Is aim small/high magnification really the key to accuracy?

[thomasair]

This comes up a lot. Lower power mag can make you wobble less, because you are not as easily lured into a pattern of back and forth over correction because you don’t see as much of the wobble that actually there in lower mag. That said, you can teach yourself not to fall into that over correction pattern with a high power scope and still reap the benefits of the higher mag.

Mike 

 

[oldsparky]

Can I add, that it all depends on your target also. I have shot some very small groups with an aperture and front globe. When I was young I shot some pretty sorry scopes on my hunting rifles. And contender pistols. Developing loads I would shoot the Leupold type targets the ones with the 4 black squares. On those I would focus on centering the whole cross hair in-between the squares. I couldn't even see the center dot. I would shoot a 5 shot group then walk to see the groups. I sure am glad I have equipment that I can see with now days.

 

[ChRiSiS]

Interesting post and even more interesting replies. Everyone is different, so I am not surprised that the answers vary quite a bit in terms of preferences.

For me there are two different issues in play. First of all, there is a difference between precision and accuracy. Similarly, there is a difference between target shooting, action shooting, and hunting.

In MY terms/definition: Accuracy is hitting what you aim at. Precision is being able to do that many times with a very small variation in impact points.

When I am shooting for precision from the bench, or, in other words, when I am trying to hit one spot many times and to create a small group, I find high magnification indispensable. For me, in this situation, the key is to have a consistent aiming point and to make that point as small as possible. In order to do that I require high magnification and a stable rest (Bipod and rear bag at a minimum). Reducing my magnification does nothing to improve my stability, and impedes my ability to see, and therefore hit, hit the same spot every time.

Shooting offhand is a different animal. Here, too much magnification is detrimental (for ME) because the apparent movement of the rifle/scope combination is magnified as well. I generally back down the magnification to something less than 16X. For comparison, on the bench I use 24X 95% of the time, from 15 to 100 yards. Offhand I generally use between 8 and 16X.

Chris

 

[Long_Gun_Dallas]

The idea that shooting at lower power reduces “ jitters” isn’t exactly correct in my opinion. At lower power they are just not as obvious. This in and of itself may result in a steadier “hold” but it’s only because it’s less distracting for SOME shooters We discussed this at length and often during my years shooting silhouette . If there was a direct relationship everyone would shoot low power scopes. It could be said that high power forces you to train yourself to “ hold” steadier and for some that might be true as well. About all I can say that applies to all of us is the simple true. Sight picture and trigger control followed by follow thru ( which typically is included in trigger control) There is no magic solution of that there is no doubt just what works for you as an individual.

This stands out to me. I think on a stable gun (proper wight, balance) having oscillations be more pronounced can actually aid in working along side them to pull off that precise shot.

A lot of it is mental, though. Negative perception, often yields negative results. 

 

[lbc_PSI]

The mind is a wonderful thing. Changing the magnification from a high power to a lower power does not make you hold steadier..it just looks like there is less movement. The movement is still exactly the same on 3x as it is on 12x, but your mind tells you you're holding better..because you just can't see the movement as well.

The subconscious mind is much better at centering and aligning things than the conscious mind.

Try using a scope that has a circle as the main reticle. It can have a fine dot in the center, but the circle will allow your subconscious mind to do its thing and auto-center your target in the circle. it is much easier to keep the circle centered than it is to keep a dot or cross-hair stationary. As you try to align a dot or cross-hair "perfectly", you're getting your muscles involved in moving the aimpoint back on target..the more you engage your muscles, the less relaxed you'll be..and the twitchier the sight picture will become.

This might not be the best thing for super technical BR or target venues, but for hunting and casual plinking..

Keep your mind relaxed and you'll shoot better.

 

[qball]

Thanks for all the great information and insight! This is a fascinating topic to me and there is no right or wrong answer, everyone is different and we change with time on top of that so the approaches from many different people reflect that. Good example is golf, in no way I can swing like tiger did, even tiger can’t swing like how he used to swing. Important part is to tailor the approach best fit that person at that point in time. 


One thing I like to distinguish is to me bench shooting and offhand/light support style shooting need different approaches. One is more equipment focused and the later is more skill focused. Not saying bench rest doesn’t need skills far from it but different kind set of skills however both share similar basic shooting fundamentals but diverge after that.


For minimum support style I found myself using less magnification and use what @flintsack suggested method of framing the target and build a mental picture of the POA. For me this helped with target fixation and relax, it’s completely probable that once I gain enough shooting basics/fix some of my bad habits I can increase magnification again. Like I said I was in a rut and need something to help me to get out of the rut and lower the magnification did the trick for me. Silver lining to that is if I can build better skill to shoot better at 4x then in theory I should be able to shoot much farther out with 8x, 16x and so on.


For bench style shooting I liked a bit lower magnification simply because of the field of view so I can better see the environments which has exponentially higher effects on the projectiles as distance increase. my goal eventually is to get out to a mile(PB) so think lowering magnification at 100-300 yards as ELR simulation? A 24x24 plate at 1760 yards will be rather small even with 50x scope. Fairly different application than 50x at 50 yards for FT. 


Regardless it is awesome to see so many different approaches for very different applications by different people. This has been a very enjoyable thread with much to learn. 




Fun fact:

@1760 yards/mile with creedmoor going 2650fps the drop is around 28mils and drift of 0.8 mils with 5 mph crosswind 

@325 yards with 23 grain NSA going 900fps the drop is 29 mils and drift of 1.3 mils with same 5mph wind


24 inch @1760 equates to 4 inches @325 yards so mathematically it’s actually slightly harder to hit a 4 inch target @325 yards with my crown than for the 6.5 creedmoor to hit that 24 inch target @1760yard. Interesting food for thought.

 

[JungleShooter]

@1760 yards (1 mile) with Creedmoor going 2650fps the drop is around 28mils and drift of 0.8 mils with 5 mph crosswind 

@325 yards with 23 grain NSA going 900fps the drop is 29 mils and drift of 1.3 mils with same 5 mph wind


24 inches @1760y equates to 4 inches @325y.

➔ So mathematically it’s actually slightly harder to hit a 4 inch target @325y with my Crown than for the 6.5 Creedmoor to hit that 24 inch target @1760y.

EPIC, qball!!

Thanks for getting us back to the awe of PCP airgun shooting! EPIC!!

Matthias

 

[Vincent10]

Similar to using a peep sight for target I can usually form a better sight picture with a low magnification scope. I tried mildot and duplex at different ranges set to 12x. For accuracy I shot tighter groups with duplex out to 30 yards. At 50 yards aiming at 1/2" dots my groups were about the same when set to 9x. 

 

[Matt247365]

Great post and yes I have given that some thought in the past but always prefer higher mag.



@qball By the way every time I see your member name I think of the pickup truck my friend's dad had back in the 80's.

He called it "the 9 ball".

 

[steve123]

I got to thinking about this...

You had mentioned that a "24×24 plate at 1760 yards will be rather small even with 50x scope". Me, I guess that's relative to ones opinion but personally I don't see it that way, below is why.

Just mentioning that a 24" plate would be 1 moa sized at 2512Y so a 24" plate at 1760Y would be 1.3-ish moa. So looking at that 24" plate at 1760Y is basically like looking through a scope at 100Y and viewing a 1.3"-ish sized target. Not big looking but not tiny either.

You had mentioned this too which I was also contemplating - "And a Fairly different application than 50x at 50 yards for FT". Me, which is true but here are some thoughts on that below.

A common KZ size in FT at 50Y is 1.5" so that is 3 moa-ish in size at 50Y which is a relatively easy shot in FT in low winds since the more accurate rifles are capable of 1 moa at 50Y and in low wind one shouldn't need to aim out of the KZ.

Similarly if someone was trying to hit a 3 moa sized plate at 1760Y/1mile with a 6.5 Creed it would be a relatively easy shot in low winds "as long as the persons dope was correct" and they also had a rifle capable of sub moa. But hitting a 24" plate at a mile is getting to be a medium difficulty shot. IMHO hitting the 24" plate at a mile becomes more difficult, not because of the precision the rifle is capable of at 100Y but because often the ES is in the 40 fps range which makes the correlating vertical get worse at a mile, in other words a 1 moa rifle at 100Y might have 1.5 moa vertical at a mile, plus there could be quite a few odd winds during the bullets flight. It can be very tricky! And if you can't make out where you are missing then it gets way harder.

Further thinking about it, I'm guessing that a pcp shooting slugs at 100Y would normally be, "what like a 1.2" average rifle??", so hitting a 1.3" target at 100Y would be a medium difficulty shot in low winds with such a rifle I reckon.

In fairness if you can't see where you are missing with slugs then that also hinders placing your shot where they need to be. I was reminded of this while shooting at a 7" diamond steel plate at 290Y with my Uragan last week. I spent the first 7 rounds in the mag trying to see where I was missing in the weeds and once I figured that out I hit it the last 3 shots. Ha, even in light winds during those 7 rounds there was 1 mil of wind holdoff in either direction if aiming in the middle, I could tell approx where I was missing because of where the dust blew, but I happened to catch the same condition on the last 3 shots by remembering where I was aiming in the weeds once I had connected. I would have shot a few more magazines worth but not seeing exactly where you miss gets to be annoying.

 

[oldsparky]

In my opinion distance always makes shooting harder. I have competed over the years in several shooting disciplines that use scaled targets. Using scaled targets at all distances they are mathematically the same. However from personal experience the farther targets are always harder for me to score on. I have honestly felt like throwing my rifle and walking away when shooting high power silhouettes.

 

[oldsparky]

oops, I forgot to say what I wanted to say about magnification. I also think one reason higher magnification scopes get criticized is glass has to be much better on higher magnification. You can get a lower quality scope that is usable at low power. But the same quality scope at high magnification is terrible to use. Just my opinion of course. 

 

[Therealld]

oops, I forgot to say what I wanted to say about magnification. I also think one reason higher magnification scopes get criticized is glass has to be much better on higher magnification. You can get a lower quality scope that is usable at low power. But the same quality scope at high magnification is terrible to use. Just my opinion of course.

I prefer to use just enough mag to clearly see the holes i make in a target. Too low a mag give less feedback … a spotting scope can work, but breaks rythm.

 

[Marley5]

Find most of my target shooting is done on high magnification, clear optics is key. 

I'm actually exposing of daddy long legs on the wood pile at 27 yards and the legs are left quivering at point of impact. Lol

The optics may be a major player here but will test the theories mentioned. 

 

[qball]

Find most of my target shooting is done on high magnification, clear optics is key. 

I'm actually exposing of daddy long legs on the wood pile at 27 yards and the legs are left quivering at point of impact. Lol

The optics may be a major player here but will test the theories mentioned. 

I have clear Japanese scopes on my target guns. No issues seeing 177 holes at 100 yards on printed paper targets. No issues seeing dirt splash at 325 yards made by .22 slugs on only 10x.