texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
oldrancher, JHarris006, Sports Penn, Txhunter7178, Tmott
65386 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 93,313
bill oxner 55,075
stxranchman 54,687
SnakeWrangler 45,950
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,430
BMD 41,029
Big Orn 37,484
txshntr 35,564
Facebook
Forum Statistics
Forums45
Topics432,193
Posts6,276,163
Members65,386
Most Online16,728
Mar 25th, 2012
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 #5387177 10/29/14 07:28 PM
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 474
A
Arrowslinger82 Offline OP
Bird Dog
OP Offline
Bird Dog
A
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 474
Narrowed down my brand to a couple, but now I'm stuck with what would work better for my situation. its a .308 bolt gun, my wife, and kids as well as myself will shoot it, and the max range right now is 150, after this season it'll be no more than 400. which magnification would be best all around?

Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387197 10/29/14 07:36 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
3x9 with a 40mm objective is the best choice for what you describe IMO.

1)Much more economical because much more common configuration; and
2)Lighter and less bulky.

I would not get a 50mm-their supposed benefit of letting in more light is virtually useless in most applications. Plus they are much more heavy/bulky.

A Leupold VX1 or 2 in 3-9x40 is a very good yet very economical scope that will last a lifetime.


Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387568 10/29/14 11:26 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
F
FiremanJG Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
F
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
If you're going to go 400 yards in the future get alll the magnification you can. 4-16X will be very nice.

I have four scopes and all are 50 mm objective. Besides light transmission they have a larger field of view.


[Linked Image]
800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387595 10/29/14 11:46 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
Love ya buddy but if you really look at the facts they don't support the added weight and loss of good cheek weld that are distinct disadvantages of 50mm objectives on hunting rifles.The human eye cannot take advantage of the mathematical advantage the 50mm objective provides due to our exit pupil limitations. Especially if you are out of your 20s. That's why you don't see even many binoculars with a 50mm objective except for specialty long range binocs that for all practical purposes require a tripod to take advantage of their high magnifications and to hold their weight. Hunting binocs to carry are all 42mm and smaller. Scopes should be too. Most nowadays recognize this and 50mm scopes are fast becoming obsolete for hunting applications.

If field of view is needed, one needs a lower power setting anyway. 16x ain't gonna give you much field of view and is the dickens to hold steady under all but virtual benchrest conditions.

I cannot speak to their applications/advantages on the bench as I'm sure there are many. But not for hunting IMO.

If you Google 50mm vs. 40mm objectives there are several articles that break all the mathematical stuff down.


Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387659 10/30/14 12:23 AM
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,576
6
603Country Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
6
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,576
So...let's say he gets the 3-9 and he goes to sight it in. Bang....hmmm, where's the bullet hole. Who has the spotting scope? Loaned it to Bob? Dang. But...let's say he got the 4-16. Bang, well it's about 2 inches to the right and down an inch. Get the 4-16. I don't even have a 3-9 any more. Gave the last one, a Zeiss Conquest, to my BiL.

And NP is right, sort of. If you're my age, your usable ratio between objective size and power is probably about 4 (5 if you're in your 20's). I think you could get some use out of the 50mm objective up to about 12 power. My brightest scopes do have 30mm tubes and 50mm objectives, though the difference isn't that huge compared to 40mm obj scopes.

Anyway, get the 4-16...


Not my monkeys, not my circus...
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387685 10/30/14 12:34 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
Sure. But that's a benchrest deal-not a hunting deal. Those seem to get mixed together a lot. Use your spotting scope or walk down to the target. That way, you won't have to tote extra virtually useless weight come hunting time-plus you won't have to lift your head up off the stock to shoot. (I know, buy a stock pad-more weight and another benchrest deal.) smile

You ever wonder why hunting binoculars are not 50 or 60 or 70mm and rarely are over 10x? Useless weight you can't hold steady at higher magnifications anyway......

Last edited by Nogalus Prairie; 10/30/14 12:34 AM.

Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5387690 10/30/14 12:37 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
F
FiremanJG Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
F
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Love ya buddy but if you really look at the facts they don't support the added weight and loss of good cheek weld that are distinct disadvantages of 50mm objectives on hunting rifles.The human eye cannot take advantage of the mathematical advantage the 50mm objective provides due to our exit pupil limitations. Especially if you are out of your 20s. That's why you don't see even many binoculars with a 50mm objective except for specialty long range binocs that for all practical purposes require a tripod to take advantage of their high magnifications and to hold their weight. Hunting binocs to carry are all 42mm and smaller. Scopes should be too. Most nowadays recognize this and 50mm scopes are fast becoming obsolete for hunting applications.

If field of view is needed, one needs a lower power setting anyway. 16x ain't gonna give you much field of view and is the dickens to hold steady under all but virtual benchrest conditions.

I cannot speak to their applications/advantages on the bench as I'm sure there are many. But not for hunting IMO.

If you Google 50mm vs. 40mm objectives there are several articles that break all the mathematical stuff down.


Never said someone should lose cheek weld. That is a big no-no. My stock packs add elevation juuuuust right.

I've been out of my twenties for years.

16X will cut your field of view, sure. It will cut your view more on a 40mm or 44mm more so than a 50 mm. When the need arises, turn magnification down. When the need arises, turn magnification up, simple.

At 4:45 pm this afternoon I shot supported STANDING!!! and suported kneeling on 20X and cold bored a 16" plate at 800 yards. How steady was that compared to a bench?

I love ya back, but I'd bet a week of my lunch money I shoot more than you or whom ever wrote whatever google article. Prone to standing and every conceivable position in between.

Multiple of 4 (5-20x, 6-24x) is all I have, may get 5x in the future. All on 50 mm objectives and 30 mm tubes.


[Linked Image]
800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387693 10/30/14 12:39 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
I will say if all of your hunting is out of a box blind with a rock steady rest the higher magnifications can be fine. But, even then, if your scope is set on 16x and a big buck walks out, you are going to lose precious seconds trying to acquire him in your small FOV. Hunting is that way-every supposed advantage almost always carries with it a very practical disadvantage-that is sometimes not so obvious until the actual field conditions are present.


Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: FiremanJG] #5387700 10/30/14 12:41 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Love ya buddy but if you really look at the facts they don't support the added weight and loss of good cheek weld that are distinct disadvantages of 50mm objectives on hunting rifles.The human eye cannot take advantage of the mathematical advantage the 50mm objective provides due to our exit pupil limitations. Especially if you are out of your 20s. That's why you don't see even many binoculars with a 50mm objective except for specialty long range binocs that for all practical purposes require a tripod to take advantage of their high magnifications and to hold their weight. Hunting binocs to carry are all 42mm and smaller. Scopes should be too. Most nowadays recognize this and 50mm scopes are fast becoming obsolete for hunting applications.

If field of view is needed, one needs a lower power setting anyway. 16x ain't gonna give you much field of view and is the dickens to hold steady under all but virtual benchrest conditions.

I cannot speak to their applications/advantages on the bench as I'm sure there are many. But not for hunting IMO.

If you Google 50mm vs. 40mm objectives there are several articles that break all the mathematical stuff down.


Never said someone should lose cheek weld. That is a big no-no. My stock packs add elevation juuuuust right.

I've been out of my twenties for years.

16X will cut your field of view, sure. It will cut your view more on a 40mm or 44mm more so than a 50 mm. When the need arises, turn magnification down. When the need arises, turn magnification up, simple.

At 4:45 pm this afternoon I shot supported STANDING!!! and suported kneeling on 20X and cold bored a 16" plate at 800 yards. How steady was that compared to a bench?

I love ya back, but I'd bet a week of my lunch money I shoot more than you or whom ever wrote whatever google article. Prone to standing and every conceivable position in between.

Multiple of 4 (5-20x, 6-24x) is all I have, may get 5x in the future. All on 50 mm objectives and 30 mm tubes.




You'll for sure win the shooting bet. But this is a hunting question. And I'll be glad to compare notes with you on that score. smile

In fact, I seem to recall us having a discussion about toting a cannon in the mountains and I seem to recall when you got back you swore you wouldn't do that again..... Huh?

Last edited by Nogalus Prairie; 10/30/14 12:43 AM.

Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387725 10/30/14 12:51 AM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 45,114
BOBO the Clown Online Content
decoy
Online Content
decoy
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 45,114
4-12 or 4-16 but 40-44 mm obj IMO

4x4 isn't needed 99% of the time but sure nice to have it. Same thing with magnification.

Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: BOBO the Clown] #5387729 10/30/14 12:53 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
4-12 or 4-16 but 40-44 mm obj IMO

4x4 isn't needed 99% of the time but sure nice to have it. Same thing with magnification.





I agree with that, but you'll have to pay a little more and tote a little more weight. I'll confess: my main rifle has a 4.5-14x 40mm. smile


Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5387735 10/30/14 12:56 AM
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 45,114
BOBO the Clown Online Content
decoy
Online Content
decoy
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 45,114
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
4-12 or 4-16 but 40-44 mm obj IMO

4x4 isn't needed 99% of the time but sure nice to have it. Same thing with magnification.





I agree with that, but you'll have to pay a little more and tote a little more weight. I'll confess: my main rifle has a 4.5-14x 40mm. smile


I will say I'll take a mid to higher end 3-9 over a cheaper 4-12 or 4-16. If being price restricted

Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: BOBO the Clown] #5387740 10/30/14 12:58 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
4-12 or 4-16 but 40-44 mm obj IMO

4x4 isn't needed 99% of the time but sure nice to have it. Same thing with magnification.





I agree with that, but you'll have to pay a little more and tote a little more weight. I'll confess: my main rifle has a 4.5-14x 40mm. smile


I will say I'll take a mid to higher end 3-9 over a cheaper 4-12 or 4-16. If being price restricted


Yes. I was going to add that for the OP. Scope quality is way more important than objective size-and for all other factors.

Last edited by Nogalus Prairie; 10/30/14 01:00 AM.

Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5387757 10/30/14 01:04 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
F
FiremanJG Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
F
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
Nope.

I built a ten pound rifle to carry in the mountains and it was just fine. Way better than the 16 pound rifle I was shooting today. The mountian rifle was wearing a 6-24X 50mm.

The shot is the last 5% of the hunt and that is the part I practice very much, every week. I am about to make time to reduce the coyote numbers in my area. There isn't a smarter critter on four legs in Texas, and I have hunted and killed way more coyotes than any other animal (barring prairie dogs). If I get line of sight of him and don't get busted I will let lead fly and probably drop him. I went from green hunter/shooter to semi-educated, to precision shooter, back to hunter that applies what I learned in all the shooting to when I am on the hunt.

I combat the eye age argument by seeing the Optometrist annually. My main reluctance in getting Lasik is that I will be commited to a certain level of vision acuity. Adjusting contacts one a year keeps my eyes seeing as sharp as possible.


[Linked Image]
800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387777 10/30/14 01:12 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
OK. I hear you. But I will remind you seem to answer general questions using yourself as a benchmark. Most people don't have the strength and endurance of an NFL linebacker like you do. And most people don't live at the shooting range and have the precision shooting expertise you do. That also strongly influences your perspective. IMO.

I answer questions like the average person I am in those respects-but an average person who has hunted his a** off from Mexico to the Yukon and all points in between. Even a dummy like me can't help but learn a thing or two along the way. I look at each piece of gear I have strictly from a practical hunting perspective.

(That said, even a linebacker would enjoy the benefits of toting a 7.5 lb. rifle vs. a 10 lb. rifle in the mountains. You really should try it.)

smile

Last edited by Nogalus Prairie; 10/30/14 01:16 AM.

Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387818 10/30/14 01:30 AM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 30,130
B
Brother in-law Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
B
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 30,130
I would choose 4x12 or 4x14. I prefer a 50mm obj, but in real life a 40 mm will get you past legal light. I hunt

Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387825 10/30/14 01:34 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
There are basically two camps on the THF: 1) those who think more from a shooting perspective and 2) those who think more from a hunting perspective. The former will sacrifice hunting advantages to gain shooting advantages and the latter will sacrifice shooting advantages to gain hunting advantages.

The real trick is to be truly objective and find that right balance of both. It is a continual work-in-progress.


Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5387829 10/30/14 01:37 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
F
FiremanJG Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
F
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
Understood.

I dang sure don't have the endurance of an NFL linebacker. But if 6 more ounces of scope taxes my body then I need more P.T. in my week.

Understood that not everyone shoots several days a week.

My point is just like if I could have an overdrive in my old 79' F-250. If I had a fifth gear, there are times I'd use it. If I have 4-16X there are times I'd use 16X. I keep all my scopes set on 100 yard zero, parralax set for 100 yards, and magnification turned all the way down. If I need to see farther, or shoot farther, I know I have to adjust everything up, not down. I dont even check what the settings are on first, because I know they're set on minimum. But of I need more, it is available. The types of scopes I use all come in 50mm or larger. 50 mm is all I have.

What extra weight does 6-10 mm more obective add? How much more does a 4-16X weigh over a 4-12X or 3-9X ?

We're splitting hairs here, or more specifically ounces.

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I can let go of the larger objective if it makes someone feel better to have a smaller one, but I wont let go of more magnification available, in the same size scope.

OP mentioned going 400 yards later. I know too well what that entails, and how ot looks from the zero line. Most guys that come through my class tell me 300 is the farthest they've shot. Outside 300 is where things can get dicey. Had he never said anything about 400 I wouldn't be so adamate.


[Linked Image]
800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Arrowslinger82] #5387835 10/30/14 01:42 AM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 25,790
LOL. I see your point. See, the part of it I was focusing on was the mostly short-range use and the fact that all sizes of people from children to a lady to a man would be using it. So weight and cheek weld were on my mind.

Plus for some reason I was thinking economics were important-but I see now the OP didn't mention that at all.

Just that perspective thing again.....

Last edited by Nogalus Prairie; 10/30/14 01:46 AM.

Originally Posted By: Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5387845 10/30/14 01:48 AM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,200
D
dawaba Offline
Extreme Tracker
Offline
Extreme Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,200
Any experienced hunter will tell you that a ten-pound mountain rifle is at least 2 lbs too heavy, probably three. That is, unless you have your own personal porter to tote it for you......

I thought I was in business when I built a custom coues deer rifle with a heavy Krieger barrel and a 6.5x24 scope. All up, it weighed over 11 lbs with sling and a full mag. I shot a very nice buck at around 365 yds, a feat that I could have easily duplicated with my 5.5-lb ULA. The big gun is a safe queen nowadays.

The guide that helped me get my Dall ram on a backpack hunt in the NWT drilled holes in the handle of his toothbrush to save every ounce of weight. Had I showed up with a 10 lb rifle for that hunt, he would have collapsed in a terminal epileptic seizure!


"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple.....and wrong." H. L. Mencken
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: dawaba] #5387874 10/30/14 02:02 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
F
FiremanJG Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
F
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
Well, we're all in different pysical condition.

I built that ten pound rifle as a dual purpose. Very long range target' as well as very large animal hunting. Mayne once the barrel is done I'll put an even heavier contour on it relegate it to only target, and build a 7 pound (scope included) rig.


[Linked Image]
800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5387876 10/30/14 02:04 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
F
FiremanJG Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
F
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
LOL. I see your point. See, the part of it I was focusing on was the mostly short-range use and the fact that all sizes of people from children to a lady to a man would be using it. So weight and cheek weld were on my mind.

Plus for some reason I was thinking economics were important-but I see now the OP didn't mention that at all.

Just that perspective thing again.....


cheers


[Linked Image]
800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: FiremanJG] #5387905 10/30/14 02:16 AM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,200
D
dawaba Offline
Extreme Tracker
Offline
Extreme Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,200
Originally Posted By: FiremanJG
Well, we're all in different pysical condition.

I built that ten pound rifle as a dual purpose. Very long range target' as well as very large animal hunting. Mayne once the barrel is done I'll put an even heavier contour on it relegate it to only target, and build a 7 pound (scope included) rig.


Hah! We never do get done dreaming up new rifle projects, do we? According to FedEx, I should be picking up my latest toy tomorrow from my local FFL holder. Of course, it will need a scope, some load work-up, some range time.......


"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple.....and wrong." H. L. Mencken
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: dawaba] #5387925 10/30/14 02:22 AM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
F
FiremanJG Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
F
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 29,526
Of course.


[Linked Image]
800 Yard Steel Range
Precision Rifle Instruction
Memberships and Classes Available
Re: 3-9 vs 4-12 vs 4-16 [Re: FiremanJG] #5388057 10/30/14 03:14 AM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,750
W
WileyCoyote Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
W
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,750
Jason, when you get serious about considering lasik or need to fix some sort of damage to an eye, go see the guys at Cornea Associates of Texas on Central 'tween Meadow & Royal, and see if you can get an appt with Dr Henry Gelender. www.corneatexas.com

Dr Gelender has been listed on the Best Dr's in America List 5 times, National Who's Who Honors List 3 times & has 18 pages of other Ciriculum Vitea's. Note the other DFW hospitals Dr Gelender is an Opthamolgy office holder at.

His Cornea Assc Texas practice is who fix's most all the bad lasik isues in town....and does repair work on pro jocks like Andy Dalton, the QB from TCU who now plays for the Bengals.

His shop is who saved my left eye 14 years ago when I had a "ruptured globe accident" (an injury that has a 96% failure to restore vision rate), and he did the 2nd Cornea Transplant the end of this July when my other eye doc's at the VA almost refused to consider it...and suggested I go back to Dr Gelender....including the Head of the Cornea Dept at SWestMed School.
Ron


It is TIME for Term Limits, cause Politicians are like childrens diapers and for the same reasons...Robin Williams

"These are the times that try men's soul's"...Thomas Paine

"Those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it" ....Santayana
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3