Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/24/2001 1:13:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2001 1:11:37 AM EST by ah1z]
I might be totally off base here and if so no problem just tell me. personally after the issue was presented to me I started thinking about it, and came to a conclusion. some people say that if you don't have a zeiss, burris, swarovski, or of course leupold scope that you might as well be shooting backward. but when I thought about it, how come some people can shoot out to 1000 yards with peep sights and some shoot 600 with out there big buck's scope. are high end scopes replacing shooter skill. if it can be don't with out a scope, then the only conclusion that I can draw is that it is just easier witha scope. also several snipers during world war II were responsible for the death of hundreds of people and these people had relatively low quality glass to todays standards. that is my oppinion, but like I said I may be way off so if I am just tell me. now that you know my oppinion, I welcome you to give me you opinion if you feel so inclined bushy forever editted because I can't spell swarovski
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 2:57:01 AM EST
In the local reduced Palma matches I shoot at, scopes are allowed. Most shooters use iron sights, however. Most of the time, the guys with the scopes don't do so well, but this is mostly because the top shooters use iron sights, the newest shooters are the ones using scopes. When shooting at bullseye targets, match iron sights (peep front and rear) will shoot about as well as a good scope. Service grade iron sights will do well, but are at a disadvantage compared to a good scope or match iron sights. When shooting at indistinct targets in the field, the scope can really come into its own. However, getting a good scope isn't easy. Most lower priced scopes, and even many high dollar scopes, are not consistent in their adjustment, etc. In the Palma matches I mentioned above, it is common for a scope to really mess up the match for its user. The last match I went to where someone used a scope, he had serious trouble getting zeroed, and in the end he scored dead last, despite the fact that he is a fair shot (Expert level).
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 8:19:20 AM EST
The thing is how well can you see the target. If you have a paper bulleye at a known distance in good light you can do some nice work with iron sights. If you have a hard to see target at an unknown distance in marginal light things are different. I can hit softball sized bullseyes from sitting with my 94 Winchester with open sights at the range but you have to try. I can shoot the same bull with my scoped Steyr from sitting without effort. Shooting at deer though it's nice to have a scope past 100 because you can shoot a spot on the deer instead of just shooting the deer in the shoulder. I think people need to start with iron to master the fundamentals before using optics. Past 200 on game with iron you are starting to kind of piss in the wind unless you are shooting something big you can really see.
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 8:21:43 AM EST
My view is that a fancy high dollar scope and skill have absolutely nothing to do with each other. As the cliché goes: scopes don’t help you shoot better, they help you see better. If you’re a lousy shot with iron sights, you’ll be a lousy shot with a scope. The critical issues such as trigger control, breathing and such are the same, regardless. Scopes do have advantages. No offense to competition shooters, but they have easy to see targets. As Don S suggests, in non-competition settings, scopes help you locate and identify your target (is that the suspect or the hostage?). Scopes also help in dim light by gathering more light than your unaided eye can (esp. through a small peep sight). They also help us guys with older eyes that have trouble getting different planes into reasonable focus at the same time. Also as Don S suggests, the real problem with cheap scopes isn’t the glass (as bad as it may be); it’s the internal workings. For example, crosshairs have to move when you want them to move, and stay put when you want them to stay put. Decent mounting is another, sometimes forgotten, issue.
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 8:23:55 AM EST
Scope or no scope, glass or no glass, to be good you got to have the skill. And to have the "Skill", one got to practice....
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 9:55:34 AM EST
Obviously to shoot well you have to hold the gun still. No scopes gonna help you with that. I'm a avid hunter, do alot of it. I use Nikon scopes on my hunting rifles. The more expensive scopes have better lense systems and gather a lot of light at dawn and at dusk. People can say what they want, I've used less expensive scopes and now I use Nikons, If you're looking for scopes to use for hunting, get the good ones, the payoff in visibility is worth it. Having a clear scope with a lot of magnification in matches is an advantage because you note your wobble a lot more because of the magnification and also you can see where you are hitting better.
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 11:35:10 AM EST
A good scope won't help a bad shooter. But a bad scope can definitely hurt a good shooter. Anytime you hear someone say something isn't good unless it's , just remember that snobbery exists everywhere. Quality products usually aren't cheap but being the most expensive also doesn't guarantee its supremecy. In your example of WWII optics, it's probably true that quality wasn't up to current standards. But that doesn't mean they were using garbage. Their optics worked as well as they had to without breaking and snipers made do with what was available. Were there a choice, I'm sure they'd have picked the best they could get. That said, why should anyone pay more for a scope? For one thing, you want some assurances that it won't fail at a critical time. You might be required to lay on the scope for a period of time and better optics can help reduce eyestrain. So a good scope can increase your effectiveness by allowing you to distinguish details at greater distances, for a longer period of time, and with less fatique.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 9:42:56 PM EST
trust me if I were in a hostage situation I would expect and pray that the sniper that could end the situation had a great rifle and a great scope as well, I guess what I really mean is do you think that some people are just buying high dollar scopes to negate practice. personally I learned how to shoot buy trying to shoot cans at 100 and 200 yards, with my fathers rem 700 with iron sights. which I can honestly say was a great accomplishment when I could do this 7 out 10 times an still working at 9 out of ten consistently with my ar15, but I can do it pretty easy when I put dads luey on it
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 4:05:57 AM EST
I could not understand how people can use iron sights at 100 yards or more on a target about the size of a soda can. Even if you are a fraction of an inch off with the iron sights, at 100 yards, this fraction of an inch turns into 2 inches. A scope allows you to ensure you are aiming at the same location everytime. With iron sights and a sode can at 100 yards, I don't see how you can be sure you are indeed aiming at the same point shot after shot without a scope. Just recently while using a Bushnell scope (almost 2 years old) I ran into difficulty sighting in the rifle. The shots were 2 inches low. After about 5 minutes and probably 2 full turns of the screw, nothing changed. Than I noticed the damn recticle was actually turning clockwise. In case you are wondering, I sent it in to be fixed and Bushnell sent me a brand new scope. I doubt you would have this happen with a Leupold. Just my 2 cents.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 4:35:00 AM EST
AH1Z, The reason behind what people will spend for something probably varies as much as the people themselves. And this extends to all facets of life, not just firearms. Some people probably feel that things that cost less than X amount are crap. Sometimes spending a lot of money makes people feel better about the purchase or even themselves. You definitely can't generalize people's purchasing decisions.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 4:54:18 AM EST
Skill aint squat if you can't see what you're shooting at.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 5:17:31 AM EST
Skill aint squat if you can't see what you're shooting at.
View Quote
Wrong!...That's the difference of been alive or dead. Ask Vasiliy Zaltsev when he shot SS Colonel Heinz Thorwald in the battle of Stalingrad.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 5:40:29 AM EST
Another key element (which ties into practice) is how familiar you are with your sights. If you know your sight at all distances, light, and whatnot you can probably outshoot most people. Of course, this also has to do with your knowledge about your rifles ballistics. And these two factors come with time and practice and will result in varying levels of skill (if you didn't have it before.)
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 6:09:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2001 6:06:38 AM EST by GeoffM24]
I just got a great Bushmaster flat top 24" fluted vmatch upper and I needed a scope for it. Since I didn't have a ton of cash after the purchase I decided to use the Simmons 3X9-40 scope I got for like $30 and a set of Tasco $10 rings. Now I read that you HAD to have either Arms 22 mounts or an Armalite mount for your scope and any scope less then $400 was crap. Well these tasco rings hold tight and the scope is crystal clear to me. I had no trouble keeping real tight groups and have no problems with this set up and I paid $40, not $500. I can replace the scope and rings 12 times if I had to and still be ahead. I will probably pick up a Simmons Mag 44 scope eventually for the extra magnification but I don't think I'll ever pay over $125 for one.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 6:14:05 AM EST
Like everything in life I imagine you get diminishing returns. I worked with my father at his in-home service business, I have been in hundreds of homes ranging from upperclass to down right poverty. I see so many flabby out of shape yuppy types out there with thousands of dollars in exercise equiptment they never dedicate themselves to. But I have also worked in the inner city where some guy has a picnic table bench, a iron bar and some concrete weights, and he looks like a bodybuilder. I'm not saying you don't get what you pay for but someone with a 29.99 bushnell who practices and dedicates themselves to the sport will shoot better then a recreational shooter who takes his leopold scoped rifle out a couple times a year. With any thing there is some type of plateau you reach. Maybe a $200 dollar scope is a huge improvement over a $30 scope, but then a $500 scope is a "little" better then the $200 and so on. I know right now I am not ready to spend big bucks on a upper crust scope. I have to get better as a shooter first.
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 6:54:17 AM EST
the only way that I ever hit anything at one hundred or beyond is throught four things. #1 staying so still you think that you are dead #2 lots of practice #3 lots of ammo #4 making absolutely sure that you have the sights lined up exactly the same way every time. very fine front sights are also a must. ps as in all long range shooting keeping a very detailed shooting log book
Link Posted: 7/26/2001 8:49:21 AM EST
Cheap scopes MAY work. Expensive scopes USUALLY work. Stories of my " $20 Walmart scope is the greatest...." abound., but the extra $$$ you pay for Leupold, Zeiss, etc is that when you are in the middle of nowhere on a $5000 elk hunt, your reticle wont come loose , the scope wont fog and it will hold a zero after the Delta baggage boys get done with your rifle case. If your shooting is in the backyard, in good weather, Walmart is down the street, and if you are not the type of person that cares that a day of shooting is ruined because you scope broke, well, I would get a cheap Tasco or whatever. But I don't understand (and never will)why people will pay $1000 for a rifle without blinking an eye, boxes and boxes of expensive factory ammo, a $200 hard case and then moan about how much a Leupold scope costs!
Top Top