When selecting a scope for your needs, do you give more consideration to magnification or field of view?

The reason I ask is that I am debating my next scope purchase between a Leupold VX-III 1.75-6x and a Kahles 2-7x. Lets forget other differences in quality for a minute, I'm satisfied with both. The Leupold has an FOV of 47-18 feet at 100 yards while the Kahles has an FOV of 48-27 feet at 100 yards. So lets say we adjust the power on the Leupold so that the FOV is 27 feet at 100 yards (say that's 5x). How will the picture that you see at 5x through the Leupold differ from the picture that you see through the Kahles at 7x, if the field of view is the same? The target will consume the same proportion of the FOV, right? I would imagine that the target would actually be larger with the greater magnification, but will your eye actually see it this way? Has anyone done a side by side comparison like this?

Just wondering what the real world differences would be.

Thanks in advance,
Bob

For most hunting, I think field of view is a bit more important than magnification, since most big game is still shot inside of 200 yds. (most, under 100 yds.), but even so, if you can't see it, you can't hit it. With that in mind, I try to split the difference in terms of scope selection for general-use rifles.

For example, I own two .338s, and I have Leupold 2.5-8X scopes on both of them. I have a 3.5-10X Leica on my favorite .300 Winchester, and a 2.5-8X Leupold on my .270 Win. There's enough magnification at the top end for longish shots if you need it (and to significantly increase the "twilight factor" early and late), plus enough field of view at the low end for closer-range situations.

I went with a 6.5-20X Leupold on a .300 Winchester one time. This rifle was set up for pronghorn and Coues deer hunting primarily, but I also used it on more conventional hunts for mule deer, moose, goat, elk, etc. For pronghorn and Coues deer use, that 6.5-20X scope was really hard to beat, and I can remember a really long shot on a Coues deer in Sonora that would have been tough to pull off without that kind of magnification.

But for all-around use, that much scope left a lot to be desired. It didn't have enough field of view capability at the low end to suit me, and its bulk was a burden, especially in a saddle scabbard and on goat mountains. Eventually, I got rid of the entire rifle, scope and all.

I'm going to come up with a similar rifle as a specialty rig for hunting in wide open country with a bit more moderate glass on top, likely a Leupold 4.5-14X.

AD

I too, think most hunters are way too concerned with magnification. It's nice on the bench rest, but simply not needed in the field under most circumstances.

You don't need a three foot long scope with a 4" diameter objective lens on a hunting rifle !

Incidently, I like your two scope choices. I'd go w/ the Leupold.

What you are missing in your comparison, is the difference in eye relief. I'll bet money that if you measured the eye relief of both, you'd find the Leupold has not only more, but is less critical as well. At the level of magnification where one has much more FOV than the other, of course.
I'll take a generous non critical eye relief anyday over a couple of extra feet of FOV. When I throw that thing up in a hurry, I need to have the whole image in front of me. I've found, even at 25 yds., the FOV difference between a 6X and a 4X aren't that much. The 6X has a lee way of 2 feet, and the 4X three feet. Two feet are plenty. But I must have the whole image, which is a function of eye relief, scope position, and practice.
Scopes do not help you shoot better. They help you see better. They have no effect on your trigger control, or your shooting position. The longest shot I ever made on a large mammal, well over 500 yds., was made with an ordinary 4X. E