Fixed vs variable power scopes

[ravelode]

I'm just curious how many of you prefer fixed power scopes over variable. I really like my Nikon Monarch 4x and 6x for hunting. I have an IOR 6x42SSG for my .223 and a 10x Bushnell on my
17 HMR.

[NC_JEFF]

I use fixed power scopes on my 22lr guns and my AR, although the AR will probably be getting a variable as soon as I get to shoot it a longer ranges

[ravelode]

The main reasons I prefer fixed are fewer moving parts (less things to wear out), fewer lenses (less light loss) and when I used to hunt with a variable I kept it at 4-6 anyway.

[Lloyd Smale]

todays variables (if you buy decent quality) are every bit as reliable as a fixed power and because there so much more popular usually cheaper. A guy can buy a good quality 3x9 and have as good optics as a straight 4x or 6x and if you want it at that power just leave I there. I could possibly see using more fixed powers if the price was cheaper but truth be told all the old arguments for fixed power scopes are about like someone trying to justify 3 on the tree in a car or a carb vs fuel injection. Would you pay more for a car with 3 on the tree and a carburetor?

[toallmy]

I really love a good fixed scope 6 x worked for years , but I find myself more so drawn toward higher magnification adjustable scopes for the shooting I do now mostly target off a bench . I can't see very well anymore .

[dbarry1]

I prefer three on a tree & carburetor. Fixed 4x for me please. :O)

[ravelode]

If the glass and coatings are the same a variable has more lenses how could it be as good at light transmission?

[Petrol & Powder]

Both types have their place. Today's high quality variable power scopes are very reliable. However, there's no escaping the fact that the fixed power scopes are simpler. The fixed power scopes are also generally more compact and a bit lighter than their variable brothers with the same max magnification.

It's a tool box and you have to pick the right tool for the job. Magnification isn't the only criteria and often isn't even the most important factor. When I look at a variable power scope, I'm often more concerned about the lowest possible magnification setting than the highest power setting. When looking at fixed power scopes the question for me is, "what's the lowest power I can get away with"?
Because somewhere between 4 and 6 power magnification will generally get the job done, a fixed power scope in that range will be the simplest tool to get that job done. I like simple.

Where variable power scopes really shine isn't the top end of their possible magnification, but rather their bottom end of power. The ability to dial down to 1.5 or 2 power gives you the greatest field of view. The price for that is complexity, size and weight.

* dbarry1 - my favorite scope is a fixed 4x. I also own a car with a 1 barrel carburetor and a "three on the tree" manual. :D
So we might be in the same camp. Simple is GOOD !

[Wayne Smith]

I honestly believe that is the very first time I've ever heard of a carburetor described as 'simple'!

[Lloyd Smale]

still don't see what any American made (not ultra high dollar imports) fixed 4x scope does that a vx2 1x4 leupold wont do better or the same comparing a fixed 6x and a 2x7 vx2. Thing is that although there may be more lenses the technology goes to the scopes that sell so even comparing leupolds fixed power scopes to there variables for the same money you get better coatings, better glass and the ability to change powers when you walk out of the swamp and into a 400 yard field. There used to be some comparison in quality of glass when Nikon made its monarch fixed power scopes and back 15 years ago when leupolds fixed powers had as good of glass as there variables but because of sales the fixed power all were either discontinued or relegated to lower quality glass. I will laugh out loud at the guys that a cheerleaders for the old k series weavers. They are junk compared to newer scopes. Most all ive had or seen lately had glass that has even turned yellow from leakage. Sorry boys but todays variables are a much better bang for the buck then the fixed powers. Again that not counting high dollar ziess Swarovski, kalhes ect. But even there id bet the most scope for the money your going to get is there 3x9s that they can sell cheaper because they sell 50 times more of them then any fixed power they stock. Buy what you want but don't think someone that REALLY knows is going to think your any more of a gun crank for having a fixed power scope on your gun. That ship has sailed.

[Petrol & Powder]

1 barrel Rochester Monojet not a 4 barrel Rochester Quadajet ! ;)

[Petrol & Powder]

Leupold 6x36mm objective Fixed power scope = $389, 10 ounces, 11.4" total length, field of view at 100 yards at full mag (5.9 power) = 17.7'

Leupold 1.75 X 6 x 32mm objective variable power scope = $519, 10.9 ounces, 11.2" total length, field of view at 100 yards at full mag (5.5 power) = 19.1'

So I have to partially agree with Lloyd and partially disagree about the value of today's good quality scopes.
The fixed power is clearly less expensive by $130. The fixed power is slightly lighter about 7/8 of an ounce, not a huge difference. The variable power is actually a bit shorter overall.
The field of view comparison isn't really apples to apples because the fixed power scope is 5.9 power and the variable maxes out at only 5.5 power but regardless, they are within 1.5' at 100 yards.

So they are close and I agree the variable powers have a huge sales advantage and therefore, as Lloyd points out, have a price advantage despite the increased complexity.
However, it's that increased complexity that tilts the fixed power scopes a little more toward my point of view. Would I pay $130 more to get the ability to dial the power down to 1.75 and get a bigger field of view ? Yes. Would I feel the fixed power scope was inadequate? No.


So, I agree with Lloyd in part and disagree in part. As for carburetors vs electronic, multi-port fuel injection, there's no doubt that fuel injection system is better but I can still tune those old carburetors well enough to get me down the road with a smile on my face :drinks:.

[tazman]

It depends on what I am trying to do with my rifle.
For bench rest, I tend towards fixed high magnification.
For hunting I tend toward variable power.

Those quadrajets were a difficult carb to work on. Had to be very careful not to lose the parts.
But then, fuel injection isn't really easy either.

[nekshot]

I do agree with Lloyd but i also enjoy old retro hunting equipment(favor the 3x's) As for carbs I prefer the Holley double pumper with enough fire below it to eat the fuel!

[jmort]

The Quadrajet puts out every bit as much horsepower and torque as the Holley with the benefit of the small primaries. Really an incredible carb.

[Texas by God]

All carburetors are variables.

[beemer]

It depends on what I am trying to do with my rifle.
For bench rest, I tend towards fixed high magnification.
For hunting I tend toward variable power.

Those quadrajets were a difficult carb to work on. Had to be very careful not to lose the parts.
But then, fuel injection isn't really easy either.

Had a buddy that had a 64 Chevy with a 409 and a quadrajet carb. He took it to an old guy that had a good rep for rebuilding them. When we went to check on it he wasn't done, he had it in a big bread pan on the floor putting it back together. He said there was a lot of small parts and if you were already on the floor you couldn't drop it. It is hard to describe what he drove in to what he drove out, he did an outstanding job.

Back to fixed scopes, I varmint hunted with a Weaver T-6 for years and did some good work with it but variables then were not what they are now. I regret ever trading it off.

Dave

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

I've got good quality variables on nearly all of my rifles; including a 404 Jefferys, a 425 Westley Richards, and a 458 RUM.
Dialing up or down to compensate (not eliminate) for mirage is invaluable in competition, even more so in hunting Dangerous Game. I had a 2-7X Leupold on a Chapuis double SxS in 9,3x74R in RSA several years ago hunting for Plains Game and Zebra. Twenty yards away, in thick jess I could not see two (Zebra) of them at 7X. Dialed it down to 2X, and they just popped out at me. Two days later I shot a very nice Kudu at 234yds and cranked it back to 7X to get a better view against a mostly beige/brown background. One shot apiece, and the best of both worlds.

[Lloyd Smale]

ya but the 6x36 has the same glass the older vari x 3 had which is the same multi 4 glass a vx1 has now and one can be had for 200 bucks. the vx2 which now has now has even better glass and you can pick up a 1x4 vx2 for 300 bucks.
Leupold 6x36mm objective Fixed power scope = $389, 10 ounces, 11.4" total length, field of view at 100 yards at full mag (5.9 power) = 17.7'

Leupold 1.75 X 6 x 32mm objective variable power scope = $519, 10.9 ounces, 11.2" total length, field of view at 100 yards at full mag (5.5 power) = 19.1'

So I have to partially agree with Lloyd and partially disagree about the value of today's good quality scopes.
The fixed power is clearly less expensive by $130. The fixed power is slightly lighter about 7/8 of an ounce, not a huge difference. The variable power is actually a bit shorter overall.
The field of view comparison isn't really apples to apples because the fixed power scope is 5.9 power and the variable maxes out at only 5.5 power but regardless, they are within 1.5' at 100 yards.

So they are close and I agree the variable powers have a huge sales advantage and therefore, as Lloyd points out, have a price advantage despite the increased complexity.
However, it's that increased complexity that tilts the fixed power scopes a little more toward my point of view. Would I pay $130 more to get the ability to dial the power down to 1.75 and get a bigger field of view ? Yes. Would I feel the fixed power scope was inadequate? No.


So, I agree with Lloyd in part and disagree in part. As for carburetors vs electronic, multi-port fuel injection, there's no doubt that fuel injection system is better but I can still tune those old carburetors well enough to get me down the road with a smile on my face :drinks:.

[sharps4590]

Depends on your need, wants and taste. I'm a fixed power guy and actually own one....the only scope I own. A 6X Leupold on Mod. 70 Featherweight in 270 that hasn't been looked through in....I think 15+ years. Truth is I'm not much of a scope guy, no arguments as to their use and effectiveness and in the past I've had some good ones. It's that I prefer aperture sights and for my needs and desires these days they're all I need....or want...as long as I can see to use them and at 64 I ain't doin' bad! Even open sights are preferable to a scope...but that's me. As far as those who know, it's what they know for them. No one but me can know what I need or want any more than I can know for someone else.

[ravelode]

Since my retinal tears i have to use scopes for any shooting past 25 yards:x

I've shot whitetail deer at 30 yards out to 400 with that 6x Nikon with my 30-06 (j-word) and never had any problems.

[Lloyd Smale]

don't doubt it a bit. But that said you would have been better off on a running deer at 30 yards with a 2x and better off on a standing 400 yard shot with a 12x. Just like your choice of rifles. An 06 is about as versatile as it comes but I can think of a more ideal 30 yard deer rifle and can also think of more ideal 400 yard deer rifles. But an 06 with a 6x or better yet a 4x is a pretty versatile rig.
Since my retinal tears i have to use scopes for any shooting past 25 yards:x

I've shot whitetail deer at 30 yards out to 400 with that 6x Nikon with my 30-06 (j-word) and never had any problems.

[ravelode]

The piece of state land I hunt most often has open land with 6' sage next a willow filled creek bottom with wide open pasture mixed in I have to be ready for short or long shots on very short notice