I have 4x and a 6x fixed scope(s) and am thinking about using them on an upcoming PG hunt. I know a lot of guys hunt with 6x and do just fine--I may try a 4x.

Any input on it? Does anyone feel handicapped by a 4x?

All my other scopes are mounted and sighted in, so I am being a bit lazy, plus I like compact scopes.

I did use a 1.5-5x one inch on a hunt and had trouble seeing at twilight through it.

My 4x is 36 mm and the 6x is a 42 mm.

Thank you for the input.

I used a Redfield 4x widefield on my .280 for several years. I used it for Deer and Antelope mostly with great success. However, I believe your 4x has too small of an objective lens to be of much value in low light. That said, many African PH's aren't keeping you in the bush at post twilight. You might email your PH for his opinion. That's the one that will matter most. If it were me, I'd go with the 6x42. But then again, going to Africa warrants the best you can do in insure a quality hunt. I use 3.5x10x50 and 4x12x40 on most hunts in Africa. Good hunting, LDK

It depends on where you ae going to hunt short or long distance. Lot of game for pg is shot in twillight hours so the 42mm will be of great help. If it is bushvled you could stick to 4x but the added light of the 42mm will come in handy. But also remember that the twillight in South Arica is very short.

What I would do is, buy a quality 3-9X40mm or 2-7X40mm scope with a plex reticle, and carry it set on 3X for snapp shooting, and run it up for twylite shooting! You might also consider an illuminated dot at the apex of the cross hair, as well, especially if you want to include a cat, or Hyena over bait. However, between the two you are thinking of useing, I'd go with the 4X !

I have used a .375 with a 1x-4x Leupold on a few different safaris. I usually leave it on 4x. I have made shots as far as a .375 is practically capable of shooting accurately.

Last month in Botswana, I borrowed a rifle with a fixed 2.5X scope. I did fine with it, I did want for something a bit bigger though.

As long as you are aware that you will be a bit handicapped on some of the longer shots, I say, go for it. My experience has been that a 4x scope is usually plenty for anyone with decent eyesight, for hunting at any reasonable range.

I would have no hesitation mounting a 4x scope on a rifle. As Mac said, if you plan on Hyena at night go with the bigger objective.

I'm heading to Namibia next week with a 4X Leupold on my 9.3 X 62 and a Weaver K3 as a backup. I promise to truthfully report all shots not taken because the 4X was inadequate.

In 60 plus a few years of hunting I have never been in a situation wherein a scope of more power than 3X would have changed the situation.

I can see an Impala in a 4X scope plenty good enough to take a 1000 yard shot if I was a mind to, which I am not, but have shot them at 300 plus with low power fixed scopes on many ocassions. Bottom line is you put the X where you want it, the size of the sight picture with scopes has little to do with anything, unless your counting hair or looking for mites.

The huge awkard, ridiculas varible power scopes of today are nothing more than the most successful con game in history, proof positive that brain washing with advertisment works, and if you don't believe that just make a statement such as this and watch them come out of the woodwork telling me they weren't screwed by paying those big bucks, and then the instances where had it not been for that 44X scope they would have come home empty!!

Now I shall go into hiding and keep my get away horse tied and saddled out behind the house as I have stepped on the toes of millions.

I'd venture a guess that hundreds of thousands of 4X scopes were used successfully long before the huge variables came onto the market. Lots of folks have filled their bag with 4X's for the last 50-60 yrs.

You tell 'em, Ray!

Hell, no hunter worth his salt even needs a scope.

These damn kids and their new fangled toys. What's next? Talking movies? Horseless carriages? Indoor privys?

And why won't they GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN?

It'd do the little whippersnappers good if they had to walk to school 10 miles every day. Each way. Uphill both ways. In bare feet.

Don't appreciate nothing!

3 hunts so far and I have never had my scope set higher than 4. Take it, you'll do fine with it.

I used a 4x32mm Meopta on a 9.3x62mm in the thickish bushveld of the Northern Province of RSA and did fine..If I were hunting in more open country with a flatter shooting rifle, I would probably go with the 6x though...

If I were limited to one fixed power scope for all hunting, it would be a 4 power. Growing up, that's all I used. You'll do fine.

I like the Leupold compacts too although mine are variables. I hate it when a big scope interferes with the balance of the rifle.

I am not a proponant of huge scopes ... as the man said, the interfere with the balance of the rifle.

I have used 1.5-5, 2.5 to 8 Leupolds, and the 3-9x42 MC Zeiss Conquest in Africa. The all worked fine for their intended purpose. My .458 AR wears a 2.5 Leupold Compact.

I'd prefer a smaller variable to the fixed but if you're used to it, it is not likely to cause significant problems unless you get into DG. Then I'd want a lower power!

There is some misunderstanding regarding twilight ability. There are two aspects to this; optical transmission, which is a function of the quality of the optics and coatings, and the number of glass/gas interfaces; and exit pupil, which is a function of magnification and objective diameter.

Assuming equal quality of optics, a fixed power has fewer lenses and will have better transmission.

Assuming equal quality and design, the scope with the bigger exit pupil will have better low light capability, up to around 5mm. Anything bigger than that is bigger than your fully dilated pupil so it won't help.

Exit pupil size = objective lens dia/magnification.

A 6x42mm has a smaller exit pupil (7mm) than a 4x36mm (9mm) but both are bigger than you can use so you won't detect the difference.

A 9x scope would need at least a 45mm objective to give you a full 5mm exit pupil.

A fixed power also has fewer internal parts that can break, get out of whack, or shake loose.

Field of view is another consideration. High powered scopes tend to have smaller fields of view...like looking through a straw in some cases.

Variables are more expensive than fixed power scopes.

High magnifications magnify wobbles and this increases your trigger anxiety, esp in the field where you won't be shooting from a bench.

So the lightest, most compact, most durable, least expensive choice is clearly a low powered 4x or 3x scope, for all but DG hunting, and at these low magnifications, you don't need an objective bell at all. A straight tube has a lens that's plenty big enough to give you a 5mm exit pupil. It also has the advantage that many of these scopes have recessed lenses so you get a sunshade built-in. Spend the money you save on getting the best quality optics you can afford.

If you include DG, then you want a 1-3x or a 1.5-4.5x scope with no bell.

Like someone said, the rest is just slick marketing.

Take either one and don't look back. In some 14 visits over there I have never used over 4X.
Only took a variable one time and wished I would have thrown it in the creek and stayed with a 2.5, 3 or 4X.
To much scope power is just like too much recoil for you, it won't do you any good. Big heavy variables are just sales gimmicks and the gun writers go right along with it for the "ride". DG the old Weaver K-1 through K-3 will do you just fine. As will low powered compact Leupolds.

I'm ok w/ my 1.5x5 out to 300yds on deer size game. I shot my waterbuck @ a bit over 100yds w/ very little light left. I doubt I could have made the shot much further. A slightly brighter scope would have helped. I think you would be fine w/ the 4xunless you get into very thick cover.

Just returned home from Zim where I used a Husky 9.3Mauser with a 4x Schmidt&Bender (Steel Tube and No4 reticle)
But still love the big 1.5x6 Schmidt&Bender.

Made the trip with the 4x Schmidt & Bender- worked like a charm, never thought about it at all.

OzHunter---I too have a Husky in 9.3x62 (model 640) it's one of my favorites.

OzHunter
I used the same combination, different rifle brand only, but in Namibia. I tested the rifle from 200 to 400 meters, but shooted at the end max 250m.

404WJJeffery 4x is enough

My wife uses a Leupold 6 x 42 and is quite a happy with it. I hae a 3-9 x 40, and leave it on 6x most of the time.

Russ Gould gave a good lesson on optics, I think better than I had in college in Physics. American hunters get used to the higher magnification scopes, for several reasons,, marketing for one, bigger is better!.. and many use the higher magnification as a substitute for a good pair of binoculars to judge the quality of horns etc. The higher mag, excess of 6-7x scopes is useful in a few areas such as antelope, prairie dog, mountain goats, etc. but most North American hunters are deer hunters where shots are seldom over 200 yards thus a 3-4x will work well, I do like the larger objectives for low light situations. I leave my variable scopes on as low of power as possible 90% of the time anyway. The smaller powers have a larger field of view as well which if game are moving will make it easier to locate the animal.Pick what you use and practice with it and you will be confident in the field.

i think you need to pay ATTENTION more to the reticle type , the 4x leupold is a great all round scope but the very thin duplex make the scope next TO USELESS when the light goes off a bit and one needs quick target aqusition.....just compare the reticle THE 4X KHALES , S&B ,ZEISS has, as compared to the 4x leupold....you will appreciate the diffrence
REGARDS DANIEL

quote:

Originally posted by Russ Gould:
There is some misunderstanding regarding twilight ability. There are two aspects to this; optical transmission, which is a function of the quality of the optics and coatings, and the number of glass/gas interfaces; and exit pupil, which is a function of magnification and objective diameter.

Russ,

Twilight factor is not to do with optical transmission but is a straightforward calculation arrived at by the square root of the product of multiplying the diameter of the objective in millimetres by the magnification.

As you rightly state one also must take account of exit pupil (it is often said that for us over 40s anything over 6mm is a waste as our pupils won't open more) and optical transmission (measured in percentage)

In the real field other issues such as reticle design play at least as important a part.

From my reasonably extensive testing in the field I came to the conclusion that it took magnification as well as reasonable exit pupil to make a difference. For me the difference wasn't enough to make the change from my beloved 6x42s but difference there is and it becomes quite marked when you start to look at lower powered straight tubed scopes.

In most hunting situations a low power straight tube will be fine but when you really need low light performance a 3-12x56 is where it's at.

Unfortunately many people use such scopes when they are not needed which has led to them being thought of as completely unecessary, that is not the case - when low light performance really is needed, quality high magnification optics with large objectives are required.

I have used variable power scopes with a maximum magnification of 4x for all sorts of PG and feel very comfortable with them. There is too much emphasis on magnification these days, IMHO.

I have a 4.5-14 Burris, and i leave it on somewheres around 6-8 almost all the time. So go with what you feel comfortable with

Phil

I suggest the fixed 4x over the 6x because the 4x is much better on any "shorter" range shots you encounter and still has adequate power for longer shots.

quote:

I have used variable power scopes with a maximum magnification of 4x for all sorts of PG and feel very comfortable with them. There is too much emphasis on magnification these days, IMHO.

Amen.

The higher the magnification means the more movement, more precise alignment needed (read more time to aim) and less light transmission. ALL BAD!

I am a big fan of iron sights, but do admit that they are a draw back in low light conditions.

Thus my vote for a fixed 4x, or lower.

My favorite....A vintage Weaver K-2.5 with heavy Duplex reticle. Fast, no-fangled and ultra reliable for African hunting.

JW

Took a 2.5-8 Zeiss Conquest with me to Namibia and kept it between 2.5 and 4 for all but 2 shots that could have still easily been done on 4 power. On those 2 I turned one up to about 6 and the other to 8 each of these were shots I had plenty of time to set up for and the animal would be coming out into an opening in one case at 250 and the other at around 300. Either one could have been done easily at lower power but I had the extra so I used it.

Lots of good comments here, and many posters actually understand issues such as exit pupil and low light performance. (Good personal news: I just got an eye exam and found that my pupil dialation capacity is still greater than 6mm, pretty damn good for age 56.)

Although I use variables (mostly 2-7 or 3-9) on most of my hunting rifles, there is no disadvantage whatsoever under most actual hunting conditions to a simple 4x scope. The variable can make the rifle a little more versatile, and the extra magnification is helpful when sighting in and for load development work, but 95% of the time I'd be just as happy with a straight 4x in the field.

If you can't see a game animal (even one the size of a springbok) well enough to accurately aim at it when magnified 4 times, then it is too far away to be shooting at. After all, at 400 yards it would appear the same size as when using iron sights at 100 yards. You can't see a springbok well enough to aim at it only 100 yards away?

Set at the same magnification, a variable will provide slighly less efficient light transmission (due to the extra lens), slightly less field of view, and usually require slightly more precise eye placement in order to see the entire sight picture. The variable, although today's scopes are extremely dependable, will also be slightly more subject to failure under recoil, internal misalignment and POI shift, and moisture infiltration (fogging). If you are inattentive, it is also certain to be set at the wrong magnification for the circumstances whenever game is spotted.

Don't take my comments as dissing variables -- they are excellent and versatile instruments. But low-to-medium fixed power scopes also serve hunters well and their advantages should not be overlooked.

As Russ kinda said, light transmission is determined by the "rule of 7" in that the maximum diameter of the fully dilated human pupil is 7mm. All else being equal, a 4X28mm scope will be just as bright as a 6X42mm scope. It is believed by many that a 4X28 scope in a 30mm tube is brighter than a 4X28mm scoped with a 1" tube, but the physics say this is not true.

Whoops, that should be a 6X42 in a 30mm tube vs. a 6X42 in a 1" tube, duh!

JoeR: It is quite true that scopes with equal exit pupils (all other things being equal) will transmit an equal usable area of light to the eye, and enlarging the exit pupil will make the scope no "brighter". However, the ability to resolve objects does vary with magnification. Simply put, an object illuminated equally is easier to resolve at greater magnification than at lesser magnification.

The practical limitation is that higher magnifications result in smaller fields of view and other limiting issues. Since hunting in dim light is almost always relatively close-range hunting, the resolving benefit of greater magnification is negated by the need for wider field of view and quicker sight picture acquisition.

European hunters who often hunt by moonlight from fixed stands find scopes like an 8x50 or 8x56 advantageous. Despite its superior resolving power, I don't think you would want such a scope if trying to follow up on a buffalo in a dense thicket at sundown.

For plains game take the 6X42 fixed.

Joel,

If the plains game hunt is in brushy country like the Northern Province in RSA the 4X will be fine. In the Kalahari you will be better served by the 6X. I personally use variables but they often stay on 6X when not hunting dangerous game.

It seems your thread has turned into what is the best Africa scope rather than directly answering your query. On that question I'd have to say that that the 1.75X6 or 2.5x8 might be perfect. The higher magnification is extremely beneficial in quite a few applications in Africa and both are much better than the 1.5X5 in low light at higher power.

Mark

Thank you everyone for your comments- a very good thread.

I did, actually already decide on the 4x. The original post was "pre-trip" and my follow up of yesterday was "post-trip" reporting that the 4x was fine.

Did I need a 4x? No way- Heaven knows I have enough scopes, but like a lot of guys, I am always trying something new.

The names listed after what power your scope is, I think, make all the difference in the world. I just own one, on my .338, but man, that sucker has an intangible quality that gives you just a wee bit of extra confidence that, as you say, makes you not even think about the scope.

As to fixed versus variable, I had a fun, "learning experience" with my PH, which I consider a friend, on my last hunt. We were fooling around on lunch break, not even carrying any rifles, when we saw a very nice waterbuck that he knew to be in the area. We raced back to the fly camp we had stopped at, got the trackers and the gear, and proceeded to chase this boy and his harem, getting spots, first at 40 yards then at 250. Each time I'm getting on the sticks, I'm cranking my variable (just a Pentax on an 'O6) either up or down, depending on the range. I'm really more comfortable, or I think I am, at 9X when what I want is a ways out there. Finally, this man I admire so much, tells me to "quit effing around with the effing scope!", cranks it down to 3X (which causes my heart to go into palpitations) and we tear off into the bush to catch up to the, by now extremely wary waterbuck. I'm now trudging up and down hills thinking how much I'm paying this, now a-hole to cuss at me. I decide to have a come to Jesus meeting and essplain the sitaaien. He smiles, puts his arm around me and trys to get me in a head-lock. I try to kick him in the ass with my opposing leg. While we're laughing and about to almost fall down, the game scout and tracker are trying to get both of our attention that they have somehow spotted the waterbuck about 200 yards up a ridge to the left. We put up the sticks, he tells me to stick him, I realize I'm still really quite pissed, and I hit him, in the boiler room. On 3X. We raced up the ridge. I did have to shoot at about 75 yards to finish him going down that same ridge, because he did not want to give up, but both shots were true. You learn a lot in a short amount of time in mother Africa. That's why I love it so much.

my favorite all around hunting scope is a good ole 3x9, the scope sits on 3x almost all the time, I acutally find I shoot better on 3x, I don't know if its because I can't see the crosshairs jumpping as much or what, maybe its because I focus more on trigger control, instead of waiting till the crosshairs jump into the right spot and trying to jab the trigger at the same time, which I have found usually means a miss of the target, with a 3x9 you get all the options you need, highpower for long long shots if you need and load development and low power for general hunting, for what is worth I would feel good using 4x on any shot on a big game animal inside 400 yards, for the majority of people here they will not take that long a shot and will just get closer instead

Lots of good answers here but what works best for you will depend on your shot. Either will probably suffice for anything you're likely to encounter. Two observations: the most popular scope that locals use for stalking stag in Scotland is a fixed 6X where shots tend to be well over 100 yards, and like others here, my 3-10x40 Leupold usually stays on 3X.

Just my 2c - the only practical hindrance I have noticed with 6x, was when taking close shots on running game and offhand shots, tho when taking shots from any kind of rest on still game (no matter the distance) I would pick 6x over 4x

The only time I ever turn up the magnification on my scopes is at the range. I leave them set on lowest setting the rest of the time. I've made a few shots out to 200 yards or more at 2x.