Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting FFP Reticles

I'm with Formidilosus. I hated and reisted MRAD for a long time. I grew up with yards and MOA (I'm only 32). I find now that I do almost everything with mils. Guys who start and learn on mils pick it up easily and even if you have used MOA for a long time learning mils is not overly difficult. Like F'losus said it is mostly using the reticle as a ruler. Math is easier with mils also if you end up needing to do it.

What is the subtension of the Leup LRD in an FX3 6x42? Do tell.




Of course I have. I've been distributing and selling AR500 plates here in Canada for a while now, so I'm pretty sure I own a plate or two

I have a couple of shooting spots that make setting up plates impractical, and there are plenty of rocks. The beauty of FFP reticles is that I can use the "ruler" to gauge fairly accurately how large the rocks are I will say that 10" is an estimate, but the rock in question at 1130 yards was slightly under MOA in size.



Same 6x scope shooting a 8-9" rock at 823 yards...



Same scope shooting a sub-9" rock at 988 yards...



Same rifle and scope shooting an 8" diameter plate...





Cold-bore hits on another 12" plate at 1019 yards with the same rifle and scope have been common. Keep on LOL'ing, Rick...



I never said 6x was the best choice, I said "I've had no trouble hitting 10" rocks at 1130 yards with a 6x scope". That doesn't mean that I can hit a sub-MOA target at 1130 yards every time- far from it. It simply means that I have been able to hit a 10" target with a 6x scope at 1130 yards, and the scope did not cause any trouble in doing so. The wind and other conditions on the other hand, sure, that's a hard shot to make on a consistent basis no matter who you are.



So now I apparently said that I could sit down and hit a 10" target at 1130 yards with a 6x scope, multiple times, with no problem. Geez, Rick. Get a grip. I've seen you do this before. As soon as you feel like you're in a debate with somebody, you twist the facts and the truth all over the place like a friggin' pretzel, just so you can feel like you "won".

And it's happened again in this thread. My statement was simply that I've been successful in hitting a 10" target at 1130 yards, and a 6x scope did not prevent me from doing it. Period. I never said that 6x was the ideal LR scope choice, but simply that it wouldn't keep me from making hits at distance. Now you've contorted your rhetoric into suggesting that the argument is about my shooting abilities, when that's not the topic. I figured you were above the "I (or my eyes) can't do that, so that means nobody else can", but I guess not. The fact is, with a high-resolution scope and a fine enough reticle, you can do some amazing things at long distance with a 6x scope.

That rifle now wears a SS 3-9x42 w/MD reticle, which I certainly prefer over the 6x when shooting LR, but the the 6x is still a capable scope.

+1

9x Fine Duplex on 12" plate at 600 yards.... taken today.

You can clearly see the 3" pink circle (that had already taken a round) in the center of the plate.... don't know what this means to the thread.... but that plate got it's azz kicked handed to it via 162s at 2850 and 3-9x glass....

I agree.

Aim small, miss small. I've made hits at longer ranges with my scope set on 6x, but it is not as repeatable as with my scope set on 15x. My next scope will be at least 20x.

I believe at the time that was written, he and I were discussing a 3/4" dot at 100 yards.

It's the same difference at any range. Keep the target at .8 MOA or so and the range doesn't matter. It's all relative.




I haven't contorted anything Jordan. When someone says it's no problem to hit a target, a reasonable person would take it to mean you can do it more than once.

This is a simple discussion and I don't feel any need to "win" anything. I have a little experience in the matter and an opinion based on the experience I have.

I think that shooting a 10" target with a 6x scope at 1130 yards and making hit(s) involves more luck than it does certainty. In fact, the best rifle shooters in the world shooting in the same scenario with a 20x scope aren't going to set the world on fire either because of many factors that we all know affect accuracy at that range with the best equipment around for long range hunting.

I'll reiterate what I said about target size as well. 1 MOA targets are small and not easy to hit. I don't care what range we are talking about. Anyone who doesn't think that is true, especially as ranges increase in field conditions, doesn't know diddly.

Considering those factors combined with a low powered optic doesn't make for high first round impact probabilities.

