How much magnification?

[tcoz]

I’m not well versed in scopes so I’m asking for some advice. I’m 69 years old and have eyes that are at least that old. I currently have a 4-14 variable power scope that I use at 200 yards with good success however I’ll soon be shooting at a new range that offers up to 500 yards so I want to go with more magnification. I’m currently looking at the Athlon Argos BTR in either 6-24 or 8-34. Price difference is only twenty dollars so that isn’t a factor. I would likely be shooting 500 yards at 24x with that scope but would probably shoot the 8-34 at something less than 34x. I know that some of the less expensive higher variable power scopes give less than stellar results at full magnification so I’m wondering if it would be better to go with the 6-24 and dial it to full magnification or go with the 8-34 and dial it down some.

Thanks in advance for any opinions you can offer.

 

[Walt Krafft]

I would get the 8-34. Conditions will determine how much power you can use.

 

[Vodoun daVinci]

I like lots of magnification as I'm using my scope to spot splashes/see target groups. Presently running a 10-40X56 and would like 10-60X56 but I'm not rich enough yet. The thing I like is that if one doesn't need the extra magnification one can dial it back to avoid mirage and such but if ya need it and don't have it you can't see where that last round went.

More is better for me.

VooDoo

 

[Falfan2017]

As long as you don’t plan on using it for short range hunting go with extra mag

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I’m not well versed in scopes so I’m asking for some advice. I’m 69 years old and have eyes that are at least that old. I currently have a 4-14 variable power scope that I use at 200 yards with good success however I’ll soon be shooting at a new range that offers up to 500 yards so I want to go with more magnification. I’m currently looking at the Athlon Argos BTR in either 6-24 or 8-34. Price difference is only twenty dollars so that isn’t a factor. I would likely be shooting 500 yards at 24x with that scope but would probably shoot the 8-34 at something less than 34x. I know that some of the less expensive higher variable power scopes give less than stellar results at full magnification so I’m wondering if it would be better to go with the 6-24 and dial it to full magnification or go with the 8-34 and dial it down some.

Thanks in advance for any opinions you can offer.

I know nothing of Athlon scopes and I have never seen one in real life, so I will only talk about the specs.

The 6-24X50 has, as its name implies, a 50mm objective. The 8-34X56, on the other hand, has a 56mm objective.

I'm just a couple years younger than you are and I value scope clarity. As others have stated above, more magnification is useful, especially at longer distances. However, if you used the 8-34X56 and set it at 24X to match the top end of the 6-24X56, the exit pupil for the first one will be 2.33mm compared to 2.08 for the second one. In other words, it will be easier to get behind the 56mm objective scope and the image will be brighter than in the 50mm model, for the same magnification.

For me, this is a no-brainer, I would get the 8-34X56 model.

 

[mchees1]

I’m not well versed in scopes so I’m asking for some advice. I’m 69 years old and have eyes that are at least that old. I currently have a 4-14 variable power scope that I use at 200 yards with good success however I’ll soon be shooting at a new range that offers up to 500 yards so I want to go with more magnification. I’m currently looking at the Athlon Argos BTR in either 6-24 or 8-34. Price difference is only twenty dollars so that isn’t a factor. I would likely be shooting 500 yards at 24x with that scope but would probably shoot the 8-34 at something less than 34x. I know that some of the less expensive higher variable power scopes give less than stellar results at full magnification so I’m wondering if it would be better to go with the 6-24 and dial it to full magnification or go with the 8-34 and dial it down some.

Thanks in advance for any opinions you can offer.

I have 3 Athlon scopes and like them. They are a very good value for the price. I would definitely go with the 8-34. I usually shoot at 34x with no issues. Like others have said, much better to have the magnification and dial it back if needed. Clarity and brightness at 34x is still good. I have 63 year old eyes and don't have any problems. They have held up well with all of my rifles.

The only consideration would be the reticle. If you go with the MIL version, you get a nice christmas tree style reticle that has noticeably thinner lines. If you dial the power way down, the lines will look pretty thin. I don't use mine at low power so the reticle size looks better at 34x. The MOA reticle is more like a traditional crosshairs and the lines are much thicker. The thick crosshairs might cover a fairly large part of the target - especially if you start going out to 500 yards with a small target. If you are comfortable using MIL I would go with the MIL version.

Either way, it is a great value.

 

[R.Morehouse]

Magnification is your friend........You can always turn it down...

Regards
Rick

 

[jimmymac]

Magnification is your friend........You can always turn it down...

Regards
Rick

Agreed. The more I do this, the more magnification I like.

 

[Zero333]

As an example... I have 2 scopes...
3.5-21 and a 4.5-30 both 50mm with objectives.

With both scopes at 21x, the 4.5-30 is the better one.

If I was you I would get the 8-34 with either BLR or APMR or ATMR reticle.

FFP or SFP is your preference. I like FFP.

 

[nmkid]

I am older than you are and for me, clarity is the number one consideration. That said, the highest power scope I own is 25x and sometimes I wish I had just a little more power.

