No, I don't know more than anybody else. No human does. But I do have more experience than most hunters, so can appreciate (and learn) from other hunters' experience.
You, on the other hand, think YOUR experience is the ONLY experience that counts. This isn't unusual among humans, but most aren't as insistent about it. In fact, you're one of the perfect examples of what a good friend of mine calls "aggressive ignorance."
I'm trying to get an answer to whether there are or shoud be limits to what constitutes fair chase. We used to call certain things "unsporting" if they left little chance for survival to the game. Things like shotgunning birds on the ground or jacklighting deer were considerd not to be fair chase or sporting. Seems like anything goes now so long as something gets killed. If rangefinders and dialing scopes for 1000 yard shots is ok, why not just use spotlights and hunt at night ?
This might be the dumbest thing I've read on here....
- Greg
Success is found at the intersection of planning, hard work, and stubbornness.
So far you are the ONLY person on this thread who somehow insisted that this thread is about shooting at "too long" ranges, and then insisted that YOUR definition of "too long" is the only one.
Instead the subject has been scopes that hold zero and adjust reliably. You have even admitted that you've owned several scopes that haven't held zero, but since that didn't happen while you were hunting, it didn't matter.
Why would hunting scopes not holding zero at ANY range not matter, regardless of brand? Obviously, that doesn't happen when we can predict it will. Or is that another one of your skills?
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
No, I don't know more than anybody else. No human does. But I do have more experience than most hunters, so can appreciate (and learn) from other hunters' experience.
You, on the other hand, think YOUR experience is the ONLY experience that counts. This isn't unusual among humans, but most aren't as insistent about it. In fact, you're one of the perfect examples of what a good friend of mine calls "aggressive ignorance."
I'm trying to get an answer to whether there are or shoud be limits to what constitutes fair chase. We used to call certain things "unsporting" if they left little chance for survival to the game. Things like shotgunning birds on the ground or jacklighting deer were considerd not to be fair chase or sporting. Seems like anything goes now so long as something gets killed. If rangefinders and dialing scopes for 1000 yard shots is ok, why not just use spotlights and hunt at night ?
Funny..... I’ve been trying to get an answer too..... you been ducking and dodging like Slick Willie.
I don't know the answer. That's why I'm asking you. I know baiting isn't considered fair chase here and certainly jacklighting isn't either but to me shooting something 1000 yards away doesn't seem too sporting either.
You OBVIOUSLY know the answer.... that’s how it’s so easy for you to pass judgement on others.
You better pray to the God of Skinny Punks that this wind doesn't pick up......
So far you are the ONLY person on this thread who somehow insisted that this thread is about shooting at "too long" ranges, and then insisted that YOUR definition of "too long" is the only one.
Instead the subject has been scopes that hold zero and adjust reliably. You have even admitted that you've owned several scopes that haven't held zero, but since that didn't happen while you were hunting, it didn't matter.
Why would hunting scopes not holding zero at ANY range not matter, regardless of brand? Obviously, that doesn't happen when we can predict it will. Or is that another one of your skills?
I don't believe a brand exists that never fails. A scope holds zero right up until it doesn't and I don't believe anybody can predict when or if that will happen. I got onto the dialing thing because that always gets mentioned in any of these scope threads {including this one} as a "failure" of many scopes and Leupold in particular gets alot of bashing for not "dialing" worth a shyt..
In the 60’s & 70’s Leupolds was a good option, the problem is everyone else has improved their scopes but Leupold has not.
IIRC, Leupold upgraded their scopes multiple times since the 1960's and 1970's.
Vari-X II became the Vari-X IIc in 1984.
Vari-X IIc became the VX-I and VX-II n 2001.
VX-I and VX-II were upgraded in 2004.
VX-1 and VX-II became the VX-1 and VX-2 in 2012.
The Freedom series superceded the VX-1 and VX-2 in 2018.
I have room for 100 rifles in the ready rack, around 95 of them have scopes mounted and of the 95, 70 probably have Leupolds mounted. My two current disappointments with Leupold are the usurious price that they are charging for a simple reticle change and the fact that the heavy duplex doesn't appear to be available in a 2-7x33 Freedom.
I didn't have a tag left or I would've shot this big sucker from the back of my truck a couple of years ago. I can assure you I wouldn't have worried what some yankee from NY (or anyone else for that matter) thought about it.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
In the 60’s & 70’s Leupolds was a good option, the problem is everyone else has improved their scopes but Leupold has not.
IIRC, Leupold upgraded their scopes multiple times since the 1960's and 1970's.
Vari-X II became the Vari-X IIc in 1984.
Vari-X IIc became the VX-I and VX-II n 2001.
VX-I and VX-II were upgraded in 2004.
VX-1 and VX-II became the VX-1 and VX-2 in 2012.
The Freedom series superceded the VX-1 and VX-2 in 2018.
I have room for 100 rifles in the ready rack, around 95 of them have scopes mounted and of the 95, 70 probably have Leupolds mounted. My two current disappointments with Leupold are the usurious price that they are charging for a simple reticle change and the fact that the heavy duplex doesn't appear to be available in a 2-7x33 Freedom.
That didn’t keep up with the competition
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
I didn't have a tag left or I would've shot this big sucker from the back of my truck a couple of years ago. I can assure you I wouldn't have worried what some yankee from NY (or anyone else for that matter) thought about it.
Oh CHIT! if there was ever a reason to phone a friend.............................................................
I didn't have a tag left or I would've shot this big sucker from the back of my truck a couple of years ago. I can assure you I wouldn't have worried what some yankee from NY (or anyone else for that matter) thought about it.
That gives me chills..... Wow...
Ping pong balls for the win. Once you've wrestled everything else in life is easy. Dan Gable I keep my circle small, I’d rather have 4 quarters than 100 pennies.
Blackie would be crankin' out bullets from the back of my truck faster than Hillary can have people assassinated. AdmittedlyI would've too......IF I had a tag left. Me and my buddy Big Al jumped a huge buck out of a sandhill blow out one day not far off the size of this one. I emptied my rifle (4 shots offhand), then he handed me his and I shot all 4 of his too. The buck is probably still hauling ass...........untouched.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
In the 60’s & 70’s Leupolds was a good option, the problem is everyone else has improved their scopes but Leupold has not.
IIRC, Leupold upgraded their scopes multiple times since the 1960's and 1970's.
Vari-X II became the Vari-X IIc in 1984.
Vari-X IIc became the VX-I and VX-II n 2001.
VX-I and VX-II were upgraded in 2004.
VX-1 and VX-II became the VX-1 and VX-2 in 2012.
The Freedom series superceded the VX-1 and VX-2 in 2018.
I have room for 100 rifles in the ready rack, around 95 of them have scopes mounted and of the 95, 70 probably have Leupolds mounted. My two current disappointments with Leupold are the usurious price that they are charging for a simple reticle change and the fact that the heavy duplex doesn't appear to be available in a 2-7x33 Freedom.
I didn't have a tag left or I would've shot this big sucker from the back of my truck a couple of years ago. I can assure you I wouldn't have worried what some yankee from NY (or anyone else for that matter) thought about it.
I could have killed the biggest buck I've ever seen in my life a few years ago. I had that buck dead to rights. Had been treacking him in the snow on state land all afternoon and there he stood, broadside at about 75 yards. I didn't shoot because he was just over the line on private property that I don't have permission to hunt on. I'm 99% sure I could have gotten away with it. The landowners house is about a half mile down the road from there and it was late in the afternoon, late in the season. I hadn't seen another boot track in the snow all afternoon and heard no shots. I doubt anybody was even out hunting within earshot. I didn't shoot it because I would have always known it was over the property line and that would have been the first thing that came to my mind every time I looked at the mount until the day I died. The deer won that round that day. I bet that buck would have dressed 250 lbs. if he was an ounce and would have scored in the 160's at least. How I get them matters to me. It's gotta be legit or you might just as well just jack em.
You're absolutely right, all scopes can fail. I've personally seen 19 BRANDS (not individual scopes) fail to hold zero, or otherwise screw up, such as groups opening up to several inches at 100 yards, or refusing to adjust in any predictable way. The question is not whether they can fail, but how often they might.
If somebody doesn't shoot all that much, and only shoots relatively light-recoiling rifles at close ranges, then most scopes will hold up OK. But not everybody shoots .30-30's or .308's only at woods ranges, on one or two deer a year.
And scope failure is not always "just a little." Have seen scopes of several brands that seemed reliable suddenly shift POI several inches (or more) at 100 yards. One of the earliest examples in my experience was a well-known brand that shifted enough to gut-shoot a deer at 200 yards, which even in your world might be within acceptable range.
If you haven't seen the same thing, then I might suggest that your experience isn't nearly as extensive as you apparently believe.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
You're absolutely right, all scopes can fail. I've personally seen 19 BRANDS (not individual scopes) fail to hold zero, or otherwise screw up, such as groups opening up to several inches at 100 yards, or refusing to adjust in any predictable way. The question is not whether they can fail, but how often they might.
