Set me straight on scope sighting

[capitalcrew]

Just go shoot the damn thing haha.

 

[bman940]

A lot of positive information here. I am a big fan of Spot On and Nikon's BDC Reticle. Takes all the guess work out of holdover's for longrange shooting. I also like to sight in at 25 to 50 yards depending on what is available. After bore sighting getting on target is usually a snap. I can enter the distance I am shootign into Spot On and the zero distance I want for my impact and I'm good to go. Moving over to the 100 yard range just to verify my POI usually just involves 3 shots and I'm done. I also sight in on max magnification. Yes, POI does change with a SFP scope like the Nikon. They do have FFP option's now too. For shot's over 100 yards my scopes are on max magnification so no need to worry about impact changing with a decrease in magnification. I have been doing freelance Shooting Event's/PR work for Nikon for over 7 years now. I have taught a lot of BDC reticle haters how to put it all together with Spot On and changed their viewpoint. I do agree that it's not for everyone and guy's who shoot stationary targets at long range, dialing in your distance will give you great accuracy. But for hunters whose targets don't hang around that long the bDc sure makes it easy.

 

[Cleck]

@bman940 Thanks for the input. Nice to see another user who says it's easy to use, but not for everyone. Have you tried the wind gauge they have as an option for the Spot On? I'm intrigued by it and how it can accurately fill in the correct atmospheric conditions

You say the point of impact changes with the magnification, but how true are they to the values on your dope card? At 9x are you accurately hitting 230 yards with that first BDC? Or are you saying those are off? I guess I'm kinda confused by that, since why would it put those values in if they weren't correct

 

[meketrefe]

Think about this for a second...
when you change ammo and change locations and run your ballistics charts in what unit of measure do they come? MOA, MIL or nikon BDC?
the BDC is not a unit of measure therefore anything you do, you have to adjust to the mean value based on what you see and the represenation
of that custom BDC in terms of actual values like MOA, mil or whatever.
If this is not complicated enough a reticle in the second focal plane changes with magnification even very slightly so.
I thing for ~300 yards shots you could use whaever but if fine precise adjustment is needed find something in a standard unit of measure.
It is not like BDC cannot work but it is a lot more complex and prone to error. They are not designed for any precise adjustment.
perhaps a plex target scope with quality easy to read turrets and quality erector system will be less confusing.

Regarding the mounting of the scope one needs to make sure the bore and optical axis are parallel so nothing with a magnet, level, etc...
used at the scope/turrets level is going to assure accuracy. Esentially the turrets and scope itself migth not be true with the actual bore. So the best
thing is to get a borescope and masons plum or laser level and make sure we run a full range of correction in the vertical axis and it is true to that bore from one end to the other end.

Not very different than finding if the scope adjustment is actual true to what they advertise. Most people do not do a tracking test and
it is not that complex, at least to get you in the bulk park with a minimum amount of error.

With all that said, nikon are good value and good glass for an all terrain deer/hunting scope.

I hope this helps.

 

[Cleck]

Here's an interesting video I found:
Guy claims he talked to Nikon after a build and found that the BDC was set for a different bullet/rifle/etc. Each BDC was a MOA, btw. Other thing, not sure when he posted the video, but he doesn't address the fact that there is the Spot On software to do all of this now. Even with all of the stuff in the software, I don't see any gun information. No barrel twist, no manufacturer type/model, etc. I'm guessing that all matters, or is it the bullet more than the gun? This BDC will be same with the same ammo on my Savage than @NirvanaFan Remington 700?

 

[Snappo]

but that bdc is only dead on and useful for 1 specific setup. and chances are, the rifle you mount that scope to will not be an exact match to the setup. so now you have to do a bunch of testing, collect data and figure out what the BDC holds are actually good for, (which more often than not will be a bunch of oddball ranges), it is much easier to have a dope card that tells you how much drop you have at set increments, and how much wind affects your trajectory, as well as a scope with a standardized unit of measurement built into the reticle.

in your scenario of being told to hold over instead of adjusting the vertical turret, you have to consult with an app or dope card to figure out which bubble on the reticle you should use. with an moa or mil based reticle, you would simply hold on the hash mark that your spotter told you.

Oh I do that on ALL of my tack hammers. Don't let anyone ever tell you some chart on the internet or some phone application is the guaranteed truth. Seriously. I find changes in drop based on temperature and if a weather front is coming in (changes in barometric pressure and humidity). So I have a spreadsheet. I made one workbook for each rifle. I made columns for 100 through 600 yards. For each column I put my drop. For my rows I have the specific ammo and the temperature / weather. I forwarded my spreadsheet to my Galaxy Note which is like a big phone basically and easy to read.

But I have one rifle that's my "Go To" rifle in a zombie apocalypse because that's the only rifle I memorized and had forever (3 decades or so). It's a Remington 700 Police, which is the civilian equivalent of the M24 they trained us to shoot in USAF. That rifle only sees Lake City LR 168 gr. Lake City makes all the ammo for long range shooting for the USAF. So no matter what, I know exactly what that rifle is going to do in any condition. But like I said - the other 15 -20 or so long range rifles I have all have my custom spreadsheet I keep. The scope on my go-to rifle is set up exactly for the 168 grain LR Lake City and is the Springfield Armory Government Gen-4 scope. Internal level, shoulder marks so you can range a human target, and marked in 100 yard breakdowns from 200 yards (the zero) to 800 yards. So you range the target using the shoulder marks, then go to the proper target cross, and shoot. No matter what else I shoot I always shoot that rifle once a week minimum at 200 through 600 and religiously fill out my shot record book.

 

[Snappo]

I think the fact that you guys are spitting out all this info at this rate and I'm basically looking everything up means that I do not need a MIL/MOA reticle now and should probably be fine with a BDC until I learn more, understand it, and can explain why/how I understand it.

Absolutely. If you are ex military, use what you trained on. For USAF it was M16 (open iron) and M24 (glass) for me. For other branches it could be M24, M40, or maybe something else? Just use that one rifle so it remains muscle memory for the rest of your life. And yes, your brain is a muscle too! I have zero beef against BDC. The reason - I shoot 1 MOA click turret scopes and so I memorize the clicks and don't give a crap about anything but the center crosshair. I range the target, dope my clicks, and shoot. Who cares what fancy shit is in the reticle other than the center cross. I'm gonna get flamed by purists for saying that - but that's how I shoot and I don't feel I'm wrong. And since I own my own 600 yard range, I shoot like 250 or more days a year. It works for me, my body and brain are dialed in to that approach, and I do really tight and accurate groups at those distances. When I lived in GA, Fort Benning would let you up there on their 1,000 yard range on Wednesdays with your Military ID; so I know my go-to rifle is functional at 1,000 even though I only shoot daily at 600. Maybe my way of doing things won't fly at 2,000 or whatever; but I am not Carlos Hathcock or Chris Kyle.

 

[Snappo]

Here's an interesting video I found:
Guy claims he talked to Nikon after a build and found that the BDC was set for a different bullet/rifle/etc. Each BDC was a MOA, btw. Other thing, not sure when he posted the video, but he doesn't address the fact that there is the Spot On software to do all of this now. Even with all of the stuff in the software, I don't see any gun information. No barrel twist, no manufacturer type/model, etc. I'm guessing that all matters, or is it the bullet more than the gun? This BDC will be same with the same ammo on my Savage than @NirvanaFan Remington 700?

Yeah that absolutel matters and is also why I don't give much credence to that stuff. But from a hand held software perspective, the best is called "Shooter!" and I think I paid like $4 bucks back in the day? It works on all your phones and tablets and they all sync to each other via the internet. And that software cares about barrel length, how many inches from barrel center to scope center, altitude, humidity, temperature, upward/downward angle of target, longitude/latitude (for the coralis effect or however that's spelled), the ballistic coefficient of the bullet, the chron info for the bullet in fps, and the angle offset to longitude/latitude (since hunters are often 20 feet high in a tree stand and shooting downward at like 10 or more degrees).

