What's the highest magnification you use while hunting from 500 to 1,000 yards?

[Tragik]

Tragik;
In my humble opinion; when you are shooting at the range that you quoted, 500 to 1000 yards.. I would definitely leave the 6.5x47 at home in the gun safe. I believe
the 6.5 is out of its league at the range of anything over 500 yards, especially at an
elk.. I DO believe that shot placement with ANY rifle is of paramount importance
and the thought of trying to harvest and elk with the 6.5 at those ranges is bordering on utmost arrogance.. I DO agree with you on the choice of scope for that range, particular, for the 7MM Saum or the 7 SS..

I do love the Golden Eagle and was torn between that one and the BURRIS XTR II
8x40x50 for my new rifle which is a 300 WIN MAG necked down to a 7MM. I went with the Burris.. I won't go into for the sake of the subject at hand but in my opinion, I would stay with the golden Eagle and use the option of dialing down on the power and unless you have deep pockets and decide to go with the upper end of rifles like the 50 BMR, you will be right in there...

Well I'm not going to leave the 6.5x47 at the gun safe - it's my range gun. I never said anything about hunting with the 6.5x47, let alone hunting with it at 500+ yards. I would agree that it would be arrogant to shoot an elk w/ that caliber at that range.

With that said, whether it be a 7 SS, 7 SAUM, 7 WSM, 7 Rem Mag, etc., the ballistics are easily capable of ethically taking an elk at 1,000 yards. The ethics of that shot are based on the hunter's skill and the wind, regardless of his skill.

Thanks for the feedback on the scope - certainly a diversity of opinions here making it a difficult choice!

 

[knapper]

I respectfully disagree with you guys! While there are displays of "nimrods" that have no business taking shots at ANY range, the knowege and technology, absolutely exists to effectively harvest game at ranges well past 500....That is if the hunter has the talent, and makes the commitment to learn how to do it. Not my opinion but a well proven fact.

Greyfox; I have to agree with you on MOST of your post and like you said as well as what Tragik said also... There are a lot of nimrods that have NO BUSINESS with a rifle in their hands that are wounding a lot of game and will say "Looky there daddy I think I hit that big elk in the foot" He said lets have another beer and then we can go follow the blood trail.. She puts her AR15 that has a 3X9 scope in the back of his $20,000.00 land rover and they head back to camp and their motor home..

 

[lancetkenyon]

A 6.5x47L is fully capable of taking elk to 500+, and deer to 700+ using the right bullet....and proper shot placement.

I have a 6.5SLR that pushes a 127 LRX @ 3050. Or a 140 HVLD @ a leisurely 2840fps. Both have taken deer well past 500. The 127 LRX @ 637 yards, DRT, by my 14 year old daughter, and the 140 HVLD @ 772 by my brother.

I know plenty of guys who have taken elk, both bulls and cows, with a 6.5CM out to 600.

More about the shot placement than the cartridge within reason. I would take an accurate 6.5CM w. good scope for elk to 600 over a crappy .300WM w. a *** scope that doesn't track.

 

[wildcat455]

Tragik, as to your original post, if I were you, I'd pony up for another scope for hunting use.

As to the title of this thread, I don't hunt exclusively from 500-1000 yards.
If that's your thing, and you are willing to pass up closer animals, then ill leave you to it and thank you for leaving the closer ones to me.

My scopes are all in the 5-24X range.

 

[aldeerhunter]

The Stryker is a 5-50 SFP with IR. Worth looking at. Covers both ends nicely.

 

[Hardshot]

Tragik
I see you concern with the golden eagle on a hunting rifle.I love the scope but use them on my bench rest rifles .Were I hunt we have to be able to cover short and long range shots I have gone over to 6 x 24 x 50 on all my guns you can always turn them down, but if you don't have it you can't turn it up.If you really want to get rid of your golden eagle drop me a line

 

[Bravo 4]

I respectfully disagree with you guys! While there are displays of "nimrods" that have no business taking shots at ANY range, the knowege and technology, absolutely exists to effectively harvest game at ranges well past 500....That is if the hunter has the talent, and makes the commitment to learn how to do it. Not an opinion, a well proven fact.

