Over-Scoping Air Rifles

[Rob Edge]

I have 2.5-10x42 Nighteater and a couple of 3-9x50 Panamax which double for NV use.

[Rapidnick]

The answer to the OP's question in my experience is 'yes'. I am always discussing this with new club members along the lines of 'why on earth are you fitting a 6~24x50 crappy scope with side parallax adjustment wheels when all you are doing is shooting on 12x on a range that is 55 yards long at maximum. It just isn't necessary. I suggest to them that they would be better off buying a really nice-or at least 'better' scope with a maximum of 12x magnification. Also although a 30mm tube lets more light through than the humble 25mm this is more than enough for shooting at any air rifle range. Sadly few listen but that is up to them. The 'arms race' in gun and glass continues and will continue for as long as we shoot. Pride of ownership of high end (that is high price) kit will be with us for ever.

[Rob Edge]

The answer to the OP's question in my experience is 'yes'. I am always discussing this with new club members along the lines of 'why on earth are you fitting a 6~24x50 crappy scope with side parallax adjustment wheels when all you are doing is shooting on 12x on a range that is 55 yards long at maximum. It just isn't necessary. I suggest to them that they would be better off buying a really nice-or at least 'better' scope with a maximum of 12x magnification. Also although a 30mm tube lets more light through than the humble 25mm this is more than enough for shooting at any air rifle range. Sadly few listen but that is up to them. The 'arms race' in gun and glass continues and will continue for as long as we shoot. Pride of ownership of high end (that is high price) kit will be with us for ever.

My 3-9x50 is used on my FAC in .25 out to 100 yards. AS Nick has said you just can't teach someone who has a closed mind.

[Portzy]

I am in the less is more camp but I can underststand and I do appreciate and agree with the "pride of ownership" thing.

I'm learning that, pound for pound, a scope with fewer bells and whistles where the expense has gone into better engineering and clearer glass usually results in respect for the item and better performance. So for me, I now flit between 32mm and 40mm, the exception being........

On talking to my target shooting team mates, (25yd .22 lr benchrest), who think nothing of having scopes up to or beyond 20 magnification with 50mm lenses, (but set them on 12x), they tell me that you don't want to be on your limits of magnification so it's best to have plenty in reserve. I can sort of see the logic in that but ideally I need it explaining in more detail.

[Rapidnick]

I am in the less is more camp but I can underststand and I do appreciate and agree with the "pride of ownership" thing.

I'm learning that, pound for pound, a scope with fewer bells and whistles where the expense has gone into better engineering and clearer glass usually results in respect for the item and better performance. So for me, I now flit between 32mm and 40mm, the exception being........

On talking to my target shooting team mates, (25yd .22 lr benchrest), who think nothing of having scopes up to or beyond 20 magnification with 50mm lenses, (but set them on 12x), they tell me that you don't want to be on your limits of magnification so it's best to have plenty in reserve. I can sort of see the logic in that but ideally I need it explaining in more detail.

Sadly not possible to explain because it is just plain wrong. To think in terms of 'operating below maximum capability' they are drawing a false analogy to a car engine where if it is capable of say 120 MPH driving it at 70 MPH is well within its limits. This is NOT the case with optics. As a reasonably serious photographer I know just how much money needs to be spent to achieve incremental performance. The same consideration applies to sports optics. If anyone needs a lesson in this I suggest they look through a modest pair of binoculars and then look through something like a Leica or Swarowski pair with similar spec. The difference is between night and day. If you buy a cheapo scope with 20x magnification it WILL be rubbish-it cannot be anything else as too many compromises have been made in its design and manufacture. Spending the same money on a 12x scope will give you more chance of getting a satisfactory image at 12x.

[lensman57]

Sadly not possible to explain because it is just plain wrong. To think in terms of 'operating below maximum capability' they are drawing a false analogy to a car engine where if it is capable of say 120 MPH driving it at 70 MPH is well within its limits. This is NOT the case with optics. As a reasonably serious photographer I know just how much money needs to be spent to achieve incremental performance. The same consideration applies to sports optics. If anyone needs a lesson in this I suggest they look through a modest pair of binoculars and then look through something like a Leica or Swarowski pair with similar spec. The difference is between night and day. If you buy a cheapo scope with 20x magnification it WILL be rubbish-it cannot be anything else as too many compromises have been made in its design and manufacture. Spending the same money on a 12x scope will give you more chance of getting a satisfactory image at 12x.

A fellow photographer. Nice to share the same basic understanding of the performance of optics. Besdies some " fine art " and land scape photography I also do a bit of Deep Space Long Exposure madness and you are absolutely right in saying that from a certain point the price of incremental gain in optics performance is exponential in terms of money but the fact remains that a top class optic will wash the floor with the mediocre ones.
I am also guilty as charged regarding having too much scope on my air rifles but I have taken the big 56 mm objective off and at the moment am quite happy using a 10X44 Viper on my HW 100 and is good enough to 100 yards for a golf ball.
Recently I have been looking at 2.5X10X40s or even 2X8X32s but the price of good glass V run of the mill is not something that I could justify in my present circumstances.
As far as hunting goes, although I don't hunt, I should imagine the best way is to stick tto a fixed power scope as in time the eye/brain combination will learn to range the targets without needing to use a rangefinder .

A.G

[Rolls1392]

I have recently got into shooting and joined a local club.
Most there shoot FT so mega scopes are the thing. 10-50x60 are normal.
Due to cost alone I have bought a Zos 10-40x50 scope which is a good starter.
However to progress serious money has to be spent. Not for me!
Do we over scope? Depends what we shoot.

[angrybear]

My air rifles have Mamba-lite's on them 3-12 for sub 12, 4-16 for FAC, I'll happily admit the only time they go anywhere near max mag is for zeroing or when scanning a field to plan a route to any rabbits out.

[MartynB]

As far as hunting goes, although I don't hunt, I should imagine the best way is to stick to a fixed power scope as in time the eye/brain combination will learn to range the targets without needing to use a rangefinder

I bought a Swarovski Habicht Nova 4x32 back in 1985 which I still have, currently on my Spartan. I do have more scopes, but that is the one I've really used since buying it. I rarely hunt these days but have taken down the odd magpie when they've been a nuisance

[Portzy]

Sadly not possible to explain because it is just plain wrong. To think in terms of 'operating below maximum capability' they are drawing a false analogy to a car engine where if it is capable of say 120 MPH driving it at 70 MPH is well within its limits. This is NOT the case with optics. As a reasonably serious photographer I know just how much money needs to be spent to achieve incremental performance. The same consideration applies to sports optics. If anyone needs a lesson in this I suggest they look through a modest pair of binoculars and then look through something like a Leica or Swarowski pair with similar spec. The difference is between night and day. If you buy a cheapo scope with 20x magnification it WILL be rubbish-it cannot be anything else as too many compromises have been made in its design and manufacture. Spending the same money on a 12x scope will give you more chance of getting a satisfactory image at 12x.

Thank you, that makes a whole lot of sense now

[Solvo]

When I was still a member of a local airgun club there was a definite 'bigger is better' approach to scopes. Many of the folks used ridiculous scopes for the 30-50 yard range. Now i've moved on to mostly rimfire and the trend is the exact opposite with most people preferring the small scopes which top at about 6 mag with a 20 or 24mm objective. Also a surprising number of tactical style reflex sights which are still very under used on airguns, especially for things like barn ratting.