Dear All,

Is there any information available on-line, where one can see what ballistics are supposed to fit the Swaro & Kahles TDS or the Leupold Boone&Crockett reticles??

I.e. For what ballistic curves can one expect a reasonably accurate (minute of antelope, perhaps) range compensation with these reticles??

I can find general (marketing) type information such as:



But I have yet to unearth specifics like "on a caliber with this much drop at 400 yds, sight such and such and use holdover points for such and such yards"...

Zeiss has their Rapid-Z Calculator on-line, and that is really practical. I'm just not sure I'm into a reticle covering only the center of the FOV. I'm somehow missing the outer, heavy arms of the reticle (as on the Z-Plex and other reticles).

Oh, and yes, I am aware that the factory specs are approximate and that they should be checked against actual POIs at various ranges. It would also interest me how well you have found the range compensation to work for your caliber (specify caliber and basic ballistics, please) with these reticles??

Thanks for your time in advance.

- mike

Hey mike

Ballistic reticles have always fascinated me so I do have some info on them. So far I have a Kahles with the TDS, a Burris with the Ballistic Mil Dot and the Zeiss Rapid Z (you know, I was wondering about the center reticle but it is not a concern and totally unnoticeable when focusing on target). I have also worked with a Burris Ballistic Plex. I do not know about the Leupold Boone and Crockett and don't expect to since I would never buy a Leupold.

You have to find out how much the marks or dots subtend at 100 yards on your target and then you can figure out how to use them:

TDS - crosshairs, 2", 4.8", 7.5" and 10.5"
TDS-4 - crosshairs, 1.8", 4.7", 8.0" and 12.2"
Ballistic Mil Dot - crosshairs, .8", 2.4", 4.8" and 7.2"
Ballistic Plex - crosshairs, 1.5", 4.5", 7.6" and 11"
RapidZ - don't know because the ballistic calculator on-line will not let you set the sight in distance to 100 yards. It works differently because it calculates the power you should set your scope on to coordinate with your bullet, bullet BC and velocity. The formulas for working this out are complicated so I haven't sat down and figured out how to outsmart their computer yet.

Anyway, then you can take your ballistics program, insert your info and change the sight in distance and velocity to fit the reticles. For instance, the Kahles TDS is mounted on a Steyr 30-06 in which I shoot a 200 gr Accubond at 2650 fps:

TDS reticle - 100 yds/crosshairs, 200 yds/4" (2x2"), 300 yds/14.4" (3x4.8"), 400 yds/30" and 500 yds/52.5"
30-06 trajectory - 100 yds/crosshairs, 200 yds/3.9", 300 yds/14.1", 400 yds/31.4", 500 yds/56.33"

The coordination kinda falls apart there at the end but 4" at 500 yards is not a big deal and the variable like different muzzle velocity, relative humidity, altitude etc. are probably going to change things anyway.

Now you could play with a different bullet and use a 200 yd zero to your heart's content but that is what I have chosen and works well for me.

The TDS-4 starts out the same but has more drop at the extended ranges. For example at 500 yards the reticle subtension would be 5x12.2=61" as opposed to the TDS of 52.5".

The Burris Ballistic Mil Dot is calibrated and built for the 22-250 shooting a 55 gr bullet at 3640 fps and that is exactly what I use it for. You can drive yourself crazy trying to match that flat trajectory in a 270 or 300 win mag but you will need to push those bullets really hard. I did have it on a 270 where I was pushing a 140 gr TSX at 3200 fps and came close but I got tired of trashing the brass after 4 loadings cause the primers were falling out. You can also come close with a 300 win mag shooting 165 gr pills.

The Burris Ballistic Plex is pretty easy to match:

100 yd zero - crosshairs, 3", 13.5", 30.4" and 55".
200 yd zero - -1.5" (approx), zero, 4.5", 18", 38" (would fit a 270 or 300 win mag close)

I have the 4.5x14 RapidZ on a 6.5 rem mag and if I push the 130 gr Accubonds at 3100 fps it says I need to set my power range at 12.43. For the 140 gr TBBC at 2950 fps I will need to set it at 10.09. Kinda takes all the work out of it but reduces my options until I can figure out the 100 yd subtensions.

One thing I know, I will not buy another scope without some kind of ballistic reticle or setting the range with the turrets. Have you ever tried to figure out exactly how far to hold over for 21" at 400 yards? Did you guess right or did you only hold over 18" or maybe 24"? Get the picture. The reticles help to aim at the correct holdover point.

I do now have 2 of the Kahles MultiZero's and they are also excellent.

Thanks an awful lot Woods, that was a lot of detailed information - a good place to start detailed investigations!

quote:

Originally posted by woods:
... Have you ever tried to figure out exactly how far to hold over for 21" at 400 yards? Did you guess right or did you only hold over 18" or maybe 24"? Get the picture. The reticles help to aim at the correct holdover point.

That is exactly the reason, why I originally decided to try out reticles with ballistic compensation. I find holdover OK, as long as you can pretty much stay on the animal with the reticle. But it gets difficult, when your holdover is "half an animal" over its back"... It is possible, but it is far from a confidence inspiring experience!

Enter ballistically compensated reticles. My first (and thus far only) attempt was with a Leupold with a custom installed reticle. I was worried how accurate the ballistic correction would be, but although it is far from 100% spot on, it seems accurate enough for field work on the distances I checked zero. It also proved a huge hit in the field, where I felt a lot more comfortable taking my (necessary) long shots, and the results were above reproach.

Encouraged by this experience, I was considering options for other long range calibers.

I'm not looking to become a bulls-eye shooter at 5-6-7-8-900 yds, for that you'd need temperature correction, barometric pressure correction and what not. I just want something bog simple (i.e. field useable, even under stress), which will help me kill game cleanly at range. A MOA more or less at the different ranges is of little practical consequence.

Attempting to find a system as simple as possible, in my first attempt I went for a reticle set for my regular (long range) zero of 300 yds. That would allow me to hold right on until this pretty "far out" distance. Only for what I consider "true long range", would I have to start using the ballistic correction points. The price I pay for this simplicity, is that I must accept as much deviation of bullet path and line of sight out to 300 yds, as I have been doing when I did not use a ballistic reticle. That is unfortunate (e.g. 3-4" max deviation from line of sight), but I'd rather accept this drawback, and gain simplicity under stress...

This will probably also be my preferred setup for two other calibers I'm planning correction reticles for. Either is fast enough that the 300 yds zero is not too much of a compromise.

For slower calibers (e.g. muzzle velocity at or below 3000 fps), I was hoping to get away with a 200 yds zero and use the first correction point for 300 yds etc.

I can see the advantage of ballistic correction by clicking the elevation adjustment of the scope. In fact, in particular systems that allow you to establish an actual trajectory at range, and easily set adjustment zero points accordingly sound attractive. Kahles Multi-Zero or Swaros's upcoming equivalent system spring to mind. This is probably about as accurate as you are going to get - adjustment fit to your particular rifle/load - without resorting to compensation for changes in temperature and barometric pressure and what not.

The reason I'm not totally sold on this idea, (and I admit I speak without actual experience), is my worry that adjustments are made under stress and subsequently forgotten. This could seriously screw up the next shot.... Still, a system like this could also be combined with a fairly long range zero as the standard setting, to minimize the chances of having to click around. Only for true long range shots would adjustments become necessary.

A prerequisite for using a click-based system would be the ability to be able to actually shoot at the ranges you'd want to set your zero points at, but I guess this is akin to checking the correction offered by a ballistic reticle...

Thanks for taking the time to share your experience with me in this area. AR sure is a great place for exchange of ideas!

- mike

The Swarovski site has the TDS calculator on-line. I've used it a good bit.

Also found this good discussion of the TDSmith reticle:
http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5024&PN=1

quote:

Originally posted by mho:

The reason I'm not totally sold on this idea, (and I admit I speak without actual experience), is my worry that adjustments are made under stress and subsequently forgotten. This could seriously screw up the next shot....

- mike

Not usually, but possible. There is usually adequate time to do all you have to do on long range shots. It is possible to leave the setting on the longer range and screw up. That's why after a shot where I actually moved the turret, I put set the stop back to 100 yard zero before putting the cap back on. Trying to get into the habit.

quote:

A prerequisite for using a click-based system would be the ability to be able to actually shoot at the ranges you'd want to set your zero points at, but I guess this is akin to checking the correction offered by a ballistic reticle...

Actually no. When you get your load down and zero the MultiZero at 100 yards, you can set the projected impact points of the extended ranges on the 100 yard range target and set each one. For example this is the kind of target I'm talking about when I set the MultZero for 200, 300, 400 and 500 yards. All it takes is a ballistic program and a little math



This will get you close enough until you can shoot at the longer ranges. I found it pretty close.

One good feature of the MultiZero is that it makes it easy to set it for whatever distance

100 yards


300 yards


or even in between like 350 yards


or 450 yards


It makes it easy to dial in your yardage. The reticle is uncluttered if that is your preference. The slots can be set to whatever yardage you wanted, like 400, 600, 800 and 1000 yards if you wanted. And, the MultiZero could be switched to whatever rifle you want and you can rematch it to the new gun.

Hello,
First off, keep everything absolutely as simple as possible and the simplest form of range estimating optics for shoulder fired rifles is the mil dot system. It is not caliber specific ,but does require you have some basic math skills and familiar with "come ups" and wind drift formula/data per the specific caliber you are shooting. Not complicated, but does require some dedication and practice. The less lines, dots, circles, bars, dials, etc. you have on the scope the better off you are.
Have shot 1000 yard matches for quite sometime and perhaps some utilize the various atmospheric data available, but not many. Know your load, know your rifle, have practiced a lot, built you a prone position that is comfortable for you, know the right sling setting, read the wind and other signs out there which can aid in dialing in the wind, and do not hold that sight picture any longer than necessary, absolute constant trigger control and squeeze the shot. All of the above is for sport shooting at targets only. Techniques can be transferred to other uses, but moving targets require different application of the basics. Have mentioned before, but try out www.shooterread.com and will give you a good intro to the type of shooting, range estimating one can do with the simple mil dot system. One final suggestion is stay away from the damn benches at ranges. That bench will get real heavy lugging it through the bush in all sorts of weather. Rifle sling is the best portable bench ever invented for riflemen, hunter or otherwise.

Mike, PM sent.

I have to disagree with dsiteman about the Mil-Dot system. It's nowhere near the simplest system to use.
To normal hunting ranges, say 600yds or less the TDS system is far faster and easier to use. I have both and have used both. With the calculator you can figure the exact ranges your particular rifle is dialed into but you would be surprised how close to the 200-600yd intervals they end up being. I've shot different calibers with the TDS out past 500yds and they are deadly on big game size targets.
If you are shooting gophers at 1000yds you might want to shoot turrets, mil-dot etc. and bring your laptop and portable weather station for more accurate 1st shots further than 600yds, but there's got to be a point where that becomes more shooting than hunting.
For making shots on big game the TDS is faster and easier. I've shot deer at 347yds and Elk at 536yds using the TDS system - it worked great for me..................................DJ

Thanks a lot for the replies guys. Much food for thought.

Woods, good idea about being able to check holdover points at 100 yds, say. This would be next best to actually testing at long range, but would probably do in a pinch.

dsiteman, I absolutely agree with you about the attraction of simplicity of reticles. In fact, all these ballistic compensation systems seem to suffer from rather "busy" reticles.

DJ and hairbol, a lot of people seem very pleased with the results the TDS have delivered. I read some of the instructions DJ pointed me in the direction of here:

http://www.exbalapplications.com/SwarovskiApp-TDS/(S(zx...ructions-English.pdf

What is a bit worrying is this business of holdover points giving you a zero of, say, 537 yards. How on earth anybody is supposed to remember that in the field (short of pasting a "cheat slip" to your scope) is beyond me... But perhaps this is no worse than accepting that the holdover point is about 500 yds, and accepting a certain imperfection in that zero???

- mike

mho:

If you're shooting at long range and you DON'T have a cheat sheet taped to your stock, you'd be an exception in my experience.

Just curious, but wouldn't the simplest system be to use the tip of the heavy part of the duplex reticle. For instance, in a 3-9x Conquest the crosshair to duplex tip segment subtends 4 inches. At 400 yards it subtends 16 inches. If you have 20 inches of drop at 400 yards, put the duples on the upper third of the animal and presto, venison is served. Just curious what others think-I've tried B&C and TDS, whcih work well, but are busy to my eye.

OK, here's a question for you.

In the example above where you have a scope that you adjust for yardage by clicking the elevation turret, if the shots at 100 yards start tracking to the right or left when you start clicking the turret up, does that mean the scope needs to be rotated right or left in the rings?

This would happen with scopes where shooters use click adjustments to elevate but not where the range is compensated for by just aiming higher.

The reason I ask is that on the Mult Zero scope on my 300 win mag shooting at a target on the 100 yard range, the higher I crank the turret to allow for elevation the more to the right the POI moves. At the 500 yard marker which is 30 or so clicks up then the POI is 3" right. Should I rotate the scope clockwise an appropriate amount to realign the axis of the scope elevation adjustments to the axis of the scope centerline / bore?

Also, wouldn't this be an exact way to determine when the reticle is exactly aligned up and down? For example, zero the scope, crank the elevation up 30 clicks, aim at the same spot and see if the POI is aligned vertically with the previous group.

quote:

Originally posted by rdelius:
Just curious, but wouldn't the simplest system be to use the tip of the heavy part of the duplex reticle....

Yes, that works, and I did that for quite a few years. But somehow or other, I managed to get myself in situations where I QUICKLY had to do a bunch of holdover, and had to try to gauge how far over the back of the darn critter I had to hold (no time for mental calculations). Even that worked (most of the time), but it was somewhat disquieting. I much preferred doing long range shooting with a compensating reticle. But the traditional way you describe is viable, I'm just trying to optimize it.

I do agree about range compensating reticles being busy, that is one drawback.

Woods, I'd hate to make a guess for you whether you'd want to turn your scope left or right. In general, the gun always shoots to the same POI, we use the sights to "trick" us into holding the gun differently - i.e. point it in the direction which gives us the POI we want. So if a gun shoots low, we want to point it higher. In that case, we probably adjust the reticle lower. At least, I think we do... I guess I should have listened more carefully when I was taught which way to adjust open sights - but I never shot anything but scopes, and it was written right there on them...

Since I have not helped you much until now, here is what I would do. I would first try to assure the reticle was right plumb on square. The best way I ahve found for this, is to place the gun on a horizontal surface, and sight at a perpendicular object at quite some range - 20-50-70 yds or whatever you can find. I have found that method is the best to tell you whether your scope is canted just a wee bit. Once sure the reticle dead on, back to the range and see if the horizontal adjustment component is still detectable. Don't forget, it won't be a whole bunch of adjustment you are looking at - 3"@500 yds is well under MOA. The wind could easily play such tricks on you....

- mike

There was shown something new from Swarovski - this - looks realy hot:

http://www.swarovskioptik.at/index.php?l=us&css=&nID=x4....28186349&c=produkte

You mean the new "Ballistic Turret" option??

I described a pre-production version of this feature in a thread a while back. The net effect of this thing is essentially the same as in the Kahles multizero system. As far as I could see (and admitting to not knowing the Kalhles system), the setup of the Swaro system is simpler.

I liked what I saw of the Swaro system, and would be pleased try it out for myself...

