Fixed vs Variable

[RustyJr]

I currently have a Redfield 3-9 on my Ruger Hawkeye in 270 Winchester but have started thinking of going to a fixed 4X Leupold. I figure that any time I use the 3-9 I have it set on 3 power any way plus I think the simplicity of a fixed power would be nice. I know that scopes now days are more robust and durable than they have ever been but I would think that the fixed power would still be even tougher still. What say you? How many use fixed or variable power and why? I am thinking that a fixed 4X scope and a good pair of compact binoculars.

RustyJr

[wvfarrier]

I use fixed power almost exclusively. Except on a couple bolt guns.

[piller]

I have never used fixed except on those cheap little scopes most people get for a .22, and so I have nothing to compare the 3X9 variables I have used. I can see a use for a fixed power scope. Since most people use their binoculars for checking things out anyway, the only time that a variable scope might be decidedly better is on long range shots. What distance do you normally shoot at?

[Sixgun]

Back in the old days, I prefered a fixed 4 power as I too, prefered simplicity and durability....when I was not using my standard tang sight, which I still prefer.

Technology sure has changed and now you can get a 2-7 or 3 X 9 that's as rugged and as small/streamlined as a fixed power.....so....your only handicapping yourself with a fixed 4X.

Its nice to put the crosshairs on your deer and then power up if your not sure of the rack size or whatever reason.---------------6

[Mescalero]

I worked for a scope maker for 5 years, in the quality dept.
I have different makes of scopes on my rifles.
NONE of them are variable.

[86er]

I make that decison based on the primary game and average distance. The bigger the target area appears in the scope, the easier it is to be precise. Some examples: 1) My neighbor and I have dedicated rabbit shooting rifles and we shoot a lot of rabbits. We live in a rural area but within a sort of spread out subdivision - there are 23 houses in a one mile circle, half on each side of the street. My neighbor is also crippled and cannot walk independently. We cannot afford for the rabbits to wander off shot onto other properties or to attract coyotes. Both of us started with 4X scopes and could readily hit the rabbits, but some ran at the shot or wiggled into the brush. We experimented and actually went with 12x in a 4-12X scope. Using shooting sticks, we can shoot the rabbit right in the eye nearly every time. The eyeball looks as big as a golf ball in the scope. They drop in their tracks and the damage on the exit side is extreme. 2) I hunted for just over 25 years with one rifle. That rifle was used for woodchucks to brown bear and everything in-between. The furthest shot I recorded shooting with that rifle is 410 yards. It has a 3.5-10X scope with AO. If I was walking, or close and needed a large field of view to quickly get on game I kept the power down. For stand type hunting or long range I cranked it up. After 2000 rds of 7mm Rem Mag, 30 years on the same rifle and a 36 year old scope, it stopped focusing. Leupold gave me a brand new one of the same power and options, no questions asked. 3) I have a 35 Rem pump gun that is sighted in for 125 yards dead on. It is set up to use at a particular property where stand hunting is the only method. The game is deer or hogs. It wears a 4X scope due to the size and weight of the scope that does not overburden the rifle. The magnification is enough to make shot placement proper. 4) I had a dangerous game rifle that I had a 1-5X scope on. I never wanted it to accidentally have too much power to get a quick close shot, but the 5X was very useful for a little longer range where I might feed a bullet through some brush or otherwise need a high level of precison.

In my experience, the quality and clarity of the scope is much more important than the power (magnification). I've looked through a number of scopes that were set on 7X or 9X or 12X and another set on 4X or 6X or 8X. The better quality scope produced a crisp, clear, bright and focused view that made precision shooting easier than the lesser quality scope at a higher magnification.

My rule-of-thumb for myself is to buy a scope that is approximately 3 times the price of the rifle. There are a lot of $500 rifles that are MOA accurate. However, you cannot utilize the accuracy if the scope does not hold zero, does not adjust precisely and repeatably, does not give a perfect image at any power and does glare in high light while being bright in low light.

I make no bones about it, I choose Leupold. Made in USA, Lifetime Warranty, fantastic service and undeniable quality compared to scopes that cost more. There are a few others I like and would use but generally they are made in another country and cost much more for the same features. Leica is one of them, Swarovski ...

Bottom line - you can leave a variable on one setting forever - but it can give more or less power if you find reason for it. A fixed power offers no options in magnification - ever.

[madman4570]

Back in the old days, I prefered a fixed 4 power as I too, prefered simplicity and durability....when I was not using my standard tang sight, which I still prefer.

Technology sure has changed and now you can get a 2-7 or 3 X 9 that's as rugged and as small/streamlined as a fixed power.....so....your only handicapping yourself with a fixed 4X.

