The line between hunting and target shooting scopes

[Adoons]

Lately I started to study the scopes that people use on their hunting rifles by checking them out on ranges, reading what gents describe on Gunsite and see what hunters use in the veld that I see from time to time.

I see a strange phenomenon. More hunters are using seriously high powered, supa dupa, parallax adjustable, specialty reticule, large front lensed, very long etc scopes for general hunting with shooting distances from 20-300/350 meters. Why?

Myself were in the market for a scope for my 6,5x55 Swede I am waiting to get licensed and for interest sake asked in various gunshops what would they recommend on a 6,5 x 55 hunting rifle that is not going to be used for further shots than 350 m, but generally less than 300 m. 80 % of the opinions where for one of those "super" scopes that I deem target shooting scopes and overly expensive.

So my question is: Where is the line of magnification and lense diameter etc between a decent hunting rifle scope and target shooting scope? I am not a bakkie hunter and on walk and stalk and glassing and waiting don't shoot far. (350 + m)

I am really content with a 3-9x42 scope on my 30-06 (my general use rifle), with the magnification about permanently on 6x.

My .44 Magnum lever gun is doing great with 1-4x scope. My .22 Brno a 4x fixed and 10-22 a 2-6 x. For the 6,5 I settled on a 4-16x44 and some days still doubt my purchase. Maybe it is going to be overkill. I am not sure, will see over time.

Is hunting more successful with the "super" scopes or is it just a "thing" to have the biggest and best scope on a hunt? On 6x Magnification I can easily hit vitals of Rooibok to Eland sized animals out to the distances they normally are hunted.

[shooty]

I had an older Lynx 6-24 x 44 for years on my hunting rifle which also saw range use. Replaced with the Lynx 5-30x56.

For hunting i have never shot in fields above 10x maybe max 12x. ALot of times just on 6x lowest setting.

On range I will use up to max.

The reason I still again bought 5-30x is that for me suits a dual purpose for range and hunting.

I do see that most people I speak to still prefer SFP over FFP for hunting. FFP more for Competition use.

[Adoons]

Myself SFP for hunting for sure. I have a FFP scope on my 9mm Carbine. On 1x it becomes a RDS for all practical purposes. (AR Optics scope). Perfect for a carbine, but I cannot see myself using a FFP for hunting.

[WoodsieEC]

As technology continues to improve (scopes, rifles, bullets, etc), people are able to use their rifles for multiple purposes now.

I have a 6.5CM with a 5-25x54.
I use my rifle for hunting where the magnification is always between 6 & 10 and I use my my rifle for bench shooting where the magnification is always between 20 & 25.

I really do have an all round rifle that I can use for competitions, vermin control and hunting.

My only disagreement with the above posts, once you go to FFP, you’ll never look back, especially if you know how your hold-overs work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Socrates]

Lately I started to study the scopes that people use on their hunting rifles by checking them out on ranges, reading what gents describe on Gunsite and see what hunters use in the veld that I see from time to time.

I see a strange phenomenon. More hunters are using seriously high powered, supa dupa, parallax adjustable, specialty reticule, large front lensed, very long etc scopes for general hunting with shooting distances from 20-300/350 meters. Why?

Myself were in the market for a scope for my 6,5x55 Swede I am waiting to get licensed and for interest sake asked in various gunshops what would they recommend on a 6,5 x 55 hunting rifle that is not going to be used for further shots than 350 m, but generally less than 300 m. 80 % of the opinions where for one of those "super" scopes that I deem target shooting scopes and overly expensive.

So my question is: Where is the line of magnification and lense diameter etc between a decent hunting rifle scope and target shooting scope? I am not a bakkie hunter and on walk and stalk and glassing and waiting don't shoot far. (350 + m)

I am really content with a 3-9x42 scope on my 30-06 (my general use rifle), with the magnification about permanently on 6x.

My .44 Magnum lever gun is doing great with 1-4x scope. My .22 Brno a 4x fixed and 10-22 a 2-6 x. For the 6,5 I settled on a 4-16x44 and some days still doubt my purchase. Maybe it is going to be overkill. I am not sure, will see over time.

Is hunting more successful with the "super" scopes or is it just a "thing" to have the biggest and best scope on a hunt? On 6x Magnification I can easily hit vitals of Rooibok to Eland sized animals out to the distances they normally are hunted.

