So I am the new owner of a Finnish M39 Mosin Nagant. I want to use this rifle for this upcoming season of big game hunting. The trip of a lifetime to hunt elk/mule deer in Colorado has presented itself this November and I would love to use my new rifle. A friend who is going along will be using his M1 Garand; we really want to use our Mil-Surps on this hunt. So here's my question to you all and I hope to get your opinions: I am mounting a scout scope. Do I purchase the Leupold VX-3 which will take a couple months of saving, or do I purchase a cheaper scope (Bushnell/BSA) and use the extra couple months I get in not saving money to go shooting (more practice)? What do you value more, better optics or more practice in this scenario?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Good Optics vs. More Practice
- Thread starter MEATSAW
- Start date
What do you value more, better optics or more practice in this scenario?
More practice, hands down. It'd be a shame to go on the hunt of a lifetime and miss the shot of a lifetime because you didn't get the trigger time.
If I was allowed to play Itztak Pearlman's Stradivarious violin and he had to do a performance with a fiddle from a pawn shop, who do you think would sound better?
Practice, practice, and practice some more. An expert marksman using iron sights can outshoot a tyro using the fanciest scope made.
Practice, practice, and practice some more. An expert marksman using iron sights can outshoot a tyro using the fanciest scope made.
If I was allowed to play Itztak Pearlman's Stradivarious violin and he had to do a performance with a fiddle from a pawn shop, who do you think would sound better?
Practice, practice, and practice some more. An expert marksman using iron sights can outshoot a tyro using the fanciest scope made
You hit the nail on the head!
Absolutely NO substitute for trigger time or experience.
There are cheaper options than the Leupold that still qualify as "quality", but you are going to have to spend between 100 and 200 dollars to get the to bottom of the "quality" barrel.
I know that buys a lot of 7.62x54r to play with, but get the rifle set up as you want for hunting and then practice with that setup as much as you can.
Because if you buy a cheap scope or cheap scout mount that doesn't hold zero, it doesn't matter how many rounds you throw downrange you won't get anything out of it.
Jimro
I know that buys a lot of 7.62x54r to play with, but get the rifle set up as you want for hunting and then practice with that setup as much as you can.
Because if you buy a cheap scope or cheap scout mount that doesn't hold zero, it doesn't matter how many rounds you throw downrange you won't get anything out of it.
Jimro
Saltydog235
New member
Get the Bushnell Ellite 3200 or 4200 if you can afford it and still find the one you want. Then practice. The Elites are good scopes.
Better optics. Even an expert marksman can't hit squat if he cannot see the target. Optics don't help you shoot better, they help you see the target better.
That's true.......to a point.
He's talking hunting here, at normal hunting ranges, with in reasonable ranges one would hunt with a 7.62X54R, its not hard to see an elk.
A lot more shots are muffed by poor shooting then poor glass. Trigger time will get you farther in my opinion. Practice alone wont help, its got to be good practice. Practice doesn't make perfect shooting, Perfect Practice does.
Don't neglect dry firing, it doesn't cost much and it really helps your shooting.
okiewita40
New member
Trigger time is always better than an optic. Even a quality optic wont help you hit a target if you don't know the weapon well enough. Too me an optic is nothing more than magnifying glass. Granted the can help you see/hit a target at greater ranges. But they are in no way a substitute for time on the firing line/in the woods actually sends rounds down range. JMHO.
Silent Titan
New member
living in colorado and knowing the terrain that you will be looking at i would say that you need a quality scope that will hold zero. at the same time you will want alot of trigger time, its easy to end up with a shot that goes well past 200 yards here and it can be a PITA to find a stable position to shoot from. just my 2 cents on the topic
Geez, I wouldn't bring a Nagant on the hunt of a lifetime.
As Silent Titan said, you may be shooting at quite some distances. You should have a scope, but be damned sure it is able to be mounted properly to hold zero.
If I were going on that hunt, I'd use a proper rifle with a proper scope. Something that you can hit an elk with at 300 yards. You might have to shoot across a canyon or something. Do you really want to try that with open sights? Or with a quality scope on a jury-rigged mount? (as I understand they are, for Nagants) Or with a rifle that is not known for its long range accuracy?
It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money getting there, then blow it because you have romantic visions of taking the animal with a vintage gun. Save that for your local hunts, where the stakes (costs) aren't so high.
If you don't have a more appropriate rifle, you should charge one, put a good scope on it (doesn't have to be a Leupold to hold zero and have good optcis) or put off the hunt for another season so it isn't wasted.
I just feel like you'll be kicking yourself later when you come home empty-handed.
As Silent Titan said, you may be shooting at quite some distances. You should have a scope, but be damned sure it is able to be mounted properly to hold zero.
If I were going on that hunt, I'd use a proper rifle with a proper scope. Something that you can hit an elk with at 300 yards. You might have to shoot across a canyon or something. Do you really want to try that with open sights? Or with a quality scope on a jury-rigged mount? (as I understand they are, for Nagants) Or with a rifle that is not known for its long range accuracy?
It just doesn't make sense to spend all that money getting there, then blow it because you have romantic visions of taking the animal with a vintage gun. Save that for your local hunts, where the stakes (costs) aren't so high.
If you don't have a more appropriate rifle, you should charge one, put a good scope on it (doesn't have to be a Leupold to hold zero and have good optcis) or put off the hunt for another season so it isn't wasted.
I just feel like you'll be kicking yourself later when you come home empty-handed.
The last time I bought an out-of-state bull tag in Colorado, it cost $500. I understand the romanticism of hunting with a nostalgic rifle but, given the associated expenses of a Colorado elk hunt, I have to agree with smaug. I'm sorry but if you are having trouble covering the cost of a decent scope as well as ammo then the hunt itself will be quite a financial obstacle.
In the interest of being fair to the rifle/cartridge I am not implying it isn't capable. Just saying that for the involved expense of the hunt itself I would prefer to have as very few concerns about my equipment as possible.
In the interest of being fair to the rifle/cartridge I am not implying it isn't capable. Just saying that for the involved expense of the hunt itself I would prefer to have as very few concerns about my equipment as possible.
thesheepdog
New member
Practice with Irons until you perfect your shooting.
Once you have perfected your shooting, reward your eyes with an optic.
If you don't have much practice with the rifle you're going to take hunting; and adding an optic to the rifle, you're increasing your chances of missing your target.
Depending on the magnification of the optic you're choosing, you will be setting yourself up for that much more failure.
Example: Let's say you get a 3-9X scope and have it set on "9". Well, the more you zoom into an object, the more you will notice your sights don't hold perfectly still; therefore the more time you will spend trying to line the crosshairs up perfectly, rather than trusting your shooting abilities.
Once you have perfected your shooting, reward your eyes with an optic.
If you don't have much practice with the rifle you're going to take hunting; and adding an optic to the rifle, you're increasing your chances of missing your target.
Depending on the magnification of the optic you're choosing, you will be setting yourself up for that much more failure.
Example: Let's say you get a 3-9X scope and have it set on "9". Well, the more you zoom into an object, the more you will notice your sights don't hold perfectly still; therefore the more time you will spend trying to line the crosshairs up perfectly, rather than trusting your shooting abilities.
thesheepdog, you're about 90% wrong.
How do you figure? If the scope is bad or if the mounting is bad, then I'd agree. I also agree the scope mounting is a real concern on the Nagant, but as a blanket statement, it is just incorrect. A scope just remove's one's eyesight resolution as a factor. And it is not a small factor at ranges of greater than 100 yards.
Also incorrect. The only differences is that one SEES oneself moving more, because it is magnified. This, in turn, gives one the opportunity to reduce that movement. With open sights, one cannot see this movement as well, so one is less likely to control it. The amount of time one spends trying to line up the crosshairs has nothing to do with the optic, but everything to do with the shooter.
It really sounds like you don't have much experience with a well-mounted optic. Or that you prefer open sights and are trying to come up with reasons to justify it.
Open sights do have advantages. They weigh less and are more compact is the main one. Price and weight are others. But scopes sure don't make people shoot worse.
thesheepdog said:If you don't have much practice with the rifle you're going to take hunting; and adding an optic to the rifle, you're increasing your chances of missing your target.
How do you figure? If the scope is bad or if the mounting is bad, then I'd agree. I also agree the scope mounting is a real concern on the Nagant, but as a blanket statement, it is just incorrect. A scope just remove's one's eyesight resolution as a factor. And it is not a small factor at ranges of greater than 100 yards.
thesheepdog said:Depending on the magnification of the optic you're choosing, you will be setting yourself up for that much more failure.
Example: Let's say you get a 3-9X scope and have it set on "9". Well, the more you zoom into an object, the more you will notice your sights don't hold perfectly still; therefore the more time you will spend trying to line the crosshairs up perfectly, rather than trusting your shooting abilities.
Also incorrect. The only differences is that one SEES oneself moving more, because it is magnified. This, in turn, gives one the opportunity to reduce that movement. With open sights, one cannot see this movement as well, so one is less likely to control it. The amount of time one spends trying to line up the crosshairs has nothing to do with the optic, but everything to do with the shooter.
It really sounds like you don't have much experience with a well-mounted optic. Or that you prefer open sights and are trying to come up with reasons to justify it.
Open sights do have advantages. They weigh less and are more compact is the main one. Price and weight are others. But scopes sure don't make people shoot worse.
Back when I still owned Nagants I had no problem hitting targets at 200 yards with the irons on a Finn M28/30 (which is very similar to the m39).
I would have no qualms about using the existing irons on a Finn Nagant for hunting, just zero the rifle at 250 meters and you can hit in the boilermaker of an elk out past 325 meters with most hunting loads.
Better quality irons than a bad scout setup.
Jimro
I would have no qualms about using the existing irons on a Finn Nagant for hunting, just zero the rifle at 250 meters and you can hit in the boilermaker of an elk out past 325 meters with most hunting loads.
Better quality irons than a bad scout setup.
Jimro
Good thoughts everyone. I've got a lot of 7.62x54 ammo to practice with in the coming months. I am going to be putting this things through its paces. And yes the cost of the hunt isn't cheap but I have that part of the deal already covered. I never said that I am having trouble with the cost of optics, I am asking if saving for it is worth sacrificing the time practicing with it. From now until November I will definitely be testing this rifle -- and if I don't feel comfortable with it by the time its go time I won't use it, pretty simple.
For the time being I am going to see how this shoots at the range with the iron sights. If its anything like my old M44 Mosin I shouldn't have any problems dialing it in (I like how the front sight is adjustable on the M39). I have over 5 months to get prepared for the hunt, which I believe is more than adequate to build my confidence.
The scopes I am looking at are (all handgun scopes): Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x32, Burris 2-7x32, Bushnell Elite 2-7x32
For the time being I am going to see how this shoots at the range with the iron sights. If its anything like my old M44 Mosin I shouldn't have any problems dialing it in (I like how the front sight is adjustable on the M39). I have over 5 months to get prepared for the hunt, which I believe is more than adequate to build my confidence.
The scopes I am looking at are (all handgun scopes): Leupold VX-3 2.5-8x32, Burris 2-7x32, Bushnell Elite 2-7x32
ozarkrecluse
New member
Just curious, what mount are you using?