: The needs of this person are completely different from the needs of an airgunner.

Let alone the fact that, for the purposes stated at almost the end of the video (stand shooting deer), I would have chosen a completely different tool. There is NO way you need a 6-24 for a stand rifle. Yet, whatever tickles each ones' fancies.

Last, he clearly has too much money and too many guns. It would be easy to learn how to deal with all the things that put him off if he used one setup. I would gladly learn to use the LOWER label per click of a scope than having to spend $200 more on one. AND, as a hold-off shooter, I don't really care too much about the clicks.

So, between a reasonable eyesight (even at 64 YO), and good shooting habits, the FFP is much more important to ME than what he thinks. BUT, as he says so himself, he has bad eyesight, he is not a long range shooter, and he is not in the habit/need to shoot at small targets. All of these, BTW, are exactly the "definition" of those who come up in the ranking of an FT Match.

PERSONALLY, I would have spent the $2,200 he spent on the three scopes to get a good Kahles in the 1-6X range ( https://www.eurooptic.com/Kahles-K16i-1-6x24-3GR-Reticle-Riflescope-10649.aspx ) . For shooting deer from a stand, and even out to 300 yards, that's all you need. 

Again, thanks for the link, interesting to see how diametrically opposite the needs of airgunners are from the perceived needs of some of the PB's.

Keep well and shoot straight!

 

 

 

 

 

HM


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@scrench)
Louisiana
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 20
Topic starter  

Oh, I agree with you completely.  It was the comparison photos and footage of the reticles that meant something to me.  Not his circumstance. 


   
ReplyQuote
nced
(@nced)
North Carolina
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 144
 

I'm currently using "mid class optics" (4-16x44 "Hawke AirMax 30 SF Compact) for my general shooting and hunter class field target using a HW95 break barrel and found this thread to be very interesting.

A couple decades ago I was using a 4-16x40 Bushnell Elite 4200 with a simple duplex reticle and actually did well shooting hunter class at 12x max back then. Shooting the 2010 National FT match I even took 4th place using that scope and holdover in the hunter class where there were 17 entries, however it was a "mixed PCP/piston class"  with 12 PCP shooters and 5 piston shooters......

 

 

Using a Beeman R9 break barrel in 2006 I even shot a hunter class 53/60 at a DIFTA match with the Elite 4200 set at 12x but the current course difficulties are considerably higher...........

That was over a decade ago and it SEEMS I'm currently shooting more "lottery shots" than "high confidence shots" even using a 16x setting and the Hawke AMX IR reticle instead of a duplex reticle set at 12x.

Currently shooting at 16x I really haven't found that I can "range guesstimate" any better than I did when I was using a 12x setting, and the comments made about higher mags make me think that perhaps using the Hawke scope at 16x might be part of the issues I'm having (then again it could be simply a matter of 73 year old eyes). I'm having a lot of trouble actually seeing a black painted target set in a dark shady lane (several of those at a CCGC match). At the FT match on Saturday there was one black faced target that I literally couldn't see through the scope to get a rangefind, all I could see was some "grey lead splatters" that I tried to focus on. LOL...I couldn't even see a killzone to aim at. I shot what I believe is my lowest score of 23/60 on Saturday (tad over 30%).

Anywhoo......I'm now wondering if using a 16x max AirMax setting is PART of my "poorly seeing dark painted targets on shady lanes" issues. LOL....can't hit what I can't see even though a 16x setting does make the image bigger, and I assume a shallower depth of field, however I could get a more reliable scope rangefind using the 4-16x40 Bushnell Elite 4200 set at 12x.

I'm thinking of doing some "old school 12x HFT practice" at my "backyard shooting lane" just to see if using 12x on a "16x max scope" is any worse than using the scope at max mag. The scope isn't what I would call a "cheap scope" at about $340 from Pyramyd Air.


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@pointyhead)
Ohio
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 29
 

Maybe an SWFA scope would work. The highest magnification options top out at 20x, so that might be a deal-breaker for you. However, the glass quality, absolute dead-on tracking, durability, and weight are pretty much unmatched at their price point. Aside from a low top end magnification, the other knock is that the supply chain has been throttled, so they are tough to find at the moment.

I will add an unpopular opinion that the Diamondback Tactical is.. not great. I jumped on the bandwagon when they were first released, and I was not impressed by any feature of the scope. For me the reticle would have been too fine to be useful for hunting scenarios, and any power below ~14x was pointless for target shooting as the condensed reticle obscured the point of aim. Above that zoom level it was serviceable, but the image quality was just not there. The scope lacked both contrast and resolution. It seemed to try to make up for those shortcomings by being bright, which turned into a white-washed image in direct sunlight- and could have been great as a low-light hunter- had it not been for the aforementioned thin reticle and no illumination. Turrets did not feel precise, and at 100yds mine tracked with almost a 10% error. Aberration on mine was not too bad, but noticeable. For someone graduating from a box store scope, it would probably seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it was just ok for me. I sold it in short order.


   
ReplyQuote

nced
(@nced)
North Carolina
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 144
 

@pointyhead

 

Years ago I looked at the specs for the 12x and 16x fixed SWFA scope and don't see how it could be very useful for scope rangefinding is used for hunter class field target shooting. The odd (to me) small rear focusing ring would be difficult for mounting USEFUL yardage marks. Also the reticle seems to be very busy and thin so  considering that the scope doesn't have an "illuminated reticle feature" I know it would get lost on a dark target in shade.


   
ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@dcw)
California
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 78
 

usually $$$$=quality...

 


   
ReplyQuote

Airgun Warriors