Good Optics vs. More Practice

There no substitute for trigger time and practice. If you get a scope skip the Bushnell/BSA and Leupold and get yourself a Sightron S1 (if you can afford it get the S11 or S11 Big Sky) as you can see they are rated pretty high and they are all made in Japan (not China, the Philippines or Korea). For the money the S1 is a great scope and rated up to 50bmg recoil. Go to the bottom of the page for the under $300 scope ratings. IMO Zeiss Conquest and Sightron S1, S11 and S11 Big Sky are the best value for money scopes on the market.
http://4scopes.com/customer_scope_guide.htm
Good Luck

Edit:
http://4scopes.com/sightron_SI_index.htm
http://www.sightron.com/index.php?action=view_document&did=1280519613
 
There is never a good reason not to save up for good optics... I've scored great deals on a rifles and mothballed them for six months or more till I saved the funds for a good scope...

The most painful case of this was with a Ruger M77 MK II Sporter .270, I bought after the Hawkeyes were released... Paid $545 OTD on a NIB gun.. Turned out she shoots like a house-o-fire... But it did not find that out till I saved up for six months and bought a Zeiss for it..
 
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.
Click to expand...

Because, a scope will not make a shootet better, with regards to lack of Marksmanship. Why? Because you have to practice with your equipment, before you can hunt with it. It's just that simple.

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.
Click to expand...

Like I have been saying, if you don't practice, then how in the heck can you reduce movement? I'm not stating the the OP can't shoot with an optic, I am saying it is better to perfect the Iron sights first, then reward your eyes with an optic

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.
Click to expand...

It may sound that way, but I have more rounds down a scope than I do with Iron Sights. I am a Rifle Marksmanship instructor I'll have you know.

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.
Click to expand...

They do, but if you're not used to a scope on your rifle, and plan on hunting with an optic-without much practice-you're setting yourself up for a bad hunt.
This has been my point the whole time. Go re-read my post! I am not bashing Optics, I am reiterrating the importance of iron sight practice vs no practice, mounting a scope on a rifle and taking it hunting. The end!
 
A $100 gun that wasn't good when compared to the competition of it's time yet alone today and optics that cost 2 or 3 times the gun for a once in a lifetime Elk hunt? Good luck :confused:

LK
 
Again, the best scope in the world won't hit the target for you when you jerk the trigger. Practice first, and good optics make the practice enjoyable.
 
A $100 gun that wasn't good when compared to the competition of it's time yet alone today and optics that cost 2 or 3 times the gun for a once in a lifetime Elk hunt? Good luck
Click to expand...

Its not a $100 gun.

An Finnish M39 is a star among WW2 rifles. How you can say they aren't any good is beyond me.

Yeah its a once in a lifetime hunt -- does that somehow force me to have to use a $2000 dollar gun?

It does force me to have confidence in my own skills and in the rifle. Over the next few months I'll get there. But don't think for a second that this rifle isn't up to the task.
 
Hope you guys are still in shape, I sure wouldn't want to lug around a full dress WWII rifle in elk country. Both cartridges you have chosen will handle elk just fine, but the rifles leave alot to be desired. I'm all for using sporterized rifles but if your Mosin isn't D&T for a scope I sure wouldn't add one to it, as that would just ruin any collector value to your rifle.

Second you may have a lot of surplus ammunition to pracitce with but you can't use it to hunt with. FMJ or non-expanding bullets are a no-no for big game in Colorado. I'd find a round made for hunting and practice with what you'll be hunting with, not whatever cheap surplus ammunition I could find.
 
Hope you guys are still in shape, I sure wouldn't want to lug around a full dress WWII rifle in elk country. Both cartridges you have chosen will handle elk just fine, but the rifles leave alot to be desired. I'm all for using sporterized rifles but if your Mosin isn't D&T for a scope I sure wouldn't add one to it, as that would just ruin any collector value to your rifle.

Second you may have a lot of surplus ammunition to pracitce with but you can't use it to hunt with. FMJ or non-expanding bullets are a no-no for big game in Colorado. I'd find a round made for hunting and practice with what you'll be hunting with, not whatever cheap surplus ammunition I could find.
Click to expand...

Our equipment and our bodies will be ready to go come November. Its not going to be easy but thats the fun part. We like a little challenge. Could you be more specific on what leaves a lot to be desired on an M39? I'll say it again: I am not drilling & tapping anything. I am using a scout mount that requires no permanent modifications and can be put back to stock configuration in minutes.

Thanks for the info about the bullets. Good to know. My plan was to use my Russian surplus for all my iron sight shooting/familiarization with the rifle. Then when I get the scope I'll get a bunch of 180 gr softpoints and start dialing it in.
 
+1 on practice over more expensive optics. You can get a decent Weaver, Redfield, Burris or Bushnell scope for $150 - $200. My dad hunted 30 years with a cheap Bushnell Banner 3-9x32 scope and it went through rocky moutainsides, thick brush, pouring rain, deep snow (elk hunts) and every year was smack on zero. His longest shot by necessity was 340 yds and a one shot kill on elk with .308. All others were less than 200 yds. Quality scopes are nice but not essential. Practice is essential.

You have to know you rifle and ammunition. I bet more deer have been lost to forgetting to release the safety, jerking the trigger in excitement, or misjudging distance than to having a $200 scope versus a $450 scope.

Any 180 gr soft point ought to be perfect medicine. But premium ammo is not that expensive since you only need a box to sight in and take on the hunt, so why not get Partitions or onded bullets if possible?

Plus, you can eliminate a lot of Mr. Murphy by stalking closer. It takes a good rifleman to hit an elk at 300 yds from standing position. But most any Joe can hit one at 100 yds. A good hard earned stalk of the game is to me more rewarding than making a long shot I could have done at the range. You Mosin is probably excellent with iron sights at least to 150 yds. With even a mediocre scope you should be good to go for as far as you can reasonably shoot in the field at large game.
 
In your situation, practice.

The optics you have chosen will suffice in your chosen endeavor.

From this point forward, familiarize yourself with the gun.

Become intimately familiar with the trigger. Practice, practice, practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top