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...

I have a 3x9 on one of them....I think it may be stuck on 3x since it hasn't moved in the last 37 years. The other one wears a 4x.

It makes stuff look a little bigger.

2-10,3-9,1.5-6 for me.But everything gets shot at 5x...

It will depend on how you hunt, and the terrain and cover - IOW how close you'll likely be - as well as your eyesight and, quite frankly, how big you want the target to look.

For my own purposes I'll often hunt with a rifle with a peep - no magnification at all - especially in the rain. As for scopes, my favourite big game rifles have various 1.5 - 6, 2-7 and 3-9 varieties, as well as a couple of 4x. I would have no use at all for a 4.5-14 for big game. For context though, I mostly hunt by walking up, or spot and stalk. While I have taken the odd animal at 400 yards, the majority of my shots are at 200 or less, and indeed I'll often bounce an animal close in and drop it from the gallop - this has included literally truckloads of pigs, deer, buffalo and others. I enjoy the challenge of getting close, and have no great desire to engage animals at longer distances. Opinions vary on this point however.

FWIW even in poor light or on a low-contrast target I've found 6x sufficient out to 400 yards, and in good light on a well-defined target to considerably more - but there again I've shot in competition out to 1000 with peeps.

More important to me than lots of magnification are decent glass, reliable holding of zero and a scope which is mounted such that the reticle simply appears in front of my eye when the rifle's mounted for a quick shot at a bolting animal. Enough FOV for the latter too. I also like them light and compact, with no protrusions. YMMV.

The 3-9x has been a Burris Fullfield II with the ballistic plex reticle. I've been thinking about the Fullfield 4.5-14x42. I don't have a strong opinion on BDC reticles and but the Burris ballistic plex seems easy enough and is not cluttered like some others. I've been using a 200 yard zero and experimenting from there. It's probably more complicated at this point than just dialing, but it's the scope I have on my rifle so I've been using it.

The new rifle I'm scoping is a Howa in 6.5 creedmoor. I have some Hornady 140gr Hornady American Gunner BTHP ammo I plan to practice with. I've used Warne rings on a weaver base previously but was planning this time to use the Burris two piece XTR base to get some better ring spacing.

The FF II's are simply pieces of schit,that offer nothing redeeming,in regards to what a scope's job is and that is simply to steer boolits. Hint.

The Burris Ballistic Plex is a Goat Fhuqk Schit Show,less ANYTHING bordering rhyme or reason. In fairness,it's simply funnier than fhuqk,as it is a SFP archaic subtension attempt,which won't/can't even align with it's erector,if they did track...which of course they do not/cannot. They are bottom rung Dog Schit. Hint.

Here's the 3-9x FF2's "amazing" Ballistic Plex. Hint.



How in the fhuqk,some Window Licking CLUELESS Fhuqk dreamt up "BDC" hashes at 1.4 MOA, 4.3 MOA,7.2 MOA and 10.5 MOA,is a right proper Scooby Doo Mystery. It "does" NOTHING,except take up Windshield space. Hint.

The Howie's are routinely sound,as metal goes,but stocks run the gamut. The Hornie 140gr BTHP's tend to play suplizingly nice and I'll simply roll Hornie's projected velocity and apply it to the "BDC" above. Hint.




With but a cursory nano-second glance,one can immediately discern the FF2 "BDC" Goat Fhuqktitude. From the scribed 200yd zero,the first hash is at 1.4 MOA which is basically 265yds. The next hash at 4.3 MOA aligns 375yds. The next hash at 7.2 MOA aligns at 465yds. The last hash aligns at 10.5 MOA which is 560yds. Keep in mind,those "values" are ONLY at highest magnification(9x). Shy of that,the Stupid Schit,gets even more Fhuqking Stupid. Rest ASSURED,you WILL fhuqk up and be shy of max magnification. Hint.




Flipside,ala lineal angular scale,with etched reticle(6x MQ),that jives erector and turret. SAME rifle,SAME ammo,SAME 200yd zero,SAME atmosphere,but a scope that actually fhuqking works. JBM data run at same ring height,but in 1/10th Mil increments,to jive the reticle/turret/erector. There's NOTHING to fhuqk up,because it simply cannot. Hint.




One can IMMEDIATELY correlate correction,anywhere from the muzzle to the 1000yd line,in MUCH finer detail(Accuracy/Precision). 1000yds uses only 8.8 mils,of the available 10 mils on the windshield. Hint.

Simply run DOPE in 25yd increments and you can thread needles easily,due the simplicity of the lineal angular scale. It is wayyyyyyyyyy faster and wayyyyyyyy more precise,on top of being wayyyyyyyyyyyy more durable and is applicable to all things from Air Rifles to 4000fps++ velocities. none of which makes a fhuqk. Hint.




On my High Zoot Rimfires,I run DOPE in 10yd increments,to the mechanical limits of the erector and windshield combined,which allows 700yd+ POA/POI alignment. Hint.

Will going to the 14x version of the FF2 BDC Goat Fhuqk "help"? Fhuqk no. Hint.

You've been led to water.

Thank me later.

And If yet to muse wind.

Just sayin'.

Hint................(grin)

I’m in the process of switching most of my scopes to the 4.5-14. I’m a plex reticle guy though.

I'd skip the Burris and get another SWFA, as Stick suggested. Low cost, and low risk, until you figure out if you'll really be shooting extended distances.

And there's nothing wrong with quick holdovers, out to medium range. But with most BDC style scopes, you'll be stuck tweaking your actual zero to match the reticle subtensions and actual bullet drop. You can usually get it to work, but sometimes you need to make compromises and you will be obviously limited in terms of how far you can shoot. And the Ballistic Plex has no provision for wind holds. Other reticles have 5 or 10 MPH wind holds which are still a compromise.

With a mil, or even MOA reticle with evenly spaced graduations, you can still have quick holdovers. For example, with your 6.5 Creedmoor and SWFA MQ you should be able to tweak the zero so that you can simply subtract 2 mils from the distance in yards. For example, at 600 yards you just hold 4 mils. At 500 yards it's 3 mils. At 400 yards it's 2 mils. At 300 yards, simply hold 1 mil. Your actual zero will be close to 100 yards, so all you need to do is hold dead on up close.

In general I prefer dialing elevation, if time allows, but I can engage multiple targets out to 600 yards using the method above MUCH faster than looking at DOPE and dialing. So if my spotter calls targets at 350, then 600, back to 450, and 200, I can rapidly engage those targets without remembering or consulting anything. Beyond 600, I need to dial elevation as the holdover difference of minus 2 mils starts to fall apart.

So you would still need to tweak the zero slightly, like a BDC, but you still have the exposed turret for more precision and range, plus mil-based wind holds. You simply have more options with the SWFA than the Burris, with no real downsides.

Most of my big game hunting is in pretty open country and I am fine with a 3.5-10X or 3-9X with a a BDC reticle in most situations. These scopes are quick to use and work for me, but I rarely shoot much over 300 yards at game. More magnification is great for targets and competition, but I haven't found that I need it in most big game hunting situations.

Shots over 250 yds are a rarity where I hunt. 3-9 is more than enough for me.

I only have three magazine fed bolt rifles and really only hunt with two of them here in Alaska. One is a custom Mod.70 "Classic Stainless" .338 Win. Mag. and it wears a Nightforce SHV 3-10x42 with a Force Plex reticle and the Kenton Industries ballistic tape for my 225 grain Barnes TTSX load. The other is a pre-64 Mod. 70 Featherweight 30-06, it wears a Leupold VX3i 3.5-10x40 with the B&C reticle. I run the 175 grain Barnes LRX bullet out of this rifle. Both scopes are zeroed for 100 yards and I have shot them enough to be comfortable with first shot hits on Alaskan critters out to 300 yards using "hold over". So far for my uses they work fine and make gut piles.

I have a Leupold 1.5-5x20 with a German #4 on a Mod. 94 Big Bore .356 Win., this is a 200 yard gun and zeroed for 100 yards and simple to use. My other one is a Tikka T3X Superlite in 6.4 Creed. It wears a SWFA 3--9x42HD Mil scope. I am loading the Barnes 127 grain LRX bullet for hunting purposes, if I ever decide to take it for caribou or moose. But, prefer the 30-06 or .338 cause I grew up with them and neither has ever failed me.

I also consider the 30-06 a "long range" cartridge with the right load and optic. I'm just not a long range shooter, but am looking into getting some help with that using the Tikka and SWFA mil scope. Having grown up with Springfield's and old Mod. 70's the Tikka is a bit out of my norm, but I enjoy it and the darn thing shoots right out of the box.

I grew up in the age of fixed power Weaver scopes and still have the one I used long ago on the old Springfield 30-06. Almost everyone had a 4x scope on their rifle, a Weaver, Redfield or Leupold scope, then some 3-9's started showing up. I personally used a Leupold 1.5-5x20 with a Duplex reticle on a .338 Winny for twelve years, taking moose, caribou and bears out to a bit over 400 yards with 250 grain Nosler Partitions. Then I switched to a Leupold 2.5-8x36 on my .338 until three years ago when I went to the Nightforce SHV. If I had the money I would of bought the NXS version, but doubt any moose will know the difference.

If I could I would design my own hunting reticle, something with a easy to see reticle in low light and some elevation hash marks for quick shots to 400 yards for my .338. How much power does one need on a hunting rifle for big game? I personally believe if one needs over a 10 power scope they must plan on shooting lots further then I do and with all the antler and horn restrictions in Alaska it is a risky deal. Hard to judge a 50" moose rack at 100 yards, let alone 500 yards or further.

I also believe a dedicated long range shooter is better off with a high power, mil mil first focal plain scope. But, what do I care, I plan on using my peep sighted Mod. 71 Deluxe .348 Ackley Improved loaded with 250 grain Kodiak Bonded bullets from Alaska Bullet Works on my next critter. Those big bonded bullets at 2,500 fps mv oughta put moose down quickly, I am excited. Is a peep sight on the first or second focal.........

For many years the highest magnification scope on any of my rifles was 2-7. Most deer were taken inside 100 yards and jumped on deer drives with the occasional cross canyon shot so 2x was where the scope stayed 99% of the time because few shots were on undisturbed game. Longest shot at this time was 385 yards with a 1-5 turned up to 5x.
As my hunting changed to more "stand" type hunting with shots from 100 to 300 yards on typically unsuspecting animals, my scopes increased to 3-9 or 3.5-10 with LR reticles for the occasional longer poke.
Now I'm hunting coues deer with shots of 750 yds not uncommon and have an SWFA 3-15 for dialing.
If still hunting or walking through timber I prefer 3x max on the bottom end for max FOV on running game.
YMMV.

3-9x vs 4.5-14 dilemma?

I solved it with 3-15x.

It just "might" be an advantage,that beings one needs to look through the scope anyhow,that there's meaningful info housed within. Hint.(grin)

DOPE is easily determined in this Day & Age,to the tune of simply blowing minds of the uninitiated,meaning most everyone on The Planet. With glass/mounts of repute,upon a sound platform and with good ammo,one can be on the far side of the 1000yd line within 5 pokes or so,of having boresighted the platform in. It's that fast and easy,though CLUELESS Crying Karens will reliably dissent,which is the best part. Hint. LAUGHING!

Simply assign a sane zero and work from there. Keep schit simple,do the platform favors from the start,in extolling the mechanical virtue inherent. I can't think of a single centerfire chambering I shoot,that's zero'd at 100yds. Barring of course a watered down Marlin Lever Gun in 45LC,to preclude leading with plated Berry's(got a zero with factory AE before components arrived in Mail). Even K-Hornets get a 150yd zero. Hint.




Anywhoo...connecting dots with a sane zero,is a breeze. From there,it's but a coupla pokes downrange to corroborate POA/POI and then one can bang around,chasing conditions. Often worth the effort,to get a feel how things behave beyond the Transonic Slip and I tend to do just that(understatement). With DOPE arranged,come-ups and windage go aboard said platform,to preclude any/all fhuqking around. Hardly "daunting" to correlate corrections,before looking through scope. 'Course the concessions are nil. Hint.




Beings the glass is subtended in graduated lineal angular values,it is also just "happens" to be a fhuqking ruler. Worried about making 50" at 100yds and/or 500yds and/or anything nearer/farther,simply measure the fhuqking thing. It's hardly "daunting" to correlate and save said data. Hint.




The Kentucky Windage Clan never ain't not fhuqking HILARIOUS,because they are reliably fhuqking CLUELESS. BDC's are a fhuqking joke as quantified prior and especially in SFP. Hint.

If only as per ALWAYS,it's never been difficult to savvy who shoots and who don't. Hint.....................(grin)

So if you are only seeing clearly legal bucks & bulls or just shooting does inside 300 yards you will never need more than a 3x9. I’m older & blinder and prefer to have the ability to see the extra point that might mean steaks in the freezer.

I use a Zeiss Conquest 3-15x50 with a trajectory matched z800 reticle on my 300 Weatherby for elk & a Leupold 4.5-14 Duplex on my 40 year old 7 mag for deer. As others have indicated both are typically on 5 power or less for fast target acquisition. The higher powers really only get used sighting in, on shots over 300 yards and for determining if the animal is legal to shoot. The top end is higher than my binoculars & much faster once I determine I want to shoot.

I think of the 40+ animals I’ve killed 2 have been on over 9 power. I killed a pig at 513 on 9 power with holdover 2 shots both hits but the 7 mag trajectory hasn’t changed sine I bought it in 1977 & I practice longer shots regularly.

I think I could make any shot I've taken on game with a 4X. That's an out of context question though. Remember aim small / miss small. A 4X is no damned good for working up loads at 300+ yards. Since I don't want to change scopes for load workup / tuning / fiddling, then put it back for hunting, the variable is a better choice. End of that discussion .. for me.

The next question is 3-9X vs 4-12X or 4.5-14X. The 4.5-14X wins for me. There are a couple reasons. I am a Leupold shooter. The 3-9X and 4-12X I've owned were in the Vari X II line while the 4.5-14X have been Vari X III or VX3 scopes. There's a difference in quality of glass, friction vs click adjustment, and stuff like that. The big thing .. again, for me, your mileage may vary .. is that I truly can shoot smaller groups with the same rifle and load with the 4.5-14X than I do with the 3-9X.

The 4-12X40 Leupold is an interesting situation. Mine is a FD/AO scope but no ranging reticle or "knobs". I think there is an optical improvement so far as fine details compared to the 3-9X but it is a fairly "dark" scope, seems not to transmit as much light as I'd like. it is adequate, but not "bright."

Anyway, I really like the Leupold 4.5-14X scopes. I've heard people complain about eye box, about this, about that ... none of those things have affected me, haven't experienced the problem. If I recall right, at 4.5X it really is a 4.2X. Close enough to 4X I can't tell the difference and that has always been a pretty good magnification for hunting even in the brush. Set it, set the power at 4x, the AO at 100 or 150 yards, and leave it there, and go hunt the piss out of it. It is about 2 ounces heavier than their 3-9X with better optics and the option of AO .. and now some reticles that have been dropped from the 3-9Xs.

Tom

I bought my 4.5-14 Leupold AO used because the guy thought the eye box was too narrow and was replacing that Leupold with a 3-9 something on his bigger game rifle. On my varmint rifle I have more time to be deliberate. Not so on our deer here. Now you see them now you don't and I want a full fov real quickly.

On my rifles making 2,800 to 3,200fps with decent spitzers, give me a 3-9, 3.5-10, or even a 2.5-8 with a useable BDC reticle. Such a reticle works at max power, and the field of view on a 14x is just too small. Has worked for what I do for several years, but I only shoot game out to 450yds or so. Few locations in my area allow you to see further than that. Turrets or a MOA/Mil graduated reticle is fine and dandy if you have time to implement it. I rarely do.

My thoughts for what they are worth. I'm 74, have had double cataract surgery and was legally blind w/o glasses before the surgery.

If you need more power to see better you need to have your eyes looked at, age will not change a scopes ability to transmit an image. It sounds more like you are compensating for loss of vision by upping the power of the scope instead of actually correcting your vision.

Having BDC reticle calibrated for the highest power on the scope isn't a problem. If the animal/target is far enough away to need to use the BDC the highest power should not be a problem.

Any time you are shooting larger game not off a rest, I find FOV will trump X's(power).

Keeping a scope on it's lowest power has the advantage of having the largest FOV for that quick close in shot. If the animal is out far enough that you need more X's to place your shot there is usually plenty of time to turn up the scope.

In the field I've never been under scoped but I have been over scoped.

My coyote and big game rifles wear glass fro 1-4x20mm to 2-12x42 with a majority of them 1.5-6x40+mm, note all have a large FOV on the bottom end.

My GS, PD and paper rifles have 4-16x40mm or 6.5-20x40mm,

I’ve had my eyes looked at but it sounds like you’ve had more of an adventure than me in that regard. Had a branch hit my right eye this Winter & lost the sight for a couple of hours scratched the cornea but am back to 95+% recovered. Really appreciate my vision now….but you are full of stuffing about magnification as you get older it absolutely helps. Try seeing in your 60’s the same things as your 20’s bad news your expectations will not be met.

A dumb anti gun Biden voter giving scope advice? lmao

You probably don't want to read this, but, if you can't hit "big game" quarry with a 4x or 6x scope, you're probably too far away.

A 3-9x, 3.5-10x or 4-14x scope option is a moot point. All will work for "big game" hunting. If it was me, and those were my magnification options, I'd get the best quality lens I could afford in a 3-9x scope.

I picked up a Sightron Big Sky SII 3-9x scope this past year. I am very happy with it. It has excellent resolution, tracks perfectly/repeatedly and a well-thought out turrent knob design ( resettable with very finite clicks). Essentially it is the premium Big Sky SIII , but with a 1 inch tube.

I will.put it on my Win m70 Extreme Weather 30-06. I didn't need the extra magnification above the Leupold M8 3x that was on it for my Maine woods hunting, but I was always interested in the Big Sky SII - and found one at a favorable price. "Want" and "intrigue" outweighed "need" in this case.

Who knows? I'll probably go back to my Leupold fixed 3x, or a Nikon pre-Monarch fixed 4x scope on it (which has great glass in it), after I've played with the Sightron.

I don't need more scope magnification, I need more time in the woods.

Getting older sucks.
My eyes used to be very good.

Now I like a little more Xs for paper or varmints.
Under 300 yard deer stuff, 2-7x seems ideal.
Still hunt and treestands.

No bipods or shootin houses.
Less Xs make me more comfy.
Hell.a.reg 4 or 6X proly all I need really.
But....in the woods a 1 or 2x on the low end makes for quick gut piles.

A 3-9x40 Burris Fullfield E1 3-9x40 is 12.2 inches long and 13 ounces.

The 4.5-14x42 E1 is 12.6 inches and 15.3 ounces.

Less than 1/2 inch length, 2.3 ounces, 2mm at the objective (not some massive 50+ mm), (and a small side focus knob). Unless we’re talking an “ultralight” or woods rifle, why not get the extra magnification??

I have scopes in that power range, and use them on varmints... teaches you to shoot little targets.

That being said, at our local range, there is a rock out at 725 yds, that is about the size of a Folding metal chair.

Was over there the other day, and on a Rem 700 in 243, which had a $25 Tasco 4 power scope on top. Lord knows how long I've had that scope, but its optics are still plenty clear for me... Its got an old Stoney Point turret on top, and I think that was $20 or so back when they were around.

Knew the distance, and knew the elevation and the MV of an 80 gr SP.. Wind wasn't too bad...
Rest on a bench ( so that is a plus or cheating). Could see that rock just fine on 4 power, three shots, three times the dust flew off of it...

have been shooting little bitty sage rats, pretty much the length of this seating die sitting here on my desk., 100 to 150 yds...and probably getting a 85 to 90% hit ratio.. that was the last time I was over in Klamath about 3 weeks ago....when I was leaving, I noticed I had my scope set on 5 power the entire time...

I question if the 4 x 14 will give you that much more in the long run than what you have now...

practice shooting at smaller targets at the range, if nothing else and get your eye and hand to eye coordination use to it..

Shot a coyote out by that rock one time. with a 6 power scope on top a 223... had it zeroed on the rock....hit it first rime, but then it took a compensated second shot, to finish him off....he was circling biting his ass, where he'd evidently been hit with the first shot.

Rule of thumb is fitting entire animal in FOV at shortest range you kill them. If you kill them at 50 or closer 2x usually has enough FOV to swing thru a running animal.

Shooting with low mag scopes at distance is a different skill set than zooming in. Both can work. Depends on what you want to do. Average shooters are happier with zooming in on a hair than learning to hold on an animal.

There are scopes that start at 2x on the bottom and go up high nowadays. A lit reticle overcomes most of the deficiency of a busy ballistic reticle. So, you don't really have to choose if you're willing to spend the money.

I think the 24x would be better, Not!
Keep it simple Sir, 10x is all you need.
I don't dial but I sure ain't fuqking with a parallax adjustment.
KISS method will serve you well.

When Trophy hunting in Kansas, I may rattle in 7 bucks a day. Some stop at some yardage. I need to see if the buck has broken off a brown tine fighting. It takes power to see broken brow tines. So, 4x16 is a great choice, and there seems to be a world of difference between 14 and 16 power. Hunts are expensive, Real pisser to shoot a big buck sporting a massive rack, with a broken tine!

You get the IDIOT award for shooting that broken horn deer!

I shot a 360 lb buck in Kansas at 680 yards, he was so old, he had no brow tines...age. He still had a massive rack. I knew where the buck was traveling, and put a 8-32 black diamond on my 7 STW, he dropped on the spot, 140g Nosler C/T with Muzzle velocity of 3600. We hunt out of 15' ladder stands with prop for rifle.

We put a food plot at 500-550 yards here in the South, the stand is called the STW stand. No telling how many deer my brother and I have killed out of that stand with our 7 STW's, 6x24 Burris Light Seeker scopes with the adjustable light collector, and the 8-32 Burris Black Diamonds. Of course, these scopes are not low light scopes. Our limit here is 6-8 deer per year, and we use every tag, freezers are full o hamburger and cube steak, tenderlions, and meat for jerky.

Different kinds of terrain take different optics, and we have low light scopes for woods hunting.