Riflescope for sheep hunting: multi crosshair reticles

[Jordan Smith]

Nope, it's not rhetorical, since I don't know the answer, either. The reason I ask, is because if the angular substensions are the same out to 600 yards, then the same problem would apply to loads like the high-BC 160gr bullet from a 7Mag, whether a guy uses the RZ800 or the RZ600. Meaning that a "more appropriate reticle for the cartridge" wouldn't solve the problem.

The majority of this discussion has been largely academic, I realize, since the "problem" isn't significant enough to cause a miss, in and of itself, on the vital zone of a big-game animal out to 500 yards, anyway.

NOTE: I just checked the Zeiss website. The RZ600 and RZ800 do not share the same substensions out to 600 yards, but they both show the same tendency to have some of the distance markers off by anywhere from 20-43 yards at the longer distances with that 162gr A-Max load, which would become a bit of a problem at those ranges. So even the RZ800 can't offer a great solution for the 7Mag beyond 500-600 yards.

A-Max is a pretty high BC bullet. It works well with the 139 grain GMX in my 7mm to 612 yards for sure. I haven't shot an animal past that distance so can't comment past there. I've never ran the A-max number so I can't say for sure if your numbers are right or not. No doubt there are some loads it doesn't work well with. 3100fps with a 162 grain bullet is pretty hot... Guess if that's your pet load, you should look at other options. For the large majority it seems to work well. There's always exceptions. You seem to have found one.

[elkhunter11]

To me, in a hunting situation, I'd be very happy if my bullet hit within an inch of where I aimed. For those that aren't satisfied with that, why not compensate the 1" by aiming higher or lower as required rather than wasting your time zeroing in at 127 yds or whatnot?

So which wastes more time, moving your scope adjustment slightly(one click in the case of my rifle) when you initially zero it, and then holding dead on at all ranges, all the time, or having to remember that 1", and then compensate for it every time you shoot?

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

A-Max is a pretty high BC bullet. It works well with the 139 grain GMX in my 7mm to 612 yards for sure. I haven't shot an animal past that distance so can't comment past there. I've never ran the A-max number so I can't say for sure if your numbers are right or not. No doubt there are some loads it doesn't work well with. 3100fps with a 162 grain bullet is pretty hot... Guess if that's your pet load, you should look at other options. For the large majority it seems to work well. There's always exceptions. You seem to have found one.

It seems like there are two schools of thought becoming more and more prominent among the hunting community- those that use VLD, A-Max, and other LR-style bullets, and those that use premium penetrators like the PT, bonded bullets, monolithics, etc. I would venture to say that the LR reticles, like the RZ series, are designed to work well with the latter class of projectile, while not being as well suited to the high-performing LR loads, such as a .264WM and 142gr SMK, 7RM and 168gr VLD/A-Max, .300WM and 208gr A-Max/VLD, etc.

As for myself, I use both a TSX/TTSX load, as well as an A-Max/SMK/VLD load in most of my serious hunting rifles. I use the TSX/TTSX for jump shots, or close to medium shots out to 400 yards, and then I switch to the A-Max/VLD/etc for anything beyond that. The ballistic reticles in my various rifles work well for the TSX/TTSX loads, but not so well for the high-BC loads that I use. Turrets work well for either, but I pretty much have to switch to turrets exclusively, once I start shooting my LR loads at over 500 yards.

I use both the reticle system and the turret system, each for different applications, and both work well within their limitations. Each system has pros and cons, and it is up to the user to become proficient with his chosen system, and become familiar with its limitations so that he can work within them.

This is what has been my observation, and what has worked for me, on a few truck-loads of animals shot from 15 yards to 942 yards, and on targets out to nearly 1200 yards.

[elkhunter11]

It seems like there are two schools of thought becoming more and more prominent among the hunting community- those that use VLD, A-Max, and other LR-style bullets, and those that use premium penetrators like the PT, bonded bullets, monolithics, etc. I would venture to say that the LR reticles, like the RZ series, are designed to work well with the latter class of projectile, while not being as well suited to the high-performing LR loads, such as a .264WM and 142gr SMK, 7RM and 168gr VLD/A-Max, .300WM and 208gr A-Max/VLD, etc.

As for myself, I use both a TSX/TTSX load, as well as an A-Max/SMK/VLD load in most of my serious hunting rifles. I use the TSX/TTSX for jump shots, or close to medium shots out to 400 yards, and then I switch to the A-Max for anything beyond that. The ballistic reticles in my various rifles work well for the TSX/TTSX loads, but not so well for the high-BC loads that I use. Turret work well for either, but I pretty much have to switch to turrets exclusively once I start shooting my LR loads at over 500 yards.

I use both the reticle system and the turret system, each for different applications, and both work well within their limitations. Each system has pros and cons, and it is up to the user to become proficient with his chosen system, and become familiar with its limitations so that he can work within them.

This is what has been my observation, and what has worked for me, on a few truck-loads of animals shot from 15 yards to 942 yards, and on targets out to 1000 yards.

Although the RZ 600 would work even better for my 260rem using the 142 gr Matchkings, the RZ800 works quite well, although I am limited to 10.6x with my 4.5-14x Conquest. With my 7mmSTW launching the 140gr TTSX or 139gr GMX at 3500fps, none of the Rapid Z reticles are at all suitable, so I chose to go with a Swarovski Z5 3.5-18 with the BRH reticle instead. The BRH reticles don't have yardages marked on the reticle, but in this case,the hash marks do line up much better at 300,400, and 500 yards using a 200 yard zero, than any of the Rapid Z reticles. Zeiss has a good system in the Rapid Z, they just need another reticle or two to cover the various trajectories better, and they need to offer each reticle in more magnification ranges.

[Kurt505]

After reading hundreds of posts, getting tore up, and tearing into others, reading about the benefits of both BDC's, Rapid Z's and turrets, it seems more and more apparent that the best, most accurate sight is the one you take to the range and learn, know, and use. None will be 100% accurate all the time, under all conditions, at all magnifications. K.i.s.s. in a hunting situation is what the goal is. Remember, not everyone kisses the same girl... So to speak.

I did however find out the the BDC reticle on the Minox is calibrated to a .30 caliber rifle @ 10x magnification. Good enough for me, I can take it to the range, find out where it's shooting and remember it. My memory is still good enough to remember 5 numbers, especially if it's on my hunting rifle. + or - an inch or two is close enough for a kill, I think we all can agree on that.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I did however find out the the BDC reticle on the Minox is calibrated to a .30 caliber rifle @ 10x magnification.

A .30 cal rifle doesn't tell you much. It could be a 30-30 or a 30-378.

I suspect if do a bit more digging, you'll find out what .30 cal cartridge and what bullet weight it's calibrated to. If I'm not mistaken, the Leupold B&C was designed around a 300WM shooting a 180 grain bullet.

K.i.s.s. in a hunting situation is what the goal is.

This I couldn't agree more with.

[elkhunter11]

I did however find out the the BDC reticle on the Minox is calibrated to a .30 caliber rifle @ 10x magnification

Unless you have a B.C. and a muzzle velocity, that little bit of information is pretty much meaningless.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

A .30 cal rifle doesn't tell you much. It could be a 30-30 or a 30-378.

I suspect if do a bit more digging, you'll find out what .30 cal cartridge and what bullet weight it's calibrated to. If I'm not mistaken, the Leupold B&C was designed around a 300WM shooting a 180 grain bullet.




This I couldn't agree more with.

The important part of my post was "take your rifle to the range and know where it shoots". For me, and my memory, 390yds is just as easy to remember as 400yds, and 520yds is just as easy to remember as 500yds, and 580yds is just as easy to remember as 600 and....... You get the point. The next most important part is + or - an inch or two is a kill shot. That last and maybe the most important part of understanding opinions is not everyone likes to kiss the same girl.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

The important part of my post was "take your rifle to the range and know where it shoots". For me, and my memory, 390yds is just as easy to remember as 400yds, and 520yds is just as easy to remember as 500yds, and 580yds is just as easy to remember as 600 and....... You get the point. The next most important part is + or - an inch or two is a kill shot. That last and maybe the most important part of understanding opinions is not everyone likes to kiss the same girl.

Absolutely. I was just making the point that knowing it was a .30 cal cartridge really offered no information at all. I was just suggesting you dig a bit more because I suspect more info is available that may very well be beneficial to you.

[32-40win]

Maybe one day someone will figure out how to put in a reticle that can be adjusted to the load you are shooting. Then the battery will die at exactly the wrong time. Such is life.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Absolutely. I was just making the point that knowing it was a .30 cal cartridge really offered no information at all. I was just suggesting you dig a bit more because I suspect more info is available that may very well be beneficial to you.

For now it's all I can come up with. If I could read and understand German I could probably narrow it down some. I'm guessing it would be based on the most popular .30 cal in Germany, or Europe for that matter. Purely speculation at this point tho.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

For now it's all I can come up with. If I could read and understand German I could probably narrow it down some. I'm guessing it would be based on the most popular .30 cal in Germany, or Europe for that matter. Purely speculation at this point tho.

Try the translator on your browser.

Originally Posted by 32-40win

Maybe one day someone will figure out how to put in a reticle that can be adjusted to the load you are shooting. Then the battery will die at exactly the wrong time. Such is life.

There is already one and it doesn't even take batteries.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So which wastes more time, moving your scope adjustment slightly(one click in the case of my rifle) when you initially zero it, and then holding dead on at all ranges, all the time, or having to remember that 1", and then compensate for it every time you shoot?

You won't be dead on at every hash mark range with every caliber and every bullet weight though. If you find a caliber and bullet that is dead on at every hash mark then stick with it. My Burris on my 300wm (180gr) was +/-4" for some hash marks while my 7-08 (140gr) is either 0" or +1". If you want a perfect zero for your rifle and bullet you'd either have to have adjustable hash marks or get a recticle made for that particular rifle/bullet combination.

