Continued comments on scopes

[KKG]

I was one of the complainers and one of those who PM'd the Mods because it was beating a dead horse.

 

[Kruel J]

Yup, I started it, I closed it. Some were tired of the bull, some were tired of repeat questions, some saw some questions as stupid, some saw a poser pretending not to know anything and called it trolling, some were tired of hand-holding, some were tired of advice not being taken, some were tired of arguing, some wanted it closed since like, page 2, some wanted it kept open (endlessly), mods were getting complaints and PMs, I was getting complaints and PMs, I learned thru a back-channel that Joe Link was getting complaints about Mods, I got tired of the lot and requested it be shut down.

Maybe this will go better? IDK. IMO it has so far. Best wishes - bb

Absolutely correct.

 

[bbbass]

Absolutely correct.

As usual!

 

[turq]

All of my hunting rifles in my early years were Leupold 2x7
Don't remember a VX designation light but mostly it had that 2x for quick sighting of moving deer. Years later I had more rifles and still wanted light weight so went thru the times of compact 3x9 Leupold. That's all.

 

[titsonritz]

The larger the objective diameter, the more light gathering capabilities. The larger the scope tube-body diameter, the broader the holdover and windage adjustment range.

Yes, 30mm is larger than 1".... and there's also 34mm diameter tube-body rifle scopes as well, but the ranges that's designed for... just how far away is one willing to competently and ethically shoot a game animal from, let alone spend that kind of money on a scope for those purposes?

There's also 35mm, 36mm and 40mm scopes
Leupold Mark 5HD 5-25x56 (35mm) M1C3 FFP PR-1MOA Riflescope Showroom Demo 176448
Zeiss Victory V8 1-8x30 60 Riflescope 5221099960
12-52x56 40mm SFP TERMINATOR Tactical MOA/MOA, Xtreme X1 illum.

 

[American123]

1) Telescopic sights do NOT make a rifle more accurate.

2) Iron sights (especially a peep rear well removed from a front) frequently find the very last increment of accuracy (that the rifle already holds) from a rifle when the optics have failed in that regard.

3) Added features to a scope INCREASE its chance for failure. (Actually this axiom applies to all instruments ---optical or not----but persons sucked into the vortex of the market of riflescopes will argue against it till the sun goes down).

4) A variable scope is a good idea. A variable scope is also something that you will find is a thing you will almost never use, and the more experience in the field that you have, you will find yourself (by reason of experiences) leaving your variable power (I hope it is understood: Big Game) at a power setting very near the bottom level of its attractive offerings. Trust me: you want that baby on 2x, 3x or MAX RADICAL!! 5x, (This gives the shooter perfect chest cavity definition to 300 yards).

You should never fool yourself to going to the "ultra-highs" (of magnification...9x-14x) unless you are solid rest and with generous time.

Speaking from a general use perspective, not strictly a hunting perspective. A 1x8 variable optic provides lots of versatility and the crux of the issue is that he user doesn't have to go up to 8, but there is an option for more if needed. Similar in my opinion to owning cars that can go faster than the speed limit, it's not that you really need them too, it's that having the option to utilize when you find a desire to use it is important.

The comment about scopes and accuracy is factually correct, the rifle technically doesn't even need sights, the rifle is as accurate as it will ever be without the shooter even, however, since the rifle requires a rifleman to utilize it, yes the rifle will only ever be as accurate as it started and the shots will only be as on target as the combination of shooters and rifles ability to place them there, however, the factor not acknowledged in this although factually accurate thinking but not entirely relevant for real world generalizations is that it is also the riflemans ability to see the target and hold their aiming point steadily that dictates precise fire on target. Although a scope is not necessary for that, I would say that a adequately powered scope does lend itself to more accurately placed shots at extended distances. The human eye does have a limit at which it can effectively see targets at distance.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Speaking from a general use perspective, not strictly a hunting perspective. A 1x8 variable optic provides lots of versatility and the crux of the issue is that he user doesn't have to go up to 8, but there is an option for more if needed. Similar in my opinion to owning cars that can go faster than the speed limit, it's not that you really need them too, it's that having the option to utilize when you find a desire to use it is important.

