|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714 |
Paul,
You retired and moved back down south several years ago now per your posts... If you'd post up some pictures of your big bucks hit in the chest in low light at 200 yards it would maybe settle this dumpster fire!!!
You can no more tell someone how to do something you've never done, than you can come back from somewhere you've never been...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17 |
Jordan, how much practice do I need to hit a deer in the chest at less than 200 yards using a rest? I envy the kind of hunting you get to do. If I got to do the kind of hunting that you do, I'd practice much more than I do. Have you ever stand hunted the deep woods of the US south? It doesn't take a lot of skill to connect with the shots we most often take. It does take a good low light scope. Eye relief is often important in that deer may be directly behind the climbing stand we are sitting in and we may not be able to get the ideal position we'd like.
That should be right up your alley then. ......and make him a scope expert and "shooter". I never professed to be a scope expert. Just someone who has managed to get scopes to work for my kind of hunting and shooting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,534 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,534 Likes: 3 |
All scopes are mechanically flawless when they do nothing but collect dust in the safe.
.
Your condescension is duly noted, and expected. Here's the way it works with most hunters who use their rifles for whitetail hunting east of the MS. Whitetail is pretty much the only big game ticket in town for those of us in the eastern USA. Most buy a rifle and a couple boxes of "bullets." We go sight it in 2 inches high at 100 yards. It doesn't matter at all if the best we can get out of it is an inch and a half group. That hits the vitals at the longest distance we will ever shoot. That rifle gets loaded onto the four wheeler and hauled to within a couple hundred yards of our stand location. We unload it and take it up into our stand with us. We kill a couple deer each season. We are done with the gun until the following fall, when we confirm that it has in fact held zero. Those of us who handload may piddle around trying to find an accurate load. Then once we've found it, we don't really need to target shoot. It doesn't take an skill or knowledge to smack a deer at 80 yards. With both groups, 90% of their hunting shots will be taken before sunrise or after sunset. It can be very dark deep in the woods 25 minutes after sunset. What matters then is light transmission. We need to be able to see the deer and see the crosshairs on the deer. That's where Leupold shines.They flat out get the job done. Why would I care if the scope can make it to 5000 (or whatever other arbitrary round count renders in reliable in your mind) rounds. It'll never come close to that number. How many rounds does a scope need to endure before it should be considered reliable? At what round count do you take them out of service, or do you use them to the point of failure? How many rounds do you need to shoot per year to maintain proficiency? Don't confuse your lack of understanding with me being condescending. I was not being critical or judgmental about the individual posters here, but rather was making a statement to get a point across. The point is that there are a couple of reasonable explanations for why some posters experience more scope failures (regardless of the brand or model) than others do. Failures are usually strongly correlated with round count and hard use. I don't hate Leupold. I don't hate Savage. I don't hate Athlon. These days I choose not to use their products for various reasons, but I do not attach emotion to physical objects. As a physicist, I am used to seeking and debating facts and truth about the universe without interjecting emotion into the conversation. Attaching emotion to facts and physical objects is very unscientific. So I get tired of posters implying that I, and others like me, are zealously looking for opportunities to scream to the world that Leupold sucks. FACT: IMO hunters, not just target or competition shooters, should practice with their hunting rifles in the off-season in order to be as proficient as possible when hunting season rolls around. Yes, this applies even to the hunter that doesn't shoot game beyond 100 yards. This used to be a commonly held belief among responsible hunters, but seems to be disappearing pretty quickly around here. FACT: With practice, hard hunting, and high round count comes a higher likelihood of scope failure. IME, on average Leupold scopes are more likely to fail to hold zero than certain other brands and models of scopes, which I prefer due to their increased reliability in holding zero and proper mechanical function. Now, I never said that Leupolds don't hold zero well enough or perform well enough to meet the needs of many hunters. Some even hold up to a fairly high round count and a lot of hard hunting. Even if the Leupold's erector bounces by 1 MOA between shots, resulting in the rifle/scope being capable of no better than, say, 1.5 MOA groups, that may well work just fine for the needs of some hunters and shooters, as you said. But just because the scope meets your needs, that doesn't mean that it holds zero correctly or is mechanically reliable compared to some other scopes on the market that do hold zero and are more mechanically reliable. There is a difference between being good enough to meet your needs, and working as designed/advertised. The refusal of the Leupold fan club to admit and accept those facts is why these discussions are so common, and why guys like me keep saying the same things. It's not because I hate Leupold or that I care what other people use, but rather that I'm a proponent of the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714 |
Jordan, how much practice do I need to hit a deer in the chest at less than 200 yards using a rest? I envy the kind of hunting you get to do. If I got to do the kind of hunting that you do, I'd practice much more than I do. Have you ever stand hunted the deep woods of the US south? It doesn't take a lot of skill to connect with the shots we most often take. It does take a good low light scope. Eye relief is often important in that deer may be directly behind the climbing stand we are sitting in and we may not be able to get the ideal position we'd like.
