24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
F
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
Campfire Tracker
F
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
One of the most talked about and discussed topics on this board seems to be whether turrets or bullet drop compensating (BDC) reticles are better for hunting. The common theme seems to be that the masses believe reticles are "faster" but turrets are more "accurate" at distance. It seems to make sense, but is that really the case?


I'm going to present my observations and experiences using both over the last decade and would greatly like to hear yours.

BP-B2

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,410
T
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
T
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,410
It depends on how far I'm shooting. I prefer a reticle with marks for hold-off out to 500 yards or so. Past that, turrets.

I'm convinced that turrets are more precise, however, inside 500 yards, a reticle is precise enough and a lot faster to use. The reticle doesn't require the time to pull the caps and twist knobs. Otherwise, its the same ... time to range the target, time to figure out the drop, and time to calculate / look up either which mark on the reticle or how many clicks to adjust.

Tom


Anyone who thinks there's two sides to everything hasn't met a M�bius strip.

Here be dragons ...
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
F
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
Campfire Tracker
F
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
One of the big problems with this discussion is many have no frame of reference to base a theory on. Most hunters barely know how to sight a rifle in, let alone know how to actually use one to it's full capability. Granted most on here are not in that category, however distance shooting is still a relatively new thing for the mass majority of hunters. I think for this topic it will greatly help to get a frame of reference for the experience level of the posters.

Most of my observations are from 8 years as a US military duty slotted sniper, owner and chief instructor of a firearms training company, 3-Gun and precision rifle tactical competitor, and a fanatical hunter.

I shot LR a bit when I first started shooting, but wasn't all that good at it. I simply didn't have the knowledge, coaching or equipment to be very consistent. I made a couple of longish shots on deer in the 4- 500 yard range, but I wasn't really setup to do it. When I finally bought a Leupold with target turrets and actually learned how to use them hits went WAY up. Then I bought a Burris with Ballistic plex reticle and thought I had found the holy grail. What could be easier then having specific aiming points for 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 yards? Shooting on the range seemed to prove that the reticle was fast and accurate. The first couple of deer were in the 2-350 yard range and I smoked them rather easily. The first time I noticed a problem was on a deer that was moving through the brush on a hillside over 400 yards away. The rut was in full swing, and I could see the deer moving back and forth in the scrub brush but it was to thick for a shot. Finally he stopped in a small opening. I had a clear path to the vitals, but most of his head and stomach were partially obscured by the brush. I was shooting across the side of the steep hill I was on over to the hill he was on. The position I was shooting from and the fact that I had to "guess" where to hold the reticle because the range was between the nice laid out yardage markers and the gap was quite a bit bigger then the vitals, made me take way to much time trying to get everything lined up correctly. I killed that deer but it wasn't pretty, and several other instances with friends and excited situations on deer started making me rethink how great the BDC reticle was.

Soon after I had a custom rifle made up for extreme distance shooting that launched 30cal 220gr SMK's at over 3,300 fps. Combined with a scope that tracked consistently, hits out to almost 800 yards became routine. The 400 to 600 yard range just wasn't even a challenge anymore. I pretty much abandoned using BDC reticles, because hits were much better dialing. At this point I believed that one needed a 1,000 yard bench gun that weighed 25lbs and was chambered for cartridges that consumed 100gr of powder to reliably kill deer past 4 or 500 yards.

When I attended Sniper school I learned that rifles didn't have to weigh over 20 pounds with 34in long barrels to get good hits out to 700 yards or so. The instructors pushed using the reticle for your holds, stating that it was faster and "easier". And while I shot quite a bit using the reticle it was plain to see that dialing was significantly more accurate and consistent, especially in the wind. My spotter struggled on shooting tests until he finally relented and started dialing at which point he went from barely passing to smoking the courses. As far as speed went I was by far the fastest shooter to HIT targets in the class. When I finished the school I had shot over 3,000 rounds of 308win, 300WM, and 50BMG out to 1,900 yards. I could take my 12lb M24 in 7.62 and and make on demand head shots on E-types at 600m in calm conditions. It was by far the most consistent gun system I had ever used.

When I graduated it kicked my experimenting into overdrive. Over the next few years I learned that consistency day in and day out was the most important criteria in a rifle, no matter the range. Gradually I moved away from the big bench gun and back to 308's, 243's and 300WM's that were "normal" hunting rifles that could be carried and used from point blank out to 700 or so yards. Every once and a while I would shoot with or hunt with someone who was enamored with reticles, yet every time they shot better with my rifles and dialing.

Fast forward to the present and I have been teaching LR shooting classes for the last three years seeing dozens of hunters and shooters, both military and civilian, come through and shoot just about every gun and scope combination made. Last summer I shot or witnessed over 50,000 rounds go downrange, a good portion of it from hunting rifles. Having seen so many examples of the same shooter in the same conditions on the same day shoot much better dialing rather then holding, there is zero doubt in my mind that, excepting military applications, dialing is the way to go.



Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,780
F
Campfire Outfitter
Online Shocked
Campfire Outfitter
F
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,780
My personal opinion is in LR, or even some what LR hunt, 'speed' should not be the determining factor... It should be accuracy, consistency, and confidence.

With turrets on my .257 wby /zeiss 4.5-14x44 I am confident out to 600 yards in the right circumstances, no problem. My longest is 625 on a coyote. Funny thing is, I missed him at 225, then killed him dead on the next ridge at 625.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,516
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,516
Originally Posted by Formidilosus
... When I attended Sniper school I learned that rifles didn't have to weigh over 20 pounds with 34in long barrels to get good hits out to 700 yards or so. The instructors pushed using the reticle for your holds, stating that it was faster and "easier". And while I shot quite a bit using the reticle it was plain to see that dialing was significantly more accurate and consistent, especially in the wind. My spotter struggled on shooting tests until he finally relented and started dialing at which point he went from barely passing to smoking the courses. As far as speed went I was by far the fastest shooter to HIT targets in the class. When I finished the school I had shot over 3,000 rounds of 308win, 300WM, and 50BMG out to 1,900 yards. I could take my 12lb M24 in 7.62 and and make on demand head shots on E-types at 600m in calm conditions. It was by far the most consistent gun system I had ever used.

...


Thanks for your insights - very informative. A few questions to draw from your experience:
1. Was your spotter having trouble with windage or elevation with the mildot reticle (or both, with one more of an issue than the other)?
2. What are your thoughts about mildot or other ballistic reticles for intermediate distances (300 to 400 yards)?
3. What are the keys to using turrets for windage? Obviously winds can be variable (highly variable in some cases), and I've thought that a reticle would be faster to make adjustments to wind changes (plus the simplicity of not having to remember how much windage you had dialed in and figure out how much to dial one way or the other after you had already dialed in a couple different windage amounts in a short period of time).
4. What is the biggest issue you have found with reticles - is it that people have trouble with being able to sight/aim with enough resolution (a small enough increment) between markings (e.g., getting accurate resolution/aim of 1/8 or 1/10 mil on a mil-dot scope)?

Thanks.

IC B2

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
F
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
Campfire Tracker
F
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
TOM, that wasn't in response to you. I posted before I noticed you had posted.



Given your belief that reticles are "faster" have you tested it? I will give that if the target is at the exact range line then of maybe it will be marginally quicker. One problem that plagues these argument is that it would seem to make sense that dialing would take more time, but it really doesn't work out that way when put on a timer.

That me give an example-

I see a deer feeding on a hillside. I pull up my binoculars and determine that I want to kill it. Since I use binoculars with a RF in them I range it and it comes up as 477 yards away. Up to this point whether I use a reticle or turrets to adjust for range everything is the same. Say I'm using a standard hunting rifle that pushes a common bullet around 2,900 fps at the muzzle. Doesn't matter which one, they're all about the same at this range.

Lets do the reticle first...
I range it at 477 yards. I see that there is a small rise ten feet ahead that would make a good shooting position and take off my pack for a rest as I move to the rise. As I'm getting the bag set up I continue to watch the deer and try to pick up visual cues for my wind hold off. I can feel it on my cheek coming from my right and it is barely moving the dead leaves and grass on the hill. I figure it's around 5-7MPH and a slightly angling to me. Since I do not have anything to adjust for wind with in the reticle, it can't be too strong or I really will just be guessing where to hold. But it's not and I know that an edge hold on the vitals will produce a hit in these conditions. The deer is facing to my left, as I get settled into position. I play with the reticle for a few seconds making sure that the gap between the 400 and 500 yard lines (hopefully the lines really are at even distances and not landing at 435 and 562yds) are correct and that my wind hold looks good. I takes a moment because not only am I interpreting where to aim elevation wise but also I have only where I think edge of the vitals are. Finally convinced that all is correct I take a couple deep breathes and press the trigger. Total time from start to finish for a good hit with be in the 12-15 second range at best. I know this because I've put it on the timer hundreds of times.


Now the scenario looks the same for dialing except that once I get the range and am moving to the rise, I look down and spin the turret to just below the "5" mark that I've taped to the top of the turret for quick reference. Everything else is the same except that I just put the reticle on the right wind hold. Since I'm only holding for one axis (horizontal) it is much quicker with less second guessing and fussing over whether it looks right. Total time from start to finish is 9-10 seconds. Again I know this because we've timed it hundreds of times. The time it takes to adjust the turret (really under two seconds) is done during the movement into position, whether it's ten feet to a better rest or straight down into prone. It adds no time to the shot. And then once you are aimed at the animal it is faster because you can see immediately when the aiming point is inside the vitals. Using a reticle it takes a few moments more to visually accept that your "guess" is right.

And this is with extremely experienced shooters. The less skill the shooter has the more misses they have and the longer it takes them to get a hit with reticles.





Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,696
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,696
Interesting stuff Formidilosus. Thanks for sharing your experiences with BDC and turrets.

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
F
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
Campfire Tracker
F
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
Originally Posted by Ramblin_Razorback


Thanks for your insights - very informative. A few questions to draw from your experience:
1. Was your spotter having trouble with windage or elevation with the mildot reticle (or both, with one more of an issue than the other)?
2. What are your thoughts about mildot or other ballistic reticles for intermediate distances (300 to 400 yards)?
3. What are the keys to using turrets for windage? Obviously winds can be variable (highly variable in some cases), and I've thought that a reticle would be faster to make adjustments to wind changes (plus the simplicity of not having to remember how much windage you had dialed in and figure out how much to dial one way or the other after you had already dialed in a couple different windage amounts in a short period of time).
4. What is the biggest issue you have found with reticles - is it that people have trouble with being able to sight/aim with enough resolution (a small enough increment) between markings (e.g., getting accurate resolution/aim of 1/8 or 1/10 mil on a mil-dot scope)?

Thanks.


Good questions RR. I should have been more specific. I almost never dial wind. Preferring to hold because it switches so much. Only on single really small targets and very consistent winds do I dial. I'll answer your questions in order.


1) It was a combination. Holding for elevation is very easy when there is little to no wind. Holding for elevation when the wind is kicking up means that you have to visually "guess" how much you are holding for both elevation and windage. It doesn't take that much error to miss a 10-12 in target like that. Regular Mil-dot reticles work but I prefer I prefer a reticle with at least .5 Mil hash marks over regular "dots" and a Horus reticle over both for military use, or if I don't want to dial. With the Horus you're not holding in thin air.


2) It depends what the application is. For the hunting the four legged kind of animals I hardly ever hold using the reticle for range. I do use a Mil based reticle for wind if it is present. For military use I hold a lot in the intermediate ranges. A couple of differences between them though. With deer/elk/etc there is usually only one animal I want to shoot and it usually is not changing distances very much. Absolute accuracy is important. In military applications there may be multiple targets and all at vary different ranges. In the span of 30 seconds you can have targets at 10 feet, 75 yards, 250yds, 390, and 600 yards. And quite frankly in that environment I'm probably using a semi auto and it's more then likely not earth shattering if it takes me a couple of rounds to get good hits on them.



