$500 scope?

I don't have a high budget a this point but looking for a new scope for my 308. Is there something better for $500 than Nikon m308?

I was looking at a Open box Minox ZA 5 HD 5-25x56 SF TAC from CameraLandNY for $549 yesterday

Just 4oz heavier than the Nikon, with a lot more range and an illuminated TAC reticle.

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/minox.pl?page=minox_66475

Vortex on sale at SWFA


http://swfa.com/Vortex-6-24x50-Viper-HS-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P78643.aspx

Wow. Buy this scope.

You'll are recommending a long range scope without asking how he intends to use it? Gravytrain how to you intend to use the scope. If, it's for hunting, where and how do you hunt? How far do you shoot? Is it strictly a for big game? Do you dial elevation and windage adjustments?

I'm with nsmike. If the OP is a deer/pig/coyote hunter, he won't need turrets to twist, unless he just wants them. Inside 400 yards or so, turrets aren't needed. That said, I have a Vortex PST FFP on my number one hunting gun. Fine scope.

The hs is the hunter series. I believe all the turrets are capped, and that's an MoA scope. Magnification range could be too large for him though.

How are corrections made at 400 without an adjustable turret, or a reticle that allows precise holdovers and holdoffs?

Jeff, how precise do you need to be? Let's say you have a 270 with a 130 grainer going 3000 fps. Sight it in at 200 and you'll be down 7 inches at 300 and 20 inches at 400 (and 40 at 500). With my 220 and a 55 gr bullet at 3800, when on at 200, the drop is 5 inches at 300 and 15 at 400. And it's similar for my 223 with the 40 grain Nosler BT's. I don't need turrets or BDC dots for Deer, pigs, or coyotes out to 400, but that approach won't work for target shooting and prairie dogs.

I put the Viper PST FFP on my 260 for use out past 400, and I did shoot a pig at 500. Worked fine, but shooting at that range is rare for me. More common is like when I shot a nice 9 point this past season. I was minding my own business up in the blind when I saw movement way off to my right. Put the binocs up and wow, there was the big guy I'd been waiting for. Distance was about 175 yards. He was at a fast walk and about to go into heavy brush. I had seconds to make the shot or pass. I brought the 260 up (8 power is where I usually leave it), got the crosshairs right behind the shoulder and squeezed the trigger just an instant before he walked behind some brush. From the time I saw him to the time the bullet flew might have been 5 or 6 seconds. Maybe 7 or 8. But the point is that there was no time to be fiddling with turrets. And just like on that deer, one of the largest I've ever shot was at 268 yards on a pipeline ROW years ago. It all comes down to seconds sometimes. Many of the deer and varmints I've shot would have allowed time for turret twirling, so I'm not saying turrets are bad. I'm just saying that if the OP is a hunter who keeps his shots under 300 or 400 yards, turrets aren't really required. But for true precision (prairie dog head at 400), they would be good to have. I wouldn't be able to make the shot without turrets and there's still a significant chance that I'd miss even using the turrets.

Whay about making precise (not inches and yards) holds by only using the reticle?

How far can one RELIABLY make a first round, cold bore shot on a paper plate not using a bench? That is my answer.






Better shot placement is always better.

Relying on maximum point blank range and guesswork is more likely to produce a miss, or worse wound the animal.

With respect to your example, I just ran a 270 with 130 grain Nosler Partition at 3,000 fps. Drop is 6.25 MOA or 26" at 400 yards. Even with the higher bc Berger bullet, drop is still 6 MOA or 24.5".

So trying to put this politely, that sounds like a miss, or worse shot off leg, if the assumption was 20". Also, how would one correct for even 20" or 26" of drop without adjustable turrets or an appropriate reticle? How would a correction for 10 mph of wind be made and added to the elevation correction? Wind would be 1.75 MOA = 7" of windage correction required.

Add in that good hunting type ammo is probably about 1 MOA under good conditions, but more like double that under field conditions in the cold with a tired shooter with stiff muscles and tired eyes. All of the sudden the typical 270 with typical hunting ammo and a 3x9 hunting scope with duplex reticle would be relying on guesswork and luck to hit a deer at 400 yards. For the animal's sake, I strive for better.

Eliminating as much guesswork as possible reduces the chance of a wounding and ups the likelihood of DRT.

