"Self-Adjusting" Scopes

Saw on the show "Steve's Outdoor Adventures" where he touts the Burris "Eliminator" scope - which ranges the animal and then adjusts itself for elevation by illuminating the proper stadia/dot for holdover. The shooter simply uses the illuminated stadia/dot.

I don't like all these gadgets that are designed to assist the shooter DURING THE ACT OF MAKING THE SHOT ITSELF to the point of taking the skill needed for an accurate shot out of the hands of the shooter. Seems there are more and more of them these days.

Does this cross any lines for any of you? Just curious.

And you still have to dope the wind for the shot.

Think it's got a tree and lights up on the input. Sure it works on a very very large target but not real pin point.

Doesn't cross a line, it's just a laser range finding scope. I view it as a waste of money.

Long range thing is just another disciple to master. Like shooting a bow past 40yards

I've not seen one in person, but the commercial for them shows it simply lighting up the proper "dot" for elevation purposes. Seems like it is as "pin point" as any other scope.

No, it's more than that. Ranging is just the first step. It goes beyond ranging and tells where to hold for elevation.

IMO that's part of the shooter's job in making the shot.

If it only shows elevation, which is all it can do, then it's only getting two steps of three accomplished. And that third step, judging the wind at the target, and properly adjusting for it is the difference in people than can hit, and people that can't hit.

The problem with the system is that so many people are going to buy it, and immediately think all they have to do is hold the dot on vitals. They're going to learn that's not the case when a bullet is blown into the gut, on the brisket, or cause a total miss.

Distance is science, windage is art.


I'm still trying to be an artist, and I shoot distance 52 weeks a year.

Sure, I agree.

I'm just wondering how many "steps" can be eliminated before accurate shooting becomes more the act of machine than man.

Bear in mind, I am talking about the very act of making the shot itself - not just getting information needed to make the shot.

I see all these "lockdown" devices that hold the rifle, scopes that tell you where to hold, etc. Every step gets closer to the "self-shooting rifle". Next I'm thinking will be a glove with a device that applies just the right amount smooth pressure to the trigger at the squeeze.

Never know.

I agree with the human error in actually making the shot. Have to get the scope level over the rifle, slow steady trigger pressure, follow through not slapping the trigger. Which, by the way, is the worst habit I've seen people have.

I don't feel it crosses any lines.

Fancy new technology I doubt I will ever use, or will ever want to use, but I don't see how it takes any more sport etc. away from hunting than high powered rifles and telescopic sights haven't already done. That said I don't have a problem shooting rifles and scopes. Different strokes for different folks. I do surely hope it doesn't lend itself to a bunch of yoyo's running out to hunt at extreme ranges that don't put in the effort to make themselves competent to do so successfully.

That's what is always my biggest concern also. It will happen.

Except they're already out there with lesser equipment than the Eliminator, trying to do it right this very second.

Yall are all correct. Almost every time someone shows up to my range and they see a definite 400 or 500 yards, they start to worry. I usually hear "wow, that looks farther than that". Then I say, you'll hit it, as well as everything beyond them, just trust me. Then the wind starts blowing and they have to hold for it, or they'll miss. It is educational, and that is the whole point.

People complain about all sorts of advancements. Years ago, I recall many traditional, iron-sight hunters talking about how using scopes took all the skill out of hunting. "It's no longer hunting, just killing."

While it has been years since I attended a long range class, my hunting partner just came back from one out by Aspermont. The instructors all had Kestral ballistic calculators and ranging gear as did some of the attending students. The Kestral provided all the correction information needed to be dialed in on the scopes. Yep, folks still had to read the wind to input that information, but pretty much the Kestrels "took all the skill" out of everything else except turning the turrets and pulling the trigger.

The problem with the notion of "taking all the skill out shooting" is that for many hunters, the skill isn't there to start with. They need all the help they can get to make decent shots. They need all the help they can get for making ethical shots.

The ones that say long rang takes the skill out of hunting are the ones to lazy to learn and put the time in to be proficient, because they don't understand the dedication it's takes for the proficiency IMO
As far as the scope it's only as good as the input, not differ then tradition scope and rangefinder

X2. Them Tracking Point guns though

No matter how many engineers try to attempt to make a non-guided projectile, coming from a rifle and optic system, to remove the human, they will never replace a rifleman that has the practice and experience at judging wind. It takes eyes, and a brain to correct for that variable.

That's what I'm getting at. When does it become just the equipment doing the shooting vs. the hunter? Seems to me an integral part of hunting is the hunter making the shot, not the equipment. Again, I am talking about the act of shooting itself, not information gathered to assist in making an accurate shot.

I'm pretty certain laser-guided bullet technology already exists for miltary use - at least on the developmental scale. A great advancement for battle.

Would this be compatible with hunting? I don't think most would think so.

It will always be a choice. The long range guys do it because that's the skill and challenge they want to perfect. No different then long bow vs crossbow or compound. IMO

IMO what makes it different is the aid with the very act of shooting itself. Not better equipment, not more efficient equipment, but the machine taking over the very act of shooting from the user.

I not saying I know where the line is, but I'm guessing the vast majority of hunters would say taking the shooter completely out of the equation of making an accurate shot (e.g. laser-guided bullets) would cross it. The same technology could also be employed with an arrow. Not so many years ago, "draw locks" were used by many - and to my knowledge they are now disallowed for bowhunting in most (if not every) state. Why? Because they were an artificial aid in the very act of shooting the bow (the shooter holding their own draw).

For me, equipment giving the shooter the exact point of aim by lighting up the "hold" point does also. (I get that this doesn't account for wind). IMO the shooter should make the shot, not have a gadget do it for him. I get folks can say "Yeah but you still have to do this, and you still have to do that". But that game can be played all the way down to "Yeah but you still have to pull the trigger."

What about people who have a lead sled in their deer stands?

What about the people who have a quad pod gun rest and shoot with a fully supported gun in field posiions, is that wrong also?

I don't personally like either, but to each their own.

I'm understanding you, NP, and I get where you're coming from.

But look at this from my standpoint, the scope in question is taking two instruments I use and combining them into one. The first instrument being the range finder, that I place on the area, or the animal, push a button, and it gives me distance in yards. Instrument two is the rifle scope. I know the hold (or dial) for elevation, for the distance of the shot. Why? Because I've worked up a load, bullet weight, bullet diameter, BC, and MV into any number of ballistic calculators, produced a chart, started at 100 yards confirming zero on paper, then worked my way out to 800 yards on steel, taking notes along the way of hits that were high, center, or low, all the while allowing for wind. If the numbers do not match, then I go back into the ballistic calculator and adjust parameters until the calculator's predicted corrections match what I've just shot. That is "truing". So I know what I have to correct for, vertically (gravity). The trick is the wind, I make an educated guess, and I am right more that I am wrong through lots of practice.

The scope in question is shaving seconds off of the process. It ranges, then shows where to hold for gravity. The same thing I do, but I don't have an illuminated dot on the vertical line below zero. I have several hashes that I can use to hold for elevation.

I think the problem you're having is the part of this none of us can control, and never will be able to. And that is that so many hunters will buy the system, plug in numbers, trust the numbers, and never confirm it on inanimate objects, such as steel plates, paper, water jugs, what ever they want to use. Then they will go out and line up on an animal, maybe get lucky and make a clean kill, or maybe gut shoot something, worst case. And of course, them not putting in the time is wrong, and unethical as a hunter. But like anything in life, we cannot legislate people from being stupid.

I hear you. But IMO somewhere along the line, if the equipment starts making the decisions, the shooter's skill is no longer needed.

I think doing all the work and practice necessary to know the holdover (as you do) is the job of the shooter, not the scope. IMO here the scope is doing the job of the shooter.

Maybe cool and fun for playing with at the range, but IMO not so much for hunting.

I don't see it as such a hard line, as you do.

If they go through the steps to confirm that the holds that the scope is giving them are correct, then they are doing the same thing as I, and you are. Again, its combining two instruments into one. But I doubt it is a reliable performer beyond 500 yards. Things are pretty easy 400 and in, but the wind still matters, I see it every week, spotting my shots or spotting for someone else. But just talking gravity, 500 yards and less do not vary much throughout the year, with environmental changes, for all but the .223 Rem.

Generations before us would look down upon us for having (what would compare to theirs) the best optics in the world. Go back enough generations and those men would say no one needs anything but irons. I'll never have the scope in question, and I can say it won't do well at the "official" long range line, but who am I to judge those that want to try it, as long as they do their homework on the range.

Just exactly how much technology are you willing to use that you don't think takes away skill? Do you only shoot unaided eye, off hand, smooth bore muzzleloader single shot rifles? Does your rifle have any sort of sight on it to aid you in aiming? EVERY technological benefit you may employ will help to compensate for a lack of skill in some area, but it will also take new types of skill to learn how to use properly. It takes a lot of practice to develop the skill to be able to shoot a smooth bore muzzle loader with no sights at distance with any sort of reasonable accuracy.

The consternation you are expressing is interesting because you seem to be invoking a variant on the age old adage that anyone who does something different than you is doing it wrong, or you are at least questioning if it is wrong because it isn't being done in the old ways. Well, how you shoot and/or hunt isn't likely to be like it was done at some point in the past either. Just how much are you doing versus the machine will certainly be influenced by where you are in history and what technology you are using.

^^good explanation^^

Wonder how the cavemen would feel about the way we hunt?? Or even the indians? Or our great grandparents? Good chance the way we hunt now days will be obsolete in the future. Sad but true. Just think of the guns and bows that were used just 150 years ago. It's mind boggling.

Drawlocks are legal in any state that crossbows are legal.... That's a lot of states.

The scope doesn't give you the exact point to aim, it's an estimation of hold. It doesn't caliberate with out input. Even then you have a red dot with spacing, its not near as finite as turret, or line reticle. On top of that the gun has to be leveled and aligned right, it's doesn't self adjust for shooter form.

You can buy a laser ranger finder that will do the same thing once caliberated to temp, elevation, BC and speed.

Then you input it, after all that is done, you still have to be a shooter. You still have to have the disciple to make the bullet go where it's suppose to. Sounds easy, until you got that 500 plus mark.

They would be excited for modern rifle and scope. Spears sux, they would eat more that's for sure

Thanks for the input guys.

Bottom line with hunting differences, if it is legal, and you can sleep well at night, don't worry about what the other guy is doing.

If it isn't legal, well then, that's where to get the game warden involved. But just as in my business and ethics of it all, catching someone in their unethical/illegal behavior is a tough thing to do so it ends up being something you can beat yourself up over if you worry about what the other guy is doing. Just do what is right for you, and be sure you can look yourself in the mirror. That's about all you can control in this world.

Boy, that makes me sound like a relativist doesn't it?

If I were a target shooter I guess I might consider one but I'm not. All I do is hunt. I'll never own one because they are very large, bulky, heavy and cumbersome.

On a side note they are a pain to mount. I've mounted a few for customers. Two of them have come back because the shooter was getting scope eye. Both were mounted on T3's in .308. Haven't delved into why except for noting it is a very heavy scope on a very light rifle.

Yes they are ridiculous from an ergonomics standpoint right now. That will change pretty soon though I'm sure.