The bright scope - is it what you look for ? Why ? And How ?

I've noticed we get in lots of discussions about which scopes are the best. It often boils down to the idea that the brightest scope, the one with the brightest image, is the best.
 Then the fun begins. I like to quote the DEVA tests as reported in "Optics for the Hunter" by John Barsness.
 Others swear up and down that those tests are "out of date". I've had some say they've done their own side by side comparisons and those tests are no longer valid. Still others say they have used a camera style light meter to determine which brand allows the most light to pass through them.
 I really like the light meter tests. NOT ! Each stop on a camera allows twice as much light, or half as much, depending on which way you go. All the top rifler scopes should be within a few percentage points of each other, not 50%.
 Then there is the new current champ vs. the old champ, often Leupold.
 The trouble is that all the top makers are constantly fiddling with their products, even if they don't change the model designations. And they vary from year to year in total brightness. Last year's Leupold may, or may not be, as bright as this year's. But, it is a safe bet that a 5-10 yr. old Leo won't measure up to a new Swaro.
 Then this bright image is suppose to mean the scope is one of the top scopes in duability as well.
 Not so. A good example is the old VariXII Leupold. The same rugged construction as the VariXIII. But not anything like the image quality.
 And, what do we need this extra scope brightness for ? Twilight shooting ? Night hunting ?
 One of our regular posters, JJHack, has told me that almost any scope has a bright enough image for this. What really happens is one looses the scope's reticle before losing the image.
 He's right. I've been trying out my new Leupold 6X42 with the Premier Reticles 4a reticle. I can't loose the reticle until I loose the image as well. And that takes looking at a dense fir tree on a clear night w/o any moon. A real contrast to the performance of the standard duplex reticle.
 Then there is Ray Atkinson over at Accurate Reloading's forums. He says his favorite scope is the old 3X Leupold. Says it works fine for all his big game hunting. And recommends it to everybody as a good solution.
 Now this guy has seen killed more critters than most of us will ever see. And from all over the world. He's a custom gun maker, getting, what, $5,000-$6000 per rifle.
 Could he have figured out something we haven't ? E

I guess the answer is "it depends". My Dad used an old Weaver scope (2.5X as I recall) on his rifle until the day he quit hunting...made some amazing shots with it both at running animals and at ranges over 200 yards. I look thru it and the field of view seemed small and it wasn't bright or crisp at all. The difference....Dad never wore glasses and his eyes were 20/10 until he was well into his 60's.......me, uncorrected my eyes are 20/400+ and I've worn glasses since I was 14 and bifocals since I was in my early 40's. I guess the answer is it ain't just the optics of the unit you're looking thru, it depends mostly on what you're using to look with.

E;
 
 I have only 4 scopes now. Two very old 28mm leos 4X & 2X7, a compact 3X9, (Old Vari X technology I think), and a new VX II 2X7. There IS a difference with the new scope at the very last drop dead minutes of light, but it's pretty slight. What's for sure though, is that the standard duplex has gotten too thin for my eyeballs in some situations. I'm with you, in that I think the reticle is weak link. (actually my eyes are!)
 
 Which brings up the difficult question of just whatintheheck does one buy these days. I agree that Leo was the standard for optics but probably isn't any more. But, at any given position, they are at least GOOD optically, very durable and by far the lightest. One reason for saving every ounce in the "5 pounder" is so that I can invest a little more weight in a scope if I choose to. Your 6X42 sounds good, although I've been leery of that high a fixed power in the past, and I'm not keen on a 42mm obj. I wonder about the optics on the 4X33 (are those the oldest optic technology?). I'm intrigued by the Kahles 4X36 but they are 11.5 oz. And there is the option of a VXIII 1X5 @ about 9.3 oz, but I was leaning toward fixed for this rifle in the best KISS mentality. I'm not sure I want to marry a 2.5X at this time (but I might date one for awhile)
 
 If I were to order a scope tomorrow for the new rifle, I'd probably do the 4X33 or the 1X5 VX III. But I might be able to get new reticles for the 28mm's although I don't think Leo would do it, but Premier might. Of course are those 20 year old optics worth investing a new reticle for??
 
 Boy.......I'm more confused than you are
 
 JimF

Guess it depends on what and where you hunt as to what you need. I hunt bears as often as I can over bait. Those bait sites are often located in dense foilage with a heavy canopy. It can be very hard to see long before legal shooting light is over. I found this to be a significant problem while I was in Sask. for nearly a month this past spring. Some hunter's had no problems in the more open bait sites, but those in the dense foilage area's we sometimes out of usuable light 1/2 hour early depending on the scope they were using. Also all scopes are not created equal I've got a Burris 1.75x5 that I absolutely hate in relation to brightness. Which is why it stays on my 22. The reason I hate it is if it's even slightly dark or over cast it becomes very difficult to see through. I believe Spike had one just like it and experienced the same problem. Anyway it looks so good on my Rem 541T I just can't seem to part with it. Besides I usually shoot that gun in the middle of the day. I've also found Leupold's VariXII's in 3x9x40 leave a lot to be desired at dawn and dusk or hazy overcast days. I didn't really realise how bad they were until I got a better scope. The VariXIII's are much better in that regard. Now on to magnification. I'd like to see Ray kill anything of trophy size out here in Eastern Montana on publicly accessible land with his 3x scope. I'd just about bet him one of his rifles he can't, especially if he's trying for an antelope that will score 80 B+C or more. Sure he might get lucky, but that's all it would be...luck. This is huge wide open country and magnification is a very good thing out here. If I were in the western part of the state hunting thick forested areas I'd be opting for his 3x. Like I said it depends on what and where you hunt.

JimF. Barsness did an interesting comparison for his book. He compared the B&L Balfor 4X33, a fully multicoated scope to the standard Leo. 2-7X28 Compact. Testing at the last light, he found the 2-7X Compact to be just a touch brighter. In spite of the fact that it had a 28 mm objective, and a single coating. The 7X ability made up for the difference.
 Therefore, I tend to believe the 4X Kahles wouldn't be better either.
 In fact, he found that Kahles optics in general were not nearly as bright as the top scopes; Leupold, Zeiss, and Swarovski.
 I selected a 3-9X33 for my light Mtn. Rifle. So far, I'm happy. But when the light is bad, out comes the 6X42. E

E;
 
 Thanks. I have picked up on some pretty positive threads on Kahles recently. But then, I suppose if you dumped $400-500 on one instead of a Leo, you'd feel commited to singing it's praises.
 
 JimF

I suspect ones choice of a scope depends on the intended purpose. I look for the brightest, sharpest, clearest scope I can. Where I hunt (at home) I want crisp sharp resolution and coatings whereby I can look in the direction of the setting sun since I hunt woodchucks all summer. We go out a couple of hours before dark and it seems we are always looking in the direction of the setting sun. My buddy has a leupold on one of his varmint rifles (24XBR) and when one looks in the direction of the setting sun about all one sees is all sorts of pretty prism shapes. When looking thru my 6 to 24 X 50 Swarovski I get a nice crisp view - no prism shapes at all.
 
 While deer hunting from my elevated stand I watch the edges of the woods - with my naked eyes. There are always dark shadows along the edges. I want a scope that utilizes the available light to the "max" and leupolds just don't do that well enough - for me. I use a Schmidt & Bender 4 to 16 X 50 PM II for that duty. I also hunt hogs in Texas. Hog hunting bit me hard. In Texas one can hunt hogs 24/7 and we did stay out long after the sun went down and the moon came out. The 4 to 16 X 50 PM II and the Swarovski 2.5 to 10 X 42 work great in the dark.
 
 As to weight:
 I used to own a Rem 700 ADL chambered in 7mm mag - factory rifle. At the time I had a Leupold 2.5 to 8 Vari x III scope on it. The total weight was 11lbs. I was never much to worry about weight. Some people like hunting with 6lb rifles, thats their choice, I prefer a heavier rifle - helps me get steady. I could never figure out why a buddy of mine could hunt right up to legal quitting time and I couldn't. One evening at the range I found out why. It was getting late, we were burning daylight. I had worked up 3 different loads for my 7mm mag. I did shoot 2 of the different loads and then it simply got to dark for me to see the target. Notice: I didn't say crosshair. He kept shooting. I went over to him and asked: Why you still shooting, you can't see the target. He leaned back and said look. After looking thru his Schmidt & Bender 1.5 to 6 X 42 I was amazed. It was as if somebody switched on a light over the target. I then knew how he could hunt longer then I could.
 
 I noticed that the crosshairs in his scope were extremely wide (this was 16 years ago). He explained the magnified reticle to me. At first I found it all sort of weird but I got used to them and now I wouldn't have anything else.
 
 I see where some of the so called US made scope manufacturers have brought out scopes with the magnified reticle. Gee, what took them so long?
 
 I did kill game using that Leupold scope on my 7mm mag BUT had I had a Schmidt & Bender there is no doubt I would of been successfull more often since the bucks didn't come out till it was dark - still legal hunting time.
 
 For "my" hunting style there are 2 brands I choose to use, Schmidt & Bender and Swarovski. They net me the results I am after, Leupold doesn't.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Don. There is a big difference when one goes from a 36 mm objective size, to a 42 mm. Assuming equal quality lense coatings, the difference is about 36%.
 So your 42 mm scope is working with 36% more light.
 Going from a 42 mm to a 50 mm gives you another 42 %.
 Not only does this enchance the twilight performance, but the image brightness as well. E

E,
 
 I think of lot of the apparent brightness of a scope is due to the thickness of it's crosshair. Heavy crosshairs are easier to see against a darker background than lighter crosshairs, and thus the scope with the heavier crosshair will be referred to as brighter.
 
 For me, the old Var X II in 2x7x33 isn't enough for those dusk hog hunts. the Vari X III--especially my 4.4x14x50(and I imagine the new VX-II) are excellent for this application.
 
 Blaine

I agree, Blaine. I've got two new 6X42's. One with the standard duplex, and one with Premier's 4a reticle. The 4a doesn't disappear until I have no image at all. Such as a dense fir tree in full darkness with almost no moon.
 I need a half moon, a clear night, and a light background to pick up the duplex at night. E

E,
 
 On a side by side comparison that dave7mm and myself conducted - out in the field we found that the 2.5 to 10 X 42 Swarovski blew away the Leupold 6.5 to 20 X 50 LTR. So, If objective diameter is the "only" consideration then our our test in the field blows holes in that "theory" [Linked Image]

Better scopes are just that - better scopes.
 
 Don [Linked Image]

You are doing it again, Don. The Leupold LR scope has an extra lense in the parallax and focus feature. That's why it wasn't as bright.
 Try comparing like designs.
 "All things being equal" means just that. E

I was hunting last weekend in NE Washington for deer
 in some big country, thick yet had some big breaks. My
 hunting buddies were using Sworo and Khales scopes
 I was using my Leupold 4x15x40 on my 264 WM it just didnt hold a candle light to the european brands. We
 compared scopes at early am and late pm and at nite.
 I like Leupold and will still use and buy them but there
 is just no way they are as good. So far 100 % of the people which I have been around to compare scopes
 will agree. You can do all the fancy test you want but
 a dozen pair of eyes have judged the Euro's far better.
 
 BTW the guy using the Sworo scope thinks that Khales is just as good. I thought so myself but just didnt want
 to say anything.
 
 Just a question, I notice a lot of people here like Leupold
 scopes and then use European Bino's, wonder why?

SU35, Just curious. How much before sunrise and/or after sunset were the comparisons made? Where I hunt, 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after is "legal" shooting times. I have never had a problem seeing game through my scopes (leupold) within those time frames.
 
 I will say though that I do believe the Euros give better early and late performance. Primarily because they have been designed for that. In Europe, shooting time can be long after sunset or before sunrise so they need the extra performance. If I needed that, I would definitely spring the extra money for the Euro's but again, I have never had the need for it, during "legal" shooting times.
 
 Having said that, I think people should use what they are comfrotable with. I have spent a lot of money in the last year or so on custom rifles that will shoot 1/2" versus the roughly 1" my off the shelf rifles shot. Do I really need that kind of accuracy for hunting. No. But I do love having it and it does give me confidence when making shots, which is worth a whole lot in the overall picture. So buy what you have confidence in and enjoy it. If you think it makes you better, it probably does! TM

Howdy travelingman 1
 
 We started comparing scopes at 4 am on up till the sun
 poked over the east ridge. Your right though, My Lupe
 is good at legal shooting time. There are times though like during this last deer hunt
 when we spotted a bear around 60 yards off that the
 euro scopes seemed to let us judge it better in the
 shadows of early dawn. Its amazing how that black
 fir can hide itself behind a small bush, sit still and you think youve lost him. By the way, I had Bear tonite for dinner. Chicken fried steak style.
 I love my lupe's because of their reliabilty and eye relief.
 Plus the fact that I live within driving distance of Leupold. Im also looking at the LPS as being my next scope.
 
 Some have knocked the Khales for not being reliable, but I noticed the Canadian team of snipers using them
 on their 50 cailbers, that should say somthing.
 
 I remember when Elmer Keith ( please correct me if I am wrong) would use nothing but steel tube scopes. He detested anything with aluminum. That being the fact,
 he would use Weavers and passed on Leupolds.

SU35, Like someone said, you can never be too rich and I guess it is the same with scopes. Even if you have all the brightness needed, a little extra never hurt. At that point, you just have to make a decision on whether the unnessary extra, is worth the cost. Kinda like the custom rifles I mentioned, I don't really "need" the extra accuracy but I am willing to pay for it. Have not made that jump yet in scopes, but I might some day. TM

SU35,
 
 You stated:
 
 Just a question, I notice a lot of people here like Leupold
 scopes and then use European Bino's, wonder why?
 
 And you have not received a reply to that question. I also, wonder why.
 
 Don [Linked Image]

OK, guys I'll bite.
 It's because many of us have discovered what works for us.
 When it came time to buy a new binocular, I wanted the best. I've owned two Zeiss. I still have one. I've met, and gotten to know a couple of dozen world wide hunters who are Zeiss owners. All are happy. But one of the sharper, more experienced posters here really likes Leica binos. He is JJHack. A man known to me as very serious, very competent, and having alot of experience with many aspects of hunting. Another, Matt in Virginia, posted similar opinions about Leica binos.
 My personal reasearch could find nothing to indicate that Leica would be a less than ideal choice. So I bought an 8X42. I am completely satisfied.
 Are they better than the equivalent Zeiss ? They are built to a higher, certified waterproof standard. Do I really need this as opposed to Zeiss's lighter weight. My extensive experience in desert sheep, and other mountain ranges has taught me time and again that I need the toughtest equipment I can buy. Leica has that edge, theorectical perhaps, over Zeiss.
 I considered Leupold. Their top quality binos were on sale. But why should I do field testing ? I know what others have found, thanks to these boards. The prices were the same, or very close. I go with the established winners flavored by my needs and experiences.
 Same thing with rifle scopes, which, of course, are quite different. I need to see the critter, which I will find with my eyes or with a binocular. The toughest oportunities are found with binoculars. The rifle scope needs to allow me to see him, and it needs to hold it's zero. I need to carry it alot. I walk alot in some truly treacherous places. All of my big game rifles have McMillian stocks. All have painted finnishes. All wear the toughest mounts, not the windage adjustable redfield style. I go for Leupold scopes because they are light, they have a reputation for being as tough as anything, and they can be had with optical qualities as good as anyone's. Are there better, tougher scopes out there ? Could be. I can't tell from here. I hear alot of good things about Swarovski products for instance. For me, I have no need to change. Nor have I seen anything on the euro scopes that I want. Their quick focus eye piece is favored by some. I don't like it's weaker design over the US style focus system. I keep thinking about the rocks that my guns get slammed into. No euro focus scopes for this desert rat. E

I look through my Leica's hundreds if not thousands of times a day on a hunt. I look though the scope of my rifle maybe once or twice and some days not at all. For the small gain in performance, I do not see spending the extra money on a scope that is rarely used. For binoculars that are used all the time, I do see the need. JMHO
 
 I might also add that the main claim to fame for Euro scopes is their low light performance but I have never had any problem seeing through mine during "legal" shooting hours. Also, the number of animals I have shot at dusk or dawn is fairly low so the question becomes do I want to pay the extra money for a scope that only gets looked through once or twice a day, or may someday be needed to make a shot during the last few moments of light, that may or may not be during "legal" shooting hours. The answer to me is no but I have no problem with you deciding that is what you need. I don't see the need for the big super magnums either, but again, I do not have a problem with those who do. TM

I have been hunting plenty of times when I didnt have
 time to use binoculars and I had to make a judgement call in just a moment or I would not get a shot. In this
 case I need to make a call/shot based on what I see. Is it a bull or buck, is it big enough, does it have enough points to be legal, is it a trophy class animal? So, I had better have the best information to me possible.
 This is frequent in the late evening and in the shadows
 of trees out to a couple of hundred yards. Its especially
 here where I need a concise scope to relay the facts to me (now!). If this was not the case I might as well own a Trashco or Simmons.
 Also to say Leupold is built better than the Europeans
 is based on opinion not fact. Except for Leupolds Tactical scopes.

Interesting comment about using binoculars. When I'm tracking, or still hunting, I use my bino to find the game. I try to see him with the bino, not my naked eye, first. That way, I can see him first, before he sees me, by looking through cover. That gives me the time I need to judge the head, and get into position. Something I can't do w/o a binocular.
 I agree that there is no concrete proof which is tougher, a euro glass or a Leupold. Optically, we have tests that call them very close. I go for Leupolds because they are lighter, and they use the US focus system, which is less vulerable to damage than the euro focus system. E

I agree with Travelingman 100%. The primary reason I go with Leupold is ruggedness and their customer service reputation (which I've never had to use [Linked Image]

). I have a Nikon that has been a great scope, but I'll likely not buy another due to their CS reputation.

SU,
 
 Your right and so are some of the others posting here. The type of hunting, where you hunt (thick cover versus open praries) will determine which is more important to you - scopes or binos.
 
 For me, back home binos are all but useless. In fact I rarely even use binos back home. I watch over a field from an elevated stand. I can see any deer (with my naked eye) out to 750 yards - from that stand. So, in that case I want my great optics in my scope. When I was elk hunting in the CO Rockies last week I wanted a good pair of binos and a great scope. I did use binos to glass over wide and vast areas but I still want the performance of a great scope and Leupold isn't "my" choice as a great scope.
 
 My way of thinking is: I can kill an animal looking thru a scope, I can't looking thru binos, so, for "me" I want the best optics I can afford in my scope. My 2 choices are Schmidt & Bender and Swarovski.
 
 As to this focusing thing, I find it simple to focus either of the 2 brands I use.
 
 The type of terrain and the type of hunting one does most often will dictate where they want to put their best optics. I just chose the scope.
 
 I do have to smile when I read, the brand scope I use is lighter - yet they have a 2lb euro scope hanging around their neck. Sort of an oxymoron, isn't it? lol
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

SU35, It is obvious you hunt differrently than I do and that is fine. As I said, it is a rare case where I would use my scope to identify/qualify something without throwing my binoculars up first. Probably has to do with where I hunt, conditions, etc.. If you do it differently, I have no problem with that. I think I stated we all spend our money as we think best and I know I clearly stated I have no problem with people buying Euro scopes if they think they need them. Just as I hope they do not have a problem with me buying custom rifles, when they do not.
 
 I can't seem to find though where I said Leupolds were better made than the Euros? TM

Hey TM,
 I wasnt refering to you with all those comments.
 (net snafu)
 I agree really with pretty much everybody here. There
 are just a lot of variables in hunting to comment on.
 Last year I took an elk on the border of the Hanford Reservation in south central Wa. If you got a shot at less than 300 yards you were lucky. We used the
 binos that hunt to say the least.
 
 I appreciate your comments and thanks for the dialogue!

SU35, No worries mate! Just wanted to make sure I had not inadvertantly said something wrong. Like you, I enjoy the dialogue! TM

DonKnows--Have been following this thread and have some comments that may be relevant.
 
 First, your comment about being able to shoot into the setting sun. That is indeed one of the major advantages in good multi-coated lenses. But some of your comparisons are skewed. You found you could see a lot better with a S&B scope 16 years ago. That's long before Leupold started using Multicoat 4 on their lenses. And as Eremicus pointed out, comparing a 2.5-10x Swarovski with a 6.5-20x Leupold isn't comparing apples to apples either, because the 6.5x20 has at least one more lens (and maybe more).
 
 I think if you compare the latest Vari-X III's (and Bushnell Elite 4200's) with similar-sized S&B's and Swarovskis you'll find little difference, and possibly even an advantage for Leupold in some scopes.
 
 Many people choose binoculars other than Leupold because Leupold really doesn't know how to make binoculars. But their latest Wind River roof-prisms (I believe they're called the P1) are very good. Not Swarovski or Leica good, but at least as good as the Pentax DCF's, which are just a hair behind the Leica's and Swarovski EL's and, in many people's opinion, better than the Swarovski SLC's.
 
 The P1's are made in Japan to Leupold's specs, and are as good optically as the Pentaxes--but lighter and will retail for slightly less, around $350 for 8x42 and $400 for 10x50. Can't speak for their ruggedness yet (that takes a couple years of testing) but they are waterproof and very good optically.
 
 Lately have found the Nikon Venturers and B&L Elites to be just as good optically as Swarovski and Leica--at least in general. Sometimes one particular model by a certain company will stand out. For years the best 8x32 on the planet was made by Leica, but the new 8x32 Nikon is just as good optically. Only time will tell if it holds up as well, but it feels as solid as granite.
 
 One thing's for sure: The optics we have now beat the heck out of what we had 20 years ago!

Mule Deer,
 
 You stated:
 
 "One thing's for sure: The optics we have now beat the heck out of what we had 20 years ago!"
 
 And I agree.
 
 When you said I looked thru that S&B Scope 16 years ago it was different then todays optics. Their may be some truth their in that then S&B was way far away ahead of Leupold.
 
 About 4 years ago I was sitting in my newly built 6' sq elevated deer stand. I had my bench, front rest, rear bag with my 300 win mag set up. That rifle wears a S&B 4 to 16 X 50 PM II Scope. I don't profess to know how many extra lenses it has in it compared to the Leupold 3.5 to 10 X 50 Vari X III. Based on what you and E have said the Leupold (in this case) should be brighter then the S&B (in this case). Just about quitting time a buddy of mine walked by. I motioned for him and his 14 year old neighbor to come up in the stand - they did. My buddy had a brand new Leupold 3.5 to 10 X 50 Vari X III scope on his 7mm mag. I had a then, 1 year old S&B 4 to 16 X 50 PM II scope on my rifle. So, we are now comparing models that were made only 1 year apart and possibly even the same year. It was dark, and after legal hunting hours. My gun was unloaded as was his and the rifle the 14 year old was using. I sat there watching 6 deer about 500 yards out in front of my stand. I asked my buddy if he could see them looking thru his Leupold. He raised his rifle leaning against the side of the stand - he couldn't see the deer with our without the use of his Leupold. I then leaned back and he looked thru my scope. I asked: Can you see the deer? He said: Yes, easily. The 14 year old boy that was with him also looked thru my scope and after looking thru the scope several times then looking above the scope, said, thats amazing.
 
 Here is a prime example of comparing 2 scope, possibly made the same year with the same objective diameter and the Leupold could not be used to see the deer and the S&B could. Not only could the deer be seen with the S&B but the wider crosshairs (mil dot reticle) could be seen as well. It wasn't legal hunting time but had it been I could of killed any of those deer with the use of the S&B, thats NOT the case with that Leupold.
 
 That buddy of mine doesn't use Leupolds anymore, he now uses Swarovski scopes. He can afford any scope he wants as he is a Doctor with his own practice and surely money isn't an issue - with him.
 
 I will give you that the difference is now closer then what it was 16 years ago but there still IS a difference.
 
 The S&B scope really shines while hog hunting in Texas where it is legal to hunt 24/7.
 
 Again, we all buy what we buy for our intended purposes and as long as what we use works for our intended purposes I am happy for all. But when I hear that Leupold is so great at light utilization I have to smile based on my "own" comparisons against other scopes.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

DonKnows--One question: did you compare the scopes when set on the same power? If your scope was even set on 12x and the Leupold at max 10x, the magnification alone would make a huge difference in "twilight factor."

Mule Deer, in searching for answers as to what is best
 in a bright scope and what to look for. Some say that
 contrast is more important than total light transmitted.
 That total light transmission is relativeily unimportant,
 the issue is how much unfocussed light is scattered in the scope.
 The scopes ability to "contrast" rather than "light transmission" is what gives the "eye the ability to see
 game in the shadows.

Mule Deer,
 
 Good question. We adjusted both scopes throughout their power ranges and those deer could be seen through the Schmidt & Bender scope and not the Leupold - no matter what power was used. Sorry for not including that data in my post above.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

That's very true. The best scopes have some sort of interior baffling or matte finish to absorb scattered light so it doesn't cloud the picture, so to speak. What we perceive as "bright" is a combination of transmitted light, contrast and definition (or "sharpness"). This is the reason I use an eye-chart type arrangement to test for brightness--and new scopes with clean lenses. Just a little dust on the exterior lens surfaces not only prevents light from entering, but scatters it all over the place, reducing contrast.
 
 All of which is why I don't trust most anecdotal evidence of one scope vast superiority over another. When tested under controlled conditions, there's very little difference in brightness between today's best scopes.

I know that the Khales and Swaoro's use two leaf springs on each axis. These offer more support and better tracking.
 Leupold only uses one spring. Except for their Tactical
 MK 4s. Which tells me they know it makes for a more
 durable scope.
 I have had Leupolds bind up on me when an adjusment was made, the scope will not change until after I shoot, the recoil affects or jars the adjustment correction.
 I don't like this.
 
 Also on the khales their internal adjustment are pretty
 much the same as Swaoros.
 They also have etched glass as the Swaros. For a lot less money. To get etched glass with a Leupold you have to go to the LPS and pay hundreds more.

I believe Swarovski uses 4 coil springs instead of two leaf springs.

Actually, Swarovski uses two leaf springs in their 1" scopes, and the coil springs in their 30mm scopes. Kahles, I believe, uses 2 leaves in all their scopes, but they could use coils in the 30mm's too. (Will have to find out!) All are very accurate systems.
 
 I do believe the coil system is very rugged, but cannot say the same for the 2-leaf system. Have had one each Swarovski and Kahles go blooey on me after 20-30 shots on hard-kicking guns. The 3-9x Swarovski lost its horizontal adjustment, the 3-9x Kahles its vertical. Guns were a Mauser .375 H&H and a Benelli 3" 12-gauge slug gun. Have never had a Leupold totally lose it in the same way, though a coulple of varmint scopes have worked themselves slightly loose after over 1000 rounds.
 
 Have never been able to see the advantage of the etched reticle, and there are two disadvantages. One, if the scope receives a blow somewhere around the reticle cell, the glass turns into 4 little quarter-circles, unlike the wire or foil reticles used otherwise, which can break but usually just flex a little. Two, all the etched reticles I'm aware of are on plain, uncoated glass, which reduces light transmission. The highest light transmission tested in most labs runs around 92-93% for typical variable scopes. Put an etched reticle in there and it drops to 87-88%. That's still very high, and plenty for most North American hunting, but the drop is there, and measurable.

Mule Deer I just read your articles in November Rifle.
 Looks like I'm a new subscriber.
 
 You calls em like you see's em... I like that.

Thanks, SU35. I just try to follow Elmer Keith's old advice: Test things until you get consistent results, then write about it.
 
 Guess I am also a natural skeptic. My reaction on hearing or reading something often is, Oh yeah? Then I try to find out for myself. Luckily, in my business there are a lot of technical people who are willing to share their long experience, and many neat toys that can be fooled with until some sort of answer evolves. Have found that a lot of the stuff we read in gun magazines has never been tested. Much of it is also written by people who are essentially hobbyists, not full-time professionals. They tend to repeat what they've heard, or something based on a single example, rather than thoroughly test anything. That's one reason I write for RIFLE: Instead of rewriting press releases as soon as some product is announced, they want us to test stuff and then publish when we have something real to say.

Mule Deer,
 Your writing is largely the reason I subscribe to RIFLE, HANDLOADER, and SUCESSFUL HUNTER(initial issue was excellent btw). I used to take Field and Stream until they listed the Remington 710 in their "Best of the Best."
 
 FWIW, I also found "OPTICS FOR THE HUNTER" to be excellent. Learned a good bit and found out that asking the right question is as important as the answer.
 
 Regards, Matt Garrett.
 Chesapeake, Virginia

I was wondering were a guy with limited income would fit into this discussion ? It seems that there are so many here that have money enough to buy all these expensive scopes. How about a bright and durable scope for under 3 0r 400.00 that could be put on a 338 win for deer, elk and what ever, any thoughts ???????
 Old Timer

Old Timer,
 
 A brand new Leupold 6x42 scope will run you around $300.00 + shipping if you sniff around. 6x is plenty of power for the longest shot at big game.

I would add that as a guy who can afford the fancy scopes, I've come to realize the fixed 4x and 6X42 scopes fit my big game needs best. I still own and use variables. But, now, only on true multi-purpose rifles. My "pure" big game rifles wear either a 4X, or a 6X42. E

Leupold VX-II (NOT the older Vari X II) in 3x9x40 for around $280 from Cabella's.
 
 Blaine

Well said E, and this is a great thread. Good experience from factual folks without that name brand loyalty crap.I have a simple question. What is the optimum obj size for a quality 4x scope with good lens coatings. It seems to be 42mm for the 6x so would it be about36 for 4x? I realize that 4x7 is only 28mm but isn't there another factor in the objective size that helps light transmission beyond 28mm with a 4x??

Theorectically, the larger the exit pupil the brighter, and sharper, the image. I don't know how well this fits into the real world. Compounding this is the fact that some folks eyes can't open to a 7 mm exit pupil at full darkness, etc.
 I suspect the 4X scopes made with over 28 mm objective bells are done so because the maker wants to use whatever tubes he currently uses to keep costs down, not to give us some slight advantage over the competition.
 If I understand all this right, fully multi coated optics, on a 4X, offers very little to the buyer. Flare control probably is the only real advantage. For more low light performance, one really needs more magnification and a heavier reticle. E

Some very good "affordable" scopes are the Weaver Grand Slams, Nikon Monarchs and Bushnell Elite 3200's. (The Elite 4200's are VERY fine scopes, but not so affordable.)
 
 The Weavers have the longest eye relief, the Nikons the shortest. The Weavers are also the brightest of the 3, right up there with some expensive European scopes. They're also quite tough. Have beat the heck out of a 1.5-5x on several hard-kickers and it keeps on ticking. Only disadvantage is a large mag-change ring which prevents the use of low mounts on most bolt rifles. On a $-per-value basis, they're right in there with the new Leupold VXII's.

Thank you for your reply,
 I hesitate to use a 4 or 6 power in the timber all you see is all the brush does anyone know what the actual magnification is on the vx11 3x9 or the Burris 2x8 and what about these Burris scopes??
 Old Timer

Certainly not a DEVA test, but enlightening to me happened sitting around the campfire late at night under a full moon in Namibia this past June. About 100 yds away was a water hole and with the naked eye, you could spot some movement, so out came the bino's. About twenty gemsbok and kudu playing around the water hole and after comparing each other's bino's, the scope question came up, so out came all the rifles. Scopes were all fairly new variables and included Leupold VariXIII, Lynx, Burris, German Zeiss and Swarovski, none with objectives larger than 42mm or so. Zeiss and Swarovski were without question brighter and gave a tremendous increase in detail over all the rest of the scopes to the unanimous opinion of all observers despite the prejudice of the owner towards his own scope. Zeiss vs. Swarovski was about evenly split. Yes, a shot could have been taken with any of these scopes, but the difference was real and, if anything, the Leupold even took a slight backseat to the Burris. IMHO, the coatings currently used on the Swarovski and Zeiss scopes are a generation ahead of those used by Leupold. I have heard that Zeiss is so possessive of their coatings that they refuse to allow the process out of their facory in Germany and thus do not offer it on the US made Conquest.

JoeR,
 
 Be careful talking about real life experiences.The only thing that matters to some on these boards is a ten year old book.
 
 dave

Hmm, subjective samples of one or two, ten year old tests that used labaratory equipment to measure actual light transmission values, or what looks best to my eye.
 
 I think I'll stick to what looks best to my eye [Linked Image]

. The rest just doesn't matter............
 
 Blaine

Dave, if the only things we ever learned were from out our own personal experiences, we would all be living in the Stone Age. Books, and the experiences of others, are all useful.
 Besides the DEVA tests, Mr. Barsness's tests, we have the experiences of at least two, or three long time posters here who speak of their experiences with Swaro, S&B and Leupold scopes. Others have experience with Zeiss products, as well as Leupold products, etc.
 You want to believe your choices are better, fine. When you get into the top brands, I believe it's time to look for design characteristics that you need to do what you want. Or to decide on what compromises make sense to you.
 Anyway, I like discussing these things with the others here. I've learned much. Such as how little I give up when going to a 6X42, from a 4X28 Leupold, the usefulness of such things as target style elevation knobs on hunting scopes, or heavier reticles for low light performance, etc. E

Joe, good post, Did you notice Charlie Sisk post on
 Talley rings and mounts, did you notice the Swarovski
 scope sitting on top of Wayne van Zwolles rifle. Wonder
 if Wayne knows something we Leupold lovers dont know? Wayne has an excellent book out as well on scopes.
 
 Funny thing about the subjective opinions here when it comes to scopes, The people who tout Euro bino's
 are the same one's who say Leupold glass is just as good as the Euro scope glass. I say Ba Humbug!
 
 I'll take the Euro glass in bino's or scopes. The eyes
 have it.

Without the age, models and sizes of all the scopes tested, I can't comment on why the Joe's comparison's came out as they did.
 I've followed the posts of many here under similar circumstances. Usually it's a matter of older, or smaller Leupolds scopes being tested against the euro models in question.
 If you have something we Leupold lovers should know, do share it with us. Swaro scopes are so close to today's Leupolds, it's really a matter of personal preference. E

E If the scopes are so close together in quility, glass
 wise.
 
 What makes the Binos so distinctly different from each other? Euro vs Japanesse?
 
 Are Leupold binos just as good as Swarovskis?

I haven't compared the current Leupold binos to the current Swaros. John Barsness commented something to the effect that he has tested probably everything in binos availiable, and that Leupold doesn't really know how to make really good binos. I think he went on to say their new P-1 models are pretty good and are made in Japan. He gives excellent suggestions in his book, "Optics for the Hunter" on how to focus, stack and compare them yourself. As unusual, I have found his advice to be first class.
 If you look at any binocular, you will notice they all make light change course or go around corners, etc. The big trick is to make as much light as possible pass through the lenses, and prisms, without getting lost, scattered, and modified. Apparently Zeiss has poineered the coating of prisms, much like lenses, and, along with Leica, lead the pack in optical quality. Swaro binos appear to vary in optical quality, their best being as good as Zeiss, or Leica, but have a tendency to yellow with age, and much more of a long term problem with fogging than either Zeiss, or Leica. E

SU35,
 
 I see E gave you a response, but not an answer - typical - he quotes from a 10 year old book.
 
 I don't know about you, but I don't hunt in any lab. I hunt in real conditions and to "me" thats where optics shine.
 I have asked the same question and have yet to recieve an answer. I would "suggest" they know that the Euro glass is better - in scopes and in binos - but they just won't admit it.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

As we spend a good deal more time looking through our binos, we hold them to a higher standard and many will settle for less in the scopes. I cannot see how binos are more difficult to make than a riflescope but the quality differences of the optics and coatings are brought out even more in the binos than in the scope. As to Swarovskis yellowing and fogging, this is news to me! I hardly think they could sell so many at the prices they charge if this were true. Is this current info or something from 15 years ago E?

I have never heard of the yellowing and seriously doubt any truth to it, but there is a grain of truth to the fogging, albeit a small grain. When Swarovski first brought out the SLC, there was a problem with the material in the seals. Swarovski quickly remedied the problem, and will fix any currently sent in with no cost and no questions asked. This affected a very small number of original SLC's.

If we were in person, Don's response would have us all--including E--laughing hard. It's so hard without hearing tone of voice.
 
 I don' t think because the DEVA are 10 years old means they are no longer valid. Actually, their age actually increases their usefulness to me, because it was about 8 years ago when I compared all the scopes side-by-side. At the time I didn't know the German scopes were supposed to be so much better. I thought the Vari X III was 98% as clear at the LPS and Swarovski, so it didn't make sense to pay double for such a minimal increase in brightness. It was nice to learn what I saw with my own eyes were was measured and verified in the lab.
 
 If the tests were repeated today, I doubt there would be a significant difference. Maybe the S&Bs would be 1% brighter than the LPS and 2% brighter than a Vari X III--maybe not, maybe more so. However, like Don has mentioned before and is so right about, we don't hunt in a lab. We need to use what looks best to our own eyes.
 
 To be honest, we should take the standardized optical test pattern--like I had to use to tune my NVGs--and see what provides us the most detail. That is the most accurate method to objectively quantify what we can see the best with. Unlike what I have done--"that tree's leaves look a little sharper at night with this scope than that scope"--using the test grid will let us say: "I can clealy see and read line 25 with scope X, but with scope Y I can only see line 23."
 
 
 I am a Leupold scope/German Binoc guy. I think the fact so many of us Leupold guys pick Geman binocs says a lot about our objectiveness in optics. If we were Leupold fanatics, we'd get Leupold binocs. However, they just don't look as good to my eyes. For the same price my Kahles binocs are much better (to my eyes). My Leica's at double the price are better yet (to my eyes). However, when I look through the scopes, I still find what I pretty have always found. A Leupold Vari X III is 98% as good optically as the others I've looked through (Zeiss, Swarovski, LPS).
 
 I do wish Leica still sold scopes. basically, it was a Var X III with German glass. All the durability of a Leupold with the best glass out there. I would love to look through one and see if it was really batter than the others.
 
 My take (and expereince) on the whole scope thing is Leupolds aren't perfect, but are an very reliable, bright, durable, consistent scope with excellent eye-relief and light weight. I have never had one fail under any circumstances. I frankly do not know how well the other brands hold up, but since the Leupolds have worked so well for me, I am not apt to trust something else, especially on a harder kicking rifle. That is why I always say there are many good brands, before I describe why I continually choose Leupold. Not everyone has had good luck with Leupolds. It is important to remeber that not everything works for everybody. Also how many of us have just stuck with the first good scope we've found and not tried anything else?
 
 I don't think a Vari X III is as good optically as a S&B or Swarovski or Zeiss, but to me, it is at as good in all other areas (better in some), but is very close in brightness. Like anything else, there is a point of optimum returns, and to me that is the Vari X III. Once I go past that, I spend a lot more money for a small increase in brightness with no other advantages to me but several disadvantages (for me).
 
 Now I do think the LPS is the equivalent of all I've scopes looked through (includes Swarovski and Zeiss). Even so, I don't like it's other features, and on my 338 RUM and 416 Rem, no larger scope will hold up as well as a smaller, lighter one.
 
 I do think if a guy hunts at night a lot--like can be done in Texas--it makes a great case for the S&B or other high end scopes. If I were to do a lot of night hunting, I would want the brightest scope available period. I'd sacrifice weight and eye-relief to get if I had to. It would have a 30mm tube and as big of an objective as I could get.
 
 Blaine

I can't answer for anyone else,but here is my take.
 
 Leupold scopes have proven to offer me great durability,exceptional repeatability and do so while combining modest weight,nice ergonomics and overall friendliness(known as the whole shebang).
 
 Can I expect the same resolution out of my Leupold 6x42mm rifle scope,as I do my Zeiss 10x40Classics? Nope. Was I ever under that illusion? Nope.
 
 I personally use my binoculars a minimum of 1000 times more,than any rifle scope I field. In fact,the ratio may be even greater than that,when I reflect upon the incredible number of hours spent glassing,versus peering the insignificant(in comparison) time spent looking/shooting through a rifle scope. I shoot a lot too,in case you wuz' wonderin'.
 
 So why Zeiss 10x40 Classics?:
 
 My binoculars accompany me everywhere,regardless if it is a scouting trip or for "keeps". That is not always so,with a rifle scope.
 
 The way I use my binoculars,may be very different from everyone else,I would not presume to know. I LIVE in them. They are my bread and butter. Due to that,there are traits within them,that are very important to me.
 
 Collimation/eye fatigue,is paramount. Nothing as horrid as trying to peer through a device which is seemingly trying to suck your very eyes out of your head!
 
 Ergonomics are EXTREMELY critical too. I don't care how great somethin' is,if it is a pain in the ass to use,it simply does not make the grade. "Friendliness" is weighed heavily,by me. The easier it is to use,the more likely it is,to GET used.
 
 Resolution is also extremely important and can be defined numerous ways. But a guy can readily discern for himself,whether something is up to snuff or not,especially in direct comparison.
 
 Brightness,is also important. My expectations are not to turn night into day,but a more realistic approach. Again,a guy knows when he's being robbed of light and comparisons are easy to do.
 
 To sorta sum things up,as to why I very much prefer,what I VERY much prefer.... It is the overall package,that seals the deal. The Hubble telescope,while a Modern Marvel,is just a smidge too unwieldy for my tastes. To complicate matters,I haven't a shred of "commonsensedness"(Technical Term),that leads me to believe that such a device would put more meat in MY freezer.
 
 Leupold gets the nod on my rifles,for the same reason Zeiss gets the nod for my fullsized binoculars. They offer the most,of what is important to me and do so in the friendlist packaging.
 
 So why Leupie?:
 
 I like to mount scopes low,am an unabashed target turret slut,can't function without Butler Creek lens cover(I HATE ocular lenses that turn with a power change. Also HATE objective lenses that rotate with a parralax change. I want my scopes covers to remain aligned at 12:00 O'clock on both and ALWAYS),I'm generally weight/size conscious,am not a fan of hyper-powered zooming capabilities(bordering on another Technical Term there),reliability/durability are also mandatory,aesthetics are semi-important,and MOST importantly have never felt lacking in ANY regard.
 
 To further complicate matters,shooting critters in less than adequate light and in heavy cover(seems to be the most perpetuated 2lb Euro-scope arguement),is the last thought betwixt MY ears. If I don't feel good hitting the switch via a Leupie 6x42mm,I'm not gonna feel better with ANYTHING else(yes,I've peered through lots of 'em,to evaluate in comparison). In these parts,when you start running out of light,you'd best be thinking seriously about having your ass squared away,long before total darkness(which falls like a hammer in both Spring and Fall). I've zero reservations employing common sense,in ALL situations and decisions are not that hard to readily formulate.
 
 In a nutshell,if there was a tool that suited my needs better than the Leupold offerings I prefer,I'd be singing it's praise. Until then,I'll continue to enjoy the success I've grown to count on,while awaiting it's arrival.................

Whoops!
 
 In regards to Leupie,another very strong point(to me),is their very forgiving eye-relief.
 
 That too,is heap big important..............

Really good reads, each one and I appreciate them.
 
 I did notice that when we gander the european scopes,
 we think heavy for use this not being good for carry or
 good on a heavy recoil rifle.
 
 Just for the sake of stating fact. Swarovski scopes as many here know have the AV line. These scopes are
 are lighter or just as light and have a greater field of view than the
 VX 3, when comparing the same configurations. In having the larger field of view the AV give up eye relief
 to the Leupold.
 
 
 SWFA in their cheap seat section has the AV available
 at modest prices.

That's one reason why I have never had--nor probably never will get--an LPS--though the L{PS does have a lot of eye-relief. I just don't like the 30mm tubes and larger objectives in most of my applications.
 
 Blaine

The AV I was looking at is the 3-10x42, it has a 1" tube
 weighs 12.7 oz, is 12.44" long.
 Compared to a
 Leupold 3.5-10x40 which is 13 oz and is 12.48" long.
 
 The field of view on the AV is 33' and 11.7' at 100 yards.
 The Lupe is 29.5' and 10.7'
 
 Eye relief for the AV is 3.5 and 3.5 which doesnt change. ( I like this)
 Lupe's is 4.6 and 3.6 which changes.
 
 AFP
 I would love to see somebody with 20 year old
 Chuck Yeager eyes compare the differ scopes. I'm
 sure that would be interesting.
 BTW I hear his eye sight has not changed, at least
 not that much.

SU35,
 
 My guess is a guy with 20 year old eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference, as his young eyes with 20-15 vision are very flexible and will adapt to even the lesser optics. I think it's only when our eyes get older and are a tad slower to focus that all this stuff becomes very significant.
 
 A 20 yr old with a Tasco can probably do as well as we can with the best glass money can buy.
 
 Blaine

That's very interesting SU. The eye relief characteristic I would be most interested in would be how critical the eye relief is. I have noticed on my Leupolds that at the lower magnifications, the eye relief is very forgiving. As the magnification increases, it becomes more critical. How would the Swaro AV compare ?
 The two biggest differences between the US made/style scopes I've noticed are the first focal plane reticle mounting, vs the second FP as the US style scopes are built, and the adjustable eye piece.
 I do believe the first focal plane reticle position has an advantage on a big game rifle as the reticle stays large, i.e. the same size. This would help retain the reticle under fading light, and assist in ranging, or compensating for holover or wind drift. Does the AV have such an design ?
 I have no use for the adjustable focus eye piece. I understand they are more vulernable to damage. And that is something I definately don't want. E

SU35.I have wondered about the scope vs. bino thing to.Ill take the best optics I can get on top of my rifle every time.
 dave

I guess it's the difference between the guy who insists on a $800 Loomis fly rod. He doesn't catch any more fish, cast and further, or or cast any better with his $800 Loomis than the guy next to him using a $400 Loomis/Orvis/Sage/etc. However, I guess you can always say the guy with the $800 rod does have a better rod..................
 
 Blaine

E.
 
 The Swaro AVs the eye relief stays the same from
 3x to 10x. This I believe, (for me anyways) is important
 to be consistant in my spot weld.
 
 If the reticle is in the image plane (objective-sided)
 of a variable magnification rifle scope the reticle will be magnified in direct proportion to an increase in magnifcation. If however, the image plane (ocular-sided), the image in magnified, but not the reticle.
 
 The Swaro AV has the 2nd image plane. Ocular-Sided
 Like most American Versions.
 
 As far as the vulernableability of the adjustable focus
 eye piece. I had the opportunity to talk to a Swaro Rep
 and asked him about it. He said (and he could be full of it) they had experienced no problems with this.

Easy does it,I happen to be a Loomis Slut!...............

It's always been next on my list, but I need to move back to a place where I can use it more properly.

I guess there is a better way to say why we love Leupold scopes, but use German bincos.
 
 To us, the top end scopes (LPS, S&B, Zeiss, Swarovski) are marginally better than a Vari X III in CLARITY only. In all other areas we think they are the same as or maybe even not as good.
 
 However, the top end binocs (Leica, Swarovski, Zeiss, even Kahles and Minox) are SUBSTABTIALLY more clear than Leupold binocs. The good German binocs are worth every bit of their price tag, while the German scopes (and the LPS) just are not.
 
 Even if you take price out of the equation--which do at times--I do not care for the features (weight, size, eye-relief, crosshairs in wrong focal plane, etc) of the high end scopes for most of my "needs." Some will be quick to point out that you can get some of these German scopes in an "American" configuration and are very similar to Vari X IIIs. I say great, but just don't see a compelling reason to switch from what I know works.
 
 Now if I had the lousy luck of Don or Dave with Vari X IIIs, I might feel different...........
 
 Blaine

AFP, sorry, I just don't buy it! Forget about the Leupold binos but if you compare your expensive German or Austrian binos to a pair of Nikons or Pentax you will not be able to see a difference except maybe for the superiority of the Japanese glass (check out www.betterviewdesired.com). In fact, I believe just the opposite is true, expensive binos are not worth the price difference over some of the cheaper Japanese products while in riflescopes, the difference in quality is substantial and worth the difference. I suspect the real reason making so many opt for the high end binos is the snop appeal factor. You do not wear your scope on your chest!

I have had the oportunity to compare the Pentax DCF WP's, in 8X32 to my old B&L 9X35's. I had previously compared the 9X35's to my 10X25 Zeiss Compacts, and my 8X42 Leica.
 Since the exit pupil were the same size, I believe the comparisons were valid. The old B&L was sharper. Both of us stacked them and compared. The owner of the Pentax glass and I both agreed. Both binos were clean as well. Even the small, hard to hold steady, even from sitting, 10X25 Zeiss was sharper than the 9X35. The 8X42 Leica was clearly so. The 10X25's took a while to really see any difference.
 An argument that they close is valid. But the top end Leicas were clearly better. Is is worth the price difference ? That's your call. It is to me. I've spent many years, like 40, behind that B&L. I bought the Leicas to do even better.
 I would also point out that my eye sight is better than most. With both eyes open, I can go a full two lines below the 20/20 level on an eye exam. E

My swap from Pentax 10x rubber armoured glasses,to Zeiss 10x rubber armoured glass,was akin to going from sneakers for Duck Hunting to 5mm chest waders for same. It mighta just even been more pronounced than that.
 
 You'd have to save that nonsense,for someone who had never gawked/Hunted each(and I don't go to Dinner with my Classics danglin' from my neck,in case you was wonderin').
 
 I believe that within Optics,you largely get what you pay for. I've had guys try to relate to me how their $17.99 Snoopy glasses were simply marvelous cutting edge technology and will "do everything those things do". How do you rebut such nonsensical drivel? You say "here,look through these". 2 seconds is more than adequate,a sheepish look,backed up with a little rock kickin',generally follows the look of amazement and instant understanding of how asinine the prior statement was.
 
 The top end glass is out of reach for some and I fully understand that,as I counted pennies myself and did without,longer than I wanted to. It is not a slap in the face,of any sorts,to shop within one's budget. I do it everyday,as my pockets ain't deep but buying what I felt to be the best binoculars available to me,is the best money I've ever spent.
 
 I've said often and will say it again,noone looks through the best of what's available and says,"what's all the fuss".................

JoeR, how wrong you are. Birdwatchers want true color and use their optics in far better light than the Swaro and Zeiss HUNTING binoculars are designed for. The top end Swarovski and Zeiss bino's do not give true colors by design, they excell in indentifying detail in low light.

Joe,
 
 I'm at a loss,to contrive a reason one would prefer looking through a dirty window,as opposed to a squeaky clean one. That in regards to ANY activity.
 
 In any pursuit,where discerning detail is a person's focal point,you'll see high end glass at the forefront. That simply because they are beyond compare and the absolute best tools for that job..................

I'm probably riding a dead horse here, but then maybe not.
 
 Hey fella's the same glass and technology that make the european bino's so SUPER superior (as you all proclaim) over the japan stuff is the same glass and technology that makes european scopes so SUPER superior over japan glass and scopes. Leupold included, as they use the same glass as Nikon and BL . It all comes from the same house in japan
 
 European glass be it binos or scopes is just "far" better
 than the japan stuff. Period!
 To say one does and one does not is well ....
 
 I own all Leupold's and can clearly tell a vast difference.
 I even own Leupold bino's, What if I said they are as good as Ziess. ???? don't bother, i already know the
 answer.

I tried to relate why Leupold was my preference in rifle scopes,on an earlier Post upon this Thread.
 
 I likely botched it,as per my usual...............

SU35, you probably already know this but I'll remind you that glass is only a small part of the equation when discussing good glass for optical use.
 Coatings make at least as much difference as the quality of the glass for color, detail, dispersion, solar flare, and in some, water repellency.
 Another thing I think some don't consider is that you can use the best glass in the world, but it you don't have the engineering and equipment to set up the glass lenses in very precise alignment and in the proper focal length, results will vary. Now when you do this in a production capacity, holding very tight tolerances as required becomes even more difficult.
 
 Now, I'm not buying for a minute that the $200 binos are the equal of the Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica binos because I've had occasion to use all of them. However, I do appreciate shopping within your budget and being happy with what you can afford- which is why I hunt with $350 Leupold binos for the time being.
 
 As for scopes being the equal to the binos in the same manufacturers, well, I will respectfully disagree with you on that one also. However, I go back to a statement JJ made a while back regarding this issue. No matter how you quantify rifle scopes, you won't spend long periods of time behind a rifle scope like you might a pair of binos. You line up your crosshairs with the target and fire a shot. This doesn't require the detail needed for spotting game and picking apart hillsides, brush, and trees to find game as a pair of binos would . Only and idiot uses their riflescope for spotting game.
 This requires that the riflescope be adequate for the shooting situations you find yourself in. In most areas in the US, this means 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset. Almost any decent riflescope will handle this chore, even looking into the edge of a dark woodlot. Leupold will easily handle this chore in my experience, though most of the cheaper scopes I know of, including my Bausch&Lomb Elites have a more difficult time of this application. Any more than this is more money than I'm willing to spend unless I was to see a serious advantage in optical quality, crosshair acquisition, or eye relief. I just haven't seen it in the same way I do in the higher end binos, and it wouldn't matter if I would anyway because I can easily make all the shots I need to make with my present equipment.
 I encourage you to use whatever makes you happy and instills confidence, but you'll be typing a long time before you'll convince me of the superiority of the Euro glass in riflescopes for my uses. My experience tells me otherwise.
 Have a Merry Christmas- Sheister

Okay Sheister, all good points and reminders. We tweak these subjects to a fine tune, don't we! Believe
 me, I listen to your comments, as well as the others.

Joe,
 
 How can you not "buy it?" I was simply describing why I like Leupold Scopes and Lecia Binocs. There is no argument here, because it is what looks best to my eyes and makes the most sense to me.
 
 In the same light, if the Jap binocs look as good to you as the German Binocs, then by all means stick with the Japs! What is important is to use what looks best to you, and not worry about what other guys like.
 
 Blaine

AFP, I have owned many brands of binos and scopes but have actually hunted over my Leica binos and my Leupold scopes more than all the others combined. However,, if I were to have to go to square one and reequipe myself, knowing what I now know, I'm not sure I wouldn't spend the same money and go with cheaper binos and a Swarovski scope. There's a rock outcrop above an alfalfa field on my brother's ranch in Montana which we've named cocktail rock and many a time from there I've watched the mule deer herds move down late and move up early where the Leuy cant tell me for sure it's a four point (legal) and I go to the Leica's and they say it is, but back to the rifle and not sure I'm looking at the same animal thus no shot. May be that any good bino is better under low light than a good scope but I think maybe not and I dont shoot through my binos.

Dang, this post has been going on a long time. Just logged back on after another hunt and here it is!
 Just a few comments.
 
 Better, first I've read a few comments on a "10-year-old book," quite evidently from people who didn't read it. The book was published in 1999, but the DEVA tests frequently bandied about are indeed 10 years old. DEVA is a German testing outfit, associated with their national government, that tests all sorts of sporting goods. Have been trying to find out lately if they've done some new tests...and am still trying. Evidently DEVA is not part of the great woldlwide information web! But will report if anything new comes up.
 
 Neither the book (which included some of my own tests) nor the DEVA tests were intended to be written as The Last Word on the relative quality of optics. For those of you who haven't read the book (and there seem to be many, who nonetheless seem qualified to comment on it), it's mostly directed at the basic principles of hunting optics, and very much directed to making your own decisions with some informed self-tests.
 
 It is NOT a Consumer's Report "rating" every glass on the market, as that would be impossible. Instead it's more of a do-it-yourself guide, with some inside reports on various manufacturing techniques. Evidently many people think it works fine for that purpose, because it is still selling so well (in its third printing) that the publisher doesn't feel it makes economic sense to do an update just yet.
 
 Be that as it may, I have the opportunity to test about any optics in the world, side by side with others. Very often I recruit friends to help with the tests. I try to make them as "field-like" as possible, by looking at the parts of Montana around us with various brands and models, especially as night comes on. I have no axe to grind for anybody, just try to report facts as I (and my informal assistants) see them.
 
 Twenty years ago there was a definite advantage in many European optics, but that gap has narrowed and sometimes doesn't exist. One thing I've found while talking to many optical engineers and visiting many plants is that there are almost no secrets in optics anymore. To believe that the Europeans have some secret lock on optical manufacturing is naive. Many of the European optics made (even by some big names) have Japanese glass and coatings. Everybody steals from everybody else simply by buying the latest scope or binoc and tearing it apart, including chemically.
 
 Because of that, changes are very rapid, and to say this scope is brighter than that is silly, because next year they may be reversed. Indeed, stating any top brand is brighter than another is kind of silly--because some scopes from one maker are better than some its other scopes. In general, Zeiss makes the very brightest optics in the world in MOST scopes, but some aren't so hot. Their 6x42 Diavari, for instance, is noticeably dimmer than the 6x42 Leupold. Why? I don't know, but it's VERY noticeable in dim light. Otherwise Zeisses are SLIGHTLY brighter than the Vari-X III's. Lab tests indicate less than 1% difference in light transmission, which in my experience very definitely DOES translate into the field.
 
 My own "field-like" tests indicate that any scope rated at 88% or better in light transmission through scientific tests will be more than adequate for any North American hunting hours. The very best scopes rate somewhere around 92% in independent tests, though some compabies claim 94% in their own tests. Whatever. It doesn't matter, as all are more than adequately bright for our hunting--or even the night hunting in Europe.
 
 By the way, I have shot wild boar in Europe at night with the relatively dim 6x42 Diavari Zeiss. It worked fine, because it had a big fat reticle and we were hunting under a full moon over a hayfield. The biggest difference in being able to aim in dim light is the reticle, not the glass. Hunted a little this fall with a 55-year-old Noske 2.5x with a fat post reticle, a 7/8' tube with straight objective. The glass was single-coated but somewhat used. I found I could still aim at any whitetail within 250 yards (as far as I want to shoot with a .300 Savage) to the very last minute of legal light, even under a cloudy sky.
 
 Some other, more specific comments on what I've read on this post:
 
 Yes, there is a big difference between making scopes and making binoculars. That's why Leica went to Leupold to have their scopes made, and why Leupold has gone to Japan after failing at making their own binocs. (Their newest Japanese binoc, the P1 series, is pretty good. Not great, but probably the best available in their under-$400 price range.) It's why Pentax went to Burris to make their scopes (which are pure Burris, by the way). It's why Schmidt & Bender doesn't make binocs. The lenses are the same, but there's a vast difference between making a "simple-telescope aiming instrument" versus making a "linked pair of prism-telescope looking instruments."
 
 Stick, there are various grades of Pentaxes. The very best are the WP DCF roof prisms, which run from $400 to $600, depending on grade. These compare very favorably with all but the very finest binocs in the world. The only ones I'd rate better than the WP DCF's Pentaxes are the Leicas, Nikon Venturers, Bausch & Lomb Elites, Zeiss Night Owls and Swarovski EL's--NOT the Swarovski SLC's. They are fully optically equal to the older Zeiss Classics and Kahles, and better than the SLC's. This is not just my opinion but that of several knowledgeable optics pros, and the results of various lab tests. The new Zeiss Victorys are still in flux, but the first ones I saw also weren't quite as good as the WP DCF's--and several other optics pros agree--though they may get better as manufacturing kinks are worked out. But again, all of these are VERY FINE binoculars, far brighter than anything we used 30 years ago.
 
 And yes, the Swarovski yellow is real, but there's a lot more to the story. The original Swarovskis were intended only as hunting binoculars, so were given a slightly yellow bias to improve contrast in dim light. The Swarovski people themselves told me this.
 
 Some of the early SLC's slowly deterorated over time and dimmed the yellow view. I know this because a friend sent his 1990-era 8x30 back to Swarovski repair shop because the view had grown intolerably dim, and Swarovski repaired it, like new. One of the listed repairs was replacement of several interior parts and materials, so can't pinpoint the reason. But have seen several of these over the years-but only certain older models. My own 8x30 SLC was made around 1996 and is still as bright as when I got it.
 
 As Swarovski binocs became more popular with bird-watchers (who know a hell of a lot more about optics than 99.999% of hunters), the birders requested yellow-free glass, as they want to see colors as they are, which helps in identification. The newest SLC's and all the EL's are pretty much tint-neutral for that very reason.
 
 This has been a long post but there was a lot to say. Oh, I got into optics writing and the technical side of the stuff back in the 1980's, because many friends claimed Leupold made the brightest scopes--which was very evidently not the case to my eyes. I wanted to find out why--and discovered that all Leupolds at that time were only single-coated. Now, of course, they are not.
 Good hunting, everybody!

Thanks Mule Deer, you have a lot more actual experience than the rest of us have opinions. One question, sticking to a budget of say $1500 for both, what binos and scope would you pick to hunt over for most North America big game especially as to hunting conditions and light in your state of Montana mounting the scope on say a 300mag and assuming you could only have one each bino and scope?

Mule Deer:
 
 Excellent post! Sheesh.
 
 Rick

Joe,
 
 Though I am from Oregon and prefer to hunt there, the USAF has kept me in the South for almost 20 years. I am currently in Texas, and though I have lost most of my interest to hunt here, I did pick up a couple of tidbits.
 
 They are very fussy here about what animal you shoot. A mistake as such can cost you up to several thousand dollars--ie, the kill fee for the trophy buck you shot when you were really planning on only shooting a cull buck. Or, you may have spent several thousand for a trophy whitetail and don't want to waste your money on a lesser animal.
 
 Texas whitetails are very predictable, and the bucks often come out right at dusk, giving you only a few minutes before legal shooting hours end. The guys that hunt this way strongly advocate no scope can come close to binocs for judging animals in fading light. Many of the "mistakes" that are made happen when guys try to judge animals with their rifle scope. A high end spotting scope is the best bet, followed by high end binocs in at least 10x50 power. If a guy can't afford the high end binocs, then the next level is the best mid range binocs he cahn afford with as large an objective as possible, once again, at least 10x50. 12x50s are even better, as "twilight factor" is heavily dependent on magnification.
 
 Blaine

I'm sick of all the marketing crap Leupold sluts have bought into, and Leupold makes a damn fine scope in the Vari X III. But, they absolutely cannot compare to the top of the line scopes from Swarovski and Zeiss. I don't care if you live in a state that only allows you 1/2 hour either side of sunset/sunrise. You will miss oporutnities (although extremely uncommon) to shoot with a VariX III, that you would not miss with a top Swaro or Zeiss. Kid yourselfs all you want, that's your loss/problem/perogative.
 
 Real life here. Last year I'm hunting a farm in NC where the owner's rules are simply, if it's a deer, shoot the SOB, pass a shot and if he finds out, you will never come back. Late December, my friend Greg and I are sitting in a ground blind together for the evening hunt. The reason we were hunting out of the same stand, was the skies were extremely dark with black clouds and it was threatening serious rain and neither one of us felt like sitting outside in the rain, and the stand is big enough for four people. An hour before sunset, it was as dark as it gets with a clear sky almost 1/2 hour after sunset. The rain started, and I thought I saw a flash of white 25 minutes after sunset. I raised my 8X30 Swarovski SLC's, and I could "barely" make out the outline of a deer at 275-290 yards in the corner of the field, at the edge of a treeline. I didn't want anymore meat and would only shoot something I would pay to have mounted. I couldn't tell with my binoculars, so I told my friend to shoot it. He raised his rifle and could not see a deer, he did see off and on just a little flash of white as the deer move around. I gave him my rifle to shoot, and he looked and said I still can't see anything. I told him to focus it for his eyes, the fast focus on Swaro's and Zeiss are nice. His reaction was, where the F did that come from. He shot the deer cleanly. My scope was a Swarovski PH 2.5-10X56, his was a VariX III MC4 3.5-10x50. He could not make out the deer at all with his scope focused for his eyes, I could barely make out the deer with my 8x30 SLC's, but it was an easy shot with my scope once he turned the fast focus ring and picked up the deer. I do 99% of my hunting in SC where we can hunt 1 hour each side of sunrise/sunset. Before I moved here, I hunted deer with nothing but VariX III's. A friend here (SC) showed me the difference with a 3d deer when it was dark at 200 yards using a Zeiss and my 3.5-10x50 VariX III. I saved a long time to buy my first, and I now only own 1 VariX III which is relegated to range duty, I sold all the rest(3 of them). If you don't think the rare occasion when it makes a difference is worth the money, that is simply a personal choice. If you haven't personally used both under adverse conditions, shut up and quit parroting a bunch of marketing crap.

