Are hunting rifles over scoped?

I’ve been hunting without a scope for several years now. I enjoy the hunt of challenging the animals senses and getting with in distance for a shot. Took a black bear recently and it was one heck of a hunt. The bear was just 20 yards away before I squeeze the trigger on him. I used a mouse call to bring him in.
 
fingers284 said:
This is my opinion in a nutshell also...ain't no such thing as "over-scoped". Don't need no damn binoc's hanging around my neck just making it sore as hell.
Click to expand...

So when you see movement in a treeline, you'll shoulder a rifle and identify the target? Perhaps its another hunter you're pointing at. I agree with the sore neck issue, but uncle mikes has a very inexpensive chest rig that lets you forget your binoculars are even there. Rifle scopes are not for target identification.
 
^ in contrast I just started hunting with a scope a couple of years ago and I'm loving it lol.

In the art of the rifle Cooper says something along the lines of "the primary advantage of a scope is not it's magnification". Wisdom

2.5x, 4x, 2-7 and 1.5-4 are my favourite magnification. I've been wanting to try a 2x pistol scope mounted slightly forward over the receiver in a more traditional configuration than a scout mount.

I recently tried a reflex sight on a bolt action rifle and was pretty surprised by how well it worked. I've noticed people often put them far forward on a mounting rail but I found it much better over the rear receiver ring. The very small pistol ones do not take up a lot of space. I'd like to try one on a short barreled rifle in a med/big bore chambering.
 
Yes, a 1.5-5 is enough scope for 99% of hunters.
2-7 for the long range hunters, maybe 3-9 if their eyes are really bad.
6x is the most magnification I would need in a fixed scope, but it wouldn’t be a do it all rifle for me because it’s too much for the close up shots.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the perfect size for most hunters is 2.5X8. 2.5 is really nice up close (lots of field of view) and 8 is very reasonable for shots out to 400 yd which would be the max range of a reasonably good shot under excellent conditions - no wind, good light, good rest and good trigger control

This scope combination can be had in short lightweight configuration which does not wreck the balance or aesthetics of the rifle.
 
The only problem with some of the 2.5-8 scopes is how short they are... they don't mount up easily on long actions.
 
littlehughey said:
So when you see movement in a treeline, you'll shoulder a rifle and identify the target? Perhaps its another hunter you're pointing at. I agree with the sore neck issue, but uncle mikes has a very inexpensive chest rig that lets you forget your binoculars are even there. Rifle scopes are not for target identification.
Click to expand...

I agree. I’ll count points with my scope. But I use my binoculars for glassing
 
medvedqc said:
i can mount the 2.5-8x38 on zastava action which is the longest i have.

even shorter scope can be mounted just having a proper rings is helping a lot ...
Click to expand...

Most require some overhanging extension type ring arrangement which I detest. The rifle on top has had the rear bridge altered and new scope mounting holes added. It’s about the longest mount spacing out there. Very few scopes will fit it (I knew this when I asked for that arrangement). The 3.5-10 Leupold will as will the fixed 6x36 that’s on it.

wODCl14.jpg
 
guntech said:
The only problem with some of the 2.5-8 scopes is how short they are... they don't mount up easily on long actions.
Click to expand...

That was the older 1.75-6X32mm short tube scopes, they recognized the problem and lengthened the tube on later models.
 
I am not sure what is meant here by "over scoping?" Too much weight, too much bulk, or too much magnification... or all three combined?

Is the VX-3 2.5-8X36 considered over scoping? I wouldn't think so, and yet the VX-3 4.5-14X40mm is only 1.2" longer and 1.6 ounces heavier... but it does have that nasty 14X on the top end... personally I find no functional difference between the 6X, 1.75-6X32, 2.5-8X36mm, 3.5-10X40mm or 4.5-14X40mm.
 
I wish my 2.5-8-36’s were a little longer so I didn’t have to use extension bases on my long action model 70s.
 
I have Nikon Monarch 3 4-16's on both my rifles. One 50mm and one 42mm. When hunting 95% of the time it's on 4x, but target shooting I like having the wide power range for those longer shots. Could I do without? Absolutely, but it's nice to have the wide power range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom