Riflescope for sheep hunting: multi crosshair reticles

[elkhunter11]

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?

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

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.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

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]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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/storef...rod186588.html


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

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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).

Originally Posted by sheephunter

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks for opening up and sharing

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.

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

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

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]

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

[Jordan Smith]

I'm pretty sure I've said that from the very beginning. The problem is that that "defined group" doesn't include some VERY commonly used scope/cartridge/load combinations...

[Kurt505]

KD Lange?

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

I'm pretty sure I've said that from the very beginning. The problem is that that "defined group" doesn't include some VERY commonly used scope/cartridge/load combinations...

And I think I said from the beginning, use the appropriate reticle as specified by Zeiss or buy another brand. You were the one that kept pointing out that the wrong reticle didn't work. I wasn't surprised. Kinda like putting that 25-06 shell in the 30-06.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

KD Lange?

Ooops, put an errant "e" on the end. KD Lang

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ooops, put an errant "e" on the end. KD Lang

I wasn't aware there was a spelling error there, but I think there is a man card violation in order.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I wasn't aware there was a spelling error there, but I think there is a man card violation in order.

Ah, she does a mean version of Hallelujah!

[209x50]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ah, she does a mean version of Hallelujah!

She couldn't carry Lenny's lunch for him!

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

Thanks for opening up and sharing

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.

The atmospheric conditions creates errors with any aiming system.

Originally Posted by 209x50

She couldn't carry Lenny's lunch for him!

I don't know man, she has the voice of an angel. A butch, lesbian, vegan angel mind you but an angel nonetheless. You gotta admit the girl...errr whatever she is...can sing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_NpxTWbovE

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by 209x50

The atmospheric conditions creates errors with any aiming system.

Exactly, so why add more error by using an inexact aiming point? Holding the 818 yard hash mark for an 800 yard shot introduces more error than is already present.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

Exactly, so why add more error by using an inexact aiming point? Holding the 818 yard hash mark for an 800 yard shot introduces more error than is already present.

Or you can simply move your zero to 235 yards and move the 8 hash mark to impact at 804 yards. A scope with .25 Moa clicks still means that each click is 2" at 800 yards. Neither system can be exactly precise but still well with in killing parameters.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Either that or you could use the correct reticle

So the angular substensions on the RZ800, which you say is the "correct reticle" for that application, are different from 200-600 yards than they are on the RZ600?

What are the differences, specifically?

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Or you can simply move your zero to 235 yards and move the 8 hash mark to impact at 804 yards. A scope with .25 Moa clicks still means that each click is 2" at 800 yards. Neither system can be exactly precise but still well with in killing parameters.

Yessir, that would get the job done.

I'd rather have the 800 yard hash mark be zero'd for 800 yards, and have 3-4" of error at 400 or 500 yards, than be right on at 400 or 500 yards and have 8" of error at 800. What you suggested here is the way I would do it if I were using a reticle for hitting game out to 800 yards.

[HunterDave]

I just read through the last page of this thread and I gotta say either I'm thinking too simplistic or you guys are WAY over thinking this shooting with a BDC recticle thingy. Offhand, I can't remember how the hash marks varied one way or the other with my Rapid Z600 on my '06 but I do know that when I put them on target I'll hit the gong out to 500 yds. As far as I'm concerned, at those distances, or any distance for that matter, as long as it hits the gong it'd be in the kill zone and I'd have a dead animal. The only place that it'd make any difference is if you were taking head shots.

I'm looking at my plex chart for my Burris Fullfield II and for my 7-08 with a 140gr bullet the hash marks zero'd at 100 yds are: 200 - 0, 300 - +1", 400 - 0 and 500 - +1. Now, I'd have to confirm that's what it actually is but saying that it is correct, in a hunting situation does 1" either way really make a difference. 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?

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

So the angular substensions on the RZ800, which you say is the "correct reticle" for that application, are different from 200-600 yards than they are on the RZ600?

What are the differences, specifically?

I think you answered your own question in post 236 if I understand what you are asking correctly.

From post 236

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,

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I just read through the last page of this thread and I gotta say either I'm thinking too simplistic or you guys are WAY over thinking this shooting with a BDC recticle thingy. Offhand, I can't remember how the hash marks varied one way or the other with my Rapid Z600 on my '06 but I do know that when I put them on target I'll hit the gong out to 500 yds. As far as I'm concerned, at those distances, or any distance for that matter, as long as it hits the gong it'd be in the kill zone and I'd have a dead animal.

I'd have to agree.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I'd have to agree.

I kind of figured something like that. I guess that you guys were just passing the time.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I just read through the last page of this thread and I gotta say either I'm thinking too simplistic or you guys are WAY over thinking this shooting with a BDC recticle thingy. Offhand, I can't remember how the hash marks varied one way or the other with my Rapid Z600 on my '06 but I do know that when I put them on target I'll hit the gong out to 500 yds. As far as I'm concerned, at those distances, or any distance for that matter, as long as it hits the gong it'd be in the kill zone and I'd have a dead animal. The only place that it'd make any difference is if you were taking head shots.

I'm looking at my plex chart for my Burris Fullfield II and for my 7-08 with a 140gr bullet the hash marks zero'd at 100 yds are: 200 - 0, 300 - +1", 400 - 0 and 500 - +1. Now, I'd have to confirm that's what it actually is but saying that it is correct, in a hunting situation does 1" either way really make a difference. 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?

Out to 500 yards either system works great.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I kind of figured something like that. I guess that you guys were just passing the time.

Where we're you 240ish posts ago?

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think you answered your own question in post 236 if I understand what you are asking correctly.

From post 236

No, what I'm asking is whether or not the 200-600 yard hash marks on the RZ600 use the same substensions as the RZ800. Refer to the chart I posted of the RZ600 above. Does the RZ800 also use a 300 yard mark that is 2MOA below the center line, 400 yard mark that is 4.3MOA below, 500 yard mark that is 7.16MOA below center, etc? Or are the markings up to 600 yards arranged at different intervals in the RZ800?

This is obviously assuming each respective scope is set on max magnification.

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

No, what I'm asking is whether or not the 200-600 yard hash marks on the RZ600 use the same substensions as the RZ800. Refer to the chart I posted of the RZ600 above. Does the RZ800 also use a 300 yard mark that is 2MOA below the center line, 400 yard mark that is 4.3MOA below, 500 yard mark that is 7.16MOA below center, etc? Or are the markings up to 600 yards arranged at different intervals in the RZ800?

I'm guessing this is a rhetorical question? I honestly don't know.