I appreciate the simplicity and durability of fixed power scope. I have recently had a variable power scope fail and am considering a fixed power- however it is clear to me that I am unable to shoot groups for load development as well at 6 power that I can consistently at 10x or 12x. Not for nothing do serious bench rest shooters have high power scopes.

For those that use low power scopes regularly can you truly achieve sub MOA groups consistently out of rifles that are capable of them? By how much, if any, do you feel 6x handicaps your ability to shoot groups vs. 10x?

I recognize that ability to shoot groups has little or nothing to do with effectiveness as a hunting optic.

Thanks

I throw a higher power optic on to work up loads. Once I'm happy, I put the fixed power on, sight it in, and then call it good.

With lower power scopes I modify the target (with a sharpie) as needed to work...

A 6X can be tough at times....


I almost never put a high power scope on to work up loads. Most of my work with hunting rifles are done between 4-8X.

I work up loads with my hunting scopes.

Yup.

Tell you how I like to "group" a hunting rifle. Take a full sized deer/elk/moose target...no dots or prominent markings over vital areas. You know...the way they look when you hunt them.

Hang them at 300-600 yards,and shoot them from field positions. Then see how well you "group" on a monolithic back ground at distance with your hunting scope. Your group SHOULD center the vitals regardless. Those are the groups I care about.

Sorry to derail the thread....had to get that out.

6X AND heavy duplex

jorge 6X works.

6x



6x



6x



6x



It works fine for me. It's not benchrest rifle, that's for sure. But this particular rifle shoots well enough for the hunting fields. That was an elk from 2 years ago. Last year was at 200 yards offhand, I was glad for the 6x there too.

Once I have the load and rifle sighted to where I want it,I go rabbit hunting. Short,long,in-between,sitting,trotting/jogging (don't like running shots unless I screwed up and already hit but not killed the rabbit) it's the best practice I know of.

Also works off a wee little bit from the middle.

200 yards....

Bob, you mean monolithic as in stone background?
Or monochromatic and in same color??
You know the intricacies of english (being my sencond language) escape me.

In any case I develop my loads with my hunting scope. Not great accuracy loads, but have killed all animals I have shot at. So they group well on "furred backgrounds"

Sponx you are probably right. Good point. I did not have the right word.

You know what I mean....

6x with heavy duplex, average .4" with a best of .189" @ 100 yards. Switching scopes to the wide, and finer duplex.

Well, I did this as a teen, and until mentioned had completely forgotten about it. I think that I may need to get back it to this practice. I have a few new rifles that are in need of scopes being mounted and loads worked up. Practicing on Jacks would be great practice for coyotes.

Rifle#1 A scabbed together Frankenstein. A Savage Model 10 action off of a lesser used .22-250 with a $30 overstock barrel from ER Shaw chambered in 6x47L.

Rifle#2 Not put together yet. A Defiant action with a #4 contour Shilen in a McSwilry also in 6x47L.

Rifle#3 Another Savage action, with an ER Shaw Varmint contour chambered in 6.5x284 Norma and a Richards "Wolverine" laminated thumbhole stock

Rifle#4 A raffle prize. Ruger American Compact in .223 18" barrel with a 1:8 twist.

I have some scopes sitting around here. A couple of Weave K4's given to me by Ken Howell. A SFWA SS 6x42 mq, a Vortex Crossfire II 6x24x50, and a Vortex Crossfire II 4x16x50.

The vortex scopes are probably going on the 6.5x47L deviant rifle, and the 6.5x284, unless I cough up some seious money for a higher end scope.

I'm really leaning towards turning the Frankenstein Savage 6x47L into my coyote gun if I can get a decent load dialed in for it and mounting the SWFA 6x42. And for the reasons stated above. Don't want to have to worry about dialing a scope in. Just want to be able to point, aim, and fire.

OK, so, not asking for opinions on the brands of the scopes that I have on hand. But, which scope would you mount on which rifle?

And, I'm not really looking at using the K4's.

As for the RAR? Anyone out there with a RAR compact .223? What scope has worked for you ? I'm kinda of thinking another SWFA 6x42 or the Vortex 4x16x50

3-shots up the pipe(no wind hold off),to let 162 A-Max simply do,what they do...at the the 705yd line. 6x42 Reupold,which of course has been replaced with a 6x MQ Fixed Fhuqker. Rifle shoots even better now,due the ability to hold an MQ reticle harder. Hint.



VERY Technical Video Of Same

S/S RAR Compact 223 and 6x Fixed Fhuqker.