That should be right up your alley then. ......and make him a scope expert and "shooter". I never professed to be a scope expert. Just someone who has managed to get scopes to work for my kind of hunting and shooting. Dude, you've got 'em on the ropes! Those pics of the big bucks you've killed down south in low light since you retired will clinch it, Man!
You can no more tell someone how to do something you've never done, than you can come back from somewhere you've never been...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17 |
Paul,
You retired and moved back down south several years ago now per your posts... If you'd post up some pictures of your big bucks hit in the chest in low light at 200 yards it would maybe settle this dumpster fire!!! I haven't killed a big buck in a LONG time. It could be argued that those bucks I killed weren't big. The coastal parts of the state don't grow big bucks. My opportunities to hunt where there are big bucks are limited. Or more accurately, I should say that I don't avail myself of those opportunities. The last deer I killed was a doe that I killed 5 years ago. I killed her with 1-2 minutes before last legal shooting time. I didn't feel the need to take pics of her. I have missed several recent hunting seasons due to shoulder surgeries. The past two seasons I have only hunted my 10 acres and haven't seen a deer during legal shooting light.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,534 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,534 Likes: 3 |
All scopes are mechanically flawless when they do nothing but collect dust in the safe.
Anyone who has above mediocre range time knows the limitation of Leupold. This is a fact that hunters that don't shoot much can't seem to cope with.
The hunter can argue that those limitations do not extend to their use of the scope, which could absolutely be the case. And thats really what it boils down to. A "one time a year, zero-check & hunt guy", has very different expectations from the guys who shoot year round, a few times per week, and possibly competes in various shooting displines. Different uses, experience levels, and expectations. A person who rides a bicycle 10 miles through a park every weekend can be perfectly well served with a $500, 25 pound bike. Those that train daily and race 75 miles every weekend would not be well served with the same bicycle. Yet on bicycle forums, oddly enough, you don't have a dedicated group of blowhards running down the $500 bike at every opportunity. Does the $500 bike shift gears correctly and stop when brakes are applied? If not, it’s a POS Exactly. The fundamentals that make a bike do what it is designed to do are that the pedals make it go forward, it can change gears, the brakes make it stop, etc. Gucci rims, carbon fiber, etc., are just bells and whistles. As long as the $500 bike gets the fundamentals right, then it works correctly, even if it lacks bells and whistles. A riflescope is a sight meant to consistently direct bullets to a given POA/POI. When zeroed, they should fundamentally send bullets to the same hole, neglecting the precision limitations of the rifle, and should adjust the direction of said bullet correctly when the adjustment turrets are used. As long as scopes get the fundamentals right, they work correctly, even if they lack bells and whistles like alpha glass and other features. Such a basic scope that works correctly has a lot in common with the $500 bike that works correctly. If a scope fails to perform the basic function that it was meant to perform, then it deserves some criticism, even if it works well enough to meet the needs of some people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,534 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,534 Likes: 3 |
Whats the definition of a hunter?  So freaking stupid. In reading this thread, it is indeed a stupidasss question. I had loads of hunters in camps when we were guiding that hunted and killed stuff all over the world. Not sure how good of a "shooter" they were, but 99% of them could kill the crap out of what they were shooting at. If someone is stupid enough ( JoeBob) to ask such a stupid question or make such stupid point (Paul Barnard, but what else is new), they'll never get an answer they'll accept, so screw it. Doesn’t matter how well they shot. They’re not shooters unless they put sufficient number of rounds down range to satisfy these guys. I should also add, they’re not shooters unless they use the correct equipment either according to the guys. Of course to be a "shooter" requires that you shoot. What matters is proficiency, and while there may be the odd prodigy that is naturally an amazing shooter with very little practice, like most things in life, proficiency is linearly (or perhaps logarithmically) correlated with practice and spent primers. It's not that you have to use the right equipment to be a "shooter", it's that being a shooter usually steers a person away from equipment that doesn't work as well as other options.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 774
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 774 |
In my lifetime, people tend to fall into one of 4 groups.
1. Hunters
2. Shooters
3. Hunters that shoot
4. Shooters that hunt
It doesn't matter much which group you fall into. Do what works for you and have fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17 |
Do what works for you and have fun. Say what? Please tell me I am allowed to make fun of Creedtards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,872 Likes: 5
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,872 Likes: 5 |
Yeah, and I need to be able to make fun of those with CBHS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,813 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,813 Likes: 5 |
Whats the definition of a hunter? So freaking stupid. In reading this thread, it is indeed a stupidasss question. I had loads of hunters in camps when we were guiding that hunted and killed stuff all over the world. Not sure how good of a "shooter" they were, but 99% of them could kill the crap out of what they were shooting at. If someone is stupid enough ( JoeBob) to ask such a stupid question or make such stupid point (Paul Barnard, but what else is new), they'll never get an answer they'll accept, so screw it. Doesn’t matter how well they shot. They’re not shooters unless they put sufficient number of rounds down range to satisfy these guys. I should also add, they’re not shooters unless they use the correct equipment either according to the guys. Of course to be a "shooter" requires that you shoot. What matters is proficiency, and while there may be the odd prodigy that is naturally an amazing shooter with very little practice, like most things in life, proficiency is linearly (or perhaps logarithmically) correlated with practice and spent primers. It's not that you have to use the right equipment to be a "shooter", it's that being a shooter usually steers a person away from equipment that doesn't work as well as other options. Am I less of a shooter because I chose for a few years to regularly shoot a couple hundred rounds a session of 45-70 and 30-30 with regular old ghost ring receiver sights at ranges up to 300 yards instead of using the best scope, or any scope at all? No real reason to do it except for fun. Obviously I was handicapping myself and I doubt I would have shot a deer with that setup at that range no matter how proficient I was. But I enjoyed it. Was the old man I mentioned earlier who could shoot quail on the rise with a .22 but who would have been lost with dials and knobs less of a shooter? Equipment has very little to do with anything. I bow hunt with a longbow. After a few years of that, using a rifle of any sort almost feels like cheating. I almost feel guilty shooting a deer with a gun. The only reason I do is because I like guns and I need an excuse for them in my own mind. The guy with the longbow is not any less or more of an archer than the guy with a $3k compound. He just chooses to concentrate on different interests. For me, as a rifleman I choose to concentrate on shooting very quickly from the end of my muzzle to three or four hundred yards in field positions. I use moderate magnification and I’m not trying to see and hit a tick on a deer’s shoulder. If a scope is good enough to do that, then that is good enough. I value eye relief, field of view, weight, and a few other things over things that long range shooters might value.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714 |
Whats the definition of a hunter? So freaking stupid. In reading this thread, it is indeed a stupidasss question. I had loads of hunters in camps when we were guiding that hunted and killed stuff all over the world. Not sure how good of a "shooter" they were, but 99% of them could kill the crap out of what they were shooting at. If someone is stupid enough ( JoeBob) to ask such a stupid question or make such stupid point (Paul Barnard, but what else is new), they'll never get an answer they'll accept, so screw it. Doesn’t matter how well they shot. They’re not shooters unless they put sufficient number of rounds down range to satisfy these guys. I should also add, they’re not shooters unless they use the correct equipment either according to the guys. Of course to be a "shooter" requires that you shoot. What matters is proficiency, and while there may be the odd prodigy that is naturally an amazing shooter with very little practice, like most things in life, proficiency is linearly (or perhaps logarithmically) correlated with practice and spent primers. It's not that you have to use the right equipment to be a "shooter", it's that being a shooter usually steers a person away from equipment that doesn't work as well as other options. Am I less of a shooter because I chose for a few years to regularly shoot a couple hundred rounds a session of 45-70 and 30-30 with regular old ghost ring receiver sights at ranges up to 300 yards instead of using the best scope, or any scope at all? No real reason to do it except for fun. Obviously I was handicapping myself and I doubt I would have shot a deer with that setup at that range no matter how proficient I was. But I enjoyed it. Was the old man I mentioned earlier who could shoot quail on the rise with a .22 but who would have been lost with dials and knobs less of a shooter? Equipment has very little to do with anything. I bow hunt with a longbow. After a few years of that, using a rifle of any sort almost feels like cheating. I almost feel guilty shooting a deer with a gun. The only reason I do is because I like guns and I need an excuse for them in my own mind. The guy with the longbow is not any less or more of an archer than the guy with a $3k compound. He just chooses to concentrate on different interests. For me, as a rifleman I choose to concentrate on shooting very quickly from the end of my muzzle to three or four hundred yards in field positions. I use moderate magnification and I’m not trying to see and hit a tick on a deer’s shoulder. If a scope is good enough to do that, then that is good enough. I value eye relief, field of view, weight, and a few other things over things that long range shooters might value. Okay, so one of the dissenters here, Paul, admits he hasn't killed a deer, let alone a trophy buck in 5 years...it's now up to you...prove your point...post some buck pics...
You can no more tell someone how to do something you've never done, than you can come back from somewhere you've never been...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022 |
...What there is not is a substantial vocal group who prosthelytize against a particular piece of cycling related equipment at every opportunity. In our crazy social media world, that is something that is unique in the Leupold hate group. Really? I won't pretend, like you are, that I have even a small grasp of the enormity of information now crisscrossing the globe. You would have to have an almost supernatural understanding of all that information to make an asinine statement such as, " In our crazy social media world, that is something that is unique in the Leupold hate group." Unique?! As only on the optics forum of the 24 Hour Campfire? No one in the other 7.8 Billion people on the planet absolutely are NOT doing the same thing? ...I'd venture a guess that half the people who are railing against Leupold have never experienced a failure. I venture a guess that 50 of those who have had failures, exaggerate the claim. I'd further guess that the majority that insist that anything less than a Nightforce ATACR will doom them to failure can't and don't use the scope to its fullest potential. But hey, they fit in well with the crowd!... Three guesses (in this paragraph alone), each decreasing the accuracy of any conclusion...then you make a conclusion. Your conclusion is just another guess based on...what?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,274
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,274 |
Whats the definition of a hunter? So freaking stupid. In reading this thread, it is indeed a stupidasss question. I had loads of hunters in camps when we were guiding that hunted and killed stuff all over the world. Not sure how good of a "shooter" they were, but 99% of them could kill the crap out of what they were shooting at. If someone is stupid enough ( JoeBob) to ask such a stupid question or make such stupid point (Paul Barnard, but what else is new), they'll never get an answer they'll accept, so screw it. Doesn’t matter how well they shot. They’re not shooters unless they put sufficient number of rounds down range to satisfy these guys. I should also add, they’re not shooters unless they use the correct equipment either according to the guys. Of course to be a "shooter" requires that you shoot. What matters is proficiency, and while there may be the odd prodigy that is naturally an amazing shooter with very little practice, like most things in life, proficiency is linearly (or perhaps logarithmically) correlated with practice and spent primers. It's not that you have to use the right equipment to be a "shooter", it's that being a shooter usually steers a person away from equipment that doesn't work as well as other options. Am I less of a shooter because I chose for a few years to regularly shoot a couple hundred rounds a session of 45-70 and 30-30 with regular old ghost ring receiver sights at ranges up to 300 yards instead of using the best scope, or any scope at all? No real reason to do it except for fun. Obviously I was handicapping myself and I doubt I would have shot a deer with that setup at that range no matter how proficient I was. But I enjoyed it. Was the old man I mentioned earlier who could shoot quail on the rise with a .22 but who would have been lost with dials and knobs less of a shooter? Equipment has very little to do with anything. I bow hunt with a longbow. After a few years of that, using a rifle of any sort almost feels like cheating. I almost feel guilty shooting a deer with a gun. The only reason I do is because I like guns and I need an excuse for them in my own mind. The guy with the longbow is not any less or more of an archer than the guy with a $3k compound. He just chooses to concentrate on different interests. For me, as a rifleman I choose to concentrate on shooting very quickly from the end of my muzzle to three or four hundred yards in field positions. I use moderate magnification and I’m not trying to see and hit a tick on a deer’s shoulder. If a scope is good enough to do that, then that is good enough. I value eye relief, field of view, weight, and a few other things over things that long range shooters might value. Okay, so one of the dissenters here, Paul, admits he hasn't killed a deer, let alone a trophy buck in 5 years...it's now up to you...prove your point...post some buck pics... I am not currently where I can post photos but check back later and I'll hook you up. You want just the rifle kills or the bow kills as well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714 |
Both, please.... As i said, I'm trying to learn.