 

[Snappo]

With all that said, nikon are good value and good glass for an all terrain deer/hunting scope.

I hope this helps.

I'm with you one thousand percent. I love the Nikon Prostaff and Monarch series. I have a pair of P223, an M308, a P300, and a Monarch hunting scope (not sure which unit but it's for big game and on top of my 338 WinMag). These Nikons really are a great product at an amazing price. I can get like 4 Nikons for the price of my one Leupold LR/T Illuminated. Four of them! If I knew about the quality of Nikon 20 years ago, I would own ONLY Nikon.

 

[dsdmmat]

Here's an interesting video I found:
Guy claims he talked to Nikon after a build and found that the BDC was set for a different bullet/rifle/etc. Each BDC was a MOA, btw. Other thing, not sure when he posted the video, but he doesn't address the fact that there is the Spot On software to do all of this now. Even with all of the stuff in the software, I don't see any gun information. No barrel twist, no manufacturer type/model, etc. I'm guessing that all matters, or is it the bullet more than the gun? This BDC will be same with the same ammo on my Savage than @NirvanaFan Remington 700?

The best thing to do is make a copy of the reticle go to the spot on and print out your specific BDC calculation, go to the range, shoot and correct the hold until it is true for your load and rifle, mark the paper copy with the true hold for your rifle load combo then tape it to the stock.

 

[meketrefe]

I made a little illustration to show why those mounting systems with levels that go on the turrets and barrel do not work. (see picture below)

I am exaggerating the angles for the purpose of illustration but to show how the only way to properly mount a scope is to make the vertical axis
true with the bore.
If we use a level on the top turret on the left then we are not doing anything because it is relative to the scope only. We are also assuming
the turret is true to the scope axis but that is a bad assumption so this cannot be used.
If we put a level on the barrel the barrel might be slightly off center something we will not be able to see with the naked eye but also something
not that unusual specially with factory rifles. If we put a level on the receiver it is the same problem because the receiver will not be true with the
barrel neither. Even the mount we put on the receiver might not be true and add or subtract to whatever angle/cant we have sideways.
By clamping a level to the barrel we also might not get a perfect center as there might be some run-out from the bore.
So the only way to do it is to make sure the bore and optical axis are true. This can be initially done with a laser sighter and masons plum or
finding a perfectly vertical line (it can be drawn on a target too) and then making sure we can travel the entire adjustment of the scope w/o
getting off center. Eventually we will see the same effect if we take a few shots walking the vertical line.

If we left the scope like on the left side example, then the scope might look leveled and true to the action but then when we go up and down
we will be introducing also deviations from the axis. Same ting with windage. So corrections will never be accurate.

Because these are very small variations most people will not notice in 200 or 300 yards but then in long range this setup will not work.

This is the most common problem I see with optics mounting. I think about 7 to 8 people out of 10 they do not have the scopes properly
installed.

I hope this makes sense. I think these things might be better explained in a video drawing some pictures.

 

[CarpNY]

BDC is not for take-your-time precision shooting. It's for quick adjustments for quick shots, when you don't have time to use a card or an app. Think more SPR/DMR/3-gun than sniper/competition (precision). They are useful if you tend to use (roughly) the same ammo and, for SFP, the same magnification (usually, the highest, but in theory one could determine and memorize the drops for any single magnification level that you leave it on.)

Say, for example, that you leave the scope above at 9x and have verified the ranges shown in the chart above for your ammo. Then, all you have to remember is that the top of circles are for (roughly) 200, 300, 400 and 500 yards, respectively. That's pretty easy to use, if you can estimate the actual range. For a little more precise range adjustment, the centers of those circles add 25 yards (i.e., the centers are for 225, 325, 425 and 525, give-or-take) and the bottoms of them add another 25 yards (i.e., 250, 350, 450 and 550, give-or-take.) Obviously, the numbers won't be that nice for every scope/ammo/mount combination, but if you can come up with a rough set that you can remembers, then there's very little extra time needed before taking a shot.

