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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting stuff Formidilosus. Thanks for sharing your experiences with BDC and turrets.

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.

Good stuff, thought provoking.

Thanks,

DF

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.

.


That's one reason why he likes Nightforce.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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).

JG, sure you do. I think what you've found lately by shooting LR is applicable.







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.

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.

Don't be a moderate...





Travis

It doesn't have to be either/or. However in our experience shooters have been faster and more accurate running turrets. Zero at 100 yards and then when hunting dial up for a 250yd zero and then you don't have to touch it until around 350 yards. Past that you will shoot better (which means faster) aiming right at what you want to hit. Aim dead on out to 250 yds. Favor high at 300. And backline at 350. Ballistic reticles do nothing for you under 350 or so.

My Burris FFII Tactical 3-9 has the ballistic plex and turrets. I'm happy with it, but am just starting to use the turrets for longer plinking.

Neither are more accurate if you don't test and practice with them.

That being said - some people are spooky on turning turrets and having them return to zero - Jeff_O is ______ retentive / compulsive on it - and not in good way.
So if you don't trust turret turning - just say no.

I think it's all personal pref. I like the Leupold Varmint reticles because I can outshoot most of the guys with me with the dang things.
If I was competing against myself more I may flip the other way and use turrets. Another funky thing is "non-zero" stop turrets - may people using turrets the first time forget where thier zero is - and that's not funny, they get pissed quick and then don't want to trust the turrets again.

Trust is mistated - it's really how much you trust yourself to hit using the method at hand - again practice.

trust is a product of practice.

i'm very much in Form's camp: zero@100/dial in PBR when leaving the truck/dial from there when stretching it out

Why zero at 100 then dial in PBR, why not just zero further out?

both for ease of checking zero at local ranges and the ability to dial spot-on for a short range head shot or whatever without holding under.

but i do have a 6x36 that i had both CDS and LR dots installed in, and the dots require a 200 or 250 yard zero.

in the end, it's just a number on the knob, except a 100 yard zero gives you the ability to dial 100-~700 and the 250 yard zero gives you 250-~750 with the 15 moa you get with one turn of a Leupold knob

toad's got it. It's very easy to find somewhere to shoot 70-120 yards to get a zero/check a zero. Almost all who "zero" at 200 or 250 etc. really zero high at 100 and guess that they're zeroed for the longer range. Also, if you zero at 100 it means that your are always dialing up. If you zero at 250yds say, and you want to check you gun but you've only got a 100 yard range like most places, you either guess that your as high as you are supposed to be or you dial down.


Not a big deal either way as it's just a number, however it's very easy to find a 70-120 yard place to shoot and you are always dialing up.

I have two turrets with 100 yd. zero, another at 200.

With my 45-70, I used 100 yds, because 300 yds is about a stretch for that round. My 6.5-284 has a 200 yd. zero and will crank to 650 or so.

Guess it depends a lot on the round and the application.

DF

Your explanations make sense, but personally I zero at 2 or 250, and shoot to see where I'm at at 100. If I need to check zero and can only shoot to 100 I know where I need to be. But I really only shoot a couple rifles so it's not much to remember. I've never used turrets till very recently and am just now starting to play with them. I like a 250 zero with my 22-250ai because it allows me to hold on hair for a long ways, and use the hash marks beyond that. I don't honestly see myself switching over to the turrets, but heck who knows, the more I use them the more I may like them.

Formidilosus,

Thank you for taking the time to explain turrets vs BDCs and how to roll with them. I learned a lot.

Target, tactical,and BR shooters seem to find this stuff out faster than (some) hunters having lower round count.....no matter which system you use,if your scope is not reliable,consistent, and durable, you have nothing.

I don't have a turret scope and FD'osis nailed the reason.I'll save and get the best I can before messing with it.

Using dots isn't without it's problems, either. Some of the scopes I have had with dots have so much parallax that pretending the dots gives you precision aiming is laughable. Even with a small amount of head movement, (what would amount to a pretty consistent cheek weld), the dots move more than a minute of angle.
One of less stellar scopes to fall into my hands is my favorite Leupold 6X, both the 6X42 version and the 6X36 version. When I sent the 6X36 back and had it corrected to 400 yards, it came back with vert very little parallax at any range. One of the best non AO scopes I have, interestingly enough, is an old Weaver 3X9.

Fred

You seemed to like those fuggin' turrets just fine yesterday...


Travis

I'm coming around. One lucky day at the range doesn't make me a turret disciple, but I am a believer.

First off, there needs to be a distinction between big game and and varmint hunting. In addition,setting the drop at given ranges requires considerable time and energy checking the drop tables for accuracy.As a varmint hunter, primarly Rockchucks, there are times when we only see a head. Without a RF and turrets, one has a better than 50% chance of missing.

I have been using a Burris 6-18 with turrets for 17 years.When trying to explain how it works, you can see the eyes roll back in head of those wanting to learn. It just takes time to wrap ones head around the process.

I had one trip where the only thing I saw on chucks, was the head. Without turrets and RF,I would have had minimal success. AS it was, I killed 12 with head shots, and that was all I saw.

I think to successfully use turrets, one has to almost be an absolute gun nut and does not like failing.

Well, we sure as hell can't say the dots weren't working...

But I still like the precision of the turrets. And on dog sized targets, I'm not convinced the dots will always get it done.


Travis

That turrets are more precise I cannot argue.

I agree. I find the turrets better suited for shooting like you describe.

I do not agree turrets are tough to learn with. Once you have your dope, it's pretty easy to explain it to a new shooter.


Travis

Goes without saying...

Gun nuts well represented on the Fire.

DF

For hunters and dummies, just go with the yardage turrets.

DF

I don't believe that one needs to be an absolute gun nut to use turrets. We teach people trajectory, animal anatomy, basic terminal ballistics, how to zero a scope, set up a drop chart, positional shooting (including alternate positions), reading wind, and how to use their BDC reticle or turrets out to 600 yards in a 2 day class.

I went on a Whitetail/Mule deer hunt with my buddy and his wife last year. She had never hunted or shot that much before. We spent one afternoon with a .22 learning the basics of shooting, and the about three hours practicing with the 243win she was going to use on the hunt. It honestly took her all of five minutes to "get" that all she had to do was know the range, look it up on the card taped to the stock, and spin the turret to that number. Another five minutes were spent with her learning about wind holds, and then she proceeded to crush the targets out to 400 yards in a 5-10mph switching wind all from field shooting positions with nothing more then being told the range and her doing the rest.

We went on the hunt and she smoked her first deer from what was probably the most contorted position I've ever seen someone have to take a shot. I told her the range and she dialed it and did the rest....

I don't think that's necessary. You're gonna tape a drop chart with the MOA lined out anyway.

Even a Polish monkey can read "300 yds -2.9 MOA" and turn the knob accordingly. Might take two range sessions. Might...


Travis

If you can't round numbers up/down and can't think in 1/4s...well then I don't know.

Is there anything dumber than a "Polish Monkey"?

You may need a category of turrets for whatever/whomever fits that category...

DF

How about these turrets?

Yes. That is when you ask them to please put down the "boom stick" and wait in the car until I'm done. Thanks.


Travis

Or put down the "sniper rifle", put their helmet on, and go finish their pudding cup.

Not all BDC reticles are created equal.

The Burris ballistic plex an Nikon BDC suck IMO.

The Pride Fowler (zeiss z600,800) reticles are more than precice enough for big game hunting in my experience.

Looks too complicated to me...

Are those in MOA or yardage...?

DF

Nice post. I can appreciate that insight and experience. I too like spinning turrets on targets past 600 yards. Anything less and the reticle works just fine....

The more I spin them the more I like them. I still like and use the LRD (especially in a fixed scope), but the last couple of scopes I've gone with turrets and mildot....nice to dial elevation and have a set point to hold off for wind.

deflave

I have not tried to teach the use to younger guys or gals. But the ones I am teaching tend to be mid to late 60's and they just have trouble getting their heads around the concept.

I'll concur that the Nikon BDC sucks, but the Burris BP has been great, for what it is.

Heck if I know!!! I can't even understand the markings that looks like this: 1-2-3-4-5...

+1

Do you know what I find really helps? Only speak in terms of MOA. Don't explain all the converting inches to MOA at the varying distances. If they stick with it, they'll want to learn that on their own anyway.

But when it comes to just shooting, I break that schit down shotgun style. Here is your MOA for 300 yds. Move the turret to that number. Shoot. Ok now to the four...ect...ect...

It's no different than an A2 rear sight. You're just removing the yardage markings on the knobs. Works for me anyway.

If all of the above fails, try excessive profanity. If that doesn't work, switch to the "swift and blinding violence" methodology.


Travis

Sometimes it a lot easier for someone to learn if they try the basic mechanics before they get thrown into the deep end on the theory. I strongly suspect that if someone had the time to work with your friends on setting up their systems, they wouldn't have any trouble doing it, and eventually after working with the mechanics and basic concepts they would have a better understanding of the overall concept. If they got to shoot with your gun and your drop charts a few rounds before you or someone else helped them set up their system, they would see how simple turrets are to use once the system is set up.

For instance:
1. I'm sure they all understand (or could be quickly taught) how to zero at 100 yards.
2. If they can zero at 100 yards, they can shoot at a bullsye at other distances (e.g., 200, 300, 400 yards).
3. They can measure the vertical distance between the center of the bullseye and the center of the impact holes.
4. Someone can help them figure out how many clicks are needed for each distance they shot at: for 100 yard zero multiply vertical distance by ratio of 100 over the range at which the target was placed and then multiply by the number of clicks per inch at 100 yards (or using mils if their scope has mil-based adjustments). They can do the math as long as you stick with a 100 yard zero. If they want to change their zero distance as they learn more, they can, but keeping it simple at first allows them to get into the game.
5. Someone can help them use a ballistic software package to set up their drop chart for intermediate ranges (WITH CLICKS and/or MOA or mils, depending on their scope, listed for simplicity) for the elevation they will be shooting.
6. They won't have much, if any, trouble figuring out how to spin a turret and return it to zero (they just have to pay a little attention to what they are doing), and they would have already done it a few times using your setup so they can see how easy it is.
7. Once they have 1-6 knocked out, all they have to do is practice. They can learn windage holds, using their reticle, as they are practicing.

If they are having trouble anywhere along the way, just keep it as simple as possible like keeping 100 yards as their zero distance rather than using a more "optimal" distance zero (e.g., for MPBR for their load).

We find that it's easier to teach the "what" to do, i.e.. find the range on the card and spin the turret to the number it tells you to, and then slowly introduce the "why" and "how".... For older people sometimes dialing is like MAJIC...






An example of the difference we've seen with hunters between dialing elevation and holding.

I taught several classes to a man last year who goes on 6-8 BIG guided hunts a year. The gun he mainly uses is a Kenny Jarrett built rifle chambered in 300 Jarrett. The scope was a Zeiss Diavari FL 6-24x72 with the Rapid Z-800 reticle and locking turrets. No I didn't pick the scope out....

His load was 180gr Accubonds at 3,250fps. The rifle averaged around .75 MOA. (As an aside, I have yet to see a single hunting rifle come through that averaged .5MOA or less. Despite a whole lot of custom rifles.....)
Anyways, when I met him he was dead set on the reticle thing as he was able to, on several occasions, hit 20oz water bottles at 500 yards using it. He had been on a bunch of hunting trips all over the world taking numerous record book and B&C animals, yet like almost all hunters he really didn't know how to shoot. He certainly thought he did, and he could zero a rifle, and hit animals, but he was slow, with bad technique and habits. He was uncomfortable in awkward positions, and really didn't know anything other then standing or prone.
From the bench he could slam the 8-12in steel gongs all the way out to 650 yards using the reticle. I also had him build a drop card using the turrets. When we got to prone off of a pack he was still getting decent hits, but when it came to anything other then prone rested, it got bad. Like a 25% hit rate. He was getting discouraged so I had him dial. He went 7 or 8 straight. I explained to him that there is something mentally comforting about seeing the crosshairs IN your target rather then above, below, or around it that makes it SO much easier to hit when you excited, tired, or in an uncomfortable position. I did quite a few more classes with him and he got better and better to where he could use the reticle and the turrets very effectively.
One of the last times we shot together was in a valley with some really crazy switching winds. Sustained 10+mph with gusts up to 25. We started just warming up prone off a pack dialing elevation and holding wind with me on the spotting scope giving the wind calls. He went just about 1 for 1 getting a second round hit on the 550 yard IIRC. So I told him to try it using the reticle. Everything went fine up until the 450 yard plate. That took him two shots to hit. A couple of shots for the 500 and 525 yard plate too. Once he got to the 550 it fell apart. He missed 8 or 9 in a row. Every shot was just off the edges of the plate. He commented that while he knew where to hold in between the hashes, with the wind and having to hold off left and right he just couldn't get it to "look" right. (hmmm.... that sounds familiar.)

So I said- ok dial it.

Hit.

"again"

Hit.

He ran through the plates at 360, 400, 425, 450, 500, 525, 550, 600, and 650 yards two or three times only dropping one or two shots. He's a dialer.....



This has has been a very common experience for us. YMMV....

My two cents are that this applies in taking long shots which aren't the norm for shots at big game. Or at least it hasn't been for me.
There are those who argue that there are no compromises in using dedicated long range rifles and scopes for all oportunities in the field. I disagree. Scopes like your favorite Nightforce, often come with short eye relief, small eye boxes and fine reticles. All of which hinder making shots under other unfavorable conditions. Running shots at bad angles and low light shots come to mind here.
You give an example of using a binocular to range a deer at 477 yds. With a proper reticle, I can often range and shoot w/o bothering to use a range finder or dialing. No, not at 477 yds. as a rule. But if he's 300-400 yds. I can and have.
Accurate ranging and dialing is nice. If you have the additional time and if ther animal is cooperating.
Let's say your deer is moving as it feeds. Going to try ranging and dialing ? Want to know how many guys I've seen loose a shot because they were fiddling with the scope ?
They both have their uses and there places. It's not an either or situation. I do agree that one can use a reticle often times more effectively to hold into the wind than using a reticle to holdover. And it certainly works better to dial than to try and do both holdover and hold into the wind using a reticle alone.
As to reliable scopes, that's another area of disagreement. Basically, no scope can be dialed forever w/o breaking down. Ask the benchrest guys about that. Reliability also depends on the scope's ability to stay zeroed when impacted or when shot alot. Again, all of them fail if pushed enough. Some are just better than others. E

Fred,

You may have better luck with the younger crowd. Something about new tricks and old dogs...

DF

Horsehockey..I dont know a single guy proficient with turrets that cant still utilize MPBR when needed..The "caught fiddling with turrets" line is one of my favorites..It takes all of 3 seconds to fiddle..And if the shooter felt he needed to dial in for the shot to make it, then there was no other shot option for him in the first place..Meaning it was a no shot situation no matter what, not "lost to fiddling".If you are continually seeing it happen, its their own fault for not knowing their system, not the systems.

I'm not mad so don't take this wrong, but a) why are you saying I'm ______ anal retentive about this, and b) why is it not a GOOD thing to be extra... retentive, lol about an endeavor where the devil most certainly does lurk in the details?

*I* would have said I'm not "retentive" ENOUGH with my LR loading/shooting practices.

