Rifle scope in place of a spotting scope?

[wyosam]

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!

We’re going to have to agree to disagree that there is a situation where knowingly shooting at an animal 20 yards away from a human is remotely ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amo16]

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?

With all due respect I think that's a bad take. First, when practicing dry firing it is pretty much standard to do so with no ammunition anywhere in sight. Also, it is done in a controlled environment without the adrenine and constantly changing circumstances that happen while hunting. And while you may indeed point the firearm at something you aren't intending to destroy, you shouldn't be pointing it at something that you are not ok with destroying.

Second, the argument as laid out pertains to using a riflescope as an identification tool. It is virtually unavoidable to not point a rifle in the general direction of game you don't intend to take while trying to get on target of game you do intend to take. That is part of hunting. Using your scope to judge whether an animal is legal because you've chosen to deliberately leave a better means of doing so at home isn't. That's just unnecessarily adding risk to the equation.

 

[Antares]

And while you may indeed point the firearm at something you aren't intending to destroy, you shouldn't be pointing it at something that you are not ok with destroying.

How did you manage to read my post, decide it was a “bad take”, and then just reiterate what I said? Read the second paragraph again.

As for the rest, I don’t think there’s any harm in aiming at an animal you don’t intend to shoot and we can just agree to disagree on that.

 

[amo16]

How did you manage to read my post, decide it was a “bad take”, and then just reiterate what I said? Read the second paragraph again.

As for the rest, I don’t think there’s any harm in aiming at an animal you don’t intend to shoot and we can just agree to disagree on that.

I don't know where you think I reiterated anything you said, but I assure you you're mistaken. I think the differences I laid out about dry firing are pretty well laid out so I'll assume you're talking about aiming at animals you don't intend to shoot. At no point did I say it was a problem to aim at anything you don't intend to shoot. My point was very clear that you shouldn't aim at animals you aren't licensed to shoot. You're scenario in no way says you aren't licensed to shoot the doe that you chose to aim at. If your gun accidentally goes bang and the doe dies, well it's your tag you just wasted on something you don't want. I couldn't care less. If the same scenario happened and you weren't licensed for it, I hope you get the book thrown at you for being reckless.

 

[Antares]

At no point did I say it was a problem to aim at anything you don't intend to shoot. My point was very clear that you shouldn't aim at animals you aren't licensed to shoot.

Make it make sense.

I love that OP bailed out in this dumpster fire a month ago, he’s clearly smarter than me. Enjoy gents.

 

[amo16]

Make it make sense.

I love that OP bailed out in this dumpster fire a month ago, he’s clearly smarter than me. Enjoy gents.

I honestly can't figure out which part of that you're struggling to understand. It's pretty straight forward. It's even more clear when you read what was written in its entirety.

 

[slim9300]

I honestly can't figure out which part of that you're struggling to understand. It's pretty straight forward. It's even more clear when you read what was written in its entirety.

You missed your calling as a politician.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gutshotem]

I'm just here to confess that when treestand hunting whitetails, I often practice drawing my bow on deer that I have no intention of killing.

 

[slim9300]

I'm just here to confess that when treestand hunting whitetails, I often practice drawing my bow on deer that I have no intention of killing.

I do this with a bow and rifle (dry fire) all the time, but I’m a terrible person. I will admit to pinky checking the chamber about 3 times first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amo16]

You missed your calling as a politician.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you actually believe I haven't been explicit about my position on this, then that speaks volumes about your intelligence.