Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Ask John Barsness Questions About "HUNTING SCOPE MAGNIFICATION"

John Barsness's (Mule Deer) latest Campfire-exclusive column, "HUNTING SCOPE MAGNIFICATION," is on its way to your Inbox via email. Please use this thread to ask John questions about the article.

If you haven't received this or previous columns by John, simply provide me your actual email address via PM (to RickBin), and you'll be on board for future monthly columns.

Don't forget to check out John's (and Eileen's ) other great stuff at http://www.riflesandrecipes.com.

Many thanks, as usual, John!

John,

This column was really timely for me since I was wondering about my Leupold 3.5-10x40 on my 264 WM. Last week I tried some shooting at 250 to check zero on my gun and 350 yards to check bullet drop in the past it has shot well at even 400+ yards but my groups with the one load were awful. For some reason I decided to check my scope for paralax just as you described and at 350 the crosshairs moved all over the target probably 6 or 7 inches of movement in total. My scope must be in need of repair, I will likely put my Leupold 8x40 AO on it I'm sure it will group better at longer range,I may even leave on their permanently. What do you think of all this?

Thanks.

Jerry, was wondering how that 8x40 was serving you.

If you get the chance I would love to see a pic of it on your rifle.

I'm seriously thinking of ordering one and putting it on my Ti 6.5-284.


Worth noting again...

I do have a question regarding parallax. I was recently looking over one of the new Leupold VXR scopes and noted that moving my eye left and right relative to the scope caused the red dot to move appaently left and right of the black reticle. The dot and reticle appear to be in slightly different focal planes. Now for the question: would carefully aligning the dot with the reticle prior to the shot help reduce parallax aiming error?

gerrygoat,

My guess is that 8x will work fine on your .264. One of my own long-range rifles is a 6.5-06, and it has a fixed 10 Leupold Mark 4. Just as my wife has never had any problems "finding" deer even at woods ranges with 8-10x, I've never had any problem with 10x at typical open-country distances.

oklahunter,

Yeah, I would expect that lining up the two aiming points would eliminate parallax.

The same thing happens when we hold our head far enough back from a scope that we don't see the entire field of view. Instead we're seeing the exit pupil--and if we center the exit pupil in the rear lens parallax is eliminated.

Thanks for answering my question John, I really appreciate it.I don't remember my 3.5-10x40 scope ever being like that, no sense having a 264 WM that becomes inaccurate at 250+ yards I will switch scopes tonight if I get the chance.

Great article, MD!

I must be too old fashioned but here in the Patagonian foothills of the Andes, I feel I never need anything but a GOOD 4x scope. I have 2 good German 1,5-6x42 scopes in 2 of my rifles but in the end they are all the time in 4x....

Thank you!

PH

Can someone post a link, please? For some reason I never get the emails.

Hi MD!
If you have two fixed scopes one 8x56 and one 6x42 for example Zeiss Diatal, you can of course see more details when its dark in the 8x56 scope. In my opinion that is because the target comes 2x closer with the biggest one and not because more light comes into my eye.Is it correct to say they are equally bright?

I don't get them either.
Have sent a PM with email address twice to Rick.
Last one was about a week ago.

Steve

Here's a link:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/newsletters/September_2011.html

Guys, the emails go out, but they can get caught in spamtraps or blacklists. You might check for the old ones there.

Once again, many thanks Rick.

I've resigned myself to have to get JB's article through a link.

Steve

John,

Wouldn't those non AO scopes like Burris Fullfield 3-9x40mm scopes that have the ballistic plex also have some parallx problems as well? Enough to effect their accuracy at those distances of the plexes?

Usually not--though any scope of that general size should be tested at max magnification for parallax. I've seen some that were practically without parallax and some that had quite a bit.

I wonder what magnification he used? http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/10/08/nyheter/jakt/innenriks/hjort/skudd/18508210/

For the first shot, probably just poking the rifle at the hjort!

Great article by John and good practical advise per usual.

Would add,on the target subject. I carry those flourescent orange stick-on circles that come in various sizes from 1/2" to 6",and vary them according to scope power, reticle and distance. For example, I use the 1" size against a black background with a 4X scope at 100 yards; a 3" size with a 4X at 200-300 yards,etc.

The reticle contrasts nicely against the bright orange, yet forces you to "hold small" with the 4X,which results in some pretty tight groups.

I have found the 6" dot does well with a 6X scope clear to 600 yards for me.So I use it at 400-500-and 600 yards.

It is wise not to have the dot too big for the power and reticle because you will then start floating around the dot,your aiming point not being as precise,which will affect group size.

These dots also help you see parallax very easily when it exists at a distance as the movement of that orange dot becomes very apparent,forcing you to move your eyeball to the center of the scope for a consistent sight picture.

If you can't find the diamond targets, these dots are a good substitute.

I am not surprised at the smallish groups with the 4X scope.

BobinNH,
I tried some of the small dots after reading your forum comment. It really forced me to shoot carefully and "small".
Thanks for the tip. Most all my scopes are now fixed power.

You mention most higher power variable scopes having some means of correcting parallax. More and more I'm seeing new scopes with higher magnification have "side-focus" vs. the old "adjustable objective" How do these two corrective aids function in a scope, and are they the same thing, but with the adjustment placed in a different spot on the scope? I had my BIL out this weekend to do load development with a new-to-him .243 Win. M70 XTR. He brought along a brand-new Nikon Monarch 4-16x42SF and it was the darkest scope I've looked through in years. I made sure the side-focus was "set" at 100 yds, but my older Nikon Monarch UCC 6.5-20x44AO is a MUCH brighter scope. Does side-focus influence that in any way, or was this just an example of current production Nikons? I have a current production Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 that is one of the brightest scopes I've looked through...but no parallax adjustment. Is there a relationship?

Both side-focus and an adjustable objective essentially correct the focus of the reticle, but the side-focus does it inside the scope, rather than by moving the objective lens. Generally an adjustable objective is considered more precise and perhaps tougher, but side-focus is certainly handier--at least for right-handed shooters!

I don't know why a side-focus scope would be dimmer than an adjustable-objective scope, and haven't noticed it in using a number of side-focus scopes. Is the reticle in your older scope a plain plex-type, and the reticle in the new scope a "ballistic" type? Usually plain plexes are wire, while ballistic reticles are etched. The glass that reticles are etched on is usually uncoated, and can slightly dim the image, though the difference normally isn't vast.

The reticle in the older scope is a Nikoplex, as is the reticle in the newer scope. This scope was unbelievably dim, as in the Bushnell Trophy 3-9x40 that we mounted on his .22 LR and sighted in at the same session was much, much brighter, as was the Nikon Prostaff spotting scope we were using. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to offend the BIL, but I certainly made note of it. I'll check it out again while we're hunting together next weekend to see if it was as bad as I'm certain it was. I'm a big fan of Nikon optics and was disappointed to see how dim that scope was!

That's very interesting. I wonder if something's wrong with it.

I am wondering about this too. I am looking for a scope that has very good low light performance and it seems to me that things appear "farther" in poor light. The natural response is to want to increase magnification, but then you must also increase the objective lens diameter.

Not necessarily, but sometimes. It depends on the magnification and the person's eyes.

The twilight factor formula is an attempt to resolve these factors.

MD,

Do you have the Twilight Factor Formula handy?

TF is the square root of magnification x objective lens diameter (in millimeters).

A small adjustment:

TF is the square root of (magnification x objective lens diameter)

Thanks!

so should I buy a Conquest 3x9x50 or a 3.5 x10x50 for my next 223 caliber deer hunting rifle? No shots are ever over 150 yards but I do like the big image in the 50mm scopes. The 3.5 x 10 is an inch longer and 3 ounces heavier but my eyes are getting weaker.

If I were you, the 3.5-10x50 would be it.

yes that is what I really want, foolish as I know it is.

Man, I just read the article and all the comments for the first time. Learned a lot! Thanks Mr. Barnes!

You're welcome!

I either need to sell a rifle or get another scope. (I like all mine that are to wear a scope ready for use, even those that I may not have shot for quite some time,) My most often used rifle is an accurate, lightweight, .308 topped with a top of the line Zeiss getting on to about 20 years old. Never had any trouble hitting stuff in the "volleyball" out to as much as 500 yards ( which I really do not intend to do again - too much could go wrong.) That should tell me something. This rifle's twin sister is an identical model in .243, wearing a Leupold 3-9 Ultralight EER which I need on a .22LR for the parallax adjustment. My thinking for the .243 is for the Leupold 6x36 as a replacement. I do not see many used ones in this marketplace, so I may have to go new.

John, I appreciate your work. If you have sold out to the industry, you sure hide it well. Thanks for being open and objective. jack

jt402,

Thanks--I think!

Actually 6x36 Leupolds come up for sale fairly regularly on the Campfire Classifieds. Usually they're M8's instead of the new FX-II's, but the M8's were quite bright. I probably have 8 or so I've picked up there.

Mule Deer

Are the FXII's the same line & quality as the VXII's only in fixed powers?

Yep, same adjustments and lens coatings.

Thank-you John

Any participant who is 3 seasons away from large college qualifies for your NFL draft if that participant renounces university football eligibility by earlier. NFL Jerseys to ascertain the draft purchase the NFL goes through the win-loss information on the prior season, to make sure that clubs with poorer information draft earlier than those people with much better records. <a href="http://www.jerseyhandsome.com/Arizona-Cardinals-Jerseys-88">Arizona Cardinals Jerseys</a>

Thus, places generally compete for teams, providing potential clubs larger and much better stadiums, guaranteed lover support, Jerseys NFL and a wide range of http://www.jerseyhandsome.com financial incentives.The NFL draft consists of 7 rounds. The playoffs are more than and now it is time for your huge fixture � the 2011 awesome Bowl! The eco-friendly Bay Packers experienced to beat the Philadelphia Eagles, Atlanta Falcons and also the Chicago Bears to turn into the NFC representatives.

I just picked up a FX111 6x42. I'll be mounting it on a 20 moa base so I'm figuring around 50 useable moa of the 64. Adjustment will be sufficient for 1000 yds and I am wondering how much parralax error I can expect. I believe the parralax is set at 150 yds.

Thanks
Shod

The dreaded "black around the image". Somewhere in Alaska Art's head is exploding.




This is a technique I use all the time shooting long range with my non-parallax-adjustable scopes. Pull back a bit to minimize parallax.

That's really interesting...... thanks JeffO the information is much appreciated. Don't know why I had never thought of that it's really a quite simple concept.

Shod

You might find it a bit awkward to use in the field however..... E

In the field I will be limiting my distances unless a more than favorable situation presents itsself. Even then the shooting will be limitd vs shooting from the bench. However I like shooting as far as I can from the bench as I feel it makes me far more efficient for my shorter shots in the field.

Shod

JB, do you have the actual magnification specs for the Leupold VX-III 2.5-8x36 (rifle)scope? Thanks.

Mo,

according to Leupold website 2,6-7,8x.

http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/vx-3-riflescopes/vx-3-2-5-8x36mm/

Hope this helps and all is well.

C.

http://www.karenoutlet.com/
http://www.karenoutlet.com/specials/
karen millen uk
A variety of elements contribute to an ideal wedding ceremony. But undoubtedly, nothing at all will draw a lot more interest from the bride than selecting her wedding gown. As we all know, surrounding folks try to detect a thing relevant concerning the bride' s character, aesthetic appreciation as well as strategy to life by way of what she wears on her large day. When you are conscious adequate, you can know this has been a basic fashion rule. To light up your beauty or to increase your charm, the very first and most important thing you need to do is always to find a chic wedding dress now.

That's very interesting ,I like shooting as far as I can from the bench .

What's the upper end magnification where parralax starts to creep in? I favour 2-7X variables. I start to lose sub MOA at 300-400 yards with one of my rifles. 1.5 average groups at 220 yards and 5" at 400 yards. I assumed it was the effect of slight shifts in wind but now wonder if I am seeing the effects of uncorrected parralax at 7X?

" If we really practice with our hunting rifles (which doesn't mean shooting a bunch of groups from a benchrest), then we should be able to find the chest of a wild boar at 10 yards with a 2.5-10x Zeiss Victory Diavari scope set on 6x, with its over-30-inch field of view � or a mule deer in the 7-foot field of a 3-9x40 Leupold VX-II at 50 yards. Most notions about field of view were formed back in our grandfather's day, when scopes had tiny eyepieces, but modern scopes have far more field. "



I agree 100% with this paragraph and have found it to be very important to those of us who do more walking than stalking, and what I call jump shooting where the game is either pushed or on the move.


I used to shoot at a range with an old ore cart set on a track, with 2 plywood deer set 90 degree's apart. 1st shooter called the deer to advance ( motor and cable driven cart- below shooting height to protect it from damage), and at about 120 yards, when it came from behind a dirt birm one had about 10 seconds to attempt 3 shots at the deer. At the end of the track was another burm and a ramp that flipped the plywood deer holder so the next shooter could send 3 bullets at the second deer. At the end ( or start, as it where)someone like myself used a headphone set to relay hits, both in a grid and a center "kill" circle pattern back to the rangemaster to display to the shooters. Scores varied from a low of 2 points from a hoof to a poor shot, up to a 5x which was the center of the shoulder joint above the heart. Shooting 2x ( and 3 per) , then 2 more runs from opposite direction had 12 shots, 6 right to left, and 6 left to right. after a few years most of my scores were 55 to "one" perfect 60, and I also ended up trying a "skeet shooters " method to making it more difficult, dropping the bolt gun from my shoulder betwen shots.


After many years of shooting running deer on 9x, I was pretty quick in the field to find moving game, good trigger control and seldom hesitation once the choice to send a bullet was determined. I have heard of rolling a tire down a hill with the center filled with paper, which is probably a pretty good replication if the tire stays upright long enough.


Practice, and using one gun, can make shooting much more pleasurable and sucessful.


Allen

Hey John,

Is there any reason to use a scope with over 7X if most of your hunting is in woods and you'll probably never get a 300+ yard shot?

Thanks

I went to Africa with a VX-R 3-9. The lighted reticle was wonderful at twilight (when I took my Oryx) but I really wished for more magnification through the brush. I was afraid of the parallax problem, even under 200 yards (where I limit myself for the 9.3x62) which is why I selected a 3-9 as my primary scope.

Do you have a recommendation for how high a power it is safe to go without parallax adjustment? Maybe I would have been better off with a higher quality 3-9 or 3.5-10 than the Leupold?

Thoughts?

Woodsmaster,

Sorry I missed your question of a month ago!

You can get a little more "twilight factor" from a 3-10x50 in dim light than with any 7x, because apparent brightness is also partly a matter of magnification.

Rodell,

I've never seen a 3-9x 3-10x with enough parallax at 200 yards to make any difference on big game, and usually there's none. I have, however, seen a few with maybe 3" of parallax at 300 yards, but that's rare. The best thing is to test any of your scopes at longer ranges for parallax if it's a concern.

Most scopes up to 10x don't have parallax adjustments, because it's such a minor factor n big game scopes up to that magnification.

Muledeer...quick question. Saw a picture of you with a javelina you took with one of the new Cabelas Model 70 Super-Grade Lightweight .257 Roberts. What power of scope was on it if I might ask.

I also have one of those beautiful little Bob's. Took awhile to find one with the wood I wanted, but was well worth the search.

The scope ws a Cabela's Euro (Meopta) 3-9x.

Those are pretty nice rifles! Congratulations.

Hey,

If any of you guys have been afraid to bother this guy "MULE DEER" with your questions on rifle scopes, handloading, or hunting. I'm here to tell you Don't Be. John is one heck of a nice guy and his suggestions where very helpful!

I personally would like to Thank John for being available for anyone to be able to correspond with and share his experience and knowledge.

I hope one day to be able to share a hunting camp fire with Mule Deer, cause I'd like to shake his hand.

As I grow older and my eyes are not quite what they used to be,hell I've been wearing glasses since I was five,so they have never been that great.I really like scopes with higher magnification.These days,I'm liking my 12x and 15x more and more.I find myself shooting really good groups with the higher magnification,so why turn it down?I think it really depends on your eyesight in general.Me being far-sighted,with really bad astigmatism,my choice may be a good choice for me.I remember Mule Deer writing about Eileen liking a higher magnification too.It really depends on just how well "you see"I also have to agree,we are very lucky to have Mule Deer to help us when we need it.Thank You,John Barsness.

Hello, I am a big fan of leupolds m8's 4x and 6x. I would seem to shoot my 99's better with them, you might have explained why. Thanks 4 that! My question is installing a LRD in them. Leupold said on the 6x it would work for a .308/300 sav. I am confused however, I would normally install cpc reticles in them. I did think the extra dots on the crosshair could be used to range estimate. I have not shot the 6x yet. Do you think a LRD reticle would work in a 6 or 4 m8? Thanks.

Parallax--what a pain it is sometimes. I remember several years ago I had an XP-100 built up in 7-270 WSM/16" 7-T Pac-Nor to shoot the 200-gr. Wildcat bullet out of to maximize the effective range of my specialty pistol big game hunting. Kirby Allen built it and he told me from the get-go that the HS-Precision stock might not hold up to the torque created from the big bullet/twist combination using a bipod (and he was right). I put the ever-popular 3-12x Burris LER pistol scope on it and started to develop loads, and for the life of me I couldn't get anything to best 2 MOA. After the last group was shot I was sitting at the bench just frustrated as all hell, when as a last resort I thought to check parallax. Sure enough it was as big as the group. When I adjusted the AO for it, the next group gave me .5-.75 MOA and I went hunting. Got this nice buck with that combo too that week at 375 yds. The only nice buck I've ever shot really--



Thks. MD for all your articles I've read over the years. Always considered you in high standing amongst my favorite shooting writers sir.

please advise: my 1st time submitting. have no idea if i am doing this correctly. hope this is a start. please pass on to whoever or whatever forum where this question should possibly need to go. *if passed on, please let me know where this message has gone, so i van follow up.
*point blank factor using a duplex reticle as range calculator
am hoping to find a more precise explanation on the following, to better assist others in calculating shooting range factors using a duplex reticle. would appreciate any input you or others may have.

example: using a 3X9 scope w / duplex reticle and scope power is set at ~ 6X/6 power.
having difficulty clearly explaining briefly and concisely.
OK, with known range and using specific load, ~ 308 win Rem 150 gr. core-lokt bullets with a previously known zero at yardage, if game animal / target falls w /in the horizontal fine reticle wire and is between the heavy stadia vertical post have been using rough estimate of +/- 18 inch bottom of chest for deer and +/- 24 inch for elk. i realize some game animals may be larger or smaller. field experience and open mind, are helpful. if kill zone / impact area is larger than the duplex describe area then game / target is closer than ~point bank; aim right on desired bullet impact area and if target appears smaller than w / in the small horizontal wire and the heavy vertical lower post the target is farther away than "know point of impact / point blank" ..., aim higher according to shooting skill and present field conditions or pass and do not shoot.
may 2013 issue of NRA rifleman magazine had somewhat of an article using scope reticles. explanation became more than i was hoping to see in print once again. as best i remember, some of the article dealt w / comparison w / mildot usage.
it was over my head and seemed more complicated tan an article i read many, many years ago. i do not remember writers name or name of outdoor type magazine the article was in.
what id did read at that time +/- 1970's or early 1980's was extremely impressive. drew up a rough sketch, but do not know how to download digital image of it to show what it is i am struggling to explain and am sure there is some one here in the forums that may understand what it is that i am trying to say. best i can do for now. thanks,

John,

Where I hunt, it's all open ranch land and the shots range from 300-500 yards. We have the dreaded "3 point min" and a metric butt load of huge 2X2 mulies. That makes almost all of us carry around spotters with our other gear.

I'm looking for a variable rifle scope that tops out near 20X to help confirm three on one side. CDS type preferred, BDC or Boone and Crockett would work, I guess. We tend to use range finders a lot, as well. I'm sporting a 243 AI, if that matters.

What's the best tradeoff for weight, price and magnification in your opinion?

Thanks!

I'd look at the Burris Fullfield E1 6.5-20. It retails for around $450, has good optics, weighs 19 ounces, and you can either crank it up or down or use one of Burris's ballistic reticles. The only disadvantage is it has an adjustable objective, rather than side-focus.

Another would be the Vortex Viper 6.5-20x50. It's a 30mm scope so is two ounces heavier, but has side-focus. Real-world price is about the same.

Thanks,

Would you choose them over the Leupold Mark AR MOD 1 6-18x40mm Riflescopes?

