Tactical VS Hunting Scopes

[JINKSTER]

I'm a former Marine and was once an avid whitetail hunter and IPSC tactical competitor (in a previous lifetime) and this question is haunting me because in decades of hunting seeing everything from rifles bungee corded to 4-wheelers to horses rolling over rifles in leather scabbards other than a couple low line bushnell/simmons level scopes losing their nitrogen and fogging?...It simply hasn't been my experience that quality hunting scopes have proven themselves any less durable in the hands of a responsible rifleman than any of the heavy duty tactical stuff.

Now it could be happenstance, fate or a lack of tactical comp experience on my part but can anyone give me some examples or sound reasoning of why I should mount up a heavy tactical scope over a good quality hunting scope?

Change my mind if you can please.

 

[Mike Casselton]

If you sight in and use MPBR to shoot out to around 400yds, go with a hunting scope.

If you want to be able to dial up and back down and all around, go with a tactical style FFP optic.

 

[Rob01]

If you don’t think you need it then stick to what you want.

 

[FuhQ]

I have Tactical scopes on just about everything I own…Except my main lightweight deer rifle. It’s a 7mmRM, and shoots extremely flat with my 168 VLD handloads. That rifle still wears a Kahles Helia KX 3.5-10x50 4D-Dot scope with capped hunting turrets that I’ve had for 15 years. Its relatively compact, super lightweight, the glass is absolutely alpha-tier, sharp, absolutely no CA, crystal clear and perfect natural image reproduction. The FOV is also very nice. I’ve taken many deer with it.

My point is, for hunting, The glass quality is what’s most important to me. And knowing my drop to 500 yards with that BDC in the reticle, has never left me feeling handicapped in the woods. I wouldn’t mind if it had about 8x more magnification, and I might upgrade it for another Kahles with more magnification down the road. But for now, it’s always done great.

I think it just comes down to what you need out of a scope for each particular rig…Build/Buy accordingly.

 

[Fred @ Bison Tactical]

I run the Leupold Mark 5 HD 3.6-18 because its first focal plane, has a hold reticle and dialable turrets (everything I am used to for precision rifle). And its light weight with plenty of magnification. I don't see any reason to switch to a hunting specific application, but I do hear of a lot of hunters who can't dial, and struggle to make longer shots because of the lack of holdovers. So I am thinking that features is the biggest difference.

 

[TacticalPlinker]

I dont think hunting scopes are any less durable than a "tactical" scope. It's the feature set that set them apart.

I've done both the things you mentioned. I've rolled an ATV with my rifle on board. I lost zero and everything else was fine.. My horse has fallen and rolled over on my rifle, no damage. My rifle has gotten bounced out of the scabbard on a run away horse, chunked up the stock, scope survived. I think hunting scopes are pretty tough.

If anything I think the basic features of a hunting scope can lend to their durability.

I'm a big fan of Tactical Crossovers like the LRHS G2. Its a Durable hunting choice with a lighter weight but also delivers on steel to 1k easily.

 

[UNRL Ghandi]

I bet if you were out hunting and you saw some Russian paratroopers dropping into your AO you'd wish your hunting rifle had a tactical scope on it.

 

[RobbinsHGray]

I bet if you were out hunting and you saw some Russian paratroopers dropping into your AO you'd wish your hunting rifle had a tactical scope on it.

Now that’s funny. Russians no way. Now, Little Men from Mars that has me worried.

 

[CSTactical]

In our experience, the market seems to be moving away from Second Focal Plane and/or BDC type hunting scopes to First Focal Plane so the reticle subtends to the turrets regardless of magnification.