It has been a busy few days since last week. First of the week I had three very fine youngsters come visit from Zimbabwe. The boys were just up the road in NC for a wedding, one of the boys brothers. One of the boys is Corris Fierra's son, which Corris has the Gache Gache area in Zimbabwe where I have been hunting the last few years with Corris and Andrew, so while these young chaps were in the area they dropped in for a short visit first with me here, and then on to visit with Sam a bit as well.......

Of course, what do boys like to do? Shoot............... While I say "Boys", they are all actually very fine young Men, aged 20-22 years, same age as my BOYS, so to me they are Boys still..... LOL.... One of them an apprentice PH........

I figured to let the boys do some shooting, but in doing so, I figured I would get some benefits as well. I loaded some 500 MDM new brass, formed only, not fire formed. So, I would let these chaps do some shooting, and make some brass for me at the same time, everyone wins...... But I decided not to just let them shoot up ammo without getting even more benefit out of it, for them, even us, and make it a learning experience as well.....

I have done one of these Sight Tests in the past with a few shooters, but this was a great opportunity to accomplish many missions at one time, I had 3 young men, love to shoot, one an apprentice PH... Their Big Bore experience ranged from 416-458 caliber, nothing much bigger, one had shot a 500 Nitro a few times. Shooting is not something these fellows can do on any regular basis, because of the expense and available ammo. They were telling me one round of 416 would cost them $20 each...... They are just not able to do much shooting...... Smaller calibers, sure..... some anyway......

I had 3 500 MDM rifles set up, one with Iron Sights only, One with an EOTech mounted in front of the receiver, and one with a 1X4 Nikon..... I decided to let these boys shoot each of these sight systems to see which one worked best for them. Now this was not a competition between themselves, but a test to work with the various sight systems to see how they did on an individual basis. None of them being true experts with any sight system, or none having developed any prejudices one way or the other, in some cases some never ever shooting a big bore with a scope, and none of them have ever used a red dot on a big bore...... So it would be a good test to see where these systems lined up and how they lined up for each of them........ And too, allowing them to shoot some big bore rifles and have some fun...........

This was the Procedure I set up for them.....

Target was a 6 Inch Diamond inside white section 3.5 inches which I scored as 10 Points. The black outside counted 9 points, outside the black counted ZERO.....

The boys would start at 10 yards at Port Arms, chamber loaded, safety on. At the buzzer their mission was to get one round inside the black as fast as possible. If they did not get the round inside the black, they were instructed to NEVER QUIT until the problem was solved, and to fire again until they solved the problem. This was easier said than done, and while most of the time, if that first shot missed getting inside the diamond, they did shoot again, but if missing a second time, they tended to stop at that point. If I had them a bit longer, then I would have made them shoot until the problem was solved, no matter how many rounds it took....... But can only do so much in one morning......

I allowed each of them to get familiar with the rifle and sight system before taking a shot. Then, I gave them ONE FREE GO at it, in other words, a practice go that did not count. When it was over, sometimes that first go was an excellent run, and things went downhill from that.... LOL......

Then the fun started.... I wanted 3 complete runs with each sight system with each shooter. Total Time was added, total points added, and points divided by the time to give score. This puts weight on both time and points, while speed is important, one must take in to account accuracy as well........ This way we can take an objective look at what sight system is not only the most accurate, but the fastest to put into action as well........

Now sight systems are very much an individual choice, there is NO RIGHT--NO WRONG--And NO ABSOLUTES. One very experienced shooter may exceed with any of these choices, depending on what that individual has trained with and shot the most. This test does not say absolutely one is better than the other for any said individual, but indeed it does give us some insight to what some shooters may lean towards or what might work best overall for a given situation. And too, what we must keep in mind, what might prove excellent in this scenario, may fail miserably in another scenario or situation...... So there are lots of variables to keep in mind, this is one small test, to make a decisive conclusion one way or the other, just from this, would be a mistake..........

My Scenario was that these young chaps were following up on Dangerous Game, things would be close, action would be fast, they would need to be ON READY, Condition Orange.......

Below you see some photos of the boys and some while in action............

All of these Young Men shot very well. They all had good form, they knew how to handle the rifle, they were very fast working the bolt, each and every one could get a second shot in very fast. There were very few bad habits at all..... and
when I saw one, we tried to correct it as we went..... I had one that sometimes would drop the rifle off the shoulder to
bolt another round in, we corrected that, never removing the rifle to reload......

Shooter #1 was VERY FAST........ Too Fast. But also not as accurate as I wanted him to be. I worked hard to slow him down a bit.

Shooter#2 and #3 were probably close to the same experience level, somewhat more experience than shooter #1 I believe.

All very good. And one major point is that most of the misses came in LOW, and would have been a good shot on DG.... but not for our scenario and score system........ There were only a handful of misses that would have been a problem on real DG.

Now the Tallied Results..........





For Score the HIGHER THE FACTOR NUMBER the Better the Score is........

Some things that Stand Out..........

Of Each Sight System and Each Shooter, Iron Sights LOOSE out over both EOTech and Scope, and EACH individual shooter did his worst with Iron Sights, and each shooter improved with both EOTech and Scope.

Shooter #1 gave his best performance with the EOTech. This shooter had no experience with scopes, so had some issues with the scope. However, even with zero experience with a scope, he still did better with it than Irons.

Shooter #2 and Shooter #3-- EOTech Improved their scores substantially over Iron Sights. Neither of these Shooters have ever shot a BIG BORE RIFLE with a scope on it, and had no experience in this area. However, both had experience shooting scopes on smaller bores. As you can see, both their scores improved SUBSTANTIALLY over both Iron and EOTech when they went to the scope, times much faster overall, and scores excellent...........

So I ask you, What Sight System works the best for Close Range Dangerous Game?



Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
So I ask you, What Sight System works the best for Close Range Dangerous Game?

I think someone answered that question already.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Now sight systems are very much an individual choice, there is NO RIGHT--NO WRONG--And NO ABSOLUTES.

Glad you are enjoying the EOTech, and putting it through its paces.

Thanks Michael--

very interesting data.

I know damn well I am both faster and more accurate with a scope, nice to see some back-up data.

SSR

Good stuff michael

I personally likes scopes with features of red dot - the swarovski illuminated scope 1-6x 24. Expensive at $2k plus but worth it.

Intook your advice go a nikon monarch for my ruger - will shoot it next week.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
So I ask you, What Sight System works the best for Close Range Dangerous Game?

I think someone answered that question already.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Now sight systems are very much an individual choice, there is NO RIGHT--NO WRONG--And NO ABSOLUTES.

Glad you are enjoying the EOTech, and putting it through its paces.

Tanks.........

Exactly correct, the BEST SIGHT SYSTEM for Dangerous Game................. The one that works best for

YOU.....................

For the record, all the Boys LOVED the EOTech System, while a couple actually did better with the scope, they
all really liked the EOTech............... And, I think in the end would have chosen it over the other......


Me personally, I am a SCOPE guy...... Low power.... LARGE FIELD OF VIEW FOR CLOSE RANGE......... Its what I have
used the most on everything, what I am the most familiar with, what I shoot the best with speed and accuracy and
what works best for me....... When I have used various red dots, they did a good job, but when in brush I could not
see good enough..... and irons, well I can't see good enough anymore to even consider irons an option......

Again, its what is best for you and what works best for you.......



Mike, best of all worlds maybe, Illuminated Reticle...... Covers all bases, as long as the power is low enough for
a very large close up field of view.........

Let me know how you like the little Nikon..........

Sean... Me too........

Michael

My take on this exercise is that people need time and experience with any optical system to maximize their performance potential. I believe this is particularly true with the EOTech, which I have used extensively on both assault rifles and large bore hunting rifles and handguns.

The EOTech will allow one to shoot with both eyes open, which clearly has many advantages, particularly on DG. I find its circle-dot reticle to be the fastest method of target accusation I have ever used and allows for immediate accusation of the vital area for POA. While not difficult to master, it does take some practice to familiarize and maximize the shooters capability.

I have just installed a Leupold VX-6 1-6x illuminated on my 458B&M and am so far very impressed with its performance. At the 1 power setting it may allow for a both eyes open technique, although after 50+ years of shooting with my weak eye closed, I will likely not utilize this technique.

As to the data collected in your interesting but limited experiment, I would suggest that the more practice with the EOTech the more the scores attained would increase in value. While two shooters had some experience with scoped rifles, this was the first exposure to all three with the EOTech. IMO for close up work on DG it cannot be beat.

Please note that the EOTech is not really a red-dot but rather a holographic display. It has been the choice of USMC and special operations forces for many years.

Good work!

quote:

Mike, best of all worlds maybe, Illuminated Reticle...... Covers all bases, as long as the power is low enough for
a very large close up field of view.........

The scope I like best is on my 416 B&M- 1x4 Trigicon with the post triangle reticle-easy to shoot with both eyes open and the triangle is illuminated of course--which is really nice in dark thick brush --ask me about shooting a lion at dusk---it was NICE to have that illuminated reticle.

This was an interesting test run Michael… I’d love to see it replicated with three men in the 60s, all overweight and out-of-shape, wearing bifocals, not longtime hunters, and also unfamiliar with the rifles except for your quick familiarization. Could be eye opening for all of us…

Thanks for supporting the opinion from Finn Aagaard (he did similar tests) that a low power scope was always faster and more accurate than iron sights ...
at least if the shots are aimed.
Of course you can just point and shoot with a scope too, even close your eyes too ...



I am under 60, but overweight and out of shape and wear bifocals, and I shoot better&faster with a low power scope ... most of the time.

If money is no object - the swarovski cannot be beat. It is a top quality optic perfect for dangerous game hunting.

My personal shooting style has issues with trijicon post. When things get close, personal and dangerous - I tend to put the post triangle instead of the tip on the target.

The illuminated outer circle with a red dot inside is the perfect shooting view. It is the reason why everyone liked the eotech. Swarovski gives you that plus a top quality optic.

The red dot in a illuminated circle saved me from getting run over by a wildebeest at under 4 yards - just was aiming the red illuminated circle on the black body of the wildebeest.

The swarovski also has unbelievable low light illumination - the scope was the main reason, actually the only reason I was able to kill my lion in Burkina this march.

I like Nikon scopes - the best value for money. If I was just to shoot gun it is my first choice.

Swarovski for my hunting rifle.

I took a friend shooting had never shot before. Sig 400 with eotech hitting the gong at 100 plus yards. He has glasses and poor eye sight. I think would have taken the military months to get a recruit to shoot that well if ever with iron sights. It was all the eotech.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
This was an interesting test run Michael… I’d love to see it replicated with three men in the 60s, all overweight and out-of-shape, wearing bifocals, not longtime hunters, and also unfamiliar with the rifles except for your quick familiarization. Could be eye opening for all of us…

JIM

if you would lower that to over 50--then I would suspect you were lobbying for you, RIP and Myself to meet at The B&M Ballistics Compound for use as experimental subjects----


sounds fun

quote:

The scope I like best is on my 416 B&M- 1x4 Trigicon with the post triangle reticle-easy to shoot with both eyes open and the triangle is illuminated of course--which is really nice in dark thick brush --ask me about shooting a lion at dusk---it was NICE to have that illuminated reticle.

Yup!

Sean,

I definitely resemble that overweight/out-of-shape standard though I’ve started working out and have lost some weight – still have more to go though on both counts! LOL…you and Ron definitely lose out on the “not longtime hunters”; I’m in the iffy category since I’ve not hunted in quite a while and am truly rusty with all shoulder weapons... Does remind me, I need to drag my posterior to the range in the next week or so and give the 1911 a workout… But yes, it definitely would be fun getting together at the compound for some shooting.

The wife has promised me that we’re a go for the 2015 DSC convention. She’s not decided if she’ll attending with me or visiting with some friends in Frisco during the daytime but we’ll both be making the evening “get-together”. Maybe we could all meet at that new indoor range in Frisco and give some guns a workout! I’ll at least have my .500 with me; should have the .423 as well if I’m not turning it into something else at the time…

There are still people say that irons sights are still faster.

No matter what evidence you show them this is mostly cause by poor fitting guns and poor mounting of the optics.

The biggest is the lack of practice with them.

A properly fitting rifle with a properly mounted optic is very fast.

Back when I was shooting practical rifle courses a couple of us range the course with are scopes set on 9 power.

It made only a very small different in speed and none in hits.

quote:

This was an interesting test run Michael ... I’d love to see it replicated with three men in the 60s, all overweight and out-of-shape, wearing bifocals, not longtime hunters, and also unfamiliar with the rifles ***.

Agree it was an interesting test, but sometimes the exception proves the rule. With irons on a DGR at typical DG distances, I'm just "as good" with irons as with a low-powered scope. And I'm sure I'm not the only AR member who can do that.

"As good" can be defined for this exercise as "minute-of-buffalo" - or, minute-of-elephant, or minute-of-rhino, or minute-of-Alaskan grizzly/brown bear, et al. Shooting from 200+yds on typical plains game is, of course, a different story.

All that said, the youngsters in Micheal458's pics aren't your typical DG hunter at all. They can't afford DG hunting, at least not of the African variety, which is the primary subject of endless discussions both here and on Nitro Express wherein the history and effectiveness of various DG cartridges is hotly debated.

So, Capoward's observation regarding "men in [their] 60s, all overweight and out-of-shape, wearing bifocals, not longtime hunters, and also unfamiliar with the rifles [they bring to Africa]," pretty much describes who's doing DG hunting these days.

quote:

There are still people say that irons sights are still faster.

No matter what evidence you show them this is mostly cause by poor fitting guns and poor mounting of the optics.

The biggest is the lack of practice with them.

A properly fitting rifle with a properly mounted optic is very fast.

These are all true statements.

I’m of the firm opinion that the individual using a rifle that is properly fit to himself or herself so that the sight(s) are properly aligned with the target as soon as the rifle is mounted will win the first shot contest. It is immaterial whether the rifle is fitted for iron sight use or a scope use, it just needs to be either not both…

I also believe a compromise rifle setup which covers virtually all factory DG rifles will always be slower to acquire the target with irons or scope than a properly setup no-compromise setup rifle. The human body will adapt to the compromise rifle setup with practice, but regardless of amount of practice it’ll never be as quick to the target.

And to be fully truthful, right now both of my DG capable rifles are compromise rifles. Reason being is that both are M98 Mauser based and they reside in standard B&C Medalist stocks (full aluminum bedding blocks) that I ordered with ½” difference in LOP from the factory. I will be playing with the stocks over the next few months to get one properly setup for my LOP that’ll allow racking of the bolt without removing the stock from the shoulder AND align my eye with the scope center as soon as the rifle is mounted. I have a Nikon African 1x4 and a Minox 1.5x8, both with the German #4 reticle, set for use on each rifle which’ll cover everything from snot-slinging close out to 300yds or so.

I also have custom scope bases with a folding peep sight in the rear scope base and am using Talley QD rings:



I have tried both rifles and by just scotching my face forward slightly (like stock crawling a scope) I can quickly align my eye with the front sight centered in the flip-up peep sight. Do I need the iron sights? I’ll likely never use them except to practice at the range. Anyway that’s my story and I’m sticking with it…

quote:

So, Capoward's observation regarding "men in [their] 60s, all overweight and out-of-shape, wearing bifocals, not longtime hunters, and also unfamiliar with the rifles [they bring to Africa]," pretty much describes who's doing DG hunting these days.

Nick,

You’re correct, only the old farts and well-healed youngers can afford to hunt Africa. LOL… And unfortunately a substantial number that make the sojourn never take the time to become familiar with their rifles let alone consider taking one of the African hunting courses being offered in parts of the USA.

quote:

Agree it was an interesting test, but sometimes the exception proves the rule. With irons on a DGR at typical DG distances, I'm just "as good" with irons as with a low-powered scope. And I'm sure I'm not the only AR member who can do that.

I’ve little doubt that you’re correct on both counts. My only question is, “Is your rifle a custom rifle built for iron use or a factory off the shelf rifle?” I ask this again ‘cause the old farts who can afford the hunt are also the ones who can afford the purpose built custom rifle…

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
If money is no object - the swarovski cannot be beat. It is a top quality optic perfect for dangerous game hunting.

My personal shooting style has issues with trijicon post. When things get close, personal and dangerous - I tend to put the post triangle instead of the tip on the target.

The illuminated outer circle with a red dot inside is the perfect shooting view. It is the reason why everyone liked the eotech. Swarovski gives you that plus a top quality optic.

The red dot in a illuminated circle saved me from getting run over by a wildebeest at under 4 yards - just was aiming the red illuminated circle on the black body of the wildebeest.

The swarovski also has unbelievable low light illumination - the scope was the main reason, actually the only reason I was able to kill my lion in Burkina this march.

I like Nikon scopes - the best value for money. If I was just to shoot gun it is my first choice.

Swarovski for my hunting rifle.

I took a friend shooting had never shot before. Sig 400 with eotech hitting the gong at 100 plus yards. He has glasses and poor eye sight. I think would have taken the military months to get a recruit to shoot that well if ever with iron sights. It was all the eotech.

Mike

I see your Swarovski, and raise you a Nightforce NSX 1-4x24 with illuminated reticle, its a circle with a dot in the center. True 1 power both eyes open and the illuminated reticle plus the light gathering capability of the glass make it a favorite of mine.

Plus you can use the scope to hammer nails for a shelter and it will still hold zero.

The Aimpoint T-1/H-1 Micro is another incredibly tough red dot sight with a five year battery life.


Nice comparison Michael, my next Big Bore will be sporting a red dot.

Good test, Michael.
I do volunteer for the test as an over-60 shooter. However, I don't wear bifocals and do hunt stateside every year. Now will there be any of that apple-tasting liquour?
The new illuminated reticles from Leupold (circle dot is my choice) do provide faster shooting as proven on some of our hog hunts in Oklahoma and Texas.

quote:

Originally posted by doubledown:
... Nice comparison Michael, my next Big Bore will be sporting a red dot.

FYI, that EOtech is a holographic sight, not a red dot.

http://www.eotechinc.com/holog...c-weapons-technology

I agree with you though. That particular EOTech will be going on my 500MDM that is getting built.

