Olympus Magellan 10x42 EXWP I
Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Other Optics
Forum Name: Binoculars
Forum Description: Anything that requires two eyes to look through it
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4809
Printed Date: March/19/2024 at 08:29 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Olympus Magellan 10x42 EXWP I
Posted By: Dolphin
Subject: Olympus Magellan 10x42 EXWP I
Date Posted: November/01/2006 at 12:48
Just got in a pair of Olympus Magellan 10x42mm EXWP Is, roof prism, waterproof and fogproof at a great deal. They are incredilble. I have never compared them side by side with more expensive models, but have looked through most of those in sporting goods and hunting stores and these appear the equal if not better. Again, I cannot compare side by side and with my new purchase I am obviously biased, especially since as an amateur photography, I have used mostly Olympus 35mm cameras and Nikons. Any comments would be welcomed. Thanks.
------------- D. Overton
|
Replies:
Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: November/01/2006 at 13:37
From people who own them & have reviewed them here is a quick rundown:focusing is too fast, close focus problems, suffers from coma,(coma affects the edges of the field of view & produces V-shaped blurred images).
Others thought that this was a good "entry" level binocular with bright optics.
Some thought that the overall quality was poor due to problems they experienced after owning them for a period of time.
I also was into 35mm amateur photography & I owned a number of Olympus camera bodies. Olympus made "entry" level 35mm camera bodies, as well as the top-of-the-line equipment. There IS a difference between the two.
After you have had yours for a number of months & have put them through all weather conditions come back & give us a review of your personal experiences.
Olympus has great optics, only time will tell if the housing will hold up to your specific demands & needs.
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/01/2006 at 16:21
A preliminary look throught binos, reveal no distortion whatsoever at close up or far distances, the color is perfect, without any obious aberration and the unit appears very rugged. Also, made in Japan, which is reassuring to me. I plan on hunting with it this season, as I was not satisfied whatsoever with the Nikon Action Binos I used last year, albeit, much cheaper and side by side, there is no comparison. Also, waithing on a pair of the Olympus Pathfinder 12x52mm EXP Is (porro prisms). Another, great buy, great view, when tried in a store, but not waterproof. Will see.
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: November/01/2006 at 16:34
I agree with your observation about Nikon Action binoculars. I purchased one this year & sold it after three months because I was not satisfied with the optics under the conditions I was using them for.
|
Posted By: FrankD
Date Posted: November/02/2006 at 13:29
I, too, would be interested to hear more about the Olympus models. I have seen some local birders toting them around but never gave a thought to looking through them. Beyond that and seeing a few of them at one of the local camera stores I rarely see them or notice them mentioned. Are these phase coated?
------------- Frank
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/02/2006 at 14:25
According to the Olympus literature, they are phase coated. I am telling you they are great. I don't know about you guys. But, where I hunt in NC, there are those occaisional guys, rarely, with a Swarovski rifle scope, most with inexpensive model, alot with vxII leupold rarely a vxII and almost all with cheapo binos at easily less than 100 dollars. I have never seen anyone using the binos discussed here at these prices. At the price I paid for this pair, 183, I have no qualms and as I have said, they compare favorably to everything else I have looked at. What, I would like to call for with binos and riflescopes, is testing, as they do with cameras and lenses and blind testing and see what peope have to say when they do not know if they are holding an 800 pair of binos or rifle scope. I am just the opposite. If I am holding one that cost that much, I am trying to find every reason to justify the cost and find every fault that I can, since the technology exists, that a rifle scope or binos should not have to cost that much.
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: FrankD
Date Posted: November/03/2006 at 07:52
Thanks for the info. You have now convinced me to at least go and check these out. They have to be quite a bargain for that price considering they are phase coated. If you are suggesting them that highly I would have a hard time believing the optics are "bad". Have you compared them with any of the more popular phase coated roofs at the $300 price point?
------------- Frank
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/03/2006 at 08:30
I have looked through alot of the extremely expensive models, as previously noted, in sporting goods stores and hunting stores and while I have not compared them side by side, my assessment is that I could not discern any significant difference, that would make me want to spend 500 dollars or more for a slight incremental benefit that would never make a difference in my uses, primarily hunting. I know that I will have people say the light gathering capabilities are going to be superior and that I will be able to hunt later, but I always eschew those who say this, especially with rifle scopes as there are legal limits and I have seen to many deer taken in near darkness with cheap scopes and if there is no ambient light, I am sorry, it cannot be transmitted. Ok, they are going to tell you about the moon, etc, but my previous points are valid.
