huntingkidPA

you got me there with small game and myself taking game over 300. I said that they will serve a good shooter out to 300, never said anything about being able to hit great past there. i wasn't thinking about small game anyway. im almost 17, and don't have a job yet. should probably get one then i'll be able to get a high mag scope. in no ways am i saying a 3x9 is better than a higher mag, im just saying your making it seem likes its impossible to hit anything over 200 yards with it. Your right i am being cheap but becoming proficient with a 3x9 gives me all the more reasons not buy a higher mag scope. that was my first time shooting over 100 yards and getting a 4" group, well i'm sure i can improve and atleast get it down to 3". in my situation, in the woods of PA, 150 is a terribly long shot. The only reasons we sometimes (less than 5% of the time) get a shot over 200 is because were hunting a cut corn field.

huntingkidPA

thanks RR for clearing that up. that pictures you posted with those deer was just amazing. I hope one day to be able to shoot at those ranges.

skiking

Nomercy, I completely understand your POV. But, you suggested ensuring he had a good rest and then jumped into your FOV BS. You didn't even mention his scope mounts could be lose, or it may just be a bad scope, you jumped right into he doesn't have a powerful enough scope.

By the OP's description it sounded most likely A: He wasn't using a good rest, B: He just had a bad range day, C: The scope mounts are out of whack, D: The scope is junk, E: The gun isn't accurate in the first place, F: Even though he tried 2 types of ammo the gun still didn't like it at all, or G: Any combination of the above. He was shooting 3" groups at 50 yds. If you are telling me that even if his rifle is actually pulling of 1.5 MOA groups, he has >4 MOA of error because he isn't using a powerful enough scope, GET OFF THE DRUGS. Heck lets all just shoot for accuracy and strap big scopes onto our guns, because obviously nobody can shoot a 1" group at 100 yds with a 4x scope because nobody can shoot a 1" group at 1000 yds with a 30x scope.

I don't care how you look at this (and I am saying this understanding your % of FOV BS), but they are not the same thing. The first one is VERY POSSIBLE with a large percentage of rifles produced today, the second, if you are able to do it is likely a fluke or produced by a custom rig.

Your explanation may have some merit, but I can not believe the OP's problem is he is underscoped. I have shot far too many 1.5"-2" groups at 350 yds to believe that a 3-9X scope isn't adequate for that range. I place far more weight on the quality of the glass than the magnification.

Nomercy448

Thanks for posting these Ridge! A picture's worth a thousand words!

Nomercy448

I also like a diamond shaped target, I'm too lazy to go find diamond targets so I just turn square 5 spot targets 45degrees (looking like a diamond with 5 square bulls, rather than a square with 5 diamonds). That problem is exactly what I'm talking about. Frankly, it's just hard to hold the same on every shot, so the more you improve your odds to ensure you're holding, the better off you'll be.

The problem then becomes that deer don't have squares, circles, or diamonds printed on them, haha. Not much on a deer to use as reference.

By the OP's original desciption, it didn't sound like anything useful. The guy didn't give any real indication of how he was shooting. The rest of the posters had aptly covered the rings and bases, scope, rest, etc, so I referenced it, and moved onto another glaring issue. And if you'll follow some of his other comments, he's shot other rifles with better results. Obviously there was a reason he thought he wasn't shooting well with THIS rig.

I have taken 3 scopes from my brother-in-law over the last 5yrs that he has said "won't hold zero", including 2 Leup VX-2's. We've taken the time to go through all of the "usual suspects" like you mentioned, added real rings and bases, properly installed, and he still wasn't getting good groups, so he was sure the scopes were "bad". So I mounted the scopes on my .30-06 and did some shooting, did box tests with them, banged them around a bit... They all 3 held fine, and grouped as well as anything I've ever had on that rifle (even with the janky Ruger factory rings on that rifle). So what was wrong with the scopes? Nothing, the kid can't shoot for $hit. Same reason he sold his heavy AR-15, and I'm sure he'll sell the new Sendero he just bought. Moral of the story, is that guys go through the process that you suggested, and then for a lack of other options simply decide "it's just a bad scope", when it often isn't.

Again, you obviously are NOT understanding my point. There are TWO components to every shot we make. Yes, under 100yrds, we can basically neglect most environmentals and shoot without significant adjustment, so it's pretty easy to make our POI meet our POA, but getting our estimations within the same margin for error at 1,000yrds to again make our POI meet POA is much more difficult. But again, the ability to place the POA on target is the same, regardless of range. No matter how well you can hold steady, if you can't tell the rifle is on target, you can't hit the target. Moral of the story, even if a shooter that IS capable of doping well enough to shoot 1" at 1,000yrds is holding a rifle that IS capable of shooting 1" at 1,000yrds, if his magnification isn't high enough and his crosshairs completely cover the target, he can't deliver a 10" group at 1,000yrds, let alone 1". We have to meet TWO criteria, Aim at the target, and make the bullet hit what we're aiming at. No matter how well we can make the bullet hit what we're aiming it, it doesn't mean anything if we can't aim at what we want to hit. Again, if you can't make your rifle hit what you're aiming at (shooting technique and dope estimation), no, a 40x scope won't help you. But equally, it won't matter if you're shooting from a rail chassis bolted to a concrete slab, if you can't tell whether you're aimed at the x or 2" to the left of the x, the shooting technique won't matter either.