3) Don't. Like I wrote earlier I should have been clearer. Dial for range. Hold for wind.



4) You nailed part of it. Excepting the Horus or others similar, you have to extrapolate where exactly you should be aiming. The smaller the target and the farther away it is the more critical it becomes and consequently the more misses we observe. Now it is more consistent with Mil based reticles then with BDC reticles.






I don't want to give the impression that I believe that BDC reticles hold no value or don't work. They do. It's just that given their tradeoffs, dialing has proven to be much more consistent across the board in getting hits.

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 36,822
D
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
D
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 36,822
Good stuff, thought provoking.

Thanks,

DF

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Originally Posted by Formidilosus
One of the most talked about and discussed topics on this board seems to be whether turrets or bullet drop compensating (BDC) reticles are better for hunting. The common theme seems to be that the masses believe reticles are "faster" but turrets are more "accurate" at distance. It seems to make sense, but is that really the case?


I'm going to present my observations and experiences using both over the last decade and would greatly like to hear yours.


I can find things to like, and dislike, about either method.

With a reticle, all you are asking the mechanics of the scope to do is "hold zero". There's a lot of comfort in a scope/rifle where you haven't touched a thing in years and it just keeps hitting stuff.

Contrast that to turrets, where you are demanding that the internals track and return to zero to a high degree of precision, over and over. I will say- like a good truck that always starts- the more you see a given scope do this successfully, the more confidant you become that it'll do it the next time you ask. But it's still a leap of faith.

With the reticles I've used, there was utility out to 500-600 yards. I think, don't know but think, that as a practical matter the utility of reticles tops out somewhere around there. Beyond that you need the ability to micromanage things the way turrets let you.

That's all I'm willing to put out there. It should be a lively discussion. smile

Last edited by Jeff_O; 03/28/12.

The CENTER will hold.

Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two

FÜCK PUTIN!
IC B3

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,699
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,699
Quote
Contrast that to turrets, where you are demanding that the internals track and return to zero to a high degree of precision, over and over. I will say- like a good truck that always starts- the more you see a given scope do this successfully, the more confidant you become that it'll do it the next time you ask
.


That's one reason why he likes Nightforce.

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
F
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
Campfire Tracker
F
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
Jeff O, no doubt about it. If you dial the scope HAS to track perfectly. VERY few do. And I think that is one reason people are attracted to reticles, other then it seeming to be "easier"' Personally, because I refuse to worry about a scope holding zero or adjusting properly I have no use for 99% of optics. As long as I can see well enough to place the crosshair on the target the glass is good enough and all that matters is if the rifle will hit.

I have seen to many of them lose zero from small bumps (or nothing at all), inconsistent adjustments, and wandering zero. I dealt with that for years trying to baby my rifles so they wouldn't get their feelings hurt. I'm done with that. I don't use Swaro's, Zeiss's, Weaver's, Burris's, Nikons, Votex's, most Bushnell's, and most Leupolds, simply because they fail. They fail to hold zero, they fail to adjust 100% consistently every time and they fail to do it for years of use. It doesn't matter how clear the glass is if it fails. Others may not feel this way and that's ok, but this is where we see a lot of frustrated posts of problem optics, or things that simply "cant be done".

There are scopes out there that are clear, have bombproof tracking, durability and consistency.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,179
J
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
J
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,179
I'm not sure I'm qualified, but it's simple to me. The dials are quick, easy, and foolproof if you set them up right in the first place IMO. I have more trouble seeing dots, hases, etc the older I get in challenging light. I can range, dial, and shoot in under 10 seconds easily


It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,516
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,516
Originally Posted by Formidilosus
... I don't use Swaro's, Zeiss's, Weaver's, Burris's, Nikons, Votex's, most Bushnell's, and most Leupolds, simply because they fail. They fail to hold zero, they fail to adjust 100% consistently every time and they fail to do it for years of use. It doesn't matter how clear the glass is if it fails. Others may not feel this way and that's ok, but this is where we see a lot of frustrated posts of problem optics, or things that simply "cant be done".

There are scopes out there that are clear, have bombproof tracking, durability and consistency.