FJG, obviously we both know that the right reticles can work very well, which is why I included it in my post. Once holding over for elevation, then also holding for wind becomes challenging unless one is using a Horus or similar reticle.

So, dialing elevation, and then holding wind on the horizontal axis is my usual preference.

Your right, it depends most on how he's going to use.

Since he settled in on 4-16, I figured he had that figured out and 5-25 would
be better in most cases. But in hunting under 75 yards or so, you really do need a decent low end.
The difference between 3x and 5x is vast when the targets are to close.

Always an interesting debate.

My .270 Win., 270 WSM, .300 Win. Mag., and .300 WSM are all sighted in 3" high at 100 yards. Happily, with the loads I use in each they have very similar ballistics out to 400 yards. So much so that I can hold dead on anywhere from 0 to 300 and 16-18" high at 400 and kill any animal with the standard heart/lung shot I prefer.

Is it as precise as dialing and/or using a busy reticle? No. But no animal I kill would be any deader had I used a more complex scope.

But why not use the more complex scopes anyway and gain some precision? It's a fair question. My reasons:

1)It takes time to dial. It takes time to pick out the proper reticle in a "busy" scope. A few seconds can mean the difference between getting an animal or not.

2)Weight/ergonomics. All else being equal, a standard scope is lighter and much less cumbersome-both of which are important to me.

I absolutely see the requirements of the precision provided by larger complex scopes at ranges beyond 400 yards. For normal hunting ranges, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages for me.

As for power, I used to think 3-9x is plenty. But, thanks to advancements in design, variables up to 14/16x are now both lighter and trimmer than they used to be. I will soon be replacing an older Leupold 36mm 2.5-8x with a new 40mm 4.5-14x on my .300 WSM. An ever-so-slightly larger profile and about 3 more ounces. Well worth it for the added magnification.

As is mine. I do practice holding both for speed's sake. But if I have time to range I have time to dial.

For some one looking for advice I like to prequalify my answer and make sure I'm anwering the right question. I'm not willing to assume that an M308 is correct without asking. An m308 might be workable but if you assume it's correct you might then make a recommendation that doesn't work. Like you mentioned 4x might work OK at shorter range and 6x not at all. It could be that a 2x10 is the perfect answer, you just don't know, without asking.

That's how I'm set-up even with turrets. Can cover a broad range when a split second decision is needed. Can also check 100yd zero on a certain rifle and forget to set it back to 300 before giving it back to that person to go hunt with...


Scope of preference is the vx iii 4.5-14x40 in that price range and FWIW, they never come of 14x.

Jeff, thanks for trying to be polite. My math, using a Nosler 130 gr BT at 3000 fps shows, if on at 200, down 6.7 at 300 and down 19.4 at 400. So I rounded off. Big deal. And if you can't adjust your elevation at 300 or 400 to kill a whitetail, then I guess you do need turrets. I've been adjusting elevation and windage without turrets for about 50 years. It's only out past 400 that things get real tricky on elevation. And I never had a rangefinder till the last 6 or 8 years. I pick my shots and pass on the ones that look too tough. Not all,of us need turrets for hunting. For paper punching and real precision, I'd go with the turrets. Plenty of time if the paper isn't moving too fast.

Still, if you're guessing on distance or range the distance, say 300. Hold over 1.0 Mil, that would be the first dot, hash mark or diamond below center of the reticle. 400? Hold 1.8.

350? Hold the difference, 1.4

No inches of hold, no scope "sees" in inches. Only Mil or MOA.

Sure Fireman, I understand what you are saying. Makes perfect sense. But all those years and hundreds of deer tell me that the other way works too. And like I said to Jeffbird earlier in this chat, it all comes down to how much precision is desired or required. I would rarely take a shot at a deer out past about 300 yards these days. I don't need the meat and I don't want a wounded deer. But, at 300 I'm pretty much solid gold at hitting what I want to hit, using a blind windowsill as a rest. Longest offhand shot on a deer was 450, using the 270 and holdover, while using the sling as shown in the USMC. I wouldn't try that shot these days, but back then my cousin was standing there giving me lip about the deer being too far for me. That shut him up. It's the coyote hunting that takes more precision on my place. Out around 350 or 400 and further, the hold-over gets tough on something that small. That's why I put the Viper PST on the all-purpose 260. And I think I'll leave it there. I do like the added precision, to be accessed as needed.

