The death of 1-4's?

[gng4life]

... But I thought Docmedic was writing more in generalities.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat with you. I was thinking apples-to-apples kind of comparison as far as if the same shooter went from a 4x to a 6x, is it that much of an advantage that "everyone" will be going in that direction? Don't know but I hope DocMedic chimes in again to see what the original intent of the topic was. I feel we are starting to go off on a tangent...

[Bryan 45]

1-4, 1-6, 1-8..... You guys are making me want to practice that much harder with irons.

[Sleepswithdogs]

1-4, 1-6, 1-8..... You guys are making me want to practice that much harder with irons.

Never cared much for golf myself.

[P.E. Kelley]

Two things my fellow 3 gunners,

First, I have had a Swaro 1x6 and traded it off.

I have or had other scopes in the stable the started with 1x and 1.5x and gone up to 5x, 6x, 8x and 10x.

All will work and are really a matter of personal preference within the current 3 gun game.

Hell, some of you guys are hell bent on sunlight visible illuminated reticles and that's fine, but not a requirement to place in the

top 20 at major events.

Second, my point was not so much the "ol' indian and the arrow" but more WE do not get beat by more xx's on our optics.

Can any one of you pinpoint when YOU got bested solely because the other guy had more top end scope power than you?

Not just on a single stage but over the entire match?

Bottom line is it is great that optic companies are responding to our clamor for MORE POWER.

Some of us will find a need, a want, or self imposed requirement for the increased magnification, some of us won't.

It's all good.

[EkuJustice]

In the game of 3Gun, it is up to the MDs. If MDs stick to the Trapr philosophy (which I try to do) of 4MOA or better, then 6x is no big deal. If OTOH, MDs put 10" plates at 500 yards and beyond, then 6x is better. NECESSARY.

For me personally at least 10inch plate at 500+ im throwing 1 round at it and moving on. The difference in 4x and 6x wouldnt make a difference

[Jesse Tischauser]

I bought a 6x as soon as I could find one. If you're blind it's no suprise that more is better. I look forward to my 1-8X in a few years.

[Sleepswithdogs]

....Second, my point was not so much the "ol' indian and the arrow" but more WE do not get beat by more xx's on our optics.

Can any one of you pinpoint when YOU got bested solely because the other guy had more top end scope power than you?

Not just on a single stage but over the entire match?

Bottom line is it is great that optic companies are responding to our clamor for MORE POWER.

Some of us will find a need, a want, or self imposed requirement for the increased magnification, some of us won't.

It's all good.

Would be pretty hard to tell that wouldn't it Pat? I'd think one would know they just felt more or less comfortable with more or less magnification.

Equipment is important, were this not so, it would be no problem to bring a 4 round capacity pump shotgun to the next match and expect to win. I can tell you that I lost matches in pistol because of equipment. Can also tell I lost sports car races and motor cross races until I finally learned to copy the setup that was winning and go on and make it my own from there. So then equipment does matter, and it is then just a matter of degree.

All "arrows" are not created equal, and while equipment does not make the shooter, it sure can slow them down or speed them up. I don't think it is that great equipment is going to make a poor shot a champion, but rather that in a sport where seconds count, one is always looking for something that will give a little bit of a edge.

Tar

Edited July 13, 2012 by Sleepswithdogs

[Stlhead]

Tar,

If anyone could win with a 4 shot pump it would be Pat, but you are missing his point, equipment does not separate those at the top half of the score sheet from each other. There is no magic scope (or any other piece of kit) that offers enough of an advantage to give someone a clear edge over the rest of the field. If there was, the rules would be changed to outlaw or require it. In our game right now there is no way to buy a win. You might be able to buy a few points at the bottom half of the score sheet, but the separation between the top few and the rest of us seems to be getting larger all the time.

[Sleepswithdogs]

Tar,

If anyone could win with a 4 shot pump it would be Pat, but you are missing his point, equipment does not separate those at the top half of the score sheet from each other. There is no magic scope (or any other piece of kit) that offers enough of an advantage to give someone a clear edge over the rest of the field. If there was, the rules would be changed to outlaw or require it. In our game right now there is no way to buy a win. You might be able to buy a few points at the bottom half of the score sheet, but the separation between the top few and the rest of us seems to be getting larger all the time.

Good point. I learned to shoot 3 position rifle on a team that was fully sponsored. We never had to worry about ammo, or the best of rifles, even our range was top notch. That is quite an advantage and we made full use of it.