 

[Papa Charlie]

I shoot 500 F-TR with the Golden Eagle 15-60x52. Many of the competitors I shoot with are using the NF Comp 15-55x52.
I have my magnification set at 60 power 85% of the time unless there is bad mirage then I will reduce the magnification as low as 40 but it varies.
My recommendation would be to go with as much as you can within your budget.

 

[Ccrider]

Do yourself a favor and at least look down a 15-55 Nightforce Comp. for me, that glass is clearer than other Nightforce scopes. The only scope I have that comes close is a S&B pmii.

The Bushnell XRS II also has very good glass for the money though not oft mentioned.

 

[Ccrider]

I didn’t say but was thinking when I responded that the quality of the glass is as important as the amount of magnification. My pmii at 25x is clearer than my Siii at 32x.

I have a 5-50 Delta Stryker that gives up clarity at 50x while the NF comp does not give up much if any at 55x.

 

[jackson1]

Have a March 10X60. First scope I have owned with that much power. I am happy with it. When using it, I adjust it to where the target looks best for me. More often than not, I find it set at 42 power. That number is also high lighted in red on my scope's dial.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Have a March 10X60. First scope I have owned with that much power. I am happy with it. When using it, I adjust it to where the target looks best for me. More often than not, I find it set at 42 power. That number is also high lighted in red on my scope's dial.

Are you sure about 42? Perhaps you mean 40X. There's something special about 40X for a March scope. Which reticle do you have?

 

[Rustytigwire]

Hawke 8-32 x 56. I shot p dogs at 20 and 24x for a long time. Last trip 12 16 and 8. Handy to zoom to 32 for investigation but back down to lower power to see the hits, watch the field. Shoot far ones first, work your way in. Shrapnel from a miss makes distant ones wary.

 

[fyrewall]

Look at glass and coating quality. I like Leupold but have to admit some bias and lack of experience with other scopes. Nothing like looking at some small distant object in dim light. I have had some scopes with 40 mm objectives and 2 mm exit pupils that outperformed those with 50 mm objectives & 2.5 mm exit pupils - both at 20X. For me, 20X is enough for 500 yards and more power can be somewhat of a disadvantage for field shooting. Essentially, you get what you pay for. Those huge 56 mm objective lens scopes with 30mm or fatter tubes require high mounts and can make your rifle real top heavy. Get to look through a variety of scopes before presenting your credit card. I use my cheap Weaver T24 for lots of range shooting and with Burris Signature rings I can jack up the rear ring to get it sighted in way over 600 yards with a quick twist .22-250 - not bad scope for under $350.

 

[jackson1]

Turbulent Turtle, My reticle is the MTR-1. I wanted something simple. As a retired tool maker, I prefer square lines to dots. For my way of viewing the world (square lines), it just seemed more precise. That said, I have not yet attempted to compete with it yet.

Hopefully next year.

Forty could be better, but for me and I don't look at the number while shooting, 42 is my sweet spot. Never shot in conditions where more power was usable, not for lack of trying.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Jackson1, The MTR-1 reticle is very nice, good choice. I initially bought my March-X 5-50X56 with the MTR-2 reticle but age caught up to me really fast and 5 years later, I was having problems discerning the thin black reticle on the black F-Class target. So I sent it in to March and they returned it a few weeks later with the MTR-5 reticle. It's twice as thick as the MTR-2 but it keeps the same divisions.

Since these scopes are second focal plane, the reticle subtends different amounts as the magnification changes. However, there are certain magnifications at which the reticle subtensions are really useful. For these scopes, there are at least 3 of those: 10X, 20X and 40X. If you have the 8-80X56, then the 80X magnification is also one of those useful magnifications. If you have the 5-50X56 (like mine), then 5X is also one of those magic mags.

For the MTR-1 and MTR-3 reticles, the divisions are as follows: 5X: 8MOA; 10X: 4MOA; 20X: 2MOA; 40X: 1MOA; 80X: 0.5MOA.

For the MTR-2, MTR-4 and MTR-5, the divisions are as follows: 5X: 4MOA; 10X: 2MOA; 20X: 1MOA; 40X: 0.5MOA; 80X: 0.25MOA.

So as you can see, by setting my magnification at 40X, the reticle becomes a lot more useful to me rather than just being the simple aiming device. Since I compete in F-Class, the reticle divisons representing 0.5MOA are extremely useful for me for holding on the target and so forth. It's like having a ruler on the target at all times. I can transfer my holds from the reticle to the knobs easily, without having to calculate anything.

I keep mine at 40X virtually all the time.

 

[K9TXS]

I'm 71, have a double astigmatism and eye floaters. I have one FFP scope and the others or 2nd plane. The power on my favorite scope is 5-20. I use a low power, 5-10, for scanning the fields. I'll take any shot out to around 100 yards +-. Past 100 yards, I'll start dialing the power up. On my second plane scopes I can always see the reticle and make adjustment easily. My FFP scope is very hard for me to read on lower powers. I can see a very good clarity difference between the Vortex scope and the Nightforce scope. So the Nightforce is the choice for me.