Also, trust starts at the gear level and flows from there. You won't developed trust in your ability to hit, without reliable gear, because you won't be hitting.

In my experience people that say they haven't seen a need to shoot long(er), or it's not the norm, haven't because they don't have the skill or knowledge to.

A 2.5-10x32 or 3-9x42 is not a dedicated LR scope. Neither is a 7lb 243 with a fixed 6x Leupold. I killed several deer at the very last and very beginning of legal light this year with all three.


Do you consider any of these to be dedicated LR rifles and scopes..?


M7 243win Leupold 3-9x40 w/M1's



M70 300WM Leupold MK4 6x M3. Now wears a NF....




And this certianly can't be considered a dedicated LR setup. NEF 243win, Leupold 6x36 w/M1 ele. 427 yards by a girl...









How do you determine if you want to shoot an animal? Do you "glass" with your scope? Just how long do you suppose that it takes for a laser to bounce back a range when you're already looking at the target?

As far as the feeding deer.... Of course. If it's past 250 yards or so, do you just start flinging lead? I guarantee you that hitting something with a laser is faster then guessing range with a reticle. I don't care how good you think you are ranging with a reticle. This whole bs notion that it somehow takes a long time to spin a turret is ridiculous. The problem here, and we see it ALL THE TIME, is that you simply don't know what you don't know. You have no frame of reference as to what is possible. What most think is "fast" is really painfully slow.



Your comment about scopes... Everything made will eventually break. Will your rifle continue to go boom forever? No. But it will probably outlast you. I have used Leupold Ultra M3A's that are now 20 years old. They work perfectly. I have optics with over 50,000 rounds on them with almost every single shot being dialed. How many 30/06's or 308's or any rifles do you have, that have 50,000 rounds through them? Tell you what send me a PM and next time we have a class close to you I'll let you come for free and you can see those scopes being beat on and still working perfectly.

I take 100 rounds to range and it takes me all afternoon to shoot that what with walking back and forth and setting up targets. IT would take me 500 days to shoot all them bullets. What you shooting machine guns? Nice deer

No not machine guns. Bolt actions and semi autos. We use steel plates mostly for the LR stuff. In hunting classes students will shoot between 300 and 500 rounds each over the course of two days. Times that by 10 students per class= 3-5,000 rounds in two days. Intermediate range military and 3-Gun competition classes may shoot over 1,000 rounds per person in two days.

This is part of about 6,000 rounds of military match 5.56 that was shot through one rifle in less then 6 weeks. The scope didn't last.....

ive been hunting long range exclusivly in my home state of pa for more than 40 years. that said i think a knowledgable shooter could learn the basics in about 15 minits. at least how we do it. lets face it with todays equiptment 500 yard shots are challenging but not necessarily difficult.
again i should stress as we do it. all our hunting is by what might be called the ambush system. spot and stalk is not an option. the shooting is ridge to ridge accross wide valleys for the most part. prone or shooting from improvised rests is
just not done. portable shooting benches or tripods are the most popular choices. sometimes benches are stashed at remote
locations. all hunting is done with large tripod mounted
binnoculars. all shooting is done with a spotter calling shots
using the big binnoculars. just about everybody uses twin spotting scopes for their glasses. twin kowas or swarovskis are
popular but not most popular. each hunter has his own set. 3 hunters in the group, 3 sets and so on.
40 years ago probably the most popular cartridge was the 7x300
weatherby. it still is very a popular choice for the 7mm here.
today the 338s have become very populat also.

but 40 years ago this discussion wouldnt even be taking place.
reason being there were no scope choices. all of the wonderfull
scopes avilable now were unheard of then.
the only choices were the target type scopes like unertle.
they required being setup properly as for mount spacing for 1/4 min click values.
target knobs on scopes like leupold are a rather recent thing.
same goes with all the nice reticles available today.
they just didnt exist untill the long range bandwagen was created. today everybody wants a part of the action and a seat on the bandwagen. good news for long rangers.
fortunitly back then there were people like the tk lee co. and dick thomas of premier reticles.
their busisness was installing custom reticles.
thomas would need your bullet bc and the velocity plus altitude.
he would install dots in any configuration you chose. he would also install windage dots or verticle crosshairs.
many of us would have him install dots out to 1000 yds.
mostly in 3.5x10 vx3s as the 6.5x 20 came later.
i still have and use 4 of his scopes. 2 3.5x10s and 2 straight
12s.
ive even put them on other cartridges and worked it out.
although that isnt the best scenario.
all of wich has absolutly nothing to do with this topic.
but offered as a little history and how recently the modern scopes and reticles became available.

now as for what i personaly think?
i think alot would have to do with hunting style.
on the longer shots especially,take all the time you can get.
if your not being hurried then dont hurry.
in those cases by all means dial the scope.
what to do in the event of a near miss is up to the mindset of the shooter. ive shook my head as guys added 1 click then next shot remove it.
as for me, now i know why i missed and i want another in the air right now. now he knows, and your next shot could be all there is. but again, thats me.
but not every scenario is the same. and not every animal is the same. a buck rutting after a doe can be very frustrating.
by the time you dial it all in, guess what? it could be wrong already.
as for a bear, dont count on anything. especially if he's already been shot at by someone earlier.

there is no substitute for basic ability.

with a good flat shooting gun shots up to 500 yds should be
almost a given. and that without any special reticles.
id have a reticle i like. then use the hell out of it.
dont be locked in on anything.
im talking about deer and the like here. not heads of prairie dogs sticking out of holes.

