Scout scope vs. iron sights - forest hunting

[Loosedhorse]

you can't find one single source ANYWHERE to back it up.

Just as you haven't presented one single source that says "my" idea (it's not just my idea) is false.

BTW, I went to an optics forum--hey, I'm not saying these guys are definitive, but they're saying some familiar things:

As far as whether or not a scope can make an "image brighter than it is to the naked eye," it is obvious to me that it can

there are transmission losses in all scopes, but the scope's larger lens puts more light in so despite the transmission losses the resulting image is indeed brighter than without the scope. I assume this is the source of the famous phrase "gathers light".

If the scope delivers twice the amount of light to your eye, it does not mean that it delivers twice the information. [emphasis added]

Even a passive scope can and most certainly does make the image look brighter that it would with your naked eye as long as there is magnification involved. Thinking about total amount of light in this case is patently incorrect. What you want to think about is flux, i.e. the energy that passes through a particular area. Alternatively, you can think about it in terms of energy density.

Energy density in the exit pupil is higher than energy density of the entrance pupil.

Now, there are other things you give up, and the whole concept of "brighter" is misrepresented in this whole thread, but if you are only talking about the amount of light getting into the eye, then yes, the scope increases it. [emphasis added]

And WHO do we find has been participating in the thread, and should know all this? Natman! Pretty duplicitous of you to say there is no support for my claim when all this time you've been reading the support, trying to keep it secret--all while the chief optics guru on the thread says, yes, "most certainly" scopes can make the image look brighter than with the naked eye.

Shame on you.

All these optical experts have been wasting their time with exit pupils and lens coatings when all they had to do was make the OL bigger.

One of the chief ways (not the only way) manufacturers haved increased exit pupil is by increasing objective lens size. You should know that.

 

[Germster]

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.)

So a 1X scope is really helping you with your sight picture, right? That sounds logical and useful to me, especially when one's eyes are growing weaker. While I try always to shoot off of iron sights, I do notice that I can no longer focus to long and short range as rapidly and as clearly as I did when a young man.

I like low power scopes and while I do have a 6X I like 4's best. This allows me to judge distance better. Switching the magnification back and forth causes me to lose sight of the range. I do have a 1.5 to 5 Burris scope that came with a Model 99 in 308 that I bought at a gunshow. Nice set up. She's not a very straight shooter however, probably why the original owner sold it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

So a 1X scope is really helping you with your sight picture, right/

In part. I also think it helps me with brightness...but that's under discussion.

(It was pointed out in the optics forum thread I linked above that sometimes increased contrast and clarity can "look like" increased brightness, and that those elements may be more important; however, it was also pointed out that increased brightness ALSO happens.)

 

[wharvey]

My deer rifle is an old Marlin Glenfield .30-30. I have a 4x scope on it. I have a peep sight on a Marlin 39. Love it but as I get older may have to go with a scope. Will hate to do away with the clean lines of the 39.

 

[Germster]

I own a Model 39 with a Williams peep sight and love the rifle. However when shooting sage rats, which like to hang out at 75 to 125 yds I just can't see the little critter well enough to shoot him. I bought a Savage 93 in 17 HMR and mounted a scope, now I can reach out farther since I can see the little fella. However I still love my 39 and I will not scope it. For standard .22 rimfire ranges it's a cracker jack.

 

[Germster]

We've been talking iron or glass in the brush. Just wondering. Is a shotgun even better? No scope in the picture, just 9 .44 caliber lead pellets. In heavy brush isn't a shotgun a better killer than, say, a 30/30? Load a slug or buckshot. Load both. If it's a long shot then jack out the buckshot and chamber the slug. Seems smart to me.

I guess this is the wrong thread to suggest this, but I'm thinking about it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Buckshot is more on the order of .33 caliber pellets.

In general -- discounting for the moment rifled shotguns and special saboted loads -- a rifle has all the advantages of a shotgun, and gives you a bit extra.

First of all, to kill a deer cleanily, you need to hit it cleanly. That means with buckshot, you have to center the pattern on it. You can shoot a rifle like a shotgun -- pointing rather than aiming -- and get about the same precision you get with a shotgun.

But I've killed a lot of deer shooting through holes in the brush -- difficult to do with buckshot, easy to do with a rifle, especially a scoped rifle.