Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
ss 6x42 at a distance |
Post Reply |
Author | |||||
hoopersb
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/28/2015 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: October/28/2015 at 11:42 |
||||
I am new here and have a question about the 6 power Super Sniper scope. I have not read one bad thing about the scope, but was just wondering if the fact that it is only a 6x, hurts small-target acquisition at 300+ yards? I like the idea of a fixed power scope, but have always had reservations about single-power at extended ranges for sight-in purposes and also shooting the small targets. I have seen videos of the scope on larger targets such as steel, but not at targets like one would use to sight in etc. I tried a search and came up empty. |
|||||
DCAMM94
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: April/19/2008 Location: Fort Worth Status: Offline Points: 3491 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Welcome to the forum, Hooper. I don't have any specific experience with that scope but you have certainly come to the right place for information. Great folks here.
|
|||||
Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement. -Winston Churchill
|
|||||
bcraig
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/14/2011 Status: Offline Points: 51 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Essentially shooting at 300 yards with a 6x scope is about the same as shooting at 50 yards with a non magnifying optic.as 300 divided by 6 equals 50. You will have to decide if you can hit a 50 yard target and sight in with no Magnification as only you know the size of target you are talking about and know your eyesight. If you have variable scopes just take one and set it on 6x and experiment with target acquisition and see what you feel comfortable with. Keep in mind that a scope is not a binocular and just because a higher power will enable one to see a target in a larger image does not mean you can shoot more accurately on that target. Hope this helps you |
|||||
SVT_Tactical
MODERATOR Chief Sackscratch Joined: December/17/2009 Location: NorthCackalacky Status: Offline Points: 31233 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I used one to hit clay pigeons with at 300+ with no issues using that exact scope and a 17 HMR
|
|||||
"Most folks are about as happy as they make their minds up to be" - Abraham Lincoln
|
|||||
hoopersb
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/28/2015 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Thanks! If what I read is correct, the quality/clarity of the glass makes up for some lack of magnification.
|
|||||
Peddler
Optics God Joined: July/04/2012 Location: Oswego,NY Status: Offline Points: 13526 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
There is no lack of magnification with a 6 X scope.
|
|||||
When you are dead, you don't know you are dead.It is difficult only for others.
It is the same when you are stupid. |
|||||
DCAMM94
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: April/19/2008 Location: Fort Worth Status: Offline Points: 3491 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
The quality of the glass dictates whether or not you can do the 300 / 6 calculation discussed above. In some cases, the proximity of the scope to your eye will make the image clearer than your naked eye at 50 yds. As to your quality/clarity question - I was shooting this weekend with my SS 3-9x and my new Swaro Z3 3-9x36. Same magnification range, obviously, but the Z3 made it appear that I was shooting a 16x compared to the SS.
Don't get me wrong - the SS 3-9x42 is a GREAT scope, but the color, clarity, and sharpness of the image in the Z3 was unbelievably better as it relates to GLASS. I have the SS for a reason (mil/mil, turrets, reticle, FFP), and the Z3 would not work as a substitute due to the features I need for the weapon that wears the SS. A scope that does what the SS does with the quality of glass of the Swaro would probably cost 3 times what the SS costs, and the SS glass is better than my Vortex Viper glass, and on par with the older Zeiss Conquest scopes I have, IMO. It's the age-old question of what features at what cost.
|
|||||
Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement. -Winston Churchill
|
|||||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Unless you're competitive benchrest shooting and aiming at bullet holes to try to get sub 1/4MOA groups or your vision is bad, 6X is plenty of magnification for any distant shot you'll ever need to make.
More magnification is beneficial if you're shooting LR at a tiny aim point of, say 1/2" or smaller, in which case the reticle may completely cover your POA at 6X. Otherwise, 6X will do everything that needs to be done on a working rifle. If I had to choose only one optic magnification for all hunting & field shooting, it would be 6X. I believe it's the best compromise for reasonable close range FOV and reasonable long range magnification, while still offering reasonably good light transmission in a reasonably compact package when using a 42mm objective. There's something to be said for keeping things simple, and a good fixed 6X42 is a good choice for those reasons. |
|||||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|||||
hoopersb
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/28/2015 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Thanks for all of the input. I will definitely consider the SS when I decide to do some changing on optics. The Swarovski should be better than the SWFA if price comparison means anything. I like the price point on the SS scopes. I kind of wish that they had the option of capped adjustment knobs, though. No big deal, but they seem kind of large, too.
|
|||||
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I second that… 6x is one of the most versatile fixed powers around. I like 4x, but 6x is better.
|
|||||
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
|||||
hoopersb
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/28/2015 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I turned two of my scopes to 6x this afternoon on my range. With a 17 HMR and a US-made Burris 3x9, at 6x, I shot an inch group at 200 yards. With a 6mm and a Nikon Buckmaster, I had no problem keeping moaish on steel at 300. I think that 6x is just fine.
|
|||||
budperm
Optics Retard show me your sheep!! Joined: January/01/2009 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31710 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
There ya go! Seems you CAN see... n shoot too!
Welcome to the OT!
|
|||||
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson |
|||||
hoopersb
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/28/2015 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Just another follow-up question on the 6x42. I have read some where the reticle tends to disappear in fading light. I have a bit of that problem with the B&C reticle on my Leupold 3.5x10. Any real field experience with this would be helpful. It would be perfect if they would just illuminate it!
|
|||||
DCAMM94
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: April/19/2008 Location: Fort Worth Status: Offline Points: 3491 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
The mil-quad is pretty fine (as in thin), so for your purposes, you might consider the mil-dot option on the 6x42.
|
|||||
Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement. -Winston Churchill
|
|||||
hoopersb
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/28/2015 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
That is what I was wondering.
|
|||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I disagree with that. In the 6x, Mil-quad is a fair bit more visible in low light than the MilDot. The thin lines are of about the same thickness, but the thick bars are substantially thicker in the Mil-Quad. I am pretty sure SWFA has published the reticle dimensions for both. ILya
|
|||||
hoopersb
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/28/2015 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Maybe when I decide to buy one, I can find someone with one that I can look through at dusk. Good info here, thanks.
|
|||||
DCAMM94
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: April/19/2008 Location: Fort Worth Status: Offline Points: 3491 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Fair enough, Ilya. I was going by how fine the 3-9x42 mil-quad looks at 6x. Seems really fine to me - definitely not a low-light friendly reticle except at 9x, IMO, and then you have to deal with the smallish exit pupil.
|
|||||
Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement. -Winston Churchill
|
|||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I have the 3-9x42 with both reticles and Mil quad is more visible.
ILya |
|||||
DCAMM94
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: April/19/2008 Location: Fort Worth Status: Offline Points: 3491 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I certainly am not going to disagree with that. Period. Thanks Ilya.
|
|||||
Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement. -Winston Churchill
|
|||||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |