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.

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

Hopefully it helped clean it.

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.

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.

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

That is the title of the thread.:sign0161:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 :)

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.

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!

Corrected I stand!

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.

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

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.

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

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

Better buy a Dodge!:sHa_shakeshout:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Hunting coyotes, gophers, or moose? Head shots, neck shots, etc?

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.

Some people can shoot pretty decently with a good bipod and a bunched up shirt for a rear rest ;) BTDT on the sheep mountains...



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 ;)

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

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 ;)

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.

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.