Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Load Development and Scope

The result would be rifle dependent. John's 6 PPC can resolve what most hunting rifles cannot.

That is more or less my view too.

FWIW you can make things easier for yourself by attention to the aiming mark, to make it suit whatever sight you are using. With a scope which has a crosshair reticle IMHO the best aiming mark is an X, preferably one where each of the four "legs" of the X are tapered - thick at the extremities and tapered to a point at the centre. It is easy to find the centre with such an aiming mark and it compensates for the lower resolution. Much better than the various squares and diamonds and so forth.

With the right aiming mark and an accurate hunting rifle I can be quite confident of shooting groups well under 1 moa with a 4x scope, and for the sort of rifle on which I have a 4x scope that is plenty good enough.

I have gone both ways. I do have a number of rifles that have fairly low power scopes 4x 6x 1.75-5 1.5-6 etc and I find that from a hunting accuracy stand point I am can shoot better than MOA with the I figure that roughly 3/8 or 1/2 MOA of group size comes from my ability to resolve with a low power scope. so if I shoot a 1 MOA group is it a 1 MOA load or a .5MOA load? I know it doesn't really matter for hunting particularly on a rifle that I would have a 4X on.


I often do load development with 14x just because it feels more precise and there is less eye strain. And there is a small advantage to dialing out the parallax. I figure I can hold pretty fine with a 14x, maybe 1/8 MOA, so when I shoot a group I have a better feeling as to whats Rifle/Load and whats my limit to see or my ability to hold.

A lot of my rifles are Ruger Bolt guns and I have the 4.5-14 in a set of Ruger rings so its less than a minute to swap scopes and I can go back to the low power scope just as fast and usually don't require any zero adjustment.

Flintlocke mentioned the diamond target for precise aim. Over the years I came to the conclusion it isn't as good as the square. With the diamond you are trying to keep your crosshairs on the points so you are canting the rifle to do that or dicking around with a level to get your target square. The common target with 4 black 2" squares and a 1" circle in the center all on 1" grid lines is the best I've found although blue or green or a fluorescent work as well and easier to see bullet holes on. For load work I use 1 corner of a square, say the lower left, line your vertical crosshair on the left edge of the square the horizontal cross along the bottom edge of the square so the intersection of your crosshairs is on the lower left corner of your 2" square.this way you only have to keep track of movement of the crosshairs vertical and horizontal. Like " aim small hit small" it helps me shoot tighter groups with crosshaired scopes. MB

Use the 4x from the git-go.

If you're doing load development with the intent of getting the smallest group possible, & you can shoot smaller & more consistent groups with a 4x, then have at it.

But if that's the objective, by far, most people, all else being the same, will be able to shoot significantly smaller & more consistent groups with significantly more mag than 4x, w/o a doubt.

If your goal is just pressure related with the load development, then it really doesn't matter, does it?

MM

This is an interesting discussion. I can only add my personal experience. Higher magnification scopes enhance and streamline my ability to do my load development more effectively. I don't know if it is simply a placebo effect or if it is as John says and I don't care. I just know that, based on my personal abilities or inadequacies, I have used a high magnification scopes for load development for years. That has either been an SWFA 20X or an SWFA 5-20X50 which are dedicated for that purpose. I think, as mentioned by someone else above, it has saved me time and money.

Yep, it's a good thing with more refinement in the ability to call a shot, good or bad & that edge falls to the higher mag scope.

When you have doubt in your shots being good & the integrity of the group, it definitely leads to more verification shooting, ie, more time & money.

MM

WOW Buggs, you must have some kind of issue ?!?!?!......Crappy scope ????? Crappy Gun ????? EYE's might be shot ?????

I might have some of the same issues but I guarantee that with any of my rifles I can shoot a better group at 20X than 4X.......

EVERY time !!!!!!!

Another of the factors involved is parallax:

In general, most hunters who use 4x scopes don't worry about parallax--or don't even know it exists. And it's generally minimal with a 4x scope at 100 yards IF the scope is focused properly.

