Broz
Well-Known Member
Two more elk down tonight. That's 20 so far this season. Dialing every shot is still working for us.
Jeff
Jeff
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Dialing vs. Holdover For Long Range Hunting
- Thread starter ADMIN
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Danehunter
Well-Known Member
Acourvile, I've learned not to argue with someone like my father, a man who was not always right but was never wrong - in his own mind that is.
I appears that this post has shifted from the preference of dialing vs reticle preference, to the reliability of scope turrets when used for dialing. I would certainly agree that not all scope manufacturers produce reliable turret systems, but have a difficulty buying into the idea that they are fundamentally flawed, or unreliable across the board. It's true that not all scopes are created equal, and all things mechanical will eventually wear out, but what are the limits....1000 cycles, 1000,000 cycles? What are the conditions of use? If they are flawed in their design I would certainly think that this would have shown up. I don't believe it has......except perhaps in theory and opinion. If S&B or USO can figure out the secret why can't other manufacturers? It's a hard sell to those who been using turrets with a variety of quality scopes designed for turret use for several years with good success. IMO.
BergerBoy
Well-Known Member
i agree.
You guys should be careful... this place is starting to sound like snipers hide- A LOT of those guys are sensitive (to say the least).
What ever puts rounds on target.
DOT CV Tape
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1
Excellent article!
IS there an article showing different scopes tested to determine click accuracy and repeatability? I've had very good success with Sightron, Nikon, and Leupold. We shot several antelope and elk this year between 700 and 950 yards and all were one shot kills. I am curious though to see some tested results on which scopes dial the most accurate and which were more problematic.
acourvil
Well-Known Member
There is some testing info on high end tactical scopes in the Precision Rifle Blog here. I haven't anything similar for more common hunting scopes. (Note that the results for the March scope were mostly due it being calibrated in NATO mils; newer March scopes have apparently switched to USMC mils). I do think it's fair to say that most high end scopes have very reliable and repeatable click accuracy.
Steyr Luxus
Well-Known Member
in one of the posts it states "...the March scope being calibrated in NATO mils rather than true mils)"
What is the difference between the two?
What is the difference between the two?
acourvil
Well-Known Member
A true mil is the angle equal to 1/6283 of a circle; NATO mils are rounded to 6400 instead of the actual 6283.
Danehunter
Well-Known Member
Acourvil,
Your "dialing-has-less optical-distortion-than-holding" theory is incorrect.
TO WIT:
Let's say we have identical Schmidt & Bender P&M II scopes.
1. Both have the same exact factory optical/mechanical zero. (i.e. We set the objective bell on a thick, beveled edge mirror and find the crosshairs of the scope are exactly on the reflected crosshairs.)
2. Both scopes a "zeroed" for 200 meters on identical rifles with identical scope bases and cartridges.(re-adjusted from factory optical zero to be on target at 200 meters.)
NOW these scopes' crosshairs are not on the factory's optical center. They are off center by the amount it took to zero them.
3. You and I both shoot at a target 500 meters away, no wind, 70 F., sea level, 10% humidity. But there is spin drift between our 200 meter zero and 500 meters. Plus there is bullet trajectory drop.
4. You dial your crosshairs both vertically and horizontally to correct your miss. Now your crosshairs are off optical center even more.
5. Using the scope's H59 reticle I adjust for the same exact miss by noting where that miss landed on the "Christmas tree" reticle place it on the target and get a hit, as you did on your dial adjusted 2nd shot.
CONCLUSION:You and I both used the same part of the scope to get our hits. You dialed and I held. We had to use the same part of the scope or we would not get a hit.
I rest my case. Using hold on a "Christmas tree" reticle has no more optical distortion than dialing.
Further, my H59 reticle has fine sub tension hash marks and spaces equalling the 1/10 mil your dials have. One of your clicks is no smaller than my hash mark or space between hash marks.
Your "dialing-has-less optical-distortion-than-holding" theory is incorrect.
TO WIT:
Let's say we have identical Schmidt & Bender P&M II scopes.
1. Both have the same exact factory optical/mechanical zero. (i.e. We set the objective bell on a thick, beveled edge mirror and find the crosshairs of the scope are exactly on the reflected crosshairs.)
