Originally Posted by Nomercy448

One of the mantra's I live by: "If you don't measure it, you can't manage it." If something has a margin of error of less than 1%, you dang sure can't measure it accurately.

(More comparison for you: 1.75-4x32mm scope = 30ft at 100yrds at 4x, 3-9x40mm scope = 12ft at 100yrds, 4-16x40mm scope = 7ft at 100yrds. 1" groups at 100yrds... 1" for the 1.75-4x32mm = 0.28% variance, which is 0.14% margin for error. 1" groups for a 3-9x40mm scope = 0.7% variance, or 0.35% margin for error. 1" groups for a 4-16x40mm scope = 1.2% variance, or 0.6% margin. Basically, I get more than 4 times the forgiveness from a 4-16x40mm scope than I do from a 1.75-4x32mm scope. I would have to ensure my scope doesn't move more than 0.14% in any direction to deliver a 1" group with a 1.75-4x, while I'd get to move 4.29 times farther before I'd be outside the same margin for error with the 4-16x scope).

Sheridan and I have had similar discussions about high magnification scopes on different threads lately. This is honestly why I believe that 3-9x scopes, and anything smaller, are absolutely pointless beyond 100yrds. Yes, they can work, but so did Model T's and steam locomotives... Technology advances, so should we...