Bullet drop compensating reticles (ie. LRD, Ballistic Plex, Ziess Rapid-Z, etc.), dialing using turrets, or less frequently using a mil based (or MOA based) reticle to compensate on long range shots.

This comes up in the majority of threads anytime there is a discussion beyond MPBR, with many people stating their preference, though usually with no reason or background as to why... They'll state that one is more accurate, one is "faster", etc, yet when queried as to define "accurate" or "fast" they generally have no answer, or state something that borders on the ridiculous. Now this isn't to say that people's experiences are not valid, but to point out that when discussing the merits of anything one needs to have a depth of knowledge and actual use putting it in to practice.


I've discussed this many times, stating my experience with all of them, using timers, hit rates, target size, etc. I get questioned often about it and thought I would take some pictures to give a visual....

Scopes used are a Burris FF II 3-9x40 with Ballistic Plex, and a SWFA SS 3-9x4mm with Mil-Quad reticle. The rifle "used" is a 308Win with a 168gr bullet at around 2,700fps. It doesn't really matter what reticle, or "rifle" is used as the principles are the same.


Up first is BDC with the Burris. Target is a 12in square plate at 470 yards. The center cross hair is "zeroed" for 200 yards, with the first hash mark being 300, the second 400, and so on. The hold is somewhere between the 400 and 500 yard hashes about 3/4ths the way down.

This isn't real hard as its a no wind, center hold situation. The only guessing is in the elevation correction.



Here is the same target but with a 10mph full value wind-


That's approximately 19-20 inches of drift shown, which is correct for the situation. That's a whole lot of guessing.....



Here is the same sequence but with the SWFA and dialing-


Zero wind and 3 mils elevation dialed.




10mph full value wind correction of 1.1 mils.




Same as the other two but using a mil based reticle for correction-

3 Mils held, center hold-





10mph full value, elevation and windage held 1.1 mil-







As targets get smaller and/or farther away, the harder it is to "guess" especially with BDC reticles and misses go WAY up.

The Burris again but this time on a 5in square turned as a diamond at 475 yards. Zero wind-

[img]http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps5c672f83.jpg[/img]


10mph full value wind hold-

[img]http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsf0f31976.jpg[/img]




Same as above but SWFA-

Zero wind, center hold-
[img]http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps92051453.jpg[/img]


10mph full value with 1.1 mil correction-

[img]http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx87/Vereor1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsc19fac03.jpg[/img]

Milquad on a fixed power, or FFP scope is working well for me.

Dialing with the SWFA looks easiest (most precise, too) to me.....

As above but using a mil based reticle

Zero wind, 3 mils elevation-





10mph full value wind, elevation and 1.1 mil for wind-








These are just simple targets. They have good presentation (ie. you can see them), are painted white against a dark background, and are stationary. The simulated wind is the easiest for most to hit in. But it should be obvious to even the casual observer that one way is going to result in more hits, especially with any wind. Some will try to claim that BDC are "faster", however that is only true at exact ranges (300, 400, etc) and really doesn't play out that way regardless due to wind, target size Etc.

In order of hit rates-

Dialing elevation/holing wind with reticle
Holding using a mil based reticle (or MOA)
Hiding using a BDC reticle


The middle is always the middle, and any deviation from that is a compromise. Wind had to be dealt with and accounted for and we want to eliminate as many variables as possible. Having a "ruler" in the reticle to account for wind can only be an asset. A mil based reticle can easily be setup and used like a BDC.

There are multiple factors that determine speed of hits- distance, target size, shooter position, target movement, wind, shooter fatigue, excitement, heart rate, etc... Long range shooting on animals is not about speed. Those that talk about needing to take rushed shots on animals past 300 yards or so, are also generally the first ones to condemn long range shooting at all.

What I can state unequivocally is that BDC reticles never have higher hit rates than dialing. They can only hope to match it in the easiest of situations. As well due to the aforementioned variables, when actually timed when tired, excited, from less than ideal positions dialing is almost always faster to HIT.

They are a solid way to go, of not the smartest for most circumstances.






Indeed Bob. It's not that BDC's can't work, as you are more than aware, it's that there is no upside, to their downside.

I can hear millions of bubbles bursting.




Travis

Some can never see the truth.

MM

I have both, or better said, I have a few of each. If I'm deer/pig/coyote hunting inside 400 yards i'd rather have the BDC. Out past that more precision is needed, so I'd go for the Vortex FFP With turrets or the Leupold SFP with the TMR reticle. But that's just my opinion, based on what I have today, and it's subject to change.

That said, I used to do just fine with my old 270 and the basic Leupold duplex reticle. On at 200, down 7 inches at 300 and down 20 inches at 400. Easily adjusted for and very quick.

Would like to see the NF velocity reticle and zeiss rapid z reticle (calibrated Christmas trees) thrown in the mix. These have windage references so probably shouldnt be lumped in with the reticles pictured.

Nothing trumps the bullet going where those to silly crosshairs intersect.

I can like mil-dots on the horizontal line.

Chuck,

I get what you're saying when referring to the examples you used, but I have been using the Rapid Z enough to say it is far superior to most of the ballistic reticles. This is due to it having wind references (5 and 10 mph values) and because of the Zeiss calculator which aids in picking the correct magnification to align the sub tensions with the load being used. Is it as precise as dialing? Absolutely not. Is it accurate enough to put one in the vitals of a Whitetail out to the limits of the reticle? Absolutely. After using the Zeiss software, I EASILY made hits on my plates, 8" out to 500, 12" at 600. In fact, I never missed a plate with winds coming from about 4:30, gusting to 13 mph.

This is gonna sound bad, but the beauty of the Rapid Z is not having to memorize my come ups. I simply use the labeled lines. For the 'tweener ranges, it's very easy to bracket. Still plenty precise enough to put one in the vitals. For me, it is much quicker than referencing my dope chart and dialing. If using the Zeiss, I do still keep a wind value chart taped to my stock, but it is still less material to reference than when dialing. Admittedly, if I would simply settle on one load, then memorizing my dope would be much easier, but I like to experiment with different loads�

Wanted to emphasize that not all ballistic reticles are the same. I have not seen one that begins to approach the intuitiveness or effectiveness of the Rapid Z. If using a basic ballistic reticle like the LRD or Burris Ballistic Plex, dialing definitely has the edge. If shooting beyond the limits of the Rapid Z, dialing, again has the edge. But, up to the limits of a Rapid Z Reticle, it is a better mousetrap for most hunting.

I'll try and get some pictures up through the Rapid Z in a few days.

John

A much better BDC reticle for your comparison would have been the Zeiss rapid Z with its built in 5 and 10 mph wind holds and 25 and 50 yard increments, otherwise great comparison. I have no use for the ballistic plex or the Nikon BDC.

I also like the Swarovski BRH.

"Dial elevation, hold wind."

Do not recall, who wrote or said that, but it has been working for me.

Christmas trees are seasonal item and green. I

My experiences mirror yours, FormD.

I'll submit this anecdote:

This summer, I competed in a tactical shoot. The course of fire was meant to push you on speed, a typical stage would be 8 minutes to engage 10-12 targets ranging from point blank to ~1200 yards. All targets were at different distances, some would require alternative (non-prone) positions, and if you missed a target on the first shot you could take up to three more for lesser points.

It was an individual competition, but we shot in pairs. The shooter I was paired with was using a Bushnell HDMR with some type of Horus reticle. During the first half of the shoot, he held both windage and elevation using his reticle. I started to feel bad for him because he wasn't having time to engage many of the targets, and was struggling to get hits as well.

After a fourth poor stage result, he switched to dialing elevation, as I had been the whole time. He started connecting better that I was! Up til then I had thought he was either a poor shooter or his gun wasn't shooting well. At the end of the day, I beat him by a few points due to getting many more hits on the earlier stages, but I'm certain he was the better shooter. When it came time for the prize table, it meant the difference between a Bushnell ERS scope and an air rifle!

I've been told there are situations where the Horus is a good choice, and it certainly gives you lots of elevation AND windage hold references. With small targets and lots of time pressure, it wasn't an advantage for that shooter that day.

I'll take two turrets and a side of reticle gravy to go please.

Thanks.



Travis

Distance, target size, and wind....F is spot on. Dialing rules, nothing can touch it, and marked reticles help with sliding for the wind.

That said, for less than 400 yards in hunting I'm really liking simple dots in a lightweight fixed scope. Not because hits are easier, but nothing moves and the need for all the advantages given by dialing isn't a major factor...shorter distance, large kill zone, less windage.

...but I'm still addicted to dialing.

I rarely shoot game past 350 yards, but practice to be capable out to 450. For targets the size of a basketball, dots/bars in a medium-powered scope work fine for me. If hunting an open area, I just dial up to max power of 9-10x and leave it there. If hunting closer-range spots, I leave it at 5x or so and don't sweat the dots. Fun guns get turrets.

Rapid Z, Nightforce Velocity, etc.

Yes, they are better for windage than "plain" BDC's, however you are still holding in air at anything other than whole distances. Most take these scopes, go to a bench and then proceed to shoot them at targets that are exactly 300, 400, 500, or 600 yards. This does not show you the deficiencies, or attributes of any of them. I'll try to take some pictures through a NF Velocity 600 for reference.

Think about this- if I posted a one inch dot at 100 yards, had you run 100 yards and back under time while I dialed your scope to hit where 470 yards should be (in air) and where a 12 mph half value wind would be (in air) would you really believe that using the reticle as such is the best way to hit that dot...?

This goes along with what Carl posted. Re- Horus Reticles. It is important to note that we have Horus reticles in every new military sniper optic because the issued Leupold scopes didn't adjust correctly.


In any case the is what it looks like-




It is the ultimate Christmas tree reticle. Every military sniper knows it and the vast majority use only the reticle instead of dialing. However, given the same drill as above NO ONE chooses to hold to hit that 1 inch dot. Not to get into the psychological and physiological aspects of shooting ( they are important), but intuitively (visually) we understand that the middle is the middle and under stress we WANT to put those crosshairs on the target.

Exactly.... grin

There is no doubt that dialing is the most precise way of going about things. I was a dedicated dialer and dialer/hold for wind guy when I ran an M24 for a living. I tried a Horus scope enough to realize it worked, but is sure busy and easy to get confused in stressful situations.

I'm still a dedicated dialer for fun fart around shooting. But for hunting I'm a BDC reticle guy. What it comes down to is that every optic is a compromise, and for hunting I've yet to find a scope with turrets that has the right combination of weight, eye relief, lack of excess bulk, and most importantly all of one that won't schit it's adjustments. When that scope becomes available I may revisit the subject. The SWFA 3-9 is close, but lacking in a couple areas. Subject for a different thread.

I'm going to disagree with your "holding off in air" comment. When hunting big game (read: basketball sized vitals), especially out to 4 or 5 hundred yards (which is my ethical limit due to numerous factors), it's not tough to figure out the in between holds vertically. There's no holding in air on the windage. If I need to adjust for 12" of drift, I aim at a point on the animal 12" in the proper direction from the center of the vitals and concentrate on hitting that point. Now I realize I have to visualize what 12" looks like on the animal, and that could get me into trouble if I run into a freak of abnormal proportions. But after being around a few thousand head of the species I normally hunt, it's pretty easy to visualize where I gotta go. If a specific animal is 10 or 20% larger or smaller than the average size realm, it still puts the bullet in the vitals at these distances.

Kind of a rough rule of thumb that if I'm aiming for air on windage (or dialing in a schit load of windage), I get closer, reposition to where I have a full headwind or tailwind, or wait for the animal to reposition. What I'm getting at here is that if there's enough wind that I'm holding in air around a broadside big game animal, there's a lot of wind and the chances of phugging up the wind call and thus the shot are high. If said animal is facing me, the vitals present an even smaller target and the same rule applies.

Throw in moving animals in failing light, or a whole bunch of other possible factors and the issue becomes more complicated. So I practice for those conditions when I'm able, and make them work to the best of my abilities.

Fact remains that if the shot gets too tough, regardless of what system a guy chooses to use, he can walk away. Far better to walk away from a half-azzed shot opportunity than have to think about an animal with a blown off leg slowly dying out on a hillside...waiting to be ripped apart by predators.

Jeezus F U C K...the Dumbpfhuqqery around here is simply mind numbing!

The "Rapid Z" is some of THE most stupid schit yet "offered" to Drooling Clueless Dumbpfhuqqs and it is a hoot,that someone could "think" that the schit "works". It is simply an arbitrary array of meaningless schit slathered upon the windshield,meant to dupe THE dumbest of pfhuqqs into "thinking" they've "got" something. FUNNY schit!

Then to conjoin SFP so as to "tune" such dumbpfhuqqery,takes the humor outta the Universe. Wow.

Zeiss "offers" some seriously steaming dog schit "ideas" and it is hilarious that anyone who's fired even a single shot in their "life",could suffer such dumbpfhuqqery,let alone "swoon" it. Though I do dig the pfhuqqing humor!

The middle is always the middle and it has no equal. Hint. Couple that constant with erectors that don't bobble and house copious travel and one is there,by literal default. Re-hint.

Now take it a step farther and bask in the sanctity of the middle being the middle,no matter the zoom selection and one is bearing fruit on "accident". Then add the innate ability to do same with ANY bullet,at ANY speed and in ANY atmosphere...then it fully becomes "cheating". I get a kick out of Dumb Pfhuqqs talking about "all" that they "think" they have to "remember". Hilarious! What does one say to the Drooling Clueless Pfhuqq that can't "remember" where the middle "is"?!? Laffin'!

If one wishes,they can add a reticle of repute to the fray and rock either FFP or Fixed,for even more constants. They'll do everything the Z does and with far greater Precision. Hint.

Should one wish to meld the conjunction,such things are easily arranged via erector dope and windage slide.

Here's 1000yd 10MPH full value Ball Burpin' slide,if only to hopefully bolster some more Z-Dumbpfhuqqery.






Hardly "daunting" to break come-ups down in 10yd incremets,for steering 22LR fodder to 600yds+...if only for the kids.




The "Z" is akin to asking Santa to sew a dick on the Old Lady and I've zero doubt that more than a few of The Paper Hat Brigade,are now feverishly penciling same and licking stamps to the North Pole. Laffin'!

'Course those of the ilk,swoon BDC's too.

Hint.

Laffin'!

Thank me later.

Can hardly wait for the "hard chargers" to extoll upon doing their "best".

Re-laffin'!



Ooops...should add if only in fairness,that (3) FF's will be setting at the house,upon my return and if the one I loaned out is returned,that'll put me at 20 of 'em.

Still happily looking to trade MK4 M3 3.5-10x BDC's away,to THE dumbest of pfhuqqs.

HINT.(grin)

So are you saying you don't use a Rapid Z?

I'm impressed!



Take care, Willie

He's hooked on Horus....

Does that thing come with an abacus?

I fall more in line with prarie goat. I play around with CDS dials. But when I'm going out to kill something, give me a regular duplex, or even an illuminated duplex, and I'll try to get within MPBR. When you get older like me (53 yr old eyes)all those dots, hashes, etc are great when the light is good. In poor light, all bets are off. Most people I've hunted with have no business shooting at game at 300+ anyway.

Boxer.. why are you always swearing? and think you're the smartest guy with the best gear on here?
You really have to be hinting and thinking someone is going to thank you?
I have the hardest time reading your posts. At least have some proper spelling and grammar if you're soooo smart.
You have to be the dumbest most ignorant MoFo on this web site.

If people listened to him, they'd have far more skill, far more capable gear, and spend way less money.....


But I tend to focus on what's important....

Having a reticle that gives you something doesn't preclude one from using it as a regular duplex when not needed... On that note it's pretty obvious which of those reticles is easier to see, more bold, AND offers something of real use....

I'd say that about most of the Texans I've met as well.




Travis

I see you live in Oregon.



Travis

Imagine that.

There has to be something in the water that makes people stupid and men grow tits.

Looks like you live in Montana.

Correct. All the good looking people live here.




Travis

Deflave, there are a few good looking folks living down here in Wyoming... But probably not as many as Montana..

What!!? LOL

Drater,

Funny pfhuqqing schit,in that you Whining Clueless Kchunts can always find something to Whine about. Congratulations?

I'm admittedly not very "surprised" that while you could add copious Estrogen Levels to the equation,you KNOW better than to try and say ANYTHING about the crux. Bless your heart. Please show NO "mercy" as you conjure the excuses that'll "resolve" the glaring dumbpfhuqqtitude of your "experience","knowledge" and "results". Add pics,if only to obliviously add more humor!

You'd do well to shut the pfhuqq up,take notes,apply same and thank me later. Here's hoping someone for your sake,starts pumping daylight to you,if only so you could begin to fathom how far you are in over your pfhuqqing pointy head and crossed-eyes.

Here's to how very WELL founded,your amazingly long list of insecurities are,as you struggle with the reality of being at the mercy,of being you. Perhaps you believe in Reincarnation and are aspiring to really get a scald on things,during your next pass?!?

Laughing!

I heard money grows on trees.................










'smith,

Zeiss do nice glass,but badly botch riflescopes.

I greedily drive alotta their wares and think more than a little bit highly of their camera glass,bino's,spotters and lasers.

Perhaps someday they'll make a scope worth a pfhuqq...but that day isn't today.

It is what it is and that'd be funny.....................(grin)










wde,

PLEASE find me "mistaken" and I'll happily rub your nose even further in your incredible pfhqqing Stupidity. Cite the words that were "too big" too and I'll slap you around with daintier verbage,if only to grant you the delusion of having a "chance".

Just sayin'.

Laughing!.................










'Raider,

Perhaps quantify the BDC "advantages" in your Barbed-Wire "Pursuits" and be sure to quantify the height of the fences,for maximum "effect". Laughing!

Someone who "knows" as "much" as you,is ALWAYS going to be best served by asking questions...instead of giving "answers".

Hint.

Let the men talk and perhaps even a Clueless Kchunt such as yourself,might garner her first pfhuqqing clue.

Just kidding!

That ain't in the cards,as you haven't the smarts to begin to keep pace.

Bless your heart!

As an aside,just how high is a Meopta Fence?!?

I'm pfhuqqing crying,I'm laughing soooooooooo hard,you poor,poor CLUELESS Pfhuqq..................











'flave,

She can only do the best she can do,with what incredibly pfhuqqing little she has to work with.

Do NOT slight how "real" Imagination and Pretend are to these Clueless Window Licking Kchunts. Though "luckily",it's priced so they can "contribute" a "bunch".

Just enjoy the show.....................(grin)











Oooooops...my bad.

Pardon my being afforded the luxury of not being forced to guess.



Hint.

Then things got MUCH better.



Re-Hint.






As an aside...it suddenly got VERY quiet.

Laughing!...................

Stick,

Are you saying you've actually run a Rapid Z and it did not work as advertised? Or are you just guessing?

John

Big stick and boxer same guy?

I have been to Montana a few times ..... I prefer the looks of the people in Wyoming! Of course when you enter Montana from the south from here its rough going for a while til you hit Billings......

Its rough going as soon as you hit Billings!



I am not a sniper so dots work fine for sub 400-500 yard hunting situations. If I am farther away then I sneak(which is more fun than fiddling with a scope anyway).

Now if you are shooting past 500 yards then a turret is way more accurate and easier. I don't so it's a moot point for ME.



Carry on with this badass, hardcore sniper conversation chit.....grin

One in the same.

Bushnell LRHS 3-12x44mm.

Only showing holdovers using the reticle as the dialing looks the same. These are on 9x aproximately.



470 yards 12in plate, no wind.




470 yards 10mph wind




475 yards 5 in diamond, no wind




475 yards 5in diamond, 10mph wind

Christmas tree on the LRHS does not subtend as far out as Rapid Z. Rapid Z tree goes out to 10mph wind value. If you have more wind than that, you will be holding on air though. I'll try and get some Rapid Z pics up for comparison Monday or Tuesday.

John

Excellent post Form. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

Roy

This is pretty funny and incorrect.

My thoughts exactly "hardcore Sniper conversation". Funny how times have changed. In early 1979 I was ordered to attend scout sniper training in Quantico VA. Up until that time I had a lot of good buddies in the Marine Corps. Once I returned to the FMF, all my buddies treated me as if I had leprosy.

Now it's cool to be or should I say play a SNIPER.

My issued rifle back then was M40 it was topped with a Redfield tombstone 3-9 scope. We were ordered to set it on 8 power and don't touch it again. We sighted in for 600 meters and held over/held under. We learned the trajectory. We were NOT shooting at 6" or 12" targets. Hits were easy if you knew the distance! The hardest was judging the distance correctly.

With todays technogy in accurate dial scopes and range finders...imo it's real easy to play sniper today!

Don't tell smoke or formy that! You'll start a chitstorm...

You should be taking notes Burns.............. ....but more importantly, Form has stated many times what his guys (team members) use in competition on their personal rifles. I don't want to misquote him so I'll let him set the record straight as he is quite capable of doing so.

Educate us then....


I was on the ranges and at the meetings when it was being "sold" to the military. I was there for the transition from the 10x40 M3, to the 3-5-10x40 M3LR, the TS-30, 5.5-22x50 NF, 2.5-10x2mm NF, 3.5-15X50 NF F1, Leupold 6.5-20x50 34mm, and S&B PSR.

Rapid Z at 572 yards. I could easily smack a deer quickly with a full value wind and odd yardarge. The reticle gets me as far as I will take a hunting a shot with ease and is not cluttered or confusing to my eye.

Scope is a 2-10x42 set on 9x.

Same for me. Only "problem" I could foresee would be in any wind value of > 10mph. Could still make it work, but would not be holding the reticle on POI under those circumstances. I easily make hits using the Rapid Z out to the limits of the reticle with wind blowing 13+ mph, as it does here most of the time, but that was not with a full value wind.

John

ct,

Thanks for the referance. What was the power the scope was on? Could you take a picture with it "calibrated" for a 30cal 168gr BT or AMAX at 2,700fps to try and maintain the same representation?



Hondo and ctsmith,

Given that such discussions are difficult over the Internet, what are the advantages in the Rapid -Z over a good mil based reticle with mil adjustments in your experiences? If accuracy/speed references are used I would appreciate clarification- i.e. target size, time to hit, position, etc.



As far as the Rapid- Z goes, my statements about holding in air are not in reference to above or off the animal. Instead it means that if there is not a bisecting line accross the target (target being the spot you want to hit on an animal) then you are holding in "air" in the reticle. It is about the reticle, not the target. A deers vitals at 470 yards in a 10mph wind would be in between lines and hence- in air. I have used the Rapid -Z quite a bit. Had to shoot more rounds than I care with it.


How accurate is the mag range to know that you are on precisely the correct power? How is your ability to set it at that power precisely under time/physical constraints? How comfortable would you be shooting the drill I posted- 1 inch dot at 100 yards with zero offset to align with 470 yard/10mph mark?

Everyone on this thread espousing the greatness of ballistic second focal plane reticles made by many rifle scope manufacturers would be very depressed if they had the equipment necessary to actually check to see if the reticle subtensions given by the manufacturer are correct.

Then there's the problem with BDC trees matching the actual drop of your load.

For them to work, the scope must be set to its highest power, and even then many are incorrect.

I'd like to know if there is even one dude on this forum other than me that has actually tested a scope properly with equipment dedicated to the task?












It's hilarious to read posts on the 'fire stating "this scope doesn't track, the click values of brand X are wrong, brand X doesn't adjust correctly" etc... posted by dudes who just guess.

I'd be interested to hear your military background champ.....I don't think you can hang with Form....

Am assuming you have proof of your claim?

This has been enjoyable. But you guys aren't saying that people actually think that they can take a ballistic compensating reticle. Shoot it with out FPS, bullet weight, BC, and all other normal info needed on the calculator. And expect to be where the manufacture of the scope says???


Take care, Willie

Chuck,

I have not timed shots with either the Rapid Z or Mil based reticles. I only know that it feels quicker to me to range, line up on or between the appropriate yardage lines in the Rapid Z and squeeze off the shot. I don't have to refer to a drop chart, only my wind value chart. With my LRHS or SS, I have to refer to my drop and wind value chart, dial the appropriate mil value on the elevation turret and hold the appropriate amount for wind on the reticle. I have not timed it, but have done both processes enough to know that it FEELS like referencing my drops and dialing takes me more time to do.

As far as target size goes, I've got three 8" round plates and one 12" round plate. I set up so that the 8" plates are at 300, 400 and 500, and the 12" plate at 600. I've used the Rapid Z in a 3-9 Conquest with my .308 barrel and the 2-10 HD5 with my .260 barrel. With the .308, I'm shooting 155gr Scenars at about 2873fps. The Zeiss Calculator said at my environmental conditions that 8x is where I want to be and that has worked perfectly. With the .260, I've played with it using 3 different loads, 140gr Berger Hybrids at 2750 (8.5x), 140gr Hybrids at 2700 (8x) and 130gr VLDs at 2911 (10x). In every instance, the Zeiss calculator has been right on, allowing me to consistently make hits on my plates out to the limits of the reticle. The Zeiss calculator provides the appropriate mag in .5x increments. The zoom ring on my Zeiss are marked in .5x increments. Setting it consist of glancing at the mag ring and verifying I am on the appropriate mag. Unlike using an elevation turret, the magnification required does not change from one distance to the next, which is nice.

I get what you are saying about target size. As targets get smaller, there would be a point where the Rapid Z would be a detriment. No way I'd be trying to hit 1" targets with that reticle. However, on my 8" plates, which are a smaller target than a typical Whitetail's vitals, I have found the Rapid Z to be no hindrance at all. I consistently get hits on my plates all the way out to the limits of the reticle, 600 yards. There is one advantage The Rapid Z has over my LRHS that I have definitely observed. The Rapid Z's reticle is more usable during the last ten minutes of legal shooting light. I loose the windage marks on the LRHS during the last few minutes. I can see the range lines and windage marks of the Rapid Z just a few minutes longer.

Dialing definitely has some advantages. It's more precise. It is better for small targets. I can stretch things out MUCH farther than the Rapid Z. If I want to play at farther than 600, I put the LRHS on. Only takes a minute. I haven't hunted with the Rapid Z yet. Will be doing so this fall. For the hunting I do in the places I hunt, I think it will do just fine, and for me, requires fewer mental gymnastics.

John

I think Form is buying his targets from BGG.




Travis

Rick,

In regards to the Rapid Z, that statement is patently false. With the Zeiss, you set the magnification so that the reticle best matches the trajectory of your load. It is very easy to do and works great. I have verified it many times, not by using instrumentation, but on actual steel.

http://www.zeissrapidz.com/Calculate.aspx

John

Rapid Z pic: 2-10x42 set on 9x.

It feels quicker to get a shot off, or quicker to make a hit? They're not the same

Regarding your comment about the magnification being the same at all distances unlike with turrets, you still have to compensate POA for distance, regardless of the system being used, whether you dial a turret or hold the reticle on the correct hash mark after figuring out which one to use. But in the case of the RZ, you also have to check the magnification, which turrets don't require. So the RZ actually necessitates an extra step.

My statement is the truth.

Can't access the page you post but it matters not. Sure, there are ways around the problem, but most don't have the inclination to solve the problem. The best way to go is a FFP reticle set up in MRad or MOA on both axis.

Dialing is best but if you need to hold over quickly, you still can with a FFP reticle by checking your paper data on your rig or from memorized practice. The subtensions are the same regardless of your scope's power setting. Comes in handy when you forget to increase the power on your second focal plane scope so your reticle actually works.

Listen to me now, thank me later...

Hondo,

I appreciate that. I'll be doing long range again week after next. I'll throw some numbers up.

Btw- with your particulars (155gr Scenar at 2,873) in SAC, your dope falls within .1 mil of this-

100- zero
200- .5 mil
300- 1 mil
400- 2 mil
500- 3 mil
600- 4 mil


Your 260 loads also fall within .1mil as well. Mil reticles ARE BDC's. Or can be. There is a whole bunch of good things that happen when reticles are graduated the same as their adjustments.

John, how in the heck did you find your way around a Longbow when you can't even figure out that the RZ is not working for you?

That's how I roll.

The gravy is nice too.

This is the 'hunting optics' forum.

6x and dots works 99% of the time for shooting at a deer.

Open sight or duplex.




Or an uberplex or knobs or whatever. And then the wind fuucks it all up....

Have you ever used a Rapid Z reticle?, Or even looked through one? Or are you just guessing?

John

This what I quoted you as saying:



And it is NOT true of the Rapid Z.

John

Depends on your load's drops.

Are you saying the Rapid Z matches every bullet you can shoot? Laughable

Nearly makes me wish I lived in SA conditions. Just kidding.

Doesn't pan out that way where I'm located. .4 mils off your numbers by 600 yards, or by only .2 if you're using meters.

John

If you can explain this, I'm all ears...
It's not in MOA or MRad. Centimeters? Are you phugging kidding me?

Proof that his statement is funny (it made me laugh) or proof that his statement is incorrect?

Here's a hint, the RFPs are open source.

You called me Champ.

All most forgot, I was in the Air Force. I suspect I spent more time deployed OCONUS than Formy did. Okay I was stationed for 3 1/2 years on Kadena.

Of course Formy can come clean and let us all know his background but we have been down that road before. He likes to be vague.

Rick,

It's Mils. 1 CM at 100 Meters is 0.1 Mil. Sort of.

There are a few different Mils.

I'm saying you're guessing at best. I'm not. It is not a perfect match but is very close. When shooting at a deer's vitals I can live with 3 yards of difference at 600. The nine yards difference at 400 is still < 2" of error. I can live with that too...

If you would go to the link I posted you would get an idea of how it works. You select the scope and reticle you are using, put in your load data, atmospherics sight height and it will calculate which magnification best matches the reticle to your load. It is generally very close, as in each line is likely to be no more than 4 yards off their labeled value. I have verified this by actual shooting.

