Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics 3-9 power vs 4.5-14 for big game

I’ve been hunting for the last couple of seasons with a fixed scope and a 3-9x40 scope. I sold the fixed power SWFA because I decided (and I know this is unfashionable these days) I wasn’t interested in dialing and preferred to use MPBR. I also decided I prefer variables.

Lately I’ve been practicing at longer range with the BDC reticle on my 3-9 and am wondering if I might benefit from stepping up to something like a 4.5-14 or 4-12. This will go on a rifle I use for deer that I hope to use for antelope and elk in the not too distant future (hopefully antelope this year - elk will have to wait until I get some more preference points in SD).

I know that the higher power is hard to hold steady, but if I’m zoomed in to 14 I’ll likely be using a rest anyway. I also know that losing the lower end magnification is a trade off as well.

Do any of you guys use 4-12 or similar scopes for big game hunting? What ranges are you shooting at?

The difference on the bottom end is negligible compared to the gain on the top end. I doubt you would notice the difference between 3 to 4.5 and the difference from 9 to 14 will be a benefit. Even if you don’t use 14 power all the time, you can still use it at less power if you want.

I have Bushnell 4200 Elite 4-16x40's on most of my deer rifles and a Redfield 4-12x40 on one other one? I much prefer them to lower power scopes even for hunting in Pa. where most of my shots are inside 150 yds. I set each on the low end for still or stand hunting but I often use the higher range to make sure a shooting lane is clear or to make a more precise shot if I have time. I'd never go back to 3-9x just to save a couple of ounces of weight. That said, I'd rather have a 3-9 with good glass than a higher powered variable with cheap glass.

I have and use both, I much prefer my 4.5 X14 X 44 Zeiss Conquest. I have two of these both have been great for the shots out past 450-500 yards.

That's how I see it. However, you also have to consider weight and balance a factor as well. You get a little more top heavy with a 4.5-14x. I've used both and love the 4.5-14x42 and 4.5-14x44 rifle scopes, but eventually trade them out for the smaller and lighter 3-9x40's. Off the bench, the bigger scopes shine. Out in the elk timber I prefer the smaller scope.

That is how I feel plus as I get older, I like more power on the top end to see.
Quality of glass can also make a big difference.

If that 4.5-14 is a Leupold, you'd best look at one before you buy. That scope is on my Fireball and I like it for target and varmint sniping, but the reticle is pretty fine for a quick acquisition big game in the brush at first or last light scope. I prefer the larger exit pupil diameter of a 1.5-5, 2.5-8 or a 2.5-10 for my bigger game rifles. We don't shoot very far here though because we can't see the animals for all the trees in the way.

This is how I see it also. The weight and balance of a bigger scope is more of a drawback than the slightly higher magnification at the bottom end. On all but a really lightweight weight rifle the few extra ounces is a worthwhile trade off for the added magnification and utility.

I found the view through my Burris E1 4.5x42 a bit dim at 14 in the shadowy part of my local 300 yard range. Solution is to turn it down a bit, of course. Can’t turn a 3-9 up to 14 no matter how hard you twist. Still, my deer guns have at most 10x, but long shots don't happen for me where I hunt. The E1 is on a .223, replacing a 3-9. Oughta help on chucks.

"For Big Game" is the context of the question.

So for me, I prefer a high quality a fixed 3X or a fixed 4 X and maybe a 1X to 4X.. In some cases I can see buying a 2X to7X.

One of the smallest of our American big game is the pronghorn, and I kill them every year mostly with iron sighted rifles, and even handguns. The kill area is still pretty large (about 10") so I need not make it look bigger. In the last 25 years or so I have averaged about 4-5 per year and I'd bet of all of those I have killed maybe 1/3 of them with scoped rifles. 2/3 of the over irons. Even when using a scope I nearly always keep it on the lowest power if it's a variable, and I have killed many of them now with my 6.8 SPC with a Weaver K4 on it.. I killed 7 of them with my Mossberg MVP 308 also with a Weaver K4 on it. I killed 4 with my 8X57 full stock Mauser which has a 3X to 9X on it, but I never turned it up past 3X to kill a single pronghorn with that rifle so far. Same with my 25-06 and my 270s. the ones I killed with my 30-06s have mostly been killed with irons only (Browning M95, and M1 Garand) and my only scoped 30-06 is a "Scout" with a 2.5X fixed power scope. yet I have never failed to kill any game animal I ever shot at with that little carbine and I never saw the slightest need to have more magnification, including some shots made at around 375 yards. Could I shoot it farther? Yes. and I have at steel targets with good accuracy, but in 35 years of using that little scout, I have never needed to fire past about 375.

