Scoped Revolver: Talk to me.

Good for hunting when you have a solid position, and all the time in the world.

Not much good for anything else in my experience.

And of course, none of your holsters will fit anymore.

rc

The only one I've ever owned, and this was years ago, was a Ruger Redhawk with factory scope rings and a Leupold scope, 44 mag. From the bench at 100 yards I could shoot it better than a lot of hunters can shoot their rifles. 3.5" groups at 100 yards from a sand bag rest with factory HP ammo. I needed cash and sold it some years ago. Bad move, shoulda kept that one!

I bought a Python Hunter model. 8" barrel, Leopold scope. Had a shoulder holster made.

Shot it a lot, because I intended to use it for deer. I was not impressed with the .357 for deer, even though it was a very accurate pistol off of bags.

It is one on the few pistols I ever got rid of. I could not find a good use for it.

If you are trying to accomplish quicker sight acquisition, there are some decent red dot sights. Fiber optic sights are a much cheaper option if your eyes just need a little help picking up sights. Long eye relief types of scopes, as would be appropriate for a revolver are great if you need target magnification from a fixed position. They can be tough to line up and get a sight picture quickly without practice. As RC pointed out, you severely limit your holster choices with a scoped revolver.

Too big, too bulky, generally not easy to find crosshairs in,ect. I would rather have a Burris Fastfire III.

S&W 686-4 with Burris Fast Fire III




Ruger GP-100 with Williams Fire Sights (Fiber Optic)





Rossi Cyclops with Scope

i don't have a scoped Revolver but i do have a few scoped Contenders & Encores
for still hunting and paper punching a scoped handgun just works great. but stick with a 2x 4x tops for hunting

Took it off my casull. Was very accurate but acquisition is not practical...they ruin what a pistol is for. Unless you want to hunt at long distance or competition.

I've got the 2x Leupold extended eye relief pistol scope on a Super Blackhawk Bisley Hunter. Target acquisition is not an issue with its wide field of view. I get no blackout in my natural stance, however friends with very short or long arms have a little difficulty.

Whatever you do, don't get anymore than 2x magnification. 2x shows some wobble, but with anything more, there's no easy way to shoot without a solid rest.

I recently removed a red dot sight from my Super Blackhawk. As previously mentioned, your existing holsters will not fit after adding a scope/optical sight, the weight increases noticeably, and the one thing that I didn't expect is that the red dot sight acted like a sail in a crosswind and at times made the gun difficult to hold steady.

I bought a SRH in 44 mag. back in the early 90's that was outfitted with a Leupold and factory rings. I really love using that revolver for hunting. It's simply not practical for much beyond hunting and range shooting though. And as RC pointed out, no holster will fit something like that, so it's not a viable SD set up.

GS

I have a S&w 28-2 and a Ruger SRH .44 mag. with Leupold 2x scopes. As others have said, they are primarily range toys for me, with some plans to take the .44 hunting.
The scopes are useful at 50+ yards, and with smaller or less visible targets. I can keep 6 shots with the .44 inside of 6" offhand, 3" rested at 100 yards...something I can't do with irons. 200 yards is attainable without having your front sight obscure your target from holdover.
Scopes are heavy,
They are usually mounted on big handguns, making them even bigger and much bulkier
They need a special holster when mounted,
some mounts require drilling and tapping an extra hole in the top strap of the frame,
Many mounts require removal of the rear sight for mounting, rendering the gun useless if the scope breaks
Many clamp on mounts can mar the finish.
Unlike a good holo sight, they pretty much render the gun useless for self defense

If a shooter wants a scope or other appendage on his handgun, that's his business. Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead with one. It defeats the whole idea of what a handgun is all about.

Here is my 6" 629 sporting one of a pair of sale-priced Weaver H2 2 x 28 scopes. This one came off of my .454 SRH, on which it had enabled me to make <2" 5-shot groups repeatedly at 50yd, before I traded the SRH. The combo was, like the one pictured here, a bit cumbersome, but fairly fast to acquire - and required no battery. For several years I found myself mounting the scope as deer season approached - and checking it out at the range. I also swapped it's normal wood grips for the Hogue/S&W .500 Magnum grips. That's as far as I ever got - I have yet to hunt with a handgun.



I agree with those who suggest a fiber optic (HiViz) front sight - just as useful inside 50yd - at least it was on that SRH. The scope was fun at the range, but I no longer even have a rug that the scoped 6" 629 will fit in to carry it to the range.

Stainz

GP100Wii said:

I keep to 357/38 caliber across my firearms. I have revolvers & a lever.

Considering that, I was thinking about adding a scoped GP100 (6") to the mix, especially with my rougher eyesight.

For those who have opinions about adding a scope to a revolver, pro or con -- talk me in or out of it.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

My current problem with focusing on handgun sights have led me to my own recent experimentation. I had an old 4x handgun scope (from a scout rifle set up) and some red dots laying around, so all I needed was a way to mount something up. I have so far only tried this with my long barrel Single Six.

Last summer I experimented with the 4x and even made some short shooting sticks out of scraps I had laying around the house (wood and an old belt). My conclusion is the 4x is a bit much, even with shooting sticks. The eye relief is tricky, too. In free hand you can't exactly hold the gun like you would with an open sighted gun. You kinda have to find your arm length range that works with the scope. With shooting sticks, the eye relief is much less of a problem.

A couple months ago, I pulled the 4x scope off and mounted a Bushnell TRS-25 I previously bought for a rimfire rifle. The gun feels much lighter in the hand and the red dot allows me to see the dot and target much more clearly than iron sights. Eye relief is not an issue at all with a red dot, hold the gun anyway you want and the dot is there.

You have to get used to finding the dot in the sight (same with the scope regarding the crosshairs), but so far I like it much, much better than using the scope.

The only thing that the 4x scope provided was being able to see small targets at handgun ranges. Shooting off the sticks was still somewhat wobbly and takes some practice. Something with a bipod attached (like a Ruger Charger) would most likely be more stable than shooting sticks.

In my opinion if you want a challenge and want to shoot small targets, try out a scope. If all you are wanting to do is make up for the lack of ability to see iron sights clearly, try out a red dot of some sort. The smaller the better.





Since you mentioned a GP100, here's a size comparison. Maybe the GP100 will get a red dot on it someday.

A good 2x handgun scope is great on a dedicated hunting gun. I started with one for small game hunting nearly 20yrs ago. Once you're acclimated to its use, it's quick on target and extends both your range and your legal shooting hours. IMHO, a 4x or big variable is too much for a revolver.

A scoped handgun is best carried in a shoulder rig and I've got one on order from Wes at 7x Leather for my .480 SRH.

I only have one scoped handgun left...

For the most part, I agree with RC about the solid rest...The one exception I had was a TC Contender that I sort of shot like a 'rifle' as in my support hand under the forend...I could shoot a (very) modified Weaver stance and hit pretty well with full on loads in .45-70, and .357 Herret...

Here is a pic of the only handgun I have left that is scoped, and I only keep it as I gave it to Dad as a present, and it is in the configuration he left it to me in...

686-3, 8-3/8" with integral factory dovetails...Grips are some I made out of ash, though I do have the original Goncolo Alves finger grip stocks:

gp100Wii To bad . I have hunted with revolvers using red dots for 37 years. First 20 years with a DW 357 mag and now a DW 44mag Both can shoot 3" 100 yards groups and a 357 with heavy 180gr hard cast bullets is very deadly on hogs. 170gr speer sp are great on hogs with a heart lung shot and deer any where. Front shot can be found in a rear ham or gone.

Optics. Buy what floats your boat but a 3"moa dot or reflex is very fast on game and you don't need the tight steady hold a scope has to have. If a dot is up in a corner when the trigger is pulled that's still were you will hit. Small dots don't weight much and you don't have to have a high dollar dot be it a reflex or red dot. My first dot was a cheapy and lasted 20 years.

Heres a good video from weigand on how to add a mount.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03gOVDIcqu0

IMHO, I see no real need for a scoped .357 handgun other than poor eyesight. In hunting applications, it just doesn't have the range to warrant a scope. Red dots are a different animal and can give quick acquisition and at their limited range, not cover much target, and still give the wide field of view like open sights.

I hunt deer with .357mag, .44mag and .460mag revolvers. None have scopes, because, I'm hunting with a revolver. If I wanted 150-200 yard shots thru a scope at deer, I'd use a rifle or one of my scoped handgun caliber carbines. But this is a personnel preference. I have no problem with others that use scopes on their handguns. I think the mistake most folks make when mounting a scope on a handgun is thinking they need a lot of magnification. If the primary target for your .357 is paper, because of it's limited range, one should not need more than a 4X. If deer are the main target, a 2X is plenty.

I think you ought to give a scope or red dot a try and see how you like it. Scopes take some getting used to. Go 2x on a handgun scope on a revolver. Red dot... Ultra Dots are pretty cost effective. Target acquisition is generally quicker with the red dot. Don't be thinking that your revolver has just become a rifle when you mount a scope on it. Always shoot from a rest unless you are doing very quick shots.

I have a 44 mag Ruger Super Redhawk with a Leopold Fixed 4x scope on it.
Insanely accurate with a rest. Gigantic and heavy and hard to hold at arms'length.
Will take coyotes nicely.
Not much fun at the range at pistol distances, the scope takes too long to line up when shooting.

hAkron said:

S&W 686-4 with Burris Fast Fire III
View attachment 702225

Click to expand...

I sure like that set up.

Do you sight it with the dot on the white line, or is that for just helping to find the dot more quickly?

What everyone else said. Maybe you can try one first. I have a Python Hunter. I don't believe these really sold well in the day but now is different with regards to any Colt. I can hit a 16" metal plate at 200 yards all day long. So it does help to get the most out of your gun but at the expense of much added weight and bulk. I agree with the shoulder holster concept when climbing a stand. If you bought a gun with the scallops already cut in the rib, then the scope can go on and off. On my hunter if I loosen the screws like the manual states, the scope can go on and off with no change in zero. I do shoot the gun more with the scope OFF. I also agree that a dot sight does almost as well with much less bulk. If the dot sight has adjustable diodes then that is a big plus. Some dots have too much MOA for 100 yards or more.