Handgun hunters, Scope or iron sights?
- Thread starter sgtb
- Start date
- Status
mohican
Member
sgtb said:
I use a aperture sight that replaces the rear blade, and a fiberoptic front sight
sumpnz
Member
I guess if you can hit a pie plate every time with the irons out to 50 yards (or whatever you consider the max range for your gun) with the load you intend to hunt with then you should be just fine without a scope. .44mag (I assume that's what you're shooting) from a revolver shouldn't be used past about 50 yards anyway. If you have one one of the newer wunder-cartridges like .480Ruger you might be able to stretch that range to 75 yards.
If you go with a scope, you won't really need anything beyond 4.5x considering this is for a handgun. I would suggest any fixed power up to 4x or variable power 1.5-4.5x or possibly 2-7x (kept in the low end if the range) would be plenty. For brands, anything from Leupold, Burris, Weaver, Redfield, or Nikon will work just fine. I'd stay away from NC-STAR. Some people have had good luck with them, but they're cheap for a reason.
If you go with a scope, you won't really need anything beyond 4.5x considering this is for a handgun. I would suggest any fixed power up to 4x or variable power 1.5-4.5x or possibly 2-7x (kept in the low end if the range) would be plenty. For brands, anything from Leupold, Burris, Weaver, Redfield, or Nikon will work just fine. I'd stay away from NC-STAR. Some people have had good luck with them, but they're cheap for a reason.
mohican
Member
44 mag from SRH is good out to 100 yards for whitetail deer - providing you can accurately shoot that far
If you decide on a scope, I would go with low power 2x in a fixed or something like a 1-4 power variable. A fixed 4 power will have a limited field of view at short range
a 480 limited to 75 yards? Although FT-LBS of energy is an indicator, and not the be-all/end-all that some say, a .480 ruger with "hunting" loads will have as much energy at 75 yards as a 44 mag at the muzzle, Just like my 454 will have more energy at 100 or 125 yards with some loads than a 44 mag will have at the muzzle. Which would be more important for things bigger than white tail deer
If I was to break down and put a scope on my 44 or 454, it would be a low power variable Burris
If you decide on a scope, I would go with low power 2x in a fixed or something like a 1-4 power variable. A fixed 4 power will have a limited field of view at short range
a 480 limited to 75 yards? Although FT-LBS of energy is an indicator, and not the be-all/end-all that some say, a .480 ruger with "hunting" loads will have as much energy at 75 yards as a 44 mag at the muzzle, Just like my 454 will have more energy at 100 or 125 yards with some loads than a 44 mag will have at the muzzle. Which would be more important for things bigger than white tail deer
If I was to break down and put a scope on my 44 or 454, it would be a low power variable Burris
nygunguy
Member
I like a scope
I hunt with an SRH with a cheap Tasco 1x scope. The main reason is that my near vision is over 50 years old and I can't get good focus on the open sights. Next year I hope to upgrade the scope to a Busnell or Aimpoint 2x or 4x with the dot (instead of crosshairs).
Most folks tell me I should be able to take a whitetail out to 100 yards but I'm sighted in at 50 and won't shoot much beyond that. I use the American Eagle 240GR JHP factory loads and can consistently hit clay pigeons (stationary) off hand at around 50 yards.
I hunt with an SRH with a cheap Tasco 1x scope. The main reason is that my near vision is over 50 years old and I can't get good focus on the open sights. Next year I hope to upgrade the scope to a Busnell or Aimpoint 2x or 4x with the dot (instead of crosshairs).
Most folks tell me I should be able to take a whitetail out to 100 yards but I'm sighted in at 50 and won't shoot much beyond that. I use the American Eagle 240GR JHP factory loads and can consistently hit clay pigeons (stationary) off hand at around 50 yards.
my srh 480 wears a nikon 2x.
the power range of the scope is adequate for all the hunting i use a handgun for... but, i sure wish i had held out for the leupold scope. i am no fan of burris rifle scopes, but their handgun scope is a good 'un.
the power range of the scope is adequate for all the hunting i use a handgun for... but, i sure wish i had held out for the leupold scope. i am no fan of burris rifle scopes, but their handgun scope is a good 'un.
halfacop
Member
I hunt with a 10" Thompson Center Contender in 44 mag.
I use a EOtech holosight on top. It's as fast as irons for up close shots but I can consistantly place shots at 100 yrds in 4 inch groups with it.
I use a EOtech holosight on top. It's as fast as irons for up close shots but I can consistantly place shots at 100 yrds in 4 inch groups with it.
birddog
Member
I killed a nice buck last year with a Taurus M44 in 44mag. Red dot scope (Aimpoint 2) was used for a 55 yard standing broadside shot. With Iron sights, under the crappy conditions in which I was hunting (rain, fog) would have made for slow target aquisition. Also, I firmly believe, a scope with any magnification beyond 2X would ALSO have made for slow target aquisition. A zero power red-dot and a hunting handgun just seem like a great match to me. I've since scoped my 8-inch Dan Wesson .357 with a Bushnell Trophy red-dot. It's great at the range, but I've yet to shoot at anything with a heartbeat. I've practiced with the .44 out to 90 yards with great results -- from a rest. With freehand shooting, I'm very confident at about 50. Experiment and enjoy.
newfalguy101
Member
Thus far I have killed three deer with my 6 inch S&W m-29 useing the "issued" iron sights.
Last year I tried a cheapy 2X scope and really got a kick out of it till opening morning when the dumb thing failed.
I currently have a Bec Inc brand reddot on my .4 inch .357 that I really have a ball playing with. I can consistently hit steel "coyotes" at 100 yards with it. Bang, wait.......clink, bang, wait........clink. I get the giggles after that and start missing.
I have really debated about trying a "dot" on my .44, but I am concerned about the recoil breaking it.
I would suggest getting good with the iron sights, then if you still want to, try a scope, I would also suggest that if you do scope it, stay with a low powered scope. Its hard enough to use a scope at arms length without the handicap of a supersmall feild of view.
I do know that whatever I use for deer hunting next year it will have a scope, my eyes just arent what they used to be
Oh and the .44 has the power to be effective 125 or so yards, its usually the shooters who arent effective that far
Last year I tried a cheapy 2X scope and really got a kick out of it till opening morning when the dumb thing failed.
I currently have a Bec Inc brand reddot on my .4 inch .357 that I really have a ball playing with. I can consistently hit steel "coyotes" at 100 yards with it. Bang, wait.......clink, bang, wait........clink. I get the giggles after that and start missing.
I have really debated about trying a "dot" on my .44, but I am concerned about the recoil breaking it.
I would suggest getting good with the iron sights, then if you still want to, try a scope, I would also suggest that if you do scope it, stay with a low powered scope. Its hard enough to use a scope at arms length without the handicap of a supersmall feild of view.
I do know that whatever I use for deer hunting next year it will have a scope, my eyes just arent what they used to be
Oh and the .44 has the power to be effective 125 or so yards, its usually the shooters who arent effective that far
I don't have anything against handgun hunters who use a scope--
I just don't understand them, really.
I just about ALWAYS take a handgun while hunting. When I spot the game, I have a decision to make: shoot with the rifle that I also have, or put it down and use the pistol. Usually, I end up popping it with the rifle. On one occasion, I ended up picking the rifle back up to put down a deer that I had unsuccessfully shot at (and missed) with a pistol. While I might think differently if I were just carrying a pistol, I don't think so: I like my pistols to be iron-sighted.
I carry a Ruger Super Blackhawk with iron sights, and often my Kimber 1911 .45 with iron sights, and occasionally even a 6" Colt Officer's Model Special .38 Spl with iron sights. I know that I can put all my shots on a paper plate at 35 yards from field positions, and am fine with that. I don't plan to use my pistol as a rifle. I don't have a thing against shooting a deer or hog with a rifle-- I often do.
In my opinion, the "handgun hunter" with a scoped big revolver is not far removed from the guy with the XP100, who is not at all removed from a guy with a scoped light rifle.
I just don't understand them, really.
I just about ALWAYS take a handgun while hunting. When I spot the game, I have a decision to make: shoot with the rifle that I also have, or put it down and use the pistol. Usually, I end up popping it with the rifle. On one occasion, I ended up picking the rifle back up to put down a deer that I had unsuccessfully shot at (and missed) with a pistol. While I might think differently if I were just carrying a pistol, I don't think so: I like my pistols to be iron-sighted.
I carry a Ruger Super Blackhawk with iron sights, and often my Kimber 1911 .45 with iron sights, and occasionally even a 6" Colt Officer's Model Special .38 Spl with iron sights. I know that I can put all my shots on a paper plate at 35 yards from field positions, and am fine with that. I don't plan to use my pistol as a rifle. I don't have a thing against shooting a deer or hog with a rifle-- I often do.
In my opinion, the "handgun hunter" with a scoped big revolver is not far removed from the guy with the XP100, who is not at all removed from a guy with a scoped light rifle.
birddog
Member
As a rifle, bow and handgun hunter, I beg to differ Matt. Each combination of gun/sight/scope presents its own limitations. I liken my red-dot scoped .44 to be slightly more accurate than a bow out to 35 yards, but nowhere near as easy to shoot as a scoped shotgun or rifle out past that range. Handholding a scoped revolver in a 16 foot high treestand in a moderate to high wind...I consider it to be a greater challenge than a long gun, while not quite as limiting as a bow would be. To each his own. Below is my 2004 NY 8 pointer, taken at 55 yards, on the ground, while walking a goldenrod field. I WISH I had my rifle, but was pleasantly surprised at the result with the .44.
22-rimfire
Member
My 480 9.5" SRH revolver is fitted with a 2x Leupold extended relief scope. I have been using it for about three years now. First year was a dud as I was hunting from a tree along a field and shots with the handgun were not generally as practical. Last year I carried it in a bandoleer holster with a rifle and hunted from the ground. The "plan" was to use what was appropriate. What I discovered is that the handgun is heavy and bulky that it limits the use of the rifle unless you are in a big tree stand. Didn't see any deer for the first couple of outings, so I carried only the rifle and ofcourse shot a buck with the rifle within handgun range.
This year, I decided it was handgun only (again the same Ruger) and I found that the handgun limits your range as would be anticipated, quickness in getting sighted on game since I want a rest of some sort, and the scope limits the practical followup shot even in a double action revolver. Shot a 7pt this year with the SRH at 50 yds (one shot) and it ran about 50 yds before dropping for good. It was my first handgun buck and I'm proud of it for that reason.
I recommend a 2x scope with as much extended relief that you can get. That is why I chose the Leupold. A 1-4x would be okay if you keep the setting on about 2x while hunting. It is slow to acquire the target with a 4x and running shots on game would be impossible in the woods. When looking at does in the woods (ie scoping them), the higher setting would have been nice, but at 50-75 yds, you can see the antlers with your naked eye. I also take a pair of binoculars for just looking at does and other game.
Open sights are okay, especially for quicker short range shots. But, just how accurate are these shots on running game? I lean toward only shooting at running game when I have already hit them once. I like the scope and am learning to acquire the sight picture quicker. You really notice just how unsteady you are with a handgun with a scope. I am experimenting with shooting sticks and am leaning toward a tall rigid monopod to carry extended while still hunting or walking into or out of the stand area. No room for a rifle when going this way. A rest is very important with a handgun. I shot this year's buck from the ground with the gun braced on my knees. No time for shooting sticks.
The shifting of position can cause a deer to see you. You really have to be careful with any motion to get ready to shoot. You are moving gun, cocking hammer, and trying to use a rest all at the same time prior to shooting.
Practice shooting to 100 yds. You need to know your limitations in the woods when taking a shot with a handgun. A deer is pretty small in a 2x scope at 100 yards. As was said, if you can hit a 6" paper plate pretty consistantly at whatever range, you are okay to hunt with the gun.
This year, I decided it was handgun only (again the same Ruger) and I found that the handgun limits your range as would be anticipated, quickness in getting sighted on game since I want a rest of some sort, and the scope limits the practical followup shot even in a double action revolver. Shot a 7pt this year with the SRH at 50 yds (one shot) and it ran about 50 yds before dropping for good. It was my first handgun buck and I'm proud of it for that reason.
I recommend a 2x scope with as much extended relief that you can get. That is why I chose the Leupold. A 1-4x would be okay if you keep the setting on about 2x while hunting. It is slow to acquire the target with a 4x and running shots on game would be impossible in the woods. When looking at does in the woods (ie scoping them), the higher setting would have been nice, but at 50-75 yds, you can see the antlers with your naked eye. I also take a pair of binoculars for just looking at does and other game.
