What magnification do you all use for small critters at 100 yards or less? In the market for a new scope and just curious what to look at it in magnification. Thank you
What Magnification for small critter hunting to 100 yards?
- Thread starter brawler1588
- Start date
I use about 14x most of the time. A few close shots at lower power and a few longer or shots needing a better view at higher power. Scopes in the 3-14 or 6-24 suit well, 30mm and 50 front for better light. A ranging rectical also.
Upvote 0
I have 4x14 Falcon and 5.5x25 Aztec and usually prefer the 5x25 for 100 yard shots cuz my old eyes can usually see the holes in my targets and thus small critters better. I use the 4x14 for shots under a hundred.
Upvote 0
6-24X is my favorite all around scope. I like the Aztec Emerald or the Hawke Airmax Compact for general every day use.
Upvote 0
6-24x here. I love both my Aztec Emerald and Athlon Helos BTR good scopes for small targets out to 100 yards.
Upvote 0
6-24x50 on all my scopes … leave it at one power and use the mill dots for the distances. I do have a 8-32x56 on an old Impact, but don't use it much.
Shalom
john
Shalom
john
Upvote 0
Do you feel like the 6 starting magnification is to much at closer ranges? Have been looking at the vortex 4-14×44 tactical but wondering if I should go for a 6-24 if I can i have astigmatism I'm both eyes and for target or hunting I do like to get zoomed in close if possible.
Upvote 0
It would depend on what you consider closer ranges. I can use both my scopes at their lowest magnification 5.5x on the Aztec and 4x on the Helos down to 10 yards. But prefer to take shots at pests over 20 yards (gun is too accurate, feels unfair). Both these scopes are FFPs.
Upvote 0
I would be getting a FFP as well and I would like to take at a distance but had a bad shot on a squirrel this year and in ran in to me and up a tree and had to take a shot but I would say 15-20 is average
Upvote 0
Then you should be fine with the suggestions above. It will all come down to which scope “you” ultimately decide on. Your on the right track...
Upvote 0
Any reason? Even on second focal plane scopes the Mark's are usually measured at full magnification.
Upvote 0
I have 3 swfa 10x and have no problem pesting. Out to 100 yds. Like the field of view. Also have variables but they stay on?10/12 x.works for me.
Upvote 0
The thing about “fixed” magnification scopes is just that, they’re “fixed”. You can leave your variable “fixed” at one magnification if you chose. But if you change your mind you just dial up or down. As opposed to having to buy another scope. More good options is always a plus IMHO.
Upvote 0
the higher the magnification the steadier the "support" needs to be;a variable scope would help with that; a person will get used to a fixed power,you learn to "judge" your shoots and get good at it.My scopes are set for certain distances,I do not change the magnification on them.
I like fixed scopes,though most my scopes are variable...ok 50yds. 7to,10x ....100 yd over 16x...that said, choice is good..
BTW,I only use 8x binoculars .
I like fixed scopes,though most my scopes are variable...ok 50yds. 7to,10x ....100 yd over 16x...that said, choice is good..
BTW,I only use 8x binoculars .
Upvote 0
I usually hang around the 12-16x magnification setting when small-game hunting between 20 and 50 yards. For me, if the zoom is set higher it can be hard sometimes to get the critters in the FOV especially at the closer ranges, and can also slow down the AO ranging when using that. I don't hunt much past 50 yards, so can't comment much on that.
But having the option to zoom in tight when needed (for both bench shooting and hunting) is always a benefit so I look for scopes that go up to at least 24x. But if I found a great deal on a scope that was only 14 or 18x max, I would probably take it.
But having the option to zoom in tight when needed (for both bench shooting and hunting) is always a benefit so I look for scopes that go up to at least 24x. But if I found a great deal on a scope that was only 14 or 18x max, I would probably take it.
Upvote 0
Brawler1588,
for hunting, the bottom end magnification is usually the first magnification which you need to determine what you need. Because bottom magnifications usually restrict your scope choices more than the top end magnification.
For closer ranges the bottom end magnification has to be low enough for a wide enough field of view, otherwise target acquisition turns into a game "Where's Waldo?!" and when you see that squirrel finally through your scope it might be ready to move on -- missed shot.
I personally find a 6x a bit too high magnification for close range. 4x is better, 3x is great. The differences don't seem like much, just one number, but cf. the diagram below, the difference is quite large.
However, I also shoot out to 100y, so I need something where I can aim at my quarry, and where I can see the holes I'm punching in my target cards. So, 12x is too low, 14x and 16x is already better, however, 18x or 20x or 24x is much better.
Magnification and Field of View (FoV)
To help me see the differences between different magnifications and their respective field of view, I made myself the following diagram.
Note that the numbers that describe the magnification range of a scope are not linear: The difference in magnification between a 2x and a 4x is much larger than between a 30x and a 32x, even though they both are only 2 numbers apart.
As the diagram below shows: the size increase of the scope image of a squirrel at 2x magnification over its life size at that distance is twice the size (doooh, of course). When comparing the squirrel’s scope image in 4x with the image in 2x, again it’s twice the size. 8x shows the squirrel twice the size as in 4x. To make it again twice the size you’d have to go to 16x magnification (that’s 16x larger than life size). And for another doubling in size you’d need 32x.
For comparison: The size increase of the squirrel image seen at 30x and the image at 32x is not much (only ⅛x larger), whereas going from 2x to 4x makes it 2x larger.
Here as PDF, much better to read:
View attachment 1580623157_4320452765e366535dc4e86.26640608_Scopes. Magnification and FoV.pdf
Scope Spec Table
Sadly, under $500 it is hard to find scopes that are 4-20x or 3-18x, much less all the way out to 24x.
So, I made a Scope Spec Table to compare scopes that have at least 4x or lower on the bottom end.
And that have at least 14x on the top end.
All these 45 scopes have:
10y side parallax
Exposed turrets
Holdoff Reticle
Specs listed are
Prices
Warranty
FFP or SFP
FoV
Exit pupil (for good eye box)
Mil or moa and whether turrets and reticle speak the same language
Weight
Length
Max. elevation adjustment
and then some....
Hope this will help someone.
Matthias
PS: After comparing my options, I chose the Falcon S18i FFP 3-18x50. I find nothing under $500 that compares to its unique mix of many features and good quality. I've been using it for a year now and would buy another one if I had a gun for it. Mmmm, maybe that fact might count as a good reason to buy another gun...!!!
(For my scope selection, FFP, IR, and large elevation adjustment, were all non-negotiables. I'm sure everyone has their own deal breakers.)
Attachment
View attachment 1580621323_16565609835e365e0b0ac069.02580431_SCOPE TABLE. 3-18x Magnification. 059.pdf
for hunting, the bottom end magnification is usually the first magnification which you need to determine what you need. Because bottom magnifications usually restrict your scope choices more than the top end magnification.
For closer ranges the bottom end magnification has to be low enough for a wide enough field of view, otherwise target acquisition turns into a game "Where's Waldo?!" and when you see that squirrel finally through your scope it might be ready to move on -- missed shot.
I personally find a 6x a bit too high magnification for close range. 4x is better, 3x is great. The differences don't seem like much, just one number, but cf. the diagram below, the difference is quite large.
However, I also shoot out to 100y, so I need something where I can aim at my quarry, and where I can see the holes I'm punching in my target cards. So, 12x is too low, 14x and 16x is already better, however, 18x or 20x or 24x is much better.
Magnification and Field of View (FoV)
To help me see the differences between different magnifications and their respective field of view, I made myself the following diagram.
Note that the numbers that describe the magnification range of a scope are not linear: The difference in magnification between a 2x and a 4x is much larger than between a 30x and a 32x, even though they both are only 2 numbers apart.
As the diagram below shows: the size increase of the scope image of a squirrel at 2x magnification over its life size at that distance is twice the size (doooh, of course). When comparing the squirrel’s scope image in 4x with the image in 2x, again it’s twice the size. 8x shows the squirrel twice the size as in 4x. To make it again twice the size you’d have to go to 16x magnification (that’s 16x larger than life size). And for another doubling in size you’d need 32x.
For comparison: The size increase of the squirrel image seen at 30x and the image at 32x is not much (only ⅛x larger), whereas going from 2x to 4x makes it 2x larger.
Here as PDF, much better to read:
Scope Spec Table
Sadly, under $500 it is hard to find scopes that are 4-20x or 3-18x, much less all the way out to 24x.
So, I made a Scope Spec Table to compare scopes that have at least 4x or lower on the bottom end.
And that have at least 14x on the top end.
All these 45 scopes have:
10y side parallax
Exposed turrets
Holdoff Reticle
Specs listed are
Prices
Warranty
FFP or SFP
FoV
Exit pupil (for good eye box)
Mil or moa and whether turrets and reticle speak the same language
Weight
Length
Max. elevation adjustment
and then some....
Hope this will help someone.
Matthias
PS: After comparing my options, I chose the Falcon S18i FFP 3-18x50. I find nothing under $500 that compares to its unique mix of many features and good quality. I've been using it for a year now and would buy another one if I had a gun for it. Mmmm, maybe that fact might count as a good reason to buy another gun...!!!
(For my scope selection, FFP, IR, and large elevation adjustment, were all non-negotiables. I'm sure everyone has their own deal breakers.)
Attachment
Upvote 0
If you’re going out to 100, I find 20x to be the bare minimum on ground squirrels, otherwise it’s a gamble where on the critter I’ll hit. I want more magnification. We’ve thinned out the herd close in, now the shots are 75 and beyond. I think 25+ would be ideal.
Upvote 0
There's different needs depending on which game you are hunting.
For us old guys, remember all the critters we killed with irons when boys, then with fixed 2.5x or 4x a few years later, then 2-7's and 3-9's as teenagers....., that was all we needed to hunt tree squirrels and cottontails back then. That pretty much holds true today because most shots were sub 30Y.
I used the same 4x and 3-9 scopes to hunt prairie dogs at longer distances in my early teens but that's where the low mag and thick reticles started becoming less ideal.
Now I'm almost 60 years old and love 5-25 FFP scopes for most of my shooting which is usually long range.
To be honest I don't hunt rabbits and tree squirrels much anymore but if I did I would default to a SFP scope starting at 2, 3, or 4 max on the low end. I just don't need much magnification and want the wider FOV for quick shots for this kind of hunting. Plus I also want the large reticle a SFP scope provides on lower magnification.
For longer distances it's mostly FFP scopes. I do holdover and holdoff more than most guys using tree reticles which for me is where it's at for this type of hunting.
A scope that I've grown fond of the last few years is a SFP 4-16x40. 4x for closer shots, 10x for holdovers, and dialing at 16x when that is needed.
It seems there's no perfect scope for all scenarios. Good thing that it isn't very hard to switch scopes around to suite the need at hand and not very expensive sighting in a pellet gun either.
For us old guys, remember all the critters we killed with irons when boys, then with fixed 2.5x or 4x a few years later, then 2-7's and 3-9's as teenagers....., that was all we needed to hunt tree squirrels and cottontails back then. That pretty much holds true today because most shots were sub 30Y.
I used the same 4x and 3-9 scopes to hunt prairie dogs at longer distances in my early teens but that's where the low mag and thick reticles started becoming less ideal.
Now I'm almost 60 years old and love 5-25 FFP scopes for most of my shooting which is usually long range.
To be honest I don't hunt rabbits and tree squirrels much anymore but if I did I would default to a SFP scope starting at 2, 3, or 4 max on the low end. I just don't need much magnification and want the wider FOV for quick shots for this kind of hunting. Plus I also want the large reticle a SFP scope provides on lower magnification.
For longer distances it's mostly FFP scopes. I do holdover and holdoff more than most guys using tree reticles which for me is where it's at for this type of hunting.
A scope that I've grown fond of the last few years is a SFP 4-16x40. 4x for closer shots, 10x for holdovers, and dialing at 16x when that is needed.
It seems there's no perfect scope for all scenarios. Good thing that it isn't very hard to switch scopes around to suite the need at hand and not very expensive sighting in a pellet gun either.
Upvote 0
My 2cents after spending thousands of dollars on scopes over the last 5 years is spend as much bread on your glass as you can. A great gun will perform like one with great glass. I have a box full of good glass scopes and when you step into the 600 dollar and over range you really do see the quality difference. Athlon Midas Tac 6-24 FFP is my current go to scope. Scopes are truly a "Get what you paid for" item. I usually have mine set around 12-14 power for my woods hunting for squirrels. The 24x is nice when those long range shots present themselves. Best of luck in your quest.
Upvote 0