As a former guide and a hunter with close to 60 years of experience behind me now, in many different states, and several countries, and having killed a LOT of game, and having seen about 6X more then I have personally shot killed by other hunters, I have concluded that MOST hunters over-scope themselves and hinder their abilities to some degree with too much magnification.

The higher magnification comes at a cost of a smaller (sometimes a LOT smaller) field of view, and making the animal look biggerr doesn't make the animal bigger. If you can't hold still enough to make a clean shot making the target look 14 times bigger only makes you see how much wobble you are holding at the same time, but DOESN'T help you hold a rifle one bit better. If the kill zone is say 8 inches in size, it's still 8" in size if your scope makes it look 8 feet" in size. If your bullet is .308" in diameter in your chamber it's still only .308" in diameter at 500, or even at 1000 yards. A scope's magnification can make it easier to see the target, but it NEVER makes the gun hold more still. That's up to your skill, not your scope.

I do like big scopes for shooting paper and small varmints, and for men who have a rifle to "cover every base" from prairie dogs to moose, some of the variables with a good "high end" can make since.


But because the OP's question said "For Big Game" I answer that a rugged, clear, lower powered scope with a WIDE field of view is actually better.

Rather interesting,to step away from an etched reticle of lineal subtension,that jives the erector and turrets,to go soooooo many steps backwards with an archaeic BDC Goat Fhuqk and undoubtedly SFP to boot. Hint.

For context,which EXACT "3-9x" and "4.5-14x" are you musing? Make/Model Number? Hint.

An unwavering lineal subtension cain't be whooped. A sane zero goes without saying and a "lowly" 6x MQ has 10 fhuqking mil's on tap,by just looking through it,which most folks do before they shoot. Hint.

There's much to be said,for things that hold zero,track,repeat and can fend more than a "bit" of abuse,while offering a simplistic reticle that will happily connect all dots. Hint.

If only in the interest of keeping things real,cite the rifle,chambering,projectile and mounting system. Then factor a budget,so extrapolations can be easily made. Hint.................

I think one of the biggest traps is getting a target scope confused with a hunting scope. Shooting small groups at the range is one thing, but so is a scope that works for you under field conditions.

A 14x BDC scope will likely require you to use max magnification unless you figure out subtensions at lower mag. Depending on recoil level, recoil mitigation, shooter form, etc. from field positions, you may find it hard to spot your hits and misses. Even 9x can be a challenge with light rifles and less than magnum loads, at medium range. I've seen it countless times where a shooter needs to rebuild their rest. And forget about asking where the bullet went. They have no clue, and must rely on the spotter.

At longer distances, time of flight might be sufficient to catch the impact but those types of distances aren't always the best for a BDC.

One advantage to the higher mag is being able to see mirage better, but again, at those distances you'd probably be better of with something other than BDC.

I slapped a 3.5-10x on my 3006.
Right or wrong thats what it is and gonna stay

3.5-10 on my 06. It’s My main hunting rifle. It had monarch 2.5-10 with BDC, but with the CDS, I feel much more confident past 400 yards. Compared to BDC.
My 6.5 has 3-12 and really like the 12x for shooting past 600 yards on target..
My 270 with 3-9 is pretty much maxed out at 600 yards. The thick crosshairs covers up majority of the 8” gong.

I enjoy you gals dancing around the embarrassing constant,of simply stating which piece of fhuqking schit glass you are using,on which piece of schit fhuqking rifle and the hilarity of projectile selection for same. Read that again. Now one more time. Hint. Laughing!

The only thing fhuqking funnier than BDC,is fhuqking CDS,not that I don't enjoy you CLUELESS Fhuqks doing your best. Hint.

LAUGHING!................

A 3.5x10 would be a great choice for big game hunting!

If you think you need a 14X for any big game hunting, get closer.

I have several of each, can’t tell any difference at low power.

I have 4.5-15 and 16 power on all my rifles.
I have to have the extra power in order to see brow tines, count tines and to tell a nubbin buck from a doe.
This is very important in Texas as some counties have antler restrictions and most land owners are very particular about what you may shoot.

Neil

No...Im a 3x9 guy. Ranges are most 100 yards or so, but out to 500 on the bigger stuff like elk. I like a BDC reticle for that...