Do you over scope?

[blackpowder]

18 hours ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

 

Because it's more difficult getting the animal into the reticle.  If you have the magnification up, it's harder to get on target.  Try shouldering a lowest magnification setting, getting on target and shooting versus a higher or even max setting.

Groundhog shooting is more akin to sniping.  You know where the animal is going to appear, so you can use magnification on a fixed position.  Shooting deer is not like that (I wish it was).  If you're in a fixed stand or blind, you might have a better opportunity to dial it in, but if you are stalking, still hunting or otherwise hunting mobile, it'll be much more difficult to get the animal on glass and shoot.

I will agree with the still hunting aspect. That’s easy. But to say always. Just doesn’t seem right. It needs context. ie still hunting. In a stand it can go either way in my opinion. If your woods doesn’t allow for magnification then put a fixed mag scope. 

[bucky]

9 hours ago, Bucksnbows said:

Agree. My guess is the poster that first said that meant not to keep your scope you sighted in on max magnification after you sight in, and I agree with that. Have seen many inexperienced hunters forget to lower magnification from 9x down to maybe 4X only to have a deer come past their stand in close that they couldn’t find in their scopes for reasons @Haskell_Huntermentioned.  I may sight in at 9 power, but I move it down to 4X while in the stand.  As you said, easy enough to crank it back up if your target stops at a distance, but if the target is close and the adrenaline is pumping, many hunters blow shots at close in targets because they forgot to lower from max magnification. 

I have to explain that to frustrated hunters often, surprisingly enough to the young and old

[mazzgolf]

Zero'ing at one magnification and then lowering the magnification during a hunt is fine but only if you only plan on shooting point-blank.  If you need to account for bullet drop at  a long range target, your markings will be off if you practiced at the range with one magnification but lowered the magnification during the hunt. You need to account for the difference in magnification. e.g. You may know what the drop is for one mil-dot while at the range with 9x - but if you switch to 4x, it will be different. You need to prepare for that by determining what markings represent what drop at the different magnifications you plan on using on a hunt (unless you only plan on shooting at a target within point-blank range, in which case it doesn't matter).

[230jhp]

21 hours ago, Haskell_Hunter said:

 

Because it's more difficult getting the animal into the reticle.  If you have the magnification up, it's harder to get on target.  Try shouldering a lowest magnification setting, getting on target and shooting versus a higher or even max setting.

Groundhog shooting is more akin to sniping.  You know where the animal is going to appear, so you can use magnification on a fixed position.  Shooting deer is not like that (I wish it was).  If you're in a fixed stand or blind, you might have a better opportunity to dial it in, but if you are stalking, still hunting or otherwise hunting mobile, it'll be much more difficult to get the animal on glass and shoot.

I never deer hunt with any of my 3-9X scopes set higher than 4X. With the scope on 9X it becomes difficult to be sure the cross hairs ore on the vital area of the animal. I use 9x for coyotes.

[blackpowder]

45 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

Zero'ing at one magnification and then lowering the magnification during a hunt is fine but only if you only plan on shooting point-blank.  If you need to account for bullet drop at  a long range target, your markings will be off if you practiced at the range with one magnification but lowered the magnification during the hunt. You need to account for the difference in magnification. e.g. You may know what the drop is for one mil-dot while at the range with 9x - but if you switch to 4x, it will be different. You need to prepare for that by determining what markings represent what drop at the different magnifications you plan on using on a hunt (unless you only plan on shooting at a target within point-blank range, in which case it doesn't matter).

That shouldn’t be. What your describing is a second focal plane scope.  If you’re talking a first focal plane scope the mil dot should still be the same a mil is a mil. 

[Gobblengrunt]

When some hunters have trouble getting an animal in a scope on a higher power is not just a smaller field of view but a gun thats improperly fit to them and/or do not know there gun well enough.  If a gun is set up/ fit correctly your target should naturally be in the crosshairs as you raise your gun.  You should shoot with both eyes open also.  Closing one eye severly limits tour field of view and perception of the target

[Lunatic]

1 hour ago, Gobblengrunt said:

When some hunters have trouble getting an animal in a scope on a higher power is not just a smaller field of view but a gun thats improperly fit to them and/or do not know there gun well enough.  If a gun is set up/ fit correctly your target should naturally be in the crosshairs as you raise your gun.  You should shoot with both eyes open also.  Closing one eye severly limits tour field of view and perception of the target

It’s all instinctive if you know you guy. 
 

not everyone can do it with both eyes open. They have difficulty with having both open and looking with just one. Competition guys who can not use a flap on their cap to cover the eye. 

[mazzgolf]

1 hour ago, blackpowder said:

That shouldn’t be. What your describing is a second focal plane scope.  If you’re talking a first focal plane scope the mil dot should still be the same a mil is a mil. 

Right... https://www.thearmorylife.com/whats-first-vs-second-focal-plane/

I've never owned or seen a first focal plane scope - I assume they are the very expensive ones. All scopes I've ever seen/used were second focal plane - in which case, my point stands. And I would guess most people here do not own those first focal plane scopes (if your retical is static -- never changes size regardless of magnification -- then you will need to worry about what I mentioned).

[blackpowder]

17 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

Right... https://www.thearmorylife.com/whats-first-vs-second-focal-plane/

I've never owned or seen a first focal plane scope - I assume they are the very expensive ones. All scopes I've ever seen/used were second focal plane - in which case, my point stands. And I would guess most people here do not own those first focal plane scopes (if your retical is static -- never changes size regardless of magnification -- then you will need to worry about what I mentioned).

Yes sorry miss read the point. But this in my opinion proves why you should spend the money on a better scope. No need to worry about change in impacts.