You can no more tell someone how to do something you've never done, than you can come back from somewhere you've never been...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,813 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,813 Likes: 5 |
Whats the definition of a hunter? So freaking stupid. In reading this thread, it is indeed a stupidasss question. I had loads of hunters in camps when we were guiding that hunted and killed stuff all over the world. Not sure how good of a "shooter" they were, but 99% of them could kill the crap out of what they were shooting at. If someone is stupid enough ( JoeBob) to ask such a stupid question or make such stupid point (Paul Barnard, but what else is new), they'll never get an answer they'll accept, so screw it. Doesn’t matter how well they shot. They’re not shooters unless they put sufficient number of rounds down range to satisfy these guys. I should also add, they’re not shooters unless they use the correct equipment either according to the guys. Of course to be a "shooter" requires that you shoot. What matters is proficiency, and while there may be the odd prodigy that is naturally an amazing shooter with very little practice, like most things in life, proficiency is linearly (or perhaps logarithmically) correlated with practice and spent primers. It's not that you have to use the right equipment to be a "shooter", it's that being a shooter usually steers a person away from equipment that doesn't work as well as other options. Am I less of a shooter because I chose for a few years to regularly shoot a couple hundred rounds a session of 45-70 and 30-30 with regular old ghost ring receiver sights at ranges up to 300 yards instead of using the best scope, or any scope at all? No real reason to do it except for fun. Obviously I was handicapping myself and I doubt I would have shot a deer with that setup at that range no matter how proficient I was. But I enjoyed it. Was the old man I mentioned earlier who could shoot quail on the rise with a .22 but who would have been lost with dials and knobs less of a shooter? Equipment has very little to do with anything. I bow hunt with a longbow. After a few years of that, using a rifle of any sort almost feels like cheating. I almost feel guilty shooting a deer with a gun. The only reason I do is because I like guns and I need an excuse for them in my own mind. The guy with the longbow is not any less or more of an archer than the guy with a $3k compound. He just chooses to concentrate on different interests. For me, as a rifleman I choose to concentrate on shooting very quickly from the end of my muzzle to three or four hundred yards in field positions. I use moderate magnification and I’m not trying to see and hit a tick on a deer’s shoulder. If a scope is good enough to do that, then that is good enough. I value eye relief, field of view, weight, and a few other things over things that long range shooters might value. Okay, so one of the dissenters here, Paul, admits he hasn't killed a deer, let alone a trophy buck in 5 years...it's now up to you...prove your point...post some buck pics... [img] https://imgur.com/a/O871r7B[/img] Feel better? [img] https://imgur.com/a/WUcshUy[/img]
Last edited by JoeBob; 07/18/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714 |
Nope, I didn't ask for one of one from a high fence operation...I asked for YOUR LAST NINE whitetails...and SHOULD have said fair chase ...8 to go....
You can no more tell someone how to do something you've never done, than you can come back from somewhere you've never been...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,813 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,813 Likes: 5 |
High fence? Lol. Those are my deer on my land. Shot off the ground. Don’t feed them. Don’t do anything but walk out and hunt them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,714 |
Cool...per the original question...show the other 8 to make 9...
You can no more tell someone how to do something you've never done, than you can come back from somewhere you've never been...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,813 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,813 Likes: 5 |
No, your original question was just for some buck pics. You didn’t ask for ten. That’s the two best ones recently and the only ones on this phone.
|
|
|
|
|
80 members (10gaugemag, 358wsm, 300_savage, 358WCF, 257_X_50, 12 invisible),
1,164
guests, and
798
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,863
Posts18,497,216
Members73,979
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
