Reasons for having a Rifle Scope ??????

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Why?

I do all my "scanning" with binos only use scope when actually taking the shot.

Safer method IMHO?

Thats your personal choice. Safety is the responsibility of the shooter. If the shooter can not carry a firearm safely they should not be shooting.

An unloaded rifle with scope is Just as safe as a pair of bino's
In fact a hunter should use every opportunity to make sure they are comfortable shouldering a rifle with ease in the event they have to take a follow up shot if a fallen deer stands back up when the stalker is about to bleed the animal.

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Thats your personal choice. Safety is the responsibility of the shooter. If the shooter can not carry a firearm safely they should not be shooting.

An unloaded rifle with scope is Just as safe as a pair of bino's
In fact a hunter should use every opportunity to make sure they are comfortable shouldering a rifle with ease in the event they have to take a follow up shot if a fallen deer stands back up when the stalker is about to bleed the animal.

To be fair, you're violating two of the principles of safe gun handling there.

Treat every firearm as being loaded, all the time, whether you know it is or not.

Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to immediately destroy.

Those are good principles, and scanning with a scope obviously violates both of them.

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

To be fair, you're violating two of the principles of safe gun handling there.

Treat every firearm as being loaded, all the time, whether you know it is or not.

Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to immediately destroy.

Those are good principles, and scanning with a scope obviously violates both of them.

I take your point IWM, Ok, so one scan the area with ones eyes. If one sees something interesting take up a safe position as if you want to immediately destroy a target one has to be aiming straight and true at it.

So I will retract the scanning part.

I do not think that looking at a herd of deer through a scope to pick out one is scanning. If one points at a deer in a herd one is committing the firearm principal of muzzle sweep if one wanted to get technical.
One has to at some time separate Hunting to Kill and animal; and shooting a paper target where the probability of human injury increases as there are more humans presant.
If deer has a safe backstop behind him he is therefore a legitimate target first and foremost.
But my original post did say my opinion. And everyone is entitled to voice their opinion.

It wasn't me!

That's not the point though. You're using the rifle to check whether you intend to destroy what you're pointing at (by checking for sex and condition) rather than pointing the rifle after you've determined that you intend to destroy a given deer. That's a bad call, and it's why you use binoculars.

Yes, there's a difference between shooting paper and shooting animals, but the principles of safe gun handling don't change between the two.

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

That's not the point though. You're using the rifle to check whether you intend to destroy what you're pointing at (by checking for sex and condition) rather than pointing the rifle after you've determined that you intend to destroy a given deer. That's a bad call, and it's why you use binoculars.

Yes, there's a difference between shooting paper and shooting animals, but the principles of safe gun handling don't change between the two.

I think we are getting a little off topic. Thread is mostly about why a scope is required, if user used bino's to pick deer, then theoretically scope is therefore not required.
However. If one can not upon pointing rifle at herd has lost there original sight picture by moving from bino' to scope. therefore one NEEDS to ensure they are looking at the same animal.

How often have you put down binos shouldered scope and the deer moved somewhat and one may then be unsure which one it was you were looking at.

how often has an EXPERIENCED target shooter shot the wrong numbered Target?
I still maintain that a quality scope is required when stalking or hunting.

My post was my reasoning for having a scope. I was not contradicted in my interview. My reasoning seemed logical to the interviewer.

If you shoot on a letting you have to only shoot heart lung shots. Experienced stalkers might not agree with this either as a lot of meat is sacrificed.

So what are your thoughts on scope requirements??

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I think we are getting a little off topic. Thread is mostly about why a scope is required, if user used bino's to pick deer, then theoretically scope is therefore not required.
However. If one can not upon pointing rifle at herd has lost there original sight picture by moving from bino' to scope. therefore one NEEDS to ensure they are looking at the same animal.

How often have you put down binos shouldered scope and the deer moved somewhat and one may then be unsure which one it was you were looking at.

how often has an EXPERIENCED target shooter shot the wrong numbered Target?
I still maintain that a quality scope is required when stalking or hunting.

My post was my reasoning for having a scope. I was not contradicted in my interview. My reasoning seemed logical to the interviewer.

If you shoot on a letting you have to only shoot heart lung shots. Experienced stalkers might not agree with this either as a lot of meat is sacrificed.

So what are your thoughts on scope requirements??

Absolutely you need a quality scope, but it's to aid the shot and to ensure that you shoot the same animal you've decided on by looking through your binoculars. The rifle scope itself is not for initial examination. It's for the final action. And you need it because most modern rifles don't come with iron sights, or if they do, they're not sufficient for accurate shooting by most people across most distances encountered in hunting situations, and you'd sacrifice your obligations to a humane kill if you didn't use one. That's what they're for, and anything else is just irrelevant.

