Best scope for dangerous game rifle?

Open sights.
Red dot.
1-5 variable.

If it were truly a dangerous game only rifle, these would be my picks in order. If it was a hunting rifle in dangerous game country, I would pick a 1-4 or 1.5-5.
 
To me, a rifle is a hunting rifle first, and a dangerous game rifle second. I've abandonned the 1.5-5s and the tiny fixed powers for ordinary 3-9 through 3.5-10 powered scopes, though I kept a 1.75-6 on my .416. I don't remember ever wishing for less power, but have wanted more light, and the ability to thread a bullet through thick black brush at a thick black bull.
 
nightforce 1-4x24 with illumitated reticle, you need to, in certian situations still be able to shoot with both eyes open and aquire your target quickly, very very quickly and only the very low power illuminated scopes do that. your rifle your scope your life, they are spendy but so is hunting dangerous game. the other thing they give you over the 3-9 is the larger FOV which is a MUST
 
I don't hunt game that wants to eat or trample me to death but from what i read, open sights are the norm in the dangerous game hunting world.
 
dizzy said:
nightforce 1-4x24 with illumitated reticle, you need to, in certian situations still be able to shoot with both eyes open and aquire your target quickly, very very quickly and only the very low power illuminated scopes do that. your rifle your scope your life, they are spendy but so is hunting dangerous game. the other thing they give you over the 3-9 is the larger FOV which is a MUST
Click to expand...

I agree totally!! Hence my DG rifle wears a NF1x4. Being able to shoot with both eyes open and everything on the same plane, to me makes the most sense.
Almost everyone who uses a more than 1x magnification will close the non shooting eye when shooting which then cuts your peripheral vision significantly.
To have full vision in potentially bad situations seems logical.

Open sites are also used alot on DG hunts, but I find it faster and more accurate to have a single point to focus on rather than aligning sights.
 
game is not dangerous if shot at a distance. so why do you need a scope at all? other than light transmission i cant see an advantage. my brno 375 h&h is surprisingly accurate with the folding leaf irons out to three hundred yards. this is enough for me.
 
snoopycda said:
game is not dangerous if shot at a distance. so why do you need a scope at all? other than light transmission i cant see an advantage. my brno 375 h&h is surprisingly accurate with the folding leaf irons out to three hundred yards. this is enough for me.
Click to expand...

You must only have hunted in Saskatchewan. being stuck in swamp up to your arse in their territory makes it mandatory to have something that might just stop them and stop them quickly, and its a great Idea to have plenty of buddies of like mind nearby.. I am like you though I like seeing them buggers from a distance
 
Don't forget to take two of everything or buy the best case you can, so many guys have lost great hunts because the airlines either lost or damaged their kit, you need to have a back up and make sure its one you can trust you life with, you can always sell it when you get back if you don't use it.
 
Dangerous Game is a very broad group. In common speak it is used to refer to the dangerous animals hunted in Africa - the Big 5, Lion, Elephant, Buffalo, Black Rhino and Leopard, and the Dangerous 7 which is comprised of the Big 5 as well as the Crocodile and Hippo. It can be argued that the bears of North America and Asia are dangerous, but for the purpose of this discussion I refer only to the African dangerous game animals.

Elephant and Rhino rifles are slightly different than Buffalo rifles. And the ideal for Lion, Croc and Hippo are different than the previous. Leopard is different from all the others. Worse yet, dry land Hippo and Hippo in the river are completely different animals, despite being the same animal. It's enough to make one's head spin!

So let's look at Buffalo because, let's face it, Buffalo is the most accessible and affordable of the Dangerous 7. In that case, add me as another vote for the 1.5-5x Leupold or a comparable version from another maker. Personally I don't like the idea of a 30mm scope on any normal hunting rifle. I think that they add unnecessary weight and bulk and, when mounted low, can make accessing the magazine to reload problematic (look at the VX7 Leupold - design fail with the big turret caps and 30 mm tube). When you hunt dangerous game you are almost invariably in thick cover. In cover like that - thick mopane or jesse, you will want to have the low power and field of view of a low powered scope. In fact, when you're talking about driving a bullet through a vital zone the size of a trash can lid, you don't need more than 4 or 5 power, even if you, like me, take a shot of a hair over 100 yards.

Now, if you're talking about a one-size-fits-all rifle for a Dangerous Game and Common Game hunt, then there is an argument to be made for a compromise. That said, I believe that compromise, in the face of Dangerous Game, is a poor practice. If you're looking at Elephant, Rhino or dry land Hippo you really have no business with a scope that doesn't get down to 1x or 1.5x. In fact, you're probably better with a set of irons when you're at rock-throwing distances than any scope as they will leave you with a bad blind spot on your right hand side. Now, if you're talking Lion, Croc or a Hippo bobbing in the river, then a rifle with a variable in the neighborhood of 3-9x would treat you well. And Leopard in a tree at last light? A lighted reticle and big objective would be on my build sheet. Not to mention the clear difference in rifles required for the various scenarios (whish was not what the OP asked about.

Now, where the rubber meets the road...what do my Dangerous Game Rifles wear? My Husqvarna M98 in 9.3x62, which would be my minimum choice for Buffalo or Lion, wears only iron sights. A fixed forward blade sight and a fixed rear blade with no folding leaves. They are beautifully rugged and perfectly accurate for shots of 200 yards and under. My Merkel 470, as though it bears stating, wears only irons - a bead front and V rear with two folding leaves. Superfluous as they are as I will never flip them up, but that is what tradition calls for. My Ruger M77 RSM 416 Rigby wears a 1.5-5x Leupold with a heavy duplex reticle. I also carry a spare scope in rings in case the first one takes a tumble. It also wears a bead front and V rear in case of total disaster. The 416 and 470 would go in the field with me if I was after an Elephant or Buffalo. For Lion in the bush I'd be after either the 416 or 9.3x62 when I opened the safe. For Croc or Hippo I'd probably be looking into a 375 that shot wee small groups. Now, if I was going to swat a leopard I would have to take my 30-06, despite the fact that it's a Stevens. I'd be tempted to swap scopes from the Burris 3-9x Signature for my Nightforce 3.5-15x for no other reason than the lighted reticle and extra magnification.

So there you have it.
 
dizzy said:
You must only have hunted in Saskatchewan. being stuck in swamp up to your arse in their territory makes it mandatory to have something that might just stop them and stop them quickly, and its a great Idea to have plenty of buddies of like mind nearby.. I am like you though I like seeing them buggers from a distance
Click to expand...

actually i am from BC. i have never hunted in Saskatchewan. my point was that close range shooting should require no scope at all. i started my hunting career with an open sighted model 94/30-30. i have shot moose and deer at reach out and touch them ranges. a scope here would be a hindrance. really close range game that may want to eat you would require a fast short open sited rifle that swings and points like a shotgun. a rear sight may not even be necessary. i believe marlin make one of these in a large enough caliber.
 
Best Sights on a DGR: 2 kinds; primary & backup. Which is primary & which is back-up depends on the situation.

Parker-Hale 458: 1 fixed blade open sight & B & L 1.5-6 x 20 (looking to repalce it with a Swarovski Habicht Nova 1.5-4.5x18 scope) mounted on Weaver steel bases & low Leupold QRW.

W.J. Jeffery 375 H&H: fixed blade open sights (w/ flip-up night bead) & Zeiss Daivari ZA 1.75-6x42 mounted on Leupold steel bases & low Leupold 30mm QRW.

Holland & Holland 375 H&H: 1 fixed blade open sight & interchangeable scopes (Kahles 1.1-4x20 & Kahles 2.2-9x42) mounted on 1 piece Leupold steel base & EAW 30mm rings.

Marlin 1895 45-70 Ashley ghost ring peep & front patridge white-faced blade (B&L 1.5-6x20 mounted only for load development)

BTW, with the Kahles, Zeiss & my Swarovski scopes, I can delineate single branches in the dark at up to 70 yards, which is better than I can do with naked eyes. However, the field of view, even as wide as they are, does not match that of my 2 eyes.
 
snoopycda said:
actually i am from BC. i have never hunted in Saskatchewan. my point was that close range shooting should require no scope at all. i started my hunting career with an open sighted model 94/30-30. i have shot moose and deer at reach out and touch them ranges. a scope here would be a hindrance. really close range game that may want to eat you would require a fast short open sited rifle that swings and points like a shotgun. a rear sight may not even be necessary. i believe marlin make one of these in a large enough caliber.
Click to expand...

Depends on how your eyesight is. Have you ever used a 1x scope for either short range shooting or CQB work?
If not you should try it, you may be surprised at how fast and simple sight/target aquisition is.
I too use a 1x4 NF scope on my 416 Rigby and have had nothing but excellent results shooting close (under 100 yard) game both dangerous and non.
Also used CQB optics through work and would say iron sites are greatly surpassed for speed and accuracy by an optic, Which is why so many military groups and LE agencies use low power optics today.
 
20x138B said:
Depends on how your eyesight is. Have you ever used a 1x scope for either short range shooting or CQB work?
If not you should try it, you may be surprised at how fast and simple sight/target aquisition is.
I too use a 1x4 NF scope on my 416 Rigby and have had nothing but excellent results shooting close (under 100 yard) game both dangerous and non.
Also used CQB optics through work and would say iron sites are greatly surpassed for speed and accuracy by an optic, Which is why so many military groups and LE agencies use low power optics today.
Click to expand...

maybe i am talking through my hat. the lowest powered scope i have is a 1x red dot sight on my sks, the next lowest is a 4x. my eyesight is o.k. for someone my age (46) so i guess there is an argument to be made where eyesight is an issue. low light is another. i would say that if a scope makes you better then by all means use one. irons are simple and dead reliable and chances are if we are that close there probably won't be any aiming going on, just point and shoot.
 
snoopycda said:
maybe i am talking through my hat. the lowest powered scope i have is a 1x red dot sight on my sks, the next lowest is a 4x. my eyesight is o.k. for someone my age (46) so i guess there is an argument to be made where eyesight is an issue. low light is another. i would say that if a scope makes you better then by all means use one. irons are simple and dead reliable and chances are if we are that close there probably won't be any aiming going on, just point and shoot.
Click to expand...

I am scope dependent, my eyes will no longer focus well on 3 objects (front site, rear site and target) being at differing distances. The joys of getting older:(
I agree that iron sites are virtually goof proof assuming that 1 spends the range time to have them on and know how to use them. Modern high quality optics are also nearly goof proof and FAR more reliable than they used to be.
Light gathering with a low power optic is increased over ambient light so there are advantages there as well.

Your comment of " if we are that close there probably won't be any aiming going on, just point and shoot." Is spot on.
This came out of no-where, she was 15 feet away and closing rapidly when I found some tan in my scope and shot, praying like hell I hit something vital.
I would love to claim expert marksmanship on that shot, but the reality is luck played a HUGE part in keeping me from feeding the nice kitty.

Africa153.jpg
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
I am scope dependent, my eyes will no longer focus well on 3 objects (front site, rear site and target) being at differing distances. The joys of getting older:(
I agree that iron sites are virtually goof proof assuming that 1 spends the range time to have them on and know how to use them. Modern high quality optics are also nearly goof proof and FAR more reliable than they used to be.
Light gathering with a low power optic is increased over ambient light so there are advantages there as well.

Your comment of " if we are that close there probably won't be any aiming going on, just point and shoot." Is spot on.
This came out of no-where, she was 15 feet away and closing rapidly when I found some tan in my scope and shot, praying like hell I hit something vital.
I would love to claim expert marksmanship on that shot, but the reality is luck played a HUGE part in keeping me from feeding the nice kitty.

Africa153.jpg
Click to expand...
very impressive! one of those situations where you just dont know how you will perform until you are there. good job by the way, i dont think it was by accident you making that shot as you have probably practiced a lot and are very familiar with your tools. muscle memory and instinct play huge roles in adverse conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom