Nightforce vs. Swarovski Riflescope

[Matt Cashell]

BB,

I dont have a ton of experience holding over for shots, some, but not a lot, at least not at extended ranges. I've always thought, if you have the time to dial, that should be first option. Generally if you're shooting at an animal 400+ he's not aware of your presence you should have plenty of time to get your wind call correct, drop, dial the turrets and shoot. I practice a lot, but I will admit, not a lot in the holdover department.

I've been coyote hunting a lot this Winter and for that I have realized holding over is the only way to go, unless you catch one sleeping and sneak up to him. Because of that, I will be looking to swap scopes out on my 22-250 and get more proficient at holding over in hunting situations. It may or may not carry over to my big game, I don't know.

Your Swaro is a SFP scope. In my mind, at least, I'd feel that on a gun that I'll be doing quick holdovers with, I'd want a FFP. What are your thoughts on that? You ever hindered by having to be on a certain power for your scope to subtend correctly?

Once Spring hits I do intend to do more practice holding over. I'll be just using regular mil and moa has reticles though, which serve the same purpose.

Whisky,

Great post.

Those are exactly the issues I worried about before trying holdover reticle scopes. For years I made corrections with turrets on Leupy Mark 4s. It worked just fine, but I forgot to spin the turret back to zero more than once while moving quickly to get eyes on the critter after the shot.

Thanks for bringing up the SFP issue with the Swaros. As I am sure you are aware both FFP designs and SFP designs have advantages and disadvantages. SFP scopes have the advantage maintaining reticle thickness for shooting in low light at low powers. FFP designs, of course, have the advantage of being properly subtended at all magnifications.

I have never once had trouble getting my reticle properly subtended, because both of my holdover scopes are subtended at maximum magnification. I just turn them all the way up, which I would be doing anyway for shooting at ranges that require holdover.

I had a Zeiss Rapid Z scope that was properly subtended at an odd magnifcation (on my 3-9X40 it was 7.48 with one load) based on my load data, and it worked OK, but it is much easier in the field to just spin the magnification all the way up, as I do with the BRH.

The BRH would be a good option for you, if you are currently using a mil hash scope, as the reticle is subtended in 1/2 mil increments, rather than odd "BDC" increments. It also has the advantage of windage bars, which are actually more usefull in the field than I thought they would be.

For hunting, I like to keep my max magnification in my SFP reticle scopes between 9 and 16, so that they can perform suitably in all light conditions at max power, where the reticle is properly subtended.

If I went with a FFP scope, I would prefer it to be illuminated so the reticle would be easily visible at low powers in low light.

Give one a try whisky, they are pretty easy to get used to.

 

[Whisky]

Good info!! Thanks!

I may have to give one a try. Right now I just got a couple Leupy's with TMR reticles on my longer range rifles. As you know, i'm sure, they are just a straight up Mil hash reticles. I haven't practiced near enough to where I would feel comfortable holding over and off at extended ranges without a little more "reference" in the scope. Heck, in the reticle, .6 mils and .7 mils look the same to me. And there is quite a difference between them. I'd definitely not be opposed to some sort of windage bars or dots in a scope I plan to use for holdovers.

Another thing, at least for me, I feel I can "quarter" hash marks easier then I can "tenth" them. Of course a lot of this depends on the reticle design, but I'd think MOA would be easier than Mil, at least for me. But that's a different discussion all together. It's interesting though that Swaro would make a reticle for a hunting scope that subtends in Mils instead of MOA. Maybe I'm failing to see something here?

 

[Whisky]

Here's the BRH from Swaro....I like the design!!

 

[Matt Cashell]

Another thing, at least for me, I feel I can "quarter" hash marks easier then I can "tenth" them. Of course a lot of this depends on the reticle design, but I'd think MOA would be easier than Mil, at least for me. But that's a different discussion all together. It's interesting though that Swaro would make a reticle for a hunting scope that subtends in Mils instead of MOA. Maybe I'm failing to see something here?

So just quarter the mils. Since the BRH is subtended in 1/2 mils, a 1/4 mil would be halfway between marks.

Many tactical shooters are moving away from exclusively dialing, and equipping their scopes with detailed reticles like the H58, and holding their solutions, or combining dials and holds.

Personally, I still prefer traditional dialing for really long range shooting, but for extended ranges and game sized targets, I prefer the simplified reticle system.

 

[Whisky]

So just quarter the mils. Since the BRH is subtended in 1/2 mils, a 1/4 mil would be halfway between marks.

Touche

I have a buddy who has just recently gotten into LR shooting and he got hooked up with a guy who is a big Horus fan. They practice all the time by dialing part of the way and then holding over the rest. I gotta ask, what is the purpose of this? It must be something that Horus preaches, and probably something to do with their reticle designs (which I'm not very familiar with). If you're going to dial part of the way, why not dial all the way? And vice versa?

Just something I've wondered about is all...

ETA: I suppose a guy is limited to how far he can shoot strictly by holding over because you can only cram so much subtension into a reticle. On FFP scopes on higher power you only see so much of the reticle.

 

[shooten]

Touche

I have a buddy who has just recently gotten into LR shooting and he got hooked up with a guy who is a big Horus fan. They practice all the time by dialing part of the way and then holding over the rest. I gotta ask, what is the purpose of this? It must be something that Horus preaches, and probably something to do with their reticle designs (which I'm not very familiar with). If you're going to dial part of the way, why not dial all the way? And vice versa?

Usually, dialing in and holding over is done when you engage multiple targets. You may have targets at 400, 500 and 600 yards. Dialing into 500 and holding under/over is much faster than dialing in all 3. We're usually timed in matches and have 30 seconds or less to do this. It's obviously not a hunting problem unless you have multiple tags and a target rich environment. If only I had such problems. We do the same thing with Mil-dot reticles.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Dial and hold solutions are also useful for just holding wind, or shooting extreme distances where you have run out of adjustment, or making sure you stay on one rotation, or rapidly engaging targets at different ranges.

It is pretty fast to dial a 4.3 mil solution by dialing three clicks and holding 4 mils.

 

[shooten]

True. I never dial wind.