Why all the hype about scopes on shotguns?

[natman]

To the last response, a good quality scope that has 90% or better light transmission will actually allow you to shoot earlier or later vs what your eyes can see even if you have 20/20 vision.  I used to have a Nikno Monarch 3-9x40mm scope on my deer rifle.  It had 95% light transmission capability.  I could see in very close to darkness light conditions and could see a lot better with this scope than I could see with my 20/20 or better vision with my naked eyes through my glasses alone.   

95% of ambient is still less than ambient. Besides, since we're talking about scopes for turkey hunting, the hours for legal shooting are limited:

The shooting hours for the spring wild turkey season shall be from one-half hour before sunrise to 4:00 p.m.

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/current/uplandgamebirdregs.asp#310_5

Half an hour before sunrise I can see fiber optics just fine.

[gobblergls]

[quote
Half an hour before sunrise I can see fiber optics just fine.

[/quote]

That's what I thought 13 seasons ago until I had a flydown at 30 steps in a canopied river bottom on a cloudy day.  Ordered an Aimpoint that afternoon.

You can have 20/20 or even 20/15 vision as I do, but the older the eyeball gets, the less the ability to focus the lens optimally occurs.  In lowlight, the focal ratio of the eyeball lens is at its worst because more of the "defective" lens is used-the iris is wide open.  That's why it is difficult for some to focus on leaf sight and front sight and target at the same time--the depth of field of vision is restricted.  In bright light, the iris closes up and less lens is used and the focal ratio becomes higher giving greater depth of field vision which means, leaf, post and target are in focus.  This is the same priniciple that applies to camera lenses and f stop settings.  So you guys that are getting older and have to hold the newspaper farther away to read it can either get reading glasses or grow longer arms.

[natman]

Half an hour before sunrise I can see fiber optics just fine.

That's what I thought 13 seasons ago until I had a flydown at 30 steps in a canopied river bottom on a cloudy day.  Ordered an Aimpoint that afternoon.

You can have 20/20 or even 20/15 vision as I do, but the older the eyeball gets, the less the ability to focus the lens optimally occurs.  In lowlight, the focal ratio of the eyeball lens is at its worst because more of the "defective" lens is used-the iris is wide open.  That's why it is difficult for some to focus on leaf sight and front sight and target at the same time--the depth of field of vision is restricted.  In bright light, the iris closes up and less lens is used and the focal ratio becomes higher giving greater depth of field vision which means, leaf, post and target are in focus.  This is the same priniciple that applies to camera lenses and f stop settings.  So you guys that are getting older and have to hold the newspaper farther away to read it can either get reading glasses or grow longer arms.

I understand the phenomenon you describe in both the depth of field and eye flexibility aspects.

As I said in the first post, I don't hunt with open sights anymore on a rifle. If I look at the target through the distance prescription on my glasses, I can't see the open sights well enough for the level of accuracy required for a rifle.

However shooting a shotgun, even one a tight turkey choke, is an entirely different proposition. If you put the center of the pattern off by a couple minutes of angle (one inch at 50 yards) it makes no difference when your pattern is 10 inches in diameter. I've hunted with FO open sights for 15 years in every lighting condition imaginable and never had a problem. Being deep in the woods covered by the California coastal fog before sunrise is as dark as it's going to get during legal shooting hours and still be outside!

Please understand that I'm not saying that scopes and red dots don't work. I'm saying that they don't offer enough of an advantage to justify the weight, cost and bulk they add. If, like a previous poster, your eyesight simply can't deal with open sights then that's another matter entirely and you should by all means use an optical sight.

[gobblergls]

. I'm saying that they don't offer enough of an advantage to justify the weight, cost and bulk they add.

