Optics and Scopes – Wholesale Hunter

ARE IRON SIGHTS OBSOLETE?

Magnifying riflescopes aren’t new. Limited use in the American Civil War, and a few bison hunters used scopes in the 1870s. Scopes improved and became more popular in the 20th Century, but only came into widespread use after WWII.

By Craig Boddington

Magnifying riflescopes aren’t new. Limited use in the American Civil War, and a few bison hunters used scopes in the 1870s. Scopes improved and became more popular in the 20^th Century, but only came into widespread use after WWII.

As a youngster, I learned to shoot with open-sighted .22s, rifles and handguns, but I did my first hunting in the ‘60s with fixed 4X scopes. I never hunted with iron sights until 1979. By then, I had my first variable, a 3-9X Redfield. Wow, that huge image made shot placement so easy. Today variable magnification runs deep into double digits, along with scopes that incorporate laser rangefinders and yield shooting solutions. Just yesterday I went to the range and zeroed a Pulsar thermal imaging riflescope.

With such advancements, are iron sights still useful? Despite magnifying scopes, lasers, and reflex sights, open sights still dominate in handgunning, because ranges are short, and because a handgun with an optic is more difficult to carry and holster. In the rifle world, generations have grown up shooting and hunting with scopes.

Boddington and Tim Baugh with a fine Kansas whitetail, taken with a classic 6.5x54 Mannlicher with factory open sights. In order to assure a close shot, Baugh used an archery stand in thick woods. As often happens, enough light to see the sights was an issue, but patience paid off. — Boddington and Tim Baugh with a fine Kansas whitetail, taken with a classic 6.5×54 Mannlicher with factory open sights. In order to assure a close shot, Baugh used an archery stand in thick woods. As often happens, enough light to see the sights was an issue, but patience paid off.

This is sad. Much to be gained by learning to shoot with iron sights. One quickly learns slight aiming errors cause huge differences. Daughters Brittany and Caroline had no interest in shooting or hunting until they were mid-teenage. Then, as if a switch was turned, both suddenly wanted to go hunting with Dad. I made mistakes with both. We began with scoped .22s, but I skipped starting them with iron sights. They shoot well, but they missed the valuable lessons of carefully aligning front and rear sights.

Boddington is about to drop the hammer on a Texas hog, using a Winchester 94 in .30-30 with factory iron sights. Although adequate light is always an issue, feral hogs are ideal game for iron sights: You can usually get close enough, and often get multiple opportunities.

Eastern deer hunters who started with Grand-dad’s .30-30 received this training. So did all veterans…until adoption of the ACOG riflescope. Today, many younger hunters have little or no experience with iron sights. Regrettable they don’t have that background, no way to appreciate how spoiled we are by magnifying riflescopes, or the fun and frustration of iron sights.

There are two types of iron sights: Open and aperture. The open sight is typically a blade or bead front sight, which must be visually centered in the notch of a rear sight, usually a V or U. The aperture or “peep” sight uses a similar front sight, with an open circle rear sight, in which the front sight must be centered, then superimposed on the target.

On both open and aperture sights the front sight is normally a blade (left), or a bead. Boddington prefers a bold bead of about 3/32-inch diameter. A large bead obscures more of the target but is easier to see and faster to acquire.

Open sights require the eye to focus in three focal planes: Rear sight, front sight, target. The aperture sight reduces this to two: The eye naturally centers the front sight in the circle. The rear sight “fuzzes out,” but the eye must focus on front sight and target. The riflescope reduces this to just one focal plane: All the eye must do is focus on the target and superimpose the reticle. Same with the reflex or “red dot” sight, which has only existed since the Aimpoint came out in 1975.

With good vision and adequate light, peep sights are capable of superb accuracy. Up until a decade ago, Boddington could regularly produce groups like this with apertures. This is a 1930s RF Sedgely Springfield, fitted with receiver-mounted aperture.

Capability with iron sights depends largely on size of target and visual acuity (which tends to diminish with age). When I was young, I could resolve open sights beyond 200 yards. Today, less than half. Before scopes, the aperture sight was the “precision” sight. In the Marines, we qualified annually to 500 yards with peep sights, and much 1000-yard competition is still done with apertures.

Qualification day at Edson Range, Camp Pendleton. Until the recent adoption of Trijicon’s ACOG scope all Marines shot out to 500 yards with aperture sights.

With all open sights, as distance increases, the front sight subtends (obscures) more of the target. Absent magnification, same with red dots. A greater limitation to open sights: They require good light. With age, night vision tends to diminish along with overall acuity.

So, sights with lenses that admit more light are always superior in those critical periods at dawn and dusk, aided further by lighted reticles or the illuminated red dot. The only real disadvantage to both scopes and red dots: They are an additional appendage, adding weight and bulk. We have this idea that iron sights are more rugged and goof-proof than optical sights. This can be true, but usually isn’t. Today, factory-supplied iron sights are often flimsy, seemingly supplied primarily for “looks,” little thought they might actually be used. I’ve seen many more iron sights bend, break, and come out of zero than I’ve had trouble with scopes.

This herd is just over 100 yards away, no more cover and no more options. If a bull steps out it’s a simple shot with a magnifying scope, do-able with a red dot…but much too far for a safe shot with iron sights.

Still, scopes and red dot sights remain non-traditional with various types of hunting rifles. To the point that we, including me, stubbornly insist on using iron sights. Good examples are double rifles and traditional lever-actions. I like both types so, in recent years, I’ve been doing more hunting with iron sights than I did when I was young.

This sporterized 1903 Springfield .30-06 was Boddington’s first centerfire rifle, mounted with a Williams aperture on the rear receiver ring. As a youngster, he never hunted with this rifle; he was nearly 40 when he used it for this California feral hog.

There’s a caution here: Iron sights are difficult. At middle-age, kids gone, mortgage paid, we may wake up one morning with the means to acquire a classic double or fine old Winchester. The expertise to effectively use iron sights doesn’t come with the purchase. Steep learning curve, especially if you didn’t grow up shooting irons.

Boddington on the range with his Heym .450/.400-3” double, mounted with an Aimpoint red dot sight. Boddington agrees that optics look terrible on classic doubles. However, as his vision restricts iron sight use, optics enhance accuracy, range, and versatility.

We have this romantic idea that big-bore double rifles should wear “express” open sights. And older top-eject lever-actions defy conventional scope mounting. Fine. Make a commitment to lots of practice, understand you must keep your ranges short, and accept that you’re going to give up potential shots. Especially at dawn and dusk.

To some extent, it depends on what’s more important to you: The hunt or the game. Or, if you’re a “gun guy,” the opportunity to use a certain rifle. Couple seasons back, at our Kansas farm, Tim Baugh wanted to use his late father’s open-sighted 6.5×54 Mannlicher,. Light comes late in our thick woods and leaves early. I put him in a stand set up for archery. He saw deer early and late, couldn’t see his sights, stayed patient, shot a fine buck on his fourth morning.

Although open express sights are most common on double rifles there are other options. This .303 double has a flip-up aperture on the tang, greatly increasing accuracy and versatility. These are descending pairs from both barrels after sight adjustments.

Unless very close, I much prefer apertures to open sights. I’ve used receiver-mounted peep sights on lever-actions for decades, and I have a double rifle in .303 British with flip-up peep on the tang. With adequate light, I’m still good to beyond 100 yards.

Until the 1940s the aperture was the precision hunting sight. Boddington used a 1930s .30-06 Springfield by RF Sedgely to take this Colorado bull, one shot at about 125 yards.

The good news: If you have 100 yards of effective range, you’re in good shape for much hunting. Just understand you can’t always get that close. I’m not going sheep hunting with iron sights. Although, before 1940, everyone did. I’m reluctant to use iron sights for whitetails. Not a matter of distance, but light.

This Alberta black bear was taken with a Big Horn Armory M89 in .500 S&W. The “guide gun” is popular today, often mounted with a “ghost ring” aperture like the Skinner sight on this rifle. Getting close enough to take black bears with iron sights is often possible, but light can be an issue.

I often use iron sights for feral hogs and black bears. With hogs, I can usually get close enough. If I can’t, another opportunity is likely. On black bears, light is the issue. Couple years ago, I took a peep-sighted .348 Winchester into an Idaho bear blind. Also, a scoped rifle. Had a bear on the bait, too dark to see the front sight. I switched rifles and shot the bear. If you’re really a gun guy, that was serious cheating.

Big-bores doubles traditionally wear fixed open sights. Strong and sturdy, short in range. Perfect for PHs, who only fire in emergencies. For you and me, questionable for buffalo because, with herd animals, tough to get close enough. Can be done, and I have…always with the understanding that I must pass on many potential shots. Optical sights look awful on a classic double, but they are practical. In recent years, as iron sights grew harder to resolve, I’ve choked it up and put red dots and scopes doubles.

Recently, we’ve seen a resurgence in aperture sights. Thanks somewhat to the popularity of the big-bore lever-action “guide gun,” commonly mounted with a large-opening rear aperture that we call a “ghost ring.” Not as precise as a target aperture with tiny opening, but faster, adequate for shooting game to at least 100 yards. This type of lever-action is popular with wilderness wanderers in bear country, also carried by some Alaskan guides. Good choice for both.

This is the kind of encounter buffalo hunters hope for. If you can get this close, iron sights are wonderful. Problem is, with herd animals like buffalo, getting within sure iron sight range isn’t always possible.

As with Cape buffalo, not ideal for you and me to carry on a hunt for grizzly or Alaskan brown bear. Such hunts often come down to just one chance. This past year I considered taking a big lever-action on an Alaskan hunt, talked myself out of it and went with a scoped .338. My chance came at 225 yards, foolish shot with any iron sight, regardless of expertise.

Although scopes and red dots are commonly used, iron sights still dominate in handgunning to keep the profile trimmer. This is a favorite hunting handgun, a SIW M29, always used with iron sights. Just need to keep shots close.

There are many close-range hunting situations where iron sights remain suitable. If you can get close enough and have enough light. In the entire spectrum of world-wide big-game hunting, I can only come up with three situations where iron sights are superior. First is during wind-driven precipitation, too hard and fast to keep a lens clear.

Boddington and Idaho houndsman Bruce Duncan with a good mountain lion. Duncan’s M94 .30-30 is a classic houndsman’s rifle: Short, light, easy to scramble with in tough country…and no scope.

Another is hunting with hounds. Houndsmen are justifiably concerned for their dogs’ safety. They worry about the “tunnel vision” effect of magnifying scopes; some houndsmen do not allow use of scopes. The range is short enough, and a sleek, un-scoped rifle (or handgun) is a blessing in the mad scramble to get to the hounds.

Elephants are almost always encountered—and taken—at extremely close range. Magnifying scopes aren’t needed, and Boddington believes they are dangerous in this application because of the potential “tunnel vision” effect.

A third is hunting elephant. 25 yards is a long shot. Magnification isn’t needed, and the tunnel vision effect is dangerous. Not just the risk of seeing a wall of gray hide. The greater is other, unseen elephants. You need peripheral vision. With hounds and hunting elephant, a red dot sight is a sound alternative, but in these specialized situations, iron sights are superior.

COMMON SENSE RIFLESCOPES

Use enough scope…but not too much!

Craig Boddington

When I was young, the fixed 4X scope was the standard riflescope for hunting big game. Fixed-power scopes of higher magnification existed, but they were primarily used for varmints and
target shooting. Most of us figured a fixed 4X would handle just about any hunting chores. Variable-power scopes existed back then but were widely distrusted because zero shifts were common as magnification changed. The variable-power scope wasn’t completely perfected until the 1970s, so I did my early hunting with fixed 4X. My first variables were 3-9X. Older shooters
grumbled that “a fixed 4X was all the scope any hunter needed.” I did not agree. Wow, the image size at 9X was wonderful.

Boddington is not anti-magnification. Without question, high magnification makes shooting tight groups easier. These were shot with a Sabatti Saphire .300 Win Mag, topped with a Vector Optics Continental 3-18x50mm scope.

For years, about three-times-zoom (as in 3-9X) was the technological limit. The thing is, no matter what you’re hunting, not all shots are far. So, with any variable scope, it’s important to have a low-end magnification setting low enough to keep you out of trouble for close shots. Up close, too much magnification, and all you’re likely to see is a wall of hair. Today we have four, five, six, and even eight times zoom capability. This changes the game. A 1-8X scope would seem the ideal setup for a versatile big-bore like a .375. Variables of 2.5-20X or 4-32X would seem to satisfy just about any shooting situation: Extreme magnification for distance; a low-end that’s low enough to allow following up a wounded animal.

Boddington’s Winchester M88 lever-action wears a Leupold 2.5-8X scope. Trim, enabling low scope mounting, yet powerful enough to enable shooting as tight groups as the rifle is capable of.

Maybe, but there are other practical considerations. You will always pay more for higher magnification and for scopes with the highest zoom ratio. And the scopes will be larger, bulkier, and heavier. The style today is toward bigger scopes. Fine if you need the capability, but I don’t like to add unnecessary weight. Also, bigger scopes must be mounted higher. Adjustable combs and strap-on cheekpieces fix this problem. However, some (most) of my hunting rifles handle just fine with a smaller scope mounted low. So, instead of charging into the big-scope culture, how about evaluating how much magnification you really need?

If you’re part of the growing long-range group, you need high magnification. Doesn’t matter if you’re ringing steel, shooting prairie dogs, or reaching out on big game. My varmint rifles wear big glass. Love to ring steel, too. On game, I’m not an extreme-range shooter. However, with the equipment we have today I’m comfortable shooting farther than when I was young.

This Alberta black bear was taken with a Mossberg Patriot .350 Legend, topped with a Swarovski Z8i 1-8x24mm scope. Reasonably compact, the eight times zoom gives this scope tremendous capability for short to medium-range hunting.

Trust me, I embrace magnification. Over the years, I’ve stepped up…but only to a point. When Leupold came out with a 4.5-14X, I got one immediately, used it for a lot of open-country hunting. Today I’ve stepped up a bit farther. On my current open-country rifles, I’ve used several 4-16X and 3-18X scopes. I’ve tried more powerful scopes, but for my hunting, I just don’t need more magnification. Rarely use all that I have, because with high magnification at my fingertips,it’s important to keep the scope turned down. The higher the magnification, the smaller the field of view, thus the slower and more difficult to acquire a distant target.

Now 15 years old, Donna’s light MGA .270 Winchester has work a Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40mm scope since new, a light, trim scope with plenty of capability. This is her favorite rifle and scope, including for mountain hunting.

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

When deciding on a scope for a certain rifle, I like to consider the capability of that rifle…and what I’m likely to use it for. A prairie dog rifle needs a lot of scope. So do the rifles I might take sheep hunting. A rifle for mule deer needs a bigger scope than a rifle for hunting my Kansas whitetails, where few shots exceed 150 yards. My lever-action .308 wears a trim 2.5-8X scope.
My .375s usually wear a 2-7X or 3-9X, this is because the cartridge is more versatile than the low- range variables (such as 1.75-5X) we typically put on a .375. Great for bears and buffaloes, not enough scope for plains game. And, yes, I have a good 1-8X that I’ve moved back and forth to several rifles. Awesome capability, love it…but it’s larger and heavier than ideal for the short-
range rifles I’ve been using it on.

: A dial-up turret on a hunting rifle simply must have a goof-proof zero stop. Leupold’s zero stop on their Custom Dial System (CDS) is rock-solid and highly visible.

With optics, quality counts most. You want a scope that’s edge-to-edge clear, and you also want a scope that gathers enough light to enable the dawn and dusk shots critical in so much hunting. You’ll pay for scopes with higher magnification, and you’ll also pay for scopes with high-quality glass and the best coatings. The best scopes are expensive. Boddington’s First Law of Optics: Generally, you get what you pay for. Now, with the best, premium glass, it may be difficult to easily see the upgrade you’re paying for; you may not realize the advantage until a last-light opportunity comes along.

Fortunately, there’s a lot of excellent medium-priced glass. Larger companies often offer different “grades” of optics at ascending price points. I’m nervous about the lowest-price optics,but the middle lines are usually pretty good. Hunting buddy Gordon Marsh, who happens to be the proprietor of the LG Outdoors and Wholesale Hunter sites turned me on to the Vector scopes that he carries, just one example of excellent medium-priced glass. We all know that most rifles shoot better than their owners. I’m constantly amazed at how well today’s basic bolt-actions shoot. If on a budget, scrimp on the rifle and invest more in the scope.

With six times zoom and 30mm tube, Vector Optics’ Continental line is a good example of excellent medium-priced glass. From top: 3-18x50mm, 2-12x50mm, 1-6x24mm.

I still do a lot of my hunting with medium-range variables in the good old 3-9X class. Still a wonderfully versatile power range, very adequate for longer—if not extreme—shots. Maybe you need more than that, maybe you don’t. Give it some thought. Rather than springing for high magnification, maybe you’d be better served by a higher-quality scope with less magnification or
a lower zoom range.

TUBES, OBJECTIVES, TURRETS

I also use a lot of scopes with good old one-inch tubes. They are lighter and more compact, and size of the tube does not speak to the quality of the glass. However, Americans are increasingly going to the larger 30mm tubes, long the European standard. We are also seeing more 36mm tubes. Again, bigger and heavier. There are two advantages to larger tubes. First, they admit more light. If quality is equal, a 30mm scope will be brighter than a one-inch scope. Second, they offer a greater range of adjustment, important for shooting at a distance.

Boddington’s 2034 Kansas buck was taken with a Ruger-Marlin .30-30 topped with a Leupold Rifleman 3-9x40mm. 3-9X remains an extremely useful power range. The Rifleman is Leupold’s least costly scope line, a good basic hunting scope. eight-times-zoom and tremendous versatility, from close to as far as anyone needs to shoot. — Boddington’s 2034 Kansas buck was taken with a Ruger-Marlin .30-30 topped with a Leupold Rifleman 3-9x40mm. 3-9X remains an extremely useful power range. The Rifleman is Leupold’s least costly scope line, a good basic hunting scope.

Larger objective lenses also admit more light. The drawback is scopes with big objectives must be mounted higher to clear the barrel. We got big objectives from the Europeans, who generally don’t have “legal shooting hours” like we do. Over here, predator and hog hunters also often don’t have shooting hours, so you may need a 30mm scope with a big 56mm objective. I generally don’t. Most of my one-inch-tube scopes have objectives of 42mm or less, while my
30mm scopes usually have 44mm or 50mm objectives. Low rings, never, but sometimes I can get away with medium rings.

The popularity of long-range shooting has changed the game with scope turrets. Tall turrets for dialing the adjustments add bulk to the rifle but are essential for long-range work. On rifles I use for close to medium-range shooting, I don’t need dial-up turrets. Again, depends on what you’re
doing. With dial-up turrets on any rifle you might hunt with, one cardinal rule: Make certain your scope has a solid, goof-proof zero stop!

Boddington on the bench with his Jarrett .300 Win Mag. Today this is his go-to mountain rifle, here topped with a Leupold VX6 3-18x44mm scope. Boddington figures this is about all the magnification he needs and has rarely zoomed it all the way up.

Scopes above about 10X in magnification need parallax adjustment, most commonly a third turret, again adding weight and bulk to scope and thus rifle. That’s another nice thing about the good old 3-9X scope: External parallax adjustment is not necessary, keeping the scope slimmer
and trimmer.

RETICLES AND FOCAL PLANES

Reticles have changed a lot, with most companies offering various options. For open-country use, I like a reticle with multiple aiming points or stadia lines. At medium distances, I’m more likely to use the reticle and hold for elevation, only dialing at longer ranges. Since I’m neither an extreme-range shooter nor a competitive shooter, I prefer simpler reticles, rather than Christmas
tree reticles, some of which now have all manner of ornaments on the tree. Depends on your purposes, and how you train.

his is the Nightforce 2.5-20x50mmF1, a top-quality modern “big scope” with eight-times-zoom and tremendous versatility, from close to as far as anyone needs to shoot.

Above all, I want a highly visible crosshair intersection that draws my eye. Recently, I’ve messed with a couple of test scopes that had reticles with just a tiny cross in the center. So small that, when shooting groups, I struggled to see it. An illuminated reticle generally solves this problem. I love illuminated reticles, especially valuable for low-light shots.

In June ’23 Boddington took this fine Eastern Cape kudu with a long shot in failing light, using a Nightforce 2.5-30x50mmF1 scope on a Remington 7mm Rem Mag. The scope was fantastic, but Boddington didn’t like the first focal plane reticle on this particular scope.

Some companies offer reticles in choice of first or second focal plane (FFP or SFP). In FFP, the reticle shrinks as magnification is reduced, and enlarges as magnification is increased. With SFP, the reticle stays the same size. Long-range shooters insist FFP is best because windage and elevation hash marks or stadia lines are valid at all magnification settings. In SFP, in-scope
markings are only valid at one magnification usually the highest.

This is problematic if you like to use your reticle for elevation and windage, rather than dialing. Even so, for hunting, I much prefer SFP. At lower settings, for close shots, where you want a bold reticle, the reticle may be so small that it’s hard to see. Last year, In Africa, I used a night force 2.5-20x50mmF1, wonderful glass. Nightforce offers a choice of focal plane; F1
indicates FFP. I fought the reticle constantly, especially on fast, close shots.

HAVE YOU TRIED AN APERTURE SIGHT?

Craig Boddington

Magnifying riflescopes saw some use in the American Civil War, and were preferred by a few bison hunters, including the famous Col. William Dodge. However, it wasn’t until after WWII that scopes were truly perfected and came into general use.

Today, the centerfire rifle world is dominated by magnifying riflescopes. They simplify shooting: Larger image to shoot at, easy to adjust, and so reliable that we trust them completely I’m as guilty as anyone. I started shooting in the 1960s. My first centerfire, a surplus 1903 Springfield, wore open military sights. I didn’t hunt with it back then; my first hunting rifle was a scoped .243. Many years passed before I did any hunting with iron sights.

The biggest limitation to an aperture sight isn’t either range or accuracy, but light. His Winchester 94 .30-30 with Lyman aperture sight is exceptionally accurate for this type of rifle

Folks of my generation might have taken their first bucks with grand-dad’s passed-down .30-30, but many are like me; started with scopes, stayed with scopes…or went to a scoped rifle as soon as affordable. Younger shooters may not have any exposure to iron sights at all. My daughters are good shots and keen hunters, but neither have had much exposure to iron sights. That’s my fault; I started them with scopes, bypassing important lessons. Iron sights make you appreciate the importance of precise sight alignment. Never too late but, trust me, it’s easier to go from iron sights to a scope than vice versa!

Qual day” at Edson Range, Camp Pendleton. Aperture sights were standard on America’s service rifles from WWII until recently. Using an aperture sight, Boddington qualified Marine Corps “expert” throughout his career, not so difficult, and great experience.

Why would you want to? Well, not all field shooting is at distance. There are many situations where the magnified image offered by a scope isn’t needed, and a few where the larger image and the scope’s tunnel-vision effect just gets in the way. Also, under all circumstances, the scope adds weight, bulk, and vegetation-snagging projections.

Savage 1899 hog: A flip-up tang aperture was also a common option on Savage lever-actions. This Model 1899 .250 Savage, made in 1920, wears a flip-up tang sight, used to take this excellent boar.

Sometimes, iron sights do everything that needs to be done. There are two primary types of irons: Open sights, and the aperture or “peep” sight. With both, there is a front sight near the muzzle, usually a blade or a bead. The open variety has a rear sight, typically affixed to the barrel just ahead of the action, usually a horizontal bar with an open notch, commonly shaped as a “U” or a “V.” The idea is to optically center the rear sight in that notch, then superimpose it on your aiming point. The primary problem with open sights: The eye must work in three focal planes: Rear sight, front sight, and target.

The aperture sight has a rear sight with a circular opening, mounted far back, close to the shooting eye, on the rear of the receiver. Also often called a “receiver sight,” it is far superior to the open sight because the eye naturally centers the bead or tip of the blade in that opening. The peep sight reduces the eye’s work from three focal planes to two. You don’t look at the rear sight; you look through the hole, center the front sight, and superimpose it on your aiming point. The aperture sight is more precise, and more forgiving as our eyes grow older, less flexible, and less able to rapidly focus back and forth.

Boddington used his R.F. Sedgley Springfield .30-06 with aperture sight to take this Colorado elk, one shot at about a hundred yards.

The scope further reduces the eye’s work to just one focal plane: Focus on the target only, and put the scope’s reticle on the aiming point. So, and especially for older shooters (like me), a scope or reflex (red dot) sight is optically superior to an aperture. I will not tell you that open sights are necessarily sturdier or less prone to breakage than a modern scope properly set in good mounts. Not always true. Over the years, I’ve had more front sights and rear sights bend, break, or come loose than trouble with scopes. Especially today, open sights on many factory rifles are flimsy afterthoughts; put there for looks, with apparent confidence the customer is certain to mount a scope and will never actually use the irons.

Before riflescopes became common, the best bolt-actions were often adorned with aperture sights. This 1930-vintage R.F. Sedgley Springfield was amazingly accurate with its aperture sight. Boddington admits he couldn’t duplicate this group today, but that’s not the rifle’s fault.

However, open sights, and especially securely-mounted aperture sights, still have a place. Accuracy is not limited or reduced, but depends somewhat on visual acuity. In my day, the service rifle wore no optical sight; I qualified Marine “expert” throughout my career with aperture sights. No problem, but the 300-meter slow fire bullseye looked pretty small. So does a game animal, but such shooting is quite possible, limited only by what you can see. Twenty years ago, I could produce MOA groups with aperture sights on accurate rifles. Those days are over, followed by a period when I had increasing difficulty resolving front sights. I was almost out of business with all iron sights. Fortunately, a good ophthalmologist has me corrected and I’m again confident using iron sights for short-range hunting situations.

On sticks with a Winchester M94 .30-30 with Lyman receiver aperture sight. Aperture sights take practice, but over time it’s amazing how fast and accurate they become.

Before riflescopes were perfected, the aperture sight was the precision hunting sight. Jack O’Connor did his early hunting, including desert sheep and Coues deer, with apertures. Ernest Hemingway did almost all of his hunting with the aperture sight on his famous Springfield.

I love the simple, low profile of an aperture-sighted rifle, and they go well with certain platforms I like. While I don’t trust myself with apertures in open country, I use them for a lot of hog and black bear hunting, even some elk and whitetail hunting, and I’ve used them in Africa for stalking in thornbush.

Again, I won’t harp on the ruggedness versus a scope, and I also won’t make a case for their enhanced speed. Years ago, with gunwriters John Wootters and Finn Aagaard, we did “stopwatch” tests comparing apertures, open sights, and low-power scopes. Starting in down position, from “go” to aimed shot at close targets, the aperture proved faster than open sights, but the scope was consistently faster and more accurate than any iron sight.

Front sight size is a compromise: The smaller the bead (or blade), the more precise the aim, but also the less visible and slower to acquire. For fast field shooting, Boddington prefers a bold bead of 3/32-inch diameter.

Any iron sight is also a handicap in poor light. There is no light-enhancing advantage offered by good optics. Open sights are worse for light than apertures, but even younger shooters with perfect vision will lose shooting light more quickly than with scopes. Older hunters are at increasing disadvantage in bad light.

To a degree, we can increase speed and low-light capability by using a larger and more visible front sight; and a larger aperture. This is a trade-off. The smaller the bead or thinner the tip of the blade front sight, the more precise the aiming point. My preference has long been a bold 3/32-inch front bead, a nice combination between size and visibility. I like a traditional white front bead, but today’s tritium and fiber-optic sights are even better.

The Skinner ghost-ring aperture is an excellent modern sight, factory-supplied on Big Horn Armory’s top-eject M89 lever-actions. Elevation is adjusting by twisting the aperture up or down, then locking it into place with a set-screw.

Likewise, the smaller the aperture, the more precise the aim. The target aperture sights used when I was shooting smallbore competition had an opening like a pinhead. Very precise, but also slow to acquire.

The opposite is a very large opening. Older aperture sights, such as the Lyman, often came with multiple screw-in interchangeable apertures, small for target use, larger for faster shooting. You can also unscrew the aperture altogether, and simply sight through the opening. “Papa” Hemingway left us multiple references to unscrewing his aperture…and then blowing through the hole to eliminate droplets from precipitation or dew.

This Redfield M25 was a common and favorite receiver-mounted aperture, shown on a 1945 M65 Reising .22 training rifle. With all aperture sights, for adjustment you move the sight the direction you wish to move the strike of the bullet.

The remaining opening, on older Lyman and Redfield apertures I have, measures about .200-inch diameter. This creates what is called a “ghost ring” aperture. Because the rear sight is close to the eye, no effort is made to focus on the sight fixture; it fuzzes out to almost invisible. The eye ignores the sight, concentrating on looking through the opening and focusing on the front sight.

For everyday use in dangerous-game country, I’ve never known an African PH who carried a scoped rifle. Most common is the simple “express” open sight with a shallow “V” rear. Not precise, but as fast as open sights get and, once properly affixed to the barrel, as bulletproof as an open sight can be. This is the traditional sight most PHs rely on for backup, but I’ve known several who preferred ghost-ring apertures, faster and more precise.

Certain models of the recent and current Marlin lever-actions are factory-supplied with Picatinny rail strip, mounted with an adjustable ghost-ring aperture from XS. This is a great sight for a short-range lever-action. This is a recent Marlin 1894 in .44 Magnum with 100-yard target.

The ghost ring aperture was long popular among America’s big woods hunters, and it’s making a comeback, wonderfully common on the big lever-actions we now call “guide guns.” Whether for a guide for backup, or for wilderness wanderers preparing for bear problems, the concept is perfect. The shot will be close, and must be fast. I greatly admire the Skinner ghost-ring apertures, elevation adjustment accomplished by turning the aperture up and down. Recent and current Marlin .45-70 “guide guns have been factory-equipped with an adjustable XS ghost ring on a rail mount, also excellent. Big Horn Armory supplies Skinner ghost rings on their top-eject M89 lever-actions, a perfect match. These are not long-range precision sights, but the rifles they are most commonly used on are not long-range platforms.

A nice South Texas whitetail, taken at about 90 yards with a short-barreled Winchester Trapper .30-30, using aperture sight.

The aperture sight isn’t just for proof against big, bad bears. Today, I consider it a sound option for shots up to roundabout 100 yards. Farther if you can see better. That does me just fine for most of hog hunting, and covers all likely shots from several of my favorite deer stands. I get great pleasure from hunting with apertures. My biggest limitation is light: I will lose the first and last ten minutes (at least). Better plan accordingly.

GROUP-TIGHTENING TIPS

Craig Boddington

BASICS

Shooting groups is all about determining a rifle’s accuracy, little to do with the shooter. That said, it’s essential to ensure your benchrest technique is sound. The platform (bench) must be rock-solid. There’s a reason why most ranges use massive, immobile cement benches. Good sandbags work well, but there’s no substitute for a solid, heavy adjustable rifle rest. Get the scope centered on target and make fine adjustments until it’s perfect. The idea is to settle into the rifle, gain your sight picture, and press the trigger without “muscling” the reticle onto the target.

This falling block .303 was showing vertical stringing, right. Increased pressure on the fore-end screw and a business card shim at the fore-end tip immediately changed the groups from vertical to round. With the right load, accuracy should improve.

Before firing, dry fire a few times, checking the rifle’s position—and your trigger press and breathing. When the trigger breaks there should be no movement at all. If there is, start over and re-adjust the rifle.

Raw accuracy is about the rifle, not the shooter, but first check your technique, and be certain you’re shooting from a rock-solid bench and a good shooting rest.

We’re going to assume you’ve checked all screws (action, scope mount, rings) and made sure all are tight. This is about determining your rifle’s accuracy. If you discover later that a screw was loose you’ve just wasted every shot. Who can afford that today?

SMOOTH THE BARREL

A micro-photo of the inside of a barrel. Even the best new barrels will show tool marks and rough spots. The passage of bullets—and frequent cleanings—will smooth a barrel, usually (but not always) improving accuracy after 50 to 100 rounds.

Everybody has a different cleaning protocol. I’m not OCD about it; I definitely don’t clean a barrel every time I put a bullet through it. However, when shooting for groups, I start with a clean, cold barrel, and I clean it on the range after four or five groups. After cleaning I fire a couple of fouling shots. Cleaning invariably leaves some solvent or lubricant in the barrel, so the first shots may have a different point of impact before bullets have “scrubbed” the barrel. The difference is rarely dramatic, but the fouling shots should not be counted as part of a group. With slender barrels, this may mean waiting for the barrel to cool before shooting a group “for score.”

A free-floated barrel should allow free passage of fairly thick paper between barrel and channel.

Breaking in a new barrel is a different deal! Even the best new barrel has near-microscopic tool marks and rough spots. The passage of every bullet removes a bit of steel, polishing and smoothing the barrel (until, eventually, it’s “shot out”). Every experienced shooter has a personal protocol for a new barrel. Some fire one shot, clean…and then repeat ten times! Again, I’m not that guy, but I clean a new barrel much more frequently! Lapping a barrel is one way to short-cut the process, polishing the bore with a mild abrasive. One method I’ve tried (definitely saves ammo) is a hundred passes with JB Bore Cleaner, a mild abrasive paste.

Action bedding — True “drop-in” stocks are uncommon. The action must be held firmly and consistently in the stock to preclude movement. Even major manufacturers often use bedding compound to ensure secure bedding, especially around the recoil lugs and action screws.

Not all barrels need break-in. Some shoot as well as they ever will right out of the box, but this is rare. There is no magic number, but in my experience, most barrels need 50 or 60 shots (at least half-dozen cleanings) before they settle down. Until then, whether you’re impressed or depressed by your groups, don’t worry about it too much. Experiment with different loads…and don’t start hacking on the bedding! My current mountain rifle is a .300 Winchester Magnum by Kenny Jarrett. It should shoot, and it does, but this barrel was slow to break in, lackluster groups with much load-to-load variance. It wasn’t like it suddenly woke up and started to shoot. Average groups gradually improved…incrementally. Today, with a few hundred rounds down the barrel, it shoots well with any good load, awesome with some, and most of its barrel life lies ahead.

CHECK THE CROWN

A rounded crown is most common on sporting rifles. The crown is surprisingly fragile and easily damaged; the greatest hazard is probably muzzle-down in a vehicle grinding against the grit and dirt on the floorboard.

The muzzle crown is the last thing the bullet touches as it leaves the barrel. It must be cut evenly and concentrically, 90 degrees to axis of bore. It’s not unusual to find an off-center crown and, even if the rifle left the factory perfect, the crown surprisingly fragile and easily damaged. Such as, by grinding muzzle-down amid the gravel and debris of a vehicle floorboard.

If a barrel just won’t shoot the way you think it should—or, if accuracy suddenly deteriorates—it’s amazing how often the culprit is a sloppy crown…even on new rifles. Any gunsmith can recut a crown, and tool sets are readily available; it’s a five-minute job. But, before you do that, it costs almost nothing (one cartridge) to check it out.

To check a muzzle crown, paint it with common typewriter whiteout and fire a shot. You will see blast marks where the rifling grooves meet the crown; they need to be consistent all the way around.

Carefully paint the muzzle, around the rifling, with typewriter “white-out.” Let it dry, and put one cartridge downrange. There will be black lines, “blast marks,” on the white where the rifling grooves meet the crown. In my experience, these blast marks are easier to see on recessed or “target” crowns, more difficult with rounded crowns; you may want to use a loupe to study the marks carefully.

If the marks are concentric and similar adjacent to the grooves, probably not the crown. but if one or more marks is smaller or different, repaint the crown and fire another shot. If the same, I’d recut the crown before I tried anything else. It’s amazing how often this proves the problem, with a properly-square crown dramatically shrinking groups.

BEDDING

Bedding is mating action to stock, and barrel to barrel channel. Tightly and uniformly fitting action to stock is essential to preclude movement. Barrel bedding is a matter of dampening, or making consistent, barrel vibrations while the bullet passes through the bore. The several methods all work…but none work all the time on all barrels. In full-contact bedding, whether with carefully sculpted wood or a bedding compound (like fiberglass), the barrel makes full contact throughout the channel.

Full-contact bedding is the most difficult bedding technique. Free-floating is the opposite, essentially no bedding at all: The barrel makes no contact forward of the action, and the barrel is free to vibrate as it will. This is easiest and cheapest bedding techniques. It works well on some barrels…but no technique works on all barrels. In between full-contact and free-floating are several options. Many makers bed the first few inches of barrel, at the shank, then free-float the rest. Pillar-bedding is a popular variation of this.

To try a business card shim, just loosen the action screws, insert a business card between barrel and fore-end tip and retighten the screws. The purpose is to place a couple pounds of upward pressure on the barrel, which often has the effect of dampening barrel vibrations and making accuracy more consistent.

Then there’s pressure-bedding, building up a pad near the fore-end tip (usually with bedding compound), so that, with the action screws tight, a couple pounds of upward pressure are exerted on the barrel. Inexplicably, but demonstrably, this serves to dampen or make barrel vibrations more consistent. It was a favorite technique with pre-’64 Model 70s which, though often surpassed today, were often exceptionally accurate for their time.

TRY A SHIM!

I’m not big on hacking on bedding; you can drive yourself nuts, usually to no avail. A given barrel is only going to group so well, no matter how much you want it to do better. However, there are a couple of things you can check. If a barrel is supposed to be free-floated (all or part), run a piece of paper between barrel and channel. High spots, especially along the sides, will bear on the barrel and ruin accuracy. This is not uncommon with sloppy factory stocks, and must be relieved.

The best trick I know is to try a business-card shim to replicate pressure bedding. I learned this in the 1970s from a pre-’64 Model 70 collector, and I’m still amazed at how often it works. Loosen the action (or fore-end) screw(s) so you can insert a business card between fore-end tip and barrel. Depending on space, it may take more than one, but, with the card in place and screws tightened, you can feel you’re putting just a bit of upward pressure on the barrel. You can also adjust the placement of the shim, but just behind the fore-end tip is the place to start.

Before and after: Right, a group fired from a barrel with a sloppy crown. Left, a group fired immediately after recutting the crown. With accuracy, results this dramatic aren’t common, but sometimes you get lucky.

This trick is especially good to reduce vertical stringing. Just now, I’ve been messing with Uberti’s Courteney Stalking Rifle, 1885 High-Wall action, one of the two .303 British rifles I mentioned. Lovely rifle but, despite a stiff barrel, it showed vertical stringing. I adjusted pressure on the fore-end screw, which helped. Two thickness of business cards changed the groups from vertical to round.

Boddington’s .300 Win Mag by Kenny Jarrett is especially accurate, but this particular barrel was slow to break in, really coming into its own after more than 100 rounds. Top left group is a final zero at 200 yards.

If this little trick doesn’t help, nothing lost. Remove the cards, tighten the screws. If it works, you can cut the cards to fit, then soak in oil to prevent rust from moisture absorption, or you can replace the cards with brass bar stock. I’ve done this once or twice, but I’ve got several rifles with permanent business card shims!

Couple years ago, I had a test rifle from a well-known maker that wouldn’t shoot like I thought it should. I shimmed the barrel with a business card and shrank the groups significantly. My mistake: I didn’t remove the shim before I returned the rifle. They discovered it and accused me of hacking on their bedding. That manufacturer hasn’t spoken to me since and probably won’t…but it still worked!

THOUGHTS ON RIFLE ACCURACY

Craig Boddington

So, you want your rifle to deliver teeny, tiny groups? Sure, and people in hell want ice. The search for exceptional accuracy can be exhaustive and costly, so let’s start with one question and one reality. Question: How much accuracy do you really need? Reality: Any given rifle has a finite level of accuracy it can deliver.

One 7×57: Boddington loves the Ruger No. One single shot but concedes that, especially with light barrels, they can be finicky. This 7×57 was all over the map and frustrating. Top right, it finally found a load it liked, and has remained consisted at about 1.5 MOA.

Colonel Townsend Whelen (1877-1961) wrote: “Only Accurate Rifles Are Interesting.” Warren Page (1909-1967), authored The Accurate Rifle. Like most gunwriters of the previous generation, both were accomplished competitive rifle shooters. They understood rifle accuracy, and both had much to do with the fixation American shooters have for raw rifle accuracy, whether needed or not. In their time, exceptionally accurate rifles existed, but were less common than today, the exception rather than the rule.

Today, we take for granted that every new rifle on the dealer’s rack will deliver those teeny, tiny groups right out of the box. This is more likely than ever before, and at less cost than ever before. But not all rifles will do it. Even if they will, not all shooters have the skill and technique to produce the best groups their rifles are capable of. And we don’t always care; it depends on our purpose.

This .280 Remington, shown with a nice Coues whitetail, is the finickiest rifle Boddington ever owned. Groups were awful with all factory loads he tried, but the rifle instantly came alive with common handload recipes, shrinking groups well below one MOA

HOW MUCH ACCURACY?

Most rifles deliver more accuracy than is needed! Minute of Angle (MOA) is the most common standard, expressed in terms of inches (or fractions) at 100 yards. At least in theory, a one-inch (one MOA) 100-yard group should naturally expand to two inches at 200 yards, three inches and 300 yards, and so forth on out. Please note: It is far more difficult to shoot a three-inch group at 300 yards than a one-inch group at 100 yards!

In .303 British, the “Courteney Stalking Rifle” from Uberti is just plain cool. Boddington used it during his Kansas rifle season, but ammo and bullets were scarce and two-inch groups were the best he could do with what he had. Not great, but very adequate for hundred-yard shots at whitetails.

We used to think a one-MOA rifle was very accurate. Still is and, to be honest, that’s more accuracy than I really need for most of my hunting. This week, I’m hunting whitetails on my son-in-law’s Texas property, using a 1950s Savage 99 in .300 Savage. Some days it will do better, but it’s really a two-MOA rifle. Some Savage 99s do better, but that’s typical “good” accuracy for any vintage lever-action, and plenty adequate for the shots I might take here, in thick oaks and mesquite. Last night, I shot a “management” eight-pointer at less than 40 yards, not a problem that the rifle wasn’t super-accurate by today’s standards.

Boddington loves his old lever-actions…and accepts their limitations. This 1950s .300 Savage will group 1.5 MOA with some loads, two inches with others. So long as he uses it in close-range situations, there’s no handicap. This last-light Texas buck was taken at 40 yards.

My Kansas country is quite different, thick oak ridges but, similarly, none of our stands offer potential for long shots. All through the ’21 Kansas rifle season I carried Uberti’s Courteney Stalking Rifle, new rifle on the old 1885 Browning falling-block action. In .303 British, it was also producing two-inch groups. I wouldn’t take either rifle sheep hunting, but both are adequate for my whitetail hunting (and hogs, black bear, and so forth).

Sometimes, I want more. Years ago, for a TV show, I went sheep hunting with an advertiser’s rifle that was a two-inch gun. Got the job done, but I was nervous. For mountain hunting, I want at least a one-MOA rifle. Better is nice but, at field distances I’m comfortable with, one MOA is good enough. Honestly, that’s good enough for any of my big-game hunting, but some shooters want more.

This .416 Rigby was exceptionally accurate right out of the box. That’s not uncommon with large calibers (if you can take the pounding), but it doesn’t really matter. For large game at close range, this level of accuracy is far more than needed.

Sometimes I demand less. Most scoped .375s and .416s are at least 1.5 MOA rifles (some much better), but double rifles are rarely that accurate. With open sights, I can’t resolve the front sight well enough to know how accurate the rifle might be. Nor do I care, provided it’s good enough for short-range use.

Some shooters demand…and need much more. Whether for game or target, extreme-range shooters need all the accuracy they can get. Most competitive shooters want more, but it depends on the game. Cowboy Action is not raw-accuracy centric, while Benchrest competition is the most demanding of all. Much of our improvement in rifle accuracy have come from the benchrest community…who define just how small “teeny, tiny groups” really are! Varmint hunters need more accuracy than most deer hunters. Considering size of target and distance, for prairie dog shooting I want all the accuracy I can get. I figure consistent half-MOA groups are minimal, half that if I can get it!

The 6.5-.300 Weatherby Magnum has a long, belted case and is over bore capacity. Modern pundits suggest that such an old-fashioned case can’t possibly group well. Good barrel, with sound bedding and assembly, are more important than case design. This 6.5-.300 breaks the rules.

WHAT CAN YOUR RIFLE DELIVER?

These days, we go on and on about today’s great optics, better ammo, and more accurate rifles. All true, but not all rifles can deliver sub-MOA groups. Most that can will do it with some loads, not with others. If a rifle exists that will print one-hole clusters, all shots touching, with every load you might feed it, I want to see such a wonder! More on ammo later, but it seems to me the primary and most basic ingredient to rifle accuracy is a good barrel. Concentric action/barrel mating, sound bedding, and consistent ammo are also essential. We talk about the advantages of heavy, rigid actions. We also wax eloquent about the amazing accuracy of modern cartridge design with short, fat cases. Rigid actions and case design contribute but, without a straight, well-cut, precisely-chambered barrel, you’re done before you start.

Modern factory rifles can be amazing. Right out of the box, this Kimber Mountain Ascent .30-06 produced three .75-inch groups with the first load tried. That search is done; this rifle is accurate enough for anything Boddington is likely to do with a .30-06.

Thanks to modern manufacturing, average barrels are better than ever. But some barrels are better than others. If I wanted to build up a super-accurate rifle, I’d start with a match-grade, hand-selected barrel from a top brand. Such a barrel (barrel blank alone) might cost more than a complete basic bolt-action from Mossberg, Ruger, Savage, others. No way the factories can have fifty bucks invested in the all-important barrel. It’s amazing that current production rifles shoot as well as they do, and not surprising that rifles from “known” makers who guarantee accuracy can start about ten times more than perfectly serviceable basic factory guns.

Today’s factory rifles are amazing, but not all will produce MOA accuracy, and there’s some luck involved in getting one out of the box that will cut that in half. Again, any given rifle is only capable of so much accuracy. Miracle cures do happen, but my experience is accuracy gains are incremental, rarely exponential. A rifle that produces two MOA at the start might, with work and some luck, cut that in half—with some loads. It would then produce enough accuracy for most purposes (for most people). But if you’re looking for one-hole groups, you’re unlikely to get there. The search for maximum accuracy should be exhaustive and can be continuous. For instance, you could spend a lifetime and never try all the load combinations. However, I don’t believe in tilting at windmills or hunting for unicorns. At some point, I accept the accuracy I have. If it’s good enough for my purposes (for that rifle), wonderful. If not, time to think about starting over: Rebarreling, or trading for something else.

A cartridge is comprised of four components: Primer, case, propellent, projectile. Variations in any impact barrel vibrations (harmonics), which impact accuracy. Any factory load is just one combination; handloaders can vary all four, for infinite combinations.

TRY DIFFERENT LOADS

Right now, with all ammunition hard to find and expensive, this is tough. However, the simplest and easiest way to improve accuracy is to keep trying different loads. Based on past experience, I can make predictions likely ammo brands, bullets, and handload recipes. Sometimes I’m right, other times very wrong. There is no predicting what load(s) a given rifle is likely to shoot best. Some bullets are made for accuracy, others for terminal performance, but only your rifle knows what it likes. It can’t tell you until you try! Often, the differences are unknowable variations in barrel harmonics. Some barrels are very finicky, others tractable and forgiving. Sometimes what works best is surprising, but you can’t know until you shoot a few groups.

Left to right: 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5 PRC, 6.5-.300 Weatherby Magnum. Newer cartridges (like the Creedmoor and PRC), with short, fat, unbelted cases are often accurate, but case design is a very distant factor in rifle accuracy.

Handloaders have a huge advantage, able to vary bullets, propellants and charge weights, even cases and primers. Users of factory ammo are in a pickle, especially right now. The worst of it, with factory ammo: You try a load, doesn’t shoot well, and then you have half a box of near-useless practice ammo left over!

Sorry, but I can’t help you with this. Supplies are terrible right now, and there’s no way to know until you try. The only good news I can give you: There’s no rush! When you see a brand or bullet you haven’t tried, pick up a box and see what happens. When you find a load that shoots well, note it carefully. In fact, considering today’s prices and irregular availability, measure groups and keep notes!

: Expectations should be realistic, but sometimes you get lucky. Despite featherweight barrel and walnut stock, this Jack O’Connor commemorative Model 70 in .270 Winchester produced sub half-MOA groups. Such accuracy is unusual in any brand or cartridge. A test rifle, Boddington should have kept this one. In right-hand only, he returned it…and is still kicking himself!

If a rifle doesn’t seem to shoot as well as you think it should, keep trying different loads. I had a .280 that printed shotgun patterns, not groups, with all the (few) factory loads I could find. I tried a “normal” handload recipe with 140-grain AccuBond. Groups shrank from over two inches to below one MOA. This was a rare case of exponential improvement. Don’t count on that, but before you give up, there are tricks you can try. I’ll save them for next month!

OPTICS: POWER AND LIGHT!

Craig Boddington

The December afternoon was unseasonably warm. Deer would come out late, so I wasn’t surprised that sunset came and went on an empty clearing. Five minutes later the first doe stepped out. No problem, plenty of time…and light. Ten more minutes, flash of antler in the trees. I was hoping for a “management” buck; this buck was a tall seven-pointer, reasonable mass, missing a tine on one side.

Larger, more powerful scopes have nothing to do with a rifle’s accuracy…but make shooting good groups a lot easier. This is the new Leica 2.5-15x50mm Amplus, a great scope with capability and versatility. Boddington put it on his old .264 Winchester Magnum to try out some new handloads…with awesome results.

First impression: Probably what the doctor ordered. I got the rifle rested, but I wanted to see the check his age, make sure he wasn’t a precocious youngster. He was slow coming out, but there was still plenty of time.

This clearing looks west; the sun had dropped behind trees, so the deer were in black shadow and the light was going fast. Another buck trailed the first, almost identical antlers, maybe a bit smaller…or a year younger? I checked my watch, five minutes shooting time remaining, but as they fed along, I could no longer tell them apart. I was done!

: Boddington’s ’21 Georgia buck was taken with a buddy’s rifle topped with a big 2.515x50mm Swarovski scope. — Boddington’s ’21 Georgia buck was taken with a buddy’s rifle topped with a big 2.515x50mm Swarovski scope. During the close encounter with this buck, he inadvertently turned the scope power up too much, saw nothing but hair, and had to quickly turn it back down.

Half-hour past sundown defines legal shooting hours in much of North America. Depending on cover and clouds, usually we can see fairly well that late. But not always. First and last light are magic times when clear, bright optics are essential. On that evening, with two days of Kansas rifle season left, I was under-scoped!

I was carrying Uberti’s “Courteney.” Single-shot on John Browning’s 1885 action, configured like a British stalking rifle, chambered in .303 British, and named after Frederick Courteney Selous, who loved single-shots. So do I! Plenty of gun in our woods, where most shots are close. The Courteney has exceptional open sights, plus a non-traditional integral Weaver base, simplifying scope mounting.

Boddington put a very small 1.5-4x20mm scope on the Courteney single shot. His choice was largely because it “looked good on the rifle,” but for whitetails he could have used more magnification and needed more brightness. It got the job done, but not before last-light opportunities were passed.

In our thick timber, the light comes late and leaves early anyway, but these days I lose the light sooner than in years gone by. I have certain stands I’ll hunt with iron sights, but it’s risky. Best mount a scope! So, in keeping with the rifle’s trim profile, I went minimalist, mounting a little Leupold Mark AR 1.5-4x20mm. Looked great on the rifle!

These three one-inch scopes differ widely in capabilities…and also in size and bulk. Top, 1.4-4x20mm; center, 3-9x40mm; bottom, 3-15x44mm. All are useful, but it depends on how far you need to shoot…and the likelihood of a tough shot in poor light.

For most purposes, I’m not crazy about the big, heavy scopes so much in vogue today. In most situations I don’t need high magnification or the brightness of a big, clunky objective. Especially with whitetails, we mustn’t underestimate the importance of those first and last minutes of shooting light…but that’s exactly what I’d done. Those deer were in the open, max 125 yards, but I had neither enough power, nor enough light, to make either positive ID or take the shot.

4X was plenty of magnification for that shot (and much farther). When I started hunting (mid-Sixties), variable-power scopes weren’t perfected. Fixed 4X was the most common hunting scope, and many hunters did fine with fixed 2.5X scopes.

Europeans don’t observe “shooting hours” as we know them. It was pretty dark when I shot this roebuck in Hungary. The rifle is an Austrian single-shot in 7mm STW, topped with a big Swarovski scope with 56mm objective lens, pretty standard for serious European hunters.

I hunted happily with fixed 4X scopes through the late Seventies and didn’t know I needed more magnification. By then, reliable variables were taking over. The huge target image of my first 3-9X was amazing. I liked it! Since then, I’ve done most of my hunting with “medium-power” variables in the 2-7X, 3-9X, and 3.5-10X class. I shoot left-handed and am strongly left-eye dominant; I have no problem keeping both eyes open. At these magnification levels, most of my shots at game, even fairly close, have been with my scopes turned up to maximum power.

Like whitetails, hogs—especially big boars—are often taken in poor light. Greg Tinsley shot this fine California boar at daylight, still so dark they had to wait. His Lazzeroni rifle was topped with a big, bright scope, so he was ready to shoot the minute it got light enough.

As I was trying to age those bucks in poor light, I could have used more magnification…and more light! My 10×42 binocular gave me both but required too much movement!

The 1.5-4x20mm scope I used, one-inch tube with straight-tube 20mm objective, is one of the smallest and lightest of all scopes. Today’s typical “dangerous game” scope, maybe 1-6x24mm on 30mm tube, is also compact. Small and light scopes are seductive! The 30mm tube admits more light than a one-inch tube so, if quality is similar, will the brighter. However, a scope with a straight objective cannot be as bright as a scope of similar quality with a larger objective lens. In other words, in that 1.5-4x20mm scope, I was using about the “least bright” scope possible!

More magnification might make shots simpler, but in our area we have no stands that a 4X scope can’t handle. Being an optimist, and not looking for a big buck, I hadn’t anticipated a last-light shot, where I’d wish for just two more minutes of good visibility!

There is no “industry standard” for what constitutes an image size at 4X, 10X, or any other “X.” Brands vary, as do fields of view as magnification goes up and down. Brightness and optical clarity also vary, but these are more quality and pricing issues. With my first 3-9X scope, “three-times-zoom” was standard…and the limit of technology. Four-times-zoom isn’t new but today we have scopes with five, six, and even eight-times zoom.

This is good, because today’s bigger variable can still have a low setting that will keep you out of trouble if you follow a wounded animal into thick stuff. Depending on your ability to use a riflescope with both eyes open, the low setting on a hunting scope should probably be 2X or 3X, maximum 4X. With five, six, or eight times zoom, this puts the upper setting into the stratosphere, magnification once reserved for varmint and long-range target scopes.

I enjoying ringing steel at long range, but I’m not especially interested in the extreme-range shooting popular today, and I’m not going to shoot at game at a half-mile. If extreme range fascinates you, then you might need magnification into the high 20s and beyond. Thing is: With magnification, it’s not true that “if a little is good, a lot is better.” As magnification goes up, field of view goes down; at the highest magnification, there’s increasing difficulty finding a distant target.

If a scope is turned up too high, at close range you run the risk of seeing a blur of hair through the scope. I’ve never gotten in trouble with scopes up to 10X or so—but I try to remember to keep them turned down until I need more magnification. Just this year in Georgia, I was using my buddy’s rifle with a Swarovski Z6 2.5-15x50mm scope. Walking to my stand, I got caught flat-footed by a good buck chasing a doe. I dropped my pack and lay behind it, turning up the scope as I got into position. Guess I cranked it too far; when I got behind the rifle all I could see was brown. I cranked it back down and made the shot.

1978 Nevada mule deer — Boddington took this fine mule deer in Nevada in 1978, using a Ruger M77 .30-06 topped with the first variable scope he ever owned, a Redfield 3-9X. After years of hunting with fixed 4X scopes the 9X magnification literally opened his eyes

For my purposes, a variable with maximum power somewhere in the teens is all I need, even for shooting prairie dogs. The most powerful scope I own is an older 6-24X. I use it for varmints, awesome, but at higher settings the field of view is too narrow for big game. For open-country hunting, in recent years I’ve used 2-12X, 3-15X, 4-16X, and currently have VX6 3-18X on multiple flat-shooting rifles. All of these have (at least) all the magnification I want. Because of mirage and heat waves, there are many situations where magnification much above about 12X isn’t practical and, on big game, a 12X image is big enough at any distance I’m likely to shoot.

European hunters rarely use artificial lights but, with big scopes, they use moonlight and, when possible, snow background to hunt far into the night. This Austrian stag was taken late the night before and recovered at daylight.

As with magnification, current taste in objectives is also getting bigger. Other than weight, bulk, and cost, there’s no disadvantage to bigger objectives, and we usually accept what the manufacturer offers in the scope we want. I have scopes with big objectives, visibly bright. However, I prefer the trimmer profile of a 40mm, 42mm, or 44mm objective. Remember, as an American hunter, I’m generally held to “half-hour before sunrise to half-hour after sunset.” Some feral hog and varmint hunting is legal at night, but I don’t do much of that.

Donna Boddington and Zack Aultman with a nice Georgia buck, taken 20 minutes after sunset the night before. She used her .270 with 3-9x40mm scope. Such a scope is neither powerful nor especially bright, but powerful and bright enough for most North American hunting.

Europeans have a different situation. They rarely use artificial lights, but “shooting hours” are generally unknown. Over there, I’ve hunted deer and boar when, well, it was black dark and needed all the light a scope can possibly gather! Most of the places I hunt, I’m gonna quit 30 minutes after sunset. I don’t need the brightest—or most powerful—scope I can buy…but I sure needed more than I had!

The next night, about the same time, but in an east-facing meadow, much brighter at quitting time, I shot a tall 3.5-year-old forky with no eyeguards, perfect buck for me. I like the Courteney single shot and intend to do more hunting with it. So, as soon as I got home I replaced that 1.5-4x20mm scope with a Trijicon 3-9x40mm scope. Doesn’t look quite as perfect on the rifle, but I don’t want to run short of power and light again!

RIFLESCOPES: IS BIGGER ALWAYS BETTER?

Craig Boddington

The “standard” American riflescope has been based on a one-inch tube diameter (26mm) for most of my life. European scopes were more likely to be based on the larger-diameter 30mm tube, but until maybe the 1990s 30mm tubes were fairly uncommon in North America…and scope rings in that diameter were limited and hard to find.

Blaser optic — Blaser-two scopes: Boddington’s Blaser set up with two scopes. Bottom, a Zeiss 3.5-10x56mm. With the extra-large objective, a good example of a scope designed to maximize the poor light shooting European hunters are accustomed to. Top, a Leupold VX6 2-12x42mm, a very capable scope, but with a more modest objective lens.

I don’t think it’s yet true that 30mm scopes are more popular than one-inch tubes but, for sure, 30mm scopes are widely accepted, and there’s little difficulty finding mounts and rings. The current trend is toward larger and more powerful riflescopes. 30mm is not the limit; scopes with 34mm tubes have been available in Europe for many years, and are becoming more common over here.

Boddington’s Jarrett .300 Win Mag accounted for this Dall ram in Alaska. Mounted with a Leupold VX6 3-18x44mm scope, the rifle weighs 8.5 pounds. For Boddington, that’s a comfortable weight, and an objective lens of this size can still be mounted low on the receiver.

Comparing and judging riflescopes is difficult. Regardless of diameter, the tube is just that: A metal tube, housing the internal mechanisms, with ocular and objective lenses affixed at each end (and usually housed in their own tubes, which we call “bells”). Sound construction is essential, but it’s always the quality of lenses and coatings that determine clarity of image. With riflescopes, the only real comparisons that can be made are “apples to apples.” Construction and quality of lenses and coatings must be more or less equal, otherwise you’re comparing apples to oranges!

Leupold’s 1.75-5x20mm scope is probably the quintessential “dangerous game” scope. It serves its purpose but, even in high-quality scopes, the straight tube with small objective lens cannot be as bright as a scope of similar power with a larger objective.

Quality of lenses and coatings are also important in “brightness,” which is of critical importance to all hunters. Good glass with the most modern coatings admits more useable light into the scope tube. However, if these are similar, the diameter of the objective lens is the primary contributor to brightness. So, regardless of tube diameter, a “dangerous game” or “tactical” scope with a straight tube forward and a 24mm objective lens cannot be as bright as the same scope with a forward bell housing a larger diameter objective lens. Somewhere in the gun safes or shop I have riflescopes with 20, 24, 28, 33, 36, 40, 42, 44, 50, and 56mm objective lenses.

: A gorgeous desert bighorn, taken with Donna Boddington’s MGA .270 with Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40mm scope. With a short stock and 22-inch barrel, the rifle is short, light, easy to carry, and has all the capability needed for the shots she is likely to take.

If all else is equal, bigger is usually brighter. I am told that there is a point of diminishing return; as in water down a hose, a scope tube can accept only so much light, so there’s no point in putting a huge 56mm objective on a one-inch-tube scope. There have been one-inch scopes with extra-large objectives, to me ungainly in appearance. Today, with most manufacturers also offering 30mm tubes, most one-inch-tube scopes have retreated to objectives of 50mm and less, resulting in a package that appears more balanced, plus doesn’t need to be mounted as high.

So, is the bigger tube “better”? In some ways, yes. The larger tube is not necessarily “brighter.” Again, this depends mostly on quality of glass, lens coatings, and size of objective. However, the water hose analogy holds: A larger tube admits more useable light. From a mechanical standpoint, the larger tube allows a greater range of adjustment. This doesn’t mean that all scopes with larger tubes are engineered to take advantage of this, but most top-quality scopes are. With today’s interest in extreme-range shooting, this is important: If you’re dialing elevation on your turret, you’re essentially done when you run out of adjustment!

The bigger the scope (and larger the objective lens), the higher the scope must be mounted for a good cheek weld on the comb. This Savage with fully adjustable “AccuStock” solves that problem with height of comb easily adjusted.

Not everyone, perhaps not even many of us, need or care about multiple revolutions of scope adjustment. I don’t, but here’s a strong argument for the 30mm tube: It’s here, and here to stay. The majority of new scope developments have gone to 30mm tubes. So, the best glass, the newest coatings, more adjustment, and all the bells and whistles, are most likely to be found on 30mm scopes.

So, if 30mm tubes are good, then 34mm scopes must be even better, right? Yes and no! The ability to utilize more light and the increased range of adjustment also apply. Many serious extreme-range shooters have gone to 34mm scopes. For many years variable scopes were stuck on “about” three times zoom, as in the popular 3-9X. Today variable scopes are available with six and even eight times zoom. There is advantage in the tactical arena: A 1-8X scope (eight times zoom) allows a true 1X (no magnification for close quarters, all the out to 8X for longer ranges. However, 34mm scopes are not yet common.

3 Scopes — Top to bottom: Riton 1-8x28mm, 34mm tube. Center, Leupold VX6 2-12x42mm, 30mm tube; Leupold VXR 2-7x33mm, one-inch tube. These scopes vary in magnification and size of objective lens, but scopes with larger tubes will be heavier and bulkier.

I tried one two years ago and had a terrible time finding mounts and rings for the rifles I wanted to try it on! With pandemic shortages and shipping backlogs, I doubt this has gotten better…but it surely will in time!

All that aside, I will always make two arguments against larger tubes and larger scopes. First is weight: The larger tube is heavier! Add in a larger objective lens and a big objective bell to house it, and you have more weight. The 34mm scope mentioned above happens to a Riton 1-8x28mm with straight forward objective. Designed as a tactical scope, with eight-times-zoom capability, I figured it would be an awesome scope for a .375, and it is. One of few mounting systems I could find in 34mm was a Blaser saddle mount. The scope we’ve been using on our Blaser .375 barrel is a Leupold VXR 2-7×33 with 30mm tube and a modest objective bell.

A heavy-bossed buffalo taken with a Sabatti .450/.400 double topped with a Leupold VXR 1-4x20mm scope. For the purpose, this was all the magnification needed, but a straight-tube scope with small objective is always limited in brightness.

I weighed the two scopes. Including the steel Blaser mount, which is heavier than some, the 1-8x28mm scope with 34mm tube weighed just over two pounds. Also with Blaser mount attached, the 2-7×33 with 30mm tube weighed exactly half as much, just over a pound. Flip a coin: 1-8X magnification versus 2-7X for a full pound of extra gun weight?

The second primary argument against thicker tubes and larger objective lenses is bulk. For a foot hunter (and, for that matter, a foot soldier), the larger the scope, the more there is to catch on things and snag in brush. For all of us, the larger the objective lens, the higher the scope must be mounted to clear the barrel. Many modern rifles with adjustable cheek rests address this problem, but not all of us have them (or want them).

This vintage .270 is topped with an (equally vintage) Leupold 2-7X. The rifle shoots well enough to deserve a bigger scope. However, the stock fit is perfect with a small scope mounted low…and the rifle is just too pretty to mess up!

Ultimately, it depends on what you want to do. Larger-diameter scopes and large objective lenses were developed in Europe, where “shooting hours” as we American hunters know them are uncommon. Rarely do they use artificial lights or thermal imaging, but in Europe the hunt often continues far into the night, long after we’re back in camp enjoying a fire. They use moonlight (against snow when possible), and they need the brightest scopes available.

Like millions of other whitetail hunters, I understand the importance of those first and last minutes of daylight. For sure, I appreciate a clear, bright scope! However, I watch the clock: I won’t shoot until 30 minutes before sunrise, and I’m done at 30 minutes after sunset. For my deer hunting, I find a high-quality scope, whether one-inch or 30mm tube, with a medium-size objective, say 36 to 44mm, to be bright enough.

Although 30mm scopes are “in” today, many manufacturers still offer both one-inch and 30mm tube scopes, in a variety of magnifications and objective lenses. Top to bottom, three of the excellent Vector “Continental” scopes: 3-18x50mm, one-inch tube; 2-12x50mm, 30mm tube; 1-6x24mm, 30mm tube with straight forward tube.

For many, hog hunting has changed the game. Much of mine is done in California, where we don’t hunt at night. Across Texas and the Deep South, shooting hours usually don’t apply to feral hogs! Now you’re playing by European rules. Absent lights and thermals, you need the brightest scopes possible, large tubes and big objective lenses!

I have long since accepted 30mm tubes for much of my hunting, primarily because of their availability in high-quality scopes, with features I like, such as dial-up turrets and lighted reticles. However, they are heavier, bulkier…and costlier. Fine if you actually need the capability. Also fine if you just want it.

Right Riton 1-8x28mm with 34mm tube (photo 3087). Left, Leupold VXR 2-7x33mm with 30mm tubeFor hunting purposes, the capabilities of these two scopes are similar…but the scope with the 34mm tube weighs twice as much.

It’s not something we can do all the time, but we do a fair amount of mountain hunting. Although I try to keep the weight down a bit, today I use 30mm scopes on my mountain rifles. My Jarrett .300 Win Mag wears a Leupold VX6 3-18x44mm scope with 30mm tube, not a giant scope at all, but plenty of capability. The rifle weighs 8 ½ pounds with scope, no lightweight, but weight I’m comfortable carrying. With calibrated CDS turret I can ring steel out to 1000 yards with no problem. This gives me plenty of confidence and capability for shots I might actually take at game, which is about half that distance.

On the bench with a 26 Nosler topped with a Huskemaw 3-12LR, 30mm tube, set up with dial-up turrets for long-range work. Moderate in magnification with a modest objective lens, a good compromise between size, weight, and capability.

In recent years, Donna has taken more sheep and goats than I have (partly because it’s sort of her turn). Her go-to mountain rifle is a lot different from mine. She’s several inches shorter and a third lighter. She has no business carrying as heavy a rifle, and a long rifle bangs against her legs in steep country. Also, she won’t take shots quite as far as I might. Her go-to mountain rifle is an MGA .270 with Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40mm with one-inch tube. The light scope contributes to overall weight of less than six pounds. Realistically, the scope has enough magnification, and is plenty bright enough, for just about any of the hunting we actually do.

You may need (or want) much more scope: Higher magnification, the largest scope tube you can get, the biggest objective lens. Nothing wrong with that, but you’re probably going to pay more. And you’re going to have to carry it up the mountains and drag it through the brush.

THE PERFECT ZERO?

Craig Boddington

Previously, this column discussed the process of “sighting in.” If you’re happy, then we’re done; it’s time to head for the deer stand! We’re going to assume we have enough accuracy to reliably hit a deer’s vital zone at whatever distance we might shoot. The vital zone of even a small deer offers about an eight-inch target, so extreme accuracy isn’t essential for much for field shooting.

Jarrett-300groups — Boddington’s Jarrett wears a Leupold scope with a CDS turret, calling for a 200-yard zero. The left-hand group was shot at 200 yards, ensuring a good starting point for dialing with a 180-grain SST load.

Hey, I love tiny groups because they instill confidence, and I love to ring steel at long range. However, I’m unlikely to shoot at a game animal much past 400 yards. Most of my shots at game are much closer, and many of us rarely need to reach past 200 yards. Theoretically, if your rifle is producing one-inch groups at 100 yards (one Minute of Angle or “MOA”), then it should produce two-inch groups at 200 yards, four-inch groups at 400 yards, and so on. Considering the size of the vital zone, one MOA is more accuracy than essential.

: Some of Boddington’s rifles wear iron sights…and a few have worn barrels. Either way, extreme accuracy isn’t possible…and unnecessary for a lot of field shooting. With excellent paper-plate accuracy at 50 yards, this old .300 Savage would be just fine to 150 yards…if Boddington could see the front sight well enough!

Actual groups usually get larger as distance increases, so I don’t mind having more accuracy than I really need, but let’s be reasonable and practical. Even today, with the best rifles, optics, and ammo ever, not all rifles can produce one MOA accuracy.

Tight groups instill great confidence, but sub-MOA groups aren’t essential for most field shooting. This Savage 100 .30-06 is more than field-ready: The excellent right-hand group is two inches high at l00 yards; the bullet will be “on” at about 200 yards

Not a train smash; 1.5 MOA is plenty for most field shooting. Most modern rifles will do at least this well, and that’s “good enough,” at least at normal field ranges. I have older rifles that are “two MOA” rifles. Also not a problem. I hunt with them, but only in close-range situations! With such rifles, I usually do my zeroing on ten-inch paper plates. In that context, “paperplate accuracy” is good enough! Regardless of the accuracy you have to work with, and the ranges you might consider shooting, you still must decide exactly where to leave your rifle zeroed before you head afield.

TRAJECTORY CURVE

Traditionally, most of us leave a rifle zeroed slightly high at 100 yards, to take advantage of the bullet’s trajectory. Here’s how this works: There are two straight lines, line of bore and, slightly above, line of sight. Both are straight, but the path of the projectile is curved. Gravity starts working on any projectile as it leaves the muzzle, and air resistance slows it down. As distance increases, the projectile falls ever more quickly, eventually striking the ground.

: Gordon Marsh of LG Outdoors — Gordon Marsh of LG Outdoors at his bench, checking handload velocities with a Lab Radar, a wonderfully accurate tool that uses Doppler radar to measure bullet speed.

If line of bore and line of sight remain parallel, the bullet will never cross the line of sight and no zero can be achieved. Using sight adjustments, we actually zero so the line of bore and line of sight slightly converge. Line of bore remains straight, while the projectile’s path is curved. With line of bore tilted slightly upward relative to line of sight, the projectile’s curving path crosses line of sight twice, once at short range and again farther out. In between these points the projectile’s path will be above the line of sight. The point at which this distance above line of sight is greatest is referred to as “mid-range trajectory.”

On the bench with a Springfield Waypoint in 6.5mm PRC. The scope is a Zeiss 2-12X; the big 56mm objective requires the scope (line of sight) to be considerably higher than line of bore. Height of the scope is a critical factor in good ballistics data and must be correct.

The steepness of the trajectory curve depends on velocity and projectile aerodynamics. In establishing final zero, we usually try to use that curve to best advantage, extending the ranges at which we can shoot without having to worry about holding off the target (above or below) to compensate for that curving trajectory.

There should be little mystery about the actual trajectory curve. For generations, printed ballistics charts have yielded this information, usually suggesting various sight-ins at 100 yards (the bullet’s first crossing of line of sight), and telling us greatest height of trajectory, and where the dropping projectile crosses line of sight again, and yielding bullet drop at various ranges as the decline accelerates.

On the bench with a Jarrett rifle in .300 Win. Mag. Boddington’s California range is hot in summer, cool in winter, and always near sea level. When figuring ballistics data for open-country hunts, he estimates expected temperature and elevation. This works fine for the ranges he shoots at game, but guesswork isn’t good enough for extreme-range shooting.

Today, ballistics programs and smartphone apps yield the same information, and allow us to input altitude, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and more, all of which increase in importance as range increases. Printed data assumes a standard measurement of line of sight over line of bore (height of scope). Electronic data allows us to input this. With the larger (higher-mounted) scopes in vogue today, that measurement must be accurate.

PH Poen van Zyl and Texan John Stucker at the bench in Mozambique, checking zero on Stucker’s .375. With a crocodile hunt in the offing, we adjusted our zeros very carefully to be exactly dead-on at 50 yards.

All data, whether printed or electronic, assumes that the starting velocity is correct. Barrels vary in length, and there are “fast” barrels and “slow” barrels. For truly accurate data, it’s essential to use a chronograph to check the speed of your load in your rifle.

Boddington was delighted to take this ancient and gnarly spike on his Kansas farm. The rifle is a Mossberg 464 with AimPoint red-dot sight. The rifle was zeroed at 50 yards, the shot about the same distance

Fortunately, the vital zone of a big-game animal remains a large target! None of this stuff matters much if your goal is to shoot your buck from a favorite treestand, like in thick timber at my Kansas farm. When I’m setting up a rifle for an open-country hunt, you bet I measure height of scope and check velocity! Effects of altitude and climatic factors are less critical…until you get past normal shooting distance, or you have extreme variations. In preparation for fall hunts, I do my summer shooting in hot, low country. I make a guess on anticipated altitude and climatic factors, run the data, and zero accordingly. This has proven adequate for the ranges I shoot at game…but isn’t precise enough for extreme-range work!

DEAD-ON OR SLIGHTLY HIGH?

Whether at 25, 50, or 100 yards, a dead-on zero with a modern rifle cartridge is the first time the bullet crosses the line of sight. Farther on, it will be above the line of sight and, as the curve steepens, it will cross line of sight again somewhere downrange.

It is not true that “dead-on at 25 yards” will be close to “on” at 100 yards. This is possible with slower cartridges, and with iron sights or low-mounted scopes. With faster cartridges and higher-mounted scopes, I’ve found that a 25-yard zero will usually strike too high at 100 yards. A 50-yard zero comes closer, especially with low-mounted sights. I often zero iron-sighted rifles and scoped big-bores at 50 yards and call it done, knowing that I’m unlikely to use such rifles much past 100 yards. However, with today’s big scopes, I find that a 50-yard zero is usually three or four inches high at 100 yards. This puts the second crossing of the line of sight ‘way out there, and creates a mid-range trajectory as much as six inches above line of sight. For me, this increases risk of shooting over an animal (or hitting too high).

John Stucker and Boddington with Boddington’s Mozambique croc, taken in September 2021 with a Blaser .375 H&H. The Nile crocodile must be taken with either a brain or spine shot. All rifles were zeroed dead-on at 50 yards; Boddington’s four-hunter group took four big crocs…anchored with one shot each.

For close-range work, there’s nothing wrong with a 100-yard zero. Depending on cartridge, “dead-on at 100” will be on again at 150 to 175 yards, with little mid-range-rise. More common is to zero a “couple of inches high” at 100 yards. You can study ballistics charts and programs, and you should. Depending on your cartridge (and load, and bullet), a zero of two to 2.5 inches high at 100 yards will put you dead-on somewhere between 200 and 300 yards. You shouldn’t have to hold low at closer range, and you shouldn’t have to hold over until nearly 250 yards. In my youth, Jack O’Connor was our greatest gunwriter. His consistent advice was to zero “two to 2.5 inches high” at 100 yards. I believe his formula remains sound, and that’s the way I usually zero for general-purpose use. Most important to me: I never establish a 100-yard zero any higher than that, because of the risk of shooting over at “medium” range!

DIALING THE RANGE

These days, dial-up turrets are all the rage, and they change the game. Some systems require either a 100 or 200-yard zero as the starting point. If you intend to dial the range, then I assume you may be shooting at some distance. I don’t like a 100-yard zero in open country, simply because you must start holding over (or dialing) at fairly close range. With today’s optics, dialing is precise, but fraught with human error: You must dial correctly and, if you don’t shoot, you must remember to dial back to zero. (Trust me, everybody forgets now and then!)

Leupold CDS — With a good scope, dialing the range or holdover is the most precise method, but the data must be correct and verified by shooting at actual distance. This CDS turret is for a .300 Weatherby Magnum load at a measured 3185 fps with 180-grain SST. The 6000 feet elevation and 30-degree F temperature reflect anticipated hunting conditions.

I’ve used several systems with good results, but a favorite is Leupold’s Custom Dial System (CDS), with turret calibrated to my load at a stated altitude and temperature. On these, again, I strike an average of most likely conditions. My CDS is based on a 200-yard zero. At 250 yards I’ll usually hold slightly high on the shoulder, keeping it simple and taking advantage of that large vital zone. I normally don’t consider dialing until about 300 yards.

If your system is based on a 200-yard zero, then you should check zero at the actual distance, so your starting point is verified as correct. Then, if you’re serious about shooting at longer ranges, you need to verify your data all the way out. This is a stumbling block for many who don’t have ready access to a “long” range. Sorry, whether published or electronically generated, data cannot be considered valid until verified by shooting at actual distance. The farther you might consider shooting at game, the more critical this becomes!

Rigby 7x57 groups — : This Rigby 7×57 groups about 1.5 MOA with this load, a 139-grain Interlock at 2700 fps. Zeroed two inches high at 100 yards, the bullet will be “on” at 200 yards, so a dead-on hold will work to about 225 yards.

Finally, if you’ve traveled some distance—by any means—it’s important to check zero when you arrive at your hunting destination. There’s no consistency about how much (or how little) rattling around may cause a shift in point of impact, so it’s always worth checking. On long, tough hunts, I’ll usually check zero every few days, for sure if the rifle has been dropped! I also recommend checking zero after an inexplicable miss. It’s terrible for the ego, but great for peace of mind to know for sure it was your fault! When planning ammo for a distant hunt, factor in enough to check zero about three times!

TIME TO SIGHT IN! By Craig Boddington

With apologies, for some it’s too late! Rifle deer season opened in August in such diverse places as Alaska, California’s “coast zone,” and parts of South Carolina. I hope you were ready but, for most of us, deer season lies some weeks ahead. So now, as the summer doldrums persist, this is the time to get to the range and make sure your rifle is perfectly in zero and ready for the Blessed Opening Day!

Fat_ wrench — Even on .22 rimfires, accuracy depends on all mount and ring screws being tight. Wheeler’s FAT Wrench is a great tool for both checking screws and mounting scopes. A setting of 25 inch-pounds is about right for most scope mounts and rings.

Human Nature being as it is, many of us wait until the last minute, trusting Old Betsy. If she responds as usual, not a problem. However, in these times of pandemic ammo shortages, it’s better than ever to plan ahead and get to the range early.

While it’s critical to be sure you’re properly zeroed, I try to expend as few rounds as possible! Here’s how I do it:

GOT A SCREW LOOSE?

action_screws — While checking scope mount screws, also check action screws…good and snug, but not overtightened!

Saving ammo makes the first step even more important: Make sure all your screws are tight! A friend of mine in Kansas needed to zero his .243. It was a “package” rifle with an inexpensive scope. I’ve often had good results with inexpensive scopes of various brands, but, oddly, this scope was completely unmarked other than “3-9X”: No manufacturer or origin! Results were so erratic he ran out of ammo before he got it zeroed and suspected a bad scope. He left it with me, but I had no .243 ammo. I called around and neighbor Mark Woods found a couple boxes.

I agreed, probably the scope but, rather than waste more ammo, I checked all the screws. The bases were tight, but ring screws could have been tighter. That doesn’t mean the scope was good or bad; with loose screws there’s no way to know! Rather than mess around, I dug into the safe and found an older Bushnell I could lend him, knowing it had held zero on other rifles.

Mounting a scope is more difficult than checking screws, but both are a whole lot easier with proper tools! I carry gunsmith screwdrivers and Allen wrenches just about everywhere, always regretting it when I leave my little kit behind! Wheeler’s FAT Wrench torque screwdriver is a wonderful tool; you want to get screws plenty tight…but not so tight that you shear them off. Absent specific manufacturer’s instructions (a worthwhile read!), I set the FAT Wrench at 25 inch-pounds.

If you’re shooting a bolt-action, don’t forget to check the action screws! A loose action screw plays havoc on accuracy. Over-tightening can be just as bad; it’s possible to literally suck the action down into the stock, creating a bind between action and barrel. Snug, but not cranked down with all your strength!

In the field, every shot depends on having the rifle zeroed exactly where you want it!

We still don’t know if the original “unmarked” scope is good or bad. We do know it wasn’t the gun! I got it on paper, adjusted to 50-yard zero, took it to 100 yards, and shot a one-third-inch three-shot group. Mission accomplished with seven rounds expended.

ON PAPER

Before you can establish zero, you gotta get on paper. If the rifle is an old friend, maybe you can start at 100 yards, but if it’s a new rifle, new scope, or screws were loose, you’ll save ammo by starting out with a good-sized target much closer!

In order to hit any target, the line of barrel and line of sight must be roughly aligned. Gun shops and many serious shooters use optical and laser bore-sighters. Being old and a bit old-fashioned—and not needing to zero rifles daily—I usually bore-sight by eye. I have seen anomalies with optical and lasers, and I can usually get about as close by eye. Doesn’t matter how, the goal is to get on paper!

So long as you start with a checked-and-empty rifle, you can bore-sight anywhere, but I prefer doing it at the range because you must have a steady rest and a good aiming point…like a paper target. Doing it by eye assumes you can get behind the rifle and look through the barrel, then lift your head and look through the scope or sights. With bolt-actions, remove the bolt. Bore-sighting is also easy with most single-shots. With ARs, I detach the lower receiver and remove the bolt, resting the upper and barrel. More on other actions later!

Rest the rifle securely so you can center the target through the barrel. Then look through the scope (or sights). With luck, you’re pretty close, but initial differences between line of bore and line of sight are common. With optical sights, keep the line of bore securely centered on the target. Look through the scope and use your windage and elevation turrets. You can see the reticle move relative to the target. Center the reticle on the target, and double-check to make sure line of bore and line of sight both remain centered.

russiawithlove — Doesn’t matter how far; if you travel to a hunt, always verify zero at your destination. In southern Russia, Joe Bishop and Boddington put shots side-by-side; they’re ready to start the hunt!

You are ready to fire a close-range sighter. Chances are the first shot won’t be perfect, but you should be on paper. If not, check bore-sight again. If it’s still looks good, move the target closer. This is not the time for ego; save ammo and get on paper!

Once on paper, adjustments are made normally, following the “left or right, and up or down” arrows on the turret or, with iron sights, moving the rear sight in the direction you need to move the bullet strike. For scopes, you’ll need some math. Most common with American scopes today is ¼ MOA, meaning each adjustment is supposed to move the strike about ¼-inch at 100 yards. Four clicks to the inch…at 100 yards. If you got on paper at 50 yards, double the clicks; at 25 yards, quadruple the clicks. Do not expect the clicks to be consistent; only very good scopes have perfect adjustments! Articles have been written about “three-shot-zeroing” and such, but these usually assume perfect adjustments, and that’s not the real world. This is why I start with a close-range zero!

: It doesn’t matter if the firearm is a short or long-range tool. Sighting in needs to be done from a dead-steady rest, removing as much human error as possible.

With guns that don’t allow removing the bolt (lever and slide-actions, muzzleloaders, some semiautos, most handguns) bore-sighting through the barrel isn’t possible. Love my lever-actions, but getting on paper can be more difficult. If you have access to an optical or laser bore-sighter, fine. If not, start close with a big target! We keep butcher paper on the range and mark an aiming point. With scoped bolt-actions, I usually start at 50 yards with a standard 12×12-inch target. I expect to be on paper with the first shot…but I’ve done this a lot! With other firearms, I start at 25 yards or use a larger target. You must get on paper. Once you have a starting point, adjusting the strike is pretty simple.

ZERO RANGE (AND ZERO)

With rifles, there’s an urban legend that “if you’re on at 25 yards, you’ll be good at 100 yards.” This is possible with iron sights, where line of bore and line of sight are close together, but untrue with scopes because, the larger the scope and the higher the mount, the greater the distance between line of bore and line of sight. With scopes and high-velocity cartridges, if you’re “on” at 25 yards, your strike will be too high at 100 yards. At 25 yards, I adjust to an inch low. With larger scopes and fast cartridges, “dead-on” at 50 yards is usually still too high at 100. A half-inch low at 50 yards is often pretty close at 100.

Whether 25 or 50 yards, I establish an approximate close-range zero before I move out. The closer you are, the easier it is to be precise. Sighting in, and all benchrest shooting, is about removing human error and allowing the firearm to do its work.

What happens next depends on the firearm and its intended purpose. With iron sights, I zero at 50 yards and I’m done; I can no longer resolve open sights well enough to shoot meaningful groups at 100 yards! Likewise with specialized tools: Most slug guns and muzzleloaders; big bores for dangerous game.

For scoped rifles and handguns that have the capability, next stop is 100 yards. Before making adjustments, I’ll usually shoot a three-shot group, to see if the firearm will group with the load I’m using; and to see where the group prints. With reasonably accurate rifles and decent optics, there are often disparities, a bit right or left, or farther up/down than expected. 50 yards is too close! I start with a group, and then adjust to the desired point of impact. If the scope’s adjustments are accurate, this could take just one more shot.

Old friend and fellow writer Gordy Krahn made a perfect shot on this excellent blacktail at Steinbeck Vineyards during California’s August “coast zone” season. Most rifle seasons lie ahead, but Gordy had an early opportunity. He was zeroed and ready!

We haven’t practiced or compared different loads, but as far as sighting in, we’re done. With good bore-sighting and a bit of luck, seven to max ten rounds should do it! Where final point of impact should be depends on the firearm, scope, intended purpose…and personal preferences. This is actually a more complicated subject, so I think I’ll leave it until next month. That will still be ahead of most of our firearms big-game seasons!

TOP THREE AR CARTRIDGES

Craig Boddington

The two most popular actions in the U.S. must be John Browning’s Colt 1911 pistol…and Gene Stoner’s Armalite 15, long shortened to AR15 (which does not stand for “Assault Rifle”). Dozens and dozens of large and small firms make (and have made) firearms based on these actions. All self-loading actions have sharp limits on the size of cartridges they can accept. The .45 ACP cartridge was developed for and around the Colt 1911. Browning and his team must have done a good job because, 110 years later, the .45 ACP still rules the 1911 world. Although easily adapted to 9x19mm (and expanded to 10mm), the Colt 1911 frame has spawned few other pistol cartridges.

AR15 Rock River groups: Boddington’s “ranch rifle” is a left-hand Rock River AR in 5.56mm. It has served well from varmints to deer, and both availability and choices in ammo are strong suits of the .223/5.56mm.

The AR15 action is also not new. Developed in the 1950s, it is fast approaching retirement age. Formal acceptance of the AR15 and its “final” cartridge by the U.S. military came in 1963. That cartridge was “Cartridge 5.56mm Ball M193, already released to the public as the .223 Remington. Then and now, the .223 is a great cartridge. It is not as inherently accurate as the .222 Remington, but the military specs required more velocity. This led to the .222 Remington Magnum…which led to the .223.

Old-timers (including me!) lamented the loss of the M14 and its 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester), more powerful and offering greater range…at cost in rifle and ammo weight and recoil. Right or wrong, the deal was done, and for decades the AR15 platform and the 5.56mm/.223 Remington were inextricably linked. However, there has been much recent development in “AR-compatible cartridges.