Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Tikka Tactical 308 scope help pls! |
Post Reply | Page <1 2345> |
Author | |||||||
Jon A
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/14/2008 Location: Everett, WA Status: Offline Points: 670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
OK, so, if you consider a simple mildot reticle a "fancy gizmo," what on earth do you consider an elevation turret to be? All those moving parts, threads, springs, clicker thingies, ball bearings, ball & socket thingamagiggithings..... It's surely much "fancier" and more "gizmotic" than a reticle, no?
So if I gave you a scope without adjustable turrets and a duplex reticle (the configuration of scope the vast, vast majority of hunters still use) along with 2000 rounds to practice with, are you telling me you could make first round hits from anywhere between 0 and 900 yds? By guesstimating holdover be it 10 feet, 25 feet, etc? I predict you would fail miserably. If I gave you 10,000 rounds to practice with could you do it then? No? I guess you can't do it without the fancy gizmos, so I expect you to keep your shooting to 200 yds and under from now on. < ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0"> |
|||||||
8shots
Optics Jedi Knight Lord Of The Flies Joined: March/14/2007 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 6253 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
JonA, as said before, if I cannot do it with several thousand rounds of practise, I will stay within 200yds.
I made a 600yd, first round hit with a normal duplex 3,5-10x40, after just a few rounds of practise, on a 6inch gong. That with holdover. Was I lucky, did I beat statistics? You decide.
Again, I am not knocking technology or mildots etc. I use them myself on my target rifle and find them of great benefit.
I am just questioning the "few thousands" of rounds practise. And when did 900yds come into the discussion. I thought we were talking of 400yds. I mean, why stop at 900yds, what about a 1000yds 1 shot kill, or maybe the 1500yds???
Edited by 8shots - April/18/2012 at 05:07 |
|||||||
Jon A
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/14/2008 Location: Everett, WA Status: Offline Points: 670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
If you could repeat the feat at 500 yds, then 700 yds, then 900 yds, then 800 yds, etc, even with a different rifle, then yes, you have learned how to make first round hits guesstimating holdover. People would kneel before you and kiss your feet. But you can't do that, can you? So no, you most certainly did not beat the statistics. Again, you're missing the point. I'm talking about learning a SKILL. Actually learning how to read the conditions and apply a precise correction--a skill that will help you at whatever distance your next target happens to appear, in whatever the conditions happen to be, and with whatever rifle happens to be in your hand at the moment. Learning how to correlate the real world conditions you see into an actual effective wind MPH value will do this. Does a lucky holdover guess teach you how to hit a target at a different range, with a different rifle? No. I don't care how many thousands of rounds of ammo you waste you'll never be able to just pick up any rifle and hit any target with your first shot at any range relying on luck. It won't happen. Learning how to range the target, apply the known ballistics for whatever rifle you're carrying that day, dial the elevation or select the correct hold with a useful reticle--those are SKILLS that you can learn that can give you a chance of doing the above at any range with any rifle. If you agree people should use these skills and tools for elevation, why would you not advocate people use the same skills and tools for windage? The only difference is the wind value is more difficult to estimate, where range can be measured pretty accurately. Which is why practice with the other variables eliminated is important--so you can learn the SKILL of estimating the wind without the added variability in the data also guesstimating holdoff will cause. If your rangefinder is broken and you need to estimate the ranges, you still dial your dope precisely, right? So if you miss, you know you made an error in range estimation. Applying the correct dope is taken out of the equation. Surely this is not a difficult concept to understand.
Busting rocks at 900 yds was brought up early in the thread. Did you not read it? Maybe that's the problem. |
|||||||
8shots
Optics Jedi Knight Lord Of The Flies Joined: March/14/2007 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 6253 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
JonA, you keep shifting the goalposts. First the 400yds becomes 900yds. Now the rifle becomes different rifles, then the rangefinder gets broken, whats next?
You are missing the point....I am questioning the thousands of rounds of practise
....Busting rocks at 900 yds was brought up early in the thread. Did you not read it? Maybe that's the problem......." Sorry big time here..I did read this but I went back to the original thread talking of 400yds. How come you went from his 400yds to your 900 yds? So fire away at 900yds, I'm up to speed now.
The SKILLS you talk about using elevation dialing etc etc I am not disputing.
Also clarify your target size, what are we "killing with first shot kills"???
Ranging your target with a rangefinder, reading the wind, and then using the practise of "Thousands of rounds" to decide how much of the duplex reticle to aim above and below the target is not impossible to learn.
Despite turrets and mildots for example, most guys aim off for windage. The wind shifts all the time, so one has to keep one eye on the target and the other on the grass, trees, dust or other tell-tale signs. Then you aim off and squeeze. This skill is no different then up or down.
What about the human factor in your scenario. I see it a lot that competive guys dial wrong elevation, forget to change elevation from one distance to the next etc. Bang goes the first shot kill.
Out to 900 yds, mildots or not, you are still guessing what the wind is doing between you and the target. First round hits at that distance remain a guessing game. So what does it matter if I miss it left or right, up or down. It is still a miss.
The best guys also cannot just pick up any rifle and make first round hits. Trigger pull differs, fit differs etc.
Anyway, keep your discussion to the "thousands of rounds" of practise. Let someone shoot for two weeks all day long at different targets with a duplex , and another with turrets, then take these guys out to shoot and count the first shot kills. Convice me otherwise that they will not both come up the same.
How did Simo Hayha manage 700 kills? Edited by 8shots - April/19/2012 at 05:14 |
|||||||
penguin6
Optics Apprentice Joined: October/03/2010 Status: Offline Points: 209 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
To the OP: I lean towards higher magnification because that's what I'm comfortable with, and it's easier to hold precisely when sighting in at the range. I've learned, however, from taking the advice of more experienced shooters on this board and others, that lower mag is more practical for field use at the distances I shoot, and I don't end up hating the big scope after lugging it around the woods with it unbalancing the rifle. I still use more mag than these guys recommend, but I'm becoming comfortable with less as I get better with the guns and get more practical experience. Bigger scopes are nice at the range on bags or on a stand, not so much in the woods or when maneuvering a rifle through the window of a box blind or around brush, etc., for awkward shots. Additionally, there can be adrenalin involved on a hunt, and big mag will make it seem as though your reticle is bouncing all around uncontrollably, which can be a little unnerving (not that you can't just turn it down if you like to have more mag available for other uses). Of course, there's still the same amount of actual movement on less mag, but it's not so apparent through the reticle. Personal preference will ultimately be the deciding factor for reticle/knobs/size, but a 5-20 on an already relatively heavy gun is kinda tough to work with in the woods.
You said first bolt gun, first deer hunt. Does this mean relatively inexperienced in shooting/hunting in general, or just new to bolts and deer? I know anesthesia guys tend to have a little more free time than a lot of other docs, but what are you looking to do with the rifle in general? Is this something that's fitting into an already-busy life as intermittent recreation, or are you looking to take up shooting seriously? That's a big question, and weighs heavily on your decisions. Learning how to consistently hit at 400 yds is difficult enough on a range, much more so in field conditions. Simply shooting from an awkward position with a little adrenalin can change your point of impact significantly at much closer distances than 400 yds. An MOA shooter/system combo can become triple that or more under those conditions. Guys like JonA, RCA, Ilya and others who shoot a lot can no doubt work with these challenges and make a hole where they want it, but a day here and there at the range every month or so makes a 400 yd field shot a looooong way. I bring this up just to make the point that if you can't/choose not to dedicate a significant amount of training time, limiting your hunting distances is a realistic approach, and that strategy lends weight to a relatively low mag scope with a simple reticle. Exposed knobs for short distances (200ish or less) aren't really necessary unless you just like them, and can be aggravating in the woods, as can scopes with adjustable parallax. If you have experience shooting, are talented in that area, want to play/learn at longer ranges, etc., the tactical-type selections can be good and offer you more flexibility if you're willing to deal with the downsides for an occasional hunt. Or if you are willing to spend the money, two scopes, one simple user-friendly one for the field and one for learning to dope at long ranges, can be easily switched out on your rail. The intended primary use guides the selection. |
|||||||
penguin6
Optics Apprentice Joined: October/03/2010 Status: Offline Points: 209 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
You mentioned illumination on your reticle. Most likely not necessary for deer hunting, and a lot of experienced guys don't use them at all. Depending on which part of Texas you're in, you may get a chance to shoot some pigs at night, and illum is nice for that. The Trijicon Accupoints, of course, are great for that, but weren't on your list. I like the illum on a Bushnell 4200 I have, not so much the illum mil dot on their tactical 6-24 I have. If the illum on their 3-12 is the same with the entire mil scale in green, you might find it too bright for very low/no light.
|
|||||||
DrAnesthesiaTX
Optics GrassHopper Joined: April/15/2012 Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
You all have been extremely helpful. I am now considering the Trijcon
How does this compare to the SWFA 3-9? Does Trijicon have a lifetime warranty that will replace the tritium inserts? Sounds expensive to replace! Someone also mentioned the Matte
Price is comparable to the SWFA but is the glass comparable. Matte
|
|||||||
Sparky
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: July/15/2007 Location: SD Status: Offline Points: 4569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
When you say deer hunting. Are you in a stand or walking? What distances are you thinking of when hunting?
|
|||||||
FireEMT5
Optics Journeyman Joined: September/07/2010 Location: S.E. Minnesota Status: Offline Points: 317 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Strictly my humble opinion here. I do not own a SS 5-20, I do however own a SS 3-9 which I just got done moving from my AR to my new Savage 10PC .308 literally minutes ago.
Mounted it up with a set of Jon's Aadmount low rings atop a Seekins 20 MOA rail. Can't wait to get out and shoot it!!!! (Damn fine rings by the way Jon!) I have used this scope on my AR to shoot out to 600 yds so far. I was shooting at square steel targets in 4", 6", 8", and 12" sizes. The scope did everything I asked of it. I also used the SS 3-9 last fall on my AR deer hunting on the wide open plains of North Dakota. Again, it did it's job in spades. On that trip the furthest shot was around 150 yds at a sleeping coyote. Deer were shot at less than 100 yds. I gotta ask, what ranges are you thinking of shooting deer at? I'm wrestling with the same thing you are considering the SS 5-20..... I'd like a little more magnification for my .308, BUT I want to keep some low end magnification and wider field of view below a 5x for those close in shots. On the top end, yes I'd like a little more. That said, 3 things are keeping me from getting a SS 5-20. One is weight, I just don't think I'd enjoy humping around the additional weight on what's supposed to be a lighter weight rifle. Second reason is ILya's recommendation that the SS 5-20 probably really wouldn't be at home atop a lighter hunting rig (from one of his write-ups on Optics Thoughts). The third reason is that I'm hoping like hell that SWFA rolls out another scope later this year that fills the void beween the 3-9 and the 5-20. There have been very vague rumors of such. I'm just praying that they will be available so I can get it mounted on my .308 by October at the latest - give me a little time to work with it before deer hunting. This scope if it comes to pass, hopefully will offer a little more range than the 3-9, but be lighter in weight than the 5-20. I'm thinking the perfect scope for a .308 for hunting/tactical/target shooting...... at least for my needs in my little world. I've thought for a long time that I NEED more magnification. Truth be told, the 3-9 has gotten it all done. Yes, I'd still like a bit more. The thing you got to ask yourself and be honest, is how small a target do you want to hit, and from how far away? If it's punching paper, ringing steel and MOD (minute of deer) the 3-9 will do the job all day long. Now if your wanting to count the hairs on a knat's arse at several hundred yards you can justify it to yourself that you need all that added magnification and weight. Give the 3-9 a fair chance. There's a couple Mil-Dot versions on the sample list right now. If it's not enough, you'll be able to sell it for what you have into it and maybe by then the next scope will be more than rumor. Just my .02 cents.
|
|||||||
DrAnesthesiaTX
Optics GrassHopper Joined: April/15/2012 Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Mostly deer stand and for target shooting on a bench and sand bags.
In response to the other shooter, I am new to deer hunting and bolt actions but not new to shooting ARs and hand guns. I don't want to generalize but there is a large segment of the public in TX that loves their guns and just plain old target shooting at the range. I know I will not have the time or the skills to be competitive or be a sniper that can shoot out to 500-1000 yds but I like to compare it to golfing. I enjoy golf and play recreationally. On a great day I will break into the low 80's but on average I shoot in the 90's. For you non golfers that is very average but It doesn't mean I don't enjoy the game.For equipment I polled experienced golfers to share their knowledge and experience to help guide me in my purchases. I've picked up other hobbies and spent lots of money on equipment that was over rated or plain old crappy. Some of this crappy equipment had great advertising and "reviews." I have learned as I get older that it's best to get a collection of views from folks who are experts in the field. Those who love their hobbies with a passion. Those are the folks that enjoy sharing their knowledge because they love their sport and promote it for non financial gains. |
|||||||
supertool73
Optics God Superstool Joined: January/03/2008 Status: Offline Points: 11814 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I would get the SS 3-9x. It is a good scope and the mag range is quite good for what your needs are. A 3-9x is probably the most popular and used hunting mag range. It is one of the best choices for a do it all scope.
I have a 5-20x, I love the scope. But it is large, a little larger and heavier than I would want to lug around if I had other options. Plus 5x on the bottom end is just not for me with the type of hunting I do. |
|||||||
Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack.
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own." |
|||||||
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I LOVE the SS 3-9x. I've shot it at the range, off of bags, off a bipod, and hunted hogs last year in TX.
It's on my beloved Black Betty right now. That said, I prefer a SFP reticle for strictly hunting. The reticle on a FFP scope gets "smaller" on lower magnifications and these lower power ranges, (3-5x), are where I make most of my shots. Also, the Mil Dot, unless your ranging, isn't the BEST "hunting" reticle. At least where I hunt. Mil Dot will work most of the time, but if your in heavy timber or like me in the thickets, I'd rather have a German #4 or a heavy Duplex of some sort so it stands out better. If you were to get 1 DO IT ALL scope, you'd be hard pressed to beat the SS 3-9x though. Just know it has some limitations, but they are few.
|
|||||||
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
|||||||
DrAnesthesiaTX
Optics GrassHopper Joined: April/15/2012 Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Hey Cheaptrick,
Love the pen name! I hear lots of praise for the SS 3-9x! If you had a choice to start over would you get something like this in the same price range:
|
|||||||
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
I HAD, (in silver) this and it's a VERY good hunting/range scope. Welcome to The OT, Doc.
|
|||||||
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
|||||||
Jon A
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/14/2008 Location: Everett, WA Status: Offline Points: 670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
|
|||||||
DrAnesthesiaTX
Optics GrassHopper Joined: April/15/2012 Status: Offline Points: 21 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Thanks for the warm welcome.
Has anyone tried the Nikon BDC scope made specifically for the 168gr match .308 round? Never owned a Nikon but they do have a lifetime warranty. Since I will be mounting this on a Tikka Tactical in 308 this would appear on the surface like the perfect fit. Looks like you could get the simple reticle and use the turrets. Nikon
4-16x42 M308 Riflescope
Stock # - NIK8495
|
|||||||
8shots
Optics Jedi Knight Lord Of The Flies Joined: March/14/2007 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 6253 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
[QUOTE=Jon A]
|
|||||||
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Sort of.....
|
|||||||
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
|||||||
Jon A
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/14/2008 Location: Everett, WA Status: Offline Points: 670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0">
< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0">
< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0">
< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0">
Do you know what that's called? A cop out. An excuse of a lazy person. "Anybody who beats me only does it because God gave him magical powers, not because he actually worked harder than me. Not because he trained more than me. Not because he actively sought out coaching to improve his technique wherever possible. Not because he is constantly trying to make himself better while I think I know everything I'll ever know and am as good as I'll ever get."
Which is why most prefer using the reticle. How did this whole conversation start? Oh yeah, my commenting that a reticle that allows you to do this more accurately is helpful. You say guessing is just as good. The rest of the shooting world disagrees.
Uhm, yeah, the wind at 300-350 yds isn't even on the same scale of difficulty as two to three times that distance. It goes up exponentially. Tell me how you do it at 900 yds. And apparently you missed the very first post--you see a rock on a hillside and you have no idea how big it is. What do you do now? How many "rock widths" do you hold when you don't know what that is? As mentioned, on paper targets of known size this can work just fine, but in the real world it has some serious downfalls.
OK, so you say "the vital zone of the deer is X inches wide. It appears to be standing at a 30 degree angle. Cosine of 30 degrees is .87. Therefore its vital zone appears to be .87X wide to me. I need 42 inches of holdoff. 42 inches divided by .87X = Y number of "vital zone widths." Of course we want to hit in the middle of the vital zone so we'll need to hold off Y-.5(.87X) vital zone widths.... You can really do that math in your head faster than placing the proper reticle value on the center of the vital zone? BS. If you're doing it faster it's because you're guessing. Your plan for a springbuck at a certain distance in a certain wind is to aim at its eye? Even the most calm and stationary animals (which they need to be for a long range shot) is usually doing something. If only grazing, the animal is constantly raising and lowering its head. And your plan to shoot this thing through the heart or lungs is to aim at its eye? And you think that's a good technique? Animals in the real world aren't made of paper. I highly recommend aiming where you want to hit instead. That's usually the best practice....
Tell me you are not seriously making this claim. Are you really claiming that using a scope with a duplex reticle and non-adjustable turrets, I could take you out on the prairie, point out a target somewhere between 0 and 900 yds away, and you will hit it with your first shot every time even if you're holding over 25-some feet and several feet into the wind? You really think you could do that because you have "thousands of rounds" under your belt? If that's the case, quit your day job immediately because you can become a millionaire shooting professionally very easily. I've never heard any of the winners (you know, the guys with all the "God given talent") of the above type matches make such a claim. Maybe they know something you don't. Such as what life is like on the planet Earth.
So now you're saying they can help? Then what in the hell are you arguing about? Did you get up in the morning and decide "lets argue with Jon. I don't care if he says 2+2=4, we'll say he's wrong and make him spend a bunch of his valuable time proving to me that it is! That'll really piss him off! What the hell? But you're still wrong. There are no "shortcuts." I said to get good you need the practice and good technique. You're claiming practice alone, without ever using any formal technique is just as good. This is not true in any sport. Contrary to your prior assertion, even at the top level of the most physical sports where you do need to be born with certain advantages to even get on a team, those who work the hardest and have the best coaches are the ones who win. Yes, there are actually fat old men telling Tom Brady how to throw a football. Constantly. Regardless of what he was born with and how many times he threw a ball, without those men teaching him the proper techniques he would have never made an NFL football team, much less accomplished what he has. The idea that learning the proper technique has no value is ludicrous. In any sport or regarding any skill.
BS again. Do you think Belichick can put on a helmet, roll to his left and throw a 70 yd bomb? Not even close. So if you were a young quarterback, you don't think he could teach you anything? You would turn down his coaching? That would be foolishness. That was a good way to avoid answering the question though. You say "if I (or you)," well, kindly take me out of that. When I said calibrated marks on a reticle can be useful, I explained exactly how and why in great detail explaining in simple terms any new shooter who wanted to could understand, exactly how to use them to improve one's shooting at long range in the wind. I did answer the damn question. Your non-answer is not equivalent. [quote]But how to teach a new shooter....I would load up thousands of rounds of ammo, range the di |
|||||||
8shots
Optics Jedi Knight Lord Of The Flies Joined: March/14/2007 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 6253 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
JonA, this whole conversation started with you saying that with a mildot and turrets AND a couple of thousand rounds of practise a shooter can do this and that.
I simply questioned that...AND THAT ALONE....READ MY LIPS ....THE THOUSANDS OF ROUNDS OF PRACTISE.
You are the one that brought in all kinds of stuff. Changing the goalposts, spinning me around and throwing basketballs on one leg etc etc. Again, I explain to you how we did it on a PAPER springbuck...you turn this into a LIVE springbuck!!!
If I was using a LIVE springbuck, I would have said so and used different aiming references.
And we were shooting for the brain of the springbuck, by the way.
I am simply questioning that if someone with half a brain and reasonable ability practises with thousands of rounds, would have no clue as to how to hit a target. Period.
READ MY LIPS....I am not arguing anything else. Just the thousands of rounds of practise and that a shooter will emerge an idiot unless he had mildots and a turret scope.
And sorry for you, but it is not a cop out, there are to many examples of athletes who rise to the top in a short space of time and stay there for it not to be a talent. The guys coming fourth fifth and so-on get the same coaching, gear and all. They stay 4th 5th and 6th.
Look at who wins the tennis, year after year. Look at the racing with Senna, look at the tour de France. And the list goes on. Do you think the guys coming 10th etc did not practice their guts out?
I have personnaly witnessed a guy born and raised 800km from the sea and at the age of 24 engaging in ocean sport. Within 2 years he became the world champion,,, and he stayed that untill he retired. Did his opponents practise less, get less coaching etc etc. No....God gave him a gift and he was lucky to discover it and use it. Edited by 8shots - April/20/2012 at 06:22 |
|||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 2345> |
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 |