Personal opinions, HFT max scope power settings.

Personal opinions, HFT max scope power settings.

Joined: July 24th, 2010, 1:44 am

April 16th, 2011, 2:55 pm #1

A recent reply concerning the max power settings of a "big Nikko scope" with 5 yard marking increments made me wonder how many would object to raising the max scope power for HFT (to say 16x) to accomodate the users of "wierdly marked scopes" (lol...scopes not marked like mine are "wierd).

When I first introduced hunter class at DIFTA it was thought to be an "entry level class" and efforts were made to maintain a sort of "equipment parity" for shooters with basic equipment. The 12x max scope power setting was simply because a useable 4-12x AO scope could be bought cheaply. The high zoot side wheel scopes of the day that were beyond the reach of the shooter with basic equipment, and I felt that the exceptional sharpness of these scopes (even turned down to 12x), spread out range marks on the "wheel", and mil dots provided too much of an equipment advantage at that time.

Well......since MY early ft shooting days hft has "grown up" (equipment wise) with pcp shooters joining the ranks right along with the shooter using entry level equipment so the "equipment parity" argument no longer applies. Since a servicible and reasonably priced 4-16 power side focus scope with wheel can be found (ask Bill Price about his $200 56mm "Hubbel".....uh, no don't..LOL) I really don't feel that the original 12x max restriction is of any practical value in the current hft setting.

Concerning the "advantage" rangefinding at 16x instead of 12x......well, I've tried it and with MY eyesight there is a BIT of increased ranging accuracy, however with the use of holdover/under aiming I really don't see a LOT of advantage here. Certainly not as much advantage as a shooter using "memory jogger note pads" to keep track of all those mil dots has over the shooter with an AO scope and duplex crosshair.

Anywhoo......seems to me that upping the max hft scope power level to 16x would solve some of the mentioned "equipment setting issues", and currently a ?-16x sf scope with wheel is affordable enough to mount one on a Gamo if desired. I'm pleased that there is an increase in folks of "all equipment stripes" shooting hft! LOL.....I think there have been a couple folks usin' "entry level" Crosman pcps to win matches......soooo, with the current availability of affordable hardware my old "equipment parity" arguments seems to have become a moot point.

I know that there are those that CRINGE at the though of even mentioning adjustments to the "official rules", but perhaps max scope power levels need to be adjusted to accomodate equipment currently used. Oh, I forgot....and separate hft into "recoiling and nonrecoiling" classes. LOL
Last edited by nced1 on April 16th, 2011, 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Joined: October 27th, 2003, 11:32 pm

April 16th, 2011, 3:12 pm #2

Cuz that Centerpoint 4-16x40ao Mildot with IR is so widely available and affordable at Wally World. Perhaps not the best reason based on a particular scope, which may or may not be available in the future but there are other scopes in that range.

Also, as you pointed out, the varied scope mag markings between scope models and manufacturers varies a bit.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards,

Tony


Quote
Share

Joined: March 15th, 2005, 12:43 am

April 16th, 2011, 3:21 pm #3

A recent reply concerning the max power settings of a "big Nikko scope" with 5 yard marking increments made me wonder how many would object to raising the max scope power for HFT (to say 16x) to accomodate the users of "wierdly marked scopes" (lol...scopes not marked like mine are "wierd).

When I first introduced hunter class at DIFTA it was thought to be an "entry level class" and efforts were made to maintain a sort of "equipment parity" for shooters with basic equipment. The 12x max scope power setting was simply because a useable 4-12x AO scope could be bought cheaply. The high zoot side wheel scopes of the day that were beyond the reach of the shooter with basic equipment, and I felt that the exceptional sharpness of these scopes (even turned down to 12x), spread out range marks on the "wheel", and mil dots provided too much of an equipment advantage at that time.

Well......since MY early ft shooting days hft has "grown up" (equipment wise) with pcp shooters joining the ranks right along with the shooter using entry level equipment so the "equipment parity" argument no longer applies. Since a servicible and reasonably priced 4-16 power side focus scope with wheel can be found (ask Bill Price about his $200 56mm "Hubbel".....uh, no don't..LOL) I really don't feel that the original 12x max restriction is of any practical value in the current hft setting.

Concerning the "advantage" rangefinding at 16x instead of 12x......well, I've tried it and with MY eyesight there is a BIT of increased ranging accuracy, however with the use of holdover/under aiming I really don't see a LOT of advantage here. Certainly not as much advantage as a shooter using "memory jogger note pads" to keep track of all those mil dots has over the shooter with an AO scope and duplex crosshair.

Anywhoo......seems to me that upping the max hft scope power level to 16x would solve some of the mentioned "equipment setting issues", and currently a ?-16x sf scope with wheel is affordable enough to mount one on a Gamo if desired. I'm pleased that there is an increase in folks of "all equipment stripes" shooting hft! LOL.....I think there have been a couple folks usin' "entry level" Crosman pcps to win matches......soooo, with the current availability of affordable hardware my old "equipment parity" arguments seems to have become a moot point.

I know that there are those that CRINGE at the though of even mentioning adjustments to the "official rules", but perhaps max scope power levels need to be adjusted to accomodate equipment currently used. Oh, I forgot....and separate hft into "recoiling and nonrecoiling" classes. LOL
To more closely duplicate actual hunting conditions. If we begin allowing higher powered scopes and better range finding abilities, then we're defeating the only reason to have a hunter class. I personally don't know any hunters who shoot with high powered scopes.

Now, if as you stated, HFT was designed to accomodate new shooters with less sophisticated equipment, and now they are using rifles that are similar to the Field Target equipment, then the actual reason for a hunter class no longer exists.

Here in the Pac NW, we've experimented with a "Sporter Class" which was conceived of as an accomodation to new shooters with basic equipment. ie. We have something to challenge you no matter what you bring to the match.

We have shooters who shoot very fine rifles in HFT and the reasons are as varied as the shooters. Some shoot it because of age or physical limitations. Others shoot it because they just want to.

I have often thought that the Hunter Class should involve some type of time limit that would require a shooter to find the target and shoot within just a few seconds of time. That would be more of a hunter class, in my opinion. This would negate any need for a bum bag or seat as there wouldn't be time for it. Perhaps something like: You have to walk up to the lane, find your targets, and shoot them within a minute. With a four shot lane, you'd have 15 seconds per shot. Now that would be more of a Hunter Class!!
John

Quote
Share

Joined: October 27th, 2003, 11:32 pm

April 16th, 2011, 3:29 pm #4

Shooter that has a Big Nikko 10-50x60 on top of his hunting rig!

Regards,

Tony
Quote
Share

-bp
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 4:21 pm

April 16th, 2011, 3:45 pm #5

A recent reply concerning the max power settings of a "big Nikko scope" with 5 yard marking increments made me wonder how many would object to raising the max scope power for HFT (to say 16x) to accomodate the users of "wierdly marked scopes" (lol...scopes not marked like mine are "wierd).

When I first introduced hunter class at DIFTA it was thought to be an "entry level class" and efforts were made to maintain a sort of "equipment parity" for shooters with basic equipment. The 12x max scope power setting was simply because a useable 4-12x AO scope could be bought cheaply. The high zoot side wheel scopes of the day that were beyond the reach of the shooter with basic equipment, and I felt that the exceptional sharpness of these scopes (even turned down to 12x), spread out range marks on the "wheel", and mil dots provided too much of an equipment advantage at that time.

Well......since MY early ft shooting days hft has "grown up" (equipment wise) with pcp shooters joining the ranks right along with the shooter using entry level equipment so the "equipment parity" argument no longer applies. Since a servicible and reasonably priced 4-16 power side focus scope with wheel can be found (ask Bill Price about his $200 56mm "Hubbel".....uh, no don't..LOL) I really don't feel that the original 12x max restriction is of any practical value in the current hft setting.

Concerning the "advantage" rangefinding at 16x instead of 12x......well, I've tried it and with MY eyesight there is a BIT of increased ranging accuracy, however with the use of holdover/under aiming I really don't see a LOT of advantage here. Certainly not as much advantage as a shooter using "memory jogger note pads" to keep track of all those mil dots has over the shooter with an AO scope and duplex crosshair.

Anywhoo......seems to me that upping the max hft scope power level to 16x would solve some of the mentioned "equipment setting issues", and currently a ?-16x sf scope with wheel is affordable enough to mount one on a Gamo if desired. I'm pleased that there is an increase in folks of "all equipment stripes" shooting hft! LOL.....I think there have been a couple folks usin' "entry level" Crosman pcps to win matches......soooo, with the current availability of affordable hardware my old "equipment parity" arguments seems to have become a moot point.

I know that there are those that CRINGE at the though of even mentioning adjustments to the "official rules", but perhaps max scope power levels need to be adjusted to accomodate equipment currently used. Oh, I forgot....and separate hft into "recoiling and nonrecoiling" classes. LOL
you guys got your hearing protection on? (NT)
Quote
Share

Joined: May 1st, 2008, 3:43 pm

April 16th, 2011, 4:49 pm #6

A recent reply concerning the max power settings of a "big Nikko scope" with 5 yard marking increments made me wonder how many would object to raising the max scope power for HFT (to say 16x) to accomodate the users of "wierdly marked scopes" (lol...scopes not marked like mine are "wierd).

When I first introduced hunter class at DIFTA it was thought to be an "entry level class" and efforts were made to maintain a sort of "equipment parity" for shooters with basic equipment. The 12x max scope power setting was simply because a useable 4-12x AO scope could be bought cheaply. The high zoot side wheel scopes of the day that were beyond the reach of the shooter with basic equipment, and I felt that the exceptional sharpness of these scopes (even turned down to 12x), spread out range marks on the "wheel", and mil dots provided too much of an equipment advantage at that time.

Well......since MY early ft shooting days hft has "grown up" (equipment wise) with pcp shooters joining the ranks right along with the shooter using entry level equipment so the "equipment parity" argument no longer applies. Since a servicible and reasonably priced 4-16 power side focus scope with wheel can be found (ask Bill Price about his $200 56mm "Hubbel".....uh, no don't..LOL) I really don't feel that the original 12x max restriction is of any practical value in the current hft setting.

Concerning the "advantage" rangefinding at 16x instead of 12x......well, I've tried it and with MY eyesight there is a BIT of increased ranging accuracy, however with the use of holdover/under aiming I really don't see a LOT of advantage here. Certainly not as much advantage as a shooter using "memory jogger note pads" to keep track of all those mil dots has over the shooter with an AO scope and duplex crosshair.

Anywhoo......seems to me that upping the max hft scope power level to 16x would solve some of the mentioned "equipment setting issues", and currently a ?-16x sf scope with wheel is affordable enough to mount one on a Gamo if desired. I'm pleased that there is an increase in folks of "all equipment stripes" shooting hft! LOL.....I think there have been a couple folks usin' "entry level" Crosman pcps to win matches......soooo, with the current availability of affordable hardware my old "equipment parity" arguments seems to have become a moot point.

I know that there are those that CRINGE at the though of even mentioning adjustments to the "official rules", but perhaps max scope power levels need to be adjusted to accomodate equipment currently used. Oh, I forgot....and separate hft into "recoiling and nonrecoiling" classes. LOL
I've observed that ranging with a 16x mil-dot scope can be nearly as precise as with a high dollar 24 or 32x scope. I've tried this out a couple of times using 'mil-dot' ranging with a Centerpoint 4-16x scope at full magnification. Using the fact that the bases of the standard GAMO targets are 7" wide, it is quite possible to draw up a simple chart that gives range from the number of dots and fractions subsumed by the target base. This can be very accurate at 40-55 yards. I've compared numbers with a high power scope user and was never off more than a yard. Of course, it only works if you know dimensions of the target.

I have shot HFT on a couple of occassions, and used a BSA 3-12x scope - worked out quite nicely. I'd really prefer to have the rules specify no higher than 12x scope - instead of a higher powered one turned down.
Quote
Share

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 12:48 am

April 16th, 2011, 5:02 pm #7

A recent reply concerning the max power settings of a "big Nikko scope" with 5 yard marking increments made me wonder how many would object to raising the max scope power for HFT (to say 16x) to accomodate the users of "wierdly marked scopes" (lol...scopes not marked like mine are "wierd).

When I first introduced hunter class at DIFTA it was thought to be an "entry level class" and efforts were made to maintain a sort of "equipment parity" for shooters with basic equipment. The 12x max scope power setting was simply because a useable 4-12x AO scope could be bought cheaply. The high zoot side wheel scopes of the day that were beyond the reach of the shooter with basic equipment, and I felt that the exceptional sharpness of these scopes (even turned down to 12x), spread out range marks on the "wheel", and mil dots provided too much of an equipment advantage at that time.

Well......since MY early ft shooting days hft has "grown up" (equipment wise) with pcp shooters joining the ranks right along with the shooter using entry level equipment so the "equipment parity" argument no longer applies. Since a servicible and reasonably priced 4-16 power side focus scope with wheel can be found (ask Bill Price about his $200 56mm "Hubbel".....uh, no don't..LOL) I really don't feel that the original 12x max restriction is of any practical value in the current hft setting.

Concerning the "advantage" rangefinding at 16x instead of 12x......well, I've tried it and with MY eyesight there is a BIT of increased ranging accuracy, however with the use of holdover/under aiming I really don't see a LOT of advantage here. Certainly not as much advantage as a shooter using "memory jogger note pads" to keep track of all those mil dots has over the shooter with an AO scope and duplex crosshair.

Anywhoo......seems to me that upping the max hft scope power level to 16x would solve some of the mentioned "equipment setting issues", and currently a ?-16x sf scope with wheel is affordable enough to mount one on a Gamo if desired. I'm pleased that there is an increase in folks of "all equipment stripes" shooting hft! LOL.....I think there have been a couple folks usin' "entry level" Crosman pcps to win matches......soooo, with the current availability of affordable hardware my old "equipment parity" arguments seems to have become a moot point.

I know that there are those that CRINGE at the though of even mentioning adjustments to the "official rules", but perhaps max scope power levels need to be adjusted to accomodate equipment currently used. Oh, I forgot....and separate hft into "recoiling and nonrecoiling" classes. LOL
slip by rather than sound anal again! Nobody cares anyway!
Last edited by dayjd on April 16th, 2011, 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

-bp
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 4:21 pm

April 16th, 2011, 5:13 pm #8

I've observed that ranging with a 16x mil-dot scope can be nearly as precise as with a high dollar 24 or 32x scope. I've tried this out a couple of times using 'mil-dot' ranging with a Centerpoint 4-16x scope at full magnification. Using the fact that the bases of the standard GAMO targets are 7" wide, it is quite possible to draw up a simple chart that gives range from the number of dots and fractions subsumed by the target base. This can be very accurate at 40-55 yards. I've compared numbers with a high power scope user and was never off more than a yard. Of course, it only works if you know dimensions of the target.

I have shot HFT on a couple of occassions, and used a BSA 3-12x scope - worked out quite nicely. I'd really prefer to have the rules specify no higher than 12x scope - instead of a higher powered one turned down.
between a 12x fixed scope and a higher power zoom turned down to 12x

...except that zoom eyepieces detract from optical performance.

that's not an opinion

-bp
Quote
Share

Joined: March 27th, 2010, 3:05 am

April 16th, 2011, 6:45 pm #9

A recent reply concerning the max power settings of a "big Nikko scope" with 5 yard marking increments made me wonder how many would object to raising the max scope power for HFT (to say 16x) to accomodate the users of "wierdly marked scopes" (lol...scopes not marked like mine are "wierd).

When I first introduced hunter class at DIFTA it was thought to be an "entry level class" and efforts were made to maintain a sort of "equipment parity" for shooters with basic equipment. The 12x max scope power setting was simply because a useable 4-12x AO scope could be bought cheaply. The high zoot side wheel scopes of the day that were beyond the reach of the shooter with basic equipment, and I felt that the exceptional sharpness of these scopes (even turned down to 12x), spread out range marks on the "wheel", and mil dots provided too much of an equipment advantage at that time.

Well......since MY early ft shooting days hft has "grown up" (equipment wise) with pcp shooters joining the ranks right along with the shooter using entry level equipment so the "equipment parity" argument no longer applies. Since a servicible and reasonably priced 4-16 power side focus scope with wheel can be found (ask Bill Price about his $200 56mm "Hubbel".....uh, no don't..LOL) I really don't feel that the original 12x max restriction is of any practical value in the current hft setting.

Concerning the "advantage" rangefinding at 16x instead of 12x......well, I've tried it and with MY eyesight there is a BIT of increased ranging accuracy, however with the use of holdover/under aiming I really don't see a LOT of advantage here. Certainly not as much advantage as a shooter using "memory jogger note pads" to keep track of all those mil dots has over the shooter with an AO scope and duplex crosshair.

Anywhoo......seems to me that upping the max hft scope power level to 16x would solve some of the mentioned "equipment setting issues", and currently a ?-16x sf scope with wheel is affordable enough to mount one on a Gamo if desired. I'm pleased that there is an increase in folks of "all equipment stripes" shooting hft! LOL.....I think there have been a couple folks usin' "entry level" Crosman pcps to win matches......soooo, with the current availability of affordable hardware my old "equipment parity" arguments seems to have become a moot point.

I know that there are those that CRINGE at the though of even mentioning adjustments to the "official rules", but perhaps max scope power levels need to be adjusted to accomodate equipment currently used. Oh, I forgot....and separate hft into "recoiling and nonrecoiling" classes. LOL
and I would like the rule left at 12x. I think that it helps keep the equipment in check, and for me the challenge makes It fun to shoot at this power.

My scope has a 12x marking, but for those that don't I think that there is simple solution. Measure the distance between the two marks, say 10 and 15 and proportionally mark 12. Since marks get closer together as power increases, this will sightly disadvantage the scopes marked in this way, but its a better solution than not allowing existing equipment to be used because of a possible, very slight advantage.


12X somewhat limits the advantage of a match rifle over a sporter; so if you are shooting a popular priced rifle with the 12x limit, at least you feel that you have a chance to win.



Quote
Share

Joined: September 7th, 2001, 3:52 am

April 16th, 2011, 6:51 pm #10

A recent reply concerning the max power settings of a "big Nikko scope" with 5 yard marking increments made me wonder how many would object to raising the max scope power for HFT (to say 16x) to accomodate the users of "wierdly marked scopes" (lol...scopes not marked like mine are "wierd).

When I first introduced hunter class at DIFTA it was thought to be an "entry level class" and efforts were made to maintain a sort of "equipment parity" for shooters with basic equipment. The 12x max scope power setting was simply because a useable 4-12x AO scope could be bought cheaply. The high zoot side wheel scopes of the day that were beyond the reach of the shooter with basic equipment, and I felt that the exceptional sharpness of these scopes (even turned down to 12x), spread out range marks on the "wheel", and mil dots provided too much of an equipment advantage at that time.

Well......since MY early ft shooting days hft has "grown up" (equipment wise) with pcp shooters joining the ranks right along with the shooter using entry level equipment so the "equipment parity" argument no longer applies. Since a servicible and reasonably priced 4-16 power side focus scope with wheel can be found (ask Bill Price about his $200 56mm "Hubbel".....uh, no don't..LOL) I really don't feel that the original 12x max restriction is of any practical value in the current hft setting.

Concerning the "advantage" rangefinding at 16x instead of 12x......well, I've tried it and with MY eyesight there is a BIT of increased ranging accuracy, however with the use of holdover/under aiming I really don't see a LOT of advantage here. Certainly not as much advantage as a shooter using "memory jogger note pads" to keep track of all those mil dots has over the shooter with an AO scope and duplex crosshair.

Anywhoo......seems to me that upping the max hft scope power level to 16x would solve some of the mentioned "equipment setting issues", and currently a ?-16x sf scope with wheel is affordable enough to mount one on a Gamo if desired. I'm pleased that there is an increase in folks of "all equipment stripes" shooting hft! LOL.....I think there have been a couple folks usin' "entry level" Crosman pcps to win matches......soooo, with the current availability of affordable hardware my old "equipment parity" arguments seems to have become a moot point.

I know that there are those that CRINGE at the though of even mentioning adjustments to the "official rules", but perhaps max scope power levels need to be adjusted to accomodate equipment currently used. Oh, I forgot....and separate hft into "recoiling and nonrecoiling" classes. LOL
Let those shooters shoot anything they want; 50X scopes, rangefinders, harnesses, whatever. THEN we start a new class for practical equipment with a 9X magnification limit, only one-piece wooden stocks allowed with no adjustable gizmos, and no shooting aids. But, what would we call such a class? How about a name reflective of the spirit and equipment of the class? I've got it... how about HUNTER!!! Point is, 'Hunter' class needs to either REGRESS towards hunting type equipment (scopes being a good start), or change the name to something appropriate to the state of equipment 'progression'. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with folks using high-tech equipment; but every other FT class allows competition-specific equipment. Hunter class has become a misnomer to such a degree that hunting-type equipment can't be competitive against the competition-specific equipment now dominating. Hunter class it ain't.
Quote
Share