Abel
Member
I am glad that CraigC isn't on the North American Board of Proper Scope Standards & Usages.
Oh, wait, I forgot. There is no such governing body. Lucky for us.
Oh, wait, I forgot. There is no such governing body. Lucky for us.
If a bigger scope with some extra magnification helps his Dad get out hunting for a few more years and builds some priceless father/son memories I say go for it!this gun will be shared with my dad that has less than perfect sight so I'm leaning toward higher than 4X probably a variable zoom.
We all know you have a Marlin 336 with a big 3-9x on see-thru mounts.
Sure do.We all know you have a Marlin 336 with a big 3-9x on see-thru mounts. So we expect no less from you than to defend your choice.
I prefer receiver sights but I am not deriding your choice to scope one. There is a right way and a wrong way to do anything. In reality, a 3-9x is too much scope for most deer hunters. Why it ever became so popular is beyond me. However, if it is your choice to install a scope that is too bulky, too long and too heavy with too much magnification, go for it. Just don't expect folks to NOT make this point to you. IMHO, most make this choice and never question it. If you really think you need more than 2x to shoot deer out to 100yds or 4-5x to shoot deer at 200yds, or if you never shoot deer beyond 100yds, you really need to re-examine your choices.
Never a good idea. For one, you're doing a lot more visible moving. Most importantly, you're pointing your rifle in every direction which may or may not contain things (people) you do not want to destroy. Binoculars are for spotting, scopes are for shooting.I do a lot of spotting in higher power and pull it back..
My choice is peep sights and that is not even part of the discussion. I neither feel the need to defend or justify my choice to anyone but myself. Open sights, receiver sights, tang sights, red dots, fixed power scopes, low powered variables, mid-powered variables, high powered variables, you name it, been there, done that. IMHO, a 3-9x is way too much glass for a relatively short range rifle.You're the only folk knocking the use of a mid range powered optic, thusly defending YOUR choice. Doesn't make you correct. Not by a country mile.
My personal choice would be a reciever sight, my second choice would be a compact scope of no more than 4X. However, this gun isn't for me, its for the OP and one of the things he said was:
If a bigger scope with some extra magnification helps his Dad get out hunting for a few more years and builds some priceless father/son memories I say go for it!
If this is true then I would have to question your dad going into the field at all with anything more than a camera. If you can't make a 100yd shot with a 4x, you shouldn't be hunting.No way in hell my dad could make a 100 yard plus shot with 4x much less open sights.
Suggest a 1-4x for F-class and you'll get a similar response.Some people will try to knock you down if you fish for trout with anything but dry flies and floating line on a split bamboo flyrod. But I use worms and a Zebco 33 if I feel like it. Use whatever you like. This is, for now at least, still America! God I love this Country.