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: November/03/2006 at 17:43
Dolphin wrote:
I have looked through alot of the extremely expensive models, as previously noted, in sporting goods stores and hunting stores and while I have not compared them side by side, my assessment is that I could not discern any significant difference, that would make me want to spend 500 dollars or more for a slight incremental benefit that would never make a difference in my uses, primarily hunting. I know that I will have people say the light gathering capabilities are going to be superior and that I will be able to hunt later, but I always eschew those who say this, especially with rifle scopes as there are legal limits and I have seen to many deer taken in near darkness with cheap scopes and if there is no ambient light, I am sorry, it cannot be transmitted. Ok, they are going to tell you about the moon, etc, but my previous points are valid. |
I really think you should try to compare a few binoculars outside in the field, preferably around sunset. Looking at optics in store lighting is pretty useless, I am afraid.
ILya
|
Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/03/2006 at 18:12
I didn't know Eremicus had a brother.
|
Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: November/03/2006 at 19:28
Roy Finn wrote:
I didn't know Eremicus had a brother. |
That's not a nice thing to say, Roy.
ILya
|
Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/03/2006 at 19:56
Sorry, just had a familar ring when someone speaks of riflescope brightness and legal hunting hours. Usually ends with that type of anology regarding good eough.
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/03/2006 at 21:56
Again, I figured I would get these inane comments regarding scope brightness and calrity and how superior the nose bleed scopes are comparitively. I presently own and have shot probably 30 or more different bold action hunting rifles and know exterior ballastics inside out having extensive education in physics, statics, hydrodymaics and optics. The laws of diminshing returns apply to optics as well as any consumer based product. I have yet to see any blinded testing of rifle scopes and I will guarentee you that the high dollar manufactures will not want to fund those trials. When scopes like the Bushnell Elite 4200s, Sightron SIIs, Burris Fullfield IIs and Nikon Monarchs exist for reasonable prices and provide the equal to the nose bleed euros, why buy that overpriced trash, that costs as much as it does because of European labor cost. Lets not only see blind testing, but optics testing as in camera lenses. As I said, where I hunt, it is rare to find people shooting with the nose bleed scopes, but if you read these forum notes, every one has one or wants one. I have shot with Simmons Aetecs, the old model, never had a problem, even in low light. Swifts, great scopes for the money. Fujinon, great Japanese scope. Some older Tascos, the Japanese made models. Nikko Stirling, very reasonable, although the optics are a tad behind the others. Mueller, great optics with some querks to the elevation dial, but still reapeatable and accurate. I avoid super large objectives for the obvious reasons of limitation of elevation, inability to low profile the scope, depth of field is superior and most importantly (getting back to the so called brighter scopes) the human eye can only take advantage of some much of the increased brightness available. The analogy is that it take double the output of an amplifier to increase the speaker output by 3db, when the human ear is only capable of detecting a 2db difference. The same sort of principle applies to the human eye. I personally could afford to put a Swarovski on every rifle I own, to include a large collection of Wbys, Remingtons, Savages, Rugers, Parker Hales, Marlins, Howas and Customs. When I look at a nose bleed scope or binocular, I do the opposite of most people. Instead of having a testosterone surge and think how great my buddies will think I am with this bad boy on my 500 dollar rifle, I look for every fault I can with that piece of equipment and why it is not worth the money. Usually, I can find sufficient reasons why, it is way over priced. Yes I have looked through them all at sporting good stores, outside and yes they look great. I am sure they take recoil well. But so does my Simmons Aetec (the old model) which I have shot for years (several) on my Howa 300winmag without losing zero. Now here is where I get the response I got lucky with this scope, but I have several others that have performed flawlessly. After all, SWFA sells them, so the must have at least a decent reputation. I have been shooting since I was a kid and mount my own scope. I know I am going to get a flurry of responses from the arrogant know it alls who refuse to be open mined. I at least agree that the nose bleed scopes are good. Will see.
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/03/2006 at 22:42
Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: November/03/2006 at 23:28
I think you were, Roy. Although I sense a little of Dale also, not just Eremicus.
Dolphin, just out of curiosity, could you elaborate a little more about your education?
As a general disclaimer, the bulk of the optics I own are various mid-range scopes along the lines of Elite 4200, et al. You do get into dimishing returns with optics, like with anything else. However, diminishing returns are still returns. While you do not get as much per dollar, you still get more overall. As much as I like my Elite 4200 and Sightron SII scopes, they are still not the equal of Schmidt and Bender. Whether that is worth the money is a personal choice. For me it is usually not, for some others it is.
ILya
|
Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 01:11
Could he repeat that, only a little S L O W E R next time?
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 08:01
First off, these are the replies that I expected, flippant comments, without substance, except for one that I do agree with strongly. It is a matter of choice and whatever makes you happy, you should buy that product and I am not argueing that point at all. As far as my education, I am a cardiologist who attended a strong enginerring undergraduate school that required two semesters of calculus based physics and I took level 3 as an elective. As far as the other courses they were either required or I also took them as electives, just for my own interest. Yes, I may have been a nerd, but at the same time, graduating suma cum laude, I had attended more parties, met more girls and drank more than my share than the so called non-nerds, so I would say I was well rounded. That point made without trying to brag.
Now, getting back to the subject at hand. Obviously I know that looking through binos inside of a store is not the same. duh. What I want to know, are you guys willing to let SWFA, set up a blind testing of multiple scopes, so that the users do not know what they are looking through and shooting with. Yes, I know it would be somewhat difficult, but could be done. In my world, blind testing is done for everything and pure subjectivity does not cut it. Not only that, I would like to see an optic professional association test the scopes, blinded for clarity, brightness, sharpness/resolution, chromatic aberration, color rendition, fringing, depth of field, distortion, edge vignetting, eye relief, white out and ease of viewing through the scope and accuracy of elevation and windage at all power levels and then put them again blindly throught a toughness test, say a 460 Wby. Anybody game?
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 09:11
Welcome back, rootmanslim.
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 09:51
From that comment, it is obvious you are not willing to put your nose bleed rifle scopes up to any blind testing/challenge. Spend your money as you wish and be happy and I will do the same and shoot as many or more deer than you.
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 12:15
Dolphin wrote:
First off, these are the replies that I expected, flippant comments, without substance, except for one that I do agree with strongly. It is a matter of choice and whatever makes you happy, you should buy that product and I am not argueing that point at all. As far as my education, I am a cardiologist who attended a strong enginerring undergraduate school that required two semesters of calculus based physics and I took level 3 as an elective. As far as the other courses they were either required or I also took them as electives, just for my own interest. Yes, I may have been a nerd, but at the same time, graduating suma cum laude, I had attended more parties, met more girls and drank more than my share than the so called non-nerds, so I would say I was well rounded. That point made without trying to brag.
Now, getting back to the subject at hand. Obviously I know that looking through binos inside of a store is not the same. duh. What I want to know, are you guys willing to let SWFA, set up a blind testing of multiple scopes, so that the users do not know what they are looking through and shooting with. Yes, I know it would be somewhat difficult, but could be done. In my world, blind testing is done for everything and pure subjectivity does not cut it. Not only that, I would like to see an optic professional association test the scopes, blinded for clarity, brightness, sharpness/resolution, chromatic aberration, color rendition, fringing, depth of field, distortion, edge vignetting, eye relief, white out and ease of viewing through the scope and accuracy of elevation and windage at all power levels and then put them again blindly throught a toughness test, say a 460 Wby. Anybody game? |
Interesting.
What was that undergraduate institution, if you do not mind me asking? Did you by chance happen to take any optics classes? or have you had an oppotrunity to be involved in any sort of optics manufacturing?
One of the things I've done is have people with reasonable understanding op optics, but zero knowledge of binoculars and scopes look through stuff in different light. Usually we would look at various resolution charts. Do you think it is a reasonable test?
ILya
|
Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 12:23
Roy,
I just figured it out, Sunday is officially FULL MOON day.
Like I've said in the past, to be on this forum we need patience & a sense of humor.
|
Posted By: Roy Finn
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 14:37
After reading the bio, I feel less than.
|
Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 17:46
Dolphin wrote:
First off, these are the replies that I expected, flippant comments, without substance, except for one that I do agree with strongly. It is a matter of choice and whatever makes you happy, you should buy that product and I am not argueing that point at all. As far as my education, I am a cardiologist who attended a strong enginerring undergraduate school that required two semesters of calculus_based physics and I took level 3 as an elective. As far as the other courses_ they were either required or I also took them as electives, just for my own interest. Yes, I may have been a nerd, but at the same time, graduating suma cum laude, I had attended more parties, met more girls and drank more than my share than the so_called non-nerds, so_I would say I was well rounded. That point made without trying to brag.
Now, getting back to the subject at hand. Obviously_I know that looking through binos inside of a store is not the same [as what?]. duh. What I want to know [is], are you guys willing to let SWFA, set up a blind testing of multiple scopes, so that the users do not know what they are looking through and shooting with. Yes, I know it would be somewhat difficult, but [it] could be done. In my world, blind testing is done for everything and pure subjectivity does not cut it. Not only that, I would like to see an optic_ professional association test the scopes, blinded for clarity, brightness, sharpness/resolution, chromatic aberration, color rendition, fringing, depth of field, distortion, edge vignetting, eye relief, white out_ and ease of viewing through the scope_ and accuracy of elevation and windage at all power levels_ and then put them _again blindly_ throught a toughness test, say a 460 Wby. Anybody game?
|
A cardiologist you say? I don't know...
The level of arrogance is about right but, I just can't see a cardiologist getting all worked up about people he obviously considers to be part of the uneducated masses not agreeing with his points. Usually such a person will just dismiss us with a wave. Besides, the cardiologists with whom I contract are all a lot more meticulous about their spelling and grammar. It's part of the pride that goes along with being better than the rest of us.
------------- What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
|
Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 18:05
All right, let's not make fun of each other's grammar. We all try to type quickly and do not always proofread.
What I was slowly trying to get to was whether he had (or claimed he had) any education that is actually relevant to understanding the optical product market.
Having worked in a few different high tech markets, I can tell you for a fact that nothing is guaranteed and if you try to draw exact parallels with other fields, you are likely to get yourself into trouble.
Now, the guy's general premise is not too far off: you get the most for your money with midrange scopes in the $300 to $700 range. The further up in price you go the smaller incremental improvements become. Neverthelss, they are still improvements.
ILya
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 18:36
lucznik wrote:
Dolphin wrote:
First off, these are the replies that I expected, flippant comments, without substance, except for one that I do agree with strongly. It is a matter of choice and whatever makes you happy, you should buy that product and I am not argueing that point at all. As far as my education, I am a cardiologist who attended a strong enginerring undergraduate school that required two semesters of calculus_based physics and I took level 3 as an elective. As far as the other courses_ they were either required or I also took them as electives, just for my own interest. Yes, I may have been a nerd, but at the same time, graduating suma cum laude, I had attended more parties, met more girls and drank more than my share than the so_called non-nerds, so_I would say I was well rounded. That point made without trying to brag.
Now, getting back to the subject at hand. Obviously_I know that looking through binos inside of a store is not the same [as what?]. duh. What I want to know [is], are you guys willing to let SWFA, set up a blind testing of multiple scopes, so that the users do not know what they are looking through and shooting with. Yes, I know it would be somewhat difficult, but [it] could be done. In my world, blind testing is done for everything and pure subjectivity does not cut it. Not only that, I would like to see an optic_ professional association test the scopes, blinded for clarity, brightness, sharpness/resolution, chromatic aberration, color rendition, fringing, depth of field, distortion, edge vignetting, eye relief, white out_ and ease of viewing through the scope_ and accuracy of elevation and windage at all power levels_ and then put them _again blindly_ throught a toughness test, say a 460 Wby. Anybody game?
|
A cardiologist you say? I don't know...
The level of arrogance is about right but, I just can't see a cardiologist getting all worked up about people he obviously considers to be part of the uneducated masses not agreeing with his points. Usually such a person will just dismiss us with a wave. Besides, the cardiologists with whom I contract are all a lot more meticulous about their spelling and grammar. It's part of the pride that goes along with being better than the rest of us. | Oh, we have a funny one here. And what type of contracting to you do. As koshkin just said, we type and go and for the most part the grammar was reasonable. A comma here a comma there. Granted the mispelled words, I will give you. Personally, I am from the south, I was never taught to dismiss anybody with a wave of the hand. You must definately, be a damned yankee, or just a fool. By the way, have you read anything your cardiologists have written, like their office notes. I have not read an office or hospital note from anyone from Harvard to Grenada that was gramatically correct. So do not feed me any of that bull. Stick with the issues. That is, if you have the intellectual capacity to do so. You, nor anyone other than koshkin above has addressed anything, but give one liners. Is that one word or not. I don't care really. I do not want to was my ATP to find out, it is completely unimportant to me. What is important, is that people entertain the issues. Someone asked me about my education and I gave that information out, knowing it would sound obnoxious. What was I suppose to say, I am a brick layer. Nothing wrong with that job, but that is not what I do. So give me some real input. Would you be up for a scope challenge, but then again, I am not sure on what side of the fence you stand. Lets hear your thoughts and what gear you prefer and why. Go for it.
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 18:48
So lucznik, you are one of those hospital adminstrators, that makes life difficult for mds. Never met to many administrators or mds for that matter that hunt. So now I am really curious. Its that syndrome of feeling inadequate, like, I could have done that, but I just did not want to. So lets have your feedback on the issue at hand.
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: November/04/2006 at 22:19
O.K. in retrospect, I was probably a bit out of line. I apologize.
Thanks Koshkin for pointing that out.
Dolphin, again I apologize for ruffling your feathers. I was too sarcastic.
I just figure that before you start "throwing down the gauntlet" so to speak, you should spend enough time to get to know the people with whom you are communicating. A fairly cursory perusal of the various threads would have been sufficient to reveal the fact that there is really noone posting on this forum that is an unreasonably loyal fan of the "Euro" optics. Oh, we all like them but, most of us are pretty capable of recognizing that they aren't the only game in town nor are they as vastly superior (if at all) as some would have us believe. In that respect, you are kind of "preaching to the choir."
As for a "blind" test, it is a great theoretical idea. Unfortunately, you would not be able to sufficiently disguise the scopes enough to keep people from recognizing what brand it was they were using - at least not without making the optics basically unusable and therefore, useless for your test. After all, proper focussing (to each individual's sight) is part of getting that great view and requires manipulation of the optic in question. Because of this, you can't even do a valid test modeled after a stereotypical Pepsi vs. Coke "taste test" as you could never totally eliminate the test subjects' ability to recognize external cues that would trigger their preconceived brand biases.
Scientific measuring of the amount of light is possible (and in fact is done regularly) but, the amount of light is not the whole story. Just look at the advertisements put out by Carson Optical. Sure they transmit a lot of light - perhaps even more than some other, more expensive models - but, no person that is reasonable, knowledgeable, and sufficiently experienced with optics is going to claim that the entire image quality from a Carson is as good as that from for example, a Leica Ultravid. Though, it may be good enough for the specific demands of a given individual.
The sad reality is that you just can't create a test that meaningfully measures the level of superiority of one optic over another. Even though it's not your specialty, as an MD you must understand that each person's vision is uniquely different as are their individual preferences for what makes a pleasant viewing experience. Because of this, no one brand can ever hope to be all things to all people.
In short, while it seems theoretically appealing and even reasonable, your idea is not scientifically feasible as there are unquantifiable issues that play into the equation.
Oh and to answer your other question; if you don't know any doctors or administrators who hunt, you definately have never spent any time "out west."
