I use fixed 6X on my hunting rifles and variables on target rifles. just wondering if anyone is using a fixed 10X and how are you liking it, is there more positives than negatives?

While I don't own one the Gov. trapper here really likes his SWFA SS straight 10x. He says it tracks great. We were shooting out to 700 yards with it. It only cost him $300

I too have and like a SWFA SS 10x. It does track great.

A poster here has piled up larger, more game than I will with one. I just couldn't see how it should work that well. So, one year I hunted with the scope on 10X just to see. It worked and worked quite well.

For hunting medium and larger game, no.

For hunting squirrels, pdogs, and predators, yes.

I have five 10x scopes; 2x Bushnell 3200s, a Unertl Vulture, and 2x Weaver K10s.

The Bushnells are on a Savage 10 parts gun in 260 and a Winchester/USRA 70 parts gun in 25 WSSM.

The Unertl is in a tote box on a shelf in the storage unit.

The K10s are on two of my Father's 1950's vintage 'chuck guns, a Wilbur Hauck single shot and a 1903 Springfield custom job where the action was cut in half, shortened, and rewelded, both in 22-250.

Government Trappers can be full of bs you know.....grin.

Bet I know him. Probably told him to get that scope.

I've used a straight 10X for many years, and never had any problems shooting up close with it. More than enough mag for shooting distance as well.

My favorite is the 10X42 S&B PMII.

I understand the USMC snipers where taught how to use their old 10X scopes when they needed to engage enemies at close range as well. Doable, but, for me, much tougher a shot to make than with a 6X42 Leupold.
The other drawback could be when using it under low light conditions. With a 40mm scope, one might have trouble seeing the target or especially a fine reticle like a Mil-Dot. E

This...

My wife Eileen and I have been using 10x scopes quite a bit in the past few years and like them a lot. The closest range either of us has used one is about 40 yards, and there was no problem.

Eileen used variables for quite a while, and soon noticed she preferred the scope set on the same maximum magnification she used when sighting-in, which was often right around 10x anyway.

A Montana buck I killed back in 2011, with five minutes of legal shooting light left. Here we have until 1/2 hour after sunset, or 1/2 hour before sunrise to legally shoot. That's pretty liberal in my opinion. Anyway, back to the buck....I had been trying for this buck for a couple years, and only got my eye on him four times. Twice before the season opened in August, 2011, and once during archery season in 2010. My opportunity came on November 2nd, 2011. After hiking in to a good vantage point, and playing out a hunch, he finally appeared out of the heavy timber. The range was 338 yards. Through the 10X S&B, I could see it was him without any doubt. I put .8 on the elevation turret and fired. Glad I had that setup that afternoon.....

I had heard that low-light brought issues with the SWFA 10x, which is why I haven't tried one. Maybe with better glass it isn't an issue.

I have carried a variable set at 8x for a couple seasons to see if it would work, and 8x is just fine for me for 20-450+. I'd love to have a $300 8x that tracked well and had decent glass.

The light was all but gone the evening I took this old male black bear at 492 yards with my .308, topped with a 10X42 PMII. If you look close, you'll see the exit hole made by the 155 scenar in front of his left hip. He went less than 40 yards into the timber before piling up.

I use a SWFA 10x Milquad on my Remington 7mm Magnum Long range stainless.
I like the Higher power
Most of my Hunting is in a stand overlooking agri fields
and the 10x milquad is great for that even after sundown and right before sunup.
I also have no problems with using 10x at 25 yards
I have no issue with usimg 10x at any range


But for use in the woods the reticule is the issue

I like a Leupold Duplex reticule better,as it is easier for me to see.

Agreed!
10x works fine. Would prefer 8x.

I have 3, 10X leupolds and hunt with them a bit. I don't even know if all of my Leupold 3-9's will even come off of 9 any more. I can't remember the last time I adjusted one below 9X.

My 4-12's and 4.5-14's don't come off of their highest power much either.

Almost all of my hunting is in open country though.

Compared to some of the variables people use for hunting today, a fixed 10X seems kind of retro and tame...

He has been here a year. Central MT area. He sure likes that scope.

These days I prefer variables for my hunting and target rifles.

When I started out in the early 50's fixed was all that Lyman had.

There is a 10X Supertargetspot on my all time favorite chuck rifle a High Wall .219 I. Zipper.







However 10X has little flexibility for close or moving shots.

Variables rule.

Cause when you're shooting at moving game you have adequate time to [bleep] around with a power adjustment knob...