Shooters who use higher-X scopes (which includes more and more hunters these days) are more aware of parallax, including how it can affect groups--and how to check for it. Since most scopes above 10x are adjustable for parallax, then that tends to eliminate one factor from the entire equation.

Have also found that shooters who use scopes with enough magnification to feature parallax correction are also more sophisticated about benchrest shooting techniques.

All of which is why the actual optical limits of magnification may not be reflected in group-size results.

That hasn't been my experience. In fact I've often noted that blokes lacking in experience tend to buy scopes with more magnification than I'd choose to hunt with, and I think it is a bold assumption that those who choose a lower magnification scope aren't capable of shooting small groups off a rest. I rather doubt that the blokes using decent 4x scopes are typically newbies. Some of us are even aware of parallax and know how to effectively eliminate it's effect on accuracy when shooting over a rest. There again, I'm getting to be a crusty old fart, and I've shot hundreds of sub-moa groups with peep sights (and from the lying unsupported position too, let alone benchrests).

It does seem to me though that there's a risk of getting too bound up in load development, chasing degrees of improvement in accuracy which are largely meaningless. Sure, if you are going to compete in benchrest then that last tiny fraction makes a difference. If, like many hunters, you are looking to put a bullet through the vitals of a game animal at the sort of range at which that is usually done then it simply won't. IMHO there are other factors that are more important than that last tenth, or perhaps even half an inch or more of accuracy. The sort of rifle you'll put a 4x scope on to hunt with falls into that category, and that last 1/10 moa you might resolve with a 24x scope, is simply not going to be achievable nor matter when you swap it out for your 4x scope and go hunting big game. You'd do better to make sure that your ammunition is accurate enough, but also reliable and effective, and then spend the time practicing, from the positions you'll use in the field - or perhaps just get out hunting.

Not in my book.



If that’s what winds your clock, go for it. I’ve got a couple that I like to play that game with, but for my hunting rifles I tend to cobble together decent loads with good bullets, load up enough to get me through a couple of seasons, and call it good. Most of us might do better by spending more time shooting from the position we’ll likely use in the field than by plunking rounds into the target off a bench. I’m as guilty as any. Offhand shooting in particular often tells me things I’d rather not hear.

Dan and pappy make a lot of sense

Interesting.
I have been playing with different target designs as I tend to get periods of sun vs shade on the target. Often from string to string, but not always so conveniently.
I assume your x is in a bright color?

I probably should have said SOME shooters who use scopes with enough magnification to feature parallax correction are also more sophisticated about benchrest shooting techniques.

But I might also tend to hang around more with hunters/shooters who are above average in rifle sophistication, whether they choose 4x scopes or higher magnification. I also don't shoot at a public range much (they're easily avoided in my part of the U.S.), but when I do have noticed the folks who really have no clue about bench technique can have a wide range of sights on their rifles, from poor irons to fixed 4x to high-X variables.

I do load development with 12X to 15X magnification and parallax adjustable optics. I hunt with much less magnification snd fixed parallax however.

I think we have a next contestant for the MOA all day long challenge here on the fire. Use a 4x scope and prove to us you are all you say you are.. Good luck... Oh, by the way, you are welcome to best my score shooting irons in the black rifle challenge as well. You've shot "hundreds of sub moa groups with irons". Prove it and Good luck...

I'd use the rifle I'm planning to shoot it from and the scope I'm planning to use on it, if I've already bought it.

What difference does it make if it can shoot the eyes out of Lincoln on a penny with a 75x100 scope on it if you are not going to use that scope?

I like the targets marked off in one inch squares with four one inch black squares for sighting in a scope.

No, black on white or black on buff works well. I either print them off or, if I'm in a bit of a hurry, I draw the X on the target with a sharpie.

Fair enough. Public ranges there sound like they vary greatly in quality. Here ranges are run by clubs, as a general rule, with range officers and so on. I suspect that what we se on them is probably a bit different, but you certainly do see a range of skill and experience.

Cheers