My Trijicon 6.5 MOA reflex sight weighs 4 ozs. or less than two of my 3" 20 gauge turkey shot shells.  It's compact.  It is parallax free.   It can cost more than the shotgun it sits on.   It's worth it to me and that's what counts.  I don't have to align anything but dot to head and neck.   I don't have 3 points to align. The dot can be centered or on edge at 3, 12, or 6 o'clock in the 1x aperture or all points in between.  Where dot sits is where shot falls.   My head doesn't have to be positioned the same on the stock to get  a proper sight picture everytime I shoot.  Sometimes that is not even possible. Light conditions are irrelevant.  Couldn't be simpler or faster.  With both eyes opened, dot,  head, bang!  Thousands of turkeys have been killed without it; thousands more will be killed without it. But I prefer the dot. YMMV.

[natman]

. I'm saying that they don't offer enough of an advantage to justify the weight, cost and bulk they add.

My Trijicon 6.5 MOA reflex sight weighs 4 ozs. or less than two of my 3" 20 gauge turkey shot shells.  It's compact.  It is parallax free.   It can cost more than the shotgun it sits on.   It's worth it to me and that's what counts.  I don't have to align anything but dot to head and neck.   I don't have 3 points to align. The dot can be centered or on edge at 3, 12, or 6 o'clock in the 1x aperture or all points in between.  Where dot sits is where shot falls.   My head doesn't have to be positioned the same on the stock to get  a proper sight picture everytime I shoot.  Sometimes that is not even possible. Light conditions are irrelevant.  Couldn't be simpler or faster.  With both eyes opened, dot,  head, bang!  Thousands of turkeys have been killed without it; thousands more will be killed without it. But I prefer the dot. YMMV.

Good point, the open red dots don't have the same weight and size drawbacks scopes and tube red dots do.

OTOH, your Trijicon costs $400-500+. That's about twice what I paid for my shotgun. I'm sure it works great, but I have to ask myself if my future turkey hunting needs would be better served by a new sight or, say, 20 boxes of premium HTL ammo.....

[gobblergls]

OTOH, your Trijicon costs $400-500+. That's about twice what I paid for my shotgun.

Prices are over the board on Trijicon.  I was lucky and found my first with base included for under $300 from Alamo Tactical.  It sits on my 835.  The second I bought two years ago for my Mossy Super Bantam was $325 with base.  One has to shop around.  Trijicon over the years has sold a lot of sights and scopes to the military and has concentrated on those lines.  For a period, they were hard to find. An option that is between red dot and standard beads/fibre optics is tritium illuminated ghost rings and posts that fit 870s and other guns.  If Williams Fire Sights had a tritium option, I'd be a taker.

[Reloader]

If you can see better with open sights than optics in low light, you must be super human. Noone said anything about gathering light. I probably have 15 or more guns with open sights, been using them my entire life, but know that optics are a better mouse trap. Anything that gives a lower margin of error is better imo.

I killed a nice bull with open sights last year and a few toms with beads this year for the heck of it. All of which made it very clear that optics are a far greater advantage.

Keep using open sights if you want, but don't preach they are better than optics.


Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[mightyjoeyoung]

Another advantage to shooting with red dot type sights and low power scopes that hasn't even been touched on this thread is that you can also shoot with BOTH EYES OPEN, (as long as your eye dominance and hand dominance match), giving you a much wider field of vision than if you use the old close one eye and squint the other style.  I have red dots exclusively on all my turkey guns, as well as using my Speed Bead for every thing else that hops, runs or flies.  I shoot with both eyes open like you are supposed to anyhow and have caught bigger birds sneaking into my decoys when I was about to drop the hammer on a smaller, allbeit mature gobbler.  There are zero disadvantages for red dot sights...except that darn battery, which I always carry extras.  I especially like my Speed Bead because even if the battery should take a dump, I can still sight down the rib if need be.  A good red dot will be paralax free, have no to very little magnification, and will put a clear dot over the target that will match what the shooter sees, even if he or she has coke bottles bottoms for glasses.  The better sights will even have a "built in" power supply like the Trigicons that use tritium to light up the reticle even in zero light conditions.  Others like the Aimpoint sights can have batteries that will last 3 years or more if left on!  I LOVE my Comp CM2 sight.  It has a 50,000 hour battery life even if left on one of the lower settings. I don't even bother to shut it off during the season just in case I forget to turn it on if I get a bird fired up early.  I replace the battery every three years and guess what...I've only had to replace the battery once in 5 years of hard hunting.  Thats a whole ^ bucks for six years of hunting...not too bad I think.

[natman]

If you can see better with open sights than optics in low light, you must be super human. Noone said anything about gathering light. I probably have 15 or more guns with open sights, been using them my entire life, but know that optics are a better mouse trap. Anything that gives a lower margin of error is better imo.

I killed a nice bull with open sights last year and a few toms with beads this year for the heck of it. All of which made it very clear that optics are a far greater advantage.

Keep using open sights if you want, but don't preach they are better than optics.

I've never said that open sights are better than optics. What I said was the the improvement optics offer does not justify the cost, weight and bulk. Sure the turkey's head is bigger and clearer (although not brighter) when seen through a scope, but it's so easy to make the shot without one that I don't see the point.

In other words, if I miss, it would be because I jerked the trigger or some other physical error, not because of sighting error. If I had a scope, I'd still make the same percentage of shots. It's not worth it to me to see the turkey's head more clearly, I can see it well enough now.

For a deer at 200 yards with a rifle, yes. Adding a scope will give an improvement in results. For a turkey at 40 yards with a shotgun, no. 

[Hooks' n' Beards']

I Have used everything from a Bead sight to a Tri viz to a Tru bead to a red dot to a 1.75X4X32 Turkey Scope,Only thing i havent tried is a Open Red dot-Reflex sight,Each to there own,But if somebody thinks a Scope adds too much weight on a Gun to hike a round in the mountains or bush a bit.Well,Maybe pump some weights,I Have killed Birds with all of my Setups,Its personal preference,I like Both ways.But Am going back to a scope this spring because i want to.I Can carry water bottle and aScope on my Gun,And i carrya Browning,I Can handle the weight and  i definitly did not have a Problem when i worked and hiked in the Northern Rockies everyday with my 45.70 Guide Gun And it was scoped.

[joshb311]

It seems that if you're comfortable with beads and confident in your POA/POI then beads would be fine. Same thing for sights and scopes. If you feel like you're at an advantage, then your confidence level will be higher and thus increase the likeliness of an ethical harvest. Plus it doesn't hurt that slapping a scope on a rig happens to make it look pretty nice! (Not that the turkeys care.) 

[WyoHunter]

I am in NO WAY AGAINST anyone putting a scope on their favorite turkey slayer but was wondering is it really an advantage? I have seen the popularity of scopes grow big time over the last couple of years but I have been very skeptical about putting one on my shotgun; I am not against change and it may be that I need an education on this subject;

Ya'll might change this ol' man mind if you can truly prove why it's better to have one;  ok, let me have it............... ................rem
The better you can see the better you can aim the better you can kill!

[outdoorsurveys]

I've hunted turkeys with and without scopes.  First started with a scope, then bought a new turkey gun that was lighter and was not pre-drilled and tapped for a scope.  I hunted for a number of years with open sights and one day missed a tom no more than 20 yards from me and I couldn't believe it.  I just sat there dumbfounded.  Did a great deal of internet research and learned with today's tight patterns and the tendency to look up just prior to pulling the trigger missing a close shot is not as uncommon as I had believed.  I was later convinced when I watched a friend of mine shoot at a turkey target and missed the entire target at less than 30 yards.    It boils down to a matter of preference, I bought another shotgun (this time pre-drilled and tapped for a scope) a Benelli Supernova and put my shotgun and scope outfit together and now the "hit and connect" confidence is back 100%.  The only concern I have is will the bird come in and or will he spot me I don't even think about the shot as i consider connecting to be a 99.99% certainty if he is in range.  Put another way, If my crosshair is on him....I have my connection.  If you want to checkout my turkey setup you can view it at http://www.outdoorsurveys.com/The_Perfect_Turkey_Gun.html
For those who enjoy open sites...stay with them.  But if in a season you miss a bird or two that you knew was in range ....I highly recommend you go with a scope.  It may not guarantee you'll never miss again but I assure you of a higher kill ratio per shot taken through the seasons.