Open sights are okay, especially for quicker short range shots. But, just how accurate are these shots on running game? I lean toward only shooting at running game when I have already hit them once. I like the scope and am learning to acquire the sight picture quicker. You really notice just how unsteady you are with a handgun with a scope. I am experimenting with shooting sticks and am leaning toward a tall rigid monopod to carry extended while still hunting or walking into or out of the stand area. No room for a rifle when going this way. A rest is very important with a handgun. I shot this year's buck from the ground with the gun braced on my knees. No time for shooting sticks.
The shifting of position can cause a deer to see you. You really have to be careful with any motion to get ready to shoot. You are moving gun, cocking hammer, and trying to use a rest all at the same time prior to shooting.
Practice shooting to 100 yds. You need to know your limitations in the woods when taking a shot with a handgun. A deer is pretty small in a 2x scope at 100 yards. As was said, if you can hit a 6" paper plate pretty consistantly at whatever range, you are okay to hunt with the gun.
If you go with a scope get a fixed low power ie 1x or 2x or 1,2x ? variable. I have a 9.5 in SRH in .44 and had fixed 4 power on it at one time. It was great at the rand e and could shoot tight groups a 50m but in the woods the field of view was too small.
I put and aim point on it but could not hold as tight a groups at 50m. This year I put a Burris 2x7 Ballistic Plex on it and it shoots great. I can shoot a 1in ragged hole at 25m, 1.5 in ragged hole at 50m and about 2 in at 100m. I am shooting a 250 gr RCBS Keith style boolit cast from ACWW and sized to .431 over 19grs of 2400.
I shot through a cow horn at 22yds this year. I would not be afraid to try a rested shot at 100yds.
If you are strickly woods hunting with shots at 50-75yds and under and 1x or 2x fixed would be fine. I hunt some open places and like the variable ballistic plex.
Another thing I like about the scopt over the Aimpoint is that I don't have make sure it is turned on when the shot comes or if the battery will last. I have another aimpoint on a MarkII and love it and use it for squirrel hunting.
Bigscot
I put and aim point on it but could not hold as tight a groups at 50m. This year I put a Burris 2x7 Ballistic Plex on it and it shoots great. I can shoot a 1in ragged hole at 25m, 1.5 in ragged hole at 50m and about 2 in at 100m. I am shooting a 250 gr RCBS Keith style boolit cast from ACWW and sized to .431 over 19grs of 2400.
I shot through a cow horn at 22yds this year. I would not be afraid to try a rested shot at 100yds.
If you are strickly woods hunting with shots at 50-75yds and under and 1x or 2x fixed would be fine. I hunt some open places and like the variable ballistic plex.
Another thing I like about the scopt over the Aimpoint is that I don't have make sure it is turned on when the shot comes or if the battery will last. I have another aimpoint on a MarkII and love it and use it for squirrel hunting.
Bigscot
Steve in PA
Member
sgtb said:
Mine has been wearing a Bushnell 2-6x scope for as long as I've had it. I leave it on 2x or 3x while hunting and use the 6x when at the range.
Buzztail
Member
dakotasin said:
Mine too
If your eyes don't force you to a scope, I think that irons are the way to go. You can tell very quickly over irons if you should be taking the shot or not. IMO, scopes give some people just enough extra confidence to take shots they should pass on.
MCgunner
Member
I use a scope for a multitude of reasons:
A It's a contender, it's supposed to have a scope!
B It's a .30-30. If you ain't got a scope on it, you're not utilizing it's range.
C Dim light situations
D I wear bifocals. My eyes ain't what they used to be.
I do have a .45 colt revolver if I wanna use irons. I might hunt with it some day. It certainly is accurate and powerful enough for the bambies around here.
A It's a contender, it's supposed to have a scope!
B It's a .30-30. If you ain't got a scope on it, you're not utilizing it's range.
C Dim light situations
D I wear bifocals. My eyes ain't what they used to be.
I do have a .45 colt revolver if I wanna use irons. I might hunt with it some day. It certainly is accurate and powerful enough for the bambies around here.
6inch
Member
Steve in PA said:
Same here. Except mine sits atop a S&W 629 Classic 8 3/8".
- Status
