I just personally don’t see the negative to having a scope that covers a little broader area or whatever I’m trying to say.
It isn’t a broader area for hunting though. People can say all they want that 20+ X is great on animals, and yet in multiple states, multiple animals with wide variety of people every year, all I see is problems from high magnification. They almost always have some level of struggle finding the animal in the scope initially and keeping the animal in the scope. If they need to pull their eye off for any reason, they have more issues, and as the stress or sense of urgency increases, all of that sky rockets. Heaven forbid the animal moves even a little, then the whole thing starts again. From 400 yards and out, people using more than 10-12x rarely get back on the animal to get a follow up shot. If they do, it’s always palpable that it took way too long.
Conversely, with the same exact people, once they stop using high mag, finding the animal is easy and quick, keeping the animal in the scope, keeping on it when it moves, reestablishing the the animal in the scope of cheekweld is broken, and follow up shots are quick and easy- literally every single aspect of killing an animal is easier with lower magnification.
I’ve been with somewhere between 6-8 RS members hunting in the last few years, some were ardent believers in higher magnification, and yet almost all have struggled mightily on animals in front of me and others from those exact same issues above. I believe Ryan is the only one that is somewhat consistently using more than around 10x.
I get the want and need for smaller closer range scope. But if we are talking mid to longer ranges. Something that’s 25-30oz. 30+mm tube and 44mm or bigger obj. Why not have a scope in that 4-24 ish range with a useable reticle on the low and high end.
Because at 24x to maintain the same clarity and usability, glass must be measurably and noticeably better. That equals cost, and usually size and weight. 24x with a 40mm to 44mm objective will have a tighter eyebox, in general less DOF, more finicky parallax, and overall worse user experience. And also, generally be more expensive, heavier, and larger.
I don’t see how that is a bad thing or work for almost anyone? And cover whatever situation you run into in the field. 4-5 power seems plenty low for any quick close range shots at least it’s always been for me. Including dark thick timber and then 24-25 on the high end lets you have descent mag for any situation where that is handy. Maybe I’m just an idiot.
I don’t believe you are an idiot, and no one has called you that- you are saying that. I am not going to convince you of anything, nor would care to. I am addressing in as objective a manner as possible what you ask or state. Every single person that I have met and watched shoot or hunt that has your argument/view of magnification has failed doing so. That doesn’t mean you, or someone else would. But it is striking that I have yet to meet someone that can pin their power to 20x and kill animals without issues- quite a few from this forum.
As for the magnification and why people are suffering from you, is that it does not seem that you have a very broad base of experience with a large subset of the population in varying environments and scopes to be able to separate “I like/think/feel” from “works in the broadest set of circumstances”.
This isn’t being rude either- it very hard to separate “I wish” and “data shows” in our brains, and very few manage to do it. I wish I had a scope with 50x magnification that had as much FOV and clarity as 4x, with size and weight of a Leupold fixed 4x, that also was extremely reliable and cost $1,000. But that isn’t how it works.
I accompanied someone a couple years ago that had a disaster on an elk at 984 yards and 25x SFP scope among other things. When he went to my rifle, I set the scope to 8x and told him not to touch it (it’s a 5-25x scope). He killed the elk easily without much issue. I had another that basically experienced all of the issues I wrote above, on an elk at just past 600 yards because they refused to turn down the magnification- they also “had never had an issue before”.
Another last year that could not find or stay on an elk at a bit over 600 yards as they kept turning the power up to 12-18x. I finally turned the power to 8x and told them not to touch it- they were then able to find the slowly moving elk, stay on it, and finish it. All of these people were “experienced” hunters and shooters. Yet they all had the same issues.
High mag isn’t needed to kill on demand at distance. I killed an elk last year at 803 yards at 7x, the year before at 644y, 560y, and multiple between 400 and 500 yards with the max magnification used being 12x on the 560 yard one- all others were between 7-9x.
I killed an elk at 1,106 yards starting at 12x, but turned it down until the FOV was correct to keep it in the scope- when done I looked and it was on 9x.
I can go on and on and on with animals, people, and results. High mag (over about 1.5x per hundred yards) is a visual comfort thing, and in the field universally hurts performance, not helps. Conversely, using 1 to 1.5x per hundred yards is a dramatic, observable difference in people of all skill levels.
There’s some really close ones out there. I think if they would mesh the 1.2 and 3.2 you would have a winner. Split the difference on mag. Good weight and size, have illumination, good useable reticle and above all reliable and tough.
I listed 8-9 scopes that meet those specs. Why are you not using one of the multiple S&B’s that do so? Or the Trijicon that does?