Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Ballistic Turret Hunting Scope

If you read Johns threads what he is doing is essentially trying to take all the brains requirement out of shooting long range.

So when he sells a rifle, he provides a load (or loaded ammo, not sure which) to the buyer..He will ask the buyer what altitude he regularly hunts at, and using ballistics program, he works the come-ups for various distances. Nothing mysterious there...However instead of the scope being marked in Mil or MOA, he directly marks the yards on the turret.

Again using a standard ballistics program, he works out the MOA required at each yardage graduation for a 10mph cross wind, and marks it in MOA. The shooter then knows the MOA value to hold off for a 10mph cross wind without consulting a chart. The shooter still has to be able to read the wind, and do some maths to allow for other windage values, but he has the basic starting point on the turret.

Will it work? Sure, within the confines of the system...It doesn't allow for temp variations, pressure variations , and pretty much ties the shooter to one load or loads with similar ballistics.

I am sure there are folks out there who simply want to "dial-and-shoot" and don't want to learn the basics about ballistic, BC, Mils, MOA ect or are frightened of the math..

When such a person misses though, for what ever reason, (and we all do) they are going to be hopelessly and utterly clueless as to why... It also very cleaverly simplifies dialing the range,(which is the easy part) but the shooter will still have be able to read the wind, and at extended range, thats the critical part and is a skill which can only be learned through practice..

I'm not advocating John's system, though I am running several rifles set up with both MOA and yardage markings on the turret.... and 9 times out of 10 I just dial the yardage (talking targets here).... but anyway, my point is that I've used a reticle with windage hash marks (Zeiss Rapid-Z 600) and found it to be quite effective.

Joel,

Yep. I am. And if you had a non-biased bone in your Stick-worshipping body you'd see there's a world of difference between screwing up, copping to it, lamenting the massive loss of meat and extra suffering for the animal....

VERSUS, shooting a deer through the hams on purpose, with a bullet you yourself recently said requires a strong stomach if you hit anywhere other than behind the shoulder, and then bragging about this horrific and blatantly wasteful act on a public forum.

He only gets a pass because guys like you are so far up his butt that you think the weather outside is brown, with smelly clouds.

Just when I think you can't get any stupider, you go ahead and top yourself.

So Calvin: would you shoot a deer in the butt on purpose with an Amax? If yes, please explain.

I don't think much explaining is needed if the answer is no.

How's the weather up there, anyway?

If I had a big buck walking into timber, I'd put an amax into the butt without thinking twice. I wouldn't feel bad, I wouldn't make excuses, I'd do it because that was the shot I had.

Wow. I guess "trophy" trumps wastefulness and a clean kill for you. At least you're honest, props for that.

In Stick's case it was neither big (thinking he called it a "rat" if memory serves), nor was it walking into the timber. So in a roundabout way we've determined that even you, think it was an unethical shot.

Wastefulness is such a stupid term. You think somebody is going to starve because you lose some pounds of venison? Give me a break and get off your imaginary high horse. Nothing illegal or unethical about putting one in the butt, if that's the shot you have.

Always interesting to get a peep into the other guy's head.

Wow.

And JeffO is the stupid one. OK.

How much meat did you waste by shooting all those immature deer? Didn't you know that if you worked a little harder that you could have killed those deer when they were mature and have gotten 20-30lbs more meat for the same animal in a few years? You could shoot a mature deer in the butt twice and still get more meat than from a young fork horn.

I can kind of understand Jeff being upset, I mean when you so rarely see dead animals and the damage a bullet causes, it probably causes him some distress. Don't you worry Jeff, animals get harmed every day.

In the one pictured from the other thread my guess is both front shoulders were untouched, both back straps were probably in excess of 90% good and I'll wager the right hindquarter was good as well. Thinking that works out okay in my book.

Considering frequency, persistence and fashion in which JeffO has been call to task for freely admitting to such a bad shot, I too find the above statement highly surprising.

Jeff O was taken to task because he made up some BS excuse for shooting a deer in the butt.

WTF?! Bullchit on THAT noise, Calvin. Now you are just lying.

Moosemuncher, having personally butchered a deer shot in the ass, it's a mess and an appalling waste of meat. It was also no fun at all for the deer. That may not matter to you. Guess it doesn't. Again, interesting to get a look into how others see this stuff.

And that was using a relatively "hard" bullet. Calvin himself recently commented on what a mess an Amax will make if it hits meat. I'll go find it.

Okay.

And while we are at it -

My name is Carl and I shot a wildboar in the ass once.

Here is my BS excuse for it -

it was wounded and I was tracking it. We found it bedded down next to a road. For fear of it running into traffic I shots it up the spout.

Broke the pelvis - slowed it down alright. Needed a finisher, though.

6,5x57R RWS Cone Spitzer 127 gr. bullet

Wasn't pretty.

Thanks for quoting me. I'm absolutely correct. I never said that no meat would be destroyed you dolt.

BTW, how many animals have you killed with the Amax?

Lets hear the story again how you were aiming for the rib and your foot slipped?

Now I was never a Marine sniper, but had the honor of serving with some terrific guys who were, and I managed a little trigger time with the good old M40A1 rifle back then. It's worth noting that through the 1980's and 1990's the Marines were well served by a 10x Unertl scope with a bullet drop compensator. Not MOA adjustments, but a BDC, set up to work with their 7.62 sniper ammo. It could of course be adjusted a bit for elevation, and had mil dots for ranging purposes. It's been 20+ years since I used one, but it worked well. Range a target 600 yards distant, dial the scope to 600, dope the wind, and press. Hits were usually pretty darned good.

A little more info from the U.S. Optics web site:

"The MST-100 and MST-150 were developed in the mid seventies by John Unertl in Mars, Pennsylvania for the USMC. These scopes were primarily built for the M40A1 .308 rifle, but were later also made for the .50BMG. Durability was a primary goal, so the complete scope housing and knobs were made from 1018 steel. The elevation knob was design with an integral BDC for the M118LR ammunition, the veneer ring below the main knob adjusts for 1/2MOA deviation from the BDC setting."

Personally these days I use Leupold scopes with MOA turrets for my long range rifles, but John Burns is in good company with a BDC approach. I haven't kept up with what kind of adjustments today's Marine Snipers have on their rifles, and am sure it's an improvement over the old BDC on the Unertl, but they managed some impressive shooting with the old BDC scope.

Regards, Guy