Can holdover be more accurate than dialing in a hunting scope?

[Outdoorsman12b]

After listening to some of @robby denning points on the Shoot to Hunt podcast regarding steps/time for holdover vs. dial, and consideration of the all the scope evals/proficiency ranges of hunters by @Formidilosus I started to wonder if holding over is actually more effective in cost and accuracy for the average hunter. Here me out...

1. Most hunting scopes cannot dial accurately or return to zero consistently. Hold overs don't change (assuming the reticle is correctly calibrated).
2. A lot of engagements are under 400 yards (most far less). With a 100 or 200 yard zero on an "average" cartridge your looking at less than 20-30 inches of drop. Less with a "good" cartridge.
3. A mil based reticle with .5 mil increments in holds is fairly intuitive, and out to 400 yards ranges that are not exactly lining up with 200, 300, 400 yards are solved by the trajectory of holding between the .5 mil increments.
4. Using something in the 9X upper range like the Trijicon credo in mil square or Swaro Z3 BRH, you will be limited to tighter eye box, and suffer some loss of spotting impact. However, maybe more accurate than dialing a shot using something like a VX3HD CDS?
5. Budget is a barrier for many hunters. I am North of the border and SWFA is not an option. The only readily available brand that can dial repeatedly is Nightforce, and many cannot afford to top every rifle they have with one. Plus the reticles kind of suck.

So with a 200 yard zero your holding back out to 300 to keep maximum FOV, and after that you crank up to 9X and use the holds. To Robby's points this seems faster. You range the game, if its in 300 range aim shoot. If outside, crank up scope select hold shoot.

What say you? Would you rather have a scope that is mediocre in adjustments? Or use a holdover with the above considerations?

 

[redchinviking]

For fast shots under 400…holdover everything with a FFP. Practice it and you’ll love it over dialing. If I’m in my SFP’s and have plenty of time I’ll dial it, but still prefer holdover.

 

[TaperPin]

After listening to some of @robby denning points on the Shoot to Hunt podcast regarding steps/time for holdover vs. dial, and consideration of the all the scope evals/proficiency ranges of hunters by @Formidilosus I started to wonder if holding over is actually more effective in cost and accuracy for the average hunter. Here me out...

1. Most hunting scopes cannot dial accurately or return to zero consistently. Hold overs don't change (assuming the reticle is correctly calibrated).
2. A lot of engagements are under 400 yards (most far less). With a 100 or 200 yard zero on an "average" cartridge your looking at less than 20-30 inches of drop. Less with a "good" cartridge.
3. A mil based reticle with .5 mil increments in holds is fairly intuitive, and out to 400 yards ranges that are not exactly lining up with 200, 300, 400 yards are solved by the trajectory of holding between the .5 mil increments.
4. Using something in the 9X upper range like the Trijicon credo in mil square or Swaro Z3 BRH, you will be limited to tighter eye box, and suffer some loss of spotting impact. However, maybe more accurate than dialing a shot using something like a VX3HD CDS?
5. Budget is a barrier for many hunters. I am North of the border and SWFA is not an option. The only readily available brand that can dial repeatedly is Nightforce, and many cannot afford to top every rifle they have with one. Plus the reticles kind of suck.

So with a 200 yard zero your holding back out to 300 to keep maximum FOV, and after that you crank up to 9X and use the holds. To Robby's points this seems faster. You range the game, if its in 300 range aim shoot. If outside, crank up scope select hold shoot.

What say you? Would you rather have a scope that is mediocre in adjustments? Or use a holdover with the above considerations?

Try a 300 zero. With most fast cartridges like a 243, 270, 7 mag, PRC, etc at 100 & 200 a hold 1/4 the way up a deer chest gets you within a few inches of center. 300 is dead on, 350 hold 3/4 the way up the chest, and 400 yard hold is simply just on top of he back. 450 would 1/4 deer over the back and 500 is a little more than 1/2 a deer over the back. Actual range and angle of the body become limiting factors past 400, but overall it’s such a reliable game getter it’s always surprised me the idea has never caught on and gained widespread use. I’ve used this on every big game rifle since the earth was flat.

Here’s a 6.5 PRC and 140gr Accubond as an example:

 

[hereinaz]

It will never offer more precision.

The eye tries to center to the crosshair,
The reticle won’t always track exact with the turret, so dope isn’t the same.
Most scope turrets are off a percent or two, some more. Snipers Hide tested and tracked them for a while.
Mistakes are easy counting stadia marks.

But, as above, inside 400 the difference in precision is swallowed up by the larger target size. And, the effect of wind is reduced significantly for modern cartridges.

And, it can offer benefits for speed which is needed more in the 250 to 400 range where more engagements happen quickly.

So, many hunters can get by with a BDC reticle if they figure out exactly what distance each hash is and then practice with it.

Most hunters don’t necessarily need a scope to dial inside the 400 yards.

 

[hereinaz]

Forgot to add that with a good rifle/scope system and practice, dialing can actually still be faster.

But, for most, I think Denning was winning with with the “keep it simple stupid” method of ballistics.

So, pick where you want to put your time and money. Just know what you can do and perfect it.

 

[mtwarden]

I think 400 yds in is very doable (and simpler- for me anyway) with holdovers.

Definitely practice (ditto on dialing) a bunch. I shot my ram last year at 400 yards with a holdover reticle with no drama.

 

[Team4LongGun]

600 and under its "Better" due to speed, which can provide more time for a proper shot sequence, which can lead to a more accurate shot. But on it's own, no it won't increase accuracy.

 

[wind gypsy]

No, its not more accurate. How do we know that a scope that is mediocre in adjustments has a better than mediocre bdc reticle execution, especially in a SFP application?

 

[ozyclint]

What Taper pin said.
My .270 is zero at 250m (273 yards). 4" high at 150m.

Most shots are actually hold under, not that I have to using MPBR but if a target is inside 200m I'll aim a few inches under.

I've never seen the logic of having flat shooting rifles zero at 100m then having to compensate so much holdover. Have a longer zero and hold under inside 250m and hold over past that.
Seems logical there would be less error starting at a mid point and holding either way a smaller amount rather than starting at one end and compensating for everything past that with the guessing getting larger and larger with distance.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

No, its not more accurate. How do we know that a scope that is mediocre in adjustments has a better than mediocre bdc reticle execution, especially in a SFP application?

Well you can verify a reticle substension fairly easy and that’s not changing. Would you rather take something like a vx3 hd 3-10 and dial the shot?

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

Forgot to add that with a good rifle/scope system and practice, dialing can actually still be faster.

But, for most, I think Denning was winning with with the “keep it simple stupid” method of ballistics.

So, pick where you want to put your time and money. Just know what you can do and perfect it.

You have completely missed the point of the post. 100% agree that a scope that tracks repeatedly and predictably/ holds zero is more accurate than holding. But those scopes are few and far between and not practical for the average + hunter.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

Try a 300 zero. With most fast cartridges like a 243, 270, 7 mag, PRC, etc at 100 & 200 a hold 1/4 the way up a deer chest gets you within a few inches of center. 300 is dead on, 350 hold 3/4 the way up the chest, and 400 yard hold is simply just on top of he back. 450 would 1/4 deer over the back and 500 is a little more than 1/2 a deer over the back. Actual range and angle of the body become limiting factors past 400, but overall it’s such a reliable game getter it’s always surprised me the idea has never caught on and gained widespread use. I’ve used this on every big game rifle since the earth was flat.

Here’s a 6.5 PRC and 140gr Accubond as an example:

View attachment 687567

Well I probably was shooting cartridges larger then I could shoot well in the past and less proficient marksmen, but I have found that I missed a lot of deer with the “3 inches high at 100” method. I switched to 100 yard zero on rifles and have not missed since. Something closer to an MPBR might be worth a shot again worth a worked out rig.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

600 and under its "Better" due to speed, which can provide more time for a proper shot sequence, which can lead to a more accurate shot. But on it's own, no it won't increase accuracy.

Agreed. But with the reality that most guys are shooting Leupold/vortex/Burris/Zeiss etc… and don’t require/afford an NX8 is that still holding true?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

You have completely missed the point of the post. 100% agree that a scope that tracks repeatedly and predictably/ holds zero is more accurate than holding. But those scopes are few and far between and not practical for the average + hunter.

SWFA 6x42, 3-9x42, or 3-15x42 are all practical for guys that will spend $200 on a pair of "hunting pants".

 

[JohnJohnson]

You have completely missed the point of the post. 100% agree that a scope that tracks repeatedly and predictably/ holds zero is more accurate than holding. But those scopes are few and far between and not practical for the average + hunter.

I feel like it's a weird thing to just give up and throw in the towel. Do what you have to do to get a reliable scope. Having reliable gear is the most practical thing you can choose.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

SWFA 6x42, 3-9x42, or 3-15x42 are all practical for guys that will spend $200 on a pair of "hunting pants".

Yes agreed. If you read OP would note that scope is not accessible for me or others north of the US.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Yes agreed. If you read OP would note that scope is not accessible for me or others north of the US.

Apologies, I did miss that. Why are they unavailable? Are you saying they are banned in Canada or something?

 

[Shō[t]gun]

450 would 1/4 deer over the back and 500 is a little more than 1/2 a deer over the back. Actual range and angle of the body become limiting factors past 400, but overall it’s such a reliable game getter it’s always surprised me the idea has never caught on and gained widespread use.

That was the standard for a long time. The lack of reliability in that system led to a lot of fudd myths about ballistics and people abandoned it for good reason when rangefinders and consistent dialing became affordable.

 

[hereinaz]

You have completely missed the point of the post. 100% agree that a scope that tracks repeatedly and predictably/ holds zero is more accurate than holding. But those scopes are few and far between and not practical for the average + hunter.

That was an additional thought.

In my post above that, I also said most hunters can get by with a BDC and that Denning was winning without dialing. I also explained where holdovers could be useful but where dialing can still be superior. Trying to give context to those who are reading so they don’t believe holdovers are always faster or just as accurate.

In the end, put your time and money where you want.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

Apologies, I did miss that. Why are they unavailable? Are you saying they are banned in Canada or something?

Yes. They don't have any dealer here and Obama added them to the list of "bad things" when he was in office. So can't be imported directly.