Thread: Rifle and Optics Snobs

My main rifle is the same rifle I first purchased that came with the free back country scope that had a bubble in it a few months after purchase. She's has had some body work done to get her where she is today and now sits in an mdt chassis. I just love shooting for the fun of it and will equally be happy shooting with the rust pitted .22 I was taught firearm safety with or my now overpriced chassis rifle.

Definitely an element of wasted money if you look at it with a glass half empty approach so just change your perspective and have fun

Snobbery, or just plain stupidity, is the guy who owns a cupboard full of expensive rifles/guns because he can, boasts to his mates about what they are and what glass he's got on them, and of course what they cost. He's the guy who goes on a hunting trip with his mates once or twice a year and is always in a quandary about which rifle to take. Usually has all the best gear that always looks new, because it is.
Believe me, they're about.

What snobbery isn't, is old buggers like me with a lot of money invested in gear that has been accumulated over the years. Gets used most weeks, gets knocked around now and again, but looked after and still looks new

Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst

I like functional stuff that does a job well. Ive been guilty of spending stupid amounts of money on stuff also just because I thought it was cool or others would think it was cool but I think I'm past that now and see things for what they are, couldn't live without my swaro binos but that's because they actually do their job better than anything else I've ever picked up, I appreciate them and the hard work I've done to be able to buy the odd nice thing here and there. I like good glass, currently have swaro and Zeiss scopes but again, they do their job very well. There are levels to it though, had a Z8 for a while, very nice, didn't shoot any more deer because of it though, in fact I think I've shot more deer in the past 6 months with my little Forbes 243 and swaro Z3 (now has Zeiss Diavari 3-9 on it) than I shot with all the super flash rigs I've had put together. Is the Forbes a refined "snobs" rifle? Not by a long stretch, in fact the action is rough as hell, but its light, and I like light rifles, and it's accurate, and I certainly like accurate rifles. Is the little Zeiss scope "snob material" other than the name on it? Nope, again it's simple as, I bought it second hand off here for $600, but it has nice glass and does it's job perfect, and it's something I feel I can trust.
I think if something makes you feel good then go for it. I have been guilty of sniggering behind my breath at the cliche guys lined up waiting for the chopper before a tahr ballot decked out head to toe in Kuiu and flexing their Hardy hybrid with a nightforce on it that looks like those old photos of the space shuttle humping a 747 but at the end of the day that shit probably makes them feel good so go them.
The definition of snob really lays in the attitude of the person brandishing the so called fancy gear. I cant stand the types that have an attitude towards others who may not have the latest and greatest. The "best" hunter I know is not a rich man by any stretch of the imagination but he is time rich and spends a lot of time with his Savage axis 223 and his Leupold vx1 and Leupold cascades, all of which he's had since I've known him and doesn't seem to want for anything else but he knows his gear well and has developed his hunting around it and would out-hunt (is that even a term?) most of the kuiu clad Hardy hybrid crew.
Do what you want I say, the important thing is to just get amongst it.

@Ryan_Songhurst

Point taken but do you ever miss that awesome magnification range of the z8i 1.7-13.3 you had? There is nothing else quite like it that I've seen, good for up real close and at long distance. VX6HD 2-12 is somewhat close in magnification range but doesn't have the side focus.

My gear is far too good for me to lower myself to contributing to this thread.

This thread reminds me of the Kris Kristoferson song, Jesus was a Capricorn... Everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on!

Originally Posted by LMcNab

My gear is far too good for me to lower myself to contributing to this thread.

Tha only problem is you just did ha ha

Originally Posted by MB

Outside of the roar, I wonder how much public land hunting is actually done in the bush versus long range shooting on clearings. Social media would indicate more of the latter. Whether that's reality or not, I don't know, maybe the long distance stuff is just easier to film!?

To shoot film in open country, long distance shots will require heavy lens for quality pictures, bigger and heavier than my Canon 70-200mm F2.8 lens. But in bush or say forest, small background, with Sony x80s or Alpha, Gopro mounted on shoulder height, plus one drone, two people work together can make a good story telling movie. Just, the post production work is a time consuming job, and will need a fast computer to process, intel i7, 16g ram etc....But the entire thing is quite interesting.

The lens quality matters less at long distances because the mirage fcuks the picture up anyway. A decent megazoom non-DSLR will do the trick. You don't need a big aperture lens for that kind of shooting either, and it doesn't need super fast focus with spot on tracking so a 150-600mm Sigma or Tamron will be fine for a DSLR. Especially handy to use a body with 1.6x crop factor, so your effective focal length is 960mm at max. Add a 1.4 converter and you will need a very serious tripod! A drone is useful but DOC require a permit, especially if you monetise your footage - ie put it on YouTube.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

What you described is not quite "snobbery". More like "uninformed".

But one may say that insistence on shooting very long distances using under-powered scopes is also a form of snobbery

A 308 drops 3.2 meters at 600 meters. it requires 18.3 MOA or 5.3 Mil of adjustments. It is simply impossible to get that reliably on first short without a scope that has either reliable (and easy) dialing or accurate reticle marking. I hear people on the forum say they once shot a deer with a 3-9 or 4x fixed duplex no dial scope at 600 metres. I am sure it can be done but it definitely cannot be done consistently and reliably.

The most expensive part of hunting is time to do it. It is cheaper to spend 1K on an OK scope that get land you the hit at 600m than to waste the one trip of the year and miss that shot. To boast being able to afford to miss such shots is a much bigger flex.

What I was referring to is not so much the matter of a new hunter buying a high magnification scope; more so that the idea that shooting a deer at 600m is easy pie because they have seen it on TV or read about how gun hunters do it. Of course a scope with ample magnification and good optics is going to be a huge advantage. However, it takes a lot of experiences to consistently hit your deer, tahr, goat along range. You've got wind to deal with quite often too. Not to say that a new hunter may well be a natural hot shot but I've seen more than a few newbies that can't even hit a deer at 100m or less lying down.

Personally, I haven't bothered shooting anything over 300m for years because I'm too old and unfit to go and retrieve a deer across some huge gully or similar.
.

Originally Posted by flock

Simple life philosophy, as you get older, own less but own better stuff

Good philosophy. Trouble is I own better quality now but I buy too much of it.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

What you described is not quite "snobbery". More like "uninformed".

But one may say that insistence on shooting very long distances using under-powered scopes is also a form of snobbery

A 308 drops 3.2 meters at 600 meters. it requires 18.3 MOA or 5.3 Mil of adjustments. It is simply impossible to get that reliably on first short without a scope that has either reliable (and easy) dialing or accurate reticle marking. I hear people on the forum say they once shot a deer with a 3-9 or 4x fixed duplex no dial scope at 600 metres. I am sure it can be done but it definitely cannot be done consistently and reliably.

The most expensive part of hunting is time to do it. It is cheaper to spend 1K on an OK scope that get land you the hit at 600m than to waste the one trip of the year and miss that shot. To boast being able to afford to miss such shots is a much bigger flex.

As a person who hunts normally with either a fixed 4x or a 3x9 with duplex....... I simply DO NOT shoot past 350 yards...the last deer was shot at 50-60 yards...the one before that was 150ish...last pig was 80ish... I can count on one hand with fingers to spare the amount of times Ive either shot or shot AT deer past 300 yards.... the last 3 times were all sucessful....

its like hunting with a .222 or .223 you simply HAVE TO BE PREPARED to let animal walk away if shot isnt presenting itself rightly.... 100% spot on chance of good clean kill......
get as close as you can son,then 5 yards closer....shoot them anywhere in the eye son,anywhere in the eye.....

Good gear is nice, and you don't appreciate it inless you start at the bottom.
Poor students, with hugh loans they moan about driving late model Audis etc --- start at the top and you don't respect it.
Love to let them drive a Austin Cambridge to see what I'm talking about.
Using Cars as an example but applies to all things.
Wife says --- I'm just a silly jealous old fart, take that as a complement.

Questions to ask...

1. How expensive must one go for "good enough"?

2. At what cost level does "diminishing returns" set in?

3. Are these the right questions?

Originally Posted by flock

Good gear is nice, and you don't appreciate it inless you start at the bottom.
Poor students, with hugh loans they moan about driving late model Audis etc --- start at the top and you don't respect it.
Love to let them drive a Austin Cambridge to see what I'm talking about.
Using Cars as an example but applies to all things.
Wife says --- I'm just a silly jealous old fart, take that as a complement.

Not an Austin Cambridge!!

Originally Posted by Cordite

Questions to ask...

1. How expensive must one go for "good enough"?

2. At what cost level does "diminishing returns" set in?

3. Are these the right questions?

Answers
1. Only you can answer that as its actually " good enough for YOUR purposes
2. See above
3. See above

In my job I often see people spend an absolute fortune on the stuff that makes it Look like they have all the good gear but cheap out on the bits that actually matter because they are not all shiny and wizzy looking. They also tend to be unwilling to listen to advice given freely.
Its more about being seen with the "right gear" rather than having the actual right gear.

All that said I have no problem buying the best gear I can afford provided it will last and do the job..............