Long Range Hunting: Hold Over Reticle, Dial or Both?

[Gila]

If my eyes hadn’t gone South, I would probably still be using the same scope without dials. Western hunting we aren’t sitting in blinds, we have to hoof it. Back in the day before we had fancy dialing optics or range finders actually…no ballistic apps either, we did two things: 1) Use a flat shooting cartridge like a 270 Win….2) Sight in 200-300 yards. Granted, we couldn’t dial because we didn’t have the turrets! Our effective range was limited. At that time It was considered unethical to take a shot beyond 500 yards. Using the same rifle with the same ammo, we learned where the bullet was going to go at any given range.

In my first post I stated that you should be able to make the shot inside of 450 yards without dialing…if you can’t, then you should shoot your rifle more. With the scopes I have now I will usually dial up beyond 350 yards if I think I have the time. Logic would dictate that beyond 500 yards the time to hold (100 yard zero) is probably longer than dialing up. Experienced speed goat hunters will tell you that hurry up shots are more than common. Case in point: Quite often when a herd spooks, they will run off a ways but then the herd buck will often stop to size up the danger for a few seconds. Could be 200 or it could be 400 yards, who knows.

My longest shot on a Pronghorn buck is 465 yards. I found a herd around a tank at sunset. The next morning, I set up on a low rise near where they went in. The herd was right on time but the herd doe walked up near me, snorted and then the herd took off. I put the cross hairs on the herd buck and followed. He stopped, I guessed 400 yards, made the hold, and sent the round. It was a perfect heart shot but I still felt lucky.

 

[Brucebarker024]

Personally I dial for everything. If I don’t have time and the shot is close (sub 250) I’ll just holdover but it’s never my first choice. I always hold for wind never dial.

 

[ddowning]

People arguing speed are dead on right, but so are the people arguing for dialing. All my hunting guns are zeroed at 100 yards, I then add .5 mils up and slip the scales to zero. At that point I have a gun that is zeroed close to mpbr. Now I can hold over or under or dial from there and the numbers are all the same. If I want to check my 100 yard zero, I simply dial the turret .5 mils below zero and check.

The same can be done if you walk around with .5 mils dialed on the gun. The only difference is if you have an encounter where you want to hold over, you have to subtract .5 from the dope to get the hold over amount. With my method you simply memorize your dope and run it. I rarely have to touch my turret when time is precious.

I do think people get stuck on one method and waste time with dialing or hash marks. I shoot coyotes to 300 without thinking unless it is windy. If I had my scope zeroed at 100 I would have to start thinking about how much to hold a lot sooner, or worse yet, range everything and dial dope. I can only imagine my frustration if I'm deer hunting with someone and the thing is standing at 150 yards and they want to range it and dial. It's not a gnat. The kill zone is a damn pie plate. Just kill it!

There you go. All you keyboard warriors now have a method to use old school Kentucky windage, dialing, and holding over with the same platform I don't, however, know of a scope that will do it that is 14 ounces, sorry.

 

[General RE LEE]

People arguing speed are dead on right, but so are the people arguing for dialing. All my hunting guns are zeroed at 100 yards, I then add .5 mils up and slip the scales to zero. At that point I have a gun that is zeroed close to mpbr. Now I can hold over or under or dial from there and the numbers are all the same. If I want to check my 100 yard zero, I simply dial the turret .5 mils below zero and check.

The same can be done if you walk around with .5 mils dialed on the gun. The only difference is if you have an encounter where you want to hold over, you have to subtract .5 from the dope to get the hold over amount. With my method you simply memorize your dope and run it. I rarely have to touch my turret when time is precious.

I do think people get stuck on one method and waste time with dialing or hash marks. I shoot coyotes to 300 without thinking unless it is windy. If I had my scope zeroed at 100 I would have to start thinking about how much to hold a lot sooner, or worse yet, range everything and dial dope. I can only imagine my frustration if I'm deer hunting with someone and the thing is standing at 150 yards and they want to range it and dial. It's not a gnat. The kill zone is a damn pie plate. Just kill it!

There you go. All you keyboard warriors now have a method to use old school Kentucky windage, dialing, and holding over with the same platform I don't, however, know of a scope that will do it that is 14 ounces, sorry.

I do the same during hunting season. I have a 100 yard zero and just set my turret to 200 yards.

 

[Roadrunner1]

I prefer Leupold CDS dial

 

[roosiebull]

Personally,
I use Zeiss rangefinder binos and range and dial everything. I have never missed an opportunity to shoot. Hold for wind.

I feel like if I don’t have time to range and dial, I don’t have time to shoot a shot at that distance

Rushing a long shot rarely ends well. I held over elevation once on a lion that was going to be out of sight quick, the only reason that worked out well was because it was 497yds, and I knew my 500yd hold, and flattened the cat, but at most ranges, it’s going to take a second to get your range figured out, dialing is fast and precise

I didn’t shoot at a really big lion once cruising up the edge of some timber, similar scenario but not a nice even yardage, but I think holding over with the reticle on that one would have caused a scene, wasted a bullet, and wasted 2 hrs walking up there to confirm it was a miss… had he stayed visible a few seconds longer, by the time I dialed in the range, I think it would have been a bad day for him… that’s the only time that I missed an opportunity dialing, but figuring out a reticle hold wouldn’t have saved me time… not a meaningful amount

200yds And in, I’m most likely not dialing, but there are still scenarios it makes sense to

 

[gretch6364]

So you don't want discussion on a message board. Got it.

Tone cannot be picked up consistently on the internet, so let me put it in a different way. I was simply asking a question about his experience dialing vs holding over under timed pressure (I'm guessing he has very little of said experience based on his past posts on this forum and I'm not insulting him by saying so...it is simply an observation). If people have not tested themselves in those situations they should consider doing so. He listed an "advantage" without qualifying how he actually came to that as an advantage, so I asked some questions. In reality, a shooter that can't get his/her turret to the right place probably also won't hold over correctly either (especially when the adrenaline is flowing and your time is limited). I used to be one that thought a reticle holdover was faster. Then I timed myself doing both and for me it was unquestionably faster to dial elevation and use the center crosshair (or center wind marks if wind holds are needed) than to get to the right holdover hash mark. Rather than THINKING one way may be an advantage over the other, people should test themselves and see.

Just to be clear....you are saying because it is faster/more better for you, everyone should do the same?

 

[JohnJohnson]

Just to be clear....you are saying because it is faster/more better for you, everyone should do the same?

I'll go out on a limb and say a good 99% of hunters in the same scenario would shoot better by dialing elevation and holding for wind. Even PRS style competition shooters avoid holding over if they can, and they're actually well trained at it. It seems unnecessary to condescend a guy who has gone as far as timing himself doing both methods.

 

[Shortschaf]

Just to be clear....you are saying because it is faster/more better for you, everyone should do the same?

No. He was suggesting people try things out before they make up their mind. And then predicted that they'd arrive at the same conclusion as him. And I agree

 

[MidGAHunter]

No. He was suggesting people try things out before they make up their mind. And then predicted that they'd arrive at the same conclusion as him. And I agree

This ^^^ is effectively what I was saying. Some may arrive at a different conclusion for themselves than I did but I suspect if people would test it out under timed pressure that many (probably most) would arrive at the same conclusion I did.

 

[MidGAHunter]

Just to be clear....you are saying because it is faster/more better for you, everyone should do the same?

Not at all. See above post.

 

[gretch6364]

This ^^^ is effectively what I was saying. Some may arrive at a different conclusion for themselves than I did but I suspect if people would test it out under timed pressure that many (probably most) would arrive at the same conclusion I did.

That is a reasonable conclusion, but I would suggest that if people practiced with a FFP scope with a tree, they would be faster, especially under pressure.

I totally agree with the premise that trying to use a second plane scope in the same manner and "memorizing" the power level that certain math works, etc. is the wrong direction. I also think too many people are shooting with "custom" turrets that have yardage markers (instead of using mils) and just dial and try to make long shots on animals and miss, or worse, injure.

At long distances you can't just use those yardage dials and many switch between ammo based on what they can find and don't get new dials. It has become a bad situation for the animals. To compound it even more, mid-western and eastern hunters come out here unprepared and unpracticed, making matters even worse.

 

[MidGAHunter]

That is a reasonable conclusion, but I would suggest that if people practiced with a FFP scope with a tree, they would be faster, especially under pressure.

That's exactly what I used to think. Then I tested it under timed pressure and came to a very different objective conclusion. Hence why I recommended people actually test it. How someone THINKS something will work may not be how it works out in practice. I'd encourage people to actually test it and see if they find they are faster AND with a higher hit rate with one versus the other (I was, and those that I have had try it out have also been faster/more consistent with dialing). YMMV but again, try it out and see. My whole point is to encourage people to actually test it objectively as opposed to subjectively believing what might work better.

 

[Formidilosus]

That's exactly what I used to think. Then I tested it under timed pressure and came to a very different objective conclusion. Hence why I recommended people actually test it. How someone THINKS something will work may not be how it works out in practice. I'd encourage people to actually test it and see if they find they are faster AND with a higher hit rate with one versus the other (I was, and those that I have had try it out have also been faster/more consistent with dialing). YMMV but again, try it out and see. My whole point is to encourage people to actually test it objectively as opposed to subjectively believing what might work better.

I have yet to see a single person on a timer have the same hit rate and be faster holding elevation and wind, versus dialing elevation and holding wind on vital sized targets (12” or so).

Only people who haven’t timed it, have a terrible shot process, or are shooting at massive steel plates believe that holding in a reticle is faster to “hit”.

 

[MidGAHunter]

I have yet to see a single person on a timer and have the same hit rate and be faster holding elevation and wind, versus dialing elevation and holding wind on vital sized targets (12” or so).

