Fixed power scopes

[Mojaveman]

I have a friend who's been hunting deer for the past 40 years. He's an old school hunter and an advocate for using fixed power scopes. He normally uses only a 4x but in wide open terrain maybe a 6X. Says he can remember when variable power scopes were not that good and also told me that the average range of all of the deer that he has shot, and he has shot a few, was 100 yards.

Any fixed power fans out there?

[ejhc11]

I don't hunt but if I only shot 100yds-600yds I could live with one of those Bushnell Elite 10x mil-mil scopes. Awesome price now too at MidwayUSA

[ExtremeX]

I have a couple fixed power optics… an ACOG 4x and the SWFA SS 10x. Both of them are absolutely fantastic.

SWFA makes a fixed 6x too, I would have no issues using that on a hunting rifle. My SWFA 10x is actually on my .243 varmint rifle.

There was probably a time when variable power optics were not as good, but those days are gone. You can get extremely high quality variable power optics, but they will cost more than the fixed power for a similar/same quality level (optically)

Mechanically fixed power scopes can be more rugged, there are less lens elements and moving parts to the system. Then again, you can also get very robust and durable variable scopes; they will just cost more for something of a similar quality.

Depending on your requirements and how much you have to spend, I would make a decision and go from there.

If I had $250-300 to spend on a scope, and my options were between various 3-9x40 hunting scopes or a fixed 6x SWFA, personally I would sway towards the fixed 6x or gather up a few more bucks for a better variable.

[SilentPea]

I'm quite happy with a fixed 6x -- I grabbed the primary arms one because it's just on a plinker rifle and it's a bit lighter than the SWFA.

Doesn't slow me down much at 5-50yds and it's kick *** in the 50-200 region. I quite dislike having to mess around with zoom knobs and keeping track of reticle magnification for SFP scopes.

[OpticsPlanet]

I shot a Old Weaver 4x on my Marlin 1895 for years. Added to what extreme said about them technical being more robust to a simpler design, the muscle and eye memory is always there, as in, its always the same. I've seen a lot of hunters raise their rifle and forget that the mag. was dialed up and now they lost the ability to sight in on and track the animal. Having that identical FOV every time you shoulder CAN be very nice for some shooters. Just preference.

Since then I've moved on to a 1-4x on my marlin as its just nice being able to dial it up or down to what I need.

Trevor B.

[as_rocketman]

The Weaver K4 is my favorite general-purpose scope. Simple, bright, clear, rugged, inexpensive.

Never hunted with my ACOG (3x), but it would be fantastic at the job... engaging D-targets at varying distances is what it is designed to do, and honestly I don't think making it a variable would be an improvement.

Personally I've found that, for field shooting, too much magnification actually hurts my score a little bit. I need enough glass to clearly see my target at range -- and no more. So I love fixed power scopes, even though there certainly are applications where a variable is superior.

[ExtremeX]

The Weaver K4 is my favorite general-purpose scope. Simple, bright, clear, rugged, inexpensive.

Never hunted with my ACOG (3x), but it would be fantastic at the job... engaging D-targets at varying distances is what it is designed to do, and honestly I don't think making it a variable would be an improvement.

Personally I've found that, for field shooting, too much magnification actually hurts my score a little bit. I need enough glass to clearly see my target at range -- and no more. So I love fixed power scopes, even though there certainly are applications where a variable is superior.

Well Trijicon did come out with the VCOG... which is basically a variable FFP ACOG in a 1-6x ruggedized scope type format with a fixed mounting system like the ACOG.

Looks like a nice improvement, but again, like anything fixed vs variable, you are generally going to pay dearly for it.

[as_rocketman]

Yep, there's lots of people clamoring for a variable ACOG, and probably many who would pay for one...

However, speaking as a user, I have never -- not once -- found myself wishing mine was a variable. Even if it didn't mean more size, weight, cost, and less strength, which of course it would. It's engineered right, in my opinion, even if adding more features would make it look better on paper.

But hey, your requirements may well be different than mine. Others may want to buy more features even if they don't need them. That's OK too. It's a free country.

[ExtremeX]

I agree with your sentiment about the original fixed powers... but with my own usage of the 4x model, there have been times I wish I did have less magnification, which set me on a different path. The BAC concept doesn't agree with me using the TA31F as the eye relief is a bit short. Its easier to use on a the 3x and 3.5x models.

The ACOG was my first quality scope, It kind of set the precedence for what I want in optics. Unfortunately after I started reloading BDC reticles didn't really work as well for me so the ACOG stopped getting range time. I figure the same would happen if I went with a VCOG.

Since then have moved over to other quality 1-4x and 1-6x scopes. They so offer a great deal of versatility, but it all depends on personal preference and application. For mine, they fit the bill very well.

That said, I still own my ACOG TA31F. It really is one fantastic well built optic.

[as_rocketman]

BAC does work for me. But then, I can practically point-shoot anything that close. I also have the option to (a) close the front sight cover and use it like an OEG, or (b) remove the ACOG completely and go to irons... but to each their own. People are different. (ETA: I also believe that BAC works better with lower power -- 3x is easier than 4x. Never tried the 1.5x ACOG but that seems like it would be a snap.)

One of my special requirements was keeping weight down on my primary carbine, and that plays to the strengths of a fixed-power scope over a low-power variable.

We certainly have many more viable choices these days than we did only a decade or so ago.

[ExtremeX]

The 3x is a completely different beast than the 4x... using BAC on the 3x is easy. The FOV on the 4x is amazing, cant say that about the 3x. The 4x optic is just too close to ur face to really BAC it efficiently. Guess that's why they have provisions for an RMR on top of it.

3x makes a much better close range optic by far...

The BDC on the ACOG is the main reason I stopped using it. I only shoot 75gr ammo out of my rifles these days. Shooting out to 300,400,500+ yards is just a lot easier when you just dial in the correction.

If it wasn't for that, I would still be running it.

I do agree on the weight, my fixed powers have always been lighter. I think my 1-6x scope weights 1.4lb without the mount...

[as_rocketman]

Yeah, the ACOG is nicer if the BDC matches your usage. (I pretty much only shoot M193 so the BDC works fine for me.) It's not a precision scope, nor was it intended to be. It's a field scope.

Personally I have no use for a top-mounted RMR. Consistent cheekweld is far more important in my opinion.