For me, in a hunting situation, I wouldn't even attempt to try to compensate for the 1" that the bullet is shooting high or low......it's a non-issue. It'll hit inside the kill zone and that's all that's required. For someone that is a target shooter and cares that the bullet hits as close as possible to the centre of the target I can see it being different. Then again, why would a serious target shooter that cares 1" either way want to use a BDC recticle? Given that the distances on the range are 100yds apart he would likely have to compensate and different distances if he wanted to use the hash marks on the BDC recticle.

[elkhunter11]

You won't be dead on at every hash mark range with every caliber and every bullet weight though. If you find a caliber and bullet that is dead on at every hash mark then stick with it. My Burris on my 300wm (180gr) was +/-4" for some hash marks while my 7-08 (140gr) is either 0" or +1".

If the point of impact was out 4" compared to the hashmark, I wouldn't bother with that reticle in the first place.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If the point of impact was out 4" compared to the hashmark, I wouldn't bother with that reticle in the first place.

Originally that scope was on an '06 and it worked well but I can't remember the +/-". Now it's on a 7-08 and the hashmarks are near perfect (on paper). On my 300wm it wasn't out that much for every hash mark for that caliber and bullet weight, but some hash marks were. This was my moose rifle so if you think about it the kill zone on a moose is much bigger than on a deer. Even +/- 4" up or down is still going to get you a dead animal however in order to put the bullet where I wanted it to go, I had a cheat sheet taped to the butt of my rifle that was a quick reference for how much I had to compensate at 100 yd intervals out to 500 yds. If it was -4" then I'd aim slightly higher but 4" at 500 yds is very, very little. I've never had to shoot an animal out to 500 yds using a BDC recticle, 300 yds was my furthest shot and the BDC did what it was supposed to do. I can bang the gong out to 500 yds though so my shots are in the kill zone whether I hit the top of the gong or the bottom of it.

The point that I'm trying to make is that a BDC recticle will not be exact for every caliber and bullet weight. You still have to go to the range and find out where your bullet hits in comparison to what the hash marks are telling you. If, for example, the hashmarks on the Rapid Z600 was developed using the trajectory of a .243 with a 120gr bullet, and you use that caliber with that bullet the hashmarks should be as close to perfect as you can get. Even if you just changed to a slightly heavier bullet, your POI may change in relation to the hashmarks. Throw the scope on a different caliber that is lumped in for use with the Z600 and your hashmarks may be further out yet more.

I really like BDC recticles even if I have to tape cheat sheets to the butt of the rifle to remind me of the +/-" (oldtimer's syndrome ). It is intended for hunting use and not a good choice for target shooting IMO. I don't think that it's intended to get you bang on at every hashmark for every caliber and bullet weight though. You'll still have to do your part at the range to find out how the hashmarks work with your rifle/bullet. Once you figure that out, accuracy for distance shooting in hunting situations becomes a whole lot quicker, easier and more consistent.

[elkhunter11]

I really like BDC recticles even if I have to tape cheat sheets to the butt of the rifle to remind me of the +/-" (oldtimer's syndrome ).

If I was going to depend on a cheat sheet, I might as well use turrets, and dial in the proper trajectory to eliminate the holdover. To me, the advantage of the Rapid Z system is speed, and not having to bother looking at cheat sheets or dialing in turrets.

[Jordan Smith]

The advantage of turrets is that you don't have to dial in your magnification

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If I was going to depend on a cheat sheet, I might as well use turrets, and dial in the proper trajectory to eliminate the holdover. To me, the advantage of the Rapid Z system is speed, and not having to bother looking at cheat sheets or dialing in turrets.

A funny thing happened today, I looked into the leupold CDS and now, because of this thread, I think that's what I'll be buying. No cheat sheets, no thinking involved, simple system. Set your reticle to 200yds and leave it. Your good to 300yds without worrying about where your hairs are at, and if it's 600 yds away just set your dial to 600yds and shoot. if you don't have time to set the dial when an animal is over 300yds away, it's time to leave the bear bells in camp.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

A funny thing happened today, I looked into the leupold CDS and now, because of this thread, I think that's what I'll be buying. No cheat sheets, no thinking involved, simple system. Set your reticle to 200yds and leave it. Your good to 300yds without worrying about where your hairs are at, and if it's 600 yds away just set your dial to 600yds and shoot. if you don't have time to set the dial when an animal is over 300yds away, it's time to leave the bear bells in camp.

It's a great turret system for sure but it is load and elevation specific although you can order additional turrets. Not as windage friendly as the Huskemaw but a nice system for sure.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

It's a great turret system for sure but it is load and elevation specific although you can order additional turrets. Not as windage friendly as the Huskemaw but a nice system for sure.

Its funny how at the start of this thread I had my mind set on a BDS, now I'm really looking at the CDS with a fire dot. Probably not the route for sheep, but I'm thinking it's right for what I need.

[Skinnydipper]

For what it's worth, I use the Leupold VX3 3.5-10x40 CDS on my sheep gun. It's relatively compact and a few ounces lighter than many of the alternatives mentioned.

[Jordan Smith]

My last sheep was killed at 400 yards with a Burris FFII Tactical 3-9x40 w/ BP reticle (dialed the elevation and windage correction into the turrets). You don't even need a Zeiss or Leup to kill sheep

[Skinnydipper]

..