I take it the type of bombproof tracking, durability, and consistency required for the needed repeatability isn't available for $400? Perhaps one is better off mastering a mildot reticle unless he is willing to spend the big bucks on a scope with the required repeatability?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,435
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by Formidilosus
I will give that if the target is at the exact range line then of maybe it will be marginally quicker.


Totally agree! I've found the reticles to be very quick, easy, and reliable when the range is close to the exact marks on the reticle, and there is little to no wind.

Throw some wind in there, and distances that are between hash marks, and I'm going turrets, all the way, for both speed and accuracy.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,450
G
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
G
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 18,450
I know some love 'em, but dotz aren't for me. Sure if an animal is standing right at 350, 400, 450, 500, or 550 they're great, but otherwise, you're right back to guessing.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,516
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,516
Great Waputi,

I agree with your assessment past 500 yards, but inside 450 or 500 yards, it isn't guessing with a decent ballistic reticle if one can visualize 1/4s (fourths). When you're dealing with 12" or less of elevation difference between marks, dividing into 1/4s has you around +/- 1 to 2 inches of elevation for distances somewhere between your reticle's marks. Spinning 1/4" graduated turrets doesn't do that much better: at 400 yards, +/- 0.5 to probably 2 inches depending on how accurate you are with your turret spinning AND how accurate and repeatable your scope's clicks are (some scopes might not even be capable of +/- 2" due to the clicks not being uniform or repeatable).


Last edited by Ramblin_Razorback; 03/28/12.
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
F
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
Campfire Tracker
F
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
JG, sure you do. I think what you've found lately by shooting LR is applicable.




Originally Posted by Ramblin_Razorback


I take it the type of bombproof tracking, durability, and consistency required for the needed repeatability isn't available for $400? Perhaps one is better off mastering a mildot reticle unless he is willing to spend the big bucks on a scope with the required repeatability?



No, if it's for general hunting rifles out to 700yds or so there are scopes in just about every price bracket.

For $200 we have seen very good tracking from the Bushnell Elite Tactical 10x40.

Leupold fixed 6x's have done well too. Pick up a used M8 6x for less then $250 and send it in for a turret. While maybe not quite as durable as a Nightforce they work great especially on light weight rifles and we still use them in that role. These are my favorite regular scope.

SWFA's Super Sniper (terrible name) probably are the most "bombproof" available for under a thousand. Their fixed power scopes are $300. With the new ones having .1Mil adjustments, the 6x will be a stud of an optic.
The 3-9x42 model at $600 is my first pick on hunting rifles now. We had three last year and put a metric truck load of rounds on them, and they never skipped a beat. In the span of a couple weeks last year we had two Swarovski's AV's, one Leupold VX III, and one Weaver Grand Slam completely stop functioning. We also had a Nikon with inconsistent adjustments, and a Ziess Diavari FL start acting up. Not long after that a Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40 lost zero for some reason. Meanwhile the SWFA scopes kept working perfectly even though be purposely beat on them. I hunt with them and they are also on the school house loaner guns that get used A LOT.



The Bushnell Elite Tactical 3-12x44 FFP's have held up well and track nicely. They're around $900.



If money is no object the Nightforce 2.5-10x32 is the most bombproof scope sized for normal rifles. There is no question when you spin the turret. The bullet is going where you point it.




Personally I only look at four scopes anymore for general hunting rifles. Leupold fixed 6x's with M1's, SWFA SS 6x, SWFA 3-9x42, and the Nightforce 2.5-10x32.

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950
R
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
R
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,950
Wht does it have to be "either/or"? Why can't you set up a scope with dots and turrets? For shots out to 400 yards or so, use the dots, and at longer range, go to the turret.

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424
Campfire Sage
Offline
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424
Don't be a moderate...


grin


Travis

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
110 members (10gaugeman, 35, 32_20fan, 257robertsimp, 338reddog, 12 invisible), 1,428 guests, and 688 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,589
Posts18,397,881
Members73,815
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.116s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9210 MB (Peak: 1.1246 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 08:54:02 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS