Is the scope on my revolver a waist of money ???

[holmux]

The day after I got my new SRH .44 I mounted a handgun scope (2x20) and was happy with the results, I made some nice groups and it field like a good setup. But then I added a new grip, and in this process I tog the scope off, and tried shooting a few shots without.

After going true a box of ammo, I start getting this feeling the groups where the same, I shot 25 and 50 yards targets and when I was standing, I got better results without the scope, sitting down with the gun on a rest, I got the same results with or without the scope.

Is this common knowledge, I just haven’t learned yet ?, or did I just have a good/bad day at the range ?

I have this feeling I just wasted $ 300 on a scope.

 

[kmrcstintn]

hhhmmmm...

personally, I will not mount a scope on my hunting sidearm since it is a secondary or backup or 'put down a wounded critter' weapon; I will only attempt shots with mine out to @ 25-35 yards and only when getting my rifle or slug gun into action will spook the game due to noise or movement; my 'hunting' revolver also serves as a home protection gun and a range gun in the off season and a scope would be very cumbersome;

with that said...if you feel that you will eventually want to use your revolver/scope combo as a primary hunting platform and you have the ability to 'stalk' your game and get close enough to properly take a good shot...keep it;

another idea for now is remove the scope, replace the rear sight, get lots of practice, and when your confidence builds up...place the scope back on the revolver and then work on your groups with the magnification that the scope offers;

from the price you stated...sounds like a Leupold or Nikon or upper end Millett scope...a very good investment; place the gun and scope away for a while and don't jump at impulsive thoughts; think through your decision with objectivity and not just try to sell off the scope and take a big loss

 

[Clipper]

The magnification of a handgun scope simply exagerates movement and causes too much distraction. Once I finally got my wife to ditch the scope that came on her SBH, she started hitting stuff...

Not to mention the SCRATCHES that &^%$ 'no gunsmithing' mount added to her pistol barrel. :banghead:

 

[LHB1]

Holmux,
For range targets with clearly defined green/white or black/white bullseyes, my 68 year old eyes see well enough that my iron sight scores equal my scope (2X) scores. Under field/hunting conditions where the target may be more neutral colored or partially hidden in brush at varying distances, I can see the target MUCH better with the scope and thus shoot/hit MUCH better with the 2X scoped pistols (S&W M41 and S&W M629 Classics). The steadier appearance of iron sights may allow most shooters to exercise better trigger control than with scopes where the crosshairs bounce around more. YMMV

Good shooting and be safe.
LB

 

[Gator]

You must be young and still have good eyes I'm going more and more to scopes on everything I own because I can't see iron sights like I used to.

As you discovered, you can shoot just as accurately with iron sights, but the single plane view of target and crosshairs can be nice sometimes.

 

[holmux]

Scope advances

I have never hunted with a revolver, but is planning on going this year, it’s definitely an easier carry without the scope, but I could see an advance in using the scope in the early morning or late evening, gaining a little more light.
It would be a nice feeling going hunting, with your gun in the side holster, I could imagine going places I would never do with a rifle in my hand.

I guess it’s back to the range practicing more with and without the scope.

Thanks for Your input.

 

[Walkalong]

With my old eyes I can definitely shoot better with a scope, or red dot scope, but when I was younger I don't believe, at least shooting at short rage, it would have helped.

 

[YodaVader]

I shot 25 and 50 yards targets and when I was standing, I got better results without the scope, sitting down with the gun on a rest, I got the same results with or without the scope.

Shooting from a rest there is a definite improvement in what I can do with a scope vs open sights. And even off hand for that matter.

If you are doing just as well with the open sights then I would say the scope offers you no advantage except in possible low light conditions. I assume you have a Leupold 2X since you say it was a $300 scope? I have a 2X Leupold and have been able to shoot well with it mounted on various handguns.

 

[22-rimfire]

It just depends on what kind of range you are looking to make shots with the revolver. As a backup, I would never have a scope on a revolver. I use my SRH 480 as the PRIMARY gun as I don't even carry a rifle anymore unless I'm hunting fields.

The scope allows you to see just how unsteady you are; you just don't know it when you have open sights. (Yes, there is added weight.) The difference between using as scope at 50 yds on a handgun vs open sights is shooting at an 6-8" circle with open sights vs a 2-3" circle with the scope. You're just hard on yourself when it comes to judging a revolver like it is a rifle. At longer ranges, you will shoot better if you practice with the scope. Just don't expect to use the scope to "inspect" the quarry, just take the shot and make it sooner rather than later.

 

[Geno]

Depends how good the controls on the cylinder's chambers. Each and every chamber will have its respective P.O.I. To the degree that they do not vary excessively, a scope can be effective. They are tremendously effective on single-shot and bolt action pistols. Money wasted? No necessarily.

When I hunt with pistol (Encore & Contender) the ranges are from 150 to 250 yards. So, for me, a scope helps. On the other hand, the world record for 500 yard accuracy for pistol shot is held with iron sigths... it is .75" X 3.5" @ 500 yards.

Doc2005