Scout scope vs. iron sights - forest hunting


PDA






shadow9
September 4, 2011, 10:35 PM
Which of these two would be ideal for forest hunting? Or would a conventionally-mounted scope in either fixed 4x or 1.5-5/2-7x variable work a bit better?
Typical yardage would occur between 25 and 50 yards, maybe 70-90 at tops.

Opinions?

If you enjoyed reading about "Scout scope vs. iron sights - forest hunting" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jmr40
September 4, 2011, 10:43 PM
A conventionally mounted scope works best for me. I like a variable with 2-3X at the low end and up to 7-9X on the high end. I want at least 32mm on the front objective to let in enough light.

Hunting in thick forest is pretty dark at first and last light so I want something that lets a lot of light through. Shooting through thick brush is best accomplished with a highly accurate rifle and scope to shoot through small openings. Forget about brush buster rounds, nothing is guaranteed to make it through.

briansmithwins
September 4, 2011, 10:48 PM
Sounds like a good place for a red dot sight.

It's very hard to beat 1x for speed at under 100 yards.

BSW

USSR
September 4, 2011, 11:21 PM
Up here in upstate NY, we hunt in heavily forested areas where the typical shots are from 20 to 35 yards. We hunt with our 3-9X scopes set at 3X and have no problems.

Don

jim243
September 4, 2011, 11:40 PM
I think I have said this before:

You didn't say what kind or rifle you will be using??

For 25 to 50 yard, even 75 yards, I would suggest a good red-dot, fast, both eyes open, excelent target aquistion and easy to set up.

If you are snap shooting, or even still shooting, or even tree stand shooting, during dawn, dusk or even noon, still a very good way to go.

Jim

Now having said that. I like a little more range 75 to 125 yards and use a 3-9x40mm scope set to 3x 80% of the time. As you will note, I have see through rings on the rifle and at 25 yards, I go straight to irons.

http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt284/bigjim_02/SAM_0319.jpg

CraigC
September 5, 2011, 12:49 AM
Receiver sights still offer a lot of utility but it's also hard to beat a good low powered variable.

Gunnerboy
September 5, 2011, 01:30 AM
I just finished buiding a rifle that anwsers that question a nice mauser carbine ive built in 6.5x55 with a new lyman peep, and i wont be going back to a scope anytime soon, the advantage of the quick pull up to the shoulder and being on target is unbeatable. i hunt the jungles of Washinton state so if thats the kinda stuff your hunting most definately go with irons.

bubbinator
September 5, 2011, 02:46 AM
Given your situation-I have found a reciever sights/with hi-viz front sight/ red dots/ and open sights with highly visible front and rear sights to be excellent under the conditions you put forth. I have multiple red dot/holosights on Tactical rifles/shotguns and 22LR handguns, so have some experience with them. For a moving target, close, in brush-HI Viz and practice! For shots from a blind/stand on calm game animals-a low power or variable scope will serve you well. My wife's best deer- a 6 pt that scored over 100 B&C pts! was taken running through a sage field with a Ruger 44 Mag Carbine with William's Reciever Sights and a green hiviz front @ 110 yds running.

BikerRN
September 5, 2011, 07:18 AM
Given the conditions, as you describe, and the distances involved I'd opt for a red dot EO Tech.

Either that or a lower power magnification, but I'd still be looking at the red dot first. It was designed for fast sight acquisition and your situation is what it was made for.

BikerRN

Clipper
September 5, 2011, 09:16 AM
I recently finished a Mosin-Nagant sporterization project and unlike everyone else who does one, I went with peep sights. I use the apperture when sighting in, but remove it and hunt it as a ghost ring. Works great.

bhk
September 5, 2011, 09:30 AM
I think it is really almost impossible to beat a low-powered scope or red-dot sight under those circumstances. Peeps work very well too (I have them on lever rifles), but won't beat a good LOW MOUNTED, low powered scope on most rifles. I say low mounted because a good check-weld is important for fast shooting. I want my deer rifles to come up, shoulder, and shoot like my good bird guns. The only way to make most lever actions shoot this way is with peeps, because the stock combs are generally too low for even a low-mounted scope. I would put a scope on anything but a lever gun.

AEA
September 5, 2011, 09:36 AM
I recommend an Ultra Dot for up to 100yds. Lightweight, inexpensive and easy to use. It is the most durable red dot for a big bore lever and has a lifetime guarantee.

natman
September 5, 2011, 11:03 AM
A scout scope is ideal for the conditions you describe. It's fast, you can shoot with both eyes open and the relatively low magnification is not a drawback at short range.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2011, 11:17 AM
Probably the ultimate forest hunting is squirrel hunting. And a scope is a major advantage when it comes to shooting small, eratically moving targets in thick brush and dim light.

A low power scope is best -- I use 4X in fixed powers, and 3X9 variables set at 3 power for elk, deer and squirrels.

ndh87
September 5, 2011, 11:20 AM
get yourself an aimpoint.

briansmithwins
September 5, 2011, 11:33 AM
and the relatively low magnification is not a drawback at short range.

Afraid I have to disagree with that one. Any magnification is going to slow you down at very close ranges compared to a red dot or irons. Eye placement is much more important with magnified scopes where as with red dots you can look thru them at really goofy angles (like when you're surprised and have shouldered a rifle quickly) and as long as you can see the dot on the target, you'll get a hit.

There is a reason why guys that shoot rifles very fast use red dots and not magnified scopes on their rifles.

Also, modern red dots get very small and are still very tough. I'd recommend looking at the Aimpoint micro and the Trijicon RMR.

http://www.aimpoint.com/products/all-products/product-singleview/product/Micro%20H-1/

http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product1.php?id=RMR

jmr40
September 5, 2011, 11:44 AM
You can't hit what you can't see. A quality scope, mounted conventionally is the only option that helps you see your target in poor light. Which is exactly when you are most likely to get a shot when hunting. Set on low powers, 3X or less, you can easily shoot with both eyes open and get on target just as quickly as any other sight.

In good light any sight works. In good light I can easily hit deer size targets with any type of sight at ranges to at least 200 yards. Most folks think of a scope as only a long range sighting tool. But at 30 yards, 5 minutes before sunset in thick forest, with a 3" opening in the brush to thread a bullet through, a good scope beats them all.

Vern Humphrey
September 5, 2011, 12:12 PM
There you go -- in fact, the only time I have ever used a variable scope set above its lowest power for deer hunting was when I had a buck behind some brush before full sunrise -- I turned up the power, found a little hole through the brush, and nailed him.

I wouldn't have tried that shot with iron sights.

Sky
September 5, 2011, 12:40 PM
When I was young good old iron sights worked with no problem but as my eye balls have aged (along with other things) it has become increasingly apparent that with any low light or the dimness of a deep dark forest irons and my eyes just won't get the job done anymore.

All of my short range (100 yard zero) pig poppers have Red Dots except for one that does carry a Nikon 1-4 223 scope; it is my least shot pig popper.

Some of my red dots cost less than $100 all the way up to an EOTEC and Aimpoint. I do have 3 com block rifles that I leave decked out in their original configs but they are day time hunters.

The only reason I bring this up:

25 yards and fast moving pigs, leaving or coming at you; with both eyes open and a red dot is hard to beat for us more seasoned/aged hunters. There are times even with a red dot where it may only be possible to take a quick snap shot along the lines of point and shoot without the aide of any sights but that is one in a ??? chance of happening around here unless they jump out of a thicker part of a thicket? hahaha

Scopes are more accurate for me if I need to thread the needle but most of our pigs provide a target area large enough for the red dot to be very persuasive; especially at the ranges we are talking about here.

So, rambling on; Irons are accurate and their simplicity of use work very well. Scopes are better at seeing things clearly at multiple ranges. Red Dots kinda cover a middle ground but really "shine" when the target is seen and as soon as the illuminated dot appears on your nemesis "boom" mission accomplished.