Always interesting to hear from people like Savage 99, who've never used a modern 10x scope, offer an opinion on their field worth. Of course you could say that about a lot of his opinions on scopes, bullets, cartridges, etc.

Some of us who have used both older and new stuff understand how stuff changes over time. I still use a lot of older rifles and scopes, partly because I like to and partly because it helps me understand why so many people formed some of their opinions years ago. Though some of Savage 99's opinions remain a mystery.

I looked thru one of these for the first time the other day. While I doubt I'll ever have the means to afford such a scope, Damn it was impressive!

[quote=HuntnShoot]I had heard that low-light brought issues with the SWFA 10x, which is why I haven't tried one. Maybe with better glass it isn't an issue.

I have carried a variable set at 8x for a couple seasons to see if it would work, and 8x is just fine for me for 20-450+. I'd love to have a $300 8x that tracked well and had decent glass. [/quote
I used to own a 8x56mm IOR that had excellent glass in it and in low light situations it was amazing... I loved everything about that scope except the fact it weighed as much s the rifle it was on... I sold it for twice what I paid for it and the new owner was just as happy.

Around here, in your face shots are not what I get the most of and I don't see a straight 10x as being much of a hindrance. But, a top notch straight 8x40 would have my attention for sure. I don't expect it to happen, but I would love to see Bushnell come out with a fixed X series of their LRHS in 6x, 8x and 10x. An 8x SWFA in their HD version would be great too. I would be on one of those like a Somali on a big mac….

John

Bob,

I am lost on this place. The fixed 6 is Godsend, the fixed 4, well about as good, the 3-9 is too much and the fixed 10 is great... The optics bunch are the looniest of them all. Well that and the 23" barrel gang...

Count me in the fixed power scope area....... all I own.

P.s. 620mm is where its at for barrel length!

Fixed 10x on a coyote gun..... that's preposterous...

10x Leupold here...

Heck, I used a 15x Weaver on a mulie at 90 yards two years ago. No problem. It was a quick shot with a narrow time window. 10x is fine by me although I prefer the fixed 6x for most. (Never had a problem using the 3x really!)

I have used issued 10x scopes more than a fair amount and have not found them to be an issue. In fact I like the simplicity.

I have a USO fixed 10x and it is one of my favorite optics. Sitting on an older Tikka LSA 30-06.

Ive been looking at the SWFA fixed 10s, specifically the mil/mil version.

Don, I agree that Lyman's Target Spots and Super Target Spots are nice, old technology, scopes, but they don't have much in the way of field of view or light transmission when compared to today's 10x scopes, even the inexpensive Bushnell 3200 10x40s. The TS and STS were top-shelf in their day, but they are anachronisms in light of the advances in optics technology over the past fifty years. Or so it seems to me.

PS - the only old technology variable target scope that I recall seeing anybody use are the B&L Balvar 6-24x stove pipes.

I use mostly variables, and at dark thirty, 10X does not
cut it. Way too dim, I am down to 4-6X to see what I need
to.

I started keeping my scopes at 8x a few years ago as I use 8x binoculars and found my coyote hunting benefited as I no longer had a problem mis-judging the distance on shots when going from sighting through the binoculars to finding and aiming with the scope, if that makes sense. If I get a pair of 10x binoculars I will probably start using a 10x scope.

My next scopes are going to be fixed power and likely the 6x FII, I would really like an 8x though if I could find one that was trim and had a long eye relief. Anyone know of a scope like that in 8x?

Would this not work?
http://swfa.com/Leupold-8x40-FX-2-Riflescope-P50857.aspx

Good friend in a wheelchair used a 243 77V w/a 2.5x10 for years and it was always set @ "2&10" (200 yds on the focus and 10X). I have no idea how many animals ( G.Squirrels-Elk) were killed with it but a lot more than holes in paper before the barrel gave up. He used 85gr HPBT Sierra's and Mil surp. H-414. Muddy

Growing up in the '60's, I did a lot of groundhog and deer hunting. I could afford 1 rifle and 1 scope. The ideal combination for me at that time was a LH Savage 110 .243 with a Lyman 10X All-American scope that I bought used. I learned to shoot the 10X pretty well off-hand and that combo produced a ton of game for about 20 yrs. until I switched to variable powers. I still have the rifle and scope by the way.

With so many good variable scope options today, a fixed power wouldn't be my top choice or even in my top 10 choices, but the 10X can work well.

Biggest fixed power I have is an 8x56mm S&B that is on a .223Rem for shooting foxes at night. I have also taken a few Roe deer up in Scotland with this combo.

Having viewed through a couple of mid priced 10x42mm scopes, I personally would not want them for "hunting"..

I can appreciate they will work well for medium to long range shots in good light, but given where and how I hunt,those particular circumstances would not be very common and I would therefore prefer a variable or lower fixed power.

I understand where they would be less than ideal in heavy vegetation, at short ranges. That said, I tend to hunt wide open areas, and the vast majority of my shots are in the mid 400s.

I am interested to hear folks opinions of the SWFA 10x

As noted above, I have the MRAD 10x SWFA SS with the MilQuad Reticle for 299$.

Words fail me on how hart one should be kicking oneself not giving it a try.

Great reticle, precise adjustments. Rugged. Glass good/reticle good enough till about 20 min after sun down in the open.

Nothing not to like.

I am amazed more folks don't use a 8x40 for FOV vs 10x for Big game.
My fave scope on a Forester 243 was a 7.5x though an 8x36 was also very good. The 7.5 had the big eyebox like the 6x42

If I could buy an FX-3 in 7.5x42 - matte duplex and vertical M1 it would be the Shizzle IMHO

My experience is that FOV is one of the most overrated features in hunting optics. If somebody has trouble "finding" an animal in a 10x, they're not going to do significantly better with an 8x.

But then the Campfire is yet another place where heated discussions of really tiny differences usually go on the longest.

Good thread.
This is a topic that interest me. I grew up reading that you will miss opportunity's to get shots at game if you failed to dial your variable down.
That didn't jive with my experience.
Then I read scenarshooters testimony to the effectiveness of his Schmidt& Bender 10x42.

I think in the old days stocks were designed for open sights, scope eye box's were finicky etc...

Seems to me amateurs have problems finding things in their scopes F.O.V., experienced rifle men seem to do fine.

With todays stocks and scopes, I think something like a 10xS.S. or Pat's S&B are very usable in open country and in a pinch usable if a close opportunity presents itself. Wouldn't be my first choice for close range hunting, that would be a 6x!

Isn't that the truth?!

It baffles me also how a 3x9 or 2.5x10 is considered way too much scope magnification by some but a fixed 6x is great, never mind that the two variables go to half or less the magnification than the other.

If I had to use a fixed power scope (thankfully I don't) then I'd prefer a 10X over a 6X, I like magnification. A 10X with a properly sized objective and good glass is not going to be dim at last light, but a 10x40 isn't going to cut it. More magnification helps immensely with shot placement when light fades but most guys here don't want the big objectives that it takes to keep a good image at high magnification as the light fades. The reticle is more important and the thin ranging reticles are going to be lost quickly at last light, a good heavy reticle like a #4 will hang in there. Then again I hunt in the south where 90% of our deer activity is at last light, a western hunter who sees most of their game in broad daylight will feel differently about scope choice.

I've got a good friend who uses a S&B 2.5-10 & it hasn't been turned off of 10X since he put it on the rifle 15 years ago. He shoots deer from 10-400 yds with it, running or not. He shoots a lot, knows how to mount his rifle correctly and doesn't have a problem with acquisition.

Deer and antelope hunting here on the prairie is a sunglasses affair, if there is snow on the ground even more so... Light gathering is about fourth or fifth on my requirements for a scope. I use a straight 20x SWFA on my antelope gun....... just as a side comparison of hunting styles.

Ed: It's the optics forum...

Weaver makes an 8x56 at an affordable price. Steelhead had one--don't know if he liked it or not.

Thanks for all your input. I have a variable on a 223 that is always on 10X, it has an EBR reticle and sfp (thin cross hairs) seems to work well on moa targets out to ~600yds. Also, I have a 10X Bushnell on a CZ Silhouette .22, it also works well. I look at 10X scopes manufactured by US Optics and S&B, they are about twice the price of a 2.5x10 good quality scope. Is it worth going that route? I also shoot steel at 1000++ yards.

I love my 2.5-10. During hunt its always on 2.5 just because I don't know what will run out in front of me. Its easy to dial up to 10 if I see a game hundreds yards out.
to each his own.

JB - I've dumped deer at 15 yards with a 6x42. So I don't have a problem w a 10x and used both an M8 and 3200 in the past - the latter on 2 bucks at dusk in a field both about 200 yds. However I think you would agree if one lives in the south or east a 6-8x fixed might well be a better all around scope. Not seeing many 10x fixed in Elk Timber. In the open I've much rather the Leupy 12x over the 10x on small varmints though I dumped a yote running broadside wide open about 250 - 275 yds in a cotton field with a 243 Mohawk using either a Redfield 10 or 12x with thin crosshair. Guess I got lucky - 1st shot drilled the neck

I would surmise a MK 4 10x or S&B would be the the best of 10x Fixed on big game - yet see them best put to use in open country. As you know since many hunt mixed terrain - it is all the more reason why variables to 9-14x top end are so popular.

The key mantra for some on this forum is the word "Fixed".

Some seem obsessed with it.

Many riflemen can use variable magnification scopes well and in fact find them best for most purposes.

When at the eye doctor he asks us to look through the various lenses and we select what we see best with.

Careful there, Ed.

You're about to kill a great thread with logic...

DF

Have you ever made a contribution to a thread here?

The 'key' feature of a fixed power scope is the sight picture is always the same and generally more forgiving eye box than a comparable variable. With a duplex , LR, better yet a mil-dot reticle ranging becomes easy and almost involuntary. With a variable, ranging is impossible to do accurately at all power settings as most hunting scopes are SFP so you have to pick one setting to range with confidence. For hunting I don't want to be fiddling with power settings. I have reverted to all fixed power scopes for hunting after decades of variables stuck on 6X. Anyway the 10X looks interesting.

Plenty of posts, no contribution that I can remember.

DF

I have a bunch of time behind the Leupold MKIV 10x. In my observations/experience, it is far from best. USO blows it away, as does IOR. Repeatability of turrets (tracking), and glass quality being the main factors.

That is opinion based on experience, and others that have used them may have a different view.

Never said a good variable does not work fine. Used many myself.

Re: eye doctors - they seek to bring vision into sharp focus. Not magnify.

Mackay - seems JB spoke good things on the durability of the MK IV. No doubt glass would be less than an S&B optically. I was never impressed with the M8 10x but it worked reliably - the FX 12x was an improvement over the M8 version
But with the higher price tag I would hope the MKIV was better than FX glass. Not compared SxS.

Used a k 10 on my groundhog rifle back in the day. It did a fine job but you had to about die to hold it steady. Once I thought my hunting partner was walking around causing a tremor when I realized it was my pulse. Off a bench or bipod they are fine but too much shake for general hunting IMHO.

Leupold appears to be headed in the direction of up grading all of their Mk4 scopes to their Diamond Coat2 lenses. Which are not only have very sharp images, but will retain them alot longer than scopes with conventional coatings simply because they don't erode from alot of cleaning.
Frankly, I wish Leupold made a scope like S&B's 10X PM. It has no parallax adjustment. That means it's depth of focus is going to be alot longer than a scope with a side focus/parallax adjustment. Since their are fewer lenses present, it would tend to work better during low light conditions.
We would also have a choice of reticles for those of us that need one that is heavier than the Mil-Dot in the S&B.
I've seen "bright," nights with full moons in the open desert where optics with only a 4mm exit pupil will work. But I've also seen the Mil-Dot reticle disappear long before the end of legal shooting hours when my old VariXIII was set on 10X. So it depends on the light conditons where one does his hunting. E

How could he interact in a meaningful way; he has everybody on ignore !!

To be fair, once in a while Savage 99 posts a photo of a nice rifle.

So since I have all you guys here....is the consensus on the SWFA 10X that it is a good and fine and worthwhile scope, and not just a good scope for $300? Low-light resolution matters to me, but for my purposes, a scope that accurately tracks matters a bit more. Opinions?

They are as durable and reliable as scopes get. "Glass" is about Leupold Vari-X III quality.

[quote=HuntnShoot]So since I have all you guys here....is the consensus on the SWFA 10X that it is a good and fine and worthwhile scope, and not just a good scope for $300? Low-light resolution matters to me, but for my purposes, a scope that accurately tracks matters a bit more. Opinions? [/quo

The OP was about a fixed 10X scope for hunting, I suppose
you gathered that.
I think the general consensus is that a fixed 10X is not
and never will be a common size hunting scope. Way too dim
for most users at low light. Other than that, we all can
have our own opinion.

I was asking about a particular 10X scope for hunting. I know there are many here who've used that scope. Figured it wasn't a thread hijack. I've no mind to worry about "common". Any experience with the SWFA?

Yes the swfa fixed 10x is a good hunting scope. I used it on 3 deer last year and one was at dark. The milrad reticle is tough to see at dark but it worked. I couldn't count points on the buck but knew it was plenty high and wide and his body was mature. No problem getting the reticle on the shoulder and squeezing one off on him.