375 HH mag

BigUglyMan said:
That's exactly how I used the triangle and it should have worked like a charm. Instead, it was something about the way my eye sees the triangle and the brightness. It drew my eye to centre subconsciously. It's hard to explain but on my buffalo it didn't have any significant effect. I was well rested on the cross sticks and, although it was a bit over 100 yards, I hit the bull perfectly where Kevin Robertson would put the red dot on his photos. Maybe that's the nature of an 8" vital zone, you don't notice an inch here or there, especially when you shoot something a football field away. But when I stomped my baboon at about 40 yards rather than hit him through the armpits, I hit him straight through the base of the skull. Now, perhaps that was partly due to the midrange trajectory of the 300gr DGX that was zeroed for 100 yards. But I still think that the brightness of the triangle drew my eye upwards. My eye naturally centered itself on the triangle, the same way it would in a peep site.

I love the theory of the reticle. But if the lighted portion was dimmer and smaller I thin kit would be hard to beat. That's just me. I turn the panel lights on my dash down to barely visible at night. I find bright lights too distracting. if I was shooting either of my Nightforce NXSs at low light they would probably be too bright for me too.
Click to expand...

Thanks BUM.
 
witts said:
I admit I am old and my eyes are not as good as they once were. I shot a bear 3 weeks ago at about 70 yds at one half hour after sunset (legal limit) with my VX 6 1-6. I would never had made that shot with irons, even with 20 year old eyes. A scope will give you an extra 30 min of hunting in the evening. All hunters will know this, young and old.
Click to expand...
dont know where you are but I am in Ontario and while I can see pretty well without a scope at 1/2hr after sunset...I wouldnt have taken that shot (with or without a scope) because at 30 minutes after sunset your rifle is required to be unloaded and cased. The potential problem for folks who take a shot at the very last legal hunting time is that if they fail to kill the animal but rather only wound the animal they cannot continue to pursue it....or administer a finishing shot. Thats the law. I would rather consider that 30 minutes as 'grace' period and use that time to get squared away rather than continue hunting...course I know a lot of guys do hang in to the very last second..
 
Uplandguy said:
What's the fascination of scopes? Then again I tend to get in close so long range shooting was never a fascination with me. I bet there are lots of folk out there with scopes because someone told THEM it was supposed to be so...
Click to expand...

Scopes are superior aiming devices than iron sights in almost every application, which is why most hunters use them on bolt action rifles.
 
SuperCub said:
Fact is that a 1.5x5 would work well on most of our rifles (375 or otherwise) for most our everyday hunting.
Click to expand...

Agreed, especially with a calibre size of 375 or bigger and when taking into consideration the probable game species hunted and the vast majority of 'likely' ranges one would anticipate having to contend with..
 
Gatehouse said:
Scopes are superior aiming devices than iron sights in almost every application, which is why most hunters use them on bolt action rifles.
Click to expand...

I am lucky then I hunt thick brush short shots. Always stick a Williams or Lyman's.on my bolt guns. and hey, if hemingway didn't need a.scope.neither do I.��
 
Uplandguy said:
I am lucky then I hunt thick brush short shots. Always stick a Williams or Lyman's.on my bolt guns. and hey, if hemingway didn't need a.scope.neither do I.��
Click to expand...

Really? .......... Receiver sights are a very good system. I've used them on several rifles. Hemingway and his contemporaries would have used them because they were better than the scopes of the day but I assure you that if they had the choice of a modern scope as we have or Lyman sight, the scope would be the one used. No question.

Gatehouse said:
Scopes are superior aiming devices than iron sights in almost every application, which is why most hunters use them on bolt action rifles.
Click to expand...

You're right!
 
I have a Leupold M8 3X Compact on my Whitworth Express rifle. I have used it on both Moose in dark timber and plains deer. I would suggest a fixed low power scope of good quality.
 
I have a Swaro 3-10X on my 375H&H and love the combination. The 3X has been perfect for up close and all the way out to 200M. I have dialed it up to 10X for the 300-400M paper targets but never had cause to do so when hunting.
 
I guess I'm a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy; I simply will not have a hunting rifle without iron sights or a second sighted-in backup scope in QD mounts. The only exceptions are guns that I use only around home. However, if I'm going hunting any further from my back door than I can walk to, my gun is gonna have a secondary sighting system. I've used my backup scope a very few times over the years; never had to resort to irons, but I like having 'em there. Hey, they're my guns, so I'll do what I want. :)

For scopes, I like the Leupold 1-4's and 1.5-5's, still have probably 6 or 7 of them...BUT, again, if I am going on a "serious" hunt, I want more light-gathering ability than those dinky little objectives can offer. I have a couple of the discontinued Zeiss 1.8-5.5 scopes, with an enlarged objective of around 36mm (too lazy to get up now and check :)). Much brighter than the small-lens Leupolds, eye relief just about as good, and long enough to fit on just about any gun without much trouble.

BUM, have you tried the illuminated-dot Trijicons? I completely agree with you about that goofy huge triangle reticle...the dot is much nicer, and never owerpowers the target image. It's probably not great for extreme long range, but certainly within 300 or 400 yards it's very usable, even on coyotes. Should be even better on bigger stuff.
 
jjohn............I completely agree, when going overseas to hunt I always have a backup scope in mounts, sighted in and ready to throw on and fire a couple rounds to check. So little of my hunting is conducive to iron sights and with the ageing eyes now it just makes more sense to have a spare scope than to rely on irons.........I can still shoot irons pretty good at the range, in fact I won an iron sighted levergun shoot in Whitehorse a couple years back, but they have never been my preference for serious hunting.
 
I know what you mean about the eyes...for me nowadays, the irons are there probably as much because I'm accustomed to having them as they are for function. :) It would require a pretty much perfect shot presentation before I would use them on game. But my eyes still work well enough for me to see that a gun without sights just doesn't look right!...IMHO...:)
 
jjohnwm said:
BUM, have you tried the illuminated-dot Trijicons? I completely agree with you about that goofy huge triangle reticle...the dot is much nicer, and never owerpowers the target image. It's probably not great for extreme long range, but certainly within 300 or 400 yards it's very usable, even on coyotes. Should be even better on bigger stuff.
Click to expand...

Never, but I wouldn't mind giving one a try.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom