Quote:
Quote:
I hope you never have to learn the hard way. But it has happened many times to many hunters. Experienced hunters will tell you one thing. And that is to keep it simple.
And to argue that the miltary personell does it is also a non-starter. A military person is a professional. There are very few professional's in the deer woods. A few of you guy's may be professionals, but the other 99% of the hunters are not.
I have seen and been around 1,000's of shooters. And I doubt that more than a handful of them are capable of turret turning in a big game hunting situation. And that would only be long distance shooters(over 400 yards) who are highly trained.
I have seen some of the highest trained military personell at the range adjust turrets. Then I have seen them shoot there next shot and say OOOPPPSSS I forgot to set the turret back to zero.
You guys may think they look cool. And that is great if you like them. But to try and justify them to the average shooter is just wrong. And to recommend them to the average Joe is also wrong. Tom.
I'll attempt to reply to this without being argumentative...
You make it seem like a shooter needs a PhD. to twist turrets. A shooter need not be a "professional" to understand & utilize scope turrets. In reality, it is nothing more than simple JR high school math. Or, if utilizing a laser range finder and dope card, it is more like playing "connect the dots". (Reading wind is a whole 'nutha ball 'o wax)...
Don't take this the wrong way, there surely is a learning curve to shooting at long range. But if one can operate a vehicle competently enough to get to the rifle range, then surely one can deduce the operation of scope turrets...
By no means am I advocating that "average Joe hunter" should pick up a NXS scope (or the like) for his '06 and start taking pot shots on game animals at distances beyond their ability. Shooting at distance requires PRACTICE. And one's ability on targets will determine their effective range on game...
Believe me, I'm the farthest thing from a "professional", but I can say this. Before I send one downrange, I look at my turrets before I shoot to make sure they are adjusted where I want them (my normal zero). OR, this is precisely when I'll be making my adjustments! Being that they are "exposed" it takes a fraction of a second to confirm my zero or a couple more to dial the turrets as needed. If a shooter can't implement that into his "mental checklist" before taking a shot, then he most likely shouldn't be operating a firearm at all...
Only a few of my hunting rigs have exposed turrets. But I know how to use them and I don't feel hindered carrying them in the field. If anything, I'm a better shot for it! It is more repeatably accurate to dial an exact range and hold dead on than it is to use "Kentucky windage" or a perceived holdover...
Respectfully, your opinion of target turrets in the field sounds like something you just read on the Internet. I say that because I've read the "exposed turrets have no place on a hunting rifle" line plenty enough, as have others. If you can't drive one, then don't get behind the wheel! But please don't make inaccurate statements as to their potential in the field. My first post in this thread was meant to substantiate that point...
I'm a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. method as well, and exposed turrets on a scope dont' make anything "harder" to do. And I've killed plenty enough critters and shot enough targets to be able to say that...
On side note...
Some guys like to knock shooters for having a $1000+ scope with turrets on their sticks saying that they don't "need" them. Well, for a shooter to make such a sizable investment in his gear, he must be serious about learning how to use it. Ya think? And that commitment can only help the shooter become more proficient at both long and "average" range...
So don't be knockin' shooters with the high dollar glass 'cause more than likely we'll be the ones hitting what we're aiming at... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
And yes, they do look cool too... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I enjoy a good discussion as well as the next guy. So I am with you when you say a friendly argument.
I would like to point out a few flaws in your discussion.
You have made too many assumptions about my posts.
First of all I am the one that recommended the highest price scope to start with. I am the one that recommended the Swarovski A-Line scope. After I suggested the A-line then the other posters came in and said the Leupold(lesser scope IMO)was more than adequate. Then I only commented on the specific Leupold. If you had read the entire 5 or 6 pages then you would have known that I was the one that actually suggested the higher dollar scope, not the one knocking the high dollare scope. So how am I knocking high dollar scopes?? I can not figure that one out??
You also assumed that my information came from what I read online. That is also a false assumption. I have hunted in at least 3(if not more) different states for deer for the past 41 years. So I have seen a lot of things go wrong. And that includes hunters making mistakes with target turrets. And if you read my post it clearly says "for rugged conditions", Heck I have target turrets on my "Field Guns".
Now in the beginning of your post you said the exact same thing I said, and that is that Target turrets are not for the average "Joe". And that was the jist of my post. However I must have stepped on the toes of the wrong person with my comment.
I have not knocked anyone for high dollar scopes. In fact that is what I use.
And I am not knocking long distance shooting or hunting. I am fairly adept at that type of shooting myself. And I do use Target turrets on my hunting rifles.
All I said is that TT's are not for the average Joe. Can you honestly say I am wrong about that?? I do not think so?? And I did not read it in Outdoor Life.
I learn new things and have discussions on a daily basis with hunters and shooters. And the biggest thing I see guys do is make assumptions that are wrong. I do it myself, so I am guilty also. However it sems like you and I agree on this one. Not disagree. Tom.