I realize this will be controversial, but looking for a scope has been driving me nuts. Its difficult enough to find a scope that offers decent glass, focuses to 10 yards, repeatable, and will stand up to springers.( I shoot a TX200) But adding the ability to rangefind seems to make the task impossible.

This led me to ask why not allow the use of laser rangefinders? They're commonplace now. I don't think they'll remove the difficulties of hitting the target. To me, field target requires us to learn our rifle's trajectory, hone our positions, judge the wind, and I'm sure there are lots of other skills that the better shooters realize are necessary to hit the target.

I don't think scores will improve much, probably not much at all, if any, for the top shooters, and I bet less than 10% for most of us. Even if I know how far the target is, wind and technique, i.e. skills, make more of a difference.

Has anyone tried a match where the distances are known? Or allowed a group to use rangefinders and to shoot the course twice?

I think allowing rangefinders reduces aggravation more than anything else. I think it will help to reduce cost in that I can buy a rangefinder and a $300 scope and compete on a fairly level playing field instead of having to spend $1000 for a scope, which may or may not help. And I think it may be harder to find a production scope that fits all of our requirements moving forward.

Folks don't buy a $3500 8-80X Match scope just so some newbie can upstage him with a cheap rangefinder and scope combo.

Yep, its always been this way. I started asking what you are asking 20yrs ago, but the guys with the big glass won't have it.

That said, though I had caved way back and mounted 50x and even a 60X scope back then (albiet never over $300 for em), I just didn't feel right about it, and gradually worked down to 10x or 12X max scopes. Yes, they don't range well beyond middle distances, and no, I don't use a rangefinder, I pretty much have just learned to judge by eye as best I can.

I still feel the huge mag glass with big honkin sidwheels do turn new potential FT shooters away when they see em, since they serve no other practical purpose in the shooting world, and do much to make otherwise decent guns into topheavy, hard to fit in normal cases, or even gun racks, but I'm in a small minority of this readership.

I realize this will be controversial, but looking for a scope has been driving me nuts. Its difficult enough to find a scope that offers decent glass, focuses to 10 yards, repeatable, and will stand up to springers.( I shoot a TX200) But adding the ability to rangefind seems to make the task impossible.

This led me to ask why not allow the use of laser rangefinders? They're commonplace now. I don't think they'll remove the difficulties of hitting the target. To me, field target requires us to learn our rifle's trajectory, hone our positions, judge the wind, and I'm sure there are lots of other skills that the better shooters realize are necessary to hit the target.

I don't think scores will improve much, probably not much at all, if any, for the top shooters, and I bet less than 10% for most of us. Even if I know how far the target is, wind and technique, i.e. skills, make more of a difference.

Has anyone tried a match where the distances are known? Or allowed a group to use rangefinders and to shoot the course twice?

I think allowing rangefinders reduces aggravation more than anything else. I think it will help to reduce cost in that I can buy a rangefinder and a $300 scope and compete on a fairly level playing field instead of having to spend $1000 for a scope, which may or may not help. And I think it may be harder to find a production scope that fits all of our requirements moving forward.

.

I realize this will be controversial, but looking for a scope has been driving me nuts. Its difficult enough to find a scope that offers decent glass, focuses to 10 yards, repeatable, and will stand up to springers.( I shoot a TX200) But adding the ability to rangefind seems to make the task impossible.

This led me to ask why not allow the use of laser rangefinders? They're commonplace now. I don't think they'll remove the difficulties of hitting the target. To me, field target requires us to learn our rifle's trajectory, hone our positions, judge the wind, and I'm sure there are lots of other skills that the better shooters realize are necessary to hit the target.

I don't think scores will improve much, probably not much at all, if any, for the top shooters, and I bet less than 10% for most of us. Even if I know how far the target is, wind and technique, i.e. skills, make more of a difference.

Has anyone tried a match where the distances are known? Or allowed a group to use rangefinders and to shoot the course twice?

I think allowing rangefinders reduces aggravation more than anything else. I think it will help to reduce cost in that I can buy a rangefinder and a $300 scope and compete on a fairly level playing field instead of having to spend $1000 for a scope, which may or may not help. And I think it may be harder to find a production scope that fits all of our requirements moving forward.

is part of the skillset that you need to develope. there are scopes capable that handle springers well. A Hawke sidewinder 30 in 8x32 is a sidefocus that rangefinds well. That is what i use. It has handled more than 20,000 rounds on my tx and so far one has about 10,000 on my Pro Sport. They cost about $500.00. I am sure there are others.

The use of rangefinders is against AAFTA rules so don't hold your breath waiting for it to be approved. It is what it is. Embrace it.

Folks don't buy a $3500 8-80X Match scope just so some newbie can upstage him with a cheap rangefinder and scope combo.

Yep, its always been this way. I started asking what you are asking 20yrs ago, but the guys with the big glass won't have it.

That said, though I had caved way back and mounted 50x and even a 60X scope back then (albiet never over $300 for em), I just didn't feel right about it, and gradually worked down to 10x or 12X max scopes. Yes, they don't range well beyond middle distances, and no, I don't use a rangefinder, I pretty much have just learned to judge by eye as best I can.

I still feel the huge mag glass with big honkin sidwheels do turn new potential FT shooters away when they see em, since they serve no other practical purpose in the shooting world, and do much to make otherwise decent guns into topheavy, hard to fit in normal cases, or even gun racks, but I'm in a small minority of this readership.

and maybe the shooter that can't afford the big glass would start winning or maybe even find out it takes more than just getting the distance right to bring down the target. This subject has been beat to death around here several times to no avail. Thats why we have the hunter class. They took the big glass capability away from us and in that process made the HFT more desirable. I think shooting a course with rangefinders would be fun once in a while or even posted yardage to save those that can't afford to run out and buy a $200-$300 rangefinder.

I realize this will be controversial, but looking for a scope has been driving me nuts. Its difficult enough to find a scope that offers decent glass, focuses to 10 yards, repeatable, and will stand up to springers.( I shoot a TX200) But adding the ability to rangefind seems to make the task impossible.

This led me to ask why not allow the use of laser rangefinders? They're commonplace now. I don't think they'll remove the difficulties of hitting the target. To me, field target requires us to learn our rifle's trajectory, hone our positions, judge the wind, and I'm sure there are lots of other skills that the better shooters realize are necessary to hit the target.

I don't think scores will improve much, probably not much at all, if any, for the top shooters, and I bet less than 10% for most of us. Even if I know how far the target is, wind and technique, i.e. skills, make more of a difference.

Has anyone tried a match where the distances are known? Or allowed a group to use rangefinders and to shoot the course twice?

I think allowing rangefinders reduces aggravation more than anything else. I think it will help to reduce cost in that I can buy a rangefinder and a $300 scope and compete on a fairly level playing field instead of having to spend $1000 for a scope, which may or may not help. And I think it may be harder to find a production scope that fits all of our requirements moving forward.

I had a low end range finder for a while. There a pain and add complexity and expense! It's much more convinient to rangefind with a scope rather than a separate device. Try a Sightron SIII 10-50x60mm with a Rowan side wheel. Cut the foam out of the gun case for the wheel. Works great!
DAF

I realize this will be controversial, but looking for a scope has been driving me nuts. Its difficult enough to find a scope that offers decent glass, focuses to 10 yards, repeatable, and will stand up to springers.( I shoot a TX200) But adding the ability to rangefind seems to make the task impossible.

This led me to ask why not allow the use of laser rangefinders? They're commonplace now. I don't think they'll remove the difficulties of hitting the target. To me, field target requires us to learn our rifle's trajectory, hone our positions, judge the wind, and I'm sure there are lots of other skills that the better shooters realize are necessary to hit the target.

I don't think scores will improve much, probably not much at all, if any, for the top shooters, and I bet less than 10% for most of us. Even if I know how far the target is, wind and technique, i.e. skills, make more of a difference.

Has anyone tried a match where the distances are known? Or allowed a group to use rangefinders and to shoot the course twice?

I think allowing rangefinders reduces aggravation more than anything else. I think it will help to reduce cost in that I can buy a rangefinder and a $300 scope and compete on a fairly level playing field instead of having to spend $1000 for a scope, which may or may not help. And I think it may be harder to find a production scope that fits all of our requirements moving forward.

I had a low end range finder for a while. There a pain and add complexity and expense! It's much more convinient to rangefind with a scope rather than a separate device. Try a Sightron SIII 10-50x60mm with a Rowan side wheel. Cut the foam out of the gun case for the wheel. Works great!
DAF

I realize this will be controversial, but looking for a scope has been driving me nuts. Its difficult enough to find a scope that offers decent glass, focuses to 10 yards, repeatable, and will stand up to springers.( I shoot a TX200) But adding the ability to rangefind seems to make the task impossible.

This led me to ask why not allow the use of laser rangefinders? They're commonplace now. I don't think they'll remove the difficulties of hitting the target. To me, field target requires us to learn our rifle's trajectory, hone our positions, judge the wind, and I'm sure there are lots of other skills that the better shooters realize are necessary to hit the target.

I don't think scores will improve much, probably not much at all, if any, for the top shooters, and I bet less than 10% for most of us. Even if I know how far the target is, wind and technique, i.e. skills, make more of a difference.

Has anyone tried a match where the distances are known? Or allowed a group to use rangefinders and to shoot the course twice?

I think allowing rangefinders reduces aggravation more than anything else. I think it will help to reduce cost in that I can buy a rangefinder and a $300 scope and compete on a fairly level playing field instead of having to spend $1000 for a scope, which may or may not help. And I think it may be harder to find a production scope that fits all of our requirements moving forward.

plenty of folks doing fine with a TX 200/Bushnell Elite combination. You don't need a $1000.00 hubble tele-scope on your TX. My first serious scope for ft was an Elite 3200 7X21X40 mildot. It did just fine untill I wanted to graduate to clicking, so I upgraded to a Bushnell Elite 4200 6X24X40.

Heck, if it required a $1000.00 scope or a seperate rangefinder to play this game, like a lot of other folks, I couldn't afford it. If we truly want our sport to grow, we can't price it out of reach for the average airgunner.




Take care & best of luck






Vines

I realize this will be controversial, but looking for a scope has been driving me nuts. Its difficult enough to find a scope that offers decent glass, focuses to 10 yards, repeatable, and will stand up to springers.( I shoot a TX200) But adding the ability to rangefind seems to make the task impossible.

This led me to ask why not allow the use of laser rangefinders? They're commonplace now. I don't think they'll remove the difficulties of hitting the target. To me, field target requires us to learn our rifle's trajectory, hone our positions, judge the wind, and I'm sure there are lots of other skills that the better shooters realize are necessary to hit the target.

I don't think scores will improve much, probably not much at all, if any, for the top shooters, and I bet less than 10% for most of us. Even if I know how far the target is, wind and technique, i.e. skills, make more of a difference.

Has anyone tried a match where the distances are known? Or allowed a group to use rangefinders and to shoot the course twice?

I think allowing rangefinders reduces aggravation more than anything else. I think it will help to reduce cost in that I can buy a rangefinder and a $300 scope and compete on a fairly level playing field instead of having to spend $1000 for a scope, which may or may not help. And I think it may be harder to find a production scope that fits all of our requirements moving forward.

I don't think the idea of leveling the playing field is by allowing more equipment, but by improving your skill.

Many fine scores are being accomplished with affordable Leapers and Centerpoint scopes.

Many 50% or less scores are seen even with Nikko 10-50X60's.

The Bushy"s and Hawke's metioned are afforable, reliable and are winning matches. I believe the answer lies more in learning your equipment.

Perhaps the new mantra should be "Beware the man with just one scope."

Appel

I realize this will be controversial, but looking for a scope has been driving me nuts. Its difficult enough to find a scope that offers decent glass, focuses to 10 yards, repeatable, and will stand up to springers.( I shoot a TX200) But adding the ability to rangefind seems to make the task impossible.

This led me to ask why not allow the use of laser rangefinders? They're commonplace now. I don't think they'll remove the difficulties of hitting the target. To me, field target requires us to learn our rifle's trajectory, hone our positions, judge the wind, and I'm sure there are lots of other skills that the better shooters realize are necessary to hit the target.

I don't think scores will improve much, probably not much at all, if any, for the top shooters, and I bet less than 10% for most of us. Even if I know how far the target is, wind and technique, i.e. skills, make more of a difference.

Has anyone tried a match where the distances are known? Or allowed a group to use rangefinders and to shoot the course twice?

I think allowing rangefinders reduces aggravation more than anything else. I think it will help to reduce cost in that I can buy a rangefinder and a $300 scope and compete on a fairly level playing field instead of having to spend $1000 for a scope, which may or may not help. And I think it may be harder to find a production scope that fits all of our requirements moving forward.

Hi folks:
Thanks for the responses. But I used a Bushnell Elite 8-32 and it broke. When I sent it back, Bushnell said they couldn't fix it and offered me a new 8-32 which had a minimum focus distance of 25 yards. I just tried a Hawke 8-32, and didn't like the optics. I've heard their glass varies. As I said, good glass, focus to 10 yards, repeatability, and ruggedness are hard enough to find, rangefinding is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I own a rangefinder, bought it when I played golf. Its easy to use, and with a +/- 1 yard accuracy rating, is probably as accurate as the big scopes at the longer distances. I actually think a scope could be just as accurate within 20 yards. I'd have to optically range find inside 15 yards as my particular rangefinder only goes to 15 yards. But other will go down to 10.

Buy a big Sightron? Nice glass, but will it last on a springer? And again, do we really want to spend that much on a scope just to range find? Who needs 50x to shoot within 60 yards?

I hope members of the governing body for field target read this forum. I'd suggest a trial program for a year and allow the use of rangefinders in a special class. See how people react, see if scores rise dramatically. Then make a decision. I don't think it will hurt. I wouldn't exclude rangefinding with optics, just allow laser rangefinders as well.

I think doing so would allow us to focus on shooting skills, and remove rangefinding as a barrier to development, both of individuals, and to the sport.