Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Leupold scopes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Leupold scopes

    I just ordered a new Leupold 1.5-5 with the illuminated reticle for my .458 Lott...does anyone have one? How long will the batteries last? I'm thinking it will work good here in SE with as dark as the woods are.

  • #2
    I have a 4.5X14 with the Illuminated Duplex Reticle on one of my Encore barrels. The battery will last for several outings if you do not forget to turn it off. Also it will last longer if you do not have the reostat turned up to it's highest brightness.

    Comment


    • #3
      I dont trust optics (or anything for that matters) that require batteries. Is the scope still usable if the batteries die? I've never had one and I'm sure it comes in handy in low light situations.

      Comment


      • #4
        The scope is quite useable if the battery fails. The Illuminated Reticle is good for very late in the day when the light is waning or early morning . Other than that they are just like normal scopes with a few more add-ons.


        Actually I have 2 Leupolds with the Illuminated Reticle. The other is a MkIV CQ/T 1X3X14 with the Circle Dot reticle that illuminates mounted on my Bushmaster.

        Comment


        • #5
          Allen: Do you like the Circle Dot? That's what I ordered, but I've never used one before; it just looked like it should work well. I expect this to be a 100 yd. (max.) rifle and will probably use it as a backup. Normally, I use a .375 H&H with a 1.5-5 and duplex reticle, so the circle/dot will be a change for me.

          Comment


          • #6
            legal?

            Is the use of a lighted reticle scope legal for the taking of big game in Alaska?

            You MAY NOT take game by:

            artificial light, laser sight, electronically-enhanced night vision scope........

            Comment


            • #7
              Yup.

              Vern,

              A scope that projects light back on the user's eye is legal, provided it isn't a "night vision" scope that artificially enhances the image. A red-dot or illuminated crosshair scope is legal in Alaska.

              A scope (or anything else) that projects light out onto the target is not legal.

              Good on you for asking!

              Comment


              • #8
                written rules of engagement

                Originally posted by 8x57 Mauser
                Vern,

                A scope that projects light back on the user's eye is legal, provided it isn't a "night vision" scope that artificially enhances the image. A red-dot or illuminated crosshair scope is legal in Alaska.

                A scope (or anything else) that projects light out onto the target is not legal.

                Good on you for asking!

                8X57,
                Is this information written down somewhere in the rules of engagement bible for big game hunting?

                Thanks for input.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Page 15 of the current regulation booklet. "You MAY NOT take game by using a ........artificial light, laser light, electronically-enhanced night vision scope......". An illuminated reticle casts no light on the animal and I have also been specifically told by ADF&G that an illuminated reticle is allowed.
                  The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps! (Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Regs on light

                    Bill F,

                    5 AAC 92.080. Unlawful methods of taking game; exceptions

                    The following methods of taking game are prohibited:
                    ...
                    (7) with the aid of a pit, fire, artificial light, laser sight, electronically enhanced night vision scope, radio communication, cellular or satellite telephone, artificial salt lick, explosive, expanding gas arrow, bomb, smoke, chemical (excluding scent lures), or a conventional steel trap with an inside jaw spread over nine inches, except that

                    (A) a rangefinders (sic) may be used;
                    ...
                    (D) a tracking dog handler with one leashed dog may use artificial light to aid in tracking and dispatching a wounded big game animal;
                    ...


                    Some have read this reg to mean that anything generating light is illegal. The definitions section at 5 AAC 92.990 sheds no 'light' on the question, as it addresses neither "artificial light," "laser sight," or "electronically enhanced night vision scope."

                    So we're left to read the regulation itself, which differentiates laser sights and night vision scopes from "artificial light." If anything generating any artificial light were illegal, there would be no need to single out laser sights and night vision scopes: laser sights project light forward - illuminating a point on the target animal, while night vision scopes project light backward, artificially enhancing the hunter's ability to see the target.

                    So why did ADF&G differentiate them from other sources of light? It probably has to do with limiting the advantages technology gives to hunters (whether for ethical reasons, conservation reasons, or a desire to maximize hunting opportunities, I won't speculate.) But whatever the reason, it's a fundamental rule of reading the law that every word is there for a reason, and nothing is extra.

                    So the only rational reading of the reg is that scopes with illuminated crosshairs/dots aren't generally included in the 'artificial light' category. As long as they neither enhance the image of the target nor project light onto it, they're permissible.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 8x57 Mauser
                      Bill F,

                      5 AAC 92.080. Unlawful methods of taking game; exceptions

                      The following methods of taking game are prohibited:
                      ...
                      (7) with the aid of a pit, fire, artificial light, laser sight, electronically enhanced night vision scope, radio communication, cellular or satellite telephone, artificial salt lick, explosive, expanding gas arrow, bomb, smoke, chemical (excluding scent lures), or a conventional steel trap with an inside jaw spread over nine inches, except that

                      (A) a rangefinders (sic) may be used;
                      ...
                      (D) a tracking dog handler with one leashed dog may use artificial light to aid in tracking and dispatching a wounded big game animal;
                      ...


                      Some have read this reg to mean that anything generating light is illegal. The definitions section at 5 AAC 92.990 sheds no 'light' on the question, as it addresses neither "artificial light," "laser sight," or "electronically enhanced night vision scope."

                      So we're left to read the regulation itself, which differentiates laser sights and night vision scopes from "artificial light." If anything generating any artificial light were illegal, there would be no need to single out laser sights and night vision scopes: laser sights project light forward - illuminating a point on the target animal, while night vision scopes project light backward, artificially enhancing the hunter's ability to see the target.

                      So why did ADF&G differentiate them from other sources of light? It probably has to do with limiting the advantages technology gives to hunters (whether for ethical reasons, conservation reasons, or a desire to maximize hunting opportunities, I won't speculate.) But whatever the reason, it's a fundamental rule of reading the law that every word is there for a reason, and nothing is extra.

                      So the only rational reading of the reg is that scopes with illuminated crosshairs/dots aren't generally included in the 'artificial light' category. As long as they neither enhance the image of the target nor project light onto it, they're permissible.
                      8x57

                      Some in authority are not rational. I dislike leaving myself open to their interpretation of the rules. I got a hasseled a few years back due to my optic using batteries. I was respectful and only recieved a lecture on artificial light. I still use lit reticles now and then and wish the regs were more clear. Thanks for your opinion.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Leupold scopes

                        Here's an update on trying to get a Leupold scope for my .458 Lott....I can't find the Leupold I wanted. My local dealer isn't having any luck locating one. I checked at a Bass Pro shop in Louisville, KY last week and they didn't have one, I also checked in Anchorage with no luck. The dealer in Wasilla told me that the Leupold would eventually fail due to the heavy recoil and I should go with a Swarovski or Zeiss (big bucks)....the dealer in Anchorage tried to sell me a Burris. I'm tempted to see if I can keep groups in the 2"-3" range at 100 yds. with the iron sights, but with bifocals, I don't think I can and I'm not nuts about burning up a dozen rounds at $4.50 a pop just to prove I'm right. I'd like a low power that works well in the dark woods...any ideas out there?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ak steve

                          I'd say that if this dude is telling you a Leupold will fail, then you just found a BS artist.
                          I'd take my money elsewhere.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Mike, I would still try and find a 1.5x5 leupy. Mine still going strong. right now its on a very light 338winny. my 338 actually has more of a recoil than what my Lott did. No problems. Me thinks the guy in wasilla wanted to sell you some expensive glass, that I feel you do not need (unless you want to of course). way to many guys out there that have that leupy on over 40's for it not to work.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Mike I just looked at one of my distributor web sites and they have the Leupold you are looking for in stock. Well they have at least one in stock.

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X