View Full Version : hunting accuracy

May 5, 2007, 10:45 AM
Am I the only one confused by the quest for a sub MOA hunting rig? It's not that if find a super accurate rifle objectionable. I just don't think that should be the first criteria for a medium to large game hunter. Ease of handling seems much more important to me. I feel similarly about optics. A 3-9x40 is more than adequate for almost all hunters and a 2-7 or a 4x fixed might be a better choice. Are we handicapping ourself by falling into trends perpetuated by manufactures and gun rags geared to positively affect their bottom line?

May 5, 2007, 10:52 AM
Are we handicapping ourself by falling into trends perpetuated by manufactures and gun rags geared to positively affect their bottom line?

Yes, absolutely we are (on the whole as hunters). You are exactly right. Cracks me up when I see guys buying 6-20x scope for a hunting gun. A 3-9 or 4-12 makes sense for hunting the open plains/fields, but I like a 2-7 for an all-purpose hunter, or a 1-4/1.5-5ish for hunting in the woods. Accuracy; yeah; having an accurate gun (i.e. one that is 2 MOA instead of 4-5 MOA) can actually help you when you make an unrested long shot when hunting, so that your shooter error is not ADDED TO the gun error (although potentially it can work in your favor, if you shoot 2" low and the gun is off 2" high, for example), but as far as needing a 1 MOA rig instead of 2 MOA in a rifle, it's gonna be a very rare circumstance when that would actually help you, for large game anyway (ungulates, etc.), where there's a fairly large kill zone. Now, I suppose that if your *thang* is to take spine shots, then I can see insisting upon a rifle that shoots 1 MOA, but you'd better do your part too (use a solid field rest, etc.).

Art Eatman
May 5, 2007, 12:05 PM
I dunno how many times I've talked about the first priority (after doing the cartridge selection thing) is that whatever rifle you get fits your body.

Then you can buy more than the fixed 4X that's "need", and get into the category of "want". :)

After you haul it home, you THEN start worrying about sub-MOA games.

Very, very few rifles, NIB, WON'T shoot somewhere near one MOA right from the git-go. 1.5 MOA, anyhow.

The most important shot for a hunter is the first shot from a cold barrel. The deal is that that particular bullet always goes to the same place, today, as it did last week. Group size is informative, but once you've discovered that, yeah, it shoots inside of 1.5 MOA, everything else is mostly for fun and "want to".

:), Art

May 5, 2007, 12:17 PM
Then you can buy more than the fixed 4X that's "need", and get into the category of "want".

Sometimes I think the "wants" run contrary to our "needs". A 6-18x50 scope can hurt our hunting performance in many ways, from the handling of the rifle for offhand shots to the reduced FOV and magnified hand tremors. A long action 26" varmint rig is not fun to still hunt with (speaking from experience).

May 5, 2007, 01:11 PM
My dad and I have used a 6x for 200+ yard one shot kills. I think it's a 6x50 or somthing. The magnification doesn't take up too much light but the scope collects light making up for what is lost.

May 5, 2007, 01:24 PM
The exit pupil on a 3X on a 40mm would be pretty close (and perhaps slightly larger) than 6x50. I'm not suggesting large optics and super accurate rifles do not have their place in hunting. Pdogs, Ghogs ect. need a special type of rifle. Medium class game and larger do not under most conditions.

I too hunt in low light (sometimes in a draw that tends to fog) so I understand the need for light gathering. A low magnification on a standard 40mm makes more sense to me than a high power scope with a larger objective. I really like the 2-7 x 32mm-36mm as the exit pupil will still be in the optimal range.

May 5, 2007, 02:12 PM
f66 ... could not agree more. I use a 30-06 HVA carbine (20" bbl)with a 3x Weaver. Easy carry, quick to pick up target, no dicking around wit power settings, etc. I'd be guessing to say how many animals I have taken with this or simialr rig. Tried MANY but come back to basics.

When I go to shoot ground squirrels at 300 yds plus I use a fixed power 10x. Have little use for variable power scopes or magnum rifles. Both are North American fetishes.

May 5, 2007, 06:28 PM
Ease of handling seems much more important to me.

It is important but, IMHO, not as important as reliability, and that goes for the gun (goes bang every time at the right time and doesn't jam), and the scope (stays on zero).

A 3-9x40 is more than adequate for almost all hunters and a 2-7 or a 4x fixed might be a better choice.

I like the 3-9x40 for the choices, but in the field I always seem to have it set a 4x or at 7x (depending on the terrain). It just don't use the other settings much.

Here's another Thread on the Topic. (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185542&highlight=practical+hunting+accuracy)

May 5, 2007, 06:42 PM
I get really tired of some benchrest shooters who think that you shouldn't hunt unless you shoot a hundred rounds every month into a quarter sized hole at 500 yards. While I do believe you should be able to make a humane shot on the game you are hunting at the distances you hunt this whole idea is ridiculous. Most of the shots I get at deer are between 40 and 100 yards. If I can take my 700 with open sights and put eight or ten shots into a 3 or 4 inch hole without a bench at 75 yards why would I need to shoot hundreds of rounds or buy the latest 12 power scope? If you feel the need for sniper accuracy that's fine with me but it's unfortunate that some bench shooters have such a "holier-than-thou" attitude when it comes to hunting and shooting. Not everyone has the time, money, or desire to get sub MOA accuracy out of their deer rifle and we should all respect each other's right to hunt as long as we do so ethically.

May 5, 2007, 07:05 PM
Not everyone has the time, money, or desire to get sub MOA accuracy out of their deer rifle

Not only that, 2af, but most can't shoot that well unless they are nice and relaxed and shooting from the bench at a paper target. Everything changes when you've gotta make a quick shot at a big deer from a not-so-gently-swaying-in-the-wind tree stand....

May 5, 2007, 07:17 PM
I don't get to go hunting enough to fill my need for rifle shooting. So I end up at the range shooting paper. All my hunting rifles are super accurate and I still experiment with my reloads to make them more accurate. If I bought a gun that was not accurate, I would sell it.

Not because it's necessary,but because its fun and rewarding.

A 6-18x50 scope can hurt our hunting performance in many ways, from the handling of the rifle for offhand shots to the reduced FOV and magnified hand tremors.

A 6-18 variable scope and a 6x fixed scope have exactly the same magnification,FOV, and hand tremors if the variable scope is set on 6x. It is not a bad thing have the ability to zoom in.

I buy what I want and what I can afford as I'm sure everyone else does.

May 5, 2007, 07:25 PM
I buy what I want and what I can afford as I'm sure everyone else does.

I'm sure that's pretty standard. As long as what you want and what you need line up then you should be in pretty good shape.

You sound like a shooter that likes to hunt. A 6 power is limiting your ability to pick up close game on the hoof.

May 5, 2007, 07:42 PM
I can remember not so long ago, when a 3x9x40mm scope was having the king of scopes in magnifaction. It was'nt that long ago that my 30/06 was in every issue of some mag. that i was over bored. Seems these wonder toys they make now days are factory made bench guns, just add a 15x25x75mm scope and your ready to kill at 600 yds.. In reality, i've killed just as many deer with open sighted 33/30 lever guns that fit and moved with you as if it was a part of your own body. Yes, eyes are getting tired and a little glass doesnt hurt these days, but down on the river bottem, where the stand sits i dont need a bunch of glass.And well i guess i'm not over bored any more, have not read that artical in a while, but she fits like a glove and fills a tag every year!

Fat White Boy
May 5, 2007, 07:44 PM
Shooting big game is not an exact science. If you can hit a pie plate at 100 yards, you should be able to bring down any ungulate, bear or wild pig in North America. Of course, everyone would like to make the perfect shot each time but it doesn't always happen. Find the rig you shoot best under the conditions you will be experiencing.

May 5, 2007, 07:46 PM
Yep, the more things change the more they remain the same. Oh, and the grey hair...

May 5, 2007, 07:56 PM
Not to mention the ear hair and eybrows

May 5, 2007, 09:32 PM
Not trying to seem like the lone dissident, well I guess the King may be with me, but I hate to speak for others. Anyway…I would have to say the high power scopes and sum MOA rifles definitely have their place. Sure, pie plate at 100yds is good for 100 yd shots, but a pie plate at 500yds is needed for 500yd shots too. This is where the higher power scopes come in, additionally, sub MOA will allow it all to come together.

May 5, 2007, 10:33 PM
zeisloft, I agree with your comments. They are particularly important on the West Texas plain. Further, I have only praise for a rifle capable of a 500 yard shot in the hands of a skilled rifleman. I draw issue with the green hunter thinking a sub-MOA rifle is needed with a scope of high magnification and a huge bell to make a 100 yard shot. It's impractical at best and handicapping at worse. I'm all for accepting a handicap as part of fair chase, but that's typically moving in another direction all together. I enjoy my heavy barrel rig at the bench, but it's another story in the field. I find myself reluctant to move around in the thick stuff as I am always watching the muzzle trying to keep it from hanging up on brush. It's heavy and while I like the heft, it doesn't swing well. I'm over magnified at it's lowest setting (4.5) when trying to pick up game moving quickly in cover. I'm changing my approach radically. Next hunting rifle will be 36" total OAL topped with a 2-7 or less. I hope it will shoot the tits off a flea, but I will accept a golf ball size group at 100. The mesquite thickets of near West Texas will never know the difference.

May 6, 2007, 12:06 AM
Another thing I have never been able to figure out is why so many people take shots at game at ranges past 200 yards. I have a friend who does this regularly and he has lost as many deer as I have ever killed. I have never lost one. Of course he also baits deer and hunts from a heated building. If you're going to hunt get out in the woods and hunt. Part of the enjoyment is stalking the prey and getting close enough to get a good shot. Leave the 400 yard shots to the varmit hunters.

May 6, 2007, 12:12 AM
A 3-9x40 is more than adequate for almost all hunters and a 2-7 or a 4x fixed might be a better choice.

I've got two scopes, a 3-9X32 and a 4X50. The 4X is definitly the better of the two. The 3-9 rarely gets set above 3X. The next one I'm going for is a 2-7X50. IMHO, that might be the best of both worlds.

Fat White Boy
May 6, 2007, 12:45 AM
Old age has made me depend on the quality optics available today. I wouldn't be able to hunt without them. I shot a coyote at 218 yards last year and before that a pig at about 225 yards. I use a 3X9X40. I shoot at 3X but I use the higher magnification for spotting. Old age is hell....

May 6, 2007, 01:28 AM
A 6-18 variable scope and a 6x fixed scope have exactly the same ...FOV,

Not true

Variables rarely have equal FOV

May 6, 2007, 07:08 AM
I like a 3 X 10 scope and 90% of the time I will have it on 10 power.Has nothing to do with what I need to kill the animal,but often there are small differences in antlers that effect my decision to shoot or not that I simply cannot see at low magnification.I also think that if you are having problems finding your target in the scope at any magnification you need to practice more with that rifle.If you can shoot a bird out of the air with a shotgun,surely you can put a rifle on target.Also,any equipment inaccuracy is added to your own shooting flaws,so the less the better.But,the difference between 1/2 inch and 1 1/2 inch is usually irrelevant.Now,I'll probably miss an artery by 1/2 an inch on the biggest buck in North America.

May 6, 2007, 07:51 AM
For no more practice than they put into it, some hunters should trade their rifles for scatterguns. Too often they compensate for lack of range time with more precise equipment thinking one will offset the other.

May 6, 2007, 08:52 AM
Fish, I think we see eye to eye on this. I dont sill hunt with my long range rigs and I dont expect .3MOA out of my still hunt rigs. But one way or the other, I do expect sub MOA out of any or them. For the short range rifles I expect .75MOA from my load development. I generally use a high quality 3x9 that rarely leaves 5X. For the long range stuff, I like a 6.5x20.

May 10, 2007, 12:45 AM
im with most of you. i think most modern rifles from good companys will out shot most normal people. and even though i have vari-scopes i find myself using a fixed 4X or maybe fixed 6X for almost all my hunting needs.

May 21, 2007, 04:37 AM
Someone once said "The only interesting rifle is an accurate rifle"
I like having a hunting rifle that can shoot to within an inch of where I point the sight with a cold barrel.
I have a favorite rifle that I had "accurized" (glass bedded, Frozen, free floated, Bore-honed, installed faster firing pin and spring, locking lugs honed)
I bought 30mm German scope and had the bases epoxied and the rings trued.
I bought new dies and brass putting them through a 12 step program to get them ready. I shot several style and weights of bullets with several different powders ans primers. I did a breaking on the barrel that took hours of shooting and cleaning. I ended up with a gun that will shoot 5 rounds on five days within 1/2" of the bulls eye at 100 meters.
I then took it hunting and shot a deer at forty yards.
But from a solid rest I am confident out to 250 meters.

May 21, 2007, 06:58 AM
Hunting accuracy, not target practice nor load development.

May 22, 2007, 10:13 PM
Confused...Load development has nothing to do with hunting accuracy?
Please explain.

May 23, 2007, 07:16 AM
That's my point Zeisloft (hence "nor").

Art Eatman
May 23, 2007, 08:47 AM
Zeisloft, to a great extent it's a given that almost any decent rifle will shoot accurately enough that it's reliable for deer hunting. So, "load development", generally, is to find some combination that changes "plenty good enough" to "much better".

Hey, us handloaders, we're anal-retentive nit-pickers! :D:D:D


May 23, 2007, 09:05 AM
Dead is dead, can't get much better than that. I've got nothing against target shooters as the trickle down effect gives hunters greater confidence, but 95% of hunters don't have the skill to use MOA in the field on an 8" vital zone to it's maximum range. How many hunters know the ballistic path of their load at 500-800 yards? How many are skilled enough to take that shot with that knowledge? I'd guess 1 out of 20, and I ain't one of them.

May 23, 2007, 10:33 AM
That kill zone isn't always the same shape either. Depending on game, angle of impact, and folige (if any) your target is different and not clearly marked. It's almost all approximation. Pretty much every kill shot I have mead so far has been a lung/heart shot combo. Mostly through luck the heart has been hit. But all my shots have been through and through vital zone hits with one spinal shot when tracking a wounded animal.

May 23, 2007, 12:50 PM
My theory on hunting accuracy is that if the first shot from a cold bore hits a pie plate somewhere about the middle at whatever range you are shooting you are good to go.

Having a gun that shoots little wee groups is great fun but for crying out loud its not necessary. My .270 is a Ruger M77MkII which doesnt have a great reputation for accuracy compared to a Remington 700 but it will shoot 1.5 inch groups at 100 yards and that is minute of deer for longer than I care to shoot. I have made some kills in the last couple of years right about 300 yards on a couple coyotes and a deer and that is as far as I'll shoot.

As for optics my .270 wears a 3-9X40 Bushnell Elite 3200. I hunt large open areas with coulees and gullies and its about right for me. If I hunted more in the bush then I would want irons.

May 23, 2007, 10:45 PM
Fish, I'd say it is much much less than 1 in 20. I suppose for the "shoot 1/2 a box of ammo a year and go kill a deer from under a feeder at 75-100 yds" type, sure 4 moa is plenty. Call me lazy, I just dont like blood trailing a gut shot animal.
And "the trickle down effect gives hunters greater confidence" I believe this is bad. I think it gives a false confidence. Just because the seasoned target shooter has done it, and can do it again in the field does not mean the avarage shooter should try it for the first time in the field. I dont believe this is what you are advocating. Sorry for the rant.

May 24, 2007, 07:51 AM
You have misunderstood me Zeisloft. There is a line between confidence and arrogance. That's why you see so many new hunters wanting a sub MOA rifle. They are clinging to anything that will tilt the odds in their favor. After a few years when the itch to get a new rifle sets in they will remember carrying that field cannon around and look for alternatives. Later the desire to tilt the odds away from their favor sets in and the bow hunter is born.

You are probably right about the number being less that 1:20. I try to be conservative when I pull numbers out of my ass.

May 24, 2007, 11:58 AM
With the rifle i hunt with now it will shoot .5 or.75 inch groups from a bench all day long if i do my part. The :o part is when you get up from the bench and start shooting offhand, where did thoes .5 groups go! Oh, thats right 2" out and around. Just before the deer season starts (for a week or two) i go out and fire one round every day from a cold barrel to see where the sweet spot is and go for the same spot everyday, this breaks me from the bench and gets me ready for that offhand shot from my tree stand. I have to start telling myself the moment i get on stand, (pick a spot, over and over again) because the minute i flip the safty off the nerves kick in. If ive had to watch him for a half hour before he gets in range, i,m all tore up:D . I have yet to track an animal and the day i flip the safty off and make a kill with no jitters, it will be my last tag!
Do i need a .5" gun,(no, but it helps) Do i need a half mile of glass (not where i hunt) would a nerve pill help (Hell Yes, but i'll pass).

May 24, 2007, 07:59 PM
Fish, I see your point, and could not agree more about the bow hunting comment. I hunt with a bow and "harvest" with a rifle. The rifle seems almost too easy (up to a certain distance). I guess the quest for accuracy and the confidence from 100s of Ks of rounds fired at targets and varmints has taken alot of the "chance" out of hunting with a rifle of pistol. However, it has not deminished the thrill. Thanks for the clarification, and again, sorry for the rant.

June 1, 2007, 01:20 AM
I follow that old adage, ASMS - and I try to keep all my rifles in that category. I recently took a Javilina in south Tx from over 480 yards - with a factory remington 700 in 300wsm topped off with a Leo 3-12X VX2. It may not be sub-moa, but it's pretty damn moa - while my normal hunting rig, a Steyr .270 is a solid sub gun.
I can't for the life of me seem to get them to perform at the same level in the field as they do on the rest, but that's user error I'm sure.

June 1, 2007, 07:23 AM
My little worthless two cents on the subject. I have a 30-30 with a 4X scope and I have a 270WSM wtih a 4.5-16X40. I started the whitetail hunting with an aged compound bow.

I love bow hunting and rifle hunting. I choose my weapon according to where and what I am hunting. I shoot my rifles from a bench to ensure they are sighted in. I know my limitations while hunting with whatever weapon I am carrying.

For long range hunting, I use the long range scope/rifle combo. For shorter range woods hunting, I use the short range scope/rifle combo.

I do not believe this to be rocket science. I can hit what I am aiming at with all the above. If it is too far away, I use my hunting skill not my shooting skill to get closer to the game. Hunting and shooting are not the same thing.

A good hunter can take most game within 150 yards, unless he is open range. If he is hunting the wide freakin open spaces out west, he should utilize the best available and combine his skills. One rifle for everything is in this day and age kinda silly unless you compensate for long or short range on the scope choices. One rifle and two scopes maybe.

40 yards in the brush or 450 yards across the mountain makes for an impossible scope choice if you are looking for perfection.

It is, what it is. Everyone is right to some point. At least we are all hunting and shooting. That makes us allies. Sign up now! Tell all your friends! Hunting and fishing is the going rage!

Art Eatman
June 1, 2007, 09:11 AM
A mild disagreement about scopes. I walk with a variable set on the lowest power. My last mule deer buck was at 30 yards (3X). My longest-ever one-shot kill was 450 at 9X; one other long one-shot at 350 at 3X.

I'm sorta empirical about all this. If it works, it's good. If not, it's bad. I'm not saying the old 3x9 or 3x10 is the absolute best, but the silly things have worked for me. :)

But so have Weaver K4s. :D


June 1, 2007, 10:50 AM
Is sub-MOA nesessary for hunting: no.
Do I want a sub-MOA rifle for hunting? YES!!!

Not because its necessary, just because I think it would be fun to shoot one and see those nice little cloverleaf groups at 100 yds. The deer dont care, but I do.

Incedentally, I don't have a sub-MOA rifle. I shoot an A-bolt that with my best hanloads make 1.5' groups. I've killed 3 deer with 3 shots out to 244 yds with it so far. The only complaint is its so light sometimes its hard to keep those crosshairs still. My next rifle (whenever that will be) will be sub-MOA (just for fun) and about 9 lbs fully loaded to hopefully better my offhand shooting.

June 1, 2007, 12:34 PM
I want the best of both worlds. I don't "need" ultra-accurate rifles any more than I "need" premium bonded bullets. I've killed lots of deer with 2 moa rifles and promo loads and I'm sure I'll kill many more.

For that matter, why does anyone "need" anything other than a 12ga, single shot? That one gun will kill everything on this continent and most others as well, right? Not using the right tool for the job is just limiting what you can do or where you can do it unnecessarily.

I prefer sporter or light-weight rifles for most hunting situations but I have slug guns for up-close-and-personal and I have beanfield rifles for long-distance.

Periodically, money will get tight and I'll sell off many of my guns. Guess what rifle I always keep? A Remington mountain rifle in 7mm-08 with a Leupold VX-II 3-9x40 scope. That combo is light, easy to carry and will print 1" groups all day long with factory loads and will do .75 moa with my best-effort handloads. (It has been free-floated, glass bedded, trigger honed and re-crowned)

May 15, 2010, 10:50 PM
There is a line between confidence and arrogance but that does not mean that the line connects the two. A hunter who wants an accurate rifle may only want one portion removed from the equation of misses. The problem is that most hunters that purchase the "accurate" rifles then don't practice because, "hell the rifle is accurate so the rifle will do all the hard work after the trigger is pulled" The arrogant believe that if they have the rifle that a buddy has or that they have seen in a movie then they can make the same awesome shots, without putting in the range time. The leveler for all rifles is range time. There is no excuse for not putting in the practice. I would have more faith in a guy that practices with his 2 moa rifle prior to taking the rifle to the field over the guy that purchases a 2,000 dollar rig that just sits in the safe until hunting season. So the real question is how accurate do you need? Should be = to how much you practice.


May 15, 2010, 10:58 PM
old thread alert.

I started to say welcome SS but you've had a handle almost as old as this thread. How's about...."Welcome Back!"

May 15, 2010, 11:28 PM
In my opinion, since a hunt is a living, breathing, organic and dynamic thing, there can be no excess in your pursuit of accuracy. a little mirage, 50 yards of error in range estimate, a bit of fatigue, and too long in between practice sessions will be enough to send your shot 3-4 inches out of the kill zone. A person with a 1.5 moa rifle can count on accuracy on a 4.5 inch target at 300 yards. If you change that to a 2.5 moa rifle, an average shooter will be really stretching his abilities to hit an 8 inch circle at 300.

Since these hunts are, as I said, dynamic, what happens when several other factors add in their effects? A bit of wind, a slight downhill tilt, a bit of a twitch? add 4 more inches, and you will have either missed your shot, or wounded an animal.

I think a person who takes anything less than a 1.5 MOA rifle into hunts that will provide 300 yard shots is wrong. Same thing stands for one who chooses a non magnum velocity round for 300 round or farther hunts.

shooting is all about chaos. It is your challenge to overcome that chaos. shooting paper over iron sights in one handed rapid fire matches is one thing; aiming at an elk with a worn out 30-30 two hills over is a crime.

You need an accurate package, though, not just a rifle that can shoot peas off of a fork. a 1.5 moa rifle, a great clear scope, and top quality ammunition are enough for someone who is up to the challenges of 300 yard shooting.

I guess my problem is that I really abhor misses and wounded game. A lot of people don't give a darn if a deer gets away, but myself, if I shoot, I want it dead, there, now, not three days later and eaten by buzzards.

I also feel very badly about anyone who chooses to use really marginal cartridges for hunting. There is no such thing as overkill, it is a nonsense term. Underkill is simple, it means NOT DEAD. If you shoot something, do it accurately, and with an adequate cartridge, so that if you shoot something, you don't underkill it.

May 16, 2010, 12:14 AM
There aren't many people that are really "fooled" by the gun companies into buying the latest and greatest, the super nice barrels, the 6-20x scopes, super expensive bullets and brass and etc. It may be entirely useless, but it's fun...... More than buy what people's wallets will afford, people will buy what makes them happy. And I really don't think they care if you bash them for it or not.


May 16, 2010, 12:26 AM
I've won't keep an inaccurate hunting rifle. I don't insist on MOA for hunting but "Minute of Whitetail" won't cut it. I only get to hunt once or twice a year, the rest of the year enjoy reloading, load development and generally the pursuit of a tight cloverleaf group. I don't own a serious target rifle and don't expect my hunting rifle to be one.
I recently sent a beautiful new Super Grade back to Winchester because of poor accuracy. Can't recall ever seeing a prettier piece of wood on a production rifle, seldom even on a custom. The rifle they sent back is not quite as pretty but it delivered 2 sub-MOA groups on it's first outing and averaged 1.308" for all 8 initial "try" loads. I miss the pretty one but this one shoots and looks good doing it. I felt for the price it should deliver MOA, they all but promise it in their ads.
Do I need a sub-MOA rifle to shoot a TX whitetail or 200# hog at under 100 yds? No! Do I want a very accurate hunting rifle? Yes!
Have 8 more "try" loads in my shooting bag, ready to go to the range tomorrow. Too bad it's too wet around here for yard work.;)

Fat White Boy
May 16, 2010, 01:25 AM
I recently changed scopes on my Rem 700VLS From a Leupold 3-9X40 to a Weaver 4X38 fixed power. I realized I always took my hunting shots on 3X. I did a little research, discovering the Exit Pupil on the 4X is 9.5, lots of light coming through.I have no regrets. It still shoots tight groups with the Weaver...

May 16, 2010, 02:51 AM
Here is some real sacrilege for you, I like those little Leapers 6x40 scopes. I usually like to hunt the second week and walk around. I have a couple really light short rifles and I top them off with those scopes. I have been in downpours, snow storms, freezing rain, and fog with minimum problems. Really, nothing you would not have with any scope. It is easy to pick up a moving deer with them, and count points.( In Pa. you now have point restrictions ) It is unbelievable how hard it is to count points on a deers' rack when they are standing in a thicket. I like to take my open sighted levers out, but can't trust my eyes to see if that doe is really a spike. You have to open your mind up to other hunters' ways, not all states are the same. In the coal regions we would never have heard of the .270 if it was not for some gun writer pushing it . We have no need for one.

May 17, 2010, 04:46 PM
Wow, this is an old one. Fish should we dissagree about something for a while only to realize we agree once again?

May 17, 2010, 06:55 PM
Wow, this is an old one. Fish should we dissagree about something for a while only to realize we agree once again?

I didn't think we disagreed all that much to begin with. I think we all WANT a super accurate rifle. Our hunting style dictates our NEEDS. I think I'll still stick to my 1:20 figger. Thanks for reminding me to review our conversation.

Double Naught Spy
May 17, 2010, 11:03 PM
Aim Small - Miss Small

Apologists' mantra for near misses.

Aim small - Hit Small makes much better sense.

Art Eatman
May 18, 2010, 10:10 AM
Closing statement: "Adequate accuracy is Minute of Kill Zone." :D That covers prairie dogs to Big Bears.