The only thing it doesnt do, is, shoot!

[stinkitup]

Isn't it a 4-12? 40mm objective is fine, would be very big if it was a 50mm, looks solid be interested to see quality of glass, are you paying for the range finder more or the scope? or 50/50. And having two user settings you could run two loads and be very confident, hmmm be nice on the old swede trajaectory for 95's and 140's.

[wadcutter]

Think about it, average shooter, long range, no experience, relying on scope to do all the work for him.

I don't like the idea of this scope.

It will encorage the average shooter to shoot further than their ability. There is more to long range shooting than just working out bullet drop. I can see a lot of wounded game as a result of this type of scope in the hands of the wrong shooter.

From what I have read about this scope, the aiming mark cuts out after 70 seconds. This will make shooters rush the the long range shot. Also what happens if the dot cuts out just as you are pulling the trigger? What about wind? Slope, cant, etc, etc.

[dangaff]

Yeah, they aren't shipping yet but i saw them on the product's line i meant.

Yeah and only 42 objective, bit of a pain but hey, it calculates the range and what not.. too good!

I dont mind about the objective I just would like a 6-24 or 6-18 even. Better than a 3-9 & really a scope for a deer rifle but I don't know whether or not I'll put it on the 243 or the 223.

I did a blog about this scope too at http://www.huntandshoot.com.au

Yeah true, might just need to get a whole new gun

Yeah i would say there will be future version's with a little bit more zoom..
I would expect anyway, wont be long until Leupold or Nightforce join the bandwagon..Bushnell might make on.

ok, i shall read it now

[Curtley78]

Think about it, average shooter, long range, no experience, relying on scope to do all the work for him. I don't like the idea of this scope.

It will encourage the average shooter to shoot further than their ability. There is more to long range shooting than just working out bullet drop. I can see a lot of wounded game as a result of this type of scope in the hands of the wrong shooter....

G'day Norm,

I concur whole heartedly with your sentiments about these gadgets.

The one reason that Military shooters have a limited magnification is because with higher magnification they become too confident and cockey.

It's one thing to use a high magnification scope to shoot paper, corflute and other large stationary devices but shooting Game is something completely different.

It won't be long before we read about some Greenie having found a half dead critter on the side of the road because of failed technology and inexperience on behalf of some halfwit dressed in a Yowie Costume.

Regards

Sean

[kjd]

It won't be long before we read about some Greenie having found a half dead critter on the side of the road because of failed technology and inexperience on behalf of some halfwit dressed in a Yowie Costume.

Regards

Sean

Because you have NEVER shot an. animal that has been wounded and never recovered have you? But maybe you haven't I don't think I've ever seen any proof that you have ever hunted anything on AV

[r_j_t1982]

no offence (im sure it will offend someone) but I dont think it matters one iota if sean has never shot a living thing, his point is still valid.

after all its not what "you" think (this applies to all of us shooters) that is important in the eyes of the media or pollies, its what the "majority" (those who sook louder than everyone else) thinks. and with much of the media and even general population being mostly comprised of left wing commy pinkos one story of a wounded anmal can have a lot of fallout for all shooters.

recent example would be the beheaded pig on the entrance to a national park, although the local ranger in charge clearly stated there was no evidence (ie bullet wound/damage) to suggest a firearm was used, it was still reported as having been shot.

also look at the hype over the culling of camels in NT

there are many departmental heads and execs in government (both sides of the floor) who think that banning sniper style rifles would lessen the danger to the public.

whilst im sure that all the members here take all the care possible not to leave a wounded animal to die in the scrub/long grass/too far away from ute etc, there are many shooters out there who simply THINK they are expert shots because of the brand and model of rifle and scope they own, and think that putting the crosshairs on is all it takes because theie equipment is so good. and it only takes one vocal greenie/animal lover to paint a very bad image of in the media.

[kjd]

Its going to happen whether you like it or not and it won't be at the hands of this scope. I'm sorry but this will have no effect on us and only be a cool gadget for those of us who want it. I think we're talking about a storm and a teacup. Fact is, it is a helpful piece of technology and I for one will probably be getting one at some stage.

Same arguments could have been said for telescopic sights or even ballistic-type reticles. Why don't we all use iron sights? Not only that but there would be as many if not more wounded game from shotguns then rifles anyways.
Sure you still have to deal with wind but now you can just worry about wind and not elevation.... I'm sure in future generations it will account for that too.

[wadcutter]

no offence (im sure it will offend someone) but I dont think it matters one iota if sean has never shot a living thing, his point is still valid.

after all its not what "you" think (this applies to all of us shooters) that is important in the eyes of the media or pollies, its what the "majority" (those who sook louder than everyone else) thinks. and with much of the media and even general population being mostly comprised of left wing commy pinkos one story of a wounded anmal can have a lot of fallout for all shooters.

recent example would be the beheaded pig on the entrance to a national park, although the local ranger in charge clearly stated there was no evidence (ie bullet wound/damage) to suggest a firearm was used, it was still reported as having been shot.

also look at the hype over the culling of camels in NT

there are many departmental heads and execs in government (both sides of the floor) who think that banning sniper style rifles would lessen the danger to the public.

whilst im sure that all the members here take all the care possible not to leave a wounded animal to die in the scrub/long grass/too far away from ute etc, there are many shooters out there who simply THINK they are expert shots because of the brand and model of rifle and scope they own, and think that putting the crosshairs on is all it takes because theie equipment is so good. and it only takes one vocal greenie/animal lover to paint a very bad image of in the media.

I don't think any offence would be taken with your comments. I am sure that all hunters on Ausvarmint take every possible care not to wound animals and if they do I am sure that they would do everything possible to finish the job ASPA.
I am not against long range hunting. I don't see anything wrong with it so long as the person doing it has the required skill and equipment to do it properly and acts responsibly.
But this is just why I don't like this scope. I think (some not all) people without the high skill level required for long range hunting will be tempted to use it beyond the distance that they would normally limit themself to.
If someone wants to shoot game long range then they need to do the hard work first and learn the ropes.

[adamjp]

Think about it, average shooter, long range, no experience, relying on scope to do all the work for him. I don't like the idea of this scope.

So don't buy one. You are right there is more to long range shooting than just doping the bullet drop, at the price of these scopes people will work it out fairly quickly before they take the plunge.

The one reason that Military shooters have a limited magnification is because with higher magnification they become too confident and cockey.

That is a statement of pure, unadulterated, bullshit. It has eff all to do with the shooters getting 'too confident and cocky'. An overconfident or cocky sniper will not give his enemy credit and will not move position after shooting, will become lax in his observation, fieldcraft or camoflage. The consequences from that are death. The consequences from trying a shot at 1200m with a 308 are usually a miss, and a spot call for artillery. The enemy will usually have no friggin' idea where the shooter is unless the shooter has become overconfident or cocky with his position, observation, fieldcraft or camoflage.

Higher magnifications can give an improved ability to spot and assess a target. Misses at extended range are NOT due to failure to observe the target - they are due to incorrectly assessing environmental effects on the bullet like wind, foliage or temperature changes.

High magnification scopes are not fielded by the military because they are next to useless in the field. Mirage, dust and the general size and behaviour of the target make high magnifications pointless on typical 308 based rifles in a military context. Higher magnifications can be of benefit for police marksmen as they generally work in cleaner environments at closer ranges. Similarly anti-materiel rifles can benefit from higher magnification due to the longer ranges they are designed to work at, or the higher level of precision required.

Sean, if you want to put crap like that out you need to be prepared to defend your position with logic.

[wadcutter]

Think about it, average shooter, long range, no experience, relying on scope to do all the work for him. I don't like the idea of this scope.

So don't buy one. You are right there is more to long range shooting than just doping the bullet drop, at the price of these scopes people will work it out fairly quickly before they take the plunge.

Good point.
It will probably be a just a fad like so many other things.

[kjd]

I really see your guys point on this, I do.
I just think the price point, the knowledge needed to set it up - even though simple as it is will be a limiting factor. I don't think most guys will even use it all that differently to all their other scopes they will still take the shots they usually take. One would also have to think that knowing the distance is a big part of the battle and would make it easier to hit what you are aiming at.
This is really no different to a scope with ballistic drop markings and is more precise then they are anyway. No occasional shooter is going to buy this.

[adamjp]

I really see your guys point on this, I do.
I just think the price point, the knowledge needed to set it up - even though simple as it is will be a limiting factor. I don't think most guys will even use it all that differently to all their other scopes they will still take the shots they usually take. One would also have to think that knowing the distance is a big part of the battle and would make it easier to hit what you are aiming at.
This is really no different to a scope with ballistic drop markings and is more precise then they are anyway. No occasional shooter is going to buy this.

Agreed....Many folks buy the 'tactical' versions of the Leupold/Bushnell/Burris/Nikon/Nightforce/whatever scopes and soon discover that the BDC reticle does not work like they expected.

For what one of these is likely to cost once landed - they are optically inferior.

I'm still after one for a 22/250.

[HiWall]

I think it is totally the opposite

failed technology and inexperience on behalf of some halfwit dressed in a Yowie Costume.

is going to happen anyway. The only thing that will combat this is experience and fullwitedness. Mistakes mostly happen with ambition exceeds capabilities.

If anything this technology will increase the 'halfwit in a Yowie' Suits ability to make the shot that he would have attempted anyway.

Who cares what the bloody Greenies think - they are against everything we do and stand for - the more they piss and moan about stuff the better because SENSIBLE people are getting really tired of their lying bullshit and don't even bother to listen to what they have to say anymore.

[Curtley78]

....Because you have NEVER shot an. animal that has been wounded and never recovered have you? But maybe you haven't I don't think I've ever seen any proof that you have ever hunted anything on AV

Keith,

Matey, There were days where I would have shot more critters in 6 months then you would have shot in your miserable and petty existence. I will admit that I haven't been out in a while due to work commitments, however, I am hoping that I can get away to the top-end at the end of the year, I am also hoping that I can back home to where the Red Stags roam.

As for Shooting Animals. It is far more humane to shoot within the parameters of a clean kill as opposed to venturing beyond the pale and taking an uncertain long shot because you think your equipment has somehow metamorphosed you into a re-incarnate of Carlos Hathcock, Simo Hayha or Billy Singh.

Unfortunately you seem to be the only one counting whose shot and killed half tamed urban critters on the back blocks of the Metropolis-as if it gives you some form of credibility like a Bikers Patch.

Regards

Sean

[Mick]

some halfwit dressed in a Yowie Costume.

Seems there's some animosity there. Did a guy in a ghille suit sneak up and touch you inappropriately or something?