Blued RAR Ranch 223 and 6x MQ.



223 Ranch and RAR Hummer...6x Fixed Fhuqkers.



Nother RAR Hummer and 6x Fixed fhuqker.



RAR S/S Compact 223(Wicked Boona') wearing Reupold 3.5-10x M1 ele. It transitioned to a Reupold MK AR 3-9x TMR SFP Illuminated(didn't track for schit) and finally ended up with a 6x MQ Fixed Fhuqker for some reason. Baby Montucky 6BR next to it,wears a 6x MQ Fixed Fhuqker.



Have a hunch there's prolly more kicking around.

Yes...I'm sandbagging.

Laughing!...............

If the target appears too small on 6x... Enlarge the target so that you can see an aiming point that appears relative to your crosshair... too easy...

6x42 LRD
Montucky 7WSM and 162AM

This is definitely not the norm for me with a 6x. But I hate shooting paper anyways. I get a good hunting load and then it's straight to the steel.

Sub MOA groups are easy with quality glass at 6x. Sub 1/2 moa groups are always harder and I prefer 9-14x to squeeze the last little bit of eyeball error I can out of the job. I have shot a lot of 1/2 minute groups with 6x glass, but it can be made easier with a little more magnification.

I think this will differ from individual to individual. I do not think 6x scopes works for everybody. I know for a fact that there are plenty guys that shoots really well that simply do not like shooting groups with 6x scopes. If it was me I would try a 6x shooting groups before making up my mind. Yes there are plenty of guys shooting nice groups with their 6x scopes but there is a very good reason why we get scopes with big magnification.

Pieter

Hunter bench-rest competition limits the scope to 6x max. They are regularly shooting 1/4 MOA or better groups at 100/200 yards. If the rifle is capable, a 6x scope is not a liability as long as the target is sized correctly to allow consistent/proper reticle alignment.

The unaided human eye can resolve objects of about 1 inch size at 100 yards, which would make a one power scope suitable for consistently shooting one MOA or better.

A six power scope should provide resolution of objects of about one sixth of an inch at 100 yards, giving a potential consistent group size of 1/6 MOA, or .17 inches or better at 100 yards. IF the shooter, rifle and ammunition are up to the job.

I used to be able to shoot a fair amount of groups at 100 that were on the order of 5/8 to 3/4 inch with irons...

Quite easily. As others have mentioned the ability to shoot tight groups is aided greatly by choosing a target shape and size to match the reticle/magnification/distance combination. By doing so I've been able to shoot a number of .5-.6 moa five shot groups with a scope whose actual magnification tops out at 3.9x. Similarly I've shot a few .5-.6 moa ten shot groups using 6x.

Yep and I have no issues getting tiny little bug holes w/ my 6Xs; at least in rifles capable of such performance.

6x works as good as the rifle and USUALLY better than the nut behind the trigger...

A firearm's accuracy capability is the same with or without sights with human error removed. The shooter is part of the accuracy equation and part of that is how well the shooter can use the sight(s). Matching the target to your scope or sights for zeroing and accuracy testing greatly helps.

I've been pleasantly surprised with a 4x on my 270 fwt. Just switched back to the original scope that's been on the rifle for years (according to the original owner). I adjusted the eye focus for my vision and damn if It works like nobodies business. I've shot some pretty good groups with the old girl and her old piece of glass (steel tube weaver K4). With this in mind, I believe the same can be said about a good 6x scope.

I like 12X for testing loads at 100yds.
Fave hunting scope is a 2-7X (squirrels, yotes or deer).
Have some higher mag stuff for dedicated varmints.
But really really like a 2X in the timber for bambi, esp if moving.

Wouldn't mind a fixed 6X for a .22mag.
But that HBR Leupold (AO) aint cheap.
Thought about a fixed 8 w AO for Contender .22 lr rifle.

Neat old scope.

I have shot sub MOA groups with several rigs having 4X.
Back when younger I did it with iron sighted rigs on bags.

But I'm older now, eyes went to crap.

Shooting last week at 50 yards, I was wanting more than 7X on my .22lr.
My #1 RSI .243 wears a 4X. Did OK, but it's just for deer. Heading out in a few to check it at 100yds.

Ideally with the crappy quarter rib/ring game......it should wear an older longer tube VX2 2-7X. But I got the 4X at a decent price.

As a kid, I repeatedly shot groups around a half inch with a 3-9X cranked up (at 100 yds). My old #1B (jr high) shot as well as my prev 660...9X.

