there are lots of great riflescopes out there in every magnification from 1-3 to whatever. On the heels of hte previous post about what I should put on my 257 weatherby I started doing some thinking.

realistically all of my shots on deer will be well under 500 yards and even if I wanted to shoot longer I shouldnt shoot past 600 yards due to the amount of energy the round is capable of.

So at 500 yards shouldnt 9 or 10 power be plenty on deer sized game?

I know its not as fun to punch paper at 300 yards with only 10 power but a mule deer is a fair sized target.

And its not like you should be using your riflescope to be judging game for size or what have you.

And how many have been taken by the almighty 6x

what do you guys think this should be good

nitis,

I think you have read too many politically correct posts here.

The carry binocs I use are 6 1/2X. The scope on my .257 Weatherby goes from 4 1/2-30X. There have been times when I needed more than I had to see if I wanted to make the shot. That isa no longer the case. Now I can easily verify before I shoot or not. In the past I had to pass on the shot.

ok you got me ringman

but when it comes to making the shot what do you need

I think whatever works for the shooter is the "best," for them, and that's all that matters. I prefer lightweight low powered scopes; I've got a buddy who shoots his 3-9's at 9x all day long and has taken more elk than I. Who's right? We're both right, because we both do what works best for the way we shoot.

nitis,

One time I saw a deer though the woods about forty-five to fifty yards away. It was unaware of me. I was using a 4-16X set on 4X. I turned it up a little to make sure if it was legal. (This was prior to my bino days.) Finally when it was turned up to 10X I could make out that it was a legal fork. I also noticed the crosshair was on the neck so I fired. It looks like I needed 10X that time.

Another time I was using a 2 1/2-7X I could not make out if what I was seeing was a spike with a crooked set of horns or a fork. I let it slide. The scope was sold.

Prior to that I was using a fixed 4X in a place where visible antlers was a legal buck. I was watching a doe feed along a trail about 110 yards out. Finally it turned just wrong so that I realized it was a spike. The 4X has been in the drawer for a couple decades.

Once I took a fella hunting with me. I saw several deer in the distance and turned the 3-9X Leupold up to 9X. I couldn't make out any horns. A minute later I heard shots so went that direction. My buddy said there was a fork buck in the group. That time I needed more than 9X.

So to answer your question, all I can get.

On a 257 Bee, I'd like a 4.5-14. But then I run 4.5-14 on almost everything.

R.

I'm begining to think that straight 6 power is really all you need in most hunting situations. Plus they are light, rugged and easy to use. To each their own though.

I'd listen to Ringman, as HIGH power is needed with his rigs because he has found a way to flatten trajectory. He has kicked Isaac Newton square in the nuts.

Prezactly.

Nothing like judging whether the deer is a shooter or not through a scope.

Something about using a scope for bino duties makes me nervous...

djb,



Nervous guys in the woods make me nervous. So please don't use your scope for bino duty.

Dude, scopes are aiming devices. Binos are for 'looking'. Pretty simple concept.

Well, even when I am aiming and preparing the shot I'm still continuing to look.
I've decided not to shoot many times based on what I saw through the scope. Have tracked animals for extended periods of time through the scope waiting for them to move into better position for a cleaner shot also.

Yes, general glassing is done with bins or a spotting scope. But what is on the rifle is the final step and I like that tool to be dependable and of high quality. Never seen much need for more than 10x, but I am not in flatlands much either.

With good glass I leave them on 3X for any shot out to 400 yards and maybe a little more, not that I take too many 400+ yard shots but have killed several deer at that range on 3X. The two scopes I have done this with have been a 1.5x6x42 Swarovski Nova and PH and a Kahles 3x9x42. I could be very happy with a 3x by 42 using Schott glass and excellent coatings.

Yesterday I received a couple of Minox 3x9x40's with their BDC reticle. In playing around with them a little this morning, I believe they will be staying on 3X when hunting too. Nice scopes!

Unless you are over about 60 years old, you don't even want to hear what I think of hunters using riflescopes to identify potential targets. Lazy city dudes in fancy clothes, Monster scopes on rifles that kick too hard, poor or non-existant stalking and tracking skills, ignorance of animal behavior, all seem to show up in the same type of slob hunter.

My apologies, in advance, to readers who know how to use their equipment, and don't exibit the above.

Wayne

How many yards are these elk at?

Which one has horns in velvet?

A rifle scope is superior to a binocular when it comes to seeing detail ?
That's funny. I just had my new Nikon 50mm ED spotting scope out in the high country. At 2.5-3 miles, when set on 25X, it couldn't readily show me any more detail than my 12X50 Leica BN binocular could when rested on the tripod.
I'd always "heard" that it takes 20-25X to come up to, or exceed, the detail you can see with a top quality, 12X50 binocular when both are rested on a tripod. Now, maybe if i really got down to some truly fine details, I might have seen a hair more than I could with the 12X50, but this difference certainly didn't jump out at me.
I tend to carry higher quality 8X32 or 8X42 binoculars to help me both find game and to evaluate it. Sometimes I even carry the 6X class stuff.
I've noticed that at 1000-1500 yds. I might not be able to see antlers clearly with the lighter, harder to use stuff, but I've never had any kind of trouble seeing even the tiniest antlers at 500 yds. or less with a decent 8x binocular.
I use a rifle scope to shoot. I tend to favor the 6X rifle scopes simply because at the closer ranges, say under 200 yds., they allow me to see fine twigs and leaves that might deflect a bullet more easily. But, when it comes to making a shot, I've used basice 4x w/o any problems at ranges over 500 yds. on several occasions. E

378, I'd venture to say they are inside of 150 yds.
Looks like the bull is in the middle, between two cows.

And, with the farmhouse in the background, that's not a shot I would be taking.
My observation of them would only be with my B&L bins.

I lasered them at 422 yds but since the camera was set at 3x you got 150 yds.
Actually they are all sporting very impressive antlers and the back one has most of the velvet scraped off already. Too bad you couldn't see that at 3 power, but when you crank it to 10+ you see all that.
PS. That's why I shot with the camera.

378Canuck,

About one yard. The photo displayed on my monitor is not as good as either my 6.5X32 binos or my 4 1/2-30X50 scope so I can't tell much from the photo.

Good thing we all don't like use the same thing, would be a pretty boring world and than what would we all do if we didn't have a forum to surf?

I have no where near the hunting experience or the world travels that a lot of people on here have, but I've taken a number of deer in my 30 years of shooting experience with lots of different scopes and open sites.



Probably have used a Leupold 4.5-14 with my 7mm Rem mag more than anything from 10 yards to 600 (deer, elk, antelope, fox (not much left) and a couple coyotes. Also a few phesants and grouse and a couple turkey (all head/neck shots) have missed a few but overall it's been a heck of a combo for me with no complaints. If I could only have one scope that'd probably be it.

Took my first bull elk in dark timber at first light at 14 yards with that combo and could see exactly where I was shooting. Didn't need a 50mm, nor did I desire a 1x or 2x

Personally if I have a solid rest I like to turn the power up. I turn the power down without a second thought everytime I'm not using it, second nature just like the safety and the use of my flip-up caps.

Several people I hunt with never turn their scopes past 6x. Different strokes for different folks as the old saying goes.

Very cool!
I would have enjoyed those moments simply watching through the 10x bins!
I rarely take a camera with me. Thanks for taking the pic, and then sharing the view.
Looks like some fine hunting land!

I'd point out that the eye of the camera often doesn't resolve as well as the human eye can. The more you magnify a camera image, the less detail you will see.
Second, those elk are in velvet, their antlers aren't hard as they would be during most hunting seasons.
Third, they have a dark background, which makes their in velvet antlers harder to see. E

Keeping track of a moving animal under field conditions at 30 power sounds like quite a challenge. Off a bench, once my target is located at a lower power, I can turn up the power. In the field, I haven't found high power scopes to be an advantage.YMMV.

doubletap,



The vast majority of my practice is off hand dryfire. When I hear the click of the fireing pin I can call a hit or miss. Misses are rare. While doing this I normmaly put a scope on its highest power for said practice. The most magnification on a hunting scope I used prior to this was a 5-20X. When I tried the highest X the 4 1/2-30, I discovered the field of view is too small dispite looking right thourgh the center of the scope when I bring it up quickly. So now I practice on 16X.

Once hunting starts the power is set to 4 1/2X. All of a sudden it is like wide screan TV. The higher magnification is used to verify whether I want to shoot or not in low light or on a distanct target. Or, just to impress me and raise my satisfaction level.

Ringman,
Not trying to be contrary, but it seems from your post that half of your power range is wasted. If you practice at 16X and hunt at lower power, everything from 16X to 30X provides no benefit.

Just curious, but who makes a 4.5-30x scope?

I am a firm believer that good quality bino's are a must for deer stalking, regardless of the distances you expect to encounter deer.

In heavy cover/thick woodland, they allow me to see "through" that cover and pick out parts of a deer like an ear or an antler tine ect. They are also a "must" from a safety perspective as using a rifle scope for general glassing is just not good practice.

So if your have you bino's, say 7x42mm or 10x42mms or similar, a good quality x6 scope is going to be enough in most situations.

Using 378Canuck pics above as example, x6 would be plenty to make a shot on those beasts, and even a x4 would work.

However, imagine those beasts are not stationary and are feeding and drifting across the field...As they change positions, its going to be very difficult to pick out a partiuclar animal with a x6 scope and it would easy to shoot the wrong one..

Another instance where a high power scope is better is when trying to pick and anmal out through heavy cover...Being able to see a gap clearly and know there are no twigs or other vegitation in the way is huge help in certain situations.

So these days, although I started stalking with a 6x42mm, I have switched to variables in the 2.5-10mm and 4-16mm range. There is no real reason not to use a variable these days except perhaps fixed powers tend to be lighter and less bulky, but thats a trade off I'm willing to make for the aded versitility of a variable.

Regards,

Peter

Good post Pete. Just an example of a hunter I know and his fantastic knowledge. He runs a Leupold 4 x12 -50mm -I believe. But stangely he leaves the sun shade on all the time. It's like looking through a tunnel. Seems to me if you remove this piece it would let in more light for hunting application. I took him out to the range with me as a guest last week. We started shooting at 200 (225 yds)meters and I was clustering groups in the 2-3 inch circle. At 30 power and a .338 I can see the holes at that distance. If not too much mirage I can see them at 22 power faintly. His holes weren't even on the paper. So he had to back up to 100 yds and then 50 yds and start sighting in his scope. He said he was shooting 1 moa last year. This guy is a liar of course. Out of maybe a 150 shooters in this club only a handful have rigs and ability to shoot 1 MOA. When you hear guys say they can do 1 MOA or less be skeptical until you see the target. I heard (the 1 moa shooter)he removed his scope and now shoots open sights because he can shoot better without a scope.

Bushnell in their 6500 line.

As part of the ethos of the Club I am in and as a condition of their lease, all members have to do a shooing test once a year before they can hunt.

Its actually very simple. Out of a lena-to high seat, they have to get 3 shots into a four inch circle/kill zone.

They have one chance on the day and have to turn up with the rifle and scope zero'd and ready to go..If they pass that, they go on to the rest of the test which is half a dozen shots at a deer target from prone, sitting and standing. All shots have to be in the kill zone. Distance is from 100m down to 50m.

Its not meant to be a difficult test, just a basic demonstration that you are set up and ready to hunt. But its surprising how many folks fail the first 3 shoots in a 4" circle, myself included in the past!

Usually its down to nerves as you are being watched and you're under pressure, but some turn up and have painly got greater problems; although all were "shooting 1MOA last week"

The other thing of course is that its one thing to shot 1 MOA from a bench, but entirely different to be a good shot from field positions. I am a lousy off hand shot, but I know that, and don't pretent otherwise. Its actually not much of a handicap in my circumstances, but I'd be loath to take a free hand shot at a roe at 100m for fear of wounding it...

When it comes to shooting, everybody has a different ability and there is no crime in that.

The trick is when hunting is to be honest about your own capabilities and to only take shots within that ability and not just "throw lead"...

But some folks are just not honest and kid themselves they are the greatest shots ever, when clearly they are not..In those circumstances its the animals that suffer, all for the sake of some fools ego...

Regards,

Peter

As to the question the OP posted, a guy needs and a guys wants can be confused. I have never shot at an animal past 300 yards that I didn't turn the dial up as much as possible to place the shot exactly where I wanted it, not just center mass of brown or tan. But as for the distance most animals are shot at, higher power variables obviously arent neccessary say.....90% of the time. If you think that you'll find yourself in that other 10% then why not prepare/equip yourself for it? I have shot a lot of different power scopes at longish distances and I cant recall thinking that the higher magnification scopes were a hinderance at distance. I shot a red fox a couple years back at about 350 ish yards. He was standing in about 6 inches of snow. I was on the ground with my .204 mounted on a short bipod and it took me a couple seconds to realize that I only had like 4" of the critter in view with him standing in the snow. I was using a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14 and I appreciated being able to bring him to view real closely with the higher power and make a good shot. Same can be said about the Caribou I shot a couple years ago at 425ish yards with my 257 Roy, I had that VX-III 3.5-10x40 turned up as far as it would go and remember wishing I had a little more, regardless I made the shot. This whole discussion is not about what a guy needs.........its about what a guy wants!

doubletap,

Perhaps I should have posted a little more info. The scope is on 4 1/2X while I carry it in the fields or woods. The sling is used when dragging or carrying a deer. I practice on 16X for dryfiring. At the range from the bench I shoot on 30X. There are times in the fields, seldom in the woods, where I use at least 20X and sometimes more magnification.

Then there is the braggin' I do to myself, and on the 'net, that I have such a fine verstile toy. I revel in the fact that in side by side (same power setting) comparisons the image quality is equal to my 12-42X56 NightForce. To me it is the one of the best scope values available.

+1

my experience mirrors Ringman, and the further you try to shoot, the more the problems get magnified. Limbs in the way, small saplings, low hanging limbs, then you get into whether or not the buck has been fighting and has broken off tines. Ever kill two deer in one shot? I have, doe behind the buck with a 3-9, power set on 9x on a shot at 425 yards.

If you have a 257 Weatherby, you have a long range rifle, might as well have a scope that you can take advantage of the rifle's capabilities.

Folks like different kinds of optics, and your hunting circumstances may not even allow for a long shot.

On my dedicated groundhog rifles, I use 6.5-20X's and straight 24X's.

On my big game rifles, I've pretty much settled on the 2.5-8X.

I carry it at 2.5X when still hunting, usually bump it to about 4X if on stand or in a tree, and if I have the luxury of time, after spotting a deer, I might twist it up to 8X.

While I've had a 3.5-10X on a few rifles, I've never felt handicapped by the 2.5-8X, and have really come to love the lighter weight and smaller size.

If I can't make out antlers well enough to see a fork, with my naked eye, at "forty five to fifty yards", or can't find antlers at 100 yards through a 4X (the equivalent of 25 yards visually, or an average bow shot), or need 10X or more to judge legality, the shot is either untakable or the deer deserves to live another few years.

I have 6x20's on a 22-250 and a 243. I have a 4.5x14 on my 264 and mid-range scopes on my other toys. I have a limited budget so I have inexpensive bino's and do use them but but as the gent above said when I put down the binos and pick up the rifle the observation/evaluation doesn't stop. Until said critter is on the ground I can change my mind at any time. If I can see something through the scope I don't like that I can't see through the bino's the safety stays on. I'm sure that makes me a bad hunter since I can't afford $1k+ on glass but it gets the job done safely and effectively for me.

Coldbore,



The folks like me need more hunters like you. You let the deer slide. We appreciate it.

Just curious, but who makes a 4.5-30x scope? [/quote]

Bushnell Elite 6500 4.5-30x50

Ringman,
I don't have a problem with what you're doing. Checking the rack on a deer with your scope after locating it by eye or with binoculars is not the same as "glassing" an area with your scope. I have seen problems caused by too much power. A friend put a 4.5 x 14 on his elk rifle. He had it turned up to 14 power and when he came across an elk, he couldn't find it in his scope. He never got a shot off.

If you're comfortable with your scope, that's fine. I've decided, for myself (even with eyesight that isn't what it once was) if a 2.5x8 or 3x9 isn't adequate for a shot at deer or elk, I need to get closer. I have found that I can see things through a lower power in a top quality scope that are not clear even at higher power in a lesser scope.

doubletap,



Try to get your friend to do all his practice on 14X. Then if he forgets to turn it down, it's no big deal. He's used to it.

But I think he has a problem you illuded to. You see when I bring my scope up on 16X the cross hair is normally on the target. Your friend needs to get his scope set up for the way he brings it up rather than his present setup. He has to move it around to get it centered on his target. There in lies the reason he didn't get the shot at the elk.

Great picture - lets use it to look at Ringmans argument.

22 Mio. hunters - PA to Georgia, Alaska to FL, across the fences in Texas - pick up your rifles and scope these animals, hot chamber and all, Farmhouses in the background.

If you can't find a farmhouse, at least in the eastern states there should be a hunter found. He will do. Moon him all you want.

Ignorance out of bounds.

Scopes are for aiming.

To not violate Rules 3 and 4 ( never let your muzzle cover anything you do not want to destroy / be sure of your target and what lays beyond) identification has to be done beforehand - with a bino / Spotter.

That is the reason binos have no barrel attached.

Any hunter out w/o binos is negligient - either taking chances in identifiing or potentionally violtaing rules 3/4 by mooning with the scope.

Rationalize all you want - Unless you can tell me, how one can use the scope to look at and unidentified target w/o violating rules 3/4, above is the last word on the subject.

To the OP - get how much power you like. People understanding the above seldom need much mag.

For "AIMING" at a deer 2,5 or 3x goes a ways. 4x is ample, 6x ...

For identification, we have the 10x binos.

Jeez, I do not think, I would participate in a public land hunt in Ringman coutry for all the whiskey in Ireland.

And this from a guy who regularly sets up drive hunts for wild boar for up to 50 guns with 25 beaters and dogs in areas of 250 acre.

cmg,


Mostly. Sorta. But really they are to generate money for the manufacturer. That's why there are so many brands and types.

Who is this holy rule maker that we should pay homage to?

Huh? My binocs have two barrels.

Or new or doesn't have extra money or....

Pay homage to this rule maker all you want. There will be a ton of .com friends who will agree with you all day long till they get to the hunting fields.

Perhaps your eyes are better than most of the hunters I have met. I hope so. The best hunter I know can see cariboo and deer over a mile away. He can judge antlers without glass at 3/4 of a mile and judge with 7X binos at two miles.

Maybe you have 10X and maybe some of our .com friends do. I have 6 1/2X Vortex and 13X Minox. The 6 1/2X attach to a chest strap and the 13X attach to a tri-pod and stays in the truck when I leave the area.

It appears you have enough folks to hunt with already.

Now to address something not mentioned:
When you carry your rifle case or pistol case do you keep it pointed in a save direction all the time or do you assume it is bullet proof?

Ringman,

I do trust you know the 4 rules of gun safety.

1) ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. HhANDLE AS SUCH.
2) KEEP YOUR FINGER OF THE TRIGGER TILL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON TARGET.
3) NEVER LET YOUR MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY.
4) BE SURE OF YOURE TARGET AND WHAT LIES BEYOND.

Col. Jeff Cooper formulated these common sense rules. Hunter Safety 101

Your attitude towards this issue is blatantly clear and your ignorance testament your failure to recognize these rules.

As for carry:

Of course the rifle/pistol is uncocked and empty in the case.

Please do not mock gun safety.

When I was a youngster, with sharp eyes and a flat wallet, I used an old 4x Weaver. Then I switched to a 1.5 - 4.5 Weaver, then I switched to an ancient Zeiss 6x, then to some Japanese (this was in the early 60s.) 3-9 wonder-scope that went all to heck in less than 100 roujnds. Then I went to a Zeiss that kept me eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for several months while I saved up to pay for it. Over the years I have spent more money on scopes than on rifles, The Tasco that goes up to 40X is OK but I wanted more power so I hired a guy who builds telescopes for the University of Pennsylvania, SO far he has made me three "scopes" the last one went up to 200 X. Now I don't actually attach a rifle to these things or go hunting. I have decided that I an an astronomer and that the old Weaver 1.5 - 4.5 was plenty of scope when I really hunted!

Terry

Terry

I am in Ringman's camp, and I don't think that Ringman is a novice at this stuff. CMG, your rules apply to novice hunters, and you have a very special circumstances on drive hunts. Rifles and drive hunts make me very nervous, I prefer a shotgun with buckshot...too easy for someone to get shot. I never would allow drive hunts on my deer leases due to the fact that too many button bucks get shot.

For the guy that walks around with is scope set on 14x, he is a novice with that equipment. Walking around with a variable scope set on the upper power settings is what novices do. I am sure that your friend has learned better. The proper use of the 4-14 scope for walking purposes is to turn it down to it's lowest or close to lowest power, the higher power is for taking long shots, usually at grazing animals.

The whole idea that if a 2-8 or a 3-9 is not enough scope, you need to get closer may apply to close in shooting but not hunting in the open plains of the West or hunting Power lines or gas lines in the South...you CAN NOT get closer!

Not all scopes will apply to all hunting situations, you have to match your equipment to your particular hunting situation, not to mention your likes and dislikes.

If all your shots are under 125 yards, especally in thicker cover, then low powered scopes are the ticket or a variable on it's lowest setting. If you are in Kansas sitting on the edge of a CRP field seeing deer move from 300-700 yards, you need power on your scope. These deer fight, broken racks are normal. Also, a doe or yearling fawn may be on the off side of the buck. I killed two bucks in one shot with a 270 with Factory Remington 150g Core Locts...lucky it was legal to take 2 per day.

Everytime a topic on scope power comes up, it always boils down to people that know how to use a variable scope and people that do not. There used to be an argument that variables were not reliable, not anymore. Another argument is that an expensive low power scope will allow you to see better than a cheaper higher power scope. For those of you that firmly believe this, can you see 7mm or 30 cal bullet holes in the target at 400 yards, I can on my bushnell 4200 4-16 in the 40mm and 50mm(most consider this a cheap scope). I have had top of the line bushnell and Baush and Lomb scopes since 1990, not one has ever been back to the shop.

One thing that should be a rule with novice shooters and variable scopes:

low power is for hunting-walking around
high power is for target shooting-turn your power up from low
to high on grazing animals.

Yesterday, I worked up a load for my brother in law's BAR in 7 Mag with the new Bushnell 2.5-16x42mm. This scope is fantastic to say the least. I expect that you will see many more companies coming out with this spread in magnification.

Terrain, folage, and distances that hunters use their optics in vary so much, it is hard to say that one type of power or scope will do it all. This is just a hobby, part of the fun is doing it the way you like adjusting to your hunting circumstances.

I hunt deer, elk, coyotes, and varmints...my likes/dislikes apply to the way I hunt and in the terrain that I hunt...yours may be different.

I have noticed over the years that folks that shoot with 1.5-5's, 2-7's,2-8's, and fixed powers of 6x and down, seem to limit their shooting to 200 yards, and most never shoot past 100 yards. I suspect that for their type of hunting, 200 yards is an extremely long shot. This does not make them less of a hunter or shooter, it just says that their hunting circumstances is for close in shooting.

The following is an example of the type of shooting that Ringman and I do.

I was deer hunting in Kansas. There was an old house place out in a CRP field where the farmer had his wind mill and water trough for his cows. This old house place probably covered 5 acres, long strip, scattered saplings through out the 5 acres, no clear spots. I had spotted this monster white tail the first day of the hunt, figured he went 180 in score or a little better. I set my ladder stand up 300 yards from the old house place, with nothing but a field between me and the old house place. We considered sitting up in the little patch of trees, but the does would bust us for sure...lots of deer coming in there to bed down. 5 days into the hunt, I spot the large buck coming to the old house place out at 700 yards or so. He comes down a draw and finally I see him behind the old house place with nothing but scattered saplings between the two of us. I waited and waited, he was simply not going to come out to drink until it got dark. He fought other bucks, and I never could get a shot through the trees. Finally, in the last 30 minutes of light, I have the chance to shoot through the trees with a clear line of sight no larger than a dinner plate. 154g Hornady SST out of my 7 Mag through both shoulders, he never even kicked. Leica range finder said 357 yards. I had a Bushnell 4200 in 4-16x 40mm. If I had even been using my Leupold 4-14, the shot would have been marginal. We scored the rack at 185.

In my younger years, I used 4x, 1.5-5's,2-7's, 6x, and 2-8's, they are not for me. I shot on the skeet leage for many years. Perhaps that training has lead me to be able to develop the hand and eye coordination to use the higher powered scopes...who knows...it's just a hobby...the only right or wrong is what is right or wrong for you!

Do you really mean that?

Ringman,



This merits special attention.

If you mean to imply, that I lack experience in the hunting field, better check your records.

My posts are quite open towards my real world persona of Wildlife scientist, researcher/teacher for hunting practise, outfitter/guide in Germany and guide in Alaska.

I challenge you to find someone else more qualified to opine on this subject. Good Luck.

Sorry, if this sounds immodest. Remember, it is not bragging, if you can do it.

cmg,



Didn't you forget one of the rules? Treat all firearms as though they are loaded.



Please do not have a holier than thou attitude. It doesn't look good. Reminds me of too many "Christians".

Keith,



Please tell me you are not serious.

As to the drive hunts.

It is a scientific proven fact that on a properly conducted drive the identification of game is as accurately possible as from stand hunting.

It is a scientific proven fact that on properly conducted drives the accident ratio is no higher than in other forms of hunting. Even lower than in what we call "informal drives".

From your post I know, that you have no experience how a drive is properly conducted.

Your line about the 4 rules and young hunters displays at best a misunderstanding on your part, albeit a serious one.

At last, hunting is a hobby to you. Be that as it may, it is my livelyhood - in any shape and form.

With all your typing and displaying the form of hunting you do, you have yet to state how you forego covering an not identified target with your muzzle while looking through your scope, identifying.

I am not hung up on the magnifications, please understand. Use all the mags you want - just use binos for identification, not the scope.

Ringman,

quit dancing around like a cat on a hot roof.

Admit that you have not thought about certain dangers deriving from described practises and all is well and good.

I am through here.

Two posters display an attitude negating basic gun and hunter safety and got called.

cmg,



I will admit that you, like most holier than thou, assume a lot. You don't have a clue about my gun handling and hunting safety.



I beleive that about as much as I believe your "scietific" facts in your previous post.



Please. Don't think more highly of yourself than you should. I have been called lots of names by my .com friends on several threads and have not been convinced that I am wrong. Just as you are not convinced that you are full of yourself. You and I are just the same.

CMG, my comments about a "novice" was directed at a person that walks around with the Magnification on a 4-14 set on 14x, which is what a novice does.

The 4 rules are great ones, no doubt.

Ringman, you should tell these guys how to flatten their rifle's trajectory. Then they will REALLY be impressed by your knowledge.

Stick to the Bible

Bigbuck215,

I tried. But guys like you and Stealy muddied the water so to speak and the message got lost.

Maybe I should post about testing weighed cases against random weight cases. Or maybe I should give a heads up about squared case heads compared to factory heads. But then some of our .com friends, who have not taken time to test things at the range, would come on a call me names.

Ya know I might just do it anyway. Thanks for the idea.

Stealhead,

I received a P.M. from Rick about that. He politely told me to stop. But he never said anything about responding to other folks' threads. So if you start a thread, then I will respond to it. How's that sound?

Let's hear about the squared case head thing. You might be breaking new ground.

Will I need a CNC lathe for this ?

Naaaahhh...

Get a tool from Sinclair Inc.

Which one?

Poor nitis will never ask another question after seeing how this post blew apart.

I am sorry for my part on it. Maybe I should have started a new thread.

To the original poster--

I mostly hunt deer with a Leupie 4x. I live in about as wide open of country as you're going to find in the USA.

It is no problem to pop a deer out to 400 yards on 4x (that's like shooting with no magnification at 100 yards). I shot a nice buck two years ago across a pasture coulee at about 435 yards with that 4x. But then again, I don't shoot dinks and don't need to use my scope to figure out if they're "big enough."

To the original question at hand..."how much do you need?" Here's my take for what it's worth...

I was hunting javelina a few years ago when I topped a rocky point and a long ways away I spotted a domestic cow feeding up this slow rise. First thing that came to mind is that was further than I would ever shoot. I didn't have a range finder at the time, but I know this area and an educated guess would put the critter somewhere close to 600 yards. For the heck of it, I emptied my rifle, took a rest on a rock and threw my Leupold 2x7 on him. Now I could not see a lot of detail on that animal, but I had no problem holding on vitals at that distance. I know a cow is bigger than a deer, but after that day I was convinced that if 7x can do the trick on that cow at around 600 yards, I need no more for a deer out to maybe 500 yards.

To share another story, I was with a friend this past September hunting pronghorn. We spent the better part of a couple hours glassing this one buck from about 650 yards out. Once the buck go as close as 550 lasered yards, my buddy decided he wasn't the one. Again, for the heck of it he emptied his rifle and handed it to me. I cranked his big variable down to 6x and again, I could not see great detail, but I could hold vitals just fine. Of course holding vitals at that distance would just kick up dirt in front of the animal, but that day really convinced me that the 2.5x8, the straight 6x, and event the 1-4x in my rack are all plenty for any shot I will be taking.

After reading all the posts the answer should be clear; you need as much magnification as you want.

Sums it up pretty well I think because we are all different in what we want or need to "see".

I've killed deer,antelope, and elk(more than once each)at 400-500 yards with a 4X and this did not make it ideal for the job but was what I had at the time....on those days it was enough.

The answer to the question is easily resolved, as are many such questions posted on here....get out and shoot the rifle and find out for yourself.

MAGNUMDUDE and BobinNH,

You boys are NOT playing this game correctly. Take a lesson from me and get emotional.

Ringman: I saw the neatest W. German Mark V 257 Weatherby yesterday.....now this is a cartridge that usually does not ring my bell but this thing was just too cool....it was mint with great wood and a buddy beat me to it.

I told him he has GOT to hang the biggest damn scope in the universe on it and I would take it to Wyoming for him and blow some coyotes in two....just to test it of course

Is that emotional enough?

I find I cannot shoot paper as well with the scope set to 2-3X but I find I always hunt with the scope on 2-3X. A 2.5 x 25 x 40 that weights 12 ounces sounds about right..

.

What the hell is this???????

Cordial, logical,self-deprecating, with an injection of humor.....ON THE OPTICS FORUM!!!

A guy can't count on anything anymore around here......

SHEESH!!!



Ingwe

Ingwe: Shocking!