Yep
500 yards isn't what I consider long range, more like medium.
Will I pass up a "medium" range shot? Absolutely, if the conditions aren't right. Heck I passed a less than 50 yard shot on one of the biggest whitetail bucks I've seen while hunting two seasons back.

 

[Rich Coyle]

The exit pupil of the scope gets smaller as magnification increases. This allows less light to reach the shooters eye. Turn the magnification down and the reverse happens. The exit pupil gets larger as the magnification decreases and more light reaches the shooters eye.

Do a comparison as the sun sets. Set your scope on one of its lower magnification settings and aim at something you can easily see before dark. When you can no longer see it turn up the magnification and you will be able to see it again. I have done this so many times I don't consider exit pupil of any value in judging an optic.

 

[Tragik]

Tragik, as to your original post, if I were you, I'd pony up for another scope for hunting use.

As to the title of this thread, I don't hunt exclusively from 500-1000 yards.
If that's your thing, and you are willing to pass up closer animals, then ill leave you to it and thank you for leaving the closer ones to me.

My scopes are all in the 5-24X range.

It's an excellent scope but I don't like spending less than about $1K for a scope due to the decline in optics and preferably $1,500ish. So two scopes for $3K is a bit much at the moment.

 

[Bravo 4]

Do a comparison as the sun sets. Set your scope on one of its lower magnification settings and aim at something you can easily see before dark. When you can no longer see it turn up the magnification and you will be able to see it again. I have done this so many times I don't consider exit pupil of any value in judging an optic.

Rich,
Several years back I had a nice buck step out in a clearing (power line) @ 750 yards. It was daylight enough to see him moving around naked eye amongst a few does, and clear enough in my 8x42 binos to know he was a shooter. However the fixed 16x42 scope I had on the rifle was so dark in the view that I couldn't distinguish which deer he was. Watched him bulldog the doe into the wood line. Luckily he stepped back out a little later when the sun was popping up over the trees, could see him clearly then. He now hangs on my wall.
Lesson learned, sometimes magnification isn't your friend.
Even when target shooting or f-class, mirage gets nasty sometimes.

 

[gohring3006]

I've had targets wash completely out with high mag scopes depending on the sun angle.

 

[jimbires]

I carry my sun shade ,scope extension , with me when I'm using the 8-32 . early and late day I screw it off , or I can't see much at all , it's to dark . mid day I screw it on to tone it down so it's not to bright . I have this scope on a rifle that weighs about 17 pounds , and has a 30" bbl . I use it when I'm watching clear cuts , hill sides , and places like these . it's a dedicated long range rifle , not a carry rifle . chances of getting an up close shot is pretty slim when I hunt with it .

 

[Rich Coyle]

Rich,
Several years back I had a nice buck step out in a clearing (power line) @ 750 yards. It was daylight enough to see him moving around naked eye amongst a few does, and clear enough in my 8x42 binos to know he was a shooter. However the fixed 16x42 scope I had on the rifle was so dark in the view that I couldn't distinguish which deer he was. Watched him bulldog the doe into the wood line. Luckily he stepped back out a little later when the sun was popping up over the trees, could see him clearly then. He now hangs on my wall.
Lesson learned, sometimes magnification isn't your friend.
Even when target shooting or f-class, mirage gets nasty sometimes.

What you described is not even close to what I described. You used two different optics. Obviously the scope was of lesser quality, no matter what you paid for it, than the binoculars. Try doing what I suggested just for general information.

 

[Barrelnut]

What you described is not even close to what I described. You used two different optics. Obviously the scope was of lesser quality, no matter what you paid for it, than the binoculars. Try doing what I suggested just for general information.

Rich, would be helpful if you posted about the technical attributes and science behind the optics that support your observations. Otherwise, they are just your observations and may not apply to others and their situations. There is undeniable physics associated with the how and why things work.

Bravo gave the physical characteristics of the optics used in his observations. To say that one optic was obviously of lesser quality than the other is just pure speculation. Quality of optic coatings and internals can make a difference in optics performance, up to a point. I believe, it's obvious that at some point cost/performance curves cross and the physical attributes of the optics will be more important. Otherwise manufacturers of optics would not focus on the size of the front objective as a primary factor in low light performance.