Huskemaw?

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by Tikkamike, Mar 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tikkamike

    Tikkamike Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,362
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    I am probably going to get a lot of hate mail for this but I thought I would share it anyway. As some of you know I am new to the long range scene. I have always spent countless hours working up loads and fine tuning my rifles but as far as the long range thing goes im only about a year deep in it. I have a Tikka T3 lite in 25-06 with a Zeiss Rapid Z-800 on it. I only have a few hundred rounds through the rifle since I mounted this scope on it. Like I said my experience is no where near close to what many of you have with LR hunting and shooting. I have a cousin and her and her fiancee work for BOTW they are huge believers of the Huskemaw. They have always been insistent that if I tried their scope just once I would love it and never look back. Well one sunday a few weeks ago I got a call and they said they were driving the hour to my town and we were gonna go shooting. I was pretty excited to finally see what this scope was all about. I had taken the scope off my tikka because I was planning on buying some Talley one piece rings but decided to put it back on for our little shoot. I bore sighted it and I was ready to go. We got out there and set up one of my 8" metal Gongs and we drove out to 500 so I could see how close my scope was to being on. I smacked it the first shot so called it good enough for what we were doing. Then we drove out to 800 (my maximum range with the Rapid Z 800) so we could compare apples to apples. They had a cooper 6.5x284 and a custom 264 win mag both with huskemaw scopes. First they shot several times with the 6.5 and couldnt hit it. then the 264 several times and never hit it. Thats ok not a representation of the scope to miss it could be any number of things. Then I shot my rifle. 3 times adjusting my power ring until I had it dialed in and could smack the gong. I felt good that I had fired the least amount of shots and hit it first. I asked if I could look throug one of their scopes and it was hazy and wavy and really just blurry. I turned the scope down to 10 power where I had mine set and it was still horrible. I messed with the focus and power and could never get a clear sight picture. But my Zeiss was clear as could be. By the end of the shooting session they were finally able to hit the gong twice with the 6.5 and the 264 ran out of shells and never hit it. I shot the 6.5 2 times and hit the gong both times with it. so as far as how well the rifles were shot is up in the air but I was greatly dissapointed in the Huskemaw on all levels. Nothing I was told about them seemed evidently true... Any chatter on this?

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2010
  2. Tikkamike

    Tikkamike Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,362
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    Wow 91 readers and no responders. Does no one have an opinion on this? It seems to me that a company making such huge claims would have defenders or at least someone interested in giving their opinion. I know if it was night force, swarovski, zeiss leupold etc.. there would be tons of replies, I would be one of them!
     

  3. RockyMtnMT

    RockyMtnMT Official LRH Sponsor

    Messages:
    3,043
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    re: Huskemaw?

    Evidently you are correct.:) Isn't that how it works? I have never seen one of these scopes. What I don't understand from your original post, is how could your friends bring one that had blurry optics? As I understand the scope, it is the turret system that is it's claim to fame. But blurry optics?

    Steve
     
  4. Iowaboy

    Iowaboy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    145
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    Wow!!! I would think if they worked for BOTW that there scopes would be prestine. This is the first negative review I have heard on their scopes.

    What did your cousin think about the optical quality between your Zeiss and there Huske?
     
  5. winmag

    winmag Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,528
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    The most clear scopes Ive ever looked thru had a price tag to mach thier clarity. The Huskemaw was not one of them.
    I know that pre-doped reticles are not for everyone, some folks hate them, but Id take a $400 Burris that had a bplx in it Long before Id pay $1000-1200 for one that only dialed up a couple hundred yards more. If I had a custom L/R rig theres just far better scopes than the Huskemaw in a similar price range for the 800yd mark and beyond.IMO
    If the Huskemaw was a $500 scope they'd have a huge following and 99.9% positive feedback. And would probably dimonate the ''affordable'' range scope market. But double that price, and theyre GONNA get compared to Swarovski, Zeiss,Nightforce,and high end Leupolds etc. And Imo the Huskemaw just doesnt cut the mustard when it comes to a comparison like that when it comes to clarity.
    It should be noted that I do not OWN any of the above mentioned high end scopes, but I have shot with all but 1 of the above mentioned scopes(Nightforce) but ive looked thru it side by side with the scopes Ive used. so in fairness to Huskemaw, I cannot compare those two with my personal experience.
    I liked shooting with the Huskemaw system, & it does work the way they say it does, but for the $............No thanks. If Im gonna drop 1k+ on glass I can afford to add a bit more for a better/more clear, scope.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2010
  6. Tikkamike

    Tikkamike Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,362
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    Well they both claim the a Huskemaw has the same glass as the night force. I dont know if that is what huskemaw claims or if they were just trying to BS but what they are saying it the clarity can not be beat. I disagree obviously. I shoot almost exclusivly Leupold and I have 1 Zeiss Never have I had one of them seem blurry even on a hazy or super hot sunnyday the way the Huskemaw was. The turret system does seem to work correctly however a Luepold or night force with turrets is everybit as accurate.
     
  7. sniperjwt

    sniperjwt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    827
    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    The BOTW is nothing but a 30min long advertisement for that scope now. For them to be pushing it that hard you would have thought it was a really good scope. But if its glass is as bad as you say they are most likely making a killing off of them charging $1200 a pop. No wonder they are pushing them so hard:D
     
  8. Tikkamike

    Tikkamike Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,362
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    Iowaboy,

    They wouldnt give the Zeiss the credit it deserved all they would way is they were very surprised by the Zeiss. I guess thats something. I wasnt there to proove anything, in fact I was expecting to be embarrased to be out there with my little 21.5 inch Tikka and Zeiss, they are just off the shelf products with 0 modification, my Tikka ins'tt even bedded.
     
  9. roaddog1m

    roaddog1m Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    This is ironic Tikkamike, My girlfriend (sounds like I'm 12) called me the other night. I was watching the UFC's best of 2009 and she was watching the Outdoor Channel (like always) She asked me what I knew about the Huskemaw scopes. I told her nothing and she told me that some guy had just made an 890yd shot using one. She said that they sounded great because of the "pre-doped" turrets. (she's never killed anything over 200yds) So I had to explain to her why I prefer a mildot and that the only way that their turret could work is with one specific load. Then I explained, that is if the weather changes, the elevation turret is going to develop error. Any change in weather, altitude and a number of other things. Anyway, I had an idea that maybe they were mostly hype. Guess that confirms it.

    I don't have any high dollar glass either. 3 Leupolds, 1 Burris, a Bousch and Lomb and a Super Sniper. I do believe that you should get as much scope as you can afford but with my budget, I have to get the same job done with less glass and custom stuff.

    In LE i see a lot of guys sporting their custom AR or Benelli shotgun or their pistol with a weapon light dangling off the front of it. Those guys are great for the economy but since my shooting, I've met several others who have been in deadly confrontations. None of them have thanked God for their laser grip or any other doohicky they had purchased. Every survivor is still here because of skill, luck and a lack of hesitation to act. (not necessarily in that order)

    I think the same holds true for hunters. You can purchase a lot of cool toys and show them off to your (non shooter) friends and they will think you are really cool but when it comes down to bagging a trophy, (not on a game ranch) You can pull up in your brand new Suburban with you DU sticker on the back window and get out wearing your brand new camo pattern clothing. But you will be competing against a salty old man with an 30-06 that he's had for twenty years, wearing a worn pair of Carharts and actually knows what he's doing.

    All the "bling" in the world can't save your life on the streets or replace actual skill in the field.

    Good post Mike
     
  10. winmag

    winmag Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,528
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    Maybe I should clarify my earlier statement concerning Huskemaw glass.
    I do think thier glass is ''better''(clarity wise) than my Burris FF2, but not by much. But to more than double the $ for..........for what? IMO They do not mach nor excede the glass on the ''higher end scopes'' so why would I pay that much? Swaro, Zeiss, Leupold, and imo (looking thru only comparison on this last one) Nightforce, has them beat in the clarity dept.
    Huskemaw IMO, does perform like they say they do in my limmited experience with them. But I think(my opinion only here) they shouldve gone for the top end of the ''affordable'' market. They would have DOMINTED it. They just arent a ''High End top of the line glass'' kind of scope. Again JMO with my limmited experience with all the scopes mentioned.
     
  11. BH Hunter

    BH Hunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    210
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    My experience w/ the scope has been better than yours. My scope is very clear: on par w/ my Nightforce. I have not set up my turret yet, but I was shooting w/ a friend who has Mark 4's and he seemed impressed w/ it as well. He shot gongs w/ it at 635, 735 and 835. His first three shots and the were all first shot hits (this was just adjusting clicks from my drop chart as I don't have a custom turret built for the gun yet.) I suppose everyone's preferences are different. Your skill level may be higher than your cousin ( and mine as well, I personally have to sight my gun in at 25 yds after bore sighting. I know I couldn't come close at 500 immediately after bore sighting.) Heck I can't hit a 8x11 target at 100 after bore sighting usually. What is your cousins' name? I am sure Aaron would like to look at the scope and check it out. I don't know him personally but have spoken to he and Mike and they have been very helpful.
    Take care,
    Brad
     
  12. roaddog1m

    roaddog1m Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    306
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    I'm with you on that Brad, I can't seem to bore sight worth a damn either. :cool: I was pretty impressed with the 500yd shot after bore sight. I wouldn't have even tried it.
    What kind of bore sight do you have Mike?
    Tom
     
  13. milanuk

    milanuk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    806
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    re: Huskemaw?

    I'm not defending the Huskemaw scope per se, as I've never seen one, much less looked through one. And I don't mean this the wrong way, but... are you sure the 'blurry' effect wasn't mirage? Some higher dollar scopes (like NF) pick up the more subtle effects of mirage well enough that it can be very distracting for many shooters, and they are forced to dial down the power if they want to have any chance of hitting what they are aiming at. I've had a few people walk away more than a little surprised when they looked thru my NF after telling me how their low-end Chi-wan-ese scope had looked 'just as clear as the big $$$ scopes when looking across the showroom...'. In my sport, I *want* to be able to see the mirage - it shows me the wind - but it drives most folks batty. Maybe I'm just already there ;)
     
  14. Tikkamike

    Tikkamike Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,362
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    re: Huskemaw?

    Brad and Tom,

    I guess I didnt actually bore sight the scope. The scope had already been on the rings and sighted in when I took it off. All I did was put the scope back on (never removed the rings) and threw up my Leupold Bore Sighter (old Style) and made sure it was still in the grid where I remembered it being. Although I do have extreemely good luck with that Bore Sighter. I just put it on the end of my barrel and move the cross hairs where they need to be on the grid and I am almost always within a couple inches at 100yards.

    As for being able to see Mirage that is inevitable. its the nature of the game. But when I say it was hazy I mean the Target was not a crisp clean edged target it was like loking under water.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.