Who the hell injected civility into this thread! Who is responsible!We need to get to the bottom of this and I call for a special committee to investigate....We need a Poobah(Czar) of Proper Internet Behaviour appointed!

We really haven't had a good name calling fight on the optics forum in a while, what's up with that I wonder? Maybe less whiskey and more Prozac?

I'm not sure about civility but Bob you need a 56mm Barska on the 257 Mark V. If you're going to screw it up please do it right

Marc:Yeah,something really BIG...living room-sized glass....

I loved this rifle, though...notwithstanding my conservative taste this rifle was a grabber;real handsome, great trigger,and just overall "nice"! I could just imagine lining up on some hapless, unsuspecting critter several football fields away,espying through big bright optics(sigh).

I tried insulting and berating my buddy for beating me to it, in hopes he would cave to the verbal onslaught and let me have it....all to no avail....I left, mumbling,slinking out the door,tail between my legs like a whipped cur....

Interesting opinions and yes, it's probably a good thing we all don't agree on EVERYTHING.

I don't carry binos, never have.

Even IF I had binos with me they would be used to LOCATE deer with their wider view, studying the shot, the animal and what is beyond the animal has been and always will be RIGHT before the shot and THROUGH my scope.

Yep, still old, and I NEED MORE POWER to see things these days and believe strongly in "having it and not needing it rather than needing it and not having it".

My "deer gun" this fall wears a 6-21x44 scope, only because I couldnt AFFORD the Bushnell 4.5-30x50.

That said I do NOT do as one guy hunting next to my good friend on the next property and use the SCOPE to watch my buddy to see what he is doing....arghhh! He actually TOLD US about watching my friend put up a stand through is scope.

Following conversation twas not something repeatable.

God Bless
Steve

BobinNH,.

Occationally I get to thinking that I am at least average inteligence. Then I do something stupid. I, like you, was oggling a .257 Weatherby right after another fellow put his eyes on it. He asked,
"What do you think?"
Like a dumby I said,
"If you don't buy it I'm gonna."
Immedately he pulled out his money.

2x7 is all you need. Image too shaky in hunting situations at high power. If I can't get close enough with a fixed 4x, I won't take the shot.

+1 Joe Kidd

What scope has a 6-21 magnification range?

Ringman,

Have you ever killed a deer or an elk?

Ringman that is usually enough to push them over the edge...

It seems to me many of todays hunters think they can shoot better with higher power scopes..I don't agree with that kind of thinking..

I would be totally satisfied with a 3x or 4x Leupold for all my big game hunting and a 3x9 Leupold suits me for all varmint hunting, and a 4x12 is Ok also..I have made some really long shots in my mispent youth with 3X and 4X scopes..I can put the cross hairs on a deer or elk at a 1000 yards with either scope and thats all that's required in the real world IMO..

I would actually prefer a good set of binoculars and iron sights for hunting in many cases, but a good set of binocs and a 4X fixed scope is reak hard to beat IMO..I know that Jack O'Connor would agree with that, he told me so.

Are you saying you have killed deer at 1000 yards with a 4x scope?

Think that's all they had at the turn of the century...

I use 3x9's or 3.5x10's on most of my rifles. I do have a 4.5x14 on one rifle that gets used alot but I really like a 3.5x10 for most situations. I run a 6x18 on my 22-250 and a 6.5x20 on my .223 but if I'm scopeing a rifle for big game it will wear a 3x9 or a 3.5x10

Posts containing certain names on this board such as Atkinson, Barsness, and Shoemaker to mention a few make me take notice.

Ray, if you were responding to my post, you're preaching to the choir ...because the overwhelming majority of the stuff I have killed has been shot with a fixed 4X including everything I've killed at 400-500 yards.

Varmints are a different story....

My only issue with using too high of magnification on high power rifles is when you dial it up to look and forget to dial it back down and shoot with the higher magnification..you need to get your eye closer to the scope. Sometimes the scope will "bite" you.

Don't forget Eremicus................World's Most Interesting Man.

SoTexasH,



More and more of today's scopes have constant eye relief.

When are you going to get started on your "squared case head" thing?

Bigbuck215,

A few days ago I posted this on the general forum. Never the less, I will re-post it here for such a good .com friend as you.

Ringman


Rockchuck, in another, thread asked me to post this.

SQUARE HEADS


January 9, 1996

Somewhere the subject of square bases has probably been written about; or at least discussed by some thinking individual in the shooting community. I theorized squared headed cases would shoot better groups than factory cases. To prove or disprove it about one hundred fired Remington cases were prepared for a test. Of these, forty were selected because of their consistent weight. Half of these cases were squared with a Wilson Case Trimmer.

Moly coated fifty-two grain JLKs were fired in a Savage .223 in the test. CCI 400 standard small rifle AND Remington 7 � bench rest primers ignited the loads in this test. A test within a test. A powder charge of 26.5 grains of AA 2230 produced an average 3,450 feet per second for the test. Three foulers were fired through a cleaned barrel before shooting at each target.

The square base test consisted of eight five-shot groups fired three times for a total of twenty-four five-shot groups. Each target contained four five-shot groups with factory bases and four five-shot groups with square bases. The first eight groups were fired with full length sized cases. The same cases were necked sized only for the remaining groups. Again a test within a test.

The Remington primed factory cases produced a group of .621". The squared cases made a group of .645". The first CCI factory base made a group of .850". The first CCI square base 1.262". The next CCI groups were: Factory 1.048; square .647". The final full length resized Remington cases did: Factory 1.040; square .856". The Remington factory bases averaged .8305" and the square bases did .7505". The CCI 400 factory bases came in at .9490" and the square bases averaged .9545". Obviously the full length resized cases produced some rather large groups. Neck sizing rather than full length sizing made quite a difference.

The first Remington primed factory cases did O.K. at .843". The square cases made a group of .513". The CCI factory base is backing the theory with an .800". The square CCI comes in with a phenomenal .396". Following with the next CCI factory base at .909" is looking good because the square base CCI is .469". The second Remington factory case is more like it at .606". The Remington square case is not participating correctly with its .685". The Remington factory cases average .7245" with the square bases doing .5990". The CCI factory bases do .8545" compared to the square base .4325".

Another eight groups were fired to verify the first. This gives us three groups with each type of case for comparing. The first Remington primed factory cases produce an .800" group. The square base Remington group is smaller at .757". The first CCI factory group comes in at .556". The square base CCI triumphs with a .500". The next CCI factory load punches .539". Followed by the square coming in with a sorry .683". The last Remington factory cases produce holes that spread .668". The last Remington square base group follows theory by printing
.599".

The averages of the groups: Remington factory case is .763" and the Remington square base is .6758". This favors the factory bases by .0872". Not good for the theory. The CCI factory is .783" and the CCI square is .664" for a difference of .119".

The importance of trying different primers in one's quest for maximum accuracy is readily apparent. Squared cases, perhaps, need a little more research. Although this Savage .223 rifle definitely prefers a square head, neck sized case primed with CCI 200s. In this test, the discount store special $1.59 CCI 400 primers fired better groups than the bench rest primers!

Interesting. Factory cases are pretty good.

Not as good as cases that have the case head "squared." I've read several articles in Precision Shooting regarding case head squaring. Case head squaring had its inception in the benchrest community, where a difference of 0.119 is relatively large.

And remember, he segregated the cases, selecting 40 cases that were the closest in weight.

Actually, I didn't know that shooters were really doing this. I have thought about trying but again, didn't know equipment was available. Pretty interesting. Wonder what's next?

A short, fat case that has a specific geometric curve in the shoulder to optimize the gas expansion and direction. Mic McPhearson created a proprietary cartridge, based on the 6 PPC, except he studied the shoulder geometry and created the cartridge I mentioned above.

Bigbuck215,

How about neck sized compared to full length sized?

Steve,

the issues with described practice have been discussed until the cows come home.

When you raise your rifle onto a deer - to study the shot, as you say - through your scope, you chance

a) that you cover something with your muzzle that you took to be a deer with the naked eye that 'evolves' into say a human when looked through your scope.

Don't laugh - this happens to often to negate.

b) that you cover an accurately recognized deer with your muzzle that is standing in front of an unrecognized object making the shooting lane unsafe.

The list goes on.

To sum this up -

by the nature of their attachment to a rifles barrel (mostly with a hot chamber) a rifle scope can not be a safe tool for

- search for targets
- identification of targets
- pre shooting analysis
- back drop evaluation.

At any given time you may come up short - recognizing a hazard - and then you are already covering that hazard with your muzzle.

No two ways about this.

There is a lot you're not seeing. Not just things that you shouldn't cover with a scope but things that you might want in your scope.

Wanna bet that the vast majority of hunters hunt just as Steve does?

I think the amount of magnification you need is pretty much dictated by the terrain / area you are hunting in.
Where we hunt a 1.5-4.5x scope is plenty.
We hunt in heavily forested/ heavy brush type woods where a 150 yard's would be considered a very long shot.
However, if I were to take a trip out west on the prairies I don't think a 4.5x on the upper end would be nearly enough.
Just my opinion, I'm sure others will disagree.
Later
Eric

It is also about what they are comfortable shooting with!

cmg,

How many times has it been posted here that a muzzle, whether it has a scope mounted above it or not, is pointing at something all the time. Unless you carry your rifle shouldered like a marching soldier it has certaily pointed at another hunter, house, car, or someone's livestock. Like one poster posted, even in your vehicle on the way to the range or hunting place, the firearm is pointing at something.

You want someone with a 7X binoc to determine if they want to shoot something when they have a 3-9X or more glass on the scope? And that is safer than verifying with the higher magnification? The fellow with a 6-21X can see way more than he could with the same quality 7X bino.

I would not be surprise if you are one of the guys I see at the range who acts like the gun case is bullet proof. They swing them around as though nothing inside could escape.

We all need to practice safe hunting and gun handling all the time. That means making sure of your target, and what beyond, with the most fidelity available.

Magnumdude,

I bet most of the gun preacher on this site hunt the way Steve describes. This holier than thou is a bunch of hughie.

Well said, Ringman. If a man can't scope a deer before shooting, maybe he shouldn't even carry a gun. How about a camera and a pair of bino's. Sheesh.

Agreed.

DDurst,

Scope a deer all you want.

Just do not scope/barrel something unidentified.
That is the beef right there. How can you, through your scope, identify something w/o pointing your barrel. You are right - you can't.

Then there is the point of errors - mistaking something for a deer with the naked eye - getting the scope on it, and whoops having covered another hunter with your hot chambered barrel.

Nothing to worry-the safety was on, or what?

Perhaps read and comprehend a post before making clear your ignorance.

Ringman,

your argument is ridiculous.

Sure, a rifles barrel is pointing somewhere at all times.
Fact of being.

It is a difference between the object laying cased and the object being pointed by the shooter -

hence the phrasing of the rule

Never let the muzzle cover anything...

cmg

I got the impression (and am not going to re-read this whole thread to look for misplaced words) that Ringman was using the scope to further identify and quantify game he had located with binoculars. Even if only spotted with the unaided eye but definitely identified as a game animal, aiming at a game animal with the scope for further information is acceptable to me.

What would seem risky to me (but only slightly) would be scanning all around looking for game. We have all aimed our guns and looked through the scopes to check to see if the last bit of light was gone or to look at game. There are many safety features that we are all familiar with that make this a safe practice; the safety itself, an unchambered round and finger off the trigger.

Certainly if you see movement then the first step should be to identify it with binoculars. If you don't have binoculars then identify it with the naked eye. If you can't identify it without a doubt then don't point your gun at it! We all know this!

cng,

Give it a rest. You loose!

Yes - I will give it a rest.

No - I do not loose as I was not even competing.

Woods,

Ringman was making the opposite point - the scope doing double duty - for searching, identification, pre-shot assessment etc.

I stated, that the muzzle may only from that point on cover the target that safety and legality of the game animal are clear and verified (through binos or naked eye-dont matter none).

Be that as it may - I have made my point. Please do with it what ever you wish - everyone.

Ringman, once in a while one might learn something here. The way you are going, there is no worry of that.

Your loss.

Godspeed.

cmg,



Please find the quote for me. I don't remember stating that. Especially since I use binos.




Like I've maintained from the beginning: The muzzle is covering someting all the time.



Does this statement suggest we agree with you or are you in your own little world?

We all have our little part of the world to figure out but I'm certain yours is a bit bigger than most.

As I've said before stick with the Bible. It's obvious with your 6,000 year old earth posts and flattening trajectory with the higher ring theory that you do well with fiction.

Ringman - there is the quote that tipped this of. I realize, that also states that you now use binos. Mea culpa.



That I have admitted to be true. The four rules apply to gun handling.

I am sure, we agree on the difference. An unattended gun from responsible ownership will be empty and uncocked, although anone around with any business handling it will do so in the same responsible manner as it were loaded, i. e. muzzle control (safe direction), finger of the trigger and verifying load status.

I am sure you do not fail to see the difference - a gun handler failing to observe the muzzle of the weapon is a potential hazard.

What I maintain is the contious act of pointing the weapon onto an unidentified object or even an identified game animal for the purpose of identification, pre shot assessment, bachground checking etc. is a violation of Rule 4 and not to be tolerated.



Forgive my lousy command of your language - it is second to me.

I ventured to say:

"I have had my say!"

My world is hunting in all forms - as a professional in Germany and Alaska, as a researcher and teacher.

As a PH here I organize driven hunts. 50 hunters on their stands. My collegues and our dogs are driving the game.

I have on occasion looked into rifle barrels from stand hunters
that followed the very quiet noises we make with their scope (and muzzle) waiting for the animal to appear.

With this, I rest my case.

If I misunderstood anyone, I apologize.

I trust, we have cleared any misunderstandings with the added benefits of once more discussing Gun and Hunter Safety. That can not be done enough.

We need an attorney to settle this. Where's VA?

cmg,

Perhaps it escaped you that I saw the deer and then put the scope on it. Even the binocs I use would not have been adiquate. In that very post I mentioned I turned the power ring up to 10X to verify the legality of the naked eye observed deer.




Gun handling is all the time that you are doing something with a gun. You loose. It is not jsut when you are or are not pointing it at a target.



What does this noise sound like. I have never heard a scope, but muzzles emit loud noises when a bullet is fired.

Ringman,

up until now, I thought I was having a debate with a grown up:


This is my original wording.

I know my english is bad, but not as bad as you make it appear by quoting out of context in your last post:



The sounds are made by the beater - not the scope - and my grammar is precice on that.

This proofes to me your mal-intend - you do not care about the argument put forth.

I expect my words to be read and comprehended before answered. That much I value my words and my time.

You have managed to take up enough of both.

To the original question.....257 Weatherby, scope, etc.

Though I typically use 2.5X or 4X scopes, on a flat shooter like the 257 I'd scope with a 6X - no question. Make mine a Leupold, an older 6X36 would be fine.

A lot of good points and I guess some clarification is needed.

Here in N IN. if the deer is 75 yards or more away from me its standing in a picked bean or corn field. I KNOW there is nothing between me and the deer and know the barrel isnt blocking a thing.

For LONGER shots I worry about what is BEHIND the deer since as mentioned, there is nothing but air between me and it.

The only exception might be if the deer is coming out of cover and is slightly inside it, less than 10 yards....if that.

While not the case, obviously, accross the country FEW hunters here use binoculars WHILE hunting but craploads use them "road scouting".

My furthest shot to date was a measured 267 yards and a real freak and only taken because it was a deer dragging it's back quarters just enough it could amble along. I discovered later that it was obviously hit by a vehicle and feel I made the right decision.

Again it was accross a picked corn field. Zip between me and it, same way with the stand I have set up for a long range pistol this year where deer move from woods to creek to thicket and back and forth.

Between me and the deer there wont be a single limb and if I cant TELL it's a deer without the scope, it's too dark, too far or isnt a deer and I wont even raise my gun. WITH the scope I will verify if buck or doe, if something I want to take etc etc, double check behind the critter through the scope, even though I already know WHAT is back there but still double check in case someone is out running about in the field (does happen).

Sure. A GOOD set of big buck, high power binocs might be easier to look around with but I dont feel any of the 50 plus hunters I know not using them are endangering anyone. All (but the moron mentioned previously) I know enough about are VERY careful hunters.

No complaints. 60plus deer taken to date over the years and hundreds passed up.....after viewing them through the scope making the shoot/dont shoot decision and Im hardly any kind of rarity here. I know hunters who have more than doubled that number is less time who just shoot about everything wearing hide for meat.

Perhaps I am not making things clear on the situation and terrain but I cant come up with a single incident where binocs would have aided me enough to justify them. If out looking for game in the sage brush etc, other cover in the west? You bet!

My old eyes are NOT that good.......LOL!

NO offense to anyone, as always. Just hoping to clarify it a bit.
I use a high power top end variable for DEER identification before the shot. Do I need it to make a killing shot?......nope, but it's sure handy while taking a GOOD look.

I cannot tell you how many stories Ive heard about "I thought it was a doe", "I thought it was bigger", etc. With my choice of scope power any such result of a hunt is no one's fault but my own for not taking a few seconds to really LOOK! Antlers, the shorter snout on "bambi" and the mostly tell tale white ring around MOST buck's eyes are pretty obvious for those looking.......when you can see them up close and personal.

Again, works for me and just my 2 cents but I'm not yet convinced I'm "missing" a thing nor endangering anything or anyone. I can see a LONG ways behind most deer I shoot and if not....it's in the woods.

EVEN IF, I pre glassed a shot WITH binoculars before picking up my gun......Id STILL be doing the same ol, same ol, CHECK NOW RIGHT BEFORE SHOOTING (things change) and IF something meandered into the shooting lane behind the deer....my gun would STILL be pointed at it.

Look before you leap is always true but the less time between the "look" and the "leap" is also important. Binocs or not, I'd still be looking again with my scope before shooting. Nothing gained there IMHO (for me and my use, my area) and what I DID use was MORE TIME. Sometimes a few extra seconds wasted will cost you a shot that WAS a safe one to take. Some meander around abit allowing for all the time in the world but during the rut my ducks had better be in a row, set up and facing upwind or I'll miss an opportunity for a shot that presented itself. Might be a RARER for instance but if it's some hog buck I've been watching, I wont be wasting ANY time after target and a safe shooting lane is verified. He wont be standing around waiting on me.

If I were hunting a grown up field with various cover....yep, binocs would be handy finding deer but it's still through the scope that last verification is made that all is still "go".

God Bless