SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
I might. Just graduated from iron sights about a year ago.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
New Scope Help!!!!
- Thread starter rdt270
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I might. Just graduated from iron sights about a year ago.
SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
Dave...
I didn't buy the .338 Savage for close in stuff (though I did take a doe at 265) in extended season on the property with it. My long term intent was New Mexico and mule deer. 265 is a no brainier, point and shoot. No drop no wind problem, nothing. Reminded me of target pistol shooting with a recoil.
Again, in my perspective, it's not a conveniently transportable firearm in the sense that I'd carry it all day without a tube of Ben-Gay for the evening...
I weighed the Vortex 4.5 on my postal scale and it says it weighs 22 ounces, 1pound 6. Add that to the rifle and it's getting seriously heavy.
It appears to me that all the what's termed 'tactical' scopes are heavy. I dislike that term. Sounds LEO like.
I guess those terms are about the public perception of what something is.
I own a couple AK's and invariably, every time someone sees one (I carry one in my farm tractor cab in the summer), it's instant sight recognition perpetuated by the firearm being splashed on the front page every time some degenerate holds up a liquor store, or a militant a'hole shoots up something.
In actuality, an AK is a very reliable fairly accurate firearm (considering the short barrel length and gas op action) plus the ability to shoot steel cased ammunition that's cheap is a plus. Great varmint gun and the design allows shooting from any position including from your hip if need be.
Going to have to contact Len about a lightweight rifle I guess. I'm having no luck finding the Savage 111 Lightweight Hunter in WSM. None to be found around these parts at least.
I didn't buy the .338 Savage for close in stuff (though I did take a doe at 265) in extended season on the property with it. My long term intent was New Mexico and mule deer. 265 is a no brainier, point and shoot. No drop no wind problem, nothing. Reminded me of target pistol shooting with a recoil.
Again, in my perspective, it's not a conveniently transportable firearm in the sense that I'd carry it all day without a tube of Ben-Gay for the evening...
I weighed the Vortex 4.5 on my postal scale and it says it weighs 22 ounces, 1pound 6. Add that to the rifle and it's getting seriously heavy.
It appears to me that all the what's termed 'tactical' scopes are heavy. I dislike that term. Sounds LEO like.
I guess those terms are about the public perception of what something is.
I own a couple AK's and invariably, every time someone sees one (I carry one in my farm tractor cab in the summer), it's instant sight recognition perpetuated by the firearm being splashed on the front page every time some degenerate holds up a liquor store, or a militant a'hole shoots up something.
In actuality, an AK is a very reliable fairly accurate firearm (considering the short barrel length and gas op action) plus the ability to shoot steel cased ammunition that's cheap is a plus. Great varmint gun and the design allows shooting from any position including from your hip if need be.
Going to have to contact Len about a lightweight rifle I guess. I'm having no luck finding the Savage 111 Lightweight Hunter in WSM. None to be found around these parts at least.
Hey Guys,
Back withya. Thanks for your replys. If I go with the PST how much of an improvement in glass if any will i see over the LightseekerXL? Does anybody on here like or dislike Pentax? Just trying not to pay twice as much for little or no improvement. Low light situations are tough with my current scope and reducing power for more light isnt any help. Eyes aren't as sharp and get tired quicker these days just trying to help'em out. I Like the retical and the options on PST but you gotta see it to shoot it. Weight isnt a big concern cause I dont do a bunch of hiking up and down mountains here in FL like some of you guys out west. Hadn't made up my mind on FFP or SFP yet but considering the FFP cause its a little less math to do on the fly (IMO).
Back withya. Thanks for your replys. If I go with the PST how much of an improvement in glass if any will i see over the LightseekerXL? Does anybody on here like or dislike Pentax? Just trying not to pay twice as much for little or no improvement. Low light situations are tough with my current scope and reducing power for more light isnt any help. Eyes aren't as sharp and get tired quicker these days just trying to help'em out. I Like the retical and the options on PST but you gotta see it to shoot it. Weight isnt a big concern cause I dont do a bunch of hiking up and down mountains here in FL like some of you guys out west. Hadn't made up my mind on FFP or SFP yet but considering the FFP cause its a little less math to do on the fly (IMO).
SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
Went and dug out the manual and you are right...of course with a caveat....
You can range at any magnification up to and including the highest magnification, you just exponentially increase the MOA or Radian Clicks to compensate for the less than highest magnification. No biggie so long as you keep the multiplier in mind.
Having said that, I got low grades in Geometry and Calculus. Spent most of my class time looking up the teachers skirt......
(it was worth the view)lightbulbThe highest magnification (in my case), 14x is a direct one to one on range in correlation with MOA clicks on the elevation turret, again no biggie because the magnification values direct split the range differentials.
FFP scopes direct range at all levels with a caveat again and that is the growth of the reticle lines in relationship to the viewed image (or so I'm told). I'll have to experience that first hand and I will, at some point.
Forgot to add...
One reason I bought the Viper PST was the magnification ring has rearward facing multiplier numbers on each magnification click stop so it's a matter of looking at the number and multiplying MOA clicks by that number, unlike my Leupy's than just have magnification numbers.
I need all the help I can get. Shouldn't been looking up the teachers skirt and paying more attention to the lesson.....
Still need to get it sighted in. I'm working too much lately.
Being a bouncer at a gentlemans club is a great job I might add. Lots of fringes......
Last edited:
bruce_ventura
Well-Known Member
rdt270 said:
Yep, your thread got hijacked. See another thread for more info on optical quality: http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/hawke-sidewinder-vs-vortex-viper-vs-falcon-menace-84839/
I'm not a fan of any of the scopes you mentioned - they're all below average in optical performance for their price point. I would put Pentax at the bottom, followed by Sightron and Vortex PST (about the same).
There are better options out there for optical performance, however.
SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
Bruce...
A bit of an interjection on my part...
It appears to me that 'optical clarity' is mostly of the opinion of the purchaser despite factual evidence. That. coupled with the vast array of brands and styles makes navigating the optics jungle complicated.
It's almost like a motor oil discussion. Numerous brands, all claiming to do a better job but in the end, oil selection is a personal preference, not usually based on factual evidence but personal choice and 'assumed' performance.
if I put the Viper and one of my Leuppolds on the table side by side and compare, outwardly, they look similar, so the biggest discernable difference is the price point..... and most of us predicate purchases on price versus performance.
Something to think about....
A bit of an interjection on my part...
It appears to me that 'optical clarity' is mostly of the opinion of the purchaser despite factual evidence. That. coupled with the vast array of brands and styles makes navigating the optics jungle complicated.
It's almost like a motor oil discussion. Numerous brands, all claiming to do a better job but in the end, oil selection is a personal preference, not usually based on factual evidence but personal choice and 'assumed' performance.
if I put the Viper and one of my Leuppolds on the table side by side and compare, outwardly, they look similar, so the biggest discernable difference is the price point..... and most of us predicate purchases on price versus performance.
Something to think about....
bruce_ventura
Well-Known Member
Daryl,
No arguments there. Lot's of folks need to experience something first hand to believe it.
Optical performance can be difficult to gauge first hand. Under many conditions of target contrast and illumination, scene illumination and terrain, differences in optical performance can be difficult to "see". In general, you need to know what to look for, or have speciallized test equipment. Because of my profession, I have both the knowledge and equipment.
For many shooters, atmospheric turbulence - and not the optical performance of the scope - will limit resolution and image contrast. Examples include target shooting, and varmint and predator hunting over flat terrain. Also, someone hunting from a tree stand who rarely makes a shot over 100 yds probably doesn't need good optical performance. Those folks should probably focus on features, rather than optical performance, when selecting a riflescope.
However, some hunters often find themselves in situations in which turbulence-induced image blur is low, target range is long, and target contrast and illumination conditions are poor. That's when optical performance matters. For the typical spot and stalk hunter who carries a rifle and a binocular in the field, his riflescope offers the highest resolution view of the target.
BTW, the OP asked about optical performance (twice).
No arguments there. Lot's of folks need to experience something first hand to believe it.
Optical performance can be difficult to gauge first hand. Under many conditions of target contrast and illumination, scene illumination and terrain, differences in optical performance can be difficult to "see". In general, you need to know what to look for, or have speciallized test equipment. Because of my profession, I have both the knowledge and equipment.
For many shooters, atmospheric turbulence - and not the optical performance of the scope - will limit resolution and image contrast. Examples include target shooting, and varmint and predator hunting over flat terrain. Also, someone hunting from a tree stand who rarely makes a shot over 100 yds probably doesn't need good optical performance. Those folks should probably focus on features, rather than optical performance, when selecting a riflescope.
However, some hunters often find themselves in situations in which turbulence-induced image blur is low, target range is long, and target contrast and illumination conditions are poor. That's when optical performance matters. For the typical spot and stalk hunter who carries a rifle and a binocular in the field, his riflescope offers the highest resolution view of the target.
BTW, the OP asked about optical performance (twice).
SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
Bruce... One of the guys I hunt with happens to be a dyed in the wool long range shooter and of course he hunts in our piney woods with me too. He's not adverse to close stuff, venison is venison whether it's 8 feet or 800 yards..... He's actually the one who has got me interested in this long range shooting, I never considered it until about 8 months ago....
As related to me by him as we sat down to a dinner of Elk steaks one evening..., On a recent elk hunt he had his trusty bino's and was looking for elk and didn't see any. The guide saw a bull at about 700 yards and he saw nothing. Took his guides Swaro's and viola, there was the bull. he has Swaro's now. I still have Bushy's....lol Thats a good case for high end optics.
I can see added expense down the road as this progresses. What works in our piney woods don't necessarily work long range. Like I've said before, I've always been an iron sight person with rifles. Scopes on handguns and target pistols but I was devout squinter with long guns....
Still need to bench the Savage and get the optic sighted in. Maybe this weekend......
As related to me by him as we sat down to a dinner of Elk steaks one evening..., On a recent elk hunt he had his trusty bino's and was looking for elk and didn't see any. The guide saw a bull at about 700 yards and he saw nothing. Took his guides Swaro's and viola, there was the bull. he has Swaro's now. I still have Bushy's....lol Thats a good case for high end optics.
I can see added expense down the road as this progresses. What works in our piney woods don't necessarily work long range. Like I've said before, I've always been an iron sight person with rifles. Scopes on handguns and target pistols but I was devout squinter with long guns....
Still need to bench the Savage and get the optic sighted in. Maybe this weekend......
pressman
Well-Known Member
Well one thing to consider you can take high quality optics and shoot at 100 yards and less. but you can not take poor optics and make consistent shots at 500+ yards. and if you plan on shooting long range at all you will need to test your loads and the true capability of your rifle. and if you can not see the target clearly and know you are holding precisely the same spot every shot. it will be hard to tell what you need to do . bullet work? or rifle work? my moto is buy cheap by twice buy true quality and just buy once. plus. if the event that you did need to resell it which one could you get most of your money back? I have a nightforce and 3 IOR scopes. would not trade them for anything. except a S&B. Now for the fact that you stated you are getting older. well having a quality built scope might allow an accidental drop with no problems. not sure i want to be dropping some of these cheap scopes now days. just a few points to point. out.
The gentlemen with the heavy 338? you do not need to carry that rifle around all day. just up the hill because you can shoot a mile in any direction. and anything under 1500 yards is not a big deal. just dial it and shoot it.
The gentlemen with the heavy 338? you do not need to carry that rifle around all day. just up the hill because you can shoot a mile in any direction. and anything under 1500 yards is not a big deal. just dial it and shoot it.
SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
At some point in time, I'll most likely own a Schmidt & bender too. Of course I want a Rolex Oyster Day-Date as well and an Audi Quattro......
On the .338, you might lug it atop that mountain but if there is nothing to shoot, you may lug it atop another mountain and once you do shoot something and it's way out there, you have to lug that tank with you to the kill. You don't leave your firearm behind....
There is a distinct advantage in a lighter gun and of course.....sharper recoil.
On the .338, you might lug it atop that mountain but if there is nothing to shoot, you may lug it atop another mountain and once you do shoot something and it's way out there, you have to lug that tank with you to the kill. You don't leave your firearm behind....
There is a distinct advantage in a lighter gun and of course.....sharper recoil.
bruce_ventura
Well-Known Member
Probably not. Resolution appears to be limited by atmospheric turbulence. In that case the view through most scopes will look nearly the same.
That scope is a 8-80x56mm March scope. The picture was taken at 80 power with a cell phone.
joseph
