Are we on the wrong 'No.1" criteria when scope buying?

how many rabbits do you gut shoot,to crawl away to die at 700 yards??? you will be getting zero expansion with 6.5 projectile hitting that little resistance.....no different to 30/30 at 50 yards so YES I do know what Im saying is correct.chest/shoulder/head or spine will be instant humain death,anywhere else,guts,legs will be slow and lingering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

how many rabbits do you gut shoot,to crawl away to die at 700 yards??? you will be getting zero expansion with 6.5 projectile hitting that little resistance.....no different to 30/30 at 50 yards so YES I do know what Im saying is correct.chest/shoulder/head or spine will be instant humain death,anywhere else,guts,legs will be slow and lingering.

---

Dude I still don't understand your posts...they don't make sense to me. Must be a 'personal' thing aye MD??
So....alright then...if you still don't bloke me....you win.
I will bloke you....so have a good night.

block...perchance???? whats not to understand??? what you saying you are doing is likely to lead to wounded animals....
nothing BLOKE like going on here. have a good life.

45/70 ... Pistol green dot ... 100 mtrs max no dialing obviously .

Short barrel 308 bushpig .... If I know there may be open areas out to 250 mtrs max will carry range finder , may or may not use it as I'm crap at estimating distance , again may dial simply for peace of mind if distance far enough that I ranged .

338 Lapua Maggie .... Only used when I know area open and will require long distance shot . Always range and dial .

All my rifles are taken to the range semi regularly to check zero and 338 always taken out to longer ranges to check dialling accurate .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flyblown

I think we all understand Nightforce hardiness in the field. Unfortunately for many of us it is an unaffordable luxury way outside what we’d pay for a rifle, scope and accessories combined. For me that doesn’t seem to affect the amount of animals I shoot. I do well with cheapish gear.

Nightforce scopes are undeniably tough, but they are not infallible, nor is any brand. Shit happens.

What is an unacceptable risk for me is Nightforce’s limited liability warranty. Like most premium manufacturers, they will not cover accidental damage. Considering how they market their product as being the toughest, and how much they cost, you think they’d be there for you if the unthinkable happened. But they’re not. And to me, the thought of $4000+ being at risk to something as simple as being dropped, that’s untenable.

I get what you’re saying about the hunt of a lifetime and so on and so forth. But most of us are hunting reasonably regularly, and not on a hunt of a lifetime, and consequently if there is a gear failure there is always the next time to make up for it. Like I say, shit happens.

What happened in the NZ Hunter episode was incredibly unfortunate and I think it was admirable that Greg manned up and showed the episode warts and all. Especially considering what he told us directly on this forum about the rifle having been dropped and no one owning up to it, which is really uncool. But what none of us could ever possibly know, is whether a Nightforce scope would have survived that incident unscathed. We just don’t know. Probably, possibly, maybe not. We don’t know and never will.

Shit happens!

---

Good Points Flyblown. What I cant understand regarding scope (and rifle) use is why no one adds any protection. All scopes would be a lot more impact resistant with another four or five hundred grams of Ali added to the scope tube like a Night force or S&B. Shave that weight off them and they are likely no better than anything else
We put a helmet on our noggin and a Bullbar on our utes when the going gets rough but dont do much to protect scopes.
I have a Z5 swaro, I dont want to knock it around so I have a double thickness of Pushbike tube over the objective and back to the Turrets. Then I have a shaped flap of car tube rubber cable tied over the Turrets, draped from the front. Protects it very well from knocks and snagging, who cares about appearance, I am not a 'look at my gear person'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

ok so here is my IDEAL SCOPE...... magnification either fixed 4x or something like 2-7
large rear eye box..never realized how important this was till had 3 M8 4x scopes and compared them...the oldest,longest,biggest,heaviest is far and away the best.
doest shift poi over time or usage.....my leupolds hold zero period.....I dont dial so this is more important than ease of dialing....1/2" Vs 1/4" per click irrelevant IF you remember which it is.
good Xhairs....KISS principle here....duplex or post n rail that stops as rail....do like the circle around inner hairs found on some,or two dots on lower hair...no more than that much clutter.
FIELD OF VIEW...for a bush hobbit this is paramount....the four pigs I shot in under 10 seconds last week proove this out.at the 50 yards range ,I NEEDED quick target acquisition,EG you cant shoot what isnt in scope ,had mates with flash top end scopes who couldnt find deer in the tight bush in scope or track hopping wallaby as field of view was just too narrow.

bullet/knock/fog/shock/ME proof would be absolutely perfect but leupolds lifetime guarantee takes care of that...FOR ME.

---

I wager @Micky Duck that if you were to try one of those 1.5 - 9 x 45 Deltas, you would be converted. The reticle is really really fast 'target acquired'

Here's a tracking test with a $300 Leapers scope.
This scope has all the features: dialling, parallax, SFP mil dot reticle (calibratd at 10x), illumination, rated for spring airguns.

The scope on a JW15 Norinco 22 :
Attachment 172939

Here's a tracking test target:
Attachment 172938


Here's calculations showing the percent error (adjustment factor needed):
Attachment 172937

and just for good measure a test at different magnifications:
Attachment 172936


Photos reposted from an earlier thread, now I've paid ransom to Photobucket.
Can't complain - they hosted them free for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I wager @Micky Duck that if you were to try one of those 1.5 - 9 x 45 Deltas, you would be converted. The reticle is really really fast 'target acquired'

---

I reckon you would be right....but my budget doest stretch that far so will "make do" with my loopies LOL.

Yeah I like to see tracking tests like this....more than the 'sun going down' optics tests.

But then I'm into the long-range shooting... the precision, the great mechanical tracking accuracy of the scope.

Depends if you are a MPBR sort of hunter (so glass optics clarity is your #1 criteria and dialing accuracy just doesn't matter).
Or a dialing of turrets sort of hunter (whereas dialing accuracy is your #1 criteria followed by the glass carity)

Just to play devils advocate for a minute.

The adjustments accuracy are kind of irrelevant once drop is validated.

And you dont need to dial if you cant see what you are aiming at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Just to play devils advocate for a minute.

The adjustments accuracy are kind of irrelevant once drop is validated.

And you dont need to dial if you cant see what you are aiming at.

---

I have asked the same question of the ones that know.
Apparently so.

Sent from my SM-A025F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermitage

Yeah I like to see tracking tests like this....more than the 'sun going down' optics tests.

But then I'm into the long-range shooting... the precision, the great mechanical tracking accuracy of the scope.

Depends if you are a MPBR sort of hunter (so glass optics clarity is your #1 criteria and dialing accuracy just doesn't matter).
Or a dialing of turrets sort of hunter (whereas dialing accuracy is your #1 criteria followed by the glass carity)

---

I think problems tend to arise when we mix those two categories up, and we expect one scope to do it all.

'Featherlight' and 'reliable tracking/drop proof' don't go together in the same sentence. It's the same as wanting to build a 'long range precision rifle', but then trying to make it as light as possible. You'll just end up working against yourself.

In the event you wanted to put together a carry rifle for shooting out to 300m max, and you're not willing to mount a boat anchor of a scope on it (Nightforce and the likes), there are ways of working around the reduced durability of a lighter scope.

1) A straight tubed/low magnification scope can be chosen. These can be mounted very low, and the width of the objective lens won't exceed the width of the rifle. If you were to drop your rifle, there's less chance of a straight tubed scope getting damaged, versus a 30,40,50mm objective scope where the objective bell hangs out to either side.

Some good models to look into are: Kahles Helia 5 1-5x24....Leupold VX3HD 1.5-5x20...Leupold M8 4x or the newer FXII 2.5x Fixed power...Swarovski Z6i 1-6x24...

I've owned several of the 1-8x varieties. Aside from the extra weight (500gr<) the exit pupils get rather small at 7 & 8x, and the image gets too dim and eye placement isn't all that great. With the low power variables, 1-5 or 1-6x will do the trick, and the scope will be lighter and less bulky to boot (which is kinda the whole point to begin with).

2) You can do as @Moa Hunter suggested and wrap foam or inner tubing around your scope to give it some padding. I haven't tried this, but it might be worth a shot.


I had a chat with someone about this today. You can't have everything. It's important to define what it is you're trying to achieve and select the appropriate tool for the job. If long-range precision is what you're after, you're going to have to carry a heavy rifle and a heavy scope. If you've got to carry it over long distances, you better hit the gym.

Alternatively, you can just stalk in closer, which means you can get away with a lighter rifle and a lighter scope.

As for rangefinders - they can be handy for determining if an animal is within MPBR. Owning a rangefinder doesn't necessarily mean you've got to shoot long-range/start dialing, nor does it automatically turn you into a long-range shooter. Range estimation (and double checking with the RF) can be a fun way to pass time, or determining how far certain landmarks are from an animal.

There is actually no need to shoot live ammo or be at a range in order to test a scopes tracking. I ordered a few bits and pieces to let me test tracking at home. will start giving it a go once they arrive. All you need is about 25 meters of open space and a second scope. This should mean that anyone can do it at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

There is actually no need to shoot live ammo or be at a range in order to test a scopes tracking. I ordered a few bits and pieces to let me test tracking at home. will start giving it a go once they arrive. All you need is about 25 meters of open space and a second scope. This should mean that anyone can do it at home.

---

Just guessing here... but are you going to mount both scopes rigidly together so one is reference and one is test? If so, how are you planning to account for parallax in either scope at only 25m?

I have watched a few vids re parallax and it would seem , at shorter ranges , unless you are trying to shave the eyebrows off a fly it doesn't really amount to a huge difference .
There's several good videos on YouTube covering this from several scope manufacturers inc loopy . There's also plenty of vids with tracking tests for specific scopes . There's one guy , cyclops I think he calls himself , who does nothing but scope testing vids covering tracking specifically .