Best hunting long range scope

[KurtR]

I don't mean to be too direct either, but your reading comprehension is questionable.

Large sight picture and no guess work with hold over.

Take a 3x9 BDC reticle that maxes out at 600 yds and then come talk to me how easy that 750 yd shot is with holdover. Then take that same shot with 16x magnification dialed in to be dead on at 750 yds and then compare to thenother scope and come talk to me how cake walk that shot was.

By the way, you only get one chance to put that bullet into a 12" circle...

dont you have a larger sight picture on the lower power? Could you not just sight it in farther to have a farther range to hold over with?

 

[roadrunner]

Unless you are still using scopes from the 1980 or use junk scopes most are finger adjustable when you remove the cap. Your really showing your lack of knowledge here .

Sorry, not all scopes post 1980 have "finger adjustable" turrets. Sorry, not all scopes without "finger adjustable" turrets are junk scopes.

The point is, people with scopes like that typically don't adjust each time they shoot.

How does the adjustment change, with turrets not made for dialing to yardage, from 200 yds to 400 yds? I have my doubts that 1 "click" is 1/4" at 100 yds applying the same at 200 and then suddely at 400 if the animal runs and then stops. The avg hunter/shooter will mess that up more times than not. Adjustable turrets made for that purpose take the error out.

Lack of knowledge? Hardly.

 

[roadrunner]

dont you have a larger sight picture on the lower power? Could you not just sight it in farther to have a farther range to hold over with?

Larger FOV for lower power settings.
Larger sight picture at higher power settings.

Magnified would've been a better word to use.

Sure, you could set zero at a farther distance. Hold over isn't linear and adjustable turrets for that purpose aren't either.

 

[JohnJohnson]

How does the adjustment change, with turrets not made for dialing to yardage, from 200 yds to 400 yds? I have my doubts that 1 "click" is 1/4" at 100 yds applying the same at 200 and then suddely at 400 if the animal runs and then stops.

Lack of knowledge? Hardly.

I don't think you understand how angular units work. Or how modern scope turrets are marked either. They are not marked for yardage or inches. I guess we should start with, do you know what MOA is?

 

[MuleyFever]

.

 

[wind gypsy]

For a lightweight scope not shooting beyond 600 yards, my vote is SWFA 3-9 or NXS 2.5-10. I prefer shooting targets with something with a little more magnification like the LRHS/LRTS line or the new maven 2.5-15x but you're looking at 6+ additional ounces to do that.

 

[SDHNTR]

I hunted 4 states last year (Arizona, California, Wyoming, and Minnesota). 3 out of those 4 I was either hunting mule deer or was in mule deer country for significant amount of time between scouting, backpacking, and actual hunting.

All 3 of those states had incredible deer numbers in the areas I hunted. Was especially surprised with the number of bucks, and deer in general, that I saw in Wyoming this September.

Please understand that is an exception. Especially Wyoming.

I guess ultimately my point is that if it comes down to it, I’d much rather face equipment restrictions than tag cuts.

 

[roadrunner]

I don't think

Now we're getting somewhere...

They are not marked for yardage or inches.

Never said they were.

I guess we should start with, do you know what MOA is?

Yep.

 

[StupidLightweight]

For a lightweight scope not shooting beyond 600 yards, my vote is SWFA 3-9 or NXS 2.5-10. I prefer shooting targets with something with a little more magnification like the LRHS/LRTS line or the new maven 2.5-15x but you're looking at 6+ additional ounces to do that.

Thanks for getting this back on track. Some people just want to argue and then argue about arguing.

The lightest dialable scope in my arsenal is a discontinued Weaver Tactical 3-10x40. It's right at a pound I believe. I'll need to chop the windage turret and fashion a zero stop, but I think this should prove to be a serviceable option.

 

[KurtR]

Larger FOV for lower power settings.
Larger sight picture at higher power settings.

Magnified would've been a better word to use.

Sure, you could set zero at a farther distance. Hold over isn't linear and adjustable turrets for that purpose aren't either.

nothing that strelock wont show you with a couple entries

 

[JohnJohnson]

Now we're getting somewhere...



Never said they were.



Yep.

Well then those deer can count themselves lucky you haven't bought a modern scope that makes 750 yard shots easy on them, as you say.

 

[KurtR]

Please understand that is an exception. Especially Wyoming.

I guess ultimately my point is that if it comes down to it, I’d much rather face equipment restrictions than tag cuts.

how are they going to enforce it? They dont have enough people now to catch people doing illegal stuff then add stupid regulations like this on top of it what a waste of time and money

 

[SDHNTR]

how are they going to enforce it? They dont have enough people now to catch people doing illegal stuff then add stupid regulations like this on top of it what a waste of time and money

I disagree. I think most sportsmen are law abiding citizens and follow rules when they are imposed. And to the extent that it might need heavy-handed enforcement, it would be enforced the same way as any other equipment restriction that is currently in place in a multitude of manners. ie, CO ML rules, et al.

 

[roadrunner]

Well then those deer can count themselves lucky you haven't bought a modern scope that makes 750 yard shots easy on them, as you say.

Sorry. 4-16x50 doesn't necessarily mean modern, nor does 3-9x40 mean "ancient".

I simply asked a question followed up by a statement to the thread owner. Whether he, you, or anyone else agrees is a different matter.

Nowhere did I question the thread owner's understanding of LR shooting.

Try and keep up John...

 

[KurtR]

I disagree. I think most sportsmen are law abiding citizens and follow rules when they are imposed. And to the extent that it might need heavy-handed enforcement, it would be enforced the same way as any other equipment restriction that is currently in place in a multitude of manners. ie, CO ML rules, et al.

So how many animals are going to be saved if these restrictions are imposed? Is this just a feel good thing that really does nothing. Have harvest stats increased substantially in the last 10 years? How about this no laser range finders that would do more than scope restrictions. Maybe we set a max velocity of a bullet allowed to hunt. Hunters trying to regulate them selves out of hunting who needs peta.

 

[SDHNTR]

So how many animals are going to be saved if these restrictions are imposed? Is this just a feel good thing that really does nothing. Have harvest stats increased substantially in the last 10 years? How about this no laser range finders that would do more than scope restrictions. Maybe we set a max velocity of a bullet allowed to hunt. Hunters trying to regulate them selves out of hunting who needs peta.

Disagree. I don’t buy the slippery slope argument and think there is a sensible approach to all this. It’s why we have a legal system for all things in society. Unlimited technology in the hands of human beings will undoubtedly have negative repercussions.

As mentioned above, it’s on the radar of state agencies. I had a Game Warden stop
me a couple years ago, check my license, and we engaged in a friendly conversation. I was in a unit that formally had a great reputation for mule deer but has declined tremendously. I asked the Game Warden what he thought was to blame. He mentioned a lot of the usual suspects like predation, harsh winters, development, highways, etc., but the first thing out of his mouth was long range rifle hunting, so like it or not, the regulations are coming. And yes, there absolutely is data starting to show up illustrating that the average hunter is more lethal now. Otherwise Game agencies wouldn’t bother examining this. It’s not just to irritate people. I dislike needless and ineffective regulations as much as the next guy, but let’s face the facts, pick your poison, do you want the minor inconvenience of some additional rules? Or do you want less tags and even more difficult odds? One or the other is happening. I’ll take some equipment restrictions gladly. It has nothing to do with hunters going at one another. It’s just the application of logic.

 

[CorbLand]

So how many animals are going to be saved if these restrictions are imposed? Is this just a feel good thing that really does nothing. Have harvest stats increased substantially in the last 10 years? How about this no laser range finders that would do more than scope restrictions. Maybe we set a max velocity of a bullet allowed to hunt. Hunters trying to regulate them selves out of hunting who needs peta.

Success rates havent really risen in 10 years but those are only part of the story. We have the same success rates, with less people in the field and less time in the field. We are getting more efficient at killing. Statistically speaking the more people you have in the field and the longer they are there, the higher the success rate should be simply due to luck. In Utah, we have cut general season deer tags by ~75%, reduce season length by about the same and maintained similar success rates in the last 40-50 years.

As for regulating ourselves out of hunting, I dont disagree with you but if we dont make changes, we are going to reduce tags to levels that people cant hunt anymore either. Its really a double edged sword.

The honest truth of it is we are going to have to decide what we as hunters want. Do we want to hunt once every 10 years or do we want to be less effective at hunting?

 

[JohnJohnson]

Otherwise Game agencies wouldn’t bother examining this.

Do we have any proof they actually are examining this? What do the wildlife biologists think about it?

 

[KHNC]

I wouldn't kick a Mark 5 out of the sheets for eatin' crackers in bed ... They are very sexy scopes for some applications.

All that upper-end magnification isn't going to allow a lot of low light performance, though.

You have a lot of other choices for what I think you're trying to do.

Homie! Have you read the eval on the Mark 5 yet? If not, you will be shocked by the results of many top shelf optics and their repeated failures to hold zero, even just riding in the truck. Mark 5 being up there on the list for constant issues.

 

[SDHNTR]

Do we have any proof they actually are examining this? What do the wildlife biologists think about it?

I have had two employees (one a warden, and one a biologist) of two different western states personally tell me LR hunting, it’s impact, and potential regulations are being examined in great detail.