LR huntign with low power scopes

[rjackh]

im stil deciding on what scope to get for my rifle. its a 700 sps-v in .308, its my go to hunting rifle for deer, pigs and varmints. i want to start shooting long range, but dont see myself ever actually shooting 1000 yds. ive always thought something around 4-16 power range would suit me well. i have been looking at IORs 2.5-10x42 ffp mil/mil scope and im leaning towards it. i like everything about it, i just cant decide if its got enough power on the high end for long shots. a larger scope also means more weight and i would like to keep the rifle as skinny as possible.

do any of yall hunt with 10x scopes? whats the longest yall have shot with those scopes, and did you feel that 10x was enough at that range? thanks

 

[SBruce]

Others will probably have different preferences, but here's what I like.

I've used 10X on coyotes out to about 400 yds, but that's pretty much the max distance I am comfortable shooting coyotes with 10X.

I've used 12X for deer/antelope out to about 550.

I really like around 15 or 16 for about any thing in the 300 to 700 range.

I like 18-25 for load testing/development and beyond 700 if the mirage isn't too bad.

 

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

Not suggesting this but I'm just putting it out there. I can and have on many occasions put a full mag of 5.56 on a full sized human silouite at 800 meters with a 4x ACOG.

Just saying that it can be dont with 4x

 

[Whip-Line]

I have to go along with ICANHITHIMMAN. I recently stepped down to a fixed 6 power scope and have had excellent results out to 565 yards on a ten inch steel plate. Sometimes less is more. Its plausible to think that to high a magnification will net less versatility.

 

[SBruce]

im stil deciding on what scope to get for my rifle. its a 700 sps-v in .308, its my go to hunting rifle for deer, pigs and varmints. i want to start shooting long range, but dont see myself ever actually shooting 1000 yds. ive always thought something around 4-16 power range would suit me well. i have been looking at IORs 2.5-10x42 ffp mil/mil scope and im leaning towards it. i like everything about it, i just cant decide if its got enough power on the high end for long shots. a larger scope also means more weight and i would like to keep the rifle as skinny as possible.

do any of yall hunt with 10x scopes? whats the longest yall have shot with those scopes, and did you feel that 10x was enough at that range? thanks

As I mentioned above, I prefer a little more but I've bought a 2.5-10 NF compact to put on a custom AR-15 after load development is finished. For the same reason you mention, I don't want a huge heavy scope sitting on top of an already "high center of gravity" rifle.

As others have mentioned here, the lower powers are nice for wider field of view and especially for moving shots.

I can let you know how far I am able to see and connect on prarie dogs with the 10X when I get it mounted up, but it may be a while...?

The nice thing about higher powers is the ability to "aim small, miss small" I like how the higher powers (14-16) magnify enough to really pick a point of aim on the target.....more able to call where you were when the shot broke. I also like that they show how steady or unsteady your postition actually is..........something that is masked by using lower power glass. Another thing I like is that most higher powered scopes include parallax adjustment, which I feel is important for small targets at long range.

 

[sp6x6]

I like probably alot here ,grew up hunting w/3-9. It wasnt until I was sighting in my sons gun, that at 300-400 I can see bulleye so much better w/my 4-14, and I can 1/4 a bull at 800 yrds with crosshairs easily,much prefer for past 400.

 

[Don Ward]

For placing a single bullet in the chest of a critter, 10X will cover what you are after. It is nice to have some extra at the range, on a prairie dog rig, or if you will be really stretching things out. We use 4.5-14X for everything and for us its the perfect balance of weight, size, and power for hunting out to 1000.

Shooting groups at long range is a nice place to use extra power if the mirage isn't bad, but we ring the 1 mile gong with 14X and it works great.

You will find folks that love really high power and folks that think anything over 10X is too high. No wrong answers as everything has its trade-offs and what fits your application may not fit anyone else.

 

[Camshaft]

I do prefer to use a higher power for 1k shooting, but I have no problems whatsoever, nor does my shooting partner connecting at that range and farther on 10x.

 

[Bravo 4]

We shoot out to 1000 on occasion with a 10x and don't see a problem if it's the exception rather then the rule. I have also shot out to a mile with the 4.5-14 on our Barretts. I definitely wish I had more power on that but it was plenty at 1000. I took a shot at a coke can at 1300 the other day with my 6.5-20 and could pick it up pretty easily. Something else to consider is the optical quality of the IOR and also how much of the target the reticle will cover being FFP. It should be pretty easy getting the reticle specs and figuring it's size at various ranges.

 

[BIG MO]

A high quality 10X scope will get the job done on deer size game to 1000yds with little handicap. If you are trying to pick off smaller critters you would need more magnification.

 

[rjackh]

shot my buddies ar15 this weekend out to 400 with iron sights. really wasnt that bad with a spotter. he used to shoot with that gun in competitions out to 1k yds with iron sights. i was shooting my gun with a 3-9x40 nikon scope on it at 400 and it was ok. the BDC reticle was not that great imo but with a different reticle and better glass, i probably would have done better. we were on a telephone pole right away. i counted poles out to 1k yds in my 3-9x scope and i dont think i would have been comfortable shooting that far with that mag range. more power would have been better but i could have used the 3-9x out to 600 easily. i think leupolds 4.5-14x50 would work well. IORs 3-18x42 would work well also, but ive heard its pretty heavy.

Something else to consider is... how much of the target the reticle will cover being FFP. It should be pretty easy getting the reticle specs and figuring it's size at various ranges.

what does the scope being ffp have to do with how much of the target the reticle will cover? wont a ffp scope cover up less of a target at long range than the same scope with the same reticle if it were sfp?

 

[Bravo 4]

shot my buddies ar15 this weekend out to 400 with iron sights. really wasnt that bad with a spotter. he used to shoot with that gun in competitions out to 1k yds with iron sights. i was shooting my gun with a 3-9x40 nikon scope on it at 400 and it was ok. the BDC reticle was not that great imo but with a different reticle and better glass, i probably would have done better. we were on a telephone pole right away. i counted poles out to 1k yds in my 3-9x scope and i dont think i would have been comfortable shooting that far with that mag range. more power would have been better but i could have used the 3-9x out to 600 easily. i think leupolds 4.5-14x50 would work well. IORs 3-18x42 would work well also, but ive heard its pretty heavy.



what does the scope being ffp have to do with how much of the target the reticle will cover? wont a ffp scope cover up less of a target at long range than the same scope with the same reticle if it were sfp?

I might be wrong on this but I think you have FFP and SFP backwards in your thinking. With a second focal plane only the target and not the reticle get magnified when you turn the power up on a scope. The target size increases but the reticle stays the same and so you can usually get a more precise aiming point. The reticle in a FFP scope gets magnified along with the target as the power is increased. So it covers the same amount of the target no matter what power the scope is set on. The general consensus is that most FFP reticles are thicker at higher mag and don't offer as precise an aiming point as it would if SFP. This seems to be the reason why a lot of LR shooters prefer the SFP, but some of us prefer to have the ability to us the reticle at any power. This isn't always the case as there are some thick SFP reticles out there and some thin FFP, you just really need to find the one that works for your style of shooting.

 

[Bravo 4]

shot my buddies ar15 this weekend out to 400 with iron sights. really wasnt that bad with a spotter. he used to shoot with that gun in competitions out to 1k yds with iron sights.

When I went through Squad Designated Marksman we qualed with irons out to 600 and used the 6 o'clock hold, had to because the front sight post covers the target. If you weren't doing this I suggest giving it a go, but if your buddy was shooting at 1000 with standard battle sights chances are he does this anyways.

 

[rjackh]

I might be wrong on this but I think you have FFP and SFP backwards in your thinking. With a second focal plane only the target and not the reticle get magnified when you turn the power up on a scope. The target size increases but the reticle stays the same and so you can usually get a more precise aiming point. The reticle in a FFP scope gets magnified along with the target as the power is increased.

ya i knew that, but i guess i was imagining it backwards in my head. now i see what you are talking about. i just think ffp is the way to go for me. if i spot a deer, range it with a LRF and know my hold, i dont want to have to power all the way up for the hold to be accurate. with ffp, i can power the scope to where i like the sight picture and FOV and still use the reticle without having to worry about the reticle being accurate or not.