Range Finder Binos that do ballistic drop in inches

[Tmac]

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.

For hunting to 350 & possibly to 400, you are fine with your sight in and hold over plans, as long as you know the size of your target in inches. For that plan bigger targets are more forgiving, smaller targets shorten the range it will reliably work. For example, I’ve used an 18” avg. chest size for mule deer for a long time and mentally divide the chest depth into 1/3’s.

With your guesstimate ballistic info, at 300 you hold at the top of the middle third, 350 at the top of the deer or slightly over. Dead deer result as it’s adequate precision for the task at hand most of the time. I do practice to 600 and don’t dial unless it's past 350 or 400 depending on the quarry. It works well for me.

You do need to actually shoot at 300, 350, & 400 to verify your dope. But odds are the ballistic data you have is close. You probably won’t win any challenges shooting at steel and using inches for hold overs vs these guys. Is what these guys are saying a more precise method, yes. But with practice it’s not necessary to consistently kill big game to 350 and maybe 400.

Many of these guys shoot to 500, 600, 800, or more. Their advice to zero at 100 is good for what they do because you need not worry about density altitude to any degree for shooting at 100. Zero at 100, dial what ever the calc says based on the environmentals and dead deer result. I’ll know my 100 zero, but I do dial it up for a 200-225 zero to hunt with. I don’t dial until past 350 or 400, but do know my marks to 600, which is as far as I can easily practise. If you have to check zero while hunting knowing the 100 zero is money.

Regardless of what you decide to do, practice is the key.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

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.

Well, first, maybe before you go up the mountain you don’t fire off such posts? Joke, relax, second, glad you still took the time to skim it, and 3rd...so much I agree with, not sure who would trust the box data as more than a comic book, but you’re likely right that many would, the state of our world and the people in it, not all their fault but a whole nuther conversation. We are almost entirely speaking the same language in that you have to verify and utilize yourself and learn how to drive the car if you wanna be good at driving the car. But our difference is in you saying in conclusion it’s not a thing...as in for everyone period, but already confirm before conclusion that it is.

And it is, just pointing it out. That simply a few ways to skin the cat for those inclined to learn how to skin....a facking cat. Each generation brings about far less people that are even willing to try, more training wheels required...back to that other discussion that goes well beyond this forum, I digress.

Would it be so bad if ballistic rangefinders offered ‘inches’ as the 3rd unit of measure option for those that can, or wish to, run a tape at the terminal end of the scene???

That is where I’m going, as in assisting the OP question, as well as me bring this same point up awhile back. What are the drawbacks to just making a few clicks in the program to give the 3rd option for compensation??? I see none. I see only positives to adding this as there’s lots of good cat skinners out there that don’t need to only play in the 3% of shot distances on game. And future cat skinners that may see value in this option for whatever they want to get good at or cover everything they have in the safe.

We cool? I’m not trying to fire you up, you giver and give back lots. Just sayin...why not offer that unit option as well. Let the skinners figure out what tape works best for their needs? As I said, what are downsides? Are we not all about the individual and freedom of choice and all that jazz? ‘Murica’? We don’t all have the same needs or wants as the 3% er’s. Heck my own safe would be happy for that 3rd unit and i could use all 3 lol.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

@Tmac

Well said. There’s a window where a certain level of precision required switches over to another level of precision required. No need to get into fps and wind vs the boolits we shoot and speeds we shoot em but generally all here understand where things start to fall off the face of the earth, and blow off the side of the earth, for the usual suspects, and until then the precision required for landing in kill zones can be done very quickly and easily as Occam’d...back in the day, or as put...there wasn’t really any other way lol. Does that mean now it doesn’t work, or has no place, can’t be one man’s treasure?

Just put the unit in the rangefinder options and see what happens to sales. Who cares which unit you choose. I have a safe that would use all 3. And to 400 all of them would be able to use it. It’s hardly a big deal. No need to get defensive about it, just logic it out. It may even help push people along to want to move into the 3% ranges and utilize the higher precision systems etc. Just seems no brainer to include it. We are wired for it and have to train for it otherwise. It cannot hurt anything and would only add options to everyone. Makes perfect sense to have tape options for both ends of the scene covered. It’s readily available in the apps and programs but not in the rangefinders...why the fack not? Makes no sense. We were born in inches.

Just because you wouldn’t use it or use it well? How little faith haha

 

[Stinky Coyote]

And now we wait.

Who will be the first ballistic rangefinder to add the unit?

Could be fun to see if anyone listens, maths it out, and agrees.

And when I say maths it out I mean think about guides alone. The fudds. The guys who know tapes from a life with them. Many applications. 0-400. A guide could have his own set up for the guys who show up with 100 zeroes and 200 zeroes and throw the general profile in for just in case he needs to tell a client where to hold on an animal when time of essence like usual. Much like I do by instinct with my kids or friends. So many applications this unit could come in handy.

Would take me awhile to train my kids basic ballistics first then mil or moa in relation to los, the two zeroes, the arc trajectory, let alone how moa or mil applies to that, then apply that via dial or reticle vs a simple verbal hold spot in relation to the animal in their scope. Seems obvious to me but maybe I’m special? Like short bus special? Maybe savant special? Have at’er, I’m here for your amusement. Especially for when you just get off the mountain.

 

[Speaks]

Most I would possibly be comfortable doing this way would be something like

1. 200 yard zero
2. No more than 8 inches of drop between 200 and 300
3. 300 hold on top of their back

To do that you dont need ballistics in binos and anything further you are much better off dialing. $3k is a lot for AB binos to give fudd info.

 

[Kyguy]

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.

If you have nice scopes with a plex, then those nice scopes should have turrets marked in MOA or MIL, even if they're capped. I suppose if it's a Zeiss or Swarovski, I know some of their turrets on capped scopes aren't actually marked, it's just hash lines. If this is the case, sight in for MPBR and don't shoot further than that. What scopes are you currently using?

You can use a ballistic calculator like the one on the Burris website and plot trajectory in inches. It's a bit eye opening when you start to stretch things out how much an increase there is in drop between every 25 or 50 yards.

 

[mtnbound]

And now we wait.

Who will be the first ballistic rangefinder to add the unit?

Could be fun to see if anyone listens, maths it out, and agrees.

And when I say maths it out I mean think about guides alone. The fudds. The guys who know tapes from a life with them. Many applications. 0-400. A guide could have his own set up for the guys who show up with 100 zeroes and 200 zeroes and throw the general profile in for just in case he needs to tell a client where to hold on an animal when time of essence like usual. Much like I do by instinct with my kids or friends. So many applications this unit could come in handy.

Would take me awhile to train my kids basic ballistics first then mil or moa in relation to los, the two zeroes, the arc trajectory, let alone how moa or mil applies to that, then apply that via dial or reticle vs a simple verbal hold spot in relation to the animal in their scope. Seems obvious to me but maybe I’m special? Like short bus special? Maybe savant special? Have at’er, I’m here for your amusement. Especially for when you just get off the mountain.

I would not hold your breath waiting for manufacturers to add inches to their RF/B binos. You can get inches from any ballistic solver app, like Shooter or Hornady. Just enter your data into it to see it, then write it on the rifle, on a card, or memorize it. I don't know why one even needs RF/B binos if you are shooting 400 and under, but if you have them, there isn't any required "math", "ballistics related to los", "arc trajectory" or whatever the hell "two zeros" is, if the RF/B displys "up 1.1mils," rotate the scope dial to 1.1 and shoot. You could also use the Quick Drop method if it works with your cartridge.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Well, first, maybe before you go up the mountain you don’t fire off such posts? Joke, relax, second, glad you still took the time to skim it, and 3rd...so much I agree with, not sure who would trust the box data as more than a comic book, but you’re likely right that many would, the state of our world and the people in it, not all their fault but a whole nuther conversation. We are almost entirely speaking the same language in that you have to verify and utilize yourself and learn how to drive the car if you wanna be good at driving the car. But our difference is in you saying in conclusion it’s not a thing...as in for everyone period, but already confirm before conclusion that it is.

And it is, just pointing it out. That simply a few ways to skin the cat for those inclined to learn how to skin....a facking cat. Each generation brings about far less people that are even willing to try, more training wheels required...back to that other discussion that goes well beyond this forum, I digress.

Would it be so bad if ballistic rangefinders offered ‘inches’ as the 3rd unit of measure option for those that can, or wish to, run a tape at the terminal end of the scene???

That is where I’m going, as in assisting the OP question, as well as me bring this same point up awhile back. What are the drawbacks to just making a few clicks in the program to give the 3rd option for compensation??? I see none. I see only positives to adding this as there’s lots of good cat skinners out there that don’t need to only play in the 3% of shot distances on game. And future cat skinners that may see value in this option for whatever they want to get good at or cover everything they have in the safe.

We cool? I’m not trying to fire you up, you giver and give back lots. Just sayin...why not offer that unit option as well. Let the skinners figure out what tape works best for their needs? As I said, what are downsides? Are we not all about the individual and freedom of choice and all that jazz? ‘Murica’? We don’t all have the same needs or wants as the 3% er’s. Heck my own safe would be happy for that 3rd unit and i could use all 3 lol.

I’m right there with you on a lot of your sentiments.

People are way too reliant on apps, gadgets with batteries, digital anemometers, the list goes on. I think 95*% of the folks that hunt these days wouldn’t know what to do past 200 yards without their gadgets.

The point is that your “holding” quarter body, half body, full body. Those are somewhat realistic values to make a call and try to hold. It’s the guys that think they are “holding this many inches” as if it’s measurable, accurate, or easily repeatable.

Of course we “are cool” haha. Everyone seems to read things these days as if the “tone” is “mean” or “negative” instead of folks with differing opinions trying to get others to land on where they are coming from. Argument versus debate I suppose. My mind never reads or goes to “argument” mode on this site unless someone is just being a straight up troll and has been called on the same shit dozens of times, and aren’t willing to either come out and prove it or show proof in some fashion.

Like the topic of this thread here. Guys claiming they can “hold a hands width” on an animal at 300+ yards, it’s been discussed here many times before. Anyone who’s been challenged to come out and show their work has either changed their tune or hidden behind the computer and never come out

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I would not hold your breath waiting for manufacturers to add inches to their RF/B binos. You can get inches from any ballistic solver app, like Shooter or Hornady. Just enter your data into it to see it, then write it on the rifle, on a card, or memorize it. I don't know why one even needs RF/B binos if you are shooting 400 and under, but if you have them, there isn't any required "math", "ballistics related to los", "arc trajectory" or whatever the hell "two zeros" is, if the RF/B displys "up 1.1mils," rotate the scope dial to 1.1 and shoot. You could also use the Quick Drop method if it works with your cartridge.

I won't hold my breath.

Math it out though. This is what people aren't doing, not even looking at potential usages.

It's a 'universal solution'. Using the tape at the far end of the scene that can be used by anyone regardless of system, solo, or guiding with a simple quick verbal where to hold.

Leaving out a universal solution when the math is already in the unit seems silly.

People use 3 systems, moa, mil, inches....so have all 3 units selectable and use the one you like, no need to fight about it. It covers a lot of ground and offers lots of possibilities. It does not hurt to have it added to the menu, it does not cost, no downside, only upside to include all shooters period. Added redundancy, whatever. It's a no brainer.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

I’m right there with you on a lot of your sentiments.

People are way too reliant on apps, gadgets with batteries, digital anemometers, the list goes on. I think 95*% of the folks that hunt these days wouldn’t know what to do past 200 yards without their gadgets.

The point is that your “holding” quarter body, half body, full body. Those are somewhat realistic values to make a call and try to hold. It’s the guys that think they are “holding this many inches” as if it’s measurable, accurate, or easily repeatable.

Of course we “are cool” haha. Everyone seems to read things these days as if the “tone” is “mean” or “negative” instead of folks with differing opinions trying to get others to land on where they are coming from. Argument versus debate I suppose. My mind never reads or goes to “argument” mode on this site unless someone is just being a straight up troll and has been called on the same shit dozens of times, and aren’t willing to either come out and prove it or show proof in some fashion.

Like the topic of this thread here. Guys claiming they can “hold a hands width” on an animal at 300+ yards, it’s been discussed here many times before. Anyone who’s been challenged to come out and show their work has either changed their tune or hidden behind the computer and never come out

All good, my post above covers where I think we should get to. Let everyone figure it out themselves, what unit they like, for what gun they pull out of the safe, whether prove it on an invite or their own backyard and gear.

Seems adding the optional unit in output on rangefinder would potentially reduce the amount of 'invites' needed as they get to 'find out' what they can and can't do on their own.

Doesn't hurt to add the unit within a ballistic rangefinder menu and cover all shooters and potentials, and the redundancy of having all tapes methods included within the unit. Take your pick any time for any toy at any time and you aren't shopping for another rangefinder etc. Everyone is covered.

So just a call out to the manufacturers to add the unit, we should all be behind that. Can only add functionality even if only 'educational' as you are convinced.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Most I would possibly be comfortable doing this way would be something like

1. 200 yard zero
2. No more than 8 inches of drop between 200 and 300
3. 300 hold on top of their back

To do that you dont need ballistics in binos and anything further you are much better off dialing. $3k is a lot for AB binos to give fudd info.

I dunno, lots of fairly affordable ballistic rangefinders with AB lite type stuff that would be awful handy, lower end sig handhelds come to mind.

And my 308 with 205 zero is like 24-25" at 400, on an elk not hard to see a 1' foot over back will drop you into folding a tag, 16" at 350, a little gap over back same thing, 300 you're barely moving up on them...spine or just under will fold tag also.

BUT, if they are at 287, 313, 366 etc. what the ballistic rangefinder does regardless of output is give you live solution to that actual range and conditions without need to consult your chart data and do some math for in-between yardages. INCLUDING THE WIND CALL where you still have to do a little correction mental between your live call and your default windspeed in the unit.

So has nothing to do with examples like above it has everything to do with people shoot moa/mil/inches and ballistic rangefinders only giving menu option for moa/mil and leaving out potentially a very large group of fudds and guides and other guns in the safe lol. There's a lot of duplex scopes out there.

Just put the unit into the solution options on these rangefinders. Faster and more accurate solution always better for filling tags regardless your unit. We are simply missing one within these units. That doesn't make sense to me. It shouldn't make sense to any of us.

 

[Speaks]

I dunno, lots of fairly affordable ballistic rangefinders with AB lite type stuff that would be awful handy, lower end sig handhelds come to mind.

And my 308 with 205 zero is like 24-25" at 400, on an elk not hard to see a 1' foot over back will drop you into folding a tag, 16" at 350, a little gap over back same thing, 300 you're barely moving up on them...spine or just under will fold tag also.

BUT, if they are at 287, 313, 366 etc. what the ballistic rangefinder does regardless of output is give you live solution to that actual range and conditions without need to consult your chart data and do some math for in-between yardages. INCLUDING THE WIND CALL where you still have to do a little correction mental between your live call and your default windspeed in the unit.

So has nothing to do with examples like above it has everything to do with people shoot moa/mil/inches and ballistic rangefinders only giving menu option for moa/mil and leaving out potentially a very large group of fudds and guides and other guns in the safe lol. There's a lot of duplex scopes out there.

Just put the unit into the solution options on these rangefinders. Faster and more accurate solution always better for filling tags regardless your unit. We are simply missing one within these units. That doesn't make sense to me. It shouldn't make sense to any of us.

The post was about range finding binos with onboard balistics which I think are universally pretty expensive unlike the little hand held range finders.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Yup and he wants inches. Even more sad pay all that money for bino only and only get two of three unit solutions lol. Didn’t pay too much for my kilo 6k 8x32’s, sales happen and I don’t think that’s the most affordable option but it should be unlocked in every ballistic rangefinder period.

Funny how we get lost in trees and miss the forest.

 

[Loggerdude]

Wow a lot of wasted time here, I’ve got a slingshot if anyone has data for that

 

[Chris in TN]

If you have a scope with a typical duplex-ish reticle and you're shooting some decently flat-shooting cartridge it's easy enough to sight in dead on at 225-250-300 yards (depending on your trajectory) and have the bottom of the duplex as a 3 to 5 MOA holdover point which makes hits out to perhaps 350-400 yards fairly simple.

Beyond that it gets iffy, quick.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

EL Range TA will give atmosphere corrected, angle corrected drop in inches or centimeters for your ballistics.

I never imagined that anyone would want that info but here we are. Seems like it would be easier to get a scope with a mil reticle and use the holdovers.

 

[riversidejeep]

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.

Some of us have to look at 10" every freaking morning

 

[Kyguy]

Some of us have to look at 10" every freaking morning

And that's why people think 250 yards looks like 350 yards until they actually measure it.

 

[Ucsdryder]

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.

Assuming an elk is 26-30” from top of shoulder to bottom of belly behind the front leg, and my bullet drops 25” at 400 yards, this is not a hard shot. The margin of error is easily 8” each way. It does get harder the smaller the animal, but a deer is still realistic. What got real hard back in the day was Kentucky windage on coyotes at 400 plus!

And yes, we all used to use Kentucky windage back in the day. You’re not the only one that shot prior to exposed turrets.

Also, a 4 moa shooter at 300 yards? If that’s the case they shouldn’t be using a dial turret prone, with a bipod and rear bag.

 

[Chris in TN]

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.

It works well enough to perhaps 400 yards. If a guy was shooting something really flat like maybe a 25-06 with a longer barrel and they were sighted in dead on at maybe 300 or so and they had a duplex reticle with maybe a 4moa 'bottom' hold point I'd believe them if they told me they could reliably make center hits at 450-500, but that would be about it. And even then I'd question their ability to do it in much of a hurry.

My own experience is that if I have, say, 2moa increments for holdover in my reticle, the best I'll do with guesstimating the reticle between those increments ,is about 1moa. So if you're shooting at 400 yards and you can hold 2moa (I believe 2moa from a hurried field position is pretty good, honestly) with a turret dialed to hold dead on, then I'd add another minute to that if I was trying to interpolate between reticle hashmarks. So, 3moa, which is ~12" and if I'm shooting at a deer, suddenly 400 yards is a really long shot.

(ETA: and if you try to go finer than 2moa on the reticle hashmarks, my brain gets lost trying to count MOAs. I don't want anything finer than 2MOA or 1/2mrad)

I've made a couple of shots (387 and 399) where the animal was moving and the range was changing and it just worked out where I needed almost exactly 2moa of additional hold in the reticle (no time to dial again) and I nailed both of them, but I really don't like doing it. I'd go further and say - and I'm sure you'd agree - that when a guy switches from traditional holdovers, to dialing dead on, the increased ability to make center hits, is noticed almost immediately. That's not to say there's no value at all in hashmark or BDC type reticles, just that they are crude at best. When I see people talking abut using BDC reticles at 400+ yards I just cringe. Sure, it works out sometimes. But we ought to be better than that, or not shoot.