Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What happened to Leupold?

Why does it have to be one or the other?

I like shooting steel and rocks and such..... my scope needs to work.

I’ve occasionally shot a critter over 1/4 mile away..... my scope needed to work.

I like hunting with a muzzleloader.... and killed a bull last fall with one.... my open-sights had to work.

I’ll even shoot a bow on occasion.... and the sights need to stay where I put them, or I miss.

Whether your scope works or not is the topic of the thread..... not some arbitrary range/hunting vendetta you saw the opportunity to pounce on. Hop off your Uber steep soap-Box, and apologize to some of the quality guys on this thread that you’ve pigeon-holed as long range snobs, and recognize that they’re hunters.... just like you.

I suppose if the be all and end all is just killing something for you. Do you put any limits at all as to what technology is used or how far away you can kill something and still consider it fair chase ? Suppose for instance some sort of laser gun is in our future. No bullet drop, no wind drift to contend with. A range finder would be pretty superfluous then because no dialing would be required without drop or wind drift so you can just leave it at home.. Would it still be "fair chase" to situate yourself on a mountain overlooking a vast plain with powerful telescope, spot a deer 10 miles out and smoke it with your ACME super deer blaster laser gun ? Did that deer have a snowballs chance in hell of detecting you ? What if we just develop a personal human cloaking device so that game hasn't a chance of seeing, hearing or smelling you so you can just walk right up to any old buck and bash it's head in with a hammer ? Still fair chase ? How far should it go and at what point do you cease to be a "hunter" and become merely a killer ?

Are you shytting me ? These mother fuggers are more than happy to jump on anybody, any time for anything. They freely throw derogatory comments and will bring into question your intelligence, education, upbringing, breeding and sanity at any and every opportunity. They'll do it even though many of their hypocritical asses can't spell intelligence or upbringing or even tell a crappie from a perch yet they're convinced they are the ultimate outdoorsmen and fine figures of men. They are quick to deride anyone who disagrees with their experience or narrow minded opinions and you want me to apologize to these fine examles of humanity ? Get a fuggin life.

That really depends on why you’re hunting in the first place. Are you hunting for fun, for the trophy on the wall, or because you really need the meat? Some cats hunt mice because they’re hungry, and they go for the throat so to speak. Others hunt mice because they’re bored, and they play with the mouse, even letting it try to run away several times, before killing it. I suppose the cat is more concerned with fair chase when it’s not worried about going hungry.

The first time I watched footage of alaskan natives shooting swimming caribou in the back of the head from a boat 10 feet away, it offended my sense of fair chase and sportsmanship. But I reminded myself that these were subsistence hunters, and their objective was to return home with a load of meat using any means necessary. The methods we’re willing to use or accept in our hunting depend on our motive for hunting in the first place.

How badly do we need/want the animal? Are we putting food on the table for the family, or are we leisurely looking for another rack for the wall? Are we playing with our food, like the cat, or are we simply trying to kill a critter so we can eat it. Are we “sport hunting”, or simply hunting? Is the thrill (and risk) of stalking as close as possible more important than making the kill? Again, it depends on why we’re hunting. I suppose hunters 150 years ago balked at modern technology, just as you are. When smokeless powder became popular, blackpowder hunters probably questioned whether it’s still hunting if you can kill the animal from 200 yards away with smokeless cartridges, “where the animal can’t even detect your presence.” It’s all relative.

If we’re hunting simply for the spoils of the kill (meat, hide, trophy, etc), then a laser beam a mile away works, as long as we can retrieve the animal before the meat spoils or other scavengers/hunters get to it. If we’re hunting for the sport, the experience, the challenge, or the thrill of beating the animal’s senses as a hunter, then placing limitations on yourself and your equipment makes sense. We each have different reasons for hunting, and I’ve found myself on both sides of the line at different times.

Oh the irony...

My Leupolds work fine. So do my Weavers, Nikons, Bushnells, Redfields and Bausch and Lombs. I have had several Tasco's a couple Bushnells a Simmons and a Sightron fail in one way or another but none on a hunt yet.

And with certain scopes that are built to actually hold zero and function properly (NF, SWFA, LRHS, DMR, etc), we can minimize the chances of having a scope failure when it counts, whether on or right before a hunt, during a match, etc.

Are you shytting me ? These mother fuggers are more than happy to jump on anybody, any time for anything. They freely throw derogatory comments and will bring into question your intelligence, education, upbringing, breeding and sanity at any and every opportunity. They'll do it even though many of their hypocritical asses can't spell intelligence or upbringing or even tell a crappie from a perch yet they're convinced they are the ultimate outdoorsmen and fine figures of men. They are quick to deride anyone who disagrees with their experience or narrow minded opinions and you want me to apologize to these fine examles of humanity ? Get a fuggin life.

Since I haven't had one fail me on a hunt yet I'm not terribly worried about it. Even if I did miss a deer because my scope failed it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd go home, grab another rifle and get back out there. There'll be another deer to shoot at before long.

You took the first shots in this thread.... with your comments about “fair chase” and your toungue-in-cheek statements about long range stuff. You stated how rough the country you hunt is, and I’m sure you probably think it is.... but I don’t give a schitt where you are back East, the country you hunt is the PNW’s bitch.

You brought this on yourself.... now you’re the victim?

Never go full Liberal.....

Since I haven't had one fail me on a hunt yet I'm not terribly worried about it. Even if I did miss a deer because my scope failed it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd go home, grab another rifle and get back out there. There'll be another deer to shoot at before long.

What if you didn’t miss..... but rather made a bad hit due to a scope issue?

Oh yeah... you’re wrapped in the warm blanket of “fair chase”... so that makes it all better.

Since I haven't had one fail me on a hunt yet I'm not terribly worried about it. Even if I did miss a deer because my scope failed it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd go home, grab another rifle and get back out there. There'll be another deer to shoot at before long.

Blackheart your reference to missing a deer from a scope failure being no big deal because you will grab another rifle and another deer will be along soon enough....
Well the west is different, some units take years to draw. Some units have low game densities, some have tremendous trophy potential etc.... therefore hunters tend to use the best gear they can afford to avoid failure. The opportunities may not come along again.
Also in many cases long distances are traveled and vacation is used up etc....
After waiting for years to draw a tag and the potential for a once in a lifetime trophy tends to make a fellow a little more focused on his gear and skill.

Deer populations are extremely sparse in the wilderness areas of both the Adirondacks and the Catskills. I seriously doubt filling a tag gets much tougher anywhere when you're dealing with deer densities of less than 1 psm in an unbroken, heavily forested 10,000 - 192,000 acre tract of state land.

I'd go home, grab another rifle and get back out there. There'll be another deer to shoot at before long.

I am confused, which is it?

I suppose if the be all and end all is just killing something for you. Do you put any limits at all as to what technology is used or how far away you can kill something and still consider it fair chase ? Suppose for instance some sort of laser gun is in our future. No bullet drop, no wind drift to contend with. A range finder would be pretty superfluous then because no dialing would be required without drop or wind drift so you can just leave it at home.. Would it still be "fair chase" to situate yourself on a mountain overlooking a vast plain with powerful telescope, spot a deer 10 miles out and smoke it with your ACME super deer blaster laser gun ? Did that deer have a snowballs chance in hell of detecting you ? What if we just develop a personal human cloaking device so that game hasn't a chance of seeing, hearing or smelling you so you can just walk right up to any old buck and bash it's head in with a hammer ? Still fair chase ? How far should it go and at what point do you cease to be a "hunter" and become merely a killer ?