Shooting off hand ?

Scope or irons for a steady off hand shot ?

  • Irons are perfect for off hand shooting, balance is perfect

    Votes: 32 68.1%

  • A scope of my choosing , you can't go wrong , hold it steady as a rock!

    Votes: 15 31.9%
  • Total voters
    47
_Shorty said:
ok, I fail to see how one or the other has anything to do with holding steady. And that's what the poll asked, for holding steady. It didn't say anything about what can you get a quick shot off with. I don't see any possible way of one being more steady than the other, since the whole thing being steady or unsteady is you, not what's on top of the gun.
Click to expand...
Some people can't hold steady with a scope because of a situation called "target panic".
They get all tensed up trying to hold rock steady instead of letting the target "wobble" wobble around the crosshairs of the scope ( or vice versu, actually!).
When shooting with a peep sight they do not have the same problem because of the lack of magnification, yet the sights are still moving in an orbit!

Others cannot find the target in the crosshairs as fast as with a peep sight.
Cat
 
catnthehatt said:
Some people can't hold steady with a scope because of a situation called "target panic".
They get all tensed up trying to hold rock steady instead of letting the target "wobble" wobble around the crosshairs of the scope ( or vice versu, actually!).
When shooting with a peep sight they do not have the same problem because of the lack of magnification, yet the sights are still moving in an orbit!

Others cannot find the target in the crosshairs as fast as with a peep sight.
Cat
Click to expand...
Those are excellent points Cat , but for me an iron sighted gun thats balanced just sits there steady , might be related to fit also , so my theory may be flawed:D
 
Levi Garrett said:
Those are excellent points Cat , but for me an iron sighted gun thats balanced just sits there steady , might be related to fit also , so my theory may be flawed:D
Click to expand...

I actually gave up a long time ago, trying to figure out for myself exactly WHY I shoot them and like them more than scopes.
I have accpeted it!:redface:
I am a hard core irons fan.
I have some optics that are super accurate, powerful, blah, blah, blah but cannot for the life of me like them as much as a good
set of irons, be it on a hunting rifle or a match rifle.
I just like irons, period!:dancingbanana: :dancingbanana:
Cat
 
well, the only thing I can figure is that someone might think the irons are more stable because of the lack of magnification. If you think about it, when you put a scope on the gun it now has more mass, and should be easier to hold more stable than when it has no scope and has less mass, no? Anyway, I maintain that it shouldn't be easier or harder one way or the other. There certainly are phenomena such as scope magnification making movement appear more exaggerated, and irons' lack of magnification making movement appear less pronounced, and perhaps other things as well. But psychological things aside, I don't see anything physical to give irons an advantage over scopes when considering simply holding steady. When only considering how steady you can hold it I like the idea of the scoped gun being more steady, since it has more mass, and thus more inertia to resist movement.
 
Here's a way to magnify what I mean , take a 1x6 inch x 4 ft board , hold it like a gun, then take a 2x2 x 4ft piece and do the same. Never tried this , just came to me after reading your comments. The theory;) is that the scope makes the gun top heavy , changes center of gravity and therefore messes things up.:D
 
I don't know about you, but I put *my* scope near the back of my gun, where it is between my shoulder and my front hand. I wasn't aware that some people put their scopes in place of their front sight, where it would make a meaningful difference in the center of balance. ;)
 
We're not *seriously* arguing about whether the scope adds accuracy, are we?

As is, eyes in good condition are optically capable of about 1 MOA resolution, if the contrast is good. With a good scope, you can resolve a lot more than that. So if you're trying to shoot '0' groups, you need a scope. But then we're talking rested/supported shooting, not offhand
 
_Shorty said:
I don't know about you, but I put *my* scope near the back of my gun, where it is between my shoulder and my front hand. I wasn't aware that some people put their scopes in place of their front sight, where it would make a meaningful difference in the center of balance. ;)
Click to expand...
Have another read, C of G is changed in the vertical , which effects the natural balance , not front to back ;)
 
Last edited:
which still has exactly zero effect on how steady I can hold it. A piece of balsa wood with a big lead weight on the end will be just as easy to *hold steady* as would a very uniformly-shaped length of steel bar. The balsa wood and lead weight are going to be extremely heavy on one end compared to the other, obviously. But that doesn't mean it will be harder to hold it *steady* in the least. Holding steady doesn't have anything to do with the object's center of gravity. Has to do with holding steady. And that's all you. Scope or no scope, it's not going to change the ability to stand still. I've absolutely no doubt that there are differences in shooting ability with a scope or with iron sights, but these are all due to other factors in the equation. Neither one will affect how still I can stand there. How still I can stand depends on me, my amount of practice, and my physical and mental condition. The small difference in mass and distribution of mass doesn't affect it, not that I can see.
Levi Garrett said:
Have another read, C of G is changed in the vertical , which effects the natural balance , not front to back ;)
Click to expand...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosper
We're not *seriously* arguing about whether the scope adds accuracy, are we?


Well here's something to consider!!
Why is it your hands become much more steady when doing a very fine task by simply holding a magnifying glass in front of your work??
Surgeons do it all the time!
Would magnification not improve your ability (to a small extent) to hold steady on a target :confused:
 
senior said:
Quote:
Why is it your hands become much more steady when doing a very fine task by simply holding a magnifying glass in front of your work??
Surgeons do it all the time!
Would magnification not improve your ability (to a small extent) to hold steady on a target :confused:
Click to expand...


Gotcha thinkin eh!! :D
 
senior said:
Gotcha thinkin eh!! :D
Click to expand...
I think the magnifying thing is a different situation, as most times when I need a glass to remove something frrom my hand, it's because I can't see it.

Many irons huse a post instead of a from aperature insirt, and this is something else to consider.
The combination of two aperatures to look through ( front and back) is far better as far as pure accuracy is concerned , but maybe not as fast as a post in a hunting situation.
Cat
 
senior said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosper
We're not *seriously* arguing about whether the scope adds accuracy, are we?


Well here's something to consider!!
Why is it your hands become much more steady when doing a very fine task by simply holding a magnifying glass in front of your work??
Surgeons do it all the time!
Would magnification not improve your ability (to a small extent) to hold steady on a target :confused:
Click to expand...
:D thats not at all like scopes or Iron sights,or applies here, its a different beast all together.
And one question , are you hold the glass when doing the work?:D but still does not apply to balance, C of G change , first from adding weight, and where you put that weight is the reason for that steady hold to go south
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom