Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles At what distance do you feel you need a scope?

Scopes for me at any range.
Allows better shot placement

Thats how I felt when I had good vision.

Now at 55 years old a scope is a must.

Come to think of it, I haven't shot irons since I was a kid. I guess I just prefer a scoped rifle.

Nice 99, Steelhead.

Hell, I must shoot 50 shots a day from the BB gun with open sights.

Open sights don't work worth a hoot if you don't 'practice' with them.

I've met more than a few that don't like apertures because they can't focus on the aperture because its too close. They don't have a clue how to use them.

I'll just say when I was shooting irons almost every day, and if not shooting, dry firing, I killed a deer on the other side of 500 with irons. it was past the half way mark past too...

As with other things, the only things you have to know is can you do it and are the conditions such that they will allow you to do so on the first shot every time.

And that distance changes needless to say.

As far as the "need" for a scope, it is definitely on the far side of 200 yards.....farther on a "perfect" shot situation.

My eyes aren't what they once were but I can still consistently hit a squirrel in the head at 25-30 yards (In my younger days I aimed for the eye...not just the head). At 200 yards I still feel confident in shooting deer size game with open sights. At 100 yards any shot is a slam-dunk with open sights.

However, other that when hunting with muzzleloaders or occasionally with the few rifles I have that are not scoped....I "choose" to use scopes because of the aiming precision they make possible. At longer ranges this is very much true but even at how-do-you-do ranges of less than 25 yards the scope allows me to slip the bullet through small openings much easier.

The only exception would be at close range, moving targets. I have tried low-power scopes and peep sights....but on fast moving, close animals I still do better and feel more confident with traditional open sights.

Maybe it is because of the years I spent using those type sights back when we used to hunt deer with dogs....but (for me) scopes and peep sights just aren't as fast to get into action as open sights.

If I "knew" I was going to be presented with a close, fast moving target....such as when following a wounded bear or hog into a thicket...I'd feel most comfortable with a shallow "V" rear sight (express style) and a fairly large bead front sight.

Those situations are admittedly rare. Even when slip hunting (still hunting is what most call it) in thickets....I choose a low-powered scope most of the time. Quick, moving shots "can" happen in this type hunting....but not as often as you might think (that is "if" you have any decent skill at the "slipping" part of the hunt). Most shots will be at standing or slow moving game.....which often aren't even aware they are being hunted.

tarzan, I grew up shooting irons,and think that I was pretty fair with them.But,I also learned early on,the advantages of a scope. Given a rifle with proper fit and a low power scope,I'd take a scope over irons starting pretty much at the muzzle.If the lighting is poor,hands-down a quality scope trumps irons every time! At least for me! memtb

The only firearm I own that doesn't wear a scope is my T/C Hawkens 50 cal. The furthest shot on a deer was 140 yards down thru some open hardwoods. Punched the windpipe from the lungs and he only went 50 yards and piled up. Closest shot was 12 yards.

All my centerfire rifles wear a scope. Some do have mounted sights but I like them scoped.

Ken

Scopes help you see the target in poor light, Has nothing to do with range, a scope is just as useful at 20 yards as 200. In good light I'm almost as good with irons at 200 yards as with glass. In poor light I can't the sights or the target with irons. This is where a scope comes in handy. They are a much better option in thick, dark brush than irons because they allow you to see holes in the brush to shoot through. It can bee too dark to see the irons at 4 PM on a cloudy day in winter in some thick spots where I hunt.

Most people use too much magnification. A 1X or 2X scope is faster on target up close than irons. My favorite variables are either 1-4X or 2-7X. I almost never take them off the lowest setting for anything other than zeroing.

Most people don't practice. If they have 3-9X or 4-12X and practice quickly bringing up the rifle and looking through the scope at the target on its highest magnification setting, when they go hunting the 3X or the 4X looks like a wide screen TV. The hunter will be just as fast with this as he would be with a 1X.

75-100 yds for deer. Could push that to 150 for a brownie.

One of the best uses of scopes for me, and this requires much more than 1-2X is determining if its still the legal or even the buck I want when they are meandering around, and i've switched from binocs to gun.

The other HUGE thing that has bitten me twice, once with a red dot, and once with a low power scope, is not being able to see an intervening twig...

Hence I really have about zip use for a low power scope for actual hunting.

For the defensive AR they work great but I'm about as good and quick with irons anyway and a ghost ring, you just have to practice and stay sharp. And for a defensive gun for big animals that bite and you have to stop... there a twig won't be an issue...

What I've learned from this thread is there are a BUNCH of folks that haven't spent the time to learn open/aperture sights, therefore they (open sights) are inferior.

I'm not saying they are better than scopes, but I see a lot of folks that have ZERO experience. Which is on par for the 'Fire.

I prefer a scope even close. Low power and both eyes open works for me, even it the thick stuff.

Now, as my eyes get older, a scope is even 'mo better'.

Like has been stated at 60years old I find seeing open sights is much more difficult than in the past regular open or peep sight. plus like some have said its easier to see small obstructions in the thicker stuff. I will say probably 90% of my deer hunting has been with a 4x fixed or a variable set at 2 or 3 power. It doesn't take much.

I've used open/aperture sights quite a bit. I recall on several occasions using Redfield peeps to shoot sub MOA groups at 300 yards shooting prone. But, to me, a scope has been the ticket for the past 15-20 years.

Scopes are definitely better for picking out openings to shoot through but irons are not without their merits. I'm partial to aperture rear sights. No need to worry about the rear sight, merely look at the front sight and put it where you want. Your eye naturally centers the front sight in the aperture without conscious effort.
I find that if casually shooting offhand at clay targets at 100 yards, I'll break more with irons than with a scope. My theory on it is you are more relaxed with irons because you don't notice every little movement and try to correct for it like you do with a scope.

Enjoying the benefits of private property are you?

I've been playing with a set of XS ghost ring sights on a rifle this spring. Given good light, I'd say that up to 100 yards I'd be very confident of hitting a deer in the lungs with them. I can also see that in dim or poor light, the scope would make a huge difference even at closer ranges. But I was after a handy rifle that I could carry easily around the farm, so decided to sacrifice the scope on this one. The aperture sight is far and away better than the factory opens...you can see your target, and only have a front sight and the target to worry about.

When I lived in Alaska, I carried an M71 (Browning) that I rebarrelled to .375/348 Imp with a 20" barrel, because it mounted so quickly that I believed there was nothing that would point like it. It has a Williams receiver-sight on it and I still have it. I carried it in case something BIG happened to pop out of the brush. I lived in SE Alaska, so anyone who has been there will know my thoughts.
I like to chase rabbits here in Nevada with an M94 .25/35 Imp, and it has a Redfield receiver-sight on it. I can shoot out to about 200 yards reliably (at a sitting rabbit). Here it is quite possible to see that far.
I also use an M92 (Rossi) .256 WinMag with a Lyman tang-sight, for rabbits. At 67years, if (when) I miss, it's not the sights.
Recently, I was "gifted" an M99 takedown, like Steelhead's, but mine is a .250/3000. (I wish it were in as good a shape as his...I'm gonna have to restock it) I has the factory buckhorn, and I'll prolly leave it alone. It's dropped a LOT of northeastern Nevada mulie bucks in it's time.
The rest of my rifles are customs, mostly Mausers, built for special purposes, from predator calling, through ground-squirrel, to big game like longer-ranged (300 yards at unmolested Deer) to grizzly and Elk/Moose. None have iron sights. They each have a scope that is appropriate for what it seeks. Several have low- to medium-power scopes with Lee dots that vary from 2 1/2x to 6x with 1moa to 4moa.
I used to have scopes with 2x4s(flat-topped posts) for woodsy-type huntin', but the Lees have replaced them.
I believe the reticle is more important than the power. The idea of only having one focal-field is great. Ya can SEE.
Have fun,
Gene

While on the subject of open sights. I think one of the problems w open sights is the poor design of most that come on factory rifles. I haven't seen a decent post type front sight on a factory rifle manufactured in the past 40 years and most of the bead type sights are way too fine.