3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.)

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......

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

I would choose 4x12 or 4x14. I prefer a 50mm obj, but in real life a 40 mm will get you past legal light. I hunt

There are basically two camps on the THF: 1) those who think more from a shooting perspective and 2) those who think more from a hunting perspective. The former will sacrifice hunting advantages to gain shooting advantages and the latter will sacrifice shooting advantages to gain hunting advantages.

The real trick is to be truly objective and find that right balance of both. It is a continual work-in-progress.

Understood.

I dang sure don't have the endurance of an NFL linebacker. But if 6 more ounces of scope taxes my body then I need more P.T. in my week.

Understood that not everyone shoots several days a week.

My point is just like if I could have an overdrive in my old 79' F-250. If I had a fifth gear, there are times I'd use it. If I have 4-16X there are times I'd use 16X. I keep all my scopes set on 100 yard zero, parralax set for 100 yards, and magnification turned all the way down. If I need to see farther, or shoot farther, I know I have to adjust everything up, not down. I dont even check what the settings are on first, because I know they're set on minimum. But of I need more, it is available. The types of scopes I use all come in 50mm or larger. 50 mm is all I have.

What extra weight does 6-10 mm more obective add? How much more does a 4-16X weigh over a 4-12X or 3-9X ?

We're splitting hairs here, or more specifically ounces.

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I can let go of the larger objective if it makes someone feel better to have a smaller one, but I wont let go of more magnification available, in the same size scope.

OP mentioned going 400 yards later. I know too well what that entails, and how ot looks from the zero line. Most guys that come through my class tell me 300 is the farthest they've shot. Outside 300 is where things can get dicey. Had he never said anything about 400 I wouldn't be so adamate.

LOL. I see your point. See, the part of it I was focusing on was the mostly short-range use and the fact that all sizes of people from children to a lady to a man would be using it. So weight and cheek weld were on my mind.

Plus for some reason I was thinking economics were important-but I see now the OP didn't mention that at all.

Just that perspective thing again.....

Any experienced hunter will tell you that a ten-pound mountain rifle is at least 2 lbs too heavy, probably three. That is, unless you have your own personal porter to tote it for you......

I thought I was in business when I built a custom coues deer rifle with a heavy Krieger barrel and a 6.5x24 scope. All up, it weighed over 11 lbs with sling and a full mag. I shot a very nice buck at around 365 yds, a feat that I could have easily duplicated with my 5.5-lb ULA. The big gun is a safe queen nowadays.

The guide that helped me get my Dall ram on a backpack hunt in the NWT drilled holes in the handle of his toothbrush to save every ounce of weight. Had I showed up with a 10 lb rifle for that hunt, he would have collapsed in a terminal epileptic seizure!

Well, we're all in different pysical condition.

I built that ten pound rifle as a dual purpose. Very long range target' as well as very large animal hunting. Mayne once the barrel is done I'll put an even heavier contour on it relegate it to only target, and build a 7 pound (scope included) rig.

Hah! We never do get done dreaming up new rifle projects, do we? According to FedEx, I should be picking up my latest toy tomorrow from my local FFL holder. Of course, it will need a scope, some load work-up, some range time.......

Of course.

Jason, when you get serious about considering lasik or need to fix some sort of damage to an eye, go see the guys at Cornea Associates of Texas on Central 'tween Meadow & Royal, and see if you can get an appt with Dr Henry Gelender. www.corneatexas.com

Dr Gelender has been listed on the Best Dr's in America List 5 times, National Who's Who Honors List 3 times & has 18 pages of other Ciriculum Vitea's. Note the other DFW hospitals Dr Gelender is an Opthamolgy office holder at.

His Cornea Assc Texas practice is who fix's most all the bad lasik isues in town....and does repair work on pro jocks like Andy Dalton, the QB from TCU who now plays for the Bengals.

His shop is who saved my left eye 14 years ago when I had a "ruptured globe accident" (an injury that has a 96% failure to restore vision rate), and he did the 2nd Cornea Transplant the end of this July when my other eye doc's at the VA almost refused to consider it...and suggested I go back to Dr Gelender....including the Head of the Cornea Dept at SWestMed School.
Ron

You can always turn the 4-16 down. I had a shot a few years ago where I had to negotiate a small sapling between me and the deer. Without the added magnification I probably couldn't have made the shot.

My favorite hunting scope is a 2-7 but my hunting is limited to 200 yards.

QUALITY TRUMPS MAGNIFICATION EVERY TIME

Yep, you'll never notice the added weight of a 4-16 scope, but you'll sure notice the difference between 9x and 16x. I would definitely get the 4-14x40 or 4-16x40

For reference, the weight difference on a Nikon 3-9x and 4.5-14x is about 1.5 oz according to their website. The 4-16x42 weighs about 5 oz more.

If you are still hunting (sneaking around making a little noise), then I would suggest a 2x7x32. If you are stand hunting, i would suggest a 3x9x40. If you are bean field hunting I would suggest a 4x12x40 or 4x16x 40. If you are subject to do all three, I would suggest the 3x9x40. If you are riding around in a jeep then by all means go bigger.

Regardless of the scope you buy, keep it on the lowest power setting until you have your quarry in the crosshairs then crank it up to higher power settings. Hope this information helps.

I think that with most things there is more than one right way to do it. For myself better glass trumps more magnification. If I have $400.00 to spend on a scope then I will buy a 3-9 or 3.5-10 with a 40MM objective as opposed to a 4-12 or 4-16x50 because I want better glass. Better low light performance is more important than magnification. I don't expect what works for me to work for anyone else.

At that price point you're not going to see significant differences, IMHO.

how much of difference does a 30 mm tube make over a 1 inch?

It is to give room for the elevation travel for shooting long range. It also makes a slightly stronger scope tube.

If you're only pushing to 400 yards, you'll be fine with 1" tube or 30mm tube. All of mine are 30mm, bit because for me to get the features I want in a scope, those scopes come in 30 mm or even 34 mm tubes. I also use all of that travel, but that's to get to 1000 yards or more.

I hit a sapling once at 110 yds, Mulie turned and I put one thru it's neck, 4x33mm.
Killed alot of game w/fixed scopes from 2.5-6x. Also used 24x and under variables.

Scope choice is subjective. I'd be content with a 6x or variable topping at 7-8x, I like low mounting and light weight. A turret or reticle can handle distance. A 10-12x is the highest I'd want if carrying a rifle alot, but a 14-16x is not excessive if you are in a box blind and have a rock solid rest, they double for varmints. Took a yote at 175 in the face as he was full frontal, on about 12-14x, and a bobcat raking going away, same distance and power, used the 6x on a headshot at dusk on a deer. 45 yds. All w/a Ruger #1 in 6BR and 6-24x Elite SF 40mm. Same gun, but AO model Elite dropped a deer at 400 yds. Both Mil dot scopes, I simply used the proper dot for reference.

For a field rifle, personally 14-16 is max but the little SF model above was compact so it was much better aesthetically than the AO. Weight and bulk matter to me, as does quality glass.

Whatever you use, if you practice often, you will learn how to hit vitals and be very effective. No substitute for range time.