Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Are we really handicapped by using older scopes on our hunting rifles?

I started thinking of all the shots I have made on game with scoped rifles over the years and came to the realization that I could have made virtually all of them using an older Weaver/Lyman/Redfield etc scope. I shot one buck with a Marlin 35 Rem topped with a Leupold 2-7x right at dark that I might, and I stress MIGHT, not have been able to make with one of the older scopes. It begs the question: Do we really need the latest state of the art glass?

If you can hunt, no.

If you can't hunt, but can shoot, maybe.

If you can't hunt or shoot all the technology in the world isn't going to make you a successful hunter.

Jeff

I agree, however, better (brighter) glass can extend your hunting time.

Sometimes the lines between what we have, what we need,what we want, what we think we need, and what we think we want get kind of blurry. Like with computers and such we all think the newer stuff is better and more capable, and it is. But making the decisiuon based on need vs want is hard for all of us. I'm going to get a new scope before deer season just because I can and because I want one. I don't need one.

I think the more extreme light conditions, particulatly hunting in areas where night hunting is a doable thing, then the higher light transmission, better reticles, and improved resolution probably does some good. Ditto if you are shooting long range. How much real need that encompasses in the universe of hunters I have no idea.

I really do not think using a "fully functional" older scope is much of a handicap.

Being an optics loony is not much different from being a rifle loony. Need has little to do with the purchase.

The same question can be asked about higher end scopes($500+) vs lower end scopes($100-$250). During legal hunting hours do we really need the better glass?

A scope is a mechanical device and as such has a useful/reliable life span. Once I satisfy myself that it is reliable by shooting and adjusting it for 200 or so shots then I keep it for serious hunting trips. Another scope is used for load development.

I sell and replace all or most scopes about every three years. It helps that I don't do numerous "builds" so it only amounts to a few scopes. Today's 3x9 Leupold VX2 is superior to 5-10 year old scope that cost 3 to 5 times as much. My load testing scope is usually a 4.5x14 or a 6.5x20 but I hunt with the 3x9 types.

I could put venison on the table every year with some older scopes, that much is certain. But...my upper end modern scopes allow me to choose which ones with more freedom. I have killed a few I doubt I could have killed with a lesser scope and I would have had to wait or flat out pass on a few others.

I might have had to take some riskier shots without the better glass, or perhaps a better way to put it might be that lesser glass would have made the shots riskier. That might well have resulted in a pass rather than a shot.

Yep. At least "modern" equipment.
I spent a lot of time in my youth peering through old scopes at first light and last light. Sometimes I got the shot, sometimes I declined in doubt. If you only hunt a few days a year, it is nice to have optics that will not be the weak link. that includes binos and scopes.
Hog hunting makes it more important as they tend to be even more nocturnal. And we hog hunt year around. 24/7.

stumpy

I always recommend buying the best binoc you can afford. If you're into spotters, same thing goes. IMO riflescopes such as the Elite 4200, VX3, Conquest class of glass is all you'll ever need on a big game rifle. I've never once stared through my bino or spotter and thought......"this glass is a little too good".

Most of the time no problem. BUT it only takes once and that's how many times it's happened to me.

Yes

There's no handicap if the animal you want shows up when the light is really good....it's the "if" that'll kill you.

I have never lost a crack at an animal because I couldn't see it with the scope I had.....but it has happened to friends.Certain hunts, I think it makes sense to have the best optics you can afford.

I still have scopes that are over 40 years old in service; B&Ls, Leupolds, Redfields, Unertls, and Weavers from the 1960s and early 1970s, just not on 1st tier hunting rifles. I have even older scopes, 1950s vintage Lyman Super Targetspots and Unertls on older varmint and target rifles, few of which I would consider to be 1st tier.

I don't think that I would spend $$ to replace my existing scopes every 3 years, but I think of scopes as have a 20 year useful life span and amortize them as such.

EDIT: I think that the quality of the lenses and coatings is only part of the factors that help in low light hunting situations, the other being the reticle. I have some rifles set up with QR mounts so that I can use a Leupold 6x42 with a heavy duplex just for 1st/last light hunting at dawn/dusk. The 6x42 is a pretty bright scope, in terms of light transmission, and the heavy duplex is clearly viable before and after legal shooting hours anyplace that I've hunted in the lower 48.

Jeff

Thirty years ago , I didn't need much of a scope. My eyesight was just really , really good. But! that was thirty years ago. As I get older I find that superior scopes are more of a necessity. JMO

Haven't taken any game with it yet,but my daughters .270 has an old steel tube weaver on it that I was able to get a 3 shot 2-hole group measuring 9/16" at first I thought one of the three shots missed the paper entirely,until I noticed one of the holes was just slightly out of round so 2 of the 3 bullets went through damn near the same hole.

Bingo. That doesn't necessarily mean a guy needs a $2000 S&B, Leica or Zeiss Victory either, but I believe if a guy/gal is equipped with an upper tier Leupold, Zeiss Conquest, Bushnell Elite or their equivalent, they are pretty much ready to tackle most any situation a big game hunter will ever encounter.

You could also kill most every deer you want to with a 1950s era winchester 94 lever rifle, but you dont.

IMO, in 9 out of ten opportunities that present themself, there is a HUGE difference between a $60 scope and a $800 scope.......(about $740 worth)

I wouldn't.

I think it makes a difference.

I was chasing mulies in the timber last year right at the end of legal shooting time in E Oregon. The area has open ridges and steep exposed canyons, but I was hunting the timber pockets. I normally "hunt" with binos, but I located deer and the rifle was up and ready, looking for antlers. There was no time to use binos and switch to the rifle. If a decent buck presented himself, he was toast.

I was using a Viper 2-7x, and its a good scope for the price and its class. But, after that experience I wish I had the Kahles 2-7x that I foolishly sold a few years prior. And, that Viper is no slouch and pretty dang good compared to most newer scopes and certainly older ones. I wouldn't want "less" scope... I'd rather have more... in terms of low-light and resolution. That Kahles smoked a Mark IV 1-4x, it was like looking through sunglasses with the Leupo.

I've done some comparisons of the Viper 2-7x, and the other optics I've had recently... FX-3 6x, Swaro 8x lrf, Zen ED2 8x, and Redfield Rev 2-7x. The 6x FX-3 is pretty dang good in terms of resolution and brighter than the Viper. The Rev is a notch lower in terms of resolution and brightness compared to the Viper.

In good light, I think there are numerous scopes that work just fine. But, in low light at the closing minutes of the hunting day I think modern quality optics are worth it. I know that I've spent the closing minutes of several hunting days looking through my binos, lrf, scope, etc. and there's a big difference. And, I've seen more animals in the early morning and late evening than during the mid-day when its bright out. That said, I'd still focus my buying dollars on good binos first and a comparable scope is just icing on the cake. I know its hard to budget for good binos AND good scope, but if you can have both you have all bases covered.