Z6 non-illuminated and above. They are not liked because people like to twist turrets and they aren't known to be durable or reliable in that arena.

The 3 I have all have the BT turrets, 2 Plex reticles and the new one with the BRH reticle. Using their online ballistic calculator you can use the "tree" style reticle out to over1700yds on the lowest power and 736yds on the max power with the 6.5-280 Ackley and 140gr VLD-H bullets.

There are tons of better, more rugged and reliable dialing scopes out there for continuous twisting, but none to match the glass in the upper end models. I don't need a "Timex" optic, I need to be able to see and judge what I am shooting.

I just hate the trend of going all Illuminated on the Z6 and Z8 models, adds unnecessary weight for my use.

If I wanted a twister with Swaro glass, I'd get a Kahles.

And it's a convoluted, proprietary reticle that isn't Mil or MOA. It takes a ton of extra work to get it to play out.

Different magnification settings creat different holds, reticle sub tensions mean different things. That is the stiff that is confusing, that is the stuff that gives people trouble. Many have called me with their eyes crossed, confused. I convinced them to let me loan them a scope. They sold or traded their Swarovski within a few days.

Wasn’t even aware swaro created their own system. Sounds like I’m not smart enough to operate it.

Leupold has one too. I had to draw this out for someone, in May, after I got done with their rifle.

If you want to twist on a turret. Swaro makes a great repeatable scope for a SFP. Pretty sure it’s MOA or Mrad on both reticle and turret as options, but I’ve been wrong before. It’s best glass in the business. Period


Its also way more scope then Freerange needs, it’s also not what he is looking for.

GAWD DANGIT!

We are talking about making holds with the reticle!

Not touching any turrets.

Actually, once you use the calculator, it's fairly simple to create a card using 2 or 3 powers, reference chart, fire away. thing about it, until I fully used their glass, I didn't know what good glass was. 18x that rarely sees anything above 6-8 power unless I want to look at a buck.

Or this way.




Which one is more simple?

Why you gots metric measurements on your stock?

I put that drop data on blue masking tape and stick it on the front bell of the scope, except for the CDS scopes.

I really don’t get the resistance of some to Mil or MOA hash marks on your scope. For me being a simpleton, the mil with 1/2 mil increments is the simplest do all reticle.

Vortex

Swaro X5 has a mil reticle

Exactly right.

Nobody is giving me these things anymore, no company is paying me to use them, and I'm not counting on cross leveling parts between them.

I'll buy whatever optic fits within my specs wish list and budget constraints. That varies but use parameters.
It seems odd to me to marry a brand

You youngsters should have been around in the 70's and 80's. The biggest challenge with a scope was it not leaking (nitrogen) or breaking. It did not seem to matter the price of the scope. They were all subject to failure. Now even cheap scopes are better than the expensive ones from 50 years ago. The glass is better and the coatings are a LOT better. And the best scopes today are freaking amazing optically. They are all a lot tougher.

Well that’s as handy as a pocket on a shirt. I’m going to use this idea.

We all know about blue painters tape. Later on they developed the green one, which is made to be higher adhesion. It will stay on the stock for many months.

Leupold has always done what I need them to do and most of my rifles wear one of their scopes.

Scott, I dont want to beat this to death, since Ive addressed on another thread, but you asked a question that I can answer for you. At least for me, I can answer it, and I know full well that everyones situation is different.
First of all, us old school guys dont even know what a "MIL or MOA hash mark" is, so its the uncertainty of something different. And in my case, I have been extremely successful deer hunting, so, if its not broke, I may not want to fix it.
Second of all, I am a Trophy deer hunter that only pulls the trigger once every few years because I am so picky about my target animal. SOMETIMES, when I finally get a shot at a buck of a lifetime, I will only have a few seconds to shoulder, aim and shoot. The shooting process needs to be fast and AUTOMATIC without any thinking or clutter/confusion.
I put THE THE crosshair(big one in the middle) on vital and squeeze.
If he is 250 I put THE crosshair a little high and squeeze.
If he is 275 I put THE crosshair a little higher and squeeze.
If he is 300 I put THE crosshair at his back and squeeze.
If he is farther than 300 I wait or I get closer.
I hope that helps. People look at things they think are similar, but they are looking at it through different filters, so they see different things.
For the first time in my life, I am considering getting into target shooting and that may happen next year. When that does, I am sure I will be learning all about this new fangled stuff and will be all over it. Not yet.

New?

"In the late 1970s, U.S. Marine Corps Capt. Jack C. Cuddy was challenged to find a more exact way for Marine snipers to estimate range. After experimenting with various ways to use the mil system in a rifle scope, Cuddy settled on the system we see today, found not just in the USMC's 10x Unertl but in many other scopes all around the world."

To me "new fangled" doesnt have to mean "new." These "new to me" reticles are just out of my bailiwick because its not common to everyday deer hunters like it is to high end shooters that also hunt.
Evidently its been used a long time by the military to kill PEOPLE at LONG RANGE, but IMO it has been only relatively recent that its been used by many every day deer hunters that most often never shoot over 200 yards.
I would be curious to know how many of the total deer hunters in America 20 years ago were using anything but a basic reticle. Thats why I say these "newer" reticles are new fangled.

Understand, I dont have a problem with those that use them, and I may start, and they may be the wave of the future, but they have NOT been common for everyday deer hunters for very long.

Now I have my first round of game camera pics to go through, so yall carry on and hopefully get back to topic.

Don't let anyone tell you any different. This method, with your equipment that you like and are familiar with, will be very effective. I did basically the same thing for years and it flat out works. Killing deer sized game really isn't very hard, and millions of animals have died doing it the way you described. Move forward with your plan and enjoy it. It will work.

I'm referring to a "common hunting scope" for out to 350yds

#1 Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40 crosshair/green dot (overall my favorite daytime hunting scope)
#2 Sig Whiskey 3 3-9x40 illuminated (great value for the money)
#3 Pre-China Burris FF2 and Droptine 3-9x40 BDC
#4 Pre-China Bushnell Elite 3-9x40 or 2.5-10x40 or 3-10x40

I used to be a major Leupold fan and their VX2 and VX-R series were GREAT. Not as keen on the newer ones and don't like the way they only keep a model in the product line for a short period and then discontinue it!!! VX-R series and the VX Freedom 3-9x40 illuminated are examples. I think Sig hired several of their best people away from them.

I simply can't bring myself to "knowingly" buy ANYTHING made by the Communist Peoples Republic of CHINA !!!

Freerange,

Out to 300, what you described certainly works fine especially with a flatter shooting cartridge zeroed at 200 yards. The hold over at 300 is minimal.

I generally shoot a 308 and hash marks are just a more exact ruler for drop then figuring out a hold over on animals of various sizes. Almost all my shots are under 200 yards where I don’t need them. I don’t have much experience holding for distance on live animals so a mil hash reticle is just a good tool for me should I need it.