How long before digital camera type scopes and binos overtake opticals ?

[mark-hunter]

@Choupique
I am in full agreement with you.

 

[cash_tx]

I'm pretty sure that rifle scopes have had technology embedded in them that exaggerates antler or horn size on game animals for several decades now. ;-)

 

[farmer_john]

Itll need to be regulated. IMO its already gone too far with cellular trail cameras. The ability to get real time intel on a location you are not in is a major advantage.

If I had my way, there would be no electronic gizmos allowed in big game hunting. Emergency use only. No GPS, no radar lidar homing beacon scopes, no trail cameras, no GPS, no nothing involving flowing electrons. Its not us vs the animals. That quit being the case when we quit needing to kill to survive. We do this for fun. Playing a video game in the wild is not fun.

I agree and disagree depending how its used.
Tech helps prevent trespassing. And plan safely.

And i use cellcams to look for tresspassers and poachers as well as sickly animals needing culling. To keep the population healthy. I think in age of cwd quickly being sble to identify and remove is important

I know most dont. But im also for a more german style hunter education course as well as higher barrier to entry.
And limiting technology that removes skill to achieve results.

 

[dogcat1]

Let me toss out a story and idea.

About 20 years ago, when cell phones were just phones or small cameras, my borther in law was working for a start up electronics company in Boston. His project was how to marry up video and a cell phone for live streaming or shooting video. His company was one of many on this race to getting what we use today. It happened very quickly when the prize was big enough.

As to scope/digital accuracy/targeting - it is already here on a large scale. Warships, tanks, artillery all use this now via drones and satelites. For hunters/shooters, the technology is already here but may not be scaled small enough to use yet in an outdoor/wild situation. But it is already here.

As to actually using it- I recall reading Jack O'Connor on the advent of variable scopes and higher than 7x power. He felt, as you would suspect, that they are not needed. A 2x or 4x is plenty as he proved in his sheep hunting successes. Note, we never read about his failures.

So as to technical progress, yes, we will see it and see it soon. Think about gunpowder (an entertainment chemical invented by Chinese) that was turned to a propellant, then smooth bore barrels that direct a lead ball, then rifling, then primers with cases, then smokeless powders, then optics of varioius types, then various platforms for actually firing the bullets, and on and on. Expect technical changes and improvements!!! Learn to be an early adoptor.

 

[mdwest]

I’m all for tech in proper application…. The problem is the world is full of assholes… so how do you control application?

For example, using an inexpensive drone (relatively) to help find and recover downed game would be a great use of the tech… same with a thermal…

But using drones or thermals to find live game during daylight hours I’m not a fan of at all..

There will always be cheaters, poachers, and turds.

So do we regulate the good guys in an effort to control misuse? Or do we do a better job of prosecuting the bad guys?

If we always fall on the side of regulation, how long is it before that gets applied everywhere else and more rights or privileges get taken away from people that have done no wrong?

All the while we neglect to actually solve the problem, and deal with the bad guys…

 

[Fordy]

Gday nhoro

I have been watching the growth of electronic/ digital scopes and binoculars with interest. They already integrate infra red night vision and video recording. I have seen technology that can range your target and move the crosshair to compensate for range and wind. Right now, optic scopes and bins are far better but I am convinced it is just a matter of time given the current cellphone camera technology. What do you guys think ?

My 2 cents worth probably only 1
Is that it’s already here
By that I have been culling for near on 40 years & today it’s already amazing what is available & for me over those years it’s one that was a lesson learned on how to become/get efficient or not get paid is pretty self explanatory
which this advancement in technology has helped my process of targeting and becoming even more efficient
BUT & this in the following is now from my position as a hunter
It absolutely sucks as
we learn complete F all
We don’t value
We don’t appreciate

Yet it has a alignment with the culls in today’s world of where I see us headed of if you don’t get numbers ( a kill ) your a poor hunter ( what ever happened to the days of working a animal out & let it get past it’s prime & take it out then ( I’m stating a general trend of today’s society of take now as if I don’t someone else will as a general trend towards harvesting )

My thoughts are it’s not for the good & people relying on this arnt hunters & just shooters as in my opinion we are loosing the base of what hunting is all about

Well to me anyway & hopefully it’s regulated to stop this rot yet it’s also very impressive as I sit in my chair looking @ drone videos of where I’ll target next & that’s over 3000 km away , most likely with a great amount of success that makes me look good to some people where I know if I didn’t have my background of critter patterns the tech stuff is only a bandaid as things will change when I’m there in around 3 weeks time but a base I have to do my job ( actually I’m only interested in testing different bullet designs traits these days so why not get real data is why I’m doing it for a planned hunt in moz in July)

Yep use it I do but not in a hunting situation as I stand by a line is there or should be imo

For some context I can drive to a property do a 10/15 km flight ( my son can as I can’t fly it lol ) in one direction with our drone & switch between normal & thermal camera & then do a sweep complete the full circle & then access/ target the critters it’s actually sad how easy it is


So one I like the technology advances but also see it as not true to the ethics of hunting as I perceive it , so just be careful people it will not be good for the long term imo as a hunter
Cheers

 

[Nhoro]

New tech will always challenge ethics because those ideas were formed before the tech was thought of. Scope sights replaced fixed sights. They give us a distinct advantage and are am ethical question in themselves.i don't see an ethical dilemma unless they start firing the rifle for you, they would just be equivalent to existing optical sights but cheaper if cellphones are anything to go by.

 

[62flint]

About 10 y/ago I had a patient who told me he had just left the service as a scout/sniper and told me something I found hard to believe. What do you guys think? He said that the military was working on a long-range shooting system involving a scope bluetoothed to a laptop that took most of the scout and most of the sniper out of the system. The laptop took into consideration the temperature, elevation, rotation of the earth, windspeed and direction, humidity, etc. The scope had dual reticles and the laptop would project the “fake” reticle so the shooter would see it as he looked thru the scope and would superimpose the 2 reticles then pull the trigger. I’m sure I’ve forgotten some of the finer points and I’m not tech savvy enough to understand all that he said— I’m not sure I understood the blue tooth concept back then— but that’s the jist of what he told me. If it was being developed 10’yrs ago perhaps that explains the 2000 yard shots we hear about today. What do you think?

Didn’t some one have a Remington 700 set up with a system like that for civilian sale?

 

[Russ16]

I agree and disagree depending how its used.
Tech helps prevent trespassing. And plan safely.

And i use cellcams to look for tresspassers and poachers as well as sickly animals needing culling. To keep the population healthy. I think in age of cwd quickly being sble to identify and remove is important

I know most dont. But im also for a more german style hunter education course as well as higher barrier to entry.
And limiting technology that removes skill to achieve results.

I also think trail cams help in situations like lion and leopard hunts where they can get a really good idea of age before taking the animal.

 

[mdwest]

My thoughts are it’s not for the good & people relying on this arnt hunters & just shooters as in my opinion we are loosing the base of what hunting is all about

I dont entirely disagree... I like the "challenge" faced in a good hunt, etc.. and like that the animals get a "sporting" chance, etc..etc..

BUT..

isnt this just another itteration of technology and advancement? when/where should it have stopped?

I'd think the same could be applied as the bow replaced the spear.. and the musket replaced the bow.. and the rifled barrel replaced the musket.. sights replaced shooting "bare".. scopes replaced shooting iron sights.. bigger scopes and variable power scopes replaced small fixed power scopes.. etc..etc..

each generation has been provided a more advanced set of tools that provide more accuracy, more range, more precision, etc.. than the generation before them..

at one point Im sure sitting in a perminant blind over a food source and using cellular cell cams to pattern the game coming to the food source would have been considered unsporting... but its pretty commonplace through much of the US today..

For me I guess it really depends on what the individuals purpose is..

200 years ago, when most hunting was done for the purpose of feeding the family, I would think any advancement in technology would have been absolutely welcomed.. the population that hunted for sport at that time was incredibly tiny and largely elite (most of the members of AH wouldnt qualify to be sport hunters)..

Domestically I almost exclusively hunt for food.. I absolutely do enjoy the process.. but I dont really seek out the biggest deer, or worry about which species I havent added to the wall... my purpose is to fill our freezers.. and between my wife and I we will typically take 5-8 deer and have for the most part cut beef out of our diet except for "treat" meals like steaks, briskets, etc..

So why wouldnt I take advantage of every opportunity to (legally) ensure that the freezer gets filled?

Just like guys 200 years ago, 400 years ago, 1000 years ago did...

perhaps "thats not hunting".... but to that statement I would respond.. "what is?" and who exactly gets to define that? and why?

If a scoped bolt action rifle was available in 1620, Im pretty sure the settlers of Plymouth Rock would have welcomed it.... it would have given them far better chances of downing game than their smoothbore matchlock muskets... would using a scoped bolt action have rendered them "not hunters"?

I see the same argument made by archery guys all the time.. the trad archery guys think the compound bow guys "arent real hunters".. and the compound bow guys think the crossbow guys "arent real hunters".. and archers across all disciplines think gun guys "arent real hunters"..

 

[Choupique]

New tech will always challenge ethics because those ideas were formed before the tech was thought of. Scope sights replaced fixed sights. They give us a distinct advantage and are am ethical question in themselves.i don't see an ethical dilemma unless they start firing the rifle for you, they would just be equivalent to existing optical sights but cheaper if cellphones are anything to go by.

I only have experience with cell service cameras, GPS, thermals and night vision as far as the super modern tech goes. The good scopes will all but pull the trigger for you. They will sync to a kestral and auto-dope for range, wind, elevation and inclination. Putting in an electronic trigger to sync to that would be super easy as far as tech goes. I'm a fan of less government in all things, but electronics are where my line in the sand is of transitioning from hunting to killing.

Cell service cameras are the biggest game changer for me. We can't hunt deer at night, so thermals are cool and all but legally, they don't give you much advantage. The ability to get real time data on animal activity at different locations simultaneously is what really makes it a different game. It's downright easy to kill whatever deer you want to kill if you've got the time to do it. Up till now, you could do whatever you wanted to make the shot, but the best intel you could get on the animals location was at least several hours old. Now, it's easy easy.

 

[Fordy]

Gday mdwest

I dont entirely disagree... I like the "challenge" faced in a good hunt, etc.. and like that the animals get a "sporting" chance, etc..etc..

a lot in that above

BUT..

I like the BUT & actually agree to a point which somewhat comes back to a “sporting chance” imo
On below of yours you come to a extremely valid point in the word of “accuracy” now with greater accuracy comes better human killing ( still need to understand bullet construction comes in here & how to use that to our benefit not a blanket of its a dead critter so all cool but another day is better served on that as to not derail what I’ve probably already done) now this “accuracy” I think is a good thing this can also be used to identify the “better” animals to be taken out wether age / genetics etc can help the species overall
Where I personally have trouble is the real time & round up ability of critters ( you can draft , sort wild critters to a specific location ) not being a ethical thing

isnt this just another itteration of technology and advancement? when/where should it have stopped?

I'd think the same could be applied as the bow replaced the spear.. and the musket replaced the bow.. and the rifled barrel replaced the musket.. sights replaced shooting "bare".. scopes replaced shooting iron sights.. bigger scopes and variable power scopes replaced small fixed power scopes.. etc..etc..

each generation has been provided a more advanced set of tools that provide more accuracy, more range, more precision, etc.. than the generation before them..

at one point Im sure sitting in a perminant blind over a food source and using cellular cell cams to pattern the game coming to the food source would have been considered unsporting... but its pretty commonplace through much of the US today..

For me I guess it really depends on what the individuals purpose is..

200 years ago, when most hunting was done for the purpose of feeding the family, I would think any advancement in technology would have been absolutely welcomed.. the population that hunted for sport at that time was incredibly tiny and largely elite (most of the members of AH wouldnt qualify to be sport hunters)..

Domestically I almost exclusively hunt for food.. I absolutely do enjoy the process.. but I dont really seek out the biggest deer, or worry about which species I havent added to the wall... my purpose is to fill our freezers.. and between my wife and I we will typically take 5-8 deer and have for the most part cut beef out of our diet except for "treat" meals like steaks, briskets, etc..

So why wouldnt I take advantage of every opportunity to (legally) ensure that the freezer gets filled?

Just like guys 200 years ago, 400 years ago, 1000 years ago did...

perhaps "thats not hunting".... but to that statement I would respond.. "what is?" and who exactly gets to define that? and why?

If a scoped bolt action rifle was available in 1620, Im pretty sure the settlers of Plymouth Rock would have welcomed it.... it would have given them far better chances of downing game than their smoothbore matchlock muskets... would using a scoped bolt action have rendered them "not hunters"?

I see the same argument made by archery guys all the time.. the trad archery guys think the compound bow guys "arent real hunters".. and the compound bow guys think the crossbow guys "arent real hunters".. and archers across all disciplines think gun guys "arent real hunters"..

Now another “BUT “ we can also include the addition of food plots , water points , habitat additions fencing etc that also increase our odds of that kill occurring with more certainty
BUT my line is one that legislators are not keeping up with what’s going on & I need a permit to utilise our drone yet it’s not needed in other jurisdictions or where some will use this technology that basically doesn’t give the critter a chance is my main point
Oh & we need more legislation in this world man alive I’ve got enough in my businesses that drives me crazy but another time on those as a lot of those are not related if one just uses common sense but that seems gone today with some also

Yes it’s a very hard subject to define with clarity on a ethical level, for me I believe it’s best summed up with the words of it’s called “hunting not shooting “

Hope that makes sense & thanks for delving a little deeper , I enjoy the conversation
Cheers

 

[mdwest]

Gday mdwest

a lot in that above

I like the BUT & actually agree to a point which somewhat comes back to a “sporting chance” imo
On below of yours you come to a extremely valid point in the word of “accuracy” now with greater accuracy comes better human killing ( still need to understand bullet construction comes in here & how to use that to our benefit not a blanket of its a dead critter so all cool but another day is better served on that as to not derail what I’ve probably already done) now this “accuracy” I think is a good thing this can also be used to identify the “better” animals to be taken out wether age / genetics etc can help the species overall
Where I personally have trouble is the real time & round up ability of critters ( you can draft , sort wild critters to a specific location ) not being a ethical thing


Now another “BUT “ we can also include the addition of food plots , water points , habitat additions fencing etc that also increase our odds of that kill occurring with more certainty
BUT my line is one that legislators are not keeping up with what’s going on & I need a permit to utilise our drone yet it’s not needed in other jurisdictions or where some will use this technology that basically doesn’t give the critter a chance is my main point
Oh & we need more legislation in this world man alive I’ve got enough in my businesses that drives me crazy but another time on those as a lot of those are not related if one just uses common sense but that seems gone today with some also

Yes it’s a very hard subject to define with clarity on a ethical level, for me I believe it’s best summed up with the words of it’s called “hunting not shooting “

Hope that makes sense & thanks for delving a little deeper , I enjoy the conversation
Cheers

In addition to all of the complexity that we've both added to the mix... I think another layer is one brought in by each individual person..

as an example... for me.. Ive never taken a shot at a game animal at more than 330 yards.. and in the one event where I did take a shot at 330, we worked for 4 hours to get that close.. it was a black wildebeest hunt.. and they are notorious for keeping their distance.. most of the time they were 600+ yards away..

while I am a long distance shooter and a precision shooter (went to multiple precision rifle / sniper / long range schools.. served as a SWAT sniper for a few years, etc).. I am not a long distance hunter.. I prefer to get as close as a species will reasonably allow, both for what I percieve as ethics (Im not taking a shot that I am not 100% convinced is going to hit the boiler room and have enough velocity on it to reach vitals when it gets there, etc).. and as the difference between what I personally perceive as "hunting" vs shooting..

that said.. I dont disparage someone that willfully takes a 400 or 500 yard shot as long as they have confidence in their ability to hit the animal in the kill zone and are using an appropriate cartridge that still has enough power left in it to kill when it gets there.. I suppose if they consider that "hunting", who am I to tell them that its not? They have to be able to hone a particular set of skills to take that game animal.. and I have to hone a different set of skills to be able to get within a couple of hundred yards of the same animal.. but both require skills.. both involve taking an animals life.. and both involve harvesting meat for the freezer, etc..

Im also not a fan of the latest craze to shoot super high velocity, small caliber cartridges.. as an example there are guys out there praising the 22 ARC as the latest greatest elk killer..

while Im 100% certain it will kill an elk.. it pushes boundaries Im not willing to personally push..

but.. if someone else can reliably drop a big bull at 300 yards with a 22 ARC and have the animal on the ground within a few seconds.. and its legal to do so in the state that they are using the 22 ARC.. I revert back to, different skill sets and different instrument choices.. but their business, not mine as long as its ethically and morally and legally viable..

Its certainly a complicated "sport"... and hunters tend to be their own worst enemies, fighting each other over personal beliefs rather than focusing on anti hunters and government that would end hunting altogether if given the chance..

It might be easier on everyone if we just went back to spears and called it a day lol..