How many people use the zoom on their scopes?

[EricP]

I do like x4 as well. I have just swapped the scope on my HW80 for a 4x32 AO, gives a nice clear view, and doesn’t wobble as much with standing shots (I’m not as steady as I used to be).
There is an interesting article in this month’s AGW showing how to calculate parallax which indicates that larger apertures produce more parallax error in HFT where the setting is fixed, driving HFT shooters to narrower apertures. Of course when you can adjust the parallax then wider apertures mean better focal ratio, less depth of field, so easier to set the focus more accurately. Horses for courses and no one size fits all.
The responses have been interesting, it has been fascinating to see the range of favoured magnifications. Of course as well most of us use second focal plane scopes where the holdover/holdunder at a given range varies with the magnification which really drives the shooter to a fixed mag unless they always shoot at the zero range or they know their scope very well. However as respondents have pointed out, even if you use a fixed mag, the zoom lens does give an option to adopt a different fixed mag as your shooting evolves, or for hunters as light levels and circumstances dictate.

[simesgee]

Got a 3-9 x 40. Stays on x7.
Favourite scope at the mo is a 6x40 with German No.1 reticule, so obviously stays at that.

What has happened is that the price of zoom scopes has come down over the years. Now the manufacturers know that customer's look at features as "value for money" and (sadly in my opinion) won't buy a fixed scope. Don't get me wrong - reading some of the replies, zoom is great (just as in photography), but using a fixed value mag will get you used to the range. You get to "know" your scope.
I think it would be great to have some high quality glass in some fixed range options in addition to the x4. I'd go for x6 or x7 as my option (x10 too much for me at airgun ranges).
I'd want better optical quality over cheaper price, and yes, AO would definitely be a nice option.

[Muskett]

There has been a revolution in glass technology and lens manufacture and design over the past forty years. Just means lenses are not expensive and can be configured in any design easily enough.
Add that to cad design laser machining then manufacturing a scope isn't too difficult or costly.

Thing is there is a bit to getting the right combination of lenses, design, coatings, and all working together. Some scopes just are better designed, built, and just better in variable light conditions.

Air Rifle's put quite a lot of demand on a scope. 10 to 45m range makes it tricky and demands parallax and the more sensitive that is the higher the mag.
The more features the more to design right and the more to get wrong.
And then there is how robust to make it all, and how repeatable it can stay over time.

Basically, there is more to making a great scope as there is plenty to get wrong. Those manufacturers with the newest machinery tend to get more right, but only if they know what they are doing. Early Chinese scopes weren't great because they didn't really know what made a great scope. But with collaboration with brands that had more experience they have got a whole lot better. Now most reasonably priced scopes are pretty good.
As scopes have become cheaper to make then more of the costs has gone into the marketing in a crowded market. High end scopes still cost a bomb.

Manufacturers tend to make too many options, rather than make fewer, made better, that actually suit the few needs that are actually used in practice. I should think six scope variations might cover everything the market needs.

[Gambo]

Yet another advocate of staying on 6x.....whether it's a fixed or zoom scope.

[Dragonboy]

Typically use x6 to x10 for hunting, target and plinking. Higher mag for longer range generally.

[Manners]

I don't punch paper unless I've been working on the gun and don't plink that often. I shoot for pest control so it's all about less movement is better. I usually experiment with a new scope to find a picture I like and then leave it on that setting.
The one scope that requires constant change is the photon, I'm sure there's some technical reason for it but I'm not sure what it is. Digital vs optical veiw or some such nonsense possibly. ��������

[Travis299]

This mildot reticle is accurate for holdover when set to 10 x on this model. I believe that most variable scopes are the same but you need to check your model if you use this feature for holdover. Example at 25 yards one mildot = .9" when on 10 x with my scope.