Only people who haven’t timed it, have a terrible shot process, or are shooting at massive steel plates believe that holding in a reticle is faster to “hit”.

My sample size is certainly way lower than yours, but I've seen the same.

 

[gretch6364]

Sounds like you are timing a lot of slow mental processors, and that is certainly fine, not all people have the same mental capacity, may have been english majors in college, etc.

If you can't move your reticle up a fraction of a millimeter faster than you can turn a knob...I can't help you.

 

[Formidilosus]

Sounds like you are timing a lot of slow mental processors, and that is certainly fine, not all people have the same mental capacity, may have been english majors in college, etc.

Sure. Only a couple of national champions, world class multi gunners, and winners of multiple matches- who all have been trained and practiced on using tree/Horus reticles.


As you disagree, what have been your observations if perforce differences- time to first shot, time to hit, and overall hit percentage on vital sized targets, in large scale and in-depth comparative timing and performance with a broad spectrum of shooters using hold over for both elevation and windage, versus dialing elevation and holding windage, versus dialing elevation and windage? How has that compared going from a prone flat range situation to an unstable field environment, especially with stress, fatigue, and high heart rates?

 

[gretch6364]

My observation is with a tree and proper dope chart, dialing the scope is an extra step that typically de-stabilizes the gun when you take your hands off your anchors. Shooters then are fidgeting and re-adjusting every time when moving between targets at different distances.

This becomes even more pronounced when an animal is moving and you are waiting for the right shot. But by all means, reach up and and adjust your turret 6 times. Not to mention, I keep seeing videos of people saying their scopes are no longer tracking as accurately as they once were. There is no way all the constant dialing doesn't effect the durability and accuracy of a scope.

How many pins do you have on your bow? Guessing it is more than one.

That all said, everyone should try both ways and pick what is best for them...personally. For some it may be hard to see the tree well due to their eyes, etc.

 

[Formidilosus]

My observation is with a tree and proper dope chart, dialing the scope is an extra step that typically de-stabilizes the gun when you take your hands off your anchors. Shooters then are fidgeting and re-adjusting every time when moving between targets at different distances.

This becomes even more pronounced when an animal is moving and you waiting for the right shot. But by all means, reach up and and adjust your turret 6 times.

So you have no time or hit rate numbers or data? Are you going to tell us that you’ve never actually timed running a 5-10 target course from non-prone or benched back to back holding versus dialing?

Dialing an elevation turret is sub 1sec, and is done while getting into position. As for “moving” animals- I bet I’ve seen a few big game animals shot at in big herds that are moving constantly. Once it gets over a bout 1 mil of elevation and any wind, hit rates plummet on vital sized targets at speed.

How many pins do you have on your bow? Guessing it is more than one.

One. Well, two, and it’s used the exact same way a reticle is for a rifle- minor corrections due to small range changes, or 0-30 yards. The second pin is not for general or initial long range use.




Now what is the average “gap” between say your 500 yard aiming point, and your 600 yard aiming point in a rifle- versus your 50 yard pin and your 60 yard pin in a bow? How much does the vitals of say a deer fill that gap? And when you hold for wind with your bow- are you holding off the animal? And does the relationship between your pins for elevation and pins for windage, and the animal- match, visually with the same gap between elevation tick marks and windage for your rifle, in relation to how much the animals vitals fill that view? If not, your comparison is moot at the start.

And are you shooting a reticle with only a 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 yard mark with no other indications/ticks/hashes etc? I’d not, your comparison is moot at the start. If so, how are you dealing with wind? How are you dealing with different environments changing data?

 

[hereinaz]

If you have time to range you then you have time to dial elevation 99% of the time. It is a 100% faster and far less error prone technique.

When the rifle system becomes a natural part of the entire body as a natural extension, adjusting elevation is easy and doesn’t disturb the sight picture.

It’s kinda like how a new driver swerves when they have to change the radio or AC. They are not “one with the car yet”. But, an experienced driver can turn around and grab something out of the back seat without driving outside the lane.

The winners in Hunter NRL universally dial if they can for precision and to eliminate mental errors. In

PRS, match directors create “holdover only” stages that always produces average lower scores in the match. I never like them cause it was hard to do the extra thinking still needed to shoot the stage.

So, dialing is usually only faster only if you build it into your neurological pathways-muscle memory. If you don’t practice then all bets are off.

The entire shooting task is so complex that building an automatic dialing process into your neural memory that “auto executes” when you trip the switch is what actually makes it faster because you don’t have to think.

People can assume dailing is slower because it is a step that is not built into the automatic memory system, so they are slower using their conscious thought.

it’s like skipping, if you have never done it, it’s a messy process and you can’t barely whistle a tune at the same time you are trying to tell your feet and body what to do.

But, if you learn how to hop so you don’t have to think what each foot does, your brain can then focus on the tune you want to whistle.