Rifle Scopes Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

[Matt_3479]

On your hunting rifles do you prefer a normal hunting scope or a tactical scope and why? If you know long shots can occur would you prefer to have a tactical scope or still your normal hunting scope for in the field?

 

[Drifter™]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

Key words in your post are "long shots"...

I prefer a tactical scope (mil-based reticle with exposed turrents) for long shots (400+ yards) over a traditional scope using a duplex-type reticle and covered turrents (which means not-so-accurate holdovers).

Try target shooting at extended distances using a traditional hunting scope if you would prefer hands-on concrete evidence to help make up your own mind.

Ballistic-type reticles will work also if you've settled on an appropriate load for the rifle.

 

[Niles Coyote]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Drifter_1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Key words in your post are "long shots"... </div></div>

+1

Any time the distance would require holding off the animal I prefer to dial my drop. On my muzzleloader I have no problem using a "hunting scope" as my shots are relatively close 25-200 yards.

Hold over reticles are nice, as long as they can be used at any magnification, but few are FFP's.

 

[ggmanning]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

All my rifles have mil based exposed turret scopes. It's what I practice and shoot with when I'm not hunting so it just makes sense to me. I hunt a lot but 95% or more of my actual shooting is done practicing and fun shooting with mil based tactical scopes so I don't want to use anything else. I may hunt one day where I have 50 yd max and the next day where I have farther than I would shoot a deer max. The tactical style scope does it all in a system I have the most experience shooting. The only guns I have left with a regular enclosed turret duplex is a 77/22 for tree rats and a 454 pistol. For me, I picked a platform, learned it, do all my shooting with it and opted to stay with it on anything scoped that I shoot.

 

[head2h2o]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

A scope with exposed turrets wins any day in my book against a scope that does not have them. Short answer to your question, tactical.

 

[Icecreamman]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

I have moved to tactical scopes because it helps me give a rough score of my buck.

 

[customones]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

There was a similar thread on cabelas forums, most of the elders were sure that if you understood your equipment and used your head a duplex is fine for long range shooting. Well if you understood your equipment and conditions you would have a reticle conducive to holdovers,in both drop and deflection and exposed turrets to apply corrections to... ie tactical scope and proofed information.

 

[flyrodder]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

If you are VERY competent at ranges over, say, 300 yards, then there is a lot to be said for tactical scopes. Whatever you use, you obviously need to be very familiar with it. I have set up rifles for my sons and wife, and, to keep it simple, they are all running at maximum point blank ranges of about 320 yards with .270s and a .30-06, so the zero is well out past 100 yards and any crosshair will do. The way I figure it, beyond 300 yards is getting sketchy for all of us in hunting situations on a live animal. I have no problem slinging lead at a steel plate at over 1,000 yards, but I allow a much slimmer margin of error on animals, and having to input dope or holdover and make sure the scope is on the correct magnification (funny how often you want low magnification to find the animal but need high magnification for most calibrated, non-FFP reticles) and shoot from a field position complicates things more than necessary. If I only had to worry about my setup, it would be tactical all the way.

 

[HillbillyfromAL]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

Shhh if the secret about "Tactical" scopes gets out everybody will start using them.

Seriously, a tactical scope covers a wide variety of uses so why not use it. However, if your the guy at the range that is satified with 3 shots six inches off the bulls eye at 100yds, or fires less than a 20rd box of ammo a year then just stick to what works for you. It all depends on the shooter, and what they are capable of.

Ever tried explaining Dailing for range to an old timer that has only used scopes that you adjust with a coin?

 

[Drifter™]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HillbillyfromAL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Ever tried explaining Dailing for range to an old timer that has only used scopes that you adjust with a coin? </div></div>

Try showing 'em your QD scope mount on an AR. They insist that you have to sight it in again after removal / replacement.

 

[HillbillyfromAL]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

^^^LMAO I almost forgot about that stuff too. Another good one is going straight to the 100yd line after boresighting IE removing bolt looking down the tube. My best friends dad Steve asked "Shouldn't you move closer so the shots will be on paper?" All I could say was " Do What?" and then "Just trust me."

 

[scotharr]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

tactical, hunting, long-range: all pretty vague words. For hunting, I care about:
1. Light: less than 16 oz
2. finger-adustable elev. & windage.
3. low-profile turrets with caps: doesn't snag and protected from dings as I scramble up hillsides.
4. Illuminated for dusk & dawn
5. 3x or less mag on the low side for quick acquisition
6. mil adjustments because dat's what I like.

Hardly any scopes meet these criteria: weight being a particular problem. Your typical "tactical" scope is a huge, heavy-ass boat anchor and that just doesn't cut it when you are walking miles per day in steep terrain.

I just ordered the new 3-9 Leupold VX-R w mil adjustments and have high hopes for that one.

 

[sacp81170a]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

I'm gradually going through the process of switching all my "hunting" scopes for "tactical" scopes. Reason? After learning the reticles and how to adjust turrets, my "hunting" scopes just don't give me that feeling of confidence that the round is going where the crosshairs are.

Maybe it's just me, but since I've learned how to really use a scope, anything that gives me fewer option is like taking a step backwards.

I've also got a few "benchrest" or "varmint" scopes that are 1/8 MOA per click. <span style="font-style: italic">What was I thinking?</span>

 

[azimutha]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

Once you go tac you'll never go back.

 

[tylerw02]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

I'm with you. I can't seem to find a scope I like for hunting. I have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 that just went tits up on me. The parallax knob quit working. I've always disliked that it was MOA/MIL and not illuminated, but the glass is good and it was (fairly) lightweight.

I really wish there was a scope in the 3.5-15x magnification range with illumination, side-focus, with low-profile turrets with matched knobs and reticle. I would love the Nightforce 2.5-10x32 if it had a side-focus and a little more mag, though it comes in at about 20 oz.

There is just nothing in this area and it drives me crazy. If they would make something like that I think it would sell light hotcakes. I'm half tempted to throw a 3.5-15x50 NF on my hunting rifle, but it makes it too damn heavy and the scope is just physically too big.

 

[VJJPunisher]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

gotsta go tactical, i mean why leave yourself short with a hunting scope that will only work on animals? what happens when you need to drop bodies or zombies, hunting scopes wont work for that

 

[tylerw02]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?


Are you trying to be facetious? You do know its awfully hard to hit targets or animals at extended ranges with pop's 3-9x Bushnell.

 

[VJJPunisher]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

i am not ficticious, I am a real person

 

[tylerw02]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i am not ficticious, I am a real person </div></div>

Who said anything about being <span style="font-style: italic">fictional(?)</span> ???

Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

 

[2Shots]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

All good points, did we ever hear the range he really wants to shoot too? I have killed animals holding over and calculating drop in my head to the distance, I have also hit 1000 yd targets with my F1 and using the reticle only with the dial on zero. I like the idea of not dialing in the field to make a shot, sometimes you may only have a few seconds while that bucks turns and looks before he's history. There is a lot to be said for mil dots on hunting applications, but it does take practice and confidence.

 

[Handloader]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scooter-PIE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">tactical, hunting, long-range: all pretty vague words. For hunting, I care about:
1. Light: less than 16 oz
2. finger-adustable elev. & windage.
3. low-profile turrets with caps: doesn't snag and protected from dings as I scramble up hillsides.
4. Illuminated for dusk & dawn
5. 3x or less mag on the low side for quick acquisition
6. mil adjustments because dat's what I like.

Hardly any scopes meet these criteria: weight being a particular problem. Your typical "tactical" scope is a huge, heavy-ass boat anchor and that just doesn't cut it when you are walking miles per day in steep terrain.
</div></div>
+1 But I would add that only second focal plane for hunting. I use USO FFP at the range, but I keep my hunting scopes dialed all the way down and set for 100yards. If I am stalking, the FFP reticle is too small for a fast moving close shot <span style="font-weight: bold">FOR ME</span>. I prefer to keep it simple, but a micro-dot mounted on the scope is an option for a FFP scope for close fast shots(but is too ninja for my guns).

 

[Lucks]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: azimutha</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once you go tac you'll never go back. </div></div>

+1

All I want to use now is a tactical scope when hunting....

 

[VKC]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

The ruggedness, reliability, reproducible, adjustability, and reticle choices matter more than the arbitrary categories of hunting vs. tactical scopes. In general though, "tactical" scopes are better in the above-mentioned categories. However, I don't think large bulky scopes, eg. 56mm objectives, are needed, nor are they ideal for hunting. One should also consider compactness, weight, and scope height.

 

[athhud]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

I've found that an eotech is adequate for most of my hunting applications. I never have done shit the normal way though....

 

[Mahk]

Re: Tactical vs Regular hunting Scope?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i am not ficticious, I am a real person </div></div>

Who said anything about being <span style="font-style: italic">fictional(?)</span> ???

Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious </div></div>

Relax, you're making yourself an easy target.

I prefer tactical/mil reticle optics period because I have taken more time to train with and understand how they work than I have duplex reticles, and there is nothing a duplex reticle can do that they cannot. The inverse, however, is not true. The only reason I'd go back to a traditional hunting scope if I contracted some disease that turned me into a weakass who was afraid of carrying anything over 10lbs on my back for a day or it was going on a weapon that I had no desire at all to shoot at longer ranges with, in which case I'd probably stick with irons because I've trained with them since I was a child.