Higher Power Scopes vs. LPVO for Defensive Use

I love LPVOs and was actually utilizing them before they became all the hotness.  Back when Aimpoint red dots were the thing to put on your gun, I opted for scopes that went down to true 1x power, or as close as I could get to that, instead of a red dot, and that was primarily due to my eyesight issues with astigmatism that does not lend well to using dots.  Back then, scopes with illuminated reticles were few and far between, but I still preferred a standard recital scope over a dot.  Today, of course, there are many great options for LPVOs that have illuminated reticles, which does, indeed, help in low light.

Now, of course, LPVOs have become widely acknowledged as the most versatile of all rifle optics as they can be as fast as a dot at close range, but they demand more precise cheek weld and presentation.  Then, if magnification is required, true 1x power scopes today offer 1-4 power, 1-6 power, and even beyond that if you are willing to pay the price.  So, best of both worlds, yes?  Close.  There is still an argument for a dot.  For example, a rifle specifically set up for home defense makes good sense for a dot rather than a scope because, why would the magnification be needed at such short ranges, and why add the weight of a scope if not needed?  Also, a dot optic provides unlimited eye relief and eye box, so if there is no need for magnification, the dot remains the way to go.  However, if you set up a single rifle to do it all, an LPVO can be used for home defense and field use alike. 

At this point, the LPVO is the dominant variant of magnified optic on fighting rifles because the true 1x power is faster on target at close range than is, say, the hunting industry standard of 3x power at the lowest setting.  For targets that are close, magnification adds a layer of complication for the visual field as one eye is still looking at the object at actual distance, while the dominant eye looks at a blown-up representation of such and there can be a delay in getting the cross hairs on target.  Generally, at really close distance, 1x is faster. 

However, just how much faster depends greatly on the amount of practice the individual shooter does with higher power optics.  Still, 1x will be faster at larger targets within close distance, but the difference is far less than most people realize, if you practice.  The key to getting on target quickly with an optic set to, say, 3x, is to have a presentation that mounts the gun up to your eye with minimal head movement.  This way, the eye is looking directly at the target, and the scope simply comes up to the eye, and will be generally aligned with the target in a fast and natural way, requiring minimal refinement before the shot is made.  This is how one should train with any optic, but it becomes even more critical with magnification. 

Now, before I proceed, I absolutely prefer a scope that can go to 1x on a dedicated defensive rifle, especially for any rifle that would be used in the home.  However, for a rifle that is carried in the field or woods, even in a defensive capacity, I don’t see a significant downside to a scope that is the very common 3-9x, or 3-12x, or similar.  If in an environment where you are unlikely to use the gun within really close ranges, a scope set to 3x is not much of a disadvantage, and even at ranges that most would still consider quite close, a 3x setting may prove, actually, superior to true 1x. 

Over many years of deer hunting I have used, essentially, every type of optic for that craft.  I came to the eventual conclusion that the standard 3-9x hunting scope was the single best option for that application, regardless of the ranges involved.  Now, in the northeastern woods, nobody is making four hundred-yard shots at deer.   In the environments that I hunt, even one hundred-yard shots are rare.  Most shots range from twenty to seventy yards.  And, I have made plenty of shots at deer that jump up out of brush, well within twenty yards, and run.  Even for sub-twenty yard, rapidly moving, targets, I prefer 3x in a hunting capacity.  for a while I hunted with a scope that went down to true 1x, yet, while still hunting (which, ironically, refers to moving while hunting) I would set that scope to 3x, as I found that the magnification was an advantage even for close range, running deer.  Why?  How could that possibly be?  Everyone knows that 1x is faster at such ranges, correct? 

Yes, 1x is a bit faster, but we need to make hits.  Accurate hits.  Even at close ranges, on moving targets, the magnification helps with making hits.  Often, even within such close range, there is brush in the way that would go unseen, yet is apparent with the magnification.  Even on moving targets, the magnification brings you into the vital zone that must be hit to drop the animal humanely.  Well known firearms trainer, Clint Smith, says, “scopes don’t help you shoot, they help you see.”  This is, indeed, the case.  Magnification lets you see what otherwise would be missed in the visual field.  Also, the magnification lets you see the target area better, so while the scope does not assist with the shooting mechanics, it allows you to see better.

With that said, true 1x to whatever magnification is optimal for a do it all rifle, but for a gun that is used and carried in the field, especially a rifle for double duty of hunting and defense in the woods, there is little lost, and perhaps a lot gained, with the higher magnification.  I would not want more than 3x on the low end, as higher magnification than that, indeed, hampers speed of acquisition and limits the field of view at close range.  A traditional 3-9x, or the more modern 3-12x options, are incredibly versatile on a field or woods gun.

Another consideration is this; the higher-powered scopes also utilize a larger diameter front lens.  Most true 1x scopes utilize a small diameter front lens.  There are arguments made about this, whether or not it effects low light performance, but in my experience the larger diameter front lens, if all else in the scope is of equal quality, is superior in the low light environments of the woods as it seems to simply gather more light.  Better light, combined with magnification, equals making hits that would be much more difficult with a red dot, iron sights, or even a scope set to 1x. 

So, to close, I offer this for your consideration; my preferred setup for a house rifle is one with an LPVO with an illuminated reticle on it, with a light on the gun, and with a combat style two-point sling that keeps the gun attached to you.  For a field gun, that might be used for both hunting and defense in that environment alike, I prefer a lite weight build with a lite weight 3-9x scope on it.  For a field gun I also prefer a Wilderness Tactical Rhodesian sling rather than a combat sling, as having the gun attached while hunting or hiking is not practical.  A light that can be kept in your backpack, but put on the field gun if needed, is also a good thing, as many places forbit hunting with a light on the gun.  However, just attach the light at night so the gun is set up for camp defense. 

Your mileage may vary, but 3x plus scopes have been killing fast moving, close range, game for a long time.  I am quite sure it would work fine against two-legged threats under such dynamic, outdoor, circumstances as well, if such trouble were encountered.