Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Ballistic reticles

Reticle is irrelevant in this scenario........at 12x, you're screwed period.

Agreed 100%. I'm a big fan of the Leupold B&C and have found it to be easily "minute of whitetail" out to 400 yd with most reasonable cartridges and a little common sense. Clear, concise and easy to use.
I don't like a "Christmas tree" reticle that covers half of the FOV. I don't think I would like any scope with multiple hash marks based on 1 or 2 MOA spacing. If I need to consult a chart or app or memorize holdovers, then I would rather just dial......

As for the negative comments about requiring the scope be on max power to use the reticle, I'm pretty much assuming that if an animal is far enough to need the holdover, then I'm going to zoom in my scope to max power immediately. It's just habit. Sure I can forget, but stuff happens and nothing is foolproof.

I don’t intend my comments to be negative about the scope magnification setting. I know it works for others, just not for me. I have tried to use 2nd Focal Plane and I forget to adjust the scope every time. No fault of the scope, 100% operator error on my part!

I really like the Leupold B&C reticle, I wish they would put it in either a 1st Focal Plane or a 6x scope. Having wind reference would be beneficial.

And like I noted, any system that works for you is good. There are several ways to get to the same result; MOA, MILs, turrets, LRD vs B&C, 1st vs 2nd Focal Plane. Probably others. Pick one that works for you and use it. I just choose not to use more than 1 concept because I have demonstrated to myself that I fail to switch back and forth in the field as well as I can at the range.

Twisting dials allows you to get more precise at longer range. Multiple aiming points are faster to use, and better for hunting IMO. No they won't get your bullets to impact perfectly at each range, but here is what I've found. With my 30-06/165's zeroed at 100 yards the marks on the reticle are "close enough" at 200, 300, and 400 yards. That is as far as I've shot. The bullets may still impact 3-4" below my point of aim at 400 yards. But that is still in the kill zone for most big game and if you are using a range finder to know the exact range it is a lot easier to hold over 3-4" than 3-4'.

With my 308 I find a greater difference, but even that isn't an issue if you know where it hits. The 200 yard mark on the scope may actually be 180 yards, the 300 yard mark may be 275 yards and so on. But that isn't really a problem, you almost never find game at exactly 100, 200, 300, or 400 yards. They will almost always be 95, 215, 289, or 422 yards. Even if the bullets impacted perfectly at the aiming point for each mark on the reticle you're still going to have to compensate somewhat.

I found a Leupold 3X9 with "dots" to be simple, functional and it does fill the image with hash marks which I find distracting. Love this scope.

Love the Rapid z-600 and z-800 reticle from the zeiss conquest line (now Meopta). I used it perfectly for a whitetail at 538 yards. Ran the app, zoomed to the suggested zoom. Put my “504” yard hash high in the shoulder. Bullet impact was 1/3 the way up the chest cavity. Perfect shot through the vitals with my 264 win mag using 120ttsx at 3275 FPS muzzle vel. I also have a Boone n Crockett reticle Leupold but prefer the zeiss.
Get the strelock app and you can use it to figure out impact points for any common hold over reticle.

Ballistic reticles are 100% accurate...if you shoot them and verify dope at each distance and power setting.

for those of you who are stating that “ballistic reticles are faster”..... are you advocating taking 400+ yard shots at big game animals that require immediate “point and shoot” reactions?

If so.... please explain.... what’s the amount time between spotting the game, to the time the shot must go off? 3 seconds.... 5 seconds.... 10 seconds? And, is the loss of precision.... worth the return in “speed”?

I’m trying to wrap my head around why “faster” is a valid point when it comes to big game hunting.... especially when we extend the range. To me..... I need two things: Rapid target acquisition for shots inside about 250-300..... and EXTREME precision beyond that.

When you’re stretching it past 400, you need to take your time and make sure all is well with the shot AND potential recovery of the critter. You’re not shooting at moving critters.... and 9 times out of 10 you’re dealing with relatively calm animals. No need for gap shooting the reticle in these situations.... take stock of the situation, dial the EXACT range.... and slide a little wind.

I’ve used ballistic reticle a lot..... and I’ve spun the crap outta LOTS of turrets. I’ve shot big game using both..... and I’ll take the turret EVERY time. I’ve never had a scenario where dialing has cost me a shot on a critter.... ever..... but I have passed on several after I dialed for the shot, because something or other wasn’t right.

If you’re thinking a ballistic reticle is going to allow you to clobber a bull at 488 yards, in 3 seconds, holding the “third dot down just a touch high”..... then you might be a “touch high”. Dot reticle do not offer the kind of precision I personally require for shooting big game in excess of about 350-400 yards. I’ve tried to love them.... but they always come up sucking hind-tit to a solid turret driven optic.

Trying to keep this post brief because, Dog already covered the spectrum of real world, using a scope with reticle hash marks.

It would be almost luck if your chosen cartridges ballistics matched the windshield perfectly giving you proper sighting on fur from the reticle alone without dialing...Especially, at distances some find common place for big fur hunting.

It’s a lot more accurate to dial your dope up based off trued and verified ballistics of a cartridge at distance, than it is acquiring hash marks for hold on, or over, in the glass.

My experience trying to use them made the decision easy to either sell my ballistic scopes off, or put them on a varmint rig where a miss wouldn’t create a wounding and tracking nightmare...😎

If I had to make a quick shot at 300 yards + I wouldn't shoot, period.

If a shot is far enough to require dialing it probably requires to me to think about wind. That few seconds to observe will be more than it takes to dial. Guess I’m just thinking dialing isn’t the weak link the chain of shooting at longer distances. For as far as I plan to shoot at an animal I could probably make CDS, dialing mils or MOA, or a Ballistic reticle work. Picking one and doing it a lot would be the most important aspect of performing when it counts.

What Dogshooter wrote warrants a read; probably twice.

Fully agree.....

For sure! I am ‘faster’ with dots than turrets because I regularly use dots. If I trained/regularly exercised with turrets I would probably be relatively quick with turrets. For others turrets are just as quick as dots.

In addition I straight up wouldn’t take a shot past a practiced comfortable level with dots or turrets. And I freely admit turrets are more precise at long range, but I’m not comfortable taking those shots with any system. Dots for me are a preference only at a mid range shot. I don’t shoot further.

Like JGR stated I’m not taking a 3-second 300 yard shot with any system; I’m very deliberate with shots. As a result I’m not particularly good at close/quick shots. That has nothing to do with dots vs turrets.

Dots are slightly “faster”.....

My point is..... they’re only “faster” in a situation where you don’t want to be “fast”.... you want to be “certain... quickly”.

The last two elk i shot were with a Burris E1 4.5-14 ballistic reticle scope.
It didn't make me quicker as both time the elk were 400yds away (laser ranged) and unaware of me.
The holdover dots did give me a hard aiming point and I'd proven them after running my rifle through a ballistic app and shooting to prove my load at distance with that reticle.
A ballistic reticle beats a standard duplex if you have wrung out what the actual distances your load lines up with your scope and have ranged the distance.
Otherwise it's just a duplex and you're guessing holdover.
Dialing for distance is more accurate and would have worked for me too but I'd accepted the limitation of my scope before I hunted and had a stickie with actual ranges for the holdover marks taped to the stock.

Shoot to prove your load at distance and range to prove your distance to target.

slidell, what you are wanting to do IMO does make quite a bit of sense. basically a 1" tube scope that saves the weight, and uses the reticle instead of worrying about how robust and precise the internals are to make the shots. Not a bad option. I do use holdover sometimes on shots out to about 500 yards depending on which gun I am running. SFP works great as long as you don't try to use a scope with too much power. frankly a big game hunting scope NEVER needs to be above 15x and if you keep the scope that power or less, just follow a simple rule, for longer shots that you know needs holdover or dialing, simply put the scope on max power. I use most of my scopes this way anyways. they are on lowest power, and if its a shot I deem to be beyond 250 or so, I simply just crank to max. Simple. no need to worry about the hold over marks changing because of the SFP deal. I have a nightforce NXS 2.5-10 mil dot I do this all the time with. The power throw lever easily is slung to max is I am shooting further than 250 yards.

as for reticles. I think I like ones with consistent marks on them rather than the ones like the burris ballistic plex or leupold B&C. I would rather have something like the zeiss Zmoa, or plain mil dot or even the TMOA or TMR type reticles that leupold has, something along those lines. That way a simple JBM chart can just be cut out and taped to your stock, and if a 450 yard shot requires 2.2 mils of holdover you just hold a scosh more than 2 mils. Otherwise with the burris bplex or leupold B&C you have to go back to the owners manual and figure out what the subtentions are. with consistent marks be it mils or MOA, no need for that.

As long as the scope holds zero, the rest is practice.

Yep, the B&C was designed by a simpleton (that would be me ) who owns part of the patent.

It works … PERIOD, if the hunter cares enough to spend the time in learning how to use it.

The Boone & Crockett reticle was probably my most important contribution I made to the common hunter. Less than some and a lot more than most

God Bless.

Steve

I would recommend prior to your reticle testing to actually range test your load group sizes on targets at distance. I've had some loads that will hold MOA @ 100 yards do very badly past 300 yards, if you've not done it you may be surprised. Take several different 100 yard MOA loads with you and you will most likely get several different size 400 yard group sizes.

I like the B&C because the distance cross hairs taper to a very precise crossing of the vertical.