Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
JLadner, bubbleheadhunter775, Casper, Grandpa Jay, B bar W
60403 Registered Users
Top Posters
dogcatcher 77307
stxranchman 52092
RWH24 44568
rifleman 43776
BOBO the Clown 41081
BMD 40539
Big Orn 37484
txshntr 33682
bill oxner 32555
sig226fan (Rguns.com) 30554
facebook
Forum Stats
60403 Members
45 Forums
475478 Topics
6237586 Posts

Max Online: 16728 @ 03/25/12 08:51 AM
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#5387177 - 10/29/14 02:28 PM 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16
Arrowslinger82 Offline
Bird Dog

Registered: 07/10/14
Posts: 350
Narrowed down my brand to a couple, but now I'm stuck with what would work better for my situation. its a .308 bolt gun, my wife, and kids as well as myself will shoot it, and the max range right now is 150, after this season it'll be no more than 400. which magnification would be best all around?

Top
#5387197 - 10/29/14 02:36 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82]
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 19228
Loc: Corsicana
3x9 with a 40mm objective is the best choice for what you describe IMO.

1)Much more economical because much more common configuration; and
2)Lighter and less bulky.

I would not get a 50mm-their supposed benefit of letting in more light is virtually useless in most applications. Plus they are much more heavy/bulky.

A Leupold VX1 or 2 in 3-9x40 is a very good yet very economical scope that will last a lifetime.
_________________________
Originally Posted By: REALKILLER
That's the way I hunt don't know many that do. If a deer gets buy me I will try to run him down. Ive killed a bunch that way.



Top
#5387568 - 10/29/14 06:26 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82]
FiremanJG Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 12/16/08
Posts: 17893
Loc: Wolfe City, TX
If you're going to go 400 yards in the future get alll the magnification you can. 4-16X will be very nice.

I have four scopes and all are 50 mm objective. Besides light transmission they have a larger field of view.
_________________________


800 Yard Steel Rifle Range
Long Range Shooting Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available


Top
#5387595 - 10/29/14 06:46 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82]
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 19228
Loc: Corsicana
Love ya buddy but if you really look at the facts they don't support the added weight and loss of good cheek weld that are distinct disadvantages of 50mm objectives on hunting rifles.The human eye cannot take advantage of the mathematical advantage the 50mm objective provides due to our exit pupil limitations. Especially if you are out of your 20s. That's why you don't see even many binoculars with a 50mm objective except for specialty long range binocs that for all practical purposes require a tripod to take advantage of their high magnifications and to hold their weight. Hunting binocs to carry are all 42mm and smaller. Scopes should be too. Most nowadays recognize this and 50mm scopes are fast becoming obsolete for hunting applications.

If field of view is needed, one needs a lower power setting anyway. 16x ain't gonna give you much field of view and is the dickens to hold steady under all but virtual benchrest conditions.

I cannot speak to their applications/advantages on the bench as I'm sure there are many. But not for hunting IMO.

If you Google 50mm vs. 40mm objectives there are several articles that break all the mathematical stuff down.
_________________________
Originally Posted By: REALKILLER
That's the way I hunt don't know many that do. If a deer gets buy me I will try to run him down. Ive killed a bunch that way.



Top
#5387659 - 10/29/14 07:23 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82]
603Country Offline
Extreme Tracker

Registered: 07/03/12
Posts: 4861
Loc: Central Texas
So...let's say he gets the 3-9 and he goes to sight it in. Bang....hmmm, where's the bullet hole. Who has the spotting scope? Loaned it to Bob? Dang. But...let's say he got the 4-16. Bang, well it's about 2 inches to the right and down an inch. Get the 4-16. I don't even have a 3-9 any more. Gave the last one, a Zeiss Conquest, to my BiL.

And NP is right, sort of. If you're my age, your usable ratio between objective size and power is probably about 4 (5 if you're in your 20's). I think you could get some use out of the 50mm objective up to about 12 power. My brightest scopes do have 30mm tubes and 50mm objectives, though the difference isn't that huge compared to 40mm obj scopes.

Anyway, get the 4-16...

Top
#5387685 - 10/29/14 07:34 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82]
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 19228
Loc: Corsicana
Sure. But that's a benchrest deal-not a hunting deal. Those seem to get mixed together a lot. Use your spotting scope or walk down to the target. That way, you won't have to tote extra virtually useless weight come hunting time-plus you won't have to lift your head up off the stock to shoot. (I know, buy a stock pad-more weight and another benchrest deal.) smile

You ever wonder why hunting binoculars are not 50 or 60 or 70mm and rarely are over 10x? Useless weight you can't hold steady at higher magnifications anyway......


