Rifle scope in place of a spotting scope?

[slim9300]

You are advocating using a riflescope to identify whether what you're aiming at is in fact legal to shoot and I'm insane? You need help. And I'd venture to guess I've taken far more animals than most on here BTW.

No. I have already identified it’s an animal and what species. I don’t have a moral dilemma putting my scope on a doe I can’t shot. I 100% know it’s not a human. There is no law against it and most would say it’s not immoral. I don’t fear accidentally killing an animal I have already identified minus the inches of antler on it’s head.

If a brown bear was charging you at 100 yards and you didn’t know if you were going to have to shoot it in self defense, or it would stop its charge on its own, would it be okay to put your rifle/pistol on it just in case? Or is that wrong too since charging you at 100 yards doesn’t give you the right to kill it, nor do you have the tag? It seems FAR more likely to make a mistake in this situation don’t you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

This has been an entertaining read - to those of you who think its bad to judge an animal in the scope for fear of accidently pointing the rifle at somebody...get a life. You telling me if you were getting set up on a bull elk with your rifle, and you buddy finds another bull in his binos that might be bigger, you aren’t going to swing your scope over to that elk and give it a look through your scope? Get real guys...

In places like Idaho where there is no orange requirement and half the hunters are camoed up like they are bow hunting, who is to say there isn’t some dude hiding in the bushes in the animal’s general vicinity?

If hunters aren’t wearing orange and are getting pissed at people shooting animals in their general vicinity, thats on them.

And yet, people will go emotional instead of logical, not read this nor understand it.

 

[slim9300]

Only an ignorant, unsafe, dumbassss uses a scope in this manner on purpose. And......I've culled more big game animals than this slimclown has ever shot at.

So you have a bull standing in the middle of a herd of cows, or a buck standing in a group of does. Is it okay to have those non-legal animals in your scope for a brief second, or are you watching with your binos for them to clear 100%? If you are waiting, how far away from you bull or buck do they have to be?

Can you make a shot on a buck or bull if you can see a doe or cow in the outer FOV of your scope? This seems counter to what you are standing for, so I’m guessing that’s a no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amo16]

No. I have already identified it’s an animal and what species. I don’t have a moral dilemma putting my scope on a doe I can’t shot. I 100% know it’s not a human. There is no law against it and most would say it’s not immoral. I don’t fear accidentally killing an animal I have already identified minus the inches of antler on it’s head.

If a brown bear was charging you at 100 yards and you didn’t know if you were going to have to shoot it in self defense, or it would stop its charge on its own, would it be okay to put your rifle/pistol on it just in case? Or is that wrong too since charging you at 100 yards doesn’t give you the right to kill it, nor do you have the tag? It seems FAR more likely to make a mistake in this situation don’t you agree?

If you're really going to try to equate a potential self defense situation to what is being discussed then you clearly are not worth having the conversation with. You continue aiming your rifle at animals you don't have tags for though. I, on the other hand, will continue to act ethically.

 

[JGRaider]

I use binocs and a spotter for determining what I want to kill, after that my scope for acquiring the target an killing it. It isn't that hard.

 

[JGRaider]

And yet, people will go emotional instead of logical, not read this nor understand it.

Yes, and if the OP was actually read and understood in the first place, these hypothetical hunting situations would prove to have nothing to do with the original intent in the OP which was using your rifle scope instead of a spotting scope, which is always a stupid idea no matter what.

 

[slim9300]

If you're really going to try to equate a potential self defense situation to what is being discussed then you clearly are not worth having the conversation with. You continue aiming your rifle at animals you don't have tags for though. I, on the other hand, will continue to act ethically.

I knew you would opt out of that one. What about this one Mr. Ethics?

So you have a bull standing in the middle of a herd of cows, or a buck standing in a group of does. Is it okay to have those non-legal animals in your scope for a brief second, or are you watching with your binos for them to clear 100%? If you are waiting, how far away from you bull or buck do they have to be?

Can you make a shot on a buck or bull if you can see a doe or cow in the outer FOV of your scope? This seems counter to what you are standing for, so I’m guessing that’s a no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[boom]

4-32x50 NX8 is a better option with the low end power and FOV in my opinion. I tried the 5-40x56 March but the NX8 is better.

I think what you are asking is more than fair. You don’t put your rifle scope on something unless you identify that it’s an animal you have a tag for with your binos. I run 8.5x42 EL’s and I can clearly identify deer at 1-5 miles away on a tripod. The biggest sacrifice will be low light identification/clarity with the rifle scope on high power. You may have to give up a shot at a legal buck that a spotter would be able to identify. Thus you could make the shot on 10-15x with the rifle scope but not the higher powers.

I have thought about what you are suggesting for spring bear, but I really want the shot on video for anything past 500 yards to ensure the shot placement. I currently own the Kowa TSN-553, so that’s another option. The little scope weighs as much as a rifle scope but out performs them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

great point.

but the rifle is still aimed at something you may not want to take. I've been scoped many times. it is not a very good feeling. I don't mind carrying a spotting scope and most of you all would hike me into the dirt.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yes, and if the OP was actually read and understood in the first place, these hypothetical hunting situations would prove to have nothing to do with the original intent in the OP which was using your rifle scope instead of a spotting scope, which is always a stupid idea no matter what.

It wouldn’t take long to find out what I think about using a scope to spot animals, but I also have to be intellectually honest.

It’s the internet, you kind of have to take people and what they say at face value. If a dude says he doesn’t ever use a scope to spot on animal or scan, well then ok. If someone has positively identified a buck/bull and is aiming at it, and another animal walks into the field of view- there is nothing unsafe or unethical about turning the scopes power up to compare the animals. Everyone does and would do that. To say otherwise is silly. This is why people break “firearms safety rules” constantly, including people that scream “SAFETY”.

 

[amo16]

I knew you would opt out of that one. What about this one Mr. Ethics?

Nobody said taking an animal while another one is in your sight picture is unethical. Deliberately aiming a gun at something you don't know is legal is. Keep trying to find technicalities for why you can violate basic firearm safety rules that a 12 year old understands. It says everything I need to know about you.

 

[slim9300]

Nobody said taking an animal while another one is in your sight picture is unethical. Deliberately aiming a gun at something you don't know is legal is. Keep trying to find technicalities for why you can violate basic firearm safety rules that a 12 year old understands. It says everything I need to know about you.

You have the mental flexibility of a child. How many bucks have you shot out of groups of does? Your scope does not magically fall on a buck or the right buck for that matter, just because you identified it in advance as a shooter. You put deer in your scope (many that you can’t legally shoot) until you find the correct one.

I’m trying to understand why you can ethically look though your scope at a doe (I.E. aim at it) once you’ve confirmed there’s something you want to shoot in the group, but not unless that has happened? You are still aiming at something you don’t have a tag for and your motivation isn’t changing reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amo16]

You have the mental flexibility of a child. How many bucks have you shot out of groups of does? Your scope does not magically fall on a buck or the right buck for that matter, just because you identified it in advance as a shooter. You put deer in your scope (many that you can’t legally shoot) until you find the correct one.

I’m trying to understand why you can ethically look though your scope at a doe (I.E. aim at it) once you’ve confirmed there’s something you want to shoot in the group, but not unless that has happened? You are still aiming at something you don’t have a tag for and your motivation isn’t changing reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you have the reading comprehension of a child.

 

[slim9300]

And you have the reading comprehension of a child.

You keep virtue signaling and I’ll keep killing animals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amo16]

It takes some serious mental gymnastics to think not using your riflescope to identify game is virtue signaling. You keep doing you though.

 

[TheGDog]

Can you please point out where someone suggested doing that? Even in your own emotionally taxing story, your were fully concealed in a ghillie suit and they aimed at an animal that was legal... If I do everything possible to be unseen, I can’t get upset when an animal walks near me and someone shoots it.

Where did I say someone suggested doing that? Doesn't matter if somebody vocalized that thought or not. The point is to relate that story as a learning opportunity so that persons considering this scenario can be presented with data they perhaps would not have thought of or imagined on their own.. because life is just that unpredictable.

P.S. RE: Ghillie Suit - How many animals you know have Binoculars on a Tripod out in front of them? Hmm?

The big take-away here is... this is a dangerous situation that entirely cannot happen, if the person opts to NOT use a Rifle scope as a searching optic, and instead uses Binos or Spotter. Bottom-line. And yes... I acknowledge there is some risk in using concealment gear. That incident is why I now stuff an Orange hat sticking up from my pack sitting beside me on the ground, if I'm in an area like there were others being around is more possible.

EDIT: Long story shorter... trust me... you'll sing a different tune after it happens to you. That's all I'm saying.

 

[wyosam]

Where did I say someone suggested doing that? Doesn't matter if somebody vocalized that thought or not. The point is to relate that story as a learning opportunity so that persons considering this scenario can be presented with data they perhaps would not have thought of or imagined on their own.. because life is just that unpredictable.

P.S. RE: Ghillie Suit - How many animals you know have Binoculars on a Tripod out in front of them? Hmm?

The big take-away here is... this is a dangerous situation that entirely cannot happen, if the person opts to NOT use a Rifle scope as a searching optic, and instead uses Binos or Spotter. Bottom-line. And yes... I acknowledge there is some risk in using concealment gear. That incident is why I now stuff an Orange hat sticking up from my pack sitting beside me on the ground, if I'm in an area like there were others being around is more possible.

EDIT: Long story shorter... trust me... you'll sing a different tune after it happens to you. That's all I'm saying.

Didn’t you say they shot a legal deer right behind you? Could you actually tell the difference between a rifle aimed at you and one aimed at that animal? If I’m a 15 year old trying to find my first deer in the scope (not for assessment, for sight picture), I’m probably not going to pick out your binoculars or your tripod. Being within site of a road, while fully concealed, was a poor choice. Did anyone actually admit to seeing you in the scope? If you’re within road hunter shot distance, I wouldn’t count on a hat poking out the top of a pack to avoid it, either. Seems like a good spot for the bright orange coveralls.

**edit- I in no way condone using a riflescope as a spotter. I also recognize there are times when a non-target animal will be in my field of view, because animals often travel in groups. Am I assessing when it is safe to take the shot through the scope? Absolutely. Even if I’m watching through the spotter for a specific animal to separate a bit, I’m still making the final call through the scope, because things move between the spotter and the scope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheGDog]

Didn’t you say they shot a legal deer right behind you? Could you actually tell the difference between a rifle aimed at you and one aimed at that animal? If I’m a 15 year old trying to find my first deer in the scope (not for assessment, for sight picture), I’m probably not going to pick out your binoculars or your tripod. Being within site of a road, while fully concealed, was a poor choice. Did anyone actually admit to seeing you in the scope? If you’re within road hunter shot distance, I wouldn’t count on a hat poking out the top of a pack to avoid it, either. Seems like a good spot for the bright orange coveralls.

**edit- I in no way condone using a riflescope as a spotter. I also recognize there are times when a non-target animal will be in my field of view, because animals often travel in groups. Am I assessing when it is safe to take the shot through the scope? Absolutely. Even if I’m watching through the spotter for a specific animal to separate a bit, I’m still making the final call through the scope, because things move between the spotter and the scope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can appreciate the points you bring up re: location... and trust me, this wasn't my 1st preferred. But that particular year... these a**holes interestingly decided to pick the beginning of General Season... to close off access to the only road that goes into the other main location I've spent a lot of time on. I think it was for 10 days they had it closed off! The first two I still went into that other spot... I hd to park at a much farther back out trailhead... MTB down to the intended one... lock it up... then hike in... overnight it. Then back out at last light... then pushing the MTB for a couple miles uphill... then droning on some flat to my vehicle. Was freakin' brutal. So then... I went with a Plan B and C. The concealment gear just is what it is. The slope I was on, I felt for the success of the mission it was wise to employ it. (I did not have a hat on the pack, that is a habit I started doing AFTER this incident, BECAUSE of this incident)

But to more directly answer your question... no... that 15yo girl had a bead on on me for a significant amount of time. Certainly long enough to figure the heck out that I wasn't a freakin Deer, I'll say that! And there was a significant enough amount of time that lapse til when she then later shot at the deer. I do not at all begrudge her for attempting the shot at the deer. I'd do it too. I certainly am confident I can miss a human 20+ yds away from my point of aim. That part didn't rile me up as bad. My thing was... she had that damn bead on me WAY too freaking long. In that situation it should be nothing more than an "Oops!" and then immediately move it away.... but it was not. I can only guess she was intrigued by the concealment gear. Either way.. it was just way not cool.

 

[wyosam]

I can’t imagine taking a shot at an animal 20 yards away from a human I know is there. If that human is watching, I’m pretty sure it would look like I am aiming at them. Just because you know you’re not going to hit them, doesn’t make it right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TheGDog]

I can’t imagine taking a shot at an animal 20 yards away from a human I know is there. If that human is watching, I’m pretty sure it would look like I am aiming at them. Just because you know you’re not going to hit them, doesn’t make it right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I could tell the moment she changed her angle away from me. I was looking at her with Vortex Vultures 15x's at the time. And as you can imagine... I had a DANG LOT of leftover Adrenaline even after she turned away. Woo boy had soo much adrenaline going, Man!

But yes... by naked eye you wouldn't be able to tell.

I'll say this, it was an area of more open Chaparral up on the flat area just back behind the slope I was on. There weren't any hard trees or stones to cause ricochets. So I can look at the situation... now... and see that taking the shot was ok. Like I said... I was on a slope, the deer was on the flat back and above me. So I do not think it would have been possible for a ricochet to hit. Indeed... it's not like I knew that at the time, for sure. But I can admit now the part of her taking the shot is sorta ok.

Main point I wanted to convey is that once you've experienced somebody doing this... to you... and the freakin' intense panic it induces.... you would never do that to somebody else (unless they did you wrong or something, hehe). That was all I wanted to convey to the OP there. Just how freakin' scary and uncool that was to be on the receiving end of it. Ugh... tenses me out just reliving the memory! Imagine it... seeing a YOUNG Teenager pointing their isht directly at you! Woo...Eesh!

 

[Antares]

I'm all about strict, rigorous firearm safety, but some of you are being awful rigid in your interpretations of what constitutes unsafe firearm handling. I'm just going to paraphrase and poke at a few things I've read:

"Never aim at anything you don't intend to destroy."

So where does that leave us with dryfire exercise? I've got a little magnet on my upright freezer that I've dryfired on a few thousand times...I certainly never intended to destroy the freezer. How about "Never aim at anything you're not willing to destroy"? That makes more sense to me.

"It's unethical to aim at an animal you've determined isn't legal."

I don't know about this one. Hunting is about being in the field, finding animals, predicting their behavior, and making good, clean shots. For example, say I bump a doe and she trots off across a slope. I give her a little grunt, she stops to look back, quartering away at 175 yards... I probably have the crosshairs behind her shoulder just to see if I would've been able to make a good shot had it been a nice buck. This is just a good way of building experience and/or having fun during a slow day of hunting.

"I don't get behind the rifle until I've decided I'm going to take the shot."

This mentality doesn't even seem rooted in reality. Often the most ethical thing you can do is to decide not to take the shot after you've gotten behind the rifle. I need to get on the gun and see what everything looks like, often for many minutes, before I know whether or not I like the shot. Am I a shaky mess because I just blasted up a big slope to get in position? Is the animal in a good orientation? Do I have a good shooting position? Do I have sweat and sunblock in my eyes? Is the sun right in my scope? Am I shivering because I'm cold? Is there grass in front of my muzzle? The intangible, does it "feel" right factor? I have to get on the gun to figure most of that out. Sometime I dryfire on the animal a few times before I decide I like the shot. This is unethical?