Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Does the 4X scope still have a place in the modern hunters lineup?

I think a lot of demand these days is for higher and higher power variables. Lots of hunters are in to the idea of pre idiom rifles and long range hunting.

I say the idea because, for many hunters, they’re still hunting the same areas where realistic game sighting will dictate short range shots.

In today’s market, if the fixed power scope is a dinosaur the 2-7 may be a dodo.

. . . I was saddened to here that Leupold has discontinued the 4x33.

Actually, the 3X Leupold is growing on me lately...with a heavy duplex reticle.
Bob

If you hunt forests where visibility is less than 100 yards and every deer is legal certainly 4x works. If you hunt mountains & open country where you might not be able to get within 300 yards of an animal and there are antler restrictions 4x doesn’t cut it for most people. When a 4th point or a 6” brow tine means 300 lbs of elk in the freezer & the lack of either means an expensive ticket. Certainly binoculars or spotting scope can tell but not nearly as quickly as - “it’s legal Bang.”

Hitting the target may not be the only challenge. I’ve shot elk from 11-550 yards and one fixed magnification isn’t perfect for either.

To answer what I consider a ligament question "How is the 4X better? " So I'll answer in full respect and with my set of fact that leads be to this conclusion.

How's it better? In a few ways. Not any being universal but all just as ligament as the question asked.

#1 Is that field of view and light gathering are better from a fixed low powered scope then they are from a higher magnification. For game hunting I have found clarity and field of view beat larger images every time if any quickness is needed for a shot.
So the counter would be that "a variable can be set at lower power". Very true and that's exactly what I do, and what I said I do in the post above. But being that I shoot them every time on the lower power for hunting (including my longer shots-- because I can see better due to the scope allowance of more light at lower power) it makes me ask the question why I would spend a lot more money on a feature I have found to be close to useless over the last 50+ years? So for real world use they are better due to cost

#2 I own variables and I set them more/less permanently on the lower powers making them bulkier and/or heavier then a fixed power of the same magnification. So better in their size and weight.

#3 in all my years as a shooter, hunter, guide and firearms instructor I have never had to return a well made fixed power scope in for service due to it breaking something inside. I have had to have 5 of my own scoped repaired in my life and all of them were variables. These include 2 Leupolds, one Schmidt and Bender, one Burris and one Pentax. As a gun professional (gunsmith) I have also done it a few dozen times for customers and i know of at least as many that the owners did themselves and again ALL of the were variables. So I think I am safe to say for the top tier of reliability the fixed scope beats the variables. Better for reliability.

Now as I said I still own several rifles with variables on them, so I am not "against them" but if I were able to "write my own script" I would have 1 to 5X on 2 of my semi-autos and 100% of the rest of my guns for hunting big game would have good quality fixed scopes on them At this point of my life I wish every single rifle I had except my 6.8 SPC AR15 and my 5.56 AR 15 would have fixed scopes. My 2 ARs would have 1X to 5X scopes on them.

So "4X" is not as much an issue as the difference between a variable and a fixed, be it 2X 3X 4X or 6X.

To close I would point out that in a 1/4 mile run, if all runners were to cross the finish line in the span of 6 seconds the one that crossed last is "the slowest" and the one who crosses 1st is the fastest..... but the winner didn't make the losers slow. Same with fixed vs variable in my book. I am not someone that would refuse use and own a variable, but if I could, I would have nearly all fixed scopes. As it turned out many of my scopes are variables, but using them along with using fixed ones for over 1/2 a century is the REASON I am convinced the fixed scopes are indeed better for 99% of the real world shooting and hunting.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better? No. Just consistently a bit better for my uses anyway.