Originally Posted by Pappy348
Originally Posted by silver78
At least where I reside (east coast) multi hundred yard shots do not exist and as others have said sub 100 yard shots are more common. Thus, a smaller scope is the logical choice. When I see someone who has a huge "tactical" scope on his hunting rifle I would guess they are pretty new to the game and will go home empty handed more often than not.

Ran into a hunter in the WMA parking lot a week ago that had a big tactical scope on his 6.5 AR 10. He’d been unable to pick up the deer he saw in time. That scope was a 5-25 I think, borrowed from his PRS rifle. He was all kitted out in web gear, including a can of bear spray under his bino case. Nice guy, and an experienced shooter, just following the current thinking on hunting gear. There was another just like him across the lot but with a .458 SOCOM carbine, a more practical choice IMO than that big AR 10.

Just looking at their combat loads made my back hurt though….

I ran into a guy kitted out like a Spetznaz trooper during late deer season this year. His rifle had a prone stock, an adjustable cheekpiece, a big ol' detachable magazine, a huge scope, and a bipod that made it look like an M-249 SAW from a distance. He was wearing close to $1k worth of designer camo and had a big rucksack with a tripod lashed onto it.

I have no idea whether he scored but there are a couple of spots on that property where his rig might have been put to good use.

I wish him the best either way.


Okie John

Originally Posted by Brad
If Montana had a standing army, a 270 Win with Federal Blue Box 130's would be the standard issue.