|
|
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,574 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,574 Likes: 3 |
If all you ever afforded for yourself was a Leupold then you don't know how much they suck azz at tracking. And if you have tried to shoot a deer in thick timber at last light only to look through your hubble length 5 pound target scope and not be able see the mo#@erf#*%ing deer or not be able to make out the micro thin long range crosshair then you would know that at that precise moment in that particular situation that scope is worth less than the toilet paper you used to wipe your ass when you took a chit back out by your truck. But feel free to twist the 3 inch long target turrets and imagine how accurate each click of the dial is. It won't help you kill the deer but maybe you will feel better having something to play with while you sit there unable to shoot. LOL! Wilto, the only 3" long thing he's twisting is his diqck and the only thing he's shooting is his wad. BB, what do you know? You don't have time to shoot. You've racked up nearly 9,000 posts here in one year. You're making on average nearly 23 posts here a day, day in and day out, all day long. One day recently you had well over 35 posts. And never anything of substance. As of the comment I am quoting, you've already made 14 comments since midnight, and it's only been about 6 hours. No doubt your filling other forums with your bullshit, as well. I notice your "Occupation" is listed as "Crushing puzzy."  . How old are you? Did you get the password to NetNanny? Dude, shut your computer down and go outside. Your porn addiction is making you as impotent as your posts. There is help for you. https://www.addictioncenter.com/drugs/porn-addiction/
Last edited by 10Glocks; 07/19/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17 |
Public land in Alabama, where all these experts tell us we need 56mm alpha scopes to kill a dink. I killed 3 of these on public land, and the rest on paper company land. On my back feet, no [bleep] stands, no experience in the South East....just my 40 years hunting around the world...actually found it relaxing and easy...but what do I know??? First 2 years - 22-250 AI with NightForce NXS 2.5-10x42...last year with custom 6XC with S&B 1.5-42 Stratos.. ![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/download/Number/165361/filename/IMG_0048.jpg) Those are very nice public land deer. I can't recall anyone telling you that you needed 56MM Alpha glass to kill them though. Many have said that their much maligned Leupolds serve them very well in low light hunting in the southern woods.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506 |
Public land in Alabama, where all these experts tell us we need 56mm alpha scopes to kill a dink. I killed 3 of these on public land, and the rest on paper company land. On my back feet, no [bleep] stands, no experience in the South East....just my 40 years hunting around the world...actually found it relaxing and easy...but what do I know??? First 2 years - 22-250 AI with NightForce NXS 2.5-10x42...last year with custom 6XC with S&B 1.5-42 Stratos.. Nice bucks throughout this thread...But, you have crown molding in your garage. Now that’s impressive ! Grins 🦫
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog
“Molon Labe”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 12,022 |
And if you have tried to shoot a deer in thick timber at last light only to look through your hubble length 5 pound target scope and not be able see the mo#@erf#*%ing deer or not be able to make out the micro thin long range crosshair then you would know that at that precise moment in that particular situation that scope is worth less than the toilet paper you used to wipe your ass when you took a chit back out by your truck.
But feel free to twist the 3 inch long target turrets and imagine how accurate each click of the dial is. It won't help you kill the deer but maybe you will feel better having something to play with while you sit there unable to shoot. LOL!
My "hubble length" riflescopes are quite capable of presenting a great image even in the woods at the end of the legal hunting time and beyond. In fact, my riflescopes all transmit as much or more light than any other scope on the market. This quote from you, " or not be able to make out the micro thin long range crosshair", makes me wonder if you've even looked through the type of scopes many of us hunt and shoot with. I use variable power scopes with uncrowded reticles that have a new invention that you apparently have yet to discover...an illuminated reticle. On the low end of my magnification, with the reticle on a low setting, my scopes do a superb job of functioning as a red dot reflex sight. As noted before, I can see the deer perfectly well at last shooting light and later. If I so chose to do so, I need only place the center of the illuminated reticle on the precise place on the deer, that I can see perfectly well, that I want to shoot and if I squeeze off a round that's one dead deer. I also have some perfectly decent, reasonably priced, Leupold scopes mounted on a Thompson Center Compass in 6.5 Creedmore, a sporterized 6.5x55, and 4 shotguns set up for slugs. Illinois doesn't trust hunters enough to allow us to use centerfire rifles, so we're limited to shotgun slugs, muzzle loaders and handguns. I sighted them in and they have held zero for years. I really don't have any criticism of Leupold scopes, but I don't piss on tier 1 scopes because I own, use, and enjoy several of them of them now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,070
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,070 |
Speaking of Bama deer hunting, I wish you could see the crap that comes through my range for the annual sight in. As a bonus, I get to watch the debacle. And I can't remember an instant where anyone wasn't stingy with their rounds. Its amusing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,585 Likes: 17 |
Public land in Alabama, where all these experts tell us we need 56mm alpha scopes to kill a dink. I killed 3 of these on public land, and the rest on paper company land. On my back feet, no [bleep] stands, no experience in the South East....just my 40 years hunting around the world...actually found it relaxing and easy...but what do I know??? First 2 years - 22-250 AI with NightForce NXS 2.5-10x42...last year with custom 6XC with S&B 1.5-42 Stratos.. Nice bucks throughout this thread...But, you have crown molding in your garage. Now that’s impressive ! Grins 🦫 LOLOLOL. Good catch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,840
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 10,840 |
If you go the main page and scroll down to Misc., you’ll find hurt feelers reports to submit to Wabigoon
FUGK CCP
It’s time to WAKE UP
GOD BLESS THE USA
WWG1WGA
THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,535 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,535 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. 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. In terms of what it means to be a shooter, I didn't mention anything about a scope requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,266 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,266 Likes: 7 |
You guys should see my buddy's collection of mule deer kills he's made with his piece of trash VX6's. It's ridiculous to say the least. One sample........ ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/cInIBtU.jpg)
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,662
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,662 |
The live cast with the two clowns was a pretty big nail in the coffin.
$300 SWFA’s that track amazing and have a killer reticle was another. Yeah but it was really longer ago than that. It started in Vietnam with issues with G.I. issued Leupold ... loopies. Weaver had already gone put of country and had the Japanese manufacturing some of their glass and it was far superior to Leupold and a lot less expensive. Didn't take long for G.I.s to get the word out on the Weavers vs the Leupolds and that was actually when Leupold started taking PR hits. Everything discussed in this thread came after that and admittedly there was still plenty pf Leupold worship going around at Nationals at Camp Perry which Leupold was very good at monopolizing for marketing's sake. Weaver made some inroads through Field & Stream and Outdoor Life and by doing a deal with Weatherby right around '78 or so .... but it was tough dethroning Leupold. And then came the Internet and then social media and all the while word was coming back from the sand box and the rock pile about what the Canadians, Germans and Brits were doing with Vortex, Ziess and Nikon .... and then came the really hard lick to Leupold. Some of the Russian glass being captured was being compared to Leupold .... and that wasn't good. So this has been coming for a long long time. There has also been some diversity issues in terms of product line .... and another thing I seem to remember. Didn't Leupold and Barrett have words?
What you think about, you do ... what you do, you become.
In a nation where anything goes ... eventually, everything will. We're almost there.
|
|
|
|
|
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. In terms of what it means to be a shooter, I didn't mention anything about a scope requirement. You mentioned equipment that “doesn’t work as well as other options” and shooters steering away from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506 |
We have some Leupold love taking shape on the alpha glass thread, if anyone is butthurt on this thread.
LOL
🦫
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog
“Molon Labe”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,979 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,979 Likes: 1 |
Coyotes shot no waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,535 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,535 Likes: 3 |
[
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. In terms of what it means to be a shooter, I didn't mention anything about a scope requirement. You mentioned equipment that “doesn’t work as well as other options” and shooters steering away from it. Yes, and that could apply to scopes, iron sights, rifles, bows, etc. Pretend a certain model of muzzleloader is designed so poorly that it misfires every tenth shot. Two guys own that model of muzzleloader, one who only shoots at deer (2 shots per year), and the other guy shoots his frequently in practice. Which guy do you think will be first to replace his ML with something else that actually works properly, and which guy will be bragging about his faulty muzzleloader on the Internet until the 5th year, when it finally misfires and he gets mad at it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,274
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,274 |
Pretend a certain model of muzzleloader is designed so poorly that it misfires every tenth shot. Two guys own that model of muzzleloader, one who only shoots at deer (2 shots per year), and the other guy shoots his frequently in practice. Which guy do you think will be first to replace his ML with something else that actually works properly, and which guy will be bragging about his faulty muzzleloader on the Internet until the 5th year, when it finally misfires and he gets mad at it? A ridiculous analogy. Here's one more in line with the current debate. Guy number 1 needs a hammer to drive regular size nails for the occasional household project. So he buys a regular claw hammer which serves him well for that purpose his whole life. Guy number 2 needs a hammer to drive in railroad spikes but for some dumbass reason buys a regular claw hammer for that purpose as well. Well the claw hammer not being designed for that specific job naturally doesn't do very well and eventually the handle breaks. So Guy number 2 replaces it with a 12 pound sledge hammer which is obviously better for his specific need. But based on this experience Guy number 2 runs to the internet to loudly proclaim that all claw hammers suck donkey ass and that everyone not using a 12 pound sledge hammer for all hammering needs is a godD@*n sub imbecilic moron that doesn't know chit about hammers. That about sums it up. A complete inability of one side of this debate to understand that different people have different needs in a scope and that certain scopes are designed for those different needs. It's really that simple.
Last edited by Willto; 07/19/21.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 33,754 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 33,754 Likes: 6 |
It would be interesting to hear of MD and his wife's tribulations with killing game with Leupold scopes over the decades. Maybe percent yay and nay? Failure whilst hunting and such.
Conduct is the best proof of character.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,535 Likes: 3
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,535 Likes: 3 |
Pretend a certain model of muzzleloader is designed so poorly that it misfires every tenth shot. Two guys own that model of muzzleloader, one who only shoots at deer (2 shots per year), and the other guy shoots his frequently in practice. Which guy do you think will be first to replace his ML with something else that actually works properly, and which guy will be bragging about his faulty muzzleloader on the Internet until the 5th year, when it finally misfires and he gets mad at it? A ridiculous analogy. Here's one more in line with the current debate. Guy number 1 needs a hammer to drive regular size nails for the occasional household project. So he buys a regular claw hammer which serves him well for that purpose his whole life. Guy number 2 needs a hammer to drive in railroad spikes but for some dumbass reason buys a regular claw hammer for that purpose as well. Well the claw hammer not being designed for that specific job naturally doesn't do very well and eventually the handle breaks. So Guy number 2 replaces it with a 12 pound sledge hammer which is obviously better for his specific need. But based on this experience Guy number 2 runs to the internet to loudly proclaim that all claw hammers suck donkey ass and that everyone not using a 12 pound sledge hammer for all hammering needs is a godD@*n sub imbecilic moron that doesn't know chit about hammers. That about sums it up. A complete inability of one side of this debate to understand that different people have different needs in a scope and that certain scopes are designed for those different needs. It's really that simple. What’s simple is that you missed the point entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,574 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,574 Likes: 3 |
I have a feeling that within the next page or two, everyone will be in agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,853 Likes: 12
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,853 Likes: 12 |
The live cast with the two clowns was a pretty big nail in the coffin.
$300 SWFA’s that track amazing and have a killer reticle was another. Yeah but it was really longer ago than that. It started in Vietnam with issues with G.I. issued Leupold ... loopies. Weaver had already gone put of country and had the Japanese manufacturing some of their glass and it was far superior to Leupold and a lot less expensive. Didn't take long for G.I.s to get the word out on the Weavers vs the Leupolds and that was actually when Leupold started taking PR hits. Everything discussed in this thread came after that and admittedly there was still plenty pf Leupold worship going around at Nationals at Camp Perry which Leupold was very good at monopolizing for marketing's sake. Weaver made some inroads through Field & Stream and Outdoor Life and by doing a deal with Weatherby right around '78 or so .... but it was tough dethroning Leupold. And then came the Internet and then social media and all the while word was coming back from the sand box and the rock pile about what the Canadians, Germans and Brits were doing with Vortex, Ziess and Nikon .... and then came the really hard lick to Leupold. Some of the Russian glass being captured was being compared to Leupold .... and that wasn't good. So this has been coming for a long long time. There has also been some diversity issues in terms of product line .... and another thing I seem to remember. Didn't Leupold and Barrett have words? What Leupolds were used in Vietnam? The standard sniper scope was a Redfield 3-9, on the 700s anyway.
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,853 Likes: 12
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,853 Likes: 12 |
It would be interesting to hear of MD and his wife's tribulations with killing game with Leupold scopes over the decades. Maybe percent yay and nay? Failure whilst hunting and such. What he has written is that he had so many fail, and some pretty quickly after purchase, that he’s given up on buying new ones, period. That’s pretty definitive. OTOH, he’s said good things for years about modestly-priced Burris scopes, and has a bunch mounted on rifles, even some pretty spendy ones. He also, AFIK, has an SHV, and a SWFA 10x42. I believe the SHV is on his pet Melvin .30/06. As best as I can tell, he’s not hesitant to spend money when he needs to, but doesn’t buy glitzy stuff for the flash, hence, all the Fullfields.
Last edited by Pappy348; 07/20/21.
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
571 members (1lesfox, 12344mag, 1badf350, 10gaugemag, 160user, 007FJ, 68 invisible),
2,574
guests, and
1,207
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,926
Posts18,498,564
Members73,983
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/kl0ojCj.jpg)
