Loosedhorse
member
Left out on purpose. I found it, you can find it--if you want to. Heck, you might find something better!
Last edited:
Scout scope vs. iron sights - forest hunting
- Thread starter shadow9
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
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
member
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.
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
Member
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
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
Member
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.
Scopes are great until it starts to rain or snow.
Loosedhorse
member
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?
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?
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?
Last edited:
I should think that: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?
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?
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.
Last edited:
Loosedhorse
member
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?
There's always a bigger wise-guy! I cry, "Uncle!"
Hizzie
Member
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
Sixgun Nut
Yes. Except I wouldn't use "collect" any more than I would use "gathering".
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
member
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 says
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!
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
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.
What is silly is this clinging to an old goofy phrase, "light gathering".
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
member
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.
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.
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!
Ah--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
Sixgun Nut
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
Member
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.
JamesTheScot
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4
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.
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
member
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?
Oh, wait, I forgot: you said you're done.scythefwd
Member
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.
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
Contributing Member
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.
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
Sixgun Nut
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."
- Status