Just think of how well you could have shot if you had a real scope. You saw Ridge's groups above at 700+ (a deer will only cover 3% of the FOV at that range on a 3-9x, with the vital zone (6") covering 1/2%... Hope you can hold steady, Ridge can...). There's no arguing that you can shoot better groups with the scopes on 9x than you can at 3x, so why is it so hard for guys to admit they'd shoot better at 12x or 16x than they would at 9x?

skiking

A higher power scope ain't gonna fix that.

If you read what I wrote(I quoted it for to make it easier), you would understand that any of those causes or a combination of any of them could definitely cause a guy to scratch his head and wonder what is going on. I know if I went to the range and started shooting 3" groups at 100 yds(granted with my 30-30 that is about all she will do with open sights, we will call it 6" groups for her) I would be wondering why I wasn't shooting well and start looking for the reason.

I perfectly understand your point of the magnification, but in this case it is a useless argument. Draw a 1" circle on a piece of paper, look downrange through a 4x scope, unless it is a crappy scope, it is more than enough magnification to shoot <6 MOA groups at 50 yds. There appears to either be something mechanically wrong (note C,D,E,F)or he wasn't able to achieve a proper rest or shoot well and didn't properly call his shots(A&B), if stuff was really going wrong read G.

I can't stand when people push high power scopes as "real scopes". I choose a 3-9X because it gives me adequate magnification to reach out and kill a deer/elk at 500 yds, but also provides a wide enough FOV so I can find a target quickly at short range. Plus higher magnification scopes are typically larger and heavier, throwing off the balance of the rifle. I have seen high magnification scopes as the cause of more deer getting away than a simple 4X. You can use a 4X scope effectively at over 300 yds, but you are gonna kick yourself if you need a quick shot in the brush at 40 yds and you have a 10X.

I too have had friends and family think their scopes are shot, they come to me(has happened with everything from Tascos to Leupold VX-IIIs, I fire a few rounds, if there is still a problem, I clean the gun. Fire a few more, if problem still exists, I mount the scope on one of my rifles that I know the accuracy of, if the problem goes away we know it isn't the scope. I continue the process of elimination until the culprit is found. About 25% of the time, they just can't shoot, 25% of the time, it is a badly fouled barrel/damaged crown, ~30% of the time rings/bases are loose, ~10% of the time it is a junk scope and the other 10% is action screws being improperly torqued. I have never ran into magnification as a "glaring issue", even with 4x scopes it isn't a problem to get close to or exceed 1" at 100yds. Once they start grouping in the 2-3" range it is time to start looking at ammunition, and after 2-3 boxes of different stuff we usually get it down under 1.5".

Nomercy448

You must be talking to my wife, becaue you sure know where all of my buttons are. Frankly, in a quarter century of deer hunting, I've never felt as if I've EVER had "too much scope".

There are tons of guys that will swear you can't use a "high mag" scope at close ranges. Personally, I've never had a problem, and mathematically, the numbers don't lie. At 20yrds, a 3-9x scope has an FOV of 7ft. My Leupold VX-3 LRT 6.5-20x50mm has a FOV at 20yrds of 4ft. Dropping a deer at 20yrds isn't going to be easy with a 7ft FOV, nor will it be with a 4ft FOV, but even then, BOTH scopes will have the deer fully in frame. If we're really honest about it, neither of them are "easy" to catch a moving deer at close range, without a lot of practice, so saying one is better at close range than the other is mostly like saying red is better than green, purely speculative.

I'm not saying that everyone needs a 40x fixed power scope. But in my experience, there is no rifle hunting purpose where I'd rather have a 3-9x over a 4-16x, or 6-24x. Frankly, the most versatile scope I own is a 4.5-30x, followed by a 5.5-22x and that 6.5-20x. To the original post's point, I have absolutely no purpose for a 1.75-4x, I'd rather have iron sights, or a 4x open red dot sight for anything that I'd be shooting that short.

If I'm brutally honest, if I'm heading afield with a hunt shorter than 40yrds in mind, I don't bother carrying anything over a 7" barrel (well, besides that stick and string I carry around sometimes...)

skiking

I may not sound like much, 7 ft FOV vs 4 ft FOV, if you think the difference is trivial, you have never tried to get your crosshairs on a bull elk 30 yds away in some really thick, dark timber.

Nomercy448

Make up whatever excuses you want to justify your scope choice, but pointing fingers won't get you anywhere. I HAVE taken elk at under 30yrds, as well as several other game species at close range, including the whitetail doe I shot this evening with a 6-24x scope at 34 FEET (stepped out by my size 10 pack boot that measures 14" tip to tail).

Again, you won't tell me that a high mag scope has a disadvantage at close ranges.

Mr. Longbeard

Id take scope off and remouint it with good base rings... Whats the bore looke like??? Should look like a mirror inside!!!

Trigger pull might be prob also...