Which one of these options would be better for close range hunting?

[wheelgunslinger]

Shotguns are for the birds.

HA!


The shotgun may be a better choice for thick cover, paper mill forests, and stuff like that.
Alabama isn't all the same all over.
I'd buy a shotgun to have one for the close quarter stuff <100m which is more like wing shooting for ungulates than anything else.

The scope advice is right on the money. If you're on a budget, there's nothing wrong with buying a nice used optic from the classifieds in 3x9 (the most popular).
Like Art said, don't sweat the Mil. turrets.

 

[blackops]

"Set it and forget it," that works as long as your not taking long shots or have a BDC recticle. Holding 48" high at 500yds with no BDC recticle is very challenging. In my terrain taking a 450yd shot across a canyon isn't few and far between. Having a BDC recticle or adjustable turrents can make you or break you. Then again some guys who have been around for a long time don't need a BDC or turrents. They have been shooting long enough with their rifles that they know exactly where to put the crosshairs at a particular yardage.

 

[scmerrill71]

I`d go with a shotgun, in ohio you dont get much of a choice, plus where i hunt is alot of woods so closer the better and if im using my inline then im on top of the valley or sitting at the edge of the pasture...which doesnt happen much.

 

[MCgunner]

"Set it and forget it," that works as long as your not taking long shots or have a BDC recticle. Holding 48" high at 500yds with no BDC recticle is very challenging.

Even out west in open terrain, I figure if I can get 450 yards from a mulie, I can get 350 yards from that mulie. That's 80 percent of the fun! Hell, if I get out there again some day, I'll probably hunt the black powder season. I'm a hunter, not a long range shooter, and though one of my scopes has a BDC turret on top (Bushnell), I just set it on 250 and know that it'll be no more than 3" high or low to past 300 yards. I ain't takin' a shot past 400 and I can hold over at 350 or 400 no problem. My rangefinder only reliably will fix to about 350 yards. It's supposed to be a 400 yard rangefinder, guess it would be on a mirror or something. But, if I can't get within range of that rangefinder, I figure I don't need to shoot, anyway. I can zap a closer rock or something and figure out how much closer I need to get.

But, the OP says "close range woods" scope. What the heck do ya need dials on a woods gun for?! I mean, I can see it for the long range shooters out there, but a woods gun?

 

[MCgunner]

HA!


The shotgun may be a better choice for thick cover, paper mill forests, and stuff like that.
Alabama isn't all the same all over.
I'd buy a shotgun to have one for the close quarter stuff <100m which is more like wing shooting for ungulates than anything else.

Just why would a shotgun shooting a slug be better than a MOA rifle shooting a bullet? I'll take my 3/4 MOA rifle from 10 yards to 400, thanks. It's faster on target than a shotgun with open sights. If you're using a rib/bead, you ain't gonna be real accurate at 100 yards. Personally, if I had to use a shotgun, I'd get one of those rifled "cantelever" or whatever they call 'em Mossberg barrels for my waterfowl gun what has the scope mount on the barrel and I'd scope it with my 1.5x4.5. It would be on target faster than iron sights and more accurate at long range than a bead. But, I don't need to do that because I have a nice, quick little M7 Remington in .308 which is FAR more accurate and just as fast on 2x.

But, heck, if a person doesn't have a shotgun, he does need one. I mean, there's quail in Alabama and rifles ain't worth a fart in a whirl wind on quail.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

I think that I have decided on the Leupold VX-III 2-8x36mm scope with a TMR reticle, and yes I know the TMR reticle cost more but it is my most favorite reticle. THe Zeiss MC Conquest 2-8x38mm looks real nice, especially at $399, but I really do like mil-dot reticles, and that sorta negates the need for turrets.

I will have to wait awile on the scope however, some things have come up, and I'll be waiting awile for some more money.....oh well, I guess the scope will be just that much sweeter when I can afford it, and at $559.00, that might be Christmas!!

Thank ya'll for all of the sugestions,
P.B.Walsh

 

[ojibweindian]

Are you hunting the Oakmulgee WMA? The Talledega National Forest, within which the WMA is located, is a pretty dense forest. Most likely, your longest shot there, excluding power line clearings, will be no longer than 100 yards, and more like 50.

The Leupold VXIII you're considering is an excellent choice. However, if you're a bit strapped for cash at the moment, and can't wait, you can get yourself a Bushnell Elite 3200 or a Nikon Buckmaster in 2x7 for under $220, and they'll perform admirably.

I hunt the Black Warrior and Skyline WMA's in N. Alabama; my longest ever shot at a deer was a GPS'ed 112 yards. Routine shots are more like 45-50 yards. Last year, my closest kill was at a measured 34 yards and the farthest was about 60.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

Yep, the only longer shot I will take is on a 600 yard powerline, and usually less than 75 yards, Alabama is usually a close-quarter hunting state!!

 

[Art Eatman]

blackops, "set it and forget it" has worked for me for many a decade and a few Ma Bell bucks. One thing for sure: If you're wrong on your range estimation, all the knobs in the world won't help. If you know the range, I've found that correct holdover is quite easy.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

Ok, I went to my local sporting goods store and looked through a Leupold VX-II and a Nikon Prostaff, and WOW, want an improvement over my BSA!!! Ok, here is my question, how does the Nikon Prostaff compare to a Leupold VX-III in low-light conditions and over all reliability?

Thanks,
P.B.Walsh

 

[scythefwd]

IF you are possibly going to be taking shots out to 300y, then don't get the shotgun that is only good out to 150 in very capable hands (I'm only good out to 75y or so). Get yourself a good low powered optic and learn to shoot with it. People shoot 1k yards with a 10x, so 300y shouldn't need more than a 4x to get her done. A good 2-7 or 1.5-4.5 should do you nicely once you get used to it.

As to the scopes.... I can't help you there. I only have two scopes, one a weaver 4x from possibly back in the 70's (older than I am) and the one that is sitting in my shotgun case (not attached).

 

[arcticap]

Faster follow up shots with a pump shotgun and large slug wounds can make for easier tracking, and maybe even less meat damage from hydrostatic shock.
For less than the price of a high end scope, get a shotgun rig and enjoy the versatility of having different barrels for it.
A 4X32 scope will work fine at the closest distances or even a low power variable. There's not much difference in scopes for shotgun hunting at short range and the millions of deer shot each year by slug guns outfitted with such rigs are evidence of that.

 

[Cosmoline]

Lower power scope or iron sighted rifle.

Shotgun hunting big game is a really different ball game.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I like a scoped rifle, even for short range, in order to help with low light conditions. But you are correct, a 4-16 is more hindrance than help in the woods. A 1-4, 1.5-5, 2-7, or similar, are a different story altogether, and I find them helpful, espec. on shots past 50 yards. Keep them on the lowest power (1, 1.5, or 2) for most purposes, but if you set up an ambush that's a longer stretch, then might bump it to 3 or 4 or more.