Do you use a scope with target turrets?

Do you have a scope to make field vertical adjustments on turrets?

  • Yes

    Votes: 88 73.9%

  • No

    Votes: 31 26.1%
  • Total voters
    119
  • Poll closed .
No way to ever enforce the 500 yard law. The problem is just the people and they watch all these shows that just seem to make it ok. Randy and rhinella are probably about the only 2 I’ve ever seen not take a shot for various reason. Says a lot about them and until people follow that lead instead of look at the 190” buck I wounded and found 3 days later nothing will change
 
A interesting follow up survey for people that use turrets would be to inquire as to whether they actually confirm that their adjustments are accurate AND repeatable. Might be hard to get an honest answer, though.

Not all optics are created equal. Of course similar could be said of Christmas tree reticles.

Here in the South a lot of folks that have never shot over 100 yards purchase a scope with a BDC reticle, have no idea how it actually works, don’t validate it, and just “trust” both the scope and the ballistics info on the ammo box. Makes them feel like a LR expert. Hear all the time, “I’m good out to 500 yards with that Run DMC receptacle and ‘dem Burgers in my 7mm BMW.” 🤣
 
cgasner1 said:
No way to ever enforce the 500 yard law. The problem is just the people and they watch all these shows that just seem to make it ok. Randy and rhinella are probably about the only 2 I’ve ever seen not take a shot for various reason. Says a lot about them and until people follow that lead instead of look at the 190” buck I wounded and found 3 days later nothing will change
Click to expand...

Half of the laws out there are extremely hard to enforce. I'm curious what the solution would be on tech because most of the ideas Ive seen thrown out seem dumb in relation to what really matters when making shots.

Maybe i'm giving hunters too much credit though.. A lot of people think becoming a long range killer is a matter of buying a CDS dial or having a ballistic solution in their range finder. Take away smart range finders and CDS dials and maybe the same people will have less misconceptions about how far they should shoot?
 
Wind Gypsy said:
Half of the laws out there are extremely hard to enforce. I'm curious what the solution would be on tech because most of the ideas Ive seen thrown out seem dumb in relation to what really matters when making shots.

Maybe i'm giving hunters too much credit though.. A lot of people think becoming a long range killer is a matter of buying a CDS dial or having a ballistic solution in their range finder. Take away smart range finders and CDS dials and maybe the same people will have less misconceptions about how far they should shoot?
Click to expand...
It seems like we have about 3 threads going right now that could all be mashed into 1. This one the bow hunting one and the influencer thread. Until it becomes socially unacceptable for a lot of these actions nothing will change. I know a few guys I won’t hunt with anymore do to how they carry themself in the field. I have lost game and will admit to it. The shots weren’t recluse by any means things didn’t work for me that day. If people would start taking the same actions with these influencers and cutting them out maybe we would get some good ones and things could start to change.
 
cgasner1 said:
It seems like we have about 3 threads going right now that could all be mashed into 1. This one the bow hunting one and the influencer thread. Until it becomes socially unacceptable for a lot of these actions nothing will change. I know a few guys I won’t hunt with anymore do to how they carry themself in the field. I have lost game and will admit to it. The shots weren’t recluse by any means things didn’t work for me that day. If people would start taking the same actions with these influencers and cutting them out maybe we would get some good ones and things could start to change.
Click to expand...

I agree in theory but it's hard to figure out where to draw the line of what is unacceptable.. Is a "long range" hunting type guy gut shooting a bull at 600 yards worse than Randy whiffing on a big black bear from prone at 200 yards? There are obviously some blatant examples but a lot of fringe stuff as well.

It's a tough deal. People want to hold long range shooting accountable yet i'd venture to say for the majority of hunters hitting a 8 MOA circle on command under field conditions is a crap shoot. So is the majority of hunters shooting at a deer at 100 yards as unethical as a practiced shooter shooting at 5-600 yards if their odds of hitting vitals is the same? Off hand shots, moving animal shots, deer drives, all unethical? I'd be happy if crazy long range pot shots ceased to exist but thinking about this stuff just brings out how messy hunting can be in general for most people that participate.
 
Wind Gypsy said:
I agree in theory but it's hard to figure out where to draw the line of what is unacceptable.. Is a "long range" hunting type guy gut shooting a bull at 600 yards worse than Randy whiffing on a big black bear from prone at 200 yards? There are obviously some blatant examples but a lot of fringe stuff as well.

It's a tough deal. People want to hold long range shooting accountable yet i'd venture to say for the majority of hunters hitting a 8 MOA circle on command under field conditions is a crap shoot. So is the majority of hunters shooting at a deer at 100 yards as unethical as a practiced shooter shooting at 5-600 yards if their odds of hitting vitals is the same? Off hand shots, moving animal shots, deer drives, all unethical? I'd be happy if crazy long range pot shots ceased to exist but thinking about this stuff just brings out how messy hunting can be in general for most people that participate.
Click to expand...
Until people are just as willing to hold themselves accountable for these type of actions all you can do is hope fwp manages accordingly
 
I have BDC reticles, CDS reticles and fixed 6x scopes . I don't adjust or compensate manually. My ranges are guestimates to around 300 yds. Depending on the guestimates, I hold over "hair plus air" when I think it's necessary. My kill zone is about 6". If I don't think I can make the shot I just don't take it.
 
Does anyone know if there are any data on wounding loss rates through the years? Wonder if there is any correlation with increases in technology. Are we more effective now because technology is better? Or because tech is better do we think we don't have to practice as much or are more confident in taking shots we shouldn't be taking and therefore are less effective?
 
The issue is not turrets, magnification, or the power of a rifle. It's not even the influencers that are taking stupid shots in order to get more likes (even though they do disgust me).

It's us. Too many do not understand the responsibility and the consequences of what we are doing. Nor, do they care. And there in lies the problem.

I recently upgraded to a scope with a turret. Most of my shots are 200 yards or less. Longest would be 300 to 325, assuming conditions are right. I can shoot longer. I'm practicing out to 500 meters these days. But no way I will shoot that far on a living creature. So why did I upgrade to a cds scope? Simple. To reduce the possibility of a shot that does not kill the animal.

The day I wound an animal and it doesn't make me sick is the day I quit hunting. I've wounded one since I've been hunting, about twenty years. I searched two days. Never found it, and I punched my tag. Not saying that's what everyone needs to do. Just trying to put into perspective how much it bothered me.


Technology, to the degree that fair chase is still honored, should be embraced. It is up to us to use it for the right reason, to increase the probability of an ethical kill.
 
Doublecluck said:
Doesn’t matter what I prefer, or you. Technology will keep increasing. Opportunity is variable. in the early 1900’s there were like 40k elk 50k Mule deer and 500k whitetails. There wasn’t a god damn dial to turret to be seen on the landscape. Today we got like, oh idk, exponentially more animals on the landscape. Seems viable. Method of take is irrelevant, if I want to go bang one at 350 by dialing to 1.3 I’m not sure how that’s any different than someone using their 40 yard pin. Same goes for spinning wing decoys, flocked decoys, 3.5” shells, 3” shells, bolt actions, brass cartridges, smokeless powder, like a zillion “better” cartridge improvements, boat tail bullets, jerk cords, antelope costumes, elk decoys, rangefinders, and gasoline engines you don’t have to wind up to start. X number of animals, x number of tags with x number of methods of take to keep x number of animals desired on the landscape. That simple.

We should ban live scope though, I will join you in banning live scope.
Click to expand...

I’d love to see livescope banned just for the teeth gnashing from the nerds who wanna play video games on a boat.
 
Doublecluck said:
Doesn’t matter what I prefer, or you. Technology will keep increasing. Opportunity is variable. in the early 1900’s there were like 40k elk 50k Mule deer and 500k whitetails. There wasn’t a god damn dial to turret to be seen on the landscape. Today we got like, oh idk, exponentially more animals on the landscape. Seems viable. Method of take is irrelevant, if I want to go bang one at 350 by dialing to 1.3 I’m not sure how that’s any different than someone using their 40 yard pin. Same goes for spinning wing decoys, flocked decoys, 3.5” shells, 3” shells, bolt actions, brass cartridges, smokeless powder, like a zillion “better” cartridge improvements, boat tail bullets, jerk cords, antelope costumes, elk decoys, rangefinders, and gasoline engines you don’t have to wind up to start. X number of animals, x number of tags with x number of methods of take to keep x number of animals desired on the landscape. That simple.

We should ban live scope though, I will join you in banning live scope.
Click to expand...
What is live scoping?
 
I'm not sure my scopes have turret's that really are turrets. Both Redfield and Vortex have an adjustment knob you un-screw and move the adjustment mark to zero then screw back on. The Redfield has a ring under the adjustment knob you move with a small screw driver or pocket knife then reset the zero to that point. The Vortex is easiest to use, easier the see it! Doesn't matter though as I never shoot at any game animals much over 250 yds and 300 is pretty much the max. My rifles sighted in for MPBR and with all of them hold on the backbone drops a bullet into the kill zone if I was to take the shot. Have only gone the 300 yds shot one time, 330yds measured. Did it just to say I did and my hold over worked great. 6.5x06 with 140gr Hornady SP. had there been any wind I would not have taken the shot.
 
When choosing between a scope that can sight my rifle in at one distance, and one that can sight it in at any distance, you’ll find me choosing the one that can always be on. MPBR is an option, but certainly has its own compromises. And you can still utilize it if you have a turret, if you so desire.

The Idaho idea sounds like what is now a minority of sportsmen trying to turn back culture via law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Redmt
Leupold CDS
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
yakimanoob
Y
A
CVA accura sight recommendations
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
grizzly63
G
Nuts
Best Scope for 6.5 CM
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
longtail55
L
J
Petition to mandate hunters to carry bear spray in Montana.
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Hilljackoutlaw
Hilljackoutlaw
BayouBuck985
Avoiding Scope Ring Marks
2
Replies
21
Views
555
bluegrassdan
bluegrassdan

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,697
Messages
2,235,085
Members
38,984
Latest member
JWhoundhauler

Share this page

Back
Top