Hunting Scopes

[Porchdog]

I have a few Bushnell Elite 3200's in 2x-7x. I think that the Elites are the continuation of the old Bausch and lomb line.

I really like the forgiving eye relief and wide field of view for this scope at close ranges and for quick and out of position shots. I haven't tried a 3x9 that gives me the kind of sight picture I get with these. I keep the scope at 2x unless I need to turn it up for a longer shot - that's pretty rare. Rainguard is nice as well.

You can make a really long shot on game with a 7x.

[Kaliv]

Wow, thanks for all the replies. I knew the Pelican trust had a bunch of gun lovers, but I wasn't expecting that many replies from a car forum.

Anyway, here's the deal. I got my hunter's permit about 8 years ago...and I still don't own a gun and haven't gone hunting. I am military, so I've had a decent amount of range time albeit with the dreaded "assault rifle" we've heard so much about over the past couple months. However, I shoot open sights or with the M68 optic...no practice at all with decent magnification.

I've always wanted to go on a bear hunt (been told .308 minimum). So the plan is to spent money on a weapon platform this year and then spend money on a guide in upstate New York next year to tag me a bear. But while I have it, I can see myself probably picking up some deer or coyotes. I hear quite often that people take big game around 100 to 200 yards, so I'm making the assumption that I'll see something between 75 to 300 yards. May be a bad assumption, I don't know.

Here's the dilemma. I don't know if I'll ever buy another rifle so I want this one to do everything...perfectly. But reality is that I just need a gun suitable for my near-term plans that does it good enough that I enjoy myself. The other fact is that unless I practice, I probably won't take any game so the gun will mostly be used for range practice...and I need to enjoy that too.

I've narrowed down that I want a Weatherby Vanguard S2 Varmint Special (although I'm having a hard time locating one for purchase). I've tried a few guns for fit and the stock on the Weatherby seems to feel the best for me at my price point. I leaning towards the Varmint Special because I want to reduce recoil and Newton's law works. For the optic, the manufacturer is going to be Leupold because they're a decent optic company and I can get a sweet deal. I'm spying their Mark AR Mod 1 riflescope which comes in 1.5-4x, 3-9x, and 4-12x. Although their 1.5-4x doesn't come in mil-dot, which is why I was spying the Mark AR in the first place. No particular reason why I want the mil-dot other than it would give me something to do on the range.

Further comments or criticism?

[aigel]

I would not buy a Varmint rifle for hunting big game. You are talking 8.75 lbs without a scope. If you ever go on a hunt where you have to carry the sucker all day, you'll be hating it. Your first hunt may be like that, as you say it won't be a bait hunt for black bear. You do not need the precision a heavy barrel gives you for big game hunting. Recoil is not high on a 308 even in a normal weight rifle. When you hunt, you don't feel the recoil '(single shot and plenty of adrenalin) and on the shooting bench, just use a weighted shooting rest to keep the recoil to a minimum.

I would also not hunt with a mil-dot reticle - a multi x (bushnell talk) or duplex (leupold talk) is much more suitable for good target acquisition even in low light situations.

I would consider a rifle that has iron sights and shoot that first, before upgrading to a scope.

That's all I had left for input.

And don't fool yourself, there isn't a rifle that does it all perfeclty - you will be buying more down the line!

G

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by aigel

I would not buy a Varmint rifle for hunting big game. You are talking 8.75 lbs without a scope.

Big time. Why lug a varmint rifle around? Heavy to carry, heavy to hold up and shoot if your in an odd position.

I have a standard Weatherby Vanguard .30-06, with a Burris 3x9 Full Field II scope. The rig has performed flawlessly in field, and the range. Unless I get into high desert big game hunting in the West (not likely), its the last hunting gun I'm buying.

People spend so much time thinking about the gun. What the person behind the gun does at the prime moment is far more important than the gun itself. You could take an ancient British .303 Enfield, learn the gun, and go out kill game like a champ.

[HardDrive]

Like aigel said, recoil on the bench is one thing, in the field it doesn't exist. You going to be so amped up when you have an animal in your sights, the recoil won't even register.

When I'm at the range during the summer, I fold up a hand towel and put it on my shoulder. I don't give a crap if people think I'm a wuss

[aigel]

This will help at the range and ensure you don't pick up a flinch.

G

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by aigel

How far was your farthest shot? I can't see too well past 300 yards if I keep it below 9x. I took a few antelopez (that's Oddjob's spelling LOL) that far out.

G

One of my personal pet peeves - if you are shooting at 300 yards, you are no longer "hunting". Not a position I've held my entire life, but one I grew into as I matured as a hunter. I would be ashamed to admit just how far away I've shot big game animals - well in excess of that. Mostly with my first hunting rifle, a Model 70 in .30-'06, fitted with an old Weaver K4.

Since those early years, I've gone on to hunt many species of big game successfully, even in open country, with everything from muzzle loaders to 19th century single shots and lever guns, all fitted with open or peep sights. I've even taken open country mulies, and pronghorn, with fixed sight Peacemakers shooting black powder loads. Nowadays, I only have one big game rifle left that wears a scope, and that's my Model 70 in .375 H&H. Even my first Model 70, the old '06, now wears a Weaver peep. And yes, I still hunt open country mulies with it, if I'm not using my much smaller and lighter Ruger #1 in 6.5 Swede, with open sights.

Ah, but I digress. Like I said, seeing better doesn't necessarily help us shoot better. It's an illusion. A quite possibly dangerous and unethical one at that. Lots of guys will mistakenly assume that if they can see it well, they can hit it. High magnification scopes encourage this. They will never make up for a lack of shooting skill, ability to dope wind, or ability to judge range. Yet they draw hunters into thinking they can make the shot, just because they can see the animal clearly. It looks closer, so it looks easier.

One of the things I like to do with guys who claim all manner of long range shooting accomplishment in the field on open country mulies, antelope, or whatever is to question them regarding the conditions under which they took their animal. How hard was the wind blowing? At what angle to the line of sight was it blowing? How far did you have to hold off? How did you determine the range? How high over the animal did you hold? How did you determine how high to hold? Most simply go blank at these questions. The reality is that if they cannot answer these questions, they simply did not make the shot they claim. Their "500 yards" turns out to be maybe 120 or so, where these factors are not as influential as they would be at a true 500. A barely noticeable full effect (90 degrees to line of sight) 10 mph wind will blow the bullet off an antelope at 500 yards. In the open country, high elevation regions in which they are hunted, the wind simply never even settles down to that; 20 mph and gusting into the 30's and 40's is a more "normal" day. That, and intervening terrain will cause it to change directions a couple of times between the hunter and the quarry. Get into this level of detail with most "long range" hunters, and it very quickly becomes obvious they are not.

Oh well, another digression. Back to the scope. For these and many other reasons, I believe 4x is as high as any hunter will ever truly need under any conditions, at any range we should ehtically be shooting at big game. Er on the smaller side, if anything, for a big game scope.

Oh, and Kaliv, about caliber selection. If it were me, and this were likely to be my only rifle, I would go with the .30-'06 in preference to the .308. It has a far greater selection of ammo available, in a broader variety of bullet weights. On the larger end of the spectrum of North American big game, it carries enough extra punch to be a worthwhile step up from the .308. It handles the heaviest .30 caliber bullets far better, the 200 to 220 grain weights. Yet, with the 150's, the difference in recoil between it and the .308 is hardly noticeable.

Oh, and one more thing - like the other guys said, forget the vamint rifle. You would soon regret its extra weight, and the heavy barrel is of no help until you are putting a lot of rounds through it in short order, like when you are varmint hunting.

[J P Stein]

Thanks, Jeff, it's about time someone pointed this out.

First, let me say that am no longer a hunter.....nothing against it (except for too many drunks in the woods), but gun hunting is an unfair match and I have no urge to kill wild critters....that are doing me no harm.

My only formal training was in the Army.....they still used the M-14 in my time.(drafted in 1968). The M-16 hadn't worked is way through the system yet.
The best point of the M-16 back then was it was light. Using the prevailing rifle ranges & targets (50 to 450 meter pop-up man silhouettes), the 5.56 showed its shortcomings.

The instructors at the range called the 7.62 "point blank" at 100 meters using iron sights (peep type). I would agree. At 450 meters I probably *hit* 90-95 %......not a kill but a hit is good when the other fella is trying to kill you. Basically, they just handed us the M-16 to qualify with no comments & very little instruction.

An aside. For the first few days, I was top dog in my company in basic rifle training .....I did have prior hunting experience. After due consideration, I dropped to middle of the pack......McNamara's war was going on after all.

I liked the M-14. It would not jamb..... even if you could grow potatoes in the in the works.......the sumbytch was hopeless on full auto tho.

I find the push to optical sights as market driven. I went the opposite route. During my stay with Uncle Sugar, my detachment had to blow off 3600 rounds of 7.26 per quarter..... in one sitting.......8-10 guys normally got the job at the range.....I volunteered......I volunteered a lot in the Army. I did my time in Greece rather than Nam......got the 5 month early-out too.

I got into point shooting ...no sights......a white rock maybe 5 feet wide 400-500 yards out put off a nice puff of dust when struck. I hit it 60-70 % of the time after a bit of practice. Not bad payment for a sore shoulder. Glad I didn't have to pay for the ammo........

[aigel]

You guys crack me up. Guy asks which scope to buy, and you are telling how you shoot from the hip at 500 yards.

Of course it is great to go iron sights and round ball etc., but some of us do hunt for the meat and want to get there quickly and use flat shooting scoped bolt action rifles. Some just cannot spend a lot of time in the field and still want to get an animal. An antelope hunt for me is a meat hunt. I show up, get my two does and leave the next day. There are more antelope in WY than people, so it is a real management activity. There is other hunting where I take my time (birds) and go all out "classic".

I do like the fact that we all appear agree that less is more in terms of magnification for the OP's new scope.

G

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by aigel

You guys crack me up. Guy asks which scope to buy, and you are telling how you shoot from the hip at 500 yards.

Only if the critter's running...

Originally Posted by aigel

Of course it is great to go iron sights and round ball etc., but some of us do hunt for the meat and want to get there quickly and use flat shooting scoped bolt action rifles. Some just cannot spend a lot of time in the field and still want to get an animal. An antelope hunt for me is a meat hunt. I show up, get my two does and leave the next day. There are more antelope in WY than people, so it is a real management activity. There is other hunting where I take my time (birds) and go all out "classic".

I do like the fact that we all appear agree that less is more in terms of magnification for the OP's new scope.

G

Come on, none of us "meat hunters" (I'm no trophy hunter) really hunts for meat. It would be far, far cheaper to buy a side of beef and have it butchered. No, we hunt for recreation, pure and simple.

Hunting has taken a strange turn in this modern age, in my humble opinion. I think we've beaten the scope issue to death, so I'm going to keep going on this little tangent, and comment on this idea.

Hunting is not something that can (or should) be rushed, yet modern man has found a way to do so. He fully expects to take a day or two, maybe three, out of his busy life, heigh off to the field somewhere, and tag a big game animal. Happens all the time. I find that somewhat distressing. Way too casual of an approach, like going to play golf or something. Maybe it wouldn't rub me so wrong if at least they had the honesty to admit they are not hunting.

We have made this as convenient as possible. Air conditioned pickups and SUV's flocking to the field, filled with "hunters" toting the latest optics, laser range finders, two way radios, and the most modern flat shooting rifle available, with the biggest scope they can afford. Every advantage possible, every advantage they can purchase at Cabella's to ensure their "success".

The real problem is, they have no idea how to measure that "success". To them, it's all about getting an animal, filling a tag. Their egos will allow no less. They could never face their buddies if they came home emptyhanded. They are way too competetive for that, and "scoring" is a part of that competition. They have to prove, both to themselves and everyone else they think might care, that they are a hunter. Their manhood is a stake.

They are nothing of the kind. They have not hunted a god damn thing. They've driven out and shot something alrighty, but they certainly have not hunted. They will never know what "success" really is. How sad. How utterly disrespectful of the animals that give their lives for no more than feeding these guys' egos. Sigh...

This is, again IMHO, what has driven so much of the modern technology we see in the field. It's all meant to help this kind of guy get an animal quicker, more certainly, than ever before. Many are now willing to spend the money, rather than the time, to be successful. This has also spawned what Ilike to call the "range rifle".

The "range rifle" suits this kind of "hunter" beautifully. He never really hunts with it (although he does shoot animals with it), so its size and weight are not all that important. He'll never be carrying it on foot, into his tenth mile of the day, in rough country. That's not how he rolls. That huge scope on top will never begin to seem even bigger, becaue it never goes far from the truck. It will, however, allow him to out-shoot his buddies at the range, which is also important. It will make him look like he can take that 500 yard shot which is, again, of vital importance. Never mind that if he actually carried this rig all day, on foot, then had to drag (or quarter and pack) out an animal with it over his shoulder, he would probably throw it off the next cliff. It doesn't matter because he will never do that. He'll just drive the truck, or the quad, right up to that animal that was dropped in sight of the vehicle (and likely from the vehicle). No fuss, no muss. And the handiness of his equipment will simply never matter. Sigh... rant over...

[aigel]

Jeff,

I realize where you are coming from. I have been on both ends of the spectrum. My antelope hunting is what you describe, my bird hunting not so much and I have been running around with a long bow and muzzle loader for several years as well.

The only issue I have with "this is not hunting" coming from a hunter is that it is a divide we really can't afford in the hunting community. Anti hunters are very aware of this infighting and will use this to divide an conquer in their quest to shut down all hunting for all hunters, including the purists that set out with primitive weapons. IMHO, if it is legal hunting, I support it. If a guy has little time and that's what he likes to do, more power to him. If they are allowed to use deer feeders in TX, I will be the last one to tell them I am "better". As you know, it affects our hunting very little, as the high tech guys stop where the 4 wheeler doesn't go.

Just my two cents.

G

[Kaliv]

So the type of reticle was brought up in that instead of a mil-dot, I should possibly look for a duplex. And this kind of get back to my statement that I'm curious on the max magnification I should have on my scope because utilizing the mil-dot is only valid on max magnification (I believe). With a mil-dot, you can estimate range (with or without the use of mil-dot) and then quickly use a hold over (using mil-dot). Whereas, with a duplex, you would have to add an extra step of adjusting the elevation for distance because you have no way to consistently estimate hold over. (I think elevation is the correct word, but I might mean something else).

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by aigel

Jeff,

I realize where you are coming from. I have been on both ends of the spectrum. My antelope hunting is what you describe, my bird hunting not so much and I have been running around with a long bow and muzzle loader for several years as well.

The only issue I have with "this is not hunting" coming from a hunter is that it is a divide we really can't afford in the hunting community. Anti hunters are very aware of this infighting and will use this to divide an conquer in their quest to shut down all hunting for all hunters, including the purists that set out with primitive weapons. IMHO, if it is legal hunting, I support it. If a guy has little time and that's what he likes to do, more power to him. If they are allowed to use deer feeders in TX, I will be the last one to tell them I am "better". As you know, it affects our hunting very little, as the high tech guys stop where the 4 wheeler doesn't go.

Just my two cents.

G

Agreed, for the most part. I will add, however, that our image is soured among non-hunters by this crowd. Maybe some "policing from within" is in order. I would never throw these guys under the bus outside of our own circles, but I will make my sentiments known to them.

Yes, kaliv, a duplex is one of the preferred reticles on hunting scopes. It actually does provide a rather crude way to allow for hold-over, in that one can use the lower reticle leg for that. We just use the point at which it changes thickness as a secondary aiming point, or split the difference, by some percentage, between it and where the reticles cross. It's a lot more effective than it might sound. No need to turn elevation dials to do this. With practice and familiarity, one can get pretty damn good at this.

[vash]

i have duplex reticles in all my scopes. in the excitement..i would get lost in the busy scopes of today.

i wish i didnt have to buy meat at the store. i just dont have that many meat gathering opps, and the skills to get it done with my bow (consistently).