Edited by Nogalus Prairie (10/29/14 07:34 PM)
_________________________
Originally Posted By: REALKILLER
That's the way I hunt don't know many that do. If a deer gets buy me I will try to run him down. Ive killed a bunch that way.



Top
#5387690 - 10/29/14 07:37 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Nogalus Prairie]
FiremanJG Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 12/16/08
Posts: 17893
Loc: Wolfe City, TX
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Love ya buddy but if you really look at the facts they don't support the added weight and loss of good cheek weld that are distinct disadvantages of 50mm objectives on hunting rifles.The human eye cannot take advantage of the mathematical advantage the 50mm objective provides due to our exit pupil limitations. Especially if you are out of your 20s. That's why you don't see even many binoculars with a 50mm objective except for specialty long range binocs that for all practical purposes require a tripod to take advantage of their high magnifications and to hold their weight. Hunting binocs to carry are all 42mm and smaller. Scopes should be too. Most nowadays recognize this and 50mm scopes are fast becoming obsolete for hunting applications.

If field of view is needed, one needs a lower power setting anyway. 16x ain't gonna give you much field of view and is the dickens to hold steady under all but virtual benchrest conditions.

I cannot speak to their applications/advantages on the bench as I'm sure there are many. But not for hunting IMO.

If you Google 50mm vs. 40mm objectives there are several articles that break all the mathematical stuff down.


Never said someone should lose cheek weld. That is a big no-no. My stock packs add elevation juuuuust right.

I've been out of my twenties for years.

16X will cut your field of view, sure. It will cut your view more on a 40mm or 44mm more so than a 50 mm. When the need arises, turn magnification down. When the need arises, turn magnification up, simple.

At 4:45 pm this afternoon I shot supported STANDING!!! and suported kneeling on 20X and cold bored a 16" plate at 800 yards. How steady was that compared to a bench?

I love ya back, but I'd bet a week of my lunch money I shoot more than you or whom ever wrote whatever google article. Prone to standing and every conceivable position in between.

Multiple of 4 (5-20x, 6-24x) is all I have, may get 5x in the future. All on 50 mm objectives and 30 mm tubes.
_________________________


800 Yard Steel Rifle Range
Long Range Shooting Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available


Top
#5387693 - 10/29/14 07:39 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82]
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 19228
Loc: Corsicana
I will say if all of your hunting is out of a box blind with a rock steady rest the higher magnifications can be fine. But, even then, if your scope is set on 16x and a big buck walks out, you are going to lose precious seconds trying to acquire him in your small FOV. Hunting is that way-every supposed advantage almost always carries with it a very practical disadvantage-that is sometimes not so obvious until the actual field conditions are present.
_________________________
Originally Posted By: REALKILLER
That's the way I hunt don't know many that do. If a deer gets buy me I will try to run him down. Ive killed a bunch that way.



Top
#5387700 - 10/29/14 07:41 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: FiremanJG]
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 19228
Loc: Corsicana
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Love ya buddy but if you really look at the facts they don't support the added weight and loss of good cheek weld that are distinct disadvantages of 50mm objectives on hunting rifles.The human eye cannot take advantage of the mathematical advantage the 50mm objective provides due to our exit pupil limitations. Especially if you are out of your 20s. That's why you don't see even many binoculars with a 50mm objective except for specialty long range binocs that for all practical purposes require a tripod to take advantage of their high magnifications and to hold their weight. Hunting binocs to carry are all 42mm and smaller. Scopes should be too. Most nowadays recognize this and 50mm scopes are fast becoming obsolete for hunting applications.

If field of view is needed, one needs a lower power setting anyway. 16x ain't gonna give you much field of view and is the dickens to hold steady under all but virtual benchrest conditions.

I cannot speak to their applications/advantages on the bench as I'm sure there are many. But not for hunting IMO.

If you Google 50mm vs. 40mm objectives there are several articles that break all the mathematical stuff down.


Never said someone should lose cheek weld. That is a big no-no. My stock packs add elevation juuuuust right.

I've been out of my twenties for years.

16X will cut your field of view, sure. It will cut your view more on a 40mm or 44mm more so than a 50 mm. When the need arises, turn magnification down. When the need arises, turn magnification up, simple.

At 4:45 pm this afternoon I shot supported STANDING!!! and suported kneeling on 20X and cold bored a 16" plate at 800 yards. How steady was that compared to a bench?

I love ya back, but I'd bet a week of my lunch money I shoot more than you or whom ever wrote whatever google article. Prone to standing and every conceivable position in between.

Multiple of 4 (5-20x, 6-24x) is all I have, may get 5x in the future. All on 50 mm objectives and 30 mm tubes.




You'll for sure win the shooting bet. But this is a hunting question. And I'll be glad to compare notes with you on that score. smile

In fact, I seem to recall us having a discussion about toting a cannon in the mountains and I seem to recall when you got back you swore you wouldn't do that again..... Huh?


Edited by Nogalus Prairie (10/29/14 07:43 PM)
_________________________
Originally Posted By: REALKILLER
That's the way I hunt don't know many that do. If a deer gets buy me I will try to run him down. Ive killed a bunch that way.



Top
#5387725 - 10/29/14 07:51 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82]
BOBO the Clown Offline
decoy

Registered: 04/19/07
Posts: 41081
Loc: Metroplex
4-12 or 4-16 but 40-44 mm obj IMO

4x4 isn't needed 99% of the time but sure nice to have it. Same thing with magnification.

Top
#5387729 - 10/29/14 07:53 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: BOBO the Clown]
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 19228
Loc: Corsicana
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
4-12 or 4-16 but 40-44 mm obj IMO

4x4 isn't needed 99% of the time but sure nice to have it. Same thing with magnification.





I agree with that, but you'll have to pay a little more and tote a little more weight. I'll confess: my main rifle has a 4.5-14x 40mm. smile
_________________________
Originally Posted By: REALKILLER
That's the way I hunt don't know many that do. If a deer gets buy me I will try to run him down. Ive killed a bunch that way.



Top
#5387735 - 10/29/14 07:56 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Nogalus Prairie]
BOBO the Clown Offline
decoy

Registered: 04/19/07
Posts: 41081
Loc: Metroplex
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
4-12 or 4-16 but 40-44 mm obj IMO

4x4 isn't needed 99% of the time but sure nice to have it. Same thing with magnification.





I agree with that, but you'll have to pay a little more and tote a little more weight. I'll confess: my main rifle has a 4.5-14x 40mm. smile


I will say I'll take a mid to higher end 3-9 over a cheaper 4-12 or 4-16. If being price restricted

Top
#5387740 - 10/29/14 07:58 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: BOBO the Clown]
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 19228
Loc: Corsicana
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
4-12 or 4-16 but 40-44 mm obj IMO

4x4 isn't needed 99% of the time but sure nice to have it. Same thing with magnification.





I agree with that, but you'll have to pay a little more and tote a little more weight. I'll confess: my main rifle has a 4.5-14x 40mm. smile


I will say I'll take a mid to higher end 3-9 over a cheaper 4-12 or 4-16. If being price restricted


Yes. I was going to add that for the OP. Scope quality is way more important than objective size-and for all other factors.


Edited by Nogalus Prairie (10/29/14 08:00 PM)
_________________________
Originally Posted By: REALKILLER
That's the way I hunt don't know many that do. If a deer gets buy me I will try to run him down. Ive killed a bunch that way.



Top
#5387757 - 10/29/14 08:04 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Nogalus Prairie]
FiremanJG Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 12/16/08
Posts: 17893
Loc: Wolfe City, TX
Nope.

I built a ten pound rifle to carry in the mountains and it was just fine. Way better than the 16 pound rifle I was shooting today. The mountian rifle was wearing a 6-24X 50mm.

The shot is the last 5% of the hunt and that is the part I practice very much, every week. I am about to make time to reduce the coyote numbers in my area. There isn't a smarter critter on four legs in Texas, and I have hunted and killed way more coyotes than any other animal (barring prairie dogs). If I get line of sight of him and don't get busted I will let lead fly and probably drop him. I went from green hunter/shooter to semi-educated, to precision shooter, back to hunter that applies what I learned in all the shooting to when I am on the hunt.

I combat the eye age argument by seeing the Optometrist annually. My main reluctance in getting Lasik is that I will be commited to a certain level of vision acuity. Adjusting contacts one a year keeps my eyes seeing as sharp as possible.
_________________________


800 Yard Steel Rifle Range
Long Range Shooting Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available


Top
#5387777 - 10/29/14 08:12 PM Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82]
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 11/22/10
Posts: 19228
Loc: Corsicana
OK. I hear you. But I will remind you seem to answer general questions using yourself as a benchmark. Most people don't have the strength and endurance of an NFL linebacker like you do. And most people don't live at the shooting range and have the precision shooting expertise you do. That also strongly influences your perspective. IMO.

I answer questions like the average person I am in those respects-but an average person who has hunted his a** off from Mexico to the Yukon and all points in between. Even a dummy like me can't help but learn a thing or two along the way. I look at each piece of gear I have strictly from a practical hunting perspective.

(That said, even a linebacker would enjoy the benefits of toting a 7.5 lb. rifle vs. a 10 lb. rifle in the mountains. You really should try it.)

smile


Edited by Nogalus Prairie (10/29/14 08:16 PM)
_________________________
Originally Posted By: REALKILLER
That's the way I hunt don't know many that do. If a deer gets buy me I will try to run him down. Ive killed a bunch that way.



Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



© 2004-2016 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide