Hold over preference to CDS

WhelanLad

WhelanLad

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Australia AU
is it just me Gents or does some others really prefer the simplicity of the "hold over" or more specifically a BDC -bullet drop compensator- style Reticle for General all round hunting distances than a CDS- custom dial system - adjustment?

I find the latter to be too much fussen for the way I hunt, ive recently dabbled with a dial scope an extended the ranges , out too what i consider the further end of the scale of the line in the sand around "fair chase, ethical hunting-or shooting of game"... so to speak.

I more often than not find myself in the bushes , bumpin shoulders with the deer - typical "on their face...in their face" style.
this leads to alot of shots under 200meters , an a vast majority on that 100m marker..
this style of hunting is 3-9x country, as 9x easily covers 'long shots' which could be 300m an if you go looking hard enough you might find a 400meter oppertunity.. thats a once in a life time oppertunity...mind you.
i often think, if the deer got there....well, so could I.......
too often the Shooters excuse is there was no way to close the gap- so the shot was taken.. often a Hit- not often recovered, with the big Sambar anyway.

The Stalk is part of the Hunt, the stalk to me isnt sidling around a hill, until a deer is spotted several hundred meters off, the stalk is once the deer is spotted an that distance is closed substantially.... each to their own, i understand... lets be honest... guys are claiming "thermal sourced" Animals as "trophy Game" ha ha, that says enough about where we are currently at down under.

Back to my story of the BDC being superior for my needs an, perhaps yours?
i found having a 200m Zero - or thereabouts- allowed to easily line up corresponding "marks" on the reticle for certain distances- quite often it gives you a minimum of 4 marks and sometimes 5 to 6, dpendings on the style of reticle it is..
for example with my 7mm08 an a woodleigh 140gr ppsn, mild load of Varget and roughly 200m zero, my hash is along the lines of
x 200
- 250
- 300
-370
-450 being the final 'marking' that can be reliably and repeatably aimed upon on a deer sized chest area at distance... coincidently 400m is about my limit with practise, feild conditions (being perfect) and a good ol rest....... ringing gongs each an every first time-

Perhaps it is that hunters like Myself are not quite in the ballpark of 'needing' a CDS system but if it were to be consistancy in shooting tiny groups at any ditance greater than 450 meters / 500 yards , then the Need would arise.


shooting my Kimber again lately and just hitting small gong with ease out to and from 400m at random, really got me thinking ...

Anyway, food for thoughts...

Hooroo!
 
I will not twist turrets on a big game rifle, in many situations, there just isn't time. I have BDC scopes and use a 200m zero on the main crosshairs, so I use that for the bulk of my shots, but I can use the other hash marks if required.
 
BDC reticles weren't as common back in the day so twisting turrets was the way to go. If I was twisting a turret on a game animal it was past 350 yards so had time to do so. These days there are lots of BDC style options for scopes and I think most hunters would be best served by using the reticle rather than turning the turrets. As long as they actually shoot and verify which line corresponds to which distance.
 
stubblejumper said:
I will not twist turrets on a big game rifle, in many situations, there just isn't time. I have BDC scopes and use a 200m zero on the main crosshairs, so I use that for the bulk of my shots, but I can use the other hash marks if required.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For most of my hunting I usually don't have the time to twist turrets when encountering animals and for the opportunities when I may have time the animals are so far away that they are outside my shooting range. A scope with some type of reticle subtensions allows you to aim much quicker and IMO are more useful for hunting.
 
I like your comment Whelanlad. "If the deer got there... well so could I. The stalk is part of the hunt.
I too have a self imposed yardage limit at which I will no longer take the shot. If I can not get closer than 400 yards, The animal will get a pass.
Only my coyote rifle has a scope with bdc style dots.
The vast majority of my deer and elk have been shot at under 100 yards.
 
BDC reticles have been around a LONG time. I have been using the simple post on a duplex reticle for over 20 years. Twisting turrets in hunting situations is a no go for me. I’ve done it, and think it is too much none sense for hunting. Out to 600 yards I can BDC an animal and have meat in the pot before any clicking has even begun.
 
Gatehouse said:
BDC reticles weren't as common back in the day so twisting turrets was the way to go. If I was twisting a turret on a game animal it was past 350 yards so had time to do so. These days there are lots of BDC style options for scopes and I think most hunters would be best served by using the reticle rather than turning the turrets. As long as they actually shoot and verify which line corresponds to which distance.
Click to expand...

Is a thing my brother (turning age 65 - a few years younger than me) and his hunting partner played at - both use 300 Win Mag rifles - both have 3-9 power Zeiss scopes of some sort. I get all messed up between First Focal Plane and Second Focal Plane - but apparently, in their scopes, the image changes size relative to the reticle as they vary the power on their scopes. So, they have a VERY long place along a cut line in the mountains - used a 4x8 sheet of plywood - worked out the various ranges where the tip of the lower heavy reticle would be their aiming point - both use laser rangefinders - and both have small chart taped to their butt stock - so they have figured out a number of different ranges / different power setting, that the reticle is "on" - by shooting. Both my brother and I grew up shooting with iron sighted Cooey .22, and similar - so never did get into the "change the sighting" thing - was always about "holding off" for elevation or windage. I have hunted with him there in the Grande Cache, AB area - for shots out to 250 or 300 meters - pretty much only eyeball needed for range - but sometimes get a real nice one emerge across a valley or way down a cut line - like an all black or all white wolf - shooter sitting behind log or laying prone - makes such a shot possible - if some known reference for that far away distance.

As an aside - as told by my brother - their first attempt - at a vertical 4x8 sheet of plywood - like 600 or 700 meters - three shots - maybe by each - not a hole in that plywood - who knew wind could move bullets so far!!!!
 
Last edited:
IvoB said:
with my simple scope cross hairs it is easier and fool proof to just hold over - works every time
Click to expand...

I agree - to perhaps 250 or 300 meters - is a challenge to figure where is the hold over for 485 versus 510 yards or meters, if no markings on reticle, and if have not tried those shots previously. I suspect longest shot I have ever made on a standing deer was likely almost 300 meters - still, in my mind, was a VERY long shot after perhaps 50 years of shooting deer.
 
I've been using both.

I seem to maintain a preference for BDC reticles over dialing for distance. With a 100-yard zero, I am good out to 200 yards or so without even really considering power settings on SFP scopes. I mean, it's just not a huge deal. A couple inches high? Just aim near the top of the vital area - dead animal. Even if the scope is on 3x and the reticle size is only accurate at 9x for example, it's just not enough to matter. And if a critter is out near 200 yards, I'm probably just going to crank the scope up anyways.

I also have a couple CDS, CDS-ZL, and other exposed elevation turret scopes on hunting rifles. Those tend to have a pretty crazy zoom range, but I find it irritating to range the animal, dial the dope, then get on target. I may just be a creature of habit though. My Strike Eagle 4-24 is a monster of a scope for long range so I get a bit more use out of its exposed turret than I do out of my VX-3HD 3.5-10x for example. The VX-3 dial seems neat in the store, but not as practical in the field as I would like, I feel I spend more time fiddling with it and less time sighting game through the glass.

Everyone will have their own preference though. IMO BDC reticles can be a pain in the butt when they are only accurate at full power on an SFP scope with a big zoom range. If the scope in question has a max 15+ magnification, that might eat in to my FOV too much for my liking. I was an early adopter of the Vortex Dead-Hold BDC and with a 3x or 4x based scope it's become my go-to for hunting riflescopes. Simple and uncluttered. Easy to use at close range (hold dead on), and easy to use at long range (or at the scopes "natural" magnification).
 
dan belisle said:
I prefer the bdc type like the Burris scopes use for big game hunting. - dan
Click to expand...

this is actually what m referring to with my 7mm08, its a older fullfield 2, i actually really like it.. been eyeing off a new leupold though, CDS interests me a little bit but kind of leaning toward finding a BDC reticle scope, perhaps Burris again, for my 30-06, as the old 2-7, whilst it works, can proberly sit on my soon new to Us ruger ranch most likely 300 blak for the boyo.... my first dial was the vortex tactical, very basic, but give me enough idea that whilst it was great for that 600m shot , perhaps 500m even, Target mind you, an seldom animals... it wasnt for me.
but i think?? the leopold CDS system is proberly a little easier to use once set up than using a chart or APP (i seen a guy sit there on my gong range for 5-10 mnutes waiting for an "app" to reload and as it had cleared? due to no service backpacking, he had to run some numbers i believe , before he shot the gong.............. mind you, that gong never fed off or spooked...........

this turned into a good thread, i wasnt sure how it was goin to digest ... lucky it wasnt Rokslid ehh
 
Potashminer said:
I agree - to perhaps 250 or 300 meters - is a challenge to figure where is the hold over for 485 versus 510 yards or meters, if no markings on reticle, and if have not tried those shots previously. I suspect longest shot I have ever made on a standing deer was likely almost 300 meters - still, in my mind, was a VERY long shot after perhaps 50 years of shooting deer.
Click to expand...

agree-

with my above 7-08, my closest marking to said 400 meters, is 370m varified so to speak. so what i did, was put the 370 mark on the "back line" of my Gonger--- kaboomski..ringa-ding-dong.

i have no problem with this method for "inbetweeners" IF and ONLY when im only playing with that gun for a period, things are all fresh and no mind cluster of 14 different reticles when you close your eyes and take that split second to evaluate the situation........

i dont like pepper'n my veni-sonnnn....
 
stubblejumper said:
I will not twist turrets on a big game rifle, in many situations, there just isn't time. I have BDC scopes and use a 200m zero on the main crosshairs, so I use that for the bulk of my shots, but I can use the other hash marks if required.
Click to expand...

This will be my first year using a BDC reticle but i had the same thought, it's one less thing to fiddle with when the time comes to take a shot.

I went with zeroing at 200 on the second crosshair, which puts me slightly high at 100 but closer than if i was going for my normal MPBR "zero" at 100 with a standard scope and will have my 300 crosshair pretty close as well. In my neck of the woods it's very unlikely i'll be shooting past 200 anyway, most tend to happen under 75.
 
I have been using the Leupold's with B&C reticles for a number of years, and have pretty much traded out all of my duplex scopes for the B&C models.
Zeroed at 200, and it is a quick slight adjustment to put the proper mark on the target if presented with 300 yards or beyond. Not that I have had to use it very often in the field, but it is quick and handy if needed. Average shot distance on game over the past 37 years is 137 yards! And less than a handful over 300.
While I have had a range finder for a number of years, it is still fairly quick to verify range and then mount the scope and use the reticle vs having to dial the scope in between, and taking that extra moment to do so.
Less moving parts on the scope, prone to fail at the worst possible moment.
I do have a VX-5HD with the CDS turret, but have yet to send in for the turret to be marked.
I also have a couple Swarovskis with the BRH reticle and a Kahles with the TDS reticle.
I enjoy the simplicity when practicing on the various gongs out to 500 at the range where I live now. Instills confidence and verifies that I can make the shot if ever needed.
Years ago, using the regular duplex, I regularly practiced out to 400 yards, and knew where to put that vertical post point where it went from thick to thin on the target to hit at 400 yards with my various rifles. The B&C has simplified this.
 
I like a simple cross hair sighted in at 200, or FFP locking turrets with a visible reticle for hold overs. CDS is too load/bullet/caliber restrictive. BDC is just a poor’s version of CDS.
 
emerson said:
I like a simple cross hair sighted in at 200, or FFP locking turrets with a visible reticle for hold overs. CDS is too load/bullet/caliber restrictive. BDC is just a poor’s version of CDS.
Click to expand...

nah thats not correct imo, the BDC is what it is- its up to You to validate what each mark represents to that specific load/bullet/calibre ? meaning it doesnt matter if your downloading 130gr , full house 180 or using a 200gr Bush load, whatever your "Zero" is at 100 - creates the "it is what it is" of the BDC greatnes....... (i understand the manufacturers have a 'guideline' to help market the bdc, sayin 223 55gr hash marks & 300 wm 150gr etc... but that bit is bollocks.... the above is real

but i certainly do understand the "coolness" of having someone else done the work an sold it to someone to make into a downloadable app that makes hunters., i mean shooters think they are long range hunters :D :p
with most only validating a few distances before placing confidence in the work of someone else :p

hooroo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom