Dialing vs. Holdover For Long Range Hunting

[teesquare]

This brings me to my wet dream scope, Burris Eliminator III. It has both an accurate laser rangefinder and a "Christmas tree" reticle AND a built in inclinometer that puts the lighted hold over dot at the proper point for that angle! For $1,500. it may be a bargain. (At least that's what I'll tell my wife if she discovers the receipt.;o) So maybe next year I'll get it. Mmmmmmm...
__________________

I....well - let me say this without offense to your choice or anyone else's...All things are built to a price point. When a company tries to put "too much" technology and electronics into a scope - for the amount the the Burris Eliminator III sells for ... I found that the big compromises were:
1. the optics. And...that is kinda what we want a scope for. This is not a scope that you will want to try and use in those late evening hours. I think of it as an "hour left" scope. That is - there is still about an hour of legal light left - and I can't confidently use this scope to accomplish an ethical shot. The glass is...dim. Just not bright or clear in less than really good light.
2. Numerous friends of mine have tried various generations of the Eliminators - and on magnum caliber firearms, the electronics don't always hold up well to larger caliber magnums.

3. It is large and heavy. No getting around that. Stuffing a rangefinder into a scope, and...well, that is what we get.
I love the promise and the the concept...but I think the follow thru leaves a lot to be desired for now. I think that with a few more generations of development...maybe then it will be robust enough, and have good enough glass to justify.

 

[Danehunter]

teesquare,

You are correct, the Eliminator III sacrifices good glass to give good electronics/software/angle sensor. It is not a "dawn and dusk" scope. In fact few scopes are well suited for those conditions.

You can have huge objective bells but have mediocre internal lenses and the wrong shade of coatings and you will not get a good low light view. ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass is necessary for ALL lenses and multicoating tending toward the bluish end of the spectrum are what is necessary for good low light scopes. And this kind of coating is usually only sold to the military because civilian consumers want "natural" color rendition.


And you are correct that we will likely see the future Eliminator iterations get optically better and lighter. We can only hope.

Yeah, it's a heavy scope but it does a lot. It's just not for carrying up mountains at altitude unless you are exceptionally fit as I used to be when I was a cross country ski racer. ("The older I get the better I was." ;o)

 

[985]

I'm glad that this is your last post on this topic.

 

[teesquare]

I'm glad that this is your last post on this topic.

Humor or...vitriol?

 

[985]

A little of both. If you would be so kind to take your time time to read the white paper at http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/mil-dot-holdovers.pdf You will find that the accuracy of hold-overs at distance and on angles are a fail.

 

[teesquare]

Forgive the impertinence of my field experience. And - the fact that I shoot steel silhouettes at 1000 yards using HOLDOVER. I zero a rifle, and use first plane Horus style reticles with meaningful mil-dot marks.

The same firearm I use in long range hunting - where and when a shot becomes available - often without the benefit of a spotter, a handheld computer - or an"expert" to tell me that I can't hit...what I have already hit..using holdover.:roll eyes:

Perhaps you speak from a perspective that is different - and I am o.k. with that. What I am not o.k. with is the vomitous diatribe of pompous bloviation...It makes such a mess of otherwise open minded discussion. What you can or cannot do with what equipment - I would never be so driven by arrogance or avarice to suppose that you cannot accomplish your given task.

 

[985]

Tea square: I know my subject. Anyone that argues with science (in this case) is in denial. You have the opportunity to prove your pals right. Can you do it? 1000 yards on a flat square range is Very different then shooting angles in the mountains.

 

[Danehunter]

I'm really trying to understand WWB's idea that holding on a step angle with a good "Christmas tree" mil hash reticle like a TreMor 2 or 3 or a Horus H59 reticle will be any different than dialing at that same angle.

Most of us know that you must hold low for steep angle shooting, the hold being determined by a scope-mounted angle/cosine indicator and angle DOPE sheet or a hold-under readout on say, my Bushnell ARC 1 Mile LRF binoculars or other angle compensated LRFs.

