Grouse45

Glad you were able to get out again - I am cleaning but, now that I am semi-retired again I see a lot more shooting on the horizon... YEA!

Now wait a miniute, let's look a reality here a little bit, remember the 'Great Philosopher' Semisaine said - "a rational man can rationalize anything" - that's why I currently own a 52.... but, I dygress...

1. You would probably be using that gun and that bullet on an elk class animal... right - right -> therefore any of those hits in the target area of an elk would have produced the desired results... One havested elk...

2. 200 yards is a long ways to shoot a ML without shooting that distance on a regular basis - demonstating your mind was already working against you a bit.

3. Brand new gun in a random stock that you picked out at Knight - Gees! what more could you ask??? - they do not even start shooting their best for at least a 100 rounds... and then what is it doing in the stock?

I do agree with you on the Leupold U-Slam reticle to a certain point - I really do like the scope and for HUNTING - it would be great - for shooting paper thinner is probably better.

I think that is one of the reasons I went with the 600 DOA Bushnell on my new 52... everything is pretty thin and clean. This picture makes them look a lot thicker than they are, but really they are smaller than the Leupold. The crosshairs are just normal and the dots are even smaller...

PLUS the rain guard lenses are great out here in the wet rain and snow - very seldom do I use scope covers....