------------- What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/05/2006 at 05:02
Thank you and I apologize for my sarcastic remarks. I was really speaking more towards rifle scopes, knowing that even those would be difficult to do to blind testing on. If your wondering why I am posting so early in the morning, I am on call, just the way it goes. But, I appreciate you info. What I do find out, is the people out west know far more than the people down south about optics and in general shooting, because here, the average deer is taken at distances of 75 to 200 yards, with only an occasional longer shot. Having tired of that for years, with plenty of meat in the freezer and I know this sounds crazy, but I have finally got my rig and have a farm set up to shot deer from 500 to 900 yards. I have done that distance shooting with the accuracy it takes, but not hunting. Set-up: Wby 30-378 with Conley Precision 165 grain Nosler BT bullets (enough killing power at 900 yards-equal to a 30-30 at 100 yards), quad-pod at least 8 ft. off of the ground (yes, we have to be at least that high off of the ground in my county, Wilson, NC) with a custom fitted platform for a gun rest and tripod mounts for my leupold rxIV rangefinder and yukon spotting scope, the magellan binoculars and exbal ballistics calculator on my mobile pc. Its been months setting all this up, waiting for the cartridges and the customization and maybe I have just gotten a little testy. The yukon does not have the best optics in the world, but in daylight at 1000 yards I can read street signs without difficulty. I have not tested in low light situations. Will see. Oh, and one more thing, I am going to take a trip to British Columbia next fall to visit friends and do some elk hunting, so I will get to see what it is like out west, albeit Canada. My son, lives in Denver, but I have never had the time to set up a trip, as I have recently had one partner retire and there are only 3 of us and call is never ending. But, I appreciate your input and look forward to future communications. Have a good season. Thanks.
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: November/05/2006 at 18:00
Posted By: lucznik
Date Posted: November/05/2006 at 19:40
900 yards is a long, long, long way to be shooting at deer (or even elk.) Certainly long distance shooting can be an interesting and rewarding challenge but, that may be pushing it a bit. It's not just a matter of having the necessary down-range energy nor a sufficiently flat trajectory. You also need to be able to consistently put the bullet in the animals vitals. Wind direction, speed, and consistency are all extremely variable and can affect bullet flight dramatically. Also complicating matters (at least where I hunt) are the extreme angles at which shots can be taken and the fact that these shots must be taken from field positions, which is nothing like shooting from an established bench-rest. Not to put too fine a point on it but, unless you are some kind of super He-Man, you won't be packing your mobile PC with you while you trudge around elk country either.
I ran some numbers and a 165 gr. BT out of a 30-378 Weatherby @ 3400 fps (which is actually a bit faster than the fastest listed charge) and set for a 300 yard zero, is pretty awesome out to about 500 yards, where it is down only 19.12 inches (which means you still wouldn't have to hold over a mature bull elk's back.) But, at 900 yards, that bullet has dropped fully 125.47 inches (or 10 1/2 feet.) That's way too much drop to be trying to hold-over accurately. Stretching your zero range to 400 yards might be tempting but, that puts you almost 7 inches high at 225 yards and you'd still be over 9 feet low at the 900 yard goal.
That's not to say ranges can't be stretched into the "long" category. This year I shot an antelope at just under 300 yards. Last Wednesday I shot an elk at ranges from 353 yards (first shot) to just over 400 yards (last shot) with roughly 15 mph gusts coming at me at roughly a 30 degree angle. A couple of years ago I shot a deer at the last bit of legal light at 434 yards. A better marksman than I could even stretch those ranges somewhat further. For example, I have witnessed my dad (who for a lot of years was a successful competition rifle and pistol marksman) shoot deer at over 600 yards but, I wouldn't be willing to try to match that feat, even though we shoot identical rifles.
------------- What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
|
Posted By: Bird Watcher
Date Posted: November/06/2006 at 00:20
Not too long ago I had an experience that I wanted to run past you all, so that I could get your response.
May 31, 2006 Koshkin posted the Porro Club thread & many responded with comments, etc.
I joined OTF 8-30-06 & posted my response 9-29-06.
In October I was using the Google search engine to locate 30x80 binocular information. Much to my surprise, on page 2 of the google search, I found my response listed on the internet.
This struck me as peculiar because "we" need a user name + a password to get into OTF to participate, and yet, somehow Google can randomly extract threads without anyone's knowledge or permission, & post them on the internet.
Does this seem above board to you all, or am I just over- reacting because I am relatively new?
Think about the Everything Else/Anything Goes section where you guys/gals posted the What Do You Prefer? & What Does Everyone Here Look Like? threads. Is this stuff that you want going out over the internet for the whole world to see?
|
Posted By: koshkin
Date Posted: November/06/2006 at 01:04
Well, you only need a username/password to post. Anyone can read the posts.
