The best of intentions!

[1Shirt]

I just returned from a 10 day hunt in Namibia. A great time, took 9 animals! I took a 7x57 w/J blts, and a 375H&H with cast. I spent about 6 mo working up the load for the 375 H&H, and probably shot at least 300 rounds in it in practice. Beagle had provided me with a wealth of knowledge, info, and loads for the 375H&H with cast, and the load that I finally settled on was 375449, .278GC, White Lable Lube (Red Canuba), 273 gr. as loaded, over a load of Sr4759 clone, that pushed it to 2060 chronographed. It grouped around an inch at 100, and stayed under 5 at 200, but drop was appreciable. Rifle was a #1 Ruger with 3xWeaver. I fired only one round out of it, and that was to check zero. The reason, the 3X was just inadequate for my approaching 70yr old eyes. Had a 3x9 on the 7x57, and for the long shots, that at 9x was minimal. My hunting partner shot an 06, w/4x14 scope with mil dot. My closest shot was over 150 yds. My longest 440 yds. The
3x might have been ok on the warthog at 150, but I doubt it. As it was, it took me very little time to realize that the best of intentions to shoot African game w/cast was shot in the tail by lack of enough glass. If I am lucky enough to get to go back, will take either the 375 or 45-70 in #1 Ruger with cast, and probably 06 for long range. As an added note, was warned by a number of shooters that the
7x57 was not adequate for Africa. Wrong! If I am fortunate enough to ever be able to again hunt Africa, it will be with a scope that is 3 or 4 power on the low side and at least 12, or preferably 14 x on the high side.
1Shirt!:coffee: :coffee:

[MT Gianni]

Keep the story coming, what animals did you take with each gun and what did you like the most of Africa? Gianni.

[VTDW]

Well 'old eyes' it sounds like the trip was a memorable one with lessons learned.:) I hope you have pics to share along with stories. Congratulations sir.

Dave

[ACK450]

1Shirt: So happy for ya getting to make the trip. Sorry about the sight problem though. Thats something my aging eyes understand. Your taking that 7x57 was a class act sir! Does my heart good to another older fellow with faith in that caliber. I love mine! It does the job if I do mine....
Congratulations! ACK450

[Char-Gar]

OK... I am in learning mode. Somebody explain to me how the magnification power of a scope relates to "old eyes". I can understand the use of a scope as opposed to irons for old eyes, as the old eyes can't focus on those various distances due loss of flexibility or other internal eye conditions.

But.. A scope reduces the target to a single plain which can be corrected by the scope focus for the individual eye or eye lens. To my simple mind, a scope is a scope. Of course the target is smaller with a low power scope, but that does not change with age. It was smaller at age 18 as it will be at age 70.

For the record, I am pushing 66 but can still shoot a good peep sight as I can get the front sight of a rifle in good focus. The target is pretty fuzzy, but it was fuzzy at age 21, just more so now. I don't find fuzzy targets hard to hit.

Splain it to me boys, so I understand. Don't use big words or get irked..just take me gently by the hand and lead me to the truth.

[45 2.1]

Hahahaha Charles, thanks for the laugh. Thats a good one.

[felix]

Yeah, the scope can focus on the distant target, but your 66 year old eyes still can't when focused on the crosshairs. If the crosshairs are still not perfectly clear, then you need glasses to make that so. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

OK...OK... for the same of learning, let's say the cross hairs are fuzzy with old eyes. Why are the cross hairs of a 3X scope more fuzzy than the cross hairs of a 9X scope?

I realize the 3X cross hair will "subtend" a greater area than a 9X cross hair, but I fail to see why that makes the 3X scope less useful. Even if the cross hairs are sharp, they still subtend the same amount of space as the fuzzy hairs.

[felix]

Cross hairs at same distance from eye should be just as clear as one another. If they are not, adjust the offending scope's lens closest (back lens) to your eyes to adjust your EYE to it. You are actually changing the power of your eyes to match the distance to the crosshairs. The SCOPE itself is focused with the lens furtherest from your eye (front or intermediate lens; AO scopes only). Camera lens' have AO adjustment only because they have their "eyes" defined at the film plane for the camera intended. ... felix

[TAWILDCATT]

have you cateracts.if so get them taken care of.I did and its amazing.

[Char-Gar]

OK..OK.. We are back to my original post. You can adjust the ocular of a scope to your individual eye. In the Days of Yore, I did not have to do that, but today I find I need to do that to get sharp cross hairs.

I am still back to my original question, based on the topic of this thread. Why would old eyes be able to shoot well with a 9X scope, but not with a 3X scope.

As I said, a scope is a scope, a cross hair is a cross hair be it fuzzy or sharp.

Now, the older Weavers were not all that bright and don't gather light as well as some other scopes. Older eyes, lose some of their ability to see in low light. I can see why that might have an effect on older eyes to use a particular scope, but that is a matter of lens quality and not power/magnification. The last few years of El Paso made Weavers were pretty darn bright. The 50s, 60s and early 70's vintage Weavers were dim, dim, dim. That is why I used Redfield and Unertl scopes on my hunting rifles. They were much brighter and that could make a difference early in the morning or late in the afternoon who critters were most active. The Lyman scopes of that period we plenty bright as well, as were the Bushnell.

I am still trying to wrap my dim bulb mind around the original post, whereby a rifle with a 3X scope was not usable, but a rifle with a higher power scope was usable and all of this because of older eyes.

My non-scientific mind tell me that an AO (adjustable objective) scope has more to do with paralax adjustment than anything else. It didn't have much to do with focus of the subject. Most "big game" scopes have a "field of view" that is sharp from about 20 yards to infinity and a focus adjustment is pretty much not needed.

For folks shooting targets are short to medium range and longer range, an AO scope is helpful to cure the paralax issues for precision shooting.

I still don't understand and am still willing to be lead by the hand to the optical truth.

[felix]

You can ALWAYS shoot better with a more powerful scope because it narrows down to where the projectile will go. Target scopes are up into the 45X range now because they can make the optics more commensurate with that power now at a price BR folks are willing to pay. ... felix

[felix]

Charles, forget you ever heard of the term parallex. It is nothing but a term among several that deals with focusing in our terms. There are a bunch of scientific/exact terms that have very specific meaning to the ocular designers and have no real meaning to shooters except as a composite that we could call focusing ability. A mechanical eye is only an emulation of the real thing, and therefore nothing but a bunch of compromises that can only come close to the real thing. That is why we have laser guided projectiles which are always compensating for visual distortion elimination as the target is approached.

[Char-Gar]

Felix.. I can't quite forget the term parallax. At one time I was a very serious photographer. When dealing with cameras that had different "viewing" and "taking" lens, parallax was something to deal with if you needed truly critical focus. If wasn't as big an issue far away, but up close it could be a booger. Lens are always sharpest at the center and that is where you wanted the sharp focus to be. With the viewing and taking lens at different heights, the difference could be enough to shift the sharp focus from the center of the lens toward the edge.

Through the lens viewing does away with all parallax issues in cameras.

I do realize it is always easier to aim with greater precision using a scope of highere magnification. I have done my share of target shooting with 20X and higher power scopes in my life. I have no problem with that. It is this business of old eyes and 3X vs. 9X scopes for hunting that I am trying to understand.

I have to be honest and say, I think the problem the gent had with his rifle in Africa had it's genesis somewhere other than the 3X vs. 9X differential. Maybe not, but if not I want to know why and what.

I am not trying to be contencious, just make some sense of something I don't understand. A person doesn't learn unless he asks questions and refining the question until the issue is in focus..there is that optical word again.

[1Shirt]

Well, lets see if I can shed some light on this. It is the magnification that was needed, not focus which was/is ok. It is one thing to sight in at a fixed 6" bull at 200 yds, but another to do so on a 400-500 lb. animal at 200-450 yds that blends into the background. Might have been able to do so adequately AND in a humane way at lesser ranges with a lower power fixed scope, say 100 yds. but that was not the case. You never know about range however. My hunting partner took a most excellent Kudu, (much better than mine) at 35 yds. that just stood there waiting for the shot.

Animals taken:
1 Greater Kudu, 2 Gemsbok, 2 Red Heartabeast, 1 Hartman's Zebra, 2 Springbuck, 1 Warthog. Contracted for 9, took 9.

If I could ever figure out how to post a picture on this web (am very minimal regarding computer savy) I would do so.

I have had catarac surg. on both eyes, and as the M.D. said, " 99.9% of all catarac surgeries are 100% sucessful, you however happen to fall into the .01% where everything did not work 100%". Eyes are better than they were befor the operations, but nothing like the sucess stories of how great you could see afterwards from most. I take what life and the good Lord gives me, am thankful for that, and press on.

As to the 7x57, I consider it to be one of the all time great ctgs. I shot 162 gr. Hor.BTSP, chronoed to 2600+ with a 200 yd zero, and a pretty good knowledge of traj. out to 400. I shot both heartabeasts at well over 400. Hold was tip of horn and even with the ear. One went down like a sock of wet sand, the other took a second shot at about 300. With the exception of the zebra, which was shot on the run, at probably 125-130 yds, almost all of the others were ranged on a range finder. Average range for all 9 animals was probably around 250-275. Zebra by the way, went in excess of 650lb, it was the lead mare in the herd.

Saved a long time to be able to do this, and now hope to be able to save enough
to be able to do it again. Was lucky enough to be stationed in Alaska when on active duty, and to take a Kodiak as a resident. Now a Kodiak hunt for a non resident will run you the better part of $15,000.00, and I did 9 animals in Africa for appreciably less.

I ran into an old gent who was 75+, on his 4th. trip to Africa, and going strong. The professional hunters (PH's), and the outfitters go out of their way to accomidate the clients. It is now back to Prairie Dogs, Whitetails, and paper targets for the next couple of years.

I am also selling a few front stuffers that I no longer shoot, in order to buy a very good quality 4x14 scope w/mil dot and probably an new Sav. Hornet to K for p-dogs. Now that I have proven to myself that a 7x57 is as good as I have always thought, if I go back, will probably have to wring out an 06. Wish I had a commercial 6.5x55, as I would also like to try one of those with the long blts.

By the way, the 7x57 was on an early Ruger 77 (rear tang safety) 3x9 Lupoled scope, and the 375H&H was a #1 Ruger, also an early one. The only regret of the hunt was that I didn't get a crack at a better warthog than I got. Mine was decent, but would have liked tusks a couple of inches longer. Ugly critter, but they eat well. Think over a waterhole, might be able to do ok with cast on one, to perhaps 100-125yd. We were not hunting for the longest horns etc, but for good representative animals. We got that! I did take one gemsbok that went over 39", but decided to take a second that was non typ, with the most screwed up horns you have ever seen. Needed to be culled, ate well, and next to my 39" set of horns, will be one of those things that nobody else has.

Clearing weapons is a pain, and it is also a pain crossing borders (Namibia/South Africa and back, but it was not as bad as I expected due to quality information on the process by the outfitter and making sure that all paperwork was in order.

Never figured I would be able to do something like this, but it is well worth the time,saving, etc. and it sure does help to have a wife who is both understanding and supportive of hunting.
1Shirt!:coffee:

[Char-Gar]

Felix.. I can't quite forget the term parallax. At one time I was a very serious photographer. When dealing with cameras that had different "viewing" and "taking" lens, parallax was something to deal with if you needed truly critical focus. If wasn't as big an issue far away, but up close it could be a booger. Lens are always sharpest at the center and that is where you wanted the sharp focus to be. With the viewing and taking lens at different heights, the difference could be enough to shift the sharp focus from the center of the lens toward the edge.

Through the lens viewing does away with all parallax issues in cameras.

I do realize it is always easier to aim with greater precision using a scope of highere magnification. I have done my share of target shooting with 20X and higher power scopes in my life. I have no problem with that. It is this business of old eyes and 3X vs. 9X scopes for hunting that I am trying to understand.

I have to be honest and say, I think the problem the gent had with his rifle in Africa had it's genesis somewhere other than the 3X vs. 9X differential. Maybe not, but if not I want to know why and what.

I am not trying to be contencious, just make some sense of something I don't understand. A person doesn't learn unless he asks questions and refining the question until the issue is in focus..there is that optical word again.

[1Shirt]

By the way, ya just gotta love Felix and his common sense response to just about anything that is voiced on this web! Would love to meet him over a cup of coffee or a beer!
1Shirt:coffee: :coffee:

[Char-Gar]

1shirt.. That was helpful. I have been a fax of low powered scopes (2.5 - 3X) for most of my life and have found then entirely adequate for hunting out to 300 yards are so, which is my self imposed limit.

To be certain, the cross hairs cover more critter with a low powered scoped, but I have not found that to be a problem. I always figured the bullet went to the center of the hairs. It did if the scope was properly sighted in. Unless the critter was so small or so far way that hairs covered the entire animal, I didn't have a problem in placing the bullet where I wanted.

Those old Weavers are very dim and with eye problems, I can see how the critter and the countryside could blend together.

I am glad you had such a good hunt.. Keep enjoying each day as it comes..

[felix]

I hear ya', Charles! From what I can gather so far from our conversation, in conjunction with Paul's, is that there is no difference between the 3X and 9X other than what I am going to assume is something psycho. We know that a camera lens is designed for a fixed eye distance with tolerance equivalent to a nat's eyebrow. Not so with rifle scopes which by nature have to be really forgiving. For example, at one setting, the chromatic abberations (red/green/blue convergence) would be different than at other settings, including parallax and that spherical abberation that you mentioned as well. There are other abberations, but I would have to go look at a few books to elaborate further. Dale, being a pro in this arena, should tell us a little more offhand. The color rendition can be optimized for daylight, nighttime, noon shooting, and that is why some scopes, cheap ones, can be extremely clear at a certain time of day and against certain backgrounds (game in deep woods, white targets, etc.). When you focus your camera, you are taking out the parallex at the target. Same with a scope. But, as you adjust the internals to do this, other errors will creap in when the "cost" of the scope/lens is cheap. That is what is called contrast in technical terms, and that changes dramatically because the color waves must be handled differently at each setting. Contrast is another term to be included with all the terms that contribute to "focus". Don't forget, some folks are color blind, and we have to include that in the discussion as well if we want to nitpick. ... felix

[1Shirt]

Charger, Thanks again for the picture info, now if I just don't screw it up. I also have had a fondness for low power fixed scopes, and have 2.5 and 3X on a couple of rifles. Still enjoy shooting them, particularly when I am plinking with cast on clays cans, etc. Also agree with you on knowing where the crosshairs are and on traj knowledge------however, with mildots and higher power life gets a whole lot easier. It was quite awhile befor I secumed(sp) to mildots, bought a range finder, etc. However, a couple of years back, with the first mildot scope I had shot, and using a range finder, I was able to do real well on prairie dogs from 250 on out to well over 400. I have a Weaver K-10 on my K-hornet, with straight cross hairs, sighted dead on for 200. Am able to make good/clean shots with it on a calm day to 225 and sometimes a bit over with the right blt. Beyond that I go to 223,22-250, 243 etc. and 18-24 power scopes. Also agree with Felix on quality of scope. If I go over again, there will only be quality in the glass on the rifle-the best that I am able to afford, and hopefuly target turrets to boot.
Shot a lot of BP years back, and was a reasonably sucessfull competitor and hunter with front stuffers. Still like to screw around with cast and MilSurps, and do fairly good (emphasis on fairly) at 50 w/mil sights, basicly fair at 100, and forget it much beyond. Bottom line is that I am still shooting them. Am no longer an 18yr. old Marine on Paris Island with an M-1 Garand, qualifying at 500yds.
Life is good as long as we can still pull a trigger!
1Shirt!:coffee: :coffee:

[44man]

Two things wrong with more power. First is they get darker as power is increased and if the sun is out and hot, mirage will drive you nuts. I varmint hunted for years with a Balvar 6 X 24 scope and almost never was able to go over 15 power.
Even when spotting at a shoot I can rarely use my spotting scopes full power unless it is cool and cloudy.
I don't know how in the world BR shooters use so much power. There is too much to see between you and the target and to have a heat fuzzy target waving all over does not make for good shooting.

[SharpsShooter]

1Shirt,

Congrats on the hunt. I've always wanted to go, but haven't made it yet.


44man,

Mirage is your friend. It is an instant indicator of wind conditions. For many years I hunted groundhogs, crows and such with a Highwall and a 36x with good sucess. The slightest breeze becomes so apparent that misses due to misjudgement of wind were rare out to 500yds and a bit more.

SS

[1Shirt]

44Man is right about most of the variables of the past and some of the cheaper ones today as well. I have a 6x24 Tasco on one of my varmint rifles, and max I can get out of it realisticly is 18x which is fine for the rifle. That said, some of the upper price variables that I have looked at are now just about as bright on the low end as they are on the high. My hunting partner had a top of the line Bushnell on his O6, 4x14, and it was (at least to my old eyes as bright and clear at 14x as it was with 4x. Will never be able to buy a true top of the line to go back to Africa, but you can sweet bet that what ever I take will be at least an equal to my partners Bushnell and hopefully a notch or two above. Scopes are getting better all the time, and I love the competition among scope makers as it helps keep the price down. A cheap/lower end priced Tasco or Simmons today will in my opinion outclass in all respects except perhaps for ruggedness, top of the line scopes of 20-25 years ago. What we had then was state of the art and the cats whatever! As to mirage, have always figured it was just a female factor of shooting, and have learned to live with it! As Sharpshooter says, it is a good factor of wind judgement if there is any wind:
1Shirt!:coffee: