Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Ballistic reticles

I am thinking about a new scope for an elk rifle I’d like to put together. I realize most of the better scopes with turrets are fairly heavy and I’m trying to keep the weight down, so I am considering a scope with some inch tube and a ballistic plex type reticle.

How accurate are the ballistic reticles from the various manufacturers like the Leupold Boone and Crockett, Burris ballistic plex and others?

It seems that they really couldn’t be that close at 200, 300 and further yards with all the different velocities and bullet styles that folks might use in them.

If it’s a second focal plane scope they are calibrated for use on the highest setting correct? I assume you could shoot them at other settings to get a different trajectory, but if I am going to have to dial a certain power I might as well dial a turret.

When dialing a turret do you have to have the scope on a certain power if it’s a second focal plane?

I’ve just always used a plex reticle but would like to expand my knowledge.

Thanks,

Dan

I like the simpler dot type reticles. I have not used the newer ones that you can use with a phone application. Whichever you choose you will have to shoot at range to verify the accuracy none of them will be 100%. I think the best for me would be a three dot reticle and then if I wanted to shoot further than 400 yards a custom turret. I think most people are in fantasy land thinking they can make first shot lethal hits past about 400 yards. I know some can but for me it is not ethical. A fine duplex can get me to 400 yds. by sighting in 2.5 inches high at 100 and then using the duplex post at 400.

Not sure you are considering this, but

The Leupold 6x36 LRD and 6x42 LRD are simple, lightweight, accurate scopes.

The dots are at 2.19 MOA, 4.8 MOA, and 7.8 MOA. Get yourself a standard ballistic calculator (Hornady is free online). Adjust the zero distance for your rifle in the calculator using G1 or G7 BCs appropriate for your bullet, see about what you need for sighting in at 100. Record data so that the second dot (4.8 MOA) is dead on at 400 yards.

Go to the range. Shoot/adjust sights at 100 to whatever the calculator said.

Now move your target to 400 yards. Aim using the second dot. I bet you’ll be pretty close.

Alternately you could attempt to locate a First Focal Plane scope with holdovers. Schmidt and Bender make one. In my opinion Second Focal Plane scopes with holdover marks are too complicated for me in the field.

I personally like the B&C reticle for several reasons so here they are. One is the reticle hash marks aren't too thin and can easily be picked up , two is this type reticle is spot on at max power( 10x) for my .280 using a 140 pill out to 500 yds verified several times.
Leupold does have another setting on the power ring for slower calibers and like said above you need to verify your dope at the range.
If you're shooting 500 yds and under the B&C reticle is a perfect option. If you're hunting out west in open country where shots are longer then I'd recommend something else where you can dial.
You'll need trigger time with both so find what works best for you.
I do have the Leupold LR Duplex reticle also and works just as well.

I have one scope with a B&C reticle. I've done only limited experimentation with it on a .308 rifle, but was surprised how close point of aim vs. point of impact were with some loads at 300 and 500 yards.

Sight the gun in so that the second dot/hash is at the correct elevation, and that will minimize error at longer distances (by replacing it with small error at shorter range.)

You are trying to match two curves of different shapes. If you sight in at 100 yds you are having the arcs touch there, and the error will increase at greater distances. If you sight it in on either the second or third aiming point, you are having the arcs cross there which means that the error will be distributed to distances both shorter and longer than that. But the error at the longest ranges will be substantially reduced.

Simple range compensating reticles like the B&C and the old Burris design absolutely have their place in big game hunting. Not as precise as turret turning, but certainly simpler and quicker.

Very much agree on the "quicker" part. That's necessary where I hunt. Something you intend to shoot at 300-400yds might give you 5 seconds to get it in your scope and pull the trigger.

Like others have said, a ballistic calculator, like JBM, can be very handy. Joelkdouglas outlines the procedure well. See what your calclulator says your 100yd or 200yd impacts should be, get your rifle shooting close to that, and then fine tune at 300 or 400 yards. I generally use the Leupold reticles with the 2.2MOA, 4.8MOA, and 7.8MOA subtensions. Most decently-shaped spitzers with a BC of .430 or better and a speed of 2800 or better can be made to work with a zero around 200yds, give or take. As an example, a 30-06 shooting a 180 NBT at 2750 might require a zero at 215 for the 300/400yd aiming points to line up well, while a 270WSM shooting a 140NBT at 3,150 might need a 190yd zero for the 300/400yd aiming points to line up well. And "well" is relative. If your calculator shows your impacts are with 1/2 MOA of the scope's subtension values at 300/400yds (2.2 and 4.8MOA for Leupold), you are likely close enough for killing a big game animal. Half MOA off at those distances is around 1.5" and 2", respectively. Still better than trying to hold on air at 400 and determining if you are holding 14" high or 18" high on that buck......

I’ve used the dots in the Leupold fixed powers and the Zeiss Rapid Z 600. I much prefer the Rapid Z 600. It was easy to get first round hits on my 8” plates out to 600 yards with it. It is 2FP so your elevation values only work at a specific magnification setting. You determine that setting by using the Zeiss Ballistic app. If you’re using the same load in the same DAs it’s a one and done deal but if you are switching loads or dealing with big changes in density altitude, it’s back to the Ballistic ap. But, like I said, I found it to be very effective.

Problem was one of the scopes I had the Rapid Z 600 in puked on me and lost zero and could not be zeroed after that. The reticle is only as good as the scope. So, if I were set on a Ballistic reticle, I’d be looking at the NF NXS Compact with their velocity 600 reticle or exercise more versatility and just use a good mil based reticle with a chart on my rifle for holdovers as appropriate. Or dial, which offers the best option for precision.

John

The relation between the power setting and the amount of moa or mils subtended by the reticles divisions is linear.

the difficulty arises in the differences between a "progressive" one and "constant" one. so labeled ballistic ones have a "gain" of course accounting for the lose in velocity

But in both cases that value increases with a decrease in power in direct ratio.

so a 12x set on 6 will increase the reticle values 2x and so on

the Zeiss,Nikon, and Swarovski ballistic programs, free on the net easily show this relationship

Both the Zeis and Swaro ask for the size of the target, or game you are shooting, and they then give you the low value and high value for impact with whichever reticle intersection you have chosen.

Yes, they work quite well once you learn exactly where they are hitting with your particular rifle. I used the Burris version for many years, killed several animals between 400-600 yards. Nowdays you use apps like strelok to tell you exactly what yardages the marks are good for at any given power. My youngest kids 243 at has one. It's a 4.5-14, but I know that with a 200 zero, at 14x the first hash is dead on at 275, second hash is 375.

I like Leupold's simple LRD in a fixed power scope. Several folks have mentioned getting the dots to line up by changing your zero distance and that certainly works. I've done it a bit differently as I prefer a 100 zero for threading needles in woods and for coyotes when calling. After that I'll find the ranges the dots line up with and note them inside the BC cap after verifying. Practice a lot at in-between ranges and even 100's....having a dot that's on at 235 makes it easy to use the top of the dot at 200, bottom of dot at 275 etc..... In the end, they're just reference points for a distance. As long as you verify and match them up they will work.

I still prefer dialing with a reliable scope.

I have tried ballistic reticles several times and just don't like them on big game rifles. They have all been in second focal plane scopes and have to be on max power for the dots to correlate with the common drops. I have adjusted the scope to something less than full power and shot right over by forgetting to max the power out. I much prefer a scope with a simple duplex type reticle and a turret for long range. If you need a quick shot you can still hold over and the point of aim does not change with the changing of the power. I seem to be in the minority these days because the number of scopes with Christmas tree reticles seems to be growing every time you look at an optics counter.

Centershot has a valid point and SFP scopes needing to be on max power to work with the ballistic reticles. I only hunt those reticles in scopes that top out at a max power of 10x or less. When I hunt areas that provide long shot opportunities, I dial to max as soon as I load my rifle. Hunting in the woods or at medium range, I'm only using the duplex center section anyway, so I can leave it at low power. No high-powered BDC scopes for me for big game.....

Not all the SFP Ballistic reticles are calibrated to work only on max magnification. The Zeiss Rapid Z return clues are calibrated to work on a specific magnification, which may or may not be max.

John

Ah, you are correct. Nikon does that also with their Spot-On program. I suppose I'm just used to the way I do it.....

They list the standard calibers different than the magnums. People tend to think that there’s a magic cartridge out there. In reality most are so close to each other that in normal hunting ranges the bdc works well. You are not shooting 1 inch dots but are trying for about an 8-12 inch kill zone. Yes the scope has to be at max magnification to work as stated. I’ve seen professional shooters turn their torrents the wrong direction on multiple occasions. Human error is always present. The dots or circles work fine it’s usually the wind that will get ya. Just my opinion. Not worth much but the question was asked. Ed k

Correct

it is a common misconception--- based on marketing techniques of the makers It just depends on how much the shooter knows about the inter relationships of ballistics and holdover

in fact all reticles ffp and sfp can be used as BDC, which includes constant distance ones such a mil-dot


the Zeiss Diavari 6x24 1000 yard one I use zeros at 500 yds, and 1,2,3,4 yds are in the top part of the windshield . this gives 20+ moa in the windshield alone with no dialing.

using their program it can be set to any combination of distance/drop------

The problem is the shooter, they are locked into thinking of distance in yds, meters, instead of angular drop

Yup, and the extreme spread in MV

Leupolds BAS system is based on this. bullets with the same BC shot at the same velocity will all be pretty close regardless of caliber.

Leupy B&C, 7mm08/140 AB's running 2800. Sight in 2" high at 100 (215 zero) and holdovers work perfectly at 300,400,450,500.

Much of this discussion, definitely not pointing fingers at anyone, illustrates why I don’t like 2nd focal plane holdover reticles. Different magnification settings for some, high magnification settings for others, etc.

In the field I need no more than a moderate level of magnification for most activities, ie still hunting, spot and stalk, etc. If I spot an animal there may be limited time to adjust the scope (I’ve walked up on elk 20 yards away that didn’t see me, and I didn’t see them). If the scope is set to 12X in that scenario you are at a disadvantage with little time to adjust.

If you see an animal 300-400 yards away and you are watching it and have time to play with the scope a 2nd Focal Plane holdover reticle would be fine. I have experienced similar scenarios.

Mostly though it’s a scenario where you have a couple to 15 seconds to get a shot off and I am not thinking about my scope. With a fixed power or 1st Focal Plane reticle I’m still good.

If you are able to use something, use it! I’m just saying why I don’t like 2nd Focal Plane holdover reticles. I have a buddy that can work in either MOA or MILs. Not me! He starts to talk in MILs and I just quit listening so I don’t get myself confused!