SO... if we know the proper hold-under then a good scope with a good "Christmas tree" reticle will be just as accurate as proper dialing.

WWB you need to tell us WHY this is not so, WHY a "Christmas tree" reticle will fail where dialing will succeed.
We await your scientific detailed explanation, not anecdotal tales of your own experience.

->And, yes, I did read your "white paper" link on lens refraction. Are you of the opinion that top quality rifle scopes are not phase corrected with fully-multicoated lenses?
->Do you feel top quality scopes distort images at steep angles and not on the level? (This one really puzzles me.)
->Do you still think I am referring to fat MIL DOTS instead of discrete 1/10 mil hash marks?
->Are you not allowing for the use of hold-under devices like angle/cosine indicators or angle readout LRFs?

As I stated earlier in this thread, using a Xmas tree reticle to hold off-center will put you in the SAME optical area as you would be had you dialed that same correction. So, with good quality lenses and coatings, insignificant refraction aberrations due to holding are the same insignificant aberrations you get from dialing. And please remember that those of us who hold with an Xmas tree reticle are not using cruder "mil dots" (as your article refers to) but very distinct 1/10 mil hash marks for holding. And we are holding under based on our LRF readouts with angle compensation or a scope-mounted angle/cosine indicator.

Your paper does not take into account any of this and therefore cannot be valid in this discussion. The paper is actually outdated in terms of advanced reticles and angle determination devices.

Eric B.

 

[985]

IF you read the White paper, then you understand the physics and this conversation is over.
IF you read the white paper and you don't understand the physics, then again, this conversation is over. So, we're done. If you want to take a course in ballistics, its four months in length, (September through December), involves understanding "coupled ordinary differential equations" and "numerical integration techniques," and it's $10K.
It covers Modern Optics and ray tracing programs that describes how light moves, i.e. Snell's Law and More, (which does not work the same for all frequencies of light), is the prerequisite to understanding why holding on steep angles, (20+ degrees) with your eye out of the optical center, does not work and is the mathematical basis of what I described in the white paper. "Ray Tracers" actual go back to the principle of "Least Action." What that means is that photons (light) are quantum and operate under the laws of quantum mechanics. Their special. The thing about quantum is that the light particles working its way through the lenses at the quantum level, can actually explore more than one route through the lens. So when you talk about ray tracing, the reality is that the light (photons) sniff their way through the lens in terms of figuring out what is the mechanism that costs the least amount of time that it takes for the photon to get through the system. Each lens has a different index of refraction. So the "Least action" is the route that the ray takes... Move your eye down on the christmas tree, off of the optical center and different routes through the lens system is taking different amounts of time, with different paths of light arriving at your pupil at different times, and that changes the image, which is now Off Center. In other words your looking through the scope off angle, or not through the center. Its like placing a stick in water and it bends away from the light source and looks longer than it is. You are now looking at an optically distorted image. The light rays are bent downwards and in other directions. So the path of light is no longer symmetric through the scope, distorting the image. So when you hold over on target, you are actually lifting the image up, (or in other directions) which in turn causes the miss. At very close range, the miss will not be noticeable, however at 500 meters on 23 degrees of down-slope it will be a significant miss. Even after correcting for gravity. And by the way, I Love Mil-Dot reticles.

"Truing the trajectory," with some ballistic software packages, is a BS term. It is merely a means of cheating the drag curve, which does not work when density altitude changes... The software is faulty, (for many reasons). If it worked correctly in the first place, you wouldn't have to fudge it to make it work.

In any regard, is that a good enough scientific explanation?

Best Regards,

Ward W Brien

 

[del2les]

I use both, and both a very useful. When game are moving and cover or terrain dictate a quick decision, I hold over. Using a Vortex, FFP, EBR-1, I have 20 MOA of quick and accurate holdover. A similar situation, though not as accurate, with my Burris, and other, BalistiPlex style recticles that I "know" impact yardage. Actually, I took an 810 yard elk with a Burris and a holdover, as the heard was heading over the top.

When time and the situation allows, I have repeated confidence in the Vortex turrets, and I like a little more precision in the shot placement. During the off season, we constantly practice using holdover and turrets, and while much of that practice is with 223's and 22-250AI's with 75-80gr bullets, it is close enough to the hunting calibers and saves, money, barrels, headaches and allows for more practice shots. The few inches of difference in drop at 1,000 yards is nothing compared to the great training in wind and spin compensation.

If you want REAL wind and drop training at affordable prices or short courses, try using a decent target 22LR with your 5.5-25x or 6-24x scopes and shoot at 250-400 yard reduced targets. We used this practice for Palma and 1,000 yd prone training, and it proved very valuable.

 

[985]

Litehiker: Please accept my invitation to come out to the Mountain Shooting Center and shoot with me.
You may enjoy it.

Best Regards,

Ward Brien

 

[del2les]

Tea square: I know my subject. Anyone that argues with science (in this case) is in denial. You have the opportunity to prove your pals right. Can you do it? 1000 yards on a flat square range is Very different then shooting angles in the mountains.

While I agree with much of what you state and from the "scientific viewpoint", I must disagree with the overall assumption of "fail" using holdover at angles. I live in the middle of the Rockies and have numerous 14er's out my backyard, and I have used trained and known holdover for decades. upslope, downslope, whatever, and I am very comfortable with it.

We TRAIN and PRACTICE, so we have very good ideas and ACTUAL FIELD EXPERIENCE with holdover usage, REAL WORLD usage and not the physics classes I had in college and the Air Force. (Before you start, I was a Physics major and Aviator) Much of this field experience is on small targets like chucks, marmots, etc, and while I prefer a dialed solution, I have hit too many thousands of targets to even argue the merits of "trained" holdover.

This discussion reminds me of the historical scientific talks about breaking the speed of sound or even manned flight, "It can't be done" Well, it was and continues.

Everyone approaches a topic from their limited, or other, knowledge level and often beliefs, but before anyone categorically denies what can or cannot be done, maybe approach the topic with a sense of curiosity and humbly speak with those who do it routinely?

Anyone wish to place themselves at 500-1,000 yards down/upslope of my rifles and bet I cannot hit them with holdover?????? Bueler, Bueler.....?

 

[teesquare]

Tea square: I know my subject. Anyone that argues with science (in this case) is in denial. You have the opportunity to prove your pals right. Can you do it? 1000 yards on a flat square range is Very different then shooting angles in the mountains.

Apparently I need to explain AGAIN that I DO IT. Witnessed. Why is that so hard to believe?

Knowing one's subject is great. But - you cannot with any degree of intellectual honesty - create a hard fast rule for what ANY shooter can or cannot do with a firearm and system which approaches this subject from another perspective other than your own. "science".. is theoretical in this application. It means nothing once you add in the unknown...the human factor.
And - frankly...you are not winning any fans with your manner in talking down to anyone. As a sponsor - who is likely affected by public opinion, I would think it behooves you to approach such matters in a less than empirical attitude.
I will not tell you that you are wrong about your methodology. But, I will tell you are wrong and very closed minded as to what someone else can...and DOES do simply because they are not using "your" methods.
If you feel holdover is of no use...fine. But, to tell others it does not work is...ignorant. You are not allowing for any growth in your knowledge - by simply denying what others can do, because you cannot.
Pride comes before a fall...But arrogance begets tragedy.

 

[985]

I'm merely stating that there is a reason that dialing in your data on previous engagement(s) is more accurate than holding over and am attempting to explain why. That is what the topic of this thread is about; isn't it?

I am attempting to be helpful to others by sharing information, and I have delivered information that's not easy to find; wouldn't you agree?