Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
In Search Of My Ultimate Big Game Hunting Scope |
Post Reply | Page <1 3456> |
Author | |||
308WIN
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/28/2009 Status: Offline Points: 120 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I found "MY" ideal ultimate scope.
diavari 2.5-10x42 with #4 |
|||
John Barsness
Optics Optimist Joined: January/27/2009 Status: Offline Points: 785 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Jon A, Let me respond to your post point by point.
First, my job, fortuately or unfortunately, involves mostly "average" shooters, however we want to define that. Obviously real experts (like you) aren't going to be asking questions, because they already know just about everything.
I am well aware of the "spray and pray" technique many use for shooting varmints. This is why I do practice with more scientific techniques (and long-range scopes) when shgooting at longer ranges. For your information, all of my longest-range prairie dog shots would have killed a deer or elk, even when they missed. Yeah, some were made on the 2nd or 3rd or even 5th shot, but most of the time ANY of the preceding shots would have landed solidly in the lungs of a big game animal.
I do have quite a range of experience with various multi-point reticles, inclusing the Horus, Darrel Holland's, Nightforce's, as well as all the common types. Some are better than ohers, obviously, especially at longer ranges. It's also just as obvious that any of them take some practice, as does using turrets. I have done a lot of both. In fact I started using turrets in the 1970's.
If anybody uses a GOOD multi-point reticle enough out to 600 yards, they can land a bullet in the vitals of a big game animal. One of the things I have been tryng to avoid so far in this discussion is personal judgements, but since you brought it up, I don't like to shoot at big game animals at ranges beyond 500 yards, reserving those distances for varmints and targets. This is because I believe in hunting, not sniping. I get far more of a thrill stalking within what these days might be called "close" range than shooting way out there.
Also, I have read too much on the Internet about super long-range shooting of big game to assume that even experts like you always hit them in the right place with the first shot. I have also guided supposed long-range experts who, when their time came in the field, didn't quite follow through. Of course that wouldn't be you, but there it is--and it's part of my experience.
There is an awful lot of advice these these days (in magazines, on TV, on the Internet, etc.) about how easy it is to make long-range shots with this or that scope and this or that reticle, turret system, etc. This allows the average shooter to believe it's possible to just twirl a dial or use a certain reticle and kill big game out to XYZ range. The fact is that MOST shooters wwon't practice, and even those who practice won't practice enough. I know this because I have dealt with such shooters personally, while giving instruction at various levels.
The other sad fact is that as fewer people get out to hunt enough to learn to hunt, they search for technological fixes. Instead of getting closer, they believe they can buy the right scope and rifle and shoot big game at 600 yards or more.
I have personally tried about half the models of scopes you mention as being super-reliable. They are fine instruments, but another sad fact is that most hunters will not (or cannot) buy them. Again, I am writing for the more-or-less average person. And personally, I cannot imagine why somebody would "hunt" with the bigger ones, which sem to be the choice of many "experts." I have also not been impressed with certain individual scopes made by some of those companies, and more than a few of the custom riflemakers and professional guides I know have not experienced the absoluute perfection often touted for such scopes--or the absolute competence of those who bring them on hunts.
One other thing I have noticed over the past few years is that the shooters who are really into big scopes, long range, etc. etc. are convinced that anybody who isn't is somehow not with the modern program, or otherwise incompetent. The implication is that "hunting" with any other equipment is simply dumb. Personally (again) I have far more respect for somebody who can sneak up on a deer or elk and kill it at short range with an antique scope or even iron sights. And yes, I do hunt and kill big game animals with iron sights every year.
So no, I am not writing for you, or any other expert who already knows about the differences between various $1500+ scopes, or who has never missed hitting exactly where they are aiming at any range out to 1000 yards. You guys already know all about it, and don't think many other people do it right.
|
|||
rifle looney
Optics Master Joined: November/21/2008 Status: Offline Points: 2553 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Do you do this to attract attention? you are one person and to each his own! not everyone uses or needs what you have or use, not every one has the income you have. They are on here asking for tips and advice not a show down or an argument, they don't want to know what you have shot at extreme distances or how good you are ....make it simple make it enjoyable, most of all make it fun!
|
|||
jonoMT
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: November/13/2008 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 4853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I dunno John, why not be able to do both - stalking or long range shots, that is? The first antelope I took I walked around a mile and a half so I could get up on him at 25 yards. The one I took this year was at 310 yards with 10-15 mph crosswinds. I'm equally proud of both. I've also stalked mule deer in to 60 yards, crawling through cheat grass and cactus with a 10.5 lb M1 Garand. My point is, there are all kinds of ways to enjoy the experience and I find it just as appealing to become adept at taking a long range shot as I do seeing how close I can get.
Regarding distance shooting, I won't exceed my limits. If I feel I can't make a clean kill I won't do it. But it stands to reason that if a person does put in the time and effort with decent (not over-the-top) equipment that if he gets good at 600 yards in nasty conditions then the 300 yard shots become much easier. And really, most of the time I expect to be able to close within that distance. I would agree, however, that for many hunters it would be best if they got a decent 3x9 or fixed 4X scope and learned and practiced enough to become proficient out to 300 yards. Most of the guys I know zero their rifles at 100 yards (or even a couple inches low in one case), rarely practice and get cheapo scopes. I've cringed as I watched hunters break an antelope's hind leg or gut shoot a deer. One of my buddies asked me if he should ever clean his rifle. |
|||
Jon A
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/14/2008 Location: Everett, WA Status: Offline Points: 670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I do it for love of the sport, in an attempt to help people. Poor advice is not helpful to anyone. John was advising he use a simple holdover reticle at ranges of 600 yds, even if it wasn't exactly on rather than "complicate" the scope with a turret. In my opinion, this was very poor advice for the specific application and I explained exactly why.
Please refer back to my first reply in this thread and the scopes I suggested (specifically the first couple). Thank you.
Exactly. I simply don't understand the need some have to "choose sides" and think one precludes the other. As if putting a few extra tools in your toolbox which can be pulled out and used if/when required makes somebody a bad person or makes him forget how to use all the other tools. I see marksmanship and the competence with your tool of choice (rifle, pistol, bow, whatever) to use them beyond the 1/2 of their capability as simply one of the many skills envolved with hunting--not something to be ashamed of. Not something inherently "bad." In the days before filling my tag last year, I was within 25 yds of probably 10-12 different decent bucks, 3-points or better (8-point to you Easterners, 4-point to you fake Montanans). None of that from stands, but all sneaking through the woods and hills on my own two feet. One in particular, actually made me just a little afraid for a good 30 seconds or so, as when he discovered me by almost stepping on me as he was following the trail of a hot doe I happened to have sat down on when I saw him sparing with another buck, he didn't run away but instead got angry with me! I don't think he knew or cared exactly what I was. For just a moment, I was afraid he was going to use those horns on me like I had just seen him use them on the other buck. Luckily for him, he didn't follow through with his threat and his horns were a bit too small for me. It was great hunting, many wonderful experiences and I enjoyed every minute of it even if none of them had wallhanger horns. That's what it's all about. Of course that doesn't fit the strawman of me John has decided to construct and knock down. That's OK, I don't hunt to impress anybody else. I do it because I enjoy it--in whatever flavor it may come. So when the very next day, a very different sort of opportunity presented itself, one that required very different skills, I was happy to have those tools in my toolbox and was able to succeed in a situation where frankly the vast majority of hunters would not have. I refuse to accept that I need to feel guilty for being able to succeed in the situation that was presented. I do not accept that this success is somehow "less worthy" than if I had pulled the trigger on any one of those close bucks just because the number on the rangefinder may have not been politically correct with some. John, I'm sorry you decided to stoop to the ad hominem, labeling and applying stereotypes to me with inuendo while putting words in my mouth instead of continuing the technical discussion of the merits of various optics to most easily accomplish the task for which the OP asked--a discussion from which we all may have learned something. I am glad to hear how much your long range shooting has improved though. Just a couple short years ago you were pretty proud of the 9" groups you shot at the Charlie Sisk Rifle Shoot in Texas from only 400 yds with a .308 and 300 Win. From how you described it, 400 yds sure seemed like a big deal for somebody who has been using turrets since the 70's. So it's good to hear that these days every single shot you fire, including your first, with varmint rifles presumably, are more accurate even at 900 yds now than they were at 400 yds back then. You must have practiced much in the meantime and become very, very good. I commend you for that sir. |
|||
John Barsness
Optics Optimist Joined: January/27/2009 Status: Offline Points: 785 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Jon, Obviously this isn't going anywhere, and hasn't since the first time you posted something about me. I can't recall acting proud of the 9-inch groups shot at the Sisk shoot. They were shot with randomly purchased (not by me) factory ammo in ightweight hunting rifles, off an impromptu rest that wasn't the steadiest in the world in a stiff wind, without making any attempt to compensate for the wind. The groups were shot not to see how small a group could be made but to illustrate some points for the people attending the shoot. I have shot many smaller groups at 400 yards before and after, but that was irrelevant to the Sisk shoot, and the points we were trying to make to the attendees. By the way, since you have such extensive knowledge of scopes, and questioned my testing for resolution and brightness at 25 yards, can you guess why all the optical engineers I know do it pretty much the same way, sometimes even at closer ranges?
|
|||
Idaho Scot
Optics Apprentice Joined: August/16/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 125 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Friends, As the original poster of this thread I have found all posts to be informative and beneficial in some way even if it didn’t specifically mention exactly all, or any, of the criteria I mentioned that I wanted in my new scope. Any person seeking advice on such topics will be best served when they hear all sides, experiences, and suggestions, which is why, in my original post, I left the door open for any other suggestions or comments besides what I thought I wanted. This option then leaves the OP with the job of dissecting all the info gathered, throwing out info that seems questionable or in disagreement with their own experience, and coming to the best decision possible. Only having one perspective is not only counterproductive but very likely a waste of time and money as it may lead me in the wrong direction. My point you may ask- wide, varying experiences are often a very good thing in this kind of thread, IMO. I am new to this forum and very likely am unfamiliar with protocol, acceptable behavior, etc. but it seems prudent at this time to point out that we are all on the same side here. Each of us is passionate about the shooting sports and in my opinion that makes us a special bunch of folks with enough similarities to justify some tolerance, refusing to accept each disagreement based on personal experience as a lack of true experience or personal attack. It is fairly obvious that the dissention between the 2 of you has a history, even if both of you weren’t aware of it. And while I understand that machismo is built into the very fiber of our male beings I also know that most of the time these types of “back and forth’s” lead no where beneficial and leaves all parties looking like jackasses in the end. And I am quite certain that if I had the privilege of sitting down with either one of you that my opinion of you would be much higher than that! I have no doubt that anyone is purposely trying to give bad advice here and if that is the case it seems a worthy step to then assume that experiences vary, sometimes greatly, but all forms of honorable and respectable debate regarding such topics will have the greatest chance of leading guys like me to the best piece of glass for my intended use. I appreciate both of your input regarding my quest! |
|||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Good post, Idaho Scot! I think you have approached your quest from the right perspective by asking good, thought provoking questions. We all have different ideas about which gear is best suited for our purposes, and this can sometimes lead to heated disagreements.
|
|||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Gentlemen, can't we all just get along?(and agree to disagree if we have to).
ILya |
|||
Ed Connelly
Optics Retard God of no Chihuahua Joined: December/16/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 24225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
" Why, soitenly!!! Nyuk...nyuk...nyuk.."
|
|||
Longhunter
Optics Journeyman Joined: February/02/2006 Status: Offline Points: 466 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Jon A:
I value having John Barsness on this site.
Personal attacks are out of line, and say more about you than you may want us to know. If you want to pick a fight, do it somewhere else with somebody else.
|
|||
cpwomack
Optics Journeyman Joined: January/29/2009 Location: Chattanooga Status: Offline Points: 550 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Longhunter
|
|||
BillyWayne
Optics Journeyman Joined: February/27/2009 Location: New Hampster Status: Offline Points: 408 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
John 11:35
The're taking the hobbits to Isengard!! |
|||
SamC
Optics Professional Joined: October/01/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 902 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
+1
|
|||
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill |
|||
Ed Connelly
Optics Retard God of no Chihuahua Joined: December/16/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 24225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Both Jon A and John Barsness bring a whole lot to our site here. I guess lots of folks think it's one of the niftiest forums around. We all like to read what Jon A contributes about hunting and long range shooting, and we all like the fact that John Barsness is here to talk with us about his experiences. It's fun, it's informative, and it's good for SWFA's website.
So let's not bicker or try to split hairs over differing long range philosophies. There are LOTS of threads that I do not visit right here on this forum because I have absolutely no experience in those types of activities. Not all of us have to agree on everything! [ I have NEVER been on Spotting scopes!!! -----only nerds go there!! ] heh heh
Anyway, let's keep our forum the best in America ( I almost said Texas.....! )
|
|||
swtucker
Optics Master Joined: September/03/2008 Location: Low Moor Status: Offline Points: 1430 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
+1
|
|||
jonoMT
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: November/13/2008 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 4853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I can see it now: opticstrashtalk.com
|
|||
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Very well said.
(Was that Ed??)
|
|||
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
|||
BillyWayne
Optics Journeyman Joined: February/27/2009 Location: New Hampster Status: Offline Points: 408 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Yeah. The current administration wants all of our guns. If no guns, no need for optics. No optics, no need for optics talk (pun partially intended). Unless we all get into bird watching. So we should be civil to each other in our equipment disagreements. We are on the same team.
|
|||
John 11:35
The're taking the hobbits to Isengard!! |
|||
jonoMT
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: November/13/2008 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 4853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
There's no disputing that there are members of Congress and people within the Administration that are anti-gun but do you realize how overblown these kinds of statements are? After a while, it gets to sound like crying wolf and that's the last thing we need. There are members of Congress who realize that there is such a thing as going too far (and that their political future is never as solid as people think it is). Case in point: In just a few days, a decision to mutilate all surplus military brass was rescinded so that it does not include .50 BMG or smaller. That is positive action on the part of many of us who wrote our representatives and is indicative that not all is lost. |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 3456> |
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 |