Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Do you really believe Rapid Z is better than Boone & Crocket - handloader article

I don't know if I completely buy that there is much if any of a difference in the Rapid Z vs. the B&C Reticle. In my very last handloader mag they had an article on it...

Said the Z comes in first place.

Anyone else shot both?

Spot

I shoot both. I like them both, but they are borderline apples-to-oranges, you know? The RZ600 gets me out to 650 yards, and has more geeky stuff going on for better or worse... But the BC is much simpler, and much more "normal" to the eye.

What were their reasons for choosing the RZ?

They both perform. I've only run the RZ on one rifle (.338 win) with two loads, but it's been flawless. I've used the BC a bunch on 4 different rifles and a bunch of different loads... Works great!

Man, i've been looking for an excuse to hop on my bike. I'm gonna go out right now and get that copy--just to see how much the author of that article really knows about SUBTENSION in 2nd focal plane reticles--heck i know some so-called subtension experts that can't even pronounce the word (just like Swarovski).

I like them both but prefer the TDS especially in an FFP Scope.

Is TDS a Zeiss reticle?

I would say it depends on what qualities you like. I tend to go for the bolder reticles that show up quickly even in bad light. The Rapid Z struck me as being too fine and slower to use.
As far as "accuracy" goes, all ranging reticles should be calibrated for accuracy. None of them come out of the box perfect for all rifles, loads and magnifications. E

To be a bit more open

I think that using either requires a person to test what settings (exactly) you need to be set at for the load your using.

That being said - the author should have said that in the article.. maybe he did and I missed it.

Spot

TDS is Swarovski's entry into the field.

Steve

I guess Im still not overly excited about using a reticle for holdovers unless its a FFP scope.

Tom Smith came out with that reticle for Swarovski or Kahles, i believe, an Air Force pilot i think. Pretty interesting guy actually. He was supposed to have jumped out of a plane that was crash-landing once into the snow, and ended up saving some of the other guys lives. That reticle was supposed to have been based off the airplane reticles they used, as i remember reading about it.

Practically, I think the B&C is better.

I have worked with the Rapid Reticles, which are very close to the Rapid-Z's (designed by PF Industries)--www.rapidreticle.com , and i like the more accurate windage systems of reference, and additional vertical stadia points. I can also appreciate the simplicity of the B&C. I still can't find the article, but i will.

No question that one should test the system before he goes hunting, but the ballistics programs are usually very close, as long as the stats are input correctly.

Recently i attended a varmint sniper-style match in which 10 4"x9" prairie dogs were located randomly between 200 and 425 yds. I was using my AR-15 223 AI and i'd lost my VLD magazine bolt stop so i tried my old load of the 69 SMK in a std. magazine @ 3130 mv. I was using a Weaver 4-16x with this T. K. Lee reticle--

.--.--.
---.
---.
---.

...(less the dashes, of course). 3 MOA apart vertically and 4 MOA windage. I tested the old load at the range next to where the guys were shooting the match, and it shot good enuf for 3 shots at 100. I ran the ballistic profile in my computer and calcd the downrange zeros from a 200 yd. zero. including interpolation between stadia for 25 yd. intervals to 425 yds. I then asked if i could shoot in the one relay that was left. It was just a fun match, so it wasn't a problem. Most guys there were shooting high-dollar optics, and running turret clicks. I applied the reticle, and ran 70% (about avg.). Couldn't even see one of the tgts. from my position. Only wish i would have had the RR-600 3-9x32 scope on top--next time.

Even though the best way to do it is to test your system, some pretty amazing things can happen by just applying a ballistics program with accurate data. I've only rarely seen the ballistics calcs. incorrect out to about 500-600 yds.

TDS is Swarovski's entry into the field.


Used to be. Swarovski discontinued the TDS & replaced it with their own BR reticle which in my opinion is no comparison to the TDS. They also no longer offer a ranging reticle in a FFP scope, which also in my opinion, is the only way to go.

Which issue was that and what article? I can't seem to find it. I have a Bushnell DOA reticle in a 2.5-16x42 Elite 6500 that I really like but am always looking for more information and comparisons.

Thanks,
$bob$

My sentiments exactly. My experience is very similar, too.

They're both great options.

Bob, the July 2009 issue of NRA American Hunter had an article by Cameron Hopkins comparing various ballistic reticles.

RR

Thanks for the info... I get the American Rifleman but will try to track down an issue of American Hunter.

$bob$