Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold hate

Simple s a duplex crosshair with or without a dot. Illumination is not required. I can shoot well with either one. Keep in mind, this is strictly for a hunting scope; not a PRS scope. For most hunting or for any kind of known distance target shooting, a reticle with a single aiming point is just fine.
Regarding light transmission, it becomes, once again, more a matter of perception than anything. I can see much better at dusk through a 4X Weaver J4 (3/4 inch tube) than I can with the naked eye so I always wonder just what, realistically, I need from a scope. It's not life or death and, if it was, I'd use a light! GD

IME, a lot of serious shooters are also serious hunters.

I think you've correctly identified the priorities of two segments of the hunting community, but there is also a fairly large third segment of hunters: the serious hunter whose primary objective is not to savor the breakfast before the hunt, nor to drink and laugh with buddies around the campfire (those may be secondary features of the hunt), nor to document the hunt on various social media platforms and worship the equipment used. This hunter's main goal is to come home with the animal he's pursuing, legally and ethically, using the most reliable and capable equipment possible that gives him the best chance of accomplishing that goal. These are the hunters who faithfully practice hunting-specific skills as well as field shooting skills, whether informally or through organized competition, striving to reduce their limitations in the field and to maximize the number of shot opportunities and the hunter's effectiveness in capitalizing on those shot opportunities in hunting scenarios. These guys can effectively still-hunt in the bush as well as shoot/hit in open country, and don't fit into either of the stereotypical "Fudd" or "Instagram sniper" categories.

It's nice to see an objective post in this emotionally packed discussion, which is fairly rare in these types of conversations.

In mine they are not. Technology makes up for there inability to get close. I couldn’t care less either way. Just my opinion. As long as they are hunting within the law and making ethical shots more power to them.

As I get older and my body starts to break down technology is definitely on my radar.

Technology is fine, but make no mistake. "Technology" in today's hunting world pretty much synonymous with "long range." Propelling a projectile by combustion really hasn't changed much since the introduction of smokeless powder. Oh, metallurgy has improved, safety has improved, etc, but that's not the "technology" most people are referring to. The new trend is "long range." Manufacturers are catering to the long range competitive shooter and long range animal shooter. Be it rifles, scopes, mounts, whatever. And far too many people are into the technology more than they are into the hunt. Just search "long range hunting" or "long range elk" on YouTube and you'll see people popping off at animals at 800, 1000, or 1400 yards away. And there is no hint in their demeanor that they care one iota about the animal they are killing. The goal is the kill and the kill alone. Not because they want the animal and the overall experience as Raurk said, but because the kill is the affirmation that all their sniping-skills and equipment is brag-worthy. And they want to make sure everyone knows what a skillful shooter they are evidenced by a dead elk that was probably pencil-holed by a bullet that was going too slow to do anything else. If one is into the technology more than the hunt, then perhaps the range and competitions are where one should stay.

A hunter is a person who recognizes that he has a DUTY to do his uttermost to ensure a clean, quick kill. A clean, quick kill is paramount to a hunter. It is not something he hopes he will happen when he shoots an animal at long range. It something he has to be reasonably sure of, or he doesn't take the shot.

Fair enough. It likely depends on the sample of shooters that you and I individually associate with and are exposed to. From what I've seen, guys that use technology as a crutch are not serious about shooting or hunting. There is a difference between lazy dudes using technology to avoid putting in the work/effort, and serious hunters who use technology to take their effectiveness to the next level.

Not necessarily. I think the hunting-related technology that has had the greatest impact on hunting in recent years is the accessible information about terrain, land access, digital scouting, GPS, OnX maps, Google Earth, etc. Of course, technology has also made significant advances in the areas of scopes, LRFs, bullets, barrels, ballistic apps, etc., all of which make it easier to hit what we're aiming at further and further away.

Deciding how much technology we want to incorporate into our personal hunting is a choice we all have to make, and we will continue to have to make those decisions as the contrasting relationship between technology and ethics evolves.

No argument from me Jordan. Like I said it’s just my opinion from what I have seen. I have never dialed a scope in my life. That being said I’m looking for one now…

I like long range shooting and have done a lot of it but I have not done it a live game. I simply don't require a living target to prove my abilities. I can shoot steel or paper and prove the same thing. To do that, I know what I require in a scope and I also know it's getting harder and harder to find. Scope "improvements" have gone off on a tangent; much like automotive technology, we are moving away from mechanical competence and trending toward gimmickry. The thing is, most people like it.
For me, a straight 20 with a dot will suit me fine for TRO shooting. A 16 would be great for silhouette. A straight six or a 3-9x with a crosshair covers all of my hunting needs. In fact, I still use a lot of fixed fours and I can honestly say I have never had to pass up a shot because the scope wouldn't work. I can even dial those scopes if I want to and they'll work fine. GD

That's all very true. To put things in perspective, let me ask you this: are you reasonably sure of a kill shot when you shoot an animal at 50 yards? Are you less sure of a kill shot if the animal is at 150 yards? Has your confidence in a good shot at 150 yards fallen below your acceptable confidence threshold? I'm guessing you're sure enough about making a good shot at 150 yards that you'd take that shot just as readily as the shot at 50 yards. Well the same concept applies to hunters with a wide range of shooting skill. For some guys, shooting an animal at 300 versus 500 yards does not change the decision to shoot, as the confidence level is still above the threshold. Same with other shooters and shots at 500 versus 700 yards, etc. The important thing is not the distance, since that depends on the unique experience and shooting skill of the individual hunter, but rather what matters is, as you put it, a "clean, quick kill", that the hunter "has to be reasonably sure of, or he doesn't take the shot."

Unfortunately with the YouTube generation they see videos on their computer and think that’s easy, I can do that. Having a good mentor is worth its weight in gold.

Agreed - to an extent. Shooters have to be capable of making the shot. And the bullet has to be be able to perform as it should. So it's a multifold proposition. I see far too many people taking shots but with cartridges that are truly insufficient for the ranges.

Leupold has a video of Doug Koenig shooting and elk at 650 yards with a 6.5 CM. Even his guide in the video says he wouldn't let anyone else take the shot. He shouldn't have let Koenig take it. A 6.5 is not a 650 yard elk round no matter who is pulling the trigger. Nor is a .223 with a 77 grain bullet a 300 yard moose round (and yes, that's the sort of thing people are trying to do.).

If a person can take a long shot and meet his duty of being very reasonably sure of a clean QUICK kill, more power to him. But we've entered an era of stunt-shooting big game for video likes. This a Leupold hate thread. I hate that video.

That is your hang-up, Not mine.

Or are you going to tell me that someone sticking pointy things in to what they are intent on killing aren't hunters.

Feel free to stick your beliefs and judgements up your arse.

To be quite frank Jordan, I don't give a shit how I or anyone else goes about hunting their quary.


And the next time I knock something's leg out from under it so I can get a better killing shot won't be the first...and I am not adverse to smacking the back end of the spine for the same reason...don't mind using knives on them either.


And I am not even going to bother about traps and snares.

Everyone has different standards for what constitutes a “quick, clean kill”, and that’s fine by me.

Of course, but the other fellow doesn't seem to get that.

But then I am pretty sure he is mistaking "hunter" for "sportsman".

Two very different things.

I’ve had great luck with leupolds, never had one fail, killed tons of animals, no problem.

Time and experience provide some perspective. I think just as much game is wounded and lost by hunters blasting away at tails as by bad long-range pokes. However one hunts, they should put in the time to develop the skill they need to shoot, and also to track and recover what they shoot.

This thread was a lot more fun when we were running down Leupold. Now PETA is in the house.