I am going to post this here even though it has to do with optics. I have just ordered a new Sightron 4x16x42 scope. I decided that having a higher power scope would help me stay more true when shooting off sand bags. I want to decrease as much human factors as I can when trying to find a good handload. I know that I will never use all 16 power when hunting, but while shooting at paper it should come in handy. At least that is what I am thinking.

Do any of you have any thoughts on whether or not higher magnifications makes a difference?

[ 06-28-2002, 10:01: Message edited by: monyhunter ]

Absolutely! I wish my eyes and nervous system were as good as they were 20 years ago but.... I use as much magnification as I can get while working up loads.

Absolutely!
I have a 8-32x target dot scope that I use for load development and rifle accuracy testing.
At 300 yards, I simply shoot the fouling shot on a blank piece of paper and then use the bullet hole as an aiming point.
By far the best and most potentially accurate setup that I have found so far.

Although a high-power 'scope is desirable in working-up loads, a good quality 'scope is much more important!

A $120 6.5-20x44 'scope will cause you more problems than a $421 4.5-14x40 'scope.

All my 'scopes are Leupold, most are the old Vari-X II 4-12x40, with a couple of the newer Vari-X III types.

I have found that contrary to my hopes my 6-24 scope on my 222 does not radicaly increase my consistancy over my fixed 6 powers. In fact the best group I have shot to date is with a 6 power matched to a 2" birchwood casey sticker

It seems that a quality rest and technique coupled with wind flags is far more important.

When I round to it that 222 is going to become a sporter weight and fixed 6 power!

Interesting question and opinions!

1894 and Steve each get an A+. I do not think that a higher power scope, in itself, "increases" accuracy. Quality scope is #1. Higher power scopes may allow to see your aiming point better, depending on what it is. Higher power scopes may also allow you to "spot" your shots on your targets at greater distance with more precision, as Bruce does.

Hunter class BR rifles are limited to 6X maximum. The target is a red "ring". Even at 6X, you can precisely center the crosshairs in that ring (or accurately "hold off"), so that is an ideal target for that power scope. I do not personally think that allowing higher power scopes would measureably increase scores.

I do generally use higher power scopes for load development, saves me from using a spotting scope.

Variable power scopes have more "parts" and are more complicated than fixed powers, and may not be as inherently accurate than fixed power scopes. Given "equal" quality, a variable may approach, but won't exceed, the accuracy of a fixed power scope. On the other hand, a good quality variable may be more accurate than a lesser quality fixed power scope.

I hope that you made a wise choice with the Sightron 4-16X42 .... I bought the same scope for a "new" target rifle (it's not here yet). I chose the 4-16 over the 6-24 because of windage/elevation adjustment (56 vs. 40 MOA). I have a Sightron 6X42 HBR on my HBR gun, and really like it so far.

So, I guess my final answer to your original questions is: It depends....

Best regards, Bill

(editted to correct typos)

[ 06-28-2002, 19:09: Message edited by: Bill M ]

I to think it makes a big diff.
I use a 6.5 x 20 Leupold for this, none of my rifle's have scope more powerfull than 6 I like to shoot at 200Y to give the bullets time to go to sleep.
If your target is small your groups will be smaller at 20 power I can shoot at a 1" square.
The test scope wears Leupold QRW rings all my HP rifles have steel Weaver bases and some are modified to match the test scope"s ring spacing,this way I can switch the scope anywhere any time.
Works for me

Regards martin

Hey monyhunter, I believe I agree with most all the above, but I prefer higher power scopes to fine tune a load, with 2 disclaimers:

1. You absolutely must adjust the front Objective to remove the paralax at whatever distance you are shooting and ignore the "yardage indicators" next to the Adjustment Ring. Think of them simply as "Guidelines" to get you in the ballpark, then fine-tune it using your own eyes.

2. You need a "Target" that matches your reticle. My Targets are "Black Squares" and I shoot at the corner of the square. Just snug the reticle up next to a corner, control your breathing, pick a spot between heartbeats and squeeze.

I can see where if your scope has a "Ring or Dot" reticle that using a circular target would seem to make sense. For those that do well with that set-up, more power to you all.

