BDC Scopes

[Ericb]

Depends what ammo your using. 3.5 high at 100 is pretty close to a 200 yard zero. With the ammo I use that would be 7.22" low at 300 yards. Not ideal but it takes a lot of human estimating error out of the shot.

 

[SDMF]

WTF are you shooting that needs to be 3.5” high for a 200yd zero? Muzzleloader?

 

[Wags2.0]

WTF are you shooting that needs to be 3.5” high for a 200yd zero? Muzzleloader?

1 oz slug?

 

[Ericb]

WTF are you shooting that needs to be 3.5” high for a 200yd zero? Muzzleloader?

I was referring to Obi's method of 3.5 high at a hundred is pretty close to a 200 zero with a 270

 

[SDMF]

I was referring to Obi's method of 3.5 high at a hundred is pretty close to a 200 zero with a 270

No, it’ll be close to a 300yd Zero.

 

[Ericb]

Not sure why but federal and Nikons charts are pretty different. The first chart I posted was for the Remington 130 Siricos. I ran it again with the 150 fusions so we were seeing the same and the drop still doesn't match.

 

[Wags2.0]

Not sure why but federal and Nikons charts are pretty different. The first chart I posted was for the Remington 130 Siricos. I ran it again with the 150 fusions so we were seeing the same and the drop still doesn't match.

It appears you have it set at a 100 yard zero

 

[SDMF]

Not sure why but federal and Nikons charts are pretty different. The first chart I posted was for the Remington 130 Siricos. I ran it again with the 150 fusions so we were seeing the same and the drop still doesn't match.

I don’t need a chart from Remington, Federal, Nikon, or any other company to tell me what I’ve known by proving it at a range on paper for 30yrs.

 

[espringers]

A -3.5 inch @ 200 and 0 @ 100 will not translate into a 0 @200 and +3.5 inch at 100. I think there appears to be this misconception in this conversation. But, I'm no sniper. So, I could be wrong.

 

[Wags2.0]

A -3.5 inch @ 200 and 0 @ 100 will not translate into a 0 @200 and +3.5 inch at 100. I think there appears to be this misconception in this conversation. But, I'm no sniper. So, I could be wrong.

Hence why his charts are effed up and make no sense

 

[SDMF]

A -3.5 inch @ 200 and 0 @ 100 will not translate into a 0 @200 and +3.5 inch at 100. I think there appears to be this misconception in this conversation. But, I'm no sniper. So, I could be wrong.

No shit, someone failed parabolic curves.

 

[Tymurrey]

My road warrior/walking gun is my 257 weatherby topped with a plain crosshair weaver scope with 100gr tsx's zeroed at 2.8” high at 100, this will pretty much give me a hit in an 8" vital zone with a center aim point out to almost 400 yards. Basically its my gun for when I don't have time to range things. If the deer is further than 400 yards i'm not going to shoot if it's running and if its standing i probably have time to range and dial. The other two rifles depending on my mood and how i'm hunting are topped with nightforce nxs's with moa reticles. I'm not a fan of cluttered reticles and the nightforces are thin enough it doesn't bother me and still allows me to hold over if i need to for elevation and wind.

 

[SupressYourself]

To me the problem with the BDC is that most of them are in second focal plane scopes. Those lines and circles mean different things depending on which power your scope is on. Nikons "spot on" program helps with that, but then most people just plug in the velocity they see on the side of their ammo box, which may not be remotely close depending on barrel length and environmental factors.

No matter what reticle you got in your scope, there's no substitute for first-hand results via... yep, you guessed it: practice.