Other than for specialized affairs like shooting a mad grizzly off your toes had you rather have a 3x9 or 4x12 for the majority of big game hunting?

Neither. 1.5-6x42 is much better for all around.

I've got a 3-9 on my go-to rifle, and I like it a lot. Here in SW Washington I think I'd be fine with a 2-7, but I like the 3-9 as a general purpose power.

Currently in the 2.5 or 3-10x40 camp myself. Little need for more than 4-6x hunting. It's only at the bench that I like the extra power.

quote:

Originally posted by miles58:
Neither. 1.5-6x42 is much better for all around.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:
Other than for specialized affairs like shooting a mad grizzly off your toes had you rather have a 3x9 or 4x12 for the majority of big game hunting?

Put me in the neither group, too. I don't use 3x9 or 4x12. My carry-around BG rifles are all either 2.5X or 4X fixed. My beanfield and target rifles are either 6x24 or 8x32.

2.5-10x42, Swarovski for preference. Perfect general purpose scope.

I've been concvinced that the 6x42 is the only way to go. Great for hunting applications, less mechanical parts to fail, less lenses for light to pass through and allows you to afford better optics for less money, (compared to a variable scope). Typically, fixed power scopes are roughly half of what a variable costs.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying this, but MHO, variable scopes are mostly a sales gimmick. Don't get me wrong, I own plenty of variable scopes, Leupolds, S&B, Redfield, weaver etc. But after hunting with all of them set at six power, I find no need to crank on them in hunting applications.

quote:

allows you to afford better optics for less money,

Very true. The 6x42 mm is good for game hunting under medium terrain conditions.
I aslo turn my 3-9x down to six, and when in brush country I turn it down to 3x to get a wider FOV.
In the seventies all we had in SA was the fixed 4x40 mm Tascos and here and there some Weavers & Redields. In some way I think these 4x scopes made better hunters of us.

However when hunting dangerous game at close range, the fixed 2.5x or 3x come into their own.
Some how Leupold decided to prune them from their lineup.
Those that used them all speak highly of them, as nothing goes wrong with them.

Since these small power fixed magnification scopes are now scarce, most hunters buy Leupold's 1.5-5x20 mm scopes for DG hunting. If you are prepared to treat yourself and spend a little more, you will never regret getting a S&B 1.5-6x42 mm scope - very tough & clear with a wide choice of reticles and better eye relief than the Swarovski's - 3.74" vs 3.15".

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:
Other than for specialized affairs like shooting a mad grizzly off your toes had you rather have a 3x9 or 4x12 for the majority of big game hunting?

. . . but we digress. In response to your original question, most scopes in the 3-9 power range have more liberal eye relief and a slightly wider field of view at a given power than do the 4-12 models. That gives you a little more versatility on the lower end.

On the higher end, what kind of big game animal is it that you can't see well enough to shoot when magnified 9 times? My point is, that the extra magnification offered by a 12X is of no real benefit in game hunting.

Besides, you can put the difference in price into a better rifle or a better hunt.

I like a 1 1/2-6x or a 2-7x.

It depends on the rifle. Some of mine wear Ultradots with zero power. Then we move up to the 1x4 or 1.5x5's on the bigger bores designed for closer ranges. Then on most of my general purpose big game rifles they wear a 2.5x8 or 3x9. Lately I been finding myself going to a higher upper end power on new rifles or one's I upgrade the scope on.
Is a 12x needed on big game? Not where I currently live but it makes load developement easier at the range. Not worried about a variable failing me in the field as it hasnt happened yet in over 40 years.

quote:

Originally posted by miles58:
Neither. 1.5-6x42 is much better for all around.

+1
or a really good 1-4 (harder to find)

only my truly long range rigs wear more power

quote:

Originally posted by miles58:
Neither. 1.5-6x42 is much better for all around.

+1

I have a Burris Signature 3-9x40 on my 270 win but only use the 9x at the range and could have used less than 3x many more times than I can count. Now, I would not get more than 2x on the low end and you will never need more than 8x on the high end unless your varmint hunting.