I like the 2.5-10x a lot for most deer hunting scenarios; although depending on where I am hunting, the venerable dependable 3-9x Burris atop the carbine gets a lot of work, as does the 4x-20x on the long range gun in west texas. ...

If I had to pick one, for deer hunting, the 2.5-10x Trijicon is very good, and still allows me to reach out far enough

I usually like a fixed 4x or 2-7 for my hinting in the woods. Fortunately I have had some experience shooting long range. They clear cut my place this year and I now have unlimited line of sight down the edge of the hardwoods on the bayou. This year I will be using a 3-18 on a rifle I am very comfortable with out to 350 yards. Probably much farther but I’m not willing to push it.

In truth the 3-18 would have covered any hunting I’ve done in my life but the fixed 4x would not. I sure do like the 4x on a short stout rifle like the 338-06 though.

The FX-2 6x has less field of view than I want. I didn’t notice it until I tried tracking a running pig through the trees. That’s when the lower power shines. A 2X with a red dot is awesome in that scenario.

Now days a 2-12 sounds about perfect for a best all around. But what’s the fun in that.

4.5-14 Leupold with their Boone and Crockett reticle is my favorite for deer/elk/etc. I too leave it on 4.5 and dial up magnification when the situation permits.

3-9 on my muzzleloader
4-16 on 6.5 CM
3-9 on another 6.5 CM
2-7 on my .44 Mag pistol
3-9 on my .300 BLK

I’ve shot deer with irons at 150, and more than a few over 200 with a 4x. It’s not that hard.
For 95% of the folks hunting (and apparently only a handful of folks on this sight), a 200 yard shot IS pretty far, and 300 might as well be a mile.

In such a case a 3-9 or 4-12 would be a much better choice, given you can typically get better glass for less money.

Only if you can get better glass for less money? If so, I agree.

Those that I listed are excellent glass, WITH high magnification available if I need it, for some reason.

Yep, only time I'm not on lowest magnification is after I've found my target and have time to zoom in.

Probably because of the ffp trend

A 2x10 is plenty fine

I'll dial mine up even inside 200 if they are walking or standing. I can shoot with both eyes open. Aim small, miss small.

Interesting. The responses reflect what I thought. Many people are moving up in magnification.

I suspect the variances you see may reflect the differences in types of hunting and/or terrain also.

Think optic improvements has a lot to do with it.

A number of years ago 3-18 was a lot harder to do while maintaining quality

Scopes are being made much better now. Also, I think a lot of shooters are wanting more precision and better rifles that are more capable of better precision. I hear from customers all the time about how they spend good money on a rifle and scope, and can not get the results they want from factory ammo. They plug in the speed written on the box and can not figure out why it shoots bad and/or they are off target at longer ranges. They need something better and more consistent to get that precision. That's where better ammo comes into play. I see this all the time!

But for hunting optics, I shake my head when I see a Hubble telescope on top of a 257 Wby rifle. Hunters think they need 20x-50x power scopes to shoot long range. (and yes, I have seen some 50x power scopes on a hunting rifle!)

That’s a fact. Weight has gone way down also. My first “ultralight” Leupold scope was a little 3-9x33 that weighed 11 oz. A new Leupold VX3i 4.5-14x40 only weighs 13 oz today. Plus its optical quality is WAY better than the first Leupold 4.5-14x40 I bought 20 years ago. IIRC that scope weighs 19-20 oz.

I am with you on that. Part of a good hunting rifle is balance. Some of the scopes are so heavy and large the rifle doesn't balance well. The current trend is trying to find one scope that is great for both but people end up with compromises.

For shooting targets, I like higher magnification, MIL reticles, exposed MIL turrets & Front Focal plane. I don't care about size and weight. I want consistent tracking.

For hunting, I like a 2-7, 3-9 or 2-10. I want second focal plane to so it's easy to see on low power, capped turrets so nothing gets bumped and a reasonable weight and size that won't throw off the balance of the rifle. An illuminated mil reticle would make it ideal. I want it to hold zero.

1.75-6 on a 30-30
3-9 on a .270, 30-06 and .243
3.5-10 on a 6.5x55

Leupold VX5 HD, 3-15 x 44. Rarely dial it past 6x. At 3x, right at the end of shooting light it gathers more than enough light. I've learned to spend the coin on quality and light gathering clarity rather upper end magnification.

Times have changed from people shooting a lot with iron sights to buying a Hubble and shooting very little. It's apples and oranges.

Average age of hunters is getting older. If you aren't much of a shooter, upping magnification seems like a way to make up for weakening eyes. Doing so actually makes you a worse game shot overall, but if you only take the shots such a system applies to, then your small volume deer shooting might be better.

I use low power variables; 2-7x, etc. I shoot a lot. A good bit of my shooting is with iron sights. Zooming in and picking a hair on a calm animal just isn't part of what I do. My rigs usually won't print as small a group off a bench with the hunting scope, rather than the load testing scope, but if I'm shooting in the field I'm hitting vitals.

A scope makes you a worse shot on game animals than with open sights? A target is a target, whether alive or inanimate. Iron sights also don't gather light, and there's no way to adjust them for parallax. You'll have a hard time convincing many folks that their scope is actually a handicap.

X2
As my eyes have aged a scope on my rifle makes me a far better shot. My son is 19 and he has shot a lot. Not as much now because he is in college. He is no slouch with irons or a scope. What he is capable of with a scoped rifle far surpasses what he can do with irons. The only exception is aerial targets. Before anyone gets heated up about shooting targets out of the air with a rifle, we are shooting skeet with 22's and ARs in a box canyon with a solid back drop. It is a ball.

It's funny to read posts where people think they are disagreeing with you, but really just failed on the reading comprehension.

Then WTF were you trying to say here?

If you aren't much of a shooter, upping magnification seems like a way to make up for weakening eyes. Doing so actually makes you a worse game shot overall,

I really don't understand how seeing what you are trying to shoot makes things worse.

4-12 on my main hunting rifle
4-16 on another one and the rest are 3-9 except for red dot

I hunted for years with a 3x9 Redfield.

No way would I want to take a 200 yards shot with a 4x scope. Really I wouldn’t want to take a 100 yard shot with one.

Aside from the above mentioned 3x9 I have a 4x16 and a 3x18. I typically leave both on 8x and dial up from there.

On longer shots (250 yards and up) I prefer 12x