And this is with young eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by prof242:
...
The new illuminated reticles from Leupold (circle dot is my choice) do provide faster shooting as proven on some of our hog hunts in Oklahoma and Texas.

Here is a video of EOtechs on a hog hunt from a helicopter in Texas. Shooting starts around 7:30 mark. I am not sure if one would be able to target with scopes as effectively under those circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPbRv20zXw

This thread has come along at an appropriate time for me personally, for various reasons.

I officially became an old man the other day when I purchased my first pair of reading glasses !

As a result, I am only just now preparing to put some type of optical sight on a .458 Lott.

Scope (illuminated ?) ?
Red Dot ?
Holographic ?

http://www.riflemagazine.com/m...m?tocid=153&magid=15

a very good readind i copy the article here but the source is over here, thanks to 458win aka Phil Shoemaker to make that article few years ago.

A GUIDE'S NOTES
.416 Remington
A Dangerous Game Rifle

Hunting large dangerous game is not a lot different than hunting any other game except for the fact the beast might, at some point, decide to attack the hunter. When that happens the bigger the gun one is carrying the better. If bore size were the only consideration, though, everyone would be carrying some sort of portable field artillery piece. Bore size, however, is not, and never has been, a substitute for precise bullet placement, and light rifles and smaller calibers are more comfortable to carry and easier to shoot accurately.

This fact has posed a conundrum for hunters for over a century. D.W.M. "Karomojo" Bell is undoubtedly the most famous hunter whom advocates of light, smallbore rifles and precise bullet placement bring into any argument of bore size. Bell is credited with killing over 1,000 elephants with solid 160-grain bullets in the 6.5 Mannlicher-Schönauer and 175-grain bullets in the 7mm Mauser. He was undoubtedly a superb shot, capable of hitting flying birds with his rifle and, by his own accounts, exceedingly lucky. The argument that since Bell did it on elephants then anyone can do it is hardly convincing. People have fallen from airplanes without parachutes and survived, but the practice is hardly to be recommended.

On the other side of the equation are the large bore fanatics and their paragon Elmer Keith, who once stated the .375 H&H was a pretty good deer rifle. I actually believe there was a bit of tongue-in-cheek to some of Elmer's stories, but he was an honest-to-gosh believer in large bores. Heavy bullets and stupefying energies are directly correlated with brutal recoil, however, and most of us mere mortals cannot shoot to our best abilities knowing each time we close our eyes and yank the trigger we're going to get hammered. Eventually we all migrate toward some sort of compromise caliber depending upon our ability to handle recoil.

I have been hunting dangerous game and experimenting with large caliber rifles for nearly three decades. In this time I have hunted on four continents and, at one time or another, been a firm subscriber to each theory. I have experienced a few spitting distance, blood and thunder, kill or be killed charges, but they were usually a result of poor tactics or planning on someone's part - usually mine.

As a professional hunting guide I get to see numerous hunters shooting various rifles, calibers and bullets. A majority are competent if not good shots, but each year one or two can be counted on to misplace their bullets. I am then required to use my rifle either to assure a humane kill or to prevent the animal from escaping or charging. Very early in my career I learned if I were ready, attentive and in range, I could usually hit the animal solidly before it had recovered, thereby settling the matter. Any caliber and bullet satisfactory for hunting the animal worked fine for this. I completely subscribed to Karomojo Bell's placement-is-all-it-takes theory. I used a .30-06 and 200-grain Nosler Partition pushed to 2,700 fps and was completely satisfied. Experience, however, often has a way of dispelling even the best theory.
Bell hunted by himself and was experienced enough to wait until he was absolutely certain where the bullet was going. He did not have to allow an inexperienced, out-of-shape novice the first shot. Surprise and the unexpected are a main attraction in any form of hunting, but on dangerous game the unexpected can have serious repercussions. When large, dangerous animals are hunted in thick brush or undulating terrain, places where they can disappear with one step, a poorly placed bullet can make life downright fascinating in a hurry. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the accurate placement theory. I have painfully learned, however, that accurately placing a bullet on an erratic, rapidly advancing nightmare with your body pumped full of adrenaline can be problematic at best and fatal at worst. Bore size, bullet weight and kinetic energy (stopping power) might not equal the "killing power" of an accurately placed bullet, but under these circumstances it can be a close, and much welcomed, substitute.

There have been all sorts of theories postulated on how to measure stopping power. I don't have any new formulas. The simple fact is hunters bring about the death of an animal by one of two means. Either a bullet disrupts the brain or spinal cord (central nervous system) and causes instantaneous death or else the animal dies of shock caused by massive blood loss, which results in the brain shutting down. Precise bullet placement will cause this, but so will very large holes. It is an irrefutable fact that large holes bleed more than smaller ones and two holes more than one. Large, heavy bullets are also better at breaking down heavy bones and immobilizing large beasts. Elmer Keith knew this. So do most professional hunters around the world.

Fifteen years ago I built a serious stopping rifle for use in Alaska. Reliability and dependability, of course, were paramount, but power, accuracy, weight, fit and feel were also important factors. I used a .458 Winchester Interarms Mk X Mauser barreled action, a modified fiberglass stock and a Leupold 2x compact scope. The rifle has served me well, but in the past few years there has been a plethora of new calibers, rifles, bullets, sights, mounts and stocks introduced, options that weren't available when the rifle was assembled. I decided to see what was available and to build another rifle.

Other rifles besides the .458 are occasionally used; I have a reproduction Model 1886 Browning/Winchester .45-70 carbine and a Bauska actioned .505 Gibbs. Both are powerful, reliable short-range stoppers, and I see no reason to scope either of them. They are used for special purposes: the Browning daily when guiding salmon fishermen and bear photographers and the Gibbs when someone wants to get up close and personal and stick an arrow in a massive brown bear.

When the .458 was originally built, extensive range testing of the speed and accuracy of various iron and scope sights was done and a low-power scope was settled on. Electronic red dot sights were not then available, and I wanted to try them. My 17-year-old son Taj and I spent an afternoon switching various sights back and forth between our rifles testing for speed and accuracy.

In order to be purely scientific, I suppose we should have used only one rifle and switched the sights on it, but our times and results were consistent with a similar test I did in 1984 with only the .458. My son's younger reflexes resulted in faster times with most sights, but I think familiarity with individual rifles and scopes might have affected some scores.

We conducted our tests with the shooter facing sideways to the target and, on command from the timer with a stopwatch, turning and firing as quickly as possible and hitting a paper plate 25 yards away. We used open V iron sights, large "ghost ring" peep sights, low-power scopes (Leupold 2x and 1-4x variable set at 1x) and Bushnell's red dot Holosight. We each fired five times with each sight and computed the average. Holosight and open V tests were done with a Mauser actioned .375 Scovill. The peep sight and 21/2x scope were with our individual Mauser actioned .458s. The 1x scope test was fired with a Mauser .35 Whelen. Following are the results of our testing for speed (in seconds).

Phil Taj
Peep: 1.27 1.19
Open V: 1.25 1.12
Holosight: 1.08 1.17
Scope 1x: .99 1.25
Scope 2½x: 1.40 1.35

The Bushnell Holosight proved to be rugged, extremely fast and accurate on target acquisition. It cannot, however, be mounted low over the receiver, which forced us to shoot without our cheeks firmly on the stock. On a heavy recoiling rifle this can be painful. Many states (Alaska included) have also made it illegal to hunt big game with any electronic sight. The Holosight is a remarkable piece of technology and is proving ideal for handgun target shooting. It would also be great for certain specialized operations, such as nighttime culling operations, but I am a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, stupid) principle for backup rifles, and if the battery fails you have no sight.

In the iron sight category, the open V was marginally faster than the peep on large, close targets, but the peep was noticeably more accurate, especially as the range increased. If I were using iron sights only I would definitely choose a peep. For me a low-power scope proved to be the fastest by far. Scopes also proved to be the most accurate for both of us. Besides speed, a scope allows one to see and identify the target better. At dusk or in thick brush, it enables the hunter the ability to accurately place a killing shot. A scope also facilitates bullet placement at longer ranges, and most wounded game will initially try to run away rather than attack. Being able to stop a fleeing animal is the best way to avoid having to wrinkle them out of the pucker brush.
My first choice of action type for a dangerous game rifle is still one form or another of the rugged, tried and true Mauser Model 98. That said, I have no problem with Winchester lever actions, good double guns, Springfields, Enfields, Winchester Model 70s or the new Ruger MKII. When Winchester offered the new Model 70 classic in stainless steel I immediately ordered one. I had always thought stainless steel would offer some very real advantages around saltwater and in wet environs.

Caliber choice was the area I had agonized over the longest when I built my .458 Winchester Magnum. I previously had used a .375 H&H and found little to criticize. My favorite bullets back then were the Nosler Partition, and when Nosler dropped the .375 during the 1970s, I was unable to acquire a suitable substitute. The next logical step up, caliber-wise, at that time was the .458 Winchester Magnum. With it I discovered bullet weight and bore size really do matter. I missed the versatility and trajectory of the .375 H&H though.

When Remington introduced its .416 magnum and Ruger the .416 Rigby, there was a slow ground swell of Alaskan guides, especially on Kodiak Island and the Alaskan Peninsula, who traded in their .338s, .375s, .404s, .458s and even one .500 Nitro for the new .416s. Brown bears in these areas can reach 1,500 pounds in body weight, and while they might hide in thick willow and alder patches, they are just as commonly seen on beaches and open grassy flats. The .416s offered both the trajectory of the wonderful .375 H&H yet with a bit more horsepower.

I sent my Winchester action off to Dick Nickel (Ridgetop Sporting Goods, PO Box 306, Eatonville WA 98328) for installation of a Douglas premium stainless .416 Remington barrel. As an experiment I also added a KDF slimline muzzle brake, which reduced recoil of the .416 to that of a .30-06.
Reliability should not be compromised in a rifle for dangerous game. Having heard from numerous sources that the original cast steel Winchester extractor was prone to breaking, I installed Jim Wisner's (P.M. Enterprises, 146 Curtis Hill Rd., Chehalis WA 98532) extra rugged Model 70 extractor. Jim also makes a stronger magazine spring that makes for more positive and reliable feeding, which was also installed.

I still cannot imagine why anyone would want to utilize a wooden stock on a serious using rifle. One look at the world's current assault rifles, target and benchrest rifles leaves little doubt to the practical superiority of synthetic stocks. I have recognized their benefits since acquiring a Stevens .22/410 over and under with a Tennite stock in the 1950s. A decade with Remington Nylon 66s and Uncle Sam's M-16s did nothing to dissuade my opinion. The early Brown precision fiberglass stock that I modified to fit my .458 has been the most rugged and stable stock I have ever used.

I have always been a firm believer in the axiom "beauty is as beauty does," but early glass stocks (and to be honest many modern ones as well) suffered from a terminal case of ugliness. One glowing exception is the Pacific Research Rimrock stock. It is a clean, sophisticated design that compares favorably with the very best custom stocks and comes fully inletted and finished with sharp, attractive moulded checkering. It is lightweight, stable and strong with ropes of fiberglass imbedded in high stress areas. It comes with a standard matte black finish but can also be ordered with your choice of patterned material under the top gel coat layer. I ordered one in a fall foliage camouflage pattern for the .416. The sighting system on my old .458 utilizes a Redfield dovetail type scope mount with a Pilkington lever for fast, easy removal of the little Leupold 21/2x compact scope. The system has worked well over the years, and I have removed and installed it hundreds of times; however, the solid dovetail mounts and bases are beginning to show signs of wear. It does not have wear adjustments like the similar but expensive European mounts. The scope does not return to point of impact as reliably as it once did.

Leupold now makes a detachable set of rings and bases they call QR (quick release), which was ordered for the .416 and was found to be excellent. The stout cylindrical stud projecting below the rings drops easily into the receptacle in the bases. Levers are mounted on the base and simply and securely lock the rings down with only a half turn. On a trip to Africa where the .416 would be used, two previously sighted-in scopes (a Leupold 1.5-5x Vari-X III and a Nikon 2-7x) were transported in my carryon luggage. Both were sighted in prior to leaving, and upon arrival in Zimbabwe both were spot on. I am not fully convinced a dangerous game rifle has to have a fast detachable scope, but the ruggedness and repeatability of the Leupold QR system does offer a definite advantage for the world traveler.

One of the hoped for benefits of the .416 was its versatility by virtue of a relatively flat trajectory. Once the rifle was assembled, I set out to work up a single load, being a firm believer in using a rifle for its intended purpose and using one load for everything. My choice of bullets for the .45-70, .458 and .505 is pretty much limited to roundnose projectiles. With the .416 there were numerous excellent choices.

The selection of bullets today is a far cry from even 10 years ago. Besides the standard production bullets, we have a plethora of premium "carriage trade" bullets. I have used, or seen used, virtually all of them, and most are truly outstanding. For heavy, large game I am a fan of the Barnes X-Bullet. I hear complaints occasionally about them fouling rifle bores, but on a hunting rifle that is a minor complaint, especially in light of their performance. I obtained a batch of the new XLC-coated, 325-grain .416 bullets, and 83 grains of Reloder 15 pushed them along at 2,600 fps in my rifle. Three-shot, 100-yard groups clustered around an inch, and the bore showed no sign of copper fouling.

I finished the rifle just before the spring brown bear season, and after feeding more than 100 rounds through the action to check for function, I decided to take it on the hunt. I was guiding a bow hunter who was hoping for an honest 10-foot boar. We passed up a few smaller ones and couldn't get within range on one monster, so by day 10 he decided to use his rifle. Since he had not planned on using it, he had given no thought to his ammunition. When we opened the case to his .300 Winchester Magnum, we found the only ammunition was 150-grain Nosler Ballistic Tips - a great bullet for long-range shooting of whitetail deer but definitely a poor choice for shooting a 1,000-pound bear at 50 yards, which is exactly what happened the following day.

We were stalking a large boar meandering through chest-high willows. Realizing we could get no closer due to noise, the hunter put his bow aside and unslung the rifle. When the bear stood up to scratch its back on a tree, the hunter fired, and the bear immediately dropped to all fours and took off uphill for thicker brush. All I could see was a rippling wake through the willows as it ran, and I had no idea where or how hard it was hit. There was a small patch of open tundra between the willows and the heavy alders; when the bear reached it, I placed one 325-grain X-Bullet on the point of its shoulder. The boar's front end collapsed, and he slid to a stop at the edge of the alders. The bullet had broken both shoulders and was perfectly mushroomed in the outside leg. Later we discovered the hunter had placed his bullet well centered in the chest, but penetration was only 6 inches.

A month later I accompanied my friend Pat Acciavatti on safari to Zimbabwe and Mozambique. He brought a .338 Winchester Magnum, and I took the new .416. As it turned out Pat liked the .416 so well we both used it for everything. Cape buffalo, kudu, sable, crocodile, leopard, no matter what the game or the range, a single, well-placed X-Bullet was all that was required. The .416 had the energy required to pile up a Cape buffalo at 50 feet, the accuracy to brain shoot a crocodile at 150 yards and the trajectory to hit impala at 250 yards. Pat even used it to snipe a few baboons at over 300 yards for use as leopard bait. In all, 33 animals fell to the .416 in 16 days. Doug Kok, our PH, was impressed with both the rifle and the bullets. In talking to other PHs and local hunters, I discovered the .416 Remington Magnum and Barnes X-Bullets had sterling reputations in Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

The rifle has a few quirks I did not anticipate though. I discovered stainless steel actions do not operate as slick as carbon steel actions. Any moving parts that rub must receive lubrication or else galling can occur. Also the recoil reducing "sissy slots" cause severe and painful muzzle blast.

Any way you look at it, however, the .416 Remington Magnum, the Barnes X-Bullets, the stainless steel Model 70 action, the new Rimrock stock and the Leupold QR scope mounts all offer some benefits over rifles I have used in the past. The .416 combines the versatility and trajectory of the .375 H&H with the energy levels of the .458 Winchester Magnum. It is one great rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by doubledown:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
If money is no object - the swarovski cannot be beat. It is a top quality optic perfect for dangerous game hunting.

My personal shooting style has issues with trijicon post. When things get close, personal and dangerous - I tend to put the post triangle instead of the tip on the target.

The illuminated outer circle with a red dot inside is the perfect shooting view. It is the reason why everyone liked the eotech. Swarovski gives you that plus a top quality optic.

The red dot in a illuminated circle saved me from getting run over by a wildebeest at under 4 yards - just was aiming the red illuminated circle on the black body of the wildebeest.

The swarovski also has unbelievable low light illumination - the scope was the main reason, actually the only reason I was able to kill my lion in Burkina this march.

I like Nikon scopes - the best value for money. If I was just to shoot gun it is my first choice.

Swarovski for my hunting rifle.

I took a friend shooting had never shot before. Sig 400 with eotech hitting the gong at 100 plus yards. He has glasses and poor eye sight. I think would have taken the military months to get a recruit to shoot that well if ever with iron sights. It was all the eotech.

Mike

I see your Swarovski, and raise you a Nightforce NSX 1-4x24 with illuminated reticle, its a circle with a dot in the center. True 1 power both eyes open and the illuminated reticle plus the light gathering capability of the glass make it a favorite of mine.

Plus you can use the scope to hammer nails for a shelter and it will still hold zero.

The Aimpoint T-1/H-1 Micro is another incredibly tough red dot sight with a five year battery life.


Nice comparison Michael, my next Big Bore will be sporting a red dot.

Good info will check it out. Heard very good things about nightforce.

http://www.eurooptic.com/swaro...black-69176-new.aspx

I love this reticle and scope.

Also the swarovski this his illuminated reticle setting for low light. Seems dim and kind of irrelevant for everything but 5 minutes at dusk and dawn.

I shot my lion at dawn - could not see it thru the scope and the day time reticle. Perfect in the low light night reticle. More than anything - the swift a-frames, the rifle, me, the ph - the scope was the deciding factor.

Mike

An interesting comparison Michael. I started off shooting my Mauser 404 with the safari iron sights as fitted to the Oberndorf sporters and using the irons on buffalo.

I then fitted one of the earliest red/green dot type sights to the Mauser in a semi-scout position. I think the Single Point sight I used was the first of this type of sighting system produced.
I shot quite a few deer and goats with the 404 using the Single Point, I chose the green dot as it was supposedly better in poor light than the red dot. The set up worked well for quick acquisition, needing both eyes open to just look straight at the target with the green dot easy to 'see' and place on target. The Single Point was rugged, waterproof and unaffected for use in rain. Same shape and size as a small 1" tubed scope it could be mounted in the lowest Weaver rings.

The downside was the dot system is hard to use when deliberate shooting on target. If you take too long with the shot your eyes 'go off focus' and the dot disappears (well mine did)so difficult to develop and shoot loads. Dot was also a bit big for precise target shooting.

Then replaced the Single Point with a 2x Leupold EER scope using same rings and base. Good for target and game. I stupidly sold the Single Point where I could have set it up as a straight swap over with the scope I had thought about it.

I would rate the Single Point sight the best of the three for fast shooting especially so with the low mounting so the head can be kept down on the stock and also where rain or dust would affect a scope.

I haven't seen or used the modern style of single point sight, they look to sit quite high off the mount base?

My scope set up on the 404 in the mounts set up originally for a Single Point sight



The Single Point sight same as I had on my 404

Good info will check it out. Heard very good things about nightforce.

http://www.eurooptic.com/swaro...black-69176-new.aspx



I love this reticle and scope.

Also the swarovski this his illuminated reticle setting for low light. Seems dim and kind of irrelevant for everything but 5 minutes at dusk and dawn.

I shot my lion at dawn - could not see it thru the scope and the day time reticle. Perfect in the low light night reticle. More than anything - the swift a-frames, the rifle, me, the ph - the scope was the deciding factor.

Mike[/QUOTE]

I love that reticle also, I read somewhere that, that reticle catches the eye faster than any other design for fast up close target acquisition.

I have two Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x42 scopes and love them. One is on a Cooper 257 Weatherby, great glass for a great caliber.

quote:

Originally posted by tanks:

quote:

Originally posted by prof242:
...
The new illuminated reticles from Leupold (circle dot is my choice) do provide faster shooting as proven on some of our hog hunts in Oklahoma and Texas.

Here is a video of EOtechs on a hog hunt from a helicopter in Texas. Shooting starts around 7:30 mark. I am not sure if one would be able to target with scopes as effectively under those circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPbRv20zXw

With a good scope set up that one is use to I don't see any problems.

Remember a lot of the shooters have paid for this and never handled the weapons before.

Small red dot on the left one he's playing with the brightness a bit.

I personally would feel very comfortable using a scope on a shoot like this.

Eagle,

I've been looking for something that works on my Lott. It's got Talley bases and I use a Talley peep for the irons, but wanted an optic that gives sufficient eye relief. That Leupold EER might be an option. Or a red dot or EOTech on the front base.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Eagle,

I've been looking for something that works on my Lott. It's got Talley bases and I use a Talley peep for the irons, but wanted an optic that gives sufficient eye relief. That Leupold EER might be an option. Or a red dot or EOTech on the front base.

lavaca,

The little Leupold has been on my 404 for nearly 30 years now and while these scopes have a relatively narrow field of view they work well enough in the field. I don't know at what distance the scope needs to be from the eye to get a full field of view so mounting it in the normal scope position may not work if you cannot move the scope far enough from the eye to attain a full view.

A long bridge mount may allow the the scope to mount forward enough.

The scope position on my 404 is very good for allowing easy access for charging the magazine, something handy in the field if getting into a situation with DG, not that I've been there or can recall having to recharge quickly when I was shooting some buffalo.

Many of you have mentioned Swarovski and Night Force..... Various reticles, in many scenarios I think these are very good choices, however for me, they are not, being 30mm.... Being 30mm tubes, these scopes are very robust and very tough, perfect for big bore rifles, but for my situation they are way too big and way too heavy, so I shy away from any 30mm tube, regardless of manufacturer. Some really need a bit more eye relief as well, they are close in some cases. Another thing, they have to be mounted a tad bit higher than normal, to clear the bolt.

Life is a bitch, and sometimes, most times, for shooters a compromise of sorts one way or the other........

While I support the use of various Red Dots, or holographic, I personally have a problem with them in the field working in brush, just can't see as good as I would like to.......

Last year I took a M71 50 B&M Alaskan lever gun to the field, first time for me, and buffalo was the objective. A M71 is not conducive to mounting a normal scope, so I was left with a choice of Irons, which I ruled out immediately, a Red Dot of some sort, or a forward mount 2X Leupold EER.

quote:

I've been looking for something that works on my Lott. It's got Talley bases and I use a Talley peep for the irons, but wanted an optic that gives sufficient eye relief. That Leupold EER might be an option.

In my PURGE of Leupold scopes a year or more ago, the only leupolds I kept were 3-4 2X EER's. They are worthy of a big bore, and I have yet to ever bust one, which says a lot for here. But they have one major issue that I just can't get past for a DGR of any sort, and that is the piss poor Field of View at close range. If your target is at 25 yards, you will be dandy. But if your target closes down to 10 yards, you are screwed as all you will see is a patch of hair!

Since I was hunting DG with this rifle, I ended up opting for an Ultra Dot that I had here, that could change to the various reticles, which I liked the larger Circle, with an 8 MOA Dot in the middle. Now something else I have a terrible issue with, this is personal and not across the board with everyone, but I suffer from astigmatism, and when I look at a Red Dot, that less than 4 MOA, in about 1/2 second that DOT turns into a Line and looks exactly like this to me.......... / An 8 MOA dot does not do this, and remains a dot, however a very large DOT.......... 8 MOA covers 8 inches at 100 yards, 4 inches at 50 yards, not conducive to precision shooting, however, fine for close up dangerous game.......

So I set up with this Ultra Dot, Two point mount, not single mount. (Two Leupold QRW Rings)...... Rifle shot great, I was working with it no issues, no problems, no shifts in POI because of my astigmatism ...... Good to go, so I went.........

Shot a good hippo, very close, 12-15 yards, on the dirt, hit him hard, but he still made it to the water before expiring....... OPEN, NO BRUSH, NO ISSUES............... Worked great..........

Buffalo, running in the open at 35 yards, excellent sight picture, good shot through the lungs behind the shoulder (I was aiming for the shoulder), hit hard, kept going, second round a 405 #13 Solid through a 3 inch tree 10 yards in front of me, kept going to hit the buffalo on the run in the guts, 30 yards behind the tree that I did not SEE, and then passed through the buffalo completely.

10-15 yards he slowed to a walk, but was in so much brush we could not see him. He stopped on the other side of the brush, stood there forever with us hunkered down all I could see was the outline of his horns looking at us, waiting, for us to move, 20-25 yards........ After some time, he moved about 10 more yards, and lay down. We repositioned to get a shot, he was only 25 yards away, but laid down in brush, I could not see which end was head and which end was ass???? I had to ask Andrew with the binoculars........ He looked like he was nearly out of it at this point, so we moved around some brush, at that point he stood up, soon as I cleared the brush in front of me I had a clear sight picture of him standing, at that point I poured it to his ass quickly, lever guns are pretty fast....... 4 rounds of 405 Solids kept rocking him backwards until he fell over......

Issue? Problem? Without some magnification I just could not see good enough to work with the Ultra Dot, or any dot or holograph....... This is just a personal issue, and my eyes and does not apply to everyone, but I decided then and there, I cannot utilize these sort of sights..... IN THE FIELD, where I will most likely encounter brush, and for me, it makes the rifle less versatile, no way I could use this on plains game at longer ranges in brush..........

I use Red Dots and Holographics on other rifles, but these rifles are not and will not be used in the field where I might encounter brush......


We are blessed with some of the very best optics on the planet, and each of us has different needs and requirements, as I said in the beginning, there really is no right or wrong answer here, it all comes down to what works the best for you........ And, meets YOUR OBJECTIVES.............

M

quote:

Agree it was an interesting test, but sometimes the exception proves the rule. With irons on a DGR at typical DG distances, I'm just "as good" with irons as with a low-powered scope. And I'm sure I'm not the only AR member who can do that.

quote:

I’ve little doubt that you’re correct on both counts. My only question is, “Is your rifle a custom rifle built for iron use or a factory off the shelf rifle?” I ask this again ‘cause the old farts who can afford the hunt are also the ones who can afford the purpose built custom rifle ...

Yes, you're correct on that.

My .375 is a semi-custom BRNO 602. Way back in the mid-'90s Lon Paul (Tanglewood Custom) cut & re-profiled the pitch of the infamous BRNO "hog-back" stock, added a Packmyr decelerator, and did some other smoothing and honing, such that the end result is a 602 that "fits" me, whether I'm shooting it irons only or with the Weaver 1-3x mounted in low detachable Warnes. The Weaver's so low mounted that the bolt handle just barely clears that bottom of the ocular. (Scope in the pic is a Nikon in different ring mounts used for load development).



My 404Jeff is an AHR 550 DGR, which uses a CZ 550 Safari Magnum action as the starting point, but is otherwise custom after that (i.e., stock, barrel, sights, etc). It "fits" me perfectly for iron sight shooting.



Lasik surgery back in 2006 returned my eyesight to what it was in college, so picking up fixed express sights isn't an issue for me on the 404J or the BRNO, although I've always done more accurate shooting, in terms of "groups," with peep or aperture sights. (For many years I shot competively with M1Gs and M1As).

Both rifles have a red fiber optic front bead that contrasts quite well with the bright white vertical line on the standing leaf of the rear sight. That vertical line leads to the bottom point of the 'V' shape of the leaf. Sighting on the target is like doting an 'i'," so to speak, bringing that RFO bead well down into the 'V'.

I was raised on iron sights shooting a 22LR, 25-35, 30-30 and 250 Savage from age 8...I used my first scopt at age 19 as I recall when Bill Weaver and Dick Shaw who hunted on our ranch gave me one for Christmas. ..

On a DG rifle I like a fixed shallow v on the barrel sighted in one inch high at 100 yards..
I also like a receiver (peep) with a .125 hole and a square gold faced partridge from NECG. I mostly use the Talley peep on the Talley scope bases..

A good fixed barre mounted iron sight holds it zero and is the most dependable of all sights, and like a good dog, a good horse and a good woman, that is the most important factor in a DGR..On a pure DGR this has been my choice for the most part.

I, personally, dislike gimmick sights, red dots, battery operated anything, bulky things that make a gun ugly and stuff prone to breakage..pure irons or small quality scopes with a 20 mm objective that doesn't stick out the front ring more than a inch..

Most of the gimmick stuff, for lack of a better word, interferes with instinctive point shooting at very close quarters IMO, including a scope btw....

I realize that most of todays shoooter grew up in the scope sight generation and I recommend they either take time to learn how to use irons or stay with a low power fixed scope for DG, as they are familair with it and thats worth a bunch.

In scopes I prefer the 2.5X or 3X Leupold, but the 1X weaver worked pretty darn good, I still have one of those somewhere around here..One may need to learn to ignore the front sight that looms in the low power scopes, it can be an imagined problem with some, but a little practice and you will never notice it....

Most of all use the sight of "your" choice, don't let someone else dictate whats best to you.. Practice with it and know how to use it. Its not a cut and dried subject. You have to be the master of your rifle.

My choice of a pure fixed shallow V iron sight on the barrel with a 3/32 Ivory or Red bead is just my choice, it may not suit everyone.

I shoot my double rifles using iron sights, Trijicon RMRs and dangerous game scopes. Makes them totally versatile and fully functional for someone whose eyes have changed.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:

My choice of a pure fixed shallow V iron sight on the barrel with a 3/32 Ivory or Red bead is just my choice, it may not suit everyone.

Ray I agree with you that the shallow V is a good sight for big game at closer ranges especially for moving animals or animal coming in close on the move.

You must be blessed with good eye sight as I was even when first wearing spectacles for long range vision which then did not affect my short range vision. Over the years though this has changed as now the spectacles I wear, while giving me perfect vision at long range, are no good at short and the rear sight on any rifle is blurred.
I can see my sights perfectly clear with no spectacles but then I can't see the target clearly. Can see animals well enough to shoot but just not good vision for stalking and looking for animals and no good on the range without the specs.

As you can see from my photos above my 2X Leupold does protrude from the front ring by a good 1" or more and the green dot sight I used on the 404 also sat in the same low position and was not dependent on batteries etc so I guess I pass the test