2. Both scopes a "zeroed" for 200 meters on identical rifles with identical scope bases and cartridges.(re-adjusted from factory optical zero to be on target at 200 meters.)
NOW these scopes' crosshairs are not on the factory's optical center. They are off center by the amount it took to zero them.
3. You and I both shoot at a target 500 meters away, no wind, 70 F., sea level, 10% humidity. But there is spin drift between our 200 meter zero and 500 meters. Plus there is bullet trajectory drop.
4. You dial your crosshairs both vertically and horizontally to correct your miss. Now your crosshairs are off optical center even more.
5. Using the scope's H59 reticle I adjust for the same exact miss by noting where that miss landed on the "Christmas tree" reticle place it on the target and get a hit, as you did on your dial adjusted 2nd shot.
CONCLUSION:You and I both used the same part of the scope to get our hits. You dialed and I held. We had to use the same part of the scope or we would not get a hit.
I rest my case. Using hold on a "Christmas tree" reticle has no more optical distortion than dialing.
Further, my H59 reticle has fine sub tension hash marks and spaces equalling the 1/10 mil your dials have. One of your clicks is no smaller than my hash mark or space between hash marks.
acourvil
Well-Known Member
I think you might be responding to WWB's comments about Snell's law of refraction; I don't think I have said anything about dialing having less optical distortion than holding.
It seems reasonable to say that with a high quality optic the difference in optical distortion between dialing and holding at a given distance from the same zero is not likely to be significant (if there is any). I'm not sure if that is true of a lower quality optic (e.g., with more distortion on the edges of the sight picture) if your hold is well away from the center of the ocular lens, but I think that it's fair to assume the use of a high quality optic.
It seems reasonable to say that with a high quality optic the difference in optical distortion between dialing and holding at a given distance from the same zero is not likely to be significant (if there is any). I'm not sure if that is true of a lower quality optic (e.g., with more distortion on the edges of the sight picture) if your hold is well away from the center of the ocular lens, but I think that it's fair to assume the use of a high quality optic.
Most "dialers" use a 20 MOA rail as an offset which brings the cross hairs close to the center of the optic for long range shots. This allows the use of the center of the lens for less optical distortion, when it is most needed - long range.
Danehunter
Well-Known Member
acourvil, yer keerect, it wuz WWB's posts I saw. Sorry for the mixup.
Barrelnut, I agree, most long range shooters, be they hunters or competition shooters, use at least a 20 MOA Pic. rail to get more vertical range, even for 34 mm tubes. And,as you said, it helps keep the crosshairs more toward the optical center of the scope for less distortion.
I also agree that good scopes have very little distortion anywhere in the lenses. CAD (Computer Aided Design) has made lens design and zoom tube design, among other factors, so good that the real challenge is to fabricate the lenses and other innards the equal of the design. And CAM (Computer Aided Manufacture) has made lens making and innards making so precise that even "average" glass does very well. The newest ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass is so good (and so expensive!) that optical distortion is almost eliminated when properly multi-coated.
Then there is the advent of molecular deposition lens coating to reduce color distortion and light loss on every surface of every lens in even moderately priced scopes. This was first discovered by the Germans. Some of the proprietary coatings and coating processes are closely held as company secrets.
Yes, the high end, most expensive scopes still come from Germany and Austria but the Japanese are now making scopes their equal in most respects. Just ask Vortex tactical scope owners, among others. Even Leopold and Nightforce get lenses from Japan.
We're living in the "Golden Age of Optics". Now there is even a scope that has a fluid filled lens that can change focus while staying in a fixed position by changing shape!
And marrying optics to laser rangefinders and angle sensors (as in the Burris Eliminator III as well as LRF binoculars) is now commonplace. WOW!
Barrelnut, I agree, most long range shooters, be they hunters or competition shooters, use at least a 20 MOA Pic. rail to get more vertical range, even for 34 mm tubes. And,as you said, it helps keep the crosshairs more toward the optical center of the scope for less distortion.
I also agree that good scopes have very little distortion anywhere in the lenses. CAD (Computer Aided Design) has made lens design and zoom tube design, among other factors, so good that the real challenge is to fabricate the lenses and other innards the equal of the design. And CAM (Computer Aided Manufacture) has made lens making and innards making so precise that even "average" glass does very well. The newest ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass is so good (and so expensive!) that optical distortion is almost eliminated when properly multi-coated.
Then there is the advent of molecular deposition lens coating to reduce color distortion and light loss on every surface of every lens in even moderately priced scopes. This was first discovered by the Germans. Some of the proprietary coatings and coating processes are closely held as company secrets.
Yes, the high end, most expensive scopes still come from Germany and Austria but the Japanese are now making scopes their equal in most respects. Just ask Vortex tactical scope owners, among others. Even Leopold and Nightforce get lenses from Japan.
We're living in the "Golden Age of Optics". Now there is even a scope that has a fluid filled lens that can change focus while staying in a fixed position by changing shape!
And marrying optics to laser rangefinders and angle sensors (as in the Burris Eliminator III as well as LRF binoculars) is now commonplace. WOW!
Maybe I could bring some perspective.
For most of my adult life I was like most of us in that I hardly heldover or off. As I delved into long range competition shooting I started to see certain deficiencies in rifle scopes and reticles but primarily scopes with moa turrets combined with mil reticles or moa scopes with standard crosshairs or duplex type reticles and to further be confused I didn't realize SFP scopes have the moa or mil values correct on only one magnification which applies for wind holds too.
About 8 years ago I discovered FFP rifle scopes, nice! The only problem was I was topped out at what I could afford which meant I was saddled into to buying the cheaper line of Horus brand scopes. None of those tracked right which took me a while to figure out. It was a painful learning curve, lol. "Well there were other things I didn't understand too". So I was basically forced into a position to learn to become proficient at holding over and holding off. Over time I got very good at doing so.
A few years later a guy started a long range steel match in northern Arizona. Steel starting at 300Y on out to 1080Y. There I was holding over and off when everyone else was dialing elevation. Long story short it wasn't long before I was winning some matches.
When the Bushnell HDMR/H59 came out I bought one. I experimented with dialing and holding over. I decided to stick with what I was used to which worked out well. I won the 2011 and 2012 AZPRC championships against AZ's top steel shooters by holding over for elevation and off for wind.
I went on from the HDMR's to S&B's with the H-59 reticle. Nowadays I dial a lot, i'd say more than half the time, but honestly when I hold I wonder why I started dialing again. I can hit the same steel just fine either way.
Notably the AZPRC was held at the top of a hill and all the targets were anywhere from 13 degrees to 3 degrees downhill.
One thing is for sure, holding over is way faster. I'd use the extra time afforded me to get a better idea of what the wind was doing and to build a steady position which was part of the reason I was successful.
For most of my adult life I was like most of us in that I hardly heldover or off. As I delved into long range competition shooting I started to see certain deficiencies in rifle scopes and reticles but primarily scopes with moa turrets combined with mil reticles or moa scopes with standard crosshairs or duplex type reticles and to further be confused I didn't realize SFP scopes have the moa or mil values correct on only one magnification which applies for wind holds too.
About 8 years ago I discovered FFP rifle scopes, nice! The only problem was I was topped out at what I could afford which meant I was saddled into to buying the cheaper line of Horus brand scopes. None of those tracked right which took me a while to figure out. It was a painful learning curve, lol. "Well there were other things I didn't understand too". So I was basically forced into a position to learn to become proficient at holding over and holding off. Over time I got very good at doing so.
A few years later a guy started a long range steel match in northern Arizona. Steel starting at 300Y on out to 1080Y. There I was holding over and off when everyone else was dialing elevation. Long story short it wasn't long before I was winning some matches.
When the Bushnell HDMR/H59 came out I bought one. I experimented with dialing and holding over. I decided to stick with what I was used to which worked out well. I won the 2011 and 2012 AZPRC championships against AZ's top steel shooters by holding over for elevation and off for wind.
I went on from the HDMR's to S&B's with the H-59 reticle. Nowadays I dial a lot, i'd say more than half the time, but honestly when I hold I wonder why I started dialing again. I can hit the same steel just fine either way.
Notably the AZPRC was held at the top of a hill and all the targets were anywhere from 13 degrees to 3 degrees downhill.
One thing is for sure, holding over is way faster. I'd use the extra time afforded me to get a better idea of what the wind was doing and to build a steady position which was part of the reason I was successful.
