why are Swarovski Riflescopes so expensive?

[MCgunner]

Well, you know, if you're in my crosshairs and you're on MY land trespassing....who's fault is that? ROFL! I wouldn't hesitate to use my rifle scope on my own property except that I'd rather use binos because it involves less movement. I have a 4x laser rangefinder I often carry for glassing, don't need that much power out there. It gives me something to play with while I sit...."Hmm, how far is it to that tree?" ....

Quote:
a spotting scope, not binos, is almost mandatory.


Not if you have a set of Swarovski or similar-quality binos. ...which is what I posted in the first place.

Perhaps, but a 400 dollar Leupold spotter with 60 power is probably going to be more useful out there than a 10 power Swarovski binocular, I'm guessing. You can get some pretty danged compact spotting scopes, too, for hunting. Carry some compact armored binos for quick looks and the spotter for the serious glassing. I'll also get me a good tripod to stick in the day pack, too. Walk out to one of these canyons, sit on a rock, whip out the tripod and scope and start glassing. Find those deer, plan the stalk. When I was hunting out there, I just had a set of cheap, 100 dollar compact 10x armored binocs. I was able to spot deer, but at the ranges I was spotting them, I'd liked to have had more power to judge quality of the bucks, to know which one to try for.

 

[benzy2]

Not if you have a set of Swarovski or similar-quality binos. ...which is what I posted in the first place.

Thats what I thought until I tried spotting on top of a hill with a good spotting scope and tripod. The issue was more the stability of the tripod. It was amazing how much easier things got when the glass was held stable and not in my hands. I still think quality matters as much as it does in a set of binos, just that a tripod makes spotting in the open much easier.

 

[Reid73]

However, your claim that intentionally "glassing the area" with your rifle, and pointing at a person, is not "intentional aiming" probably wouldn't get you a Not Guilty verdict here, from what I understand about the case law.

Could be.

Even in the absence of specific legislation, I would think that inadvertantly 'covering' another person in the course of using a scoped rifle for a de facto spotting scope might well fall under the heading of criminal negligence, which is a general provision on the books of most jurisdictions.

The odds of accidentally shooting someone while engaged in this practice are fairly remote. The odds of being caught are equally unlikely, and the changes of an eventual successful conviction are even more so. Still, IMHO it shows a lazy, cavalier attitude towards the hazards of firearms. With due respect to our friend Uncle Mike, I wouldn't hunt with someone who did something like that.

 

[JohnBT]

"Its pretty damn irresponsible"

"Perhaps."

Perhaps? Pointing a loaded gun at something you do not intend to shoot and the best you can say is "Perhaps."

It's irresponsible. It's stupid. And it violates one of the cardinal rules, but some people don't seem to care.

Sheesh. Bunch of losers.

John

 

[taliv]

wandered pretty far off topic here. i'm putting this thread out of its misery