There is a time and place for all of them.

natman
September 5, 2011, 12:44 PM
Afraid I have to disagree with that one. Any magnification is going to slow you down at very close ranges compared to a red dot or irons. Eye placement is much more important with magnified scopes where as with red dots you can look thru them at really goofy angles (like when you're surprised and have shouldered a rifle quickly) and as long as you can see the dot on the target, you'll get a hit.

There is a reason why guys that shoot rifles very fast use red dots and not magnified scopes on their rifles.


Let's take a look at the OP's stated requirements:

Typical yardage would occur between 25 and 50 yards, maybe 70-90 at tops.

Under those conditions, a scout scope is pretty near perfect. The OP is talking about hunting, not IPSC. Not that a red dot wouldn't work and work well, but a scout scope would be just peachy.

dak0ta
September 6, 2011, 02:24 AM
Which Aimpoint model would you guys recommend? Micro series? 4 MoA or 2 MoA dot for 150-200 yard shots?

Al Thompson
September 6, 2011, 10:35 AM
Dak, hard to beat the Aimpoint PRO.

wombat13
September 6, 2011, 02:53 PM
I took an 8 pt buck at 25 yards with my M1 Garand last season and I will never use peep sights on a hunting rifle again.

It was about 20 minutes after sunrise in the forest. There was no snow. The ground was gray/brown, the trees were gray/brown and that buck was gray/brown. I had a heck of a time finding the kill zone through that peep sight.

As others have said, peep sight are not very good in low-light situations, which is when you are most likely to have a shot opportunity. They just don't allow enough light through to your eye. Optical sights, like a low-powered scope, actually gather light so you can see better in those situations.

wombat13
September 6, 2011, 03:01 PM
I have no experience with red-dot sights and very little knowledge of them. DO they gather light like a traditional scope? I've been thinking of getting a red-dot for my muzzleloader. I don't intend to shoot at anything more than 100 yards away with it, so I don't need the magnification of my 3-9X40 that is on it, but I wouldn't want to give up any low-light capability.

Art Eatman
September 6, 2011, 11:17 PM
The advantage of a regular scope over irons shows up in low-light conditions. Helps to tell a deer from a cactus-deer or a rock-deer. Or a people-deer.

Whether conventional mount or scout-style, practice toward absolute familiarity is the important factor. Skill at the use. The scout-style has been the primary winner at the hunting-style walking competition at Gunsite. Speed of acquisition has been the key.

wlewisiii
September 7, 2011, 09:31 AM
That close? Iron sights. Possibly a red dot. Ultimately it's really rather a personal preference thing as I'd far rather look through a good peep sight than even the best scope.

Germster
September 7, 2011, 03:25 PM
Sadly IMO shooters today are hard wired to shoot through glass. We shoot well what we practice with. I seldom see a guy buy a new rifle and then not scope it. For short range many folks use the red dot scope.

I'm an older fellow and when I was learning to shoot we all shot all of our rifles using the iron sights and we never even saw a scope. Sure some guys had them, but on one in Western Kansas did. Then I went to the military and we never shot rifles using scopes. Today they do,but not in the 60's. Therefore, I'm a iron sight guy.

I find it easier to judge range when shooting over iron sights. Magnification distorts range judgement. However since we shoot flat shooting rifles it doesn't much matter. "Hold on hair".

I also like the lower center of gravity of a iron sighted rifle. The scope does catch brush and you kind of drag your rifle along with you as brush snaps you on your face. Then you shoot your deer at 35 yds. If a deer jumps up and trots off it's hard to catch him in the orb of that darn scope; least for me. Point and shoot? No, it's point, shoot and miss.

Shoot the dot with both eyes open? Yep, but you shoot iron sights with both eyes open too and your vision is not obscured some by all of that scope stuff in front of your face that blocks your vision.

Unless I am hunting for prong horn or some kind of open range and long range hunting I'm an iron sight kinda guy. Practice using the open sights on a .22. They never get loose and it's fun. Learn to make a beer can jump at 100 yds. or shoot skeet on the ground at 150.

There is one problem with practicing long range shooting with a .22 and you must be aware of it. Twenty-twos arch. With the little rim fire you have to hold over at 100 - 200 yds and pretty considerably so. Your .270, 243, are flat shooting scamps. When I was young and just starting to shoot high powered flat shooting rifles I shot over the backs of running cayotes. Not good. You have to keep that in mind when practicing with a .22. Remember, when shooting a Winchester Model 70 .270 at 250 yds using it's iron sights (an older one - new ones are sans sights) do not put that gold front sight bead on anything other than hair. Same at 35 yds.

Virg461
September 7, 2011, 11:26 PM
Well the OP says that typical range will be 25-50 yards. At that range, you should be able to hit the deer with a rock. Yes, in low light at 100 yards, it makes a difference. At 25-50 yards a scope, even a low-powered one, will get in the way and be more likely to make you lose sight of that buck moving through the brush. Stick with irons for the woods. Scopes for the bean field.

mac66
September 8, 2011, 04:31 PM
I've used scout scopes on rifles while hunting and don't like them. They upset the balance of the rifle IMO, and sticking forward of the receiver they tend to catch on clothes, branches etc.

Most of my hunting rifles sport 1.5-4.5x variables in that my hunting ground ranges from about 40 yards out to about 200 max. I have found those types of scopes to be ideal in brush to open fields.

FSJeeper
September 8, 2011, 05:20 PM
For my 2 go brush guns I either use a .45 LC Lever with open sights Hogs/Coyotes or an M1A Socom with open sights for deer at longer distances which are excellent. I am comfortable with the .45LC Lever out to 75 yards or so and up to 150 yards with the Socom with open sights in offhand field shooting situations.

For fast shooting in the brush I see no need for a scope for myself and I doubt I will ever scope the Socom. It is perfectly handy just the way it is.

I have put some Scout mount red dots on my AK's recently. My first experience with them and I must admit I am impressed. I do believe they may be faster than irons and I am getting comfortable with them now. Old habits die hard but these red dots are definitely something to think about.

Furncliff
September 8, 2011, 07:33 PM
Peeps or a good tangent sight. There are aperture sights to fit most rifles. And on many there is quite a bit adjustability and flexibility. Recently I mounted a peep sight on a Brno it has a bunch if different front sight inserts as well as adjustable iris apertures. But for hunting perhaps a simple set up like the Skinner would be better, and he will tailor the openings to your situation.

USSR
September 8, 2011, 07:40 PM
...typical range will be 25-50 yards. At that range, you should be able to hit the deer with a rock. Yes, in low light at 100 yards, it makes a difference. At 25-50 yards a scope, even a low-powered one, will get in the way and be more likely to make you lose sight of that buck moving through the brush. Stick with irons for the woods. Scopes for the bean field.

As a long time deer hunter in the heavily forested woods of upstate NY, I will respectfully disagree. A good low powered scope at the typical 25-50 yards at which we see deer at, will add at least 15 minutes to the time at sunrise and sunset at which you can see a deer clearly enough to shoot it. And, as every good deer hunter knows, that is the prime time for them to be moving.

Don

Virg461
September 9, 2011, 09:56 AM
Well....I hunt in the woods of NC, which are probably just as thick as they are in NY (maybe not as cold, though!)

I have to agree with Jeff56. If you can't see the deer with the naked eye, it's probably too dark to take the shot. I hunt my own land, but still - you never know who's going to decide to come stalking through the woods.

Loosedhorse
September 9, 2011, 10:37 AM
I have to agree with Jeff56. If you can't see the deer with the naked eye, it's probably too dark to take the shot.That's the whole point, isn't it? A good scope may get you an honest first-light or last-light shot that you would not take with iron sights.

3-9X scopes are much more versatile, but consider low power variable scopes (like 1-4X), too, if you're spending much time in thick woods. It's easy to think "What's the point of a 1X scope?" until you try one. Brightness is incredible, better than the naked eye.

Red dot scopes often don't do well with light transmission: their half-mirrored lenses make for a much darker picture. I thought I was going to take an Aimpoint 9000L on a hunting trip, until I tried a 1X scope. Switching from one to the other was like going from a dimly lit room into bright daylight, on a day that was actually overcast.

Scopes are very "instinctive" for me, but only when mounted conventionally. (I do own one scout-scoped rifle, but haven't taken to the system.)

Hangingrock
September 9, 2011, 12:02 PM
I let people hunt on the property by permission only. They the hunters enter the property via the gated driveway near to my residence. The hunting landscape is hardwoods. I have yet to see a rifle employed by those hunters which did not have a scope mounted. The nature of the tree growth as such that the shooting distances would be short.

SN13
September 9, 2011, 12:12 PM
seriously? 3-9x at 25 yards? REALLY?

And you guys are saying scopes GATHER LIGHT? Like what? A 50mm objective that has "Light Gathering" lenses gets 60mm worth of light in it?

Anything you put in front of your eye REDUCES the amount of light that reaches your EYE. Period.

The best lenses allow 96-99% of the light to pass through.

Saying an image through a scope is brighter than the naked Eye is B.S. Quit spouting this crap. Unless you're using electronic optics (NV/IR/Thermal), then you're reducing the light coming to your eye.

a 2MOA Red Dot will allow a shooter to take targets to 200 yards if they are using a flat rifle.

My .270 is zeroed at 200yards and shoots 1.5" high at 100. It's flat enough that I could use a small red dot and kill anything worth killing within 200yrds.

Dr T
September 9, 2011, 12:19 PM
I would go with a conventional2-7x scope with a 32mm+ objective.

I hunted with a scout scope last year on a Ruger Frontier 308. There were two issues:

1. While the scope was easy to point, the magnified field of view appeared to be much less than provided by a conventional 2-7x set on 2x.

2. When in bright sunlight looking into dense shade, the objective of the scout scope was too small to gather enough light to adequately identify the target. There was one deer (at about 40 yards standing in a mesquite thicket (West Texas) that I literally could not tell if it was a little buck or if it was a tree branch between the ears. Higher magnification or a bigger objective would have solved the problem.

(Since we are in a 5-deer county with no more than two bucks, I took the shot. I ended up "killing" a mesquite branch {I do this every couple of years} and the deer went on his/her way. Ironically, this may have been the same deer I ended up taking with the 308 two days later about 45 minutes before sunset with a quartering away 125 yard shot.)

The upshot of this is that I just replaced the scout scope with a Burris 2-7x35 mm with the E1 reticule. Now I need to go sight it in...

Coal Dragger
September 9, 2011, 02:27 PM
I like scout scopes and iron sights.

If my choice were a u-notch rear sight vs a scout scope, I would pick the scout scope every time.

A good aperture sight vs a scout scope is a much tougher call.

Loosedhorse
September 9, 2011, 03:10 PM
And you guys are saying scopes GATHER LIGHT?Why not?

The human cornea is about 12 mm, and only the light that falls on that structure can be directed into the eye.

A scope's objective lens is (at minimum) 24 mm. I would have assumed that all the light falling on the surface of the objective lens (about 4 times more light than falls on the unaided cornea) could be collimated by the scope's lens system and then directed to the cornea.

If that's not the way it works, fine, I apologize for my misunderstanding--how does it work?

CraigC
September 9, 2011, 03:23 PM
Scopes do not "gather" light. They transmit light. Some do a better job than others but a quality scope WILL transmit a brighter image than your eyeballs would see without it. A red dot will not, though they do usually have useful coatings. The key feature is not the size of the objective lens but the exit pupil. As magnifcation goes up, the objective must increase in size for the exit pupil to be usable. For a 1x scope with a 20mm objective will indeed transmit more light than a 24x scope with a 40mm objective.

Virg461
September 9, 2011, 06:04 PM
That's the whole point, isn't it? A good scope may get you an honest first-light or last-light shot that you would not take with iron sights.

The point is that if you can't see the deer with the naked eye, you shouldn't be shooting at all. Scope or no scope. Too many people take shots too early or too late. It only takes one mistake, one miss-identification of the target or what's behind it, to seriously ruin someone's day/life.

And no, scopes don't "gather" light, except in the catalog descriptions.

USSR
September 9, 2011, 07:49 PM
The point is that if you can't see the deer with the naked eye, you shouldn't be shooting at all.

Oh, you can see them all right, It's just that little thing of lining up dark iron sights against a dark deer. We tend not to just shoot at a deer, but rather shoot at a precise spot on a deer.;)

Don

Virg461
September 9, 2011, 07:56 PM
At 50 yards you should be able to pick out which eyeball you want to put it in with a scope.:neener:

okiewita40
September 9, 2011, 08:50 PM
And to think all these years I didn't know a hunting rifle was supposed to have a scope. For anything under 100 yards I don't think you need anything other than irons. I was taught to shoot all the way out to 500 yards with nothing but irons. Remember a real rifle uses iron sights.

Loosedhorse
September 9, 2011, 09:14 PM
And no, scopes don't "gather" light, except in the catalog descriptions.Well, if "gather light" means "transmit a brighter image than your eyeballs would see without it", we have two posters who say it doesn't happen, one who says it does, and me who says I thought it does...At 50 yards you should be able to pick out which eyeball you want to put it in with a scope.There's a lot of things I should be able to do, but I tend to stick with what I can actually do. Especially when hunting.

Those of you who prefer irons but have never tried good scopes? Maybe you're missing something. Those of you who have tried both and prefer irons, well, my hat's off to you (IF you're over 50; if not, well, just you wait)!

:D

USSR
September 9, 2011, 09:35 PM
At 50 yards you should be able to pick out which eyeball you want to put it in with a scope.

Funny you should mention that. Two years ago I drove a 178gr AMax through the head of a buck at about 30 yards. As I was field dressing him, I was thinking "Well, that was a gutsy move". ;)

Don

Loosedhorse
September 10, 2011, 09:47 AM
Ah. Found a low-light scope performance calculator online. When I enter my scope's parameters (24mm obj, 10.9mm exit pupil, transmission 91% per manufacturer's specs), it tells me that with the scope the scene should appear 1.64 times brighter than with the naked eye. (Perceived brightness=1.64) And that should give some of us a few more minutes of honest hunting time.

Done, you iron-sight weenies! :neener::D

natman
September 10, 2011, 10:12 AM
Ah. Found a low-light scope performance calculator online. When I enter my scope's parameters (24mm obj, 10.9mm exit pupil, transmission 91% per manufacturer's specs), it tells me that with the scope the scene should appear 1.64 times brighter than with the naked eye. (Perceived brightness=1.64) And that should give some of us a few more minutes of honest hunting time.

Done, you iron-sight weenies! :neener::D
Link?

Hangingrock
September 10, 2011, 10:32 AM
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc277/lowflash/Big%20Bore/P1010029_edited.jpg
I donít think this is a good combination for forest hunting.:what:;)

crazysccrmd
September 10, 2011, 10:34 AM
Scopes really do 'gather' light. Essentially the light entering the 40mm objective lens is narrowed down and focused on an exiting 10mm pupil which is then focused in your eye. So instead of your pupil only gathering the light entering it naturally it is having 40mm worth of light intensified into it.

Loosedhorse
September 10, 2011, 11:02 AM
Link?Left out on purpose. I found it, you can find it--if you want to. Heck, you might find something better!

Vern Humphrey
September 10, 2011, 11:04 AM
Well, if "gather light" means "transmit a brighter image than your eyeballs would see without it", we have two posters who say it doesn't happen, one who says it does, and me who says I thought it does...
Consider the strike-a-light. These were essential equipment with the old Mountain Men in the early 1800s.

A strike-a-light is a metal box -- usually brass -- about the size of a large shoe polish can. It contained tinder (usually scorched linen), a flint and a steel striker. The better strike-a-lights had a powerful magnifying glass let into the lid -- and that was used to start fires on sunny days.

Anyone can do it with a magnifying glass -- go outside and focus the light on the back of you hand, and see if you can raise a blister.

What's the point of this? To prove a lens can gather heat.

Now, what's the difference between light and hear? Wavelength, that's all.

Loosedhorse
September 10, 2011, 11:10 AM
Well put. Concentrating sunlight from a (what?) one-inch diameter incident lens surface into a tiny point to start a fire is not the same as concentrating a 24mm obj lens into a 10.9mm exit pupil...but the difference seems one of degree, not category.

natman
September 10, 2011, 01:10 PM
Left out on purpose. I found it, you can find it--if you want to. Heck, you might find something better!
Sorry, but claiming that you've proved your point because of something you've "found on the internet" - but refusing to cite it - is BS, whether you happen to be right or not.

Dr T
September 10, 2011, 01:30 PM
Never underestimate the power of Google...

http://scopecalc.com/

natman
September 10, 2011, 02:15 PM
Thanks, but the point is not whether or not I can find it - I could. The point is if you have a website that you are using to back your argument you cite it. "You could look it up" doesn't cut it.

CraigC
September 10, 2011, 02:42 PM
Essentially the light entering the 40mm objective lens is narrowed down and focused on an exiting 10mm pupil which is then focused in your eye.
Exactly! Asked and answered. The light is not "gathered" by the scope, the light "enters" the scope. It is not "gathered" by it. "Light gathering" is a misnomer.

Jason_W
September 10, 2011, 03:10 PM
I'd personally go with both. A scout scope mounted on quick detach rings with a peep sight backup.

Scopes are great until it starts to rain or snow.

Loosedhorse
September 11, 2011, 12:24 PM
you've "found on the internet" - but refusing to cite it - is BS, whether you happen to be right or not.Thanks, but the point is not whether or not I can find it - I could. The point is if you have a website that you are using to back your argument you cite it. "You could look it up" doesn't cut it. I don't understand...

You're saying it's "BS"--nice language!--even if it's true, easily findable...and even though YOU ALREADY FOUND IT? What are you talking about? This is a thread, not a court argument or an honors thesis: I'll cite what I want, thanks.

Hey, look: water is wet. The capital of Tajikistan is Dushanbe. No cites; go look them up. I guess those statements are now "BS," too?

:rolleyes:

Here's a hint: maybe you should do your own footwork, like I did, without shouting out "BS" on something you already know is true. If you want me to do your footwork for you, then kindly say please. I'm a real sucker for politeness!Exactly! Asked and answered. The light is not "gathered" by the scope, the light "enters" the scope. It is not "gathered" by it. "Light gathering" is a misnomer.So you're arguing semantics?

We all seem to agree (do we not?) that the right scope CAN, by collecting light falling on a larger area than the human eye, and then concentrating and transmitting ALL that light (minus transmission and diffraction losses) into a spot small enough that it can ALL enter the human eye, present a picture to the eye that is brighter than what the eye would see unaided? Right, we agree?

"BUT THAT'S NOT GATHERING LIGHT!!!! SCOPES CAN'T DO THAT!" Geez, fine--what do you WANT to call it when an optical scope allows you to see a brighter picture than without it?

:D

natman
September 11, 2011, 02:42 PM
I don't understand...

You're saying it's "BS"--nice language!--even if it's true, easily findable...and even though YOU ALREADY FOUND IT? What are you talking about? This is a thread, not a court argument or an honors thesis: I'll cite what I want, thanks.

Hey, look: water is wet. The capital of Tajikistan is Dushanbe. No cites; go look them up. I guess those statements are now "BS," too?

:rolleyes:

Here's a hint: maybe you should do your own footwork, like I did, without shouting out "BS" on something you already know is true. If you want me to do your footwork for you, then kindly say please. I'm a real sucker for politeness!So you're arguing semantics?

I should think that:
Sorry, but claiming that you've proved your point because of something you've "found on the internet" - but refusing to cite it - is BS, whether you happen to be right or not.

would be enough to make it clear that I'm not debating anything about scopes or light. But apparently not, so let me be specific about what I'm objecting to. Saying that a website proves you're right, then not citing it in the first place is bush league. Refusing to cite it when asked is rude.

I'm not asking you to do footwork for me, it's YOUR point so it's up to YOU to back it up. This is not a subtle point and I don't understand why you find it hard to grasp.

I'm done, if you what to go another round, go ahead.

Loosedhorse
September 11, 2011, 03:33 PM
This is not a subtle point and I don't understand why you find it hard to grasp.My emphasis. Perhaps I can help you understand.

I said you could find it...and you found it, so I guess I was right. Did you notice I called it a low-light scope performance calculator? Pop that phrase into google and what comes up first? Geez, it's not enough that I leave you a blazed trail, I've got to carry you down it, too?

You seem to be under the impression that it's my job to convince you. No: it's your job to educate yourself. I ran across something that educated me on this subject, and I thought I'd inform the interested here that the thing exists, in case maybe they want to find it and try it out. If some "spoonfeed me!"-type doesn't want to bother, and so remains unconvinced? Hey, not my loss.

Understand now?Yeah but what's the capital of the Gorno-Badakhshan division of Tajikistan?There's always a bigger wise-guy! I cry, "Uncle!" :D

Hizzie
September 12, 2011, 12:11 PM
Red dot sights are extremely popular in Europe for driven boar and stag. Shots are taken at medium-close range, in cover and at running game. My 458 will soon be wearing a red dot as opposed to a conventional 1-4 scope.

CraigC
September 12, 2011, 01:31 PM
We all seem to agree (do we not?) that the right scope CAN, by collecting light falling on a larger area than the human eye, and then concentrating and transmitting ALL that light (minus transmission and diffraction losses) into a spot small enough that it can ALL enter the human eye, present a picture to the eye that is brighter than what the eye would see unaided? Right, we agree?
Yes. Except I wouldn't use "collect" any more than I would use "gathering".


So you're arguing semantics?
Not really. The definition of "gather" is not in question but it's obvious that some don't know what it means. Scopes don't run around "gathering" wayward light rays like a mother may run around the store gathering her children. Scopes can only transmit what they receive, they can't "gather" any more than that. As I said, some just do a better job than others and for varying reasons. This is not an argument for arguments' sake. It is because "light gathering" implies something is going on that clearly is not.

Loosedhorse
September 12, 2011, 04:32 PM
The definition of "gather" is not in question but it's obvious that some don't know what it means.That's rather mean-spirited.

The definition of "gather" is found in the dictionary, yes, but I find no rules there for how it MUST be applied in the case of on objective lens.

The thesaurus feature at Merriam-Webster's website saysgather is the most general term for bringing or coming together from a spread-out or scattered state
So: light radiates out from a point source, and hits the entire surface of the obective lens, (which is a condensing lens), and the lens "gathers" the divergent rays back into a focused point again. Since it is gathering the light from a wider area than the eye can, the focused point from the scope will appear brighter that the focused point for the naked eye.

So: the scope gathered more light than the naked eye. Again, if you've found some rule that says gather must not be used in that fashion, please let me know.

By the way, what confusion are you worried about: that someone will think the scope jumps off the rifle, picks up some extra light from way over there, and brings it back to your eye in a basket? I'm not sure I understand why you think gather represents a false idea when it comes to scopes...so, please...

EnLIGHTen me! :D

shadow9
September 12, 2011, 04:57 PM
...Hi-vis front/ghost-ring rear with 2-7x VX ultralight leupold on Warne QD's, with a German #1 reticle...or pry the Marlin 1.5-5x German #1 tube off my father's rifle he never uses... :P

Good recipe?

CraigC
September 12, 2011, 05:08 PM
Personally, I want the unwashed truth. Not old wives tales, myths and legends. "You know what I mean" is not good enough. This "gathering" misnomer has been put to rest in print many times.


That's rather mean-spirited.
Calling it like it is. I didn't call anybody stupid so don't act like I did. "Gather" is a verb. Maybe you can explain how a passive inanimate object like a scope performs an action, other than focusing light. The mother and her children is a very good analogy, if you don't get that, I can't help.

What is silly is this clinging to an old goofy phrase, "light gathering".

Loosedhorse
September 12, 2011, 06:13 PM
This "gathering" misnomer has been put to rest in print many times.
So you say. You have offered no evidence, (not even where it has been put to rest one time) and no persuasion, that "gathering" may not be used in this sense.Calling it like it is.Nope. Calling it like you SAY it is, and then calling "silly" and "goofy" any use of gathering that you don't approve. THAT's what makes it mean-spirited.Maybe you can explain how a passive inanimate object like a scope performs an action, other than focusing light.Why are you excluding "focus"--it is a verb, too. How can an inanimate object do that? Or transmit, reflect, diffract, converge, diverge, invert, translate, collate, distort--all VERBS!!! Speaking of goofy, this idea of yours that inanimate objects can't "perform" an action...except, of course, for the actions you say it can!The mother and her children is a very good analogyAh--so you give an analogy, and then pronounce it "very good." I can play: I pronounce your analogy "very incomplete."

My judgment of your analogy is no less valid than yours.

As you have presented no reason whatever (other than, of course, your opinion, which is fine) to conclude that "gather light" is somehow an invalid phrase, I think we can keep on using it, even though some will (idiosyncratically and insupportably) consider it "silly."

CraigC
September 13, 2011, 12:18 AM
Why are you excluding "focus"--it is a verb, too. How can an inanimate object do that?
BECAUSE THE SCOPE DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING TO THE LIGHT BEFORE IT ENTERS THROUGH THE OBJECTIVE!!!!!!!

I'm done with the English lesson.

crazysccrmd
September 13, 2011, 12:34 AM
To get it back on topic a little - I just added a scout scope to my Yugo M48 earlier today. The iron sights on it are pretty terrible and I used a low power (2.5x) to keep it a bit more handy at closer ranges. I need to get out and fire/zero it and make sure everything is solid and we'll see how I like it. If it works well for me then I will stick with it and pick up a nicer/higher quality scope in the future.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i238/crazysccrmd/0912111703a.jpg
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i238/crazysccrmd/0912111705b.jpg

stsimons
September 13, 2011, 12:37 AM
I would suggest you guys take a trip over to the optics talk forum on SWFA. Some of those guys have forgotten more about optics than many of us ever knew.

JamesTheScot
September 13, 2011, 12:44 AM
Having taken deer in thick woods using both a red dot and a magnified scope, I like the magnified optic better.

While the dot is effective, a magnified optic still gives you an advantage when trying to locate and identify the critter that's making noise off in the distance. It's not just about accurate shooting, it's also about target ID sooner rather than later. With my aging eyes, the magnification helps when trying to pick out a patch of gray-brown fur amongst the similarly colored brush and figure out if it's deer or coyote or squirrel. With a dot, I basically have to sit there and wonder until it comes closer or happens to walk clear of obstruction.

It's a wash between the two once he's close enough for a clear, humane shot. I don't have trouble tracking him even at a trot with a scope set at 3x. And if he is running through woods, I don't shoot even with a dot either because there's too great a chance of a fouled shot and a lost, suffering deer. So to me it's a toss up in the moment when the trigger gets pulled so the added bonus of being able to pick him out at longer ranges by seeing a patch of fur or some slight brush movement is just icing on the cake. I know earlier whether to stay on him or go back to scanning.

ETA: I'm not talking about pointing a loaded gun at noises that might be other hunters, I'm talking about after you've ruled that out and know you are on a critter and are trying to figure out what kind or if it has a rack or not.

Loosedhorse
September 13, 2011, 02:39 AM
BECAUSE THE SCOPE DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING TO THE LIGHT BEFORE IT ENTERS THROUGH THE OBJECTIVE!!!!!!!

I'm done with the English lesson.Sigh. You have given no English lesson: to do so would have required knowledge of the subject.

There is nothing in the defintion of "gather" that says, if applied to a lens, it means "an action that would happen before light gets to the lens."

Part of the trouble is your construction "enters through the objective." The objective is not a door that allows light to enter the scope unchanged. As soon as light enters the objective (passes from air to the curved glass of the lens), the light's rays are converged, concentrated, collected...

Gathered.

Perhaps you should use really big all-caps next time, to be more persuasive? :rolleyes::D Oh, wait, I forgot: you said you're done.

scythefwd
September 13, 2011, 06:55 AM
Irons. Everything I hunt with is scoped... but I don't feel out of place with irons. I hated the irons that came with my rifle, and the scope was cheaper than a good set of irons so I got the scope.

A rear aperture with a post front sight is almost as fast as a point sight.

Yes, a scope, with it's enhanced contrast may seem brighter, but you can only get so much light into your eye. I've never used a 500 dollar scope at dusk, so I can't say how they are... but I'll never own one for hunting either.

In brush, fast target aquisition and durability are more important than magnification. If you actually have a chance at 10-15y shot, you'll see nothing but hair in anything over a 2x. You won't have a clue where on the side you are shooting.

rbernie
September 13, 2011, 09:28 AM
I have hunted on foot in the North Texas scrub a fair bit, using irons and unmagnified optics and magnified optics mounted on both the receiver and the barrel (aka scout-style). For most use, I favor a low power scope 1.5x to 2.5x and I favor the forward mounting.

Using an optic (illuminated reticle or not) makes absolutely precise head alignment on the stock a wee less critical, which is important when snap shooting. Using a forward-mounted optic makes the rifle carry and balance better for offhand shooting, and FOR ME is timed to be faster in placing first shot on target.

CraigC
September 13, 2011, 11:42 AM
Perhaps you should use really big all-caps next time, to be more persuasive?
Perhaps you should do some heavy reading and educate yourself on "light gathering" and "light transmission" before embarassing yourself any further by clinging to this myth.

The following was posted on another forum by an optical engineer.

"Getting back to a larger objective, some manufacturers do make scopes with huge objectives. Sometimes it's just because they know they can sell it; sometimes it's needed because the math makes it so. But there is nothing inherent in glass that makes light attracted to it, nor can glass compel light to strike it. This means there is no such thing as "light gathering." It's marketing hype."

"As I wrote in my original post, Light Transmission is all about quantum physics. Max Plank changed the world back in the 1930s with this theory. Light Gathering suggests some sort of capcadance with the lens material, and when the lens has enough light energy in it, the lens then discharges this energy into the next lens in the system. It doesn't work that way. Wave fronts of all types are created in the lenses, and if the lenses are made well and designed properly, hopefully the the light in the center axis is what is the majority of the light that is transmitted to the next lens. The way a good lens system works is that all problematic light (light I called bad in my original post) is processed out of the center axis light path as it continues to your eye in a riflescope or the final focal plane of an astronomical instrument."

