Range Finder Binos that do ballistic drop in inches

[David1289]

Are there any Range Finder binos that will do ballistic holdover with inches instead of MOA or MRAD? My scopes don’t have the fancy turrets to do MOA or MIL adjustments. I would prefer to get the inches of drop based on the cartridge flight path.

 

[MuleyFever]

How far do you plan to shoot using a guestimate holdover in inches?

 

[Marbles]

If you don't have a dialable turret, nor a reticle with drops on it, probably better not to be shooting further than you can easily memorize your hold over.

I would spend money on a new scope before range finding binoculars.

 

[David1289]

How far do you plan to shoot using a guestimate holdover in inches?

300 to 400 yards. I deer hunt and just wanted some closer indication of how high up the deer chest cavity to aim at.

 

[David1289]

If you don't have a dialable turret, nor a reticle with drops on it, probably better not to be shooting further than you can easily memorize your hold over.

I would spend money on a new scope before range finding binoculars.

I understand…just have some nice scopes already with basic plex.

I’d be open to a solid set of RF binos w/o the ballistic data. What would be recommended for a solid basic set of RF binos? With trying to look anywhere 400-500 yds, I was leaning towards 10x (my current binos are SLC 10x42 and really like them). I’ve used the Nikon handheld RF and just thinking it would be nice to get a way better handheld or maybe RF binos.

I only have 2 or 3 spots where I hunt where shots could be 400-500 yards but I want to within 300 yds, maybe 400 yds if I can practice at some longer shots eventually.

 

[MuleyFever]

300 to 400 yards. I deer hunt and just wanted some closer indication of how high up the deer chest cavity to aim at.

At 400 yards you aren't aiming up the deers chest cavity you're holding up into the air above the deer. Probably looking to hold almost 30" above the impact point. How many first round hits do you think you can make trying to guess around 30" on a target 400 yards away? As mentioned you should invest in a new scope first. Easy to tape a dope card to your rifle and use a regular rangefinder.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Nobody on the planet is consistently and reliably “holding a certain amount of inches” on deer and elk. It’s not a thing.

Those who claim it’s reliable and repeatable, and then come out to shoot, are shown that their abilities to “hold a certain amount of inches” on a target, let alone an animal that blends into terrain, is laughably inaccurate.

 

[MuleyFever]

Nobody on the planet is consistently and reliably “holding a certain amount of inches” on deer and elk. It’s not a thing.

Those who claim it’s reliable and repeatable, and then come out to shoot, are shown that their abilities to “hold a certain amount of inches” on a target, let alone an animal that blends into terrain, is laughably inaccurate.

Next shoot there should be a rifle with a plex reticle and a little contest. Give everyone the holdover in inches and see who gets closest

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Next shoot there should be a rifle with a plex reticle and a little contest. Give everyone the holdover in inches and see who gets closest

Yep we can do it. I’ve done it hundreds of times over the years to make a point

 

[David1289]

Alright then…I guess I’ll have to consider just basic RF binos or a great handheld. Any suggestions?

I have never tried to holdover for a 400 yd shot before. I zero at 200 yards with my 7 rem mag at the gun range and practice at that distance.

According to ballistic data, supposedly about 6 inch drop at 300 yards, then 18 inch drop at 400 yards with 150 gr Remington Scirocco ammo.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I understand…just have some nice scopes already with basic plex.

I’d be open to a solid set of RF binos w/o the ballistic data. What would be recommended for a solid basic set of RF binos? With trying to look anywhere 400-500 yds, I was leaning towards 10x (my current binos are SLC 10x42 and really like them). I’ve used the Nikon handheld RF and just thinking it would be nice to get a way better handheld or maybe RF binos.

I only have 2 or 3 spots where I hunt where shots could be 400-500 yards but I want to within 300 yds, maybe 400 yds if I can practice at some longer shots eventually.

I got my Leica Geovid R 10x42s as a demo from EuroOptic for $1350. Nicest pair of binoculars I have ever owned. There are cheaper options, but I don’t like Chinese products.

For what you are asking about, I have done the Kentucky windage and holdovers out to 450 before, but only on groundhogs. Never had the need or desire to do it on a deer or other big game animal. For that, I generally preferred a maximum range where I could “hold on hair, not on air” - 8” or about 250 yards with most of my rifles. I think it is good to know your drops in whatever measurements you have. But being able to dial provides a lot more precision and is a lot more repeatable.

 

[David1289]

I’ll just keep my limit 300 yards. If I end up wanting to shoot farther then I’ll get the right scope setup for that in the future.

 

[MuleyFever]

Using a 200 yard zero makes it a little easier but it's still not the way to go. Not trying to piss in your Cheerios. Just trying to say that if you want to shoot out a ways the right equipment makes it way easier and more fun.

As far as cheaper RF binos lots of people using the Sig and Vortex offerings. I would still get something with ballistics because eventually you will probably want to use it. I would think that since you already have SLCs you wouldn't want to downgrade though. If you don't want to spend on premium RF binos you may be happier using the SLCs and a regular rangefinder. Again, I would still get something with ballistics, if nothing else for the resale value. The new Leica looks pretty nice.

 

[wpeach1912]

Could just type it into a calculator and write it on a piece of paper then tape it on your scope. Maybe not as fast but fits in with the rough aiming you’re planning on

 

[hoooogan]

Why not do a 300y zero? That would be much more manageable for "inches" out to 400. Don't need more gear for that.

 

[brentr9]

Doug from Cameraland recommended the GPO Rangeguide that’s still on sale($650 delivered) until the 31st. There isn’t a solver in the unit but it should provide temp, humidity and pressure. They should deliver today and I can report back if you’re interested.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Yep we can do it. I’ve done it hundreds of times over the years to make a point

what's the target you use?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

what's the target you use?

We’ve done animal silhouettes to prove the point the most but it also works on gongs.

What folks don’t realize is that most shooters and their rifles combined, when put to the test in the mountains, are 3-4 MOA shooters without even factoring in the wind.

Even if you are like everyone else on the internet who “does their part” and are a mythical 1 MOA all day shooter, at 400 yards, you are staring out with 4” of built in error.

Then someone thinks they are going to “hold 10”high” on a deer or elk body…. Folks can’t even tell what 10” is right in front of their face, yet can somehow tell what 10” is on fur with animals of different sizes at 400 yards?

It’s so laughably inaccurate and so horribly unrepeatable that anyone who’s spent any amount of time doing it and seeing the results has realized it makes no sense for shooting at big game animals.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

We’ve done animal silhouettes to prove the point the most but it also works on gongs.

What folks don’t realize is that most shooters and their rifles combined, when put to the test in the mountains, are 3-4 MOA shooters without even factoring in the wind.

Even if you are like everyone else on the internet who “does their part” and are a mythical 1 MOA all day shooter, at 400 yards, you are staring out with 4” of built in error.

Then someone thinks they are going to “hold 10”high” on a deer or elk body…. Folks can’t even tell what 10” is right in front of their face, yet can somehow tell what 10” is on fur with animals of different sizes at 400 yards?

It’s so laughably inaccurate and so horribly unrepeatable that anyone who’s spent any amount of time doing it and seeing the results has realized it makes no sense for shooting at big game animals.

oh I agree, bulk of shots and shooters are not realistic about average accuracy of themselves etc.

so how do the guys that you DO know, that CAN shoot, do with inch drop holds to 400? would you worry about them even a little bit from filling a tag if the only data they had was inches of drop data for 300, 350, 400 and an appropriate for occam 200 zero? Would you actually worry about them even a little bit? are we talking about the same thing here?

it does work, always has, always will, it has effective ranges and for people institutionalized to inches and at least practice as with anything else they intend to drive well, works great, stupid fast and possibly the most occams razor to 400 solution going

can tell you tell a 150 whitetail from a 160 in blink? a 170 from a 180 muley? call a slot walleye before it hits the net? you bet we do, anyone in trades or institutionalized with a tape, most of us or at least my gen and those before me could prolly land within 1-2" on height of everyone standing in coffee shop, prolly within land within 10-15 lbs on their weight also, most of us who've scored lots of deer can call them within 5 inches at a glance, gross and net lol, those who fish a lot, calling fish within cm's right away never mind inches, weight too, we are wired spatially and visually, but as soon as we look through a scope at a deer it and the terrain around it now becomes unfamiliar to us and cannot see up to 24" at the scene? lmao, that's not a thing

it is a thing, always has been, always will be

now that's sorted, again, we can move on to what should be the focus here and that's this question, the intent of the OP question.....we should solve for this question lol

the 'original unit' (inches) is still seen on most tables or selectable on the online ballistic programs but you can't select it on rangefinder outputs, why is that?

it should be an option, we still reference and frame it in our minds all the time and speak it all the freakin time too so why? turns out maybe the most occams output for 0-400 where most sh1t is killed anyway? would it kill sales of all this long range stuff if people figured out to fill 95-98% of their tags is 0-400 and it can be done very simply and even cheaply? hmmmm

plenty of guys will fill plenty of tags with it and their duplexes lol, could hunt rest of my days to ~400 with duplex, basic rangefinder, correct zero and a few 50 yard inches markers on the gun to just re-burn into brain at start of hunting season and throughout, and be faster than pretty much anyone else which usually means fill more tags, but beyond that the precision solutions from gun end tapes come into play

do we even track on here the amount of opportunities that are lost due to the internal solutions taking too much time? or do we just accept that as there never was time? lol, I don't really want to bring up the two elk examples that were listed on here 300/350 yards, passed tags that for most anyone setup properly for hunting would have filled those tags instantly...we don't really look at that as closely as we should here, focused on what to do in the 3% distances lol

I'm sure you guys strive to have everyone shooting same zero and same unit, same internal based solutions for going beyond the majority of kill distances, so a common instructable language and translates to calling for each other afield while hunting too. however, to 400, you can instruct anyone familiar with '6"' and who doesn't know what 6" is? where to hold on an animal regardless what they've been trained in or are stuck on from a guy who knows the range, the zero, and drop inches....the tape is at both ends of the scene and can be used very effectively where they work best for the precision required for that animal

just don't go saying one isn't a thing when it always has been and always will be a thing

so why can't the range finder manufacturers identify a potential hole in their product line easily filled with a few button clicks to allow rangefinders to spit inches of drop along with mil and moa in the options menu? that's it, first guy through the wall might pick up a bunch more sales, lotsa duplex guys out there still haha, they will all potentially pick up some sales by spending hardly a dime to just allow one more unit of measure to be spit out, the OG Unit

I brought this up awhile ago, the option should be there, there is value, as even for guys like me who have units in the safe set up differently, some units would benefit from the inches setting, all could use it actually, some maybe moa, and only one so far is using mils. Seems silly to me they don't see this hole and for how easy it would to fill it....just fill it? a little clicky clicky and good to go, doors open up to ALL

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

oh I agree, bulk of shots and shooters are not realistic about average accuracy of themselves etc.

so how do the guys that you DO know, that CAN shoot, do with inch drop holds to 400? would you worry about them even a little bit from filling a tag if the only data they had was inches of drop data for 300, 350, 400 and an appropriate for occam 200 zero? Would you actually worry about them even a little bit? are we talking about the same thing here?

it does work, always has, always will, it has effective ranges and for people institutionalized to inches and at least practice as with anything else they intend to drive well, works great, stupid fast and possibly the most occams razor to 400 solution going

can tell you tell a 150 whitetail from a 160 in blink? a 170 from a 180 muley? call a slot walleye before it hits the net? you bet we do, anyone in trades or institutionalized with a tape, most of us or at least my gen and those before me could prolly land within 1-2" on height of everyone standing in coffee shop, prolly within land within 10-15 lbs on their weight also, most of us who've scored lots of deer can call them within 5 inches at a glance, gross and net lol, those who fish a lot, calling fish within cm's right away never mind inches, weight too, we are wired spatially and visually, but as soon as we look through a scope at a deer it and the terrain around it now becomes unfamiliar to us and cannot see up to 24" at the scene? lmao, that's not a thing

it is a thing, always has been, always will be

now that's sorted, again, we can move on to what should be the focus here and that's this question, the intent of the OP question.....we should solve for this question lol

the 'original unit' (inches) is still seen on most tables or selectable on the online ballistic programs but you can't select it on rangefinder outputs, why is that?

it should be an option, we still reference and frame it in our minds all the time and speak it all the freakin time too so why? turns out maybe the most occams output for 0-400 where most sh1t is killed anyway? would it kill sales of all this long range stuff if people figured out to fill 95-98% of their tags is 0-400 and it can be done very simply and even cheaply? hmmmm

plenty of guys will fill plenty of tags with it and their duplexes lol, could hunt rest of my days to ~400 with duplex, basic rangefinder, correct zero and a few 50 yard inches markers on the gun to just re-burn into brain at start of hunting season and throughout, and be faster than pretty much anyone else which usually means fill more tags, but beyond that the precision solutions from gun end tapes come into play

do we even track on here the amount of opportunities that are lost due to the internal solutions taking too much time? or do we just accept that as there never was time? lol, I don't really want to bring up the two elk examples that were listed on here 300/350 yards, passed tags that for most anyone setup properly for hunting would have filled those tags instantly...we don't really look at that as closely as we should here, focused on what to do in the 3% distances lol

I'm sure you guys strive to have everyone shooting same zero and same unit, same internal based solutions for going beyond the majority of kill distances, so a common instructable language and translates to calling for each other afield while hunting too. however, to 400, you can instruct anyone familiar with '6"' and who doesn't know what 6" is? where to hold on an animal regardless what they've been trained in or are stuck on from a guy who knows the range, the zero, and drop inches....the tape is at both ends of the scene and can be used very effectively where they work best for the precision required for that animal

just don't go saying one isn't a thing when it always has been and always will be a thing

so why can't the range finder manufacturers identify a potential hole in their product line easily filled with a few button clicks to allow rangefinders to spit inches of drop along with mil and moa in the options menu? that's it, first guy through the wall might pick up a bunch more sales, lotsa duplex guys out there still haha, they will all potentially pick up some sales by spending hardly a dime to just allow one more unit of measure to be spit out, the OG Unit

I brought this up awhile ago, the option should be there, there is value, as even for guys like me who have units in the safe set up differently, some units would benefit from the inches setting, all could use it actually, some maybe moa, and only one so far is using mils. Seems silly to me they don't see this hole and for how easy it would to fill it....just fill it? a little clicky clicky and good to go, doors open up to ALL

I just came down off the mountain to see this mountain of text lol.

I’ve probably shot more rounds using “inches of holdover” on targets, varmints, animals, etc than nearly all of Rokslide combined. It’s how we used to shoot and hunt because it’s all we really had.

Again, when put to the test with real shooters (hundreds of them over the last decade plus) of all different skill levels, there isn’t a single shooter who has been able to reliably and consistently “hold this many inches” over animal silhouette targets. Even with round targets where they know the exact size of the gong, there is so much error introduced between the “hold” and the shooter/rifle system combined that its nowhere near something that should be used reliably on big game animals. Yet all the bullet manufactures still print exaggerated velocities with 200 yard zeroes and inches of drop right on the box. Crazy that they still do this and people actually believe it and use it as any sort of “data” for field shooting.

Does that mean nobody can kill shit using inches of holdover? No.

Does that mean we should we be recommending that shooters to use inches of holdover to kill big game animals at 400 yards? Also, no.