I gather that most professional hunters would prefer to have a client show up with a low powered scope for hunting dangerous game.On another forum a fellow who goes by the name JJHack said they hope for a client that can place the first shot with pin-point accuracy - then the professional hunter will take care of any charges.
Here's my question - Do professional hunters use scopes on their "stopper rifles" for dangerous game? If so, when, why, which makes and what models and power scopes do you use?
Thanks

Most do not use scopes on stopping rifles as the distances are too short.

DC300

I have hunted Africa twice (in DG country) and stayed in a camp where there were quite a few PH's.

I can't remember seeing a scope on any of the PH's DG back-up rifles. Mostly iron sighted bolt actions. Two PH's (Andrew Dawson & Barrie Duckworth's son) I saw had double rifles (both 470 NE).

Tim

Last trip, my PH stopped a buffalo after I killed it. Really, the damned thing was dead, just not convinced. Scopes are useless at 25 yards and under . . . that's 2 seconds away at buffalo speed. No scopes on stoppers.

Every year on the proficiency exam we have at least one candidate turn up with a scoped rifle. Most shoot very poorly on the speed shooting exam- targets at 10, 15 and 20 yards,

Most manage quite well in the bush though...

Personally NO. A scout scope will catch the light just wrong just when you need it not to and a conventional scope will bite you because you shouldered the rifle too quickly and caught the butt on your shirt and crawled the stock etc.

Back in 96 we had a young Guide -Quinn Swales Have some trouble involving an elephant, a .460 and a scope on the proficiency. He needed five shots to solve the problem and then 15 stiches to close the wound. He said that After the first shot he couldn't see clearly because of all the blood on the scope's lense! Good shooting though All shots within a couple of inches of point of aim.

What was impressive though was standing behind him watching- every time he fired there was a solid "thunk" as the scope conected his head and a good spray of blood visable arround the right hand side of his face and above his head. ( I was standing almost directly behind him)

I use a scope on my DGR- for some situations- but it is a QD type and I use a peep sight normally.

Some PHs use scopes with QD mounts and some just stay with iron sights...most with irons.

I think a PH should use what he can shoot best. Same for the hunter...

For myself I think I could get by well enough to suit me with a peep sight on all game under any conditions.

...

But most DG is not going to be shot at at less than 25 yards. You need a scope to make accurate shot placement on buff, leopard, and lion. That is about 99% of doing a good job of it, avoiding wounding, follow-ups, and charges.

One needs only one second to remove a claw-mounted scope. Beyond 40 yards it's possible to remove it and shoot again.

I know for certain that I shoot better at all ranges with an appropriate scope.

If you have to have a scope then shoot one, but never think that iron sights are not deadly at up to 100 or 200 yards, depending on the shooter...Learn to shoot them, you owe it to yourself if you hunt....

I can shoot irons better offhand at up to 100 yards than I can any scope, and with a rest I feel competent at say I'm accurate enough to hunt at 150 to 200 yards, beyond that a scope rules....

Just because one can't shoot irons, is no reason to make such a flat out statement as Will just made, he is old, set in his ways and probably has palsey....

Learn to shoot iron sights, then make a judgment. I have won a lot of money shooting irons off hand against a scope at 50 and 100 yards on timed event shooting and just plain off hand shooting....remember with irons you don't see all that magnafied wiggle that makes one grab at the trigger as the cross hairs quickly float by the target....

You senile, old goat. What you think is a hundred yards is probably more like 25 yards.

It is surprising sometimes to see a dedicated bench rest shooter at the range suddenly start shooting off-hand. Must have been reading some African hype!

Most guys are going to shoot more accurtaely, I would presume and is indeed true in my case, with a scope at any distance. That does not mean you should not practice without one. I haven't used a scope in along time but then I only try to shoot stuff at less than 25 yards.

But 99.9% of African game is shot with a scope, for good reason, and it is a disservice in my opinion to start touting shooting game, especially dangerous game, with open sights rather than with a scope. Some fool is going to take it seriously!

Ray,

With all due respect to your marksmanship (of which I so not question), why would ANYONE ever try to take a shot on an animal at 100 or 200 yards with iron sights when they can use a scope? If someone is profficeint with irons they will only be better with a scope. Clearly those who keep their scopes cranked to the max would be better suited turning in down, but in the end they are going to be a much better shot with the scope. For the vast majority of shooters/hunters (90%) in the majority of circumstances (90%) they need to stick with a scope. Clearly there are exceptions as noted by your accomplishments in contests against those with a scope, but I think I have to call here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bwanahile:

With all due respect to your marksmanship (of which I so not question), why would ANYONE ever try to take a shot on an animal at 100 or 200 yards with iron sights when they can use a scope?

---

ANSWER: Because it is fun.

I believe that scopes are superior for the vast majority of hunting clients, and for the vast majority of all hunting situations, including dangerous game.

My .416 Remington has no open sights, just a 1.5-5X Leupold in rugged fixed top mounts. It's wonderfully fast and easy to use, and the big, wide, single sighting plane is superb. There is no "shadowing" from open sights on the barrel to distract, and no detachable mounts to come undone. There's no complication at all, and that's the way I like it.......

AD

Most African PH's don't use scopes for a number of reasons, but mostly due to cost and potential breakage -- it has little to do with what makes the best sighting system.

A low-power scope properly mounted on a rifle with a stock designed for same is ALWAYS faster to use than iron sights -- especially "open sights" which require the user's eye to focus in three planes at once. Iron sights are as useless as a scope when the target is both very close and very fast. Under those circumstances a rifle is fired like a shotgun -- point & shoot!

If I'm the hunter, I'll take a good, low-power scope with generous eye relief on a gun with a stock that fits me every time for close & fast shooting. If I'm a PH working where scopes are scarce and expensive and my rifle gets tossed around in the back of a Land Rover, dropped by gunbearers, and generally abused during weeks in the field, I'll keep it simple and just rely on the irons.

My .404 has a VXIII 1.5x5 but out to 50yds, I shoot the express site just as well. The irons are faster up close for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bwanahile:
Ray,

With all due respect to your marksmanship (of which I so not question), why would ANYONE ever try to take a shot on an animal at 100 or 200 yards with iron sights when they can use a scope? If someone is profficeint with irons they will only be better with a scope. Clearly those who keep their scopes cranked to the max would be better suited turning in down, but in the end they are going to be a much better shot with the scope. For the vast majority of shooters/hunters (90%) in the majority of circumstances (90%) they need to stick with a scope. Clearly there are exceptions as noted by your accomplishments in contests against those with a scope, but I think I have to call here.

---

Well I may as well throw a dog in this fight, as long as we're here anyway!

The key words in this string is DANGEROUS GAME! Gentlemen, an animal at 100, or 200 yds is simply not dangerous! SOOOOOoooooooooo, in the case of any animal shot at 100, to 200 yds a scope is justified, but when the animal becomes dangerous, at 35 yds or less, that damn scope is a henderance to instinctive shooting!

As I've stated many times before on this and other forums, All my big game rifles have GOOD Iron sights, and all but most of my double rifles have scopes as well, in QD rings and bases, so they can be removed for follow-up. IMO, this serves two purposes! #1 the irons are fine back-ups for a damaged scope, to finish a stalk or hunt without haveing to go get another rifle at an inopertune time. Or, #2 when the scope is not the best sight, it can be removed quickly for close in work. Addtionally, the scope can be replaced with one that is more suited to the immediate job at hand, like useing the same rifle, with a pre-sighted, lighted scope for a leopard blind, instead of the scope you use for general plains game shooting.

I even have two double rifles that are fitted with scopes, as well as the express sights.

All the above is for the client hunter, but most all PHs I know, the rifles, regardless of size are fitted with irons, be they back-up heavies, or light plains game rifles. Most PHs never fire their rifles as long as you do your job right, and when they do use their rifles it is usually for camp meat, and most camp meat is shot at under 200 yds, and most at under 75 yds. Back-up on dangerous game is usually at the end of the rifle.

I don't think I ever fired a scoped rifle untill I was 17, or 18 yrs old, and by that time I had shot about everything the Western USA had to offer,from cottontail, to elk, with IRONS!

Not exactly the dangerous game you are refering to but in regard to open sights.

A member of the 34th Infantry Regiment and a farmer by trade, Simo Häyhä became a most feared sniper during the 1939-40 (30 November 1939 14 March 1940) Winter invasion of Finland by the Soviet Union. Using nothing more than an iron sighted Mosin-Nagant Model 28, Simo is credited with killing 505 Russians during a three month period - a feat still unmatched today by any sniper in any conflict. This included a 450 yard shot at dusk against a russian sniper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MacD37:
I don't think I ever fired a scoped rifle untill I was 17, or 18 yrs old, and by that time I had shot about everything the Western USA had to offer,from cottontail, to elk, with IRONS!

---

And just a few decades before that native Indians killed off all the woolly mammoths with spears! Bet they would have preferred a scoped rifle though.

Cheers,
Canuck

There was an article on this very subject I believe in Rifle Magazine a few years back, complete with a test that featured three individuals who guided for brown bear ( I think) for a living. The test comprised of a series of tests at distances all the way down to your shoelaces as it were. It clearly showed that the gents with the low powered scopes acquired AND hit the target faster than with irons. The test did not take into account the possibility of the scope failing at a critical moment. jorge

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ropes:
Not exactly the dangerous game you are refering to but in regard to open sights.

A member of the 34th Infantry Regiment and a farmer by trade, Simo Häyhä became a most feared sniper during the 1939-40 (30 November 1939 14 March 1940) Winter invasion of Finland by the Soviet Union. Using nothing more than an iron sighted Mosin-Nagant Model 28, Simo is credited with killing 505 Russians during a three month period - a feat still unmatched today by any sniper in any conflict. This included a 450 yard shot at dusk against a russian sniper.

---

Ropes,

There is nothing more dangerous to hunt than MAN

Hog Killer

Will,
Senile old goat? I bet your pardon, I happen to resemble that remark! but I will take on anybody for dollars or donuts as to which is the fastest up close and personal regardless of some gun magazines test...and I'm in houston from time to time Bwanahile!

I, like Mac, never shot a scope until Dick shaw ans Bill Weaver gave me one and I was about 19 years old then and had taken my share of deer, bear, antelope, and elk.

As to irons and those who think the are so primitive, I say go learn to shoot, you baby boomers grew up with glass and missed a lot in your up bringing, your grandaddy would think you were gay if he saw one of those big damn scoopes on your rifle....

Has anyone here switched from scope to irons in mid-hunt and had trouble with the difference in the height of the line of sight? I find that a rifle properly stocked for one is very hard to use with the other, especially if I've spent a lot of time practicing with one.

Thanks, Okie John.

I don't think most American shooters have practiced enough with iron sights to shoot well with them.

Also, there is a world of difference between an open rear sight and an aperture sight.

I shoot a couple of thousand rounds each year with iron sights in matches at 200, 300, and 600 yards and will state categorically the following:

1. There is no way iron sights are as fast or as accurate as a low-powered scope, due to eye fatigue, bad light, indistinct target shapes, and the multiple focus planes. The latter is especially important as one gets older.

2. Aperture sights are far superior to the open sights as found on the majority of African iron-sighted rifles. Open sights are legal in my matches but absolutely 0.00% or the hooters use them.

3. In a few matches where scopes are legal, scores are ALWAYS higher than with aperture sights.

Stick with a 1-5X scope or something.

We are getting completely off track. For the client hunter a scope is certainly a better idea, especially for all you civilian cockroaches who never learned to shoot service rifle in the first place! However, as was accurately pointed out above, dangerous game ain't dangerous out on the horizon. A stopper rifle is for a PH and, expert that he be, he will wait until the angry pot roast is within 25 yards at which range the rifle is pointed, not aimed, especially if it is a well-balanced and fitted double. Not being a PH, I shoot irons because I like them in Africa where the air is clear and the light is bright. In Alaska and Canada where the reverse can be true, bring on the Leupold!

Hello,
Oldsarge, for your outstanding remarks, you get a three day pass to town! Seriously, you are so correct in your response and only wish anyone going to use a rifle for hunting would have to take some kind of training on marksmanship with so called "iron sights." I believe the result would be a much greater appreciation for their weapon, and the art/science of riflery or marksmanship.
Someone made the comment that shooting at game at a distance of 100-200 yards would not be wise and I would gently remind those that groups as little as 1 and 2 inches are routinely delivered using the "portable bench rest" the venerable rifle sling. (pretty much a lost art these days except for a small group of service rifle shooters) Mind you now, that is with someone who has been trained and practiced. I know, training and practice take time and dedication and that does not lend itself to instant gratification. Check out some of the exploits of Col. Townsend Whelen decades ago and of course we must not forget Col. Teddy Roosevelt.
There is a definite place and use for optical sights and they are superb in many respects, but to substitute optical sights for shooting skills, marksmanship, is just not the way to go.
I guess it is a damn good thing someone invented the shooting sticks being carried around for there would be little game taken without them, but to each his own and favor center!!
dsiteman

Sarge, inside of 25 yards the rifle is "pointed, not aimed"???????????

That, dear friend is as a sylish (I guess) theory that, quite simply, can get you or someone else killed as dead as you'll ever get. I don't care what distance it is, but you had better AIM that rifle and aim it well, and to not do so might just prove to be fatal. Pointing is a scattergun technique -- not a rifle technique -- and it's amazing how badly you can miss a vital aiming point up close with a rifle if you don't aim it. You can miss just close enough to not recover in time to save yourself from disaster.

I have taken Cape buffalo inside of 20 feet and grizzly practically at the end of the barrel, and I have ALWAYS had time to AIM for precise placement of the shot. If you have a Cape buffalo at point-blank range, and point (not aim) the rifle and hit him somewhere in the chest (assuming you hit it at all), he's likely to keep on coming (unless you luck-out and the bullet makes it to the spine and severs it) and you will likely be killed. If you make a conscious effort to AIM at an absolutely, instantly fatal vital point, specifically the brain or a sure, precise pathway to the spine, you have, by far and away, the best chance of walking away in one piece.

My opinion only.........

AD

They used to have a Ross Seyfried quotation on the classroom wall at Gunsite from his days as IPSC World Champion. It said: "You can't miss fast enough".

The teaching poing was if you miss a shot you may be dead before you get another chance to do it right.

jim

Allen,
I have to disagree with you on this one, I can touch both shots out of a double rifle, point shooting fast at 25 yards, and if they don't touch they will be damn close, it is more accruate and faster than aiming, at least for me...

Instinctive shooting is a lost art, but easy to master, just try it and practice...I realize that your guns are probably not iron sight friendly so this may not work at all for you or something you may not even be interresed in pursueing.

The main requirment is your gun must fit you and it must be an iron sight friendly, low comb stock.

My answer to the iron sight/scope friendly rifle was settled many years ago, I set my rifles up for iron sights, then I stick a scope on them, works for me because I was raised on M-70s with low combs, then Bill Weaver gave me a scope and I stuck it on my rifle, never knew any better, and for that I am eternally gratefull, I never fell into that clap trap that todays scope users have fallen into, being a high combed rifle set up for scopes and they don't work at all with iron sights, why some of them have iron sights on them is beyond me....

Also, just my opinnion, but it works for me, but I realize its not for everyone.

I don't think anyone here could say what is best for folks other than themselves. For me it is a scope, because my eyes will no longer focus both front and back sights well enough to be efficient. I grew up shooting an old 30-30 Marlin 336C and killed some very nice Deer with it and later found the efficiency of scope shooting and never looked back. Today my eyes tell me what I have to do, not necessarily what I want to do. I have been up close and very personal to three Brown Bears when reactions ment life or death and survived with the scopes doing their jobs and hunters doing theirs. It is one thing to speculate on what one would do in a situation like that and another to have actually experienced it and still write about it. I can only hope that the next time my scope and I can still perform "up to snuff". Good shooting.

Honestly, when dealing with DG, your rifle must be regulated wiht iron sights AND the scope(s) and you must master both sightings perfectly.
IMHO a scope enable You to shoot accurately (to pick a louse on a very hair), to keep bullet out of branches and grass and to be less hindered by weather conditions.
If the game is close and big, I think a scope is good too. Should the game flee, the scope helps to shoot accurately a couple of finishing rounds, a fortiori beyond 100 m.

IMHO, I think a variable low magnification scope ie Schmidt & Bender 1.1-4*24 is the best choice. Thanks to the 1.1 magnification (the eye makes no difference between 1.0 and 1.1)You can shoot both eyes wide open even on a close or charging game.
Practising is important. If your stock is customized for a scope, when the scope is removed, you have to crush your cheek on the comb to be in line with the iron sights. Higher is your mounting, harder you must crush your cheek. The claw mounting is the lowest one and can be removed in less than one second. You must train to automatically sight with and without scope.

To answer Okie john, many times I removed my scope when driven hunting. I shoot a boar at 60m, it bounces in the bush and come to me, I have to have my scope removed to shoot it at a couple of metres . It happened the boar is kept at bay, always in the bush. To help the dogs I shoot with the iron sights and sometimes snap shoot with my rifle at hip level(pointing not aiming).

Last August Pierr'e and I had an unprovoked Buff charge while walking thru high grass in the Selous.

The buff burst from the grass at about 20 feet from us. As it came thru the wall of grass it made a sweeping turn toward us, lowered its head and we shot simultaneously. It fell immediately at about a body length away from us.

Both shots hit the spine/neck about 3 inches apart. Pierr'e was shooting iron sights and I was carrying a bolt rifle with a scope at the time.

I don't know about Pierr'e but I shot instictively and was not even slightly aware of the scope. I certainly did not aim through the scope and frankly don't think that at that range it would have made any difference whether the rifle had irons or a scope sight - it was strictly a point and shoot shotgun type of situation.

Ray, I don't believe in 'potluck' shots. Sometimes they work, but I'm not willing to bet my life on it.

AD

Allen, this is an argument you can't win, or lose for that matter. Everybody has an opinion on what kind of cheese the moon is made of.

Personally I like a Leupold 1.5-5 and the Brockman pop-up peep sight set up. I have not had any problems with either. The scope is mounted with Talley quick release rings. Never had a problem with the rings getting lose, and the peep sight allows for quick aquisition in thick brush when needed.

Finn Aagard did the tests similar to those referred to by Jorge, long ago.

He concluded that he, experienced PH, and most others he tested, were both faster and more accurate with a low power scope, at any range, and any target.

Second best was the ghost ring peep sight.

Third best was the open "iron" sight such as the express sights.

Express sights are O.K. for a DGR or PH Stopping Rifle. They are the most rugged, and when they are needed most of all all sighting systems are equal: superfluous at 20 feet, as noted above.

I think some use the excuse of "all I could see was hair in that #$@%&*! scope" to cover their own failings, such as failure to have a scope of appropriately low power, or just bad shootin'.

I think I've got to take allen's side on this pointing vs aiming thing. Maybe its just a definition thing (ie. what is pointing vs aiming), but I am of the opinion that one must take aim on a target to expect to hit it.

I have practiced "snap shooting" A LOT. Both from the shoulder with rifles (iron sighted and scoped) and from the hip with defenders with slugs. I also shoot instinctively with a recurve.

In my experience, if you actually intend to be able to consistently hit a small target, especially one thats moving, you have to aim. Maybe it isn't a concious or deliberate act for well practiced shooters, but if your eye isn't lining up the bore of your rifle with the target, hitting it will be pure luck. Throwing a rifle to your shoulder and jerking the trigger on something just isn't going to work most of the time. Anyone that shoots trap/skeet or sporting clays can attest to that too.

For video reference, just check out Sullivan's videos. In every case, the rifle is brought to the shoulder, the cheek settles on the buttstock, the alignment is adjusted and the trigger is pulled. Just "pointing and shooting" would probably have cut his video output in half.

JMHO,
Canuck

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:

And just a few decades before that native Indians killed off all the woolly mammoths with spears! Bet they would have preferred a scoped rifle though.

Cheers,
Canuck

Canuck, it wasn't that many decades!

I don't think the scope would have made any difference if they had had a leveraction 45-70, they wouldn't have needed anything else to hunt the world over!

MAC,



There is no doubt that a .45/70 would have felt like a nuclear weapon in the hands of those hunters. I can't imagine going after a mammoth with a spear...talk about an extreme sport for adrenaline junkies!! Even matadors would be pussies by comparison!! (I am impressed how I tied all these topics together like that! )

Cheers,
Canuck

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
Maybe its just a definition thing (ie. what is pointing vs aiming), but I am of the opinion that one must take aim on a target to expect to hit it.


JMHO,
Canuck

I believe Canuck has hit the nail on the head, with the above suspicion that it is simply a matter of definition! I believe the instinctive shooting is actually aimed shooting, even if the shooter doesn't realize it. I snap shoot far better than concentrated AIMING with scope or irons! The takeing of a MS film and decideing anything doesn't make sense, because you have no idea what Mark is seeing when he shoots. The movement seen on the film could be his finding the right "FEEL" as much as it could be aiming consciously! Instinctive shooting can be tought, and has been with rifles with no sights at all, so you can't say it doesn't exist! However, I agree with Canuck, it is in most cases AIMING without reccognizing the fact.

The above is an example of a commen misconception held by many here! I believe the phrase is, "My eyes can no longer focus on three points at the same time, the back site, front site, and the target!" WELL..... They never could! The human eye can only focus on one distance at a time, no matter how young or old! This is why most think instinctive shooting is not aiming. With irons, the eye foucuses on one site, then the other,then the target, not all three at the same time, but you don't realize it. The scope is better in the fact it places the reticle "ON" the target, not on your rifle!

Simply because I insist on haveing irons on all hunting rifles doesn't mean I think they are better than a scope in all cases. I also insist on haveing QD rings and bases on all my hunting rifles that wear scopes. Furthermore, I believe the question was if PHs use scopes, or irons on back-up rifles, and my opinion is, 90% use irons! In my opinion the phrase "IRONS" means any type of sight that isn't glass! What type of sight you use is unimportant to me, as my choice should be to you!