CraigC
September 13, 2011, 11:55 AM
Here's another discussion:

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=401980

d2wing
September 13, 2011, 11:23 PM
I have used all three; dots, irons, and scopes. Up until last year, I prefered 3-9 or 4-12 scopes. I tried see through mounts but didn't use them. I like red dots but I am trying a 1-4 this year. The reason being I can no longer see the sights and the deer at the same time unless I have lots of time. Last year I could not find moving deer in the thick brush with a 4 power scope in part because I was on a stand that did not allow me to turn my body quickly. I got a deer but not the one I saw but did not get a good shot at. Good points for both but you have to find what you like. Irons are quicker if your eyes are good, the light is good and you practice. Otherwise I'd try a red dot or low power 1-4 scope. 3-9 or 4-12 work well if you have good sight lines.

natman
September 14, 2011, 05:57 AM
Scopes transmit light. They do not "gather light" in the sense some believe they do. All scopes lose some percentage of light, none of the them transmit 100% of the light available. By using larger lenses and better coatings they can lose less light, thereby making them brighter than other, lesser scopes, but NO conventional scope transmits a brighter image that available light. Larger, yes; clearer, yes; brighter, no.

It is impossible for any scope to "gather" light. It can only transmit existing light. And, regardless of advertising claims you may have heard, there is no riflescope made that can transmit 100% of available light....

The very best rifle scopes human beings can create will transmit to your eye—under perfect conditions—a maximum of 94.5% to 95% of available light.

http://www.schmidtbender.com/facts_light.shtml

Now if you want to argue this point, find a quote that explicitly states that a scope can offer an image brighter than ambient from a source you think knows more about riflescopes than Schmidt & Bender and include a link to it.

Please no more fuzzy analogies about funnels, magnifying glasses, "gathering light" or displays of ego. We've had enough of those already.

Here's some more:

Scopes don't gather light, as most people think, although the term "light gathering ability" has become accepted jargon. Scopes transmit available light through the lenses to your eye, always losing a bit in the process. The best a scope can hope to offer in light transmission is about a theoretical 98%, which only the very finest (read expensive) scopes can hope to approach. Anything above 95% is considered great, and most scopes are around 90%, give or take a bit.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/how-to-choose-riflescope.html

So what's the big deal about large objectives? Aren't they supposed to be brighter?

Indeed they are, but they are only brighter than other scopes, not ambient light and only under certain conditions. Here's how it works:

The ratio between the objective lens and and the magnification of a scope is called the exit pupil. For example a 40mm scope at 8 power will have an exit pupil of 5mm. (40mm/8) For a given size of objective lens, a scope with higher magnification will have a smaller exit pupil.

Depending on how bright it is, the diameter of the human pupil varies. If the exit pupil is larger or equal to the diameter of the eye's pupil looking through the scope both scopes will appear to be similar, since the eye's pupil will act as a bottleneck on the amount of light that gets in. OTOH, if it's relatively dark and the pupil is wide open (~7mm), then a scope with an exit pupil less than 7mm will be the bottleneck and appear darker than one that has an exit pupil at or above 7mm.

There's a good writeup on exit pupil here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_pupil

Finally, thanks to the experts at http://www.opticstalk.com/forums.html who helped me remember exactly how all this works.

303tom
September 14, 2011, 11:16 AM
These are great for quick target acquisition in a confined area.
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/barska-compact-multi-reticle-reflex-sight.aspx?a=277919

303tom
September 14, 2011, 11:18 AM
Here is another picture outside.

Loosedhorse
September 14, 2011, 07:13 PM
Perhaps you should do some heavy reading and educate yourself on "light gathering" and "light transmission"But there is nothing inherent in glass that makes light attracted to itScopes transmit light. They do not "gather light" in the sense some believe they do.
Weird. Three separate posters (two on this thread) feel that it is necessary to invoke the idea that "some" folks out there believe that light is "attracted" to glass, and that that belief--that they themselves seem to have invented--is what others (like myself) mean when we use the term "light gathering". Even though I have repeatedly said I mean by the term--and I suspect, unless I am unique, others mean by it--a scope (probably with large objective, large exit pupil and low power) that presents a brighter picture to the eye then the naked eye would see.

Perhaps some out there believe that an optical scope can never present a brighter picture than the naked eye can see, and that's why they object to the term "light-gathering". If so, I think they're wrong. But perhaps someone can present a reference that says that scopes can NEVER present a brighter picture than the naked eye sees. I'll wait.

Others seem to insist that the term "light-gathering" implies the voodoo-like attracting of light (perhaps around corners and from under tables), or ability to alter light before it reaches the scope. These same persons insists that scopes only "transmit" light, and don't seem to admit that scopes can also "converge" it or "concentrate" it. I think such posters are clearly wrong, too.

Perhaps someone can introduce me to the persons who use "light gathering" to mean something other than "presenting a brighter picture than is seen by the naked eye"? Or references that say that light gathering can only mean voodoo, and is not allowed to mean something more straight-forward and common-sensical? Even a poll that says most people who say "light gathering scope" mean a supernatural scope?

I feel like I used the term "expanding bullet" and am being attacked: "Don't you know about physics? There is conservation of MATTER! Matter just can't expand and become suddenly MORE matter than it was before you shot it." Deliberate misinterpretation of a perfectly reasonable, commonly used, well understood term as something that defies physics.

Germster
September 14, 2011, 08:54 PM
I often hear someone say that his scope is very "bright" as if others are no so. It seems to me that some scopes are brighter than others, or is it that some scopes are clearer than others and have a larger field? I think the latter. Certainly good scopes are better than bad ones, but if they are all nearly as bright as the rest then why spring for an expensive scope in the first place? Are expensive scopes really that much better?

I think it is a valid question, since it can mean buying a cheaper rifle so that we can afford high priced glass.

As I've said before, for most hunting I prefer an appeture sight. For small varmits and long, open range hunting, a scope is good too, but since most game is taken at close range why bother?

littlelefty
September 14, 2011, 09:10 PM
At the risk of being pounced upon, I am enjoying this thread and subsequent hockey match that seems to have erupted somewhere along the way...

scythefwd
September 14, 2011, 11:06 PM
Hangingrock - the rifle pictured in http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7573175&postcount=50 would be rediculous in the woods... but that's target sights and not representative for all aperture sights.

The sights on this rifle will be fine. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=m16a2&um=1&hl=en&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&biw=1024&bih=682&tbm=isch&tbnid=TNy3pEwMH9GppM:&imgrefurl=http://www.wix.com/asimrauf/m16-homepage&docid=J1D8ZJoGkqrSmM&w=863&h=281&ei=hF1xTpmkDNSrsAKuhNzECQ&zoom=1

Granted, I'd recommend a better caliber than .223, maybe something in the 7.62x39 or bigger :)

PowerG
September 14, 2011, 11:23 PM
A scope cannot make the object brighter, but it can make an object more visible. It does this by the magnified image being picked up by more retinal cells than the smaller, unmagnified image. This is assuming the exit pupil of the scope is equal to or larger than the current entrance pupil of the eye.

I prefer iron sights in thick woods, I can still see well enough to use them, not sure how much longer that will be the case. Mainly because of the chance of having to take a shot at a running target, it happens sometimes and a scope, for me, is pretty much useless for that.

Loosedhorse
September 15, 2011, 01:51 AM
A scope cannot make the object brighter,Can't make the object brighter? Of course not.

But it can't make the image of the object presented to the eye brighter? Why not? I'll take either your opinion or a reference.

If an object reflects light in all directions (standard, diffuse, "non-specular" reflection), then more of that object's reflected light will fall on a large lens than on a small one; that is, more on a 24mm objective lens than on the 12mm human cornea.

If all the light that falls on the cornea is focused into a 1mm tall image of that object, that image will be 1/4 as bright as the image produced by focusing all the light from the 24mm objective lens (assuming similar diffraction, reflection and transmission losses).

If this 4 times brighter image derived from a 4 times (area) greater lens surface "can't" or "doesn't" happen, why not? (Do engineers who design huge dish radio telescopes understand that that the large dish does nothing to "gather" radio waves better than a much smaller antenna can do? :rolleyes:)

biggameballs
September 15, 2011, 02:19 AM
Get yourself a 1.5-6x40. Pretty much the ideal scop for everything except shots over 300 yards. I just mounted a 1.5-6x40 Burris Euro Diamond on top of a Browning BAR LW stalker in 308 and I can tell you it's going to be the perfect gun for the big northern MN woods.

natman
September 15, 2011, 04:46 AM
Weird. Three separate posters (two on this thread) feel that it is necessary to invoke the idea that "some" folks out there believe that light is "attracted" to glass, and that that belief--that they themselves seem to have invented--is what others (like myself) mean when we use the term "light gathering". Even though I have repeatedly said I mean by the term--and I suspect, unless I am unique, others mean by it--a scope (probably with large objective, large exit pupil and low power) that presents a brighter picture to the eye then the naked eye would see.

I've never said anything a rational person could confuse as "light is 'attracted' to glass". That's an argument YOU made up. I'm just saying that there's no such thing as "gathering light" as a way to make an image brighter than ambient. Since I don't believe in the principle, I'm hardly going to offer explanations on how it "works".

Perhaps some out there believe that an optical scope can never present a brighter picture than the naked eye can see, and that's why they object to the term "light-gathering". If so, I think they're wrong. But perhaps someone can present a reference that says that scopes can NEVER present a brighter picture than the naked eye sees. I'll wait.


It's already been done, but yet again you've chosen to ignore anything that you don't like:

The very best rifle scopes human beings can create will transmit to your eye—under perfect conditions—a maximum of 94.5% to 95% of available light.

http://www.schmidtbender.com/facts_light.shtml
Now if you want to argue this point, find a quote that explicitly states that a scope can offer an image brighter than ambient from a source you think knows more about riflescopes than Schmidt & Bender and include a link to it.

Please no more fuzzy analogies about funnels, magnifying glasses, "gathering light" or displays of ego. We've had enough of those already.

That should have been explicit enough. Seriously, what part of
"The very best rifle scopes human beings can create will transmit to your eye—under perfect conditions—a maximum of 94.5% to 95% of available light."
is too subtle for you?

Again, find a source that explicitly backs your point, if you can, and post it along with a link. Otherwise just stop.

Loosedhorse
September 15, 2011, 08:46 AM
Since I don't believe in the principle, I'm hardly going to offer explanations on how it "works".Whether you believe in it or not is immaterial. Whether you believe in gravity or not is immaterial: physics says it exists--even in "weightless" outer space.

So, what I was asking is do YOU have any rational basis for saying the image from a scope can never be brighter than the image seen by the naked eye, or not? So far, none has been presented."The very best rifle scopes human beings can create will transmit to your eye—under perfect conditions—a maximum of 94.5% to 95% of available light."
is too subtle for you?Nothing. But if that is 94.5-95% of FOUR TIMES the light that falls on the unaided human eye, then it will be brighter by far.

What part of that math is too complicated for you? :neener:Again, find a source that explicitly backs your point, if you can, and post it along with a link. Otherwise just stop.Uh...no. You find a source that says a scope can NEVER present an image that is brighter than what the human eye can see. That way we BOTH have to produce statements to "prove" our points, not just me.

And by the way, you were probably sleeping, but did you TRY that low-light performance calculator for scopes? Did you enter 24mm lens, 10.9 pupil, and 91% transmission--and see what relative brightness you got?

Did you even bother to engage your common sense to figure out why observatories, using large mirrors as lenses are able to see dimmer stars than we can with the naked eye--if there's no such thing as light-gathering?

:D

CraigC
September 15, 2011, 10:03 AM
Larger lenses receive more light than smaller ones. Better quality lenses transmit more light than cheaper ones. Better coatings allow the lens to transmit more light than those without. None of which adds up to "gathering".

Radio antennas are the same way. Larger antennas receive more radio waves. It is not "gathered".

The subject of "light gathering" and whether or not a scope presents a brighter image than the naked human eye are mutually exclusive.

Are you really this dense? Are you going to turn the world of quantum physics on its ear???

Dr T
September 15, 2011, 11:48 AM
{Radio antennas are the same way. Larger antennas receive more radio waves. It is not "gathered".}

Not quite.

In essense, the radio dish (or other directional design)antenna acts to narrow the field of view. (Basically, the antenna pattern is the Fourier transform across the aperture loading).

Technically, all antennas receive energy from all directions. The antenna design acts to increase the directional sensitivity so that it "sees" in some directions better than others. After the signal is received, it must then be amplified to a level appropriate for the use of the energy.

What does this have to do with rifle scopes? Quite a bit, actually. First, it must be understood that anything between the eye and object will tend to decrease the amount of energy transmitted to the eye. Second, every thing between the eye and the object adds noise to the image. Third, in order to consider the sensitivity, you have to consider the entire optical system, i.e. scope, eye, and brain. The first two items imply that a premium is placed on the optics that degrade the image the least and allow the most energy to pass through. The third and fourth items have been missing in this discussion.

The "Brightness" is a measure of how much energy is transmitted. In a well designed scope, a bigger objective will let more energy through than a smaller objective all other things being equal. However, why would it appear brighter? Well, think of the pupil of the eye. In the dark, the pupil gets bigger, letting more light in. The scope restricts the field of view. If you are looking at something against a dark background through a scope, the pupil of the eye will adjust to the amount of light transmitted allowing the object to be more easily seen.

natman
September 15, 2011, 12:16 PM
Did you even bother to engage your common sense to figure out why observatories, using large mirrors as lenses are able to see dimmer stars than we can with the naked eye--if there's no such thing as light-gathering?
:D

It is impossible for any scope to "gather" light. It can only transmit existing light. And, regardless of advertising claims you may have heard, there is no riflescope made that can transmit 100% of available light.

The article is entitled The Truth About Light Transmission (http://www.schmidtbender.com/facts_light.shtml) and that's what it is.


The very best rifle scopes human beings can create will transmit to your eye—under perfect conditions—a maximum of 94.5% to 95% of available light.
http://www.schmidtbender.com/facts_light.shtml



But if that is 94.5-95% of FOUR TIMES the light that falls on the unaided human eye, then it will be brighter by far.

I should have thought that the meaning of the Schmidt & Bender quote was clear enough that anyone could understand it. But apparently not.

So you want to base an argument on twisting the meaning of the word transmit so that while the scope transmits 95% of available light, somehow there's FOUR TIMES more light, so 95% of 4 is brighter?

OK, fine. Kindly explain exactly how this FOUR TIMES as much light is produced. Show the formula that explains what configuration of scope would produce this FOUR TIMES, rather than, say, THREE or FIVE. If there's any truth to your claim, there's a formula out there to calculate it. Please spare us your semantic gymnastics - PROVIDE A REPUTABLE SOURCE and cite it. And please, no whining how it's not your turn to provide a source.

Loosedhorse
September 15, 2011, 12:50 PM
The article is entitled The Truth About Light Transmission and that's what it is.So those large observatory telescopes are just a hoax? Great. somehow there's FOUR TIMES more light, so 95% of 4 is brighter?Not somehow, Nat: because the 24mm objective lens represent a 4 times greater area than the 12mm human cornea, 4 times more light falls on it. My reliable source: Area = pi * r^2

And yes: 0.95X4 is > 1. Need a source for that, too?

CraigC
September 15, 2011, 12:56 PM
I thought I was hard-headed. :rolleyes:

rbernie
September 15, 2011, 12:59 PM
Y'all need to ask yourselves how this contest to get the last word in actually helps address the OP.

Please.

PreMod70
September 15, 2011, 01:13 PM
I hunted with peeps all my life and would have no other except sooner or later age ruins the eyes and then it is scopes only. I'd use peeps anyday for one reason, rain, it is a lot easier to get a clear sight picture that it is with any scope.

natman
September 15, 2011, 02:11 PM
So those large observatory telescopes are just a hoax? Great.Not somehow, Nat: because the 24mm objective lens represent a 4 times greater area than the 12mm human cornea, 4 times more light falls on it. My reliable source: Area = pi * r^2


Can't fault the math. You've managed to calculate the areas of the circles correctly. The rest is just pitiful. So your theory is that the ratio of the brightness of the image to available light = area of the objective lens/the area of the cornea. Well that's certainly simple enough. Yet, with all the resources of the internet at your fingertips, you can't find one single source ANYWHERE to back it up. What a surprise!

All these optical experts have been wasting their time with exit pupils and lens coatings when all they had to do was make the OL bigger. I guess if they make it big enough you'll have to wear sunglasses to look through your scope at night. I'll notify Schmidt & Bender of their error right away. Expect a call from the Nobel committee any day now. :rolleyes:

I usually try to avoid engaging in personal criticism, but your case warrants an exception. I knew when it came down to verifying an actual fact you'd be exposed as the fraud you are. You may think it's fun to play the troll and aggravate people, but in the end all you've accomplished is to make a complete fool of yourself.

Find something better to do with your time in the future than to waste mine.

Vern Humphrey
September 15, 2011, 02:50 PM
Why are we arguing theory when we can do a practical experiment to settle the question?

Take the most powerful magnifying glass you can find outside on a sunny day, and focuss the sun on the back of your hand. Hold it for a full minute.

Come back and tell us what happened.;)

(This experiment shows that heat can be gathered or concentrated by a lens. And heat differs from light only in wavelength.)

Germster
September 15, 2011, 03:46 PM
Here's a thought: does a scope with a very large front lens appear brighter than the relative brightness of a scope with a noticeably smaller front lens? I suggest that is does. Is this because the large lens with a greater surface area allows more light in? Seems so. As I stated earlier some scope do appear brighter than others and I'm wondering why. I think we who have looked through many scopes have noticed this.

Or do we just look through a lens and see the light that is on the other side? Wouldn't a large lens "see" more light? Can we also say that the larger lens therefore, "gathers" more light since it sees more and the target area appears brighter? However can a scope make apparent light brighter than ambient light? In other words can a scope make things brighter than they actually are? This is the crux of the question. Which is, does the target area look brighter when viewed through a scope compared that what which is seen with the naked eye?

crazysccrmd
September 15, 2011, 03:54 PM
Which is, does the target area look brighter when viewed through a scope compared that what which is seen with the naked eye?

A 40mm objective scope is basically taking 40mm of light and focusing it on a 10mm pupil. Therefore your pupil seems to be seeing 4x the light it usually would. With higher end optics with better lenses/coatings/transmission ratings the effect is enhanced as less light is lost between the objective and your eye.

Loosedhorse
September 15, 2011, 04:13 PM
you can't find one single source ANYWHERE to back it up.Just as you haven't presented one single source that says "my" idea (it's not just my idea) is false.

BTW, I went to an optics forum (http://www.opticstalk.com/basic-light-transmission-question_topic30276.html)--hey, I'm not saying these guys are definitive, but they're saying some familiar things:
As far as whether or not a scope can make an "image brighter than it is to the naked eye," it is obvious to me that it canthere are transmission losses in all scopes, but the scope's larger lens puts more light in so despite the transmission losses the resulting image is indeed brighter than without the scope. I assume this is the source of the famous phrase "gathers light". If the scope delivers twice the amount of light to your eye, it does not mean that it delivers twice the information. [emphasis added]Even a passive scope can and most certainly does make the image look brighter that it would with your naked eye as long as there is magnification involved. Thinking about total amount of light in this case is patently incorrect. What you want to think about is flux, i.e. the energy that passes through a particular area. Alternatively, you can think about it in terms of energy density.

Energy density in the exit pupil is higher than energy density of the entrance pupil.

Now, there are other things you give up, and the whole concept of "brighter" is misrepresented in this whole thread, but if you are only talking about the amount of light getting into the eye, then yes, the scope increases it. [emphasis added]

And WHO do we find has been participating in the thread, and should know all this? Natman! Pretty duplicitous of you to say there is no support for my claim when all this time you've been reading the support, trying to keep it secret--all while the chief optics guru on the thread says, yes, "most certainly" scopes can make the image look brighter than with the naked eye.

Shame on you.All these optical experts have been wasting their time with exit pupils and lens coatings when all they had to do was make the OL bigger.One of the chief ways (not the only way) manufacturers haved increased exit pupil is by increasing objective lens size. You should know that.

Germster
September 15, 2011, 04:14 PM
That's the whole point, isn't it? A good scope may get you an honest first-light or last-light shot that you would not take with iron sights.

3-9X scopes are much more versatile, but consider low power variable scopes (like 1-4X), too, if you're spending much time in thick woods. It's easy to think "What's the point of a 1X scope?" until you try one. Brightness is incredible, better than the naked eye.

Red dot scopes often don't do well with light transmission: their half-mirrored lenses make for a much darker picture. I thought I was going to take an Aimpoint 9000L on a hunting trip, until I tried a 1X scope. Switching from one to the other was like going from a dimly lit room into bright daylight, on a day that was actually overcast.

Scopes are very "instinctive" for me, but only when mounted conventionally. (I do own one scout-scoped rifle, but haven't taken to the system.)
So a 1X scope is really helping you with your sight picture, right? That sounds logical and useful to me, especially when one's eyes are growing weaker. While I try always to shoot off of iron sights, I do notice that I can no longer focus to long and short range as rapidly and as clearly as I did when a young man.

I like low power scopes and while I do have a 6X I like 4's best. This allows me to judge distance better. Switching the magnification back and forth causes me to lose sight of the range. I do have a 1.5 to 5 Burris scope that came with a Model 99 in 308 that I bought at a gunshow. Nice set up. She's not a very straight shooter however, probably why the original owner sold it.

Loosedhorse
September 15, 2011, 04:40 PM
So a 1X scope is really helping you with your sight picture, right/In part. I also think it helps me with brightness...but that's under discussion.

(It was pointed out in the optics forum thread I linked above that sometimes increased contrast and clarity can "look like" increased brightness, and that those elements may be more important; however, it was also pointed out that increased brightness ALSO happens.)

wharvey
September 15, 2011, 05:05 PM
My deer rifle is an old Marlin Glenfield .30-30. I have a 4x scope on it. I have a peep sight on a Marlin 39. Love it but as I get older may have to go with a scope. Will hate to do away with the clean lines of the 39.

Germster
September 16, 2011, 03:01 PM
I own a Model 39 with a Williams peep sight and love the rifle. However when shooting sage rats, which like to hang out at 75 to 125 yds I just can't see the little critter well enough to shoot him. I bought a Savage 93 in 17 HMR and mounted a scope, now I can reach out farther since I can see the little fella. However I still love my 39 and I will not scope it. For standard .22 rimfire ranges it's a cracker jack.

Germster
September 22, 2011, 09:40 PM
We've been talking iron or glass in the brush. Just wondering. Is a shotgun even better? No scope in the picture, just 9 .44 caliber lead pellets. In heavy brush isn't a shotgun a better killer than, say, a 30/30? Load a slug or buckshot. Load both. If it's a long shot then jack out the buckshot and chamber the slug. Seems smart to me.

I guess this is the wrong thread to suggest this, but I'm thinking about it.

Vern Humphrey
September 23, 2011, 11:20 AM
Buckshot is more on the order of .33 caliber pellets.

In general -- discounting for the moment rifled shotguns and special saboted loads -- a rifle has all the advantages of a shotgun, and gives you a bit extra.

First of all, to kill a deer cleanily, you need to hit it cleanly. That means with buckshot, you have to center the pattern on it. You can shoot a rifle like a shotgun -- pointing rather than aiming -- and get about the same precision you get with a shotgun.

But I've killed a lot of deer shooting through holes in the brush -- difficult to do with buckshot, easy to do with a rifle, especially a scoped rifle.

If you enjoyed reading about "Scout scope vs. iron sights - forest hunting" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!