Scope Magnification vs Accuracy

[K22]

What you're experiencing is fairly typical with most shooters. It's characterized as trying to achieve the perfect shot and in doing so jerking the trigger. Shooting disciplines that require less artificial support magnify this condition. It is a well-known problem in free hand precision pistol shooting and the same principle applies to rifle shooting where there is less artificial support.

Every shooter has an 'area" of movement. The really good shooters have a smaller area of movement, but all have some area of movement. The higher magnification does not increase the area of movement, but it makes it more noticeable and results in the shooter trying to time the trigger pull with the "perfect" sight picture. Thus, this often results in jerking the trigger and creating a poor shot. This is why you are shooting a smaller group with the lower magnification versus the high magnification.

Watch Ryan Cleckner's video on "Acceptable Accuracy,". He explains it better than me and how to correct this common condition. The correction is developing a shooting style that allows the reticle to float within the area of the target defined to be a good shot while at the same time employing good trigger control.

With practice, it can be mastered. I know because I mastered in precision pistol shooting enough to qualify as a Distinguished Expert. Also with a rifle, I shoot off shooting sticks and while somewhat stable, I am a varmint hunter and my "good shot" area is a small vital area. In addition, varmint hunting requires the use of a higher magnification scopes thus I experience the same issue. But I have developed an area aiming / trigger control which mitigates the issue.

As others mentioned, your discipline may require a certain magnification of scope to be competitive so this something you will need to work on, but it can be improved.

 

[archerforkids]

LOL
My wife and I where factory staff shooters for Hoyt. Most rifle shooters could learn a lot from archery. You learn how to put a shot together, form, muscle memory. If I use any of those phrases on the line with gun shooters I get funny looks.

Yeah. I spent a lot of time researching "shot process" , muscle memory and such for rifle shooting. Slim pickings online. The shot process is (or was anyway) a big deal back when I coached archery.
You probably know Mary Zorn, Brady Ellis and a few of those guys from back in the day.

 

[TaperPin]

The way the eye and brain process sight is somewhat different for everyone. Not only in color, brightness, or focus, but also shapes and movement - and the speed at which each of those are processed. I became interested in this decades ago when I discovered coffee increased my vision depth of field, sharpness and hand eye coordination - I’ve asked every researcher and eye surgeon that comes along and those that were interested in this area talked at great length about it.

At least one very smart guy says his shooting scores go up the more his thoughts are cleared of anything except crosshairs, point of aim, and making the gun go bang. He explains it as a limited brain capacity to function at a high level - the more clutter the brain has to process, it degrades what’s left to get the shot off.

High magnification is only better if it’s actually better on target.

The Scatt system videos are worth looking at, even if just to visualize the fraction of a second between when the brain says shoot and the finger breaks the trigger. There are a lot of videos with 3 position shooters that are applicable to much more than just offhand shooting.

 

[archerforkids]

What you're experiencing is fairly typical with most shooters. It's characterized as trying to achieve the perfect shot and in doing so jerking the trigger. Shooting disciplines that require less artificial support magnify this condition. It is a well-known problem in free hand precision pistol shooting and the same principle applies to rifle shooting where there is less artificial support.

Every shooter has an 'area" of movement. The really good shooters have a smaller area of movement, but all have some area of movement. The higher magnification does not increase the area of movement, but it makes it more noticeable and results in the shooter trying to time the trigger pull with the "perfect" sight picture. Thus, this often results in jerking the trigger and creating a poor shot. This is why you are shooting a smaller group with the lower magnification versus the high magnification.

Watch Ryan Cleckner's video on "Acceptable Accuracy,". He explains it better than me and how to correct this common condition. The correction is developing a shooting style that allows the reticle to float within the area of the target defined to be a good shot while at the same time employing good trigger control.

With practice, it can be mastered. I know because I mastered in precision pistol shooting enough to qualify as a Distinguished Expert. Also with a rifle, I shoot off shooting sticks and while somewhat stable, I am a varmint hunter and my "good shot" area is a small vital area. In addition, varmint hunting requires the use of a higher magnification scopes thus I experience the same issue. But I have developed an area aiming / trigger control which mitigates the issue.

