wlewisiii
Member
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.
Scout scope vs. iron sights - forest hunting
- Thread starter shadow9
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
Last edited:
Virg461
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
member
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.)
Last edited:
Hangingrock
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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...
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
member
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.
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
member
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
Sixgun Nut
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
At 50 yards you should be able to pick out which eyeball you want to put it in with a scope.
okiewita40
Member
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
member
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...
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)!
Last edited:
USSR
Member
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
member
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!
Done, you iron-sight weenies!
Last edited:
Link?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!
Hangingrock
Member
I don’t think this is a good combination for forest hunting.
crazysccrmd
Member
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.
- Status
