Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Iron vs. Glass

I am thinking about putting a Leupold 2 or 4x on my Ruger SBH .44 mag. I don't get enough practice to consistantly hit a pie plate at 100-150 yds with open sights. At 43 my eyes aren't what they used to be and they didn't start out very well, been wearing glasses since 6 yrs old. The lack of practice and bad eyes lead me to this, I don't want to wound an animal 'cause I was vain about my abilities and sight. I have never seen a single action with a scope. (Not that I recall.) Will it be ugly as could be?

Phil, every handgun I own carries glass. I, too, have glasses and failing eyes. I actually like scopes on hunting handguns as they help me shoot better, and they look cool. They do add weight and that is good and bad. Heavier to carry, but help lessen the felt recoil. I have a 2x leupold on my Redhawk .44 and have wacked a few deer and a hog with it, some shots I would not have taken with out the scope. My contenders all carry variable scopes and are all accurate long range deer and varmint guns. Shooting with scopes does take a little practice to get used to the field of view, but I feel they are a big asset to accurate shooting once you get the feel for it. Lonerider

The 2X leupold and a 44 mag go together like Elmer and 2400. The 4X has to narrow a field of view, and 2X is plenty for the range of the 44 mag. <P>As far as scoped single actions, they are definately out there. I'm debating putting a mount on my sbh to see what it'll do with a scope, but I just don't want to d&t the frame, and haven't gotten around to making some rings to clamp on the barrel.

Weaver makes a good no gunsmithing mount for the Super Blackhawk. Remove the rear sight and it screws into that hole, then a ring clamps around the barrel right in front of the frame. It might mar the barrel slightly if that is a factor.<P>I'm kind of ambivalent about scopes on handguns. I'm 48 and those front sights ain't quite as sharp as they used to be. You can sure aim more precisely with a scope. I've switched my Weaver mount and a Leupold 4X onto several Blackhawks to minimize shooter error when working up loads.<P>But they just make the things so top heavy and bulky. On a Contender they make perfect sense, even on a Super Redhawk - those things are anchors to start with. But on a packin' kind of gun? I dunno. JMHO, but if I need that kind of precision beyond about 50 yards or so, get a short barreled Marlin .44 or .45 and put a scope on it. Guess it depends on how you intend to use the handgun.<P>Oh yeah, if you go with a scope - get the 2x. The 4x is great for deliberate target work but too restrictive a FOV for field work.

You should investigate reddot sights. Unlimited eye relief. You just hold the pistol out in front of you so you can look through the sight and see your target. Then place the dot on the target and pull the trigger. Really fast target aquisition.

I especially like the Tasco optima 2000. It is really small. About the same size as my thumb and weighs 1-2 ounces. It does not overwhelm the pistol.

Now that Tasco has died it is available from E. Arthor Brown: Reddot

I've tried, boys, but I just can't get along with scopes on handguns. I've been wearing glasses for near-sightedness every not-asleep hour since 1940, and the front sights on short-barrel guns aren't as sharp as they used to be -- so I've gone to longer barrels (12 inches on several of my Taurus revolvers).

One of my Colorado buddies has a scope on every handgun he shoots. I tried 'em all -- couldn't hit anything until I went to my pick-up and got my Ruger Government Model .22 auto. Then I rang the gong at ?00 yards eight out of ten.

Bottom line -- don't assume that a scope will help you shoot better. It may. It may not. In my case, NOT. My conclusion is that if you can't shoot with iron, you probably won't shoot any better with glass. Spend your bucks on practice ammo, not on glass and mounts. And if you must have glass, go for 1x, not magnification.

Philnash, On this matter I find my self in somewhat a disagreement with Ken Howell his points of shooting a lot are dead on the mark, as is his comments on focal distance. But here I will say scopes do help if you learn to use them they are not the fixall for not practicing. I shoot with a scope on my long range guns I use iron on my single action cowboy guns and no sights at all on my concealed carry, actually the concealed gun has sights but I shoot it with out using them. A scoped hand gun is really not any eaiser to use than iron sights. The sight picture is different and holding it steady on higher magnification can be madning until you learn how. Simply put nothing beats practice with or with out a scope.

Bullwnkl.

I've played with them all. My eyes are still good for arm's lenth shooting, but for bench work, I find that wearing mild reading glasses helps my groups.
I don't like the red dot sights for hunting guns. They can't be left on as that runs down the batteries. I don't see the need for their night visability either. A 2X scope works just fine if you need to keep your groups really small, or your shooting is going down hill because you can't algin the sights perfectly.
None of my belt guns have them. I beleive a handgun should be compact, and easy to pack. All my guns have 4-5.5 inch barrels for that reason as well. For anything much over 50 yds., and an average closer to 25 yds., they work fine. If I need to reach further, I go for a rifle. E