Lets get to the basics of what I have been discussing. I've been shooting ground squirrels for over 50 years. Until the range finder came out, I depended on very flat shooting rifles like the 220 swift.Then I bought my first RF and the guessing game was over. When the target knobs and RF came into play together, everything changed. Hitting a tangerine size target at two to 400 yards was possible if one did their homework.

But, it was still calculate and verify.Today is much easier, just chronograph, run the ballistics program and everything is close. For big game, it is likely more than adequate. But for Sage Rats and rockchucks,the point of impact must be verified. Now I don't know about all of you, but that requires a lot of shooting at the various ranges. First off, even some of the old guys are shy about shooting 300-500 yards. Thus they show that hollow look in their eyes when trying to figure it out. I just think we have to classify what we are hunting before making a determination of what is right and wrong.

Impact still needs to be verified for true BC/velocity..anyone doing otherwise is going in circles..

Getting your drop card is very easy.

1) Find the BC of your bullet. Preferably the "Litz" version from JBM.
2) Get a round about figure of what your muzzle velocity should be.
3) Go to JBm and plug those two things in along with bore height.
4) Hit "print".
5) Go to range and get a good 100 yard zero. Loosen and "slip" your turret until the "0" mark is lined up with the index mark.
6) From there reference the chart you printed out from JBM and shoot at 300yds until you have a good zero. Write the number of MOA's or Mils down.
7) Go to the longest range you have preferably 600 yards and do the same as you did at 300 yards. Write the number of MOA's or Mils down.
8) Go back to JBM and move the velocity up or down until it matches what you shot on the range.
9) Hit "print".



You're done.

fred with all due respect to a man of your age. (im personaly 77 and in a rehab center as i type this due to total hip replacment.)
but you were apperently born in the wrong state as for shooting. especially long range shooting.
rangefinders have been in use by many since shortly after ww2. in fact i still own, use, and prefer my old ww2 unit
to my swarovski lazer.
we currently are killing no more long range deer in pa than were being killed 50 years ago. regardless of all the new creations to do it with. and that my friend is fact.
a 12x unertle and that swift you have was lighting up chuck fields there 60 years ago and longer.
dialing scopes came about thru necessity by varmit hunters, mostly groundhog hunters.
the original 1000 yd benchrest club in williamsport pa was started by hunters. ground hog hunters.
many of them also used their rigs for deer hunting.
so all this dialing stuff isnt new. its just new to some. the new optics are no doubt superior to those of 50 years ago. but in some cases it can be more confusing today. especially newcomers. mills, minits, clicks, this reticle that reticle and on and on.
and of coarse all kinds of internet opinions and help.
back then it was 1/4 min clicks if your scope was set up correctly. we knew how many clicks it took at the various distances we shot because somebody did the work. we aso knew it was 50 clicks for a full turn, 2 turns were 100 and so forth. also usefull was we knew how to get on the deer or hog with the next shot if we missed. is that cheating?
it was and is the kiss system. highly reccomended for old polish monkeys

yep!

and you also get your muzzle velocity without messin' with the chrono.

Just got set up like that..Its nice having a private range now...and was more/less what I was getting at in my last post.

Frog, You are wrong again as per normal, but formidilosus might have led you astray with #2. Using a chronograph is more critical the longer the range you want to shoot for Extreme Spread and Standard deviation numbers to go along with muzzle velocity.
#2 does not mean that much if you have a E.S. of 50fps.......do your chrono homework.

numbchuck, you can spew bile to your hearts content, but you gotta get out and actually shoot to get it, and you don't.

love how you look at a rodent @ 828 yards as a crowning accomplishment...that speaks volumes

this schitt is as hard as you want it to be, but Formidilosus has it right. what happens at the target trumps all, so start there. some people think obcessing over minutiae will give the same results as actually shooting

I never brought up true LR shots, or varmints in this thread. I am speaking to big game out to 600+/- yards with normal weight hunting rifles. For that, anyone can follow that list and smoke every deer walking. E.S. and S.D. are important but not that important when your just trying to put rounds into an 8-12 inch target. True long range is a different ball game.

WOW !!!!! Frog you are funny when you stand in front of the mirror and talk to yourself

Agree. I think one of the reasons that guys don't hit as well with reticles is that about 90+ (easily) percent of them apply them as designed--not to the highest degree of accuracy that they are capable of.

In '04 Ernie Bishop and i competed in the ITRC in Gillette, WY using XP-100 handguns and still placed 50% in the standings using the simple Burris BP reticle in 3-12x EER scopes against many military, police and practical rifle teams. In that particular event I witnessed Ernie shoot one of the best strings of fire i've ever seen accomplished in the field using his reticle--3-8" discs @ 585 shot 6 times in a row (2 each), and 1 at 685 shot twice--8 shots, 8 hits.

I and my partners use both systems and for most of our practical hunting scenarios, reticles are our go-to methodology.