I made that mistake. Meopta Optika 6 4.5-27x50 SFP. I foolishly believed that more magnification will allow for better target identification in bad light conditions. The whole dialing the turret for bullet drop also seemed interesting for the odd range visit, that allowed for anything more than 100m shooting.

It turned out to be a terrible hunting scope. The high magnification caused more problems than it solved.

My Achilles heel (one of many actually) is that I have zero natural aptitude for judging distance. Things that seem far are not that far at all. And the things that are far, I have no business at shoot at in any case. I now have a 2-12x50 scope and I am much happier with it. I'll also be getting a Laser Rangefinder in the next month or three. That along with a thermal monocular and NV attachement will be serve me much better than a high magnification scope with all the bells and whistles.

[TStone]

One of the biggest problems we experience are hunters arriving with high power scopes that they have never learned to manage. I have never, in more than 22 years of professional hunting, seen a client lose an opportunity at a game animal because a scope had too little magnification. I have long ago lost count of opportunities missed due to scopes being on too high a magnification.

I do own and use a ffp scope, a Leupold mk4 6.5-20x50, it is bulletproof, has great glass and has never lost zero despite seeing really hard use. It is a great scope for shooting gongs and for long range hunting, but it is utterly useless for close range shots at game. I have stopped using it for hunting purposes.

[Koebelwagen]

Serious/ stupid question. When do you get time to range and dial when hunting? Is this normal in open areas where you can see into tomorrow and shoot at an average 200M+? I confess to primarily hunting in bushveld conditions where you normally have a few seconds to take a shot before the animal is gone, that time I rather use it to put up on my shooting sticks and get comfortable with the shot.

Also, keeping in mind most rifles launching a bullet at 2400FPS will hit a 4" vital area without scope adjustment from 0-200M, why is dialling ever necessary under most conditions? I think a lot of people don't understand how far 300M or 400M actually is and why it isn't a good idea for the average person to be shooting at those distances when factors other than bullet drop like wind become a real issue.

[Meteor]

My Achilles heel (one of many actually) is that I have zero natural aptitude for judging distance. Things that seem far are not that far at all. And the things that are far, I have no business at shoot at in any case. I now have a 2-12x50 scope and I am much happier with it. I'll also be getting a Laser Rangefinder in the next month or three. That along with a thermal monocular and NV attachement will be serve me much better than a high magnification scope with all the bells and whistles.

I don't hunt but I walk with my 22 on a farm almost daily.
I grew up using a fixed scope and it worked as a magnified ranging tool- same as the snipers with their 10x fixed scopes. I would look at the size of the animal -birds are mostly the same size- and then I have a good guess how my round will drop.

Now I use a cool 3-9 Hawke scope. It has marked holdovers but it takes some getting use to. It is easier to range with magnification but I used that fixed scope for hundreds of rounds per week.
Now I don't know how long it will take to get my mojo back.

[Bonedoc]

Serious/ stupid question. When do you get time to range and dial when hunting? Is this normal in open areas where you can see into tomorrow and shoot at an average 200M+? I confess to primarily hunting in bushveld conditions where you normally have a few seconds to take a shot before the animal is gone, that time I rather use it to put up on my shooting sticks and get comfortable with the shot.

Also, keeping in mind most rifles launching a bullet at 2400FPS will hit a 4" vital area without scope adjustment from 0-200M, why is dialling ever necessary under most conditions? I think a lot of people don't understand how far 300M or 400M actually is and why it isn't a good idea for the average person to be shooting at those distances when factors other than bullet drop like wind become a real issue.

Open areas in Free State, Northern Cape, Namibia where you are often faced with shots further than 200m. Up to you as hunter to decide what you max distance is. For such hunting, I'll zero at 200m, will seldom dial in field, but range and use reticle to compensate for elevation.

Hunting in bush, set scope to 160m elevation, good for vitals to from 0 to 200m.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Koebelwagen]

Open areas in Free State, Northern Cape, Namibia where you are often faced with shots further than 200m. Up to you as hunter to decide what you max distance is. For such hunting, I'll zero at 200m, will seldom dial in field, but range and use reticle to compensate for elevation.

Hunting in bush, set scope to 160m elevation, good for vitals to from 0 to 200m.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Thank you.