ADMIN
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,224
This is a thread for discussion of the article, Dialing vs. Holdover For Long Range Hunting, James McClellan Jr.. Here you can ask questions or make comments about the article.
Dialing vs. Holdover For Long Range Hunting
- Thread starter ADMIN
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
A very timely article. Thanks for the info.
I have a Bushnell ERS 3.5 - 21 X50 scope with an H59 "Christmas tree" reticle. What a great invention that reticle is.
Holding is always faster and more accurate than dialing. Experts agree on this. Schmidt & Bender and perhaps the Nightforce BEAST are about the only scopes whose turrets I would trust to be consistently repeatable at all revolutions. Tests have proven those to be the best in that category. All others do drift. Some wear rapidly with repeated use, likely due to detents and gears being made of brass.
That said I'll use the H59 reticle as often as I can - after zeroing and re-setting the zero mark with the turrets, of course.
I have a Bushnell ERS 3.5 - 21 X50 scope with an H59 "Christmas tree" reticle. What a great invention that reticle is.
Holding is always faster and more accurate than dialing. Experts agree on this. Schmidt & Bender and perhaps the Nightforce BEAST are about the only scopes whose turrets I would trust to be consistently repeatable at all revolutions. Tests have proven those to be the best in that category. All others do drift. Some wear rapidly with repeated use, likely due to detents and gears being made of brass.
That said I'll use the H59 reticle as often as I can - after zeroing and re-setting the zero mark with the turrets, of course.
acourvil
Well-Known Member
I'll give you faster, but if holding over was more accurate then dialing most folks shooting long range competitions would be doing it, and that is definitely not the case.
There are quite a few quality scopes that are consistently repeatable, although many of the popular hunting scopes are probably not at that level of quality.
Broz
Well-Known Member
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
The experts being Todd Hodnett, among others. Hard to argue with a guy that trains snipers.
I'm referring to holding with Horus H59 to TTEMOR type reticles, not mere mil mark crosshairs.
I'm referring to holding with Horus H59 to TTEMOR type reticles, not mere mil mark crosshairs.
Broz
Well-Known Member
I just found it a little extreme you posted only two model scopes you would trust for accurate dial up. We have tested almost every NF model for accurate elevation calibration all the way through their internal elevation range, and rarely find an error. If we do it is very minute and more likely to be our equipment and method rather than the scope. 1000's of guys dial for shots with great success and have been for years. So I guess I am of a different opinion based on what I teach and see with our experience in the field. To me a dialed in center reticle hold, with a fine cross hair is much more accurate. Especially if you are holding both windage and elevation for the same shot that could fall between reticle subtensions, or going for precise bullet placement instead of just center mass on a target. Different tasks and different jobs do dictate the best method of use. I dial for the cold bore shot for every shot and it works extremely well for us. My 300 win just went 31 and zero for cold bore kills on big game. Every shot dialed for windage and elevation. That is hard for me to argue with as well.
Jeff
Jeff
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
This the last reply I will make in this thread as it seems that some have come to the conclusion of "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind."
Disclaimer: Yes, I dial for setting a zero and my zero stop. That dialing is obviously necessary and everyone who understands scope basics does it.
Quoting Todd Hodnett from the article "Cause & Effect", Sniper magazine, 2014.
"Holding is always more accurate than dialing. A friend of mine with a doctorate in optics agrees with me on this."
He says that some scopes will track well all the time and some will track well only within the area of one mil of dialing and go off the reservation in a 10 mil box.
And then there is a test done on Precision Rifle Blog. It shows that MOST scopes do not track consistently accurately. Only FOUR scopes tracked accurately through their full range, namely:
Hensoldt ZF 3.5 - 26 X 56
Kahles K 6 - 24 X56
U.S. Optics ER25 5 - 25 X58
Valdala IOR RECON Tatical 4 - 28 X50
This was from 18 scopes tested, and 11 brands. All top scopes including a few from Nightforce. So I was wrong too in my choice of "good turret scopes", despite the exceptional precision of manufacture of the Nightforce BEAST turrets. Even the highly respected Schmidt & Bender had some error. All testing was done on Horus C.A.T.S. precision targets made for this purpose.
This thread was started with a question. I have given my answer and the reasons for it. Note that I am ONLY referring to large "Christmas tree" reticles like the H59, the TREMOR type and Bushnell's Eliminator III with its small dots, and not to smaller "ballistic" reticles. AND I'm referring to holding on or between mil hash marks, not on old style Mil Dot reticles and not a guesstimate in open, unreticled viewing space.
**BTW, ballistic reticles are set for a certain altitude pressure, cartridge & bullet and temperature. Beyond 600 - 800 meters they will begin lying to you.
"In reticle we trust" is my motto. Others can trust dialing for everything and I wish them luck.
Disclaimer: Yes, I dial for setting a zero and my zero stop. That dialing is obviously necessary and everyone who understands scope basics does it.
Quoting Todd Hodnett from the article "Cause & Effect", Sniper magazine, 2014.
"Holding is always more accurate than dialing. A friend of mine with a doctorate in optics agrees with me on this."
He says that some scopes will track well all the time and some will track well only within the area of one mil of dialing and go off the reservation in a 10 mil box.
And then there is a test done on Precision Rifle Blog. It shows that MOST scopes do not track consistently accurately. Only FOUR scopes tracked accurately through their full range, namely:
Hensoldt ZF 3.5 - 26 X 56
Kahles K 6 - 24 X56
U.S. Optics ER25 5 - 25 X58
Valdala IOR RECON Tatical 4 - 28 X50
This was from 18 scopes tested, and 11 brands. All top scopes including a few from Nightforce. So I was wrong too in my choice of "good turret scopes", despite the exceptional precision of manufacture of the Nightforce BEAST turrets. Even the highly respected Schmidt & Bender had some error. All testing was done on Horus C.A.T.S. precision targets made for this purpose.
This thread was started with a question. I have given my answer and the reasons for it. Note that I am ONLY referring to large "Christmas tree" reticles like the H59, the TREMOR type and Bushnell's Eliminator III with its small dots, and not to smaller "ballistic" reticles. AND I'm referring to holding on or between mil hash marks, not on old style Mil Dot reticles and not a guesstimate in open, unreticled viewing space.
**BTW, ballistic reticles are set for a certain altitude pressure, cartridge & bullet and temperature. Beyond 600 - 800 meters they will begin lying to you.
"In reticle we trust" is my motto. Others can trust dialing for everything and I wish them luck.
9
985
Guest
Holding over instead of dialing? Read what science has to say about this. http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/mil-dot-holdovers.pdf
StrutNut
Well-Known Member
Litehiker, what thread is that from over at the hide? Killswitches thread has significantly more than 4 scopes tracking spot on. Just curious as to where that one is so I can check it out.
9
985
Guest
The thread is from an article posted here, in Long Range Hunting. The thread will take you to a PDF that although is a brain burner, is worth reading.
acourvil
Well-Known Member
Did you actually go through that review? The "inaccuracies" in those scopes at worst were 1.1% at 20 mils (I'm ignoring the March scope results, because the 2.5% difference there was mostly due to the March scope being calibrated in NATO mils rather than true mils). Do you think you can eyeball a hold over with less than 1% variance at 1500yds (roughly what a 20 mil drop would correspond to)?
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
StrutNut,
Go to The Precision Rifle Blog and look up the 1st scope test. The info on turret tracking accuracy is there.
acourvil,
Whether you are using your center crosshair or a lower/side crosshair makes no difference in aiming. "A crosshair is a crosshair", so to speak. Which mil/MOA tick you use should make no difference in a scope with GOOD lenses and no barrel distortion.
WWB,
I read the article on lensatic distortion in your post. It's eye-watering in its detail. Yes, off-center distortion can be a problem but with GOOD lenses it should not be nearly enough to place an aiming point on, say an H59 reticle in a Schmidt & Bender scope, further off actual target, or even as far, than an error in turret tracking. I'll side with the folks I've referenced on this matter.
It all boils down to testing with a Lead Sled type rifle rest in zero wind conditions to eliminate shooter error as much as possible. The rest can hold far better than we can.
Go to The Precision Rifle Blog and look up the 1st scope test. The info on turret tracking accuracy is there.
acourvil,
Whether you are using your center crosshair or a lower/side crosshair makes no difference in aiming. "A crosshair is a crosshair", so to speak. Which mil/MOA tick you use should make no difference in a scope with GOOD lenses and no barrel distortion.
WWB,
I read the article on lensatic distortion in your post. It's eye-watering in its detail. Yes, off-center distortion can be a problem but with GOOD lenses it should not be nearly enough to place an aiming point on, say an H59 reticle in a Schmidt & Bender scope, further off actual target, or even as far, than an error in turret tracking. I'll side with the folks I've referenced on this matter.
It all boils down to testing with a Lead Sled type rifle rest in zero wind conditions to eliminate shooter error as much as possible. The rest can hold far better than we can.
9
985
Guest
Gentlemen,
Where do I begin? 1st and foremost, you are the reason why the Mountain Shooting Center exists. My intentions here are not to insult you, however the dialog in this thread depicts why.
Understanding the mechanics of how a scope functions, or how the mechanical box works is key to precision shooting and part of successful hunting.
During the late 1970's I shot Leupold scopes. Back then the amount of adjustment that the scope had available was good out to 700 yards. If you were unfamiliar with your limitations and desired to take a 1,000 yard shot, (34 moa at sea level) you wouldn't think that anything was wrong because the turrets kept slipping / turning. But the reality was that there was no adjustment past 700.
The accuracy of dialing is unprecedented. However, you must understand why. The turrets are screws that move the reticle / erector tube up and down. However, the pitch and the gap of the threads of that screw, can ultimately cause "backlash" to occur. So, the key to getting an accurate adjustment is to slip your turrets, (turn your turrets when adjusting up) about eight clicks past where you want to be, then come back down to your correct amount of adjustment. This significantly reduces the amount of stacking or backlash that may have occurred. By the way, it is more noticeable on the far end of adjustment.
In addition, you can compute what the error is per click by accomplishing a simple box test at 100 yards or meters. Once the error is recognized, you can adjust for it. I accomplish this for every scope that I own and utilize a proprietary ballistic software package to help me with the profile.
No matter what scope the military is utilizing, and regardless of their practices, anytime that you hold over on target you will notice that your point of impact will increase with distance. The established scientific reason for this is called, "Snell's Law of Refraction." You may attempt to remedy this issue by adjusting your velocity to "Cheat the Drag Curve," however you are just chasing the tail of a tiger. Relocate to another Area and you are back to a bogus number and your data book, (if you keep one) will be filled with dishonest data.
In addition, I challenge you to take out your favorite rifle, one that you are exceptionally familiar with, with the best optics that are available to you, and shoot downwards at a target at say, 600 yards/meters on about 23 degrees of down-slope while utilizing the holdover method. Seriously, go out and do it and don't forget to correct for the effects of gravity. I guarantee you, absolutely promise you, that you will miss high. And remember, when you're hunting, you aren't on a flat, square range with range flags and maybe two or three different wind vectors. You're in the real world. Come out to the MSC and upgrade your skill-set.
Mountain Shooting Center | Construction Renovation Theme
Where do I begin? 1st and foremost, you are the reason why the Mountain Shooting Center exists. My intentions here are not to insult you, however the dialog in this thread depicts why.
Understanding the mechanics of how a scope functions, or how the mechanical box works is key to precision shooting and part of successful hunting.
During the late 1970's I shot Leupold scopes. Back then the amount of adjustment that the scope had available was good out to 700 yards. If you were unfamiliar with your limitations and desired to take a 1,000 yard shot, (34 moa at sea level) you wouldn't think that anything was wrong because the turrets kept slipping / turning. But the reality was that there was no adjustment past 700.
The accuracy of dialing is unprecedented. However, you must understand why. The turrets are screws that move the reticle / erector tube up and down. However, the pitch and the gap of the threads of that screw, can ultimately cause "backlash" to occur. So, the key to getting an accurate adjustment is to slip your turrets, (turn your turrets when adjusting up) about eight clicks past where you want to be, then come back down to your correct amount of adjustment. This significantly reduces the amount of stacking or backlash that may have occurred. By the way, it is more noticeable on the far end of adjustment.
In addition, you can compute what the error is per click by accomplishing a simple box test at 100 yards or meters. Once the error is recognized, you can adjust for it. I accomplish this for every scope that I own and utilize a proprietary ballistic software package to help me with the profile.
No matter what scope the military is utilizing, and regardless of their practices, anytime that you hold over on target you will notice that your point of impact will increase with distance. The established scientific reason for this is called, "Snell's Law of Refraction." You may attempt to remedy this issue by adjusting your velocity to "Cheat the Drag Curve," however you are just chasing the tail of a tiger. Relocate to another Area and you are back to a bogus number and your data book, (if you keep one) will be filled with dishonest data.
In addition, I challenge you to take out your favorite rifle, one that you are exceptionally familiar with, with the best optics that are available to you, and shoot downwards at a target at say, 600 yards/meters on about 23 degrees of down-slope while utilizing the holdover method. Seriously, go out and do it and don't forget to correct for the effects of gravity. I guarantee you, absolutely promise you, that you will miss high. And remember, when you're hunting, you aren't on a flat, square range with range flags and maybe two or three different wind vectors. You're in the real world. Come out to the MSC and upgrade your skill-set.
Mountain Shooting Center | Construction Renovation Theme
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
I'm a dialer. There is no way to convince me that holding off is accurate enough for groundhogs at distance. Just as there is no way to convince me that bracketing is anywhere near as accurate as my laser ranging.
'Snipers', most of whom shoot short ranges on relatively big targets, could take a few lessons from GH hunters. We don't need spotters to walk missed shots into 'steel'.
'Snipers', most of whom shoot short ranges on relatively big targets, could take a few lessons from GH hunters. We don't need spotters to walk missed shots into 'steel'.
