Riflescope for sheep hunting: multi crosshair reticles [Archive]

Squeeker

12-18-2011, 02:52 PM

I really love my Nikon Monarch 4-12x42mmSF. It has a BDC reticle and with the online software is totally customizable based on your elevation, temp, bullet type & caliber and bullet speed (a few other factors too) to give you multiple aim points on your reticle. It has a side focus instead of the old type on the big end of the scope so it's super quick to adjust your paralax acc to yardage and goes out to 1000yds so plenty of adj. there. The low light performance is outstanding, almost as good as a Ziess but I only paid $529 for my Monarch at Cabelas in Edm. Very very very impressed with this scope (I bought two lol) and if I want to put in on my .22 or my 7RM or even the 45-70 Govt all I do is go to the Nikon website and use the Spot-On program to find out what my POI will be for each reticle feature and at what magnification. I found the program to be very accurate as well. The scope is packed full of features and doesn't weigh a ton and you can still use medium height or even low mount rings to keep a slim profile. They have a model up from mine that's a 4-14x44 I believe and it wasn't much more than the one I got. - Squeek

elkhunter11

12-18-2011, 02:59 PM

For the money, I'd go for the Minox, same glass as the Zeiss for a couple hundred less.

Why is it that some people assume that just because Minox buys their raw glass from Schott , that Minox uses the exact same glass as Zeiss? The manufacturers all supply their glass to meet the standards set by the customer, and all customers do not set the same standards. As a result, Schott supplies different grades of glass to different customers. As well, Zeiss and Minox each uses a different set of coatings, so in the end, the lenses are not the same.

The XR-BDC is the same as the rapid z-600, it has 4 hash marks under the cross hair

The Rapid Z also has 50 yard Hash marks. There are 7 total under the primary crosshair on the Rapid Z 600 but only the ones with 100 yard increments have windage marks as well.

So four hash marks is the same as seven hash marks, just like Minox and Zeiss use the same glass.

It's obvious that you would like to think that the Minox is the same as the Conquest, so that you can feel that you can get the same product for less money, but apparently, that isn't the case.

Justin.C

12-18-2011, 04:13 PM

bubba5794

12-18-2011, 04:20 PM

x2 on nikon monarch...i am looking at the 5-20 x 44...

elkhunter11

12-18-2011, 04:24 PM

Why dont you go with a BDC... I think it is more accurate than any hold over... You just dial to the yardage. The other way in the heat of the moment you could possibly use the wrong hash mark. Also I dont like a real busy scope just a fine cross hair.

I use turrets on target rifles, but I tend to avoid them on hunting rifles due to the extra time that it takes to dial turrets. In some situations, you have plenty of time, but in other situations, you don't.

x2 on nikon monarch...i am looking at the 5-20 x 44...

I only own one Nikon Monarch, a 3-12x42 SF that I got for a great deal, and mounted on a 22lr. I won't be purchasing any more, as I find the optics disappointing.

Justin.C

12-18-2011, 04:41 PM

[QUOTE=elkhunter11;1214078]I use turrets on target rifles, but I tend to avoid them on hunting rifles due to the extra time that it takes to dial turrets. In some situations, you have plenty of time, but in other situations, you don't.

for me I dont need one till past 400 yards... All guns have a 300 yard zero..

Kurt505

12-18-2011, 05:11 PM

Why is it that some people assume that just because Minox buys their raw glass from Schott , that Minox uses the exact same glass as Zeiss? The manufacturers all supply their glass to meet the standards set by the customer, and all customers do not set the same standards. As a result, Schott supplies different grades of glass to different customers. As well, Zeiss and Minox each uses a different set of coatings, so in the end, the lenses are not the same.

So four hash marks is the same as seven hash marks, just like Minox and Zeiss use the same glass.

It's obvious that you would like to think that the Minox is the same as the Conquest, so that you can feel that you can get the same product for less money, but apparently, that isn't the case.

Are you trying to pick a fight with me because I think Zeiss is over priced? The rapid Z is busiest scope on the market. Do a web search on comparisons between the two. The Minox has better contrast on darker objects in low light and the rectical is visible longer than the conquest. I just looked through the two side by side less than an hour ago. There is no way I'd buy a Zeiss before the Minox, that's my opinion. I would HIGHLY suggest the OP do the same and try them side by side, the clutter in the rapid z is way more than I want in a hunting scope. Plus Minox has a life time no fault warranty, if your gun falls out of your truck while your doing 100kph, at least you get a new scope, no questions asked.

sheephunter

12-18-2011, 05:26 PM

I'm a bit confused how you can think the Minox reticle is the same as the Rapid Z. Other than they both have multiple croshairs, that's about where the comparison ends. The Minox hash marks do not represent fixed yardages nor is the reticle adjustable for a variety of loads nor is windage indicated. While some may consider the Rapid Z cluttered, others consider it a very useful tool that provides a wide variety of fixed and precise aim points for a wide range of yardages and wind conditions. I don't look at that as cluttered...I look at it as useful in precisely placing long range shots.

In your side by side comparison, did you focus the Rapid Z reticle precisely for your eye or did you just look through one that was handed to you. It's another feature that sets the Rapid Z apart from many other reticles.

elkhunter11

12-18-2011, 05:38 PM

Do a web search on comparisons between the two. The Minox has better contrast on darker objects in low light and the rectical is visible longer than the conquest.

And in the same comparisons, the Minox suffered from significant flaring while the Conquest didn't, and the Minox was only clear in the center of the lens, and lost resolution towards the edges, while the Conquest didn't. Most of all, the Conquest is proven while the Minox scopes have suffered from frequent mechanical failures.

Quotes from the CGN forum.

My Minox ZA5 3-15X50 came apart while sighting it in. The objective lens came loose in the housing after 5 shots.
Waiting to see how this gets handled, I'm not ready to write it off as an inferior product but it sure made me question my choice.

Only saw 2 Minox at the range this year and both had warranty work made on them, people buying it over a Zeiss is hard to understand... JP.

Minoz ZA5 4-20X50 which was sent as a replacement for the Minox ZA5 3-15X50 which blew out its objective lens at the range after 5 shots. Two lemons in a row?

From the Opticstalk forum

FWIW, I ordered the 3-15x42. The ocular is loose and I can't get it to focus at higher magnification. The fast focus eye piece moves around taking the reticle with it. Eye relief is closer to 6 inches than 4. Overall not impressed with the one I received. Then again, as some of you know, I have a rare gift of getting the only bad scope a company ever makes.

I just wanted to report that I ordered a Minox 4-20x50 and had the same problems as jetwrnch. The scope tube behind the zoom ring would move up/down/side to side when pushed with my hand. The scope was impossible to use above 12x. The eye relief was also closer to 6" and impossible to mount and use do to a very finicky eye box. The glass was very clear in the center and very distorted and blurry about halfway out of the center. I am very disappointed with the scope and returned for a refund.

The scope I had did the same thing with point of impact moving significantly. I could look through the scope and push down on the rear of the scope as I watched through the scope and see the cross hairs move at least a foot at 100 yards. It was not only the eyepiece itself that would move but the whole tube behind the zoom ring. This would happen with the eyepiece screwed all the way in. I returned the scope I had and am exchanging it for the 3-15x50. Only reason I am trying the 3-15x50 is to see if it does the same thing. I will report back my findings when I get the new scope.

Kurt505

12-18-2011, 06:15 PM

And in the same comparisons, the Minox suffered from significant flaring while the Conquest didn't, and the Minox was only clear in the center of the lens, and lost resolution towards the edges, while the Conquest didn't. Most of all, the Conquest is proven while the Minox scopes have suffered from frequent mechanical failures.

Quotes from the CGN forum.

From the Opticstalk forum

All of these problems were from their first run of rifle scopes and have since fixed the problem with no cost to the customers. They're later scopes don't have the problem as their first production run. They are also made now with a side focus which has fixed the focus issue. I guess I should have said check the recent reviews of the Minox scopes.

As far as when I just did the side by side, yes, I did focus in the scopes. I played with them, as well as a few others from Leupold and Trijicon for a while. For the money I would still by the Minox. I prefer the simplicity of the rectical on the Minox over the Zeiss. I prefer to hit the range and see where my bullets are hitting. I'm not a competition shooter, I'm just a hunter. I can see how using the numbers on the rapid z can definatly help, but for the extra $300-$400 it wouldn't be worth it for me. I'm in no way an authority on optics, I'm just giving the OP an option to look at.

sneer

12-18-2011, 07:10 PM

Thanks for the input guys.

As with anything, there's lots of choices and lots of opinions.

Now I just need to go raid the piggy bank!

sheephunter

12-18-2011, 07:20 PM

=Kurt505;1214239As far as when I just did the side by side, yes, I did focus in the scopes.
I didn't say focused the scope...I said focused the reticle...big difference. Most people don't understand how to properly set one up and unfortunately most selling them don't either. Simple to do but you need to know to do it. If the Rapd Z has one downfall, it's poor education of those using or considering them. They are so advanced but so simple it's hard for many to grasp....on both sides of the sales counter.

elkhunter11

12-18-2011, 07:24 PM

All of these problems were from their first run of rifle scopes and have since fixed the problem with no cost to the customers.

That replacement scope that was mentioned on the CGN forum only arrived two weeks ago.:sign0161:

Kurt505

12-18-2011, 08:00 PM

That replacement scope that was mentioned on the CGN forum only arrived two weeks ago.:sign0161:

Zeiss scopes are over priced, you pay for the name. Every manufacturer has defective scopes including Zeiss. I read posts where the Zeiss was falling apart. The OP was looking for a scope with BDC that was less expensive than the Zeiss, not a biased opinion on what someone thinks is best. I own Swarovski, Leupold VX-III, and a Baush and Lomb 4200 and I'm in the market myself for a new scope. I don't want to spend $1000+ on this particular scope, and after doing alot of research, I think I'll be picking up the Minox XR-BDC 3-15x50 with side focus for $589 at Cabelas. Some people need a name on the side of their scope to make them feel better. If I can get what I need for less money, I don't care what it says on the scope. Minox has been around for a long time and have an excellent reputation. That along with their warranty and cs, I've got no worries on spending my money on one of their products.

Sneer, I hope you take a look at Minox, read some recent reviews on them, alot of people who make a living off of doing optic reviews speak very highly of them.

elkhunter11

12-18-2011, 08:24 PM

Minox has been around for a long time and have an excellent reputation.

Minox as a company has been around a long time, but it's only recently that they started trying to break into the market with their rifle scopes.
I don't care what label a scope wears either, but I do need to trust a scope, and I can't trust a scope manufacturer that started out with so many issues in such a short time.Until they prove that they have a reliable product, I will leave the testing to other people.

209x50

12-18-2011, 08:34 PM

Can anyone fill me in on the minox ballistic reticle? Is it adjustable like the Zeiss to match your cartridge or is it a "dumb" one like a mildot?

Kurt505

12-18-2011, 08:38 PM

Minox as a company has been around a long time, but it's only recently that they started trying to break into the market with their rifle scopes. With such a short history in rifle scopes , and so many problems in that very short history, it will be years before I will trust them enough to buy their scopes.

Yep, that's true, they just started making scopes in 2009, and yes they had a few lemons come off the first production run. They have an excellent lifetime no fault warranty tho, so for $589 I see it as a "can't go wrong" deal. I'm not saying they are the best scope on the market, but I do think they offer the best bang for your buck on the market. I'll tell you what, I'll buy one try it out for a while and give you my honest opinion of it. All either of us know right now is what we've read on the net. I've been trying to get in contact with someone who has had hands on experience with them, but because they're so new it's been tough. I'm willing to spend $600 and find out first hand.

Kurt505

12-18-2011, 08:49 PM

Can anyone fill me in on the minox ballistic reticle? Is it adjustable like the Zeiss to match your cartridge or is it a "dumb" one like a mildot?

I believe it's dumb. Here's the description.

Rebate Available - See Below For Details

• Waterproof and fogproof design
• Standard 1" monotube
• Fully multicoated lenses
• Field and Stream 2011 Best of the Best Awards winner

With MINOX Riflescopes, you get the peace of mind knowing you're purchasing optics from one of Germany’s finest sport optics companies at an uncompromising value. Crafted of incredibly tough, lightweight anodized aluminum, the standard 1" monotube allows for easy, low-profile mounting. The glass is manufactured from German glass specialist, Schott AG, and features fully multicoated lens using the Minox M coating (21 layers of coating on the glass surface for optimal light transmission, brightness, contrast, detail and color rendering). Precise windage and elevation adjustments and up to 5X magnification zoom ranges. The riflescope is system-purged with inert argon gas for waterproof protection, anti-fogging in the inner glass surface and corrosion protection. Smooth-operating soft-touch rubber variable power ring. Rubber-cushioned fast-focus eyepieces with long, 4" eye relief. Scopecoat™ protective field cover (scope cover not included on 56mm models). Manufacturer's full-coverage lifetime warranty.

The ZA 5 3-15x50 is $500 less than the Conquest 4.5-14x50

sheephunter

12-18-2011, 08:53 PM

Don't think anyone is saying the Minox might not be a good scope in its price range but saying it's identical to the Zeiss just insn't true in so many ways. I think that's where you went off track. It may well be a good option for the OP who doesn't want to drop a grand....but identical to a Rapid Z....definitely not. Perhaps there's more reason why the Zeiss costs more than just the name stamped on it. You never answered my question about focusing the reticle on the Rapid Z.

Marko

12-18-2011, 09:01 PM

For my sheep rifle, I use a 7MM WSM savage 16, accutrigger, with a nikon monarch 5x20 with the BDC, and I love it. Great in lowlight cond, and great zoom. Easy to use, and I even purchased an app for my iPhone from Nikon, for $5, and it gives you a lot of bullet drift, drop, POI, etc. Good luck, it's a tough decision to make.

Kurt505

12-18-2011, 09:09 PM

Don't think anyone is saying the Minox might not be a good scope in its price range but saying it's identical to the Zeiss just insn't true in so many ways. I ythink that's where you went off track. It may well be a good option for the OP who doesn't want to drop a grand....but identical to a Rapid Z....definitely not. Perhaps there's more reason why the Zeiss costs more than just the name stamped on it. You never answered my question about focusing the reticle on the Rapid Z.

I guess what I should have said was the visual optics are pretty much the same. As for focusing in the reticle on the Z, no, I didn't set it, it didn't seem out of focus. The Minox has 4 hash marks below the main cross hair, in that respect I was comparing to the z 600. Like I said before I prefer the simplicity of the Minox over the clutter of the rapid z. I'd rather take my gun out to the range and know where my gun is shooting, and judge my windage, than have the clutter in my scope. Personal preference. And for my needs, I can't justify spending $500 more for the extra features when there is no optical advantage in the price difference.

sheephunter

12-18-2011, 09:46 PM

I I'd rather take my gun out to the range and know where my gun is shooting, and judge my windage, than have the clutter in my scope. Personal preference. And for my needs, I can't justify spending $500 more for the extra features when there is no optical advantage in the price difference.

Kurt, I suspect by reading your posts that your experience with ballistic reticles is limited. If you can't justify an extra $400-$500 that's perfectly understandable but to convice yourself that an inferior reticle is better just doesn't make any sense. A superior reticle that does everything the Rapid Z does is hardly clutter. BTW, all gun should be taken to the range to see where they are shooting, Zeiss included. The Minox may be good value in its price range but again, the reticles are light years apart. It's the Rapid Z that actually increases the price of the scope. You could buy a Conquest with Z-Plex for right around the same price as the Minox so I'd hope they are optically similar. Lots of good optics in that price range.

ishootbambi

12-18-2011, 09:54 PM

ill avoid the silliness on scope talk and just politely point out that i dont think its even neccessary. ive never had any issues getting into bow range of sheep. they arent a particularly bright or wary animal. in fact....the next one i kill will be with my bow more than likely.

sheephunter

12-18-2011, 09:56 PM

LongDraw

12-18-2011, 10:14 PM

sheephunter

12-18-2011, 10:28 PM

Why even waste your time on such a dimwitted creature..?

Hey he got a badger with a tire iron...how hard could a sheep be?

ishootbambi

12-18-2011, 10:35 PM

Hey he got a badger with a tire iron...how hard could a sheep be?

lololol.....you just planted a seed in my noodle. nah....that wouldnt work. they whack each other with their heads way harder than i can swing a wrench.

anyway, i am just pointing out what i have seen of sheep. maybe road sheep are different where they get shot at lots, but where i have encountered them, they are pretty easy to get within 100 yards. in fact i have seen 3 die firsthand and all were under 50....including my own at under 20. justin c here took that advice and killed his with a bow in a rifle zone. my next will likely be the same....maybe 410.

whichever....some guys like shooting from the next time zone, and if thats what the op is after then go nuts. just saying that sheep arent usually that tough to get close to in which case a long range scope is unneccessary...unless he really wants one.

now go ahead and continue your scope argument cuz i aint entertaining this one.

ksteed17

12-18-2011, 10:37 PM

Hey he got a badger with a tire iron...how hard could a sheep be?

I thought it was a scoop shovel;). But we shot 1 at 35 and alot of the sheep hunters with more experience then me that I've talked to have said the vast majority theyve shot have been under 200 which I consider close. That being said I have nothing against these scopes with the reticles as I have one on my .270

sheephunter

12-18-2011, 10:37 PM

There's a couple people you missed insulting in that post bambi but you got most covered.... good use of bandwidth ;)

Justin shot a ram....why haven't we seen pics here...where? when? how?

MK2750

12-18-2011, 10:38 PM

I won't pretend to know a lot about scopes but wanted a really nice one for a new rifle. Three trips to the store and still couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about regarding the Zeiss.

On the third trip I took a couple outside and got the reticle set to my eye. I know it has been said 4 times already but this is the difference. What was "too much happening" in the store was now crystal clear yet not intrusive.

You really have to play with the focus to appreciate this scope. Again I am no expert but before proper adjustment I would not rate it any better than a 3200 Bushnel.

Through all power levels the sight was perfect and the cross hairs sharp. Equally impressive was the edge to edge clarity at all powers.

I really wanted to like the Minox because I am a cheap SOB but when the Zeiss was set properly there was no comparison. The Minox was every bit as nice as the high end Bushnels, on par with the equivalent Leupold and a lot clearer than the Nikons to my eye. Once they have the mechanical issues worked out I think they will be a good value for the money.

ishootbambi

12-18-2011, 10:41 PM

I thought it was a scoop shovel;)

both kyle....the shovel badger was years ago. this fall i was caught with a badger in the stubble and no shovel in sight....so i had to improvise. heck i thought i was tough when i got one with my bow, but hand to hand combat really sorts out the men from the boys.......:sHa_shakeshout:

ishootbambi

12-18-2011, 10:42 PM

There's a couple people you missed insulting in that post bambi but you got most covered.... good use of bandwidth ;)

Justin shot a ram....why haven't we seen pics here...where? when? how?

lol....im on a roll tonight.

justins sheep has been featured here. in the mountains....last fall....with a bow...

Kurt505

12-18-2011, 10:48 PM

Kurt, I suspect by reading your posts that your experience with ballistic reticles is limited. If you can't justify an extra $400-$500 that's perfectly understandable but to convice yourself that an inferior reticle is better just doesn't make any sense. A superior reticle that does everything the Rapid Z does is hardly clutter. BTW, all gun should be taken to the range to see where they are shooting, Zeiss included. The Minox may be good value in its price range but again, the reticles are light years apart. It's the Rapid Z that actually increases the price of the scope. You could buy a Conquest with Z-Plex for right around the same price as the Minox so I'd hope they are optically similar. Lots of good optics in that price range.

TJ, the inferior reticle of the Minox is all I'm looking for. Quality glass is most important for my needs, a basic BDC reticle is all I'm looking for. I'm not trying to convince myself or anyone it's the best reticle option available. Zeiss doesn't offer a BDC reticle in the same price range, in that optical quality there actually isn't that many options. I want good glass with a BDC reticle, nothing light years above that, at least for what rifle I'm putting it on.

ksteed17

12-18-2011, 10:50 PM

both kyle....the shovel badger was years ago. this fall i was caught with a badger in the stubble and no shovel in sight....so i had to improvise. heck i thought i was tough when i got one with my bow, but hand to hand combat really sorts out the men from the boys.......:sHa_shakeshout:

I have to say everytime I see one I think of that story but I've yet had the chance to off one with a primitive weapon ha ha

sheephunter

12-18-2011, 10:50 PM

TJ, the inferior reticle of the Minox is all I'm looking for. Quality glass is most important for my needs, a basic BDC reticle is all I'm looking for. I'm not trying to convince myself or anyone it's the best reticle option available. Zeiss doesn't offer a BDC reticle in the same price range, in that optical quality there actually isn't that many options. I want good glass with a BDC reticle, nothing light years above that, at least for what rifle I'm putting it on.

And that makes sense.

Justin.C

12-18-2011, 11:32 PM

There's a couple people you missed insulting in that post bambi but you got most covered.... good use of bandwidth ;)

Justin shot a ram....why haven't we seen pics here...where? when? how?

What is this suppose to meen??? Where=behind the shoulder in the south country. When=last day of the season. How= shot him with my bow at 25 yards.

sheephunter

12-18-2011, 11:47 PM

What is this suppose to meen??? Where=behind the shoulder in the south country. When=last day of the season. How=what the he'll is that supper to mean? Or the answer you want is I shot him with my bow at 25 yards.

I actually had a few people forward me photos and the story since I posted...congrats. I might have pics of that ram from a few weeks earlier. I'll see if I can dig them up.

Justin.C

12-18-2011, 11:58 PM

I actually had a few people forward me photos and the story since I posted...congrats. I might have pics of that ram from a few weeks earlier. I'll see if I can dig them up.

Thanks. It was a first and just legal. I have seen 4 rams this year that were real good ones can't wait till sept to play again with mr bighorn. The next ram is going to be in another part of the province. I ain't shooting one unless it is a well broomed off one.

Precisionshooter

12-19-2011, 03:22 PM

Why is it that some people assume that just because Minox buys their raw glass from Schott , that Minox uses the exact same glass as Zeiss? The manufacturers all supply their glass to meet the standards set by the customer, and all customers do not set the same standards. As a result, Schott supplies different grades of glass to different customers. As well, Zeiss and Minox each uses a different set of coatings, so in the end, the lenses are not the same.

So four hash marks is the same as seven hash marks, just like Minox and Zeiss use the same glass.

It's obvious that you would like to think that the Minox is the same as the Conquest, so that you can feel that you can get the same product for less money, but apparently, that isn't the case.

On the 5-20Minox I evaluated, it had glass superior to Nightforce. In fact, out of Nightforce (5.5-22x56), Nikon Monarchs, Weaver super slam and grand slam with A/O, and vortex razor, the Minox was only optically second to the Vortex razor in extreme low light. The others...well there was obvious differences. Unfortunately I didn't have a Zeiss to look through.

Schott also makes (or did) glass for stove top ovens! Peter Hirsch from Hirsch precision pushed the IOR line heavily in this regard....Schott glass ....blah blah blah...

In the end, you pull up to the factory with your bag of money and requirements and see what you can afford. They do make a full range (no pun intended....lol) of glass.....

Don K

12-19-2011, 05:07 PM

If money isnt an object, I've got 3 Swarovskis that I'd take all day, every day over Zeiss...:sHa_shakeshout:

BUT the OP has a budget, and based on that knowledge it doesn't matter.:sign0161:

I would look at Votex, Minox and Meopta. All are good scopes for the money, carry good warranties (especially Vortex), and have good reviews.:)

On my .257 Weatherby I've got a Swaro fixed six, and my buddies sheep gun, a .240 Weatherby, also sports a fixed six... Light, less parts and less things to go wrong. Know your scope and get within 400yds, lights out...

sheephunter

12-19-2011, 05:39 PM

If money isnt an object, I've got 3 Swarovskis that I'd take all day, every day over Zeiss...:sHa_shakeshout:

...

Great optical quality in the Sawro no doubt but as the OP was asking about balistic reticles, it kind of knocks the Swaro out of the running IMHO...their reticle as 209 put it is one of the dumb ones. Now their turret system is innovative. I had a Z6 with their ballistic turret that was pretty user friendly...if you like turrets. But as you pointed out price is out of the OP's parameters so no sense in really mentioning it.

You home construction guys must make a lot of money to own three Swaros ;)

Don K

12-19-2011, 08:44 PM

Great optical quality in the Sawro no doubt but as the OP was asking about balistic reticles, it kind of knocks the Swaro out of the running IMHO...their reticle as 209 put it is one of the dumb ones. Now their turret system is innovative. I had a Z6 with their ballistic turret that was pretty user friendly...if you like turrets. But as you pointed out price is out of the OP's parameters so no sense in really mentioning it.

You home construction guys must make a lot of money to own three Swaros ;)

:sHa_shakeshout:

Pathfinder76

12-19-2011, 09:03 PM

Get a Leupold FX II with the LR reticle, put it on a 270 Winchester or 30-06 and call it a day. There is no sense making something so straightforward so difficult. Having multiple hash marks in a scope has NEVER simplified things. In fact if I could, I'd have the above scope with 1 hash mark subtending 18" at 400 yds and that is it.

sheephunter

12-19-2011, 09:16 PM

Having multiple hash marks in a scope has NEVER simplified things. .

I'd disagree with that....especially if those additional hash marks are yardage indicated. It doesn't get much more simple than putting the 500 yard crosshair on a 500 yard target and the 600 yard crosshair on the 600 yard target..well you get the point. But then again, I'm a simple kind of guy.

Pathfinder76

12-19-2011, 10:21 PM

I'd disagree with that....especially if those additional hash marks are yardage indicated. It doesn't get much more simple than putting the 500 yard crosshair on a 500 yard target and the 600 yard crosshair on the 600 yard target..well you get the point. But then again, I'm a simple kind of guy.

Sorry, but when 90% of the shooting I do at game (not into stalking backwards) clutter in a scope isn't making things simpler.

Kurt505

12-19-2011, 10:29 PM

I'd disagree with that....especially if those additional hash marks are yardage indicated. It doesn't get much more simple than putting the 500 yard crosshair on a 500 yard target and the 600 yard crosshair on the 600 yard target..well you get the point. But then again, I'm a simple kind of guy.

I gotta say, if your a simple kind of guy.... Your best bet would be to go with the Minox. Take it from me, a guy who likes to keep it simple.

sheephunter

12-19-2011, 10:36 PM

Sorry, but when 90% of the shooting I do at game (not into stalking backwards) clutter in a scope isn't making things simpler.

I'll resist the easy answer. For long range shooting, multiple range specific crosshairs definitely simplify things. Let's leave it at that.

As for clutter...some of us consider it useful information....lol If it confuses you I understand ;)

sheephunter

12-19-2011, 10:39 PM

I gotta say, if your a simple kind of guy.... Your best bet would be to go with the Minox. Take it from me, a guy who likes to keep it simple.

I'm glad it works for you kurt. To me simplicity is not having to count down my crosshairs and then remember what yardage value each crosshair represents. When I want to shoot 500 yards, I like to do no more thinking than reading 500 beside the crosshair. That is simplicity defined. Counting and remembering...not so much.

Kurt505

12-19-2011, 10:51 PM

I'll resist the easy answer. For long range shooting, multiple range specific crosshairs definitely simplify things. Let's leave it at that.

TJ, I think what your missing here is that not all men see things the same way. Ya the Zeiss scope, with all it's hash marks and numbers might be the best thing since sliced bread, there still might be a few mountain men out there who think a 30-30 with an adjustable rear sight is all they need to get out to 500yds.... And it is!!!

I am on Chucks side on this one, simply because I'm looking at things the way he is. I'm not saying the rapid series is no good, I'm saying the same thing Chuck is, it's no good for me. All those numbers are clutter to me. K.i.s.s. especially when it comes to the heat of the moment. You should be able to understand that?

sheephunter

12-19-2011, 11:09 PM

TJ, I think what your missing here is that not all men see things the same way. Ya the Zeiss scope, with all it's hash marks and numbers might be the best thing since sliced bread, there still might be a few mountain men out there who think a 30-30 with an adjustable rear sight is all they need to get out to 500yds.... And it is!!!

I am on Chucks side on this one, simply because I'm looking at things the way he is. I'm not saying the rapid series is no good, I'm saying the same thing Chuck is, it's no good for me. All those numbers are clutter to me. K.i.s.s. especially when it comes to the heat of the moment. You should be able to understand that?

Not sure how you know it's no good for you. From what I gather you have no experience shooting ballistic reticles. I'm guessing if you ever shot one under real hunting conditions you'd change your mind and common sense says that not counting hash marks and remembering yardage is much more simple than doing it.....you know KISS. No, I don't understand your thoughts. But, either way, if what you are using or are going to use is working for you that's great. BTW, you aren't on chuck's side from what I read. Pretty sure he was refering to a single reticle.

Didn't you state earlier in this thread that the Rapid Z had the same amount of hash marks as the Minox? Now that you learned it has more you are saying it's too cluttered. Kurt, if you can't afford a Rapid Z that's very understandable but saying it's more complicated isn't anywhere close to the truth. It couldn't be simpler. Anyhow, I'm done. Get what you can afford, learn to shoot it well and enjoy.

elkhunter11

12-19-2011, 11:19 PM

Didn't you state earlier in this thread that the Rapid Z had the same amount of hash marks as the Minox? Now that you learned it has more you are saying it's too cluttered.

How True.:)

Kurt505

12-19-2011, 11:30 PM

Not sure how you know it's no good for you. From what I gather you have no experience shooting ballistic reticles. I'm guessing if you ever shot one under real hunting conditions you'd change your mind and common sense says that not counting hash marks and remembering yardage is much more simple than doing it.....you know KISS. No, I don't understand your thoughts. But, either way, if what you are using or are going to use is working for you that's great. BTW, you aren't on chuck's side from what I read. Pretty sure he was refering to a single reticle.

Didn't you state earlier in this thread that the Rapid Z had the same amount of hash marks as the Minox? Now that you learned it has more you are saying it's too cluttered. Kurt, if you can't afford a Rapid Z that's very understandable but saying it's more complicated isn't anywhere close to the truth. It couldn't be simpler. Anyhow, I'm done. Get what you can afford, learn to shoot it well and enjoy.

You seem pretty arrogant, or just plain rude in this post. I'll tell you what, the gun I want to put the scope on is a Benelli MR1, can I afford that :-0 . I have the money for a Zeiss, they are OVER PRICED period. I have seven pins on my SPOT HOGG Hogg it, that is mounted to my CARBON ELEMENT and I have no problem picking my yardage in a split second. You stated your point, but the fact is not all men like what you like. Deal with it. I made the mistake of saying Minox is the same as your sponsord Zeiss, and I also clarified what I meant in a later post. Can you see where I'm coming from now?

Kurt505

12-19-2011, 11:31 PM

How True.:)

Wipe your nose.

elkhunter11

12-19-2011, 11:34 PM

Wipe your nose.

I am too busy wiping the coffee off of my keyboard after reading the statement by Sheephunter that I quoted. I found it so funny that the coffee went right out my nose onto the keyboard.

sheephunter

12-19-2011, 11:35 PM

You seem pretty arrogant, or just plain rude in this post. I'll tell you what, the gun I want to put the scope on is a Benelli MR1, can I afford that :-0 . I have the money for a Zeiss, they are OVER PRICED period. I have seven pins on my SPOT HOGG Hogg it, that is mounted to my CARBON ELEMENT and I have no problem picking my yardage in a split second. You stated your point, but the fact is not all men like what you like. Deal with it. I made the mistake of saying Minox is the same as your sponsord Zeiss, and I also clarified what I meant in a later post. Can you see where I'm coming from now?

I apologize if I came across that way as it was not my intent.

Kurt505

12-19-2011, 11:37 PM

I am too busy wiping the coffee off of my keyboard after reading the statement by Sheephunter that I quoted. I found it so funny that the coffee went right out my nose onto the keyboard.

Hopefully it helped clean it.

steve

12-19-2011, 11:38 PM

You seem pretty arrogant, or just plain rude in this post. I'll tell you what, the gun I want to put the scope on is a Benelli MR1, can I afford that :-0 . I have the money for a Zeiss, they are OVER PRICED period. I have seven pins on my SPOT HOGG Hogg it, that is mounted to my CARBON ELEMENT and I have no problem picking my yardage in a split second. You stated your point, but the fact is not all men like what you like. Deal with it. I made the mistake of saying Minox is the same as your sponsord Zeiss, and I also clarified what I meant in a later post. Can you see where I'm coming from now?

Each to their own. But why is your choice a MR1 for mountain hunting?

Kurt505

12-19-2011, 11:46 PM

Each to their own. But why is your choice a MR1 for mountain hunting?

Lol. It's not for mountain hunting, the mountain man gesture was a thing from my ancestry, my grandfather swore by open sights. The MR1 is a toy I bought for plinking, blowing off some stress, and the odd coyote.... Hopefully.

Don K

12-19-2011, 11:47 PM

I apologize if I came across that way as it was not my intent.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and the boys are stating theirs. Unfortunately because some people see Zeiss for what they are (overpriced), you take offense. They were better when they only offered high end stuff, once they started to sell lesser lines (Canadian Tire?), the quality isn't the same. My opinions.

steve

12-19-2011, 11:48 PM

Lol. It's not for mountain hunting, the mountain man gesture was a thing from my ancestry, my grandfather swore by open sights. The MR1 is a toy I bought for plinking, blowing off some stress, and the odd coyote.... Hopefully.

I thought we were talking sheep hunting scopes still :lol: continue on....

elkhunter11

12-19-2011, 11:55 PM

I thought we were talking sheep hunting scopes

That is the title of the thread.:sign0161:

Jordan Smith

12-19-2011, 11:57 PM

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 12:04 AM

The 4.5-14x44 Conquest is not available with the Z600 reticle, but it is available with the Z800 reticle.

Minox ZA5
The Minox scopes have fewer elevation hash marks, which aren't marked for yardage. In some cases, they can only have hash marks for three yardages.

Your only two relevant posts on this thread. You got some other motive? PM me if you'd like to clear things up with me.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 12:08 AM

I honestly think that guys that love ballistic reticles for elevation compensation do so only because they haven't put in enough time with a proper target turret setup. When they do, they see the light, as did I. I still use the ballistic reticles, but only for close to medium-range shots where the utmost precision is not a requirement. These reticles are handy for windage if they include windage hashmarks, though.

I'd agree with you that turrets are superior at very long ranges say +800 yards and if you have time they are great too. For my hunting...700 yards and under, I'll take a ballistic reticle any day just because it's quick and requires no reference literature or dial turning. In my experience, you do not always have all day to consult a sheet and turn knobs. This year, I actually made three quite hasty kills in the mountains between 376 and 579 yards that offered no time for anything but finding a comfortable shooting position, finding the animal and squeezing the trigger. Vanessa encountered two similar situations in excess of 400 yards.

elkhunter11

12-20-2011, 12:12 AM

Minox ZA5
The Minox scopes have fewer elevation hash marks, which aren't marked for yardage.

What happened to:

The XR-BDC is the same as the rapid z-600

You made some statements, then when those very statements were turned against you, you became agitated. It will likely happen again, if you continue to make such statements, so you might as well get used to it.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 12:21 AM

What happened to:

You made some statements, then when those very statements were turned against you, you became agitated. It will likely happen again, if you continue to make such statements, so you might as well get used to it.

It was a statement made in reference to a 600yd reticle, if you can't gap between a 300yd hash mark and a 400yd mark maybe you should be on the newbie forum.
At least I was giving the OP a viable option to the over priced Zeiss, what was yours?

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 12:22 AM

Unfortunately because some people see Zeiss for what they are (overpriced), you take offense. They were better when they only offered high end stuff, once they started to sell lesser lines (Canadian Tire?), the quality isn't the same. My opinions, but feel free to take a poke if you wish. Just sticking up for the many!:)

Actually I took no offence to anyone saying Zeiss was overpriced. Not sure where you got that from. Optical quality is subjective at best and human vision varies greatly. I was just pointing out that a standard ballistic reticle was in no way shape or form simpler to use than a Rapid Z. That's not an opinion at all....it's just a simple fact. You are right, the optical quality of the Conquest line isn't equivalent to that of the Victory line but the quality of the Victory line has not changed at all. The Conquest line was just introduced to compete in the mid range which it does nicely. If you want to add a Rapid Z, the price does go up, however.

BTW, you can buy a Swaro or a Zeiss Victory at the Canadian Tire on McLeod Trail.

I'll resist the temptation to hurl personal insults back at you.....but thanks for the invitation :)

elkhunter11

12-20-2011, 12:29 AM

You are right, the optical quality of the Conquest line isn't equivalent to that of the Victory line but the quality of the Victory line has not changed at all.

I believe that the quality of the Victory line has actually improved with the FL lenses, and the new self locking turrets on some models.

Don K

12-20-2011, 12:31 AM

Actually I took no offence to anyone saying Zeiss was overpriced. Not sure where you got that from. Optical quality is subjective at best and human vision varies greatly. I was just pointing out that a standard ballistic reticle was in no way shape or form simpler to use than a Rapid Z. That's not an opinion at all....it's just a simple fact. You are right, the optical quality of the Conquest line isn't equivalent to that of the Victory line but the quality of the Victory line has not changed at all. The Conquest line was just introduced to compete in the mid range which it does nicely. If you want to add a Rapid Z, the price does go up, however.

BTW, you can buy a Swaro or a Zeiss Victory at the Canadian Tire on McLeod Trail.

I'll resist the temptation to hurl personal insults back at you.....but thanks for the invitation :)

Not tryin to sling mud, just saying that everyone has their own opinion. Didnt know CT was carrying 'good' optics too? guess i better save my CT money and I can put it to use!

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 01:06 AM

I believe that the quality of the Victory line has actually improved with the FL lenses, and the new self locking turrets on some models.

Corrected I stand!

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 08:08 AM

Having owned and used several ballistic reticles, from the Vortex BDC and Burris BP, to the Zeiss RZ600 and Leupold LR and B&C reticles, I too, like to keep things simple. I still own several scopes with ballistic reticles, but KISS means a duplex reticle and a good elevation turret. Spin the knob, put the crosshair where you want the bullet to hit, squeeze the trigger. Simple :)

I honestly think that guys that love ballistic reticles for elevation compensation do so only because they haven't put in enough time with a proper target turret setup. When they do, they see the light, as did I. I still use the ballistic reticles, but only for close to medium-range shots where the utmost precision is not a requirement. These reticles are handy for windage if they include windage hashmarks, though.

IME sheep hunting usually involves close-range shots that may not give a guy a lot of time to get the shot off. Either that, or they are long shots where you have plenty of time to set up and shoot. If you have that kind of time, why not use the most accurate and precise method possible? That means using turrets and proper data, either from drop charts or from proven output from portable ballistic calculators.

Took till page 3 to get a proper response! The last stop in the optics game you will play is dialing up...if you value precision at 500 yrds and beyond...then this is where you will likely end up. I went to the multi-aim point reticles in my quest to extend distances....and they do ok to about 500 yrds...a lr reticle in a leupold would be my choice to get to 500 if i had to actually use a multi aim point reticle...since i learned how to set up a turret the way i want (speed dial knob matching the load) there is no other way i can do it, its simple, its fast and its preeeeeecise!

Here's another thing that took till page 3 to hear.......how much time do you really spend looking through your scope? Does the optical quality/image etc. need to match your binos or spotting scope? Crap, most of my scopes are lucky to get looked through a couple minutes a year....setting up a new rifle/scope and load sure....but i'm not a match shooter etc. seriously need to evaluate the amount of time one looks through these things. You can't beat leupold imo. Warranty, modifications, customizations, speed dial turrets to match etc. etc. all right here in province? VxII glass is good enough for everything we want to do in this province, know some competative shooters or ex competative shooters who use nothing but also. ITS NOT A SPOTTING SCOPE! You need to be able to see what your shooting at and put crosshair in right spot.

Good luck with your choice. I say if you can, skip the multi aim point reticles and go straight to the end game.

LongDraw

12-20-2011, 10:29 AM

Asking for optics "opinion" on this site is akin to asking what is the best 4x4 at a Ford dealership. LOL!

209x50

12-20-2011, 10:46 AM

It was a statement made in reference to a 600yd reticle, if you can't gap between a 300yd hash mark and a 400yd mark maybe you should be on the newbie forum.
But you said the Minox reticle was of the dumb variety. Why would you say 300 and 400 yard hash marks when you have no way of adjusting them? Depending on your cartridge, bullet velocity and ballistic coefficient the hash marks could represent a huge variety of distances.

elkhunter11

12-20-2011, 10:47 AM

Asking for optics "opinion" on this site is akin to asking what is the best 4x4 at a Ford dealership.

It's obviously a used 4x4 that isn't a Ford.:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Don K

12-20-2011, 10:50 AM

Asking for optics "opinion" on this site is akin to asking what is the best 4x4 at a Ford dealership. LOL!

Best and Ford in same sentence! Laugh Of the day!:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Better buy a Dodge!:sHa_shakeshout:

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 11:03 AM

But you said the Minox reticle was of the dumb variety. Why would you say 300 and 400 yard hash marks when you have no way of adjusting them? Depending on your cartridge, bullet velocity and ballistic coefficient the hash marks could represent a huge variety of distances.

How bout this, instead of all the but but but's and the whinning you give the OP a good suggestion as to what would be a good alternative?

The Minox has a BDC reticle albeit one you have to take to the range and sight in. The guy said he doesn't want to spend $700. Do you have any useful suggestions? I'd love to hear a couple myself.

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 11:08 AM

I'd agree with you that turrets are superior at very long ranges say +800 yards and if you have time they are great too. For my hunting...700 yards and under, I'll take a ballistic reticle any day just because it's quick and requires no reference literature or dial turning. In my experience, you do not always have all day to consult a sheet and turn knobs. This year, I actually made three quite hasty kills in the mountains between 376 and 579 yards that offered no time for anything but finding a comfortable shooting position, finding the animal and squeezing the trigger. Vanessa encountered two similar situations in excess of 400 yards.

Different strokes for different folks :)

I think another major factor, here, is the size of your target. If you're happy to hit within 6" of the nearest hash mark on your reticle, then using a reticle works great. If your rifle is capable of 0.5MOA accuracy, and you want to hit within 2" of your POA at 600 yards, then a turret is the only way to even get close.

There is something to be said for knowing your rifle and load. I don't need to reference any literature when I'm using the rifles that I'm most familiar with. I know that 500 yards requires 6MOA and 570 is 7.5MOA, etc. If I need to be more precise than that, it means that I probably have time, and I can always glance at the chart that is on the side of my stock.

But I will mention that IME if you need to reference a chart, then that will be the case, regardless of whether you're using reticle or turret, because neither method is perfect right out of the box. It's impossible for a generic reticle to perfectly match the trajectory of every cartridge, every load, and every possible atmospheric condition, regardless of how you zero the scope. I have charts even for my ballistic reticle scopes, because I'm sighted in at X yards, and the 300 yard dot is 3" higher than POA, the 400 yard dot is 2" low, the 500 yard dot is right on, the 600 yard dot 5" low, etc.

It is common belief that a ballistic reticle is faster than turrets, but I would beg to differ, after having used and become intimately familiar with both methods. At this point, it is no faster for me to figure out which hash mark to use (or a mid-point between two marks), find it in the scope, and then get it on target, than it is for me to glance at a chart, spin the knob to the correct number, and get the crosshair on target.

For use on big game within 300-400 yards, I still use the reticle because a hit within 4" of my POA results in a dead animal, and there is not much elevation error within that kind of distance, so most cartridges and loads that I shoot will hit within a few inches of those hash marks/dots.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 11:20 AM

If you're happy to hit within 6" of the nearest hash mark on your reticle, then using a reticle works great. If your rifle is capable of 0.5MOA accuracy, and you want to hit within 2" of your POA at 600 yards, then a turret is the only way to even get close.

.

No question that ballistic reticles are hunting reticles, not target reticles, not sure that was ever questioned. I like them because they are quick, simple, durable and require no reference material to use. I can place a kill shot very accurately and effectively at long long ranges in a very timely manner. I don't see a problem. Rifles may be capable of some impressive groups on bags on the bench with lots of time to make the shot. Out in the real world where sheep live, not so much. I'd rather have something that I can shoot effectively and quickly, well at least that's what I've learned from my experiences. There are trade offs with both reticles and turrets. On the bench, absolutely the turret is king....in the mountains, not so much.

It is common belief that a ballistic reticle is faster than turrets, but I would beg to differ, after having used and become intimately familiar with both methods. At this point, it is no faster for me to figure out which hash mark to use (or a mid-point between two marks), find it in the scope, and then get it on target, than it is for me to glance at a chart, spin the knob to the correct number, and get the crosshair on target.

That's why I prefer yardage indicated hash marks. There's no hash marks to count or figure out. It's just point and shoot. No charts to consult. No knobs to "spin" No clicks to count. You simply range and use the yardage indicated crosshair. It's a common belief because it's true.

209x50

12-20-2011, 11:36 AM

How bout this, instead of all the but but but's and the whinning you give the OP a good suggestion as to what would be a good alternative?

The Minox has a BDC reticle albeit one you have to take to the range and sight in. The guy said he doesn't want to spend $700. Do you have any useful suggestions? I'd love to hear a couple myself.

Every scope maker out there produces a dumb bullet compensation reticle like the mildot. They range in price from under 100 bucks on up. The OP in his first post listed the scopes he was looking at and asked if there was something cheaper that worked the same. The short answer is no, for the ability to adjust the reticle to match your cartridge your choices are extremely limited and none that I know of cost $400. Do you know of one?

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 11:38 AM

No question that ballistic reticles are hunting reticles, not target reticles, not sure that was ever questioned.
Hunting coyotes, gophers, or moose? Head shots, neck shots, etc?

I don't see a problem.

There is no problem. Like I said, different strokes for different folks. Each system has its strong points. The strongest argument for the use of ballistic reticles is that you don't have to rely on mechanical repeatability of the scope, since you're not moving any mechanical parts.

Rifles may be capable of some impressive groups on bags on the bench with lots of time to make the shot. Out in the real world where sheep live, not so much.
Some people can shoot pretty decently with a good bipod and a bunched up shirt for a rear rest ;) BTDT on the sheep mountains...

That's why I prefer yardage indicated hash marks. There's no hash marks to count or figure out. It's just point and shoot. No charts to consult. No knobs to "spin" No clicks to count. You simply range and use the yardage indicated crosshair.

You still have to make a chart for your specific load at the atmospheric conditions in which you use the rifle. Either that or you need a custom-made reticle, calibrated in yardage for your load and atmospheric conditions. The same argument can be made for yardage-calibrated turrets. Just range, spin, and shoot. No need to visually locate the correct aiming point on the reticle ;)

It's a common belief because it's true.

Believe you me, if it were true, I'd still be doing it ;) Tell you what, I think it would be a very enjoyable afternoon to meet up and do some shooting. I'm out target shooting all the time, so it would be just another day in the field. We could set out some 10" targets at unknown distances out to 800 yards. We could then time each other, measuring how long it takes each guy to range, aim, and shoot on each target, using each guy's preferred method. It would be fun :)

I won't tell you my secret advantage, which is that I have the option of using either method, since I have turrets and ballistic reticles in many of my scopes :D

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 11:39 AM

Oh, and BTW I've owned and used the Zeiss RZ600 plenty (still do), so you're not trying to convince me of something I haven't tried before ;)

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 11:55 AM

You still have to make a chart for your specific load at the atmospheric conditions in which you use the rifle. Either that or you need a custom-made reticle, calibrated in yardage for your load and atmospheric conditions.

Not with a second focal plane reticle you don't. You may have used one but I'm not certain you understood what it's capabilities are. It's a simple matter of adjusting the magnification ring for your load at your armospheric conditions. If the load or conditions change, nothing more is required than a slight adjustment in magnification. I do it all the time when I travel.

There's no such thing as custom made reticles for a second focal plane reticles. I think you are confsing it with a first focal plane reticle and in that case you's be right but that's not what I've been talking about.

The Rapid Z is a totally unique reticle that many think they understand and want to discuss its capabilities but unfortunately few really understand it. By your comment above, I'd say you really don't understand how it works or what indeed it is capable of. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 11:56 AM

sheephunter, your argument that the multi point reticle is faster and simpler to use in field conditions is false

all things being equal and situations identical, i will rip that turret with left hand to the perfect distance in literally a heartbeat while settling in for the shot holding gun with right hand, we use this coyote hunting and its fast, no chart to consult first, speed dial knob to match the load and approx. elevations eliminates the moa chart on stock, and my wind data is on the underside of the flip up scope cap as unless everyone is breaking out the wind meter (again, all things being equal) then its a wash as i can quick glance from eye piece 1" upward to see my 100 yrd wind holds in inches for 10 mph winds and its as easy to move into the wind the desired amount as it would be to climb over with your zeiss reticle...maybe easier since i can keep the crosshair right on where with odd yardages you have to gap the big wide 100 yrd hash marks and then move over along the long hash marks to whatever you think you need for wind...there is nothing simpler and faster than a good turret setup and more precision

you can argue the rapid z is the ultimate hunting set up to 700 yrds but its not, most cartridges fall off the map from 500 yrds, so its a fair bit of precision required for those next 200 yrds, yes you and 209 have made those reticles work up to those distances, take them coyote hunting and see how well you do at those distances

do you keep your scope at the exact magnification needed to match your load the closest? or keep it low like most do just in case surprises and dial up when you know you can? if you get caught you have no choice but to dial up if you have mag low...or if you have mag too high to be ready for long work then you might have trouble with close in stuff....to me its a wash, on dial up you can just dial, doesn't matter where the magnification is, it will hit where the crosshair is, if you have time to dial up then great, if not

having a single simple crosshair (i prefer standard, fine is too fine for hunting work) as the only thing in the sight picture is the way to go, dial it, check what your wind hold needs to be as that is the most critical component and away you go....your system is NOT faster, its not simpler (maybe in setup, but i would argue that also)

i would bet even in setup that i could burn less ammo with a dial up setup than i would setting up and proving the zeiss system

to me the differences in everything between the reticle vs dial up are so insignificant to argue for field use to 700 yrds in terms of speed to use by guys who know each system...the main difference is the added precision you gain with dial up which will allow that much more margin for error in elevation differences and if coyotes are also targets to those ranges you need the most precision you can get

i am here because i've used both systems, not rapid z specifically but other multi aim point reticles and dial up is where the buck stops

Jordan Smith is wording this much better than i am...he knows what time it is.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 11:59 AM

Every scope maker out there produces a dumb bullet compensation reticle like the mildot. They range in price from under 100 bucks on up. The OP in his first post listed the scopes he was looking at and asked if there was something cheaper that worked the same. The short answer is no, for the ability to adjust the reticle to match your cartridge your choices are extremely limited and none that I know of cost $400. Do you know of one?

BTW, the whinning comment was not directed to you. From what I got from the OP was a BDC reticle over $400 and under $700. It just so happened I've been in the market for a BDC reticle myself, not for a sheep gun, but Minox offer quite a few models. I can take a rifle to the range and figure out exactly what yd each hash mark represents. I don't care if it's 312yds, 407, 585, and 602. So long as I know, besides it not often an animal is exactly 400 yds away.

Some people like to say their stuff is the only good stuff and can't seem to see past their ego. Again not directed to you.

I'd still like to hear an option.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 12:01 PM

sheephunter, your argument that the multi point reticle is faster and simpler to use in field conditions is false

.

Come on stinky...just the fact you have to turn something and I don't pretty much negates your arguement. You might be fast on the knob but you aren't faster than me doing nothing :thinking-006:

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 12:28 PM

ok, so you keep your scope at what magnification all the time then? what is it for your short mags, 10x roughly....hmmmm, not i said the fly, you can have it, i'll keep my magnification at 4.5x as most situations that will be better, always hunting with the odds in your favor

you seem to think that a quick reach and a rip of the turret could actually cost you, i see more to cost you with the rapid z but you see more to cost you the other way

actual hunting situations, two guys equally good on either system will each get to shot just as fast as each other but one will be more precise ;)

once range has been verified you are have to find it on the reticle, do the appropriate gapping for off yardage, do your wind and shoot

once range verified the turret can be dialed while on way to shooting position, nothing else but wind left to do, no gapping, no finding the right number on reticle, do you get into shooting position and then have range called out from a partner? or do you range from shooting position, or lets say you are by yourself, your going to range before you get the gun anywhere near your face, i know...it all depends...you get the idea here, range is getting done before the eye hits the scope most of the time and only way to be quicker is to have a partner ranging while your lining up, i'm sure we both find out range before we even head to shooting position or on way to shooting position...in that case the turret will already be good to go and in most events even be faster than your system....

this is seriously a moot argument, your system is not faster, you ARE doing something...you are finding the right aim point in a maze of aim points and in most cases to reference from one of these aim points to get appropriate gapping as rarely will the rangefinder tell you the shot is bang on a x00 or x50 yardage....whereas most turret guys can have that done before he even starts looking through the scope...ie; faster

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 12:30 PM

Not with a second focal plane reticle you don't. You may have used one but I'm not certain you understood what it's capabilities are. It's a simple matter of adjusting the magnification ring for your load at your armospheric conditions. If the load or conditions change, nothing more is required than a slight adjustment in magnification. I do it all the time when I travel.

There's no such thing as custom made reticles for a second focal plane reticles. I think you are confsing it with a first focal plane reticle and in that case you's be right but that's not what I've been talking about.

The Rapid Z is a totally unique reticle that many think they understand and want to discuss its capabilities but unfortunately few really understand it. By your comment above, I'd say you really don't understand how it works or what indeed it is capable of. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

Well if we get together for some friendly competitive shooting, maybe you can show me how little I know about FFP, SFP, and RZ600 scopes? ;)

This past January I was hunting elk with a bud. We got onto a herd of elk at 490 yards. We both had 3-9x40 RZ600 scopes in hand, just so you know. When it came time to shoot, my bud got settled into a very solid prone position. He had a dead solid rest, had spent hours and hours with his rifle, scope, and load shooting targets out to 700 yards, and now this was going to be a chip shot. He held on the 500 yard line and squeezed one off. He was completely surprised that the elk wandered off, and there was no blood, hair, or any other sign when we walked over. He ALWAYS keeps his scope set at 9x (despite my advise to the contrary when we are still hunting in the bush). He looked down at his scope and it was sitting on 6x. His bullet sailed right over the elk's back.

Ballistic reticle scopes are not calibrated for distance. They are calibrated so that each aiming point gives you a certain amount of angular elevation from the center crosshair. Most commonly, and this is the case with the RZ600, too, the first line/dot is the 300 yard line, which usually is 1.5MOA below the center crosshair, when the scope is set at its highest magnification. The 400 yard mark gives roughly 4.5MOA, and so on. In fact, I can tell you exactly what elevation compensation each mark on the RZ600 reticle gives, at the highest magnification. The problem with your argument is that adjusting the magnification adjusts the elevation compensation scale proportionately for each mark/dot/line, so it cannot compensate for a cartridge that shoots flat as a laser for 300 yards, and then starts to drop like a stone because of the bullet's poor BC. This is why I suggested that if you truly wanted a yardage-calibrated reticle, you would need a customer reticle for your load.

Zeiss knows that most loads will be close to their trajectory profile, and of course you can add elevation by decreasing the magnification. But I would love for you to explain to me how that reticle would work for a .22-250 shooting a Speer 52gr HP at 3798fps with a BC of .225, versus a 7mmRM firing a 180gr Berger VLD at 3000fps. The .22-250 requires 1.5MOA correction at 300 yards, 3.5MOA at 400 yards, 9.1MOA at 600 yards, and 13.2MOA at 700 yards. The 7RM requires 1.8MOA at 300 yards, 4MOA at 400 yards, 8.8MOA, and 11.6MOA at 700 yards. The 600 yard mark in the RZ600 reticle gives 10.3MOA of elevation compensation, and the 700 yard mark, where the thin reticle meets the thick post, gives 13.3MOA. The 600 yard mark would be 1.2MOA too high with the .22-250 and 1.5MOA too high with the 7RM. The 700 yard mark is about bang on for the .22-250, but is 1.7MOA too high with the 7RM (this is about 11.9" too high). The only way to make the reticle work perfectly for any load, is to adjust the magnification for each shot, according to range data that you will have had to work up yourself (and probably have that data on a chart ;) ) At that point, you might as well just use a turret. Trying to use the reticle with a "one setting fits all" mentality is a concession and compromise between the different distance marks in the reticle.

It is impossible for a generic reticle to offer yardage-calibrated aiming points for each of these loads, at each distance, regardless of whether it is a FFP or SFP scope, and regardless of the magnification. At least with any sort of precision ;)

209x50

12-20-2011, 12:35 PM

BTW, the whinning comment was not directed to you. From what I got from the OP was a BDC reticle over $400 and under $700. It just so happened I've been in the market for a BDC reticle myself, not for a sheep gun, but Minox offer quite a few models. I can take a rifle to the range and figure out exactly what yd each hash mark represents. I don't care if it's 312yds, 407, 585, and 602. So long as I know, besides it not often an animal is exactly 400 yds away.

Some people like to say their stuff is the only good stuff and can't seem to see past their ego. Again not directed to you.

I'd still like to hear an option.

If you've shot much at all you realize that there may be a cartridge that the nonadjustable reticle will work out that close for, but there will many, many more that will be out 50 yards or more. It is simple physics. Yes you can mark that all down on a card on the butt stock to keep track of it but it kind of defeats the purpose of a quick point and shoot ballistic reticle solution.
The market place is full of inexpensive optics lines all claiming to be just as good or comparable to the quality makers. They come and go constantly all looking for the money out of our jeans. If you don't like your choices wait an hour or so and there will be another couple of companies fired up producing optics "just as good as ______". My inbox is already full of email invitations from the new companies at this year’s SHOT Show.
I did give you an answer, to me the OP is looking for a comparable scope with an adjustable ballistic reticle for $400. There isn't one. If I misunderstood the OP then I apologize to him.

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 12:36 PM

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 12:38 PM

Come on stinky...just the fact you have to turn something and I don't pretty much negates your arguement. You might be fast on the knob but you aren't faster than me doing nothing :thinking-006:

Visually figuring out where you need to hold your reticle is not nothing ;)

Where do you hold for 780 yards with a 10mph cross wind? It would probably take you a few seconds to find your POA, would it not?

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 12:40 PM

Stinky, I'm not arguing that the turret system isn't effective or that in fact it doesn't have its advantages because it does. And in skilled hands it is a very effective choice but one of its advantages is not speed. That goes to the ballistic reticle.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should be shooting a ballistic reticle, I'm just trying to keep up with the misinformation that is running rampant in this thread. The biggest downfall the Rapid Z has is that it's so unique and so adaptive that few people really understand they way it works. Hopefully I can help a few people understand the facts rather than believing the myths. Once a parson understands the facts, they can make an informed decision based on those facts. In your case you chose the turret system and obviously it works and I prefer the reticle and obviously it works. Each does some things better than the other. You have to decide what you are willing to compromise to gain. Obviously we have different thoughts on that....nothing wrong with that but one system is not 100% better than the other. There are compromises to both.

If a Rapid Z was not in the budget for me, I'd definitely go with a turret system. I think you get far more from a turret in the lower priced optics. In the mid and high range, not so much.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 12:42 PM

Visually figuring out where you need to hold your reticle is not nothing ;)

Where do you hold for 780 yards with a 10mph cross wind? It would probably take you a few seconds to find your POA, would it not?

Nope, not at all. Far side of the 800 yard crosshair low on the chest. No thought required. Both the yardage and the windage are already calculted for me. Another unique feature of the Rapid Z.

209x50

12-20-2011, 12:45 PM

would work for a .22-250 shooting a Speer 52gr HP at 3798fps with a BC of .225,
I thought the question was about a scope for sheep hunting?

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 12:47 PM

Each does some things better than the other. You have to decide what you are willing to compromise to gain. Obviously we have different thoughts on that....nothing wrong with that but one system is not 100% better than the other. There are compromises to both.

Now this I agree with.

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 12:47 PM

doesn't matter how fast you are, go ahead and miss fast lol, make sure that scope magnification ring hasn't moved before your shot as i know if i had one of them i would constantly be checking that beeotch before each shot to ensure i didn't have what happened to Jordans buddy happened, there goes your imaginary 'speed' advantage right there

again, just trying to keep the spread of misinformation here....the rapid z is not faster and in many cases will be slower, especially if you pull off what Jordan's buddy did, ouch, getting caught on the wrong magnification would kinda suck and i bet happens lots, prolly a lot easier to get the magnification ring moved on a stalk/hunt etc. than a turret rotated out of whack, either way, turret gets rotated just about any shot over 300 so its going to get looked at and moved anyhow the dial up is going to happen at more opportune times with turrets then with rapid z

the rapid z offers no advantage over dial up, not even speed

look sheep, the truth sometimes stings a little, it happens, when you and zeiss split the sheets you can really get serious ha ha

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 12:50 PM

Nope, not at all. Far side of the 800 yard crosshair low on the chest. No thought required. Both the yardage and the windage are already calculted for me. Another unique feature of the Rapid Z.

Okay, perfect. We're on the same page so far. Now what about a 4mph cross wind? There's no calculated mark on the reticle for that, to the best of my memory. You'd have to hold somewhere between two marks, and it would take a couple of seconds to figure out exactly where.

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 12:51 PM

the wind math will be equal between solid users of each system, no advantage to either here imo

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 12:52 PM

Well if we get together for some friendly competitive shooting, maybe you can show me how little I know about FFP, SFP, and RZ600 scopes? ;)

This past January I was hunting elk with a bud. We got onto a herd of elk at 490 yards. We both had 3-9x40 RZ600 scopes in hand, just so you know. When it came time to shoot, my bud got settled into a very solid prone position. He had a dead solid rest, had spent hours and hours with his rifle, scope, and load shooting targets out to 700 yards, and now this was going to be a chip shot. He held on the 500 yard line and squeezed one off. He was completely surprised that the elk wandered off, and there was no blood, hair, or any other sign when we walked over. He ALWAYS keeps his scope set at 9x (despite my advise to the contrary when we are still hunting in the bush). He looked down at his scope and it was sitting on 6x. His bullet sailed right over the elk's back.

Ballistic reticle scopes are not calibrated for distance. They are calibrated so that each aiming point gives you a certain amount of angular elevation from the center crosshair. Most commonly, and this is the case with the RZ600, too, the first line/dot is the 300 yard line, which usually is 1.5MOA below the center crosshair, when the scope is set at its highest magnification. The 400 yard mark gives roughly 4.5MOA, and so on. In fact, I can tell you exactly what elevation compensation each mark on the RZ600 reticle gives, at the highest magnification. The problem with your argument is that adjusting the magnification adjusts the elevation compensation scale proportionately for each mark/dot/line, so it cannot compensate for a cartridge that shoots flat as a laser for 300 yards, and then starts to drop like a stone because of the bullet's poor BC. This is why I suggested that if you truly wanted a yardage-calibrated reticle, you would need a customer reticle for your load.

Zeiss knows that most loads will be close to their trajectory profile, and of course you can add elevation by decreasing the magnification. But I would love for you to explain to me how that reticle would work for a .22-250 shooting a Speer 52gr HP at 3798fps with a BC of .225, versus a 7mmRM firing a 180gr Berger VLD at 3000fps. The .22-250 requires 1.5MOA correction at 300 yards, 3.5MOA at 400 yards, 9.1MOA at 600 yards, and 13.2MOA at 700 yards. The 7RM requires 1.8MOA at 300 yards, 4MOA at 400 yards, 8.8MOA, and 11.6MOA at 700 yards. The 600 yard mark in the RZ600 reticle gives 10.3MOA of elevation compensation, and the 700 yard mark, where the thin reticle meets the thick post, gives 13.3MOA. The 600 yard mark would be 1.2MOA too high with the .22-250 and 1.5MOA too high with the 7RM. The 700 yard mark is about bang on for the .22-250, but is 1.7MOA too high with the 7RM (this is about 11.9" too high). The only way to make the reticle work perfectly for any load, is to adjust the magnification for each shot, according to range data that you will have had to work up yourself (and probably have that data on a chart ;) ) At that point, you might as well just use a turret. Trying to use the reticle with a "one setting fits all" mentality is a concession and compromise between the different distance marks in the reticle.

It is impossible for a generic reticle to offer yardage-calibrated aiming points for each of these loads, at each distance, regardless of whether it is a FFP or SFP scope, and regardless of the magnification. At least with any sort of precision ;)

I think one thing you are missing is that there are three Rapid Z reticles, the 600, 800 and 1,000 and each best represents a cartridge group. Within that cartridge group the reticle does indeed "offer yardage-calibrated aiming points for each of these loads, at each distance" At least accurate enough for a hunting optic to place a kill shot at the indicated distance. If you try to fit a square peg in a round hole, you indeed not experience optimum results.

As for your thoughts on custom reticles, they are useful if you never change elevation or loads. Sadly, that does not apply to the majority of us.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 12:54 PM

If you've shot much at all you realize that there may be a cartridge that the nonadjustable reticle will work out that close for, but there will many, many more that will be out 50 yards or more. It is simple physics. Yes you can mark that all down on a card on the butt stock to keep track of it but it kind of defeats the purpose of a quick point and shoot ballistic reticle solution.
The market place is full of inexpensive optics lines all claiming to be just as good or comparable to the quality makers. They come and go constantly all looking for the money out of our jeans. If you don't like your choices wait an hour or so and there will be another couple of companies fired up producing optics "just as good as ______". My inbox is already full of email invitations from the new companies at this year’s SHOT Show.
I did give you an answer, to me the OP is looking for a comparable scope with an adjustable ballistic reticle for $400. There isn't one. If I misunderstood the OP then I apologize to him.

Here's some of the OP to help you out:

Besides the Zeiss conquest rapid z600 (4X14X44) and the Leupold VX-3 (4X14X40) with the varmint or B&C reticle, are there any other scopes with similar reticles? (preferably more in the $400 range...and not the $700-800 of the Zeiss and Leupold)

Is the Leupold reticle the same as the rapid z?

It seems of any advise I'd follow it would be Jordan Smith, he both reads and understands other posts, and is not sponsored by Zeiss.

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 12:55 PM

I thought the question was about a scope for sheep hunting?

I think it's legal in B.C. to hunt sheep with a .22-250, isn't it? If you don't like the 52gr Speer HP, then sub in the 53gr TSX with a BC of .231. If you don't like the .22-250, then sub in the .257 WM with 75gr X bullet with a BC of .289 or the 80gr TTSX with BC of .316.

The point remains that a super high-velocity bullet with a poor BC will have a different trajectory profile than a moderate-velocity bullet with a very high BC.

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 12:56 PM

I thought the question was about a scope for sheep hunting?

it is, we are just ferreting out the misinformation and helping the op to the best sheep hunting scope he can buy....leupy 4.5-14x40 lr vx3 or mk4, standard duplex reticle, target elevation knob added if vx3 and windage knob replaced to low profile if mk4 ;)

secondary aim points good to 500 yrds, after that too much going on and dial up IS the better set up....only need a couple extra aim points to get to 500 so again a leupy lr reticle would be the best choice behind dial up....eitherway, dial up is always the best choice of choices, offers more advantages than any other way :)

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 12:58 PM

doesn't matter how fast you are, go ahead and miss fast lol, make sure that scope magnification ring hasn't moved before your shot as i know if i had one of them i would constantly be checking that beeotch before each shot to ensure i didn't have what happened to Jordans buddy happened, there goes your imaginary 'speed' advantage right there

again, just trying to keep the spread of misinformation here....the rapid z is not faster and in many cases will be slower, especially if you pull off what Jordan's buddy did, ouch, getting caught on the wrong magnification would kinda suck and i bet happens lots, prolly a lot easier to get the magnification ring moved on a stalk/hunt etc. than a turret rotated out of whack, either way, turret gets rotated just about any shot over 300 so its going to get looked at and moved anyhow the dial up is going to happen at more opportune times with turrets then with rapid z

the rapid z offers no advantage over dial up, not even speed

look sheep, the truth sometimes stings a little, its happens, when you and zeiss split the sheets you can really get serious ha ha
In my mind the biggest advantage to the RZ, as I said before, is that you don't have to move any mechanical parts. Even high-quality scopes can have RTZ problems, tracking issues, etc, which is the one downside to using turrets.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 12:59 PM

Okay, perfect. We're on the same page so far. Now what about a 4mph cross wind? There's no calculated mark on the reticle for that, to the best of my memory. You'd have to hold somewhere between two marks, and it would take a couple of seconds to figure out exactly where.

Still faster than turning windage knobs after consulting a chart. Placing the lateral mid point of a hash mark on a target is pretty well instantaneous, especially when that mid point is marked on the reticle. Basically I'd hold the 5mph mark on the target. Seems simple enough to me. I think your memory is a bit shaky, the there is an indicated mark at the half way point.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 01:02 PM

the wind math will be equal between solid users of each system, no advantage to either here imo

I don't have to do math...the reticle is marked for 5mph and 10 mph throughout the scope's range so I'd say there is a significant advantage and time saving. Again, I do nothing while you are calculating and turning knobs. It's faster Stinky........I'm pretty fast at doing nothing ;)

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 01:04 PM

I think one thing you are missing is that there are three Rapid Z reticles, the 600, 800 and 1,000 and each best represents a cartridge group. Within that cartridge group the reticle does indeed "offer yardage-calibrated aiming points for each of these loads, at each distance" At least accurate enough for a hunting optic to place a kill shot at the indicated distance. If you try to fit a square peg in a round hole, you indeed not experience optimum results.

As for your thoughts on custom reticles, they are useful if you never change elevation or loads. Sadly, that does not apply to the majority of us.

Agree. But even the 3 different RZ reticles that Zeiss offers still come with concessions, since it means that I can't use a Conquest 3-9x40 RZ600 on my coyote-calling .22-250, or on my lightweight 7WSM with 180gr VLD. The 3-9x40 doesn't come with any other RZ reticle, either, so that means the 3-9x40 would not be usable with those rifle setups. And there is no scope in Zeiss' lineup that better matches either of those rifles, for my uses.

You are right that the 3 different RZ reticles helps to mitigate the problem I've been describing, but it still comes with some baggage due to their limited reticle/scope combination offerings.

My Conquest 3-9x40 RZ600 has target turrets installed. My bud that I mentioned before has an identical scope, but without the turrets. Turrets enable you to use any scope and any load combination, and the trajectory compensation will match the load, regardless of the limited offerings from a manufacturer ;)

209x50

12-20-2011, 01:04 PM

I think it's legal in B.C. to hunt sheep with a .22-250, isn't it? If you don't like the 52gr Speer HP, then sub in the 53gr TSX with a BC of .231. If you don't like the .22-250, then sub in the .257 WM with 75gr X bullet with a BC of .289 or the 80gr TTSX with BC of .316.

The point remains that a super high-velocity bullet with a poor BC will have a different trajectory profile than a moderate-velocity bullet with a very high BC.
Sure in that case I’d recommend the reticle designed for use with varmint bullets. I’d recommend a different one for a 45/70 as well. You really should match your gear to the application
.

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 01:06 PM

Still faster than turning windage knobs after consulting a chart. Placing the lateral mid point of a hash mark on a target is pretty well instantaneous, especially when that mid point is marked on the reticle. Basically I'd hold the 5mph mark on the target. Seems simple enough to me. I think your memory is a bit shaky, the there is an indicated mark at the half way point.

you can make your wind as slow to figure as you want with turret setup....or you can make it just as easy and quick as rapid z, i have my 10 mph wind every 100 yrds same as you, a mere glance less than 1" above my eyepiece, if its 36" for 600 yrds (example only) it only takes a nano to do 18" for 5mph and hold for about 16" for 4 mph, there would be just as much accuracy and speed between either system, as i said before, trained guys on each system the wind math will be moot...again, i'll figure my wind out and shoot just as fast as a good rapid z user

NO ADVANTAGE HERE

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 01:11 PM

Agree. But even the 3 different RZ reticles that Zeiss offers still come with concessions, since it means that I can't use a Conquest 3-9x40 RZ600 on my coyote-calling .22-250, or on my lightweight 7WSM with 180gr VLD. The 3-9x40 doesn't come with any other RZ reticle, either, so that means the 3-9x40 would not be usable with those rifle setups. And there is no scope in Zeiss' lineup that better matches either of those rifles, for my uses.

You are right that the 3 different RZ reticles helps to mitigate the problem I've been describing, but it still comes with some baggage due to their limited reticle/scope combination offerings.

My Conquest 3-9x40 RZ600 has target turrets installed. My bud that I mentioned before has an identical scope, but without the turrets. Turrets enable you to use any scope and any load combination, and the trajectory compensation will match the load, regardless of the limited offerings from a manufacturer ;)

Never said they were perfect or suited to all applications, nor does Zeiss. In fact quite the opposite. Just clearing up a multitude of misinformation. If they don't fiit your need, you shouldn't buy one. I don't see the point of a Rapid Z with turrets. If I was going the turret route I'd go with a single reticle but if it works for you that's great.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 01:13 PM

you can make your wind as slow to figure as you want with turret setup....or you can make it just as easy and quick as rapid z, i have my 10 mph wind every 100 yrds same as you, a mere glance less than 1" above my eyepiece, if its 36" for 600 yrds (example only) it only takes a nano to do 18" for 5mph and hold for about 16" for 4 mph, there would be just as much accuracy and speed between either system, as i said before, trained guys on each system the wind math will be moot...again, i'll figure my wind out and shoot just as fast as a good rapid z user

NO ADVANTAGE HERE

Stinky, I think the thing you are missing is that doing nothing is doing nothing...quite literally nothing. Doing something will always take longer than doing nothing. :confused:

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 01:14 PM

I don't have to do math...the reticle is marked for 5mph and 10 mph throughout the scope's range so I'd say there is a significant advantage and time saving. Again, I do nothing while you are calculating and turning knobs. It's faster Stinky........I'm pretty fast at doing nothing ;)

i don't turn any knobs for wind either sheep, and we will be the same speed to wind guess and shot release if we have exactly a 600 yrd shot,but if its 636 yrds, you have to gap your 600 and 650 hash marks and then reference the 5 mph mark above on the 600 yrd line....the only part of a crosshair on the target might be the 600 yrd line on top of his back maybe? i just have to move my crosshair directly along the middle of the body about 16-18" and good to go...you and me you'd probably lay money you could get a more accurate 636 yrd shot off in 4mph wind faster than i...but i would lay money i would beat you to speed to shot AND be closer to the mark ;)

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 01:14 PM

Still faster than turning windage knobs after consulting a chart. Placing the lateral mid point of a hash mark on a target is pretty well instantaneous, especially when that mid point is marked on the reticle. Basically I'd hold the 5mph mark on the target. Seems simple enough to me. I think your memory is a bit shaky, the there is an indicated mark at the half way point.

Thanks for the correction. Like I say, I couldn't remember for certain whether it did or didn't.

Crosswinds are easy. It's going to take you some time when we start getting into even a 5mph wind coming from 1:30, or a 10mph wind from 7:00.

The point of this wind discussion, is that there is no "pre-calculated" windage correction, whether reticle or turret. Wind is the single biggest and most difficult factor to compensate for in all of this LR shooting, and the windage correction varies so much between wind directions, wind strengths, individual loads and bullets, etc, that you're going to have to make a judgement call and do a little calculation in your head no matter what system you use. Unless it is a calm day :D

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 01:18 PM

i just have to move my crosshair directly along the middle of the body about 16-18" and good to go...

LOL...there's nothing stopping me from guesstimating a windage holdover either I guess.

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 01:18 PM

Stinky, I think the thing you are missing is that doing nothing is doing nothing...quite literally nothing. Doing something will always take longer than doing nothing. :confused:

no, you are missing the point, you are not doing nothing as you say

you are checking your magnification ring, better be with that system

you are gapping or referencing points of aim on a grid full of points of aim

you are checking your wind, making your guess as to wind speed if not using a meter, you are compensating and then moving into the wind and if not on a 100 yrd even line your aimpoint on the animal doesn't even have crosshair on it....gapping with more gapping, yup, its fast alright, a fast way to miss in more cases than with turret

you'll come around, you are stubborn though, could be awhile yet

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 01:19 PM

Sure in that case I’d recommend the reticle designed for use with varmint bullets... You really should match your gear to the application
.

They don't offer that reticle in a scope that I would use for sheep hunting. I'm not willing to haul anything bigger than the 3-9x40 around with me up and down mountains, and Zeiss doesn't off any other RZ reticle in that scope beside the RZ600. I fail to see how the .257WM with 80gr TTSX would be a bad choice for a sheep rifle. Are you suggesting that such a rifle with the Conquest 3-9x40 would be a bad sheep setup?

209x50

12-20-2011, 01:20 PM

it is, we are just ferreting out the misinformation and helping the op to the best sheep hunting scope he can buy....leupy 4.5-14x40 lr vx3 or mk4, standard duplex reticle, target elevation knob added if vx3 and windage knob replaced to low profile if mk4 ;)

secondary aim points good to 500 yrds, after that too much going on and dial up IS the better set up....only need a couple extra aim points to get to 500 so again a leupy lr reticle would be the best choice behind dial up....eitherway, dial up is always the best choice of choices, offers more advantages than any other way :)
No misinformation from me SC. I read what the OP posted, he asked about ballistic reticles, nothing else. The last scope I’d ever have on a sheep hunting rifle would be a target turret, of any make and I’ve shot many of the makes. Now that is a personal opinion nothing more. I could shoot them if I wanted to as my brand makes some beauties. I’ve killed stuff to 700 yards with a ballistic reticle. I’ve never shot beyond 800 yards with a ballistic reticle and I’ve shot with John Porter to beyond 1000 yards with his system.
A good friend this fall setup a new long range hunting rifle and he put a target turret LR scope on it. The gun shoots 4” at 700 yards. He got the rifle around the start of September and by the middle of October he had taken the scope off and traded it in on a ballistic reticle scope. This guy is a very successful hunter and you’ve seen his trophies on here plenty. When I asked him why he got rid of the target turret he said he got tired of adjusting it all the time and it was just too slow and time consuming, he was missing out on shots that he made all the time with a ballistic reticle scope. These are his words not mine and I’m sure he’ll pipe up if he wishes too.
Each to his own SC:sHa_shakeshout:

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 01:21 PM

LOL...there's nothing stopping me from guesstimating a windage holdover either I guess.

most of the time your guessing both your windage and your elevation holdovers, you have many points of reference to use to help though lol

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 01:21 PM

Never said they were perfect or suited to all applications, nor does Zeiss. In fact quite the opposite. Just clearing up a multitude of misinformation. If they don't fiit your need, you shouldn't buy one. I don't see the point of a Rapid Z with turrets. If I was going the turret route I'd go with a single reticle but if it works for you that's great.

What misinformation?

Even a guy like you should see that a RZ reticle is usable out to a certain range for big-game hunting, and the turrets are more useful beyond that range, as well as while shooting targets, whether paper, steel, or varmint, where you want a bit more precision. The same rifle and scope can be used for all these purposes.

The RZ600 with target turrets offers the most flexibility with no drawbacks.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 01:26 PM

[QUOTE=209x50;1217117][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4]No misinformation from me SC. I read what the OP posted, he asked about ballistic reticles, nothing else.

What kind of reticle is on a Minox XR-BDC 3-15x42 for $529 with a $50 mail in rebate?

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 01:28 PM

He got the rifle around the start of September and by the middle of October he had taken the scope off and traded it in on a ballistic reticle scope.

You have to put in the time with a turret system to truly become proficient. It is complicated and time-consuming for anybody who hasn't become proficient. Just like shooting a rifle at long range or loading your own ammo.

You can't blame a sighting system for somebody's lack of familiarity. You've gotta give the method a fair shake. Or don't. But don't speak poorly of the method if you haven't given it a fair chance by becoming familiar and proficient with it.

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 01:32 PM

At the end of the day, this thread goes to show that ballistic reticles work well when everything matches up just right. Change one variable, and the system doesn't work so well.

A turret has mechanical reliability drawbacks, but it is the most universal LR shooting method in application, regardless of load characteristics, atmospheric conditions, etc. There is a reason that 99% of all the successful LR hunters, competitors, etc, use turrets rather than a reticle ;)

If a guy wants to use a reticle, then I've found the Burris BP and the Vortex BDC to work well for short-to-medium range work. Of course the Zeiss RZ reticles are great, but not within the price range of the OP.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 01:32 PM

you are gapping or referencing points of aim on a grid full of points of aim

you'll come around, you are stubborn though, could be awhile yet

Actually I don't gap anything...there's no need to. Just a higher or lower body hold with the closest yardage indicated hashmark will get you in the kill zone without issue.

Stinky, I've got a couple rifles set up with turrets. Zeiss makes some nice turret scopes too ;) I much prefer the turret system when shooting ground squirrels at long range or if I'm trying to do some precision paper punching. But, after killing quite a few mountain critters with the ballistic reticle over the past three years, I can definitely see the advantages it offers me. I can't see ever going back to a turret system. I'm not saying I couldn't effectively hunt with turrets because I could and I have but for my style of hunting, I much prefer the reticle. I appreciate that you prefer the turrets. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to change. I'm just trying to bring some facts to this thread about a reticle that few fully understand. I could care less if anyone buys one or not but it would be nice if they did make their decision based on the facts.....that we must both agree upon?

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 01:35 PM

No misinformation from me SC. I read what the OP posted, he asked about ballistic reticles, nothing else. The last scope I’d ever have on a sheep hunting rifle would be a target turret, of any make and I’ve shot many of the makes. Now that is a personal opinion nothing more. I could shoot them if I wanted to as my brand makes some beauties. I’ve killed stuff to 700 yards with a ballistic reticle. I’ve never shot beyond 800 yards with a ballistic reticle and I’ve shot with John Porter to beyond 1000 yards with his system.
A good friend this fall setup a new long range hunting rifle and he put a target turret LR scope on it. The gun shoots 4” at 700 yards. He got the rifle around the start of September and by the middle of October he had taken the scope off and traded it in on a ballistic reticle scope. This guy is a very successful hunter and you’ve seen his trophies on here plenty. When I asked him why he got rid of the target turret he said he got tired of adjusting it all the time and it was just too slow and time consuming, he was missing out on shots that he made all the time with a ballistic reticle scope. These are his words not mine and I’m sure he’ll pipe up if he wishes too.
Each to his own SC:sHa_shakeshout:

so, we have an example of a guy who maybe started rapid z, went to dial up and went back...did he lose game to the dial up as Jordans buddy? anyhow, it is each their own, i'm just trying dispell some of the misinformation as is sheep...his misinformation is that his system is faster, its not, not for dial up and not for wind, with a 'hunters setup' of dial up you can equal and or beat the speed to shot of the rapid z and with more precision anything else is misinformation, its not faster

i think best of west moa wind system is more accurate than my setup but not faster, i prefer my system to the moa windage marks as accurate enough but quicker...every bit as accurate and quick as the mental required for the gapping and holdover(at same time) for wind of the rapid system

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 01:36 PM

At the end of the day, this thread goes to show that ballistic reticles work well when everything matches up just right. Change one variable, and the system doesn't work so well.

.

You can change all kinds of variables without issue if you use the right reticle for your cartridge. You can change velocity, bullet weight, elevation and even to a different rifle chambered in a similar performing cartridge. It's not like the list of cartridges that fit into each reticle aren't extensive. If you try and put a square peg in a round hole, I guess you are right.

209x50

12-20-2011, 01:44 PM

so, we have an example of a guy who maybe started rapid z, went to dial up and went back...did he lose game to the dial up as Jordans buddy? anyhow, it is each their own, i'm just trying dispell some of the misinformation as is sheep...his misinformation is that his system is faster, its not, not for dial up and not for wind, with a 'hunters setup' of dial up you can equal and or beat the speed to shot of the rapid z and with more precision anything else is misinformation, its not faster

i think best of west moa wind system is more accurate than my setup but not faster, i prefer my system to the moa windage marks as accurate enough but quicker...every bit as accurate and quick as the mental required for the gapping and holdover(at same time) for wind of the rapid system
Yes he missed out on the shot period because of the time involved is adjusting the turret. Everyone who has shot a turret has missed because they misadjusted the turret. I've done it on the range and i've seen some very big names do it as well.
There is no bs that a point and shoot reticle is faster, none.
I range aim and shoot. You range, adjust aim and shoot. No way the two compare for time as my buddy learnt.

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 01:49 PM

You can change all kinds of variables without issue if you use the right reticle for your cartridge. You can change velocity, bullet weight, elevation and even to a different rifle chambered in a similar performing cartridge. It's not like the list of cartridges that fit into each reticle aren't extensive. If you try and put a square peg in a round hole, I guess you are right.

You can't get each reticle in every scope. That's the problem with the Zeiss lineup, specifically. A Rifles, Inc. Strata in 7STW with 3-9x40 RZ600 (since you can't get the RZ800 or 1000 in that scope) wouldn't work so well.

I definitely agree that most of the ballistic reticles are designed for the majority of hunters- .270's, .30-06's, etc, using regular bullets. But there are definitely holes in the lineup, which is what I was talking about in the post that you referenced. If you pick a combination that doesn't fit into the generic pool of applications that the manufacturer intended, you're out of luck. Kind of like the guy with the Strata in 7STW.

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 01:50 PM

Actually I don't gap anything...there's no need to. Just a higher or lower body hold with the closest yardage indicated hashmark will get you in the kill zone without issue.

Stinky, I've got a couple rifles set up with turrets. Zeiss makes some nice turret scopes too ;) I much prefer the turret system when shooting ground squirrels at long range or if I'm trying to do some precision paper punching. But, after killing quite a few mountain critters with the ballistic reticle over the past three years, I can definitely see the advantages it offers me. I can't see ever going back to a turret system. I'm not saying I couldn't effectively hunt with turrets because I could and I have but for my style of hunting, I much prefer the reticle. I appreciate that you prefer the turrets. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to change. I'm just trying to bring some facts to this thread about a reticle that few fully understand. I could care less if anyone buys one or not but it would be nice if they did make their decision based on the facts.....that we must both agree upon?

we do agree, you use it and prefer it, as do i with a dial up setup for hunting, dial up set up like target rifle no question rapid z would be faster, but not dial up set up for hunting, just trying to dispell misinformation as you, rapid z not faster than dial up setup for hunting, may be easier to show in person, trying to do in words on internet, but we can run drills some place, different yardages, winds etc. range ourselves or range for each other to mimick hunting situations with and without partners and you will see, i'll get to shot every bit as quickly as you and every bit as accurately....wind and elevation

to get in the game its easier to go rapid z and it was setup with hunting in mind as it is simple, quick and effective....most target setups with charts will be too slow for my tastes also, consulting charts does not equal hunting simplicity and speed to me...my turret is marked in yards so you dial to the number same as you reference a number in the reticle, the wind is a mere look and then hold, you do the same in the reticle, there won't be a speed advantage there, if dial up set up properly for intended purpose, ie; for hunting, it will be every bit as quick

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 01:52 PM

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 01:52 PM

Yes he missed out on the shot period because of the time involved is adjusting the turret. Everyone who has shot a turret has missed because they misadjusted the turret. I've done it on the range and i've seen some very big names do it as well.
There is no bs that a point and shoot reticle is faster, none.
I range aim and shoot. You range, adjust aim and shoot. No way the two compare for time as my buddy learnt.

you keep forgetting, having a turret on the wrong setting is the same as having your magnification at the wrong setting, this is a wash, you have to dial up too, and hope that it hasn't moved from your last adjustment

we have example of each system in this thread being left on the wrong dial up and missing an animal because of it

again, misinformation clarification here....both these systems have dial-ups that need to be checked frequently and adjusted properly and both can easily be bumped or moved to the wrong dial up! one you can do well ahead of time leaving some question as to whether or not it will be where it needs to be at crunch time, the other gets dialed at moment of truth on long shot...equal chance of leaving it on the wrong setting or getting bumped off a bit from rough handling during a hunt

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 01:55 PM

Also, how much time does it take to twist a turret? I would say about 1.5 seconds. Let's just say that turrets take an additional 1.5 seconds more than ballistic reticles. If 1.5 seconds makes or breaks a shot at 700 yards, then it's too rushed for me and I'm not risking the shot. I won't shoot at big-game animals at long range if the shot is rushed.

speed dial turret with big fat numbers showing the range (not moa conversions from chart consultation) i dunno, gotta be less than that, i agree, not really a consideration as some seem to think, but a turret already marked in yardages can be ripped so quickly to the exact yardage that is not to be considered a factor

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 01:56 PM

You can't get each reticle in every scope. That's the problem with the Zeiss lineup, specifically. A Rifles, Inc. Strata in 7STW with 3-9x40 RZ600 (since you can't get the RZ800 or 1000 in that scope) wouldn't work so well.

I definitely agree that most of the ballistic reticles are designed for the majority of hunters- .270's, .30-06's, etc, using regular bullets. But there are definitely holes in the lineup, which is what I was talking about in the post that you referenced. If you pick a combination that doesn't fit into the generic pool of applications that the manufacturer intended, you're out of luck. Kind of like the guy with the Strata in 7STW.

I guess the question that begs asking, is why would you want a 9x scope on a 7STW? But you are right, if you wanted one, you couldn't get one. I'm guessing Zeiss looked at what most shooters would want for magnification for particular cartridge groups and kind of averaged things out. The way I see it, they went with the Rapid Z 600 on the mid range cartridges because high magnification is not as important as say it would be on a rifle like the 7mm that offers much better ballistics than say a 30-06. Personally, I'd want a higher magnification scope on a long range shooter. I guess they could only offer so many options and just looked at what average shooters would want. The scope likely isn't right in your application and other options are better.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 02:03 PM

you keep forgetting, having a turret on the wrong setting is the same as having your magnification at the wrong setting, this is a wash, you have to dial up too, and hope that it hasn't moved from your last adjustment

we have example of each system in this thread being left on the wrong dial up and missing an animal because of it

again, misinformation clarification here....both these systems have dial-ups that need to be checked frequently and adjusted properly and both can easily be bumped or moved to the wrong dial up! one you can do well ahead of time leaving some question as to whether or not it will be where it needs to be at crunch time, the other gets dialed at moment of truth on long shot...equal chance of leaving it on the wrong setting or getting bumped off a bit from rough handling during a hunt

I agree that with either system, operator error is a possibility and the advantage goes to neither but there is virtually zero chance of magnification getting "bumped" off. As the ring rotates around the barrel, it will not get accidentally turned sliding in and out of a scabbard, pack or case or on your shoulder and the friction setting of the magninification ring acts as a second safety. I'd equate it to locking turrets. You have to make a concious effort to turn it....unlike non-locking turrets.

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 02:05 PM

I guess the question that begs asking, is why would you want a 9x scope on a 7STW? But you are right, if you wanted one, you couldn't get one. I'm guessing Zeiss looked at what most shooters would want for magnification for particular cartridge groups and kind of averaged things out. The way I see it, they went with the Rapid Z 600 on the mid range cartridges because high magnification is not as important as say it would be on a rifle like the 7mm that offers much better ballistics than say a 30-06. Personally, I'd want a higher magnification scope on a long range shooter. I guess they could only offer so many options and just looked at what average shooters would want. The scope likely isn't right in your application and other options are better.

Very true.

I like lightweight scopes of moderate magnification. Scopes like the 6x, 3-9x40, 2.5-8x36, etc. I can hit coyotes and milk jugs out to nearly 950 yards with a 9x scope, and hitting the same targets out to 800 yards is no trick with a 6x, so I don't really need any more magnification, and I sure as heck don't need a heavier scope on a sheep rifle or a packing rifle. Now on a varmint or LR target rig where I need greater accuracy, I definitely don't mind a 4-16x or 6-20x. But they are heavier than I like for a carry rifle.

My preferences are neither right nor wrong. It's just the way I like to roll. Luckily you and I both share this freedom, and if your way works for you and enables you to kill cleanly, then I support it completely.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 02:15 PM

My preferences are neither right nor wrong. It's just the way I like to roll. Luckily you and I both share this freedom, and if your way works for you and enables you to kill cleanly, then I support it completely.

Absolutely. That was never in question in my mind.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 02:21 PM

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 02:21 PM

Absolutely. That was never in question in my mind.

Very good. Now when are we going shooting? :D

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 02:24 PM

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 02:31 PM

[QUOTE=209x50;1217168]
There is no bs that a point and shoot reticle is faster, none.
I range aim and shoot. You range, adjust aim and shoot.QUOTE]

they are both point and shoot reticles, one nice and simple, a single crosshair, nothing slow about pointing and shooting that except you make a quick adjustment before the shot, the other a busy reticle that once your looking at it you make your adjustments in where to hold it exactly....there is such an insignificant time difference here that depending on conditions over 5 shots between each system in skilled hands that this discussion would be over already

so, it IS bs, the only time you range aim shoot is if its exactly on a 100 or 50 yrd increment and exactly a 0, 5, or 10 mph wind, you could end up with more math/thought, more practice required for proficiency with all the gapping and wind holdovers to get used to such a busy reticle, 99% of the time you range, aim, adjust hold and shoot exactly as i do

the differences between each system are pretty moot, untrained and unpracticed with either is going to cost as been demonstrated by one example of each system in this thread....

the speed to shot difference is negligable at best, this is the only myth i am here to refute, you can setup a dialup for 'hunting' and you will get to just as accurate if not more accurate just as quickly as the rapid z all user skills per system being equal

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 02:35 PM

Very good. Now when are we going shooting? :D

yes, i have a beauty spot in didsbury country going to edge of coulee where i call dogs and can shoot all way across at points of interest in snow up to 800 ish yards, great as you don't need to run any targets out...just need snow, you can see where you hit in the snow, we can bring the stop watches and run some 'what if' drills and see who's closer/faster etc. i bet we come away realizing the speed difference is eff all, i'll do it

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 02:38 PM

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 02:58 PM

This could very well go on forever :D

Throw in some hogs running out of the bush at 30 yards, too, for good measure. I would just keep the scope on 6x and start shooting, whether 30 yards or 700. How large are the hogs? A variety of sizes from 50lbs up to a few hundred? I'm guessing the turret user would have an easier time killing the 50lbs hogs, quicker. Wounded hogs don't count :D

TJ, you're adjusting which part of the reticle you hold on the target, the turret user is not. He always places the crosshair on the desired POI. The reticle user would also have to adjust the magnification for the close shots, the turret user would not. The turret user is adjusting the turret (unless the targets are relatively close in distance, in which case he may not need to make any adjustment between some of the targets), you are not. It's a wash, IMO.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 02:59 PM

What specifically are you looking for in a reticle? You mention Zeiss and Leupold, but what about their reticles do you like, that some other companies do not offer?

For me personally I was just looking for a scope with good optics and a BDC reticle. I'm not worried about the name on it, but I do want quality. after reading your posts, and stinky's, I'm thinking a turret might be another option for me. The particular rifle I have in mind is a .223, but I may want to swap it out with the VX-III I have on my .300.

Stinky Coyote

12-20-2011, 03:01 PM

Stinky, you have two shooters of equal ability shooting two identical rifles with the same power scopes. One is your turret system and one is a yardage indicated ballitic reticle. There are six wild boars on a hillside between 200 and 700 yards. A spotter is calling out ranges. Who kills all six of them first? The guy that just moves from hog to hog and adjusts nothing or the guy adjusting his turret between shots?

i'll switch when i can have 6 ram tags okay!

otherwise i'm going to say i'll have 6 'dead' boars while you have 5 hit, 4 dead and who knows what happened on the 700yder, i'll get that one for yah ;)

you will have probably shot a touch quicker though...oh, and if your 700 yrder runs out to 850...i'll get him too....booyah

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 03:03 PM

209x50

12-20-2011, 03:11 PM

So, just to get back to the original topic for a minute, in spite of what 209x50 thought he read in the OP, it's not a ballistic reticle, but rather a BDC, like the Zeiss, or the leupold b&c reticle he was interested in, a bit higher end than the bushnell, and less expensive than the Zeiss or leupold. Somewhere in all posts I lost track of some suggestions. I think Burris and Vortex were mentioned, what price range are they in? I know the particular model of Vortex I was looking at was at the $1400 range, but I'm sure they have some less expensive ones.

Riflescope for sheep hunting: multi crosshair reticles

I'm planning on picking up a tikka t3 lite in 270WSM. Trying to decide what scope to put on it.

I like higher power scopes for long distances (~14X)...and I like multi crosshair reticles like the Zeiss rapid-z 600 with windage points (I'm not a fan of turrets for hunting).

Besides the Zeiss conquest rapid z600 (4X14X44) and the Leupold VX-3 (4X14X40) with the varmint or B&C reticle, are there any other scopes with similar reticles? (preferably more in the $400 range...and not the $700-800 of the Zeiss and Leupold)

Bushnell's DOA reticle does not have the windage points.

Are we reading the same post? LOL!

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 03:17 PM

Just out of curiosity, which reticle do you use?

Still curious.

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 03:20 PM

Still curious.

Not sure who that was directed at but I use the cartridge appropriate one. I've got all three on my rifles.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 03:23 PM

So I take it you're not using the rifle for sheep? If you're using it for targets, gophers, etc, then get a good ballistic program for your smart phone (Ballistic: FTE is what I use), or just use the JBM calculator online, then send your VXIII in to Korth in Okotoks, and have them install an M1 elevation turret on it. Enter all info and variables into the ballistic calculator, and start shooting.

Another option is to get a Burris, Vortex, Bushnell, or Leupold scope that fits your budget. All of those companies offer their commonly-sold scopes with a BDC-type reticle.

I'll reiterate that I really like the Burris FFII Tactical 3-9x40 with low-profile target turrets and the Ballistic Plex reticle. It fits in your budget, but I haven't used any of the new models, so I don't know if the quality is still as good as it used to be.

If I had an idea of what you intended to use the rifle for, I could give you better advise.

I'd like to keep it under a grand, I'm still on the fence about which way I want to go with the MR1, not sure if I want a tactical like the ACOG with an illuminated reticle, or something with more magnification for coyotes.

I never thought about putting turrets on my leupold tho. In any case, I need a scope on my .223 soon so I can head out to the cabin over Christmas holidays and do some dog hunting. That's kind of why I had the Minox in mind. Cheap, and if I don't really like it I can put it on one of my other rifles, maybe one of my .280's and use it for sheep!

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 03:24 PM

Not sure who that was directed at but I use the cartridge appropriate one. I've got all three on my rifles.

Sorry, 209x50 mentioned that he is a reticle user, so I was just curious which reticle he uses.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 03:27 PM

Are we reading the same post? LOL!

What does a Leupold B&C reticle look like?

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 03:30 PM

I'd like to keep it under a grand, I'm still on the fence about which way I want to go with the MR1, not sure if I want a tactical like the ACOG with an illuminated reticle, or something with more magnification for coyotes.

I never thought about putting turrets on my leupold tho. In any case, I need a scope on my .223 soon so I can head out to the cabin over Christmas holidays and do some dog hunting. That's kind of why I had the Minox in mind. Cheap, and if I don't really like it I can put it on one of my other rifles, maybe one of my .280's and use it for sheep!

Under a grand? You've got plenty of options.

My advise would be to get yourself a Burris FFII Tactical 3-9x40, Vortex Viper 3-9x40 or 4-12x40 w/BDC, Leup VX3 2.5-8x36 or 3.5-10x40 with LR duplex and send it in for an M1 elevation turret, a Conquest with RZ reticle and send it in for target turrets, Bushnell 6500 Tactical, etc.

There are a multitude of good options in your price range. Any idea what kind of magnification range you're looking for? Scope weight? Is this a carry rifle or a "sit down and shoot from one spot" rifle?

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 03:31 PM

What does a Leupold B&C reticle look like?

Google "Leupold B&C" and click on images.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 03:32 PM

What does a Leupold B&C reticle look like?

I'll help you

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac13/Kurt505Hunter/764f77cb.jpg

209x50

12-20-2011, 03:32 PM

Just out of curiosity, which reticle do you use?

Also, how much time does it take to twist a turret? I would say about 1.5 seconds. Let's just say that turrets take an additional 1.5 seconds more than ballistic reticles. If 1.5 seconds makes or breaks a shot at 700 yards, then it's too rushed for me and I'm not risking the shot. I won't shoot at big-game animals at long range if the shot is rushed.
Hey if you want to believe that is all it takes then be my guest. I've shot turrets lots and have several on target rifles, I know it takes me far longer than you.
I have a couple of dozen scopes mounted on rifles right now and dozens more sitting on shelves. I have quite the variety of brands and styles. The scope I use matches the rifle. I like a 3-9x40 on my ML's for instance. My sheep rifles all have ballistic compensating reticles as will my two current projects.

209x50

12-20-2011, 03:34 PM

I'll help you

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac13/Kurt505Hunter/764f77cb.jpg
and so??? You do realize how the B&C reticle works don't you?

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 03:38 PM

What does a Leupold B&C reticle look like?

Now here is some Minox reticles

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac13/Kurt505Hunter/6c64bd4d.jpg

Is it really that hard to understand why I would make this suggestion to the OP for a scope that has the type of reticle he might be interested in that's in the $400-$600 price range?

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 03:39 PM

Hey if you want to believe that is all it takes then be my guest. I've shot turrets lots and have several on target rifles, I know it takes me far longer than you.
I have a couple of dozen scopes mounted on rifles right now and dozens more sitting on shelves. I have quite the variety of brands and styles. The scope I use matches the rifle. I like a 3-9x40 on my ML's for instance. My sheep rifles all have ballistic compensating reticles as will my two current projects.

I'm not trying to attack you, or anything. I'm just wondering what reticle you like to use. Sheephunter likes the Zeiss RZ reticles. What is your preference?

I find that most of the ballistic reticles that I've used have distance limitations, as well as wind compensation limitations. Curious which ones you like to use that are "point and shoot".

If you use capped turrets, and have to reference a table for the elevation correction, then yes, it would take longer than 1.5 seconds. But if you know your load, as well as the elevation correction needed for different distances, then you just range, dial in the proper correction, and shoot. Generally speaking, if a guy is counting clicks, that says a lot about his experience with turrets.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 03:41 PM

Under a grand? You've got plenty of options.

My advise would be to get yourself a Burris FFII Tactical 3-9x40, Vortex Viper 3-9x40 or 4-12x40 w/BDC, Leup VX3 2.5-8x36 or 3.5-10x40 with LR duplex and send it in for an M1 elevation turret, a Conquest with RZ reticle and send it in for target turrets, Bushnell 6500 Tactical, etc.

There are a multitude of good options in your price range. Any idea what kind of magnification range you're looking for? Scope weight? Is this a carry rifle or a "sit down and shoot from one spot" rifle?

Have you had a chance to look at the Minox? I'm just wondering how it compares to the Burris or vortex?

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 03:47 PM

Have you had a chance to look at the Minox? I'm just wondering how it compares to the Burris or vortex?

No, sir. Haven't used one so far. I've read mixed reviews. Lots of guys say the optics compare favourably to the Zeiss Conquest, but I've read a number of reviews citing poor assembly quality and problems with tracking. Lots of happy campers, though. My only issue with Minox is that they don't have a very long track record with scope building, yet, so it's hard to say for sure how well they'll work. Zeiss, for example, has a reputation of making tough scopes with nice optics, that have precise, repeatable, and accurate adjustments. If you want to spin turrets, Zeiss is a good option. Older Leupolds had the reputation of having dicey tracking. The new VX3 and FX3 models seem to have largely corrected that problem, based on my experience, and the reviews that I've read on the various forums. Leupolds are also known to be a tough scope. Not sure what Minox is going to be known for, yet.

209x50

12-20-2011, 04:34 PM

Generally speaking, if a guy is counting clicks, that says a lot about his experience with turrets.
I had moved beyond systems where counting clicks was needed years before long range became fashionable.

209x50

12-20-2011, 04:44 PM

Now here is some Minox reticles

http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac13/Kurt505Hunter/6c64bd4d.jpg

Is it really that hard to understand why I would make this suggestion to the OP for a scope that has the type of reticle he might be interested in that's in the $400-$600 price range?
Read up on the Leupold B&C scope with the BAS. Then you'll understand. While not as adjustable as the other scope mentioned it is far from "dumb".

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 04:59 PM

I had moved beyond systems where counting clicks was needed years before long range became fashionable.

I said "generally speaking" so that you wouldn't get the impression that I was implying that you count clicks. I wasn't. I was simply pointing out an observation about guys who are getting into LR shooting in general.

Curious why you don't want to mention which reticles you prefer?

209x50

12-20-2011, 05:06 PM

I said "generally speaking" so that you wouldn't get the impression that I was implying that you count clicks. I wasn't. I was simply pointing out an observation about guys who are getting into LR shooting in general.

Curious why you don't want to mention which reticles you prefer?
Curious why a brand, price point or style of reticle I use would make a difference to the conversation?

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 05:54 PM

When we understand a guy's background and experiences, we can better understand the context of his comments.

Do you have something to hide, or something?

209x50

12-20-2011, 06:42 PM

When we understand a guy's background and experiences, we can better understand the context of his comments.

Do you have something to hide, or something?
LOL! You'd think I was applying for a high security clearance job or something.
This is the Internet, if you don't like my opinions ignore them. It won't change anything in my life.

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 08:05 PM

Well, thanks for all your valuable input :thinking-006:

Merry Christmas and happy shooting!

sneer

12-20-2011, 08:29 PM

Wow, this thread blew up while I wasn't watching...just spent over an hour getting caught up! And now, I'm more confused then when I started.

Sorry if this is common knowledge to some, but how does the power setting effect the POA? Is this because of the 2nd focal plane? Can someone explain the difference between single focal plane and two focal planes?

209x50

12-20-2011, 09:24 PM

Short and sweet, there are two focal planes in a scope. The first or front focal plane is where most reticles are placed. Changing the magnification doesn't change anything in first focal plane and the reticle size doesn't change in relation to the target. Reticles that are set in the second focal plane are affected by magnification. The centre crosshair and zero never change no matter what the magnification is set at. The reticle set in the second or rear focal plane remains the same size as the target is zoomed in. This has the effect of changing the subtensioning or distance between crosshairs of a multiple crosshair reticle allowing the reticle to be adjusted for the cartridge.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 09:33 PM

209x50

12-20-2011, 09:39 PM

So, is what your saying is that having the cross hairs set on the second focal plane is what makes it a "smart" scope?
It is part of what makes it adjustable.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 09:42 PM

It is part of what makes it adjustable.

Then I may be wrong about the Minox being a "dumb" scope.

209x50

12-20-2011, 09:51 PM

Then I may be wrong about the Minox being a "dumb" scope.
Look in your owners manual it should tell you which focal plane the reticle is in. Remember the focal plane setting is but a part of total solution.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 09:54 PM

Look in your owners manual it should tell you which focal plane the reticle is in. Remember the focal plane setting is but a part of total solution.

I don't own a Minox, I have a few other scopes. I've just been playing with the idea of buying one. I have read on another forum that the Minox reticle is set on the second focal.

209x50

12-20-2011, 09:59 PM

I don't own a Minox, I have a few other scopes. I've just been playing with the idea of buying one. I have read on another forum that the Minox reticle is set on the second focal.
You don't own one?!?! All this and you haven't even shot through one?!?!?

sneer

12-20-2011, 10:03 PM

Thanks 209!

Filtering out some of the non sense in this thread, there are definitely some good points being made. One point that stuck was how often would I shoot a ram in the 400-500 range

I currently shoot an 30.06 zero'd at 200 with a simple multiplex, and holding over 26 inches at 400 and more so holding over 53 at 500 is difficult to do accurately, hence why I was thinking a multi line reticle...but I guess the issue is less with the 270wsm which is a lot flatter....and a zero at 250 or 300 would further reduce holdover...so maybe I do just stick with the regular multiplex reticle (I don't ever plan on taking a +500 shot hunting, making other hatchings moot for me)

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 10:08 PM

Thanks 209!

Filtering out some of the non sense in this thread, there are definitely some good points being made. One point that stuck was how often would I shoot a ram over 400-500.

I currently shoot an 30.06 zero'd at 200 with a simple multiplex, and holding over 26 inches at 400 and more so holding over 53 at 500 is difficult to do accurately, hence why I was thinking a multi line reticle...but I guess the issue is less of an issue with the 270wsm which is a lot flatter....and a zero at 250 or 300 would further reduce holdover...so maybe I do just stick with the regular multiplex reticle (I don't ever plan on taking a +500 shot hunting, making other hatchings moot)

Actually, what the multi reticle scopes offer is hold on hair ability regardless of cartridge...obviously there are some disclaimers but with your 30-06 or a 270WSM, you'd use exactly the same crosshair with a different magnification setting to acheive a 500 yard shot. How flat a cartridge shoots really isn't that important inside 600 yards with a properly set up balistic reticle.(with some exceptions) There is no hold over with a ballistic reticle. You choose the reticle for the yardage you are shooting and you are good to go. There would be no issues shooting your 30-06 to 600 yards with a properly set up ballistic reticle.

Kurt505

12-20-2011, 10:12 PM

You don't own one?!?! All this and you haven't even shot through one?!?!?

All this? If you mean promoting sponsored products, your talking to the wrong guy, my original posts were of a viable option for the op to look into. Then the thread turned into a "why rapid z is the best thing ever", then it went to a turret vs BDC type reticle. A couple weeks ago I did a google search on "Minox ZA 5 vs Zeiss conquest rapid z 600", since these were the two scopes I was interested in for my new rifle. I read ALOT. Just for chits and giggles maybe you should do the same. You might be surprised at what some experts have to say when comparing the two.

So no, I haven't shot through one...... Yet.

sneer

12-20-2011, 11:07 PM

sheephunter

12-20-2011, 11:33 PM

Ok, just to make sure I got this. Do you end up having one power that is used for all the different distances on the ballistic reticle or do you have to change the power settings for each distance?

If it's the first, than aren't you using a variable scope essentially as a fixed scope?

If it's the second, how is that different from adjusting turrets?

Actually it's both. ;)

For the primarily reticle, the one zeroed at 200 yards, you can use any power you wish and zero won't change. For the secondary reticles you must use one fixed power for all additional ranges. You do not need to adjust the power for various ranges. So yes the scope is fully adjustable through the entire magnification range for the primarily reticle and shots to 200 yards. To use the secondary reticles where high magnification is typically required, then you must use a specified magnification for your cartridge, load, bullet weight, elevation etc.

LongDraw

12-20-2011, 11:42 PM

Boy I'd bet that the Zeiss sales reps don't even put these kind of hours in! ;)

Joking aside lots of good info here.

Jordan Smith

12-20-2011, 11:58 PM

209x50

12-21-2011, 06:27 AM

All this? If you mean promoting sponsored products, your talking to the wrong guy, my original posts were of a viable option for the op to look into. Then the thread turned into a "why rapid z is the best thing ever", then it went to a turret vs BDC type reticle. A couple weeks ago I did a google search on "Minox ZA 5 vs Zeiss conquest rapid z 600", since these were the two scopes I was interested in for my new rifle. I read ALOT. Just for chits and giggles maybe you should do the same. You might be surprised at what some experts have to say when comparing the two.

So no, I haven't shot through one...... Yet.
Kindly quote where I used the words "why rapid z is the best thing ever". I didn't, I never once even used the name. It goes to show how little you actually do read and perhaps you came to this post with a chip on your shoulder. In typical Internet expert style you've been on this thread and others promoting a scope brand vigorously that you don't own, haven't used nor even looked through! You aren't even aware which focal plane the crosshair is in and yet you are comparing favorably to very established and successful brands.
I think I'll pass on your "expert" advice and I'll stop in and check the Minox line out in Vegas at the SHOT show. I'll be one up on you I'll have actually touched one!

catnthehat

12-21-2011, 06:32 AM

I think I'll pass on your "expert" advice and I'll stop in and check the Minox line out in Vegas at the SHOT show. I'll be one up on you I'll have actually touched one!

I'll wait on the review!:)
Who knows, maybe I'll buy a new scope this year......
Cat

sneer

12-21-2011, 06:55 AM

209x50

12-21-2011, 07:21 AM

Thanks...I've got it now. Crosshairs are in first focal plane and ballistic reticle is in the second.

My personal opinion (based on the fact that I'll only be shooting one load...and I'll always hunt in roughly the same altitude and I wouldn't shoot +500....and I since on occasion I'm a knucklehead), I would prefer the ballistic reticle in the first focal plane....cause I prefer having odd markers (327 and 413), over having to be on a certain power to have 300, 400...so on.
And that is an informed decision, well made. Be aware that second focal plane reticles can also be set at a preferred power and shot that way as well. At least one maker has a page on their website that will tell you approximate values for each crosshair at your chosen magnification.

elkhunter11

12-21-2011, 07:26 AM

Thanks...I've got it now. Crosshairs are in first focal plane and ballistic reticle is in the second.

Not quite, they are all either in the first plane or in the second plane in a given scope, but since you zero using the main crosshairs, the main crosshairs will stay zero'd at all magnifications.

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 08:16 AM

Kindly quote where I used the words "why rapid z is the best thing ever". I didn't, I never once even used the name. It goes to show how little you actually do read and perhaps you came to this post with a chip on your shoulder. In typical Internet expert style you've been on this thread and others promoting a scope brand vigorously that you don't own, haven't used nor even looked through! You aren't even aware which focal plane the crosshair is in and yet you are comparing favorably to very established and successful brands.
I think I'll pass on your "expert" advice and I'll stop in and check the Minox line out in Vegas at the SHOT show. I'll be one up on you I'll have actually touched one!

Your proving how little you actually read, or maybe comprehend. Show me where I said that you said rapid z is the best ever. I was giving a basic statement about how the thread has gone. Maybe you should read this thread again, then you'll see I've touched a Minox before. Your SHOT at being one up one me in that regaurd won't happen. I got a PM about you and the crew, so I can see I'm no where near the first to disagree with you guys. Once you actually touch a Minox at the big SHOT show, maybe you can post up what you think?

I didn't want to get into a ****in match, I was just giving the OP an option to look at.

Ice Fishing Maniac

12-21-2011, 08:19 AM

I have 2 Tikka T3 LS 270WSM's...new in 2005....both have Leupold VX3 scopes with the BC reticle (3.5-10x40 & 4.5-14x40). Love the scope and reticle.......great caliber/scope/bullet combo with 140gr Accubonds.:sHa_shakeshout:

209x50

12-21-2011, 08:49 AM

Your proving how little you actually read, or maybe comprehend. Show me where I said that you said rapid z is the best ever. I was giving a basic statement about how the thread has gone. Maybe you should read this thread again, then you'll see I've touched a Minox before. Your SHOT at being one up one me in that regaurd won't happen. I got a PM about you and the crew, so I can see I'm no where near the first to disagree with you guys. Once you actually touch a Minox at the big SHOT show, maybe you can post up what you think?

I didn't want to get into a ****in match, I was just giving the OP an option to look at.
Nice try Kurt but anyone reading the thread can see you plain as day. You can try to deflect but the plain fact was you were arguing about something you had never touched and still know next to nothing about. I'll stand by what I've said and show it to anyone who'd like to try it out on a range. You could, uh, er, well once you actually see and hold one, talk about the finish maybe. I recommend you spend more time doing and less time talking.

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 08:54 AM

Not quite, they are all either in the first plane or in the second plane in a given scope, but since you zero using the main crosshairs, the main crosshairs will stay zero'd at all magnifications.

Yes, what he said!

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 08:56 AM

209x50

Are you trying to pick a fight with me because I think Zeiss is over priced? The rapid Z is busiest scope on the market. Do a web search on comparisons between the two. The Minox has better contrast on darker objects in low light and the rectical is visible longer than the conquest. I just looked through the two side by side less than an hour ago. There is no way I'd buy a Zeiss before the Minox, that's my opinion. I would HIGHLY suggest the OP do the same and try them side by side, the clutter in the rapid z is way more than I want in a hunting scope. Plus Minox has a life time no fault warranty, if your gun falls out of your truck while your doing 100kph, at least you get a new scope, no questions asked.

Here you go, from the first page. Any one who READS can see this. Maybe you should take a short drive to Cabelas and touch one for yourself.

buckbrushoutdoors

12-21-2011, 08:59 AM

Uh oh! Someone is angry on the interweb again! ;)

209x50

12-21-2011, 09:04 AM

209x50

Here you go, from the first page. Any one who READS can see this. Maybe you should take a short drive to Cabelas and touch one for yourself.
So you are qualified to talk about the finish. What do you think?

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 09:10 AM

On the 5-20Minox I evaluated, it had glass superior to Nightforce. In fact, out of Nightforce (5.5-22x56), Nikon Monarchs, Weaver super slam and grand slam with A/O, and vortex razor, the Minox was only optically second to the Vortex razor in extreme low light. The others...well there was obvious differences. Unfortunately I didn't have a Zeiss to look through.

Schott also makes (or did) glass for stove top ovens! Peter Hirsch from Hirsch precision pushed the IOR line heavily in this regard....Schott glass ....blah blah blah...

In the end, you pull up to the factory with your bag of money and requirements and see what you can afford. They do make a full range (no pun intended....lol) of glass.....

Here's another post from this thread, it seems the Minox has great optics, and for what the OP had set as a price point I still think that it would be a wise choice to look at. Because they're a new product for Minox my only reservation would be on dependability, but Minox has that covered with a no fault lifetime warranty. If it don't hold zero, send it back and you get a new one free of charge. If this happens to be an issue, Minox I'm sure will have a permanent fix for it because giving away scopes isn't a cost effective solution.

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 09:15 AM

So you are qualified to talk about the finish. What do you think?

Why would you care what I think about fit and finish? You can't look past the fact I'm just an outdoorsmen. Do use both a favor and try a google search on Minox ZA5 reviews, you might find a familiar name who's done an expert review.

lclund1946

12-21-2011, 09:30 AM

[I did give you an answer, to me the OP is looking for a comparable scope with an adjustable ballistic reticle for $400. There isn't one. If I misunderstood the OP then I apologize to him. [/QUOTE]

There are scopes out there that have Adjustable Ballistic Reticles, for less than $400, that the OP would be well advised to check out. In fact the Hawke SR 6 and S12 might well have been the inspiration for the Zeiss Rapid Z and the Leupold Varmint Hunter reticle. I know that I was using an SR 12 reticle on my 223 at least 8 years ago. Hawke have been making scopes for about 30 years and I have been using them for nearly 1/3 that time.

Here is a link to the Hawke Nite-Eye. It comes in 8 different magnification/reticle combinations. While I make no claims that they are optically equivalent to $800.00-$1200.00 Zeis and Leupold Scopes they are not far behind. They most certainly will fill the bill for what the OP is looking for.
http://www.hawkeoptics.com/rifle-scopes/nite-eye-digital.html

Here is a printout from the Hawke BRC for a 4-16 scope with SR6 reticle adjusted to accomodate a standard 7mm Mag load, at 3110 fps, at 16 power. While the reticle does not have hash marks that indicate 200-1000 yards you can print out a label to put in your scope cover that tells you the calculated holdover.
http://i920.photobucket.com/albums/ad48/lclund1946/IMG-2.jpg

209x50

12-21-2011, 09:35 AM

Why would you care what I think about fit and finish? You can't look past the fact I'm just an outdoorsmen. Do use both a favor and try a google search on Minox ZA5 reviews, you might find a familiar name who's done an expert review.
As an outdoorsman I do my own reviews and testing. Here is a little range, point and shoot testing from my field this morning.
http://www.theoutdoorquest.com/coyote-and-260.jpg

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 09:39 AM

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 10:06 AM

Kurt, I know I said I was done with you but considering the number of backhanded shots you've taken at me since I apologized to you, I feel a need to post once more. I've followed this thread fairly closely and I haven't seen a single post where anyone commented on the quality of the Minox scope. I know I didn't. I was just pointing out some inaccurate statements you made regarding reticle technology. Reticle technology has advanced light years in the past decade and keeping up with it can be overwhelming. Your thoughts that the Minox reticle was at first indentical to the Rapid Z 600 were totally false and then you changed your position to the fact that it was simpler. Simpler in appearance perhaps but most definitely not in function. Those are not opinions...just simple fact.

You admittedly have not used a Minox and you admittedly have only looked through a Zeiss at the store that was not properly adjusted for your eye but you felt qualified to compare the two? I have not compared the Minox to any other product because I have not used it enough to form an opinion. But just by the mechanics of the reticle, I can tell you what it does and doesn't do. I know the exact point that someone PM'd you. At that point this post was no longer about scopes but it was about making things personal......give it a rest.

The Miniox may offer so fine optical quality for the money, I can't honestly say and I'm not sure you can either. Perhaps once you have purchased one and used it, you can. I know I'd be interested to hear what you think. I never promoted a product in this thread nor compared the optical quality of one brand versus another. My whole intent was just to bring some facts about reticles to a discussion rife with misinformation. Hopefully that puts an end to this.

Thanks TJ, I'm not trying to make things personal, I'm defending myself. It's like I'm the odd kid in the playground and once one bully starts in, his friends jump on the band wagon.

I've been a hunting guide here in Alberta for the last 11yrs, so I have actually looked thru Zeiss in low light, and also swarovski, Leica, and a bunch of other high end optics. My original post said :Minox ZA5, that's it. It was a suggestion for the OP to look into. I just happened to be in the market for a new, inexpensive scope for my new rifle at the same time this post came up. I'm no expert in the field, and I stated that but from what I've recently read about the Minox I thought I'd throw the choice out there for him. Hindsight tells me that was a mistake. I never wanted to get into an Internet tussle, but I human and get ticked off too. What started out as a simple suggestion has erupted into a gong show! In all honesty I did try, on a few occasions to get the tread back on topic, and have tried to explain myself, but it seems an argument was more important to some (not you) than an actual product for the OP to look at.

Sorry if I'm coming accross as making this a personal thing, not meant that way. It's an Internet....... discussion and not meant to be anything more than that, at least not on my part.

Huntnut

12-21-2011, 10:13 AM

Actually it's both. ;)

For the primarily reticle, the one zeroed at 200 yards, you can use any power you wish and zero won't change. For the secondary reticles you must use one fixed power for all additional ranges. You do not need to adjust the power for various ranges. So yes the scope is fully adjustable through the entire magnification range for the primarily reticle and shots to 200 yards. To use the secondary reticles where high magnification is typically required, then you must use a specified magnification for your cartridge, load, bullet weight, elevation etc.

(Cue the light bulb) Now the mouse is turning the wheel. I was always under the impression that you had to change magnification for differant ranges-(although I never really did any indepth reading on the rapid z). So basically with the scope set on 12 power-(just picking a number) you are good for whatever range your scope/gun is set up for. As had been said here many times is that you simply range and use the appropiate crosshair and shoot. No turrets to turn. If the said animal was to suddenly run another 100 yds or whatever you would simply re-range and shoot-no turret to turn again. Correct???

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 10:18 AM

(Cue the light bulb) Now the mouse is turning the wheel. I was always under the impression that you had to change magnification for differant ranges-(although I never really did any indepth reading on the rapid z). So basically with the scope set on 12 power-(just picking a number) you are good for whatever range your scope/gun is set up for. As had been said here many times is that you simply range and use the appropiate crosshair and shoot. No turrets to turn. If the said animal was to suddenly run another 100 yds or whatever you would simply re-range and shoot-no turret to turn again. Correct???

The light bulb is indeed on! LOL Yup, you've got it figured.

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 10:23 AM

Jordan Smith

12-21-2011, 10:32 AM

There are scopes out there that have Adjustable Ballistic Reticles, for less than $400, that the OP would be well advised to check out. In fact the Hawke SR 6 and S12 might well have been the inspiration for the Zeiss Rapid Z and the Leupold Varmint Hunter reticle. I know that I was using an SR 12 reticle on my 223 at least 8 years ago. Hawke have been making scopes for about 30 years and I have been using them for nearly 1/3 that time.

Here is a link to the Hawke Nite-Eye. It comes in 8 different magnification/reticle combinations. While I make no claims that they are optically equivalent to $800.00-$1200.00 Zeis and Leupold Scopes they are not far behind. They most certainly will fill the bill for what the OP is looking for.
http://www.hawkeoptics.com/rifle-scopes/nite-eye-digital.html

Here is a printout from the Hawke BRC for a 4-16 scope with SR6 reticle adjusted to accomodate a standard 7mm Mag load, at 3110 fps, at 16 power. While the reticle does not have hash marks that indicate 200-1000 yards you can print out a label to put in your scope cover that tells you the calculated holdover.

I've been using a Hawke Frontier SF 4-16x42 for a few years now, and it is certainly worth the price. The optics are quite comparable to the Bushnell Elite 4200, the adjustments are solid, precise, and the tracking is great. The only downside is that they are made in the UK, so you'd have to import one, or find a distributor here, and the "worldwide warranty" is conditional on you having the receipt/proof of purchase, so don't lose the receipt after you buy the scope or the warranty is no good (unless things have changed recently)!

If you can get passed the importation and warranty issues, they are a GREAT bang for the buck.

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 10:34 AM

209x50, here's a link to one of the reviews I got some of my information on the Minox scopes.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3831789/Minox_ZA_5_2_10x40_Review_Part

Let me know what you think.

TJ, I wouldn't mind your thoughts on this review either. It would help clear up why I thought the Minox would be a good option for the OP.

Jordan Smith

12-21-2011, 10:36 AM

(Cue the light bulb) Now the mouse is turning the wheel. I was always under the impression that you had to change magnification for differant ranges-(although I never really did any indepth reading on the rapid z). So basically with the scope set on 12 power-(just picking a number) you are good for whatever range your scope/gun is set up for. As had been said here many times is that you simply range and use the appropiate crosshair and shoot. No turrets to turn. If the said animal was to suddenly run another 100 yds or whatever you would simply re-range and shoot-no turret to turn again. Correct???

Yessir, that's exactly how it works. Depending on your load, your reticle may be zero'd at 200 yards, and the 300 yard marker is actually zero'd for 312 yards, the 400 yard marker for 418 yards, the 500 yard marker for 502 yards, etc. The distances that each hash mark is zero'd for will change with the magnification.

sdkidaho

12-21-2011, 10:46 AM

Not in the price range you are looking for, but I REALLY like the looks of this reticle and would sure like to try it out some day:

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f94/my-favorite-reticle-confirmation-drops-1k-76908/

You can find a more info on that reticle from this site: http://hollandguns.com/ Go there and click on the Advanced Reticle Technology link at the top of the page.

I also like the Nightforce velocity reticles: http://nightforceoptics.com/RETICLES_OVERVIEW/RETICLES_DETAIL/reticles_detail.html but there again, that is on a scope that isn't in the price range you are talking about.

I'm in the same boat. I just bought a new .257 Weatherby Magnum and need to find a good scope to put on it. I'll have to check out that Minox (http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3831789/Minox_ZA_5_2_10x40_Review_Part) as well now...

32-40win

12-21-2011, 10:46 AM

The Zeiss is to be zeroed at 200, the reticle/magnification setting does not come into play until you want to use the 400yd hash and out. You can play with that setting on Zeiss's site, change altitude,bullet BC, speed, temp and see what it recommends when you ask it to optimize it at what yardage. It will give you an optimal mag setting to use for 400 & up and tell you what to use, then how far out you are with what hashmark. On my 300H&H with 180gr I believe it came out to within +/- 5yds out to 800 for one setup @ 10.9. I will have to play with it some more, and check how close it really is at the range. But, it gave me an idea of what I'd like to achieve for a load to work with it.
Mine is the 4.5-14x44 with the Z800.
Don't know if I will end up liking this scope on this gun or not, it will take some getting used to and some experimentation to see how it works for me.
I'll likely waste lots of ammo on it, but, that's ok, that goes with the turf.
Not every load works first time out, and this scope will take some wringing out.

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 10:48 AM

TJ, I wouldn't mind your thoughts on this review either. It would help clear up why I thought the Minox would be a good option for the OP.

I agree too that the Minox may be a good option for the OP. Having never personally put one through its paces I can't say. Lots of opinions on that link you posted. Truthfully, there are a lot of scopes in that price range that compare well optically...it's a very competitive and value packed price range with no lack of fans for all of the brands. At the end of the day, most of the major players are providing good value. It's just important to know that all scopes have their high points and their limitations and choose one that fits your needs. I've got a Sightron on one of my rifles right now that I've been quite impressed with that also falls in that price range. I guess my point is, if you look around long enough, you'll find a review that claims every brand is the best. I'm not saying the Minox isn't a great option for the OP...I just honestly don't know.

sdkidaho

12-21-2011, 10:50 AM

Yessir, that's exactly how it works. Depending on your load, your reticle may be zero'd at 200 yards, and the 300 yard marker is actually zero'd for 312 yards, the 400 yard marker for 418 yards, the 500 yard marker for 502 yards, etc. The distances that each hash mark is zero'd for will change with the magnification.

Something that may help show that in a visual aid type of a way is the SpotOn calculator on Nikon's page:

http://www.nikonhunting.com/page/spot_on

Put in your load info and you'll see how it affects where those hash marks (or circles) land, according to different load development.

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 10:50 AM

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 11:09 AM

I agree too that the Minox may be a good option for the OP. Having never personally put one through its paces I can't say. Lots of opinions on that link you posted. Truthfully, there are a lot of scopes in that price range that compare well optically...it's a very competitive and value packed price range with no lack of fans for all of the brands. At the end of the day, most of the major players are providing good value. It's just important to know that all scopes have their high points and their limitations and choose one that fits your needs. I've got a Sightron on one of my rifles right now that I've been quite impressed with that also falls in that price range. I guess my point is, if you look around long enough, you'll find a review that claims every brand is the best. I'm not saying the Minox isn't a great option for the OP...I just honestly don't know.

Thanks for taking the time to look at it. With the $50 rebate they're offering right now, and the lifetime no fault warranty, a guy could pick one up for under $500. At that price it seems worth a look so to speak.

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 11:16 AM

Thanks for taking the time to look at it. With the $50 rebate they're offering right now, and the lifetime no fault warranty, a guy could pick one up for under $500. At that price it seems worth a look so to speak.

Yup. I'd also look at the Bushnell 4200, Vortex Viper, Sightron, and Nikon to name a few others that I'm familiar with. Like I said, lots of competition in that price range. Likely you wouldn't go wrong with any of them.

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 11:46 AM

Yup. I'd also look at the Bushnell 4200, Vortex Viper, Sightron, and Nikon to name a few others that I'm familiar with. Like I said, lots of competition in that price range. Likely you wouldn't go wrong with any of them.

Own a B&L elite 4200 and a Nikon Monarch, I think they're a good value, Vortex is actually one of the scopes I've been looking at recently but haven't looked thru the Sightron. I like to try new products so I figure I can buy the Minox and 1000rds of .223 ammo and test how it'll hold zero for under $1000. Worst case scinario I'll have one heck of a scope for my 10/22.

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 11:48 AM

Own a B&L elite 4200 and a Nikon Monarch, I think they're a good value, Vortex is actually one of the scopes I've been looking at recently but haven't looked thru the Sightron. I like to try new products so I figure I can buy the Minox and 1000rds of .223 ammo and test how it'll hold zero for under $1000. Worst case scinario I'll have one heck of a scope for my 10/22.

I couldn't imagine it not holding zero on a .223. If it didn't, I'd be more suspect of the rings than the scope.

Jordan Smith

12-21-2011, 12:17 PM

to work correctly it must be zeroed at 200.

lol

lclund1946

12-21-2011, 12:27 PM

I've been using a Hawke Frontier SF 4-16x42 for a few years now, and it is certainly worth the price. The optics are quite comparable to the Bushnell Elite 4200, the adjustments are solid, precise, and the tracking is great. The only downside is that they are made in the UK, so you'd have to import one, or find a distributor here, and the "worldwide warranty" is conditional on you having the receipt/proof of purchase, so don't lose the receipt after you buy the scope or the warranty is no good (unless things have changed recently)!

If you can get passed the importation and warranty issues, they are a GREAT bang for the buck.

The Hawke Frontier Line was made in Japan. Hawke have dropped that line and all scopes are made in China. However quality of their new lines, like the Varmint SF and Nite - Eye Digi-IR SF and the Sidewinders are good. Hawke is a UK company but have set up in the US so I can't order from the UK anymore. I can, and have ordered, scopes from the US. Warranty is not an issue except that it is to the original owner as Jordan has indicated. However this will likely not be a problem as I am sure that the OP will be happy and get good value for his money.

I actually develped a load for my 223, with the Speer 50 TNT, that compensated out to 400 meters with the SR 12 Reticle at 18 power in my 18 power scope. I could do 65%, or better, on gopher sized targets to 400 meters in a slight cross wind.

IR_mike

12-21-2011, 12:28 PM

A little out of the op's price range but just throwing it out there...

I got to do a side by side comparison between the vortex 5-20 x 50 razor HD (2100$) and the trijicon 5-20 x 50 accupoint (1100$) and found the trijicon amazingly clear and with a way brighter image at low light.

I know everyones eyes are different :argue2: but pretty impressed with the trijicon.

Jordan Smith

12-21-2011, 12:35 PM

The Hawke Frontier Line was made in Japan. Hawke have dropped that line and all scopes are made in China.

That's too bad. Glad to hear that they are still a decent value, though.

Stinky Coyote

12-21-2011, 01:32 PM

I got to do a side by side comparison between the vortex 5-20 x 50 razor HD (2100$) and the trijicon 5-20 x 50 accupoint (1100$) and found the trijicon amazingly clear and with a way brighter image at low light.

I know everyones eyes are different :argue2: but pretty impressed with the trijicon.

this happens alot when guys look at the trijicons, they are excellent scopes, tough well built, very nice glass, just can't get em exactly how i want em, really only one company that can give me what i want for any build, leupold, not to mention they are well built with plenty good enough glass and the best warranty going with custom/warranty shop in province...sure keeps optics simple, only one website to peruse when i need another scope :)

elkhunter11

12-21-2011, 01:36 PM

Own a B&L elite 4200 and a Nikon Monarch, I think they're a good value,

I agree with the Elite 4200, but I am disappointed with the Monarch 3-12x42SF that I bought recently. The deal was so good, that I took a chance without trying one first, because of good reviews from other people, but I don't find the optics any better than my Elite 3200 that cost less.

Kurt505

12-21-2011, 01:55 PM

I agree with the Elite 4200, but I am disappointed with the Monarch 3-12x42SF that I bought recently. The deal was so good, that I took a chance without trying one first, because of good reviews from other people, but I don't find the optics any better than my Elite 3200 that cost less.

The problem I had with it was the rubber eye guard kept falling off. After the first season I swapped it with a VX-III. The optics seemed ok, but I never really used it enough to notice a difference between it and my B&L 4200. I have the 4200 on my favorite rifle, but can't bring myself to swap it for my Swarovski. 11yrs and I'm still waiting for it to let me down.

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 02:08 PM

I agree with the Elite 4200, but I am disappointed with the Monarch 3-12x42SF that I bought recently. The deal was so good, that I took a chance without trying one first, because of good reviews from other people, but I don't find the optics any better than my Elite 3200 that cost less.

Funny, I actually really liked the optical quality of the Nikon. I wasn't a fan of there balistic reticle with the circles though. Goes to show how different people's eyes see things.

Andrzej

12-21-2011, 02:37 PM

To work correctly it MUST be zeroed at 200.

I don't think that this is true SH,
In ballistic calculator on first page main data form you are unable to change zero distance but on next screen reticle analysis there is sight in distance that you can choose and will calculate hash marks from this new zero.

Andrew

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 02:42 PM

I don't think that this is true SH,
In ballistic calculator on first page main data form you are unable to change zero distance but on next screen reticle analysis there is sight in distance that you can choose and will calculate hash marks from this new zero.

Andrew

For the additional hashmarks to be yardage indicated, you must set the primary crosshair on the Rapid Z 600 and 800 to 200 yards. You could set the primary crosshair to anything you like but then the yardage indicated hashmarks would no longer represent those yardages. There are a couple of obscure exceptions to this but for the vast majority of cartridges, that's the way the Rapid Z works. This allows you to utilize the yardage indicated hashmarks at the optimum magnification for the scope. That's the simplest and most effective way to set a Rapid Z up.

Jamie Black R/T

12-21-2011, 02:42 PM

bonecollector10

12-21-2011, 03:14 PM

TJ, im with you on this one regarding the reticles being labelled for yardage. I hate having one reticle and aiming 12",20" above an animals back to compensate, makes me nervous. And when I see the trophy of a life time I would probably forget to adjust the turret lol.

Im torn between the rapid z6 and z8, which one do you recommend being a zeiss guy.

Jordan Smith

12-21-2011, 03:27 PM

Funny, I actually really liked the optical quality of the Nikon. I wasn't a fan of there balistic reticle with the circles though.

+1

I really don't like the Nikon BDC

wildfire

12-21-2011, 03:45 PM

2 buck this year. 1 in new brunswick and 1 in camrose with new vortex diamondback 4x12x40 with adjustable paralax and bdc reticle. around $400. dropped it and my BAR .300 wsm in the drink while crossing a stream and slipped on a rock, no issues with leakage or accuracy afterwards.

Jamie Black R/T

12-21-2011, 03:47 PM

For the additional hashmarks to be yardage indicated, you must set the primary crosshair on the Rapid Z 600 and 800 to 200 yards. .......

you're still pretty quick there, for an old fart! :love0025:

Jordan Smith

12-21-2011, 03:56 PM

For the additional hashmarks to be yardage indicated, you must set the primary crosshair on the Rapid Z 600 and 800 to 200 yards. You could set the primary crosshair to anything you like but then the yardage indicated hashmarks would no longer represent those yardages.

That's the case, even with a 200 yard primary zero. Unless you have a cartridge and load that uniquely matches perfectly with the trajectory profile of the RZ aiming points, your numbered hash marks are not going to be exact, anyway. With most loads, instead of 400, the POI will actually be perfectly calibrated for 412, instead of 500, it'll be 523 or 482, or something similar, etc, etc.

The easiest way to visualize how your load and reticle match up, is to find out the substension of each hash mark from the center intersection, in angular units like MOA or MILS, and then get an accurate trajectory chart for your load, using a ballistic calculator like JBM, and then compare each hash mark's substension from center to the trajectory of your load, taking note of where exactly each hash mark should theoretically match your POI. Then confirm this by field testing.

Here are some examples for illustration purposes:

http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/149/fe1f4c4ad1084e7a94ee54d680fd8959/l.jpg

http://a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/149/9066ac7a78fb4dfea820f7be87e4af16/l.jpg

From the images you can see that this load would be zero'd at 200, the "3" mark would be on at about 318 yards, the "350" mark would be on at 380 yards, the "4" mark would be 428 yards, etc. Ideally, it would be nice to be able to increase the magnification so as to decrease the impact distance for each of those hash marks, but this chart represents the scope already being set at its maximum magnification...

elkhunter11

12-21-2011, 04:12 PM

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 04:21 PM

Playing around with the calculator on the Zeiss site, I discovered that I could fine tune the reticles for my load, by adjusting the yardage of the main crosshairs.For my 260 rem ,using 220 yards instead of 200 yards, resulted in the rest of the hashmarks being closer to 300,400,500,600,700, and 800 yards. This also resulted in me using a higher optimum magnification setting, so it was beneficial in more ways than one.

Ya you can but for the person that only has a basic understanding of the reticle, the 200 yard zero works extremely well. I suspect you gained very little magnification wise by playing with the zero but you are correct, for guys that want to tinker you can. I was trying to keep things simple and effective at the same time.. And truthfully, what is the MOA adjustment difference between a 220 and a 200 yard zero? Less than most people could shoot I suspect. The 200 yard zero keeps things simple and it works. You aren't wrong but for most it just comlicates things for very little gain.

209x50

12-21-2011, 04:24 PM

209x50

12-21-2011, 04:28 PM

elkhunter11

12-21-2011, 04:29 PM

And truthfully, what is the MOA adjustment difference between a 220 and a 200 yard zero? Less than most people could shoot I suspect.

It's only .4 moa difference. Running some more numbers, actually shows that 210 yards is just slightly closer than 220 yards for my load. The magnifaction only changes by about .25x from 200 yards but since there are absolutely no negatives to making this small change, and it is so easy to do, why not do it?

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 04:30 PM

That's the case, even with a 200 yard primary zero. Unless you have a cartridge and load that uniquely matches perfectly with the trajectory profile of the RZ aiming points, your numbered hash marks are not going to be exact, anyway. With most loads, instead of 400, the POI will actually be perfectly calibrated for 412, instead of 500, it'll be 523 or 482, or something similar, etc, etc.

The easiest way to visualize how your load and reticle match up, is to find out the substension of each hash mark from the center intersection, in angular units like MOA or MILS, and then get an accurate trajectory chart for your load, using a ballistic calculator like JBM, and then compare each hash mark's substension from center to the trajectory of your load, taking note of where exactly each hash mark should theoretically match your POI. Then confirm this by field testing.

From the images you can see that this load would be zero'd at 200, the "3" mark would be on at about 318 yards, the "350" mark would be on at 380 yards, the "4" mark would be 428 yards, etc. Ideally, it would be nice to be able to increase the magnification so as to decrease the impact distance for each of those hash marks, but this chart represents the scope already being set at its maximum magnification...

I thought we already established that it didn't work perfectly for all cartridges/loads and you seem to be constantly referencing them. What about the thousands it does work perfectly for? Truthfully, even in your example, with the 400 crosshair representing 428 yards, it would make zero difference in placing a kill shot at 400 yards. Remember, this is a hunting reticle, not a precise target reticle. So what if it's a half inch out. While all what you are saying sounds wonderful on paper, out in the real world it won't make the slightest difference. I can attest to that. Run the numbers for a 270WSM shoting a 130 grain GMX. The crosshairs still work perfectly for killing on their indicated yardage out to 579 yards for sure....I suspect further but that's as far as I can confirm with blood on my hands.

Edit**** I also see you are using the Rapid Z 600 in your example. This is not the recommended reticle for the load you referenced. The Rapid Z 800 would be the appropriate choice. You are trying to put a square peg in a round hole again.

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 04:35 PM

It's only .4 moa difference. Running some more numbers, actually shows that 210 yards is just slightly closer than 220 yards for my load. The magnifaction only changes by about .25x from 200 yards but since there are absolutely no negatives to making this small change, and it is so easy to do, why not do it?

No reason not to at all. I was just pointing out that for those not as familiar with the reticle as you that there was no need to over complicate things by straying from the 200 yard zero as the gains were minimal and unless the shooter and rifle we capable of some unbelieveable accuracy, not even attainable. I doubt I could adjust my zero from 200 to 210 yards with my shooting ability. I suspect the same of most. Perhaps you can but for most, I doubt it. Few people truly understand how this reticle works and I find it's best to keep things simple, especially when the gains are minimal and possibly not even attainable for most.

elkhunter11

12-21-2011, 04:40 PM

The 7wsm and 162 Amax is a favorite of mine. I don't come within a 100 ft./s of your speed and average about 3000ft./s. Shooting my load from my rifle with the scope zeroed at 200 yards and optimized at 12.91 magnification my hash marks look like this:
3 = 293
4 = 393
5 = 495
6 = 600
7 = 708
8 = 818

Using the 210 yard crosshairs value for my 260rem load. I am using a 142gr bullet at 2760fps, with a BC of .580. The only negative, is that the optimum magnification is only 10.6x. The RZ600 would work better, but it isn't available with the 4.5-14x44 Conquest.

3-301
4-400
5-499
6-600
7-703
8-808

Huntnut

12-21-2011, 05:04 PM

The RZ600 would work better, but it isn't available with the 4.5-14x44 Conquest.

Unless it's a missprint Wholesale Sports has them on sale.

http://ca.wholesalesports.com/storefront/scopes/centerfire-rifle-scopes/conquest-series-mc-1-tube/prod186588.html

Edit; Must be a miss print or sold out-whenyou try to order it it goes to the #20-Zplex

Jordan Smith

12-21-2011, 05:16 PM

I thought we already established that it didn't work perfectly for all cartridges/loads and you seem to be constantly referencing them.

It seems to me that a 7Mag running a high-BC 160gr bullet is not an uncommon choice these days.

What about the thousands it does work perfectly for? Truthfully, even in your example, with the 400 crosshair representing 428 yards, it would make zero difference in placing a kill shot at 400 yards.

We're talking about nearly 4" high, not 0.5". If everything goes smoothly, then yes, that is still a kill shot. But what if you have a slight bit of wobble in your hold (as do most people), and your crosshair is slightly higher, holding for something like a spine shot, when the trigger breaks? Then you're going to graze the hair on the top of the back. I never said that the trajectory difference between 400 and 428 yards was a deal breaker, I'm just pointing out that the 4" difference does exist.

Run the numbers for a 270WSM shoting a 130 grain GMX. The crosshairs still work perfectly for killing on their indicated yardage out to 579 yards for sure....I suspect further but that's as far as I can confirm with blood on my hands.

As I said, if your cartridge and load matches Zeiss' trajectory profile perfectly, then it'll be bang on. But there are a lot of cartridges and bullet out there that don't match perfectly. Again, not saying that it's always going to be a deal breaker, but it doesn't match perfectly, and it just adds another 4" of error to the variables that are already in place (heart beat, up or down draft, slight incline that the hunter may not notice, etc).

Edit**** I also see you are using the Rapid Z 600 in your example. This is not the recommended reticle for the load you referenced. The Rapid Z 800 would be the appropriate choice. You are trying to put a square peg in a round hole again.

Again, they do not offer the RZ800 in the 3-9x40, and I would venture to guess that a 7Mag, high-BC 160gr bullet, lightweight rifle, and 3-9x40 scope are all VERY common choices among today's hunters. Looks like they don't offer a round peg for this very common round hole ;)

I DO know a solution, though. Turrets. They're universal. They work on any scope that tracks properly, and any gun that you can mount a scope on, regardless of whether you feel the application is "appropriate" for the chosen scope and rifle, or not.

Each system has pros and cons. One of the pros of turrets is that you can minimize the elevation error inherent to your system, so as to increase the margin of elevation error you have in placing the bullet correctly due to other variables. You can get around this problem with the reticles, by field testing and then making a chart, showing exactly what distance each hash mark is zero'd for (eg. 428 yards vs 400 yards).

Jordan Smith

12-21-2011, 05:22 PM

The 7wsm and 162 Amax is a favorite of mine. I don't come within a 100 ft./s of your speed and average about 3000ft./s. Shooting my load from my rifle with the scope zeroed at 200 yards and optimized at 12.91 magnification my hash marks look like this:
3 = 293
4 = 393
5 = 495
6 = 600
7 = 708
8 = 818
Yes I've shot and trued it and can verify it is accurate.

Thanks for opening up and sharing :D

Looks good. The only catches here, are that you have to make sure your scope is set at 12.91x (that's pretty exact) for any LR shots, and also that there is about 8" difference between 800 and 818 yards with that bullet started out at 3000fps, using the atmospheric conditions where I do my shooting (may vary, depending on atmos. conditions and elevation), so there is a lot of error already inherent in that aiming point, at that range.

sheephunter

12-21-2011, 05:26 PM

You can get around this problem with the reticles, by field testing and then making a chart, showing exactly where each hash mark is zero'd for (eg. 428 yards vs 400 yards).

Either that or you could use the correct reticle :thinking-006:

Jordan, you can shoot a 25-06 shell out of a 30-06 but it like won't shoot well. Is that the 30-06's fault? No, If you want to shoot a 25-06 you should buy a 25-06. Same goes for the Rapid Z. If you want to use one on a 7mm, you should buy the correct one. If you want a 3-9, you should buy a different scope. Is it really that complicated? If you want a 3-9 scope to put on a 7mm you should most definitely be looking at other brands. The 4.5-14 with Rapid z 800 works perfectly on mine. The 600 not as well so I choose the correct one, just like I put 30-06 shells in my 30-06.

Jordan Smith

12-21-2011, 05:47 PM

My point is that your chosen cartridge/load has to fit into a defined group for it to work with their RZ reticles.

Your illustration does serve to support my point, though. You can only use .30-06 shells in a .30-06 rifle. That is it. It doesn't matter if you would rather shoot a .257WM, a .270, or anything else. If the manufacturer only offers a .30-06, then you have to shoot a .30-06, or else switch to bow hunting. Likewise, if your load doesn't fit into the trajectory profile of the reticles offered in the scope you want, then you're outta luck. I don't like having only 1 option, as dictated by the manufacturers. I like having all my options available to me, so I use a 3-9x40 RZ600 with turrets, since I don't like using large scopes on my carry rifles :)

I'm not the only guy who likes to use a moderately-sized scope, flat-shooting cartridge, high-BC bullet, and lightweight rifle, yet still have the option of shooting game at considerable distance. Likewise, you're not the only guy who likes to use high-magnification scopes on his hunting rifles. There is a product for everybody. As mentioned before, if the RZ800 works well for your load, then I'm happy for you. But you won't convince me that I have to use a .30-06, or that it is the single best thing for the majority. ;) I don't have the angular substensions of the hash marks for the RZ800 handy, but if marks for the first 600 yards match the RZ600, then a guy with a 7Mag would have the same problem, even if he used the RZ800.

At the end of the day, each guy has to weigh his own scope preferences, rifle tastes, LR shooting needs and abilities, and cartridge and load characteristics, and then decide whether a LR reticle, turrets, or both are more suited to his needs :)