Nowadays I couldn't imagine a dedicated chuck rig limited to 9X. Had a AO compact on another 600.......and it did .75" but there again, at the range.....I was wanting a little more. Kid didn't want to deer hunt, so I sold that rifle. Like a dumbarse.

tcp:

Until I acquired a Sharps with excellent iron sights, I did not think one could generate 1 moa accuracy with irons. My fix has been targets that allow a very precise fit with ones sighting system, and that's with bifocals and 70 yr old eyes. I probably have 15 different target sizes and patterns on my PC and print specifically for whatever is going to the range with me.

Same with scopes. I have a 1/4" bull target for a 22-250 carrying a 24X scope and a 3" bull for my Marlin Guide with a 2.5X Scout scope in 45-70. The Marlin is easily capable of 3-shot 0.75 inch clover leafs at 100 yds. Were I to use the target for the 22-250 with my Marlin, I can't even find the bull's eye.

Some competition small bore folk shoot at bull's eyes they can't see. They score though because the target meshes with their sights.

Take an array or sizes/patterns of targets to the range and one will likely find one or get some ideas about what dimensions or shpaes are most appropriate. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the results. Like all of life, one size does not fit all.

Lower mag can add aiming error.
Such errors may help or hurt a grouping.

Irons can work very well.
But pay attention to your lighting.

Several guys learned the hard way at our local MZ club.
Zero in the morning, get screwed in the afternoon.

IHMSA has taught a few folks similarly.
Covered lines, different range orientations.......when setting up sighting card, make note of that stuff!

Had my dad crash n burn because his state start time was way different than his normal shoot times. Arghhhhhh if he would have just listened.

He runs optics now LOL

Like most folks when doing original sight-in and checking groups my optic is cranked all the way up. Hunting and field position practice is mostly at 6x since that is my most common magnification in open country. Surprisingly the groups haven't varied much in size between 9 or higher and 6 power at 100 & 225 when I compare.

Yup. Funny thing about that.

My regular hunting rifle, Sako 30-06, In hunter class at a local gun club shoot printed a 3 shot 7.625" group at 1040 yards. Scope is a Leupold 6x42 with M1 turret dialed to 31 moa. 5 shot groups are larger, ~1.3 moa. This class is limited to 9X scope power and many groups were in the 3's, one competitor got a 1.5" 3 shot group in practice.

Maybe one of my best groups ever was with a 4x, and many at the 1/2" realm with a 6x. They'd all probably have been way easier wit 10-12x and/or AO. You CAN do lots of things. Doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.

I may be a little archaic, but I still use several three and four power scopes. My favorite bolt gun is a 54 year old Browning Safari .308 built on the small ring FN action. It wears a 4X Zeiss that I have had for at least twenty plus years. I have shot numerous three shot groups (hunting rifle) 5/8" or smaller. I have killed deer way too far away with this rig.

I usually draw an open square aiming point on a piece of poster board. Make the opening large enough to clearly center the reticle. At least for me, it is easier to shoot precicely this way over a solid aiming point. I admit that all of us are different and we have our predjuces, but what I need is an aiming point. I use a binocular for looking.

Best wishes,

Jack

Yes.

None.



Dave

As others have already said, adjust target so that the scope reticle pinpoints the aiming point.

Example: With my eyes the narrow part of the wide duplex in a 6X Leupold subtends very close to 7/8" at 100 yds . Making a cross of dark blue 7/8" masking tape on a white background for an aiming point, it is possible to see an aiming error of 1/8" depending on the ambient light.

A wider tape makes a 1/8" aiming error harder to see.

Somebody already mentioned some of my previous writings on this, but we can actually figure out the difference in potential aiming ability with various scope magnifications.

Most people think 20/20 vision is "perfect," but in reality it's only average: It's what most humans see at 20 feet. Some people have 20/15 vision (meaning they can see at 20 feet what most people see at 15) and a few have even better vision.

Somebody with 20/20 vision can "define" just about an inch at 100 yards, meaning they can tell the difference between alternating half-inch black-and-white lines. Beyond 100 the lines disappear and look gray, just like a zebra a long way away.

Scopes will shrink how much somebody with 20/20 vision can define at 100 yards by the amount of magnification. A 10x scope shrinks it to 1/10 inch--and a 6x scope to 1/6 inch. 1/10 of an inch is, of course, .1" and 1/6 of an inch .1666". The difference in aiming error is .0666", slightly more than 1/16 of an inch, which ain't much.

