Riflescope for sheep hunting: multi crosshair reticles

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by Huntnut

(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]

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/foru...rops-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...es_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 as well now...

[32-40win]

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.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

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]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

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.

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

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.

To work correctly it MUST be zeroed at 200.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

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]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

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]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

to work correctly it must be zeroed at 200.

lol

[lclund1946]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

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]

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 but pretty impressed with the trijicon.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by lclund1946

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]

Originally Posted by IR_mike

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 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]

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]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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

Originally Posted by Andrzej

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]

Originally Posted by Andrzej

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

in the case of the ziess i think each hash mark is labeled with the appropriate yardage....if you dont zero at 200 all of those labels will be wrong....will they still line up? i cant comment i just always zero'd at 200 like i was told

[bonecollector10]

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]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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!

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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:





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]

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.

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 210 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 slightly higher optimum magnification setting, so it was beneficial in more ways than one.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

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.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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 210 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 slightly higher optimum magnification setting, so it was beneficial in more ways than one.

Yes, that is a great tip for people that understand the system. I have so many questions from those that are having troubles with the basics. They can't believe it is that simple I guess LOL