New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - accuracy with 3x9 vs. 4x12
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

accuracy with 3x9 vs. 4x12

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/23/2008 at 16:52
Erich10931 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/31/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 19
I have go the impression that a good 3x9 scope (medium magnification) is more accurate than a higher magnification scope as in a 4x16 or 6.5x20 (high magnification)or greater?
 
I am  refering to strickly scope ability not shooter ability.
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/23/2008 at 16:55
rifle looney View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2553
scopes are not accurate.guns and shooters are? but yes they can make you more accurate.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/23/2008 at 17:10
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
i have always thought, target wise that the smaller the area you can focus on the better, i may be in left field but if i am down to looking at the inside diameter of the 10 ring and my cross hairs are covering the x well, then i should be able to repeat shot for shot, assuming all else is right with the world
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/23/2008 at 17:23
rifle looney View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2553
sounds logical.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/23/2008 at 17:25
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by Erich10931 Erich10931 wrote:

I have go the impression that a good 3x9 scope (medium magnification) is more accurate than a higher magnification scope as in a 4x16 or 6.5x20 (high magnification)or greater?
 
I am  refering to strickly scope ability not shooter ability.
 
 
................I forgot where, but there was an on-line article, where the author experimented with a 1.5x scope and a 35x scope in order to see which gave the best groupings at 100 yards. If I remember correctly, using the same reticles, there was very little difference between the two; maybe a 1/4 inch or less.
 
With a lower powered variable or a low powered fixed, I think that the reticle choice can make the difference in the precision dept.
 
A Tip!......... For better precision with heavy reticles, like using my lower powered VX3 German #4 with the heavier reticle thickness covering 2.8" of the target at 100 yards, I simply change the target background and cheat. If the target background I want isn`t available, using a compass, I draw a 4" circle on bright colored yellow paper, cut it out and tape on the target. Then looking through my scope, I evenly divide that circle into quarters with the reticle and then whamo!....BTW! Great groups!
 
   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/23/2008 at 17:28
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10961
A lot depends on how steady your position is.  If I have a very steady position and am shooting at a very small target, high magnification helps.  Out of most field positions, I find the increased perception of the shaking of my hands/rifle is annoying and prefer mdoest magnification.
Generally, I found that out to 100yards I shoot groups of about the same size with any magnification above (and including) 4x.  The further the target the more magnification I need for shooting groups.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/23/2008 at 18:01
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3190
Are you talking about glass wise a better quality 3-9 vs a lesser quality higher magnification scope? If so I could see that. For my experience when I changed my Leupold for a Nightforce my groups decreased in size at longer ranges. For me it is just much easier to be accurate with a clearer sight picture.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 08:23
brodeur272 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/23/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 609
I find that the only difference is that I can see the holes in the target with the higher power scopes.  Low or high power, I place them on the target at the same place every time and let the rifle show me the results.    My 22 mag with a 4x36 Kahles scope still shoots 1" goups at 100 yards.
 
My 0.02...
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 13:48
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

...If I... am shooting at a very small target, high magnification helps. ...

This is well said. You can't hit what you can't see.

I would expand on this and say that the magnification required will be dependent both on the size of the target and the visual acuity of the shooter.

Having 20/20 vision means one can identify the letter E when it is 8.8mm high from a distance of 6 meters. The letter E contains three black bars and two white spaces. From an angular perspective, we must identify a bar and a space. So, (8.8mm*(1m/1000mm)*(2/5)/6m) gives us an angular resolution of 0.000587 radians, or about 2 MOA. The diffraction limit for the angular resolution of 500nm light through a circular, 5mm pupil is 0.000122 radians, or about 0.4 MOA. We would expect to be able to resolve targets that fall somewhere between these two limits; 0.4 MOA to 2 MOA.

Studies have shown that most can resolve 0.0005 radians, or about 1.7 MOA, and that those with the most acute vision, under optimal viewing conditions, can resolve about 0.0002 radians, or about 0.7 MOA.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 13:50
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

...If I... am shooting at a very small target, high magnification helps. ...

This is well said. You can't hit what you can't see.

I would expand on this and say that the magnification required will be dependent both on the size of the target and the visual acuity of the shooter.

Having 20/20 vision means one can identify the letter E when it is 8.8mm high from a distance of 6 meters. The letter E contains three black bars and two white spaces. From an angular perspective, we must identify a bar and a space. So, (8.8mm*(1m/1000mm)*(2/5)/6m) gives us an angular resolution of 0.000587 radians, or about 2 MOA. The diffraction limit for the angular resolution of 500nm light through a circular, 5mm pupil is 0.000122 radians, or about 0.4 MOA. We would expect to be able to resolve targets that fall somewhere between these two limits; 0.4 MOA to 2 MOA.

Studies have shown that most can resolve 0.0005 radians, or about 1.7 MOA, and that those with the most acute vision, under optimal viewing conditions, can resolve about 0.0002 radians, or about 0.7 MOA.


hey tom can you put that in dumbass terms? i dont follow youBucky
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 14:15
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10961
Dumbass terms in bold just below:

Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

Originally posted by Gunshow75 Gunshow75 wrote:

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

...If I... am shooting at a very small target, high magnification helps. ...

This is well said. You can't hit what you can't see.

I would expand on this and say that the magnification required will be dependent both on the size of the target and the visual acuity of the shooter.

Having 20/20 vision means one can identify the letter E when it is 8.8mm high from a distance of 6 meters. The letter E contains three black bars and two white spaces. From an angular perspective, we must identify a bar and a space. So, (8.8mm*(1m/1000mm)*(2/5)/6m) gives us an angular resolution of 0.000587 radians, or about 2 MOA. The diffraction limit for the angular resolution of 500nm light through a circular, 5mm pupil is 0.000122 radians, or about 0.4 MOA. We would expect to be able to resolve targets that fall somewhere between these two limits; 0.4 MOA to 2 MOA.

Studies have shown that most can resolve 0.0005 radians, or about 1.7 MOA, and that those with the most acute vision, under optimal viewing conditions, can resolve about 0.0002 radians, or about 0.7 MOA.


hey tom can you put that in dumbass terms? i dont follow youBucky
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 14:17
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
thanks ilya! now i really feel like a dumbass! i would expect all this technical jargon to come from you. my bad!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 14:30
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10961
Originally posted by pyro6999 pyro6999 wrote:

thanks ilya! now i really feel like a dumbass! i would expect all this technical jargon to come from you. my bad!


All Tom was pointing out was that human can resolve only a certain amount of detail (small feature).  Features smaller than what the human eye can resolve are essentially invisible.

When you are shooting at something, first and foremost you have to see well enough for a consistent aiming point.  If the target is very small, you simply can't aim consistently.

For example, think of 1000 yard shooters.  Their targets tend to be very large, although good shooters make groups that are only a few inches.  Technically speaking, if you are shooting an 8" group at 1000 yards, you really only need to have a target that is 8" or bigger.  However, unless you plan to use an astronomical telescope instead of a rifle scope, you need a pretty big target to aim at (think of Mike McDonald shooting as well as he does at 1000yards with 10x Super Sniper: he needs enough magnification to see the target, the small features within the target he does not need to see).

I typically shoot at standard size targets which range from 6" to 18" in diameter.  Therefore, at 100 yards, the magnification is not very important for me.  I do not need to see the bullet holes, I only need to be able to aim the same way every time.

At longer ranges, I need more magnification to simply see the target (i.e. roughly resolve where the target edges are).

One other complication is that optical sights introduce their own aberrations and distortions that make it harder to see detail.

For example, let's say with a naked eye I can resolve a 2" spot at 50 yards (hypothetically).  That means that ideally with a 2x scope I would be able to resolve the same 2" spot at 100yards.  In practice, that is seldom the case, since the scope will degrade the image ever so slightly, so the smallest I would be able to resolve is a spot 2.1" in size (for example).

ILya


Edited by koshkin - December/27/2008 at 14:31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 14:33
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
thank you thats much better i follow you now.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2008 at 14:41
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
me too.... thanks!
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "accuracy with 3x9 vs. 4x12"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
4x12 or 3x9??? Dano1890 Rifle Scopes 5
Sightron S2 3x9 or Leupold VXII 3x9 giffmann Rifle Scopes 7 12/4/2004 5:16:03 PM
AV 4X12 TDS or PH 4X16 TDS 1SHW Rifle Scopes 10 10/27/2004 11:41:34 AM
leupold vx1 on ebay 4x12 lnib skeetlee Rifle Scopes 0 3/9/2007 8:50:55 AM
vortex diamondback 4x12 boatammo Rimfire / Airgun 0
nikon monarch 3x12 vs leupold vx11 4x12 cowski Rifle Scopes 8
scope covers for Leupold 4x12 AO Chip62 Tripods, sun shades, lens covers, etc. 0
Would a (sale) Sightron 3x9 be OK for a Saiga .308 SixCats! Rifle Scopes 2
4x12 vortex viper or leupold vx2 cowski Rifle Scopes 1
Scope for determining 100yd accuracy nincomp Rifle Scopes 11


This page was generated in 0.281 seconds.