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

[100 others]

Just normal velocity.

Take a look at the chart you posted above.

 

[TaperPin]

That chart says your point of impacts are these below. Where did the numbers you mentioned come from?

100: 3.3" high
200: 3.9" high
300: zeroed
400: 8.8" low

At 100 & 200 yards I’m aiming 1/4 the way up, which is about 5” low (5-3.3=1.7)
At 400 yards I’m on the back, which is about 10” high (10-8.8 = 1.2)

 

[TaperPin]

Take a look at the chart you posted above.

Those are aiming error, not trajectory. We are on totally different pages. Maybe for the 5th time, at 100 & 200 yards I’m aiming 1/4 way up the chest, the bullet impacts above that. At 400 yards I’m aiming at the back, the bullet is hitting lower than that.

 

[100 others]

Those are aiming error, not trajectory. We are on totally different pages. Maybe for the 5th time, at 100 & 200 yards I’m aiming 1/4 way up the chest, the bullet impacts above that. At 400 yards I’m aiming at the back, the bullet is hitting lower than that.

Those are your aiming errors without any other variables. The aiming points are rough estimates on an inconsistent size target. What’s your field group size at 200-300? Are you ranging every single shot regardless of how close it is? Because you wouldn’t know which 1/4 of the deer to aim at or how many quarters of deer to aim over if you don’t know the exact distance. Sounds like a lot of memorizing and aiming at weird spots up and down a chest compared to modern simple solutions. Jack O’Connor used that because it’s all he had at the time, he also wounded/lost a lot of animals even though he was considered the crack shot of hunters at the time.

I’m not trying to derail from the OP, but pushing these old techniques to the masses compared to simple calibrated aiming options is really silly.

 

[TaperPin]

Those are your aiming errors without any other variables. The aiming points are rough estimates on an inconsistent size target. What’s your field group size at 200-300? Are you ranging every single shot regardless of how close it is? Because you wouldn’t know which 1/4 of the deer to aim at or how many quarters of deer to aim over if you don’t know the exact distance. Sounds like a lot of memorizing and aiming at weird spots up and down a chest compared to modern simple solutions. Jack O’Connor used that because it’s all he had at the time, he also wounded/lost a lot of animals even though he was considered the crack shot of hunters at the time.

I’m not trying to derail from the OP, but pushing these old techniques to the masses compared to simple calibrated aiming options is really silly.

At 100 and 200 aim at the top of the first pancake. At 300 aim at the top of the second pancake. At 375 aim at the top of the third pancake. At 400 aim for the top of the fourth pancake.

I don’t range unless it’s past 300 yards.

 

[pirogue]

The Swaro is fragile and doesn’t hold zero.

Is the Swaro scopes that are non-dial any less fragile? I put a Z3 with Leuopold rings on a rifle to reduce weight. Didn’t want any kind of Picatinny setup. Put it in a hard cased boot on a 4 wheeler, and think the jostling may have threw it off. Missed an easy target yesterday. Will go to range tomorrow. I don’t want a little jostling to knock off my cross hairs.

 

[BLJ]

I don’t mean to sound like I’m against dialing altogether - just for big game for short/moderate range, where there’s less benefit. Holdovers don’t work well with varmints, or when plinking at long range or even with a 22 to 100 yards.

Holdovers don’t work with a .22 at 100?
I’m interested on how you came to that conclusion. And what size targets your referring to.

 

[Formidilosus]

Is the Swaro scopes that are non-dial any less fragile?

No. They are fragile scopes.

 

[fwafwow]

At 100 and 200 aim at the top of the first pancake. At 300 aim at the top of the second pancake. At 375 aim at the top of the third pancake. At 400 aim for the top of the fourth pancake.

I don’t range unless it’s past 300 yards.
View attachment 688318

What’s with the pancakes?

 

[JohnJohnson]

What’s with the pancakes?

He's explained it with books and pancakes so far. I'm choosing to believe he doesn't even do it and it's an elaborate/subtle joke. I want his next picture explaining it to be 4 things that don't even stack like a picture of a vacuum turned horizontal and copy/pasted 4 times.

 

[100 others]

I’m curious what objects or food he uses for wind holds.

 

[BLJ]

He's explained it with books and pancakes so far. I'm choosing to believe he doesn't even do it and it's an elaborate/subtle joke. I want his next picture explaining it to be 4 things that don't even stack like a picture of a vacuum turned horizontal and copy/pasted 4 times.

I don’t think it’s a joke……….

But I do prefer the pancakes to the books.

 

[Balderdash]

I've done a lot of shooting both ways. Would much rather dial for elevation. Timed it both ways and, for me, dialing is faster and more precise.

When I started regularly shooting farther than MPBR, I had mil dot reticles with MOA adjustments. Justvthe way most scopes were at that time. I ran a number of different turret iterations on many Leupolds, going back to Stoney Point add on turrets and progressing through the various adjustable turret offerings Leupold had through the years. In short, I generally always used the reticle on big game due to not fully trusting the adjustments and requiring less precision than when target/varmint shooting.

Had a few 6X scopes with mil dot reticles that I used on big game, but most often used Leupolds and a Sightron. Did a ton of shooting and killing so equipped and became pretty proficient. Eventually picked up an early NF compact 2.5-10, and having a reliable dialer was a paradigm shifter for me.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

At 100 and 200 aim at the top of the first pancake. At 300 aim at the top of the second pancake. At 375 aim at the top of the third pancake. At 400 aim for the top of the fourth pancake.

I don’t range unless it’s past 300 yards.
View attachment 688318

This doesn’t make good sense

 

[100 others]

This doesn’t make good sense View attachment 688374

He’s talking about bottom to top.
Simple but incredibly crude and opens up a lot of potential error when guessing yardages. Not the system I want to be using when aiming at a POAL.

 

[mtwarden]

Try the bottom pancake as the first; if I’m following correctly the four pancakes (or four books) represent 1/4 of a deer (chest to top of back)

At the first 1/4 you’re aiming slightly low, at 300 you’re aiming center (top of second pancake), at 400 top of back.

Then again, I might not be understanding

 

[Pickettpuncher]

He’s talking about bottom to top.
Simple but incredibly crude and opens up a lot of potential error when guessing yardages. Not the system I want to be using when aiming at a POAL.

But first is on top. And he’s had the thickness of a thesaurus and pancakes for his holdovers. In reality I’m giving him crap. There’s much better ways to do it nowadays

 

[BLJ]

POAL.

Nice.

 

[Parkerpusher]

Maximum point blank pancake. I like it.

 

[TaperPin]

This doesn’t make good sense View attachment 688374

You’re upside down - pancake #1 is on the bottom. It’s ok - pancakes are hard. Fractions are hard.