Ranking Scopes based on glass first Turrets second

Guys,

I am looking to purchase a scope with Turrets but I also want really good glass. I am leaning toward Zeiss Conquest HD 5-25X50. It will go on a hunting rifle, probably my 300 mag.

I am looking to purchase a CZ 512 and instead of buying a scope for it I want to upgrade one of my hunting scopes and use the scope currently on the hunting rifle for my .22.

I am looking to spend $750 to no more than $1250.

So the list of the brands I have looked at:

Nightforce SHV 4-14X56 - seems I have read they are weak on the glass side.

Burris - I own an inexpensive one and am totally unhappy with the glass on it so I have a sour taste on the brand....I mean CHEAP glass.

Sig Sauer Tango 4 4-16X44- I have heard pretty good stuff about this brand but the scope I'm interested in no one seems to have it in stock.

Steiner GS3 4-20X50 - I have heard they have pretty good glass but...
Steiner 3-15X50 4A

Swaro Z5 5-25X52 BT 4W - A little more than I want to spend but glass is supposed to be excellent.

Has anyone owned used one of the above? Feedback?

So for the money which one provides the most value...this is primarily going to be used for hunting.

Please do not critique my choses on magnification...I am not saying that I will turn them up to the highest but I want the option...and I definitely want at least 14X on the top end.

Take a hard look at the Burris xtr ii

I have a zeiss 6.5-20x50 with target turrets. The glass is awesome. I sold a viper pst bc the glass was lacking to buy the zeiss. I'm sure the newer zeiss is even better. The only downside is it's not tacticool. No zero stop or fancy illuminated reticle but it holds a zero, dials well and is very crisp and clear, even at full magnification.

If you are interested, I have been itching to upgrade to an NXS so my zeiss will probably be for sale soon.

How far do you plan on shooting? How much extreme-low light shooting are you going to be doing?

I've a Conquest 4.5-14x50. It's great for both of these things, thought it doesn't have any windage holds and I suck at wind calculation/holding, I have shot out to 400yd with it. Killed animals out to 300.

Friend has the Swaro Z5. It's barely brighter than my Conquest, if it is; I haven't seen the difference. Doesn't really have turret options, though, and the Conquest and HD5 do.

One downside of the Conquest line is that they are in .25 INCH clicks, not .25 MOA clicks. That screws your math past 300yd (from what I understand whilst asking Chad about it), and you have to go IPHY (inches per hundred yards) instead of MOA. I personally liked MOA better than IPHY, and MILs are easier, from what I understand.

I wouldn't cut short the TANGO4. Saw a gentleman at the range shooting lights-out with it at 200yd and it wasn't his gun, but he liked the glass. Burris XTR II has a lot of attention and a THF following; I looked through it and darn is it clear...also fatter than a banana

If you're shooting within 300yd then go Zeiss. If you want to reach out to 5, maybe further, I'd say go XTRII.

I would. I know you expressed your opinion on them based on lower models but take a look and see what you think.

Look at the Vortex Razor LH. It smokes all the other glass I own, including PST, Meopta, Nightforce, Bushnell Elite and more. It was built to be a hunting scope with great glass, a great reticle, and very capable capped turrets.

Meoptas are great glass for the money.

The Vortex Razor LH is a really nice hunting scope with excellent glass. Bought one last month for a friend and had a few days to check it out. Meopta has nice glass as well.

Only had a few minutes with the Zeiss you are considering and it left me with a good impression of the view for a high powered configuration.
Burris XTR and XTR II have mediocre glass and are HUGE .

If you want reliable turrets do not buy Zeiss or Swarovski.

Every NF SHV I've looked through I thought the glass was very nice, and it had not trouble to the end of my range. But the turrets seemed a little mushy.

And what's a "target turret"?

It is Mil or MOA, that's it. And MOA or Mil are equally good at elevation corrections, but Mil shines for wind corrections. And you will most likely get on your second rev with MOA one you start going 600+ yards. Not the case with Mil.

I have the NF ATACR 5x25x56 I call it my 401k my nephew and I shoot bench and he has the Z5 yes it was on sale at Carters country for 1399$ but thats a lot less than my ATACR was it was very close or exceeded my NF we all see different clarity I hunt with Leupolds and love them.Sorry not much help on others

Shv glass is meh
Xtr glass is more meh than people think
Pst 1 glass sucks

Pst2 glass and turrets much better and should be looked at

Swaro is best glass

You might look into the new bushnell lrhs also or lrs

Currently to my eyes in that price pst2 is my new leader

I think combined, Chad and I have had the turret experience with Swaro and Zeiss ove the course of 100+ scopes.

Remove the cap from the Zeiss, and it's just a turret.

I'm well aware of IPHY, and left it out, because it's stupid.

I am not sure if it is ok, but here is a link to another forum explaining what a target turret is for those without much Zeiss experience. It is not a capped turret with the cap removed.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f18/zeiss-conquest-hunting-vs-target-turret-114093/

FiremanJG, why is it unreliable? Does it have to do with tracking? Or just the IPHY/.25" clicks thing?

Unreliable meaning they don't track truly. When you tell them to increase elevation to say, 2 MOA or .6 Mil, they go 1 1/2 or 2 1/4 MOA, or .5 or .7 Mil. They may or may not return to zero. Meaning, for instance at my range, we get the rifle/ scope/ ammo all hitting zero at 100 yard paper. Dial elevation for 200, 300, 400, all the way to 800. More often than not no scope tracks perfectly, not even mine. So when the calculator gives you 7 corrections and 5 corrections on the scope match the calculator, but 2 do not, that is tracking error in two places. Then when the lower end turreted scopes are dialed back down to "0" they should go back and hit where they are supposed to at 100 yards, some do not, therefore a failure to return to zero.

Part of the money spent on scopes with turrets is near perfect correct tracking, and return to zero. It is rare, if not non-existent, to have a perfectly tracking scope, but on the good ones they might have an error somewhere, but it is the same every time. That can be worked with. So say a rifle/ scope/ ammo correction should be 2.6 Mil to hit at 500 yards, but 2.7 was a better correction. And then the combo has corrections at 600, 700, and 800 yards that line up perfectly with the calculator. That means there is a tracking error at 2.6 Mil. That's OK if it does it the same every time.

When Precision Rifle Blog polled shooters as to what is most important to them as far as scope features go, glass clarity and true tracking were almost a tie. And both of those features were the lions share of most important within the pie chart.

As the least experienced person with scopes who has responded to this entire thread, I will say that the glass on my dad's Steiner binoculars is absolutely stellar. Don't know if their scopes are the same or if the tracking is good. But if you're looking for good glass, I doubt you'd be disappointed in the Steiner.

Lol!

Even one of the guys in that thread says it's a turret under a cap.

Bottom line is if you want to dial a correction, turn a knob. One has an exposed knob, one does not.

These are my experiences as well...the scopes on my "hunting" rifles I do not use my turrets the same way as my target rifle, in other words I do not turn them a lot simply because I do not shoot these rifles a whole lot and I do not shoot them at distances a great deal...I do that with my target rifles. The hunting rifles that do have the Zeiss Turrets have adjusted well when I tested them and the glass is excellent and as hunting rifles that is where the importance is...I would say 60% on glass and 40% on turrets.

Also Zeiss does use the term target turret and I am not sure why the fact that I used that term seems to cause people to get upset to the point of even pointing it out...who cares what I called them..ugh.

Excerpt I think you are quoting:


Re: Zeiss Conquest: Hunting vs Target Turret?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quote:


Originally Posted by megastink View Post

So the hunting turrets are like regular turrets on any stock non-tactical scope?

Yep, standard turrets with covers on them.





Just to clarify again, and as Deerhunter61 correctly pointed out, Zeiss has 2 types of turrets. Capped and uncapped. Their capped turrets are hunting turrets and their uncapped turrets are called target turrets. I am not sure why this has become a sticking point for you Fireman. It is clear that you are unfamiliar with the type of turrets that are available on Zeiss scopes. This may also explain why you feel they have poor tracking. Your explaination above used Mils and MOA but the Zeiss turrets I have come across have used Mil or 1/4 inch at 100yds. The second will not track with MOA as IPHY is different.

I currently own a Ziess and it is not my first. The lenses are excellent and it has tracked well for me as well as for the OP apparently. Others echo the same on this and other forums. Others are permitted to have an opinion that differs from yours.

OP did not start a discussion solely on Zeiss scopes. They have been brought up, as well as several other brands. Yes "target turrets" are a Zeiss term. It also confuses many other people making them think "target turret" applies to any turret. Then they buy a scope, call it target turret, maybe find a ballistic calculator online, or as an app, then they're lost. I get too many PMs, emails, texts, and phone calls to suggest otherwise. When I get those, I have to clarify that any turret is moving POI in an angular fashion, as in parts of a degree, not linear, so in Mil or MOA. IPHY confuses more people than it does good. This whole time I'm trying to talk about all scopes, not just Zeiss.

While Zeiss has worked well for some folks, including yourself, they are way behind in the game of shooting distance, so is Swarovski. I see hundreds of turreted scopes every year, be it at matches or via customers that bring them to my range. And those two brands are not ones I see getting the job done on a regular basis. of course they have good glass, but that is a portion of what is needed to do the work.

I'm well aware someone else can have an opinion. I'm just speak from lots of experience, after lots of rounds fired, and spotted, every single week, for several years. Not just a few rounds in the fall.

No that that is clear, I guess, back to topic.

Your needs sound like how I use my 300WM. I have a Zeiss 6.5-20x50 with target turrets on this rifle and really like it for hunting and range use. The glass is very clear. While I do not have direct personal experience with all of the other brands you have listed, I give thumbs up to zeiss for this purpose.

One of my favorite cartridges, you have there.

I've played with, owned, and shot A LOT of different scopes over the years. When you get behind a rifle and start dialing on turrets for setting your zero or dialing for distance, you want them to work. You want them to be solid and track true. How well the internals are built is a HUGE factor in what scopes I run. I look at this first, and how "great" the glass is as a far second. Why- it does you no good to see the deer ticks on his nuts at 800 yards if you can't dial the scope in to hit your target.

My #1 go to scope is a Nightforce. Why- because they are build like a tank, on the inside and out, and track correctly. They also have a washer inside that prevents the turrets from bottoming out on the scope tube, unlike most other scopes. Most scopes will allow the turrets to turn until you max them out and feel the squishy feeling when the reticle makes contact with the scope tube. This is where you strip screws and/or cause misalignment with the reticle housing on the inside, leading to turret issues and inconsistent corrections when dialing. Vortex uses the same type of internals as a NF, which make them a very strong scope internally. Yes, some of their low end scopes do not have great glass, but the scope internals are very strong for repeatability. The NF SHV models make a great hunting and long range hunting scope. I have used and shot multiple of these scopes, and recommend them to my customers on their rifle builds.

Swarovski, they have superb glass, sure. But I have personally broken 2 scopes when dialing on the turrets trying to get the rifle zero'd. They also often times have very little internal adjustment with the turrets that they set up to be able to dial for correction. Sure, I love the clean glass they offer. But for me, I need a scope that I can dial and make corrections for without the worry of breaking the internals. Some of the newer, more expensive scopes seem to have larger tubes and have incorporated better turrets, which I have not played with much.

Zeiss, they have backwards turrets, meaning they dial clockwise, instead of the counter clockwise, like all the other scopes mfg's do. And they are .25" inch increments, which is inch per 100 yards (IPHY), which is not MOA. They don't have any usable reticles. Glass is usually good, but the other bigger features/issues on their scopes drive me crazy. If you shoot longer ranges with them, make sure they have a parallax adjustment. My previous Conquest didn't have the parallax adj, and it had all kinds of accuracy issues after about 200-300 yards.

These are just my experiences with some of the scopes. I use my scopes different than a lot of shooters use theirs. If you don't dial and you simply zero the scope on a hunting rifle, the Swaro and Zeiss scopes may work well for you. But the features and ruggedness on these scopes internally simply do not compare to other well built scopes, like a NF or Vertex. They are not for me, but certainly work for others.

Also, let's look at the Swarovski z5 5-25x52. Here's the technical data I am pulling from on their website: Swaro technical scope page

It is 5x-25x in magnification and has a 1" tube. This is a VERY small scope tube for this high of magnification. Most scopes would run a 30mm or larger tube, for greater internal adjustment. Now the maximum internal adjustment at 100 yards for elevation is 43 inches. On the windage, it is only 25 inches. This is the maximum the internal reticle can travel from full side to side and up and down. This means that if you center up the elevation (use a zero MOA base, or standard rings/bases), you have 21.5 inches up and 21.5 inches down (43 inches divided by 2). On the windage, you only have 25 inches total travel, which is only 12.5 inches right and 12.5 inches left, if the scope is PERFECTLY centered on the action, rings, and bases, which never happens.

Now here's the problem. When you mount your scope on the rifle, it is rarely mounted perfectly center. You have to make adjustments to the scope to zero it. Often times, the reticle is not perfectly centered inside the scope tube. This will decrease the actual amount of reticle travel even further. So, that 21.5 up/down and 12.5 right/left has been further reduced. I have seen on multiple hunting rifles mounted with these Swaro 1" tube scopes with the super high magnifications not even be able to get a 100 yard zero because there simply is not enough internal adjustment available for a 100 yard zero.

Further more, the scope also advertises that you can put the cheesy, color coded rings on the turret for dialing distance. This even further increases your problem of lack of available internal adjustment. The scopes I have broken were set up this way. When the turret gets maxed out, the reticle makes contact with the scope tube, and strips out the adjustment screws inside. Or some other reason the reticle does not come back on track properly inside the scope tube, and causes an adjustment problem and now has become a tracking issue or the reticle can not hold zero under recoil. This is the problems I'm speaking of when scopes are not built well internally and have too little a scope tube for the magnification on the scope, with very little internal adjustment. Sure, the Swaro's have great glass. But the negatives of the reliability of the scope far out weigh the benefit of good glass. It would not be a scope I would ever purchase, and for the money they ask for it, it even makes it further less of a deal.

Agreed on Swaro and Zeiss turrets. In my limited experience with scopes that you can "dial the crap out of and never worry about it", a vote for the SWFA SS 3-9x42 HD MilQuad is in order, and the price is right.

IMHO, having the absolute top end optics in a scope is not priority #1, as most any $500+ scope will get you way past legal shooting light. Holding zero, returning to zero, and bulletproof reliability should be the main criteria, along with having a reticle that is usable in low/poor light. FWIW, I have had a Swaro bite the dust myself, in the middle of a hunt.

SWFA just had the 3-15x42 on sale for $399 for tax day. Honestly, that price for that scope is stupid good. But it's probably not at the same optical level as the rest of the stuff being discussed.

Worth every penny.

I told Skylar they'd have something if they would build a 3-15X with HD glass, and turrets similar to the 5-20 HD. But he doesn't listen to me.

And add a zero stop.

Ugh...this certainly has taken a life of its own...not what I was asking and I believe I made myself clear about what is important to me since I'm the one that's going to be using it then and that's all that matters. It's ok that some people disagree but to take over a thread and go on and on and on is simply too much! I think I was pretty clear that I own long range rifles that I have mil/mil scopes on and use them accordingly. I appreciate that some of you guys set all your rifles up the same way for the same type shooting but I don't! And it definitely doesn't inhibit me from achieving what I need to achieve from each rifle that I own!

There are guys on here that overwhelm people with their opinions and act if there is their way and the wrong way.....well I'm here to tell you there is more than one way to do things and I do not appreciate this thread being hijacked.

Last, I do appreciate the help you provided when I was looking to build a custom LR rifle and I took your advice regarding optics for that rifle as well as another LR rifle I own...but again that is not what this thread was about!

And I KNOW that in order for me to purchase a scope with excellent optics and excellent turrets the cost would run north of $2500.00 and I have no desire to spend that much! Again glass is first for me...turrets are second for this rifle!

I am not inclined to go twisting on turrets, but if I was you can bet I'd be listening to what Chad and JG are saying about what works.

For my own use, if I can get the scope zeroed at the range I want and the scope will hold it, and I can "shoot the square" and come back to the same POI at the conclusion, that's "good" turret performance. What is acceptable to me may be dismal performance to the guys who like to dial in.

Different strokes.

You asked for help, and you got lots of help. I don't see how the thread was "hijacked". Would you prefer starting a thread, asking for guidance and getting no responses?

And you are very wrong that you have to spend $2500. I shoot from 5 yards to a mile every year, and I don't currently own a rifle scope that costs more than $1300 on the after-market. I know how to make a guy's dollar stretch. And I always try to stay within his budget, which if memory serves you have not mentioned.

I guess no good deed goes unpunished. Maybe I should call Chad and tell him we are not wanted in these types of discussions, despite the fact that between he and I we probably shoot more rifle rounds per year than most people ever will in a lifetime.

Geez.

He mentioned his budget in the first post.

It's all about JG.......every time.

Missed the budget.

If that's what you think all you have to do is put me on "ignore". I've got several members in that pool myself.

I don't want to ignore you...or Chad! I have the utmost respect for you both!!!! But I don't set up all my rifles to shoot long range and doubt I will set anymore than the two I already have set up that way. Also I definitely won't shoot a game animal at more than 300 yards...perhaps 400 IF I have a solid front and rear base...I CAN'T shoot prone...neck surgery...

And from a hunting perspective Glass is the most important thing. It seems I've read that glass isn't all that important "because" any scope is good enough to take any shot that's required with the light available to us during legal hunting times....this simply IS NOT ACCURATE! If you've ever hunted in ETX in the woods on an overcast day in an AR county there's PLENTY of time where it becomes pretty tough to see and great glass IS a difference maker!

Again I appreciate and understand where you guys stand on scopes! But for this post,,,knowing glass is the most important of the two I was just looking for opinions based on that criteria.

I believe that one was the SFP, They did have the FFP off the sample list for 509 that I bought.

My 2 cents buy swaro glass up to your budget without turrets but with Balistic Plex, based on your description. I run two Z3 on hunting rifles and could not be happier, you want to dial turrets get Nightforce. Have a NSX on a 308 that dials from 100 to 900 multiple times a week for last 7 years and tracking is always the same.

I understand the heavy timber, and overcast. I have some of that on my own land. I also have a pretty large expanse of open grass. Same scope for both tasks. I've even used my scopes well past legal light just testing what they could see. All had a quality of glass that made the end of legal light a piece of cake. And I was looking from 10 yards to 200.

But all those scopes also track very well and always return to zero. And I mean a 100 yard zero that will hit a dime.

I've not pushed a particular scope brand, just advised what to stay away from.

Be the first kid on the block to try one of these.

https://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/scopes/vx-5hd-riflescopes/vx-5hd-3-15x44mm-cds-zl2/

The newer Leupold has some nice glass and solid although not Nightforce solid in the dialing dept.

Not true Fireman and Chad. I have worked in the shooting industry, mostly hunting rifles and handguns for 30 years and learn from you guys posts every time you are on here. I worked for Swarovski for many years in the 90s and what you say is absolutely true. And they know it. This goes for not only their 1" scopes but also for their 30mm scopes. Never enough travel. The problem is the germans seldom listen to anyone and believe their products are the best.
Keep up the good work guys.

Thank you, sir.

Swaro listened with x5 ....115 MOA. It's only been out since 2015......


It's just not a "light optical" product so it exceeds the OP's budget threshold

If your priority is glass clarity it sounds like you need to get the Swarovski, you'll be handicapped by unreliable tracking if you plan to shoot long range. My 2cents......I never looked through a NF and said it wasn't clear, maybe the one that mentioned NF clarity is subject need to adjust the focus at the eye piece......Only thing I don't care for in the Vortex are the washer for the stop.....I wish someone would invent technology that omits mirage.....I never took out a tape to measure POI referencing the adjustments made on the turrets, I just want repeatability.....I would recommend sacrificing an acute amount of clarity for reliable tracking just my opinion.

Mirage is your friend. I depend on mirage, and adjust the focused knob constantly to get a wind reading via mirage. I never shoot with polarized sun glasses on, because it removes mirage. So if you want it to go away, wear good polarized sunglasses.

Oakley "Prizm Shooting" lenses will do that for you. And it's difficult to explain, but they make each varying color stand out more vibrant. I wear them now for everything but shooting long range, because they remove mirage.

Deerhunter61, I'm not sure who your comment is directed to about going on and on, and going off topic from your question. I feel my write up was very thorough about the issues I have had with certain scopes that are known to have great glass.

Also, if simply want great glass with lots of clarity and light coming into the scope, you need to look at a few things. The higher the magnification is, the lower the light transmission is. So, why look at the 20x plus magnification scopes when needing more light transmission. It's counter intuitive. The only way you get more light is to dial down in power, and the low end magnification is often higher than needed on the big mag scopes. I hunt with a 2x-10x scope, and it stays on about 2x-3x when I'm in the stand. If you are in E. Texas, shots are generally shorter anyway, so why 20x or 25x power for this. It doesn't make sense to me. Most hunter over magnify their scopes anyway. You won't be able to get on target with 14x + mag on an animal moving through your hunting area. I have shot MANY moving coyotes on 2x-3x power, simply because the field of view is large enough to see, acquire and make a shot quickly. You can't do that on high magnification.

Also, look at larger front objective scopes, in the 50mm + sizes. These draw in more light for better clarity.

For your $750 price or less, get a Zeiss Conquest. It has great glass. If you want the "Yeti" of scopes, get a Swarovski Z5 5x-25x for $1300-$1500 price.

I'm out.

Sounds like he had his mind made up before posting.

Nope, I didn't...but the criteria was....that's all.

I never said I hunt ETX...I simply used it as an example...I have hunted ETX in the deep piney woods and good glass absolutely makes a difference. As for 25X I can always turn it down but if it is mid morning and I wanted more Mag I would have it. Personal preference is all.

Believe me I understand the need for repeatability on long range rifles but that simply wasn't my plan for this rifle.

Leopold vx6 is a great combination of turrets and glass for a hunting rifle without weighing over 30oz

Guys,

WE have all agreed, I think, that in order to get great consistent turrets and great glass you will need to spend $$$$$. IF you can't afford to pay for both then you have to make a choice and give up, compromise, on one or the other...agreed? I understand that a lot of you shoot LR and you approach your rifle and scope that way for every rifle you own...I respect that! But I do not approach each rifle and scope that way...I approach each one based on the rifle and how I will be using it...AND I would ask that you guys respect that too.

I thought I was pretty clear when I posted this thread that glass was my priority...and then instead of answering the question based on the criteria I presented some tried to sell me the advantages of prioritizing turrets ahead...but that's not what I asked. And now guys take pot shots at me as if, because we simply disagree, I am ignorant. This truly annoys me!

Just get the Razor LH and shoot something.

+ 1

JMHO - I think the reason you're getting a myriad of responses is that we've all had scopes that didn't track true and we know how frustrating it can be if you need to use that tracking on those scopes. If you are prioritizing turrets at all, then we assume that you're planning to use them. And if you plan to use them, they need to be accurate. If you don't care about how accurate the tracking is because you're not going to use it, then you should just say, "I'm looking for the best glass I can get." But there is no point in spending big money on optics for a scope that you're planning to use the turrets on, while knowing in advance that the turrets are not usable because they're inaccurate. You're better off IMHO on just using holdovers on a reticle than turning knobs that don't work.

Ok, great response and I appreciate it! So IF I use the turret and dial for elevation say at 300-350 yds you are saying the tracking of a Zeus Conquest will not place the crosshairs into the kill zone?

If you're only looking for kill zone accuracy, I have no doubt those turrets would work at least that well. But I've never used that scope, so I couldn't say for sure.

That was a great response from patriot07.

Only 350 yards, a hold is super easy, with a great reticle. I've got a great reticle in a Bushnell, and I held elevation, and wind at 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800 yards on Thursday. And got all 7 shots off, with no misses, in less than 60 seconds. If I can do that, you can hold for 350 yards and in.

If you go Mil based reticle, attached to a cartridge with a decent BC, and about 2800 fps MV, your holds will be, from a 100 yard zero:

150 yards .2 Mil
200 yards .4 Mil
250 yards .7 Mil
300 yards 1.0 Mil
350 yards 1.4 Mil

Of course those are based on a long list of cartridges that have the same corrections. Depending on what you're shooting those values may need some tweaking. Easy to find in any case.

Personally, I don't see why you'd even think to twist a turret for shooting out to 350 yards. Like JG say, a holdover is not that hard. You just have to know your reticle.

True...as long as you have the right reticle...

Both of you are right.

Three main reasons to dial elevation.

1. It's a precise way to change you zero for distance. Holding elevation, tightly, takes practice, but in a day it can become very easy.

2. You get to stay in the center of the lens, where image quality is best.

3. You stay on you windage line. But it's not too hard to hold proper wind, while simultaneously holding an elevation correction, when you're less than 2.0 Mils. Because you're not so far away from your windage line that things get difficult to graph down.

Most hide I shoot, almost weekly lately, has been with holds. Because, simply, I didn't have time to dial. When the coyote or hog is 400+ out, and if I see them before they see me, I'll dial elevation. Back to wanting to be back on my windage line.

I agree with the last few responses. Holding inside 350 yards shouldn't be a huge deal. Dialing with accurate turrets is always going to make precision shooting easier. But if you're just looking for kill zone accuracy, I think holdovers with a good reticle and good glass is a fine plan. If you can stay within .1 mils of the correct holdover, you're going to be within 1"-2" of your target at all times at that distance.