Rifle Scopes Desired features of a hunting scope vs. a sniper's scope...

[Amerigo]

I've never been hunting. I'm also not a sniper, but I do enjoy practical long-range shooting.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems like hunters more commonly use a SFP reticle with a more simplified cross-hairs design, whereas a sniper (or someone doing practical long-range shooting) prefers a FFP and a more complex reticle that can provide a lot of information.

It seems to me like a sniper is engaging moving targets at various unknown distances, and a hunter is doing the same thing. So why wouldn't hunters want the same kind of scope that a sniper uses?

 

[CASDB]

I hunt and shoot with a FFP. SFP, from my understanding, is more of a benchrest thing. However, FFP scopes tend to cost a little more than SFP (S&B, NF etc. notwithstanding) so budgetary constraints may play a part.

 

[Amerigo]

Due to my years of schooling and line of work, I've used the metric system for a long time. The whole SFP, MOA thing just seems completely counterintuitive for me, and seems like it puts more constraints on usability (and requires more complex math). I just don't see why anyone would use them.

Now if it's only a budget thing - it costs less to make these kinds of scopes, that makes sense.

 

[c1steve]

Most hunting is done with the shot taking place within 200 yards. For that, a simple reticle that is non confusing works best, as the shot may be required with little or no time to plan. Most persons sight the scope in with a 100-200 yard zero, therefore holdover is rarely needed.

In wide open country, such as your Utah, you might take a longer shot in the 300-500 yard range. For this more of a tactical/BR scope would be useful.

 

[RTH1800]

SPF has it's place. The only real advantage of FFP is the ability to range at all powers. And that is not really valid unless the scope has been verified correct as to true power and reticule size, not just reading what is advertised. Other than comps, most use LRF and SPF will work fine. I like FFP and do range in the field with it in my S&B varmint rigs. It is also nice for ranging at lower powers for night shooting, or low light shooting when top magnification will not work. Beyond that, do not worry about FFP IMO. Just get that which suits you.

 

[Hootsmon]

Hunters are after one-shot kills. Wounding an animal is undesirable. Maximum range is thus limited to where the hunter can clearly identify the animal and make a clean kill with a fair degree of certainty. Bullet drop and wind allowance will be a few inches at most and easily compensated with holdover and Kentucky windage.

In warfare, a wounding shot is as good as a kill if it takes the combatant out of action. Even a miss can be effective if it forces the combatant to take cover instead of shooting your buddies. So, maximum range for a sniper is magnitudes greater than that of the average hunter. At longer range, the ability to determine range becomes paramount and the complex reticles (mil dots and other graduated designs) come into their own. FFP is necessary to keep the graduations the same size, relative to the target. If a simple crosshair is used, most people prefer 2nd FP to keep the reticle the same size relative to the viewer. A huge, thick crosshair at max magnification (presumably, when you're after the greatest precision) kinda sux.

 

[KTDLS7]

Due to my years of schooling and line of work, I've used the metric system for a long time. The whole SFP, MOA thing just seems completely counterintuitive for me, and seems like it puts more constraints on usability (and requires more complex math). I just don't see why anyone would use them.

Now if it's only a budget thing - it costs less to make these kinds of scopes, that makes sense.

What does "metric" have to do with the OP's question? Your statement implies Mil is "metric" - it's not.

Let the discussion begin . . . again . . .

 

[hlee]

While all of the above is surely accurate, the largest factor in what hunters choose is what is available at their local Walmart/Big5/Bass Pro/etc. The sad truth is that most hunters are ok shooters- at best. You [whoever you are that takes offense at that last statement] are not the target of my last statement. But, MOST hunters don't fire more than a handful of shots from their rifle all year, and many of those are at game. "Minute of pie-plate" is acceptable precision when the 10 ring [read kill zone] is at least 9" in diameter. I've heard my dad say at least once (paraphrasing) "I'm not a very good target shooter but I can kill a deer." That sentiment pervades the community. When I was a kid, my dad would drop his rifle off at McBrides Guns in Austin to have them sight it in before deer season. We hunted a 4 deer county and I never remember him ever having a tag left at the end of the season, or missing. Remington 700 in 270 win, Leupold 3-9x40 vari-x II, Remington core-lokt ammunition. Except for the landowner (who worked with my dad, and was VERY hand with a firearm) everyone else at "deer camp" were indifferent shots as well.

Hunters are not shooters. Learning how to shoot [I mean really learning how to shoot] is a sport in and of itself and takes too much time from what hunters really like to do- sitting around a camp fire telling stories about "ol' mossy horn," or "fence jumper," or whatever is the nom de guerre of the impossibly old trophy that no one has ever tagged- but this year is different...

Is it really only June? Fall can't get here soon enough!

 

[EasternNChunter]

Clear bright glass is arguably the most important factor in a good hunting scope, at least for me. Those last few minutes of daylight are often times when the big boys pop out, and if you have a good scope, you probably have a shot. It really sucks when you can see that buck with your binos but not find him in your scope because its too dark. I sold my hunting scope, a $1000 Swarovski 4-12x50 1" tube, to buy my Nightforce when I got started/hooked on long range shooting. I didn't know any better but thought a $2100 scope would surely have the same great glass for hunting. I was sadly mistaken. I have now sold my NF and am getting a Steiner 5-25X56 this week. As far as reticle goes in a hunting scope, a duplex or heavy duplex is a great reticle and probably the most common. I set all my hunting scopes up so I am shooting 1"-2" high at 100 yards. Depending on your budget here are a few great hunting scopes:
Swarovski
Zeiss
Meopta
Leupold
Cabelas Euro Riflescopes - These are made by Meopta for Cabelas - Great scope for the money - check out the reviews at Cabelas.com

I am sure others will suggest others but these are the ones that I have experience with.

 

[Crosshair]

Some of the main differences are weight and reticle choices. Hunting scopes should be fairly light weight and have reticles with good lowlight visibility. The most magnification needed for hunting large game really tops out at around 12x to 14x.To maintain decent exit pupils and thus good lowlight properties, magnification can't get too high, as it really isn't practical to have a objectives larger than 50mm, with 56mm being about the max. A 56mm objective has a theoretical 7mm exit pupil at 8x.
Fine mil-scale reticles don't show up very well against dark backgrounds with out being illuminated, which also adds weight. Also, most flat shooting magnums don't need much holdover at all within 400 yards if a good zero is chosen.

What changes everything is when building a hunting/tactical combo, which a lot of guys like to do. Though, without spending ALOT of money it is hard to make them really good at both, i.e. being lightweight, good in lowlight, and capable of engaging targets accurately past 600 yards.

One example of such a concept rifle within the average Joe's budget would be a Tikka T3 Lite in caliber of choice with something like a Weaver Tactical 3-15x50 FFP EMD illum. Very good at most things, master of none.

 

[limamike56]

My go to hunting rifle has been a Steyr Scout in .308 with the Leupold 2.5 fixed power optic for about 15 years now. It is a very simple scope and reticle and it is deadly for me. I zero it at 225 yards at its 2.5 high at 100 and within 6.5 inches out to 300 yards. It is a very fast and accurate system and all of my hunting has been under 300 yards here in the Eastern US.

Because I know my hold overs out to 400 yards (6.5 inches at 300, 13 inches at 350 and 22 inches at 400 yards) it is relatively easy to make hits on a 9 inch steel disk if you know the range and can see the target out to 400 yards. You may be surprised what you can do with a basic scope and reticle. Good Luck in your choice.

 

[doc76251]

Most hunters are "Set it and forget it" scope users. They shoot a box of ammo left over from last year and buy a new box this year. They also set up an 8" paper plate at "about" 100 yards and if they hit it 4 out of 5 times they proudly proclaim their rifle "sighted in".

Precision shooters on the other hand have a tendency to get over geared with gnat's ass, heavy barreled rifles, monster scopes, detachable mags and such. When that deer goes blasting by in the woods at 30 yards at a full run they find themselves with nothing to aim at because 5 power at 30 yards it's a brown blurry spot trying to be tracked with an 18lb rifle.

My go to hunting scopes are 3.5 - 10 X50mm Loopies with plain old duplex cross hairs. I even find those scopes too powerful on the bottom end for some of the inclose hunting I do. A 1.5 - 6X that rides on my 6.8SPC is pretty doggone good for in the woods but I find it lacking in the open field.

Sniping, precision shooting and long range hunting (400 + yards IMHO) lend themselves well to the high end FFP scopes that get dialed a lot with fine cross hairs. A good hunting scope has a low bottom power, a fair high power and as big an exit pupil as you can get for those closing minute shots that always seem to crop up. SFP in those instances pay off in spades.

Choose a "weapon system" to suit the requirements of your hunting area. If as close as you are going to get is 300 yards yeah your precision rig may be the hot ticket. If your in the woods an iron sighted lever gun may be a better option. Mixing it up? A good hard hitting rifle that can reach out with a scope with a low bottom end and mid range upper end may be for you.

$.02 for the pot, and worth what you paid for it.

Cheers,

Doc

 

[relentless1]

If you have a job to do, then do it well. To the best of your ability...

 

[Opticsspecialist]

SPF has it's place. The only real advantage of FFP is the ability to range at all powers. And that is not really valid unless the scope has been verified correct as to true power and reticule size, not just reading what is advertised. Other than comps, most use LRF and SPF will work fine. I like FFP and do range in the field with it in my S&B varmint rigs. It is also nice for ranging at lower powers for night shooting, or low light shooting when top magnification will not work. Beyond that, do not worry about FFP IMO. Just get that which suits you.

this is pretty well said, SFP does have some advantages, and if you do your shooting at high magnification, it negates the benefit of a ffp scope, you can see the entire reticle if you need to use it, on high mag with an ffp scope, some of your reticle can get cut off or rather out of your view. reticles are usually thinner on SFP scopes, even if it's just perception

hunting scopes also put more emphasis on ease of use, simple ballistic compensation solutions and reticles. they also tend to be lighter weight. while hunting scopes are robust, they don't tend to be as robust or quite as consistent as a tactical scope. these are general observations and there are exceptions but this has been my experence so far.