Turrets and Holdover Reticles??

[Northpark]

Curious to what situation you would use holdover instead of dialing? My thought process is that would only occur if the distance in known (previously ranged), otherwise if you’re ranging you have time to dial. I could be completely wrong on this. Really wondering. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For me quick shots where I don’t have time to dial I use a hold over. As an example a few years ago I shot an elk at 404 yards with a holdover instead of dialing. The reason was that I didn’t have time to range or dial because my buddies had just shot two others out of the herd. The herd ran out. 200 yards and paused. I estimated the range at 375 and pulled the trigger. Since we were at like 11,000’ instead of 8,000’ where I zeroed the rifle my bullet hit right where I was aiming. Not an ideal situation but it worked.

 

[Jakerex]

For me quick shots where I don’t have time to dial I use a hold over. As an example a few years ago I shot an elk at 404 yards with a holdover instead of dialing. The reason was that I didn’t have time to range or dial because my buddies had just shot two others out of the herd. The herd ran out. 200 yards and paused. I estimated the range at 375 and pulled the trigger. Since we were at like 11,000’ instead of 8,000’ where I zeroed the rifle my bullet hit right where I was aiming. Not an ideal situation but it worked.

Makes sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macintosh]

agree in part. Agree that most of the reticles available on scopes with exposed turrets are way too busy for my preference, and for the majority of my hunting are a distraction and therefore a negative because the majority of my shots are within MPBR and usually very fast--its frustrating to me that there are extremely few scopes with a good reputation for accurate tracking that are available in what I consider an acceptable hunting reticle. To me these are PRS reticles, not hunting reticles, and in my opinion those are two very different things. People keep telling me I'm the one who's wrong and these reticles are fine for hunting--they may be right, but having tried them they are NOT right for me. After 40+ years shooting I may just be too set in my ways? Regardless, thats how I see it.

I do think there is a time and a place for dialing and a time and place for holdovers. holdovers are a clear advantage with multiple targets at different ranges under a time constraint (usually not a thing in hunting except maybe feral hogs or something like that), or what i think is much more likely is a target that you are preparing for that will emerge at an unknown range, or a followup shot--you see an animal enter a patch of woods and you will have a relatively short window as it exits out the other side, so you can prepare for it to exit but you wont have time to range AND dial AFTER it exits--in this case a couple of ranged trees and you have 2 or 3 solutions prepped or a spotter to range and call a solution for you, so the reticle allows you to get on the animal without having to come off the scope to dial. That, or an animal is moving after a shot or as you get into a shooting position, and the time factor from when it pauses to look back and before it takes off again is significant so by using the reticle rather than dialing you can be already in the gun and that much faster.

Maybe consider a FFP scope? I have several decent ffp scopes for PRS but until recently I had never seen a ffp reticle I considered suitable for hunting before (all way too busy and mostly invisible crosshairs reliant on illumination when at lower magnifications), so up until now I was adamant that my hunting scopes had to be 2nd focal plane. I've been looking more or less for the same scope as you for a while, and simply could not find it within my price range, as I wasnt about to drop $1000+ on a scope that had a poor reputation for reliable tracking or one where i didnt like the reticle for the other 90+% of my hunting (i.e. inside MPBR). I ended up getting a S&B FFP scope with a hunting-focused mil-dot reticle, their P3. The reticle looks just like a normal duplex reticle at low power--maybe a touch on the fine side but very useable--but as you increase magnification the center mil-dot section becomes more apparent, and at that point you can take advantage of the milling reticle at any magnification since its a ffp scope. I really like it so far and it's definitely worlds better in the woods than the PRS-style reticles I've used. After finally seeing a useable ffp reticle like this I think it makes more sense as a hunting reticle than most of the BDC or milling SFP reticles out there, which unless youre smarter than me only work at one magnification and are always cluttering my field of view regardless of the mag setting. Unfortunately nightforce and some of the other companies making scopes with a good rep for tracking no longer offer reticles other than ones I consider unacceptably busy for hunting in the scope models I was considering. I dont know what other reticles are out there similar to this one--not many is my impression--but if you are set on exposed elevation turret and the above makes sense to you perhaps it would be easier to find a FFP scope with a mildot similar to this one? For what its worth I think a high zoom ratio makes it harder to achieve a good hunting reticle as the manufacturer needs to put more mills of space in the center section of the reticle to provide any differentiation at low power. If the reticle has more than 10 or 15 mils of space in the center crosshair it might be too fine for a hunting reticle--depending on your rifle that may not work. my rifle 5 mils (the bottom of a 10-mil center crosshair) only gets me just under 700 yards with a 100yd zero. This was plenty for me but if 700 is your starting point this may not be a good solution for you.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Don’t be in a hurry to make a bad decision.

Do your due diligence regarding first vs second focal planes, useable reticles, what scopes ‘work’ (ie retain zero, dial precisely, return to zero) and wind brackets. That’ll give you a good foundation to make an informed choice.

I assure you a second focal plane with a duplex reticle is not the easy button in any shooting scenario.

 

[sndmn11]

Curious to what situation you would use holdover instead of dialing? My thought process is that would only occur if the distance in known (previously ranged), otherwise if you’re ranging you have time to dial. I could be completely wrong on this. Really wondering. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Misses and corrections for follow up.

Dialed for a distance and the animal move closer/further. EX: I'm zeroed for 100, my pronghorn materializes at 250 facing me, no shot, but I dial .8mil for when he turns broadside. Buck starts walking towards me, stay in scope to wait for broadside, trots after a doe closer, they go back and forth further/closer, then at 175 he stops broadside. 175 is .3mil from zero, I can hold low .5mil on the fly while staying on the buck.

 

[SDHNTR]

I’m looking for a new scope and all I want is a SFP scope with a duplex reticle, and a reliable turret for shooting outwards of 700 yards. In my search I see so many, like the majority of manufactures, putting these holdover, MOA hash, mil dot, blah blah blah reticles in their scopes along with an exposed elevation turret. To me, this makes little sense.

Yes I understand, we’ll maybe not, that as a hunter you could get a quick shot where you could use a holdover mark instead of dialing your turret, but does this ever really happen? If it’s far enough that you need to use a holdover mark, you’re probably taking your time and going prone or similar for a shot, and would need time to range, so you could dial anyway, or, it’s close enough that there is no need for holdover marks…..just crosshairs and shoot.

Am I the only person wondering why more standard duplex reticles are not used in scopes with elevation turrets, especially those scopes directed towards big game hunters?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You aren't alone. I feel the same way. I don't like busy reticles for hunting at all.

Swarovski 4w is the perfect reticle to me. As is the Leupold Windplex (just wish it was minus the Leupold part). The Zeiss Zmoa2 is about the only one with vertical marks I think I can tolerate as at least its not terribly busy. The vertical dots are easy enough to ignore.

 

[freddyG]

Another useful feature is the ability to use the reticle as a ruler, while sighting in, and in spotting misses.

A plex reticle is very limiting, especially hunting. It’s useful at close range, but out further it’s all a guess.

 

[Laramie]

I use a B&C reticle. I'm old school and feel the fewer moving parts the better. I know my gun and scope very well and all comfortable to 500. Beyond 500, I feel turrets would be the way to go. I just choose to not shoot that far.

 

[Superdoo]

Curious to what situation you would use holdover instead of dialing? My thought process is that would only occur if the distance in known (previously ranged), otherwise if you’re ranging you have time to dial. I could be completely wrong on this. Really wondering. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my experience you’re completely wrong on this.
This year I have called holdovers to friends who filled their tags a half second after the holdover was provided. The situations were very common.

We spotted a deer, the deer moved behind a hill, we maneuvered to a new position, the deer was spotted off to the side of where we thought it would be, firing lane was adjusted by the shooter while I got an accurate range and holdover, I communicated it to the shooter and the deer fell down dead. That happened at 347 yards and at 432 yards.

Some guys like the clean look of a standard duplex. I like to be prepared for anything.

 

[Jakerex]

In my experience you’re completely wrong on this.
This year I have called holdovers to friends who filled their tags a half second after the holdover was provided. The situations were very common.

We spotted a deer, the deer moved behind a hill, we maneuvered to a new position, the deer was spotted off to the side of where we thought it would be, firing lane was adjusted by the shooter while I got an accurate range and holdover, I communicated it to the shooter and the deer fell down dead. That happened at 347 yards and at 432 yards.

Some guys like the clean look of a standard duplex. I like to be prepared for anything.

Understood, but I rarely if ever hunt with someone else. So, if I’m ranging, I would have time to turn a dial. At least I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk