2-10 vs 3-15

[Jmort1754]

Average shots probably under 300 could stretch to 600 all big game.

 

[eamyrick]

Those were my parameters and I went NF 2.5-10x44 vs 3.5-10x50. 10 ounces lighter and more compact package. Gives up something at 600 for sure but 98% it is the better choice for me. It can also sit in lows which helps with consistent cheek weld at distance.

 

[260madman]

10 is enough for me on game. My 4-14 IOR I turned up to 10 on a doe I shot at 540 yards. If I was benched I’d go higher but shooting off one knee and a bipod it worked well.

 

[TNKnoxville]

Good question. I have 3 x 10's but was thinking the same as you, made going 4 x 12 or 3 x 15. The only reason for me to shoot over 300 yards is gong back out to CO to elk hunt, otherwise don't have much chance to shoot over 300 in TN.

 

[Jmort1754]

Elk and eastern whitetail mainly

 

[gr8fuldoug]

If the majority of your shots are under 100 and rarely over 400 you're better served with the wider FOV of a 2x over the magnification difference of 15 vs 10x

 

[N2TRKYS]

I have 3.5-10 and 4.5-14 scopes. Most of my shots are less than 100 yds. I always turn mine to the highest power before shooting. I like the 4.5-14 a lot better.

 

[Myronman3]

One thing i have learned through the years...the higher magnification isnt really needed. We tend to gravitate toward it, but i’ve tried shooting with high mag, and lower mag settings. Generally, i do better with the lower mag, and you wouldnt think it’d be that way, but it is.

2x7 is great and 2-10 works too...anything more than that, it’s gotta be a target rifle for me. I’d never run more than 10x on a big game hunting rig.

 

[generalist]

I went from a 2.5-10 to a 4-16 and wished I would have stayed with the 2.5. Past 10x you're losing light and seeing a lot more shake. You really don't need big mag unless you're an true LR guy.

 

[hawk45]

Those both have pretty low bottom end magnifications which is nice. I have a 4.5x that I wish was more around 2.5x or 3x. I'd probably opt for the 3-15 as the low ends are so close and the 15x gives more options.

 

[TREE ‘EM]

I’ve got a Zeiss 3-15, Leupold 3.5 - 10 and a Leupold 2.5 - 8 on three of my rifles.
I find absolutely no advantage with the 3 - 15. In fact I find more disadvantages with it such as additional bulk and weight

The 2.5-8 is my hands down favorite with the 3.5-10 being a close second.

I regularly practice out to 600 yards and find 8X or 10 X at the top end perfectly adequate for hitting the 10 inch gong.

 

[tttoadman]

I have a 2.5-16. I hunt with it on about 3-4 all the time. I only run 10x Binos. I like the big scope power to lay over the tripod to get a better look when needed if glassing way out there.

 

[Catahoula]

3-15 and 4-14.

 

[Braaap]

Is the higher magnification (15x) a necessity or a preference for being able to shoot game at 600 yards like the OP was asking?

I'm not trying to highjack this thread but what about quality of the glass? Will high end glass at 10x be better than lesser quality at 15x when shooting 600 yards?

 

[LaHunter]

I read something like this many years ago: If you want to shoot with sub 1/2 moa precision, you need to be able to aim with at least the same precision with your glass. At 600 yards, the 15X is going to give you better aiming precision, assuming same quality optics. The difference between 2X & 3X and close range is probably not going to be noticeable. The high magnification scope may be a little heavier, but that is part of being able to shoot with a high degree of precision at 600+ yards.

 

[Baron85]

High magnification is not needed for longer shots. I have used 1-6 scopes out to 800yds effectively. I have scopes from 1x up to 24x. When I’m on a bench or bipod and bag shooting for groups the higher magnification is worth it. For field position shooting and hunting I find 10-12x is about as high as I care for. A couple years ago I swapped my 1-6 for a 4.5-14 and hated it. Much heavier, harder to find and track the game as well as being able to see the big picture of the animals surroundings, the higher magnification also made me notice the wobble of me aiming and was a big distraction. This year I am running 2-10

 

[Myronman3]

300 and under, 4x would do everything you need.

i’ve got close to 40 years hunting under my belt, and i find myself gravitating toward fixed power scopes. 4x or 6x. they are tough, clear, and get the job done.

 

[BluMtn]

I run high magnification scopes to help me during deer season in Washington. Washington has a rule that Bucks must be 3pt or better. The whitetails are easy to determine, but we have a huge population of monster 2pt mulies that I would like to take out of the gene pool. So you have to inspect them closely to see if they have a 1" eyeguard or sticker that would qualify. And when you are looking 400+ yards you need some magnification. Washington also has a spike only rule for Elk, so there are times you need to be able to see if they have a split at the top of their horns making them a 2pt before you spend all day trying to close the gap on them. Yes I could carry a spotting scope but I don't want to carry that much weight around or waste the time setting up or tearing down. I run a set of Swaro 12x50 binos and there are times they are not strong enough to help me identify points. I have shot several deer that people have let go because they were unable to get that third point on.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I shoot better with higher magnification. I won't use anything under a 10x power.

 

[Mike 338]

The additional magnification isn't needed to make the shot but may be helpful in putting horns on the animal.