ILya
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: November/06/2006 at 05:46
lucznik wrote:
900 yards is a long, long, long way to be shooting at deer (or even elk.) Certainly long distance shooting can be an interesting and rewarding challenge but, that may be pushing it a bit. It's not just a matter of having the necessary down-range energy nor a sufficiently flat trajectory. You also need to be able to consistently put the bullet in the animals vitals. Wind direction, speed, and consistency are all extremely variable and can affect bullet flight dramatically. Also complicating matters (at least where I hunt) are the extreme angles at which shots can be taken and the fact that these shots must be taken from field positions, which is nothing like shooting from an established bench-rest. Not to put too fine a point on it but, unless you are some kind of super He-Man, you won't be packing your mobile PC with you while you trudge around elk country either.
I ran some numbers and a 165 gr. BT out of a 30-378 Weatherby @ 3400 fps (which is actually a bit faster than the fastest listed charge) and set for a 300 yard zero, is pretty awesome out to about 500 yards, where it is down only 19.12 inches (which means you still wouldn't have to hold over a mature bull elk's back.) But, at 900 yards, that bullet has dropped fully 125.47 inches (or 10 1/2 feet.) That's way too much drop to be trying to hold-over accurately. Stretching your zero range to 400 yards might be tempting but, that puts you almost 7 inches high at 225 yards and you'd still be over 9 feet low at the 900 yard goal.
That's not to say ranges can't be stretched into the "long" category. This year I shot an antelope at just under 300 yards. Last Wednesday I shot an elk at ranges from 353 yards (first shot) to just over 400 yards (last shot) with roughly 15 mph gusts coming at me at roughly a 30 degree angle. A couple of years ago I shot a deer at the last bit of legal light at 434 yards. A better marksman than I could even stretch those ranges somewhat further. For example, I have witnessed my dad (who for a lot of years was a successful competition rifle and pistol marksman) shoot deer at over 600 yards but, I wouldn't be willing to try to match that feat, even though we shoot identical rifles.
| Actually, to start, with a 26" effective barrel using the above noted bullet by cpc, it has a muzzle velocity of 3600 fps, according to the manufacurer, not chronographed by me. Wby listed 3500 fps. Sighted in a 400 yd., would mean a drop of 49 inches at 700 yard, with a MOA adjument of 6.7 inches. Obviously if I sighted in at 300 yards it would change and all be relative. Now at 900 yards by drop would be 118 inches with a sight adjustment of about 12.6 MOA. Now, to let you know what I have, as previously noted is a customized quad-pod, adjustable, but will be 8 to 10 feet off of the ground, with with a shooting rest (the customizes part, including built in tripods for a sighting scope and laser rangefinder). And of course the mobile pc excal ballistics calculator will take into account angle of inclination and wind, of which, the latter is usually calm. I will be quite honest. This is one of things you take on as a project, that you not only to for hunting, but for learnig about ballistics, optics, shooting, gearing and has just been fun trying to put the project together. Its taken month try to get everything together. I know I am an excellent shot, I hope that does not sound to arrogant, but I will start with shorter distances and move up. Probably at 500 yards. Heck, my future son-in-law just shot a nice old 8 pointer with an old Tasco scope at 340 yards without any aids, with a 270 win Browning A-bolt. You know, my father always said (I am also a hi-fi enthusiast), Dolphin, you do not listen to the music, but to the equipment. Oh well, that is the way it goes. Thanks for the comments.
------------- D. Overton
|
Posted By: FrankD
Date Posted: November/06/2006 at 08:25
BW,
I have had similar experiences not only here on Opticstalk but also on BF as well. I have even seen them turn up on some Optic sites as well. There was an explanation of this on BF awhile ago. I will see if I can dig up the link for you.
Bird Watcher wrote:
Not too long ago I had an experience that I wanted to run past you guys, so that I could get your reactions. May 31, 2006 Koshkin posted the Porro Club thread & many responded with comments, etc. I joined OTF 8-30-06 & posted my response 9-29-06. In October I was using the Google search engine to locate 30x80 binocular information. Much to my surprise, on page 2 of the google search, I found my response listed on the internet. This struck me as peculiar because "we" need a user name + a password to get into OTF to participate, and yet, somehow Google can randomly extract threads without anyone's knowledge or permission, & post them on the internet. Does this seem above board to you all, or am I just over- reacting because I am relatively new?
Think about the Everything Else/Anything Goes section where you guys posted the What Do You Prefer? & What Does Everyone Here Look Like? threads. Is this stuff that you want going out over the internet for the whole world to see? |
------------- Frank
|
|