Excellent article. Thanks. I am looking at Vixen scopes and the model I am looking at published a FoV of only 0.7m at full magnification (16x). Do you think this is a big issue? I used the gun mainly for hunting shooting between 50 to 200yds.
Hi Richard,Simply breathtaking. I am a writer by profession. The way you put things in perspective was so lucid.It is by far the best treatise on getting the lowdown about things gun-related.One question though, what do you consider to be the optimal weight of scope for a Ruger Professional Gun?My sincere thanks once again. Keep up the grand work.
me scope ves 5 1
Download File: https://urlgoal.com/2vJdF5
Great intro to scopes. I usually use shotguns for clays and duck, and just getting into long range shooting and found this extremely informative and fun to read through. Thanks for the time and effort!
Hi. I am a trained Marine, I have fired everything from a .22 to 50 BMG and some other weapons. I understand breath control, sighting and have 20-20 corrected sight. I am now retired and have never hunted animals before. I am going with a 45-70 Henry with side gate and picatinny rail. I am a distance shooter that feels comfy at 500 yards. I can understand most of what you are saying but I actually would like a recommendation for a nice scope. I have a modest income SS/ retirement income from the Corp I can probably go a thousand on a scope but I would like a couple of choices Thank you in advance for your help in this matter. SSGT/Jim Jones USMC (retired)
I am on the lookout for my first quality scope for a new hunting rifle. Came across your article while searching and really enjoyed the way you described everything, keeping it simple but factual. I appreciate the time you took to get that right. Thanks for helping me move to make an appropriate decision based on my needs, not wants.
Mainly it was the first focal plane reticle. In this type of scope, the reticle shrinks and grows with the magnification. Especially helpful for ranging since hash marks will always cover the same distance regardless of magnification. Keep an eye out for this during our range test.
On the plus side, a bright red or green dot gives faster target acquisition compared to a black reticle or iron sights. Magnification can be added with the addition of a simple magnifier scope, or even a flip-down type to give the best of both worlds. Extra batteries can be carried without a lot of extra weight, and so on.
Even when illuminated by battery power, most still carry a functional black crosshair when they are off. Magnification can be adjusted easily by twisting a knob, and the whole package is a single addition to your top rail. The simplicity of the setup is really where a 1-4x scope stands out.
Some manufacturers of this type of scope will skimp on the little things, and this is one that occasionally gets missed. Make sure that the turrets to adjust your aim point are protected from bumps and bangs in the field, as well as giving the whole scope an added layer of protection from the elements.
First, since this is a full optical system rather than a single plate of glass, eye-relief can be an issue. A red dot can be placed just about anywhere on the rail, but a variable scope of any sort needs to keep your eye within a comfortable range of the scope.
The reticle is fairly simple. Not too busy, but still allows for some dots to help with bullet drop. The Drop-Zone 223 is a no-nonsense sight picture that will guide your bullets soundly at the effective range of this scope.
All in all, most scopes made in the last 100 years did not come with parallax adjustment, and we got along just fine. I could take it or leave it, but if this is something you really want, you might need to look to other scopes.
The magnification is the real key-note on this scope. The quick-flip lever offers some of the fastest swapping from low to high power of any scope or reflex/magnifier combo available, and at a super affordable price.
The ring size is 30mm. I would suggest that while saving money on your scope you invest a little extra in a solid mount. It can mean a world of difference, and you should have rings at least as rugged as what the scope can handle.
The advanced reticle design on this scope makes it a versatile optic for fast target acquisition and precision shooting, plus the range of magnification gives it the capability to aim at most distances.
I have 2 Athlon scopes one is a Neos on my Magnum Research 22 semi auto and the other a Talos on a Ruger American bolt rimfire both are excellent for the application and both have really super clear glass. For the money Athlon is extremely hard to beat as far as value and quality for the money is concerned so i will be buying this Talos 14 for my AR pistol.
Given the narrowness of this question, we have no occasion to canvass in detail the constitutional limitations upon the scope of a policeman's power when he confronts a citizen without probable cause to arrest him.
The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or "seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a "search," is twofold. It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. And, by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation. [Footnote 15] This Court has held, in
the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United States, 353 U. S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v.
United States, 282 U. S. 344, 356-358 (1931); see United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 586-587 (1948). The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring); see, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367-368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30-31 (1925).
There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning, however. First, it fails to take account of traditional limitations upon the scope of searches, and thus recognizes no distinction in purpose, character, and extent between a search incident to an arrest and a limited search for weapons. The former, although justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964), is also justified on other grounds, ibid., and can therefore involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to
scope of governmental action as by imposing preconditions upon its initiation. Compare Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 354-356 (1967). The entire deterrent purpose of the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment rests on the assumption that "limitations upon the fruit to be gathered tend to limit the quest itself." United States v. Poller, 43 F.2d 911, 914 (C.A.2d Cir.1930); see, e.g., Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 629-635 (1965); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961); Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 216-221 (1960). Thus, evidence may not be introduced if it was discovered by means of a seizure and search which were not reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring).
We need not develop at length in this case, however, the limitations which the Fourth Amendment places upon a protective seizure and search for weapons. These limitations will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases. See Sibron v. New York, post, p. 40, decided today. Suffice it to note that such a search, unlike a search without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest, is not justified by any need to prevent the disappearance or destruction of evidence of crime. See Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964). The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.
The scope of the search in this case presents no serious problem in light of these standards. Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing of petitioner and his two companions. He did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of their garments until he had
I join the opinion of the Court, reserving judgment, however, on some of the Court's general remarks about the scope and purpose of the exclusionary rule which the Court has fashioned in the process of enforcing the Fourth Amendment.
These dangers are illustrated in part by the course of adjudication in the Court of Appeals of New York. Although its first decision in this area, People v. Rivera, 14 N.Y.2d 441, 201 N.E.2d 32, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 978 (1965), rested squarely on the notion that a "frisk" was not a "search," see nn. 3-5 supra, it was compelled to recognize, in People v. Taggart, 20 N.Y.2d 335, 342, 229 N.E.2d 581, 586, 283 N.Y.S.2d 1, 8 (1967), that what it had actually authorized in Rivera and subsequent decisions, see, e.g., People v. Pugach, 15 N.Y.2d 65, 204 N.E.2d 176, 255 N.Y.S.2d 833 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 936 (1965), was a "search" upon less than probable cause. However, in acknowledging that no valid distinction could be maintained on the basis of its cases, the Court of Appeals continued to distinguish between the two in theory. It still defined "search" as it had in Rivera -- as an essentially unlimited examination of the person for any and all seizable items -- and merely noted that the cases had upheld police intrusions which went far beyond the original limited conception of a "frisk." Thus, principally because it failed to consider limitations upon the scope of searches in individual cases as a potential mode of regulation, the Court of Appeals in three short years arrived at the position that the Constitution must, in the name of necessity, be held to permit unrestrained rummaging about a person and his effects upon mere suspicion. It did apparently limit its holding to "cases involving serious personal injury or grave irreparable property damage," thus excluding those involving "the enforcement of sumptuary laws, such as gambling, and laws of limited public consequence, such as narcotics violations, prostitution, larcenies of the ordinary kind, and the like." People v. Taggart, supra, at 340, 214 N.E.2d at 584, 283 N.Y.S.2d at 6. 2ff7e9595c
Commenti