This is going to get good. Pass the popcorn, please.
 
 Rick

Hey Karl,
 
 I used my Leupold Varix II 3x9x40 to look at about a dozen elk way after sundown and could easily see them to shoot in darkness I could hardly see in without a scope. Even when the elk were backed up against a brushy roadline with heavy fir trees behind at about 125-150 yards distance. All I had to do was adjust the variable scope for the best twilight performance(about 6 power) and it was fine. Even though I didn't take a shot, I easily could have at least an hour past shooting time- on a dark, moonless night. If your Euro scope works for you, I'm happy for you.
 As far as shutting up, do you kiss your mother with that mouth? You wouldn't be a buddy of Don's would you? In other words, Kiss my lily white ass [bleep]! Your attitude could use a little adjusting if you want to be taken seriously.- Sheister

John,
 
 My Pentax were the DCF's,though pre-WP series.
 
 Had another opportunity this year,to have a pretty good high end bino,side by side shootout. Leica,Swaro EL's and SLC's and I had my Zeiss. I felt only Leica offered a like image and much preferred the Classic's ergonomics to all others(the gents with the others,likely felt likewise,as none of us were fresh off the turnip truck and had researched our individual choices prior to purchase).
 
 I concur on the Zeiss Victory,I firmly believe Zeiss lost ground on that one.
 
 Also have several Burris and Pentax straight 6x riflescopes and they are very much same/same,though none of my pards were wanting to believe it. Both heap big lacking to Leupie's 6x42,in my opinion...................
 
 
 To others,
 
 I find it very simple to find a critter I want in my glasses(as that is what I use the damn things for). From there,I've never had a transition incident when going from my binos,back to the critter in question with my riflescope.
 
 I've passed opportunities,but not due to not being able to discern the target in question. I'm just not hip on chasing stuff through the thickest of tanglefoot,in pitch black darkness.
 
 My opinion might differ,in different terrain and flora. A place where I could see the animal's reaction to the shot and count on both a follow up(if required) and have a good idea where the hell it went. Hitting the critter is the easy part,but that certainly is not where responsibility ends(my opinion,of course).
 
 However,being sloppy,isn't how I do business and I find it discouraging others would use that as a focal point in their approach...................

Karl,
 
 Lets get ready to ruuuummmmble [Linked Image]

I use a Schmidt & Bender 4 to 16 X 50 PM II scope on my 300 win mag. I do hunt in Texas, several hunts a year. I went on my first hog hunt last year (in Texas) and it bit me hard. I had a riot. I am going back this January for 2 seperate hog hunts - its just that much fun. For those that don't know it is 100% legal to kill hogs 24/7 - in Texas.
 
 I must say that the S&B 4 to 16 X 50 PMII is a step above ANY scope I have ever looked through. I have done a side by side comparison of many different scopes and also 2 different pair of binos, namely Swarovski 8X56 SLC and Leica Geovid (7X42). The geovid is slightly better in low light then the Swarovski 8X56 SLC (to my eyes and that of my one buddy - who was with me as we conducted our test). The S&B 4 to 16 X 50 was better then both the Swarovski 8X56 SLC and the Leica Geovid for the purpose of being able to see a target we set up at 200 yards - in the dark. We also had several Leupold scopes along, as well as some other S&B, Swarovski and Kahles scopes. The Leupolds all finished dead last in our tests.
 
 I have yet to compare the S&B 4 to 16 X 50 PMII against a US Optics scope but hope to in the next year or so. I will own a US Optics scope one of these days.
 
 All this BS about 1 or 2% brighter, to me, is just that, BS. I beleive what my own eyes tell me, not what some 10 year old lab test says.
 
 I agree 100% with one of the posters that said he doesn't kill animals looking through binocs - neither do I.
 
 Lets say we are all in Alberta, Canada, after a huge whitetail deer. More often then not one has 5 or so seconds to see the trophy, get on it, determine if you want to kill it,,,,,then kill it. Binocs are all but useless in that example. In fact, I know of several outfitters in Canada that tell their hunters - do yourself a favor and leave your binoculars at home. They can't be used to kill a trophy whitetail.
 
 I can see where those that live out west, in wide open country can use binocs for hours and hours of glassing. Not all terrain is like that. Back home I have NEVER used binocs while deer hunting and never will. They are totally useless to "ME". When I see a deer, with my naked eye, I get the scope on it. I CAN kill the deer looking through my scope, not with binocs.
 
 Geography and the type of hunting will determine if binocs are a usefull tool, or not. If they don't give one any advantage, why carry them?
 
 As far as this light gathering, sharpness, clarity, durability, eye criticalness (I just invented that word), ergonomics (another buzz word), useablitity, same eye relief (doesn't vary with power setting - on a variable which is a big joke to "ME")I will stick with the BEST scope out there for MY purpose. Schmidt & Bender gets the nod, from ME. They offer way to many advantages for me to even look at purchasing a Leupold.
 
 Next I hear,,,,,,,,but look how expensive they are. LMAO, thats a good one. If one is going to compare optics, compare optics. Price will only determine if ones budget will "allow" one to buy higher end.
 
 My views are well known on high end optics by many on various boards. I base my views on actual field use, not on some book somebody wrote. I may be wrong, but I have a sneaky feeling that some of the leupold boys like to "think" that their scopes are in the same league as Zeis, Swarovski, Schmidt & Bender and US Optics,,,,,,,they aren't. I would classify 3 levels of optics for scopes. Bottom, middle and high end. I would place Leupolds in the "Middle" category based on my own use of them. They surely are not in the "high end" category contrary to what some believe.
 I get slammed a lot for what some call: Slamming Leupolds. Actually I never said Leupolds were JUNK. In fact for a lot of people/hunters they obviously work just fine, for their purpose. Its when I hear they are as good or better then the "best" scopes out there that I really and truly start laughing out loud.
 
 I had one die in the wool leupold fan that used them for years and swore by them - I swore at them. But thats another story. This guy is a Doctor with his own practice. He can surely afford ANY scope he wants. He chose Leupolds. We (a buddy and myself) went to his house one night (he lives in the country). We took his beloved Leupolds, my Swarovski, my S&B and we went outside - after dark. We picked a sign on his property - white with black letters. We kept switching rifles back and forth and looking at that sign. He adjusted the focus to HIS eyes. After about 15 minutes we went back inside. His first question: Where can I buy a Swarovski 2.5 to 10 X 42 like you have on your 7mm mag? I gave him the name and number of the person I buy from. His 300 win mag now has that exact scope on it. He hunted 4 weeks this past fall in Canada for deer, 1 week for moose and 2 weeks for sheep in northern Canada and used that Swarovski scope - not a Leupold.
 If the Leupold lovers would just admit that the "high end" optics are better then their beloved Leupolds most of these debates would go away - but what fun would that be? [Linked Image]

Now, before any Leupold lover gets in a real huff, I never said that being a Leupold Lover is a bad thing, did I?
 
 
 I best get off my soap box now because I see the "rotton tomato" truck pulling in and I don't wants stains on my shirt [Linked Image]

Have a good one all,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Rick,
 
 Would you like your popcorn with or without butter?
 
 Salt is already a given, lol
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Karl,
 
 If you want to be a credible poster here, calling folks "sluts" and telling them how wrong they are probably isn't the best way to start. Yes, it is very hard to get yourself booted off this board because we don't believe in that. However, if you continue in your present manner you will simply ignored. Very few of us will engage in pissing contests anymore, for all the obvious reasons.
 
 Many of us here have been posting togther for several years--8 years by my count. There is an incredible amount of knowledge, skill, and experience on this forum. Folks will bend over backwards to be helful. While we don't agree on everything, few will tolerate someone coming in and insulting folks. We've been there and done that too many times already.
 
 Maybe you typed before thinking, maybe if we had heard your words in person it wouldn't seem as "severe." Regadless, I'd recommend a different approach if you want to reap the benefits of being here. We gladly welcome your experiences and input. We're less excited about the attitude you seem to be displaying. I can guarantee many folks all already wondering if you aren't a certain guy who comes here, tries to cause trouble, leaves, then comes back with a new handle.
 
 Blaine

I'm an unabashed Leupold Slut and was glad Karl could figure it out.................

Blaine,
 
 Just to set the record straight - before things get out of hand I wanted to let you know I am not a SLUT.
 
 I am a lesbian, trapped in a mans body [Linked Image]

Have a good one.
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Karl,Boy do I know where your comming from.And agree with you 100 %.I cant tell you the number of times I had the same thing or very close to the same thing happen to me.I have a number of big S&Bs that allow you to take shots that no Leupold will match.Makes a big difference when you have alot
 riding on just one shot.Seeing is believing.And thats just the optical end of things.Looked in my log book awhile back and came up with a very interesting fact.Ive never owned a Leupold that I fired more than 2000 rounds under that didnt require service.And you want me to carry one of these things on a serious big game hunt? Ill think Ill pass.I tend to look at Leupolds like factory rem 700s.Might be ok to use if you spend enough money getting it worked over and checked out.Kind of like saying you could have had a V8 but got a yugo.Ill get the V8.
 dave

Are we at 100 posts yet? [Linked Image]

- Sheister

Getting close!

dave, a little extreme maybe? Yugo?
 
 I take my hunting pretty dang serious and have yet to come across a situation where a Leupold hasn't fit the bill.
 
 On the contrary, you guys with your S&B's seem to be so dazzled over their abilities, I'd imagine you're missing out on plenty of shots. Dialogue would go something like this...
 
 "Sure is dark out! Oh, [email]cr@p![/email] There's a HUGE buck -- Uhh I think! Better look through the scope. Yep, he's biiiii..... whoa, this scope is bright. Dang glad I spent the extra money on it. Those Leupold guys sure are losers! Heehee, if they could only be here now! Yep, I'm the smart one! Too bad one of 'em aren't here right now, so I could show them! I'd have that big buck and they'd be singing the blues! Heehee! Wait a minute! Oh Shooooot, he's gone! Arrrrrgggghhhhh!"

Gees, don't know if I am qualified to post on this topic or not.
 
 I do remember my first riflescope though. It was a 2-7x32 TASCO. I thought I was in heaven. Saved the money to buy it laying asphalt one summer. It never leaked fogged or puked in any way. I can't recall how many critters it helped me take at all times of the day.
 That was a long time ago and I have learned a thing or two so I'll give my last remaining 2 cents here since I spent everything else on Christmas.
 
 Mule Deer is right, shooting in low light is much more reticle dependent than on scope brightness. The thicker the better. You can get an illuminated reticle but a battery in a scope is kinda like birth control pills. You just never know when that 1% is going to pop up.
 
 A good friend swears by European scopes with names people are never sure how to pronounce. We have compared them with the American scopes and darned if I can see a difference. He says he can. But, out hunting in Oct. I tried to show him a bedded deer at about 130 yards and he could not see it without optical aid. Ant that interesting? Just the other day we were comparing American and European scopes but threw a Jap scope in the mix. Darned if we both didn't think it was as good as if not better than the others.
 
 I got pretty good eyesight but use binoculars even when hunting thick cover. Learned that if you are not using binoculars, even Jap glass, you will miss stuff.
 
 Never had a problem with Leupolds. A whitetail doe charged me once and I clubed her with the rifle and the Leupold attached to it, the scope survided. The doe did too.
 
 Read Optics for the Hunter. Taught a country boy allot of stuff he didn't know. Yeah there were some things I did not agree with completely but guess what? The author was not looking through my eyes when he did his research and testing.
 
 I doubt I will ever buy a Euro scope unless they figure out how to make em weigh less than the rifles they go on. But then again, I might win the lottery and start taking steroids someday.
 
 You can buy a high dollar / high end scope but you would likely have better results hunting if you bought a Leupold, Burris or Weaver and spent the money you saved on practice ammo. Missing is much more common than riflescope failure!
 
 But what do I know? I test drove a Land Rover and did not like it and I prefer brunettes. Its just how things look through my eyes. And those I am stuck with.

Very good post Whitetail, I too have never seen the need for a lot of these scopes, I only ever used either Tasco or the Bushnell Banner or Scopechief and never had an issue with either one.
 I have hunted in rugged terrain for mountain goats and hunted up the Alaska Highway for Moose and deer and under pouring rain and snow, freezing temperatures and never had a problem.
 In fact in over 35 years of hunting the only scope failure I suffered was on an elk hunt when I was first starting out and had an old Fisher Dietz my dad gave me and I mounted it on my 303 Lee Enfield and it ended up leaking.
 Even the Bushnell and the Tasco have done duty on my 375 H&H and never missed a beat.
 Bill
 
 You can buy a Leupold, or Schmidt Bender, or some other foreign scope time after time and I will still be ahead of the game and have more money in my pocket by buying my inexpensive optics that work!

Ah, thank you Mule Deer. It sure is nice to get some up dated information, and to have much of this put into a realistic perspective.
 Karl, I'm not surprised you found your 56 mm scope worked better under those conditions. Did you know that your 56 mm scope has, because of it's larger objective lense, 25% more light to work with than the 50 mm Leo ? That would make a big difference.
 I am actually rather pleased with all this. I don't start these posts to sell anybody anything. I do it to help others and to learn things I don't know or understand correctly. E

JoeR--There are a whole pile of combinations that would work, but for my own hunting I use more binocular than scope. Have been quite happy with the Leupold 6x42 with Heavy Duplex as an all-around scope, which can be had for under $400. Many people think 6x has too smalla field for close range, but they have around 4.5 feet at 25 yards, which is plenty. Have killed running deer at 25 with 6x--and also several animals over 400 yards away, no problem. But many people like variables, and there are a lot of good ones out there for around $400, including the Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x, not only very bright but also has Rainguard, which does make a difference in damp weather. It will probably soon be available with the new Firefly reticle, a heavy "triplex" with phospherescent edges that REALLY show up in dim light.
 
 That leaves $1100 for the binoc. Would probably go with a 10x of at least 40mm. Like Stick, I hunt with the binocular, even in heavy cover. Last month spent some time rattling whitetails in eastern Montana, and even at under 100 yards found many deer in my 10x50 Pentaxes that wouldn't be seen by eye alone. I would say that 3 out of 4 deer wouldn't be seen, much less evaluated, without the binoc.
 
 Both of the binocs I'm about to suggest will push your budget some, but I'll list them anyway. Before this year, my pick probably would have been the 10x42 Swarovski EL's, but now am selling some glass to get the Leica 8x12x Duovid. It combines into one handy, high-class binoc the system I often use in big country: an 8x32 for hanging around my neck, and a 12x50 Leica for the long-range stuff. You can see a LOT more with 12x than with 10x at long range, while 15x is just too much for most of us unless rested or on a tripod. You lose definition from vibration otherwise.
 
 But all of the above would break your budget. I'd look at the Nikon Venturer 10x42, B&L Elite 10x42 or Leica 10x42. I believe all can be had for $1100 or under.
 
 Stick--The WP DCF is a much better binoc than the non-phase-coated model you had, both in optics and toughness. In 8x42 and 10x50 it's just a hair behind the very finest, such as the Swarovski EL. Only in 8x32 does the Pentax start to drop back a bit, but it's still brighter than the Swarovski 8x30. The only glasses of that size I've seen to beat it noticeably are the Leica and Nikon Venturer.
 
 Have carried my 8x42 Pentax all over North America and some in Africa and Europe as well. Have had several guides who carried more expensive glass say they were going to unload their binoc and get a Pentax after looking through mine.
 
 But there are sure no flies on the Zeiss Classic!

Hmm,
 
 2000 rounds of tack-driving accuracy, durability, long eye-relief, and light weight; then you might have to send it back to get fixed for free because it no longer shoots 1/8" groups on your BR gun. Yeah, what a loser. The scope is only outlasting the barrel by 500 rounds. Crud, could it be the barrel that's gone bad? Naw, has to be that cruddy Leupold scope. Maybe that's why so many guys use German scopes for their BR rigs. [Linked Image]

Dave,
 
 In all seriousness and to give us a point of reference, how many rounds can you put through the German scopes on your BR guns before they need tuned up?
 
 Blaine

Don,
 
 I really don't think this thread is heading into a pissing contest just yet. However, nothing new has been said in a while, if anything new ever was said. It boils down to this. The guys that like Leupolds REALLY like them and are not interested in the German scopes. The guys who like the German scopes REALLY like them and REALLY don't like Leupolds.
 
 Blaine

John,
 
 I Hunt literally through my binoculars,for a coupla reasons.
 
 First,is the fact that my unaided eyes are a joke at best. Picture Mr. Magoo sans spectacles and that would be close! A guy has gotta know his weaknesses and that is the first,along my very long list.
 
 Secondly,I believe in being thorough. Quality,over quantity. I'd rather tear something apart with my glasses and see EVERYTHING that lurks,as opposed to a casual half-assed glance and then go trotting over the next ridge. I much enjoy busting a hid critter's position,as it is a reminder that being thorough is often rewarded.
 
 Often Mr. Big will hold his position,remaining motionless. Nothing like hammering something like that,when he's under the impression that he was undetected. It adds a little flavor to savor. I simply believe the above approach,very much ups my odds.
 
 Calling is my absolute favorite technique,for our Deer,though you can surely see 10 fold more critters earlier in the year up high. I just enjoy going one on one,in the thickest of tangles and coaxing one to me on full alert. My weapons of choice are the Leupie 6x42 and the fullsize Classics. The 6x42 is like looking through a 36" culvert for me. The sight picture is easy to obtain,the image bright and the FOV certainly more than adequate. In the Classic,I love it's depth of field,resolution and they way it handles.
 
 There are many who would say that both those choices are out of whack,for those conditions. Especially beings I've a herd of variable powered rifle scopes and some Leica 8x20 Compacts to choose from. The 6x42 is my bread and butter,running the gamut from 223Ackley to 375H&H Ackley Improved and quite a few in between. Coupled with an elevation turret,it is very capable of going past where many would think the abilities of the 6x should go.
 
 I'm good enough with a rifle to know if I'm hamstringing myself,in any area. If I could not connect on opportunities I wanted and knew to be "doable",I'd remedy the malady. The 6x42 is no second fiddle on Game........................

Sounds like we hunt a lot alike. Lately I have even been going scopeless some of the time, hunting with irons and stalking even closer.
 
 I am looking to come up to Kodiak again this November after deer. Have hunted a few beasts here and there, but nothing truly beats deer hunting for never-ending variety.
 
 Good hunting,
 J.

I miss the days when I could run peeps. They suited me well,in a variety of situations.
 
 I concur on your thoughts regarding Deer and wish I was in your hip pocket come November. Kodiak is beyond compare,in magnitude,attitude and rugged beauty,though I understand their population is none too rosey at present.................

Blaine,
 
 A "pissing" contest?
 
 I was merely stating my "personal" experiences, no different then you or anybody else in here.
 
 I firmly beleive that a lot of the boys that hunt out west or in wide open country would have a serious change of heart if they hunted in the thick woods of the east - with regards to this binocular thing.
 
 This is a typical situation in WV, PA, NY for deer hunting in the woods - where there actually are trees close together. Your sitting/standing in the woods, waiting to see a deer, you spot a deer (with your naked eyes), you throw up the rifle (not binoculars) to see if it is a buck or a doe. If a buck, you have to make sure it is legal first. You have MAYBE 10 seconds to decide if its a legal deer, get on it and kill it. No time to use binocs, thats for sure. That scenario is more common the case in the hills of WV, PA and NY.
 
 Again, the terrain and type of hunting dictates if one uses binocs or not. I have only hunted in PA - for deer - for 37 years now. Even with those very limited amount of years hunting in PA I have NEVER run across another hunter that was carrying binocs - never. Maybe the 1 million plus deer hunters in PA have no clue what their doing? Point being, the terrain and methods of hunting will dictate if binocs are used or not. [Linked Image]

As to the debate about what scope anyody uses, since they decide on their own or perhaps influenced by their close personal hunting buddies, people decide what works for them. I have decided that Leupold no longer works for me. I have moved on to higher quality optics that work for "me". "My" choice is Swarovski and Schmidt & Bender - for now. Once I have the opportunity to use a US Optics scope for a number of years I "may" change my mind yet again. That is yet to be determined by "me".
 
 If people want to beleive that their choice is more durable or better somehow then the next guys choice, thats their business - as I see it. But when people tout a certain brand as being as good as the better scope (Euro and US Optics) it makes me laugh. I would dare say most of these that debate the Leupold versus the Euro brands have never used all the scopes in the debate.
 
 Have you ever hunted using a Schmidt & Bender 4 to 16 X 50 PM II scope? I haven't used ALL the various models that Leupold offers but I have used several and still have some hunting buddies that use some of the newer models. I have access to them. I have looked through them and compared them to the higher quality scopes made in Europe - namely Swarovski and Schmidt & Bender. There is no comparison - to me. The Euro scopes offer way more then ANY Leupold I have ever looked through. Thats a personal choice, no different then anybody else's personal choice.
 
 This eye relief issue that the Leupold boys bring up is totally laughable - to me.
 
 When I first started shooting skeet I was fortunate enough to have a very good instructor that taught me "gun fit" before we ever went to a skeet field. No different then rifle fit. When I shoulder any of my rifles and have my eyes closed, then open them, I have a perfect full field of view through a scope. I don't have to move my head, back and forth to have a full view through my scope. When using a variable Leupold, or a lot of other "made for the USA" scopes one has to move his head forward or backward based on the power selection used - with a variable power scope. To "me" thats just plain dumb. I want to be able to clearly see the entire sight picture when I shoulder my rifle - not having to move my head back and forth to find the full sight picture. If one has enough time to move around I guess thats ok, but what if you don't? As far as the "longest" eye relief goes, why don't these same people write what the eye relief is at both ends of the spectrum? My guess is that they would be poking themselves in the foot, so to speak. All the Euro scopes I have and use have a constant eye relief. Simply put it means that the eye relief is the same no matter what power setting is used. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to some, but to me it means a lot - aka higher quality. Perhaps the "made for USA" scope makers haven't figured out how to do that - although I doubt it. Maybe the "Made for USA" scope makers realize it costs more to do that. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I really don't know. What I do know is when I shoulder my rifle, the sight picture is the same every single time, no matter what power setting is employed on a variable scope. As far as the "same" eye relief I buy a scope with sufficient eye relief based on the caliber and how I will use the rifle in a hunting situation. I have a Schmidt & Bender 1.5 to 6 X 42 on my 375 H&H AI and have never had the scope come back and hit my brow. And, guess what, the eye relief is the SAME throughout the power range.
 
 Maybe all the quality increases provided by the Euro scopes don't mean anything to the average "Joe" hunter and in that case "Joe" buys whatever works for him, and hey, thats all well and good.
 
 Its when I keep reading how durable one brand is over another that I have to laugh. If lighter weight is so much more duarable we should all mount cardboard tubes on top of our rifles, lol. I think you see what I am getting at. I have yet to see where anybody has had a durablity issue with Swarovski or S&B scopes, so that issue that is debated a lot is a missnomer - to me.
 
 We can debate this, that or the other thing as to why we as individuals like one brand or another but it all boils down to our individual needs.
 
 Your reference to Dave about the 2000 rounds did make me laugh. I doubt Dave ever used a barrel in competition that had 2000 rounds through it. They do make new barrels everyday.
 
 Well, I best get back to work. All you guys have fun and lets not get to name calling. To much info here to start a "pissing" match.
 
 Have a good one all,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Don,
 
 In the type of Hunting you describe,just what benefits might the S&B 4-16x,offer over the Leupie 6x42? That besides much added weight,length,girth and a higher mounting system?
 
 You'd likely be suprised what you'd see in binoculars,if you used them(grin). If your eyes are all that great,to first detect critters via your nekked eye,then WTF are you doing with a 4-16X on your woods rifle?
 
 That were a poor Sales Pitch..................

Don, I learned about glassing from a guy that had killed at that time over a dozen 30 inch mule deer. All of his bucks were killed at 200 yds. or less. He rarely stalked them. He used his bino to look through cover and spot them first. That is the secret to his success, that and knowing a great deal about 4 yr. old class bucks.
 John Wooter's in his excellent book, "Hunting Throphy Deer", describes the technique. And, of course, John Barsness wrote at lenth about such techniques in "Optics for the Hunter". In fact, I believe the sections of that book on glassing techniques are the most useful ones.
 Many of us use these techniques, and understand their advantages. If I had to choose between a top scope, or a top binocular, it would always be the binocular. E

It boils down to this. You simply have more options to choose from,if you see HIM,before he sees YOU.
 
 Give me the binos................

Stick,
 
 If you would allow me I will respond in reverse oder.
 
 First, I wasn't providing any sales pitch - if you think that your totally off base. Like you and others I was merely expressing my own personal views. [Linked Image]

I do use binoculars. Where did you read that I "never" use binoculars. I use bonics a LOT while woodchuck hunting. Trying to locate the little rascals in a bean field when the bean plants are 8" tall is a tedious chore, sometimes. I like the Swarovski SLC's and use them a lot while "chuck" hunting.
 
 Where did I say I used the S&B 4 to 16 X 50 PM II while hunting in the woods? I didn't, SMILE
 
 My 7mm mag is my carry rifle (woods rifle), it wears a Swarovski 2.5 to 10 X 42 scope.
 As to any added weight, length, girth and higher mounting system goes. I never minded a few extra ounces on my rifle, in fact I like a heavier set-up then you do. If you like pencil barrels, thats your choice. I don't.
 
 The 4 to 16 X 50 PM II I use on my 300 win mag sits on a front rest, rear bag most of the time. I don't really care how much the rifle/scope combo weighs. In fact I am thinking about adding 3 or 4 lbs to the total weight.
 
 My woods rifle weighs 9 1/2 lbs with the scope. I carried a stock Rem 700 with a wood stock for a number of years and it had a 2.5 to 8 leupold on it. The total weight of rifle and scope was 11lbs. My carry gun now is a 7mm mag with a Swarovski 2.5 to 10 X 42 and it weighs 9 1/2 lbs. Hey look there my combo NOW is 1 1/2 lbs lighter, [Linked Image]

As to a higher mounting system on my woods rifle, not so.
 
 Try again, [Linked Image]

Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Your mentioning that you personally do not use binos on Deer,
 
 ("Again, the terrain and type of hunting dictates if one uses binocs or not. I have only hunted in PA - for deer - for 37 years now. Even with those very limited amount of years hunting in PA I have NEVER run across another hunter that was carrying binocs - never. Maybe the 1 million plus deer hunters in PA have no clue what their doing? ")
 
 led me to what I guess was a false assumption that what you related was the truth. My bad.
 
 Then your mentioning of the S&B 4-16x as The Holy Grail and was the only scope you mentioned in that Post,in regards to Deer. Again,I made an assumption that what you related was truth. My bad.
 
 But you sidestep the crux of my last Post and I'll try again. In the type of Hunting you describe,just what benefits might the S&B 4-16x,offer over the Leupie 6x42? That besides much added weight,length,girth and a higher mounting system?
 
 Or if you now prefer,your Swaro 2.5-10x?................

E,
 
 Well lets see, no mule deer here in PA - thank goodness.
 
 Did you actually read any of what I wrote? It appears not. The type of terrain and style of hunting will dictate if one uses binocs or not. I doubt even all your book reading will say otherwise. We don't all live out west and we don't all hunt in wide open country where binocs make sense to cover the wide open country. We don't all have animals grazing or bedding in open areas.
 
 If you hunted, in the woods, where I deer hunt, after one day of carrying around your binocs you would leave them in the truck/car. They are just plain useless "here". The keyword there is "HERE", just so it sinks in, lol.
 
 Stick,
 
 Again, the type of terrain and style of hunting dictates IF one uses binocs or not. You mention about seeing the deer before it see's you. A valid point for sure. Come hunt the woods here and you will SEE how invalid that point can be. It is a rare occasion that a deer is stopped in the woods here, if you are stalk hunting. There are so many hunters pushing deer all over the place that it is rare to see a deer that has stoped at all. When I used to do a lot of "woods" hunting and spotted a deer, generally running, the tactic that was used the most was, find an opening to shoot on the deers present path. Get set-up in that "Path" and whistle, hoping to stop the deer in that path. Take all of the 2 or 3 seconds you have to get on the deer, judge to see if it is legal for the tag you are carrying, and kill it. I think anybody can see where binocs are totally useless for our type of woods hunting.
 
 Now, if I was watching over the wide open plains of Montana I would definately have a pair of binocs to glass for deer.
 
 See the difference?
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Too funny! I just wonder what ytou picture my terrain and foliage looks like. If you could find more dense cover than what is routinely offered here,I'd be heap big impressed!
 
 It is due to dense foliage,that binos are my weapon of choice. In wide open spaces,seeing critters from afar,is easier. Here,one must Hunt slowwwww and tear apart every hint of cover and that is MOST time consuming. It would be a 100% impossibility,to employ a rifle and it's scope(ANY rifle/scope combo) as a means of seeing critters in the puckerbrush(besides being dangerous to boot,especially in an area with other Hunters running rampant).
 
 My take is that you think binos are useless,because you don't know how to Hunt with them. Even all serious archers I know,live through their binos..................

Don, odviously you know nothing about western hunting. I've killed far more bucks under 50 yds. than over 300.
 We have very dense, heavy cover areas here where the hunting is often the best. The critters that wander around in the open were educated, or killed, years ago. E

Stick,
 
 While deer hunting in PA I have never used binocs, that is correct.
 
 If you choose to call the S&B 4 to 16 X 50 PMII as the "Holy Grail" thats your choice.
 
 What I related was the truth? lol,,,,trying to split hairs now? Come on guy, get real. If you want to pick apart one post, even though you know I have other scopes that I use, I guess your welcome to do so to try to validate your points.
 
 I use the Swarovski 2.5 to 10 X 42 on my woods gun because it offers me "constant eye relief". You did read that part, didn't you? If I have but a few seconds to get on a deer, determine if it is legal for me to kill it, and then kill it, I don't want to be fiddling around with eye relief. Yes, I fully realize that the straight 6 power you mention has the same eye relief every time. I like the option of having a vaiable. I can't always have the deer at a distance I want it to be at to make a straight 6 power scope work just how I want it to. The deer may be 25 yards away, it may be 150 yards away. No way of really getting in the right spot as the deer is moving along. If I move to much the deer may detect me and run off. If I stay as still as possible, generally leaning against a tree I have a better chance of that deer not spotting me and thus not running off. When I am still or stalk hunting in the woods I set the power on the scope to the lowest setting in case a deer gets close. I want the largest field of view possible. You can imagine what it would be like trying to track a deer through a scope at 6 power as it runs between trees. One would loose the deer more often then seeing it. If the deer is further away I can then increase the power, as it is moving and be ready IF I can get it to stop where I have a clear shot.
 
 I didn't sidestep anything. If you ever hunted here you would understand the situation better.
 
 Again a few extra ounces never bothered me, like it does you. As far as the scope being longer I like that fact. I don't care much for the tiny leupold scopes. But, thats a personal preference.
 
 How is it that a Swarovski 42mm objective scope would be mounted higher then a Leupold 42mm objective scope? That question of yours escapes me.
 In some cases the Swarovski can actually be mounted lower then the Leupold. Since the Swarovski is LONGER in length the bell on the objective is out past the part of the barrel where it starts to taper - sometimes. In that case one could actually mount the scope lower then with the Leupold. Correct?
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Stick,
 
 Let me ask you this. In that thick cover how many other hunters do you see a day?
 
 Don [Linked Image]

E,
 
 Obviously you know nothing about eastern type of hunting.
 
 I have hunted out west and yes I realize that binocs can and do become an asset there or did you not read where I already said that?
 
 I will ask you the same question I asked Stick, how many hunters do you run across as your hunting in that thick stuff?
 
 Don [Linked Image]

You Post in circles and I try to do my best,to always grant the benefit of doubt.
 
 You have never seen me type S&B 4-16x,excepting upon this very thread,so it should be obvious to you(and everyone),that it doesn't rate The Holy Grail moniker in my opinion,for applications of interest to me. There should be little trouble cyphering what I like and why,as I'm not afraid to share my thoughts.
 
 Explain to me please,how the 2.5-10x Swaro's eye-relief is constanter(Technical Term)than the Leup 6x42?
 
 If you cannot point your rifle within 5' of the target area,at 25 yards,you'd best stay home. They don't make a scope(yet)that will shoulder your rifle and poke in the right direction for you.
 
 You argue that you've ZERO time to employ binos,but have enough time to shift gears through your variable's range,so as to have the perfect amount of magnification for every shot opportunity. HUH??!??
 
 A 42mm objective,is a 42mm objective. But mounting options for a 1" tube,aren't necessarily the same for a 30mm or bigger tube.
 
 Weight really doesn't enter the equation for me,in still Hunting. For that application I prefer a short/fast handling rifle,of great balance. The weight is largely moot,if kept within reason.
 
 You have broken new ground and could be very much onto something,for guys who like light rifles. "Don's Extra Long Main Tube Heavyweight Variable". I'm sure it would FLY off the shelves(grin)...................

I don't run across Hunters anywhere,as I wouldn't Hunt a location crawling with others.
 
 Another plus,to living in remote Alaska.................

Gee, when I lived and hunted back east, I used binoculars. Guess you didn't ever run across me though.
 
 You seem to think you have the market cornered on "woods." Hunting the timber in Colorado or Idaho or E. Washington, the rainforests and clearcuts of W. Washington or Alaska or the hardwoods of NY (ALL of which I've done), it isn't all THAT different. If you aren't using binoc's in the woods, you're missing a LOT.
 
 Also, as Stick mentioned earlier, finding them before they see you is a lot of fun AND gives you time to judge an animal and work your way in for good shot placement. Done it on whitetails, mule deer and elk in the woods enough times to know it beats the hell out of shooting at a wagging tail!
 
 Don, you do it your way and I'll do it mine! Curious, if you don't use binocs, do you use your scope to check out other hunters? Always seems to be a correlation there. BIG pet peeve of mine!

Stick,
 
 Don't tell anybody you sidestepped my question. [Linked Image]

"Let me ask you this. In that thick cover how many other hunters do you see a day?"
 
 I am not affraid to share my thoughts either, as I have done many times. What works for me and what works for you are two different things, thats obvious for all to see.
 
 I already explained explained my use of the Swarovski scope versus the luep 6 X 42, perhaps you didn't read it as carefully as you should have. Again, I expressed my thoughts as they relate to me and how I hunt. Trying to degrade another hunter is foolish on your part. I don't degrade how you hunt yet you seem it necessary to "try" to degrade others on how they hunt. Seems childish to me.
 
 You like a short lightweight rifle for still hunting, I don't. What is the point?
 
 As you know I shake a lot and the added weight helps me in getting steady. Nothing difficult to understand there,,,,,,,,,is there?
 
 You right, mounting a 1" tube scope is different then mounting a 30mm tube. With a 30mm tube one uses lower rings to get close to the barrel and with a 1" tube one has to use higher rings. Using higher rings are not as stable as using lower rings. Try holding a 2 gallon pail of water using a 2X4 that is 2' long versus 4' long. I figure a lumberjack will understand if I used wood to explain, lol.
 
 Again, the style of hunting is one part as to why one does or doesn't use binocs. If where you hunt you have thick cover, no other hunters around to disturb you, then yes, you can use binocs to an advantage. Thats obvious.
 
 I never said I had ZERO time to employ binocs, you did.
 It is really quiet simple. If you hunted the woods here you would understand. Instead you try to belittle methods employed by others, kind of narrow minded.
 
 Nice try, but no sale
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Stick,
 
 Because you don't run across other hunters you CAN use binocs to your advantage. Hopefully even you see the differences.
 
 Because there are so many hunters in the woods "here" one doesn't have that option. Yeah, I could move, but its home, just like where you live is home.
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Mule,
 
 Where back east did you hunt? You never said.
 
 I never said or implied I had any market cornerd, you did. You shouldn't assume things. How many hunters do you see a day hunting in the east versus the west?
 
 Mule, the "your way" and "my way" is dictated by others as well. It is not "MY WAY" but rather it is the method that must be used in order to ever kill anything where there are a lot of other hunters in the same area. Even a mag writer should be able to figure that out. [Linked Image]

As far as scoping other hunters it is not a practice I employ and I detest anybody that does. Did you ask because you used to do that? Or is there another reason you asked?
 
 When you say there SEEMS to be a correlation, is that a guess on your part or do you have personal and actual experiences doing so?
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Don,
 
 I got too much Realist in me and have encountered enough diversity in terrain and foliage,that there's little I need to guess about. If'n I'm ever guessing,that fact is plainly stated,before my thoughts are offered.
 
 I'm not degrading you,just letting you know you are funny. You lament long and loud on optical superiority issues,twilight issues,blah,blah,issues and it boils down to you pointing your rifle at other Hunters and frantically shifting gears on your zoom tube at a running Deer you mighta seen. What's to ridicule?
 
 I don't savvy your mounting height theorum either. It is simple. Scopes with 1" tubes are made to much smaller sizes than those employing 30mm tubes and there are a myriad of base/ring combos in vogue,to enable the user to mount them low to the bore(yes,lower than 30mm).
 
 Further,I see nothing obvious about the merits of pointing a rifle at someone under ANY circumstance. That is not subject to debate and would cost an individual an ass kicking,as a minimum,if done to moi. You could say I'm of Zero Tolerance,in that regard.
 
 I've yet to be in terrain or foliage,that negated the use of binos. That from wide open expanses,to the thickest [bleep] you could possibly fathom.
 
 Besides being sloppy,you are DANGEROUS....................

Stick,
 
 Sidestepping (your word) again I see.
 
 You make things up as you go along. I never pointed a rifle at another hunter while hunting. I ask you to point out where I said I did, you can't. Your points are not at all valid, to me. You should try a large chunk of reality since you are living in a fantasy world. Do you always make things up when you talk to people? Not a very good quailty.
 
 I challenge you to prove where a 1" tube can be mounted any lower then a 30mm tube with both having a 42mm objective. Thats truly laughable. I hope you do realize that with a 1" tube one NEEDS to use HIGHER rings then with a 30mm tube. Maybe you think the higher rings are more stable then the lower rings. You best stick to cutting down trees. LMAO
 
 I would hope that you don't point a rifle at anybody, unless you plan to do them bodily harm. I never have.
 
 You totally missed the point about the terrain, obviously. Then again you sidestepped (your word again) a lot of questions I asked you. You want others to answer your questions and you blatently refuse to answer theirs? Silly little man.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Blaine,Its somewhere between 0 and 2000 rounds on light kicking rifles that the Leupold will puke.You figure out when.And you can never tell how bad a puke it might be .In my case with my luck it would probley be on some expensive hunt somewhere.Then you get to have a close personal relationship with there service dept.Again Ill pass.I know that you have alot of them and that so far they have worked out for you.Be happy.Its wont last.In the mean time you get to have POI shift on there variables floating erector tubes somewhere under 2000 rounds changing eye relief,reticles mounted in the WRONG opticle plane and mirkey optics.Enjoy
 dave

Don,
 
 You've mentioned numerous times,that your preference is to glass through your scope. All here,that have been around awhile can certainly recall it,as it leaves a bad taste and the topic has been bantied much. You are the SOLE proponent.
 
 I said a 42mm tube,is a 42mm tube = same/same. I mentioned that many scopes with 1" tubes,come in smaller sizing than the 30mm offerings. Most guys totin' light rifles,have 1" tubes scopes and have them mounted as low as possible. That is/was my point,as you were/are well aware. Just how low is your 4-16 56mm mounted,in their "low" rings?(grin)
 
 I've yet to duck my first question,though I could have failed to cypher one of your riddles. Should you wish to know my stance on something,ask in plain English and I'll be happy to elaborate..............

E., I appreciate your responses and if DonKnows will allow me to sidestep the pissing matches he always starts on every board, I have a question for you. My Leupold 6x42 is the pre- multicoat4 version that I had retrofitted with the click adjustments. Since you probably have experience with both versions, is there that much difference at twilight between the two? I have a 1 3/4 x 6 VariXIII and a new 2x7 VXII, so I know the coatings are improvements. If I had the german 4A reticle installed in the 6x42, how much low light performance would I be missing compared to the newer version which is multicoated? Thanks for your earlier replies.
 Sambubba

Don,
 
 I said "I really don't think this thread is heading into a pissing contest just yet." In fact, I am pleased that most guys are relating personal experiences and the opinons they have formed. So far, it's been good. [Linked Image]

The eye relief issue certainly didn't make me laugh when I was smacked hard--three times--with an old scope with inadequate eye-relief mounted on my 375 Ack. It seems those of us who shoot heavier recoiling guns (say in the 50 ft lb class--375 Ack, 416 Rem, 338 Ultra) are very concerned about eye-relief, for good reason. I choose my scope based on it's minumum level of eye relief, and the Leupolds I'm using have 3.6-3.8" minumum. Many German scopes have only 3 to 3.5," though it is constant. That amount of eye relief is fine on a 300 Win or a 338 Win, but 3.5" is the minumum I'd be comfortable with on heavier kickers. I often get lightly tapped in the eyes as it is with 3.6-3.8." I also like the ability to greatly increase the eye relief by cranking down the power if I am having a bad day at the range. The LPS does have a constant 4," which would be fine, but I dislike so many other features of the LPS--the same ones I dislike on the German scopes.
 
 I don't have the problem you describe with having to move my head around to get a full field of view. I think that is mainly an issue of rifle fit, but it may just be another case of what works for one guy doesn't always work for another.
 
 I don't know if guys are saying their choice is the best for everyone--but it is the best choice for them.
 
 And it's not the alleged quality increases of the Euro-scopes that don't mean anything to me, but these extremely minimal increases in clarity are more than offset by the drawbacks of these scopes, not even considering price.
 
 Blaine

AFP said "If you want to be a credible poster here, calling folks "sluts" and telling them how wrong they are probably isn't the best way to start. Yes, it is very hard to get yourself booted off this board because we don't believe in that. However, if you continue in your present manner you will simply ignored. Very few of us will engage in pissing contests anymore, for all the obvious reasons."
 
 1: The term "Leupold sluts" is a common term in use on all the hunting boards, I think you have a thin skin if this bothers you.
 2: This particular board is full of pissing contests, what's different with this thread?
 
 If you checked my profile, you will note that I have been a member since the beginning of last year. I tend to not post anything where I don't know anything ie.I don't post hearsay or personal opinions without actual experience. I also stay away from optics discussions as a rule(they tend to get ugly), but after this one went on for so long, I reached a breaking point. If you, or anyone else for that matter, have not personally used the given optics, set up/focused for you personally, side by side under extremely adverse conditions, IMO you have no business offering your opinion. I have never met anyone that I have shown my Swarovski's and Zeiss's to, allowing them to tune the focus to their eyes, that could not tell the difference in extremely dark conditions compared to their VariX III's, Weaver Grand Slams(which I personally prefer over L), top of the line bushnells, or Burris'. They may decide the difference is not worth the money, but that is simply a personal decision, not one that is right or wrong.
 
 Dave7mm, I have never heard(except for rare occasions which happen with any quality scope no matter who makes it, not consistently) people having the trouble with L's after a couple thousand rounds as you relate. I have my first L that I bought too long ago to remember. It has been on more rifles than I can remember, and on one alone, has over 4,000 rounds fired. It is still an excellent scope for range work, and is occasionally still used hunting. It is a pre-MC4 VariX III with AO.

Karl,
 
 Keep digging. There must be a pony in there somewhere among all the poop [Linked Image]

.
 
 Blaine

Dave,
 
 How long do the German scopes last on your BR rifles before needing fixed?
 
 Blaine

Hi, Sambubba. I don't have any experience with a pre MC4 6X42. I do have two 6X42's with MC4, one with the standard duplex, and another with the Premier reticle 4a.
 In his book, "Optics for the Hunter", John Barsness, describes a comparison between a fully multicoated 4X and a 2-7X Leo Compact. The compact, even though it has an extra lense, not nearly as big an exit pupil, or the fancy multicoating, was actually a smidge brighter when set at 7X. He also compared the twilight performance of the current single coated 6X36 Leo. to the Zeiss 6X32. He wrote that the Leo scope was almost as bright as the Zeiss.
 Based on the above, I suspect you haven't got very much less twilight performance w/o the extra coatings. As in the example above (Zeiss vs. the Leo.), the extra objective diameter probably made a significant difference.
 One thing JB did mention. Keep your lenses very clean - I always carry a Lens Pen with me in the field. This will add much to your low light pewrformance.
 I can tell you that a heavier reticle is the way to go. I really like my Premier installed 4a. It is a very practical compromise for both low light and daylight use. I got that idea from JJ Hack. He, BTW, uses a 2.5-8X36 Leo on his 30-06. He related a story where he killed a Mtn. Lion over a kill in full darkness with this combination. He told me most scopes have enough low light performance. You loose the reticle long before you loose enough image to prevent your taking the shot. This just happens to be what JB has been saying lately as well. So go for the heavier reticle and enjoy. E

Stick,
 
 We were/are talking about "woods" hunting. Thats a totally different ball game then when I am hunting out of one of my elevated stands. You know it, I know it and everybody else knows it. If you want to "try" to put a "spin" on subjects I guess you can. When woods hunting, its quiet simple. I will try to explain it to you yet again, since you have trouble digesting material.
 
 Sitting/standing next to a tree in the woods of central PA. One may be able to see a deer 100 yards off or even 300 yards off. That doesn't mean one can get a bullet to it - because of all the trees between you and the deer. There are a lot of old logging roads in the woods - here. One looks with their naked eyes to see which direction the deer is heading after seeing the deer with their naked eyes. One sets-up in an open lane, adjusts the variable scope (in my case) to what is needed/required at the distance the deer is from the hunter. IF the deer enters that open area, where one has an open chance to get a bullet to the deer, most people whistle. This generally, but not always, stops the deer. When it stops, generally one has but a few seconds to get on the deer and shoot.
 
 Now the question, in plain English, so you can understand. Tell me how the use of binocs in the above listed example are any advantage?
 
 
 You mention the 42mm objective scope. You also mention the 4 to 16 X 56mm scope. I don't own a 4 to 16 X 56mm scope. Another question in plain English, so you can understand. Where did I say that I own a 4 to 16 X 56mm scope?
 
 When you stated that a 42mm objective on a Leupold with a 1" tube can be mounted lower then a 42mm objective scope with a 30mm you really stepped in it there. Since both scopes have the same objective diameter both scopes can me mounted at the same height. Another question, in plain English so you can understand. Do you understand that lower rings are used on the 30mm tube versus higher rings on the 1" tube (using scopes with the same objective diameter)? Also, when using a scope that is longer in length, sometimes, even lower rings can be used because the bell (objective end of the scope) sticks out past the taper of the barrel. Do you understand that?
 
 So, your point of a person using a 1" tubed scope with a 42mm objective versus a guy using a 30mm tubed scope with a 42mm objective does not hold water since both scopes can be mounted at the same center height. Do you understand this simple concept?
 
 No riddles, just simple questions in plain English. Should be easy for you or anybody to understand.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Why a bino? That is so far outta left field,I'm not quite sure how to respond. So allow me to limp along.
 
 1) With a binocular,you wil never cause another harm. There is zero possibility of ever pointing one's muzzle at another. That safety issue alone,warrants purchase IMHO.
 
 2) With a binocular,your odds of spotting game,before it spots you,is greatly elevated. The odds get higher as one becomes more proficient in their use.
 
 The absolute best Still Hunters I know,kill through the glass.
 
 3) With a binocular,you can see where your nekked eye will NEVER take you(anybody). You can peer through the densest of foliage,to catch a critter,before he catches you. Hard to explain until you've done it and grow to rely upon it.
 
 4) With a binocular,you can evaluate an animal,to confirm it is what you want. To do all evaluation upon everything in the field,via a riflescope,goes back to safety and warrants a kick in the nuts,as a gentle reminder.
 
 5) With a binocular,your time spent scouting is mucho enhanced. My preference is to simply wear my glasses everywhere that has ANYTHING to do with Hunting. They are in the rigs with me,in the boat,in my packs or around my neck.
 
 6) With a binocular,you can readily discern in lower lighting conditions,what your nekked eye can't reveal. As mentioned prior,I am not a proponent of the Hail Mary literal shot in the dark,with the hopes of Game retrieval based upon a mini-Maglight(of course I pack a couple,for walking in). But am a believer in the more you see and understand,the brighter future horizons become(some call it patterning).
 
 Even in cover,one can discern a "Plan B",that will grant an edge come the AM etc. Escape routes,feed and bed areas can become readily apparent upon observation.
 
 7) With a binocular,I find myself Hunting slower. That because I am in a near constant state of observation,with minimal movement. Sneak and peek,if you will.
 
 There are but very few Hunting situations,especially in cover,that haste is gonna help one's odds.
 
 8) With a binocular,even in heavy cover. You can readily discern the wind direction. It always easy to tell what it is doing where you stand,but over THERE isn't always same/same.
 
 Point being,there are many reasons to Hunt a binocular,as all will up the odds. What I don't know,is ONE reason not to Hunt a binocular.
 
 As far as your 4-16x,that was my bad. I thought I recalled mention of 56mm,but it 'twas 50. Just how low are your "low" 50mm mounts?(grin)
 
 Math never troubled me,I grasped the initial concept,as I mentioned at the time that 42mm WERE 42mm. when I first uttered the word "low",it was in reference toy the 4-16x,as you well know and read. What you missed,is the very thin manufacture of LOW 30mm rings. They simply do not enjoy the diversity of Manufacture,as 1" systems,due to the fact that in the svelte scope arena the 1" tube is the predominate player,so systems are of course largely constructed with them in mind. I guess there might be a guy somewhere,with a trick Titanium rifle,that has a mondo 30mm tubed variable that weighs more than his rifle mounted upon it,with the objective comfortable overhanging the dainty tube. ANYTHING is possible,I'd not want to pinch that visionary approach from you.
 
 As you desperately tread water,you reiterate,what I said a coupla times now. Sure a 42mm is a 42mm = same/same. But what you failed to elaborate upon,was just where the Swaro was gonna take you,that a 6x42mm weren't.
 
 Myself,I like the rugged simplicity of the 6x42mm fixed power,it's greater eye-relief,the brightness,it's low weight and the ability to poke a target elevation turret on top. That coupled with it's durability,repeatability and fool proof operation make it my choice.
 
 With it I can punch stuff moving quick,that is up close. With equal ease I can get a range determination via the Leica 1200LRF and dope the scope,for a poke beyond it's zero range(as I don't like to guess). The above system is simple and bombproof.
 
 Don't think you've the corner on the market for dense cover,growed over logging roads,clear cuts and the like. You just described everything from California to Alaska! I do not know of a single man,who Hunts sans binos in that environment.
 
 What I gather in your methodology is you stumble nut around the woods,until you spook something you see,then draw a bead upon it hoping it were a Deer and better yet a Legal Buck. Then due to that incredible finesse,you poo-poo the bino's as a handicap.
 
 That is Classic stuff. Keep it comin..................

Blaine,
 
 You use the word "drawback" and you say you don't like the LBS,,,,sorry LPS, for the same reasons you don't like the Euro scopes. BTW, I use the word "Euro" since Swarovski scopes are not made in Germany but rather Austria.
 
 Can you list for me all the "drawbacks" based on your personal criteria?
 
 Saying there are drawbacks and then not listing them leaves one wondering that they are.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Stick,
 
 You respond why you use binos where you hunt but totally failed to answer my question as to how binos would be any advantage is the example I listed. Sidestepped that one - typical.
 
 I am not sure if you have idea or not but our deer (rifle) season is always the Monday after Thanksgiving. Has been for as long as I can remember, anyhow. Most of the time, but not always, we have snow on the ground during our rifle season. There is very little foilage on the ground, in the woods, here. With the absense of snow there are fallen leaves on the ground. Most of the trees are hardwoods. You working in the lumber industry should realize that the leaves on hardwoods fall off in the fall. [Linked Image]

With ones naked eyes it is much easier to see any deer moving through "our" woods then it would be to try to track a deer with binocs, as it runs between trees. Do you want us to believe that the FOV through binocs are as wide as the naked eye can see? While you are fiddling around with binocs, I am setting up, in an opening, to have an opportunity to kill the deer. In the example I listed, and you failed to respond to, binocs are totally useless. The hunter "here" using binocs in the woods, with other hunters in the same area moving deer around, are totally usless. Its that simple. Not really a difficult scenario to understand. Looking through the scope, one can kill a deer. Looking through binocs, all one can do is watch.
 
 Now, as you say, if there aren't other hunters in the area and one can glass for deer bedding or walking through on known trails, thats a totally different scenario then what I described, but you still fail to acknowledge the scenario I listed - for whatever reason. You totally sidestepped the question. Instead you add about glassing while scouting and other times. That wasn't the question. [Linked Image]

You seem to think that using binocs in ALL circumstances is a better way to go - that simple isn't always true.
 
 I can list other examples where binocs are totally useless even in areas where there isn't another hunter for miles around. But, you would just put some sort of spin on it, so it is uselss to decribe scenarios to you.
 
 Again, I never said using binocs are totally uselss, all the time. I did say and continue to beleive that there are times, while hunting where the use of binocs are totally useless.
 
 You can keep avoiding answering direct questions with direct answers,,,,,,as you "claim" you don't do,,,,,but it is clear that you do.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Don,
 
 Scopes schmopes. If you wanna kill more critters,learn to Hunt bino's,it IS that easy.
 
 I can lead you to water,but I can't make you drink................

Don,
 
 Got a quick question for you. Are you saying that EVERY deer you see has been spooked and is moving at a fast walk or running? I might be wrong but this is the impression that I'm getting from your posts.

Don,
 
 I know I posted these somewhere before in the last 100 or so posts here--I think......
 
 Anyway, the big drawbacks to me (and this DOES include the LPS) are: weight, objective size, crosshairs in the "wrong" focal plane, and uncertain durability.
 
 I like the weight in the rifle barrel, a scope reasonably low to the barrel, and crosshairs in the "American" focal plane. I am not saying the Euro scopes are not durable, but heavier scopes with large objectives won't be as durable as a smaller scopes. There is more stress on the scope components and mounts with a heavier scope, especially on a heavier recoiling rifle.
 
 I need to discuss weight more. I am less and less sitting in stands and hunting Texas style. I have even sold the rifle I built for deer hunting in Texas. While the physcial weight of a 10 lb rifle really doesn't bother when hunting in Oregon, the overall weight of the stuff I carry does. The problem is, I love the way a 10 lb rifle shoots. It's stable to hold offhand, rests well, and isn't fussy about loads. To that end, the best way I can get 10 lb rifle shootability in an 8 lb rifle is to carefully consider where I can save weight. I want the beefier barrel contour, so it needs to be shorter, and chambered for a cartridge that isn't barrel sensitive. The stock needs to be light, but I will no longer go with the ultra lighweight stocks because they are not as durable or stable. I can use the good (Williams, Talley) lighweight rings/bases, and I can use a lighter scope. Now the scope can't be so light it loses optical quality, and for me the Vari X III fills the bill nicely--for all the reasons I mentioned before. It is plenty bright for hunting at the beginning/end of legal shooting hours in the dark timber, has good eye-relief, and is lightweight.
 
 Having said all that, the new "American" style Euro scopes should also work fine for my application. They seem very similar in specs to the Vari X III, which is what they were designed to compete with.
 
 What I'd like to see is Vari X IIIs coated with diamond coat (the LPS coatings), then I could have it all.
 
 Now if were to build the ultimate dusk/night hunting rifle, I would look at all the scopes and pick the one with a very large objective and the best resolution I could find.
 
 Blaine

Don,
 
 Every still hunter who I know to have any skill is a bino man or woman. That said, there just aren't many skilled still hunters out there anymore.
 
 I think that this "dick measuring" contest that you are pushing is, in Mr. Howell's sage words, TWADDLE! You like S&B scopes? Good for you, but many people can't justify the expense for the dubious gain in practical value. You don't like Leupold scopes? OK, but so what? Heck, I've harvested deer with all sorts of obsolete scopes, rifles, and cartridges over the past forty four (44) years and do you know what? The deer that were killed with the $25 Savage Model 219 mounted with an uncoated Weaver 330 were just as dead as the ones killed with equipement eighty (80) times as expensive. If you are a skillful still hunter, you don't need excellent equipement or to be an expert shot. If you can still hunt and shoot, due to your skill, equipement, or a combination of both, I'd say that you're the 2% exception to the norm that I've seen.
 
 BWTFDIK? My favorite scopes, today, are the single coated Leupold 2-7x VariX-II shotgun version and the ?? coated Weaver RV7. Many people who will read this would consider either of those choices to be substandard and a true impediment to any reasonable chance of success. But I continue to haul home several hundred pounds of boned venison each and every year with them, so how bad could they really be?
 
 Bearrr264

Stick,
 
 Sorry to say, as I suspected, you sidestepped the questions, again. Oh wait, you said if I asked direct questions, you would answer them. That lead me to beleive you were telling the truth, I guess I was mistaken.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

LSU,
 
 Short answer, NOPE. I never said EVERY SINGLE deer I have ever seen was spooked.
 
 In the listed scenario I asked specific questions which Stick decided not to respond to. I assumed (wrongly) that he would answer direct questions, like he said he would, but sadly, it isn't true. [Linked Image]

Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Blaine,
 
 Fair enough. I thank you for repeating what you have already said in previous posts. Excuse me for being to lazy to go find all the info you just now provided. [Linked Image]

Your criteria is different then mine. Not better, or worse, just different.
 
 I'll let you in on a little secret here so all can jump down my throat, some more, lmao.
 
 When I first looked through a Euro scope and I saw those big FAT crosshairs I thought, WOW, who would ever want to use those? That, coupled with the fact that the crosshairs changed size (which they really dont, they are simply magnified), I thought, why? That was over 15 years ago.
 
 When I see people NOW saying, get the FATTEST crosshairs you can, it makes me laugh. I started using those FAT crosshairs long ago. I soon found out the advanatges of those FAT crosshairs in low light conditions. When you use the word "Wrong", to me the opposite is true. I NOW like the fact that the coverage of the crosshair is the same throughout the power range, at a set distance. Again, not better or worse, just different then your criteria.
 
 I am glad to see when you posted if you where to hunt at night you would look for a scope that utilizes what little available light there is and go with a larger objective scope. One of my points, exactly. We both fully realize their advantages.
 
 Long ago (in the early 70's) I hunted hogs in Germany, at night. The advantages of the Euro scopes even back then far outweighed the scopes made for the USA market. Most USA hunters looked at the wide crosshairs and 30mm tubed scopes as DIFFERENT. And, they were different than what most her were used to. Some of us see their advantages and have utilized those advantages.
 
 Again, thanks for the info, it is appreciated.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Don you are blowing smoke out your ass,I hit the fart fan and changed the channel.
 
 Your failure to understand what I tried to simply explain,as it is simple fact,is not a fault of mine. You choose to gloat in utter ignorance and that is both your right and what folks have routinely come to expect out of you. I cannot simplify anymore,that which sails over your head.
 
 The questions you asked,have been concisely answered numerous times. That you haven't that faculties to process that information,is neither a fault of mine nor the Board's.
 
 I leave you to your half-cocked notions,dangerous ways and spooked Game.................

Bearrr,
 
 I am sure you will agree there are many differnt methods employed, when hunting. No one method works the best, all the time. There are times when the use oif binocs adds no advantage at all. There are times when without the use of binos is fullhearty, at best.
 
 As far as killing deer with one scope or another or one rifle or another. My first buck was killed when I was 12, in 1965. Anybody can figure out that I am now 49 years young. I killed that spike buck with a 32 win spcl and iron sights at less than 100 yards. I used a 32 win for the next 5 years, again, iron sights. In 1971 I bought my first rifle, on my own. It was a Marlin 336 chambered for 35 Rem, again, no scope, Iron sights. After a few years I bought a 4X Bushnell Banner with a BDC. The BDC was useless to me. I killed many deer with that rifle/scope combo. If I had to venture a guess it would be somewhere around 100 deer. My furthest kill was no more then 150 yards. I graduated to my first bolt action rifle and purchased a used Rem 700 ADL chambered in 7mm mag. Looking back NOW I should have went with the 280 but hindsight is 20/20 as we all know.
 
 My requirements now are much different then what they were back then. I know enjoy the challenges of long range hunting even though on occasion I still walk and stalk hunt. I was fortunate enough to get my deer on opening day, this past season, at a mere 350 yards. Since my buddy didn't get his I grabbed my 7mm mag and became the dog. I walked, slowly through various small patches of woods, hoping to spook some deer and hoping they would go in the direction of my buddy. I have, on rare occasions spooked up bucks in the local woods and have had opportunities to kill them at close range. I have spooked deer out of their beds, never saw them, but heard them. When I got through the small patch of woods I saw deer across a field. Maybe the one(s) I spooked, maybe not. It is then that I would crank up the power on the scope, get steady leaning against a tree and kill one providing I could be 99% sure when I squeezed the trigger, it was going to be shot where I planned.
 
 Expense is another criteria. Back in the 60's and 70's I couldn't afford the higher quality optics I now enjoy using. But, to compare optics is just that, the price will determine if your pocketbook will allow one to buy the higher quality but it doesn't negate the fact that they are higher quality.
 
 I am glad you have had so much success in hunting and I hope you have many more years in doing just that.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Stick
 Good move, I was following your statements with ease...
 
 I believe you mis-stated the adage awhile back... you can lead a horse's ass to water, but you can't make 'em think.
 art

Stick,
 
 So sorry you said one thing then back down. If you claim you are going to answer direct questions, at least follow through.
 
 You may as well leave the discussion since you refuse to discuss what is asked. Thats sort of sad as I really asked in ernest and was interested in your answers, but I guess you aren't truthfull, my bad for beleiving you. I gave you the benifit of the doubt, and you failed misserably. So sad [Linked Image]

I wish you well,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Geez Don, how many times does he have to answer your question? Still thinking about the "horse" adages and have to believe you have your blinders on a little (LOT) too tight!

Hard to believe one guy can do so much typing and say so very little, and comprehend even less. Just sad, really, if it isn't just a game to "stir up the waters" a bit?-
 
 Don's favorite poster- Sheister

Don Knows, it is awfully late to add anything to this discussion but I have laboured through the sludge and read all the posts. I'd like to cut and paste replies but that is beyond the trouble I want to go to. I'll just say that in the scenario you described in hunting your woods, I would use binoculars, just as I do in thick stuff anywhere. Incidentally I also use a variable scope, always set on lowest setting and never moved unless I have a ton of time, which usually means an animal at a distance. According to one of your posts, using binoculars that way means I would never kill an animal in PA(?) and you may be right.
 
 I have hunted second growth rain forest with half of Seattle hunting within earshot. I couldn't park within 3/4 of a mile of "my" spot due to other vehicles. I moved three deer and two of them were shot within 100 yards of me. I think that is a fair number of other hunters, and my solution was to ease into a thicker thicket and use binoculars. I prefer hunting where I see no one, and never returned to that place, but I often hunt thick stuff. I glassed a bull elk at 40 feet, and my first glimpse of him or awareness that an elk was near was through the binoculars. I could only identify the 1x2 inch piece that I saw as elk hair rather than a fringe of moss by binoculars. A deer neck at 30 feet, unseen without binoculars. A deer ear at 60 feet, unseen without binoculars. Two weeks ago I was kneeling in the dim light of heavy forest after sunset in DARK coastal forest, trying to see an elk I could hear within 20 yards of me. I was looking through binoculars.
 
 I've hunted thickets whever I've gone, with the worst on one of the Gulf Islands off Vancouver Island, where some sort of mutant salal grows higher than a man's head among the blackberry bushes. The tiny deer use tunnels like rabbit trails through it, and they were super jumpy due to year round local hunting. I used binoculars, looking for ones like the three point buck lying in hiding behind a log that I saw at 15 feet. He'd had plenty of time to sneak off or run, like a doe did a few minutes earlier, but he was sure I wouldn't see him, and I wouldn't have without binoculars. I'll have to take your word for it that when one crosses into PA it does not work to use binoculars that way. Kidding aside, I believe that you and I have decided on different methods to solve the same hunting problem, and my choice has been binoculars. I've no problem with your choice, just puzzled when you make categorical statements that another solution will not work.

