Thread: Rifle and Optics Snobs

Perhaps snobbery / superiority is valid when it comes to shotguns. When I was a youth I used to shoot with some men, one of whom had a high grade cased 'Greener' that we shared turn about between four of us, the Greener would outshoot any other gun, it was in all ways just better.

Yes and no. I like things that work and are nice to use, although I put function over form. Synthetic stocks over wood. Short barrels over longer barrels etc. guess to some degree function is dependent on your hunting environment. My favourite rifle is a single shot Bergara.

Tikkas are an interesting one. My recent thread stirred up a lot of shit. I don't get it. They do what they do very well. Lots of recommendations for cheaper rifles, then you read all the complaints about them. File a bit off the magazine and it'll feed fine, polish the bolt and it'll be smooth; say the Lord's Prayer backwards and it'll never jam again etc. Never thought I was a rifle snob until I picked up a Ruger Ranch, just horrible.

Scopes are also interesting. Those top end scopes look great on paper until you read the weight. Low end Leupolds do me just fine.

Secondhand gear. I generally just don't do it. Hunting gear gets a bashing and I think it's fair to say that most people don't look after their gear very well. I have regretted most secondhand purchases.

I buy quality every time. I do that for myself, because I earned the money to spend as I please and screw anyone that calls that snobbery.
I couldn’t care what someone else chooses to shoot although I know that if I’m doing a load for someone that shoots a Tikka I’m going to enjoy the exercise.

I am so far up my own arse I don't even hear them call me a snob.
But in all honesty the last new rifle I bought was 1981. It cost about a grand. I thought it was a magical laser and it was perhaps 1/7th of my annual income.
I didn't feel like a snob, but throwing all that money down maybe I am.

Swarovski binos
Z6i and VX6 scopes
Some customised T3s
A full custom built on a Borden action
Leica rangefinder

So, I have some nice things, but I worked long and hard for them all. I hunt with a very small number of mates and go to the range on my own, so I don’t think it’s about snobbery for me. I just like high quality, functional things that work as I want them to. T3s certainly aren’t flash but they work brilliantly, which is what’s important to me. That said, mine have significant modifications and custom chambers to make them better yet, not for appearances.

Beware the man with one rifle, as the saying goes, but why should we really care if blokes want to buy the best things they can afford, whatever the motivation?

There seems to be a trend these days with many new hunters who think they,re going to shoot deer at say 600 meters with their .308 or similar powered cartridge and subsequently mount some huge Hubble type scope on it. Of course, the rifle is completely unbalanced and a liability to carry around. This big zoom scope idea is pushed by many retail sales personnel because big zoom scopes cost a lot more than a simple lightweight smaller fixed or lower magnification zoom scope. Long distance shooting is a skill that has to be mastered. Most newbies from.what I've seen, have no idea how far 600 meters actually is but they have convinced themselves that they are real hunters now and want other hunters to think they are hot shots. I suppose that could be a form of snobbery.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

There seems to be a trend these days with many new hunters who think they,re going to shoot deer at say 600 meters with their .308 or similar powered cartridge and subsequently mount some huge Hubble type scope on it. Of course, the rifle is completely unbalanced and a liability to carry around. This big zoom scope idea is pushed by many retail sales personnel because big zoom scopes cost a lot more than a simple lightweight smaller fixed or lower magnification zoom scope. Long distance shooting is a skill that has to be mastered. Most newbies from.what I've seen, have no idea how far 600 meters actually is but they have convinced themselves that they are real hunters now and want other hunters to think they are hot shots. I suppose that could be a form of snobbery.

Outside of the roar, I wonder how much public land hunting is actually done in the bush versus long range shooting on clearings. Social media would indicate more of the latter. Whether that's reality or not, I don't know, maybe the long distance stuff is just easier to film!?

Originally Posted by MB

Outside of the roar, I wonder how much public land hunting is actually done in the bush versus long range shooting on clearings. Social media would indicate more of the latter. Whether that's reality or not, I don't know, maybe the long distance stuff is just easier to film!?

To shoot film in open country, long distance shots will require heavy lens for quality pictures, bigger and heavier than my Canon 70-200mm F2.8 lens. But in bush or say forest, small background, with Sony x80s or Alpha, Gopro mounted on shoulder height, plus one drone, two people work together can make a good story telling movie. Just, the post production work is a time consuming job, and will need a fast computer to process, intel i7, 16g ram etc....But the entire thing is quite interesting.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

There seems to be a trend these days with many new hunters who think they,re going to shoot deer at say 600 meters with their .308 or similar powered cartridge and subsequently mount some huge Hubble type scope on it. Of course, the rifle is completely unbalanced and a liability to carry around. This big zoom scope idea is pushed by many retail sales personnel because big zoom scopes cost a lot more than a simple lightweight smaller fixed or lower magnification zoom scope. Long distance shooting is a skill that has to be mastered. Most newbies from.what I've seen, have no idea how far 600 meters actually is but they have convinced themselves that they are real hunters now and want other hunters to think they are hot shots. I suppose that could be a form of snobbery.

What you described is not quite "snobbery". More like "uninformed".

But one may say that insistence on shooting very long distances using under-powered scopes is also a form of snobbery

A 308 drops 3.2 meters at 600 meters. it requires 18.3 MOA or 5.3 Mil of adjustments. It is simply impossible to get that reliably on first short without a scope that has either reliable (and easy) dialing or accurate reticle marking. I hear people on the forum say they once shot a deer with a 3-9 or 4x fixed duplex no dial scope at 600 metres. I am sure it can be done but it definitely cannot be done consistently and reliably.

The most expensive part of hunting is time to do it. It is cheaper to spend 1K on an OK scope that get land you the hit at 600m than to waste the one trip of the year and miss that shot. To boast being able to afford to miss such shots is a much bigger flex.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

What you described is not quite "snobbery". More like "uninformed".

But one may say that insistence on shooting very long distances using under-powered scopes is also a form of snobbery

A 308 drops 3.2 meters at 600 meters. it requires 18.3 MOA or 5.3 Mil of adjustments. It is simply impossible to get that reliably on first short without a scope that has either reliable (and easy) dialing or accurate reticle marking. I hear people on the forum say they once shot a deer with a 3-9 or 4x fixed duplex no dial scope at 600 metres. I am sure it can be done but it definitely cannot be done consistently and reliably.

The most expensive part of hunting is time to do it. It is cheaper to spend 1K on an OK scope that get land you the hit at 600m than to waste the one trip of the year and miss that shot. To boast being able to afford to miss such shots is a much bigger flex.

What I was referring to is not so much the matter of a new hunter buying a high magnification scope; more so that the idea that shooting a deer at 600m is easy pie because they have seen it on TV or read about how gun hunters do it. Of course a scope with ample magnification and good optics is going to be a huge advantage. However, it takes a lot of experiences to consistently hit your deer, tahr, goat along range. You've got wind to deal with quite often too. Not to say that a new hunter may well be a natural hot shot but I've seen more than a few newbies that can't even hit a deer at 100m or less lying down.

Personally, I haven't bothered shooting anything over 300m for years because I'm too old and unfit to go and retrieve a deer across some huge gully or similar.
.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

What you described is not quite "snobbery". More like "uninformed".

But one may say that insistence on shooting very long distances using under-powered scopes is also a form of snobbery

A 308 drops 3.2 meters at 600 meters. it requires 18.3 MOA or 5.3 Mil of adjustments. It is simply impossible to get that reliably on first short without a scope that has either reliable (and easy) dialing or accurate reticle marking. I hear people on the forum say they once shot a deer with a 3-9 or 4x fixed duplex no dial scope at 600 metres. I am sure it can be done but it definitely cannot be done consistently and reliably.

The most expensive part of hunting is time to do it. It is cheaper to spend 1K on an OK scope that get land you the hit at 600m than to waste the one trip of the year and miss that shot. To boast being able to afford to miss such shots is a much bigger flex.

As a person who hunts normally with either a fixed 4x or a 3x9 with duplex....... I simply DO NOT shoot past 350 yards...the last deer was shot at 50-60 yards...the one before that was 150ish...last pig was 80ish... I can count on one hand with fingers to spare the amount of times Ive either shot or shot AT deer past 300 yards.... the last 3 times were all sucessful....

its like hunting with a .222 or .223 you simply HAVE TO BE PREPARED to let animal walk away if shot isnt presenting itself rightly.... 100% spot on chance of good clean kill......
get as close as you can son,then 5 yards closer....shoot them anywhere in the eye son,anywhere in the eye.....

If someone differentiates a piece of equipment based on the brand name stamped/printed/etched on the side of it, they are idiots in my eyes.

Grew up in Asia so can spot a fake Rolex/Omega almost immediately, small details like metal finishing and tactile feel set things apart.

Think I know when an item is quality and when it is not after some examination and use.

Remington M7/700 , Howa 1500 , Tikka T3 all good rifles with strong and weak points, none making them 'more accurate' over another in terms of stalking use (although with newer Remingtons the QC is a bit suspect, not sure about newest ones since last collapse).

Doubt I'll ever own a 'custom' action.

Japanese optics would be the best in the world if they were not constrained by the lack of domestic market (they make what the customer orders, not something to sell, March might be an outlier here...) old Bushnell Elites are superb.

Binoculars are the only sector where I would say buy the very best there is, although going to a shop that stocks all the top names (Swaro vs. Leica really, personally think Ziess isn't close) and trying them first is essential.

Black rifle loving dudes will get this:





I'm not gonna lie, I was (still am) a snob for HK.

Since I got my Vixen, I look down on Nikko Stirling owners.

I still shoot rabbits and possums with the 10/22 I got in 1985. Does that make me a snob for using an old classic, or the opposite end of the spectrum for using worn out gear without any bluing left, sights broken off, stock replaced with synthetic because the original broke and rust showing up? It still does the job and that's all I need.