Is there such a thing as, "too much scope"?

[C-130 Dude]

I've heard the statement that there is no such thing as, "too much scope". Cost is certainly a factor. Adjustment options too. So is low and high magnification.

And I've heard arguments for and against. Some like it (or not) for hunting use and some for target use. And some like it (or not) for both.

(I have old eyes so I tend to like lots of magnification.)

Let's keep the conversation limited to variable optics and usage range under 1000yds.

But what do you guys think?

 

[Mike D Texas]

With adjustment ranges of 6,8 & 10x magnification adjustment, I say no. There is nothing saying you have to turn it all the way up.

Many times I will zoom to max power to look and analyze the animal and turn back down to shoot.

 

[milo-2]

Too much scope IMO could mean 2 things, bulk, or too high of a low magnification setting.
Hunting in some areas, I think you can encounter too much magnification, and added length-weights may not be conducive to efficient hunting.
Now LR hunting in open areas, not sure this is possible. If a 15-60 power scope was made, may be a little much.
Target shooting, not PRS type, I cannot see too much, ever.

 

[30378wbymag]

I think there is a point of diminishing returns. I use Swarovski EL 10x42 bino's but have less $$ scopes. The two scopes on my big game rifles, big 30 and 6.5 PRC are Bushnell DMR II's, for me these scopes rock and you can get em for under 1k usually. They're not Swaro or Zeiss quality glass but I'm not behind a rifle scope for extended glassing sessions either... I have decent scopes on other rifles, Leupold MK4, Zeiss conquest. I've never felt "under scoped"

 

[Bravo 4]

I'm not necessarily a high magnification kind of guy, but agree that it can be useful in situations. The problem I see is that folks have a tendency to always keep their scopes on too high a setting. This narrows your FOV and makes target acquisition slower. Our students must turn the power down every time they come off the line.
I will turn the power up to where the reticle and intended target are adequate for engaging and that I can spot my own impacts. About the only time I turn a scope up past about 15-18 is when I'm identifying a certain animal/person or when zeroing the optic.
This is with FFP optics, SFP you have to take into consideration where the reticle subtends if you so choose to use it. There are ways around that too.
For PRS I run my scope mostly between 12-15 to help keep the target in view after impact, but I'm also running a .308.

 

[Rick Richard]

In my opinion too much magnification can distort image quality and when on max magnification can create eye box issues...great when shooting off a bench, but difficult in field situations.

 

[Cberndt]

I hunt with fixed power but that's not the discussion.

I think too much scope is an erector ratio that's too high. In most cases anything over 5 is too much for our current technology to give a good view on both ends of the spectrum. A 5-25 or 7-35 or 4-20 almost always does a good job without people using words like "tunneling" etc. there are some 6x-8x erectors that do ok, just not that many.

I doubt I answered your question but I think when people want too much from one scope is when it becomes too much. A 3-15 is almost always better glass than a 3-18, etc.

 

[choprzrul]

Heavy optic sitting on top of a heavy recoiling rifle.....what could possibly go wrong?

Can we assert that the functions of a muzzle brake also includes reducing recoil stress on our optics?

.

 

[scrmblr1982cj8]

The only time it ever bothered me was when I lived in SC and I took my target .223 to a 400 yard homemade range. My target .223 has a NF 12-42x56. I was shooting over a soybean field when I noticed hogs walking through the beans about 75 yards in front of me. Even on the lowest magnification, it took me a few minutes to find the hogs. By the time I found them, they were almost out of the field. I got one of them, but could have got off a few more shots if I didn't have so much trouble locating them.

 

[338 dude]

I've heard the statement that there is no such thing as, "too much scope". Cost is certainly a factor. Adjustment options too. So is low and high magnification.

And I've heard arguments for and against. Some like it (or not) for hunting use and some for target use. And some like it (or not) for both.

(I have old eyes so I tend to like lots of magnification.)

Let's keep the conversation limited to variable optics and usage range under 1000yds.

But what do you guys think?

The most magnification I can possibly get as long as the lowest setting is 4or 5 for hunting.
I'm pushing 60 so for targets the most magnification I can afford !

 

[Blacktailer]

Yes you can have too much of a good thing IMHO. Putting a 32oz scope on a 6lb rifle sounds silly to me but to each his own. Also the type of shots that you anticipate may mean that you have too much magnification as scrmblr said above. For some of the hunting situations 4x is too much BTDT.

 

[Koda_]

Yes.
Magnificationn needs can be subjective but, IMO, if your max magnification exceeds your rifles effective range / terminal velocity then you have "too much scope".

Likewise if your MIN magnification impares your FOV for close range work you have "too much scope".

 

[3chester]

Like to have 3X to 4X power for each 100yards of the shot's distance. Nice to have a low of 2.5x-3x power in the lowest range, for stalking. Never seen the need for much over 50mm on the big end.

 

[Mark37082]

It depends on situation and where you are hunting. Having a wide field of view for quick target acquisition is critical where I do most of my hunting. I may also set up on a clear cut where 500-700 yard shots are a possibility. Finding that critter in the scope and zooming in for a clear precise shot needs 15X or more on top for my old eyes. I hunted with a 3-9 for decades and harvested more animals than any of more expensive scopes I have today.