At the distances at which most game is killed, powers around 4x are in many ways superior to the really low or really high magnifications.

Power begets a lust for more. Mental, physical, political, ballistic--or optical--more power seems better than less. But it isn't always. Powerful riflescopes can make you miss.

Well, not exactly. When you miss, it's hardly ever the fault of your scope. Still, you can improve your shooting afield by keeping that power dial in the middle of its range (or at the bottom, depending on the scope). Magnification of 3X to 6X is hard to beat for big game hunting, whether you're in the woods or on the prairie. At 3X, an animal 150 yards away looks as big as one would appear 50 steps distant with your naked eye. At 6X, a deer 300 yards off looks as it might to the naked eye at 50.

I don't need a bigger target image than the chest of a deer at 50 yards, and you probably don't either. In fact, I've killed several animals with iron sights at over 100. By that measure I should have no trouble with a 4X scope at 400 steps, because the reticle affords a much more precise aiming point than do iron sights, and a clearer, less obstructed view of the target--while delivering the same apparent image size.

The longest shots I've taken at deer and pronghorns (460 and 420 yards, respectively) were accomplished with 4X scopes, the longest at elk (300) with a 3X. I could have used a 6X scope to advantage in all three cases, but it wasn't needed in any. If you can see the bullet's designated landing zone around the intersection of your crosswire, you have magnification enough.

By that dictum, most of us would need modest scope magnification most of the time. Few animals are so difficult to approach that they must be killed beyond the point-blank range of modern rifles--say, 250 yards--where a 3X or 4X allows for quick but sufficiently precise aim.

I've seen many animals missed and crippled at extreme range, others taken with long shots when they could have been stalked and killed more neatly up close. It seems hunters think they need more magnification than they do, and when they get it they shoot far because the animals look easier to hit than is the case.

On the other hand, low power--below 2.5X--has little to recommend it. Anyone at all familiar with scopes can aim as quickly with 2.5X or 3X (or even 4X) scope as with iron sights. As your eyes lose acuity with age, scopes get faster relative to iron sights. And you don't need a big objective bell to snatch quick aim or get a bright image with scopes of modest power.

A straight objective on a one-inch scope gives you about 22mm of clear lens diameter--enough to provide 7mm of exit pupil at 3X. A 32mm objective at 4X gives you 8mm, a 36mm delivers 9mm. As 6mm of exit pupil is all your eye can use in the dimmest of hunting light, reducing magnification below 3X does nothing for brightness. The only benefits are wider field of view and more latitude in eye placement behind the lens. Neither is compelling.

A 2.5X or 3X scope gives you 40 to 50 feet of field at 100 yards--at least eight deer lengths. A 6X shows you enough space for a barn dance. As for finding that image, a rifle properly stocked should put your eye naturally on the scope's axis. You shouldn't need field beyond the boundary imposed by the ocular housing.