My opinion is that for small long range targets that usually stay put for a long time (and if one misses it's not a big deal) dail in is better. For relatively large targets like deer a scope with range compensating aiming points (like 400 yards, 500 yards, 600 yards etc.) is much better because it is much faster and accurate enough. Also, for windage I have a chart for a 10 mph crosswind taped to the stock and don't shoot at a deer if estimated windage is more than about 10 or 12 inches so I don't need aiming points for windage.

quote:

Originally posted by sscoyote:
Exactly--my VH reticle and several FFP mil. reticles have the same subtension measurements as yours do.

So how are the mrad reticles that aren't in the FFP that i'm using different than a unit of subtension that doesn't repeat itself in either FFP or SFP--and what effect does it have on accuracy of downrange zeroing and reticle-rangefinding, besides the fact that i have to have them on the correct SFP power to apply correctly?

In other words if my 525 yd. shot requires 5.7 MOA drop and i'm using my VH reticle, and need to aim 2.5 subtension units down (7.1-4.3=2.8, 5.7 is 1.4 beyond the 2nd stadia's subtension, 1.4/2.8=0.5....zero=2.5), how is a mil reticle applied differently with more accuracy since the subtension itself is larger?

Mil and MOA reticles even in the second focal plane will be a more accurate aiming system than any "ballistic reticle". As we discussed, when MOA or mil reticles are in the FF plane the subtensions are always the same no matter the power setting. This is the way to go. When they are in the second focal plane, the power setting has to be set perfectly for the subtensions between the marks to be what they say they are. Most mil or MOA reticles that I've seen that are in the second focal plane have to be on the highest power setting to work properly. At the highest power, the mils are mils and the MOA marks are MOA and they work great. Just range the target, look at your drop data in mil or MOA, hold over and shoot.

The problem with the VH and other "Ballistic aiming reticles" is that the aimpoints don't work in perfect little 100 yard increments. The subtension distances are all different in an effort to "match" what they think is a "normal" load for the caliber. You can get close using the load they recommend and adjusting the power as Leupold lays out and I have posted. What if you have different loads for the rifle? The subtensions on the power witness marks work.

So, I have found that using the VH and other "stadia" reticles exactly like the mil or MOA reticle works the best.

Sight in for whatever range YOU want. You know the distances between the stadia aimpoints in MOA with the power on the big triangle.

1.81 MOA to the first
4.13 MOA to the second
7.02 MOA to the last

Make a drawing of the reticle and tape it to your scope with the appropriate range next to the aimpoint according to the drop data of the bullet you are shooting. If you change loads, make another drawing. It's easy.

Example with the .264 WM zeroed at 200



So say you have a 500 yard shot with wind. You have to guess where 500 is on the reticle and guess how far to hold off for the wind. Sucks and not as precise as using a multiple aimpoint MOA or Mil reticle.



If the shot is 500 yards you check data and see the hold over is 5.3 MOA. Simple and quick to do accurately. Same with wind except you have to mentally draw a line down from the horizontal crosshair for windage and hold out from the reticle. Sucks

Dialing elevation is just as quick as holding over, sorry, and precisely ACCURATE. Hold off for wind on the horizontal ACCURATELY with MOA or Mils...it's exactly like re-zereoing your scope for the range of the target and that's what we want in long range shooting. Accuracy. No guessing.

And if you say holding over is for quick shots because the animal is moving, should you really be taking it?

quote:

HC says:
Hey R, You need to re-read the Link to using Mil-Dot Reticles. They can be thought of in Inches as well as they can Mils.

I remember it well. Holding over in MOA or Mils is much more accurate than trying to look at your data, seeing that the drop is 67 inches and trying to figure out what 67 inches looks like at the range of the target and then figuring out what 67 inches is on your reticle.

quote:

Someone a long time ago mentioned having a "Special Reticle" they bought which was supposedly set-up for a specific Load in that Cartridge - by the Factory. They might get close, meaning Minute-of-Barn, but there is no way the Factory can predict how a Load will actually shoot in a rifle, way too many variables.

That same person said something about "...not being able to change the Load, because the new Load would not match the Reticle." If they had shot it, they would have seen the old Load didn't either

quote:

Some folks get hung up thinking all the Aiming Points must be in exact multiples of 100yds. No, that doesn't make any difference at all in actual Hunting whether the Aiming Points are 400yds, 450yds, 500yds or if it is 409yds, 460yds and 513yds.

Dead center hit HC!

quote:

sscoyote says:
When it comes to mil-dot reticles, mil-ranging, and the mil-ranging formula the most important things to remember are that--

1) The mil-ranging formula is not specific to the milliradian subtension, and can be used with any multi-stadia reticle subtension from simple plex to Ballistic Plex to archery sight pins if one desires to.

2) Reticle subtension is ~inversely proportional to magnification

3) The mil-ranging formula actually defines rangefinding and downrange zeroing with any reticle or turret system.

You guys who hold over think DIALING is too slow?
Believe me, if you aren't using a rangefinder even a steel plate will walk off by the time you measure a target with your reticle, break out your pen and pad and start crunching numbers!

We do ranging excercises during the precision match. Target of known size, measure with your reticle, plug the data into BulletFlight's ranging utility or crunch manually. Still takes plenty of time.

When comparing Dialing and Hold Over, everybody needs to be able to do both. Holding over with stadia reticles is not as precise as with MOA or mRad set up reticles. Wind throws another problem into the equation.
Dialing is far more accurate and not as time consuming as the nay-sayers say.

I think those opposed to dialing have limited experience doing so and have some kind of preconcieved notion that touching your adjustments will cause a problem.

Not touching them causes a problem....missing.

RC--you are one tough customer buddy. You know i have a feeling that if you wanted the sun to be out on a rainy day you would say it's so out of pure motivation.

Anywho have fun with your system.

quote:

Albuquerque, New Mexico why they decided to move here, and you'll hear the response: “The weather.” Many visitors cannot believe how many completely beautiful days Albuquerque enjoys year round. We bask in 310 days of sunshine, blessed with a mild, dry climate and four distinctly beautiful seasons

.

As you can see, I have little opportunity to command the sun to shine. Thank God dialing is more accurate even on the other 55 days of the year

RC--in your pic of the VH reticle, real quick, where as precisely as possible would u aim for a 530 yd. shot no wind?

And on the TMR reticle you show above, where is that 5.3 MOA point real fast like in a hunting scenario?

And i'm assuming your also saying that mil ranging is more accurate than a ballistic reticle for reticle-rangefinding if the stadia subtensions in a ballistic reticle are smaller than the mil reticle?

quote:

Originally posted by sscoyote:
RC--in your pic of the VH reticle, real quick, where as precisely as possible would u aim for a 530 yd. shot no wind?

And on the TMR reticle you show above, where is that 5.3 MOA point real fast like in a hunting scenario?

And i'm assuming your also saying that mil ranging is more accurate than a ballistic reticle for reticle-rangefinding if the stadia subtensions in a ballistic reticle are smaller than the mil reticle?

That's just it. It's nothing but a guess for me, you, or anyone. It would be closer to the 580 aimpoint than midway. Thanks for driving the point home to everyone better than I could.

As for the TMR example, the 5.3 mil hold over would slightly be into the picket. I would never do that. The example I came up with was in haste with a 100 yard -0-. For me to hold over with the TMR the holdover would have to be less than 5 Mils.

As far as using the reticle to range a target, the TMR BLOWS AWAY any stupid stadia VH style reticle. Do you see the ends of the vertical and horizontal reticle? The graduations are .2 Mils. This is for accurate measuring of an object.

A second focal plane stadia style VH reticle would be a joke in comparison.

quote:

Anywho have fun with your system.

Steve

I'm so glad you posted this.

I hope every branch of the US military snipers units are paying attention. They'll be glad to know that they've been wasting their time and being trained improperly.

They'll be excited to be enlightened that holding over with a VH stadia style reticle is far more accurate than dialing data.

Heck, the country can save a whole lot of cash and just buy Burris scopes with ballistic reticles and no knobs.

I think i'm outta' here!

Sorry to hurt your feelings

Just illustrating absurdity by being absurd

No absurdity really--we're just not communicating at all. Besides that it sounds like it's your way or no way here.

My choice--no way.

Don't mind Rick, he gets a little over-excited but his heart is definitely in the right place.

A proto-HotCore, if you will!

Dialling vs Holding over; HC said it best, each has their uses and each works best in different circumstances.

The biggest problems remain wind reading and ranging.

Lets have a thread on field expedient wind reading and range finding for when the batteries are dead and the buck of a lifetime in front of you instead of this sort of thing eh?

Guhbert,
Glad you posed that thread of distance and wind shot. Asked earlier and did not get reply other than stating altitude needed to determine sight adjustment.
Here it goes again, using common caliber, say '06 level, distance is some 600yds, wind is determined to be at some 10mph coming from 2 o'clock to 8 o'clock. As for altitude use 2500', temperature in mid 60's. Keep in mind that using spotting scope mirage has been observed and it goes away and then reappears.
Barrel is right hand twist. Rifle is sighted in at 100yds. What elevation would you use and how much windage would you estimate to strike the target as prescribed above?? Desired target is some 20" in diameter be it game or paper. Any ideas/input out there??

You ask difficult questions MFD!

Ok so I've whipped out my Ipad and I've done the calcs.

My assumptions, otherwise as specified by yourself above, are:

180gr Hornady interlock BTSP @ 2700fps from my 30.06.

18 ^C.

1000mbars atmospheric pressure.

1.75" scope height above bore centreline.

I make it just under 15 minutes of drop (14.93MOA or 94") and almost 41/4 minutes of windage.

It' interesting that at Bisley, where I shoot that combo frequently at that exact distance, that despite almost 2000' less altitude and frequently colder air mean that my confirmed drops are actually not too far off at 15.5 MOA.

I shoot from windflags rather than speed measurement so I can't confirm the wind data either way, but it does sound about right.

Those winds that could almost be head or tail winds but are not are frequently the ones that throw you by a long way.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sscoyote:
No absurdity really--we're just not communicating at all. Besides that it sounds like it's your way or no way here.

My choice--no way.[/QUOTE.

I started the thread because there is a difference of opinion as to which method will result in a higher hit percentage. The discussion has been interesting.

I have experience using both methods shooting 2 60 round long range matches a month and have a strong opinion born from experience as to which is best.

I'm not forcing anyone to use one method, just posting the truth about both and, as in any discussion, reinforcing my position with fact.

I hear by allow you to hold over as much as your heart desires

quote:

Originally posted by MFD:
Guhbert,
Glad you posed that thread of distance and wind shot. Asked earlier and did not get reply other than stating altitude needed to determine sight adjustment.
Here it goes again, using common caliber, say '06 level, distance is some 600yds, wind is determined to be at some 10mph coming from 2 o'clock to 8 o'clock. As for altitude use 2500', temperature in mid 60's. Keep in mind th
Anywho have fun with your system.

Steveat using spotting scope mirage has been observed and it goes away and then reappears.
Barrel is right hand twist. Rifle is sighted in at 100yds. What elevation would you use and how much windage would you estimate to strike the target as prescribed above?? Desired target is some 20" in diameter be it game or paper. Any ideas/input out there??

.

A 180 grain .500 BC bullet at 2700 zeroed at 100 with atmosphere specified, I get 14 MOA at 600 and 2.8 MOA of wind

YMMV

Ghubert and rcamuglia,
Your answers are very close to what I would have chosen under the conditions mentioned.
Did not use Ipad or program, but based on formula I was taught many years ago I came up with the following:

For the '06/308 class of cartridge the generally accepted "come ups" for 600 is 15moa**
As for the windage being at the speed and direction given, my windage input would have been 3.6" right windage. Had the wind been a true full value, 3 or 9 o'clock the windage input would have been very near 6moa windage.

Forumula I use is simply the distance/range x wind speed/velocity divided by 1000 gives est. windage to use in full value wind. Since we are looking at 1/2 value wind(some call it quarter value??) I apply only 60% of the full vaue and arrive at 3.6moa for wind input.
Range x Velocity / 1000 = Adjustment for wind at full value. ** Elevation would actually be reduced a "click" or two if the wind was from the right at full value for as mentioned, right hand twist will tend to make the bullet climb some and would impact a bit high. If wind from left and right hand twist, add a click or two for bullet may drop a bit. If visible mirage went away, would hold up or alter windage input for most likely wind has picked up over 10mph.
Mirage tends to go flat line at wind speeds in excess of 10mph. Good indicator to watch for while shooting. With experience the est. wind speed is not that hard to determine, but the actual direction is tougher to determine and unless obviously blowing from right to left or vice versa, would reduce the full value answer by 50-60% Obviously not an absolute technique but pretty simple formula and quick to apply in field or match application. You can do "what ifs" and compare to sophisticated programs and see how it compares. High performance rounds, as in 284/6.5, magnums, etc. will give different results, but the concept seems to work OK for me with the class of cartridges mentioned. Thanks for the feedback and by the way I don't know for sure what an Ipad is??