Grizzly 45

I (believe) that the form is a generic form. It would be interesting to see if anybody wanted to apply for NV etc, if they had a specific job for it.

I don't know who or what reason would be required though.
I'm open to suggestions why NV would be needed as a necessity, other than military of LE.

Lamp shy foxes would be a very good reason.Belive it or not.Some of them are smart enough to know this nowadays.The foxes that is.
Also,one would think a lot safer device than a floodlight.Which can scare the fox away,give aul biddies and antis living in the country excuses to ring up the Gardai at all hours giving out about "deer poachers" or IRA men on manouvers.:rolleyes:.
On a saftey factor,unless you have about 3k plus to spend on "good" nite sights the average passive NV sight gives you less range than a good jacklight.So are you going to take a shot where you cant see with a NV or are unsure what is exactly outside the jacklight range?

Grizzly 45

rrpc wrote: »

Never heard that one. If it was always that clear, I suspect many lawyers would be out of a job

Hence the reason it is obscure and needs qualified personel to translate it to the ignorant.Job security.:D:D:D

bunny shooter

Tac,

You scan with binos & take your shot with scope, simple and safe.

I assume, maybe incorrectly, that you do not own or use binos when stalking. Maybe you should IMHO.

As for going off topic, you took me off topic with your reference to the interview with your C/S :P

Maybe if your interviewer was a shooter/stalker you might have had a different outcome

I know a few stalkers who use "open" sights within & around forestry as the distances are smaller and shots have to be taken faster than on open ground In fact one of them uses a Lee Enfield SMLE made in 1917 with open sights and he rarely looses a deer

FTR I 100% agree with IWM on all his points.

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Tac,

You scan with binos & take your shot with scope, simple and safe.

I assume, maybe incorrectly, that you do not own or use binos when stalking. Maybe you should IMHO.

As for going off topic, you took me off topic with your reference to the interview with your C/S :P

Maybe if your interviewer was a shooter/stalker you might have had a different outcome

I know a few stalkers who use "open" sights within & around forestry as the distances are smaller and shots have to be taken faster than on open ground In fact one of them uses a Lee Enfield SMLE made in 1917 with open sights and he rarely looses a deer

FTR I 100% agree with IWM on all his points.

I currently own 2 pairs of bino's soligor and Nikon.(as I have previously stated off season i like to look and study the herds I hunt)
I also have a nikon Range finder that doubles up as a pair of bino's as it is 6x optical sight.

Bunny,never assume as it makes an Ass of U and ME Ass U Me;)
I do not doubt you agree with IWM.
I agree with IWM also.
We differed on my interpretation of verifying the final shot, we agreed that Sights were necessary!

I used to own a Swedish mauser many years ago and I shot a few deer with it. I had it on my licence as it was the only large calibre rifle I had at the time, I had a scope on it that i retro fitted with the aid of some customization.

I know a lot of shooters that have lee enfields too, and mausers. they still have a stalking rifle with scope for deer.

As for shooting in forrestry, excerpt from coillte.(would open sights properly identify in low light in a wooded situation, No IMHO)
Respect for the Quarry
The highest respect must be afforded to all quarry animals. It should be the objective of every responsible hunter to properly identify and ensure the clean, humane kill, and efficient recovery of all deer shot.

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I currently own 2 pairs of bino's soligor and Nikon.(as I have previously stated off season i like to look and study the herds I hunt)
I also have a nikon Range finder that doubles up as a pair of bino's as it is 6x optical sight.

Might I suggest you use one or more of them then :P

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Bunny,never assume as it makes an Ass of U and ME Ass U Me;).

Gibberish :rolleyes:

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I do not doubt you agree with IWM.
I agree with IWM also.

So you have learned something :cool:

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

..........we agreed that Sights were necessary!

Not necessarily so :P I used hunt with open sights on a .22lr before I could afford a scope. Didn't get any less bunnies scope just made it easier :eek:

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I know a lot of shooters that have lee enfields too, and mausers. they still have a stalking rifle with scope for deer.

Some people can't afford or don't need two rifles :rolleyes:

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

As for shooting in forrestry, excerpt from coillte.(would open sights properly identify in low light in a wooded situation, No IMHO)

Yes............if your close enough :rolleyes: It's called deer stalking (getting to within 70-100 yards)

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Respect for the Quarry
The highest respect must be afforded to all quarry animals. It should be the objective of every responsible hunter to properly identify and ensure the clean, humane kill, and efficient recovery of all deer shot.

Try stalking closer :P

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Might I suggest you use one or more of them then :P
In a word no, its my prerogative not travel light



Gibberish :rolleyes:
Assumption is the mother of all f**kups......:rolleyes:



So you have learned something :cool:
I learn every day, some don't..


Not necessarily so :P I used hunt with open sights on a .22lr before I could afford a scope. Didn't get any less bunnies scope just made it easier :eek:
Long time ago since a person could not afford a scope but could spend over €270 on ammo


Some people can't afford or don't need two rifles :rolleyes:
Nor could I, I could not justify the expense of having two deer sized cal rifles


Yes............if your close enough :rolleyes: It's called deer stalking (getting to within 70-100 yards)
I was referring to low light in a wooded area...human eye sight not good enough


Try stalking closer :P

Closest I have been to a wild sika was 1 metre in the Glen of Imaal when he nearly walked into me whilst I was on sentry, fallow 20m at home he walked in front of me.

Topic is about scopes.......
my dads 1964 .22sllr Rifle Anschutz has both optical and open sights.

He always used the Tangential optic sight as it was more accurate due to a finer aim point.

My reasons for having a scope, they improve sight picture.

This post is about reasons to have a scope.
1. Enhances accuracy of user not rifle
2. makes shot placement more exact
3.Can increase light to users eye due to the human eye having a smaller objective lens in comparison to a 56mm objective lens
4. Objects that can not be seen by the naked eye can be magnified and parralax adjusted to show what they are in detail. Eg rabbits head @400m

91hilux

tack i totally agree
i'm stalking with many years all over this country ,europe and U S A
with top hunts men
binos are good ,however only an extra
rule of thumb
if you cant stalk close enough to your prey you should not take that shot
if its that far out, you use your skill as a hunter to get close enough
if you cant get close enough you move on
simple but effective
yes binos are good but at the end of the day they are an extra

Tackleberrywho

91hilux wrote: »

tack i totally agree
i'm stalking with many years all over this country ,europe and U S A
with top hunts men
binos are good ,however only an extra
rule of thumb
if you cant stalk close enough to your prey you should not take that shot
if its that far out, you use your skill as a hunter to get close enough
if you cant get close enough you move on
simple but effective
yes binos are good but at the end of the day they are an extra

I was wondering was I the only person who thought Bino's were only something else to carry!

riflehunter77

Sorry its being a while have no scanner had to take picture hope it turns out ok, rght lads this is a copy of the letter that the gardai want you to fill out when or if you are looking for a rifle scope.

CJhaughey

That does not look official to me, no Garda crest, no names nothing!
I would definately refer the letter to the NARGC for examination by them.
Infa-red sights indeed!
Thats just some local makee-upee nonsense IMHO.

pajero2005

riflehunter77 wrote: »

Got a quick look at the form and it covers moderators and rifle scopes

Didn't see anything about moderators on the "form" you posted the picture of.
Care to elaborate???

CJhaughey wrote: »

That does not look official to me, no Garda crest, no names nothing!
I would definately refer the letter to the NARGC for examination by them.
Infa-red sights indeed!
Thats just some local makee-upee nonsense IMHO.

Major +1
Me thinks someone is tryin cod to someone else:eek::rolleyes:

Cass

+1 on that.

If it were an offical document i'm sure there would be some mention of a seperate application for a standard scope in the CJ(MP)A. To the best of my knowledge there isn't.

On a personal note i would not validate that form by filling one in. If pushed i would ring the FPU and any NGB you are affiliated to and ask where in the recent Act does is state you must apply for a scope seperately. Further more any NGB or the FCP should be all over this and stamp it out before it takes on a life of its own.

rrpc

Ok, this thread seems to be going around in circles. For the last time:

You don't need a license or an authorisation for a standard rifle scope. You do need one for a night vision type sights which is what the tick box on the form is for.

Anything else that anyone tells you is on the same par as Hans Christian Anderson and not as entertaining (except in a semi-humorous suspension of disbelief kind of way).

If they insist on this rubbish, either ask them to show you where in the firearms act it says this and if they talk about policy, ask them to check with their firearms policy unit.

And don't encourage this behaviour by ticking the sights box unless you have a night vision or laser pointing (not a red dot) sight.

Is that clear?

I said is that clear?

riflehunter77

Lads I have passed on that letter in good faith, I and three others witnessed it been droped in by the Garda and one of those is the Firearms Dealer who gave me the copies this afternoon. I personally dont have time to Cod people and dont have the time for making up stories on boards. I will say it again a local chap recieved one of these in the post and I was present when the garda droped it off. Here is another copy of what I got today off the dealer it mentions the mods and the last section mentions the scope its a bad copy and not all the details is on it.

I can see were ye are coming from not on headed paper etc but this is what was handed over by the garda.

CJhaughey

riflehunter77 wrote: »

I can see were ye are coming from not on headed paper etc but this is what was handed over by the garda.

I think we are getting wires crossed here.
What I and others are saying is that the letters are genuine and from your local Gardai.
BUT they are just made up letters that have no place in the overall firearms licensing process.
I didn't have to fill anything like that out and most other shooters either.
So what the advice seems to be is to pass them on to your local NARGC rep or directly to the NARGC and get them to sort it out.
Filling the FCA1 is bad enough without more locally generated forms.

pajero2005

riflehunter77 wrote: »

Lads I have passed on that letter in good faith, I and three others witnessed it been droped in by the Garda and one of those is the Firearms Dealer who gave me the copies this afternoon. I personally dont have time to Cod people and dont have the time for making up stories on boards. I will say it again a local chap recieved one of these in the post and I was present when the garda droped it off. Here is another copy of what I got today off the dealer it mentions the mods and the last section mentions the scope its a bad copy and not all the details is on it.

I can see were ye are coming from not on headed paper etc but this is what was handed over by the garda.

No offence riflehunter77,it just seems a little suspect to me. If indeed these are genuine forms I apologize unreservedly. But to be honest they look bogus. Leaving aside the lack of headed paper they look a bit amateur.

I'm not saying you created them or made this up but if one was handed to me by anyone, I wouldn't be rushing to fill it out.

The second form referring to mods/silencers looks like a copy and paste job from the telescopic sights form. I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from and forgive my skepticism.

Then again I am a bit of a paranoid fart:D

rrpc

Just to be clearer than I already though I was

There's no suggestion that these forms are made up by posters here, I'm taking everybody's statements at face value.

In other words (without any evidence to the contrary) I'm accepting that some Garda station, district or division is handing these things out.

I am also saying quite clearly that they are unnecessary, wrong and misleading. They are as fundamental a misunderstanding of the firearms acts as I have ever seen in print purporting to be official documents.

Now is it clear? :pac:

Whoever has these should forward them to the FPU at Garda HQ and specify exactly where they are coming from.

That should clear it up for once and all.

elius

When i was having my inspection (gun safe) the gaurd double checked all the serial numbers he commented on the sights ticked the box and i never heard anything anything else about it... It must be a district thing.

rrpc

elius wrote: »

When i was having my inspection (gun safe) the gaurd double checked all the serial numbers he commented on the sights ticked the box and i never heard anything anything else about it... It must be a district thing.

What?!!

This is what the firearms act requires you to have a licence or authorisation for:

1(g)(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),
(ii) a silencer designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (e),

So unless your scope has night vision capabilities you don't require a licence for it. The FCA1 form is an application for a licence for licensable items.

There were comprehensive instructions for filling out the form here and on the NARGC and NTSA websites. Nowhere was it stated that you had to tick the box for an ordinary scope.

elius

rrpc wrote: »

What?!!

This is what the firearms act requires you to have a licence or authorisation for:

So unless your scope has night vision capabilities you don't require a licence for it. The FCA1 form is an application for a licence for licensable items.

There were comprehensive instructions for filling out the form here and on the NARGC and NTSA websites. Nowhere was it stated that you had to tick the box for an ordinary scope.

The guard that inspected my gun commented on scope. And proceeded to tick the box.

rrpc

elius wrote: »

The guard that inspected my gun commented on scope. And proceeded to tick the box.

And you should have proceded to untick it! And ask him what 'sights' means.

It's your form, your neck on the line if you make a false declaration and your responsibility for what's on it.

cavan shooter

Lads even my FAO (the soundest and straightest lad you'd meet) says the sights box is only for night sights etc. Its time the questions where put to the Policy unit and the NARGC or your representative body.

The form should be explained more clearly as in (tick if your after a night sight not a aperture sight or a telescopic sight)

elius

rrpc wrote: »

And you should have proceded to untick it! And ask him what 'sights' means.

It's your form, your neck on the line if you make a false declaration and your responsibility for what's on it.

My neck is no way on the line. I dont own any of
1(g)(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e),

So in what way is my neck on the line. I never made a false declaration. Its very simple one i was granted permission to own and have in my possession the above or two i wasn't granted permission and seeing as i don't have want need any of the above its not really going to be an issue....

Cass

The false declaration or "your neck on the line" i think rrpc is referring to is the fact the the "sights" box when ticked refers to one of the the following:

A) telescope sights with a light beam
B)telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device
C)an infra-red device.

If the Garda (or you) ticked the box and do not actually have one of the above (just a standard scope) then technically you are applying for one of the sights mentioned above and not the standard scope. ie. a false declaration/application.

For a standard scope you do not tick the box. Also do not allow anyone to alter your application. The onus is still on you as its your application.