Why do folks put scopes on their deer hunting rifles?

[Tex06]

Scopes!? Psh I use an Eotech 552 with Nightvision!!!! !@#$ you deer! I also use a 100 rnd drum and just shoot into the bushes.

Works better with your barefoot and pregnant girlfriend. Not only can she hold the spotlight, she can hold yer beer too!


Oh and I prefer iron sights in brushy environments (a la South Texas) and scopes in the mountains (New Mexico and Colorado). My dad taught me to shoot 'em across the back of the neck so you ruin as little meat as possible, plus if you want to sell the head, you can (we never mounted any of ours). I'm assuming the "killzone" everyone talks about is the spot behind the shoulder, which ruins the shoulder and heart meat but is an easier shot for a kill, esp. with hollow points. Different strokes....etc.

 

[jcountry]

All of mine have scopes on them except my Win. 30-30, but I do like the 100+ yd head shot with the scoped rifle. If I was just gonna shoot them in the side, I wouldn't need a scope.

I THOUGHT I didn't need a scope when I first started hunting.

I was wrong.

If you take a shot when it is nearly dark, you will need a scope to draw in all the light it can. Makes a ton of difference.

(You don't want to ever be taking a shot at "something" you are not quite sure of.)
(I hope you are kidding about head shots. No one with any measure of sense takes a head shot at a deer.)

 

[WMSproject]

I hunt with a Remington 700 .270. It came with iron sights and I suppose I could remove the scope and use the iron sights. This would be adequate for shots closer than 100 yards. I prefer a clean kill with a heart or head shot. The last heart shot I made was at 170 yards right before dusk. While it was still legal time to shoot the deer, it was standing in the shadows at the edge of a field. I couldn't even make out the outline of the deer with my naked eye. With the Nikon Monarch scope, the deer was completely illuminated and I could watch every movement, see the ears twitch and take my time. It was a clean kill with the deer running maybe 15 yards into the brush.

My hunting buddy had already given up and headed to the truck. He did not have a scope on his rifle. He headed to the truck 15 minutes before I did.

The 10 point I killed last year would not have required a scope and I could have probably killed it easier with open sights, given the fact that it was running sideways to me at between 35 and 50 yards. I had a split second to fire once I acquired the target in my scope. It was not easy. It would have been a lot easier with iron sights... The problem is this... I was sitting over a field waiting for deer to appear 300 yards out. I had finished my hunt and was headed home. The buck unexpectedly came up behind me.

I've killed deer from 15 to 300 yards. If I had a choice, I would take a scoped bolt action rifle every single time. I have hunted with an AR with iron sights before and I have also hunted with a crossbow and a 12 gauge shotgun. Each time I chose a weapon different than the Remington 700, it was because I was in heavy woods and brush where a shot much over 75 yards was impractical. I can't see a real reason to NEED a scope if you are shooting a deer at close range.

You guys might laugh but my grandpa DID jump onto a deer's back once and kill it with a pearl handled RG .22lr pistol shot to the head.

He shot it this one like this...

 

[snake dr]

This was somewhat my point.

Why put a scope on a rifle, if you are just gonna make some half ass attempt to hit where you aim.
If your kill zone on a deer is just in the side, then that can be easily done with iron sights. I guess what I'm saying is if you're going to shoot deer make sure that you can hit the pie plate at 100 yds. (Personally I like three shots that a quarter will cover at 100 yds) This insures that if you make a bad shot on a deer, it was an operator error.

Some folks can shoot and some can't, but anybody should be able to take a properly sighted rifle with optics and hit a deer in the head at 100 yds.

Those that can't need to practice more on targets and not on deer.

Happy hunting
VLR

I hunt with a Remington 700 .270. It came with iron sights and I suppose I could remove the scope and use the iron sights. This would be adequate for shots closer than 100 yards. I prefer a clean kill with a heart or head shot. The last heart shot I made was at 170 yards right before dusk. While it was still legal time to shoot the deer, it was standing in the shadows at the edge of a field. I couldn't even make out the outline of the deer with my naked eye. With the Nikon Monarch scope, the deer was completely illuminated and I could watch every movement, see the ears twitch and take my time. It was a clean kill with the deer running maybe 15 yards into the brush.

My hunting buddy had already given up and headed to the truck. He did not have a scope on his rifle. He headed to the truck 15 minutes before I did.

The 10 point I killed last year would not have required a scope and I could have probably killed it easier with open sights, given the fact that it was running sideways to me at between 35 and 50 yards. I had a split second to fire once I acquired the target in my scope. It was not easy. It would have been a lot easier with iron sights... The problem is this... I was sitting over a field waiting for deer to appear 300 yards out. I had finished my hunt and was headed home. The buck unexpectedly came up behind me.

I've killed deer from 15 to 300 yards. If I had a choice, I would take a scoped bolt action rifle every single time. I have hunted with an AR with iron sights before and I have also hunted with a crossbow and a 12 gauge shotgun. Each time I chose a weapon different than the Remington 700, it was because I was in heavy woods and brush where a shot much over 75 yards was impractical. I can't see a real reason to NEED a scope if you are shooting a deer at close range.

You guys might laugh but my grandpa DID jump onto a deer's back once and kill it with a pearl handled RG .22lr pistol shot to the head.

He shot it this one like this...
View attachment 136992

 

[darrenmd]

They look cool....LMAO!

 

[JHV2]

My dad only carries 3 nowadays because one evening he shot 5 deer and he didn't like how long that took. I use a single shot so the most that I've gotten in one hunt was two young deer.

That's my point. If you have to shoot more than 2 times at a deer you need more practice, and do you really want to dress more than two in one night? Therefore 3 shells is probably more than you logically need.

BTW: I have recently discovered peep sites. I had actually put away my levers and started using a scoped 270 (as I grow older it seems the world is just getting dusty or something.) But after I put a set of skinner sights on my 1984 and 336 the scopes went away and the joy of "slab-side" hunting was re-born.

If you think iron sights have to mean those hard to focus-on buckhorns, checkout some skinner sights (or weaver and others) on you favorite old iron.

 

[TexRonHorn]

I think it is personal preference. Shooting a deer "in the side" can either be a well placed shot through the heart or spine (he drops pretty close to where he was standing when you shot him) or a gut or lung shot where he could run for awhile and you may have to track him. Even when I was a kid and could see, iron sights were pretty difficult to use when placing a shot at 100+ yards at first light or on a cloudy/misty day.

 

[snake dr]

I think it is personal preference. Shooting a deer "in the side" can either be a well placed shot through the heart or spine (he drops pretty close to where he was standing when you shot him) or a gut or lung shot where he could run for awhile and you may have to track him. Even when I was a kid and could see, iron sights were pretty difficult to use when placing a shot at 100+ yards at first light or on a cloudy/misty day.

I totally agree it is personal preference to make a poor shot or a good shot, unless you daddy hands you a gun that hasn't been properly sighted or that you have never shot and unfamiliar with.

I disagree,(A shot in the side is just that) a well placed shot in the heart, is a well placed shot in the heart.
A well placed shot in the lungs, is a well placed shot in the lungs.
A well placed shot in the spine is a terrible waste of some prime meat.

A well placed shot in the head and you can skip tracking class.

A half ass attempt to shoot a deer by seeing the deer in the scope and pulling the trigger, is just that.
Even if you get lucky and hit some lungs or maybe get some shrapnel in the heart. A half ass attempt is still a half ass attempt.

From what I have seen.
I think it's sad that a lot of folks just shoot the deer (like in the side) and to hell with shot placement.

I really don't think most rifles are sighted in as they should be.

I taught my boys in this order.
Gun safety
Accuracy/shot placement
Hunting skills
If the accuracy is good there is no need for tracking class.
Processing

Vlr
Snake

 

[the doctorman]

when shooting does i prefer to shoot them in the head if they are within 300 yards. for bucks, i shoot what few bucks i shoot in the neck so they don't go anywhere and it's a lot better to look at that boy through that 6 x 20 X 50mm scope before i just throw off a damn round and knock down one that "should have never been shot". just start dear hunting, i bet you will figure it out.
happy hunting/happy holidays
the doctorman

 

[Codyology]

My vision isn't the best in the world and use to mainly to verify the deer and make sure theres nothing behind it. You never know when some random dude on a wma is going to be walking thru the woods and not see the deer your about to shoot Poping a the wrong sized buck on a quality hunt is a big no no