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

[Wyo_hntr]

The advice I was given is to not feel at the mercy of wind - adjust for it at every shot at every distance, but to stop avoiding the range on windy days, and to avoid believing an accurate group can‘t be shot at the range. If a shooter can’t adjust for wind well enough under no stress, unlimited time, wind flags, wind deflection chart to refer to, kestrel, and perfect rest, then effective range is quite short when all those are taken away.

That has nothing to do with zeroing a rifle. If you are holding for wind while zeroing a scope, I certainly hope you are extremely good at calling wind, or your scope won't be zeroed poa/poi. That's the point.

I purposefully shoot in wind. But I also zero my rifle at 100yds, so regardless of wind it's zeroed.

 

[TaperPin]

I expected nothing less. Thanks for taking the time to reply.


Ok, so I want to go test this in a few weeks, weather permitting. I've got a 6.5-284 shooting berger 156gr elite hunters (G1 BC .679, G7 BC .347) at 2850fps, a SWFA 3-9x42 in mils, and will be shooting at roughly 7800ft ASL in rolling, sage country type terrain. Available rests/shooting aids will be my pack, trekking poles, a lightweight glassing tripod, and a lightweight rear bag or my bino harness for a rear rest. I do not know if prone will be an option prior to going to the location.

If you were mentoring me, what would you tell me to use as my zero distance, and how would you have me account for drop and wind drift shooting a mule deer at say ~300 yds and ~450 yds? I would like to test this against dialing elevation and holding wind at the same distances with the same rifle for both time and first round hits.

These are very simplistic printouts, but close enough. Zero at 300. Use 2 moa drift for a 10 mph wind at both yardages. Of course 300 yards is center of the cardboard deer. 350 is 3/4 the way up, 400 is on the back, and 450 is 1/3 over the back. At 450 if these books represent the deer body from chest to back, imagine adding a fourth book above and aim at the top of it - bang bang.

 

[texag10]

@TaperPin then from 100-200 I'd be holding bottom third of the deer?

Edit to add: how would I account for wind with a mil based reticle? I saw your correction for a 10mph wind, but what about 3mph? 7?

Not trying to be a smartass, I want to understand so I can give this method a fair shake when I try it

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

These are very simplistic printouts, but close enough. Zero at 300. Use 2 moa drift for a 10 mph wind at both yardages. Of course 300 yards is center of the cardboard deer. 350 is 3/4 the way up, 400 is on the back, and 450 is 1/3 over the back. At 450 if these books represent the deer body from chest to back, imagine adding a fourth book above and aim at the top of it - bang bang.

View attachment 688034

View attachment 688019

5 inches high at 150 coupled with a 2 moa field shooter is probably going to result in a lot of misses inside 300.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

5 inches high at 150 coupled with a 2 moa field shooter is probably going to result in a lot of misses inside 300.

Or a lot of bad hits. Like I said earlier, this style of holdover guessing has contributed to a lot of fudd myths about bullet performance and animal toughness. People don’t want to admit their own misses/bad hits/incorrect ranging so it must be the bullet’s fault and the animal requires even more gun now. Same story with magnums “splashing” bullets that never reached the vitals.. even though the recoil was so bad they never saw the hit to realize the vitals were nowhere near the impact area.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Or a lot of bad hits.

The mythical “void” above the lungs.

 

[Travis Hobbs]

Hold over will never be more accurate. It’s not even close.

Saying that, I think about 7/10 guys in the hunting population should never, ever own turrets. They won’t learn them and they have no business using them. And like Robby says, it’s one more thing to **** up for the average Joe.

It’s similar to archery hunting. Most guys shoot 10 arrows, a week before season and think they are good to go. Go to the local rifle range in any western state a week before the rifle season opens and watch what is happening WITHOUT turrets

To many guys buy a turreted scope and think they are good to go cause their unverified ballistic calculator told them they are good.

 

[TaperPin]

5 inches high at 150 coupled with a 2 moa field shooter is probably going to result in a lot of misses inside 300.

Why would it do that? For 100 and 200 yards my hold is 1/4 the way up the chest. 1/4 the way from bottom of chest to back is about 5”, so that seems pretty close to me,

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

Why would it do that? For 100 and 200 yards my hold is 1/4 the way up the chest. 1/4 the way from bottom of chest to back is about 5”, so that seems pretty close to me,

Didn’t realize you were holding low. Makes more sense now.

 

[TaperPin]

@TaperPin then from 100-200 I'd be holding bottom third of the deer?