And, by the way, I really liked your suggestion about putting markers on the elevation turret for various yardages. Great suggestion.

I respect your decades of experience. But when I have shooters come to my range and see 2 MOA, and 1 MOA steel targets every hundred to 800, how would I tell them how to hit those without hard numbers? I cant expect them to hit with me saying "hold your best guess of 10.8 inches above that 300 yard plate". Instead I say dial up 1.0 Mil and hold two tenths left of center.

And if I was doing that, I would use turrets. Again, it goes back to how much precision the specific shooting discipline requires. To do what you do, I'd need similar gear. To do what I do, at least to 300 yards or so, your gear is overkill (no pun intended).

You do do what I do. And that is kill things to 400 yards. I also do it a bit farther. Having a Mil scope I dont see how anyone could learn to use one, become proficient, like yourself, and accept anythig less.

Vital zone on a deer 8"? That's my number. And that is the size of my big target at 400 yards. Believe me, everyone has missed it.

Let's say that I'm still in the transition phase of going from what I used to do and still mostly do (the holdover method) to using the turrets. I've gone back and forth on which method to use, and there are times when each seems best. I've considered meeting in the middle and setting the zero at 200. That would let me use holdover when I want, but then use the turrets out past that. I might try that out.

The turrets are more for the long pig and coyote shots. I'm still going to keep the deer shots sort of close (where close is 300 yards or less). Going back to when I was a kid, 150 yards was a long ways. Then it moved to 200 yards, then further and further. I've considered trying some long range shooting, like some of you guys do, but I can't seem to get excited about it. But, this spring I'll set up to shoot at 500 out in the pasture. Maybe that'll make me want to go further out. We'll see.

Apparently beating around the bush is not getting through.

Let me state it this way: I have killed animals out to and past 300 yards for over 40 years. The last time I missed or wounded a game animal that it was important to me that I kill I was 17 years old. (I am excluding pot shots at yotes and hogs which are vermin to me). That's a pot-load of animals.

The duplex reticle has never handicapped me. Not once. Zero. Nada.
But is HAS helped me several times by allowing me to get my rifle up and put an animal down quickly. Animals that I would have not gotten with just a second or two's hesitation that dialing and/or doping and/or picking a reticle would have meant. Sometimes "less" is more. See?

So, for me, my way is better. In fact, because dead is dead, because anyone can also learn to become animal-killing proficient with a duplex scope at 400 and under, and because it is faster, IMO it is better for everyone since killing animals (not precision shooting) is the goal of hunting.

Again, shooting mentality vs. hunting mentality. There is a difference. The shooter's mentality can be a huge positive asset at range. An indispensable asset, in fact. But it can also be a lot of complicated and unnecessary baggage within distances most would consider normal hunting ranges.

603, using a 200 yard zero, those numbers are correct. I use a 100 yard zero as that is the distance of the majority of my shots, and the vast majority occur within 200 yards. I want my shots to be as precise as possible, even at 100 yards. If the less likely - and rarer - shot occurs, then I adjust for that as needed rather than decreasing the precision and reliability of the most likely shots.

NP, I have great respect for you personally and as a hunter, but I respectfully disagree. Shooting proficiency is one of the skills of the hunter. Better shooting skills benefit the hunter and the animal. Betters skills increase the reliability of the shot, and thus the likelihood of avoiding the animal suffering as we have read about in the other thread you started.

603 really asked the key question, what level of precision is needed?

For me, I believe that we as hunters owe the animals the best we can do to make clean kills - the best, not just ok and not SWAG's or hoping the shot will work. That is my sentiment at all distances, and has nothing to do with long range shooting. DRT certainly does not always occur for me, but I strive and train to make it a reality as best as I reasonably can.

So that is my perspective.

Ok dont dial. There that's settled.

What power 9? 12? 14? Fine, leave it on that power.

Want to hold elevation like a duplex, for speed's sake? Good, do that, and you would have known points of hold on the reticle.

You contradicting yourself by saying you're proficient with a duplex at killing to 400 yards, then saying there is a shooter's mentality versus a hunter's mentality. So is that to suggest you have not practiced shooting those distances on anything but live animals? As jeffbird mentioned we're after quick kills and not guesses. And the best way to do that is to learn the elevation and wind corrections and then practice them prior to the hunt.

This is always an interesting conversation. We just end up talking past one another.

I didn't see anything in what I wrote that said shooting skills are not important. To emphasize that fact (and at the risk of being accused of boasting), Iaid out my personal experience with killing animals. I am not a poor shot. I kill what I shoot at. I owe it to the animal to kill it quickly-and I do that. I do not owe it a surgically precise shot-I owe it a killing shot. I don't want to fool with anything busy or complex-that's why I don't do long range shots. Simple reticles have been around over 100 years. They work fine.

Same debate every other week.

I said my part. I'm done with it.

Which goes back to shooting flat as possible 0-500 instead of lobbing a poorly designed hunting bullet.

Quit trolling me. Thats ten miles of bad road we've already been down.

I wanted to make sure it went complete circle.

The reason we go down it JG is we laud your skill and readily admit the necessity of all that goes with it-at range.
Simply put (even though we acknowledge our limitations), your replies are always that those of us who don't do it your way are somehow lacking. So there's pushback.

I have had more than one grizzled guide tell me that the hunter he doesn't worry about is the one with a well-worn rifle and a simple scope, and the guys that scare him are the ones that pull out the Gunwerks/Huskemaws.

Would that be unfair to a man with your skill set? Yes. But there is a reason they feel that way.

You mentioned coming to my range for the class. Bring your duplex, hit the steel to 400 or 500. Then we're gonna pull your scope off and put one of mine on your rifle. Betcha $5 you'll leave a believer. EVERYONE has.

I have repeatedly said I would benefit from your class to hopefully extend my range.
But, for all the reasons I have given, I am not going to change my setup to do it. If that's a dealbreaker-so be it. I'm sure I would be a "believer" that your scope is better for more precise hits on paper. But I will never dial a scope. I will never have a piece of paper taped on my stock. I will never have more than one crosswire in my scope.

I know that will probably keep me around 400 and under with my shots. I'm OK with that. As with my ram, I'd rather shoot at 220 than 520 anyway-no matter what equipment is available.

I don't really know how to answer the "practice" question. I had a .22 on up in my hand practically every day from about age 10 until I discovered girls. Been killing deer and yotes and pigs since I was 7. Admittedly, not much bench/paper target time. But I would posit my "practice" has benefited me way more for hunting than a bunch of bench time would have. (Can I get closer? What's the animal likely to do? Where is he headed? Wind? Cover for a stalk? Ad infinitum...) For shooting at paper? Not as much.

And IMO there is no contradiction. I am either proficient with a duplex or I have had the luck of the Irish for over 40 years.

NP, it is interesting to find that since we aren't diehard turret crankers, we can't be good shots. I was taught by my grandfather, who was a fabulous shot with rifle or shotgun, and was a rifle and machine gun instructor in WWI. When I got to the USMC rifle training, they told me exactly the same thing that my granddad had. I grew up with a BB gun and then to a 22 at around 10 years old. I'd pack my jeans pockets with 22 shorts, longs, or LR and walk down to the Mississippi River and shoot Blackbirds and sparrows all day long. No telling how many thousands of rounds I went through, or tens of thousands. I've always been a shooter. Then on to deer hunting with my old 35 Remington. I once dropped 3 running deer in about 10 seconds with that lever gun. When I moved on to the 270, it just extended my range. And now I have a turreted scope. I can see the possibilities for much greater precision, though I haven't fully utilized it yet. As I've mentioned before, my motivation for getting turrets were the coyotes at 500 yards, who used to be out of range.

Nothing wrong with new technology. I can see how the new scope can make me more effective at distance. My Dad would have scoffed at turrets, but I think Granddad would have said "Hmmm, let me see that".

OP ever get his answer

You're still ignoring the fact that I threw out turrets. No turning.

Having a Mil or MOA reticle is not busy, I assure you. It will however give you points in the reticle to hold for distance which yiu are doing anyway but with a smooth reticle, and a "close enough" shot. Dont want DOPE on the side, fine, memorize it. Its very easy. In fact the corrections for 400 and in are the same for a loooong list of cartridges.

200 yards .4
300 yards 1.0
400 yards 1.8

I can buy that. I know that if everything is calm and settled with plenty of time it will help me. I still hesitate for three reasons:
1)the added time factor of having to pick the right reticle;
2)the added "busy-ness" of multiple reticles confusing me (I have heard more than one guy say they have shot the wrong reticle in the heat of the moment); and
3)more lines=less clear field of view.

That last one needs some explaining. I killed a buck this past year that was wary and with a doe. He would stay back in the woods until the doe crossed the field-and then run across the field and get back in the woods. He did this 3 times. Finally, he stopped for a second with his vitals exposed in about a 6 inch hole in the brush. I centered the crosshairs in the hole and killed him. Having nothing but two crosshairs let me center that hole quickly-I think having more lines across the bottom crosshair would have made centering on that hole more difficult. I just think simpler is better.

I am old, but I do consider all technology that I think may benefit me-and adopt it. (I bought a mechanical rangefinder before the battery ones even came on the market.) I like to think I am open minded.

But you may think I am just old, set in my ways, and don't want to change what has worked for me. And you may be right.

Why do you keep saying "pick the right reticle" Never in my life have I seen a scope you can change the reticle. The reticle you buy is what you're married to. You know which places ON THAT RETICLE to hold for distance. It takes no different amount of time than what you are already doing. It does however give you an exact spot to hold instead of "about ten inches above the vitals".

Picking the right "stadia line" on the reticle is probably the correct terminology.

Zero at 100.

First has mark down is 200

The next big dot, hash, or diamond down is 300

Scoot down past the 1.5 mark. Halfway between it and the next big dot, hash, or diamond is 400.

How many college degrees do you have. You spent what, 8 years in advanced education after highschool? And this seems complicated? No, it's pure stobborness.

It may be. Honestly, I'd just have to try it and see.

I don't think it's complicated-just may take me a few seconds.

+?

After a year with the Vortex Viper PST, I have come to a conclusion. My expectation that I could, if I wished, use the mil lines for holdover didn't work out. That turned out to be impractical, particularly as the evening turned darker. Can't see the lines and the illumination isn't really much of a help. So, the choices were to replace the scope or use it as it was designed. I'm going to use it with the turrets, and like I mentioned, I think I'll see how it works out to have it sighted in at 200 so I can do my old fashioned holdover when the range is 300 or less and then dial for longer distances. Call it a blend of the old and new. I think that's going to work for me and where I hunt. If I'm going to take it to the distant coyotes, I have to embrace the turrets. That is just an unavoidable fact.

A lot of what we think we need depends very much on where and how we hunt. It's like fitting the tool to the task. Out in the wide open spaces, I can't imagine hunting without turrets, now that the technology is here and affordable. Back in the heavy woods and tight right-of-ways, if that was the only place I hunted, I'd never have need of turret dialing.

And now that we've talked this to death, I hope the OP has a better feel for what he wants or needs. We've certainly covered all the angles on this, and I will admit freely that Fireman and Jeffbird, in forcing me to verbalize my thoughts, have modified my thinking - pulling me a bit in the direction of their thinking.

I enjoyed the back and forth of this discussion. This is my favorite forum.

That's my point!!!

Dial it when you want, hold it when you want. Either way works with these types of scopes. Holding is the most difficult, but I'm trying to appease both sides and their needs.

I still say that if the OP (who is apparently long gone )
Doesn't need the short range of 3 or 4x, that Minox I listed is a steal!

Well, finally we agree. But I do have to say that you and a couple of others seem to think that holdover is nigh onto impossible to do well. That just isn't true at all, particularly if you've been doing it as long as NP and I have. It becomes instinctive and is very fast. The only real problems I had with it was when I switched from the 35 Rem to the 270 and my instinctive holdover was too much and I hit deer too high. Took forever to retrain myself. Ruined a lot of backstrap and caused a couple of misses on big bucks. And then when I moved to Texas and the deer and trees were smaller, I tended to overestimate distances...and shot high.

I think that a lot of my success was due to being a 'one gun hunter'. You really really get good with that rifle after years of use. Now that I have more rifles, with different MV and trajectories, my instinctive holds are not so good anymore. That's one of the reasons I went to the 100 grain bullet in the 260. It closely duplicates my 270 trajectory and I don't have to rethink my holdover. But when I see that mangy coyote trotting across the hayfield at 437 yards, if I don't have a BDC line for that, then the thinking (or the dialing) will have to start.

You long range guys are changing calibers and bullets and powders so often that it's no wonder that you guys need dope taped to the side of your gun and a turreted scope on top. Too darn complicated to do otherwise.

Hopefully the OP will come back and tell us what he bought. It's only fair for him to do that...seems to me....

The ballistics on my "serious four" rifles mentioned above are not identical by accident. Much thought and study went into that.

I am convinced that for anything short of 400 simple is the way to go. Yours and many others' mil line/stadia experiences reinforce that. Like you, if I get into longer-range shooting I understand I will need them. The more I think/argue about it, the more I am leaning towards just keeping it simple and keeping the focus on how close can I get rather than how far can I shoot.

I honestly can't remember an animal I really wanted ever getting away because I couldn't make a 500 yard shot. But I can think of many I saw at long distance, got within 300, and killed. Getting within 300 and under served me much better than plunking down and trying a 500+ yard shot would have. How do I know? Because I got the animal.

As I think about it, for me, it's probably best just to accept my limitations and not to even be tempted.

You know you want to make some long pokes at pigs.

NEVER have I suggested holdover is impossible! Heck I encourage practicing it, and I do practice it. In fact Chad and I had the discussion after the match. That both of us will practice pure holds on my range all the way out. That's 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800. That's seven shots, each more difficult than the last and both of us try to do it in less than 60 seconds. When speed matters ya gotta know how to hold. But! if I have an extra second or two I'll dial elevation and hold wind. This past season I held elevation on one doe and two turkeys. So it is needed, no doubt.

There is no instictive shooting for me. I know where the hold is and I have to put the reticle there. Hard numbers.

I changed from a .260 that I cooked the barrel out of to a 6.5 Creedmoor. Same corrections for both, so I have the 260 and a 140 A-max memorized, as well as a 6.5 Creedmoor and a 140 A-max memorized. They are identical.

I've been watching this thread since it started. I must say I agree FiremanJK 100%. Not sure what is complicated about the mil dot reticle?

Yup. And coyotes will bust ya. Same reason I shot one last week at 540. No way was I going to sneak up on one when both of us were in a winter wheat field.

First dot down is 1.0, then 2.0, then 3.0 ect.

200 yards .4
300 yards 1.0
400 yards 1.8

Thats 6.5 Creedmoor, 7-08, and a host of others. On a 308 Win add a tenth or two.

Thanks for the photo!

I don't care what anybody does with pigs and coyotes. Conversely, since I don't care what happens to them I'm not about to spend any time learning about LR shooting for their sake.

Clearly you have not the hatred I do for hogs.

To each his own.

Let's go back 20 years and we don't have those dots and we have no exact range info. So there's the big buck and it looks to be about 350 or so. No hard data to be had and very little time to react. That's the way I grew up. After a while, you get good at it. A flat trajectory is a joy, which is why I sold the 35 lever gun. NP says keep it simple, and that's what I always did.

Not there's anything wrong with having range finders and mil dots. But how many hunters have the mil dots. Most everyone has a range finder now. And I have mil dots now too.

As for pigs and coyotes, I hate them with the same passion that Fireman does, so I do have a dog in that LR hunt. Small dog, but a dog nonetheless.

Why don't we go back a hundred and twenty years and have horses tied to the hitchin post?

Heck I could even have them tied to a steamer fire pumper and a Dalmation to run with them. That would be awesome!!!




I'm joking here. Don't get mad.

I am willing to consider trying the mil dots-especially for open country hunting like antelope.

I hate yotes too. But at my place there's only about one spot where you might have a 500 yard shot at one anyway. So it's not a big issue for me. I don't hunt them I just shoot them. Same with the piggies. I killed 19 bowhunting. Don't usually shoot them out of my rifle blind simply because I don't want to mess up my deer hunting. Quite a few get whacked from the truck in the off season though.

Best thing about hogs and coyotes. They're something to be on the look out for, and shoot all year long.

Like I said before, you can borrow one of my scopes for a test drive. And SH 34 goes straight to Wolfe City.

NP,
If you come to Austin to visit your daughter, you are welcome to borrow my rifle to try the scope. Your daughter seemed to do ok with it - great actually.

Bring your setup and we will try them side by side at 200.

Thanks Jeff. Shelby was with us during the whole Christmas break but is now back in "busy" mode again.

If you can't look at a target of known approximate size at 400 yards with a duplex scope and estimate a 20-inch holdover, I just don't know what I'd tell you.

I actually prefer German #4 reticles for most of my hunting. If not the #4 then a standard duplex.