Consequently, it's usually obscured because of other factors, such as not firing enough groups to be able to find it, common among handloaders who settle on a "pet load" due to one small group.

Other factors are scope parallax (not many shooters know how to look for it, much less compensate for it), the built-in error of most handloads, and unsuitable targets for the reticle.

But probably the biggest is wind, something very few handloaders consider when testing ammo at 100 yards. A 1-mph breeze (which most would consider dead calm) will drift a typical .30 caliber, 150-grain spitzer boattail at 3000 fps just about exactly as much as the difference in aiming error between 6x and 10x.

I think you meant the difference in aiming error is .0666?

Thanks, fixed it. Am recovering from a bad case of food poisoning and am not tracking exactly right now!

I suspect, based on my own experience, that aiming error is not necessarily directly proportional to resolving power, but that the aiming mark and sight design play a part too. For example, with a ring foresight of suitable diameter to suit a black circular aiming mark, it is quite feasible regularly to shoot groups smaller than 1 moa, even if the naked eye could not resolve better than 1 moa at that distance. Back when I was shooting ISU smallbore I was doing it regularly, from prone unsupported, week in and week out. Change the foresight, or the aiming mark, and it becomes more difficult, though the eye's resolving power is the same.

With scopes with a crosshair/duplex reticle, I personally find that an aiming mark in the form of an X, preferably with each of the four legs tapered to a point at the intersection, makes it a great deal easier to wring out the accuracy of the rifle than, say, a circle or square. I also find that, all else being equal, the lower magnification sight picture looks rock steady, which helps confidence.

OTOH a bit more magnification, all else being equal, helps when the aiming mark is less than ideal - a small dull-coloured object against a dull background, for example. However, all else isn't really equal, as there are trade-offs to be made as you up the magnification, in such things as FOV, depth of focus, mirage etc.

In saying the foregoing I'm not taking a position on it, just reflecting on my own experience.

I probably should have answered the questions too


1. Yes

2. With a suitable target (see above) not at all

Those forced to start their rifle scope magnification at 6x because they have average eyesight must start there for that reason.

Others with stronger eyesight can use rifle scopes with less magnification so as to be able to scope moving game at closer ranges.

Variable power scopes are another advantage also.

My first scope was 6x. I really see no need for a higher magnification except to better see prairie dogs expand after a high velocity bullet hits them.

1/4 MOA is what I consider as good as it gets out of my firearms. But I don't shoot bench rest. I mainly hunt and do a little lever action silhouette with iron sights. No, I don't get 1/4 MOA with my 32 Special or my 30-30 with iron sights. . If I consistently shot 3 MOA with either of those off hand I would be quite happy. As it is - no way. A 6x scope can easily do that 1/4 MOA, even with my cataract eye sight. A 4x scope can do 1/4 MOA too.

I used to have 20/15 sight. Now not so much.

But using higher power scopes means more weight, more visible shaking etc. There is no way any advantage for me other than stated PD shooting to using > 6x scopes. Granted I have a couple 3-9x scopes, but they do not get set higher than 6x and they do not often go hunting.

I like to keep my game shooting < 350 yards. To me hunting involves stalking, otherwise it is shooting, not hunting.
I would rather shoot something at 35 yards than over too.

You can shoot 1/4 moa w/out a bench? What is your technique?


mike r

I'll bet if you could consistently hit a quarter at 100 yards...you're pretty much shooting MOA. Maybe that's what he meant...

I like a 6x with a fine crosshair.

Check out Hunter Benchrest on line, look at some of their groups...

DF

This.

In my mind a quality 6x or even 4x will be better than a cheapo 9x.

When sighting in a rifle at 100 yards I can shoot smaller groups with 9x-10x than 6x. Never really thought about targets matching the reticle. So I'll continue sighting in at the scopes highest power and then adjust down when hunting.

I have shot 1/2 moa groups at 300 with my SS 6x. I have shot moa at 550 (that is how far my range goes). It may be easier with higher power, if you are worried about target groups, but it is more than good enough for the hunting that I do. I am not a super-range shooter.

I wouldn't have believed it until I saw it, but some of the best groups I've gotten from my most accurate rifle were with an old steel-tubed El Paso K6. They're honest to goodness 1-holers and I'm sure I couldn't have done any better at 12x.

I like to use little tiny neon-colored dots as targets.

Aim small.

This is on a hunting rifle of course; if I were bench rest shooting I might have different thoughts but small fractions of an inch just don't matter a ton to me.