As others mentioned, your discipline may require a certain magnification of scope to be competitive so this something you will need to work on, but it can be improved.

Wow. A lot to digest. But Lord does it mimic what I referred to in archery. Thanks. Good info

 

[Laurie]

One of my pet peeves is that one of the reasons F-Class was originated was for older shooters who had trouble seeing with iron sights (half blind guys like me). The big black target center favors iron sights because at long range with no magnification it appears as a small black dot that you can center in the iron sights. However in poor conditions with a high power scope a black reticle is real easy to loose on that black center. The long range bench rest guys got it right with lighter colored targets.

I agree. It made sense in the very early days of F-Class when it was intended for both sling and F shooters to share the same (larger) target in Canada and the UK, but with the 'V' ('X' in US) scoring 6 instead of 5 (ie 11 on US targets although I doubt that this system was ever used there).

In the UK (Canada, Australia too?) we use the black ICFRA target for high-level competitions but with the V centre left white giving an easily visible aiming mark. Well, easily visible in our conditions which are much more likely to be dark/low light and rarely over-bright / heavy mirage.

At club level, we often do our own thing, and at Diggle in Northern England where I often compete, the 300/500/600 targets are all 'negative image' form, ie a black centre dot and ring lines on an otherwise white target. It works very well in the poor visibility conditions often found on this upland range. For 800/900/1000 we use a dayglo orange disk as a centre aiming mark.

I was impressed by @K22 's answer in Post #21 above. That makes complete sense of my own experience. In my serious F/TR shooting days, I usually shot with the scope set at ~18x, completely different to US practice, and very comfortable for me. Onetime FC World FTR Champion, GB's Russell Simmonds always shot at similar magnifications too - don't know if he still does. Shooting pairs and the 45-second rule make for different approaches though and we need to reassess wind for every shot with much longer gaps between them. The wider field of view with a lower setting allowed more off-target observation of conditions including seeing the target either side of one's own and often indicative of a wind or light change if all targets visible showed a trend in any direction in their last shots. E-targets have changed that of course, or at least doing it by actual target face scrutiny.

 

[archerforkids]

If you are having problems at high magnification, especially if you are a sling shooter, it is probably from trying to fight the amplified view of movement. You must learn to relax, instead of trying to control it. This will reduce the movement . Or just shoot lower magnification.

The only sling you might see me with is to use it getting my crippled arse off the ground. Assuming I can make one really good friend where ever I am shooting to pull on it.
I absolutely admire sling shooters.
It does make me miss my younger body of days gone by. I'd love to try it out.

 

[archerforkids]

The way the eye and brain process sight is somewhat different for everyone. Not only in color, brightness, or focus, but also shapes and movement - and the speed at which each of those are processed. I became interested in this decades ago when I discovered coffee increased my vision depth of field, sharpness and hand eye coordination - I’ve asked every researcher and eye surgeon that comes along and those that were interested in this area talked at great length about it.

At least one very smart guy says his shooting scores go up the more his thoughts are cleared of anything except crosshairs, point of aim, and making the gun go bang. He explains it as a limited brain capacity to function at a high level - the more clutter the brain has to process, it degrades what’s left to get the shot off.

High magnification is only better if it’s actually better on target.

The Scatt system videos are worth looking at, even if just to visualize the fraction of a second between when the brain says shoot and the finger breaks the trigger. There are a lot of videos with 3 position shooters that are applicable to much more than just offhand shooting.

That coffee thing has my brain hitting overdrive. Heck, I live off coffee and Levi Garret.
Any studies done on that to any scale? Very interesting observation.

 

[drop_point]

I have a Leopold 7-42x56 scope with TMOA Plus reticle.
I have been aspiring to improve my prone shooting at 500 yards with intentions of playing at a couple of clubs within a couple of hours drive from where I live.
Here's my challenge. I shoot significantly better at low magnification. 20 power or so. Which is fine and dandy unless the wind is blowing. Which is every time I pick the rifle up of course. Anyway. My brain isn't organized enough to trust dial off and remember where the turret is. Yet I struggle seeing the darn target rings at low magnification for a hold off aiming point.
Is the difference in quality of shooting at high magnification vs low magnification a mental short coming?
How might you more experienced gentlemen handle this?
Any feedback is appreciated.