Don, you proposed the following question:
 "Sitting/standing next to a tree in the woods of central PA. One may be able to see a deer 100 yards off or even 300 yards off. That doesn't mean one can get a bullet to it - because of all the trees between you and the deer. There are a lot of old logging roads in the woods - here. One looks with their naked eyes to see which direction the deer is heading after seeing the deer with their naked eyes. One sets-up in an open lane, adjusts the variable scope (in my case) to what is needed/required at the distance the deer is from the hunter. IF the deer enters that open area, where one has an open chance to get a bullet to the deer, most people whistle. This generally, but not always, stops the deer. When it stops, generally one has but a few seconds to get on the deer and shoot.
 
 Now the question, in plain English, so you can understand. Tell me how the use of binocs in the above listed example are any advantage?"
 
 Here is my answer in as plain english as I can get. There are many deer in the woods that are not running!!! Many will stand still or stay bedded and let you pass by quite close. Maybe the reason you haven't seen them is because you are not looking for them. In your very specific example, binoculars would allow you to see those deer that are not moving. What is hard to understand about that?
 Oh, no I haven't hunted in PA. I have hunted in the thickest stuff several states in the south have to offer and the thickest Alaska has to offer. I promise you PA is no worse. Binoculars are good to have anywhere and everywhere. Just because some people don't know how to use them doesn't change this.

"Hard to believe one guy can do so much typing and say so very little, and comprehend even less. Just sad, really, if it isn't just a game to "stir up the waters" a bit?"
 
 EXACTLY!!!!!!
 
 The guys whole MO is to drop a turd in the pool and ruin the party.

In response to Don's query about using binoculars in a PA situation he described, Kodiak Island wrote:
 
 "Here is my answer in as plain english as I can get. There are many deer in the woods that are not running!!! ... Maybe the reason you haven't seen them is because you are not looking for them. In your very specific example, binoculars would allow you to see those deer that are not moving. "
 
 BINGO!!

Did anyone else notice Don says he can spot deer through the trees at 100-300 yards with his naked eye? And he still says binos have no use in his part of the country? Sound just a little resistant to change maybe?
 Imagine all those deer within that range that he isn't seeing. Man, there are many times I wish I had half that much distance to see when hunting in the lodgepole, vine maple, salal, and puckerbrush/blackberry tangles. Even sagebrush can be unbelievably frustrating at times without good binos to look through the little openings, even though it seems at times that you can see forever, it always seems that you flush out deer right at your feet. Well, I guess if that works for him- Sheister

Kodiak.
 
 I guess you failed to fully understand what was said.
 
 When I said I can see 100 yards or even 300 yards. The reasons are that the woods have tree's and very little foilage on the ground. If you have ever hunter where the woods are full of hardwoods in the late fall, after the leaves had fallen off, you will get the "picture". One can see anything and everything on the ground WITHOUT binocs. Therefor they are NOT needed. Simple enough to understand?
 
 If you can see everything with your naked eyes, why would you carry binocs? For the added weight around your neck?
 
 If a deer is NOT running, you simply get the rifle up, get on it when you have an opening, and kill it. No need for binocs at all. What is hard to understand about that?
 
 Can you see a deer out to 300 yards, with your naked eyes?
 
 Instead of looking at the stopped deer through binocs, get the scope on it and kill it. You can't kill a deer looking through binocs.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Well Don
 I have shot quite a few deer in mixed stands of white and red oak. By stands, I mean 40 acres or more of nothing but mature oak. If that will qualify for your "hardwoods". Two things those areas had were plenty of trees and plenty of shadows. A deer could easily remain hidden 100 yards away, while in plain view. Maybe you only have a few trees, not enough for shadows or partly obscured deer.
 
 What it comes down to is there is no right or wrong way of hunting. If you prefer to hunt without binocs, I could care less. People have to make themselves happy. I know a few people who hunt all the time and never see a thing. They are happy, so thats fine with me. If they don't want advice as to how to see more, thats fine also. You hunt your way, and the majority of successful hunters will hunt theirs.

Kodiak,
 
 Just to make a clearer "picture" for you, I will try to make it more clear, so you can understand what the type of "woods" I am talking about. Maybe then you will have a better understanding. When I am talking hardwoods, I am talking 40 to 50 foot tall trees, some may even be higher. It is rare to see a limb less then 15 feet from the ground. The summer foilage on the tops of the trees are reaching for the available sunlight, therefor there is almost no growth on the ground, since the sun rarely gets to ground level. The tree's are anywhere from 10 feet to 30 feet apart. In the summer, when all the leaves are on, you would be hard pressed to find any sun reaching the ground. Since the only thing on the ground in the late fall are dead leaves, no bush of any kind one can SEE with their naked eyes anything and everything on the ground. Sitting or standing very still in these woods you can SEE, with your naked eyes, squirrels moving about, even at long distances.
 
 Perhaps I didn't list enough info to make a "picture" for you.
 
 I never said there was a right or wrong way to hunt. I did say there are many different methods employed based on the terrain. It isn't "MY" way of hunting these hardwoods. It IS however the most productive way of hunting these hardwoods. If you came here, hunted these hardwoods using your binocs you could place yourself as one of those non-successfull hunters. While you are looking through your binocs, the deer runs off, and you never have the opportunity to kill it. Unless, you have found a way to kill a deer watching it through binocs. If you have discovered a way to do that I would be more then interested in hearing it.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Don
 I'm wondering why you think PA has special trees that no one else has ever seen. Are they magic trees? It may be hard for you to believe, but your situation there is not unique to you(or PA) only. Did you not read my post? Do you know what mature oaks look like? Sounds a lot like your trees. Why do you think "your" hardwood forests are different from every one elses?
 
 There is one thing though that we NEVER have to worry about. That is me coming to PA to hunt those magic trees with my binocs. I'll leave them to you and your kind.

Kodiak,
 
 I "tried" to make it more clear for you but since "you" decided to not continue in an "even" exchange then "you" have dead ended the conversation, not me.
 
 If you would even consider what I have tried to say, maybe we could have an exchange of information. I was suspect to you responding at all and my suspicions where correct. Sorry to say.
 
 Your coy attempts have gone un-noticed.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Ki,Depending on how and what you hunt.I figure binos save as many deers lives as rifle slings.Good rule of thumb is to figure you have about 15 seconds to see judge and make the shot.If you pick up the binos first you dont have enough time to take the shot.I have used binos on western hunts but I use them in such a fashion that im not spending alot of time looking thru them.One thing you guys should know is that DK (Donknows) has 20/15 vision.His ability to spot game is beyone the normal big time.
 dave

My vision is also 20/15 and KNOW that anyone open minded enough to give still hunting w/ good bino's a try would be amazed! I'm pretty dang good (if I say so myself [Linked Image]

) at spotting critters and am always amazed at what appears when you use binocs rather than feet to hunt through an area.
 
 Even when I spot something through binoculars, I often can't find them with the naked eye afterward. Binos allow you to "focus out" (technical term) what you don't want to see. Not to mention that you can see things 8-10x closer than with the naked eye. Spot that buck bedded behind the tree trunk with only a tine or nose sticking out at 300 yards instead of jumping him at 100.
 
 Deer are excellent at blending in with their environment. Loads of fallen leaves on the ground can make it that much more difficult. Binocs simply make things appear -- yep, magic (grin)! A good trick when you are glassing in cover is to get down on your knees and scan for legs. Focus at a certain distance and scan. Focus further out and scan again. When you find them before they find you, you no longer have to worry about only having X seconds to make up your mind and shoot.
 
 Seriously, though not Don's situation, I've been CLOSE to dozens of bedded or feeding bulls and bucks that I'll all but guarantee the next hunter would have either walked right by or busted out. This year I sat 40 yards from a big 5x5 for over 20 minutes before I decided to walk on by him.
 
 It's simply a case of not using excellent tools that are available due to ignorance. Beings as Don is a S&B fan, I doubt that it there are financial reasons for not using good binoculars while hunting, simply too set in his ways to be willing to admit there may be a better way.

First Don
 You are the one who refuses to engage anyone on what they have posted. Here is my question to you. Why do you think your hardwoods are different from others? Why do you think no one else can comprehend what "your" woods look like? That is why I am asking you what makes your woods so different than any one elses? Unless there IS something magical about them, they are just like other hardwood forests, no? WHAT IS IT EXACTLY THAT I AM MISSING HERE??? You think anyone who hasn't hunted PA doesn't know what woods are?
 
 7mm
 What do you think eyesight has to do with anything? May be you don't understand this, but if you see the deer before they see you, you have all the time in the world. Thats where hunting comes in. Not blinding loping through the forest shooting at what ever you kick up. I suppose binocs don't have any use if the goal is to jump shoot deer.

Don and anyone else
 This will be my last post on the subject as it is clear you have no desire to gain anything. I know several who have been doing it a certain way for so long they neither want to nor can change. Fine with me either way.
 
 Many people don't have a clue as to how to use a pair of binoculars. Their primary mission is NOT to look at an animal you have already spotted. I'll repeat, they are not for looking at animals you already see. Their primary mission is two fold. One is to spot animals you would NEVER see with only your eyes. The other is to spot animals before they spot you.
 
 A few years back, I shared a meat hunt with a successful bear guide on the south end of Kodiak. I felt pretty lucky hunting with this guide, as he is quite good with the bears. I though I might just learn something going after deer with this guy. I was WRONG. He didn't need binoculars. You know why? He could spot everything with his bare eyes. If he didn't see it, it wasn't there. I suppose that works fine for big bears, but not for deer. We were hunting in a very open area, no trees and most of the grass was gone. Pretty easy to spot a deer when its moving with your bare eyes. We topped over a ridge, when this guide takes a quick look around and proclaims no deer around. How did he know? He didn't see any, that's how. I tell him to take a seat and hang on a bit. I proceed to use the binocs and pick up seven (7) deer, two of which I shot. These were deer in the open that he never saw. If I hadn't pointed them out to him, he would have never known they were there.
 
 If you are not using your binocs correctly, you don't know what you are missing. You may think you know, but you don't. I'll say it again, maybe the reason you're not seeing the deer is because you are not looking for them. If most of the deer you are seeing are spooked, you are doing something wrong.
 
 Most people don't realize how little cover it takes for a deer to simply disappear. They never will either until they start looking.

I've followed this thread and have gotten some good info from it. I don't have a dog in this fight. BUT, I find it amusing how so many will say you do it your way I do it mine, but they keep trying to prove there way is better. In addition, I find it amusing that someone talks about others not being open minded enough to consider/admit that what they use is better than what some others use, but are guilty of the same thing on another issue addressed in a same/similar post.

Gees, what a thread!!!! [Linked Image]

I guess I will throw my $.02 in.
 
 I have gotten to look through and shoot many diferent scopes in my profession. I have got to compare and use many types of Binos as well.
 
 IMO The Loopy scopes are just fine. Do they have THE very best clairity, color correctness and brightness, NO, of course not, but they are a great scope for what you spend on them. They are rugged and customer service is great. They are pretty much completely made in the US execpt for the lenses.
 
 Are Swarovski S&B and some other of the High end model Euro scopes brighter, better in color correctness and clairity? Yes We all know that. But they cost a considerable amount more. Are they more rugged? That could be argued for ever. IMO they are real close.
 
 It all depends on what you are doing with the scope!
 For what I use them for mostly and alot of my customers use them for, weight is not an issue, but ruggedness, click repetability and the clairity brightness thing is. 80 to 90% of the Tactical type shooters, Police and competetors use Loopy Tac scopes in one incernation or another. They work.
 There are some that demand an edge in the clairity game and price in no object. These people get and use some of the following high end scopes:
 Night Force NXS (super tough and super bright, clairity)
 S&B PMII (also super tough and super good glass)
 Horus vision (Glass on par with the S&B and Night Force)
 
 Then there is US Optics. They weigh a ton and are huge and ugly. You can pay over $4000.00 for one. The glass is probably the best in the world for Clairity, color correctness and brightnes. They can have 38mm tube and 60 -80 mm objectives, although most are 50-60mm.
 
 Can most people even tell some of the slight variations in color correctness and clairity, probably not. I have a very hard time telling between the high end premium scopes. I have a USN SN 3 in the shop right now. I have a NightForce NXS in too. Not much differance to me. I have to look and look to tell, but the USO does have an edge. Personally I dont feel that it has a $1500.00 edge on the NXS, but there are people out there that do.
 
 See guys, it is all what one wants and what one is comfortable with buying and what it is getting used for.
 
 My personal choices in rifle scope for my kind of shooting, wich is not hunting critters (although I do hunt) is
 1. Horus Vision because of the unique and super fast ranging holdover reticle coupled with the quality of glass.
 
 2. Night force. rugged and super glass, with a very good ranging reticel NP-R2
 
 3. Leupold 4.5-14X50 LRT modified by Premier reticles with a front focal plane zoom and a 2nd GEN mildot calibrated.
 
 4. S&B PMII mildot.
 
 These I list by features coupled with the price for the best package to suit ME and only ME.
 
 I am in no way saying that any of them are THE BEST, but they are what I like.
 
 I really like the baucsh & Lomb elite 10X binos. I think they are among the crispest and cleanest out there. They have a very good regulation so no headaches occur when glassing for long periods. I put them up to some Swarovski's and liked them much better.
 
 Just MHO
 
 Celt

You bring up a good point Celt. The bigger the exit pupil, the brighter the image, all things being equal. The fewer lenses in a scope, the brighter the image all things being equal.
 When you get to the top of the heap, it's time to look for features that make the difference to you, not the brand. E

Celt,Do you know who is making the Horus vision scope?
 Are you usuing yours with the handheld PDA ?What power scope is yours?
 dave

I believe the Horus scope are being made by the same place that makes NightForce scopes, but I am not 100% sure.
 
 I dont have a Horus right now, but have seen them and have reports on them from real deal police snipers and the winners circle from Tactical matches. I have used the demo for ranging and from the above winners circles, it is just like it really works.
 I will use the PDA and software when I get it. That is my my next optics purchase. I am also looking into being a dealer of Horus scopes. I plan to have one on my partner's and my rifles for the upcomming SP Sniper challenge in 2003.
 
 A word about scopes failing:
 All scopes can and do fail Period.
 First hand reports from Shooting school instructors and Police Sniper instructors verify this. two of my first hand sources in these fields have seen all scopes fail including Loppies, NightForce, Horus, S&B and US Optics and many others. It happens. They are just man made devices that can fail at one time or another, especially with what they get put through by the above mentioned people.
 A neat thing for all you big spenders out there.
 I hear rumor that the Horus Vision reticle may be becomming offered in some US Optics scopes.
 
 FWIW
 Celt

Dave,
 
 No use trying. Some guys wear blinders - all day. They stick those binocs to their eyes, roll their head from side to side - so the deer can detect their additional movements - they enjoy the very limited field of view - as deer see them long before they see the deer through their narrow vision of their binocs - and run off. They would never think that, with their naked eyes, they can see so much more around them based soley on the field of view the naked eyes offer. Maybe they all have "tunnel vision" and they can't see anymore without binocs as they can with them.
 
 OR
 
 Looking through their binocs they have just as much peripheral (new spelling) vision as any other person has without the use of binocs and they can pick up movement in as wide an area as others can with their naked eyes.
 
 These "narrow vision" hunters really are something. They have such an acute awareness off all things around them - with their binocs stuck to their eyes - that nothing, and I mean nothing can ever slip by them. They look in a narrow area and see everything around them. They never ever had a deer suddenly appear behind them or in the opposite direction of where they are looking. It just doesn't happen if they use their binocs, lol. They only see bedded deer in an area where a bedded deer can easily be seen with the "naked eye". But they have the advantage of watching deer run off, never to be seen again, as they watch it through their binocs. Oh wait, they claim they can kill deer looking through their binocs,,,,amazing,,,,,,,stupidity, that is, LMAO
 
 Then they wake up, it was all their dream, lol
 
 They simply can't understand that more area can be covered in an area with their "naked eyes" versus restricting themselves through the narrow vision opportunities using their binocs.
 
 I am SURE that as they walk along a RR bed, trees on both side and suddenly they see a deer jump out of the woods, they raise their binocs, not their rifle to LOOK at it and watch it disappear into the woods on the other side. To funny. Oh wait, I said raise their binocs, how silly of me, they have them epoxy glued to their eyes since thats the only way they can see anything. lmao
 
 Such narrow vision people. Its amazing they ever kill a deer. Then again, their binocs kill the deer as they claim.
 
 I really liked the part where if you don't use binocs your not successfull. I wonder if all the deer I kill would agree with them, lol.
 
 It is to bad that these binoc boys are so narrow - minded.
 
 Oh well, it was fun if nothing else.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Celt,
 
 Enjoyed reading your post. Some good info there.
 
 When I compare optics I compare optics, not price. Seems to me that most people compare price more then they do the actual optical capabilities. The "price" may determine if one buys a particular brand and/or model but is a poor excuse in a comparison of the actual optical results obtained - my opinion.
 
 Have a good one.
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Well with my budget I have to watch the pennies, but I too would compare optics and then look at the price and buy the best I could afford, if I would not compromise then I would just have to save up till I could afford the better of the models compared.
 Bill

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>When I compare optics I compare optics, not price. Seems to me that most people compare price more then they do the actual optical capabilities. The "price" may determine if one buys a particular brand and/or model but is a poor excuse in a comparison of the actual optical results obtained - my opinion.
 <hr></blockquote>
 
 
 I'm sorry, but in the "real world" not everybody has unlimited funds and can afford Swarovski EL binos or can afford Leica Televid spotting scopes. Us working class slobs have to watch our pennies and "gasp!!" sometimes our checkbook limits us in what optics we can buy.
 
 More and more I'm becoming convinced that people buy Swarovski's, Leica's, etc... for the snob appeal more than anything else.

Don- Not to getting into a pissing match with you, but I don't see how you think that binocs could be of NO HELP in PA if you use a scope. Not saying that all circumstances would warrant using binocs, but you have to admit that in some cases even in PA still hunting they would be an asset. IMO, binocs allow a very similar advantage as a scope, it allows one to see things farther away, for a given yet different purpose, than they could with the naked eye. If you were touting that they were not needed and used non-magnifying sights I'd be better able to follow your logic. But to say that some that magnifies your vision for one task offers no advantage while touting that something that does a very similar thing...I just can't follow.
 
 I do have a question, if you see something moving through the woods at 300yds and can't tell what it is, do you automatically throw up the rifle and check it out in the scope? Not all things at that distance, even in mature and relatively open hardwoods, are readily discernable.
 
 BTW, I'm from IN and the hardwoods of IN are very similar to those found in PA and it was not uncommon for me to see more hunters than deer during opening weekend of firearms season.

Bill,
 
 Thanks,
 
 I to have a budget and I buy within my budget. I did save long to buy the optics I bought and for "me" I made the best choice.
 
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Walking down a RR bed, jump shooting deer. Deer huntin' at its finest, eh boys.
 
 True, no binocs needed for that.

Pointer,
 
 First off, I hate "pissing match's" and have no desire to get into one with you or anybody else.
 
 I don't beleive I ever said that binos are of no use in ALL circumstances. I agree, in some cases, as I have said many times, that binocs are usefull and do help. I tried to identify a specific case or cases where binocs add nothing, in fact detract from being successfull.
 
 In answer to your question. If I saw something moving, in the woods, at 300 yards, and wasn't sure what it was I would either wait till it got close enough to see it or just watch it walk away. If it IS a hunter, they would be easy to see since ALL hunters here wear "blaze orange" as required by law. There are very few times when something is 300 yards away that one could get a bullet to it, in the woods, so it is of no use to get the scope on it, knowing what it is. I would watch it, see where it is going, hopefully closer to SEE it well enough to identify it, then IF it was a deer I would then get my rifle ready in a lane HOPING it would walk into that lane for me to kill it.
 Even if I used binocs to see it and identify it it really wouldn't do me any good if I couldn't get a bullet to it, would it?
 
 I hear the part about seeing so many hunters on public property versus deer. In the national forest (public hunting land) one often times will see many more hunters then deer.
 Have a good one,
 
 Don [Linked Image]

Has this whole thread lost all of its narrow minded focus? S&B, who cares? Leupold, who cares? PA open hardwood, who cares? AK thick brush, who cares? DonKnows, who cares? Big Stick, who cares? Bearrr264 has ceased to care!
 
 I've begun to hate S&Bs on the sole basis that they may forever remind me of DonKnows!
 
 Danger 6, Out
 
 Bearrr366

Don Knows,
 I love pissing matches. You must too. I have read every post in this topic, and I must admit that I am a avid archer and I use 12X42 binocs all the time, too much?? Probably a little to much power, but I have had numerous times that I caught something moving looking through the binocs; therefore, I had time to get ready for the shot quicker.
 
 P.S. Any man worth his salt, don't laugh at his own jokes!!!
 
 Thanks,
 Trey

"I've begun to hate S&Bs on the sole basis that they may forever remind me of DonKnows! "
 
 
 ...you're not alone, you're not alone.

I couldn't resist but your right. Its amazing the impact a twisted, biasly written book will have on some people. Rather then review the book and waste more time........I'll move on. It would be wonderful if people would just think a bit and be open minded. On the bright side, I am sure we all learnt something from the book even it was that money was better spent on something else. Boy, I sure feel better now.

JJP,

What do you find wrong with JB's book? Please explain what makes you think "people" are close minded and would be well to "just think a bit". Where would my money be "better spent"?

I'm glad that omni-directional rambling has made you feel better, but it doesn't provide much insight for the rest of us.

Perhaps, if JB reads this, he could suggest a check list that we could use to select a scope that best meets our individual needs. Such as magnification, fix or variable, price range, reticle choice, etc. For example, the optimal scopes that JB uses to snipe deer in MT would likely be a suboptimal solutions for my MO creekbottom still hunting and vis a versa.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

JJP:

Nice first post. Please state your qualifications so that we can understand that you have the background, experience, and optical knowledge to be so critical of a widely acclaimed book about optics. Otherwise, I fear we shall think you are full of something other than knowledge.

I don't know Mr. Barsness, but appreciate his calm and thoughtful answers, WHILE EXPLAINING HIS METHODOLOGY to what are sometimes less than brilliant questions or questioners.

Perhaps you should follow his example.

Hi there Bearr264:

To be honest, I'd rather not get into it. Lets just say the book although informative has some personnel nuances that really detracted from the author�s credibility/disposition.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Thanks for the informative post. I'd like to encourage you to think whatever you may.... its a free world. Thank goodness we can all have opinions.

JJP
"Lets just say the book although informative has some personnel nuances that really detracted from the author�s credibility/disposition."

WHOM did you think was nuanced? How did they detract from the credibility of B?

Are you suggesting someone made him grumpy? Whom was it?

Frankly, I did not agree with everything I read in there, notably using the whole image in the glass and scanning it, rather than methodically moving the glass. I find, after a lot of years with a lot of time spent glassing that it works better for me the other way... but I did give it a try his way to see if there was a better way.

To flippantly suggest there were ethics violations that you won't mention is no way to build any credibility with me, and I doubt there are many here, that will buy your line either.

I'm guessing the "personnel" you were talking about were not people but rather, you were attempting to write "personal?"

Cannot imagine what you are alluding to with the "disposition" addendum... If you are willing to post such drivel you should at least be willing to say why. Unsupported aspersions do not make anyone look good, least of all yourself...
art

Sitka wrote: "and I doubt there are many here, that will buy your line either."

Agreed!

I'll second that motion.

It's easy to rip someone's published works but quite another to publish your own works.

Art - do me a favour and just ignore my posts. Talk about Drivel (idiocy)! Grow up and get off that box of yours. If you haven't noticed I never intended to "build" any credibility with you. Talk about wasting more time. There isn�t enough time in the day to elaborate on the poorly written book by JB or your ruffled feathers. Lets just leave it at that. If you want to debate and nitpick find someone else. The opinions remain unchanged and yes you do fall into the category of people whom��

JJP
Henceforth, ignoring you will be the easiest of things to do.
art

Bless your kind sole. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Could this be the first of the refugees from Shooters? JJP, your handle seems to ring a bell- are you looking for a place to call home since Shooters is going down, or just looking to stir the mud on general principles?- Sheister

Sheister, Sitka, et al:

As Rick Bin has pointed out in another thread, we will likely have a surge of Shooter's refugees visiting here in the next little while. I am certain that most of them are great people and I believe that 24hr members have always welcomed new members with different viewpoints and insight supported by personal experiences or facts. But some want to spread the manure where ever they go, and I bet that they won't last long here.

One of Bearr264s oft used expressions comes to mind. That is, "Don't wrestle with a pig, the pig enjoys it and you wind up covered with mud" as well as "Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

I am going to do my best to ignore the pigs, starting with this one.

Agreed.- Sheister

Don't need bino's for eastern whitetail's... hmmm. I've hunted north-eastern deer cover. Bino's are VERY useful there. I HUNT with bino's no matter where I've hunted, Maine to Alaska. Those who've not acclimated to bino's have NO idea what they're missing. While many of us agonize over every last shred of ballistic minutia, if forced to choose, I'll always put my money in top-drawer bino's than in a given custom rifle. Heck, any old $400 Ruger M77 that can hold its shots inside 2" @ 100 yards is actually good enough for most hunting. Not so with binoculars. As someone who has TRAINED eyes (photography/fine art) I can assure our overly confident doctor that his assumption that my over 40 year old eyes can't tell the difference between $200 Bushnell's and $800 Leica's is pure BS... I can.

Brad

Okay kids! Leave well enough alone and things will take care of themselves. Need I say more? Childish behaviour like this truly stretches anything posted so far. Like I said before, JB's a big boy and I certain he can defend himself if he sees fit. I think JB's butt has room for only one person at a time, so take it easy! I'll be sure to post more information next time for those that want to wave the JB flag/tattoo or whatever you have. Its Christmas for Santa's sake.

JJP,

If you'd like to engage in the debate of ideas, you are very welcome here. Ideas are fair game. However, we have no interest in insults and personal slams toward anyone, no matter how subtle they may be. If you were to debate Mr Barsness ideas point by point and tell us why he is wrong, that would be great. If you can't figure out how to do it without using emotional barbs at every turn, then you will not have a pleasant experience here.

Many of us have been posting togther a long time and consider each other friends. Several of us started when Shooters first came on the scene in 96 or so, and moved here after some utter lunacy over there. We do not always agree, in fact, we often disagree.

However, we have pretty much moved past the personal insults stage. All of us have lowered ourselves to that level in the past, and most of us are embarrassed by it--that type of interaction is wrong, period. It is driven my insecurity and ego, but any boost to the ego is temporary while the ill will generated is long lasting. I know from personal experience on both ends, and so do most who post here.

Why would I take time to address someone who burst on the scene and immediatelybegan insulting my friends? Because there is a chance you have some information and experience none of the rest of us have, and we can probably gain a great deal of insight form you. I also don't think you really understand how your coming across. Having been there myself, I think it's only fair to point this out to you and give you a chance to think about and perhaps modify your approach to posting.

Whatever you decide is okay by me, but if you choose to be personally insulting in your posts, I too will just ignore you. So what do you choose? Do you want to be friend or foe?

Blaine

AFP:

Nice post, almost certainly wasted, but I admire the effort.

Obviously unrelated to you, this quote from Benjamin Franklin comes to mind,

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.

Old Ben was a pretty sharp dude <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />!

Very nice post AFP. Lets see if we correct the past trend. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Blaine,
Well said.

Regards, Matt.

JJP,

What you have done is called "hit & run" where I live and people who do it are not thought well of. If you think that JB's book is off-center, you should have the courage to state your case. As we all know, this is all "virtual reality" and everyone and everything may not be as it seems.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

Well, its not a courage issue. Its more of a why add to the waste issue (wbtb). If you don't agree thats fine. I'll try to be more sensitive and detailed next time around.

JJP,

I'll be right here waiting on the edge of my seat for your very specific and insightful comments about the world of firearms optics. You could at least ATTEMPT to add some value to the body of knowledge, rather than just make negative comments about a member of the campfire who is well respected by many of the other brothers of the campfire.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

Blaine,

I respectfully ask you to qualify this statement you made.

"However, we have no interest in insults and personal slams toward anyone, no matter how subtle they may be. "

Seems that isn't the case by many in the "click".

Whether I agree of disagree with JJP, I at least give him the right to see and say as he see's fit.

Have a good one,

Don <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Don,

I'll try to clarify. You would probably consider me to be part of the "click." I consider many of these guys friends--depending on the day and topic (just kidding). However, If I were to tell "E" he's close minded, or tell Stick he lack's credibility, or tell IFID he's childish, they'd all react--"click like" and respond to me personally in a very negative way, and rightfully so. My "comments" as such add absolutely nothing to the better understanding of the topic at hand and are nothing more than personal insults designed to give my ego a boost (I know this because I have done it more times than I care to admit).

Now, if were to tell E I think he's wrong about Vari X IIIs because of X and Y, or tell stick McMillan stocks have problem P and Q, or tell IFID It's better to keep an empty chamber under certain situations, them I am debating an idea and it's not personal. Most of the time they will not personally attack me when I disagree on the merits of the idea. Of course, if I mix in personal barbs with the critiques of their idea, then I will get the same reaction as if I had only personally attacked them.

JJP is very welcome here. He has experience and insight none of the rest of us have. He kinda got off on the wring foot, as many often do. They forget Forum posts are very poor and coveying the all important tone of voice and body language--which often communicate more than the words. In person, I can say "Don you are an idiot" and make you laugh, or say it and make you mad. On the Internet, it will always be taken in the worst light.

If JJP initially said: "Its amazing the impact a twisted, biasly written book will have on some people. Rather then review the book and waste more time........I'll move on. It would be wonderful if people would just think a bit and be open minded."

Already, he's accused JB of being twisted and biased, and is telling many of us here because we happen to agree with JB were don't have an open mind.

A way to say that without getting people riled would be "I'm not sure I agree with all of JBs conclusions. The DEVA tests have some problems because of X, Y, and Z. His statement about the pink dohickey being the optimal reflagulating device isn't what I have personally experienced, etc."

If he had approached things as such, the resulting pissing match would not have developed. (Probably.) If you'll notice, my post was the first effort to stop the piss and let JJP get a fresh start. Perhaps I painted things in a way that allowed him to see why these guys were reacting as they did, maybe I just wasted my words (though I do have a lot of them to waste <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />). Maybe I'm way off base and just like to "hear" myself talk.

Blaine

Blaine:

I couldn't have said it any better.

Excellent post.

Rick

Rick,

The part about attacking ideas not people, or the part about my having a lot of words to waste? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Blaine

I like what, and how, you said it, Blaine. I didn't notice any wasted words. E

E, I'll leave the analysis for you. I'm tired of listening to the same old stuff. There may indeed be a scope brighter than the Leupold, but why anyone would buy it is beyond me. I culd buy a lot of hunting with the marketing sizzle some folks pay for. Keep me posted. I'm going hunting now, and there my Leupolds will excell, as they always have. It's a no-brainer.

Blaine,

I "appears" to me that the "click" is the only tought process that "seems" to matter in here. It could be said the opposite as you described in that JJP has every right to say what he feels or has an opinion about and that does not give "anybody" the right to jump down his throat about his "opinions" on a book he read. Some in here "seem" to start all kinds of name calling and then yell foul and try to turn it around. Thats laughable. We all see it a lot. Doesn't make it right. Instead of jumping down JJP's back. give the guy a chance to explain his position.

Anybody that goes against the grain is right away ridiculed and made fun of. As JJP has stated, thats childish and on that note I agree with him. If he reads a book and he beleives a bias exhists then he has the right to beleive as "he" sees fit, no different then anybody else. Wouldn't all of the rest want/deserve the same consideration?

The way I "read" through JJP's posts was that he has a "different" (not better or worse) opinion of this book then most others do. That doesn't make him right or wrong, just different.

I know nothing about JJP. I don't personally know the man. He "may" have years more experience then all of us combined. If we never give him the chance to express himself we will never know. I see where a lot of "new" people on this forum are reduced by a lot of the members of the "click". Does that give any incentive to any of these "new" people to continue sharing their experiences?

BTW, since when does anybody do exactly what is said in "one book"? Is this book supposed to be the "bible" all follow in regards to optics? If anybody answers yes, to me, thats being narrow minded.

My "feeling" about having an open mind go along with what I have stated above. I read JJP's posts objectively and with an open mind. Seems some would rather act childish and ridicule the guy without even trying to get to know him. To me, thats wrong and childish.

If JJP says something somebody doesn't agree with, politely ask for a verification, versus stabbing the guy and twisting the blade. My "opinion" is this approach would net more positive results. Then again, I could be mistaken.

Have a good one,

Don <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

DonKnows:

An opinion is one thing, stating that a well known and respected author is "twisted and biased" in his writing is entirely different. Such a statement requires expansion if one is to have any credibility at all. As for asking for an explanation, obviously you didn't read much of the above few posts. But, just to enlighten you, let's review his first post and the next two in reply.

Here is JJP's first post:

Quote

I couldn't resist but your right. Its amazing the impact a twisted, biasly written book will have on some people. Rather then review the book and waste more time........I'll move on. It would be wonderful if people would just think a bit and be open minded. On the bright side, I am sure we all learnt something from the book even it was that money was better spent on something else. Boy, I sure feel better now.

Here is the NEXT post by Bearrr264:

Quote

JJP,

What do you find wrong with JB's book? Please explain what makes you think "people" are close minded and would be well to "just think a bit". Where would my money be "better spent"?

I'm glad that omni-directional rambling has made you feel better, but it doesn't provide much insight for the rest of us.

Perhaps, if JB reads this, he could suggest a check list that we could use to select a scope that best meets our individual needs. Such as magnification, fix or variable, price range, reticle choice, etc. For example, the optimal scopes that JB uses to snipe deer in MT would likely be a suboptimal solutions for my MO creekbottom still hunting and vis a versa.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

And here is the NEXT post by yours truly:

Quote

JJP:

Nice first post. Please state your qualifications so that we can understand that you have the background, experience, and optical knowledge to be so critical of a widely acclaimed book about optics. Otherwise, I fear we shall think you are full of something other than knowledge.

I don't know Mr. Barsness, but appreciate his calm and thoughtful answers, WHILE EXPLAINING HIS METHODOLOGY to what are sometimes less than brilliant questions or questioners.

Perhaps you should follow his example

So far, from the NEW optics expert on this forum there has not been one substantive statement backing up his initial post which I would describe as libelous.

Don,

I am not enthused when "one of us" responds in kind to the first "out of the butt" emotional barb someone throws. In JJPs case, his first post--most likely unintentionally--was as such. I can guarantee most folks will respond right back out of their own butts (includes me). The best bet would be for us to all "turn the other cheek" and let someone "slip" every now and then without coming right back at them. That level of posting "maturity" may take us a while. For now, avoiding the ego driven, personal attacks are the best way to keep out the piss. To avoid such inflammatory posts, we all need to learn how to recognize them in our own posts. I am hardly there myself, so please don't think I consider myself Dr Posting Procedure. However, I am starting to see what sets things things off. Others learned to see this stuff before me, but they just aren't as outspoken about it.

Remember, baby steps....First we stop starting fires ourselves, then we learn how to put out fires started by others.

Blaine

IIFID, Blaine, all
I guess it was me who started the retaliatory urination, and apologize for that. I was hit with the aroma of the south end of a north-bound horse and had trouble biting my tongue.

I took the post as a weak attack from someone who was claiming inside knowledge and showing they had nothing at the same time. And I was likely attacking the lousy basic English skills at the same time.

I'm not sure I will be able to keep myself from doing it again, but I promise that next time I will wait at least 5 minutes after writing a reply like that before posting...
art

Art,

Maybe, but anyone of us could have. I don't want to even think about how many times I've been that guy. Funny thing is, I'll bet 99% of us would get along just great in person.

Blaine

Art:

I think you were pretty mild.

Blaine:

Guess I'm in the 1%. Because, no, I wouldn't and don't get along with someone who makes slanderous claims( if it was in person) and has no facts or evern considered opinions to back them up. I don't like such people on the net and I detest them in person. Maybe that's why I spend more and more time on my place out in the boonies.

It's Sunday and there's no hunting to do, so I'll admit to wading through the entire thread (which had some meat in the beginning).

Just to show that I'm a swell guy, and not a clique person, I'm going to AGREE WITH DON KNOWS about something.

It is this: If I use binoculars for, say 100 minutes, I find there is about 1 minute when it is better to go straight to the scope and leave the binocular hanging. This occurs when I am hunting a deer that is already CLOSE. I hunt a lot of thickets, and there are times when you will have the deer within 20 yards and will be waiting for a window of vital opportunity.

In this situation, I have already identified the deer, decided that I want to take it, and know the direction of travel. I am also in dire danger of being busted if I move. By this time I have the rifle in position anyway.

In this situation, I do not glass. There's a great chance he'll see me waving my hardware around. At this point the hunting is over and the killing is about to begin. In this situation, blinking your eyes is risky. You need to do business quickly. There is no chance for a running shot.

Here it is the riflescope that rules for my hunting.

That said, the fact that I actually SOLD some good rifles to obtain a good pair of binos illustrates their importance to me. Without binos I feel like I am hoping, not hunting.

For some years I have used the Pentax DCF WP 8 x 42. I got it because I judged it to be the best binocular I could buy for less than 500$. It was on sale at Eagle Optics for 400$, with harness. I also got a 6 x 42 Leupold MC4 with a German 4a reticle from Premier Reticles for about $350.

If anyone can do more for $750, I'd like to see it. I'll spend the rest of the 1500$ (from an earlier post) on gas for scouting, trespass fees, hotel, boots, etc. and put a lot more steaks in the freezer and heads on the wall than if I'd spent the whole amount on glass only.

Art, Blaine,

Perhaps giving somebody the benifit of the doubt would be a better tactic, next time. Possibly asking some questions in a tactfull manner versus jumping down their throats would be a better approach.

I guess I read JJP's post in a different light then some others as I saw nothing "wrong" in his posting. He voiced "his" opinion. We all have that right, fortunately.

Have a good one,

Don <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Don,

Did I jump down anyone's throat? All I wanted to know from JJP was what specifically he didn't like about OFTH. But then he left without saying goodbye and I really hate to see anyone leave with hurt feelings.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

Bear,

I don't recal you "hurting" his feelings.

I was just making a general statement. Sorry for any implication on my part, it wasn't directed that way.

Have a good one,

Don <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Now thats quality posting!

""I really hate to see anyone leave with hurt feelings""

In your dreams Bearrrrrrrry. blah blah blah.....

Don,

He was given the benefit of the doubt. Bear and IFID asked him to clarify and state his reasons/qualifications. From there it rapidly deteriorated. I waded in to try and get things back on a positive level. Had I or someone else not steeped in, things would have turned very ugly.

Blaine

AFP - not to worry. Things won't have gotten toooo ugly if ""..... else not steeped in"" I think I know what you mean. I thought I'd copy and paste to show that just about anyone can dwell on petty things re- steeped. Nothing personal - hee h <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />ee :-) Have a great night.

JJP,

I was pleased we were able to stop the piss before it got to far. No one guy can get credit or blame, because it requies effort from all. The funny thing is, many of us seem to be worrying about whether or not we handled your "situation" properly, while you have moved past it. All this does is keep the controversy alive. Then again, I suppose discussing how we should conduct ourselves is not really a bad thing.

Blaine

AFP:

Screw this anti-piss campaign. If someone wants to come on here and make libelous accusations against a respected member of this and the gun writing community. I and several others am going to call him on it.

I note that he has not posted ONE response with any reasons or thoughts why Barsness used "bias and twist" in his book on optics.

He is either an a$$hole or a troll and I don't really care which one.

Now, is that pissy enough for you?

BTW......Happy New Year. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Blaine, I hope you�re having a great festive season. The campfire forum has some rather, we'll let�s say, "interesting" people. Kind of reminds me of some of the characters from Lord of the Rings...........the not so flattering ones! You've brought up some very good points.

JJP:

And you are full of just what I suspected after your first post. I wipe it off my boots.

For the sake of AFPs blood pressure, who is subject to physicals, this will be my last response to this troll, who has nothing to add to a conversation, judging by the "content" of his posts so far. Move over, Sitka Deer, I'm on that bench with you.

JJP,

So, now you're reduced to calling me names? What's next? Are you going to threaten to have your dad kick my dad's ass?

First you rip OFTH and JB. I grant that both are fair game, as there aren't any sacred cows, but when I asked you to explain the faults in OFTH, you opted not to do so. Like I wrote before, anyone can hit and run, but a person of character will typically have the courage to stand up and articulate his/her position to the best of his/her ability. In my opinion, mine alone, you have yet to demonstrate that you have any knowledge on the subject of optics that would lead me to value anything that you have written.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

So lets see referring to Bearrr264 as Bearrrrrrrry is name calling. Did I get that right? If you say so, but wouldn�t you say your being a touch sensitive? Now I might be stretching it, but I didn�t think you were that sensitive or should I use the term insecure. In any case, you�re a big lad (or not) and I won�t want to come to any wrong conclusions about yourself, as frankly, I don�t want to. In general, can�t we all just huddle around the fire and be friends? I wonder if there is some logic to the name; silly me there must be! Bearrr264 you have a wonderful day and I hope 2003 brings in everything you ever dreamed!

JJP,

If first impressions count for anything, and I believe that they do, we didn't get off to a very good start. My name, or my handle, is mine and I'd appreciate if you'd use it properly when addressing me. If you want to get to know me, read by bio and then send me a personal.

Can we huddle around the campfire and be friends? Most of us can, but some of us can't, just ask Robert.

Bearrr264 = Bearrr, my nickname because of my size and my reputed temper. As far as my temper goes, I think that I'm 99% teddy and only 1% grizzly. 264 because it is my very favorite bore diameter, for now. See, there is some logic to it.

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

PS I'm pretty secure and not too sensitive, because this is, after all, just a virtual world and things are often not as they seem.

Bearrr264 � understood and I agree. Who is Robert?

JJP,

Robert couldn't, or wouldn't, play well with others, so Rick banned him from the campfire when he became exceptionally rude and disrespectful. It was too bad that he had such a challenging personality, as he was quite knowledgeable about Savage products and added some missing value to that thread.

If we're going to be friends, you can call me "Bear", no need for the more formal "Bearrr264".

Sincerely,

Bearrr264

IIFID
You might not like it here on this bench, we are all drinking Yang Ling and chewing the fat... snake fat that is!

Happy New Year!
art

Don't Bogart that bottle, my friend, pass it over to me........

To repeat, Happy New Year back atcha.

Anyone think we should have Rick lock this thread? I am embarrased that all the new guys coming over are looking through this soap opera.

Blaine

Gentlemen:

May I suggest a New Year's resolution ... ?

Rick

Sure, then lock the thread and see if anybody keeps it. I know us canucks will, we are polite folk. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Why lock it?

It's just getting interesting

Don <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

BTTT.
dave

Really bored huh???

What year is this ? How long have I've been sleping ?

Kinda mild mannered as pissing comtest go.
dave