The comment about scopes and accuracy is factually correct, the rifle technically doesn't even need sights, the rifle is as accurate as it will ever be without the shooter even, however, since the rifle requires a rifleman to utilize it, yes the rifle will only ever be as accurate as it started and the shots will only be as on target as the combination of shooters and rifles ability to place them there, however, the factor not acknowledged in this although factually accurate thinking but not entirely relevant for real world generalizations is that it is also the riflemans ability to see the target and hold their aiming point steadily that dictates precise fire on target. Although a scope is not necessary for that, I would say that a adequately powered scope does lend itself to more accurately placed shots at extended distances. The human eye does have a limit at which it can effectively see targets at distance.

HhahAhahaha
Whoa!

 

[FishnhuntOR]

 

[Kruel J]

I agree.

 

[G8rHunter]

I was one of the complainers and one of those who PM'd the Mods because it was beating a dead horse.

So much for being told that the last thread had pretty much covered the topic. At least, I was right, others did want to talk about it more. As well, there's a lot more to discuss about scopes!

 

[G8rHunter]

Incidentally, I have found some excellent scopes around $200. Nikon Buckman is even cheaper and was coming on the Browning AB3 Hunter Combo Rifle.

 

[bbbass]

I'm looking forward to the "Ignore this thread" feature in the coming upgrade. Meanwhile, I'm outta here!!! Have fun children!!!!

 

[FishnhuntOR]

So much for being told that the last thread had pretty much covered the topic. At least, I was right, others did want to talk about it more. As well, there's a lot more to discuss about scopes!

So much for "listening"
Looking at the buckmaster? Hmm, Nikon has the Pro staff as their entry.
Buck master used to be next step up before monarch. Now it's their cheapest brand. While it is light years ahead of entry Tasco or Bushnell. All the solid advice you got, you're ignoring.
Not surprised. I called it already

 

[Kruel J]

Yeah I don't think the advice given has ever really been considered.

 

[FishnhuntOR]

These help me threads are all the same. I've seen more often than not, the OP end up with the cheapest rifle combos thinking they are getting a steal.
Smfh

 

[TTSX]

I remember when I bought a cheap rifle/scope combo. The first thing to go was the scope. Replaced with Leupold vx2 3-9x40. Then the stock got switched out because that El cheapo plastic thing was garbage.... Now I have $1000 into a gun that initially cost 300. Moral of the story, buy a good rifle, buy a good scope for it, go shooting. SPEND NOW OR SPEND LATER BUT YOU WILL SPEND EVENTUALLY

 

[j8tnub]

The larger the objective diameter, the more light gathering capabilities. The larger the scope tube-body diameter, the broader the holdover and windage adjustment range.

Yes, 30mm is larger than 1".... and there's also 34mm diameter tube-body rifle scopes as well, but the ranges that's designed for... just how far away is one willing to competently and ethically shoot a game animal from, let alone spend that kind of money on a scope for those purposes?

Light gathering capabilities are determined by your aperature stop. Not the objective size.

Larger main tubes also do not necessarily mean more adjustment.

 

[Core]

I know the other thread was shut down.
But had some info for newer hunters.

Where I put in tags for, I don't have the confidence to use a regular old scope and gun outfit.
If I draw the tags I want, I need a good setup, or it's a wasted tag. A very expensive tag in my book.

40mm vs 50mm isn't a big deal. The tube size is more important. I'm tired tonight, but I believe the 30mm tube is bigger than 1 inch. Get the 30mm tube.
Brings much more light in.
I'm a die hard Leupold fan!

Also. Buy VERY GOOD rings. Strong ones. Leupold make nice rings. So does Warne. Cheap rings and bases are common mistakes.

Don't let just anyone bore sight and set the scope. Just anyone at cabelas won't do.

Get some decent covers. Flip up ones are best. Keep the scope covered always.

Usually big animals get shot early or late in the day. Especially big bucks.

I'm a great shot with open sights. One day I will shoot a big animal with one. I like the Browning BLR .348

Most modern scopes made by decent manufacturers will do for your 300 meter kill shots. 1inch is 25.4mm. The only exception is low light mountain hunting, I'm told. Long range shooting also benefits from bigger tubes for light and adjustment range. I believe 36mm tube and 60mm objective allows the maximum amount of light to the Human eye is capable of seeing. Glass clarity and quality has an impact and coatings also. Most modern glass coating has very high light transmission on the 98%+ percentages. The glass, however, varies significantly from gray haze to crystal clear.