I know they have been around a long time but recent marketing in Europe have attracted quite a number of shooters to commit to this "Ballistic Turret" option.

I must confess it looks very impressive like a fashion statment.

Just received a call from a good friend who is an avid fox shooter. He WAS the proud owner of such as scope until he missed 02 foxes in 03 weeks since he misdialled in low night even though the turret have colour coded tabs and a click feel to it...

So has anybody experience the same ?

He is now selling his Z6 if you PM me I will put you in touch. It might be on ebay by now.

It a 2.5 - 15 with 4a post and BT option.!

As advancing years have altered the Mk1 eyeball, I have had to move on a little from my old fixed power 6x42 S&Bs, I have now fitted a 12x Swaro to the .223, it doesn't get fiddled with in the dark, & the turrets on the Mildot, get taped up to stop them shifting by accident I try to keep stuff simple for night work! P.S. first time I looked at a Fox thru the Swaro, I had to recheck thru the bino's, it looked bigger than an Ally after the six power!

I´m in the same situation as Steve (MK1 eyeballs ).
Scopes with turrets is a waste of money for this old man.

Besides, the longest shot on my land is approx 140 meters,.
Our local shooting ranges is 100 and 200 meters, no use for turrets.

I can easy picture myself with reading glasses on and a small flashlight adjusting the turrets. While the deer silently sneak off the field loking over their shoulders and laughing...

But for sertain kinds of long range shooting, I can see that it can give the shooter an edge.

Hello Arild in a few years I will be in the same boat.

I dread the day I have to stop shooting because of poor eyesight..

Londonhunter
I have compensated so far by replacing my scopes with new one of significant higer glass quality.

Zeiss Victory sits on the two I use for red deer and roe, and they work very well.
On the 375 Ruger used for daylight stalking, I make do with a lesser scope, but with ample eye relief.

But this has nothing to do with turrets...sorry

For many years I compensated for long range by hold-over. You memorize your ballistic table, and attempt to make the size of your quarry help you with mapping from hold-over to sighting point. It works reasonably well - better for large animals - though not a low light activity.

Hold-over has its limitations, though. It can work pretty well to a point - e.g. holding on or a couple of inches over the back of your quarry. It gets really difficult, if your hold-over is measured in feet as opposed to (a few) inches. That is where range compensation comes into the picture.

I never liked the idea of dealing with complexity in hunting situations, so range compensation had to be simple for me - e.g. main crosshairs at 300 yds, first auxiliary aiming point @ 400 yds, 2nd @ 500 yds etc. I had custom reticles set up by Leupold for a couple of my loads (.257 Wby and .300 Win Mag).

That works better than hold-over, shooting at long range is easier this way. Even so, this is hardly a precise science and also works best for large targets where there is some leeway hitting high or low.

What became apparent, is that there is a limit to often you want to buy a scope for a particular rifle, and have it equipped with a custom reticle matching a single load. It would be nice if you would be able to sight-in a range compensated scope for different rifles/different loads. Besides, even custom made reticles will only offer you so much "precision" in range compensation. If you are looking for deviation from POI vs. sighting point better than, say, 1-2-3" at long range, you are probably out of luck even with a custom reticle.

So the idea came up try to use either the Swaro BT or its predecessor the Kahles Multizero. At least these systems allow you to set range compensation for different rifles/loads. They also allow you (assuming your range allows you to shoot at the actual distances you want your range compensation to work for, 300, 400, 500 yds, say) to actually sight in your rifle at those ranges - as opposed to relying on calculated hold-overs at 100 yds, say. It seems a very flexible system in this respect, and it offers the potential for better "precision" at long range than ballistic reticles.

However, I have always worried that the dialling will be too much to deal with in a stressful hunting situation - e.g. you dial to the wrong range, or you forget to re-set your dial... I can well imagine this is not a system for use in low light.

The jury is still out on how this will work in practice. Time will tell.

- mike

I know several fox shooters who have used BDC turrets on their foxing kit for the last 3-5 years without any major mishaps. But these are the USA produced BDC turrets calibrated specifically for their specified loads.
Whilst never having direct experience of BDC turrets. I prefer BDC reticles or the Swarvoski TDS reticles's. I would be inclined to question your friends range estimation abilities rather than the performance capabilities of the Swarovski Z6 Rifle Scope. I have always found Swarovski optics to be excellent, always manufactured to very high tolerances and to perform faultlessly.

Someone is going to pick themselves up a bargainZ6 scope by the sounds of it.

I have mildots,

@ 12x ie most stand hunting, 0-150 meters on the center

150-190 meters on the first ball,

190-230 second

and so on,


for precision work

@24 I have a similar chart.

It´s all in the training, besides the clicks in the scope are to loud for fox hunting.

I do have a drop chart for the spec load.

Do I shoot beyond 200 meter, not likely no.