- mike

Mostly good info that's been presented above. I have done a lot of work over the years with ballistic and rangefinding reticles for downrange zeroing (both vertically and horizontally) and rangefinding. Here is the basic system that i use entitled "Tactical Ballistic and Ranging Reticle Analysis," www.ottllc.com/specialtypistols/sp20.pdf

1st off i never sacrifice point blank range for a ballistic or rangefinding reticle's long-range stadia. I always sight in for a range that allows me to shoot a close shot to the limit of effectiveness of the cartridge i'm using without having to think of bullet drop. If the game shows up at 230 yds, i don't need to be thinking about ballistic reticle holdovers--just aim center and shoot. IMO this normal hunting system of zeroing should never be compromised.

Once that system is established, then it's onto long-range zeros using a subtension vs. specific trajectory system of my load, ALWAYS at the optics highest power (for 2nd FP scopes). A lot of guys get bogged down in trying to make a reticle intuitive, but honestly once the range is known if the "dope" is secured in a location that makes it easy to reference then it takes little time to reference it and apply it once practiced, IMO. I always put the reticle dope in a Butler Creek ocular scope cap cover. This way i don't need to get out of position to reference any particular shooting solution once range, wind speed and direction is known. Just glance up from the sight picture to obtain zeros. Here is an example of a hypothetical entry on my range sticker that allows me the quickest, most accurate system of reference possible, IMO--

450-2.1-0.8

...obviously range, elevation and windage (10 mph 3 or 9 o'clock calcd), always in that order.

Once the zeros r calcd, checked and troubleshot if necessary, it's onto calculating the field zeros as noted above--IN 25 OR 50 YD, INTERVALS ONLY!! Oftentimes i may not even know what any particluar stadia's zero actually is in the field, since i believe that reticle stadia r only there to calculate and reference the interpolative system, since game rarely shows up at a particular stadia's actual zero.

Applying the systems the companies offer for their reticles is fine, but understanding the subtension vs. actual trajectory system of reference that i detailed in the article noted above will net u the most for any reticle with more than 1 stadia point, line, dot whatever including ballistic, rangefinding, plex, custom whatever reticles in 2nd or 1st focal plane. It also details the "modified mil-ranging" system of rangefinding for any reticle as well which has a significance that goes way beyond the mil-dot system of rangefinding.

Hey mike

I drew a representation of the reticle and how it might react because of being rotated



Now what I'm saying is that when you dial in for elevation with the top turret the reticle will be moving along one of the axis A, B or C. Seems to me that in the process of raising your barrel to the new aiming point that the bullet impact point would move along axis D if the scope is too much clockwise and the the reticle is moving along axis A which will then make you raise the barrel to point G and move the aiming point to point H which will throw you off to the right. So rotating the scope counter-clockwise will move it back to axis B and E (straight up).

Would work to correct this problem shown on this target where I was shooting to set the marks on the MulitZero, 2 shots at 200, 1 at 300 and 1 at 500 yd mark (notice how they are progressively to the right)



Right?

Also if you had one of these



anti cant devices and watched to keep it level and your shot group landed straight up then you scope axis would be aligned with your bore axis. Then when you shoot at longer ranges then you would minimize POI to the right or left due to canting or rotation (which are really 2 different things).

What do you think? Epiphany or stupidity?

Woods, I know what you are after. Sadly, it is beyond me to suggest a remedy for you - other than try it and see. (I'm too thick to figure out a theoretical solution to your problem, sadly... ).

Now that I have you, though, on the Kahles Multizero scopes, is it ONLY possible to make an adjustment to the various zero settings with the special key (which I gather is) delivered with the scope??? Or, is it also possible to make adjustments if you happen to have forgotten that key????

- mike

It is possible to move the marks with a sharp instrument with a little effort, even the point of a pen. I have not tried to move from Mode A to B or C with a sharp instrument but I suspect it would be difficult. Sometimes when moving from one mode to the other there is a slight catch where you have to rock the turret back and forth a little in order to get past a catch inside and get to the next mode. I suspect that is a lot easier with the red chingalera thingy.

Thanks Woods.

I have been thinking about your "reticle riddle", but I'm kind of loath to stick out my neck.... (Making a fool of myself... )

If you really want to try a "theoretical" solution, I have a feeling your current reticle set-up may just be the one labelled "F" on your drawing.

- mike

Well, it worked. I rotated the scope a little counter clockwise and the POI at 30 click ups moved from one o'clock position to directly above on the twelve o'clock position.

Now I'm waiting on the scope levels. I figure if the bubble in the level shows the scope to be level and the POI at 30 clicks up hit directly above the zero point then the reticles have to be aligned with the bore and I can get rid of all cant and long range rotational error.

mho
i know we have discussed turrents before and your not really fussed about them, but have you ever thought of useing turrents with the converstion from KENTON INDUSTRIES...you just cant get faster and more precise than that set up
Daniel

Yo Daniel,

As we discussed in the past, I have been somewhat iffy about the option of "click" adjustments for long range shooting. Mostly because I was looking for a fast system, which did not offer the option of leaving incorrect adjustments unnoticed for the next shot. The drawback of this has been I had to accept approximate compensations, but I can probably live with that.

I must say, though, that of late I have warmed to the idea of click based compensation. In particular in the form of the new Swaro system, or the more or less equivalent Kahles Multizero system (to be had a fair bit cheaper than the Swaro).

Looking at the Kenton Industries homepage, though, I must admit this would have one HUGE advantage: I could simply buy an adjustment know for an existing scope, and save buying (yet another) scope and (yet another) mount for my R93 - easily 1K $, after all...

Have you actually tried these things, and do they work as advertised?? Are they well made, on what scopes have you tried them, and do they fit your scopes?? How accurate have the adjustments been for you??

I might consider trying them out for a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10 I already have in use.

- mike

mike
i just bought my self a leupold tactical 3.5-10x40 with the tmr reticle, as you said dialing up M.O.A is a bit slower, because you have to use a cheat sheet , which does not bother me , for the reason when taking shots at long range one usually has plenty of time to get things together, however the kenton system is very efficient, and im looking at going that way. at present i havent tried the tactical scope , however i have tried dialing up on my leupold VX111 3.5 -10X40 , AND IT BECAME APPARENT VERY QUICK that the further out my target was the the bullets just kept on hitting lower and lower below the point of aim , now to be honest i dont really know if that leupold scope was traking correctly, as i havent had the time to sit down and see if it tracks correctly, however at 760 yard my shots were landing 14 inches below point of aim, i used the system from premier , i has dots at 400,500,600 yards and again at 400 yards the point of impact was 3-4 inches below point of aim, at 500 yards it was a to much , and at 600 it was about 20 inches.....i know a lot of the guys that use turrents say you need to do a bit of tuning and altering of the cheat sheet, but once that is done , you should be set pretty well
at present im still waiting to get some 30mm ruger rings before i can start with my tactical scope
what you need to do with your leupold scopes or zeiss is send them back to the factory and have leupold put target/M1/M2or M3 TURRENTS on your scope, with zeiss i think its only with certain models they can put the target turrents on the scope, and i think its only the scopes which have a 30mm tube
i will tell you what mike ,email me your address and i will send you a DVD that i have , where they use the kenton system, it will really open your eyes what can be done when you have got an accurate rifle and the correct set up, the only limitation you have to put on your self is to know at what range your proj will not have enough velocity to expand violently enough to give effective results on the game animals you hunt
daniel

quote:

Originally posted by M 98:
... a DVD that i have , where they use the kenton system, it will really open your eyes what can be done when you have got an accurate rifle and the correct set up, the only limitation you have to put on your self is to know at what range your proj will not have enough velocity to expand violently enough to give effective results on the game animals you hunt
daniel

This one by any chance??

http://www.thebestofthewest.net/longrangeshootingforhunters.html

That is a pretty impressive testimony of what can be done with the right training and the right gear. It is probably a bit beyond what I hope to be able to achieve, but I have to admit it is impressive what they do.

Thanks for the feedback on the various click range compensation systems. I know Zeiss offers these systems for their 30 mm scopes, but I don't know if any such modification is offered for the Conquests.

I have a feeling I'm going to try out a Kenton dial for one of my Conquests. If it does not work as planned, I'll only be out about 80-90 bucks....

