I am in the process of determining my long range optic for my custom Borden build in 300 WSM. Last year you guys helped me with turret tutoring. Now I need to determine which reticle would suit my need best. My ultimate goal is to range my target (beyond 350 yards) with my Leica CRF 1000, dial the turret & hold on hair. I am thinking I do not necessarily need a hash marked reticle for this. But, I'm not sure what I need. I do know I want FFP & MOA turrets in the 2.5-10x42 NXS.

The available reticles have me confused. Will Nightforce install your choice in their shop?

This is the MLR 2.0

Really handy I'll bet. The subtension sheet broke it down and it seems really useful. I'd go with MIL turrets

That's wonderful. I do know I want SFP reticle.

The 2.5-10x (any of them) is not an FFP optic. I have one in 24mm and one in 32mm. I don't have the 42mm. What ever choice you make keep your units the same. I shoot DMR matches with the 24mm in .1MRAD with the MIL-R and I deer hunt with the 32mm in .25MOA with MOAR. Those are the only two good reticles as far as I am concerned. I only own the MOA version because they didn't offer the .1MRAD with MIL-R when I ordered my 32mm.

They should have an FFP Compact at SHOT this year. I don't know what it is but I bet it is designed to compete with the Mk6 3-18x44mm. If it is like a mini version of the BEAST I am testing it will be an awesome optic.

Ok, I think I know.....
I simply make an assumption on this based solely on magnification functionality. Why would you want an SFP if the reticle magnification doesn't follow the power setting?

Clearly my ignorance is evident.

I actually like the mil reticles. But, again I assumed the learning curve might be a put off. Am I wrong? They appear to be much simpler. And, I have zero military experience.

It really doesn't matter what units the reticle or knobs are set up for. We can call them "units" and simply hold or dial them according to your drop data.

The scope I posted there was the 3-15 F1 NXS

I agree it doesn't matter what the units are as long as they are the same. For years in the Army I shot MOA dials and Mil reticles. I can do it but don't like to. I have gotten to where I prefer to work in mils but there is nothing wrong with MOA. I just want my dials and reticle to use the same units.

To the OP, I don't think you can have your choice of FFP reticles in any optic you please. They only offer certain reticles in certain optics. I have been shooting the MOAR for a year or two now and MIL-R for about 9 months. Both work really well at 10x (although you can cut the power in half and halve your holds which you will likely never need to do unless you are shooting at night with a clip-on I� sight in front of your day optic) which is where I do all my long range shooting with those optics.

Reloder28,



I like the cross hair to be very fine at longer ranges as I crank up the magnification. Since we have fantastic ranging systems there is no longer a need for FFP reticles for ranging.

If you think FFP reticles are primarily used for ranging, you have a lot to learn about them.

I know they are suppose to be good in low light. But I don't have trouble with the SFP in low light, though.

I don't mind learning about them. What are they primarily for?

They offer consistent subtension for ranging and more importantly, holds.

I originally posted this in another forum:

By far the biggest advantage of a FFP reticle is the ability to make impact correction calls, both windage and elevation, for yourself or your shooting partner, as well as the ability to take calls from a spotter and instantly input them into the reticle without any guesswork, calculating subtensions on a given magnification setting, etc, like you would with a SFP scope. The subtensions are always the same, regardless of magnification. When taking a shot at long range, and especially when it's at an animal, there are a lot of factors to think about- how far away is the animal (LRF can solve that one pretty quickly), what is the wind doing, is it constant in direction and speed, variable but consistent across the trajectory of the bullet, or is it doing different things at different points along the bullet's path, and changing, what is the time and light conditions, is it getting brighter, or is night coming on, what is the angle of the shot, do I have to take the angle into account, what are the atmospheric conditions, what is my drop dope for this shot, and what is my net wind call and dope for the load I'm using, have I dialed the correction into the turret properly, is my magnification set where I want it for this shot so I can see enough of the animal, but still have a good enough field of view that if the animal runs after the shot I can still see where it goes, what is the animal doing, is it constantly moving, does it look like it might leave at any time, or does it look settled, is this a "shoot" or "no shot" situation, etc, etc. Having to worry about the reticle only working properly on one magnification setting, or calculating the reticle subtension at different magnification settings, is one more variable and factor that a person has to consider with an SFP scope. The fewer factors I have to remember and account for, the better.

Having the capability to give accurate corrections as a spotter, is invaluable. Many people, including myself, prefer not to use the scope at max magnification at all times, depending on distance, lighting conditions, etc. All optics struggle to give an image that is equally as bright and clear on max magnification as at a magnification setting somewhere in the middle of their range. As a result, I sometimes use max mag, but other times use a mid-range magnification setting. Having to calculate your reticle subtensions at a given magnification is a lot of math and bother that I prefer not to have to do in the middle of spotting or taking corrections from my spotter. Rather than saying "oh about a foot and a half", or "maybe 1/2 MOA", you can use your reticle to measure the difference between POI and the POA, in angular terms, without any guesswork, and without any delay. It is equally invaluable as the shooter to be able to take a correction call from the spotter and immediately input that correction onto the reticle or the turret, without having to think or calculate anything like you would with a SFP reticle.

Another advantage is the ability to measure a target's size in angular terms without any guesswork or hesitation. Sometimes it's valuable to know that a target is 1 MOA in size, or 1 Mil, or whatever.

Yet another useful purpose of a FFP reticle is the fact that the reticle appears smaller at low magnification, and larger at high mag. While many immediately think "oh well that's no good", with the proper reticle design, it's actually a great advantage. For example, a reticle that has bold, dark posts, and fine crosshairs marked with MOA or Mil intervals, is advantageous for two reasons. First, in failing light, you can zoom up a little to enlarge the posts in the reticle, making them easier to see in low light. The reticle is still small enough toward the low end of the mag range so that the "clutter", aka the lines and numbers on the fine cross hair, are not yet visible or distracting. Second, if shooting at distant targets, you can zoom in even more to make the posts disappear altogether, and the fine hairs and markings show up large enough to be usable and legible.

The argument that FFP reticles cover too much of the target is folly, given the excellent choices available that use reticles that are well-designed. The cross hair in a couple of my FFP scopes cover 0.25 MOA or less, regardless of magnification. Perhaps if shooting BR where a 0.100 MOA in POI will make or break you, I could understand the concern. But a 0.25 MOA or smaller reticle is not going to stop you from shooting 0.3 MOA groups. Now that's assuming the reticle actually covers the center POA. Many FFP reticles these days have a very small vacant center in the middle of the crosshair, so it doesn't cover any of the target at all. 1000 words...



The other argument that FFP reticles are pointless with the quality and affordability of LRF's these days, also misses the mark entirely. Unless somebody just chose not to use a LRF, I see no reason to use a reticle of any type for semi-accurate ranging endeavors. Sure, a ballpark distance is not a bad idea with a reticle, but it's too difficult to range with any sort of exactness with a reticle, whether SFP or FFP, and LRF's are too cheap and plentiful, for me to want to add yet another factor of math and calculation when I don't have to. Especially when an animal is thrown into the mix.

After owning several of both SFP and FFP variable scopes, if I ever buy variables these days, they are darn sure FFP. If I can't get FFP in the scope I want, then fixed power it is. Life is too short, and LR shooting too complicated as it is, to not simplify things wherever possible.

I have plenty of Variable second focal plane scopes with TMR reticles or some kind of ballistic reticle such as the VHR or the LRD.

They work great.

If you don't have your schitt together enough to use them at full power, then....

I've had plenty of them, as well. They can certainly be pressed into service successfully, but I'm not much into making concessions.

The problem is that when we're talking FFP scopes, we're also talking about a heavy scope with a heavy price tag.

On my hunting rifles I generally have SFP scopes because of the weight and bulk issue. One exception is a .264 with a 6.5-20 Mark 4 FFP ERT with TMR. The other SFP scopes have custom TMR reticles installed. The reticle is dead nuts true at high power and the values are double at a known lower power.

Im really liking the SS 3-9x42 FFP with mildot, which isn't too hefty or pricey. Balances beautifully on my Montana 7WSM.

Not enough magnification for me on any rifle I own. I put a 4.4-14 Leupold VX3 LR Side Focus CDS on my lightweight Creedmoor and feel a little handicapped.

Gotta have 20X on a Long Range Rig.

I sighted in a buddy's rifle with a 3x9 on it a while back. At 100 yards I wondered how I could hold it in any consistent POA to shoot a group that would tell me anything

Funny you should mention that. I have been shooting the 5-25x F1 BEAST for the past couple of weeks. I have shot 10-14x top end variables for years and thought they were plenty. I pulled out a .223 Wylde I shoot for some DMR matches today and shot it this morning before I got to work on a .308 Win with 208gn A-MAX seating depth test. The 10x variable seemed really inadequate this morning after the past couple of weeks shooting at or above 20x.

I have always sworn 10x was plenty and am I'm sure after I send the BEAST back I'll get used to 10x again but it might take a few weeks. I know 10x works just fine because I have shot some tiny groups and made some long shots with it but 25x makes really precise aiming possible.

Use a target that fits the reticle/magnification/distance combination in play. You can shoot half MOA at 300 yards with a 1.5-4x20 Leupold that way.

At 4 power, you probably couldn't see a 3'x3' plate behind the crosshair at that range! LOL

The great thing about a 6.5-20 is that you have options. Some options are better than others, especially at Long Range!

I thought you were sighting in at 100. Did you mean 1000?

At 300 yards it's no trick to wear out 4 1/4" clay pigeons at 300 with the little scope.

That might be an exaggeration about the 3'x3' plate. I will say using a 1-4x Trijicon I have shot 1MOA groups at 300yds using my NULA M209 muzzleloader. I have to use a 4" target as an aiming point. That said, I sold that Trijicon and replaced it with a 2.5-8x36mm Leupold because I can aim more precisely and shoot better.

I also replaced a 1-4x Vortex on that .223 Wylde with a 2.5-10x Nightforce for the same reason; and I got tired of not being able to see targets in the shade or woodline past 400m in DMR matches when using the Vortex 1-4X. I will say I always placed in the top 20 though with that scope which ain't bad when other guys are shooting anything they want up to .300WM and using much bigger optics.

Not sure what you're talking about, but 9 power is not my cup of tea for anything over about 300 yards

4 power is a brush gun scope

You said something about not being able to see a three foot square plate at that distance, but I was referring to only 100 to 300 yards.

I was teasing about the 3' plate.

I want to be able to see a 1" dot at 300 yards and precisely put the crosshairs on it

Ain't gonna happen with a 4x or a 9x

At 600 yards with a 20X TMR, a 2" aimpoint can't be covered up.

I have a couple of 6.5-20x40LR Leupolds for that duty.

My point was about 100 yard sighting in and "only" 9x.

I like watching the show too much to go over about 12x. It might cost me a plate or two at the SRM.... or a tenth'r two in group size... but I love watching stuff pile up in the glass way too much, to miss it for the sake of extra 'precision' via extra Xs. I don't feel handicapped out to 600 with a 3-9... and that what the killing rifles tend to wear. I just put a 3-9 w/turrets on the .260 for Em to shoot.... don't think she'll be too hamstrung.

FFP is kinda moot... when your top end magnification isn't too high (9x-12x)... because the vast majority of your shots are taken with the scope set on max power. If your scope needs to be set on 20x to make use of the reticle.... I could see how FFP would be preferable.

Oh, sighting in isn't too much of a problem, it's just not as precise.




Need to manage recoil there a tad better

On 20x, I watch trace, impacts on both steel and critters...

9x or 12x sucks hind tit.

Won the NXS F1 Nightforce at the SS in 2013. Wouldn't have sold it if it wasn't 3.5-15X. 15X isn't OPTIMAL for a long range rig.

Hell, my calling gun has a VX2 6-18 for long range coyote opportunities. If 6x is too much power for a close dog, you need to practice "pointing" your rifle like a shotgun so you can find stuff in the scope. I don't feel at all handicapped with it set to 9x on a stand.

In fact, I shoot just about every SRM without touching the power selector. It's always on 20X

Same with every other shoot.

Sure it is. It all depends on the subtension of the reticle. The mildot reticle in the SS 3-9 is fine enough in the center that I can easily see a 2" dot at 435 meters on 9x, and aim in the middle of it.

I've had no trouble hitting 10" rocks at 1130 yards with a 6x scope, so I guess you can tell that I'm not a high-mag kinda guy

I typically don't even turn up my high-mag scopes past about 10-12x until I get beyond 1000. Like DS, I like FOV too much.

On 9x...

Brakes are good like that....

But you're right.... I'm a puzzy, so that doesn't help....

Yeah, the brake helps ya spot stuff at the shot for sure.

Not sure about why you think you're a puzzy?

I've heard you are what you eat, so that's a good thing

Guess it's personal preference, but gonna have to call BS on the above!

Recoil.... and the management thereof.

I'm down to a .280 as the biggest rifle in the herd.... I'm getting old....

Jordan Smith,



Here's what I think you might be experiencing in your life without knowing it. You have eyes like a hawk. I hunted with two guys over the years who could see points on a buck at least 3/4 miles away. They couldn't understand why I needed 7X binoculars to see the same thing.

When I used to shoot squeeks in Central Oregon I always had my Burris Signature 8-32X on 20X for shooting between 250 and 350 yards. I could see what was going on with that setting. The second focal plane scope allowed me to see squirrel on both sides of the reticle.

Squirrel!

On my March 2.5 x 25 it seldom is above 20X! I have found that 15X in my F1's just about right. The F1 is heavier than I prefer but damn I like the reticle.

I run SS 3x9x42's on my AR's and 600 is no biggie.

I guess it depends on each individual's eyes.

your reticle works fine in THAT scope because its a plain mil dot reticle. a plain mil dot is a rather course reticle that is IMO outdated. further I see NO reason why if you are actually needing the features of the reticle you would not be on max power especially considering max is 9x. with that said I see no advantage to a 3x9 scope being FFP. I have shot long range quite a bit with a 3x9 and agree its more capable than most think. but I am not taking a long range shot on anything but 9x.

everyone has different opinions on optics. too big of a deal is made of FFP. yes it sounds like a great thing, who wouldn't want the reticle to stay the same size relative to the target on all powers. the problem is the reticle is just too small to use at low powers which defeats the whole purpose of having a FFP reticle. unless your scope goes above about 15x I see no reason why one would turn the power down to take a long range shot that also would need to use the features of the reticle. So FFP should only be spec'd with high power optics IMO, 6-24, 5.5-22 etc.

further I think a mil scope and its courser .5 mil markings are best suited to FFP, and a MOA reticle best suited to a SFP scope.

for MOA reticles I really like the nightforce MOAR reticle although I haven't seen it in the 2.5-10 model, I do have one in my 3.5-15 and like it alot

Never call BS on a guy you've never seen shoot. You should know better I'm not saying it was a hit every time I pulled the trigger, but hits were commonplace, and the magnification/reticle certainly were no hindrance.

Hell, I was there!!

My dad likes a top end of at least 16x on his hunting rifle. It's just personal preference, which has a lot to do with the resolution power of your eyes.

The crosshairs on the 3-9x42mm SS are .252 MOA thick... Covers up a bunch of the target and very hard to aim with..... Give or take.

Give or take is right.

Hitting a target less than 1 MOA at 1130 yards is difficult enough with a 20X scope. With a 6X scope, that rock would look like the mite clinging to the pubes on the left nut of the fly that's sitting on the rock. Pretty much invisible.

Then combine that with the fact that the reticle would completely obscure an object that size, makes me yell "BS!"

Nice try though, but you should never try to BS people you've never seen shoot

I'll take a picture of a 10" target at only 1000 yards on 6X next time I'm at the range

I have to assume you've shot MOA size steel targets at that range without issue as well?

Just wondering because rock shooters have a tendency to make a lot more hits than they can on steel..At least thats been what i've seen.

Certainly aint sayin it cant be done,i've just been conditioned to roll my eyes at rock shooters, seen them try to duplicate the feats on steel at my range,never seems ot work out in their favor

I have no problem seeing 1 MOA sized targets out to a grand with 9x-10x glass.... but making hits on them is a little tougher than it is with 16x-20x.... no doubt.

2 MOA sized targets get routinely pummeled out to 1/2 mile with the measly 9x's though.... and I love the look on new (or over glassed experienced) shooters' faces when they look up from the rifle and say "I saw the bullet hit the plate".... another one hooked.

I shot lottsa rocks prior to my investment in steel.... the skills translate nicely. Pretty sure Jordan has pounded a few plates too....

Rifle glass is a series of compromises, rarely do you get everything you want optically, magnification, reticle, weight, consistency, durability, etc.

Yep. Everyone who's shot a rifle or shotgun you've talked to would be a National Champion if you believed what comes out of their mouth.

MOA sized targets are an issue AT ANY RANGE, much less 1130 yards. The 10" rock Jordan speaks of is about .83 MOA at that distance. At 6X, well, I have to LOL.

We shoot steel that is in the 2 MOA range at just about every match in general. That means 6" targets out to 360 and 12" from there on out. A 12" target from 800 on out is not an easy target in field conditions.

The Steel Safari actually threw in some really tiny targets around an MOA. At 20X, a 5" hanger at 440 yards isn't a gimmee and I certainly wouldn't want a 6X scope on my rifle for any of the targets.

Put it this way, with your 6X scope shooting at a 3/4" dot at 100 yards, how do you think you'd fare?

It's easier pickings than you'd think.

I have a Leupold 6x42 with a fine duplex in it, and when it sits on my 40X or 5R, a 3/4" dot at 100 yards doesn't have a chance.

You ought to enter some competitions and wax everyone's ass then. It's more difficult than you think

I shoot monthly precision matches. Quite a bit of 100 yard paper work. I'd estimate that 50% of the folks with 4000$ rifles can't put a first round hit on a 3/4" dot at 100 yards

I doubt that situation is attributable to lack of scope magnification.

oh wait a minute why are you guys talking inches and MOA??? I thought mils was the only way to do things. I watched the utah state sniper shoot on video the other day or parts of it. every correction I heard was called in inches. mils is cool because its what all the guys at snipers hide use. just stirring the pot calm down

No one who is concerned with precisely delivering a projectile to a tiny target uses a scope with low magnification.

Benchrest? Precision? Tactical? F-class?

...and ultimately Long Range Hunters who know what they're doing.

When I want to aim at a 1" dot at 300 yards I have scopes for that, primarily the Leupold 6.5-20x40LR.

But the particular point we were discussing was what it takes to aim at a 3/4" dot at 100 yards.

Not really. I was relating what it would be like to aim at a .83 MOA target at 1150 yards with a 6 power scope.

It's like aiming at a 3/4" dot at 100 yards with the same scope

Here's some help. A 10" target looks like the tiny little red box at the bottom of the reticle at 1157 yards...

Not exactly. The larger distance example is actually harder because of atmospherics and such, so I don't want 6x for a 3/4 MOA target at 1000. But at 100 it's no big deal.

My point exactly. But it still is a big deal at 100 too if you care about hitting it.

Do you have rifles that shoot 1/4" groups all of the time and right at the crosshair intersection? At 6X you'd still miss

Forgive me, I don't follow your last statement.

At 6 power human error in sighting and holding is a factor. At 20 power, more precision exists

Ain't a thang wrong with that.

Yep .75MOA targets are way to hard to hit with 6x..... Almost like Hunter Benchrest doesn't exist and perfect scores with .5in 10 rings aren't shot all the time.

They're not shot with a hunting rifle off a bipod, that's for sure.

Was the rifle type in discussion? Or the belief that 6x isn't enough to consistently hit .75 MOA targets?


Saying that a 6x scope isn't able to consistently see with and hit .75 MOA targets is silly.

Do you shoot a fixed 6X scope in any competitions?

If you have ever shot anything long range, from 500 to 1500, do you select 6X on your scope because that's the best choice?

What a FPhucking joke...

Yes, I have and do shoot 6x in competitions at times. It is no great feat to stay on a 1 MOA target with a 6x.


For 0-600 or so yards big game hunting a fixed 6 is a great choice when weighed as a whole. Your skepticism is not surprising as I find it common for those who specialize in LR to believe that you need 20x to hit something.


I would expect that by your responses that you have put ammo companies into backlogs with all the rounds fired on 6x at distance...?



6x scopes aren't for dedicated LR rigs but for general hunting use to around the 600 mark are perfectly adequate, if not ideal.

LOL!

I have made two 400 yard kills with a 6X with relative ease. One was a running shot, the other still.

I guess one must define long range and what is needed in an optic. I don't feel like there is a do all answer although there are a couple of really versatile optics now like the Leupold MK6 and Mk8 low end varialbes and the Nightforce 2.5-10x in both 24mm and 32mm. They are really good on guns that need to be handy and portable.

Like I mentioned earlier, I shoot a .223 Wylde in an AR for DMR matches and the longest shots are 700yds. That is a pretty good ways to shoot a .223 from a gas carbine. Targets past 400yds seem to mostly be 10" steel plates and I shot a lot of matches with a 1-4x Vortex before going to a 2.5-10x24mm Nightforce. I can see and hit 10" plates at 700yds on 4X but it is not ideal. I couldn't hit what I couldn't see and targets with limited exposure or in a shaded woodline were difficult to impossible to see.

I don't shoot PRS matches with low end variables although you could shoot them successfully with a 10x optic. I have also found that if you are shooting a match hosted by Law Enforcement you might want high magnification because some targets are really small. I will be at a week long match next week where all the X-rings are .308" in diameter. Military matches can definitely be shot with a 10x. For those matches and the matches you mentioned more power is useful but you can succeed with less.

This thread is getting to be pretty tedious.

I'd be willing to put up some cash to see someone "have no problem" putting multiple impacts on a 10" target at 1130 yards with a 6X scope.

I'd also be more than willing to take that person's cash when it doesn't happen.

Just sayin...

I never said anyone was hitting a 10" target at 1130 with 6x. I have never shot past 1000m with less than 10x. For that 10x is not ideal but it is what the Army had so it was what I shot and did it successfully. The only time I have shot past 2000m was with a 14x because that is what was on the gun. Now we have variables with more magnification and everyone likes that. On the flip side nobody likes carrying the extra weight. There is a lot you can do with less and I get there less tired when I carry less. So, right tool for the job.

I do a lot of shooting with guys from the Palma team and they put multiple hits on a 10" X-ring and 20" 10-ring. It might not be easy for a most guys here to put multiple hits on a 10" target with 6x at 1130yds but I know guys who could probably do it.

So, back to the origin subject matter: Do I go with a simple reticle, range and turn turrets or hash mark reticle with minimal turret use?

Both. Get mil/mil. Mildot reticle with .1mil adjustments and zero stop. Dial for range and use the reticle for wind holds. It's a system and when used correctly has no equal.

Though I have been an MOA user I am certainly leaning toward mil/mil. It looks very simple. How hard is the transition without good math skills?

Easy....

I have read seasoned shooters say to go with MOA if you think in yards or MIL if you think meters. Why can't a yards thinker learn to shoot MIL?

It seems less complicated as 1 Mil = 3.6 being less calculations than Moa.
Is that true?

Did you mean 1x or 1000 yds?

At 100yds open sights are more of a challenge...

We shoot 12" steel at 400-500 yds with muzzle loaders and handguns and sometimes the tie breakers are pushing at waning light.

Those seasoned shooters are clueless. Neither MOA nor MILS are linear. They are both angular measurements and therefore are independent of yards, meters, feet, or any other linear measurement. The reticle is a ruler. You use the reticle to "see" the correction and either dial it or hold. There is no math.

I used to be a true hater of mils. No having used both and taught hundreds of shooters I can unequivocally say that on average people pick up adjusting in mils faster. It's all based on tenths. It works easier with how our brains think.

Though I consider myself a novice at this LRH i am inclined to agree.

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

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




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

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



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



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



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





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



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



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

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

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

+1

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

No offense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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



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

Bit of thread drift.

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

I prefer SFP combined with moderate high end magnification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

great bull,congrats.

This year?

Me too

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

One hell of a bull! Congrats!

9X is 50% more than 6X.

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



Last week.

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

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

Blind hog finds an acorn every now and then.

His head and face almost looks like a Red Angus.

Why are you picking on me?

Why was Costanza not part of the hunting crew this year?

Tanner

Sounds good. I've got the perfect spot for it. Let me know when you're on your way and I'll book time off work. I've got some 10" plates and several scopes that go down to 6x, if you've got a wallet full of cash

Beauty bull, John. Congrats.

I've no doubt you've killed a coyote or three, all I'm saying is it can be done with sub-10x magnification

Wyoming looks like a good halfway point to meet.

If we can work out all the particulars, I'd be willing to put a $100 Bill to your $100 Bill on every pull of the trigger for say 50 rounds.

Awesome bull..Congrats.

Sorry for the interruption....Cary on.

Not gonna happen. Your friendly neighborhood president won't let me bring my guns down to your country without jumping through some major hoops. But the invite is open for you to come here and see me shoot my guns.

We can go 100 rounds if you think it'd be worth your while for the hoop jumping. It can't be that tough. I've travelled internationally with firearms including trips to Canada, Argentina and England. Just a Customs declaration and check.

Mr. Burns,
I have zero experience behind any optics intended for long range hunting. My two best recorded kills were 400 yard shots, one running wide open porker & the other was still. This was with the Leupold 6x42. So, no way I have any experience to compare with yours. Don't you think I can get my feet wet enough with an FFP. I do intend to go with the mil/mil and have zero experience with that too. I am going to have to come up on the learning curve from some starting point & did not think I wanted to start with a SFP.

I notice NightForce has a great many SFP offerings so,there must be something there for most LRH shooters. It's just not tangible for me yet.

Once you know your drops, you are simply twisting the elevation dial to whatever reference number corresponds with that drop. Doesn't matter if you break it out by mils or moa, the numbers are simply a reference.

If your dial is set for mils, then you need configure your drop chart in mils. Same thing for MOA.

Once you print off your chart and verify the values by actually shooting, then all you need to know is what number corresponds to what range.

BTDT. The US has a much more ridiculous policy than Canada does. After applying for the US ATF permit to take my rifles down to the IBS this past April, waiting the several months for the permit to come, and driving several hours down to the border, I was turned back by the US guys because of some minor admin error made by the Dept of ATF on my permit.

Honestly, I have nothing to prove to you, and I'm certainly not going to go through a bunch of time, financial expense, and loss of income just so I can drive several hours south and show you I can hit a plate with my rifle. I know what I've done and I know what I can do with a 6x scope. Your opinion doesn't change that. As I say, the invitation is open and you're welcome to drive or fly up here, sans firearms (to make things simple), or you could bring a rifle or two, and we can go out to a nice spot and smack some steel. I never said that I can hit a 10" target at 1130 yards every shot, regardless of the magnification of the scope I'm using, so a $100 wager for every shot is meaningless as it pertains to the subject of our discussion. If you'd like to come up and see for yourself, you're welcome. If I can hit a 10" plate at 1130 with a 6x scope, 3 shots, and a good spotter, you buy dinner. If I can't do it in 3, I buy dinner. I think that would be a good indicator of whether or not a 6x keeps me from successfully engaging the target, wind and atmospherics aside. No need to make what could be a friendly shooting get together into a contest measuring manhood. To make things more interesting, we could even have you shoot on 20x and me on 6x and see how things shake out.

Reloader28,

I think most of the guys get along well with a FFP, it's just not my preference. If you have never used one then it would be a smart move to give one a try and find out how it works for your shooting.

The SWFA stuff is priced right and lots of the guys are very happy with the product. If you decide it isn't right for you I bet you can find the scope a new owner and only have a minimal dent in your wallet for the experience.

The undeniable advantage to FFP is that the substensions remain consistent at all magnifications.

The trade off is that the reticle is overly bold and distracting at the top end and is hard to find at speed or in low light at the bottom end.

I prefer SFP knowing that it is a compromise but lots of others prefer FFP.

Good luck but just put in the time on rocks and steel before shooting game.

Thanks to everyone on the bull except Tanner can GFY for the Seinfield reference.

Sounds like a good wager Jordan. I'd like to see this friendly shooting match if it were closer.

We all know Rick is one stubborn SOB and fun to debate with At the same time I don't think anyone can argue with his shooting ability. I think he's just used to 20x(+) and has a different perspective... hit or miss competition. I know I shoot to "hit my targets", but misses are often dang close. Not always, but I'm not shooting Sporting Rifle matches either and I still have a hoot shooting light rifles at small-ish targets with hunting scopes.

I've used 6x/7x on ~1-MOA targets out to 800 yards, but I find this about the limit for me. I've smacked my 8" hub couplers at 800y under good conditions but hits were much more consistent on 4" targets at 400y. Lately, for my light hunting rifles and 6x scopes, I find 8" steel perfect for 500y and can still be challenging from field positions (with rapid follow-up shots). I have some 12" targets and they seem too big that close.

Some people I know find 6x impossible to use at that distance but their vision isn't as good. I have no doubt that some people can see better than me too. I've seen those 8" targets hammered by others with 9x at 800y. I tend to think that 1x for every 100y is a good place to start, but it can go up/down depending on individual. Unless we're shooting manhole covers

Just depends on what our expectations are. I appreciate your honesty regarding those 10" rocks and frequency of hits. I get a kick out of tight groups on manhole covers. They'd not even be on the "rock".

Jason

My experience mirrors Jordens, 3 shot 19" group at 1040yds with a sako fin light 3006, @ ya. 5shot 6" group at 1040 at 10x with 300 win mag, sum bad kook aid around here

I do wish we lived closer to each other; I'm sure we'd have a great time.

My point about the wager is that both you and I know damn well that hitting a .83 MOA target at 1130 yards isn't easy with a long range hunting configuration rifle or even a heavier target rifle. I wouldn't take that bet shooting my target rifles.

At least I hope you're knowledgeable enough to know that

Now, compound that fact by using a low power optic and I'd have to bring a Brinks truck up to haul my winnings back.

The other point is that for either of us to travel that type of distance, it better be worth our while. If you felt as confident as I about things going your way, meaning you could put a greater percentage of hits on that plate than misses, the only reason you wouldn't travel to do it is because you don't like money

For me, I'd meet you halfway for about $3,000. That's what I figure I'd end up with after 50 rounds with you hitting about 10



You should do it and video it. It would be interesting.

I never said I would have more hits than misses- that was your contention. I just said that I could hit the target with a 6x scope.

If I can get my phone adapter rigged up with my new'ish spotter, I'll video it. Stay tuned, but it might take a while. It's hunting season right now, you know

C'mon Jordan. To any reasonable person that means you can put a much greater percentage of impacts on it than misses.

If you can snake a hit in there on it once in a while, there are more accurate ways to say it

I consider hitting a .83 MOA target at 1130 yards big problem to go 50% on. Even with a TAC rifle and scope. If I were to come across the same target set at a match, it would be the "talk" of the match.

For future reference, if I say it's no trouble to hit a target at "x" range, it means I can sit there and drill it all day long.

I noticed it sure is easier to hit a rock at 1000yds than my 12" plate. Guessing the "small" rocks I was hitting weren't as small as I thought.

I think banging my head on a rock is easier.

Rockers are definitely Head Bangers..

Negative. My implication was that I have no trouble with a 6x scope at 1130 yards on ~MOA sized targets, assuming a fine enough reticle and glass with good resolution. My comment "I've had no trouble" was directed toward the sight picture using a 6x scope, as where your interpretation of my statement is that I was referring to having no trouble with the exterior ballistics of a 1130 yard shot on a sub-MOA target, which is obviously not what I meant. We were discussing scope magnification when I made that statement, not the difficulty of making such a shot. Any reasonable person would understand what I was implying

That's too good not to save for eternity

Glad you like it. Hopefully you learned a thing or two about syntactic ambiguity

jordan real quick since you are educating us all on why we should be using a 3x9 super sniper, I think your new nickname should be super sniper how is that?? so super sniper, lets say you come down to utah and we go to the desert you have 3 shots NOT 25 to hit at 1130 yards, on a 10" plate. what factors and how much are they in making a shot of this nature. of course there is wind and barometric, beyond that for your combo what do you have to take into consideration to make this shot?? then I will tell you how I would do it or at least give myself the best chance I know of to hit.

I'm not Jordan, but here's how I'd do it. First, I'd range the plate and observe it for a while to make sure it's not going anywhere. Then I'd look for a good concealed sneak route, drop down off the ridge, stay hidden, and cut the distance by 2/3.

Actually, that was tongue-in-cheek. Jordan is a pretty straight-shooter(!!), not prone to bragging and stuff like that. I don't think the nickname fits.

LOL, I'm not trying to educate anybody on why they should be using anything. I'm just saying what I USE and HAVE USED SUCCESSFULLY. Take it or leave it, I don't really care. I'm not sure why this turned into a thread about me, but alas it is what it is.

Now to start with, I've never claimed to be the best LR shooter that exists. Let's get that straight. I can hit a plate or two and the odd animal, but there are better shooters out there, some of which are on this site. I'm sure Rick is probably better than me, John Burns, Pat, etc, etc. I have no problem playing along with your scenario, though. The first thing I'd do is range the target a few times to make sure the reading is consistent. Then I'd check the atmospheric values (I mostly concern myself with absolute pressure and temperature, but humidity gets input, too), I'd take a Coriolis reading for a shot this far, both azimuth and latitude, check my dope for the shot, and dial the elevation. I'd have a good Spotter set up with a good spotter using either MOA or MIL reticle, then I'd settle in behind the rifle and start to analyze the landscape. Watch for topographical features that might funnel wind and affect wind direction and strength, both horizontal and vertical, check to see if the shot is at an up or down angle, and have a look at the vegetation, any mirage present, cloud movement between myself and the target, etc. After noting the various wind behaviours between me and the target, I'd take a wind reading at my location, then I'd make a net wind call for the shot. If I had a true skilled spotter, I'd let him do all this for me, but that's not the point of this exercise. After I had a wind call, I'd again check my dope (which also accounts for spin drift), make any minor tweaks to elevation due to any up/down draft conditions, and hold my windage on the reticle. I'd make sure my Spotter was ready, and let fly. He'd give me a correction using the reticle in his spotting scope, and I'd quickly fire again while conditions were the same and hope for a hit.

I'm not sure where you got the number 25 from. Last time I did this on the rock at 1130, I made a hit in less than 3 shots. I didn't sit there and pound the rock all day, but the 6x scope didn't prevent me from making a hit. Not saying I could do that every time, but it would be my shooting skills preventing 100% success, not the scope's magnification. But, that's how it turned out last time.


Okay, your turn. And any photos or videos of similar shooting scenarios you've encountered in the past are welcome

BTW, here's another comment that is sure to stir the pot. Last time I was shooting a sub-MOA target at 1 mile, I turned my scope down from 24x to 16x

I hate when a question is asked of someone and another poster feels the need to answer it. The Egos around here are amazing!

LOL

Having said that and laughing my ass off, your method to kill that plate is great!

Oh the irony... LOL

It's kind of an "inside" joke!

LOL

You cantankerous SOB.......

When you've accomplished as much as I have, in terms of sneaking up on inanimate objects, come back and we can have a real conversation.

Ha!

I was shooting 1000yds today at a 12" plate. I personally think 15x is marginal at that distance. I looked at the target with my scope on 6x and it was tiny. Maybe if there were zero wind and I had a 20lb gun. The target was just way too small to aim accurately. I am sure I could have hit it if I burned enough ammo, but not consistently. I have a hard enough time being consistent on 15x. My hit percentage was only 32%. I don't claim to be an expert, but I shoot more than a lot of people. Wind is sobering.

My next scope will go to at least 22x, or I am getting a larger target to better read hits.

...that shoots one-hole groups at 1000

..... and still miss because you don't know your dope.... or don't believe your dope..... or don't believe the experienced folks who are trying to help you.

.... then come back from the hunt and talk schitt about 'long range hunting' on the Long Range Hunting forum. Hope you get it figured out before your 'hunt of a lifetime' next fall.....

Jordan, Rick, Drew, Cummins, etc....... we all know 1153 yards is a far piece for 6x glass.... but we all know it CAN be done. I ask this: for big game, and 1-2 MOA targets, what magnification do you feel is necessary to consistently make hits to 1/2 mile?

I had a Leupold MK4 3.5-10x40 with a FFP reticle.

I could appreciaite constant milling values, but below about 5 or 6X the reticle became very tiny. Distractingly tiny to me.




I don't doubt Jordan can hold a consistent aimpoint on a 1 moa target with a 6X scope, regardless of distance to target. Reticle thickness would be the main thing that might hold someone back.


For reference I've shot clay birds off the 1000 yard berm with a Bushnell 3200 10X without trouble. That's about a 4.5" target, and less than .5 moa at 1K yards. The reticle almost covered the target, but not quite.

As long it's possible to bisect a target with the reticle, one can make repeatable holds on the target.

With my MK4 mentioned above, I most always ran it around 8X for the bigger fov. I shot it past 1K a lot.

One basic optical rule of thumb is that the average human eye (which means 20/20 vision, whether the eye's "naked" or lens-corrected) can resolve about one inch at 100 yards. This doesn't mean we can see a 1" dot at that range. Instead it means we can differentiate between alternating 1/2" black-and-white lines. Beyond 100 yards they begin to appear gray.

Whether we can resolve as well at longer distances depends on atmospheric and light conditions. A lot of mirage obviously reduces resolution, but in still, clear air we should be able to differentiate between 5" black-and-white lines at 1000 yards (10 times 1/2" = 5).

With good optics, resolution increases directly with magnification. This means a 10x scope at 1000 yards, in good atmospheric conditions, should allow us to resolve those same 1/2" alternating black-and-white lines as well at 1000 yards as well as at 100 yards without optics. With a 6x scope the size of the resolvable lines would increase to about .83" (10/6 x .5).

Obviously there will be some variation not only due to atmosphere and light, but individual eyesight and the specific scope. Then there's the size of the reticle: One subtending 1/2" at 100 yards covers 5" at 1000. But a little math can provide a good indication of what's possible.

Doesn't Hunter Class BR use 6X at 300 yards?

I wonder how big their target center is (in moa)?

I can't remember ever shooting at 1000 yards and wishing my scope had LESS magnification.

I can.... the fixed 12x was occasionally tough to spot hits/misses with on the 7 Mag.

I specifically remember dialing a .300 back from 20x to 8-9x so I could spot hits/misses at 1k.

Would you rather have: greater precision to aim the shot..... at the potential expense of seeing the shot, or certainty of seeing the shot/hit.... at the potential expense of greater aiming precision?

I am beginning to decipher the viable differences between FFP & SFP reticles. It appears to me one of the determining factors is whether you intend to range with your scope or range with electronics. Am I wrong?

Lots of personal preference plays here.

One of my shooting buds uses a Nightforce ATACR. We were shooting one of his rigs at just over 2000 yards a while back. He liked the magnification up at 20+, I dialed it down to around 11-12X. We both were hitting the same moa size rock (338 Edge, 300gr Bergers).

IME, this is a wise idea. It makes spotting your misses a whole lot easier when they are still hitting steel! If I intend to shoot a 10" square, I often like to use a 16" piece of AR500 and paint a 10" square on the plate. That way if I'm shooting alone and have a hard time spotting the trace or splash of my misses, I can still see the near misses on the plate.

On a 12" and 16" plate I feel quite comfortable with a 6x scope out to 800 meters, so that is what I would say is "necessary". I have hit smaller targets at longer ranges with a 6x (), but at the distances in question I prefer 9x, and my ideal is ~10x out to about 1000.

Careful, Shane! Apparently by say that, you are claiming that you never miss clay pigeons at 1000!

I've certainly been shooting steel at 1000 and turned down the magnification...

Yes.

Please go back and read post #9247557, in which I outline at some length many of the benefits of FFP vs. SFP scopes. Hint- ranging is somewhere wayyy down the list

Without trouble holding on the target.....grin

It is interesting that several of you have mentioned no feeling of shortcoming using fixed powers. I have been pretty partial to 6x's to date. Have made some great long range (for me) kills with them and barely gave it a second thought.

Did that, twice. Thanx for the reminder. My mind is made.

9"X12" IPSC plate at 760 yards on 6 power. Bigger than 1 MOA.




Same plate on 18 power...

That puts it in perspective.

Are you taking a poll......

I'll take 18x in that senario!

Much rather have the precision of aiming. It ends up in a more precise shot and an impact.

That's the great thing about a Brake.

You can spot your shot at the scope's highest magnification and you can shoot better too because of the absense of recoil. That's another thread too.


So here's one for you.

Do you all have 6 power Binoculars for spotting game and judging them on a long range hunt?

LOL

Imagine a smaller plate (10") at 400 more yards.

6 power ROCKS! LOL!

rcamuglia,

Since I have tried to take photos through a scope I am very impressed with the photography. Those are some good shots.

You'll soon realize that I'm Da Man! LOL

There's that damn Ego again reering its ugly head! DBL-LOL!

The 6 power image cropped...

18 power cropped...

I know that I have smacked golf balls at 300 yards with my .223 with a 6x42 Leupold. 4 shots 4 golf balls. At 400 I hit 2 out of 4. Coors light cans aint got a chance at 400. Google says golf balls are 1.68" So that is just a little over .5 moa at 300 Dont remember the ball being hard to see, Coors can is probably what 2.5 to 3 inches wide. Not hard to hold on at 400. If you can see it in the scope you can hit if you got the right dope and correct wind hold. Sure it would be easier with a higher power but it is doable. Now I havent shot past 700 yard but for under 700 moa targets arent missed because of having a 6 power they are missed from wrong wind hold or bad trigger pulling. Past 700 I dont have any experience but Im pretty sure it can be done.

Hey Super Sniper, where'd you go?

I've picked out a lot of coyotes at a long ways with the 6x Yo's..... but I prefer 8x for binos. I'm learning to love the spotting scope, but it's almost always on 15-20x.

I can spot pretty well with both.... except for when Bruce is shooting, I'm still trying to figure that out....

I just put two more 3-9s on rifles this afternoon.... we'll see how 1-3 MOA targets survive tomorrow.....

PS..... the pics look way better with the fuggin Browning cropped out..... WSSMs ain't for the faint of heart.... or folks with a lisp....

LOL!

Arsehole!

One good day at the range means nada.














That's Mexican for "you da man"

The WSSM is a Bad Muther. The sooner you realize that, the better. I shot it at the SRM the last shoot of 2013 as a kind of "coming back home" deal. It was the first rifle I shot at the SRM. I shot 70 gr Ballistic Tips at 3660 at that shoot, my coyote load at that time, and hit 35 of the 60 targets. It shot really good today while barrels were cooling....

The Match Director was not impressed with the holes in the steel

Gimme a break; I didn't know

Anyway, I shot it at the last match of 2013 with a bunch of my buddies, one of which is a former Police Sniper. His nickname was the "Ice Man". He's done everything and more. The stories are amazing. He was shooting a custom .308 that day.

On station 10 after I shot, he gave me the best compliment I've ever had from a veteran Long Range shooter. He said, "Rick, you could shoot 50 at this match with a fuggin musket!"

We were tied going into the last station, 5. I ran it and he missed the last target; I beat him by one target. A-Bolts shoot. Get used to it....

Sorry to hear about settling on the 3-9's

Bruce did really well at the Steel Safari with his Creedmoor. 23rd I think. Picked up a great AR barrel from the table; about $600.00 worth...


8X is great for finding stuff. 20X is better for killing it.

Here's my crappy photo contribution.

12" gong at 600 yards with scope set on 15x.

Looks good to me. Is that a Nightforce reticle?

I have a few FFP scopes (S&B, PM-2's) and have learned to like them. Rey much. I use the P-4 fine reticle.

I've never had a problem with SFP reticles at long range, but then I've not had much with FFP either. I have 6x42's in both flavors.

Rick, yes, that is the Nightforce MOAR. I really like it. The values are accurate so far in my testing. Pic doesnt do it justice.

Pics through scopes never do the true image justice, IME.

Wow. Is that what you think I was doing, "talking schitt about long range hunting?"

The only think I was talking schitt about was my own ability to hit a small target at 1100 yards with the first shot. And what I said was only half-joking because it's true, if I want to arrange it so that I'll hit that target at 1100, I'll need to move in closer.

It's called self-deprecation, and appears to be in short supply hereabouts.

As far as "not knowing my dope," I've got the drops from shooting at various distances. They don't match the output of the program I'm using, and I believe it's because the turret adjustments on my scope are not accurate. Which is not unheard of. They're repeatable but off by almost 1.5 MOA at 500 meters. Which I can either live with by doing my own chart, or fix by changing out the scope. Either would work but I prefer to change out the scope.

As far as not believing the experienced folks trying to help me, that's not really any of your business but since you brought it up I'll respond. I understand the concept of adjusting the BC and/or the MV inputs to get outputs that more closely match the drops I see in the field. Believe it or not, that little tidbit was not news to me when RC recommended it. It's also not something you need a lot of experience to figure out. I've done it in the past for other rifles and loads. But not to the tune of 150 fps. If you have to adjust by that much, there's something else going on.

I've chronoed my particular load a few times and it's right where it should be according to Hodgdon's data. But right off the bat, RC advised me that my MV was 150 fps low because my actual drops didn't match the predicted drops. Which was amazing to me since he knew nothing about the load, my barrel length or whether I'd even chronoed it.

So yes, although I appreciate the help I choose to believe my chronograph and Hodgdon's data, rather than believe my Leupold turret adjustments are infallible. And I know I could be wrong about that. I also appreciate RC's generous offer to loan me one of his proven scopes, but I'd rather work through this one myself and maybe learn a little in the process.

By adding 150 fps to the MV as RC suggested, it puts my actual drops right on with the predicted drops at 500 meters. The only problem with that is, it's not the correct MV so the trajectory is off at other distances. Which is why I think I'll change out the scope. Maybe it'll help, maybe not. Only one way to find out.

Hey smoke, where does the output stop matching actual? From the couple of data points you gave me, 330 and 550, the drop on the program matched your actual.

It was off at 400 yards. And this is way off topic, I'm done.

put a "tall" target at 100 yards marked in MOA as far up as you care to test the scope,shoot it and see wtf.

I have a hard time believing the scope is off 1.5MOA at that range.Not sayin it aint,but i'm thinking you may have several little things going on that are compounding the further out you get..JMO

Are you close to the center of your adjustment when zero'd?

Smokepole,

I had a 270 that shot 140gr NABs dead-nuts to 800y per the data from JBM. That same rifle shot 140gr BTSP to the same POI to 500y, but was way low at 800y. I fiddled with BC and muzzle velocity for the BTSP but never could get the data to match the actual drop.

I just assumed that there was something going on with the stability of the BTSP and left it at that. Most loads have been very predictable but that one was an oddball.

I know its not much help, but I can relate.

Jason

Thanks for the suggestions guys, but it's a moot point, it'll have a different scope on it by this weekend. And different bullets when 130 vlds are available.

I don't really care where the chart says I am supposed to be. As long as it is close enough to allow me to test, then I am good to go. I downloaded two different charts for my Swede, and neither was right between 700-1000. Close enough to figure out my actuals though. A dirt hillside with some medium rocks gets you close in a hurry. Then fine tune on steel.

The fact of the matter is that with all of the atmospheric and mechanical inputs entered correctly into a good ballistic program, such as JBM or Ballistic AE which uses JBM, a correct output can be computed. They are known.

The velocity and BC figures are another story

Velocity figures taken from dude's chronographs are not the most reliable. BC's of identical bullets vary when fired from different barrels.

Ballistic AE has features to help you calculate the true velocity and BC of your bullet from actual drop.

Ive never needed to use them. I simply intput a velocity in the starting page that I believe is very close to actual, calculate trajectory, and shoot at the longest plate on our range. I refine my data dialed until I achieve a group of impacts in the center if the known distance target, record that number then adjust the velocity input on the trajectory page until the program outputs the actual drop number at that range.

I then test that drop chart at every distance to confirm accuracy. Works every time.

I will also submit to the board that the velocity figure that produces a drop chart matching actual drop is your actual velocity. I trust its accuracy far more than what a chronograph says.

If BC values were always accurate and consistent that would be true, as long as all inputs were correct and complete. But as you said, the fact is that BC values vary. They vary with twist rate, rifling finish, number and shape of lands engraving the bullet, etc. As with any scientific data, you can not assume a perfectly linear relationship between a single dependent and independent variable, when there are 2 or more dependent variables at play. If actual drop doesn't match predicted drop, it is either due to incorrect actual BC value or incorrect actual velocity, but it's impossible to say which one for sure without eliminating one variable. That is why Bryan Litz uses Doppler radar to test for true BC values- because the velocity variable is known with reasonable certainty.

I tend to make my chart match reality..... it's a lot tougher to change reality to meet your chart..... unless you're a Liberal.....

Every time I thought a Leupold was tracking 'funky'.... it was my inputs that were off.... once I fixed the loose screw in the nut behind the trigger.... things got a lot more accurate and consistent.

Also.... a small variation in what you presume is a '100 yard zero (or 200... or whatever) can make for much larger errors downrange. Combine a zero that's 1/2" higher/lower.... and a 2-4% error in in chronographed velocities.... throw in a .05"-.10" scope height input error.... some pressure variance.... and you can see pretty quickly how you could have 1-2 MOA variance (projected vs. actual) at 500yds.

That's why, like Rick, I shoot the dope that's most accurate far away.... and accept small variances at closer range, where the differences are much smaller.

Good one. It's also pretty easy to change scopes and see if a different one tracks differently. Especially when it's just sitting in the safe. You're right about the scope height error input though. I was slightly over-estimating using the default value. When I measured and corrected it (Thanks RC), there was a bigger difference between actuals and predicted. Go figure.

As far as the chronograph, just for fun does anyone have quickload handy?

And yes I know it's just an approximation but I'd be interested in what the output is. If it's closer to RC's velocity of 3025, I'd be interested in knowing that:

.260 Remington shooting a 123 grain scenar, COAL 2.845

Lapua brass with 54.8 grains H20 capacity

23" barrel

48 grains H4831sc

I think those are the inputs, if I left something out let me know.

+1

I print out the calculated chart, then simply confirm. Then I edit the chart when I find the differences.

I don't what info I goofed up, but one chart said I should be like 23MOA drop at 1000, and the other one said 25.9. I am actually 24.25 though.

I shot the 123 Scenar at 3k easily out if a 23" 1-8" .260 using Lapua brass and three or four different powders. You're WAY overthinking this thing....

Rick and I talked about your issue, as I have dope on the exact bullet/cartridge/twist combo.... and it's good dope. I had to adjust the BC and velocity slightly to make the program match actual drops.... but I've never seen a program that reflected perfectly straight out of the gate.

PS....

Bullet : .264, 123, Lapua Scenar GB489 6032
Useable Case Capaci: 46.678 grain H2O = 3.031 cm�
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.800 inch = 71.12 mm
Barrel Length : 24.0 inch = 609.6 mm

Hodgdon H4831 SC 110.0 47.8 3.10 2981 95.0 62207 10088 1.111 ! Near Maximum !

Going by what Hodgdon's data center says is a poor indicator of reality

For example, Hodgdon shows the 6.5 Creedmoor with H-4350 and the 140 grain Hornady A-Max at 2.820" COAL with a starting load of 36 grains and a maximum load of 40 grains (Compressed as well)

The velocity range from starting to max was 2464fps to 2660fps in a 24" barrel.

I'm shooting the exact same combination in a 24" barrel. I worked the load up on Saturday. I started at 41 grains and ended at 43.7. The 43.7 grain load showed no sticky bolt and no shiny ejector mark on the case head. The Audette showed a lower velocity node at 41 to 41.9 grains. The upper velocity node was 5 consecutive shots that printed with 1" of vertical at 600 yards. The node was from 42.5 grains to 43.7grains. I loaded the 43.1 grain load in the middle of the node and shot for groups. It shot 3/4" without any seating adjustment. I then loaded 25 to dial in the data.

2875 fps for the velocity input worked perfectly in Ballisic AE

My Comp gun is a 26" barrel with the 139 Scenar. 42.5 grains gives me 2900 FPS...

No doubt. When it matches your chronograph, it's hard to ignore though, at least it is for me. And to be clear, I'm not saying it's right.




No doubt I'm over-thinking it, and making some mistakes in the process. I like to make my own mistakes, they make a bigger impression on me than anything else. Thanks for running the QL, if I'm reading that right it predicts 2981 for a 24" barrel, another data point that says my chrono may be a little low.

And I hear you on adjusting the velocity so that it matches the furthest I'll shoot and accepting the smaller error in close, that makes sense. It's off the actuals at 400 by around a half MOA, which I can live with for now. I think RC just adjusted the MV upward to get it to match at 550, I may go back and drop the MV a little and play with the BC to see if I can get a better match at the shorter distances.

Thanks for the help.

And now, a musical interlude...

What, are you out of naked women pics?

No, but I can only post Half-Naked pics here