Guys:

I'm curious: If trying to develop an accurate load for a hunting rifle which will ultimately wear a 4x scope, would you use a higher mag scope for development then switch to the 4x hunting scope for the field, or just use the 4x from the git-go?

Thanks

FM

I prefer to use a higher power for load work.

New rifle, or working up loads.......slap on my 36X or 40X BR scope. Target is a 1/8" dot. Takes aiming error out of the equation. Saves a lot of ammo and dicking around,



Lefty

I use 24x with a fine reticle of some sort for development . If your not able to see your exact aim point you're guessing to some degree.

At the range, the older I get the better I shoot with a higher magnification.........

Don't like them for hunting though.....

Higher magnification can be an advantage, but it really doesn't take all that much to do well by a hunting rifle. If you use a target appropriate to the reticle and you can't shoot 1/2 MOA with 10x it isn't lack of magnification holding you back.

All things being equal, you can shoot tighter groups with a high magnification, fine reticle scope, which is helpful when developing loads. Slap your hunting scope on when you get your final load. Whether it is worth the extra cost to have a scope dedicated to just load development is another matter, but it sure is nice having that extra sighting precision off the bench on a paper target.

Just use a 3-9×40 for everything and call it good. Why limit yourself with a 4x?

One man's opinion... you can develop a perfectly satisfactory accurate hunting load with the lower power scope of choice, start to finish. To augment precision, you can make a precise aiming black with a big Magic Marker and a ruler, the precise diamond shape is very satisfactory. Ken Waters was nobodies fool when it came to load development and evaluation.

Over the years I've gone through the load development with a higher power and have found that the load will rarely shoot better with the hunting scope back on than if I had developed the load with the hunting scope. That said I rarely hunt with a fixed power scope having 1-4, 1.5-6 and 2-10/12 s on my hunting rifles.

You also then have to deal with switching out scopes repeatedly.

Thanks for all the responses. This was discussed on another thread (regarding wind, I believe), but what would be the downside to doing the development at 50 yards using the 4x, then stretching to 100 for a final check? Would 50 yards be far enough to allow for evaluation of groups/loads?

No, not in my opinion. After 100 yards I use 30p for final evaluation, but I don't hunt with 4X scopes

I have shot as good a group with 4x as any higher powered scope. If you use the right target it’s not a problem. I usually hunt with 4x, but also 6x.

Even if I hunt with a variable, I usually set it on 6x or 4x depending on where I’m hunting.

When shooting prairie dogs, I will use higher power but there’s no need for it on big game.

In general, the average 20/20 eye can "resolve" an inch at 100 yards. This means is can tell the difference between alternating black-and-white lines half-an-inch wide. (Beyond 100 yards the lines appear gray, like zebras in the distance.)

Magnification allows resolution of smaller lines. In theory, a 4x scope allows us to resolve alternating 1/8 inch black-and-white lines, but this also depends on the quality of the optics, and light. Thus the error inherent in a 4x scope is about 1/4 inch.

The same principle applies to higher-magnification scopes: A 10x scope allows about 1/10th of an inch of aiming error, a 20x about 1/20th of an inch, etc.

Whether the shooter can take advantage of this is another question, partly because of wind.

If you're shooting a 4x in the field, how much precision do you need above and beyond what you are capable of discerning with the 4x? If a 20x scope helps tell the difference between a .75MOA load and a 1.25MOA load, is that really going to matter on a game animal when using the 4x as the "aiming device"? I know it's mentally helpful to have faith in accuracy of a load, but I'm not sure I'd fret it too much if it shoots acceptably for me at hunting ranges with my intended optic.

Well said!

I suppose it could also depend on if you're looking for minute of prairie dog, or minute of moose.....

All: again, thanks for the comments.

Neither moose nor prairie dogs in Florida, but what Loony doesn't want to wring-out all the accuracy potential of a rifle, regardless of game hunted?

As I pointed out in a post just before yours, the difference in aiming precision between a 4x and 20x scope is far less than between "A .75MOA load and a 1.25MOA load."

It's 1/4 of an inch minus 1/20 of an inch, which is .2 inch.

This sounds like an RLN article in the making: actual range test between a 4x and whatever the highest magnification you can get your hands on. That would be an interesting test, IMO.

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

I don't feel the need to prove anything mate, least of all to you.

I have a couple of Weaver KT-15s that I use exclusively for load development. I seem to aim smaller at 100 yards at 15x than I do with a typical 1.5-5x20, 2-7x33, or 3-9x40 scope. Aim small, hit small.

Use 4x and a big enough dot you can see well. Chop that dot in four quarters with the retical. Better yet, take a torpedo level with you and put some thick black lines through that target both horizontally and vertically, make sure they are level.

I typically put on my 8-32x56 sightron for load development for the reasons many have listed here. The higher power greatly enhances my ability to shoot small groups and spot technique errors. There might be some here who can shoot groups as small with a 4X as a 32X but I can assure you that I can't. Parallax adjustment is another huge factor as most scopes that claim to be parallax free at 100 yds aren't. I also do load development at 200 yds instead of 100 because tweaks in the load show themselves much better there than at 100. I would do it at longer range but I've found 200 yds to be a sweet spot where the wind doesn't come into play that much yet. At 300+ yards the wind can induce errors that are mistaken for load problems, on a normal day at 200 yds the wind effect is negligible.

I can swap a scope in about five minutes. Another five minutes with a known load will have it sighted in and ready to hunt. The advantages of having the 32X on there for load development outweigh the small amount of effort to put it on. A low power scope is much harder to shoot precisely from the bench for me, I want to test the load, not my ability to squint and see the target.

If it were true that it's as easy to shoot precisely with 4X as higher magnifications then the 100 yd benchrest shooters wouldn't be using 36X-45X scopes.

I have an old Leupold 12X target scope just for that purpose. There was one just like it for sale in the classifieds not too long ago.

That's a good question and it begs the question as to why I brought up the topic to begin with. Some of you have heard me mention that I have a 7x57 that I'm having a devil of a time getting to shoot consistently, much less consistently better than about 2 inches or so at 100 yards. It's a SC Featherweight, and I dearly love the rifle, but it won't shoot the way I'd like it to. No, I'm not after sub .5-moa groups. I have two 7x57s that will do that (and I've posted the pictures, so it did happen: just two of those days when everything came together); but I want to give the rifle every chance, so I'm going to try to find the load combination that will give me the best accuracy possible out of the rifle itself. In order to do that, however, I also need to be able to aim as precisely as possible -- meaning that assuming I have my bench technique solid and consistent, the winds are ok, etc., I need to also be able to "aim small, miss small" as they say (not a line that was original with Mel Gibson, by the way). So that is why I asked the question about magnification and load "development": I'll mount a 4x hunting scope on the rifle and be satisfied with a 1.5 inch group if I also know for certain that the load itself will shoot at least that or less using 10-15x.

I don't know of any of that makes logical sense, but that's where I am. Hopefully I'll find a load that will shoot 160-grain Sierra Tipped Match Kings into a sub 1 inch group. If I can, that may provide at lease some degree of an edge on then finding a hunting bullet of the same weight that will give decent hunting accuracy. If not I'll need to consider some other options.

Again, thanks for all the comments and your patience with my OCD nature.

RM

Sounds like you have a rifle problem maybe, not an ammo issue. If it were mine, I’d tear it down and check the usual suspects, and maybe some unusual ones.

People that spend a lot of time at the rifle range figure things out quickly.

RevMike - no need to explain/apologize for wanting to wring the most accuracy possible out of your rifle.

My purpose behind shooting load development or sight in with a high magnification scope is simple: I’m trying to remove variables.

Shooting off a bench with bags on a nice day with a high Mag d ops at a high contrast target shows me what the rifle and load is mechanically capable of achieving. But those results don’t have much n common with a live animal in dim light from a field position.

That’s why I set up my rifle with a hunting scope a d practice (to the extent possible) from “field” conditions. That gives me an idea of what I can achieve.

If I’ve done my job right on load development, then I’m always the weak link in the accuracy chain.

That’s about as much of an edge as I figure a hunter can give himself.