 

[Snappo]

I made a little illustration to show why those mounting systems with levels that go on the turrets and barrel do not work. (see picture below)

I am exaggerating the angles for the purpose of illustration but to show how the only way to properly mount a scope is to make the vertical axis
true with the bore.
If we use a level on the top turret on the left then we are not doing anything because it is relative to the scope only. We are also assuming
the turret is true to the scope axis but that is a bad assumption so this cannot be used.
If we put a level on the barrel the barrel might be slightly off center something we will not be able to see with the naked eye but also something
not that unusual specially with factory rifles. If we put a level on the receiver it is the same problem because the receiver will not be true with the
barrel neither. Even the mount we put on the receiver might not be true and add or subtract to whatever angle/cant we have sideways.
By clamping a level to the barrel we also might not get a perfect center as there might be some run-out from the bore.
So the only way to do it is to make sure the bore and optical axis are true. This can be initially done with a laser sighter and masons plum or
finding a perfectly vertical line (it can be drawn on a target too) and then making sure we can travel the entire adjustment of the scope w/o
getting off center. Eventually we will see the same effect if we take a few shots walking the vertical line.

If we left the scope like on the left side example, then the scope might look leveled and true to the action but then when we go up and down
we will be introducing also deviations from the axis. Same ting with windage. So corrections will never be accurate.

Because these are very small variations most people will not notice in 200 or 300 yards but then in long range this setup will not work.

This is the most common problem I see with optics mounting. I think about 7 to 8 people out of 10 they do not have the scopes properly
installed.

I hope this makes sense. I think these things might be better explained in a video drawing some pictures.


View attachment 6717

Excellent picture! I use that scope mounting kit I got from Weller Engineering on Midway. So they want you to put one level on the base, one on the top turret, and make sure both levels are perfectly the same. That's how I do it, and if I look at the vertical crosshair with the bolt removed my eye sees the hair pointing to the middle of the hole. Then I feel comfortable I did it right. Once I am done I permanently mount a level to the base. Those are like $15 and worth it. Here's the levels. I forget who makes them though. Maybe Badger? Not positive. I buy them a bunch at a time.

 

[meketrefe]

That is what I am trying to say, I think those will get you in the bulk park but in the end the ultimate test is using the bore as the only reference.
So you might want to walk the vertical line for the full extend of the adjustment lets say at 50 yards and make sure wherever
that bore lands you (projected poi) level the reticle with that vertical line on the target. The levels might say other thing but what is true or
not in the rifle it doesn't really matter. What is true between the bore and the optic axis is what really matters.
Some of these adjustments are unperceptible even to the bubble level that is a coarse type of measure anyway.
you can do this by using a bore sighter and a masons plum/laser plum or simply shooting but I think if you can clamp the rifle / barrel
so it will not move you can do an initial assessment that is going to be very close. Don't even need any levels on the rifle because
the bore on one side and the optical center will be your level in the perfectly vertical line on the target. Once you adjust up
and down you will see the vertical axis stays true with that line. The finer and more precise you can make it the better.
If you can get a solid target stand with a fine vertical line painted at 100 yards perfectly vertical, even better.
Then later you can do a tracking test taking a few shots in a large square pattern. you could use the same target to measure
the square in inches and projected POI in each corner for the mean adjustment in inches.

Another example, even if one had one of those offset scopes like a garand lets say 1" to the left one would want to make sure the elevation
axis is parallel to the bore and do not converge at any specific distance. In other words, if one shoots a small group to zero at 100
it should be expected 1" to the right that will be the same at 100, 200, etc... (lets assume no wind in theory)
But if we zero for same POI at 100 then at 200 the poi will be to 1" to the left at 200, 2" at 300 and so forth.
So no matter what situation we need to understand the position of the optical center and the vertical adjustment relative
to the actual bore, not even the barrel matters.

A lot of people are not going to care for average use but if you wan the satisfaction to prove yourself that you have the
scope leveled for any distance then it is just another step to perhaps understanding the actual possibilities of the system
vs. imposing some limitations due to errors, even if those are minor.

I think I need to put a few more slides or a video with better pictures otherwise this gets a bit hard to explain.

 

[Cleck]

Jesus, lots of information here to take in. Glad I didn't wait til Tuesday when I got back into work to check. This is becoming a comprehensive scope thread, lol. I like it though, even if I don't understand it all. I do understand what @CarpNY said though in the points that once I find what ammo I like the best, I'll most likely be using that all the time. Might take a few tries, but once I find one that fits the gun and my wallet, I'm gonna stick w/ it.

It was brought up about height, so I have another question - when getting a new scope, do you buy new rings or reuse the old ones? The new scope has the same tube diameter and objective diameter. The only thing I don't know is the eye relief. Obviously, you want the scope as close to the rifle as possible, and the one that came with this was mounted very close, there is little room for error. So, would you trust these existing rings or do some research into the height of the supplied ones and match new ones to the scope?

 

[Snappo]

Jesus, lots of information here to take in. Glad I didn't wait til Tuesday when I got back into work to check. This is becoming a comprehensive scope thread, lol. I like it though, even if I don't understand it all. I do understand what @CarpNY said though in the points that once I find what ammo I like the best, I'll most likely be using that all the time. Might take a few tries, but once I find one that fits the gun and my wallet, I'm gonna stick w/ it.

It was brought up about height, so I have another question - when getting a new scope, do you buy new rings or reuse the old ones? The new scope has the same tube diameter and objective diameter. The only thing I don't know is the eye relief. Obviously, you want the scope as close to the rifle as possible, and the one that came with this was mounted very close, there is little room for error. So, would you trust these existing rings or do some research into the height of the supplied ones and match new ones to the scope?

Only time I keep scope rings for re-use is if they are worth re-using. I use serial numbered scopes from Badger Ordnance so the front is matched to the back by the machinist, or I buy a one-piece unit from Nikon that was designed for a specific scope they sell. To me it isn't worth it to buy cheap parts when great parts aren't a whole ton more money. For example - crappy rings at Herb Philipsons or Gander Mountain might run you about $40. But going to serial numbered rings for $90 seems like a really good use for the extra $50. Same with a scope. I won't buy cheap glass for $100 at Walmart when really good glass on MidwayUSA is about $350. The extra $250 means I have a weapon I can shoot for the rest of my life and give to my children when I die. Same with the rifle too. I buy a Remington 700 for the extra $100 rather than the all-in-one Remington 770 where I cannot change the trigger or the floor plate. And with regard to triggers, I buy Timney 510's that I can own forever and move from one rifle to the next for $150 rather than a cheap trigger group for $50 or $75. IMHO it's easy to build a 0.25 MOA to 0.5 MOA rifle for about $900 to $1,100 that you can own for 100 years or more and will never be anything but a perfect tack hammer; versus buying a $400 Walmart special that you won't want to use more than a hunting season or two before moving up to something more long term.

 

[Cleck]

Ok, so how do I determine what rings I need then? Nikon sells two different versions - ones specifically designed for lighter guns (which I heard the Axis is) and ones that are 3x more expensive.

Do I just measure the space between the tube and rail/top of the barrel, spaces between the relief and objective to the barrel or, just measure the height of the rings, if the new scope is the same size?

 

[meketrefe]

Ideally you order the rings after you order the scope so you can measure the ideal position for your scope based
on your body size, ergonomics, etc....
If you have old rings already you can use those to get an idea unless you don't plan to take them out the old scope.

These popular compensating reticles are not the fastest way to adjust for a shot. They are a way to simplify
things with an acceptable margin of error withing the average range but in reality one can achieve the same by holding
on the target. A scope with a stadia design and subtensions in common unit of measures like MOA or Miliradians (ideally in
a front focal plane) is a much easier way to adjust for any shot under any condition given the person knows the distance
and the trajectory otherwise in some situations it will become much harder to properly adjust.

Lets say a typical 308 with a 150gr bullet will give you a point blank range of 260yards that in a mil dot scope is within
1/2 mil that at those distances means a max variation of 1.8" maximum at any distance than in practical terms it means
a dead deer or elk anyway. For 300 yards I would not need anything and possibly while plain plex scopes are still very popular today.
It is only past 350 yards and then 500 where you see the value of having a meaningful unit of measure.

regarding the eye relief it changes from one person to another since we all have different set of eyes. The first thing
will be to adjust the ocular piece and then you can adjust height and proper ergonomics and eye relief.

Check out this thread @MilesTeg started where we posted some information and reference videos you might
find useful...

Hunting Rifle

 

[Snappo]

Ok, so how do I determine what rings I need then? Nikon sells two different versions - ones specifically designed for lighter guns (which I heard the Axis is) and ones that are 3x more expensive.

Do I just measure the space between the tube and rail/top of the barrel, spaces between the relief and objective to the barrel or, just measure the height of the rings, if the new scope is the same size?

Hey - that's more than one question!
Question 1) There are two types of long rifles - standard and magnum. What I put on a 308 <> what I put on my 338 WinMag for example. The magnum rounds have more recoil and need heavier scopes and rings. You asked about Nikon. If you bought a Nikon Prostaff or Monarch (those start with an M or a P, like a P308, etc) then you can get the matched one-piece ring. But be forewarned - I only was willing to put the M-223 integral base on my AR with the P-223 scope. It is a 2-bolt design and I use 4 bolt and 6 bolt rings fairly exclusively. Here's the rings my rifles see: Scope Rings

Question 2) Now this is the question that's most important. The closer a riflescope is to a barrel, the more inherently accurate it becomes. You do not want your scope to touch the barrel, and in fact I like to see about a half inch of room between the scope and the barrel so the heat of the barrel doesn't reach the scope objective surface. But closer is better, so do not have the scope an inch or two away from the barrel surface. If you measure the center of the scope to the outer frame of the scope, you should have a darn good idea just how big the offset is of the ring. Most manufacturers say "low, medium, high, extra high" but Badger Ordnance tells you the offsets in thousandths of an inch.

Question 3) Stuff I own that can be used for everything, from my guns to my woodshop to my vehicle tools set. A really nice caliper is about $50. Maybe less. I have both analog dial and digital dial. I prefer analog, but in bright light I kind of like the digital LCD better. And Analog is either metric or standard, so I have both. Six inch digitals at Wally World are $30. Lowes has them too, as does Home Depot. I always make sure I buy one in a nice wooden box. 6" Digital Caliper Large - Walmart.com

 

[MilesTeg]

Ok, so how do I determine what rings I need then? Nikon sells two different versions - ones specifically designed for lighter guns (which I heard the Axis is) and ones that are 3x more expensive.

Do I just measure the space between the tube and rail/top of the barrel, spaces between the relief and objective to the barrel or, just measure the height of the rings, if the new scope is the same size?

Check out my hunting rifle thread the last few posts are on ring section. Meke linked in some cheap ones. I also have a picture of me measuring the height needed for the rings.

 

[Cleck]

A lot of stuff

I actually still have my BluePoint calipers from when I worked on cars, I just need a battery for them. Still was able to use them last night to determine that I have a 1" tube. The corresponding Nikon mounts are $20 for the "lighter" rifles, so I'm guessing those would be ok since I'm not shooting 338, and they're probably an upgrade from what came with the Bushnell scope.

@MilesTeg Thanks man, I'll take a look and see what we get.

 

[prambo]

Admin - PLEASE PIN THIS THREAD - I'll need it when the spring thaw arrives and the range is more accessible, and I won't freeze my 'nads off.

Boo-coo good info here!

 

[meketrefe]

Check out my hunting rifle thread the last few posts are on ring section. Meke linked in some cheap ones. I also have a picture of me measuring the height needed for the rings.

I think we found a bunch of videos and posted there. did you find those useful to some degree or another?
I feel we should make a video or few slides about all this. It is just so much work ...but in the end we are spending a lot of time
in the threads back and forth anyway. .. I guess the main thing is that people truly understand the process and why.

 

[MilesTeg]

I think we found a bunch of videos and posted there. did you find those useful to some degree or another?
I feel we should make a video or few slides about all this. It is just so much work ...but in the end we are spending a lot of time
in the threads back and forth anyway. .. I guess the main thing is that people truly understand the process and why.

For the most part the videos and discussion I thought have made a clear process. I have actually been surprised there haven't been many sidebars, secondary questions and spin off in my thread. We have covered a wide range of topics that are applicable to many people's rifles. I think we will definitely need a video on actually mounting the scope when the rings come it.

 

[meketrefe]

For the most part the videos and discussion I thought have made a clear process. I have actually been surprised there haven't been many sidebars, secondary questions and spin off in my thread. We have covered a wide range of topics that are applicable to many people's rifles. I think we will definitely need a video on actually mounting the scope when the rings come it.

You are right. I was surprised some people even questioning why doing some of these simple things. I guess it is a lot easier to put together an average unpredictable shooting system than a good reliable one.

 

[Snappo]

You are right. I was surprised some people even questioning why doing some of these simple things. I guess it is a lot easier to put together an average unpredictable shooting system than a good reliable one.

Some day maybe you could do a youtube where the scope is in the original box, as is the base, the mounts, the wheeler engineering scope kit, and an analog standard caliber (or a digital set to standard). I can do the filming on my Nikon D7200 (though I don't know what max time is for video). I have the original boxes for everything except maybe the Remington 700. For the rifle bench I use my Led Sled, unless you have something better. How-to videos are so beneficial to folks who want to see and not read how to do something. Some folks are more visual.

 

[Cleck]

You are right. I was surprised some people even questioning why doing some of these simple things. I guess it is a lot easier to put together an average unpredictable shooting system than a good reliable one.

To be honest, I'm just behind on the thread. I need to catch up. I'd hate to be asking questions in here that you've addressed there, though I hope this is a slightly different topic, although it's just becoming more scope-centric in general.

 

[meketrefe]

To be honest, I'm just behind on the thread. I need to catch up. I'd hate to be asking questions in here that you've addressed there, though I hope this is a slightly different topic, although it's just becoming more scope-centric in general.

I suggest go to miles thread too and watch those videos if you can.

 

[MilesTeg]

To be honest, I'm just behind on the thread. I need to catch up. I'd hate to be asking questions in here that you've addressed there, though I hope this is a slightly different topic, although it's just becoming more scope-centric in general.

Your BDC scope was unique from mine. There's always going to be cross over information on forums so now worries there. I have to admit I am surprised that more people did input opinions all the way up through the thread.

 

[Cleck]

I think I just wanted to know that it would work for a starting out distance shooter. It might not be perfect, but I think it's a good way to get started. I don't have to learn all the math right away, but I can learn it as I go out, shooting 1-300 yards, as I work out farther than that and up to actual MOA/mRAD adjustments. Once I can understand the math and prove it, then I can ditch the BDC and move to a mildot or at the very least, a BDC with windage, like Nikon offers:

Technically, Vortex offers a BDC, just with hashmarks instead of dots/circles.

How-to videos are so beneficial to folks who want to see and not read how to do something. Some folks are more visual.

I'm a very visual learner. I try to read about the application first, then I look for visual examples to connect the dots for me.

Oh, someone said the BDC is useless if the scope I'm looking at has a "return to zero" function with the turrets, which this does. I checked one out the other day at F&S, they're spring loaded, just pull on it after clicking the adjustment, then return to zero. I'm guessing that's great for locking in zero, so you know where to start adjustments from for additional yardage?