GunnSmokeer
Senior Member
I'm sure we all agree on the general principle that a scope is good for long range shooting, and iron sights are good for close range shooting. Although we can disagree about what distances justify a scope, we all know (right?) that when it comes to accuracy, scopes shoot tighter groups at all but the closest ranges.
How about the value of a scope for quick shots, pulling the trigger within a couple of seconds of putting the rifle stock on your shoulder?
I see on TV and internet video clips that 3-gun competitive shooters use optics on their long guns, and often even their shotguns, not just the rifles!
Several months ago, I tested myself for shooting rapid fire with a Ruger 10/22 at 25 yards. I did one string of 10 shots with the iron sights, and then scoped it, zeroed it in with a few sighting shots from the bench, then stood up and cut loose with a full 10-round group, unsupported. I shot fast-- it probably took me 2 seconds to get the crosshairs on target and the first shot off, and after that I was probably firing at 1 shot per second.
Result: The scoped group was quite a bit smaller than the iron sighted group.
I tried again, this time lowering the rifle for each shot.
I tried to go faster, and get my shot off within 1 to 1.5 seconds of raising the gun. Sometimes I couldn't do it that fast, but I tried. Same results. Open sights gave me a basically 5" group with a few flyers that opened it up to 7" if you counted from the most distant holes. Scoped (magnification set to 4X) gave me a 4" group and no flyers. They were all pretty much part of the same group.).
**************
LAST WEEK, I did some testing with an SKS (open sights, pretty big and coarse, which should be good for quick shooting), and an AR. The AR had a 4X scope with an illuminated reticle.
At 25 yards, shooting 5 rounds in about 15 seconds, the SKS gave me 5" groups.
The AR-15 gave me 2" to 3" groups.
I used both rifles the same way, on the same range, the same day, in the same time limit. I don't think the guns' inherent mechanical accuracy or the quality of the ammo made the difference. It was the sighting system. Big open sights, all black, versus a scope with lighted crosshairs.
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS on the advantages and disadvantages of a scope for use in woods and brush, when you expect to shoot from around 25 yards to 50 yards, but you need to be ready for a moving target, or one that only briefly hold still for a second before walking / trotting again.
I think a low-power crosshair scope is far superior to iron sights under real world hunting situations in the woods, although I know that peep sights on military rifles can give excellent accuracy at black bullseye targets with big plain colored target holders or frames shot on sunny days at an outdoor range. Been there, done that, got the patches. I've got a lot of experience shooting iron sights slowly and carefully, and even doing the "rapid fire" string from the sitting position in a service rifle match. But where the rules allow scopes, I think I'd benefit a lot from having one, even if I expect the shot to present itself at fairly close range like 25-100 yards.
How about the value of a scope for quick shots, pulling the trigger within a couple of seconds of putting the rifle stock on your shoulder?
I see on TV and internet video clips that 3-gun competitive shooters use optics on their long guns, and often even their shotguns, not just the rifles!
Several months ago, I tested myself for shooting rapid fire with a Ruger 10/22 at 25 yards. I did one string of 10 shots with the iron sights, and then scoped it, zeroed it in with a few sighting shots from the bench, then stood up and cut loose with a full 10-round group, unsupported. I shot fast-- it probably took me 2 seconds to get the crosshairs on target and the first shot off, and after that I was probably firing at 1 shot per second.
Result: The scoped group was quite a bit smaller than the iron sighted group.
I tried again, this time lowering the rifle for each shot.
I tried to go faster, and get my shot off within 1 to 1.5 seconds of raising the gun. Sometimes I couldn't do it that fast, but I tried. Same results. Open sights gave me a basically 5" group with a few flyers that opened it up to 7" if you counted from the most distant holes. Scoped (magnification set to 4X) gave me a 4" group and no flyers. They were all pretty much part of the same group.).
**************
LAST WEEK, I did some testing with an SKS (open sights, pretty big and coarse, which should be good for quick shooting), and an AR. The AR had a 4X scope with an illuminated reticle.
At 25 yards, shooting 5 rounds in about 15 seconds, the SKS gave me 5" groups.
The AR-15 gave me 2" to 3" groups.
I used both rifles the same way, on the same range, the same day, in the same time limit. I don't think the guns' inherent mechanical accuracy or the quality of the ammo made the difference. It was the sighting system. Big open sights, all black, versus a scope with lighted crosshairs.
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS on the advantages and disadvantages of a scope for use in woods and brush, when you expect to shoot from around 25 yards to 50 yards, but you need to be ready for a moving target, or one that only briefly hold still for a second before walking / trotting again.
I think a low-power crosshair scope is far superior to iron sights under real world hunting situations in the woods, although I know that peep sights on military rifles can give excellent accuracy at black bullseye targets with big plain colored target holders or frames shot on sunny days at an outdoor range. Been there, done that, got the patches. I've got a lot of experience shooting iron sights slowly and carefully, and even doing the "rapid fire" string from the sitting position in a service rifle match. But where the rules allow scopes, I think I'd benefit a lot from having one, even if I expect the shot to present itself at fairly close range like 25-100 yards.