Rifle Scopes 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

[Macdaddy]

New to forum. GREAT site. Now on to my issue:

I am having a longrange (out to about 800 yards) hunting rifle built (30 Hart) and will be purchasing glass shortly . Size and weight are a consideration as I have to lug this thing around western Montana. I have however, ordered a McMillan stock in their new Edge technoIogy which saves about a half pound to compensate for a heavier scope. I am seriously considering Premier Reticle , USO or NF in that order of preference based on my current knowledge of each. (S&B would be on the list but it seems that their total elevation adjustments and their reticle selections are limited.) Probably will go with a 3X15 or 17(ish) range but would seriously consider a 3X12 if I found the right one.

My question actually concerns the size of the tube. For my purposes, what does the 30 vs 34mm tube do for, or against, me? I only need about 7 Mil of adjustment to reach my most distant targets. Is there an inherint advantage to going to the 34mm? I know the rings cost more. I am just wondering whether tube diameter needs to be a consideration when making my final decision.

Thanks a bunch.

 

[doc76251]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Larger tubes do two things for you in general.

1. It increases the amount of available travel in the elevation and windage knobs. The erector assy. in a 34 / 35mm tube is the same as in a 30mm but because it's in a bigger housing it can move more.

2. More light through put from the objective due to the larger glass. More importantly there is more "center". In all glass due to the shape there will be aberations / distortions the closer to the edge you go. The bigger lenses means you can stay closer to the center for maximum benifit from the glass and coatings.

Cheers,

Doc

 

[linebaugh500]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Do you really plan on shooting at unwounded big game animals at 800 yards?

How often do you practice shooting at various distances "out to about 800 yards"? What is your success rate when using targets the size of a an animal's vital zone (or any other size for that matter)? What success rate do demand from yourself before you'll shoot at something living?

I love hunting. I love killing animals and then eating them. But the questions you ask tell me you're not the most experienced long-range shooter. I do not believe you can reliabley make clean and ethical kill shots on animals at 800 yards. In fact, very few people can - and then only in perfect conditions.

 

[Scimitar]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Not really what opinion he was asking for. I have no doubts about my ability to hit at 800 yds. I just have game animals
walk in front of my berm so I don't have that option. If I did, I would.

As per his actual question, I don't think the size of the tube should make any difference on the makers you were quoting. I love to have the Premier, US Optics or S&B scopes. Seen all three
here. I'd rather have the new generation IOR 3-18 FFP than the NF
however. Just my opinion though. If you find a deal on a used model of the makers above that fits your needs, I would get whatever was available.

 

[Macdaddy]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Scimitar,

Thanks for the defense of my original question. I will certainly take a look at the IOR now that you mentioned it. I am always open to suggestions.

Now back for a moment to linebaugh500's comment: Just because I want the technical capability to shoot at game size targets at 800 yards doesn't mean that this is my normal or desired practice. I have however been on several hunts where my guide has spotted previously damange/wounded animals at ranges beyond the normal 300-400 yard range that he wanted culled if possible. Given the right circumstances, and with practice, I would probably take the shot.

Again, this is a great forum and I appreciate even the opinons that I don't agree with in their entirety.

P.S.
As an aside, I have been having trouble over the last week getting to the US Optics website using a couple of difference computers and browsers. Anyone else having trouble getting to their site??

 

[linebaugh500]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scimitar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not really what opinion he was asking for.</div></div>

Oh, really? My mistake. From now on I'll be sure to run any potential comments by you before posting them.

BTW, while hunting ethics can't be taught, grammar certainly can - and yours can certainly use a great deal of attention.

 

[scotharr]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

My idea of the perfect hunting scope:
1. Can use the lowest rings so you dont need adj. cheekpiece
2. Weighs less that 20 oz
3. 30mm tube/40mm OBJ, so item 1. can be accomplished
4. Illuminated, with mil/mil adjustments
5. 2-12 or 3-15 magnification

Don't know of any scope that meets these criteria today. I currently use a Nightforce 2.5-10x32 mil/mil, zerostop: it comes close except the small OBJ. It seems that there are a lot of new scopes getting ready to bust onto the scene from March, Leupold, Vortex...I"m hoping someone will come out with my perfect scope!

I don't like the 50mmOBJ 34/35mm tubes as they exceed my weight target, require higher mounts, and don't provide a refined look on a trim hunting rig: hence the name hubblescope.

Perhaps it all comes down to what you will do with this rifle most of the time. If you plan on humping it around through hill and dale, then size and weight are very important. The only benefit I see to those large OBJ is better night time shooting. During the day, a smaller scope is gonna be every bit as bright and clear as a large scope.

Cheers

 

[Graham]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

30mm saves bulk. If you don't need a 34mm tube for the extra elevation travel - and you won't need it with that caliber at 800 yards - then skip the fat scope.

Slimmer knobs save bulk. If you won't be cranking knobs repeatedly under pressure you don't need zero stop or fancy clicks, designs or sizes.

For hunting, SFP is fine. That will save you money over a FFP scope and a feature that you don't need.

If scope length and objective diameter are important considerations compare the overall scope dimesions.

You said that you are looking at the 3-12/15/17 range of magnification.

All that should lead you to favor a basic NF 3.5-15x50. Good value. Of course, if you just happen to like a different scope all the above reasoning goes out the window.

 

[Macdaddy]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Scooter-PIE,

I agree with everything you said and in fact have SERIOUSLY looked at the NF 2.5X10x32 which is actually coming out in a few weeks with a ballistic reticle which I love for hunting. My only issue with the NF is the small objective as you pointed out. My fall-back position was the 1.8X10 USO with either a 37 or 44mm objective. Still not out of the question but I may opt for a little more power but haven't decided for sure yet. In some field tests (literally - looking out across pastures behind my home) I have looked at cow pies at 600 plus yards with a 10X Nikon scope and found the power to be quite acceptable and that is with "average" quality glass. More power of course would be better but I'm not sure how much more I would need for my purposes.

Just curious as to whether you have actually noticed the 32mm objective causing you some issues in low-light or other situations that would cause you (me) to avoid that small of an objective given the option to go larger.

Again, appreciate everyone's input.

 

[gyr]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

I would not rule out the S&B just based on elevation issues because they offer ( the tactical PMII) at least 13 mils of elevation which are more than enough provided you use a 20 MOA base.

They are heavy though, just as Nightforce NXS (3-15 and bigger) and US Optics are.

I think you should first decide between a purely hunting scope or a tactical style scope; the latter will normally come with external or easier to reach knobs so playing with adjustments ( which you ´ll need for 800yds) will be better than in a classic hunting scope.

I would choose the best glass quality you can afford and proceed from there.

If you used a non ranging reticle (i.e. 4A, plex) it does not matter much to use a second or first focal plane. But if you plan on using a reticle that allows you to holdover or make wind corrections ( i.e. mil dot based reticles) I strongly recommend a first focal plane since the size, subtension of the reticle will remain the same through the power range of the scope.

I would personally choose a 50mm objective over a 40 mm class.- More possibilities in low light conditions, and wider field of view. I do not think you will see a lot of difference in height mounting and besides you can use a higher cheek rest area.

When comparing a 30 mm hunting scope weight with one of the bigger tacticals ( NXS; USoptics, SB) you are playing with the weight of a can of coke, or a handful of cartridges. Not much but of course it makes a difference.

I do not think you need more than 15 por 16 power.

 

[gyr]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

And of course if you used one of the so called ranging reticles, make sure the adjustments are coincident with the reticle marks ( mil/mil, MOA/MOA).

 

[scotharr]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Macdaddy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scooter-PIE,

I agree with everything you said and in fact have SERIOUSLY looked at the NF 2.5X10x32 which is actually coming out in a few weeks with a ballistic reticle which I love for hunting. My only issue with the NF is the small objective as you pointed out. My fall-back position was the 1.8X10 USO with either a 37 or 44mm objective. Still not out of the question but I may opt for a little more power but haven't decided for sure yet. In some field tests (literally - looking out across pastures behind my home) I have looked at cow pies at 600 plus yards with a 10X Nikon scope and found the power to be quite acceptable and that is with "average" quality glass. More power of course would be better but I'm not sure how much more I would need for my purposes.

Just curious as to whether you have actually noticed the 32mm objective causing you some issues in low-light or other situations that would cause you (me) to avoid that small of an objective given the option to go larger.

Again, appreciate everyone's input. </div></div>

The only disadvantage I see with the 32mm objective is the smaller exit pupil. This means you have a little less wiggle room when taking a sight picture: very minor issue. I think a 40mm objective is probably the perfect size. Take a serious look at the new USO 1.8-10x37 scope. That is getting pretty darned close to perfect...except it is a little heavier than I like and a bit more expensive than it needs to be. I'm gonna wait and see what comes out in the next 6-12 months...got a feeling some big improvements are on the way(March & Vortex are generating lots of buzz). I have an empty spot on one rifle: waiting for the "perfect scope."

In the meantime, I'll use a NF 2.5-10x24.

Oh....and Nikon makes great glass...not average, with great pricing. If they only had a mil/mil scope

 

[Scimitar]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

MC Daddy, ur welcome. (More of my bad grammer) Someone posted about 30mm saving bulk which is a large plus in my book on a hunting rig. Lot's of good options.

 

[psinclair]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Macdaddy,

please be aware that if you shoot a game animal previously wounded you are obligated to put your tag on it.

FYI, i own 5 S&B PMIIs and they all adjust as far as they claim.

single turns to 13 mils. 26 mils of elevation on both of my 5-25s. 22 mils on both 3-12s.

mildot reticles are the industry standard in one form or another and are available on most PMIIs.

 

[ALMAORFE]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: linebaugh500</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you really plan on shooting at unwounded big game animals at 800 yards?

How often do you practice shooting at various distances "out to about 800 yards"? What is your success rate when using targets the size of a an animal's vital zone (or any other size for that matter)? What success rate do demand from yourself before you'll shoot at something living?

I love hunting. I love killing animals and then eating them. But the questions you ask tell me you're not the most experienced long-range shooter. I do not believe you can reliabley make clean and ethical kill shots on animals at 800 yards. In fact, very few people can - and then only in perfect conditions. </div></div>

LOL guys like this always make me laugh. I'm sure your a big proponent of kentucky windage as well. Just because you can't shoot doesn't mean everyone else can not and you would have posted a comment like that had the most accomplished shooter in the world mentioned somtheing about "long range" hunting. People have no problem with shooting human beings at extreme range but god forbid you shoot an animal at more than 200 yards. If the shooter is capable then it is not unethical at all. If whatever kind of hunting or shooting doesn't agree with you thats fine you have a right to feel that way and the OP has a right to shoot an animal at however far he feels like but it does't give you a right to belittle him or question his expirience. the whole long range hunting isn't ethical argument is a justification for all the hunters who can't shoot for shit.

 

[montyb]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

with no disrespect to the OP, if he was capable of a good first round hit on an animal at 800 yards, he would know the answer to his question. if he practiced to 800, he would know what he needs out of his optics to make good hits at that range. thus the reality check.

but his question is valid, and he is on the right track. i take the OP as looking for the right scope to "grow into" and work with to achieve the necessary capability, and i think the advise here is good. i'd not overlook a 1" scope for a hunting rig. i do hunt with a 30mm scope, but it is on a mid weight rifle of 8# or 9# so. my lightweight hunters wear 1" glass by choice, but the NF 2.5-10x32 may earn a place on one.

you, however, are probably gonna get a reality check of your own with posts like that one on this board. the OP is getting good advise along with the standard and warranted speech on ethics, so sit through it and learn, or add something, but it's not good to rile a bunch with as much LR and hunting experience as these guys.

 

[scotharr]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ALMAORFE</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: linebaugh500</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you really plan on shooting at unwounded big game animals at 800 yards?

How often do you practice shooting at various distances "out to about 800 yards"? What is your success rate when using targets the size of a an animal's vital zone (or any other size for that matter)? What success rate do demand from yourself before you'll shoot at something living?

I love hunting. I love killing animals and then eating them. But the questions you ask tell me you're not the most experienced long-range shooter. I do not believe you can reliabley make clean and ethical kill shots on animals at 800 yards. In fact, very few people can - and then only in perfect conditions. </div></div>

LOL guys like this always make me laugh. I'm sure your a big proponent of kentucky windage as well. Just because you can't shoot doesn't mean everyone else can not and you would have posted a comment like that had the most accomplished shooter in the world mentioned somtheing about "long range" hunting. People have no problem with shooting human beings at extreme range but god forbid you shoot an animal at more than 200 yards. If the shooter is capable then it is not unethical at all. If whatever kind of hunting or shooting doesn't agree with you thats fine you have a right to feel that way and the OP has a right to shoot an animal at however far he feels like but it does't give you a right to belittle him or question his expirience. the whole long range hunting isn't ethical argument is a justification for all the hunters who can't shoot for shit. </div></div>
Hmmm, let's see what "this guy" might have been thinking:

1. At 800 yards, the velocity of the bullet has greatly diminished. This makes the expansion/penetration capabilities of every bullet much reduced, to the point most bullets will not expand at all. Without the velocity for proper expansion & penetration, killing power is greatly reduced.
2. At 800 yards, the effect of elevation, temp, humidity, and wind become extreme. Unless you are an expert at reading the wind, you might have some problems. Even if you are an expert, moderate winds make the shot difficult at best.
3. At 800 yards, what happens if you wound the animal and have to track it? Will you even be able to find the place you originally shot the animal....after walking for 15-20 minutes through hill and dale?
4. "Ethical hunting" is showing respect for the animal you are hunting and showing restraint and only shooting when you have a high probability of KILLING it.
5. You are shooting in field conditions. You won't have perfect conditions when an animal finally shows up. More than likely, you will be improvising a shooting position after humping up a hill to get a look.

I'm glad they teach ethical hunting as it promotes the long-term interests of our sport. 95% of the people in this country do NOT hunt and it is in our best interests as hunters to promote ethical hunting, so we can maintain the privilege to do so. So, maybe "guys like this" make you laugh, but it is you who are going to ruin things for the rest of us by promoting irresponsible activities.

PS. I just went to a tactical rifle competition this weekend and watched the majority of shooters struggle to hit 5 MOA targets from a sitting position at 200 yards. Yes, they had all the bling, Premier scopes, McM stocks, etc. 800+ yards for hunting....ya right.

 

[CoCaDoRi]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 800+ yards for hunting....ya right.
</div></div>

Umm yeah... actually. Even further. Absolutely fucking amazing what you can do with good equipment, routine practice and a dedication to a regiment that offers exceptional skill development.

To the Original Poster. 30 or 34 mm doesn't really make a huge difference. Go with the optics that have the other options you are looking for before your worry about 30 or 34 mm.

 

[psinclair]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Weda,+1

i would write more but im not in the arguing mood.

 

[Tylermtech]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

IMO, if its just a hunting rifle, one that I carry a lot and shoot at normal hunting ranges (up to 350 yards) I prefere a 1 inch tube with some sort of reticle that has hold over potential. I once hunted with a frinds remington that had a MK 4 with target knobs and after I shot my deer, I had to drag it out, I slung the rifle over my back and the scope knobs poked me for the 2 hours I had to carry it.


Everyone may not agree, but I feel that there is a good place for 1 inch tubes, and hunting rifles is one of them. Not to say that long range rigs don't need bigger scopes, but most hunting rifles arent long range rigs.

Tyler

 

[ALMAORFE]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-style: italic">[/quote]Hmmm, let's see what "this guy" might have been thinking:

1. At 800 yards, the velocity of the bullet has greatly diminished. This makes the expansion/penetration capabilities of every bullet much reduced, to the point most bullets will not expand at all. Without the velocity for proper expansion & penetration, killing power is greatly reduced.
2. At 800 yards, the effect of elevation, temp, humidity, and wind become extreme. Unless you are an expert at reading the wind, you might have some problems. Even if you are an expert, moderate winds make the shot difficult at best.
3. At 800 yards, what happens if you wound the animal and have to track it? Will you even be able to find the place you originally shot the animal....after walking for 15-20 minutes through hill and dale?
4. "Ethical hunting" is showing respect for the animal you are hunting and showing restraint and only shooting when you have a high probability of KILLING it.
5. You are shooting in field conditions. You won't have perfect conditions when an animal finally shows up. More than likely, you will be improvising a shooting position after humping up a hill to get a look.

I'm glad they teach ethical hunting as it promotes the long-term interests of our sport. 95% of the people in this country do NOT hunt and it is in our best interests as hunters to promote ethical hunting, so we can maintain the privilege to do so. So, maybe "guys like this" make you laugh, but it is you who are going to ruin things for the rest of us by promoting irresponsible activities.

PS. I just went to a tactical rifle competition this weekend and watched the majority of shooters struggle to hit 5 MOA targets from a sitting position at 200 yards. Yes, they had all the bling, Premier scopes, McM stocks, etc. 800+ yards for hunting....ya right. [/quote]</span></span>

1.At 800 yards there is a plethora of cartridge and bullet combinations that can the job done, and a lot that would not be considered extreme but common factory loaded ammo in popular cartridges. That argument is moot.

2. Elevation, temp and humidity can be adjusted for. We all deal with wind as wind was around long before shooting anything was invented, there are a lot of people who can make very, very long hits on game in field conditions. You need lots of practice and experience yes, but its not uncommon and most folks would be able to attain that level of ability.

3. Animals are wounded at short distances as well, you would track it the same way. 15 min through a hill and dale? I don't find that difficult or challenging at all. If you can't find your way around the bush thats a different problem all together.

4. Yes I agree one should hunt ethically and only shoot if you have a high probability of killing it. For a lot of folks 800 yards is within their capability. And I never said anything about going around and wounding animals.

5. Who said anything about shooting game from a bench indoors? Field conditions are a constant, hell I've never shot a rifle indoors as their are no indoor ranges or any ranges here longer than 50 yards that i know of.

Long range hunting is not unethical and if the OP wants to learn it fellow hunters should help him get started in the right direction not attack him.
All the long range hunters I know I have great respect for as they have taken the time to learn to shoot their equipment to the best of their abilities. Typical big game hunters (and I'm generalizing as people from many shooting disciplines hunt) are generally poor marksmen who never took the time to learn to shoot well. I still think the argument for not shooting at game at long distance is ussually spouted as a justification for poor marksmenship.

 

[linebaugh500]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

ALMAORFE, you're simply full of shit. Rotten, stinking shit.

Instead of giving us the usual newb, know-it-all truckload of empty, meaningless, bullshit rehotoric here, why don't you tell us the last time you made a clean kill on a big game animal at 800 yards? How about NEVER! OK, so when was the last time someone you knew personally did so? Again, the answer is NEVER.

So why don't you back away from the keyboard and breath the air of the REAL WORLD for a few minutes? For god's sake try to filter the shit you spew for practical validity!

More and more I come to these forums, and more and more I find BULLSHIT. Pure, stinking bullshit. Too many write about what they think they know but HAVE NEVER DONE. Where's the fucking modesty? And that goes for you others speaking the praises of the 800+ yard big game shot. Have you ever actually done it? I didn't think so, so why don't you put a damn lid on it?

I'm taking a break for a while. Too much bullshit here. Folks, if you've never done it, be a better person and for once, and SHUT YOUR F*CKING PIE HOLE about it.

 

[deersniper]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Some people here must not be able to shoot at all. I haven't been shooting for that long, and I have been able to drop a deer at 660 with a 20" 308, and a groundhog at 315 with the same gun. Also another deer at 475. Is that good enough for you? I am sure someone with more skill and more gun can shoot get first round hits on vitals at 800+. There is someone here with a video of a first round hit on a deer at 1029 with a .338.

linebaugh500 you should stfu if you don't know what you are talking about.

-dan

Edit: A 30mm tube will work fine. I would use a 3.5-15x50 or 2.5-10x32 Nightforce. I have both, the 3.5 is a little brighter than the 2.5, but is also heavier.

 

[ALMAORFE]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: linebaugh500</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ALMAORFE, you're simply full of shit. Rotten, stinking shit.

Instead of giving us the usual newb, know-it-all truckload of empty, meaningless, bullshit rehotoric here, why don't you tell us the last time you made a clean kill on a big game animal at 800 yards? How about NEVER! OK, so when was the last time someone you knew personally did so? Again, the answer is NEVER.

So why don't you back away from the keyboard and breath the air of the REAL WORLD for a few minutes? For god's sake try to filter the shit you spew for practical validity!

More and more I come to these forums, and more and more I find BULLSHIT. Pure, stinking bullshit. Too many write about what they think they know but HAVE NEVER DONE. Where's the fucking modesty? And that goes for you others speaking the praises of the 800+ yard big game shot. Have you ever actually done it? I didn't think so, so why don't you put a damn lid on it?

I'm taking a break for a while. Too much bullshit here. Folks, if you've never done it, be a better person and for once, and SHUT YOUR F*CKING PIE HOLE about it. </div></div>

Instead of any factual data you simply reverted to sophomoric swearing. You prove my point sir. That fact that you don't believe it can be done (because it most definatly can and is done all the time) says everything about your ability.

I mostly varmint hunt, coyotes as we have alot of them here. They are call shy unless you get at least 40mi from the city. That makes for a lot of 600+ shots out in the open desert.

To the OP, I apologize for your thread getting sidetracked.

 

[our gang]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

LB, you are wasting your time on the subject of ethical hunting. It is as dead as Teddy R. We are overrun with people who think that shooting live big game at ranges in excess of 400 yards is "cool" and macho and impressive. They have all the technical toys and rarely venture more than 50 feet from their pickup or ATV. They don't know how to stalk, read wind, use terrain or camo and don't really care about the animals.
99% could not hit a 6" plate at 400 yards under real field conditions but who cares? This year while grouse hunting my hunting bud and I found 12 Antelope dead and left along forest service roads. All but one had been gutshot, the 12th was missing one front leg and bled out.
Anyone who can "hunt" can kill anything in the lower 48 with a out of the box 30-06 and a 1" 3-9 variable. But that's not "cool" and won't impress the "in crowd" down at the gunshop. Long distance shooting is fun on paper and gongs but is needless and an abuse of noble animals when it comes to hunting. As far as I am concerned the more back country that is put into "Wilderness" status the better as the guy with the 14 pound 1000 yard wannabe rig won't walk in and doesn't know one end of a horse from the other. Open season on ATVs here!

 

[CoCaDoRi]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Hey Linebaugh,

You a betting man? You're a hypocrite as well. Running your mouth spewing what? You came into this thread with what motivation? The poster had a legitimate question. He seems to be on the right track. I doubt he'll head out tomorrow and start throwing lead at 800+ yards on game animals.

Mr. Humble,

errr... easy to get a 14 lb rig anywhere in the wilderness. Been there done that, doing it again as well...

I'll bet those wounded speedgoats you found had those wounds inflicted by guys that you could find at walmart and kmart. I doubt if any were a result of anyone who has a commitment to hone skills hooting at distance.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone who can "hunt" can kill anything in the lower 48 with a out of the box 30-06 and a 1" 3-9 variable</div></div>
I'll ask you this then. Why do you have so many rifles in different calibers?

I'll say the same thing to you. The OP had a legitimate question. Either chime in and post an answer or move on.


To the OP,

I started with the NXS series a while back. I used the R2 ret. for years and was repeatable to way out there.
With the R1 things got even easier.

I however, have graduated back to "more clicks" and the .1 mrad system.

 

[our gang]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Weda. glad to see you're still heading up the game wounders inc. Stay in Kalorado, we don't want you or your ilk back in WY.

For the OP, it all depends how much money you have to spend. If it's a lot, but a Schmidt & Bender, otherwise almost anything suggested here will work. If you plan to shoot at animals at 800 yards, please stay out of Wyoming. We have enough native idiots without importing more.

 

[ALMAORFE]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

With respect Mr. Humble you are purly speculating. And yes I agree that most hunters couldn't hit 6" plate at 400, I'm reffering to the hunters and marksmen who actually know how to shoot. I'll agree to disagree. Nice pic by the way.

OP, LL started a thread in this forum about the new NF 2.5-10x 32mm you may want to check that one out.

 

[scotharr]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mr. Humble</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... They don't know how to stalk, read wind, use terrain or camo and don't really care about the animals.

</div></div>

I want to go hunting with this guy! So much to learn and so few who can teach. Seriously, nice post Mr. Humble.

 

[CoCaDoRi]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Mr. bumble

sorry to disappoint. I'll be in Medicine Bow and Cody this year throwing lead haphazardly be sure to duck, you know, just in case.

Scooter, many more places like that in Wyo... not hard to find, he got lucky. Surprized that photo still has pixels left...he's posted it couple 1000 times. All he's got.

MacDaddy,

S&B is good stuff I run a few myself. Not really necessary. The R1, R2 reticle works easier and quicker for hunting situations. 1/2 the cost as well. Lupy is good but you'll notice the inferiority at low light. Nikon 4-16 has a purpose as well. Ran a few of them on speed goat hunts out to 600+.

For price and function tough to beat the NXS line.

 

[ToddM]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Without getting into the ethical hunting issue. All those scopes are going to be great, and any descent 30mm scope should give you more than enough elevation to 800 especially if you use a 20moa mount. I do agree about not going to a 50mm objective, unless you have a tactical stock with an adjustable cheek rest, you can't get any kind of cheek weld even with the lowest rings, most times even a stock pack can't add enough to get a solid rest on a 50mm obj. Adding that stuff adds more weight. Honestly a really good piece of glass in the 32-40mm range is fine for 99% of hunting light conditions, saves weight, money, and bulk. I've had a leupold VX-III 2.5-8x36 for years on my main hunting rig, never had an instance in 20 years of hunting that it didn't allow enough light or magnification to make the required shot.

I myself favor more simple hunting rigs, I can pack a 17lb rifle all day at elevation but why if I don't have to, so I wouldn't put any of those scopes on a hunting rifle, but that's me, I'd go for something more simple with less weight. I also like low profile knobs on a hunting rig, exposed tactical knobs is fine, but something more like the M1 knobs, having 3 knobs sticking out 1" from the scope hunting sucks.

The 4-14x44 zeiss conquest is 17oz with low target knobs and mildot. The Mark 4 leupolds are 15-20oz and can be done in whatever reticule/knob options you like. Burris 30mm tactical 4-14x42 has a balistic mildot, at 18oz. Are they as good as the USO, NF, Premier? probably not, but I'd be willing to bet all of them would serve your purpose and take all the abuse you'd dish out to them for half the cost and half the weight.

The premier is a great scope but it's 40oz, NF is around 30oz, the US optics about 38oz. I know those scopes are the tops for optics and durability, but there are a lot of great scopes with 30mm tubes good adjustment and that are reasonably durable for much less money and half the weight.

As for the light gathering issue, I think US optics has stated several times there is no advantage in light transmission between their 30/34mm versions of their scopes. As to the center of the glass being more clear....it's true but seriously folks most people are not using more than the center 50% of the lens anyway on either scope the difference in center area sweet spot between 30mm and 34mm glass is tiny, simply something those that want to justify the purchase use. If you were routinely using the outer 10% of the field of view, maybe you could make a case for it...maybe. Since almost no part of the reticule ends up in that area of the glass it's not an issue. The additional elevation adjustment is the only advantage and it comes with a weight penalty.

 

[Macdaddy]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

All,

This has been very enlightening on several fronts and I really do appreciate the responses. All were of value to me and some down-right entertaining to boot.

I think I started off on the wrong foot however throwing the words "hunting" and "800 yards" together in the same paragraph. My mistake - as my actual intent is to have a "hunting" rifle that I also want to learn to shoot at the range at extreme distances. Hunting rifle first, bench rifle distant second. I've always wanted to be able to bust a water jug at 800-1000 yards. No apologies, I think that would be a HOOT. ( I also wanted to bare foot ski, but I haven't achieved that yet either.)

The point was made early on about slob hunters who drop a lot of $$$ and start shooting at absurd distances at game without knowledge or experience. A little off tangent from the original issue but I kind of led myself into that one. Again, sorry that.

In fact, I am taking a longrange shooting class from Bob Hart in the near future and then will practice on occassion at the Quantico Marine base 1000 yard course where I hear they have a fellow or two that can provide some experienced instruction to me.

Someone astutely noted earlier on in this thread that perhaps I was putting together the equipment with the follow on of learning to shoot at long distances. That is precisely my intent. I would rather spend major dollars once and then grow into that equipment than have to work my way up with incrementally better rifles and optics which over the long run would cost me signficantly more than doing it right the first time.

In regard to hunting ethics, I absolutely agree with the opinions expressed here. Don't take a shot that you can't absolutely be sure will be a good one. If in doubt, back out.

I can tell you over the many decades of hunting that I have had the privelege to enjoy, I have taken a few shots that I regretted taking. I don't however regret any of the shots that I decided NOT to take. Some of us do get a little wiser as we get older.

The question of what is the maximum range a hunter should take is apparently a personal decision which should be a factor of equipment, environment and capability. To that point, this thread has been clear to show that this is a very debatable and personal choice. I know that I won't be shooting game at those extreme ranges but that is only the right answer for me and not necessarily anyone else.

Again, every input has provided some "value added" to answering my original question and many have given me things to consider and other options that I otherwise wouldn't have.

And finally a note for Mr. Humble:

I promise I won't be shooting at any game in Wyoming at 800 yards. In fact, having a son who just graduated from the University of Wyoming this past spring, I have had the occassion to come to Wyoming on several occassions and don't know how anyone could shoot at ANYTHING in Wyoming at that range. On a calm day the wind is blowing about 20 MPH. On a breezy day, it more like 30-40 MPH plus. We don't even want to talk about a "windy" day in Wyoming. Came to the conclusion early on that the only thing between Laramie, WY and the arctic circle is
perhaps a couple of strands of barbwire. Having said all that, we fell in love with the state. GO - POKES.

Thanks to all.

 

[linebaugh500]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Weda'</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey Linebaugh,

You a betting man? You're a hypocrite as well.</div></div>
Do you even know what the term <span style="font-style: italic">hypocrite</span> means, moron? It means to say one thing and do another (or hold others to one set of standards and hold yourself to another, etc.). Why don't you take a moment to point out where I did so? Because you <span style="font-style: italic">can't</span>. Jesus, can you at least try to keep your <span style="font-style: italic">insults</span> accurate? And what the hell did you mean by the betting comment? You didn't even finish making that into any kind of meaningful statement.

Also, for those of you belittling my shooting ability (I must suck because I wouldn't take the 800 yard big game shot), I <span style="font-style: italic">never said</span> I was an accomplished long-range shooter! Jesus, this is like dealing with a bunch of goddamn middle-schoolers. Maybe you guys should rebudget some of the time you set aside each evening to watch the movie Sniper and use it instead to sharpen your debating skills.

But know this - whatever my current skill level, <span style="font-style: italic">I am</span> spending the time and money to attend Gunsite's Extreme Long Range course on April 20th, 21st and 22nd. Which of you hunter-sniper types are putting as much effort into <span style="font-style: italic">your</span> training?

Also, there's a particularly laughable trend I'm seeing here that I would like to address - that hunting ethics equals poor marksmanship. That makes about as much sense as...well...as some of the other things I've read in this thread. Seems to me that "logic" is <span style="font-style: italic">just a bit</span> fuzzy as a practiced marksman, through his experiences, developes an awareness of his abilities and therefore comes to <span style="font-weight: bold">KNOW HIS LIMITATIONS</span> (pay attention now as I know this stuff is <span style="font-style: italic">very</span> foreign to some of you - self-awareness and honest recognition of one's limitations). No matter what some of you would <span style="font-style: italic">like</span> to think, we <span style="font-style: italic">all</span> have limitaions - lesser shooters just don't know what they are and <span style="font-style: italic">lesser people</span> simply don't admit to them. Ethical hunting means limiting our shots (on healthy animals) to our maximum practical range. Referring to my initial post, it's quite funny that not even one of you sniper-hunters has yet said what your tested max hunting range is...

But then again, what do I know? <span style="font-weight: bold">"deersniper"</span> (LOL!!!) says the following:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deersniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is someone here with a video of a first round hit on a deer at 1029 with a .338.</div></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold">YOUTUBE</span>!!! Well hell, if it's done right there <span style="font-weight: bold">ON THE INTERNET</span> then it's <span style="font-style: italic">gotta</span> be good to go (especially if <span style="font-style: italic">deersniper</span> says so)!!!

It's sad that the hide has been reduced to guys citing YouTube videos as their source of information and their expertise. People should be backing up their vehemently-argued views with real-world experiences alone. But then again, how can any of you, since <span style="font-weight: bold">NONE OF YOU HAVE EVER MADE A CLEAN KILL ON A BIG GAME ANIMAL AT 800 YARDS</span>. But you'll still be quick to make arguments like the following...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ALMAORFE</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With respect Mr. Humble you are purly speculating. And yes I agree that most hunters couldn't hit 6" plate at 400, I'm reffering to the hunters and marksmen who actually know how to shoot.</div></div>
So if a hunter can't hit an animal's vital zone <span style="font-style: italic">reliably</span> under field conditions <span style="font-weight: bold">at 800 yards</span> then he <span style="font-weight: bold">doesn't "actually know how to shoot"</span>? That's a curiously high standard since (again) YOU HAVE NEVER DONE SO YOURSELF.

So just answer me this - how many times to I have to watch Mark Wallberg in the movie Shooter to become as sniperrific as you tools?

 

[nksmfamjp]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

. . .and again I ask. . .WHERE'S THE MODERATTION!!!

To throw fuel on the fire. All of the wounded and lost deer I have seen were shot with a bow under 25 yards.

 

[CoCaDoRi]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Linebaugh get a clue... you've a lot to learn.

 

[hrdrok]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Although newer scopes are becoming very popular in certain arenas, the free world for the most part uses Leupold. The key is learning to use what ever you choose and you decide what is "ethical".

 

[ALMAORFE]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

Mr. Linebaugh, I understand your point sir and I agree there is ethics and they should be practiced. I apologize for insinuateing you have poor shooting ability as I don't know you and it was wrong of me to do so.

As for the LR hunting thing, If a shooter is confident and has the ability for the 800 yard shot I don't believe that to be unethical, in fact since at that range the animal doesn't have a clue it's being stalked it's not startled or ready to bolt they can be taken without them knowing anything happened.

In regards to marksmenship ability I only mean that most hunters could alot more to improve their ability (and as I said before I'm generalizing). 800 yard shots on non static targets is exceptional and I don't consider it a standard but a goal one could reach. I am just saying most hunters limit themselves. And it was said earlier that hunters also practice feildcraft etc. and I agree wholeheartedly that generally hunters have very good feildcraft and know the outdoors better than most. Just as a pure benchrest shooter can shoot very well if you put him in an improvised shooting position in the feild after a long hump its a different story. Again as I've said I am generalizing as alot of hunters also shoot competitions and alot of comp shooters also hunt not to metion the practical shooters and tactical crowds. I just think we should all regardless of background should strive to do the best we can and is possible.

 

[CoCaDoRi]

Re: 34mm vs 30 mm tube for hunting rifle

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in fact since at that range the animal doesn't have a clue it's being stalked it's not startled or ready to bolt they can be taken without them knowing anything happened.</div></div>

prezactly, one of the positives.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again as I've said I am generalizing as alot of hunters also shoot competitions and alot of comp shooters also hunt not to metion the practical shooters and tactical crowds. I just think we should all regardless of background should strive to do the best we can and is possible.</div></div>

Another stellar point.

Keep it up, linebaugh will eventually figure it out after he's here a while.