Non telescopic sights inhumane?

Kernow_Stalker

Well-Known Member
The following is from my january 2014 edition of the "training manual for deer stalkers" sent out by the BDS in order to study for DSC1"Telescopic sight. To stalk without a telescopic sight in modern times is considered an inhumane and outdate practice. The scope and its mounts should be the best you can afford and should be designed for use on a full-bore rife"What a load of SH!T. Surely this varys person to person, however to call it inhumane to use fixed scopes seems wrong to me. Personally I do use a telescopic sight. However if someone is using a high quality 6 or 8 mag S&B and can shoot the appropriate size group at the distance they require to stalk at then what is the issue? Seemed very odd and biased to me, and the fact that this is someones and opinion and not fact seems quite naughty given some people will read this manual and view it as gospelwhats everyone elses opinion??Regards KSp.s sorry for the lack of spaces, I do type with spaces entered between paragraphs but for some reason whenever I post back they close back up. Any ideas of how to solve this would be greatly appreciated.
 

JayBM

Well-Known Member
I think you've misunderstood what they meant by "telescopic sight". I don't believe they are referring to variable magnification scopes, rather all scopes. The alternative being open sights.
 

bogtrotter

Well-Known Member
Don't think that's what they are implying, don't see anything about not using a fixed scope, what they are talking about are open type sights, I disagree that open sights are inhumane, it depends on the experience of the person using them,many of today's stalkers will never have shot with open sights , so therefore no experience so in that context they could be considered unsuitable for most stalkers , but I do think inhumane is to strong a term.
 

FrenchieBoy

Well-Known Member
I could be wrong but the way that I read it is that they are saying that not to use telescopic sights at all (Open sights only) is inhumane rather than refering to the use of fixed magnification scopes as oposed to variable magnification scopes.
If this is the case I can see their logic in this but it has to be agreed that there are some extremely good marksmen out there that always use open sights and never use scopes. (I am not one of them)
 

urx

Well-Known Member
usual generalisations...your individual mileage may vary

depends what type of shooting you are doing what range and how good you are with your chosen sighting mechanism.
 

Heym SR20

Well-Known Member
Personally, there is nothing humane or inhumane about equipment, is the person behind the kit and his / her decision making. Trying to shoot a small roe doe in poor light at 150 yds with the best scope available is very tricky and I would pass up the shot. But shoulder shooter a larger deer at under 40 yds with open sights with good eyes should be straightforward.
 

DRN

Well-Known Member
Ive never used open sights on a centre fire rifle. Its something I would like to do on a range though just to see what grouping you could get at 100 yards. As the post before states its the persons decision making not the kit. If you can group well with open sights and your confident on the shot go for it.
 

BearStalker

Well-Known Member
I agree, it is the person making the shot ahd where the shot is to be that is either "humane or inhumane". The equipment only allows the accomplishment of the shot.

I never used "telescopic" sights until I started hunting in Germany. I grew up using "Peep" sights. It took me a while to get used to a "telescopic" sighting arrangement. I, still, prefer a good "Peep" sight; seeing as how I try not to take a shot any further away than I am willing to drag the harvest. I have a problem explaining the powder burns on the entry wound, but it works for me. The wife would take a dim view of me shooting them in the kitchen. ;)
 

pitiliedon

Well-Known Member
Horses for courses, and basic competence. Like anything else practice develops muscle memory. the first scopes I used were like looking down a smarty tube with much the same magnification. Had got pretty proficient with the open sights on 303 and 270. Practiced on rocks in the burn and on rabbits stationary and running. but when stalking always closed in till the deer looked right behind the sight, what was the range ? no bloody idea , probably 150yrds or so, grouping? middle for diddle ,anywhere forward body mass, usually lungs, lungs liver. occasionally a bit back, if the god of stalking decided I needed the exercise and to spend the remaining hours of daylight following up. Took neck shots, running shots but very rarely anything far out unless it was away swinging a leg and then just a case of tagging it again as best I could. I think with open sights you are more aware of what is around the intended target and scopes especially screwed up high definitely give you tunnel vision locked down to a very small area. Really noticeable if deer move or mill about when on high magnification often have to get clients to lift there eye away from the scope to see the deer and re-aquire the intended target. Same when culling out hinds legging it away 6x or 8x can let you keep them in your eye but screwed up to 14x you can be left waving the rifle about trying to find them. I would suggest probably best to get competent with both open and telescopic sights
 

tozzybum

Well-Known Member
like myself any ex army from the 80,s would have trained and trained on open sighted SLR out to 300yds and as a 20year old all well n good now this nearly 50 year old eyes are most grateful for telescopic sights.but as pitiliedon says you focus through the scope so lose your bearings and objective view of the target.so sorry BDS open sights are not the work of the devil i think its down to safe shot if it doesnt seem right dont do it.i knew people who could neuter the nat at 300 yds on open sights as do many others .
 

bewsher500

Well-Known Member
Jesus I have seen a few people who are inhumane despite £2k of swarovski's finest gracing their gat!!!
inhumane has cock all to do with equipment!
 

Essex stalker

Well-Known Member
My father was a marksman in the military with a 303 and open sights. The accuracy they could achieve was amazing probably better than some people with scopes!
 

The fourth Horseman

Well-Known Member
Having used open sights on military ranges and for real it's a knack you acquire over time. As a boy I shot sparrows at 20 yds with an air rifle and rabbits at 100 yds using open sights on a .22 which stood me in good stead for real on more than one occasion.
My grandfather who fought in the Boer war was a keeper and had great respect for the Boers and their 7 x 57 Mausers. He used a 303 for deer himself with open sights but swore that a Boer using open sights could hit a British head at 500yds, probably because they also shot Springbok off a galloping pony.
Use what you are comfortable with and nothing is inhumane. Eyes now dictate that I use a scope otherwise I wouldn't.
 

teabag_46

Well-Known Member
I have to agree with Tozzybum - it wasn't until my unit got the IW in 92 that I ever used scopes.
Prior to that, an iron sight on an SLR out to 300m, and prior to that in the ACF a Lee Enfield on iron sights.
 

rem284

Well-Known Member
any weapon could be used inhumanely. I use scopes with the ability of being used at quite high magnification, this enables me to place shots more precisely than what I would be able to do with open sights. However if I used open sights I would use them within the limitations that they impose. The limitations would be closer range shots, better light conditions would be needed and deer would need to be presenting a larger target(ie broadside on) . The advantages would be less weight to carry and possibly quicker to mount the weapon
 

Pedro

Well-Known Member
Horses for courses. If you're after driven boar or deer on the continent or somewhere, any scopes that are used are pretty low magnification. There's an argument for having iron sights there because you get more peripheral vision (aiding safety) and the range is not great. You could also argue that for woodland stalking if cover is pretty thick and ranges are only ever close.

So to say that it's inhumane not to use a scope is a sweeping statement that's patently not always true. It would be better for them to advocate the use of the most suitable sighting mechanism, whatever that may be for the type of shooting you are doing and to be aware that you may be presented with a potential target that is inappropriate for the type of aiming equipment to hand and to make a decision not to take the shot.
 

The fourth Horseman

Well-Known Member
I have to agree with Tozzybum - it wasn't until my unit got the IW in 92 that I ever used scopes.
Prior to that, an iron sight on an SLR out to 300m, and prior to that in the ACF a Lee Enfield on iron sights.
+1 On the LE and later SLR but I did like the little 30cal American carbine for up close and personal.
 

Antman

Member
Personally, there is nothing humane or inhumane about equipment, is the person behind the kit and his / her decision making. Trying to shoot a small roe doe in poor light at 150 yds with the best scope available is very tricky and I would pass up the shot. But shoulder shooter a larger deer at under 40 yds with open sights with good eyes should be straightforward.
I agree. Being a crap shot is inhumane, regardless of the sighting method.
 

Pine Marten

Well-Known Member
I'm off to Bisley on Sunday morning to try out my drilling both with telescopic and open sights, just so that I know the difference in POI. Because I'd hate to miss an opportunity on a fox when out shooting small game just because I don't know where to aim.
 

Top