What scope magnification do pro hill stalkers use ?

Hales Smut

Well-Known Member
Not the first scope question. What scope magnification do frequent hill stalkers use in order to get precise ( meat saving) shot placement at all practical hill ranges? Frequent = Professional deer stalkers, Professional deer cullers, local hobby stalkers who spent a lot of time on the hill. A scope that allows to see the diffrence between a low neck shot and a shoulder shot at hill ranges in winter after hinds.
 
Ha! These young lads now look at my 6x42 as if it's only fit for an air rifle - but, of course it does fine. But if you don't have a smaroffski ****offski or a twice as nice Zeiss it doesn't count as a real scope. That's why I put a Leupold on the 308! F#%k them! Zillions of deer shot with 4 x 32 scopes!
Two lads on big culls. One with and ancient 243 and a **** scope. One with a hand built rifle and a thing on top from the space race. Outcome? Just the same. They both respect what the other does and just get on with it. Get accustomed to your rifle and scope and get on.
 
I use a zeiss 4x32 and I have no issues with shots up to 250m whether roe or red, it's also nice and light. My other favourite scope is a zeiss 3-9x36.

I reckon the latter is the ultimate hill scope both in terms of quality, size/weight, aesthetics, as well as usefulness 'off' the hill as well. On a 30-06 it makes a serious 'do it all' gun worldwide.
 
Ha! These young lads now look at my 6x42 as if it's only fit for an air rifle

I have 6x42 on my airguns as well as on .308 and .270.
Of course, I'm just a townie guest-stalker - very far from a pro - but I've been out with proper stalkers who also have 6x42 on.
Mine are Schmidt and Bender, and I've never felt underscoped.
 
Guess many of the choices are age related. 8x56 was fine when I was younger but now need 12x as the eyes age a bit. higher mag will allow more precise shot placement unless you are a real 'expert' and follow the Croc Dundee method and think the shot into the perfect placement. Variable mag is useful. Seems to me a lot of tosh is written about the 'ideal' disguised as bitterness at the cost of something better.
 
Guess many of the choices are age related. 8x56 was fine when I was younger but now need 12x as the eyes age a bit. higher mag will allow more precise shot placement unless you are a real 'expert' and follow the Croc Dundee method and think the shot into the perfect placement. Variable mag is useful. Seems to me a lot of tosh is written about the 'ideal' disguised as bitterness at the cost of something better.

The point about aging eyes is well-made.

With reasonable eyesight, though, I'd say if you can't shoot a red calf in the chest using a 6x42, then it's too far away.

There is a school of thought that suggests more mag just gives folk the idea that they can place a shot more precicely.

I also think there's a lot of tosh written about the 'ideal' disguised as marketing hype, and running down simple, straightforward and foolproof good-quality gear.
:)
 
you can never not have enough magnification you can turn it down but you cant turn up a 6x or 8x fixed mag why limit yourself :thumb:
 
Aging eyes are probably the reason for my hesitation. I am 49 and the last 3/4/5 years the Eyesight goes down. I need spectacles to read. Long distance vieuwing seems O.K. I own a few 6x42's. Kahles and Zeiss.
Training at the range I use diamont shaped targets . A 5" black diamond with a 2" white diamond in the centre. The other 1,5" white centre in a 4" black outer diamond. At 150m I can pretty well divide the bigger white target into 4 even parts before squeezing the trigger. It would not be possible to clearly see and aim at a corner of the white centre diamond. To divide the smaller white diamond is more difficult and I am never sure that I aimed 100% perfect before the shot goes. At 150 m a 1,5" white centre is just to small to see clearly and to know where the shot goes. Putting the targets 50 to 100 m further will make things more complicated. If I want to place a bullet in an exact spot on the deer/calf at 150/200m , at least I need to see the spot I shoot at.
It might be that I don't realise that my eyes are not the eyes from 20 years ago. I never seemed to have any problems with my 6x42's. At het range my shooting friend uses a 3-12x Swarovski. When I look through his scope to the target, the diffrence is huge. Maybe this brings my confidence down.
 
Respectfully disagree with 'not enough zoom'. I think often the less experienced wind adjustable zooms up far too high, resulting in a reticle that is jumping all over the place on the deers body, making them suddenly jerk the shot when they either think the reticle's is passing over the vital zone, or out of desperation because they know they're running out of time before the opportunity is gone.

I think people should learn with a nice little scope, allowing them steady shot focus and enticing them to 'get in closer', at least, until they're more experienced.

I realise this is not aimed at all stalkers and some more experienced stalkers shoot equally well on 12x than on 4x, and hats off to them.
 
I prefer higher mag scopes for the hill. My favourite light weight scope is the 6.5-20x50 conquest. I have three of them and use them for day or night foxing to. Shot deer as close as 4m with one and crows over 400m. I think the scope wobble is a huge advantage as one see's what needs to be corrected before taking the shot, even if it just rearranging the position or getting breathing under control. I don't have to take the scope to 20 mag, but can if I need to. Our deer are quite small and our grass is mostly very high, meaning that very often we only have the chance of a head or neck shot...or one must thread the bullet between the grass. One forgets the 6.5-20 has less magnification than an 8x56 at the low setting.....
For woodland/mixed terrain I use a 3-12x50 flash dot scope with bdc like most of my scopes.
edi
 
I am intrigued as to what you are zooming in on

I can see the point of winding up to full mag when aiming at a 1" dot on a sheet of A4 at 100,200 yds

not sure I fully agree with the absolute benefit of high mag scopes at stalking ranges (and I am talking up to 250yds as I am confident under that range is where 99% of UK deer are shot!)

I can still see (and hit on occasion) a 1" dot at 100yds with 6-8x
I have a 4-14x but it always stays around the 6-8x mark when out

There have been too many incidences of other animals walking into the line of fire/sight for me to want to zoom in, especially at range where the peripheral advantage of keeping both eyes open is severely diminished (even more so if your eyesight is not great)

my first stag was almost a disaster for exactly this reason.
as a youth I closed one eye when shooting rifles
lying prone aiming at a lying stag on ground that rose up slightly in front of me just a second or so before I pulled the trigger a mountain hare walked right into the line of fire at about 20-30yds

the only reason I spotted it well before it hit the cross hairs was the wide field on the 4x32
have had hinds appear out of dips
hinds and calves suddenly appear behind the target etc etc

i will take a decent field of view every time on a hill scope
 
I have one scope that goes up to X12, which I find handy for searching distant hillsides and confirming things like sex at range before committing to stalking in.

But I really don't like shooting with it on X12 - too jittery and the field of view is too restricted. As said - at X12, you have a very poor idea of what is happening around your target, and you can very easily loose sight of the target if it bolts after the shot strike.

So I inevitably wind it back before shooting. I never actually checked what I was winding it to - would just wind it out til things looked 'right'. Recently, I started looking after the shot to see where I'd wound it to. Always in the range 6-8.

I hasten to add that I am not at all a professional!
 
Back
Top