The top of the roster is where most equipment is pretty equal, where most talent is close to equal. Training obedience dogs and Ring dogs, most of the training was very similar in the upper levels, what differed was two parts, talent but mostly drive.

I'm sure Pat could beat me with both eyes tied behind his back and look forward to meeting him.

Tar

[StealthyBlagga]

There is more to this debate than just magnification and cost. Size/weight, glass quality and eye box/exit pupil size are also influential. Personally I'd give up a little magnification for a good glass and bigger eye box/exit pupil every time. The Swaro has good glass, but has eye box/exit pupil limitations IMHO.

If match directors use reasonable target sizes and presentation (paint the taragets black and put in front of a white/yellow backer) then the benefits of the extra magnification start to melt away.

Edited July 13, 2012 by StealthyBlagga

[AlamoShooter]

Two things my fellow 3 gunners,

_{First, I have had a Swaro 1x6 and traded it off.}

_{I have or had other scopes in the stable the started with 1x and 1.5x and gone up to 5x, 6x, 8x and 10x.}

_{All will work and are really a matter of personal preference within the current 3 gun game.}

_{Hell, some of you guys are hell bent on sunlight visible illuminated reticles and that's fine, but not a requirement to place in the}

_{top 20 at major events.}

Second, my point was not so much the "ol' indian and the arrow" but more WE do not get beat by more xx's on our optics.

Can any one of you pinpoint when YOU got bested solely because the other guy had more top end scope power than you?

Not just on a single stage but over the entire match?

_{Bottom line is it is great that optic companies are responding to our clamor for MORE POWER.}

_{Some of us will find a need, a want, or self imposed requirement for the increased magnification, some of us won't.}

_{It's all good.}

Well I can Pin Point some stages that helped me greatly by having a Clear 1-4 Scope on longer targets. I did not get first shot hits - The clear glass let me see the miss and adjust my hold to get my hit. And having good Glass let me call my own hits and move on before the RO called the hit. I know more than a few matches it moved me up a few spots. But more than that its those kinda of shots that make be want to shoot 3 gun and have an accurate rifle and load.

My enjoyment of 3 Gun has gone way up after mounting my first Vortex Razor. I got excited about the Vortex scope way before they offered sponsorship

[gose]

I switched from Meopta to Swarovski mainly because:

1) Better reticle in the Swarovski

2) My Meoptas kept breaking.

I would not have bought another Meopta if they came out with the same reticle in a 1-6.

I would still have bought a Z6i even if it was only 1-4.

Clear glass, daytime illumination, good reticle and reliability are what I need in a scope. Right now I havent seen anything that can beat the Z6i based on those preferences.

Edited July 13, 2012 by gose

[J.Schmitt]

If match directors use reasonable target sizes and presentation (paint the taragets black and put in front of a white/yellow backer) then the benefits of the extra magnification start to melt away.

I have to say, this line sounds like it is coming from an iron shooter. I like it. Waiting to see it. Your one line sums up alot.

Jay

[kampr]

I would still have bought a Z6i even if it was only 1-4.

Clear glass, daytime illumination, good reticle and reliability are what I need in a scope. Right now I havent seen anything that can beat the Z6i based on those preferences.

I couldn't agree more.

In fact, if the Z6i would have been introduced as a 1x4, a grand cheaper, even a couple ounces lighter, even more compact and (while I’m dreaming) also offered in a ffp, this topic probably wouldn’t be here.

[kampr]

If match directors use reasonable target sizes and presentation (paint the taragets black and put in front of a white/yellow backer) then the benefits of the extra magnification start to melt away.

I have to say, this line sounds like it is coming from an iron shooter. I like it. Waiting to see it. Your one line sums up alot.

Jay

Or even better yet, a stage designer/MD that has an unequaled dedication to the success of the sport and understands that the competitors, are the paying customers.

We are very fortunate to have Richard at Rio.

It also doesn’t hurt that he shoots limited.

[Alaskapopo]

There is more to this debate than just magnification and cost. Size/weight, glass quality and eye box/exit pupil size are also influential. Personally I'd give up a little magnification for a good glass and bigger eye box/exit pupil every time. The Swaro has good glass, but has eye box/exit pupil limitations IMHO.

If match directors use reasonable target sizes and presentation (paint the taragets black and put in front of a white/yellow backer) then the benefits of the extra magnification start to melt away.

Those limitations have not stopped the best shooters from prefering it and winning with it. I think the eye box exit pupil topic is a paper argument not a practical one.

Pat

[Alaskapopo]

I would still have bought a Z6i even if it was only 1-4.

Clear glass, daytime illumination, good reticle and reliability are what I need in a scope. Right now I havent seen anything that can beat the Z6i based on those preferences.

I couldn't agree more.

In fact, if the Z6i would have been introduced as a 1x4, a grand cheaper, even a couple ounces lighter, even more compact and (while I’m dreaming) also offered in a ffp, this topic probably wouldn’t be here.

If the Z6 were a 1-4 I would have got the S&B. 6x is as big of a selling point on this scope as the daylight illumination at least for me.

[9X23Guy]

I don't think 1-4 is dead. There are some pretty nice advantages to one to include price and weight. That being said, I run a Swaro Z6i. I agree that if it was a 1-4 it still would have sold well, its the total package that makes it a great scope. 1-6 is better but 1-4 isn't dead. 500 yards is a practical rifle shot for a carbine btw. On the edge of the weapons capabilities but certainly practical.

[HPD SRT]

ACOG!!! And Practice!

I need a lot more practice...

[Onagoth]

I dont understand....all else being equal (since this is a debate on magnification) isn't more better?

If a 1-6 and 1-4 are nearly the same price and everything else is the same, why wouldn't I have the 1-6?

Also, not all MDs stick to the 4MOA size. In fact, I've seen slim sammies beyond 200y and heard tales of some near 300y.

[Alaskapopo]

ACOG!!! And Practice!

I need a lot more practice...

Practice is great but if you apply the same practice to the Swaro you will be better off. Hoser stages are no fun with an ACOG.

[Alaskapopo]

I dont understand....all else being equal (since this is a debate on magnification) isn't more better?

If a 1-6 and 1-4 are nearly the same price and everything else is the same, why wouldn't I have the 1-6?

Also, not all MDs stick to the 4MOA size. In fact, I've seen slim sammies beyond 200y and heard tales of some near 300y.

At the match we just got done hosting I put a standard auto popper (slim sammie) at 170 yards as a bonus target. I only have a 180 yard range.

Pat

[dchang0]

There is more to this debate than just magnification and cost. Size/weight, glass quality and eye box/exit pupil size are also influential. Personally I'd give up a little magnification for a good glass and bigger eye box/exit pupil every time. The Swaro has good glass, but has eye box/exit pupil limitations IMHO.

Those limitations have not stopped the best shooters from prefering it and winning with it. I think the eye box exit pupil topic is a paper argument not a practical one.

Pat

It's a paper argument if those things don't affect you, but for someone like me who does find the Swaro's eye box limiting in practice (thanks to slight astigmatism), it is very much a practical argument. The best shooters are (obviously) not representative of all shooters and all shooters' eyes.

I ended up buying a Meopta 1-4X in spite of the fact I much prefer the Z6i's reticle--primarily because of the optical limitations of the Z6i.

---

To the OP: the introduction of newer technologies doesn't mean the old ones are dead. Three outstanding three gunners I know still run ancient ACOGs (two are in Open, one in Tactical). One just won 2nd in the recent X3 monthly match. The same goes for vinyl records in this age of MP3s, or irons in this age of optics, etc.

Edited July 18, 2012 by dchang0

[Montrala]

It's a paper argument if those things don't affect you, but for someone like me who does find the Swaro's eye box limiting in practice (thanks to slight astigmatism), it is very much a practical argument. The best shooters are (obviously) not representative of all shooters and all shooters' eyes.

I'm with you on this one. Most 1-"more than 4"x scopes that I tried had limiting eyebox for me. Especially with some non-standard shooting positions (like rifle not shouldered at all). I settled with Vortex Viper PST 1-4x24 and it works fine for me.

Of course this applies mostly to 1x setting. Because of that I saw lot of shooters do not use their 1x setting on those 1-6x scopes, but 45dgr RDS instead. But in this case, why bother with 1x at all? Go for 2-12x, 2.5-10x, 3-18x or whatever.

[GMB]

I think that if the rifle distances stayed at a max of 350 yds then the 1-4x would still have a happy home. As match directors and course designers push to the limits on rifle ranges the 1-4x is a going to die and be replaced for optics with more juice.