I thought ravenr's long range bear thread brought up a great topic for discussion that deserves its own thread.

Which method for adjusting for drop and windage yields the best results and a more accurate shot, holding over for drop and "out" somewhere in outer space for windage, dialing drop and holding off for wind with a MOA or Mil reticle or dialing both drop and windage corrections into the scope?

In this accurateshooter.com article it is discussed.

Here's the story of how a buddy of mine decided to get serious about long range shooting accuracy...

We were on a trophy mule deer hunt in northern NM in an area where drawing a tag was like hitting the lottery. My friend was set up to hunt as usual and like 99% of big game hunters out there; 30-06 with a 3-9 Leupold, no range finder just binos ...

He's glassing a large sage opening from a high point across a ravine and spots the biggest mule deer buck he's seen in his life. He guesses it's 600+ yards, holds over a guessed amount and lets one rip. The buck just stands there. After 3 more shots with guessed hold over the deer runs off.

He takes me back to the spot and I range the location of the buck at 425 yards.

When he got home, he bought Leica Geovids, a Leupold Mark IV, and began to develop loads and data on JBM.

I think holding over works fine under the following circumstances:

1. You know the subtension of your Duplex type reticle at its highest power setting and use it for connecting at 300 yards.

2. You have a stadia wire system like the Leupold B&C, in which case it works well to 500 yards.

3. You have a Horus reticle in which case it works for any range you care to shoot.

Past 500 yards, I prefer to click; my long range guns for the most part all have mil dot or MOA type reticles with target turrets.

The problem at super long ranges is that bullet is dropping like a rock. At some point, you have to click for each additional 5 yards of range; at that point, I would argue that holdover is as much of a guess as anything, the Horus system being the exception.

As for wind, I go back and forth. No matter what method you use, you have to pick a setting, and watch for that condition, then shoot when you see it. I normally use an anemometer to and watch things around me, including a small wind flag I carry in my daypack. For example, if the wind is 3-8, I might decide to shoot when it is 5 mph. Shooting at either end is typically not good. It is also why I am so opposed to 1000 yards shots (actually it isn't even that far) on game: when your bullet is drifting half the vital area of the animal in one mph wind, and that wind is changing 1 mph in the time it takes to get there, your odds of not connecting are substantial.

When I shot competively, I always dialed in wind. I also dialed in one click extra when I shot sitting because my sling was super tight.

Sounds to me like your buddy's problem was mostly (90%?) a problem of range estimation. IOW even if he had a scope with turrets or a ballistic reticle he would have missed if he was that far off in his range estimation.

It is a simple matter to know the trajectory of your load to a close enough degree and is easy to get close to holdover amounts. A simple formula I used in the past is to know the drop on most calibers at 500 yard and then you can easily come close at the interim ranges.

For example the drop for most 30-06 loads is ~42" at 500 yards, divide that by 2 for 400 yards it is ~21", divide that by 3 for 300 yards and it is ~7", zero at 200 yards. For a flat shooter like a 270 the drop at 500 would be ~36", divide by 2 for 400 yards it is ~18", divide by 3 for 300 yards it is ~6". Works close enough for all calibers.

So if he had known the range at 425 yds for a 30-06 he could have guessed the holdover at ~24" and probably would have had a dead deer. That is if he has a good enough eye to guesstimate 24" and was a good enough shot to make it on only 9 power.

Or if he had a ballistic reticle he could have just aimed and shot while you were taking out your phone, inputting data and cranking your turrets

I also like to apply reticles for long(er) range shooting. A reticle-rangefinding system based on the mil-ranging formula with a multi-stadia reticle would probably have helped if he'd have known how to apply it as such (modified mil-ranging formula). And if he was using a plex reticle system with a variable-powered scope he could have picked (calculated and verified) a magnification that would have given him a subtension wide enough to use it as a ballistic reticle by interpolating between stadia points and still have enough magnification to apply it accurately. But honestly anyone that's put enough study into the concepts i and the others above have noted here will know that a shot that presents itself at longer range requires more than by guess and by golly to be sucessful.

This is not a disrespect to your shooting buddy as most of us got started in this by an experience similar to his.

I have a buddy who made 1st shot kills these last 2 predator seasons using his AR-10 243/87 V-Max combination at 650 (2), 535, 500, 470, 440, and 350 yds. using holdover only with the Varmint Hunter reticle. I use the same sort of systems AZ above uses, and don't shoot in wind beyond my ability to dope it which ain't too good honestly.

quote:

Majority View–Click Your Scope

.

quote:

...If not, and you’re holding over you’re really just spraying and praying.

quote:

When I first started p-dog shooting, I attempted to use the hold-over method with a 200-yard zero with my 6mm Rem. Any dog much past 325-350 yards was fairly safe...

quote:

An added benefit (one I didn’t think of beforehand) with the comeups table (elevation only), is that when the wind is blowing, it takes half of the variables out of the equation. I can concentrate on wind, and not have to worry about elevation. It makes things much more simple.”

.

quote:

I have been using the hold over method and it works for me most of the time but the 450 yards and over shots get kinda hard. I moved to a 300 yard zero this year and it’s working well. I do want to get into the click-up method though; it seems to be more fool-proof.”

I'm doing some research now on the effective range of my 17 Fireball XP-100 using the 25 V-Max on PD's for 1st shot connections at the longest range possible. I was using the bulk 25 Hornady HP offering for awhile thinking it was cheaper, but recently found out the 25 V-Max was only slightly more expensive so will go out to the range tomorrow to check groups with the new bullet. Hoping for better downrange performance with the higher BC and polymer tip. The optic i'm using is the Nikon Buckmasters 6-18x MD reticle. Mrad is cald. for 14 in the Nikon's and at 18x it's 67% of that or 2.4 IPHY between dots (calcd. and measured), and ~3/4" dot becomes ~1/2", but still retains the same .2 relationship between dots. I'm researching reticle-rangefinding and windage apps. for 17's using this sytem running turret for elevation, reticle for windage only on prairie dogs--



In this case where i have time to apply turret i will but for normal big game/predator hunting i use reticle TO IT'S LIMIT OF ACCURACY for it's quick application.

I use a combination of hold overs/unders & clics. My long range set up is a 300WBY Mag w/ 180 gr Barnes TTSX @ 3050fps. I use a +/- 5" kill area to give me a Maximum Point Blank Range Zero at 320 yds, so my trajectory looks like this:

100yds - +4"

200yds - +5"

300yds - +2"

400yds - Top of picket (with my scope set at 14X, I use the top point of the thick portion of the lower verticle crosshair - where it changes to thin)

500yds - 22 clicks up

600yds - 33 clics up

Windage and animal movement is a much bigger concern for me shooting long range than bullet drop.

quote:

Originally posted by mwm464:
I use a combination of hold overs/unders & clics. My long range set up is a 300WBY Mag w/ 180 gr Barnes TTSX @ 3050fps. I use a +/- 5" kill area to give me a Maximum Point Blank Range Zero at 320 yds, so my trajectory looks like this:

100yds - +4"

200yds - +5"

300yds - +2"

400yds - Top of picket (with my scope set at 14X, I use the top point of the thick portion of the lower verticle crosshair - where it changes to thin)

500yds - 22 clicks up

600yds - 33 clics up

Windage and animal movement is a much bigger concern for me shooting long range than bullet drop.

mwm64:

You are guaranteeing that your odds of missing that 5 inch vital area are 50% at 200 yards.

Your groups, not matter how small, are not one hole; half are above, and half are below that 5 inch mark. At 200 yards game is likely to be a lot more nervous, leaving you more likely to be shooting from a less than stable platform. If you can only shoot 4 inch groups at 200 yards shooting standing off sticks, some of your bullets will be as high as 7 inches above your aiming point.

Now, you can hold low at 200 yards, but why? With most Leupold scopes, you can use the post for a 300 yard zero (or better yet, zero at 300 using that post), as most bullets drop 7.5 inches or so at 300 yards (the amount of subtension). After that, click. Or better yet, get a B&C reticle.

When I was younger I zeroed at 300 yards, and quickly discovered it is a great way to overshoot. But that was before laser rangefinders. For a while I used a 400 yard zero - but I put the crosshairs right on the belly of the animal or just below and pulled the trigger. As long it was within 375 yards, it worked. But I almost missed a grizzly bear with my .338 because I used that hold; I remembered at the last minute that gun was zeroed at 200.

These days I think you are better off with a 200 yard zero, esp with the availability of holdover reticles.

Absolutely. I always use a conservative point blank range sight in system for no larger than 3/4ths target size. This way the trajectory stays well inside the target size as far out as i can go.

quote:

Sounds to me like your buddy's problem was mostly (90%?) a problem of range estimation.

Got it in one, he held too high.

It makes no difference if he had been dialling in as he would have dialled up too high.

The ballistic reticules work, the simpler but well thought out ones like the swarovski or meopta are best for hunting, but IMO only really effectively on a fixed power scope. To elaborate IMO the single most important things in hunting game with a scoped rifle is familiarity with the sight picture and familiarity with the trigger.

Forgive me if this sounds simplistic but the former is about knowing where to aim and the second the about actually hitting it.

In that frame of reference a reticle like the swaro above in Woods' post or the meopta 4b if kept on a fixed magnification at all times will eventually teach you what a given animal looks like in comparison to the various bracketing features available and in relation.

With a fixed seven power meopta I shoot a wonderful competition called "The McQueens" at Bisley which is basically a steel castle with windows in which targets appear for a few seconds and then disappear whether shot or not. You run back and forth and shoot it at between 200 and 600 yards. There not being time to faff about dialling in or consulting the old PDA I find it's good practice for actual hunting.

I like to shoot it with my hunting '06 and a medium bipod.

I'm surprised at all the "I hold over" responses.

Holding over is incredibly inaccurate for FIRST ROUND HITS.

For shooting prarie dogs it's fine because you can always send another after watching where your bullet hits (misses).

For big game or match shooting where first round hits are the name of the game, getting an accurate range to the target and dialing confirmed-by-shooting elevation data into your scope and holding off or even dialing wind, is the only way to go.

If you disagree with this statement, you need to see for yourself by using both methods at the range on the same targets.

Shoot the target by dialing confirmed data, then shoot AT the target by holding over with your ballistic reticle. I will guarantee that your hit percentage will be much lower by holding over. This is why I posted the quotes above. "Anything past 325 yards was fairly safe during hold over".

You will not see ANYONE at the Sporting Rifle Match, which I consider to be one of the best matches reflecting actual long range field shooting/hunting conditions that exists, using the reticle to hold over and "off" the vertical reticle axis for wind somewhere out in the "outer space" of a lower left or right "quadrant" of the scope's field of view.

Unbelievably inaccurate guessing and completely unreliable and unethical for a big game hunting situation for someone with the knowledge and experience I think we have here.

Please prove it to yourself by taking the little experiment and report back

RCA--i don't hold that far off the reticle for wind since i don't shoot at longer ranges when there is any appreciable windage needed. Most guys don't apply their reticles to the highest degree of accuracy possible when using the subtension system of application anyway (actually most don't even know how). The best long range shooting demonstration i ever saw accomplished was by my buddy shooting a custom XP-100 handgun 6.5-284 at the International Tactical Rifleman's Championship back in '04 and he used his Ballistic Plex reticle in his 3-12x Burris LER scope to make 8 1st round hits on 4 8" silhouettes at 785 yds.

When i apply a ballistic reticle for long(er) range shooting i use a subtension vs. verified trajectory system to about 600 yds. or so. Dope goes into a Butler Creek scope cap cover where it's quickly and easily referenced and rereferenced if necessary at a glance. Interpolating holdoffs in tenths of a unit of subtension has worked for me for a number of years.

My buddy from above only dialed one shot this last 2 years on a LR coyote and that was at 785 yds. also. If he would not have had a system for his VH reticle he would not have gotten shots at any of the other dogs, as they were all fast application shots, typical of most of my coyote hunts.

I competed in a sniper-style shoot locally last season and used an AR-15 with VLD's/4-16x Weaver with a 3 MOA multi-dot TK Lee system and faired right in the middle of the pack using that reticle--this against some pretty high dollar gun/optic combinations. Everybody else was dialing.

I will concede that turret systems are more accurate, but in the field application of reticles when applied to their highest degree of accuracy is also very accurate. If they weren't reticle-rangefinding would have no viability as it's based on the same interpolation system.

Hey rc, where we have a little difference in terminology or understanding (if you were HC I'd have to apologize to you before I proved you wrong ) is that I consider "holding over" is when you are using a plain reticle and are guessing at how high above the target you are "holding over".

With the ballistic reticles like in the pics above you are not holding over because you have a specific aiming point on the reticle. Thus it is the same as having an aiming point if your target was at 200 yards and your zero was at 200 yards; i.e. the aiming point would be the crosshairs.

In the example of the Mule Deer above once you determine the target is at 425 yards, the reticle in my pic gives you a specific aim point, no "hold over". I think this is what Ghubert and sscoyote are talking about also. I guess there should be 3 categories: hold over (for plain reticles), ballistic reticles and cranking turrets.

I have said and sscoyote just said that turrets will be more accurate, but consideration should be given to hunting situations and the sometimes necessity for quick shots.

Why do all the target shooters like turrets? Like bikers who wear leather and have tattoos, it's part of the schtick!

Holding over with reticles set up in MOA or mRad is very accurate in a FF plane scope with confirmed data. Holding off from there for wind is then a guess.

Holding over with second focal plane "ballistic reticles" is not even close. These "ballistic reticles" are set up in "yards". They do not match every load, or any load for that matter. They are in essence, educated guesses themselves. Throw in the fact that you need to find the exact power setting that gets it close to working (yes, close. It will never be perfect), you have so much to go wonky (make you miss). The longer the range of the shot throws a wrench in the cogs as well (more inaccuracy at longer range)

I have plenty of scopes with ballistic reticles and use them. I agree that for quickly needed shots at closer ranges, they are better than a duplex.

Would I use that method when the chips are down?

Don't bet on it!

quote:

woods
one of us

Posted 14 May 2011 01:42= 2:42 MST

Also, I realize that "Thingy inventory day" is today and that's why you're up at that hour.