The only problem I see with it is that w-a-y out yonder, you may not notice a bit of "cant" in the rifle which could open the group.

Any of you guys that have the Circle or Dot style Reticles and disagree with that thought, help me understand why you think otherwise.

I absolutely agree that the style of target is totally important in shooting good groups. The worst type I have found for scope shooting is the normal High Power black center style that is large and black. Not only is it almost impossible to find an accurate aiming point but it also hides the bullet holes.
The type I use at 600 yards is a diamond which is a 2" white diamond with a black area out to 4". For my 1/8 MOA target dot at 32x, I can put the black dot in the center of the diamond and see a bit of white all around and have the fine wires on the points of the diamond. With this rig I can call my shot to within 1/2" at 600 yards. This doesn't mean that the rifle will shoot that well, but I can hold the sight picture that close and can mark the direction and amount the sight picture is off center.
A couple of guys that I shoot in matches against flat out called me a liar for claiming that I could hold the sight picture that close so I put a target out at the 600 yard line and had one of them lay down and take 3 shots after a couple of minutes of instructions on using a bi-pod and rice sock. I instructed him on shooting the "free recoil" method that cheats by touching the rifle as little as possible. He laid there and took 5 shots in about 3 or 4 minutes. The wind kicked up on the last shot and I told him that before we went down to look at the target. He had 4 of the 5 shots that were in a group that was about 1" vertical X 2 1/2" horizontal. One shot was a good 10" off to the side. There is no way to prove that the wind did it, but those two guys were both convinced because they had looked thru the scope setup at the target and convinced themselves.

At higher powers the quality of the optics becomes even more important because lack of clarity will eat your lunch and higher magnification actually magnifies the distortions. If you want to see top quality optics look thru a Nightforce scope. The optics on mine are superior to my not so expensive spotting scope.

An anti-cant setup on the load testing bi-pod is essential. Some people use bubbles on the scope to verify level, but I prefer to level things up on the target frame edge because that is consistent from session to session. The bi-pod has a lever that can be tightened down to set and maintain level.

When a 3X crosshair completly or nearly covers a bullseye and you can just turn it up a bit and dial in on the exact center of the bullseye I dont think that theres any question that it can help to achive tighter groups, but that is just one element of the equation, most of the rest is still left up to the individual..

I appreciate the feedback. I have always wanted a nice higher-powered scope. Every time I go to a gun store you always have the opinionated person that sits there and talks down about higher-powered scopes.

I bought the Sightron for two reasons. First it is a very nice clear scope. Some people might not like this, but I feel it was much better scope than the Leopold Veri-X III and for about 1/2 the price. I looked through a lot of scopes and for the money the Sightron is right up there.

The second reason I chose Sightron is they have a great warranty. Over the counter replacement, you can't beat that.

The scope should be here this next Monday. I will be sure to give everyone a full report after I shoot a few round with it.

monyhunter,
I agree that the Sightron is an excellent scope. They are relative newcomers to our shores, but up-and-comers for sure.

I used a 4X-16X Sightron mildot reticle on my 510 JAB (500 A2) and it took the pounding in stride without a whimper.

With a 5 mil holdover and 750 grain bullets at 2150 fps, I was on paper at 942 yards, the longest cow pasture I have access to.

It is about time Leupold had some real competition for a moderate priced scope.

Big scopes have never improved my shooting and they sure can add problems of mirage, heartbeat and a lot of that stuff I don't want to know about...

None of my friends can shoot any better than I and some of them are into 20X...I want no more than 5X on a big game rifle and no more than 9x or 10X on varmints or target.

I used to believe high powwer let me "see" the target better, but over the years I have proven to myself that magnification if not as important as many of you have said, but clarity, AND brightness is. Lack of brightness is what kills me at high magnification. High magnificantion means smaller field of view and therefore less light reaching your eye. My eye must have a certain brightness of picture to see well. Therefore, good optics, big bells, and lower power works best for me. I generally pick the magnification that allows me to quarter the target center with the crosshair. Anything higher power is a waste really, and can actually hurt you on days with heavy mirage, as the sight picture never settles...hurts your confidence to make a shot.