If you are capable of making first round impacts regularly out to 1200 yards with the equipment we are talking about, then you are a better shooter than I or anyone I know of and have better equipment than anyone I know of, simple as that.

No offense.

I did a little experiment this afternoon, despite somewhat gusty wind conditions.

I mounted a friction adjustment Leupold 6x42 with a fine duplex reticle on a pretty accurate 308, a Rem. 40X to be precise. I zeroed it at 100 yards using one of my general purpose "IMR4895 with a 168" type loads. I used a diamond shaped sight in target.

Then I started shooting at a 3/4" dot. I was making hits, but because of the way I saw the dot behind the reticle compared to the sight in target, my hits were low/right of center. I made four of five hits, one of them just off the edge at 4 o'clock.

I put up three more dot targets and tweaked the friction adjustments to better center the hits. The next three shots made a horizontal string just under .6" wide. Two hits were completely within the dot, one half in, half out but still a hit.

The next shot was on its own dot, with the hole completely within the dot, but right against the outside edge at 3 o'clock.

Same for the last shot, but substitute 11 o'clock.

I'd say with a fine reticle that it is feasible to aim at a 3/4" dot at 100 yards. It wasn't the easiest thing, but doable.

a 6x scope for shooting long range is the same as using a kimber as a long range rifle. all this talk about hitting a MOA target at over 1000 yards, I am suprised a kimber is even capable of that kind of accuracy even if god was shooting it. that thin whippy barrel on those doesn't make me feel fuzzy about shooting it to 1k, its like well um using a 6x scope at that range.

There's the matter of more atmosphere, which isn't linear or fixed in its effect, in between me and a far away target which keeps things from scaling so simply. Even on my little range it can be observed that a .8 MOA target is harder to see at 300 yards than at 100 yards.

Now that I can agree with. Except that "low powered optic" is subjective, and personal preference does vary. I do not feel hindered at all out to a mile with sub-20x magnification. You may feel otherwise. All this talk of who likes what is fluff, only hits count. BTW, do you think that plate would show a smaller group on it if I shot it with a 20x scope instead of a 6x?

....

Yet the Kimber and 6x can still make hits despite the thin, whippy barrel and anemic magnification?!



It's a do-all hunting rifle that seems to get more play time on steel than on flesh. BTW, where are your pics or vids of LR hits?

Bit of thread drift.

I am not much of a fan of FFP. FFP is a compromise reticle at the top end and at the bottom end of the magnification range.

I prefer SFP combined with moderate high end magnification.

With a top end in the 15X range and a 50mm objective I able to see most impacts, read mirage and resolve target detail enough to shoot to my potential.

15X is also useable in any condition that might require wind or lead holds.

So if we have a properly designed SFP reticle it also works very well at the low end for quick work and in low light.

I could get along with 20X on the top end in a 5X zoom ratio but max magnification of 10X or below is not a real hunting scope in my little world.

Shooting rocks is fun and great practice but when the rubber meets the road we are talking hunting optics and 6X is to little magnification for a general purpose hunting optic.

This bull was not very far at 550yds but he was moving on 2 out of 3 shots. A decent amount of magnification sure helped refine the lead and allowed me to be pretty aggressive with the trigger every time the sight picture was right.

The rubber met the road here at 942 yards, and this coyote was killed with one shot using a 9x scope...

I take it pretty seriously when someone calls me a liar.

great bull,congrats.

This year?

Me too

If you can do it, I'd like to see it. Maybe we can arrange an "Ice Maker" shoot instead of the thaw, Ice Breaker. I'd be willing to put a chunk of cash on the "Don't" that you can't make hits on a 10" piece of steel at 1130 yards with a 6X scope.

One hell of a bull! Congrats!

9X is 50% more than 6X.

I might have stuffed a few coyotes in the dirt at even further ranges and it was not with a 6X.



Last week.

Thanks. It is a good picture of the bull. 360 gross. The 3rds are weak but that top end with a 56" beam makes a pretty bull for a 50% draw tag and public ground.

Followed him for a week and 10 1/2 miles before he made a mistake. One heck of a fun hunt.

Blind hog finds an acorn every now and then.

His head and face almost looks like a Red Angus.