Its nice to put the crosshairs on your deer and then power up if your not sure of the rack size or whatever reason.---------------6

+1

[M. M. Wright]

All of my rifles except for my varmint rifle, (Ruger 77V/220 Swift) carry fixed power scopes. Mostly old Weavers in 2.5X or 4X and the rifles are BLRs or B-78 but then when I started buying scopes the variables still had reticles that grew with increases in magnification. Many had tapered cross hairs to help with this problem but then variables were much dimmer than fixed scopes. This dimmer image no longer applies to quality (Leupold) scopes which are much brighter than the old Weavers that I use. Actually my personal BLR has a Redfield fixed 2.5X on it.

I had the opportunity to visit an Academy store where they had a dozen or more current scope offerings mounted on stocks so you could throw them to your shoulder for trial. The US offerings that I really liked were Redfield and Leupold. Isn't Redfield made by Leupold now 86er?

But then there was this pair of 10x42 Zies binoculars for only $269? Much lighter and brighter than my old 8x40 Zies. They were lighter too which is becoming a priority for this 74 year old.

[92&94]

I worked for a scope maker for 5 years, in the quality dept.
I have different makes of scopes on my rifles.
NONE of them are variable.

You've probably handled some of the few scopes I own
A friend of mine in LC collects older Weavers, and I've fixed a few for him - mostly cleaning the first generation of N2 filled scopes where the o-rings dried out and air/moisture got in to replace the nitrogen.

There was also one variable that was an easy fix - a couple 4-40 allen screws rode in helical slots to move inner lens holders as the outer barrel was rotated. Since the barrel was aluminum and the screws steel, the mechanism got kinda sticky and rough over the years, but nothing obvious was wrong with it. I replaced the screws with nylon ones and the mechanism would then move freely again.

Having seen the guts of a few variables, I tend to prefer fixed as well. But I only own a couple and they are both older than I am

[Griff]

I hunted for just over 25 years with one rifle.

Bullspit! You ain't but 25!

In my experience, the quality and clarity of the scope is much more important than the power (magnification).

Absolutely right!

My rule-of-thumb for myself is to buy a scope that is approximately 3 times the price of the rifle. There are a lot of $500 rifles that are MOA accurate. However, you cannot utilize the accuracy (inherent in the rifle), if the scope does not hold zero, does not adjust precisely and repeatably, does not give a perfect image at any power and does glare in high light while being bright in low light.

I MUST be cheap, but very sound logic. I'd only add that POI must not change between changes in magnification on variables.

I make no bones about it, I choose Leupold. Made in USA, Lifetime Warranty, fantastic service and undeniable quality compared to scopes that cost more. There are a few others I like and would use but generally they are made in another country and cost much more for the same features. Leica is one of them, Swarovski ...

I'd add SWFA, although new, their scopes impressed me, even more than my new Vortex, but it wasn't in the budget!

Bottom line - you can leave a variable on one setting forever - but it can give more or less power if you find reason for it. A fixed power offers no options in magnification - ever.

No doubt about that!

[Mescalero]

Reading 86'ers account of his logic, it finally dawned on me why I am so insistent on my logic.
I am a shooter, not a hunter; I have not hunted in 35 years.
All of my shooting is pretty much static.
I do not encounter the variables of a hunt, so I do not see the need of a variable.
It may well be that the variable offers some anvantage to the HUNTER.

[earlmck]

I love the 2X7, 2X8, 2.5X8 scopes made by Leupold or Redfield or Burris. Bottom power when hunting, top power for load testing or maybe if I had a long shot hunting (though I almost never do that). Haven't bought a fixed power in many years, though I've had some perfectly fine ones come along with a rifle I've purchased.

[Blaine]

That fixed 2.5x Leopold scout on the Guide Gun was sighted in in 2000.....on/off the rifle dozens of times w/QRWs.....I never had to touch it.......

[BigSky56]

Rusty I run a 1.5-5 scope for big game reason, my shooting is point blank to 200 yds and there are some apex predators that can come up on me where I hunt. You might do well with a low powered variable. The only difference in the scopes is the warranty and if they have a etched glass reticule or not. danny

[jkbrea]

86'er is dead on. When I was working I had an assigned H&S Precision rifle that had a Leupold MK4 fixed 10x. We had two of those that are about 30 years old and still work great. It was an excellent scope and I remember instructors telling me never to get rid of it and how much better it was than variables. I had a few problems with it. On the range training at 100, 200, 300+ yards it was great. But in the real world, where most encounters are much shorter I had a few problems. I remember being set up in a great spot about 35 yards away and the scope was too powerful. I couldn't monitor the situation through the scope. That happened more than once. Years later we switched to Nightforce scopes only because they came with the rifles we ordered. Very nice but I like Leupold. You can't beat their customer service or warranty.

With my hunting rifles I have a Leupold 3.5x10 and I love it. I normally keep it set around 5-6 which is great for me out to about 150 yards. When I hunt open areas I like to power it up to 10x for anything longer. It helped me not shoot a spike elk that I thought was a cow one year. It was feeding and had velvet hanging from it's spikes that blended with the backround. I wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't powered up. Only other scope I use is a Leupold scout scope that's a fixed 2.5x. I keep on a 45-70.

All that said, as far as accuracy, I noticed that at 100 yards or so, I shoot about as accurately with my scoped powered all the way up as I do with it on the lowest setting or my scout scope.

Like 86'er said, you can keep it on the setting you like forever and just dial up or down if you have to.

[Old Savage]

I have both including a Leupold 1.5-5X that has gone almost 1000 rds. No problem with any of he Leupolds or newer Weavers. All have held zero. Seems from my experience that whatever quality problems existed have been solved in the ones I have.

[ollogger]

I got along fine for 25 years with a 4 & a 6 x leupold on a 300 H&H & 338
haven't shot them for some time now, don't hunt Elk anymore
my 223 PD gun wears a 4-12 Pentax with xtra cross hairs in it, ok for PD but to much
hair in it for a fast shot on a coyote (for me)

ollogger

[AJMD429]

I like higher power scopes than most folks (I can't hit something I can't see), something in at least 10x for most shooting, and 20 to 40x for targets, even at 100 yards. Variable ones hitting the 20-40x range are less expensive than fixed ones that powerful, and seem to work just as well for me. Plus, I can turn them down to 5-10x for taking a standing shot.

[El Chivo]

I really don't like to experience jiggling, so unless I'm resting the rifle I want no more than 3x. The Weaver 1-3x is perfect for me. I figure that at 3x, the image is the same at 300 yards as it is with the naked eye at 100 yards. So it should suffice for coyote and up. It's great walking around at 1x if you surprise something, or something surprises you.

I agree variables have a nice advantage for the hunter, you can walk around at low power and then when you get where you're going, raise the power to cover a big area. But I see the scope as an aiming device, not a viewing device, so don't want too much power.

I do have a target 22 that I put a stronger scope on, I shoot it at 6x, usually at 1/4" targets @ 50 ft. It is nice. That's the difference between rested and offhand I guess.

[Model 52B]

Back in the day (1970's) the common wisdom around home was that 4x could be made to work for anything east of the Mississippi, while 6x was potentially better for a few things, like antelope, in the big flat states out west. Since I lived out west where distances were long, I went with a 6x.

Of course that was also a time when:

1) you could get a steel tubed Weaver K6 and use it as a hammer and not really hurt it, and
2) most variables were less than perfect in terms of lens alignment, so the zero could vary a bit with the power adjustment.

If you happened to own a variable scope that would maintain the same zero through the whole power range, it would not do that after you used it as a hammer.

Now it's a little different, as mid to upper end variables are well made with much better internal alignment of lenses so they hold a decent zero as you zoom in and out, modern lens coatings reduce internal reflections, and I now own a hammer so I don't have to pound nails with a scope.

So….I now tend toward variables in the 2-7 range for woods hunting and the 3-9 range for plains hunting.

But I still have tang sights on most of my lever guns.

----

As for off hand shooting and magnification, the jiggling is the same whether the movement of the crosshairs on the target is being magnified 3 times or 9 times. If I'm winded and jiggling so much that I can't see the target clearly in the scope at moderate power, my preference is to use a more stable position, rather than reduce the power. I want to solve the problem, not hide it.

Low power is important when you need a larger field of view to acquire a target faster or track and properly lead a moving target.

[65bee]

Been in this shooting game for 50+ years now, and my Dad (who just turned 100 this month) was in it from the late 1920s. He was one of the first to scope a hunting rifle in these parts in the 1930s, and how the locals chastized him. He purchased a then-new Winchester Model 70 in .257 Roberts in 1938 and fitted it with a Weaver 330 scope, then commenced to clean up at every turkey shoot held. Showed those locals how scopes were going to be the wave of the future! Anyway, over the years He experimented with most all the brands and styles, and in fact, had bad luck with the early Leupolds and never would buy one in later years. Also tried out the early variables and absolutely hated them. He would have nothing but fixed power scopes on his guns, and felt that the Weaver brand were top shelf. Naturally, when I came along, I accepted his biases as gospel; and actually over the years confirmed most of the faults he attributed to variable scopes as being right. Not to say I haven't had a couple good variables, but to be honest, I never completely trusted them. So today, I am still a confirmed believer in fixed-power scopes. My experience has shown that the old Lyman All-American Perma-Center scopes were the best fixed power scopes ever built. I buy every good used one I can find. I remember reading an article by the great old gunwriter Finn Agaarrd, who had been a guide in Africa, and said that he had used a Lyman All-American for years on his working rifle and felt it was the toughest scope ever built.