Are hunting rifles over scoped?

chuck nelson said:
One of my favourite quotes by Ross Seyfried.

“Perhaps my most succinct quote is, “you cannot buy skill.” I firmly believe that. I began to form the opinion in my competitive pistol shooting days. At the time, and for quite a while I lived on top of the hill. I watched others, who were actually more technically skilled than I, begin to approach the level that could possibly beat me. They were close, very close but one by one I watched them get to the top of their game and never be able to beat me. The reason was that they thought that as they reached that upper eschelon, they had to buy the new widget, holster or fashion-pistol, and that it would be this, and not pure practiced skill, that would best me. When I saw them go for the gear, I knew I still had them. They gave up their thinking that they could beat me by practicing harder and learning their game better, and vested their faith in what they thought was superior equipment. They failed because they gave up on their own ability to keep doing the next thing right. Gear was not the answer.“
Click to expand...

Cool story bro. Why can't one be skilled and use good gear at the same time? Using sub optimal optics when you have better options readily available isn't a sign you are a better marksman, it just a sign you are stubborn (all things even equal and if economics is not part of the equation of course). I would offer that there is a good reason why at the pinnacle of competition (most) almost everyone is using the best gear that money can buy or they simply can't compete. No one is winning any high caliber shooting competition with non match grade barrels and coreloks.
 
Last edited:
zxexn said:
Cool story bro. Why can't one be skilled and use good gear at the same time? Using sub optimal optics when you have better options readily available isn't a sign you are a better marksman, it just a sign you are stubborn (all things even equal and if economics is not part of the equation of course). I would offer that there is a good reason why at the pinnacle of competition (most) almost everyone is using the best gear that money can buy or they simply can't compete. No one is winning any high caliber shooting competition with non match grade barrels and coreloks.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about not using good gear?
 
zxexn said:
Cool story bro. Why can't one be skilled and use good gear at the same time? Using sub optimal optics when you have better options readily available isn't a sign you are a better marksman, it just a sign you are stubborn (all things even equal and if economics is not part of the equation of course). I would offer that there is a good reason why at the pinnacle of competition (most) almost everyone is using the best gear that money can buy or they simply can't compete. No one is winning any high caliber shooting competition with non match grade barrels and coreloks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a point being missed? No doubt the "top" performers also use the best gear. But that does not mean that somebody gets to be "just as good as" only by the gear they accumulate. Overlooking the years of training and practice, the 10's or hundreds of thousands of "misses" - note books and logs of shooting experience that would fill a half ton truck box. I am sure the Special Forces guys with the high end German optics are very, very good. But they will also have extraordinary conditioning, and much, much training and practice. And, I do think those kind of shooters would be awesomely effective with a standard 4 or 6 power scope. The "gear" isn't the thing - that shooter's skill is. I would agree with the quote from Seyfried above - can not "buy" skill, but a lot of advertising suggests otherwise.
 
For many. many years all my hunting rifles wore 6x42 Leupolds, with the exception of my Marlin
30-30's, which wore M8 - 4x Leupolds.
I too, am dealing with growing cataracts, so have switched up my more capable rifles with new
optics, the VX3 3.5-10 x 40 Leupolds. I carry them at 4 or 5x when hunting, knowing that if a
longer poke presents itself, I can crank it up. This year's elk was such a situation, and I shot him
at 425 yards with my scope at around 8x.

FWIW, my longest successful one-shot kill was made with a 270 Winchester and a 6x42 Leupold.
Dave.
 
Really, nobody but the person behind the trigger can judge whether or not a scope is "too much." I know what "I think" is too much for a given circumstance, but that is a judgement made based on my tested needs and preferences. I prefer a variable scope as they are more versatile. I often hear how much stronger and more reliable fixed power optics are, but I have never had a variable fail in forty plus years of shooting them...not even the cheap ones I started out with as a lad... so how much more "reliable" do you need?
 
The first guy to tie a knapped flint blade to a stick was probably laughed at and accused of being an equipment junkie by a pointy stick user who felt that nobody could be expected to remember which end to throw first. Story is Chippy killed Pointy (To prove his point) and took the rest of his stuff, but its debatable whether he was eaten by the cave afterwards. If not, something else did.

It was the biggest thing that happened since ole Soft foot started wearing shoes.
 
Last edited:
In my younger days, I'd definitely say I was using too much scope. Yet, I still always lusted for the next new scope out there offering up higher magnifications with the delusions that I'd be making incredible 550 yard shots with ease.

As I grew wiser, I came to the realization that the number of opportunities I've had to make a long distance shot we virtually non-existent. In fact, the majority of shots have been less than 100 yards. Many rifles have now been equipped with peep sights for this reason, I'm more than confident with iron sights at those ranges, where "finding" stuff in the scope can be tricky.

I have recently tried out a Vortex Strike Eagle that is 1-8x that I really like. Seems to be the best of both worlds, so I'm trying that this season on my main rifle.

This works for me because of the country I hunt. If I had lots of wide open spaces, I'd favour the higher powered scopes. Thick brush and old cutovers are my reality, and my setups work just fine.

Hell, thats why I usually bring a couple rifles hunting with me. If I'm going to be on a stand watching a slough or a cutover, I'll grab a rifle with a higher powered scope, such as my Browning A-Bolt 338 with Vortex Viper 2.5-14. If I'm going to be pushing bush, I'll take my Ruger Scout with irons. I trust both rifles and my abilities to make the shots I'm normally challenged with, but I also know my limits. I won't take a shot at a moose 350 yards out with my iron sighted rifles. If he's that far away, chances are I can move a little closer if needed. If I jump one with my scoped rifles, if I can't get a shot off because I can't get a good sight picture, it lives another day.
 
Revolutionizing the 300 yard shot.

8koO7PB.jpg
 
chuck nelson said:
One of my favourite quotes by Ross Seyfried.

“Perhaps my most succinct quote is, “you cannot buy skill.” I firmly believe that. I began to form the opinion in my competitive pistol shooting days. At the time, and for quite a while I lived on top of the hill. I watched others, who were actually more technically skilled than I, begin to approach the level that could possibly beat me. They were close, very close but one by one I watched them get to the top of their game and never be able to beat me. The reason was that they thought that as they reached that upper eschelon, they had to buy the new widget, holster or fashion-pistol, and that it would be this, and not pure practiced skill, that would best me. When I saw them go for the gear, I knew I still had them. They gave up their thinking that they could beat me by practicing harder and learning their game better, and vested their faith in what they thought was superior equipment. They failed because they gave up on their own ability to keep doing the next thing right. Gear was not the answer.“
Click to expand...

Shooting sports is no different than than any other sport, regardless of equipment, you have to compare the contestants at their peak in their respective careers.

The idea that someone can just jump into a sport with new equipment and beat someone who is in their prime with many years of experience behind them and their chosen equipment is just silly
 
Brian46 said:
Shooting sports is no different than than any other sport, regardless of equipment, you have to compare the contestants at their peak in their respective careers.

The idea that someone can just jump into a sport with new equipment and beat someone who is in their prime with many years of experience behind them and their chosen equipment is just silly
Click to expand...

And isn’t in the context of that quote at all.
 
chuck nelson said:
And isn’t in the context of that quote at all.
Click to expand...
Correct, the quote eludes to people who are far better skilled at shooting not being able to beat someone of lesser skill. That only happens as a fluke, it would not be a repeatable outcome without the person who continues to outperform the other actually being of a higher skill level.

Why should what I post make sense when the original quote doesn't make sense.
 
I use three sizes: 3-9X for big game, 2-7X in the bush, and 4-12X for predators and for big game where I expect to shoot at long range. They are always set on the lowest power, except for preds when I am sitting on my haunches and watching. Most of my shots are made on the lowest available power.

Others may differ, but I don't need to pack more magnification, except for ELD at paper. If you do, maybe you should move closer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom