I am purely curious about something. I notice a lot of photos (generally of big bores and African animals) where the rifle in the photo does not have a scope on it. Now, I also read a lot of threads telling everyone to use a scope instead of irons as it will help you find your target in thick brush, increase shooting opportunities/distance, you're more familiar with it, etc. The discrepency between the two make me wonder, do a lot of hunters use a scope to shoot their trophy then take the scope off to pose with photos?

I took the scope of my 375 for the trophy shots with my buffalo. The scope, for me personally, ruined the classic safari photo I was trying to achieve.

What about you guys?

Question:
If you hunt with a scoped rifle, do you remove the scope on your rifle before taking pictures with it and your trophy animal?

Choices:
Yes, I remove the scope
No, I leave it on the rifle

 

Only a poseur would care.

Seriously, if that is what trips your trigger, run the digital photos through the sepia filter.

George

Something about the entire question seems odd to say the least. Do you take the bases off also?

Unless the rifle had QD mounts for the scope, that seems like it would be a lot of work just for a picture,runs the chance of losing a mounting screw and the possibility of having to re-zero the rifle each time. Also since many rifles come without iron sights that would look very strange having a scope with no visible sighting equipment on it in the picture with a dead animal.

What would be the reasoning for doing such an act?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Something about the entire question seems odd to say the least. Do you take the bases off also?

............

What would be the reasoning for doing such an act?

To take it a step further, why not trade your bolt rifle for the PH's double for the trophy photo?

Not that I care. I wouldn't mind if you traded your rifle for a spear for the photo.

It seems a bit dishonest though. Kinda like posing with another hunter's animal.

You could always take it off prior to the hunt..

HUH...??????????

Maybe you could just leave the rifle out of the pic altogether...just stand there with your foot on your "trophy", naked to the waist with your Bowie knife in your teeth.

An ODD question for sure!

Sevens:
I have one double with a scope and I leave it on if I used it in taking animal as it was part of the experience. My thought upon first reading your post was that folks use a scope but take it off as to give the impression of using open sights--two PHs I know who told me over 50% of their bow clients use a rifle and but pose with a bow!
Cheers,
Cal

Man did I open a can of worms with this question. As I mentioned in my first post, I was purely trying to figure out if the large amount of rifles without a scope pictured in trophy photos was due to people actually hunting with iron sights or the scope was pulled off for the photo. Based upon what I've read (Boddington's "Buffalo" book mentions something about having a higher percentage of shot opportunities using a scope, for example) it seemed like most people would use a scope for buffalo, eland, lions, etc. (elephant being an exception) and that people are just removing the scope to create a photo they find more appealing (same as using a sepia filter for their trophy photo).

Thanks to quick-release rings, removing a scope is very easy and quick. I know many people use them on dangerous game rifles in case they need to follow-up an animal into thick cover. Perhaps the rifles without scopes I see are because the hunter had to follow up an animal, the scope was removed, and thus didn't have a scope on it when arriving upon/finishing off the downed animal (and thus stayed in that state for trophy pics).

I also know that there are plenty of guys who use iron sights to hunt and happily accept that it may decrease shot opportunities, but they enjoy the challenge and nostalgia. That's great, but they were not who I was targeting this question at. Since a trip to Africa is expensive for me, I use the scope as I can't afford to pass up an animal due to my choice in sights. I assumed that would be true for many others.

Now I don't see removing the scope in anyway being dishonest as JBrown has suggested. It's your rifle, you shot the animal with it. It doesn't seem any different than the hunter who swaps his shirt for a fresh one for the photo or moves the animal to better area for photos and/or into a different position. I don't think anyone is trying to create one of Grandpa's fishing stories. It's not like SCI adds ten points to the trophy score because you used iron sights. Being dishonest would be holding the PH's double and claiming you used it (Or Cal's example of using a rifle then swapping to a bow), failing to mention the four missed shots before you hit the animal , or fabricating a story about the animals the PH shot for you because your were too hungover or fat to go shoot the animal yourself.


I made and inference based upon what I had seen and thought and it turned out wrong according to the poll. It also suprises me then about the amount of hunters who actually use iron sights based upon how often I see a non-scoped rifle in a trophy pic.

If in Africa, I would leave it on. It was part of the hunt.

I shoot enough animals with open sights here in Aust.

For me it is more a case of what gun / calibre combo I use each hunt / shoot than specifically
wanting a shot with open sights.

.

quote:

I made and inference based upon what I had seen and thought and it turned out wrong according to the poll. It also suprises me then about the amount of hunters who actually use iron sights based upon how often I see a non-scoped rifle in a trophy pic.

Something you might be missing is the concept of human vanity. You asked an honest question and got what I feel were actual and honest replies based on your question. The comment Mr. Pappas made does not just apply to some archery hunters. Firearms hunters can be or are just as vain. The non-scoped rifles appearing in the pictures may not be the one that killed the animal.

For some folks the story is much better if they had to overcome difficulties. Claiming to have killed something using iron sights and having a picture to "prove" those claims gives the person extra points.

Basically you asked a reasonable question among a group of honest people.

I would leave it on if I used one but both my rifles were iron sights only last time. Next year, I will use optics and different rifles.

Hooker occasionally removes his leg--



Does that count?

quote:

Originally posted by Sevens:

Now I don't see removing the scope in anyway being dishonest as JBrown has suggested.

I did not mean to imply that you were being dishonest. My point was that altering the rifle for the photo does alter the "scene", but also implies that the animal was taken with open sights.

It seems that altering the scene was what you want.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevens:
The scope, for me personally, ruined the classic safari photo I was trying to achieve.

Never occurred to me to try!

If a rifle or other weapon is in a trophy pic it would appear that it was the weapon used "as is" to take the trophy. Anything else seems a bit dishonest to me. If you are ashamed of the weapon you used to take your trophy, leave it out. That way you could always tell your fiends that you used a Daisy Redrider or whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevens:
It doesn't seem any different than the hunter who swaps his shirt for a fresh one for the photo

What really! How many hunters would do this. It would surely have to be the height of vanity, perhaps they also have their hairdresser and makeup artist in tow too!!!

quote:

I took the scope of my 375 for the trophy shots with my buffalo. The scope, for me personally, ruined the classic safari photo I was trying to achieve

You have a picture in your mind of what a "classic safari" looks like and it seems that you are trying to alter the perception of whomever views your photos to fit that.

quote:

You have a picture in your mind of what a "classic safari" looks like and it seems that you are trying to alter the perception of whomever views your photos to fit that.

Plus 1000. was the picture a color picture or Black & White. If in color that would not be "Classic". It does begin to sound like a vanity issue.

Let me state this up front, I am in no way trying to deceive anyone that I used iron sights when in fact I used a scope. (If I run the photo through a sepia filter am I being dishonest that I don't have a color camera?) The only animal I have ever bothered to remove the scope for the photo on is my cape buffalo, every other animal I couldn't care less if the rifle is even in the photo, let alone if it has a scope. Dangerous game and big bores goes hand in hand, hence why the rifle had some significance in the photo to me.

While I will happily show others photos of the animal (in this case a cape buffalo) that I shot, the photos are for my personal use to remember my hunt. The only persons opinion about the photo I care about is mine. The only persons perception I am trying to alter by arranging the photos as I see fit is my own. I am not ashamed of my rifle or the fact that I used a scope to shoot a cape buffalo and I will do it again (and will probably pull the scope off for those photos too). I am not a guy who needs his name in every record book nor do I need others to justify for me the animals I shoot and tell me what a he-man I am (I hunt because I like to).

There are plenty of guys who have lost touch with the enjoyment of hunting and it has become purely a numbers and inches game. Those are probably the same guys who are going to change their shirt, comb the grass out of the animals hair (actually seen a hunter do this), and swap the rifle for a bow right before snapping a picture of the lion they were lucky enough to be able to track through the desert in South Africa. What I'm gathering from the hostile responses I'm getting from this rather innocent question is that you all have lumped me into that category. That I am trying to boost my ego somehow by not having the scope in my trophy photo. I'm not and I apologize if that's what you all interpreted me to be doing.

The question was really mean't to be innocent and taken at face value. I was simply curios, but after seeing the responses, I'm sorry I asked.

as I stated earlier, you asked a question, to a lot of honest folks who have merely given their opinion.

If the pictures are for your own personal use/viewing and you want to take the scope off your rifle, by all means do so, it is your perogative.

To get all hot and bothered, simply because people give an honest/straight forward opinion on the subject, will make people question your motives.

If you do not want honest answers on such a question, don't ask folks on the AR.

Sorry if I offended you, but when I take pictures, whether for Public viewing or just my own personal look back on a hunt, I want everything to be as it was.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevens:
I took the scope of my 375 for the trophy shots with my buffalo. The scope, for me personally, ruined the classic safari photo I was trying to achieve.

Sevens I do have to agree with CHCs last post on this and add it is a shame you have taken offence with some of the honest replies you received. I only posted a tongue in the cheek comment re hunters changing their shirt but I suppose I do question why you feel a need to create a "classic safari photo" even just for your own viewing when you use and then feel that having a scope on a rifle is not "classic".
Even Pondoro Taylor and others like him freely admitted to using scopes when these were available and Taylor really promoted the use of them as being very beneficial. There are very few photos around of some of those early hunters so we can't always see what the "classic safari photo" was like for them but I'm sure Taylor would not have been bothered one way or another.

May I ask what brand of rifle is your 375, does it fit the "classic" criteria whatever that may be? My avatar shows a buffalo kill with a good old classic Type A Mauser in 404J without a scope but any future photos of DG kills will show the same rifle with a little EER Leupold mounted, heaven forbid, in a semi-scout position. Can still use and don't mind open sights but the scope is so good.

"Dishonest" is a pretty strong term, but removing a scope to create a photo with a certain flavour or panache does not strike me as completely kosher. The trophy and the photos are obviously yours to do with as you see fit, but personally I want the photos to show the actual scene as it was. I do clean up and pose the trophy for the formal grip'n'grin shots, but I also make it a point to get a good number of shots of the animal exactly where it fell, no alterations of the scene at all. My PH's in Africa thought this was strange, but some of those photos are the ones that I look at for my own enjoyment, as opposed to the sanitized ones shown to friends and family.

Removing a scope? Changing my shirt???!!? Even in the "formal" shots, you must be kidding!

I remove the scope, but I leave my hat on.

quote:

Originally posted by jwm:
"Dishonest" is a pretty strong term, but removing a scope to create a photo with a certain flavour or panache does not strike me as completely kosher. The trophy and the photos are obviously yours to do with as you see fit, but personally I want the photos to show the actual scene as it was. I do clean up and pose the trophy for the formal grip'n'grin shots, but I also make it a point to get a good number of shots of the animal exactly where it fell, no alterations of the scene at all. My PH's in Africa thought this was strange, but some of those photos are the ones that I look at for my own enjoyment, as opposed to the sanitized ones shown to friends and family.

Removing a scope? Changing my shirt???!!? Even in the "formal" shots, you must be kidding!

Maybe I should have used "disingenuous". At any rate, if you are posing with a weapon in a trophy picture, it would indicate to me that that was the weapon used to take the trophy as is. Now if you were using a scoped rifle and put a shot into a buffalo then removed the scope for the follow-up and finished the animal with iron sights, I don't see a problem with taking the trophy shots with the scope removed because you actually used the rifle without the scope. Just altering things after the animal is down is something that I wouldn't do but to each his own.

This is a strange thread. There is probably not a person here who has not moved a PG animal to a spot that offered better pics. However, such actions (like a sepia filter or photoshopping out blood or bits of grass on a trophy) do not imply greater skill on the part of the hunter the way open sights might. For that reason I would not remove the scope. To keep the peace at home, I did once take pics with a muzzleloader that was a gift rather than the 338 I shot the game with.....but that was not to highlight my skill (or lack thereof) and if I show or post that pic I issue a disclaimer immediately!

I have not been to Africa but if the trophy picture was of a lion, I think I would need to change my pants for the photo. I am really, really afraid of lions.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevens:
What I'm gathering from the hostile responses I'm getting from this rather innocent question is that you all have lumped me into that category. That I am trying to boost my ego somehow by not having the scope in my trophy photo.
.........................
I was simply curios, but after seeing the responses, I'm sorry I asked.

I think my reply has been the most "hostile" so far. I just want you to know that I did not mean to be hostile at all. Everyone can do what they please in their trophy photos(as long as it is in good taste...)

I guess my point it that it is a little bit silly to alter the rifle for the photo. If you want a classic "big bore" in your trophy photo then you should use a classic open sighted rifle for the hunt. But that is JMHO.

How about hiring a hollywood stunt double to pose with my rifle cause I'm fat,bald, and ugly.

No, I just Photoshop in the animal and call it good.

It never would have occured to me till you asked

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:
I just Photoshop in the animal

I have hunted Africa numerous times and I have never heard of hunters removing their scopes for pictures.

When I was a teen ager my grandmother took a photo of me and a nice white tail buck shot right there on the farm. I was the first one in about 3 generations to shoot a white tail and the first to ever have a photo taken.
I forgot about the photo and was suprised to get a grainy 8X10 at Christmas.
My grandmother laughed when they talked about having to crop the print to fit the photo frame.
The photo was composed in such a way that it did not fit the frame vertically. My grandfather said it would not fit without cropping either the rifle butt or my head.
My grandmother said by all means don't cut off the rifle.

Leaving the scope off of a photo is much like the trick of holding a 5 lb bass at arms lenght so that it appears to weigh 35 lbs.

Not to mention standing FAR BEHIND the dead animal to make it look larger.

If you took your scope off for the thick stuff and then put it back on before the photo are you doing it wrong?

This may be straying away from the subject somewhat, but in 1972 I had just been named the exclusive representative for Krieghoff hunting rifles in the US. I was on safari in Tanzania and had just killed a respectable buffalo with my .505. However, in the interest of future publicity, I decided to pose with the Krieghoff .458 WM I had with me on the trip.



I had already killed one buff with the Krieghoff, and was satisfied that it would do the job, but this particular buffalo seemed more photogenic, and I wanted to take advantage of that fact. Did I violate some unwritten law?

Sometimes the scope gets hung up on the steering wheel....

And yes, you did violate some unwritten law, good thing the statute of limitations has ocurred.

My K gun does not have nor will it ever have a scope on it.