3x zoom scope vs. 4x zoom

D

dimecovers3

New member
Does anyone know the possible negatives to a scope that zooms four times versus the conventinal three times? I'm guessing that there may be more glass inside (or thicker) that may make the scope heavier, longer, transmit less available light, etc. A 3x9 is a great calling scope, but a 3x12 would be more useable for my needs a little. I just don't want to live with the extra three powers 9-12) at a great deal of loss of eye relief or light gathering in very low light. I could stand the scope a shade longer or heavier for the 10% of the time I may use the extra horsepower. Seems like several scope makers are going with the 4x zoom trend lately.
 
Since the 3-9X variable is the most popular variable scope made and sold, you'll generally get a lot more for your money if you go with a good 3-9.

You'll hear a 2.5-10X recommended often. I seriously doubt, if you masked off the name brand and zoom ring, that the advocates of the 2.5 to 10X scopes could tell the difference between it and the 3-9X.

Many folks trend away from 3-9's because they seem too common. (And while we're at it, the folks who like wildcat cartridges which do essentially the same thing as commonly available cartridges are in the same camp, I would think)... but in the end, things get popular and common because they work so darned well. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Unless you spend a pretty penny on a 3-12X variable, you're going to be much better off with the 3-9X. I don't know of any 3-12X on the market this side of 1000 dollars which would be worth owning.

Yes, as you suspect the 4 times zoom means more lenses, and will probably mean an adjustable objective for the 12X power.

I have had some wonderfully clear 3-9X scopes which I'd much rather have than some of the high mag variables I've seen.

Spend 250 dollars on a 3-9, then see how it's resolution and functionality compare to a 3-12 of even 400 bucks or so... I'll wager the 3-9 has better resolution, and will last longer.

Dan
 
To be more specific I'm comparying the old 3x9 Monarch with the new Nikon Monarch for 2007 that is a 3x12 with side focus. Did anyone catch the objective diameter of the the Nikon 3x12?
 
I've got mostly zooms in the safe. My favorite is a Simmons AETEC in 2.8 to 10, I've two one on the 8mm Rem mag and one on the 280 Rem mountian rifle. I use a 6 by 24 mil dot illumanated reticle on the Rem 700 243 VLS and an old 8 by 32 Tasco target dot on the CZ 204 Varmit. I like the wide range variables and as I'm getting long of tooth I like the higher power scopes on the varmit rifles.

As far as big game rifles and the AETEC's they offer a wide field of view at low power and thats one of the reasons there on those rifles. I've also got a 2.5 to 10 Weaver Classic and a 3 by 9 Weaver Classic on a couple of rifles and both of these are nice scopes, but the 3 by 9 seems much better than the 2.5 to 10.

I've had no problems with the 6 by 24, but the target dot on the 8 by 32 is easy to loose on a close shot. Every thing else I have has duplex reticles and they work great.

If I was in the market for a new scope I'd sure find some place where you can look thru them and compare. I used to stop at Cabela's when I was driving truck and it was fun to use a stock fixture to look thru different scopes. That's what led me to buying the AETEC's.
 
The 4X zoom scopes are going to be longer and heavier. Just look at the Bushnell 4200's. The erector tube needs to be longer in order to accomplish the 4X zooms. The Bushnells do it very effectively while some of the cheaper brands that advertise 4X have marginal optics at best.
 
Back
Top