Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics The bright scope - is it what you look for ? Why ? And How ?

Don,
<br>
<br>Scopes schmopes. If you wanna kill more critters,learn to Hunt bino's,it IS that easy.
<br>
<br>I can lead you to water,but I can't make you drink................

Don,
<br>
<br>Got a quick question for you. Are you saying that EVERY deer you see has been spooked and is moving at a fast walk or running? I might be wrong but this is the impression that I'm getting from your posts.

Don,
<br>
<br>I know I posted these somewhere before in the last 100 or so posts here--I think......
<br>
<br>Anyway, the big drawbacks to me (and this DOES include the LPS) are: weight, objective size, crosshairs in the "wrong" focal plane, and uncertain durability.
<br>
<br>I like the weight in the rifle barrel, a scope reasonably low to the barrel, and crosshairs in the "American" focal plane. I am not saying the Euro scopes are not durable, but heavier scopes with large objectives won't be as durable as a smaller scopes. There is more stress on the scope components and mounts with a heavier scope, especially on a heavier recoiling rifle.
<br>
<br>I need to discuss weight more. I am less and less sitting in stands and hunting Texas style. I have even sold the rifle I built for deer hunting in Texas. While the physcial weight of a 10 lb rifle really doesn't bother when hunting in Oregon, the overall weight of the stuff I carry does. The problem is, I love the way a 10 lb rifle shoots. It's stable to hold offhand, rests well, and isn't fussy about loads. To that end, the best way I can get 10 lb rifle shootability in an 8 lb rifle is to carefully consider where I can save weight. I want the beefier barrel contour, so it needs to be shorter, and chambered for a cartridge that isn't barrel sensitive. The stock needs to be light, but I will no longer go with the ultra lighweight stocks because they are not as durable or stable. I can use the good (Williams, Talley) lighweight rings/bases, and I can use a lighter scope. Now the scope can't be so light it loses optical quality, and for me the Vari X III fills the bill nicely--for all the reasons I mentioned before. It is plenty bright for hunting at the beginning/end of legal shooting hours in the dark timber, has good eye-relief, and is lightweight.
<br>
<br>Having said all that, the new "American" style Euro scopes should also work fine for my application. They seem very similar in specs to the Vari X III, which is what they were designed to compete with.
<br>
<br>What I'd like to see is Vari X IIIs coated with diamond coat (the LPS coatings), then I could have it all.
<br>
<br>Now if were to build the ultimate dusk/night hunting rifle, I would look at all the scopes and pick the one with a very large objective and the best resolution I could find.
<br>
<br>Blaine

Don,
<br>
<br>Every still hunter who I know to have any skill is a bino man or woman. That said, there just aren't many skilled still hunters out there anymore.
<br>
<br>I think that this "dick measuring" contest that you are pushing is, in Mr. Howell's sage words, TWADDLE! You like S&B scopes? Good for you, but many people can't justify the expense for the dubious gain in practical value. You don't like Leupold scopes? OK, but so what? Heck, I've harvested deer with all sorts of obsolete scopes, rifles, and cartridges over the past forty four (44) years and do you know what? The deer that were killed with the $25 Savage Model 219 mounted with an uncoated Weaver 330 were just as dead as the ones killed with equipement eighty (80) times as expensive. If you are a skillful still hunter, you don't need excellent equipement or to be an expert shot. If you can still hunt and shoot, due to your skill, equipement, or a combination of both, I'd say that you're the 2% exception to the norm that I've seen.
<br>
<br>BWTFDIK? My favorite scopes, today, are the single coated Leupold 2-7x VariX-II shotgun version and the ?? coated Weaver RV7. Many people who will read this would consider either of those choices to be substandard and a true impediment to any reasonable chance of success. But I continue to haul home several hundred pounds of boned venison each and every year with them, so how bad could they really be?
<br>
<br>Bearrr264

Stick,
<br>
<br>Sorry to say, as I suspected, you sidestepped the questions, again. Oh wait, you said if I asked direct questions, you would answer them. That lead me to beleive you were telling the truth, I guess I was mistaken.
<br>
<br>Have a good one,
<br>
<br>Don

LSU,
<br>
<br>Short answer, NOPE. I never said EVERY SINGLE deer I have ever seen was spooked.
<br>
<br>In the listed scenario I asked specific questions which Stick decided not to respond to. I assumed (wrongly) that he would answer direct questions, like he said he would, but sadly, it isn't true.
<br>
<br>Have a good one,
<br>
<br>Don

Blaine,
<br>
<br>Fair enough. I thank you for repeating what you have already said in previous posts. Excuse me for being to lazy to go find all the info you just now provided.
<br>
<br>Your criteria is different then mine. Not better, or worse, just different.
<br>
<br>I'll let you in on a little secret here so all can jump down my throat, some more, lmao.
<br>
<br>When I first looked through a Euro scope and I saw those big FAT crosshairs I thought, WOW, who would ever want to use those? That, coupled with the fact that the crosshairs changed size (which they really dont, they are simply magnified), I thought, why? That was over 15 years ago.
<br>
<br>When I see people NOW saying, get the FATTEST crosshairs you can, it makes me laugh. I started using those FAT crosshairs long ago. I soon found out the advanatges of those FAT crosshairs in low light conditions. When you use the word "Wrong", to me the opposite is true. I NOW like the fact that the coverage of the crosshair is the same throughout the power range, at a set distance. Again, not better or worse, just different then your criteria.
<br>
<br>I am glad to see when you posted if you where to hunt at night you would look for a scope that utilizes what little available light there is and go with a larger objective scope. One of my points, exactly. We both fully realize their advantages.
<br>
<br>Long ago (in the early 70's) I hunted hogs in Germany, at night. The advantages of the Euro scopes even back then far outweighed the scopes made for the USA market. Most USA hunters looked at the wide crosshairs and 30mm tubed scopes as DIFFERENT. And, they were different than what most her were used to. Some of us see their advantages and have utilized those advantages.
<br>
<br>Again, thanks for the info, it is appreciated.
<br>
<br>Have a good one,
<br>
<br>Don

Don you are blowing smoke out your ass,I hit the fart fan and changed the channel.
<br>
<br>Your failure to understand what I tried to simply explain,as it is simple fact,is not a fault of mine. You choose to gloat in utter ignorance and that is both your right and what folks have routinely come to expect out of you. I cannot simplify anymore,that which sails over your head.
<br>
<br>The questions you asked,have been concisely answered numerous times. That you haven't that faculties to process that information,is neither a fault of mine nor the Board's.
<br>
<br>I leave you to your half-cocked notions,dangerous ways and spooked Game.................

Bearrr,
<br>
<br>I am sure you will agree there are many differnt methods employed, when hunting. No one method works the best, all the time. There are times when the use oif binocs adds no advantage at all. There are times when without the use of binos is fullhearty, at best.
<br>
<br>As far as killing deer with one scope or another or one rifle or another. My first buck was killed when I was 12, in 1965. Anybody can figure out that I am now 49 years young. I killed that spike buck with a 32 win spcl and iron sights at less than 100 yards. I used a 32 win for the next 5 years, again, iron sights. In 1971 I bought my first rifle, on my own. It was a Marlin 336 chambered for 35 Rem, again, no scope, Iron sights. After a few years I bought a 4X Bushnell Banner with a BDC. The BDC was useless to me. I killed many deer with that rifle/scope combo. If I had to venture a guess it would be somewhere around 100 deer. My furthest kill was no more then 150 yards. I graduated to my first bolt action rifle and purchased a used Rem 700 ADL chambered in 7mm mag. Looking back NOW I should have went with the 280 but hindsight is 20/20 as we all know.
<br>
<br>My requirements now are much different then what they were back then. I know enjoy the challenges of long range hunting even though on occasion I still walk and stalk hunt. I was fortunate enough to get my deer on opening day, this past season, at a mere 350 yards. Since my buddy didn't get his I grabbed my 7mm mag and became the dog. I walked, slowly through various small patches of woods, hoping to spook some deer and hoping they would go in the direction of my buddy. I have, on rare occasions spooked up bucks in the local woods and have had opportunities to kill them at close range. I have spooked deer out of their beds, never saw them, but heard them. When I got through the small patch of woods I saw deer across a field. Maybe the one(s) I spooked, maybe not. It is then that I would crank up the power on the scope, get steady leaning against a tree and kill one providing I could be 99% sure when I squeezed the trigger, it was going to be shot where I planned.
<br>
<br>Expense is another criteria. Back in the 60's and 70's I couldn't afford the higher quality optics I now enjoy using. But, to compare optics is just that, the price will determine if your pocketbook will allow one to buy the higher quality but it doesn't negate the fact that they are higher quality.
<br>
<br>I am glad you have had so much success in hunting and I hope you have many more years in doing just that.
<br>
<br>Have a good one,
<br>
<br>Don

Stick
<br>Good move, I was following your statements with ease...
<br>
<br>I believe you mis-stated the adage awhile back... you can lead a horse's ass to water, but you can't make 'em think.
<br>art

Stick,
<br>
<br>So sorry you said one thing then back down. If you claim you are going to answer direct questions, at least follow through.
<br>
<br>You may as well leave the discussion since you refuse to discuss what is asked. Thats sort of sad as I really asked in ernest and was interested in your answers, but I guess you aren't truthfull, my bad for beleiving you. I gave you the benifit of the doubt, and you failed misserably. So sad
<br>
<br>I wish you well,
<br>
<br>Don

Geez Don, how many times does he have to answer your question? Still thinking about the "horse" adages and have to believe you have your blinders on a little (LOT) too tight!

<br>Hard to believe one guy can do so much typing and say so very little, and comprehend even less. Just sad, really, if it isn't just a game to "stir up the waters" a bit?-
<br>
<br>Don's favorite poster- Sheister

Don Knows, it is awfully late to add anything to this discussion but I have laboured through the sludge and read all the posts. I'd like to cut and paste replies but that is beyond the trouble I want to go to. I'll just say that in the scenario you described in hunting your woods, I would use binoculars, just as I do in thick stuff anywhere. Incidentally I also use a variable scope, always set on lowest setting and never moved unless I have a ton of time, which usually means an animal at a distance. According to one of your posts, using binoculars that way means I would never kill an animal in PA(?) and you may be right.
<br>
<br> I have hunted second growth rain forest with half of Seattle hunting within earshot. I couldn't park within 3/4 of a mile of "my" spot due to other vehicles. I moved three deer and two of them were shot within 100 yards of me. I think that is a fair number of other hunters, and my solution was to ease into a thicker thicket and use binoculars. I prefer hunting where I see no one, and never returned to that place, but I often hunt thick stuff. I glassed a bull elk at 40 feet, and my first glimpse of him or awareness that an elk was near was through the binoculars. I could only identify the 1x2 inch piece that I saw as elk hair rather than a fringe of moss by binoculars. A deer neck at 30 feet, unseen without binoculars. A deer ear at 60 feet, unseen without binoculars. Two weeks ago I was kneeling in the dim light of heavy forest after sunset in DARK coastal forest, trying to see an elk I could hear within 20 yards of me. I was looking through binoculars.
<br>
<br>I've hunted thickets whever I've gone, with the worst on one of the Gulf Islands off Vancouver Island, where some sort of mutant salal grows higher than a man's head among the blackberry bushes. The tiny deer use tunnels like rabbit trails through it, and they were super jumpy due to year round local hunting. I used binoculars, looking for ones like the three point buck lying in hiding behind a log that I saw at 15 feet. He'd had plenty of time to sneak off or run, like a doe did a few minutes earlier, but he was sure I wouldn't see him, and I wouldn't have without binoculars. I'll have to take your word for it that when one crosses into PA it does not work to use binoculars that way. Kidding aside, I believe that you and I have decided on different methods to solve the same hunting problem, and my choice has been binoculars. I've no problem with your choice, just puzzled when you make categorical statements that another solution will not work.

Don, you proposed the following question:
<br> "Sitting/standing next to a tree in the woods of central PA. One may be able to see a deer 100 yards off or even 300 yards off. That doesn't mean one can get a bullet to it - because of all the trees between you and the deer. There are a lot of old logging roads in the woods - here. One looks with their naked eyes to see which direction the deer is heading after seeing the deer with their naked eyes. One sets-up in an open lane, adjusts the variable scope (in my case) to what is needed/required at the distance the deer is from the hunter. IF the deer enters that open area, where one has an open chance to get a bullet to the deer, most people whistle. This generally, but not always, stops the deer. When it stops, generally one has but a few seconds to get on the deer and shoot.
<br>
<br>Now the question, in plain English, so you can understand. Tell me how the use of binocs in the above listed example are any advantage?"
<br>
<br>Here is my answer in as plain english as I can get. There are many deer in the woods that are not running!!! Many will stand still or stay bedded and let you pass by quite close. Maybe the reason you haven't seen them is because you are not looking for them. In your very specific example, binoculars would allow you to see those deer that are not moving. What is hard to understand about that?
<br>Oh, no I haven't hunted in PA. I have hunted in the thickest stuff several states in the south have to offer and the thickest Alaska has to offer. I promise you PA is no worse. Binoculars are good to have anywhere and everywhere. Just because some people don't know how to use them doesn't change this.
<br>

"Hard to believe one guy can do so much typing and say so very little, and comprehend even less. Just sad, really, if it isn't just a game to "stir up the waters" a bit?"
<br>
<br>EXACTLY!!!!!!
<br>
<br>The guys whole MO is to drop a turd in the pool and ruin the party.

In response to Don's query about using binoculars in a PA situation he described, Kodiak Island wrote:
<br>
<br>"Here is my answer in as plain english as I can get. There are many deer in the woods that are not running!!! ... Maybe the reason you haven't seen them is because you are not looking for them. In your very specific example, binoculars would allow you to see those deer that are not moving. "
<br>
<br>BINGO!!

Did anyone else notice Don says he can spot deer through the trees at 100-300 yards with his naked eye? And he still says binos have no use in his part of the country? Sound just a little resistant to change maybe?
<br>Imagine all those deer within that range that he isn't seeing. Man, there are many times I wish I had half that much distance to see when hunting in the lodgepole, vine maple, salal, and puckerbrush/blackberry tangles. Even sagebrush can be unbelievably frustrating at times without good binos to look through the little openings, even though it seems at times that you can see forever, it always seems that you flush out deer right at your feet. Well, I guess if that works for him- Sheister

Kodiak.
<br>
<br>I guess you failed to fully understand what was said.
<br>
<br>When I said I can see 100 yards or even 300 yards. The reasons are that the woods have tree's and very little foilage on the ground. If you have ever hunter where the woods are full of hardwoods in the late fall, after the leaves had fallen off, you will get the "picture". One can see anything and everything on the ground WITHOUT binocs. Therefor they are NOT needed. Simple enough to understand?
<br>
<br>If you can see everything with your naked eyes, why would you carry binocs? For the added weight around your neck?
<br>
<br>If a deer is NOT running, you simply get the rifle up, get on it when you have an opening, and kill it. No need for binocs at all. What is hard to understand about that?
<br>
<br>Can you see a deer out to 300 yards, with your naked eyes?
<br>
<br>Instead of looking at the stopped deer through binocs, get the scope on it and kill it. You can't kill a deer looking through binocs.
<br>
<br>Have a good one,
<br>
<br>Don
<br>

Well Don
<br>I have shot quite a few deer in mixed stands of white and red oak. By stands, I mean 40 acres or more of nothing but mature oak. If that will qualify for your "hardwoods". Two things those areas had were plenty of trees and plenty of shadows. A deer could easily remain hidden 100 yards away, while in plain view. Maybe you only have a few trees, not enough for shadows or partly obscured deer.
<br>
<br>What it comes down to is there is no right or wrong way of hunting. If you prefer to hunt without binocs, I could care less. People have to make themselves happy. I know a few people who hunt all the time and never see a thing. They are happy, so thats fine with me. If they don't want advice as to how to see more, thats fine also. You hunt your way, and the majority of successful hunters will hunt theirs.