Iron sites or scope for deer hunting when and which you like better

[LJC]

6 minutes ago, chrisw said:

 

 

I don't think you're the person to be giving ballistics lessons. Bullets cross your line of sight twice, they ARC. Honestly I'm not even quite sure what point you're arguing? But this clearly isn't your niche so you should probably let it be or take the opportunity to learn from a knowledgeable member...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

 

 

Let what be ? All I stated was a fact scope or iron sites path different then the bullet  . You don't agree?   

[wildcat junkie]

20 hours ago, sbuff said:

why would it matter if the weapon in question is a muzzleloader ?

Don't get me started!

[Jeremy K]

On Monday, October 03, 2016 at 5:48 PM, wildcat junkie said:

There's no reason to use iron sights over a properly selected scope at any range unless the gun won't mount a scope over the center of the action or the weapon in question is a muzzle loader.

As long as you say so .

[chrisw]

I do agree bullets arc. I don't agree with your speed theory. The faster your projectile is traveling the less your max ord will be (highest point in bullets trajectory above the horizontal plane) The faster the projectile equals less exaggerated ARC. With an optic and an understanding of your bullets highest trajectory point from line of sight you will be better suited to identifying something that could obstruct your bullets path and avoiding it.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[growalot]

I suppose it's what your use to....I am use to hunting woods where deer come in fast and close or out there and standing still....my aim is pretty dang good and when I have a deer I know won't be stopping. but not on a full board run...I want that bead for I lead them and and wait, I want that very full picture ....I love the x-bow scope..and no problem with the ML or 243..but with my shotgun...my preferred weapon never... last year lead and shot 73 yrds trotting through opening in thick slashings...9point coming in pretty fast at around 20..lead him and shot...doe standing 110 yrds..doe 96yrds...I can't find the old shovel nose 8pt I took a couple of years after we moved here, but that was a heart slit at less then 10yrds and he still ran for the line making me have to take a quick shot through trees for a upper shoulder lower neck shot..which is what I was saying out loud to my self at the time..it somersaulted him.  Just a very few examples...I would never have gotten a few of them had I tried getting them acquired in the scope..Just the way I am..

[LJC]

36 minutes ago, chrisw said:

I do agree bullets arc. I don't agree with your speed theory. The faster your projectile is traveling the less your max ord will be (highest point in bullets trajectory above the horizontal plane) The faster the projectile equals less exaggerated ARC. With an optic and an understanding of your bullets highest trajectory point from line of sight you will be better suited to identifying something that could obstruct your bullets path and avoiding it.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

I did not get in to specifics anyway just that theRe is a difference between what you see in your scope or iron sites and the path of any bullet or slug which really I was talking about because that is  what I have been using lattly btw slugs not as affected by hitting little branches as really fast moving little bullets are 

 

Did I say something wrong again?  

[Buckmaster7600]

You look through your scope your not going to see the branch above it or even if you do you  and aim your crosshairs lower  and think that if you aim below the branch your not going to hit that branch chances are you will be wrong 

You know I never thought of that. You're correct there is no way I could see a branch that is 8" above my crosshairs of my scope. I'm glad you brought that to my attention. Check the classifieds I think I'm going to be getting rid of a pile of scopes in the near future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LJC]

25 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

 

 

You know I never thought of that. You're correct there is no way I could see a branch that is 8" above my crosshairs of my scope. I'm glad you brought that to my attention. Check the classifieds I think I'm going to be getting rid of a pile of scopes in the near future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

My point is there is no way to no for sure if the bullet is going to hit a branch on the way to your target . Since the bullet is not traveling in a perfect straight line also the magnification distorts what you are seeing. It all depends 

[sbuff]

22 hours ago, sbuff said:

why would it matter if the weapon in question is a muzzleloader ?

Don't get me started

 

 

You have my curiosity wildcat.

Steve

[Buckmaster7600]

My point is there is no way to no for sure if the bullet is going to hit a branch on the way to your target . Since the bullet is not traveling in a perfect straight line also the magnification distorts what you are seeing. It all depends 

Yea the magnified distortion has cost me more than a couple once in a lifetime bucks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pygmy]

Yeah, I HATE when that happens......

[LJC]

17 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

 

 

Yea the magnified distortion has cost me more than a couple once in a lifetime bucks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Scopes better in general not needed but better for the most part  I just don't want it on my shotgun for a number of reasons 1 I can hit deer's vitals with iron sites everytime in my tests out to 100 yards  2 don't want any more wieght on my shotgun 3  my shotgun is not set up to add a  scope  4 I use it for small  game also sometimes  and trap skeet shooting . 5 I hAve other rifles already with  scopes on them . 6 it's better in bad weather no worries about snow rain or breathing  on the scope fogging it up .

7 it's almost impossible to have iron sites fail on you .

8 I like the nostalgic Factor of using them . 

[Buckmaster7600]

Scopes better in general not needed but better for the most part  I just don't want it on my shotgun for a number of reasons 1 I can hit deer's vitals with iron sites everytime in my tests out to 100 yards  2 don't want any more wieght on my shotgun 3  my shotgun is not set up to add a  scope  4 I use it for small  game also sometimes  and trap skeet shooting . 5 I hAve other rifles already with  scopes on them . 6 it's better in bad weather no worries about snow rain or breathing  on the scope fogging it up .
7 it's almost impossible to have iron sites fail on you .
8 I like the nostalgic Factor of using them . 

Pard I'm not trying to talk you out of anything and the last thing you need to do is justify your choices with me. I do however take great pleasure in reading your responses when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and attempt to put on the farce that you do. What makes it even more enjoyable is when you have 2 or 3 other guys being facetious in their responses to you and you completely miss the sarcasm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LJC]

9 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

 

 

Pard I'm not trying to talk you out of anything and the last thing you need to do is justify your choices with me. I do however take great pleasure in reading your responses when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and attempt to put on the farce that you do. What makes it even more enjoyable is when you have 2 or 3 other guys being facetious in their responses to you and you completely miss the sarcasm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

What makes you think I missed the sarcasm. 

Why do you think I wrote scopes are better in general.  I know  your a wise ass by now .

[LJC]

17 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

 

 

Pard I'm not trying to talk you out of anything and the last thing you need to do is justify your choices with me. I do however take great pleasure in reading your responses when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and attempt to put on the farce that you do. What makes it even more enjoyable is when you have 2 or 3 other guys being facetious in their responses to you and you completely miss the sarcasm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Iv only been shooting guns for the past 40 years probably longer then you been alive lol of course I don't no anything in fact you get stupider as you get older  right 

[Buckmaster7600]

Iv only been shooting guns for the past 40 years probably longer then you been alive lol of course I don't no anything in fact you get stupider as you get older  right 

After reading some of your posts I know I'm getting "stupider" as I get older.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LJC]

4 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

 

 

After reading some of your posts I know I'm getting "stupider" as I get older.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Really so you did not learn nothing to bad .

[eagle rider]

scope over iron even in tighter cover need it down around 2.5 x or 3 x.  For open lane shooting you can crank it to whatever you need.  You'll be amazed at the number of saplings and twigs laying across your shots in these woods that you'd never pick up with iron.  Also, in the woods, the ability for modern scopes to gather light is amazing, whats in your objective field will seem brighter to look at even on overcast days.  There are lost of reticle options to choose from as well.  In tighter cover where the shoots will be less than 100 yds, I've always gone with a heavy duplex, for rigs on stands where I will get out 300 yds, a not-overly-busy BDC reticle is great.  Last point you'll see you shooting improve.  Scoped rifles shoot better groups.  If you say that you'll be on stands where shots will be 50 yds or under all the time, I'd probably say get a good quality red dot and you'll be fine.  If you are shooting 100 and possibly better at time or there are descent chances, there is nothing like a set of crosshairs.  

 

If you are looking at lightweights check out Red Hawk Rifles, or Dixie Precision.  They can both make a nice lightweight off a 700 barreled action, I have a Red Hawk in 30-06 they made for me.  With a 24" barrel it weighs 6 3/4 lbs.  It shoots lights out.  The accuracy is light nothing I've ever imagined.  I have a Nikon Monarch 2.5 to 10 BDC on that.  I took a 100 yd uphill shot in a down pour three years ago on a meat doe that had a tree line 40 yds behind her... it was first light.  Through the scope on pop 7x I was able to see notch between the corner of her should and her ribs to slide the bullet into.  The rest was fresh backstraps and eggs an hour later.  That could not have been done with iron.

[LJC]

2 hours ago, eagle rider said:

scope over iron even in tighter cover need it down around 2.5 x or 3 x.  For open lane shooting you can crank it to whatever you need.  You'll be amazed at the number of saplings and twigs laying across your shots in these woods that you'd never pick up with iron.  Also, in the woods, the ability for modern scopes to gather light is amazing, whats in your objective field will seem brighter to look at even on overcast days.  There are lost of reticle options to choose from as well.  In tighter cover where the shoots will be less than 100 yds, I've always gone with a heavy duplex, for rigs on stands where I will get out 300 yds, a not-overly-busy BDC reticle is great.  Last point you'll see you shooting improve.  Scoped rifles shoot better groups.  If you say that you'll be on stands where shots will be 50 yds or under all the time, I'd probably say get a good quality red dot and you'll be fine.  If you are shooting 100 and possibly better at time or there are descent chances, there is nothing like a set of crosshairs.  

 

If you are looking at lightweights check out Red Hawk Rifles, or Dixie Precision.  They can both make a nice lightweight off a 700 barreled action, I have a Red Hawk in 30-06 they made for me.  With a 24" barrel it weighs 6 3/4 lbs.  It shoots lights out.  The accuracy is light nothing I've ever imagined.  I have a Nikon Monarch 2.5 to 10 BDC on that.  I took a 100 yd uphill shot in a down pour three years ago on a meat doe that had a tree line 40 yds behind her... it was first light.  Through the scope on pop 7x I was able to see notch between the corner of her should and her ribs to slide the bullet into.  The rest was fresh backstraps and eggs an hour later.  That could not have been done with iron.

Good info bro  almost makes me want to put one on my shotgun as well now lol 

One time with my 3006 that is  scoped deer  jump out of some thick brush about 100 120  yards away I tried shooting through that crap first shot miss deer didn't even move  2rd shot miss deer still just stood there 3rd shot miss deer just slowly moved away .

I was shocked took some target shots  to check if the scope was off it was not .

There just was to much crap brush in the way from me to  that deer .

I was shooting from a rested position to so it wasn't because of a shaky shot either .  Shooting through thick brush is a crap shoot . There is no way to no if your bullet is going to get there even with a scope yea with a scope you will see more of the crap that's in the way but trying to shoot through it still is tuff .

I just avoid those shots if possible or just except the fact that if i shoot through brush I may miss it happens it is what it is.

[eagle rider]

6 minutes ago, LJC said:

Good info bro  almost makes me want to put one on my shotgun as well now lol 

One time with my 3006 that is  scoped deer  jump out of some thick brush about 100 120  yards away I tried shooting through that crap first shot miss deer didn't even move  2rd shot miss deer still just stood there 3rd shot miss deer just slowly moved away .

I was shocked took some target shots  to check if the scope was off it was not .

There just was to much crap brush in the way from me to  that deer .

I was shooting from a rested position to so it wasn't because of a shaky shot either .  Shooting through thick brush is a crap shoot . There is no way to no if your bullet is going to get there even with a scope yea with a scope you will see more of the crap that's in the way but trying to shoot through it still is tuff .

I just avoid those shots if possible or just except the fact that if i shoot through brush I may miss it happens it is what it is.

Absolutely.  I try to clear my lanes as much as I can.  I have a few stands that are in older mixed timber that open nicely and the scope is amazing for those, then I have more or less some bow stands that I rifle hunt from. Honestly those are 3x stands with heavy duplexes or a red dot.  I think in those its even more important to trim away at the understory as much as you can.  Bullets and fiddle sticks don't mix and there are no high speed bush busters.  That myth has been proven to be BS time and time again.  Even leafs deflect bullets flight path.  

[wildcat junkie]

On 10/8/2016 at 1:15 PM, LJC said:

My point is there is no way to no for sure if the bullet is going to hit a branch on the way to your target . Since the bullet is not traveling in a perfect straight line also the magnification distorts what you are seeing. It all depends 

All of my scoped rifles are sighted in for maximum PBR + or - 3". W/ most medium velocity cartridges (2700-3000 fps) that is 275 to 300yds. I can easily pick out a gap wider than that through my scope at 50 yds or more to shoot through at all but the closest ranges. At any range that is closer than that, I can pick out a gap to shot through with my naked eye before I raise my rifle.

Edited October 9, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[Padre86]

If I know the shot will be under 100 yards, I can see how iron sights are preferred.  Less weight, less complication.  For anything over 100 yards, I'll take a scope.

[eagle rider]

Just the brightness factor alone at low power makes it a no brainer for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk