Author Topic: Red dot or scope (Read 734 times)

northener · « **on:** August 15, 2005, 11:51:17 AM »

I am having a hard time making up my mind on what to get for my 7-08 barrel for deer hunting. I have no experience with scopes on hand guns and am wondering if a red dot would be easier to use. Where I hunt deer the longest shot would be 150 yds but the normal distances I have had in the past would be more like 75 yds and less. I am really concerned about getting a quick site picture with a scope vs a red dot. Any body with any experience with this would be greatly appreciated. Oh I should mention my eye site is aging but am far from going blind :-)

scienceguy · « **Reply #1 on:** August 15, 2005, 11:59:03 AM »

Northener,

I just finished raving about holographic sights for hunting handguns in the "pistol scope opinions" thread on this same sight. Most red dot sights have a dot way too large for use beyond 100 yards. Eotech/Bushnell holographic sights are a whole different story. Look that thread up and see what was written. For some, pistol scopes can be hard to get on target, not so with a holosight. Hope this helps you in making your decision.

northener · « **Reply #2 on:** August 15, 2005, 12:08:25 PM »

scienceguy. I saw you post on the " pistol scope opionion" . I have not thought about a holo site maybe that would be just the ticket for me. I will try and look that thread up and read it.

One thing that I read that I have not thought about was the low light time of day that deer just seem to love. How do you think the holo site would be in those conditions, or would a scope have the advantage.

scienceguy · « **Reply #3 on:** August 15, 2005, 12:32:04 PM »

Northener,

If you can see the deer with your eyes, you can see it through a holosight. Long eye relief pistol scopes with small objectives don't gather as much light as you might think. The best way to decide is to go to a dealer and look through both in a low light situation. That is what I did. The scope might gather slightly more light, but the holosight is faster to get on target, has non-critical eye relief. I personally found the holosight easier to use in low light. I am 52, and have to use reading glasses in low light situations. Forget about using iron sights with these eyes! The holosight is sharp, clear, and easy to use.

poncaguy · « **Reply #4 on:** August 15, 2005, 02:05:24 PM »

Put a Burris 2X on my 7mm-08 Encore, can shoot MOA with it. Will use it for deer this fall.........

northener · « **Reply #5 on:** August 15, 2005, 02:48:27 PM »

Scienceguy We have alot in common ,as I am 51 with reading glasses. I do not have a dealer anywhere close but I am going to try and look at those holo sites as well as 2x or 4x scopes to make my decision. Maybe I am making this to difficult but I really would like to make the right desion the 1st time for a change :-) I am leaning towards the holo simply because of the fast target acquistionand the percieved hand shake with scopes.

Keith L · « **Reply #6 on:** August 15, 2005, 03:33:38 PM »

I use Burris scopes on my hunting handguns because they seem to have a little larger field of view than the other quality scopes, but they still take practice for fast target aquistion. About the hand shake, know that at 150 yards a little shake goes a long way. I want to know it's there so I make sure to get a good rest before taking the shot. I have passed on many shots because I couldn't get a solid rest and chose not to risk wounding the game.

Keith L · « **Reply #7 on:** August 15, 2005, 03:41:47 PM »

Another option may be a 0 power shotgun scope. You can use it with both eyes open (the major advantage of a red dot) and there is unlimited eye relief. No magnification, but good light transfer and it may be what you are looking for. I put a few on Muzzleloaders for folks (the only legal scope for muzzleloading here in Wisconsin) and one on a crossbow for another hunter with disabilities. I need the magnification, but if you don't take a look at one.

flyfisher · « **Reply #8 on:** August 18, 2005, 03:33:50 PM »

I have experience with both a red dot (Tasco PDP3) as well as a 2x scope (Bushnell). Both have served 2 seasons apiece atop my .375 Win. barrel (I had a hard time deciding which to use as well). Both are awesome for quick, in-close shooting. I started with the red dot and shot 2 deer with the setup. Then, I switched to the 2x scope and have killed 3 deer with the new setup. Both worked very well for my type of hunting, and I would recommend both (I know that doesn't help much). I think that I am going to stay with the 2x scope...reason being...I feel that the 2x magnification is slightly greater than the red dot for slightly farther shots, and it does not rely on batteries or any other power supply. I have yet to change the batteries in the red dot, but the idea of dead batteries during an outing always sticks in the back of my head. Again, both are a great choice, but I guess that I'll stick with the scope. Good luck.

TCBrian · « **Reply #9 on:** August 19, 2005, 08:03:57 AM »

I two have used both, but prefer a red dot for shots up to 100yrds.

I have a leopold gilmore and I think the dot is only 2 MIA, which does not impede site picture, most red dots have way too big a dot.

My father, who has vision problems, shot at 6 clay pigeons I had layed out at 100yrds his first time shooting my .44 super redhawk and hit 5 of the 6 targets.

He would not have been able to do that with open sites or a scope, because he can't focus in close with one eye shut. The red dot allows you to keep both eyes open and just place the dot on the target.

For longer shots, or smaller targets I far prefer a scope of 1.5-4 power on a handgun, but for deer up to 100, in all light conditions, the red dot is hard to beat. Most TC situations require a scope for me, since I am in CA and many shots will be out to 200yrds. My redhawk is my close in bear, dear and pig gun when shots may be very close and require super quick follow ups. I just am not fast enough at loading the TCs yet at 10yrds with a mad pig or bear looking at me.

On the other hand, some states do not allow any site device that is battery powered, plus there is always the possibility of the batteries going dead. I carry an extra battery, but it would be very inconvienant to have to change it right when a shot presents itself.

Brian

TNrifleman · « **Reply #10 on:** August 19, 2005, 01:32:19 PM »

I have a Leupold and A Burris red dot and think they make great hunting sights for my 375 Win. and 309 JDJ Contender barrels. I limit my handgun hunting to less than 100 yards.

jh45gun · « **Reply #11 on:** August 29, 2005, 10:03:20 PM »

I have used both and I prefer the scope but then I want to wring out every bit of accuracy I can out of my 308 Encore and a red dot does not do that for me. If I wanted red dot accuracy I would have bought a revolver in 44 or something simular for under 100 yards shooting. Nothing wrong with a red dot I have them on a 870 and a crossbow. Most of my other rifles have either peep sights or scout scopes that is a other reason I use the pistol scope on my Encore as I have Two rifles that are set up with pistol scopes on them. Jim