Just a point of interest if you're considering either the B&C or Varmint reticle that Leupold offers is that you might be better off to choose the Varmint reticle that has spacing a bit closer together.
<font color="red"> Changing your power ring downward will raise the impact for each given distance.
What happens if you change the power setting downward is the POI will actually raise, as Wapiti13 said. The reason for this is that the reticle's tic spacing will actually increase relative to the target image with the a lower power setting and you will have effectively held higher on your target using the same tic mark for reference.
Point is, if you have a Varmint reticle and your cartridge/load doesn't shoot quite as flat as this reticle is calibrated for, you always have the ability to lower the power setting to steepen up the pre-calibrated trajectory curve to match a slower, less flat shooting load.
If you had the B&C reticle, your load better not shoot any flatter than the reticle is calibrated for because the only way you'd match the two is to increase the power setting (which you can't do) or reduce the speed of the load (and that always sucks).
Like John, I still prefer the R2 reticle. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
you might be better off to choose the Varmint reticle that has spacing a bit closer together.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly why I chose it. The B&C marks, even at max power were just too far appart to be of much use for my load. As it is, my load is just a hair too flat for the VHR, as technically I'll be about 1/2" low at 400 to be on at 300 & 500 and the last line being on at about 620 instead of 600. But it's close enough I think I'll find it very useful out to at least 500. Close enough I couldn't justify spending the coin on a custom reticle from Premier (with all the lines and dots I wanted to add, the price added up to be significant) when I got this for next to nothing since I was buying a new scope anyway....
Man Greenhorn, u're asking all the right questions for sure. You're the type that's gonna get it to work certainly beyond the manufacturers expectations. I just put the Varmint Hunter reticle into a 4.5-14X LR Leupy-- all on top of a custom Savage Striker .243 WSSM, and look forward to testing it soon.
My specialty handgun hunting partner and i have been investigating the ballistic reticles for quite some time now-- especially the Burris Ball. Plex reticle, as it's the only one commonly available for the 3-12X Burris LER. Recently we competed against the sniper types at the ITRC put on by Dave Lauck up in WY. Part of the comp was a roving silhouette course that required engaging 8" metal discs @ unknown ranges out to around 700 yds. or so. My partner took the long-range course (about 400 on out), and did a very impressive job of nailing most of the discs on each 1st shot attempt, keeping up fairly well with the "clickers" out to that range, even with the required interpolation between stadia marks. I've also been using the ball. reticles for LR hunting, for several years now with terrific results out to about 600 or so, with the handguns. Certainly beyond that clicks are needed as trajectory increases to the point where interpolation becomes much more difficult. Trying to get a ballistic reticle to zero perfectly in 50-100 yd. increments just ain't gonna happen, unless u're awful lucky, but it's often very close. As far as zeroing ballistic reticles, we've had the best success by applying Exbal Ballistics Calculator that has a ball. reticle zeroing option for any reticle imaginable, as well as rezeroing for magnification changes also. There are ways to recalculate reticle subtensions with magnification changes longhand, but it's time consuming relative to Exbal. Although it's not a perfect system, it seems to have been very close most of the time, if not dead on, and IMO is an important asset for long-range shooting-- kinda takes the guesswork out of the equation, and is much simpler/quicker to calculate downrange zeroing, clicks, windage, etc.-- www.perry-systems.com
To be honest, I kind of had my mind set on Leupold or Zeiss, and had not considered Buriss. What is the reputaion of Buriss scope's, are they considered up and comming, as good as Leupold without the reputation yet?
I know the Savorskeys have a hell of a reputation, but with a price tag to go with it. The old saying, "you get what you pay for" may be so, but this construction hump just can't justify that with the old lady.
Like I stated in previous posts, I no longer have the 1000 yd bug (for now), but rather think I would be happy with 500yd consistency. Trying to decide if I really need a tactical scope, or a varmit reticle that will allow me to be accurate up to 500yds.
A different approach, maybe. Last summer in WY while shooting with some board members, my face got really red and my day was less than enjoyable. At 800 yards, I dialed my .308, 700 VLS with a Leupold 6-18 up from the 100 yard zero and was off the dark spot on the rock by many feet. I have shot this rifle at 1000 yards using the same procedure and done okay. This time I must have lost track of the number of clicks dialed, however. The other folks were using custom 50BMG, 6mm AI, and 300WSM all with NF, R2 recticles and they did well without dialing much.
A few years ago I investigated dial the scope vs multiple aiming points on the scope approaches and went with the dial method for the reasons stated in other posts. Currently, my thinking is to merge the two approaches by using different rifles (calibers)with their scopes zeroed for different ranges. This gives me multiple aiming points and allows dialing but with few clicks required.
These rifles (factory) are used (primarily) on annual PD shooting trips. Other than costs, what other problems do you see with this approach? (I am not sure that costs is even a problem since you cannot have too many guns!)