Is there really any significant gain one over the other between a equal quality 3-9 vs 4-12 scopes on a deer hunting rifle used from close to 300 yards?

Good morning,
On closer shots the wider FOV of a 3x vs a 4x will come in handier than the extra magnification of 12 vs 9 at 300 yards

The 3-9 scopes will easily handle anything to 300 yds. We think we need more magnification than we really do.

I prefer the 4-12 on most anything I scope.


i can not tell the difference between 3x and 4x in the field, and VERY seldom actually carry the rifle at anything less than maximum power anyway.

12x at the top end vs 9x, on the other hand, allows tighter placement of the crosshairs on targets while at the bench, which gives tighter groups, more accurate zero of the reticle, and inspires greater confidence in the accuracy of the rifle.

If the physical size of the scopes are comparable I prefer the 4-12's For instance a Leupold VX-2 3-9x40 weights 11.2 oz., the Leupold VX-2 4-12x40 weights 11.6 oz.
I prefer the 4-12 for the reasons stated by Idaho Shooter. Although I usually keep mine on 6X for all around use but if shooting targets I use 12X.r

drover

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


THIS. Exactly.

4-12 generally requires parallax adjustment for the best accuracy, 3-9x (or even 3-10x) does not.

In general I prefer 3-9x or 3-10x, unless extra magnification is absolutely required. An extra 2-3x doesn't buy much.

At 300 yards, a target magnified 9x appears to be 33.3 yards, 100', away.

At 300 yards, a target magnified 12x appears to be 25 yards, 75', away.

Not much difference.

A wider field of view at the lowest power setting might prove to be more valuable/useful than the difference in magnification at 300 yards.

Ditto

Have been using a Z3 3.5-10x42 brh scopes on several guns but decided it I wanted a little more.

Just picked up a used Z3 4-12x50 and am liking it a lot!

That certainly is a practical bit of information. It does not appear to be a major difference (gain) going to the 12x.

With current technology, I'm pretty much convinced that at 1.5-8x scope is the perfect combination of price, weight, and magnification for a big game optic. I wish more manufacturers would include this option in their 5x zoom lineups. I've never had an issue with 3 - 3.5x on the bottom end but the fov at 1.5x is really nice. 8x is plenty at the top.

I prefer the 3-9 over the 4-12 (and 3.5-10 over the 4.5-14) for all the reasons mentioned. In fact, Leupold’s 4-12x40 is near the top of my least favorite scope list, while the 3-9 and 3.5-10x40 are among my very favorite.

Over the past 40 years I've shifted away from most 3-9x scopes and toward 2-7x scopes, particularly on short action bolt guns, or 4-12x/4-16x scopes on rifles that will only be used in open country or where they won't be used for still hunting or spot and stalk where close range shots are more likely to present themselves. Most 2-7x scopes have pretty short tubes which can make them a challenge to fit on some long action bolt guns. My elk rifles are a Remington 760 with a 2-7x for hunting the black timber and a CLR with a 3-9x scope for hunting the more open country and the more open aspen groves.

One 3-9x40 that I'll miss is the Leupold 3-9x40 Shotgun scope, due to its very useful heavy duplex reticle.

Yep, if you'll look, Leupold's 4-12 have much narrower fields of view compared to other manfs. scopes of the same power.

VX-Freedom 4-12 at 4x = 21.5' @ 100 yds
Swaro 4-12x50 at 4x = 29.1' @ 100 yds
Vortex Diamondback 4-12 at 4x = 32.4' @ 100 yds

I like a 4x16x40 or 2.5x16x 42. I use bushnell 4200 ,elites,4500,6500 on all my deer rifles. I like 16x more for watching deer at longer yardages especially in the woods. if they are within range I want to be able to really a buck to figure out antler size. I have stopped carrying bino's after moving up in power. my old eyes need help.i have never seen the need for a objective bigger than 42mm with good glass.

Unless you simply "gotta have" more magnification I'd say go with the 3-9.

magshooter1,

The Leupold's FOV is smaller because the eye relief is much longer. FOV vs. eye relief is always an optical trade-off, everything else being equal, and Leupold has always opted for longer eye relief.

Here are the listed eye relief numbers for the scopes you mentioned:
Vortex 3.3-3.5 inches
Swarovski 3.54
Leupold 4.9 (4x) - 3.74 (12x)

Generally, even in so-called "constant eye relief" scopes, eye relief is longer at lower powers. In "constant eye relief scopes" it usually varies by about half an inch.

Consequently, when scope manufacturers list only one eye relief for a variable scope, it's usually the eye relief on the lowest magnification. Don't have that specific Vortex on hand, but do have a Swarovski. Eye relief in 4x does measure just about 3.5 inches, but at 12x is slightly less than 3 inches. Please note that the Leupold's eye relief is LONGER at 12x than the Swarovski's is at any power.

This is not a "fault" of Leupold scopes, it's how they've always chosen to deal with the eye-relief/FOV compromise. Many shooters prefer more eye relief than 3 to 3.5 inches.

Great post, Mule Deer.