As a very dedicated predator hunter i can say there's no way a dialer can keep up with a reticle for fast action shooting at intermediate ranges [out to ~500 or so] on tgts. of ~6" or more. I've seen it too many times over the 20 years or so now hunting them with a longer range shooting system established [reticle and turret]. No way the dialer will net a higher avg. kill ratio beyond MPBR over a series of years.

And as far as multi-stadia reticles go, the tree reticles are much more "field-worthy" than those that have no direct system of windage reference lower on the vertical axis. Tree reticles are FAR better if a guy takes the time to establish a more precise system of reference than that which was designed for the reticle, especially on coyotes that allow for only one shot most of the time.

Formadilosus,
What type of reticle/turrets do you prefer...moa/moa, mil/mil, mil/moa, etc, etc??

Mil/Mil. MOA/MOA will work but since the military and LR tactical shooters want Mil everything is made in Mil. When you combine a mil based scope with a spotting scope with a mil reticle it's simply cheating.



I do not want people to get the idea that I/we advocate "sniper" rifles or scopes. I hunt a lot with Leupolds, 1/4 MOA adjustments and plain duplex reticles. What we teach in hunting courses while having similarities to, is not the same thing we teach in military/competition courses. That was one of the big things I picked up going to a bunch of courses over the years. Every LR "Hunting" class I've attended was really just a rebadged sniper course. A lot of the military LR stuff applies, and a lot of it doesn't. I want the hunter that comes to us with a wood stocked M700 in 270win and a Leupold 3.5-10x40 with CDS or B&C reticle (or whatever scope they have) to be able to consistently hit big game in the vitals at extended ranges under hunting situations. Even if you never use it, practicing at 5 and 600 yards makes 300-400 yard animals chip shots.

This is the conclusion I've stumbled upon over the past 9 months. I couldn't agree more.

Formidilosus,

Any hunter class in the west coast this year?

Great stuff here--thanks guys!

These are the kind of discussions that make the Campfire great.

Common sense...great post.

Yep,
And without all the drama from the S.E. Alaska ghey midget..









Imagine that...

Here's to that!!

If I'm hunting a pipe line cut through the north woods of Canada, I take a Zeiss Rapid Z reticle because a deer may appear for a few seconds at any range from up close to as far as I can shoot. Then he will be across and gone not likely seen again that day.

I have not had experience using turrets because I don't trust myself to remember did I change the zero back or not......

Turrets have to be best for long range accuracy because that's what the long range target competitors use, but for hunting I think it is personal. Each of us should know which we would prefer.

I may be different than some, but using a reticle isn't something I feel would work for me in hunting situations. I use a standard duplex reticle in a cartridge that shoots flat and, in conjunction with a rangefinder, I have determined when I need to dial. So far it works really well. I am looking at using a reticle on a varmint rifle, but on my go-to elk and deer gun, no. mtmuley

None on the schedule, however it is very easy to set one up if you are interested?




mtmuley,
that is a very good way to do it, and it is how I do it too. Although I sometimes slum a 308.... grin

Form, one of the classes in CO would be cool too!

While it's always impossible to trump the humor associated with a Texan doing her best,I'd say you've set the bar rather high...beings it took you 9 [bleep] months to savvy that good practice,nets good results.

Wow.




Nrut,

Imagination and Pretend is all you've got.

Though in fairness,I'm still groovin' on your pics.

Bless your heart.





sskuntyote,

You Do-Nothing Dumbphucks,are a never ending series of belly laughs.

Points awarded for the hearfelt whine,that you've mastered over the years.

Congratulations?



Hardly a "secret" that crosshair intersection(da' middle) can't be trumped,but them who shoot the least,"know" the most. Laffin'!

Today's dots,copiously connected...if only because the dumbest of [bleep],will yet again miss the boat. In no particular order: S/S,Synthetic,LW's,Turrets,1-7" twist rate,BC's(lens covers dumb [bleep](s)),upper echelon BC ala 75'Max(s),kissing the throat,spec'ing the throat,COAL massaged to allow said kiss,taped muzzle...and a leetle wear and tear ala scritches/scratches,due to mileage and round count. Moly being a given.




Looking forward to yet another "Hard Charging" Tale via the Do-Nothing Gang,regarding the things they nearly did,with the wares they nearly had and from the places they nearly went.

As an aside,I Handload Jigs too and I'll happily remove same and allow you dumbphucks to swim away,only to be hooked again and as per whim.






Just sayin'.

I don't want this to turn into an advertisement, as that was not my intent, but it is easy to setup a class just about anywhere in the US.

The stock finish and muzzle tape match neither the fly nor the fish. I think there's a bit more there to be learned about running a hard-use rifle and taking good photos!

Critique taken...so shot a bit different this morning,than I did yesterday(above).

While I've always been a fan of contrast in a scene,opting an orange hue as the Dupe,is an Age old favorite of mine for Spring Feesh. Pink has no peer for Winter feesh,but Orange can do nice things,even in early Spring.

My State is very arid and the foliage is perpetually a dingy brown-ish hue,which isn't very flattering in any light. Oh well...broad shoulders do sweeten the pot and frost the cake,even in the sweltering 80 degree heat.



Fall Plumage do nice things for contrast and set off the GLX subtension matrix fairly well. Am thinking the weathered au naturale cork,do meld nicely and the dynamics of the coloration throughout the scene,rather sing in conjunction.





Keying in on the Orange Theme a touch more,if only for conversation.



Always rewarding to see "quit" in a victim's eye(s).



Just sayin'.(grin)

Boxer,
I see JeffO convinced you to stop using blue tape on your barrel.

turrets

Formid, I agree with your choice of the SS 3x9 as a great hunting optic. All of mine have been great on tracking and durability has not been an issue at any time. I also run the 5x20 on a match rifle and that HD glass is fabulous.

One thing I have not really seen mentioned is SPF vs FFP. I dont like being stuck at one magnification for the dots, dashes or christmas trees to line up.

I also tend to use both hold over with the reticle as well as turrets at the same match, even in the same stages. It is not uncommon to engage targets at 200, 400 or out to 800 yards on the same stage and if your taking the time to dial for every shot you will be sitting at the bottom of the pack. For hitting poppers or plates in the 8-10" range I will gladly use the reticle to save time but when the target is under 1moa I take the time to dial it.

So it's clear, my posting on this thread is ONLY about a fast and relatively simple way to kill big game.


FFP is the only way to fly on Tac match guns. For that I prefer the Horus H59. I still dial most shots fwiw.... Most people are just painfully slow dialing. It's like they are scared to reach up and crank? I don't get it, it's got numbers....

One thing about BDC reticle scopes is that almost all are SFP. Funny how people think it takes longer to spin one knob versus another........

Fair enough, I will still take an FFP and matching reticles/adjustments every time. I dont get it either when guys turn the dial slow enough to hear every click. If Im adding 6.2mils for a shot I buzz it around and just stop at the correct point.

On the other hand, with a few exceptions to the rule like the fixed bushnell you mentioned, you have to pay more to get perfect repeatability and that does not happen to often on glass under $300. I have also taught police snipers when the standard package was the Rem 700 with the Leup 3.5x10 with target turrets. The standard class size was 40 and there were usually 4-5 that would crap out after a week and 800-1000 rounds.

The only SPF scopes I have are on varmint rifles where a thicker crosshair would be blotting out some of the smaller targets.

Agree.

Formidilous, you seem to think that I don't know anything about killing stuff at extended ranges, scopes or hunting under a wide variety of conditions.
I've owned several hunting rifles chambered for cartriages like the .308. the 30'06, and the .280 that had scopes which could be dialed for range and even windage. I've made several kills over 400 yds., a few over 500 yds. and one about 700 yds. I still have some of these rifles with scopes like the above. They are actually quite similar to those in the pics you posted.
My arguments against this sort of thing were limited to being too specialized to the point where one is handicapped when he has to hunt under much different conditions. I used the example of a Nightforce hunting scope with short eye relief, a small eye box and fine "range finder" reticle. The scope on my all around, including long range, .280 for instance, is a 6X42 Leupold with an elevation turret. Lots of ER, eye box and a Heavy Duplex for those bad light shots. Still capable of making shots out to 600 yds. but also much more useful in other types of hunting.
I do agree that practicing in the field on rocks and ground squirrels is not only alot of fun, but a useful skill. I've done lots of that too. No, I'ver never put anything like 50,000 rds. through anything. And I odviously haven't done as much dial twisting as you have. But I've killed some stuff up very close in ranges measured in feet and hunted country that gets anywhere from less than 4 inches of rain a year to over 80 inches. I've hunted from sea level to over 12,000 ft. as well.
All this has taught me that long range simply isn't everything, but it is part of the game. The trick is to be able to handle it all, not just some of it at the expense of the other techniques necessary in some places. E

For those that twist turrets [to which group i include myself] the most recent article by Norm Johnson was quite enlightening on applying cheap scope turrets at longer ranges. Interesting how he "breaks in" a turret by running it back and forth throughout its adjustment range, and loading the bias spring as a final adjustment. It was the motivation for me to adapt a finger-adjustable turret on an el cheapo 2x Barska handgun scope as a target turret on a Ruger Mk III Tgt. model 22 RF for 1st shots at 225 [30 MOA], 300 [50] and 425 [90] yds. All this from a generic ballistics program profile for a .1 BC at 1200 mv. May not have been perfectly "precise" but it sure was fun! Turns out these FA turrets are actually resettable to "0"--

varmints, I believe what you say...but it seems like a pretty damned high failure rate to me.

Can't figure why anyone would buy a scope like that,intended for spinning turrets, and rely on it.Seems like a real waste of $500-$600 bucks to me....

10-15% failure rate on most Leupolds is just about bang-on with my experience in a 5 day class.


Of course most manufactures are worse then that.....

Tell me about the rifle, load, scope, reticle and what you shot. What rangefinder were you running E ?

Not good...

Last year (Oct. and Nov.) I got a compact 4x and a 4-12 and they are both at Leupold for repairs. The 4x was on a Ruger 10/22 and has a broken reticle (so much for "electrofoaming) and the 4-12 was on a 700 (270 from their custom shop) and it's zero is wandering all over the place.

I did get one good one from the wizards of Oregon though, a Redfield 2-7.

"Failure" meaning didn't track perfectly each and every time, right ?
I take it this also means all Leupolds, not the Mk.4's ? E

So... with the failures some guys see, which scope would you begin to recommend for a hard-work, SS/Synthetic killing rifle? Nothing higher than 10x at the top end.

I like the Leupold FX3, 6X42 the best for most of my big game/large varmit hunting. E

My preference for an all-around slaughter scope is the FX3 6x42 w/ M1 ele. Having said that, I don't mind a bit more mag for shooting 800+ yards. Somewhere around 9 or 10x is good for that kind of work.

If money is no object, a VX3 2.5-8x36mm (SA) or 3.5-10x40mm (LA). If money's tight, a VX1 or VXII 3-9x40mm.

I do not think the average hunter will ever wear out a Conquest or VX3. If he does it will probably take many years to do so. No offense to anyone, but I still believe most scope failures, especially the ones that fail in 100-200 rounds on a big game rifle, are due to improper mounting, torquing, ring placement, etc. I've probably had 75 hunters show up in camp with Leupold's mounted on their rifles.....300WBy Mags to 7-08's and everything in between but mostly magnums of some sort. They haven't told me of one single failure and I've asked them all.

I'm not at all saying Formid here isn't telling the truth, or anyone else for that matter. The avg hunter doesn't shoot 800 rounds in a long weekend with his 7mag. I've had a Tikka 695 for 13 years now, and I bet it still hasn't had over 250 rounds through it. It still managed to kill a Swaro A I had on it, but it was mounted properly I think!

Mainly for Formidilosus, but others are welcome to post:

Supposing recoil/adjustment damage to a scope is cumulative...do you think the time/intensity plays a part as well? Two examples, same adjustments and number of rounds fired...but with distinctly different timelines:

1. 800 rounds fired, spinning turrets over a weekend.

2. 800 rounds fired, spinning turrents over 5 years.

Do you think there's a difference in the possibility of damage between the two?

Doubtful

From what I've seen, there are three kinds of scope "failures."
One is from accumulated recoil. I've never busted one from recoil, but I've seen friends, who shoot lighter, heavy recoiling magnums have scopes stop holding zero.
Another is from impacts. I've bounced lots of scopes off of rocks during falls etc. w/o damage. I've seen some shift zero. In at least one case it wasn't the scope at all but the front scope ring loosening.
I suspect this type of failure is also cumulative. The reticle on my old 4X Leupold gave way during some rough bolt slaming which was alot less than what it had previously endured in the field.
Last of all is failure to change zero as expected or return to zero. I understand the military teaches their snipers to shoot their rifles often and always considers the first and last shots to be the most important. LEO snipers have apparently adopted this philosophy as well.
So, all of this means what ? It means when you buy a new scope, first make sure it's mounted right. I've seen far more mounting related scope problems than actual scope problems.
Second, test it for 60 plus rounds and to make sure it works right. Even the very expensive, highly regarded makers can produce a defective scope.
Third, be aware of what kinds of failures scopes or mounts can have and watch for them. Again, test your rifle and scope combination from time to time.
When you find something that works well, stick with it. I've got several scopes who have been very reliable whose rifles are long gone. But I keep them. They may not be the brightest and have full multicoating. Two even have too little eye relief and not near enough eye box. One doesn't have much of a reticle for low light shooting. But I keep them anyway because they alwayts worked even when abused. E

Like Eremicus, I haven't seen any of my Leupold's fail due to just recoil best I can tell. I have seen them shift zero from being bumped (probably slammed) from rough air line handling though. I realize this might not be considered a failure, but it doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling as to why they shifted zero. Would be curious to see if Leupold's use of dual erector springs in their newer VX-3's would help that or not.

JG, you are correct. I haven't seen many reputable scopes that were zereod and left (like 99% of hunters do) have problems or failures. If you are a set it and forget it type, most any will do.









If there is, it is very small and I have never seen it.

Thanks

If you are going to dial and want it to last a lifetime,

Leupold 6x with M1.
SWFA SS 6x
SWFA 3-9x42
Nightfore 2.5-10x32


If weight is a huge priority then the Leupold is where I would turn. If you can stand a few more ounces and want true bomb proofness then I would look at the SWFA SS 3-9x42. I have not seen enough of a difference between it and the NF to spend double the money for a hunting rifle.

TTT,

Good stuff!

Yes, agreed.

Been using B & L scopes and twisting knobs since 1989, never one sent back to the factory for repair.

Same with Burris and Pentax.

I'm no long-range shooting expert, don't claim to be. But, I AM a deer-hunting nut. I've used the Nikon BDC reticule a bit and last year got a Leupold CDS dial put on my VXR. I think both systems work and it is largely a matter of preference. The biggest thing is that you actually need to shoot and see where your bullets are actually impacting at that range. I don't shoot (animals) way out there (500 yards or more). So, in truth a lot of my shooting could just as easily be done with a 200 yard zero and a single duplex reticule with no external adjustments. However, it is nice to be able to range an object where you expect an animal to come from (tree, rock, etc) and then dial the scope to that range. One advantage that I do see to the CDS system (and this idea was stolen from Dave Petzal) is that you can shoot heavy for caliber bullets in moderate cartridges (i.e. 200 gr. Accubond in 30-06) and be able to make accurate hits without having to employ Kentucky Windage.