Unlike aging eyes, optics can be altered
Ken Perrotte's outdoor column
Date published: 11/12/2009
SOMETIMES the prob- lem is right before your eyes; other times, it might be your eyes.
A week into early muzzle-loader season, I had taken a doe at close range, and then managed to miss two bucks, one a 40-yard chip shot from a climbing treestand.
"This doggone gun must be losing its stuff," I thought.
A couple of weeks earlier, I struggled trying to re-zero the muzzleloader for a new 300-grain saboted projectile. Shot groups weren't tight at all.
I wondered if the Pyrodex propellant had too much age on it or if years of cleaning the bore with a ramrod tipped with bronze jags and pieces of cut flannel had damaged the muzzle crown enough to impair accuracy.
Of course, I first questioned the gun, missing the obvious clue that everything suddenly looked better downrange when I inadvertently looked through the Nikon Monarch scope with my reading glasses.
After missing the chip shot, I called for independent analysis to figure out if it was the gun, my eyes, or both. Longtime friend, expert hunter and shooting aficionado Thomas Burke of Woodford helped me diagnose the problem Sunday.
The "doctor" first examined the equipment. All the scope's rings and bases were tight.
"These Monarchs are good scopes," Burke said, "My guess is it's your eyes. We probably need to readjust the scope for your changing eyesight."
Now the scope and my eyes worked perfectly together when it was new. Heck, this scoped gun and I had taken mule deer at more than 200 yards distant when we were younger. Years ticked off and Lasik eye surgery improved my vision at a distance, but increased my dependence on reading glasses for things close in, including, obviously, scope reticles.
Burke loosened the adjustable eyepiece and told me to look through the scope toward the tops of some oak trees 100 yards away. The slender branches at the very top looked a little fuzzy, but that was what I was used to seeing.
Date published: 11/12/2009
|