If somebody doesn't shoot all that much, and only shoots relatively light-recoiling rifles at close ranges, then most scopes will hold up OK. But not everybody shoots .30-30's or .308's only at woods ranges, on one or two deer a year.
And scope failure is not always "just a little." Have seen scopes of several brands that seemed reliable suddenly shift POI several inches (or more) at 100 yards. One of the earliest examples in my experience was a well-known brand that shifted enough to gut-shoot a deer at 200 yards, which even in your world might be within acceptable range.
If you haven't seen the same thing, then I might suggest that your experience isn't nearly as extensive as you apparently believe.
I figure that's why I don't have as much trouble with scopes as some people. Most of mine are on light kicking rifles. .30-30, .243, .223, .22-250, .22LR's and WMR's. Of those, the only ones that see much shooting are the .223's, .22-250 and the rimfires. My heaviest kicker is a .30-06 but that one doesn't get shot much. I just don't have much use for a rifle that big here. I do have a K-2.5 that has been on several 12 gauge slug guns for load/accuracy testing and has withstood several hundred rounds of full power slugs. It was later put on a .30-30 that is capable of consistent 3 shot MOA groups and it still adjusts and holds zero just fine. Pretty tough little scope and it isn't the only K-2.5 I have that's taken a licking and keeps on ticking.
ok ok, you guys have to finally admit I am not the most argumentative person on the board anymore!!!! that award now goes to blackheart. I am ready to be cut some slack now, LOL. holy crap JG what the frick??when are taking me hunting?? That video makes me feel like a dipshit
No, I don't know more than anybody else. No human does. But I do have more experience than most hunters, so can appreciate (and learn) from other hunters' experience.
You, on the other hand, think YOUR experience is the ONLY experience that counts. This isn't unusual among humans, but most aren't as insistent about it. In fact, you're one of the perfect examples of what a good friend of mine calls "aggressive ignorance."
I'm trying to get an answer to whether there are or shoud be limits to what constitutes fair chase. We used to call certain things "unsporting" if they left little chance for survival to the game. Things like shotgunning birds on the ground or jacklighting deer were considerd not to be fair chase or sporting. Seems like anything goes now so long as something gets killed. If rangefinders and dialing scopes for 1000 yard shots is ok, why not just use spotlights and hunt at night ?
How fair is fair? How good a chance does the game need to have to get away? You like to brag about how you've killed deer every year since the Civil War and talk about how sparse they are where you hunt. If they really had a "fair chance" to get away you would've come up empty at least once.
We all stack the deck in our favor and you're no different.
It is always interesting to me how people react to being proven wrong on a subject when everyone knows you were wrong. Nothing wrong with being wrong, but there is something to be said, after being proven innaccurate, the proper response would be to admit it, own it, and get on with it and all the onlookers would get on with it as well. The other way to respond is obviously the way BH responded...cloud the issue with more bullcrap and admit nothing. Says all you really need to know if you think about it.
What was I supposed to admit ? That you technology buffs would rather get further and further from being hunters and work dilligently burning up barrels and feverishly twisting turrets rather than having to stalk your game or heaven forbid, run across a buck/bull you just couldn't kill that day ? It almost seems like some of you don't really like to hunt all that much but sure do want to kill stuff and to hell with whether it's sporting or not.
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.
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.
Oh the irony...
Ray Wylie Hubbard says "the trouble with irony is not everyone gets it."
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
I didn't have a tag left or I would've shot this big sucker from the back of my truck a couple of years ago. I can assure you I wouldn't have worried what some yankee from NY (or anyone else for that matter) thought about it.
I could have killed the biggest buck I've ever seen in my life a few years ago. I had that buck dead to rights. Had been treacking him in the snow on state land all afternoon and there he stood, broadside at about 75 yards. I didn't shoot because he was just over the line on private property that I don't have permission to hunt on. I'm 99% sure I could have gotten away with it. The landowners house is about a half mile down the road from there and it was late in the afternoon, late in the season. I hadn't seen another boot track in the snow all afternoon and heard no shots. I doubt anybody was even out hunting within earshot. I didn't shoot it because I would have always known it was over the property line and that would have been the first thing that came to my mind every time I looked at the mount until the day I died. The deer won that round that day. I bet that buck would have dressed 250 lbs. if he was an ounce and would have scored in the 160's at least. How I get them matters to me. It's gotta be legit or you might just as well just jack em.
Do you ever leave your Grandmother’s basement ?No,walking to the mailbox doesn’t count.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/qMjL6f8C/27-FD3-F35-D9-CF-4-FC0-AE24-D01508-F7-AF1-C.gif)