Hunting Scopes Today

[wolc123]

1 hour ago, GreeneHunter said:

I would like to get a new scope for my 270 but I want to retain using the Iron Sights , I believe there is the ability to have scope attachments that leave the ability to use the Iron Sights but cannot think of the name right now ... suggestions ?

The see thru mounts always put the scope up way too high.  Check our the Warne removable mounts.  They may do what you are looking for, based on AD’s post on top of P.2 on this thread.  

[SportsmanNH]

5 hours ago, wolc123 said:

The see thru mounts always put the scope up way too high.  Check our the Warne removable mounts.  They may do what you are looking for, based on AD’s post on top of P.2 on this thread.  

Thats your opinion . Not mine ! Ever since I put see thru mounts on my Browning Bar in 1985 I haven't looked back . I took all my other mounts off all my rifles and changed them to see thru mounts. Best move I ever made . They are no higher than a  High standard mount. One 6 point buck I shot on the run in Maine 3 years ago would highly disagree with you. Jumped him at the edge of a cutting. Fired the 1st shot with the scope at 35 yards and grazed him before he ran into the hemlocks. I only grazed him because bullet hit a sapling before it got to him. The next 3 shots at him running through the hemlocks with iron sights. Then as he broke out of the hemlocks at 65-70 yards I could tell he was hurt and staggering. Put the 5th shot with the scope through the lungs right before he went out of sight. he dropped as soon as he got out of sight. i hit him twice with the scope and twice with the iron sights . I can change my aim  from one to the other in fractions of a second . The main thing I would say about the scope is to use a scope with an objective lens of 20mm for 1 inch tubes  and 24mm for 30mm tubes work best . 

This is what my iron sights look like on my Browning Bar with a Leupold VX6 1x6 Firedot Duplex 30mm scope with a 24mm objective lens on top . I could never understand why some people use those detachable mounts . You going to somehow rip that scope off when its fogged up or has snow on the lens when you are still hunting or tracking a deer and its running ?  I bet I have shot at least 20 deer in the past that I would not have gotten if I didn't have see thru mounts 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by SportsmanNH

[airedale]

6 hours ago, wolc123 said:

I believe there is the ability to have scope attachments that leave the ability to use the Iron Sights but cannot think of the name right now ... suggestions ?

There are several solutions to have the ability to use a rifle's iron sights if one has a scope problem.

The see underneath-through scope rings are the easiest to install as they will fit picatinny and Weaver style bases. As Wolc said they will place the scope high and may not give the best scope-eye alignment with most of today's  current rifle stocks which for the most part are made to have the shooter's eye 1 1/2" above the rifle's bore.

Weaver made what they called pivot rings and mounts, the rings were attached to the base with a hinge type set up with a snap fit. Just grab the scope and flip it off to the side exposing the rifle's iron sights. These did not fit a wide variety of rifle makes and I believe are no longer being manufactured but are available on ebay many times, they worked half way decent.

My favorite setup is the quick detachable rings that grab the scope base with a lever actuated grip. I have used and tested it on a couple of my rifles and they work as advertised. The scope removed and put back on will be right on target, at least on my rifles they are.

All the above work so whatever suits the shooter that is the one to use.

Al

Edited October 16, 2023 by airedale

[SportsmanNH]

18 minutes ago, airedale said:

There are several solutions to have the ability to use a rifle's iron sights if one has a scope problem.

The see underneath-through scope rings are the easiest to install as they will fit picatinny and Weaver style bases. As Wolc said they will place the scope high and may not give the best scope-eye alignment with most of today's  current rifle stocks which for the most part are made to have the shooter's eye 1 1/2" above the rifle's bore.

Weaver made what they called pivot rings and mounts, the rings were attached to the base with a hinge type set up with a snap fit. Just grab the scope and flip it off to the side exposing the rifle's iron sights. These did not fit a wide variety of rifle makes and I believe are no longer being manufactured but are available on ebay many times, they worked half way decent.

My favorite setup is the quick detachable rings that grab the scope base with a lever actuated grip. I have used and tested it on a couple of my rifles and they work as advertised. The scope removed and put back on will be right on target, at least on my rifles they are.

All the above work so whatever suits the shooter that is the one to use.

Al

I had a pivot mount forever ago on my rem 742 . Could never get it to work perfectly but it might have been worn out a bit on the hinge or the clamp part. Not sure . But I did leave it on the gun just to look for horns with the scope hunting Vermont when it was bucks only.

The second one with the small see thru hole is drastically limited in iron sight vision. Unfortunately the companies that made the best quality see thru sites went out of business. Kwik site , Iron Sighter , and Clear View were the best. Millet also made an excellent see thru mount for one inch tubes .most all one inch see thru mounts were gun specific .One reason was the pandemic , but the bigger reason was gun manufactures started only making high powered rifles with no iron sights. So there was no need for see thru mounts. You are forced to use only scopes unless you wanted to pay to have iron sights put on by a gunsmith . Most of their see thru mounts were gun specific . Leupold makes the Rifleman  universal one inch tube see thru mount, but its kind of narrow and I think recoil might be a factor considering it only has one screw on each side of the scope holding it . Oh and 30mm ? Forget it. Nobody makes one that you can actually see through worth a damn.  Your 3rd option , the detachable mount is only good for storing a gun in a case . It might be right on sighting in wise , but its worthless out in the deer woods unless you are going to use one or the other. You dont have the option to use both the scope and iron sights. Its either the scope is on and no iron sights or scope off using just iron sights .  The 30mm Iron sighter universal see thru mounts are like finding a ghost. But I did manga to find 5 extra ones over the past 2 years looking for them every day. Haven't seen one in a maybe 6 months now. I have a few extra one inch gun specific Millet , Kwiksite and Ironsighter for the Browning Bars , Rem 742's and Rem 7600's I own just in case I need them . But I really like the 30mm scopes better now. 

 

[wolc123]

1 hour ago, SportsmanNH said:

Thats your opinion . Not mine ! Ever since I put see thru mounts on my Browning Bar in 1985 I haven't looked back . I took all my other mounts off all my rifles and changed them to see thru mounts. Best move I ever made . They are no higher than a  High standard mount. One 6 point buck I shot on the run in Maine 3 years ago would highly disagree with you. Jumped him at the edge of a cutting. Fired the 1st shot with the scope at 35 yards and grazed him before he ran into the hemlocks. I only grazed him because bullet hit a sapling before it got to him. The next 3 shots at him running through the hemlocks with iron sights. Then as he broke out of the hemlocks at 65-70 yards I could tell he was hurt and staggering. Put the 5th shot with the scope through the lungs right before he went out of sight. he dropped as soon as he got out of sight. i hit him twice with the scope and twice with the iron sights . I can change my aim  from one to the other in fractions of a second . The main thing I would say about the scope is to use a scope with an objective lens of 20mm for 1 inch tubes  and 24mm for 30mm tubes work best . 

This is what my iron sights look like on my Browning Bar with a Leupold VX6 1x6 Firedot Duplex 30mm scope with a 24mm objective lens on top . I could never understand why some people use those detachable mounts . You going to somehow rip that scope off when its fogged up or has snow on the lens when you are still hunting or tracking a deer and its running ?  I bet I have shot at least 20 deer in the past that I would not have gotten if I didn't have see thru mounts 

 

 

Well good for you, I’m glad somebody likes them.  Whenever I’ve shouldered a rifle with them, the scope lined up with the middle of my forehead.  I like a good cheek weld.  That helps me get on target faster.  

 

I can’t remember too many situations, when getting a good shot off at a deer, didn’t come down to fractions of a second.  This last one, that I killed a few weeks ago, was a rare exception, and see thru mounts would definitely have worked.  I’d probably have to go back 30 or more before I could find another though.    

 

It’s definitely been a long time since I killed a deer with open sights.  I screwed up on my last attempt by trying it while wearing progressive bifocals.  I found out the hard way, that they don’t work any better with open sights than they do with scopes.

[airedale]

1 hour ago, SportsmanNH said:

Your 3rd option , the detachable mount is only good for storing a gun in a case . It might be right on sighting in wise , but its worthless out in the deer woods unless you are going to use one or the other. You dont have the option to use both the scope and iron sights. Its either the scope is on and no iron sights or scope off using just iron sights . 

The only reason I would use the detachable rings to take the scope off is a catastrophic scope failure, that is my reason for having them on the rifle and possibly save the day's hunt. Say if I fell carrying the rifle and it landed on the scope damaging it or where I thought with certainty that the rifle would not be shooting to the point of aim. I have no intentions of going back and forth between open sights and a scope sight, it is scope all the way.

Al

Edited October 16, 2023 by airedale

[steve863]

I never understood those see-thru mounts.  You either use a scope or go with open sights.  You make your decision beforehand.  I don't think the decision should be made moments before you are about to make a shot at a deer.   I'd surely screw things up at that moment if I had to choose between the two options.  In my opinion the biggest problem with those see-thru mounts is that the vast majority I've come across over the years are made out of aluminum.  Some out of very flimsy aluminum.  Any centerfire rifle I own has solid steel mounts on it.  Steel beats aluminum any day of the week for scope mounting and the little extra weight it might add to your rifle is well worth it.  I could live with aluminum mounts on a .22 rimfire but centerfire rifles get steel.

 

 

 

[wolc123]

Ive never owned see-thrust mounts, but I did shoulder several rifles owned by friends who had them.  I did purchase some high standard mounts one time, for the 4-12 Weaver that I put on my .22/250 Ruger M77.  
 

I thought I needed them, because that scope had a big diameter on the front.  I took those off and replaced with medium mounts, which gave a much better eye alignment and cheek weld.  
 

I still have those high mounts in a drawer somewhere.  The blocks on them looked to be about 1/2” and I can see where they would be about the same as required for see-thru mounts.  I can’t imagine hunting deer with a scope up that high.  I couldn’t stand it for woodchucks.

I can also understand the need for backup iron sights, especially on pack in Western hunts where you are limited to one rifle. I damaged a scope alignment on a Colorado hunt once, when I fell down on it, trying to get over some rocks, while dragging out my mule deer carcass.

I still had an elk tag and a day or two left to hunt.  Fortunately, that was a drive to “walk in” hunt and I had my spare (also scoped) rifle back at the ski resort condo.  

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by wolc123

[cas]

Good grief.  I sighted in the new Leupold the other day. The first adjustment of the windage knob, I genuinely thought the scope was broken. A gritty , gravel road feel turning the knob, with barely perceptible "clicks".  I've never felt a scope adjust like this, not even garbage Chinese stuff.  The "toy grade" scope with horrible lenses, that came free with my cheap @ss crossbow feels better than this. What a shame what's happened to that company.  

[cas]

On 10/16/2023 at 4:36 PM, SportsmanNH said:

 They are no higher than a  High standard mount.

 

 

 

High mounts you don't need. 

A lot higher than medium or low mounts that you could probably use on that rifle/scope combo. 

It's kind of the same logic as saying size 14 swim fins are okay because they're no larger than size 14 shoes (when you should be wearing a size 9).  

[wolc123]

5 hours ago, cas said:

Good grief.  I sighted in the new Leupold the other day. The first adjustment of the windage knob, I genuinely thought the scope was broken. A gritty , gravel road feel turning the knob, with barely perceptible "clicks".  I've never felt a scope adjust like this, not even garbage Chinese stuff.  The "toy grade" scope with horrible lenses, that came free with my cheap @ss crossbow feels better than this. What a shame what's happened to that company.  

Ive always avoided Leupold scopes, because they were too expensive, however I did buy a new Redfield Revolution that was manufactured during the brief period when they were the “parent company”. 
 

The quality of that seems ok but not quite up to par with my older “made in USA” Redfield scopes.  Hopefully, I’ll never need another new scope, because I don’t know where I could get one now, not being into the foreign stuff.  I’d probably take my chances on a used one.  

[airedale]

I have purchased several new Leupold scopes in recent years and while I believe the finish and look of the older style was better for my taste, I can not complain about the newer scope's performance.

Many were mounted on heavy hitter rifles, 45-70s, 338 Win Mag, 458 Win Mag and 375 H&H Mag. The recoil produced from these rifles will subject a scope's build quality to the test and these newer Leupolds all passed with flying colors as they always have done for me, withstanding recoil, holding zero and adjusting to the exact point of aim. Reliability is most important to me and that is what Leupold scopes possess in spades.

Al

[airedale]

A pretty good video on the history of American made scopes from their early days to the present, having lived in that era been around used and still use vintage stuff I found this fellow's observations to be spot on. Some good information here for those interested in such things.

Al

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by airedale

[wolc123]

16 hours ago, airedale said:

A pretty good video on the history of American made scopes from their early days to the present, having lived in that era been around used and still use vintage stuff I found this fellow's observations to be spot on. Some good information here for those interested in such things.

Al

 

Very good video. I agree with the guy’s grandpa: Weavers are for putting meat in the freezer, and Leupolds made sure that a guy couldn’t afford a freezer to put the meat in.  
 

That’s why it’s mostly been Weavers or Redfields for me.  

Edited October 28, 2023 by wolc123

[airedale]

So the other day I was watching some African Safari hunts and a fellow on one of the shows had a Burris Eliminator scope mounted on his rifle. With an internal range finding laser and computer program matched to the ballistics of your rifle's chambering it will figure out automatically your bullet's path to hit the target at an exact range, just put the crosshairs on the target and touch her off. From what I saw that fellow did well on game with that scope, I expect down the road we will see more of such designs trying to eliminate all human error.

As for me I can get along with any hunting I do without it.

Al

[airedale]

When I got started with shooting and hunting rifle scopes were starting to come into their own as reliable sighting options over open sights. The reticles of the day for the most part were just plain crosshairs, either fine or heavy and as time went on the scope companies came up with new and innovative reticle designs and styles. Through the years I owned scopes with many of the new reticles, some pictured below and for the most part they all do their job. For me my favorite remains the duplex style, it is tough to beat for hunting. I also like a dot reticle sized to match what the rifle is being used for. All and all I like to keep things simple with not a lot of clutter in my sight picture for hunting guns.

Al

[bugsNbows]

I agree with the keeping it simple logic. Either a duplex or some 4a variant works for me.

Edited December 31, 2023 by bugsNbows
Spelling

[Northcountryman]

My Grandfather had a 20 Gauge with the red dot crosshair- loved that gun 

[Daveboone]

On 2/4/2023 at 7:09 AM, airedale said:

A first for me, I have to say I have never heard of that rule, I do believe in buying a quality scope especially on my serious hunting firearms.

Al

Ya , same here. I did hear long ago, a number of times...that you planned on paying about the same price for a qual;ity scope as for the rifle....And believe that to be true,  A quality rifle (for me, Ruger Mk 2, Mauser 98 or ) Leupold or Nikon scope went for about the same money. bummer now that Nikon is out of the scope business. 

[airedale]

21 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

My Grandfather had a 20 Gauge with the red dot crosshair- loved that gun 

I have some lighted reticle scopes and red dot sights but I am not crazy about using them on any of my serious hunting firearms, always have the fear-phobia of a dead battery or electrical failure at the moment of truth. I have to say they have been totally reliable up to now. My red dot sights are used mostly for target shooting.

The one exception is my dedicated coon hunting rifle, it has a Japanese Thompson Center scope with a lighted reticle mounted on it, works great when trying to get a bead on a Coon up in the top of a tree in total darkness, have used it for many years and it has never let me down.

Al

[SportsmanNH]

An interesting  vid at the Burris plant on how a scope is made in the USA

 

[airedale]

There is no doubt that rifle scope manufacturing even on lower priced scopes has improved tremendously in recent years. I am not a big fan of cheap scopes because in my mind they will fail in some way when exposed to something harsh like rain or heavy recoil.

Ron Spomer recently purchased one of the cheapest scopes he could find and put it through a series of interesting tests to find out what kind of build quality it had and the tests were pretty severe.

I have to admit I was surprised when the verdict came in.

Al

 

 

[steve863]

I saw that Spomer video.  Doesn't really surprise me.  I surely wouldn't go that cheap on a scope but one surely doesn't need to spend $1000 + on one either.  I honestly never had a scope fail no matter how cheap or expensive it was.  Maybe if someone is putting several thousand rounds through a rifle a better scope would be beneficial since it should be built better but most hunters don't shoot anywhere near that much.  A scope costing $200-$500 will last the hunter a lifetime.

[airedale]

Technology in rifle scopes is really getting to be something, the new Burris Eliminator 6 is at the top of the heap. It was not too long ago when taking extreme long range shots at game was considered to be somewhat unethical, now they are commonplace. With great strides in rifle tech along with superb ammo and these fancy scopes some of the shots made on game are really something. 

Al