Mule Deer hunting - scoped rifle not essential?

[dave3006]

I went on my first mule deer hunt recently in San Diego county (I have hunted upland game my whole life). I used a Remington 700 in 30-06 with a 2.5x10x40 Leupold scope. We hunted all day and we did not see a deer. I carried a pair of Steiner Nighthunter binoculars.

Besides the last few minutes before dark, I would have felt perfectly gunned with my M1 Garand. I don't think I would have taken a shot over 200 yards. In the opinion of the more seasoned hunters, is a scoped rifle absolutely necessary? I don't get it. It seems like iron sights would be adequate for the job. They would even be better at a snap shot where you spooked something.

Any opinions?

 

[priv8ter]

In my area, yes.

Well, having spent only a little bit of time on the Subbase at Pt. Loma, I am by no means an expert on the terrain of San Diego County. I am fairly experienced with the terrain of Eastern Washington, especially around Ellensburg. Mostly canyons, draws and sage brush. Aside from a few occations when you find yourself in issolated stands of timber, your average shot will be between 200 and 250 yards. Even a 'close' shot would be around 100 yards.

With an understanding of those ranges, I would not attempt to hunt during modern season without a scoped weapon. Anything over 100 yards, and I begin to lose confidence in my iron-sight accuracy.

I DO however, use iron-sights when I go muzzle-loading. First of all, Washington law states no scopes on muzzle-loaders. Second, the 100 yard's I'm comfortable shooting at is about the max range for that weapon.

If you think you can hit a 6-inch square at 200 yards consistently, then have it. I don't think I can do that often enough to take a 200 yard iron-sights shot.

greg

 

[Matt G]

Like everything about hunting, it has a lot to do with the terrain, and a lot to do with the hunter.


Most of the mulies that I've sighted on were within easy iron sight distance. A couple of those were in the black timber in the mountains, and a couple of those were out in the wide-open desert. (I didn't shoot because either I didn't have a tag, was on a road, or in city limits.)

Another mulie that I could have taken but didn't due to no tag was absolutely a "Scopes Only-- Iron Sights Need Not Apply" affair. This was in the mountains of Colorado, across a canyon. The 50mm range-finding scope I had on my Sendero told me that the shot would have been from 450 to 475 yds. With that .300 Win Mag load, which I knew well, and that rifle, which I'd shot a lot, and that open canyon, I might well have taken that shot... or not.

But it's interesting that in all the times I've seen 'em, just about every OTHER time, I could have made the shot with iron sights.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

Have to agree with Priv8ter here. All my mule deer hunting has been in SE Montana, Eastern Washington and Northern Wyoming. Mostly in open terrain. I've killed probably 25 and at least 20 of them were at "scope only" ranges. Have I killed them close? Sure, closest was probably 50 yards or less. However, There have been many times where the light conditions were low and the scope was mandatory. And, if the scope is sighted in correctly, you never have to guess at bullet drop with the faster calibers, generally out to 250-300 yards.

 

[dakotasin]

i sure do enjoy a mulie hunt!

the terrain and circumstances where i hunt (south dakota) dictate that the weapon wear a scope. i've killed one mulie at 68 yards, the rest have been 'a little further', and one was at 'ridiculous' range.

so... i would not hunt mulies without a scoped rifle. mandatory? absolutely not. prudent? yeah.

 

[schromf]

Where are you hunting in SD County? I work down there and it sure looks like wall to wall concrete. I knew there was ( or used to be ) hunting in Pendleton. Is this out in Ramona way or further east?

My closest Muley was at just under point blank and I shot him just before he stepped on me. My longest was around 450 yds ( definately the exception not the rule ). But these are pretty much the extremes. But for 90% of the hunts I have done 65 yds-250 yds is the ticket, but your local terrain governs this.

Your Remington is perfect, just set your scope to the 2.5 setting, and good luck....what a rotten area to go hunting.

 

[dave3006]

The hunting spot was near the Laguna's. I think the reason we did not even see a deer was due to all the pressure. They are probably all nocturnal. I had fun and it was beautiful. Just, no deer.

 

[Aubrey_W_Bogard]

Even if you are comfortable shooting iron sights at reasonable distances, I believe that a scope sight is a real advantage in failing light (i.e., early/late in day) due to the light-gathering characteristics.

 

[rick_reno]

It's not needed here (Idaho Panhandle) - a lot of the hunting is done in heavy timber where a scope doesn't do a lot of good. It's not useless but not required either.

 

[schromf]

It's not needed here (Idaho Panhandle) - a lot of the hunting is done in heavy timber where a scope doesn't do a lot of good. It's not useless but not required either.

Rick where do you hunt in the North Country? Its home for me also and its a mixed bag, from very heavy timber, to some ocassional real long shots. I admit you can get in and stay in heavy timber in the Panhandle, but I tend to hunt the clear cuts, right on the Idaho/Montana border is one of favorite spots so is a few miles south of the Candian border ( unless I am lazy and drive out my backyard up on the Bunko).

Anyway its mixed country and I like a scope, it must be set at lower power, and I have either 4X fixed or 1.5-2.5X--?? variables set to the lowest settings for the best field of view. Once in a great while I need to crank up the magnification ( measured in years, and its always for elk). I could have used iron sights on my last three successful deer hunts, a good rear peep would have worked, but I still like scopes on my rifles.

Long story, but once around 25 years ago I was on a hunt ( Not in North Idaho) I had a really decent chance at a real Boone and Crocket record class mule deer. But it was a long shot, uphill in a crosswind. I had a model 70 270 Winchester with iron sights. I know now after many years of rolling that lost chance in my mind that it was a deceptive shot, this bucks rack was about a thiry six inch spread min, with 6 inches past his ears on either side on the inner tines. It was so big I misjudged the distance buy a 100 yds at least. And the steep up hill angle didn't help matters.

Short and sweet I missed that deer and never have forgotten it. I did get a good buck the next day, dressed at over 200 lbs, almost 18" between the inner tines. It looked like a midget compared to the deer I missed. I swore that day I would never go to the field without a scope on my rifle again. Never seen another deer that big, but if I ever get the chance again I want a scope. A magum cartridge would have been a real plus that day also, but a scope was essential.

I haven't been on a hunt since without a scope. I admit the dark timber up the Panhandle makes this less important, but I also know the first time I go afield without one I will get my once in a lifetime shot at a royal bull elk out at 500 yds and I will be cursing my foolishness all over again.