The situation you describe is exactly why FFP is my preferred long-range choice. I also shoot better at a lower magnification; the wobble zone appears less exaggerated. With FFP, the holds are true on all magnifications. I only want enough magnification to get a precise aiming point.

 

[TaperPin]

That coffee thing has my brain hitting overdrive. Heck, I live off coffee and Levi Garret.
Any studies done on that to any scale? Very interesting observation.

Lots of studies, but deep in medical jargon and almost unreadable. Back in college we had a good research library and the articles from certain publications were dumbed down enough to make sense, but I can’t recall the names. Searching for “increased (enter part of brain here) function with (insert stimulant name here)” or something like that. It’s a big complicated field connecting brain function to sight to uptake of a stimulant, so unless it’s an article for Brain magazine written to summarize it a dumbed down way, the basic research isn‘t much help. That’s why it’s been more useful over the years to simply ask the professionals I come across. Coaches at Olympic training facilities are probably up on it as it pertains to actual shooters.

A lot of ADHD literature also talks about stimulants and their influence on different parts of the the brain, since stimulants are the primary medications. I’ve also heard of military use of stimulants in fighter pilots, and not just to stay awake, but officially they don’t do that any more and beyond that it’s classified.

 

[archerforkids]

Lots of studies, but deep in medical jargon and almost unreadable. Back in college we had a good research library and the articles from certain publications were dumbed down enough to make sense, but I can’t recall the names. Searching for “increased (enter part of brain here) function with (insert stimulant name here)” or something like that. It’s a big complicated field connecting brain function to sight to uptake of a stimulant, so unless it’s an article for Brain magazine written to summarize it a dumbed down way, the basic research isn‘t much help. That’s why it’s been more useful over the years to simply ask the professionals I come across. Coaches at Olympic training facilities are probably up on it as it pertains to actual shooters.

A lot of ADHD literature also talks about stimulants and their influence on different parts of the the brain, since stimulants are the primary medications. I’ve also heard of military use of stimulants in fighter pilots, and not just to stay awake, but officially they don’t do that any more and beyond that it’s classified.

Absolutely fascinating. No point in me looking all that up. I doubt they can get down to my level explaining it.
I might reach out to Frank Thomas on this. His name is well known in the archery world. He coached 2 different Olympic teams over years. And he is local. He is all ways up to speed on tis kind of stuff.

 

[TaperPin]

Absolutely fascinating. No point in me looking all that up. I doubt they can get down to my level explaining it.
I might reach out to Frank Thomas on this. His name is well known in the archery world. He coached 2 different Olympic teams over years. And he is local. He is all ways up to speed on tis kind of stuff.

It really is fascinating - I have a terrible memory or I’d have a lot more to pass on. I want to say the stimulant medications are considered performance enhancing drugs in many sports because they speed up a number of brain functions.

For other real world applications, I used to get a Venti Mocha at Starbucks before playing softball and it always helped my hand eye coordination. lol

 

[archerforkids]

I may have so much caffeine in me already every day to probably not be able to "ramp up" on any endeavor. At least not safely given my heart challenges.

 

[archerforkids]

Since you are consistently seeing better results at lower magnification … perhaps it is a form of “Bull Gazing” where you focus on the target more than the reticle.

Well hats off to you Mr.Porter.
I only had time for 30 rounds today after a couple of fouler shots.
Could only shoot 300 yards. 12 rounds were 1/2 MOA. 15 MOA with only 3 shots barely outside the 3" circle.
I cranked the scope right on up to 42x. Focused on the reticle and let her rip.
I was actually surprised at the mental exercise it took to do it. I guess undoing years of looking at the target rather than focusing on the reticle won't come natural for a while.
Thanks for the help folks.