Originally Posted by rhans53
txhunter, I don't think I agree with your reasoning. Scopes only allow better shot placement IMHO. They don't increase the range of the rifle, they don't increase power, but for most folks a they do give a better sight picture. there are way to many folks out there that take shots they shoudn't and probably wound more animals that will ever be known about and scope or no scope doesn't matter to these folks I feel a scope gives more focus during the shot, now if you miss you miss but at least your just not throwing lead. I'm not trying to start a major debate here and I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, just giving my 2 cents on it.

Rhans53: For places like Texas and Wisconsin, where game is plentiful and tags are not so hard to draw, I think scopes are a good thing.

However, to me you almost prove my point in your statement. Scopes DON't really extend the EFFECTIVE range at all. BUT they do make people take longer shots and DO increase the range the average hunter can be accurate at.

Currently with an open sight muzzy, I feel very comfortable out to 120 yards and if conditions are perfect, I would attempt 150 yards.

However, with a 9 power scope, that accurate distance is easily extended out to 200-250 yards. Certainly doesn't make a muzzy a 400 yard gun, but it does definately extend the accurate range of pretty much any shooter with a muzzy but 50-100 yards.

So with a scope, people would be trying longer shots. And I would maybe harvest an elk that came in to 160-180 yards that I would have passed on with open sights. I can't tell you the number of times I have "almost" got a shot on an elk, but he was just outside my comfort zone.

Also, had a friend 2 years ago that was down in a canyon that had a bull at 50 yards. Time said it was legal shooting time, but in a canyon and in timber, he could not see the sights on the open sights. With a scope, that elk would have been dead.

Now, both of those things are GOOD if you want to increase harvest, but the regs in Colorado are written to give quite a few tags and not increase the harvest. If harvest goes up in the muzzy season, they respond by lowering the number of tags issued

Think of another example. If bows made a leap of technology that made them a consistent 100 yard weapon, do you think they would sell bow tags over the counter? No, because they would harvest too many, and that would cut down on the rifle hunters take.

And I have no idea if this is true or not, but I really believe that if they allow scopes, more people will apply. For some, they just don't want to learn open sights and deal with shorter distances.

Both of those things: decrease in tags and increase in numbers applying, lowers my chance of drawing a tag, which is already bad enough (every 4 years for a bull tag). So, I am happy to keep the no scopes and have a better chance of going more often, even with the limitation.

That said, I would be in favor of allowing a 1X scope. As age affects my eyes, a clear sight picture would be a good thing, but wouldn't really extend the accruacy range for most hunters.

Some people feel that allowing scopes will cause an increase in wounding rate and some people argue that it will decrease wounding, but I don't really believe either. I suspect there will be about as many elk wounded and not recovered from scoped rifles shot out to 250 yards as there are now wounded at 150.