Are big scopes the new big truck?

[tac]

Why has the strike-through re-appeared in my text? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

tac

 

[Certaindeaf]

The big thing about using large high magnification scopes is that they can affect the long term characteristics of your eye..















don't know but hey

 

[edslhead]

When you guys are laughing and pointing at me on the range, I just want you all to know it's very hurtful

 

[H2O MAN]

May as well go big.

 

[bikemutt]

All my serious target rifles have 10-50x60 on top because my vision sucks. I figure when someone wants to start paying for my glass I'll back it down and try harder, lol.

 

[Coloradocat]

I have both big and small.where I elk hunt I tend to hunt the timber in the morning so I usually use a 2-7x32 on my lever gun in 444 or 450 Marlin .In the afternoon/evening I watch meadows where shots could be long.There I do prefer a 50mm , my current scope on my 300 WM is a bushnell elite 3200 5-15x50.For me I am by far more confident in myself with higher magnification.Im definetly not a 1000 yard guy ,but my absolute max would 1/2 that. I know the gun /scope combo in the right hands could stretch that out ,but that's not my hands.And to read this thread and hear guys shooting 1000 with a 3-9 ,well you guys make feel like a turd in a punch bowl!!!
With my 300 ,284 ,AR's which I consider my distance guns ,I sight in at 100 yards, which with all those rifles I can shoot quarters off the target ,not every shot ,but I'm 2 out of 3 or at least hit more than I miss...in you guys opinion is that decent, average. Horrible???.

 

[Core]

I was at the range earlier today sighing in a sensible rifle(Howa 1500 308 win) with a sensible optic(3.5-10X40). Several benches down there was a very loud group of bro type guys also doing some shooting in this wonderful August weather. Out of the corner of my eye I noticed that most of the rifles they were shooting had massive Hubble telescope optics on them, not the sort of scope one would want to lug on their back for any length of time. I snickered a little to myself and went about my business, a few moments later one of the frat gents asked me if they could use my spotting scope. I obliged and let him set up on the bench next to me with my Spotter, I took a look through the scope when he was finished up and was shocked. Those guys weren't hitting their targets with any sort of precision, it was tough to call any of their shooting a group but I would guess the best they were pulling off was a 6 inch 3 shot group on a 100 yard target.

This got me wondering if they were counting on their ridiculous scopes to offset poor marksmanship in the same way one can hope a lifted truck will make up for the fact they do not know how to drive off of the paved road?

Getting the first round killshot does not require a huge scope with 1/8th moa adjustments, unless you're shooting a mile. So competition and long range shooting requires a much larger scope thana .308 shooting at 1000 meters. The Valkyrie for example is pressuring folks to get a larger scopes. I aas using a massove scope to shoot ARA with a .22. Shooting sub inch groups at 50 yards. Also President Cup sub inch at 100 yards with a 40g projectile is a real PITA and a massive scope is almost a requirement to shoot sub moa at 100 yards with crosswinds. Just my 2c

 

[RMc]

Sometimes all that glass just gets in the way - then all you need is a...

 

[SparksFly]

"Bro, like you got that MOA right?"

"Dude you know it, I'm like totally MOA?"

"Awesome bro, how many MOA is that scope?"

"Yo, it's like 1/4" miles of accuracy MOA bro! That's like 600 yards man."

"No way brah, that's like, like a freaking mile brah!"

Got to love tactical toms. They are the most tactical of them all.

Are you sure that it isn't tactically ignorant?

 

[SparksFly]

6" group at 100? I've heard SO MANY guys say "that will kill a deer".

It will, but they never said how many shots it will take...

 

[titsonritz]

Crap, now I have to be self concious when I drive my lifted big block 4x4 pickup to shoot my .50 bmg with a big bubblegum scope on it. Will the shame never end?

Yep, pretty much sums up what I think of this thread and all of the judgmental comments, but once again, whatever, carry on.

 

[Member 34319]

Are you sure that it isn't tactically ignorant?

Brah, you like, like, don't even know nuttin about tactical tactics, brah!

 

[SparksFly]

Brah, you like, like, don't even know nuttin about tactical tactics, brah!

Brah... Come on. brah. I watched like half a video about guns on YouTube brah! I know ALL about the tactical tactics brah!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Before I found the right carry handle iron sight, my Sarco AR15 had this on it as a test... 4x32 Tasco Pronghorn scope with 1" tube. Was mounted on a Rem Nylon 66 . Now it's no longer mounted to anything.... not sure if its still good to use; but seems decent enough.

 

[CLT65]

Yep, pretty much sums up what I think of this thread and all of the judgmental comments, but once again, whatever, carry on.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't intending to be judgemental towards anyone. People can drive whatever kind of vehicle and shoot any kind of gun with any kind of scope they want. I just personally find it a little funny when people have some big, fancy, expensive toys that they don't know how to use, that are strictly "look at me" status symbols.

If you have a giant truck and a .50 BMG rifle with a "Hubble" scope on it, and you know how to use them; no judgement from me. Heck, I want to stop by and hang out!

 

[rcnpthfndr]

this is an interesting read and I have some comments on some things said.

as for me. My USO's are all 34mm body tube and 56mm Obj. maybe its how my eyes interpret the light being transmitted through the body tube but they are brighter (in low light) than any of my 30mm body tube and 40/44mm obj Mk4 Leupy's.

as for new shooters they are growing up in a time of information overload (even scrutiny over being a gun owner). some of the information is dated and more myth, legend or lore than actual fact. Many don't know basic fundamentals of marksmanship or how to apply them because they are more worried about what their "Buds" will say and to hell with understanding how your equipment works I.E matching bullets to twist rate. Bigger is better is what society says today so it shouldn't be any wonder we see this reflected on the range in calibers, rifle, Optics, etc.
many newcomers don't realize the time, effort and patience it takes to be a proficient shooter.

the comment was made about a sensible rifle and sensible scope. Doesn't that really only matter to the end user of whatever platform he's shooting? what makes ones rifle/optics combo more sensible than another's? individual experience and limitations shape those decisions in the end I would think.

as usual this is just my two cents.

 

[thorborg]

Hunting or target drives my opine.
I lived with my Leupold 2.5 X 8 for 40 years with it rarely off 2.5. while hunting. Even though I hunted eastern Oregon, the terrain molded itself between thick woods and open grass land. Try seeing a nice bull @ 30 yards or less in thick cover with your lowest setting being 6 or even 4.5 and you may be reevaluating your Big Scope decision next year. It is more than just finding the hit zone due to the magnification but dense cover usually means low light with the higher the magnification the less light gathering ability. Even the light gathering difference between Leupold gold rings 2.5 setting of their 2.5x8 verses the 3 setting on their 3-9 is easily discernible, that's just 1/2 a power setting difference!
Price, optics technology of the past, and bad eyes notwithstanding there are good hunting reasons the 3-9 has prevailed as the quintessential scoped hunting configuration for general use. Even then, many sacrificed speed, fit and comfort for high see through mounted scopes for up close iron sight use albeit I doubt few actually ever needed it. (others did it due to mistrust of optic quality / ruggedness)
For target, or vermin inhabiting the plains though, big is a good way to go way to go with a stable rest.

All that said, I recently bought (and liking it) Leupold's 4.5 X12 with the understanding I no longer can roam the forest finding unexpected situations as in my youth leaving me to longer open shots from a fixed position should I (unlikely) be so lucky. Nonetheless, I'll be sitting out there doing what I love, and maybe listening to the mountain squirrel chastise me for my intrusion into his territory, while others are home living vicariously and watching the ball games.

 

[thorborg]

Scopes do not "gather" light,

I disagree with your assertion; whether it be mushrooms or light, when you collect something from a large area and place them in a small basket (or form a large lens to a small one) you are "gathering"
Be that as it may, I have seen the light, and know the difference optic quality, coatings, and lens reduction can make can make in the ability to see in difficult light situations. Any arguments over semantics will not change visual reality.

 

[tac]

I have only got one modern-style rifle, and by that, I mean a rifle in a modern calibre by a modern manufacturer. It's a Krico 650SS in .308Win, as many of you here have seen before. It has a Nightforce NSX 8-32x56 iluminated scope on it, usually set to x22, when the visible mil dot actually subtends just that - one mil. I use it in my chosen shooting sport of quasi-tactical counter-sniping in a simulated mixed environment - that's simply shooting down a 200mm diameter disc at anything between 90 and 1000m without the benefit of knowing the distance before it pops up.

We take turns in our two-man teams to shoot and spot, and team-mate spotter might not speak any English, since it's a multi-national competition where teams are made up of multi-nationals. If I get teamed up with a French or German or Russian speaker, I'm good, but if he's a Hungarian/Czech/Slovak, then I'm screwed. I therefore rely on my scope to get me on the target and it has to be good. Good means, usually, costy, and the more it costs, the better the glass, and the more likely I am to connect as the sun comes up, or goes down, as often happens. I can't afford $3500 for a scope, but I can reach $2500. That's right where Nightforce products begin to depart from the 'pretty good' to the 'excellent', and that's why MY one and only modern big scope is a Nightforce product. If I could afford a Schmidt & Bender PMII, then THAT is what I'd have, but I also have eighteen other guns that need some love, too. I'm certain that there are other brands that are equally as good, dollar for dollar, but I don't know them the way I do the Nightforce products that I've known and trusted for nigh-on twenty years

tac

 

[SageRatSafaris]

The physical objective size of a scope has nothing to do with magnification. Only light gathering abilities.

Objective diameter / magnification = exit pupil. A larger exit pupil is easier to "find" when you get behind the scope, even if the exit pupil is larger than your actual pupil. In terms of "brightness", larger exit pupils are brighter, at least until the exit pupil exceeds your actual pupil diameter. For reference, in daylight, your actual pupil is 2-4mm, and 56mm/24X = 2.33mm exit pupil, so I'd argue 56mm isn't "too big" by any stretch. It might be too heavy, too bulky, too expensive, or too high over the bore, but life is about trade-offs.