Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 4 or 6 x on a hunting rifle?

herrump herrump > Oh, sorry - HArumph, that's it.

Not a gunwriter, but I have went to straight 6x scopes for big game when I get a new scope. The first one was a Leupold 6X42 with HD reticle. I was worried that I could not get "tight groups" with it at the range and what not. Turned out, I shot more consistant. Next was a 6X36 Leupold with P&D reticle. I went to the fixed six for big game for the simple reason that I have found myself in the past fiddling with the magnification ring when I should be shooting. I have never shot a deer with greather than six power even on a variable and that is only out to 220 yards. I have had a variable fail me, but that was fortunately at the range and not the hunting field. I do like fixed 4x for 22LR though.

I have come to like fixed 6 power scopes, though I don't have any at the moment. I have owned 2 or 3 older FXII 6 power Loopies. Sometime I would like to try a FXIII with the 42mm objective.

Hey Guys - I sincerely am not arguing against fixed X scopes.

I'm just stating MY preference.

For the past 8-10 yrs I've been hunting paper co cutovers with visibility up to SO FAR you couldn't see a deer. As the cutovers re-grow visibility slowly decreases. In places where I can see 400 yds now, the vegetation obscures a lot. Deer bodies can be seen moving in/around but can be VERY DIFFICULT to judge antlers. I need hi mag, not just to be legal, but have some idea of what I'm shooting beforehand.

In an earlier post per MD, I mentioned a 6 pt w/ 16 7/8" inside spread. I almost didn't shoot because Ark has a 3 pt on ONE side rule. That deer was at 289 yds lasered. I used 9X and wished I had a 12.

Variables are what I need. YMMV I have no problem with that.

Interesting thread. I happen to be looking for new scope right now and one of the "variables" I'm pondering is fixed or variable magnification. My first real scope was an old Weaver steel tube K-4. I learned to shoot game with a scope with that Weaver and 4x has always seemed about right. I have mostly variables now, but they are essentially operated as fixed scopes. I have just set them at 4x and forgot them for years, although I've been purposely using 6x lately. Either seems fine.

This is a little like the 8x or 10x question in binoculars. What you choose boils down to what you like. What I'm paying more attention to anymore is the reticle. I don't like the way some of the new plex designs have gotten so narrow. Seriously thinking about a German #4. So whichever scope I get will probably get down to how well I like the reticle, which will be a simple, relatively straight forward style. If that reticle is in a Zeiss 3-9x40 Conquest or maybe a Leupold 6x that will mostly determine what I get. Seems like the reticles are an area where there are some differences anymore. 4x vs 6x is not a big deal at all to me, provided the image is clear and the scope durable. If the reticle choice comes in a variable, then I guess it can mostly exist at a fixed 4 or 6, just like the rest of my scopes.

To each his own, these days all I hunt is White Tails in CT and my rifle of choice wears a 6 x 42 mm Leupold. Never had a problem killing the deer I shoot. So its really a moot point. My 338 Winnie has a 3x to 9x Zeiss on it, and with all the game I had shot with it, the scope was either on 4 or 6 power mostly on 6x. Go figure. My only beef with the current crop of fixed powers is the short tubes making mounting on rifles some what of a problem. And according to my journal I have taken a lot of deer with an old Remington 700 for the then new 7mm-08 with a Weaver K-3 steel tube scope. Something I was not suppose to do I guess. 1981 to 1986 were golden years for CT white tail hunting.

The K3's were great scopes--especially the later models with coated lenses!

I've spent some money on a bunch of Leupold M8 4x28 over the past few years, due to their longer tubes. The 4x33 works on may rifles, but the 4x28 is more versatile. Luckily, the 6x Leupolds havem't chaned that much.

Nikon used to make a 6x40 that was marvelous optically, but had a short tube AND eye relief. I had one for a while and finally sold it, because I never could find a rifle it truly worked on.

On the other hand, Burris made a very tough Fullfield II 6x40, with plenty of tube length, good eye relief, and very good optics. But evidently it didn't sell.

How big were the whitetails in those days? I've done some hunting back East, and like it a lot.

You fixed 6x lovers should jump on this one....


https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth..._WTS_Leupold_M8_6x_Scope_Pri#Post6629545

For the majority of the hunting that I do (thicks woods and on foot), a fixed 4x would cover all my bases. The 6x scopes just have a little too much magnification for my eyes at certain times. If I lived out west or hunted more open country, I think I'd most certainly prefer the 6x scopes.

The adage, "less is more" works for me when it comes to scope magnification. I love my 1.5-6, 2.5-8, and 2-7 power variables. Coincidentally, they always seem to be set on 4x.

bsa,

Thanks, but saw it. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have plenty of 6x36 Leupolds!

For twenty years, since I quit varmint hunting, the highest magnification scope I have used (or even own for that matter) is a K3. Mostly I use a K2.5 or Lyman Alaskan. They suit my style of hunting and the environment I hunt in- I have never felt at a loss due to low magnification. Kind of a moot point actually, because when afield with a scoped rifle, the scope lives in a leather tube over my shoulder and is slipped onto the rifle when I think I need it, which is almost never. Sometimes I wonder why I lug it around with me.

I started out with 4x scopes now I have some 6x and some 3x9 or higher scopes.
They have come in handy from time to time,but are set on 6x most of the time.

JB,

Seems IIRC, the newer FX 3x has a smaller FOV than the M8.

Any idea where the K3 falls vs. above?

My three 30-06's wear a Leupold 4X, a Weaver 4X, and a Bushnell Banner 3-9X. And I'm probably going to swap that 3-9 out in favor of another fixed 4.

I've shot most of my bigger whitetails, 150 to 160 class with a K4 Weaver. Nothing to brag about, but they're nice deer for around here, some shot on public ground.

^ Right answer ^ .... Here a fixed 4 would be a better choice than the 6. My variables are usually set on 1.5 or 2x magnifiaction.

.

When I was deer hunting a 6X42mm Leupold was my favorite scope.

I hunted mostly brushy wester Oregon and this scope worked great, even for close up shots.

I'm a Varmit hunter now, mostly hunt sage rats and squirrls and use scopes with A.O.'s, 3.5X10 Leupold being my favorite.

Virgil B.

In 1949 I had a side mount Weaver J 4X scope mounted on a Rem Slide action 22 RF . Learned how to hit running jack rabbits with that rifle. In 1953 I mounted a Weaver K 4X scope on my Mdl70 Win 270 Win..Shot mule deer, pronghorn, elk, prairie dogs and other unwonted criters using the 4X scope on the 270. In 1963 mounted a 3-9 X Redfeild scope on the 270 Win rifle. Set it at 9X and only when hunting elk in the woods would I set it down to 4X. I have two Leopold 6.5-20 X AO scopes mounted on 243 Win and 220 Swift rifles but set then at 18 X to get a larger field of view. There are 6-18 X AO Leupold mounted on the 223 Rem and 204 Ruger varmint rifles. Most all of my hunting in wide open country so I like scopes with more power than 4 or 6 X.

I would be happy just finding deer to shoot... I think I can kill em' if I can find em'...........

W

Guys, I promise I am NOT being closed minded or a hard tail.

IF you used a variable - you'd have the power you need available, regardless of WHERE you hunt.

I can see a weight diff, altho.