Edit to add: how would I account for wind with a mil based reticle? I saw your correction for a 10mph wind, but what about 3mph? 7?

Not trying to be a smartass, I want to understand so I can give this method a fair shake when I try it

At 100 and 200 the hold is 1/4 the way up the chest. 3 mph is essentially 1/3 and 7 mph is 2/3 a full wind call - right? I don’t use mils so you’ll have to figure that out.

 

[TaperPin]

Or a lot of bad hits. Like I said earlier, this style of holdover guessing has contributed to a lot of fudd myths about bullet performance and animal toughness. People don’t want to admit their own misses/bad hits/incorrect ranging so it must be the bullet’s fault and the animal requires even more gun now. Same story with magnums “splashing” bullets that never reached the vitals.. even though the recoil was so bad they never saw the hit to realize the vitals were nowhere near the impact area.

Like I said earlier, you are confusing the method I use with something completely different. If it seems too complicated, someone should definitely not use it.

 

[prm]

Neither method is worth much if you don’t take the time to true your ballistics. Ballistic reticles are harder to use, more susceptible to user error, since the ranges tend to be in-between. That’s my experience anyway. But still better than a duplex on a scope that won’t dial correctly.

 

[TaperPin]

Didn’t realize you were holding low. Makes more sense now.

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.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Like I said earlier, you are confusing the method I use with something completely different. If it seems too complicated, someone should definitely not use it.

I’m not confusing anything, whether you call it MPBR or not it’s essentially the same thing. Your POI is 3-4.5” both high and low within what should be the “just shoot without ranging” distance. Add any group size over .01” and field shooter variability, misses are expected. It’s a lot of unnecessary estimating and guessing that doesn’t save any time in the field over a more precise practiced method.
There’s a reason scopes adjust in accepted units of measurement and not “quarters of deer”.

 

[TaperPin]

I’m not confusing anything, whether you call it MPBR or not it’s essentially the same thing. Your POI is 3-4.5” both high and low within the “just shoot without ranging” distance. Add any group size over .01” and field shooter variability, misses are expected. It’s a lot of unnecessary estimating and guessing that doesn’t save any time in the field over a more precise practiced method.
There’s a reason scopes adjust in accepted units of measurement and not “fractions of deer”.

You are right about it not being exact. However, the POI error is much less than you’re saying. It works out to this for my 6.5 PRC:
100 1.1”
200 1.7”
300 0”
400 1.2”

A .223 77 gr TMK @ 2900 fps has roughly the same error:
100 .8”
200 .1”
300 0”
400 1.3”

That seems close enough for something as big as a mule deer. For a prairie dog gun, or even past 400 yards I agree most people should be dialing.

Everyone visualizes things differently - I’ve known a number of normal smart people who don’t process fractions well. I would expect them to steer away from this.

There are plenty of guys dialing that don’t practice enough and they struggle - they should also stay away from this and not add another layer of mental decision making to their work load.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

You are right about it not being exact. However, the POI error is much less than you’re saying. It works out to this for my 6.5 PRC:
100 1.1”
200 1.7”
300 0”
400 1.2”

A .223 77 gr TMK @ 2900 fps has roughly the same error:
100 .8”
200 .1”
300 0”
400 1.3”

That seems close enough for something as big as a mule deer. For a prairie dog gun, or even past 400 yards I agree most people should be dialing.

How many grains of powder are you loading in that 6.5 to run 5,000 fps?

 

[TaperPin]

How many grains of powder are you loading in that 6.5 to run 5,000 fps?

?

 

[S.Clancy]

These are very simplistic printouts, but close enough. Zero at 300. Use 2 moa drift for a 10 mph wind at both yardages. Of course 300 yards is center of the cardboard deer. 350 is 3/4 the way up, 400 is on the back, and 450 is 1/3 over the back. At 450 if these books represent the deer body from chest to back, imagine adding a fourth book above and aim at the top of it - bang bang.

View attachment 688034

View attachment 688019

I'm a 300 yd zero guy with my 270 Win. With a 126 HH @3250 fps it's point and shoot out to around 340 ish. I dial past that, if I have time, but am comfortable with holdovers.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Just normal velocity.
View attachment 688295

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

 

[Parkerpusher]

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?

I read this whole thread but I’m coming back to the beginning to say this:

SWFA are great scopes with good reticles and reliable dialing, so you can practice with both methods at different ranges and get your own system preferences going.

If you want help getting an SWFA scope headed your way as a “gift” I’m happy to do it. A little trust required on the money side of it but I’m game.