I can get a CDS type dial for my load.

David,

It's a little more expensive, but lighter than the other two, though like the Burris it has an AO rather than side-focus. But if the CDS is what you want, then that's what you should get.

John, apart from the low light advantage, do you think a large objective scope will resolve detail more betterer (to be an advantage to the user) than a smaller objective at the same power?

Bick or Flintstone.Parden me With a grin.

I don't have the opportunity to practice much at the range beyond 200 yards, with the occasional trip to a range in Sacramento for 300 yard work. So I almost never need a scope with a parallax adjustment. When I do, I set it at 200 yards and never take a shot beyond 300. Besides I think it is more fun to get close to the critter first.

MD, allow me to add some specifics.

What sticks in my head is what the bird guy wrote around Y2K--something like "theoretically an 8x32 will show you all there is to see" ...am curious if a 56mm objective resolves detail well enough to be a visual improvement over a 42mm objective of equal quality and power in da daylight at a range of 400ish yards.

Ordinarily I buy the stuff and check it out for myself. I did snag an 8x56 S&B scope with the foil version reticle in case it was a daylight wash. But then chit happens and it's in the right eye, an intermittent blurring-it became apparent shooting paper when a cloud rolled in front of the crosshair on a clear day...one can imagine the joys looming ahead in the "golden years"...

Would appreciate yer thoughts as detail comparisons look to be on hold for a while.

Tom,

A larger objective lens does provide more detail, everything else being equal. This is because in good optical systems, the major aberrations occur around the edges of the objective lens, mostly due to two factors: That's where it's "bent" most severely, and also bounces off the tube. This results in both fuzziness, and random light bouncing around inside the scope, which reduces contrast.

A larger objective has less edge per surface area than a smaller objective, so there's less light scattered, so the image is sharper. This effect is most obvious in dimmer light, but with really small objectives can be seen in bright light. An outfitter I once worked for was really thrilled when he was given a 10x20 Zeiss as a tip by a client. He was equally disappointed when I could see more detail through a 10x42 that cost a third as much. I handed it to him and he could too!

MD,

You mention the CDS system here. I have been striving rather hard to make a decision on scope for a specific project I have had in mind. One of the things I want is some form of BDC reticle or turrets for longer ranges. I pretty much have decided on the turrets, but have been advised by quite a few people that for an all purpose scope that could see use on horseback, Africa, long range, short fast shooting etc....unlocked exposed turrets are a bad idea. Some have given personal examples of range getting changed accidentally and missing snap shots at close range because of it and suggest always checking zero setting before shooting, but most just tell me, lock 'em or forget it.

This would either rule out turrets or narrow the list to a very few choices (Leica ERi, some HD5's, Superslam, etc.)

What is your opinion on this?

I'm of the same opinion--but if the adjustments are reliable in any scope--and can be turned by hand--then it's easy to mark your own turret. I do it all the time, with adhesive paper or tape covered by tough, clear tape. Apparently Formidilosus does the same thing too, judging from some photos he's posted!

Thanks John.

I did some low light comparisons earlier this year and could see improvement but not perhaps not enough to overcome the objection to carrying the thing. I imagine (my current limitation) the 42 won't be giving up enough in broad daylight to hit "practical"

We sold some optics back in the day on the side and a Doc friend had to have to have a 20mm Swaro as the ultimate bino for stillhunting whitetail in the UP. Its reign didn't last long...:)

Yep, there's always a balance between handy and good! While almost any binocular beats no binocular, I don't have any "pocket" binoculars anymore.

MD,

Thanks for the response! So just to clarify, what you are recommending is that if a scope is to have exposed turrets that they should be lockable to preclude accidental changes, am I understanding that correctly?

Thanks!

MD, any guess as to the percentage of variable scopes in the 2-8 or 3-9 range from "every" vender where the parallax is not set correctly? I am thinking "many of them"

Wouldn't it be simpler to just post the articles here?

Just because "e-mails go out" doesn't mean they arrive, and I feel certain most are smart enough to look in the spam folder before they tell you it didn't come.

I live in the middle of nowhere, with AOL dial up, and there are LOTS of E mails that don't ever arrive here.

I couldn't vote on the SWFA thread because the E mails just don't go through