What "scope range" would you pick for an 800 meter target

[petemacsydney]

Hi all, interested to hear your thoughts...

What scope range would you pick for an 800 meter target (target shooting with a 50 cent bulls-eye @ 800m).

Been googling it and see a lot of different opinions with anything from 2.5X - 10X to 5X - 34X... Opinions don't seem to be consistent.

cheers p

[Chronos]

Nightforce BR 12-42x56 if you have around $1200 for a second hand scope or a sightron Siii 10-50x60 new for under $900

I own both and am happy with my purchases

Could you get away with lesser scopes and less magnification? Yes but for the money a used NF BR cannot be beaten IMHO

By the way, seeing the target at 800m is one thing, getting the shot close to it is another

Chronos

[Apollo]

By the way, seeing the target at 800m is one thing, getting the shot close to it is another

Chronos

We still need to test that one out, don't we mate.....

"What scope range would I pick"

Well, I have both a 10-60x52mm & 8-80x56mm March and as Chronos has said...Seeing a 50c piece is one thing and the first challenge but hitting it is quite something different. As I have found out at 500m, a black target is useless if you hit it as you can't see the hole but on pure white paper with a black dot big enough to see at that distance is quite different. Mirage makes the whole story very difficult yet alone seeing the target.

Under good conditions I can see a 6.5mm hole at 500m, going further than that I don't know but I'd be coating the bullets with a black texta to make the hole even blacker and save some trips to find the holes.

Electronic targets.... different story.

[Lorgar]

I dunno why it's so hard for people to give constructive feedback on scope magnification.

The first thing out of 90% of peoples mouths whenever anyone asks about it nearly always seems to be "Derrr, you don't need much magnification" blah blah blah, followed by how awesome they are with their 3-9 scope.

You'd think they don't know you can zoom the scope out...

Like Chronos said, do you NEED! that much magnification in a critical sense? No, but it can be handy to have and doesn't hurt anything by being there. Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it IMO.

You can always wind it back if you feel the need, but if you bought a lower magnification scope and decided you wanted more then you're obviously s**t out of luck.

I've got the Bushnell 4.5-30x on my hunting rifle which is my 1-size-fits-all scope.

4x magnification is low enough for wandering through the forest and I can still easily and quickly acquire targets and close ranges of 30 or 40 metres.

When shooting at the range I usually do 100-200m, up to 500m max some times just for fun. At that distance I use the 30x magnification setting which for me is about as low as I'd want to go for 500m.

Extrapolate that out to 800m and I'd want a 48x magnification+ scope for shooting at that distance. And a little more wouldn't hurt me

Prepared for some barbed retorts now but that's my 2c

[Lorgar]

(not relevant to 800m shooting, but just on the subject of magnification in general)

Having said the above, when I'm doing 50m target shooting with my .22 I use the maximum magnification too. I've got an 8-32x scope on my .22.

I know people say that with more magnification you focus too much on the wobbles and they do better when zoomed out a little and so on, but for me that's not the case.

I like to think I'm a pretty good shot on my .22 and I shoot my best groups with the maximum magnification.

Do with that information as you will.

[Apollo]

I agree with the last two statements "Lorgar" ....

Winding up the power helped me with "Wobbels, Heart Beat, Breathing" ....etc

I kept at it until I solved what was worrying me at the time. So, I'll pretty much say at the moment with a Target at 500m and scope set to 80x magnification the dot stays on target until I touch the trigger. By touch at 1.5ozs that is all it is.

Might be my own version but it works.

[Lorgar]

Might be my own version but it works.

Whatever gets the job done.

[Warrigul]

I agree with the last two statements "Lorgar" ....

Winding up the power helped me with "Wobbels, Heart Beat, Breathing" ....etc

I kept at it until I solved what was worrying me at the time. So, I'll pretty much say at the moment with a Target at 500m and scope set to 80x magnification the dot stays on target until I touch the trigger. By touch at 1.5ozs that is all it is.

Might be my own version but it works.

I think Lorgar is referring to .22 rimfires shot unsupported freehand standing or prone in field rifle, which is where it can be beneficial to use less magnification at say 25, 50 or 100m. It is a very good person indeed who can eliminate all movement when unsupported.

On the bench or on the mound is a different kettle of fish and magnification only limited to what the mirage will allow you to use.

Different disciplines entirely.

I also suspect that if Lorgar is shooting at 50m with a 32x magnification then he would be on the bench.

However for 1000 I prefer my fixed 36x, though it would be nice to be able to wind it back a bit on hot days.

[Warrigul]

I dunno why it's so hard for people to give constructive feedback on scope magnification.

The first thing out of 90% of peoples mouths whenever anyone asks about it nearly always seems to be "Derrr, you don't need much magnification" blah blah blah, followed by how awesome they are with their 3-9 scope.

You'd think they don't know you can zoom the scope out...

Like Chronos said, do you NEED! that much magnification in a critical sense? No, but it can be handy to have and doesn't hurt anything by being there. Better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it IMO.

You can always wind it back if you feel the need, but if you bought a lower magnification scope and decided you wanted more then you're obviously s**t out of luck.

I've got the Bushnell 4.5-30x on my hunting rifle which is my 1-size-fits-all scope.

4x magnification is low enough for wandering through the forest and I can still easily and quickly acquire targets and close ranges of 30 or 40 metres.

When shooting at the range I usually do 100-200m, up to 500m max some times just for fun. At that distance I use the 30x magnification setting which for me is about as low as I'd want to go for 500m.

Extrapolate that out to 800m and I'd want a 48x magnification+ scope for shooting at that distance. And a little more wouldn't hurt me

Prepared for some barbed retorts now but that's my 2c

If you ask a question and people tender a reasonable answer backed up by experience then what is unconstructive about that?

Sure you may not agree with what is said but there are usually good solid practical reasons behind the choice:

Most high magnification scopes have parallax correction which is not essential for 98% of the hunting most people do and is often simply a pain in the arse.

Most high magnification scopes are heavier and bulkier than a lower range or fixed power scope- once again if you are a regular hunter you will see the difference this makes in the scrub and carrying.

Most parallax adjustable scopes(by the mechanics of their construction) don't focus over a wide range(you need to be on or close to the range) unless you are spot on with parallax adjustment.

Most high magnification scopes are just too bloody dear to be taking out and knocking around.

and so on, so on etc etc

I am lucky enough to be hauling around a 6x meopta on my deer rifle, it was my choice- chosen to suit the ranges I usually shoot at and the need for versatility, the fixed 6x actuallly has a BETTER field of view than most variable power scopes, one of the sacrifices you need to make if you want a scope to do everything. I finally bought it after after hauling around various weaver, bushnells and a sightron - all variable power and being caught out a couple of times with settings.


Yep you can buy a lamborgini and go shopping around town in it or to the racetrack the same week but it isn't very practical. Horses for courses.

So if someone asks what scope people put on a .22 and most people say that a 3-9 is best that is because that is what most people use and find perfectly adequete.
Not everyone needs to do everything with the one rifle.


Back to the original question,

I shoot up to 1000 and find either a fixed 36x or a 6-24x (I have two rifles that I am using at the moment)perfectly adequete, I am usually in the top three.

You don't HAVE to have a scope worth thousands either, more important being able to shoot what you have. A poor shot with a Nikko is usually still a poor shot with a March, sightron, NF etc etc etc.

[Lorgar]

I also suspect that if Lorgar is shooting at 50m with a 32x magnification then he would be on the bench.

Correct.

[Warrigul]

I also suspect that if Lorgar is shooting at 50m with a 32x magnification then he would be on the bench.

Correct.

Yep, I have to admit that if I shoot BR30 I drag out the rifle with the T36 weaver fitted.

[Lorgar]

If you ask a question and people tender a reasonable answer backed up by experience then what is unconstructive about that?

Nothing 's wrong with that at all. If it's as you say, "a reasonable answer backed up by experience", then by all means consider the advice being given.

Sure you may not agree with what is said but there are usually good solid practical reasons behind the choice:

In my experience (others may differ obviously) a lot of people (not all of course) are quick to rubbish higher magnification scopes because they're "not needed" and that's the extent of their argument.

You're points about parallax, size, weight, etc. are all perfectly valid. If they're included in the conversation then happy days, I'm more than happy to sit on the sidelines and keep my mouth shut as it sounds like everything's covered.

On the flip side, I've been part of more than a few conversations for this scope or that, including mine, where the most input someone was willing to provide was "Pfft, why did you get that? You should have got a Leupold 3-9x" or whatever...

Because they have it on their rifle it's the "best" and the one I "should have got"... all for some mystery reason which they can't articulate.

I've had people tell me I should have got a 4-12 instead of my 4.5-30. When I state the obvious and say that mine does the same as theirs and more, they fall back on the trusty old "not needed" line.

No mention of weight, practicality, size, pros, cons, advantages or disadvantages. The higher magnification scope is simple "the wrong one" while the lower magnification scope is "the right one".

I'm not putting down lower magnification scopes in favour higher ones across the board - I realise the hypocrisy that would constitute given my above comments - The thing I object to is the immediate arbitrary dismissal of higher magnification because they're "not needed". That's giving out poor advice IMO.

In any case, my comments weren't directed at you or anyone else here in particular. Just my thoughts on the subject...

There are a few points of view here now and, as I said in my earlier post, petemacsydney is free to do with them as he will.

[petemacsydney]

Hi all, thank you so much for all of your replies. It does confirm some of my current thinking, so I really appreciate everyone's opinions and comments.
i'm going to do some more research, but with my budget and current research on scopes in mind, i think i will head towards the Elite 6500 4.5-30x 50mm Mil Dot Riflescope on a T3 308. although that Nightforce BR does look pretty sweet...
cheers p

[Pom]

although that Nightforce BR does look pretty sweet...

And comes with bragging rights

[Chronos]

although that Nightforce BR does look pretty sweet...

And comes with bragging rights

Nah, you have to get the NXS for those. It also comes with tactical turrets for when its 20 below so you don't have to take your mittens off. Lol

Chronos

[Herdsman]

Nah, you have to get the NXS for those.

Can you pick up an NXS sticker somewhere?

Problem solved?

[petemacsydney]

i'll just get some whiteout and a nicko pen and "re-brand" it..

[paps]

For 800m I'd need one of those scopes which only lets you fire when you're on target

[petemacsydney]

self aiming.. nah, takes the fun out of the game i reckon!

[petemacsydney]

its pretty cool though!

[Hercl]

For 800m I would want the most I could afford while still maintaining acceptable glass quality.

As above, mirage is a killer when it comes to long range accuracy.