Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Reticles vs. Turrets in Hunting Scopes |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | |
John Barsness
Optics Optimist Joined: January/27/2009 Status: Offline Points: 785 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
ILya, I have made the same kinds of experiments myself, and came to the same conclusions. My experience (both as a hunter and guide) is that the more complications we introduce into hunting scopes the more likely something will go wrong, including the animal disappearing before we finally get set to shoot.
Of course some modern hunters prefer infinitely adjustable scopes, and carry portable weather stations and computers to help them adjust those scopes. These hunters tend to view hunting as an engineering problem.
Hunting is a lot of things to a lot of people. Personally I gain more satisfaction from using a less complicated "weapon" and figuring out how to get in range, whether a longbow, an iorn-sighted rifle or a scoped rifle. Hunting to me is understanding the natural world, and interacting with it, not overcoming it with an engineering solution. As a noted wildlife bioligist once said, "I like as little between myself and the deer as possible." This means not just distance but technology.
Of course there is the argument that human hunting is technology, at least once we get beyond rock-throwing. And everybody is free to use what they like, within the legal rules. I also tend to use a lot more rifle technology when hunting varmints than when hunting big game--partly because the major point of varmint hunting is to reduce the population of prairie dogs or coyotes or whatever. Or at least that is still the major point in the part of the world where I live--and if I help my rancher friends in that endeavor they are likely to allow me to hunt edible game too!
I personally get more satisfaction out of stalking closer than shooting farther--though I have shot farther on a number of occasions. But I see little sense in shooting a deer at 600 yards when a stalk could have halved the distance.
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I do not really have much of an opinion on what is more enjoyable and interesting: stalking or trying to land a long range shot. I hope to get out into the field more in the coming years (perhaps with some friends from this very forum), so I may form an opinion on the subject. I am an engineer, so I am attracted to long range shooting: it is a complex problem that is interesting to solve. I am also a realist: if I am interested in shooting long-range, I see no compelling reason to drag a deer into my shooting practice. I am not a good enough shot to dispatch a critter at long range humanely from field positions. We all have some delusions of self-grandeur and mine have nothing to do with shooting. Frankly, I have seen very few people who have any business taking long shots on game (myself included). Of the people I have talked to on the subject, aside from you, John, there are maybe five or six who are clearly capable of it. All of them, like you, get to spend quite a bit of time both in the field and practicing in the offseason. Paradoxically, the people I know who spend a lot of time hunting, overall, seem the least likely to even attempt a difficult long-range shot, reaffirming my own conclusions. ILya |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
once you pull the trigger the work begins, (happiness is a warm gut pile) the closer you are to the animal the less work it is.
|
|
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
As I have said before, I have successfully resisted the temptation to take game at long range by doing what my grandfather taught me... get as close as possible. He once told me that if I could reach out and touch the prey before killing it, then I would be a hunter. Once, while hunting in Alabama, while I did NOT take a deer that day, I did touch a deer on the trail without it knowing I was there until I touched it. Best hunting day of my entire life. I hope someday to do it again... and still take a deer. This occurred before shooting light, so it would have been illegal to take even if I could have... toss - up on whether I could have or not.
|
|
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
|
John Barsness
Optics Optimist Joined: January/27/2009 Status: Offline Points: 785 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
As my old friend Finn Aagaard once commented to a hunter who was bragging about a very long shot he'd made, "You mean you couldn't get any close than THAT?" The longest shots I have ever attempted on deer and elk were under 400 yards--close to 400, but under. I have just never seen any reason to shoot further. I have shot a few big game animals at over 400, all animals that live in very open country such as pronghorns and caribou--and in Africa, springbok. But those are less than 1% of the animals I've taken. The problems of field shooting beyond 400 yards are quite unpredictable. Wind is the big one, particularly in the Rockies and on the high plains, where I do most of my hunting, but an animal can also move just enough during the bullet's flight to cause a wound rather than a certain hit. Of course, the same problems are inherent in bowhunting, due to the increased susceptibility of the arrow to wind--and the long time of flight, even at 20-30 yards. In bowhunting often just taking the shot is impossible at very close range, because of the movement and slight noise involved in drawing the bow. I have, however, touched more than one deer while bowhunting. In fact I had one feeding on a bush next to me for over a minute, within arm's length, before it wandered away, never knowing I was there. That would have been impossible without a pretty stiff wind blowing from the deer to me! One thing I like to do every year is hunt at least one big game animal with iron sights. Many hunters tend to discount irons as hunting tools, but they are quite effective with some practice, and at much longer ranges than many hunters would believe. But since I do hunt with them regularly I often have to wonder at hunters who believe that without a big, top-grade variable it's impossible to hunt, say, whitetails. In fact, I have taken at least 10 species of big game without using a scope at all, either with a bow or iron sights, as well as several kinds of small game. I like the challenge of the stalk, and getting to know the habits of the animals, particularly in daytime when a scope is particularly unnecessary. On the other hand, I do like the engineering problem of shooting prairie dogs beyond 500 yards. Of course the possibility of wounding is just about non-existent there, because a typical fragmenting varmint bullet will kill a prairie dog with a hit anywhere at very long range.
I guess I just like to hunt and shoot!
|
|
300S&W
Optics God Joined: January/27/2008 Location: Burlington,WV Status: Offline Points: 10592 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Uh,yea we've noticed.
|
|
Ed Connelly
Optics Retard God of no Chihuahua Joined: December/16/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 24225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Yes.....the closer you are to the truck is very good......
|
|
John Barsness
Optics Optimist Joined: January/27/2009 Status: Offline Points: 785 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
....especially if the truck is downhill.
|
|
Oldtrader3
Optics Journeyman Joined: May/16/2009 Location: WA (state) Status: Offline Points: 445 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
John, I enjoyed your article and I think that your point about mountain air currents is certainly valid. Shooting across canyons, especially in the high desert, can hold surprises at longer ranges (i.e. your reference to a bullet rising a foot at 400 yards). I have experienced similar phenomena, plus the weather may be totally different way over there!
Additionally, the wind usually starts rising after sunrise when the sun is out and with updrafts, mirage and stiff breezes which may be blowing in the opposite direction out where the game is, long range shots can be dicey. I just don't take too many shots at 400 yards or more now, as I get older.
I tend to sight in scopes at 200 yards, verify at 300 yards periodically and leave them. This is mostly because I have as you mentioned, forgotten to reset back to original zero. Nowadays, I have trouble enough remebering to reset the parallax adjustment knob, let alone remember where I left windage and elevation settings. Plius, I am not particularly interested in carrying a sniper reference notepad while hunting. I would rather enjoy the vistas, looking for and finding game through my binoculars.
|
|
CDR3
|
|
John Barsness
Optics Optimist Joined: January/27/2009 Status: Offline Points: 785 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Glad you enjoyed it. Wind is certainly an interesting thing. I was just sitting in my back yard the other day, where a few years ago we planted three quaking aspens to shade the garage/shop. All three are 25-30 feet tall now, and and have just fully leafed out this spring. The two trees on the ends are about 15 feet from each other. I was watching the breeze move their leaves (one of the nice things about quakies) and noticed that sometimes the leaves would be moving on the MIDDLE tree and not the two on the ends. Also, sometimes the wind would be moving the lower leaves, but not the top leaves, on all three trees, and vice versa. And this was down in the bottom of a Montana valley, not up in the mountains!
|
|
Oldtrader3
Optics Journeyman Joined: May/16/2009 Location: WA (state) Status: Offline Points: 445 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Wind can be boundary layer effect (watch birds cruise on it) a few feet off water or flat ground. Wind currents can also be laminar just like ocean currents mainly because of temperature variations between breezes and surrounding air. I always think of air as having almost liquid properties except for low and high pressure zones which move air by differential pressure effects.
|
|
CDR3
|
|
mlv2k5
Optics Journeyman Joined: September/18/2008 Status: Offline Points: 313 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
great article, very informative...
|
|
-Michael
|
|
sscoyote
Optics Journeyman Joined: October/05/2004 Status: Offline Points: 328 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That article was just dead on the nose. As a Med. Tech. i am also interested in the analytical aspects of shooting. I have found that researching and studying the downrange zeroing and rangefinding aspects of reticles and turret systems has helped me a lot for practical application in the field--mostly for varmints. Besides that, it's interesting, IMO--maybe akin to the door that's opened up when learning to reload, compared to shooting factory ammo. It's just another pasttime that i like to have fun with. Recently i put a 6-18x Nikon Buckmasters mil-dot scope on a 17 Fireball XP-100 handgun, and have been using it in the field for prairie dogs. Matching the wind trajectory to the mil-dot reticle calculated at the optics highest power (other than mil-cald. power), along with 1/8th IPHY turret clicks has helped temendously for 1st shot connections at long-range using the generic 25 gr. Hornady HP.
IMO, i think a complete understanding of the mil-ranging formula as it pertains to not only rangefinding, but also optics applications for downrange zeroing, and the proportional relationship of second focal plane reticles helps a lot for practical applications in the field.
|
|
Steve
|
|
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |