Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What's the draw for a 6x fixed power

An honest question and after reading and watching the hype on the 6X scope glass, I set out to answer it myself. A couple thousand dollars later and practical experience in the field my conclusion was, to each his own and a thought, why not a fixed 5X.

To each his own works for me as long as there is a choice. Zeiss, Swarovski and Kahles no longer offer 6x42 scopes. Leupold discontinued the 6x36.

For myself the question of what will be available in the near future is moot. I have what will be for me a lifetime supply of Meopta MeoPro 6x42's. I also have a few variables that I mess with from time to time but the Meopta 6x42 always finds its way back on my rifles.

Roundoak, you pot stirrer.......you want one for that 99A saddle gun??? Love that gun by the way.

My go to 99F in 300 Savage wears a Leupold M8 6X and as mentioned by plenty above. Covers shots from 20 yards to 300 pretty well for my 99.

Jim,

Blasphemy, I say, blasphemy.

I have tried to like the 6x scopes,but to me they are either too much or not enough. In the thickets of Alabama 25 yards can be a long shot and I know from experience that less magnification and more field of view is a good thing. I can make 4x work but 3x is even better. On true brush guns,the scopes that are about 1x at the bottom and 5x at the top are hard to beat.

In open country where you can see for 200 yards or more,I want more than 6x. It's just easier for me.

I know my views are in the minority in this particular thread,but in the marketplace most folks must see it about like I do,at least that's how they spend their money.

Fixed power scopes are almost an endangered species,not nearly as many out there now. This is especially true in lower magnifications. To me,fixed power scopes in lower magnifications are useful in guns with a lot of recoil. There aren't really that many choices for a Dangerous Game Rifle anymore.

Any rifle I use for hunting has either a Leupold 6x36, 6x42, or a Leupold variable 2.5-8x36. I rarely touch the variable scope's magnification ring in the field, preferring to leave it set on 8X. I can't see a lot of practical difference in 6X or 8X for game shooting, but I don't take long shots over 400 yards for which 6X is plenty adequate. I'll not criticize another's choice of scope magnification, but hope that they have a reasonable amount of experience with fixed 6x scopes before they preach a blanket condemnation of them.

As for a close shot handicap from too much scope magnification, I recall many years ago using a fixed 6x Herter's scope (don't know who made those) on a .270 for a shot of around five to seven yards on a whitetail buck. Got the buck, but 6x was too much magnification.

I bought quite a few years back, mostly because they were less expensive than similar quality variables and I typically keep my variables around 6x when hunting. I bought two 6X S&Bs for about half the price of their entry level variables. Bought a 8x56 Swarovski and saved about $500. The 8x may be a bit much but I typically use if for "high seat" hunting, no so much spot and stalk.

Let's all just buy this and call it good.

https://www.meoptasportsoptics.com/us/produkt/meostar-r1-1-5-6x42-rd-635/

I’m no 6x expert. I’ve owned a mere handful, and they all left for 1-4, 1.5-6, 2-7, 3-9, etc variables, that cover my bases far better.

FWIW:
Just because you CAN throw a fixed 6x up and find a running critter, it doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near as good as everything with less Xs....especially if there’s thick cover involved. Just because you CAN use a fixed 6x to 500+, doesn’t mean it’s as good for that as everything with more Xs. It’s still a compromise on many scenarios.

They excel in a specific window of weight, distance, obsessing over simple, etc. They DO have potential for less light loss, due to lenses....but I rarely noticed it on the handful I’ve tried, and even when you could, it wasn’t unachievable in a variable of some sort...that I could see. Outside of that, a good variable of a suitable range, is much less of a compromise.

Nothing ‘wrong’ with liking what they do. Saying they do it better than a variable (all else equal), is debatable.

I don't think anyone said "they are better" than a variable for general hunting but mechanically they are...fewer moving parts, weigh less, fewer internal lens ( = brighter when comparing apples to apples). I use mostly variables these days, cranked down when boots on the ground, 6-7x when stand hunting.

The 6X42 Leupold is a fairly bright scope, great for the sort of low light situations that you find during the one-half hour before official sunrise and one-half hour after official sunset.

I have a couple of rifles set up with Leupold QR mounts so that I can swap a 6x42 with a heavy duplex reticle onto them for first/last light hunting situations.

Exit pupil.

I shot a crow off a fence post once from 220 yards with an iron sighted Ruger MKII Target. One shot, one dead crow. I also killed a deer at 314 yards with an iron sighted Winchester.30-30. Same deal, one shot, one dead deer. That doesn't mean an iron sighted .22 pistol is the best thing for 200+ yard shots on crows or an iron sighted .30-30 is the best thing for 300+ yard shots at deer. No more so than some jazbo killing a running deer weaving through the brush at 10 yards with a 6x scope means that's the best tool for the job.

That shot at 314 yards with a 30-30 was irresponsible and I don't care who you are nor that you made the shot.

Said it a million times, put a MQ reticle and SWFA guts in a Leupold 6x42 body and theyd sell like hot cakes.

Was it ? Gee that's too bad. That deer is long dead now and I ate it. Now hold on for the real bad news. I had already killed an even half dozen with as many shots between 200 and 250 yards with that same rifle. They're all long dead now too. The hillside I shot those deer off of was right behind my best friends house. We spent an awful lot of rounds busting rocks and woodchucks on that hillside with our deer rifles over the summer and I was pretty confident I could make those shots.

A 6x42 is like being an owl

I have killed several deer at less than 20 yds with 4-12 Burris FF II set on 12. It ain't tough if you are familiar with the weapon. Yes, you just get a scope full of hair if you aim at the body. But if you point the scope at the antler, you can follow the antler down to the base of the skull and pull the trigger on the second vertebrae.

No, I would not pick 12x on purpose for the shot. But if that is where the scope is set, I will find the target and pull the trigger rather than fumble finger around with power adjustments.

I can not think of any hunting situation where a 6x32 or preferably in my case a 6x42 would not serve me admirably. I killed a truck load of game and gophers with a 30-06 and a Weaver 2.5-7x32. That scope lived on 7X.

Years ago Weaver set out to find the perfect all-around fixed power scope. They reportedly did a lot of research and experimentation. Their conclusion came down to a 4.75 power scope was the best all-around power for a rifle scope used for hunting. This was the Weaver Grand Slam 4.75x40. Anytime I see one used I buy it if it is priced around $150. They are one hell of a value in a scope, good optics, and reliable. I can't tell the difference between a 4 power and the 4.75 power. No clue why they did not sell like hotcakes, but they didn't.

"The 4.75x40mm is the only fixed power scope in the Grand Slam line. It comes in matte black only with a Dual-X reticle. Weaver considers 4.75 to be the optimum magnification for an all-around fixed power scope. Sometimes simpler is better, and the 4.75 Grand Slam should be even more rugged and offer even better optical quality than the Grand Slam variable power models. It should be entirely suitable for use on all-around rifles chambered for such cartridges as the .260 Remington, .270 Winchester, 7mm-08, .280 Remington, .308 Winchester, .30-06, and 8x57JS."

https://www.chuckhawks.com/weaver_grand_slam_scopes.htm

The Weaver 4.75 was too long and too heavy for what it was