Here, I'll make it easy for you:



John

Rick,

You're looking at the version for the European line. I've not found the sub tensions published for the Conquest Rapid Zs. 1cm at 100m is pretty darn close to .1 mil though�

John

Let's cut the bullchit. The reason we have scopes on our rifles is to be able to accurately place bullets on targets.

The reason a shotgunner fits his shotgun is the same; to hit more targets.

If more hunters would fit their shotguns as a target shooter would, they would kill more birds, plain and simple.

The same goes with rifle shooting.

A Hunter's concern is to be able to accurately deliver a bullet to their intended target. That's what this thread is about; which is the best method to accomplish the task?

Why wouldn't a rifle hunter set his rifle up like a rifle target shooter? Doing so will result in better shooting.

If you don't believe so, simply go to a practical field match that mirrors hunting and use your holdover reticle. After you complete the match, look for your name and score at the bottom of the page.

Rick,

How accurate do I need to be? If I am easily putting rounds in vital sized targets out to 600 yards, is that not good enough? On a ten inch vital zone, I will give up an inch or two of precision to cut my engagement time by a second or two.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy dialing too, and do so often, albeit only out to 825 yards or so, which is about as far as I can stretch it on my place.

I just like the simplicity of the Rapid Z. I bought one out of curiosity and continue to be amazed by how simple and easy, yet effective it is. So much so that I bought another.

Believe me, if at any time I feel the setup has failed me and I miss a shot on a deer I feel confident I would have made if dialing the LRHS, I will post it right here for everyone to see.

I just gotta ask you though�

Have you tried a Rapid Z?

If so did you take the time to find out what magnification best matched your load's trajectory?

If so, were you not able to make hits on vital sized targets out to the limits of the reticle?

Thanks,

John

Edited to add that a match that is supposed to replicate hunting scenarios does sound like a blast and I would love to give one a try. Is there a list of upcoming events by state?

I've owned and used the RZ600 quite a bit. In fact I witnessed a bud miss an elk at 492 yards because his RZ was on the wrong magnification and he was too hyped up to notice...

But it does need to be on one specific mag, most commonly the max magnification if that is where one is Zero'd and dope recorded and practiced.

John,

I think events like that are few and far between. Anyone interested in a postal match? I think it could be fun...

Carl

John,

You're almost there. Just missing a 0 and a .

Sounds like a good fime!

If a few guys would do it, I'd draw up some targets and a course of fire.

I'm in on a postal match..... that sounds like a good time.

I'm thinking a sub-8lb rifle, no bipod class would be eye opening....

Turrets don't give a shiet about magnification.

Like I said there are a few different Mils. I was referencing Wyoming Mils.

There are 62,831.85 Wyo Mils in a circle.

I had a scope setup with 10 Wyo Mils per rotation but I got carpal tunnel syndrome and had to go back to my standard 20 MOA per rotation.

Regarding the magnification issue, for me, anything sfp for hunting over 10x is useless. Use the 2-10x42, set it, and run a ring of tape around the power ring to lock it down. Mine is calibrated at 8.5x. If one cant overcome this I highly recommend not using it. It would be nice if zeiss made a locking power ring.

Do we have this settled yet?




Travis

Jordan,

One specific mag is the truth of the matter. And if you have an exceptionally flat cartridge, there will be curves it cannot match.

As far as your buddy not having the capacity to check the magnification� Would he have better been able to reference his drop and wind charts and dial the correct amount in? Sounds like he would have missed the bull if he were using anything other than a laser cannon.

John

I think they have it worked out..... In the mean time I am going to drive to Wyoming, kill a deer, drive home and then check back on this thread to be sure.

Why have a variable? I guess it's the only way Zeiss can get you to you 'Optimum' setting.

What fun would that be?

John

I would try to be as accurate as possible. And it's possible to be more accurate.

It's great that you are hitting the plates to the ranges you say, but like formy says, animals don't stand out there at convenient 100 yard increments. I understand that if you get a good range you can bracket him and it will work.

Now add in some wind and you're holding over and out somewhere in outer space (what we call it. formy calls it holding in "air") and the guessing really starts to yield poor results.

You'll be much better off dialing with the Zeiss (if it actually works, but that's another story) at the ranges you're talking about. Also, setting the scope on "9" to make the reticle work would really put me at a handicap for shooting 500 and 600 yard targets, even game. It definitely reduces precision. I prefer a lot more power at long range.

Using the reticle like Jordan and I have said, does require the scope to be set on a specific magnafication. You can screw it up. I've done it and you see that Jordan has seen it happen in a critical situation. Then there's the question if you actually have the power in the right place on the ring. A little more or a little less will affect the reticle spacing.

I have not used the Rapid Z. I have in fact used a similar system that Leupold has, the Varmint Hunter Reticle (VHR). I had two scopes set up with them. I thought this would be a good choice for a ballistic reticle for hunting when I first began getting into long range. Long story short, gaining actual experience at long range in pressure situations teaches you what works best, and it's not that type of ballistic reticle.

I spent quite a lot of time checking the subtensions on the equipment pictured in one of my posts. I wanted to make sure that they were exactly what Leupold said they were on 20X. They were.

Leupold always nails the reticle.

How they explain the subtensions is quite a lot easier to understand. It's set up in MOA drop for a generic load for a varmint rifle.



So I took my already developed accurate load that I knew the MOA drops for from Ballistic AE and simply matched the drop with the reticle MOA drops from line to line. Made a map and put it on the scope bell so I couldn't F it up.



I also hung the dope off of the scope to be precise when I can dial...




Since then I've gained experience and have had both scope's reticles changed out to the TMR. On max power a mil is a mil and everything is perfect. Leupold always nails the reticle.

As for the fun matches I'm talking about, you'll want to come to Whittington Center for the every-month Sporting Rifle Match. I think some guys in Douglas, WY have started an identical match as well.

Sniper's Hide Cup, Steel Safari are more serious competition, but I would recommend attending.

Belive me, no one is holding over with a Ballistic Reticle. If they are, they're not doing well.

That is true. A Christmas Tree reticle in a fixed power would have limitations I would not be willing to run with. I played with a LRD for a while and didn't like it. No wind reference and the dots didn't match trajectory in any way that could be described as intuitive.

John

Correct. My one hesitation is not the concept or application of the RZ but my distrust in hunting weight variables.

In short, turrets rule, got it!

You will notice that I've made no assertion that one is better than the other, neither am I trying to convince anybody. I suggest doing whatever floats your boat as long as you practice and get efficient and effective with it, knowing all limitations.

For me, "long range" reticles have no business in the low light deer woods. The Rapid Z is very adequate for such and can get me out to my max comfort range if the situation should present itself (cotton/peanut field in these parts). That is the allure for me.

And to be clear, I will never be a "long range" hunter. Lets call it medium range; 500 yards comfortable max with 600 the absolute limit. I have a 400 yard range at my back door and wear it out. When I have time to go elsewhere to stretch it out (not often enough), 500 is still pretty much a slam dunk. After that I start loosing comfort.

I believe range is the disconnect here. 500 yards, with practice, is not difficult with any system.

Life is simple, if it is beyond 400 yards.I get closer.I use a plain duplex reticle and holdover.I have windage and elevation holdover taped to my rifle stock in 50 yard increments according to the load in the rifle I am using.I sight at 3"high at a 100 which in most cartridges is around 14" low at 400.I use my range finder and make my adjustments and shoot.I do not want to twist dials and look at some freaky reticle.I am a hunter and not a wanna be sniper.I very seldom miss.I am for using KISS!!!!!

For you guys that spin. What is a reasonably reliable brand that in hunting conditions. Would remain true when spinning, that won't break the bank??



Take care, Willie

Rick,

I'll run the Rapid Z this fall and let everyone know if I feel handicapped. What can I say? If effective, I like simple� If it doesn't work for me, I'll let everyone know. Crow, prepared properly, is one of my favorite meals.

Questions on the Sporting Rifle Matches. I'm looking on the Whittington Center's website and didn't see any Sporting Rifle Matches listed. Are they on a specific weekend every month? Raton is only about 6 hours, so that would be doable over a weekend and could be much fun. Is there something that shows how the matches are conducted?

Thanks,

John

SWFA SS is the choice there Willie.

SWFA Super Sniper on the cheap. Bushnell LRHS is more, but VERY nice for the $ (about $1k street price).

John

My 6X42 Leupolds are reliable. Both the M8 and FX 3 type.

My new-ish 10X Super Sniper is fuggin' UBER.



Travis

Thanks


Take care, Willie

sportingriflematch.com

That sounds like a bunch of fun, but I can see why a Rapid Z would not be the thing to use there. My reticle maxes out at 600. I'm definitely gonna try some, but with ranges up to 875, I'll be dialing. I'll bring the LRHS.

Too bad there's nothing before February�

John

Postal match could be fun.

A lot of different ways to do it, but it would be interesting to include a bunch of timed targets shot from offhand, kneeling, sitting, prone, and improvised field rests. Known distance and UKD.

Since we can post the pictures directly to the thread, we could probably save a lot of stamps.




Travis

I have one drill that I like to do at 100 yards that is somewhat like that, but uses par times. I was thinking of something a bit different for this, but I find it to be a useful drill to make me practice some of my less favored positions. I'll post it in a moment.

Doing mixed distance and mixed targets gets tricky with a postal match, since everyone is working with different range conditions and different steel, if they even have any. It'd be a far better test, but it would be more work to do and would be more exclusive than short range paper. Not sure what the best answer is there.

Indeed.

And I would not trust people like me to shoot at "unknown" distances.

Hint.







Travis

I'll smoke alla you fuggers..

Shrapnel showed me how.

For my position shooting drill, I print out one each of these targets and post them up at 100 yards. This works best if you are using a setup that can be zeroed dead on at 100 somehow.

(They need to be printed out at 100% scale, and then they are still in shooter MOA, not true MOA)



The first round is shot with no time limits.

7MOA = 2 shots offhand
5MOA = 2 shots sitting
3MOA = 2 shots sitting with sticks
2MOA = 2 shots prone (can use a pack, but no rear bag, no bipod)



The second round is a repeat, but with a 15 second par time. I set a timer on my phone, if the shot isn't taken BEFORE the buzzer, it doesn't count.

7MOA = 2 shots offhand in 15 seconds
5MOA = 2 shots sitting in 15 seconds
3MOA = 2 shots sitting with sticks in 15 seconds
2MOA = 2 shots prone in 15 seconds



The third round is a "medley". One shot from each position, with a 60 second par time.

7MOA = 1 shot offhand
5MOA = 1 shot sitting
3MOA = 1 shot sitting with sticks
2MOA = 1 shot prone
...all in 60 seconds.


It's scored out of 20. On good days I can shoot high teens, on a bad day I'll usually get 13 or 14. I'm certain someone who was GOOD would clean it consistently. I'm on the edge of needing to shrink the targets, but then it would be tougher for the newer shooters I sometimes work with.

That would work as a postal match, but I was thinking of something more pertinent to the original discussion of this thread.

Billy,

My buds and I have been talking about a similar course which includes a few zip-lines with moving targets. Nothing too fast, but something that would simulate a critter wandering off. Shooter would have to get on target quickly, and rifle set-up/choice would be important.

And targets that are not the size of manhole covers. I think SRM uses realistic target sizes.

I can smell the 24hrC Rifle Challenge brewing...

Jason

I shoot a mix of what ya'll are posting.

A precision/tactical match and a Practical Rifle Match.

You need the same equipment for both styles to do well in regards to rifle/scope/data

The Precision Matches are "sniper" style matches with targets as close as 10 yards and out as far as you can shoot. Lots of 100 yard precision paper work. Lots of odd positions including standing, sitting, kneeling, unsupported prone, prone.

We shoot from mock house windows, off of mock rooftops with pitch, barricades, tunnels, etc...

Sometimes we cant the gun 90 degrees and shoot simulating having to engage targets from under a car. Hell, we even have a wrecked car at the range we use as a prop to shoot from and out of. We've shot a stage we call the "NM Antelope hunting stage" where a guy lends his truck to the shoot, we shoot at long range targets from the bed, the cab, the hood etc

All of this is under time.


The Practical Rifle matches are just that; Practical.

Long range steel generally, engaged under time from field positions. Mostly all from prone at the Sporting Rifle Match with a few sticks shots mixed in. The Steel Safari is a different story and is extremely difficult in the way of shooting positions. Difficulty is added by the fact that you have to FIND, RANGE AND SHOOT, your targets under time while figuring out how to get a rest.

The Steel Safari is widely regarded as the toughest Practical Rifle Match in the country.

In my book, it is the way a match should be. It replicates exactly what you have to do in the field when hunting.


The Precision Matches will make you one hell of a shooter, especially positionally. Problem solving is something you learn as well that is directly applicable to hunting scenarios.



To tie this into the thread with regard to dialing, holding etc., we do both and are required to do so at certain stages at the Precision Match. Under time in certain situations it is far more advantageous to do so if the targets are large enough.

Most of the time you'll be dialing in both styles.

An MRad or MOA reticle is really the best option even if used for holding over. The Christmas Tree Ballistic Reticles are a poor choice.

If we do those 100 yard drills can I run the 5 MOA target throughout? I intend to use aperture sights.

Sure, that sounds fair. I'll create a thread for it over in Hunting Rifles, as this doesn't really seem like an Optics forum competition.

Link:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/9213006#Post9213006

Excellent. To partly demonstrate what's on this thread, shoot it exactly how your rifle is zeroed. If you're zeroed 2in high at 100 yards, or 3.5in high, or whatever, then shoot it that way. Don't rezero to 100 yards if you're a holder. Also start with the scope on the lowest power if a variable for each stage.


Carl,

Each stage is started from the standing for the timed drills, correct?

Why?

John

Don�t rezero at 100 yards if you�re a dialer, either. Stick with dialing your scope to 1 or 2 inches high at 100, which anybody worth their salt is going to have their scope set on during a hunt.

My rifle is dead nuts @ 100yds. Does this mean I'm not worthy my own salt? And if so, how much was my salt worth to begin with?




Travis

Oops! ALL my rifles, dots or turret are zeroed at 100 yds�..


Looks like I'd best rethink this whole thing�..

So when you�re hunting you don�t spin your turreted rifle to be a couple inches high at 100, thus giving you a MBPR type zero for quick shots out to 300ish yards without any worrying about using a laser, spinning a turret, or using a dot?

What I was getting at is that having a MBPR zero shouldn�t matter with this drill, as it�s more of a speed drill. Which is great. Everybody should be able to set their scopes for 100, or nobody.

Mine is dead nuts @ 100.




Travis

This is my intention on THIS drill, not to practice holding somewhere other than the middle. That'll be the next one I have in mind.

Most of my rifles are zero's dead on at 100, but I'll hunt them with .5 mil of elevation cranked in. Used to be all of them were that way, but I do it a little different with my LRHS scopes. I set the 0 on the turret .4 or .5 high at 100 as a hunting zero, then set the zero stop a below that, dead on at 100 yards.

I keep the majority of mine dead nuts on at 100 too. Guess I ain't worth a salt either.

I zero at 100 as well.

Before all this modern chit came along. I always took a regular duplex scope. Sighted my rifles anywhere from 3 to 6 inches high at 100. Depending on the cal. And what zero I was looking for. Than would check the mid ranges. And would hold over or under according to ballistic calculation. Than I started to cheat with ballistic radicals because they were cheaper than a good spinner. Now when I figure I would get a spinner and sight dead on at 100. And hold over out to 300ish. And spin based on the 100yd zero. Some one comes along explaining that I am all fugged up. And should keep stretching the barrel buy zeroing high at 100. What the fugg???



Take care, Willie

That's a great way to set up.

I absolutely stand by what I said about sighting in and hunting with a dead on at 100 sight in for an all around rifle. For those who don't see shots over a couple hundred yards, it's fine. But for everyone else, it can and will get a guy in trouble when something huge steps out a bit further out, and there's no time to use an LRF.

Its just what I like, and is second nature to me, I dont need to dial in to make a 300 yard shot from a 100 yard zero, but will if i have time.

Utilizing your rifles MPBR along with a turret aint a bad way to fly, it just aint for me..It also seems most of the misses I see, are because they miss high, MPBR works out nice on paper, so long as the shooter remembers it in the field..I just keep it simple.

It ain't magic. If you hunt the tundra spin a few before walking out. If you hunt a lot of areas I've hunted/hunt. One hour I might be dealing with 60 yard shots in the brush, an hour later 300 yard+.

Not a fan of threading a needle with 3" high.

More of a challenge with a SFP reticle scope and any "Christmas tree" or any other guessing type reticle I'd imagine.

I'm not a fan of the 3" high way of things, either. If I run into a coyote while deer hunting the midrange trajectory might just put one over it's back. There's a fine line of where to zero, which of course depends on BC, velocity, and all that jazz.

Having an inch or two to work with at 100 is the sweet spot, for me. In most reasonably flat shooting rounds it will give 300 yards of no thought, no LRF needed, pull the trigger to dead animal goodness.

With a regular old scope and duplex hairs. You aren't shooting past three hundred fifty either??


Take care, Willie

Possibly. One just needs to learn how one's trajectory matches up with the reticle. There are several fellows on here who are quite adept at using a regular old duplex out to quite a bit over 350 yards. I think my furthest kill with a standard duplex was on a previously wounded (by another fellow) pronghorn at just over 400 yards with a Leupold 8x on a 223. I had been shooting prairie dogs all summer with the rifle, and knew the trajectory like the back of my willie.

Agree. That was what I was trying to say. I can't remember now as I have been cheating with the dots, and ballistic reticles. But on the cheat index card I use to keep in my hat. If I remember their were spots +13" with 500 zero. With pretty flat shooters.



Take care, Willie

Back in the good old days when I owned one rifle and shot one load, I could do pretty darn well with a duplex reticle in a Weaver V7.

I shot an '06 with a 165 gr ballistic tip over 60 gr of H4831. And I shot it at everything, especially bunches of ground squirrels all summer.

The zero was 300 and there was a drop chart on the stock. It just ain't that tough to hold five or six inches under a ground squirrel to connect at midrange trajectory.

I can not count how many grouse I killed by putting the cross hair right where the neck meets the shoulder. It would cut the head off cleaner than a whistle.

Once I got out past 400, I used the taper of the bottom post. Today I do not remember exactly what the subtension of the fine wire was. But by using the point of the bottom cross wire with hold over/under I could reliably kill rocks out a bit past 600 yds.

We had no rangefinders. When shooting for fun, that is how we honed our range estimation skills. We would guess a range to a rock, and then shoot it. High or low......told us how far off our estimate was.

BDC reticles are nice toys. But we killed a lot of game before they came into existence. And turrets simply have not been reliable enough to trust for very long.

I am pretty sure our sniper units made it through 'Nam with neither.

I had one of the first Redfield Accutrac scopes to hit the market and also a Bushnell BDC back about 1980. Neither would track well enough for reliable use on a varmint rifle. And I demand more from a game rifle than I do a varmint rifle, because the shot matters more.

So I learned to do all I need to with a duplex. It will still do the job if a guy is dedicated enough to learn it.

Thank you. You are probably aware of the saying beware of the guy who shoots one gun also.



Take care, Willie

I would, if I did.


Every rifle I use is zeroed at 100 yards. From the 10.5in M4 to the 338L. I used to do the +2 MOA deal while hunting and it works. It's a long explanation, but most miss high no matter the range and it's much simpler to dial or hold "up" for everything. Almost every thing I shoot is .5mil at 200 and 1 mil at 300 +/- a tenth or two.

If ya shoot high, when in your hand in black and white it says +13''. It has to be because you have no idea what 13'' low on said target is correct???

Take care, Willie

It depends upon whether the shot is taken consciously or subconsciously. If you have time, or feel that you have time and can consciously think through the shot, sure one should be able to visualize what "13in" low would be (though I have no idea why one would set a "zero" as such). However, if the shot is rushed subconsciously we want to align the object of our desires, with the only reference that we have... The crosshairs. Throw in the fact that we also tend to want to aim a "little high" because it's looks far, and you get lots of high shots.

Again, nothing trumps having the bullet land where the crosshairs intersect. 40 yards or 400.

QUOTE : " Throw in the fact that we also tend to want to aim a " little high " because it looks far, and you get lots of high shots,"


This was the part I really wanted to hear. And everyone should know, this is a human inflicted problem. And should not be blamed on the ballistic calculator, or the zero the shooter chooses to sight in at. Knowing and having the cheat card triumphs all bullchit. And as far as rushing. all my rushed shots have been inside 150yds. Which is usually irrelevant. As I have belly line or a little day light for reference insurance.


But all bullchit aside. Dad is eighty two, and still clover leafs his share on the bench. And will never change, as in the north country of Pa. His shots are in the magical 0 to 400 max. Which would falsely lead one to think it is long range shooting. My conditions are very different. And am thankful that approaching 60 their are newer mouse traps. ( laser range finders, and reliable turrets.) And as you know after 350. Where at the fifty yard increments and things start dropping like a rock. That is where school really begins. And as one of the other poster, maybe you said. "Center becomes real important to be exactly center". Enjoyed the topic!


Take care, Willie

I am pretty sure "our sniper units" made due with blackpowder during the Civil War. I am not going to base my hunting on techniques from 'Nam.

Just my opinion.

I carry most any centerfire with a 200yds zero but I have zeros from 5 yds to whatever 20 MOA gets me (usually 800-1100 yds) from that particular rifle. If I am trying to hit a 1" dot at 100yds I will have a 100yd zero on the gun.

A postal match sound fun but just shooting at 100yds doesn't seem like a good way to test the effectiveness of various trajectory compensation methods.

Aside from Formy's LDS I think he is pretty much spot on with his analysis of reticle compensation vs turret compensation for trajectory compensation. In my experience the ballistic type reticle beats guessing but falls far short of the turret when speed and precision are objectively measured.

Of course a custom Drop Compensating Turret is the most effective method of turret compensation.

No, it's not easier to hold "up" for everything. Sight in 2" or so high at 100 with about any reasonably flat shooting cartridge (or keep your turreted rig dialed a couple inches high at 100 while hunting), and there is no holding or dialing or anything except pulling the trigger, out as far as most big game is shot. There is also no worry about shooting over a big game animal's back with such a zero, as the mid range trajectory isn't enough to worry about.

I can shoot tomcats in the head at 20 yards or mule deer at 420 yards without ever touching a thing. And without a crazy ass reticle, simple duplex and 2 unobtrusive little dots. Fixed 6x w/LRD, the ultimate in simple for people like me who forget to dial before shooting.


Beyond 400-450 yards it really does suck though, and in a big way....grin

Would be a pretty easy head to head....

Set up two pieces of steel side by side.... and shoot one of them off the Mil-based reticle.... the other by dialing the dope.... alternate dialing/holding the first shot... and do it at random yardages from 350-700 or so.

You'll even have exact dope that matches your reticle (cause that's what you're using to dial and hold wind anyway).... and I bet dialing still wins.

Agree with Sammo�I just had the chance to shoot out to 400 yes with the two set-ups. A turret on one and dots on the other. At those ranges there was no real difference, but I remember from when I shot longer ranges, and would definitely opt for a turret past 400...

I don't even shoot anymore but a simple dot setup works just fine, just like a good pair of training wheels.....grin


400 yards is like mini golf to the LR shooters though.

Wind is the real mother. Duplex and a turret would work fine if not for that pesky wind. I was shooting at 1000 last weekend and finally dialed wind because it was steady and I figured out where it was moving POI by using the hash marks first.

Steady wind? Doesnt compute.

I took a spotter shot, made a note where it hit in terms of MOA by using my MOA reticle, and dialed it in. I could have held off, but it seemed to be consistent so I dialed. I don't usually dial wind though.

The week before the wind was changing constantly, and it wasn't a fun game of chase. It was anywhere from 1-4 moa at 1000. I kept guessing between gusts.

it was humor..Steady wind seems to be a myth when I shoot.

This is the deal. Inconsistent winds will baffle the best shooters on the planet.

Actually what nailed the coffin in running 200 or 250 yard on the turret when hunting was a miss high. 80-90 yards I could see the head and little more than about 4 inches of back on the other side of a rise. Had 250 dialed in and aimed center. Creased the the hair. Ran a circle and presented a full on broadside shot. That one didn't miss. Around then is when I also started using a 100m zero on m4's instead of a 50/200.


I've done it both ways. It takes more time to read this sentence than it does to decide whether to hold .5 or 1 mil. For that matter there's no reason that one has to do that.... High shoulder shoot everything and from muzzle to 300 or so it lands in the chest. For me and what I do day to day, it makes no sense to run the hunting rifles any different.

For a novice shooter, nothing beats a good range finder and turrets for any shot over 200 yds. The system has definite trainable steps to take and is easy to learn.

If a hunter is prone to buck fever and likely to forget his hold over/under, turrets are the perfect solution.

I will gladly admit, the limitations of the way I use a scope restricts my hunting shots to 500 yds.

But I will also maintain there is no faster way to get a shot on game from 300 yds to 500 yds than with a duplex sighted well beyond 100 yds. I like to find a good perch and laze a few land marks where game might appear, or a shot present itself. Then when a shootable animal appears I just slip into a shooting position and pull the trigger.

But to me, a target is just a target, whether it wears hair or not.

My elk rifle:


One of these days I will get a buck with this one, or maybe a wolf. So far just a few coyotes and a couple fox, oh and lots of whistle pigs.



And this one is only good for 300 yds on deer until it gets a new barrel. I loan it to the kids when season rolls around.



The 264 (2'nd pic) has a decent scope (6.5-20 Viper) with turrets. I simply have not found a need for them yet.

The 6mm-284 (bottom) has a Burris 4.5-14 with BDC. Preliminary investigations indicate that with a 300 yd zero the BDC marks will work pretty well at 400, 500, 600, and perhaps 700 yds. This bears further investigation.

BDC reticles suck. Gimme turrets and a duplex.......

A 308 zeroed for 200yd, with typical 150/165gr loads, will be two inches (aprox) high at 100yd and about 7-8in low at 300yd. Also, it'll be two feet low at 400yd. They made us memorize this in SOTIC ages ago and also the DOPE for a 500yd zero (that I've forgotten), which is how a lot of the US Army snipers rolled in Vietnam. Rick Boucher (NCOIC) was in a position to know, since he was one. The 500yd thing worked fairly well on a vertical human torso in the open, but it would never work for game.

Interestingly, the two inch underhold at 100yd is the reverse of the 2in holdover with an M4 at CQB distance. 100m zero on an M4? Not me, though I know a few steely-eyed killers who swear by it.

A long barrel and hot-loaded 155gr Scenars will flatten that 300/400yd DOPE out quite a bit.

IS: I'm familiar with that first dope sheet...if it's what I think it is, it's spot on.....

Unfortunately more people can afford to buy tools they don't know how to use, and don't have access to ranges where they can experience them.

Which makes the simpler solutions that are harder to screw up better for some.
How shocked some shooter are when they first shoot 300-500 and find out that this ultra mag rail lazer they bought has much more drop than they expected at range still makes me smile.
Taking them out in kansas wind for longer poke Pdog shooting gets them over holding in air really fast as well.

Yup....if you can't practice it,you can't shoot it.

100% agree, after 45+ years of hunting I started playing around with longer ranges. It was enlightening, wind is voodoo and big wind quickly reduces the range at which I am effective.

Shooting from different positions can enlighten you also. Learning to really shoot a rifle is much different than sitting at a bench and sighting a rifle in at 100 yards.

As far the OP, I have come to like turrets!

Randy

I don't think BDC is made for long distance shooting. Quick acquisition is all its good for. which in most hunting situations is what you need. but you have to take it out and see how things work in real world.
I have 3 Nikon BDC scopes. I took my TC Venture 270 out today to get ready for the deer and elk season coming up with barnes 130 TTSX. according to spot my hash marks (circles) are 241, 352, 451 and 587 yards. 8" round target fit into the circle really nice. I was at 365 yards. I figured thats close enough to use the 2 hash mark. I sent 2 rounds off. I couldn't see where it hit at 9x. So I went to look at it and I think thats acceptable shooting for someone who doesn't shoot long distance. But according to Spot on I was to be shooting little low and turned out to be little high instead. I don't think Id go past the 450 mark.

OK. More on the Rapid Z�

I thought about some of the situations where some of you thought the Rapid Z would be less than ideal. So, today, I went out to my place, zeroed my .260 w/ 130gr VLDs at 200 yards. The Zeiss Rapid Z Calculator showed the lines should have been on at 297, 391, 496, and 601. After zeroing, I drove out into the pasture to a random distance then ranged with the laser rangefinder. Turned out my plates were at 170, 270, 370 and 470. Wind was at about 5 o'clock at 11mph. I held for a 3mph wind which turned out to be a little much, but here's the results:

8" plate at 170 yards:



8" plate at 270 yards:



8" plate at 370 yards.



12" plate at 470 yards.



Now supposedly, the weakness with the Rapid Z and similar reticles lies in the 'tweener ranges where you cannot have one of the yardage lines on the desired point of impact. Maybe I ain't as sharp as the naysayers, but I fail to see where each and every one of these shots wouldn't have resulted in a very dead deer.

John

John, we know you shot that with the Bushy.

You know I didn't, but I don't see where I could have done any better with the LRHS. Dead is dead�

John

Ruger #1 in 7mmSTW

Figured STW. Thanks.

I think leupolds custom drop dials work pretty darn well for most people, even those who don't have a great grasp of how drop works.

Wind on the other hand - one has to see what it does to believe it

A dial helps, but given the two variables of wind speed and range you still need a drift chart.

Dig that Schwazzle.....