What you stated above about having to "fine tune" compensation systems matches my experience. Any compensation system based on ballistic data out of a table is liable to be somewhat imprecise. Much better if you really have 400-500-600-etc yds ranges available and can verify actual bullet drop. If you could do this before you had a Kenton dial made, or after you had your Swaro/Kahles system, that would probably be about as good as you could get it.

Still, the price of the Kenton system makes it worth trying, just for the heck of it...

- mike

A buddy of mine had the Kenton dials made for 1 of his scopes and he likes it. He's been a turret twister for several years but has recently decided to go to reticle once again. we were hunting in So. CO 2 years ago--he for elk, myself for doe deer. We both killed our animals at long-range using his XP-100 handgun 7 Dakota/200 Wildcat/8.5-25X Leup. ART reticle. His shot was dial up, mine (using his handgun) was reticle, and we both took our game no problem. His zeros were tested under std. conditions at his home, then readjusted via Exbal ballistics program on a PDA and a Kestrel for the air density change @ 9000 ft., and it worked perfectly. In fact, his 1st test shot after applying the condition change to the trajectory at my home here @ 4500 ft. was a dead center shot on a 613 yd. steel silhouette. I couldn't believe it when he did it. Here's a link to that shot in an article that was published in Dakota magazine, if it can be accessed-- www.ihmsa.net/Dakota_XP.pdf

Although his turreting worked fine, i'm sticking to reticle to intermediate ranges, then turret beyond reticle's lowest stadia zero. This is something i've done for quite awhile now, and have been more than happy with my experiences. When the dope is in a Butler Creek ocular cover all it takes is a glance up to it to adjust zero along the reticle, without getting out of position. This was important this last year on a nervous 350 yd. antelope doe in WY, that was quickly changing position on me. I was using a Savage Striker 243 WSSM/115 Berger @ 2525 mv/Leup. VX-III VH reticle. My partner was calling range for me every time she stopped, and when she got to 350, he called it, i glanced up to the dope, and back to the reticle quickly, reacquired the antelope and shot. Worked a little faster than twistng a turret i think.

I also have the TMR in a 8.5-25X Leup. I especially like the super accurate reticle-rangefinding feature of .2 mil stadia, and the consequent interpolative .02 mil accuracy. That allows for the most accurate reticle-rangefinding i've ever done.

Mike
yep thats the DVD , i thought it was excellent
your other option is to get a turrent which has got no marks etched in it, just a blank turrent and then place tape around the circumfrence of the turrent and just mark the distances as you shoot out at 100 yard increment, they had a real good discussion on the way to do it on 24 hr camp fire a while back
the other thing to remember is to shoot your rig in summer when its warm etc etc and then shoot it with the same loads in winter when the atmosphere is damp and the air heavey and see what changes accur in point of impact
once you start getting over the 500 yard mark you will start seeing the things which are not quite right with your rifle/load become really evident , things really start showing up
will let you know how i go with my set up
when i get my 30 mm rings
also the other problem with the reticle system i see is if the range is not exacly to say the 500 yard hash/dot mark on your reticle, if you dont hold over the exact amount at that range you will wound/ miss as the drop of the proj at the longer ranges is real drastic, and the dial up system, or kentons will be far more accurate, but again that only applies more so at the longer ranges
Daniel

Of all the various reticle arrangements available to civilian shooters, which one is not calbier/load/trajectory specific?? Now, as to complicated, the scope shown with the numerous dials, numbers, etc. I would find that most distractive and certainly no way approaches the cardinal rule of "keep it simple." As for long range, most do not consider ranges of 250-350 as long range and can apply holdover and experience for such shots quite easily if one knows his rifle and load trajectory. Age old argument, but sport hunting normally does not take shots at ranges much longer. Realize it is done and some quite well, but certainly not the norm nor for those with little or know training/experience at long range shooting. Those who like the reticles with the numerous indicators, gauges, dials, etc. are welcome to them, I will stick with the mil dot system and knowing my trajectory at whatever range. Good shooting and good luck.