Is the Redfield accurange retical working out

dasbear

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
22
Location
Snohomish, Wa
I'm really considering a redfield 4-12x40 for my 6TCU but would like some feedback on how the accurange retical is working out. Is anyone using cartridges that arn't in grp #1? Like the 6TCU. Is there ballistic freeware or payware that would compute the new shorter impact points?The 6TCU &85gr btsp come the closest to 243win 100gr balistics but still falls -1.5-9.0" out to 500 yds. any suggestions?
 
Bear--check my reply to the Boone and Crockett thread a bit below this one. U may be able to make ot work well enough by adjusting the power of the scope down some. The details are in that reply. It could also be used at the optic's highest power--just not at intuitive hundred yd. intervals. All u have to do then is develop an accurate ballistics program profile for your load then match the measurements (subtensions) of the reticle stadia points to that trajectory. Then put a cheat sheet on your gun somewhere. I put mine in a Butler Creek scope cap cover for the fastest, most efficient system of reference possible.

You'll have to call Leupold and find out what the subtensions of the stadia points are in that reticle (bet they're very similar to their LRD reticle) @ the optic's highest power. Then suppose your 450-yd. drop is 4 MOA (18" low at 450), and the 1st stadia is say 2.0 MOA, and 2nd stadia is maybe 5.0 MOA. 5-2 = 3 MOA right?
4 MOA is 2 more than the 2 MOA stadia, right again? Then 2/3 = 0.7. So the dope for 450 yds. would be 1 stadia and 0.7 down to the second stadia or--1.7. See how that works? Calculate the rest of the dope in 50-yd. intervals (don't forget to do the same for the windage plex post tips at each 50-yd. interval for the ballistics programs 10 mph drift...BTW), create a dope sticker for the BC cover, and go hunting.
 
Last edited:
sscoyote thanks for the direction that thread is an interesting read. Im starting to gather more info on LR shooting than I ever dreamed
For better or worse.:)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top