You couldn't even begin to compare what I do and shooting a deer out of a field in your wildest dreams.
You're right, you never would have gotten close enough in this "field."
Best stick to hillsides where animals stand at rock throwing distances.
Your animals are not even in the same ballpark as the one I pictured.
The animal you posted didn't qualify. The request was not for animals taken at muzzle loader distances. I didn't post ones like this:
Or this
(mine was 2nd from the right)
Because they didn't answer the request. The ones posted were taken from a distance and specifically being able to ID them as fitting my minimum requirements at the time was helpful because if I had needed to set up a spotting scope to do that there would not have been time. That was the point.
That's what was asked, so that's what was posted. Pretending to miss the point by quibbling over where I set the minimum requirements is a very transparent concession.
It was clearly mentioned earlier in a hunt I'll have the bar set higher. As the deadline approaches I'll lower it even more as required to fill the freezer.
Anybody who thinks that makes somebody a "bad hunter" really needs to grow up.
Of course a grownup would acknowledge the original points instead of changing the subject at every turn.
The original point Rost made about identifying the right animal, legal animal, acceptable animal, etc, had nothing to do with counting B&C points, "scoring" trophies to impress SCI buddies--obviously that's a whole different ballgame. Pretending that was the claimed capability disingenuous.
The fact that you have 20-30 hunters in a mile radius shows that you are one lazy "hunter". I suggest you buy a pair of boots and a backpack.
This is really rich. The guy in Alaska, taking the number literally, will call people down here names and tell us it's
our fault there are other hunters. If you think it's as easy as taking a stroll in order to find yourself in pristine hunting country on public land where there are actually animals you can hunt with over the counter tags and nobody else will be there, please do cough up some GPS coordinates as many here would love to hear of your super secret hunting preserves 10 million people haven't already discovered.
Here's where I'll be hunting in a couple months:
It's a nice "field." I call it the Beartooths. Packed in miles from the nearest trailhead. Will we be the only ones there? Not a chance in hell. Will there be any elk there? Maybe. Maybe not. Hope for the right weather. That's about all one can do in the area without paying big bucks to some outfitter who has a bunch herded onto some ranch somewhere.
But of course you deal with all the same stuff up there, right? So you're in perfect position to call hunters down here who find things a bit crowded "lazy." Uh huh. That'll go over real well.
Now with all those diversions out of the way (why is it I answer all your challenges but you answer none of mine?), maybe we can get back to the subject. You've done a good job backing away from having to defend your claims by changing the subject every which way, but you're running out of rope.
None of any of that adds a shred of support to your contention that 6X is the
best choice for long range. That being able to see much better through the scope couldn't ever, possibly, in any way, for any reason, be of any use or offer any advantage whatsoevAr!
Focus. Concentrate on your side of the argument. Now attempt to defend it with some sort of logic and experience. Oops, I'll give you a pass on the last one for now, just try and make a logical argument, that'd be a start.
Which brings us back to the poor fellow who asked the question in the first place and was hoping for some help instead of a little stick swinging contest:
I'm thinking about adding a turret to my Leupold 6x, but was thinking it might not be enough xs to make it worth the expense. Can the 6x get me to 5-600 yards for big game hunting?
I'm sorry for the way this thread turned out. Any time somebody actually has the balls to disagree with Big Stick and his 'Swingers in public, this is the result. Logic, reason and experience need not apply, the argument goes to who can throw the insults the fastest. That's why few ever do it on this website.
Hopefully you've been able to pick up some info through all the childishness. In short, yes, a 6X can certainly get you to that range. It's certainly enough to hit big game animals at that distance if you're well practice. Also check out my comments in the 3-9X thread.
However, the vast, vast, majority of us who do a lot of shooting at really long range prefer to use higher powered scopes for a multitude of reasons, many of which were described in this thread. So if you want to get serious about LR shooting, you may consider selling the 6X to a
Campfire Cult member here and putting your money toward a higher powered scope.
I wouldn't blame you if you can't decide based upon this thread. I encourage you to not take my word for it, but solicit opinions elsewhere--where there is more than one or two loudmouths who actually do it. The campfire is really not the best place to find this type of information for obvious reasons. Sites like long range hunting will have hundreds who can offer such advice based on experience which will give you a better picture than picking the winner of a couple loudmouths.