Boone & crocket

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by marketello, Dec 24, 2004.

  1. marketello

    marketello Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    63
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Are the Boone & Crocket from Leupold a good idea?

    I guess the idea makes sense, but how can a scope compensate for differend distances when shooting different calibers and different weights of bullets.

    Is the scope adjustable for the caliber you are using?
    Gimick or good idea?
     
  2. sakofan

    sakofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    528
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    I say good idea.
    I don't own one, but friends on line and around here have really liked the B&C reticle.

    As far as your concern about different calibers and ranging, I'm not sure. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
    Aren't they all calibrated for standard calibers somehow??..sakofan..


    This may help..

    B&C Reticle
     

  3. Ian M

    Ian M Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,410
    Joined:
    May 3, 2001
    Some friends and I killed a bunch of mule deer for CWD samples this hunting season and I have taken the opportunity to use several bullets and also a variety of scopes. I recently killed several deer with the R2 reticle and a bunch by clicking the elevation onto the turret. Got some very long kills shooting both systems, four over 700 yards, quite a few from 500-650. My buddies always crank their turrets for their long range shooting and they have been making kills all the way out to 700 yards with their .308 Winchester rifles. These guys are getting to be very proficient killers since we employ shooter/spotter techniques and always have a backup shooter on the critter if possible. Probably the main reason we can kill out that far is because we shoot together as much as possible in the summer - usually about a 75-100 rounds per person per session.

    In my opinion my shot placement when I crank the proper elevation and wind into the turret is significantly better - the bullet hits closer to my point of aim particularly past 500 yards. The R2 is a wonderful reticle and it enables the shooter to hold-off quickly with a degree of accuracy that should hit the vital area of a deer out to very long distances - but I believe that the hits are simply not as precise - I was hitting deer in the chest but had more windage error, also some shots hit higher than I wanted. Also find a natural reluctance to hold center with the little crossbars if I could only see the upper 2/3's of the body because of vegetation. I used the R2 rather than a TDS or B&C because I have excellent drop tables for the .300 WSM rifle and can refer to the drop card very quickly, count down the MOA's to the appropriate bar, holdoff for wind using the horizontal bars for reference and break the shot.
    Having said the above I admit that I have not shot the R2 nearly as much as I have shot with the turrets cranked - but I killed with the holdoff method so that I could learn and compare. I have been impressed with the info some of the guys on this forum have shared re holdoff shooting with the R2 and figured I better get some field experience for my own info.

    The B&C is not as accurate as the R2 for holdoffs. Nice even 2 MOA spaces are easy to work with - the spaces on the B&C and TDS are not uniform or simple numbers. Like its possible inspiration, the TDS reticle designed by Tom Smith, the B&C will allow fairly accurate shot placement IF the shooter does a bunch of shooting to determine where his poi's are relative to each hold-off bar. This takes time and demands that decent notes be kept - if you get detailed info it is too easily forgotten when you need it so a drop chart or card should be made up.

    Although I just started shooting the B&C on a nice little Lilja-barreled 7-08, I believe I can discuss what it will do in the field since I have killed a lot of deer with the TDS back when Swarovski and Kahles introduced it. Plus I was fortunate to have an opportunity to hunt with Col. Smith and will never forget the time spent with this incredible gentleman. The B&C is based on the TDS but someone came up with the clever idea to integrate changing the magnification setting into the operatiing principal of the system. The TDS has somewhat complicated charts for determining your initial zero (factors), the B&C is simpler to work with - neither can predict where your particular rifle/cartridge combo will shoot. The range cards that I made for the TDS told me that at 400 my center of the group was perhaps four inches below the third bar, or seven inches above fourth bar at 450 or whatever - can't remember such details anymore. I have them in an Avery label making program and print out a label, then tape it to the side of the stock with a piece of wide transparent packing tape.

    I believe that the wind hold-off bars are hockum, perhaps better than nothing but they cannot be expected to provide real accuracy given the varied time of flight of all the different cartridges, wind speed and angles.

    Those reticles can be an aid but accurate shot placement still has to be figured out according to other factors than just distance. That takes shooting practice, and I do not believe that many guys who buy such scopes will get out and really determine what the reticles can do. On the other hand, maybe buying such a scope will be incentive for the owner to get out and shoot a bunch so that he can get some longer shot capability and confidence.

    Since most hunters consider 250-300 to be the beginning of "LONG", these reticles have the potential to about double their confident shooting range if they practice a bunch and keep notes on poi. If such practice results in vital-area accuracy then the reticle will be important to successful shooting.
    I wonder some times if the B&C (you can replace B&C with TDS, Ballistic Mildot, Horrus, ?8 or whatever the marketing guys come up with) might promote sloppy long shots since Bubba buys a scope with the magic bars in it, sights in at 200 or whatever the little book says and goes out and starts tossing lead at deer he would not ordinarily shoot at - "Was that the fourth bar for five hundred or the fifth bar for four hundred? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" Guess I am saying that buying a scope equipped with the B&C or TDS or whatever little combination of circles, bars, squares, triangles, dots etc. will never make the owner a long range hunter - even tho the salesman will probably tell you that it will so that he can get a sale.

    I am done holding-off on the real long shots - going back to crankin'.
    (Len and Dave - these are non-cranky reflections on this topic /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif) <font color="blue"> </font>
     
  4. sakofan

    sakofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    528
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Thanks,Ian.

    I always look forward to your reviews of optics and gadgets.
    You have an uncanny ability to put the most technical lingo into laymans terms. "Hockum" for example..LOL /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif..sakofan...
     
  5. marketello

    marketello Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    63
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    So basically a gimick. Without the expertise I just read, I kind of put two and two together.

    So basically anybody who wants to take 500yds or more should invest in a good rangefinder to take a distance reading, and a scope that can then be dialed in to that distance, and then the hard part estimating the crosswind.

    What is the technical name for the type of scope that has the adjustment knobs on the side?

    I know my Leupold has 1\4 MOA adjustments, do these scopes adjust in biger increments so that you are not adjusting around and around? Can you zero these scopes in, and then have the knobs marked with distances instead of up &amp; down MOA adjustments.

    Thanks for all the rookie help.
     
  6. Ian M

    Ian M Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,410
    Joined:
    May 3, 2001
    Not sure "gimmick" is a fair term, sure beats the hell out of a plain old crosshair or duplex reticle for shots past 300 yards. Bottom line for me is that the multiple aiming point reticles can offer hunting accuracy and speed of target acquisition that works, but... As I mentioned I believe that cranking is more accurate for long range field accuracy. My scopes give me a 1/4 moa when I crank on click, I cannot holdoff nearly that fine at 500 yards with a TDS or B&amp;C. Tried it, don't work for me and I doubt that anyone else could make consistent, repeatable holdoffs with those reticles that would be as good as clicking.
    There ain't no free lunch and the user has to learn about the system and how it works on his rifle. This takes shooting time in the field and notes so that a drop chart can be determined if you best accuracy. Some rifles will have their point of aim and point of impact coinciding with the range bars, dots, diamonds etc. some will be close but close is not good enough for LR hunting.
    The folks who developed these reticles have accuracy, ease of use, simplicity etc. as objectives, but also hope to make a buck so some of the marketing stuff is hype. Leupold is not going to market something that is not reasonably accurate, nor would Swarovski, Kahles, Burris or others but there is only one way to determine if the thing works for you. Unfortunately that costs $ and what happens if you decide you do not like it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
    Do a search on turrets or scope turrets, lots of info here. Turrets are not as simple as one might believe.
    You should be able to zero your Leupold and also might be able to attach Stoney Point turret type handles onto it to make adjusting easier and hopefully more precise.
     
  7. Jon A

    Jon A Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    Good explanations, Ian.

    I'm giving the Varmint Hunters' Reticle a try this year. It just works out that with my favorite load (200 AccuBond @ 3175), with the rifle zeroed at 300 (just under 3" high at 100, the zero I've been using for years) the first line will be on at 400, the second will be on at 500 and the 10 MPH wind drift marks work out to be roughly 20 MPH marks--all at the max magnification of the scope based on my prior drop data.

    I haven't tried it yet, but I think it should be quick and easy to use and pretty accurate out to 500 at least. For farther, clicking the scope will naturally be more accurate. But I think it'll be nice not to have to click in the 3-500 range (most likely for me). I'll just have to see how I like it....
     
  8. wapiti13

    wapiti13 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    VXIII scopes are great, but I had trouble with the B&amp;C reticle. It is so fine that you lose it at dusk. Also, hash marks are too small. I like the Swarovski TDS reticle, much more useful. New VXII scopes are close to Swarovski in low light, but I still like the latter. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I find the best reticles with multiple aims point to be the type that gives you units of measure not just a 200, 300, 400, etc. holdovers. Only the premier reticles custom reticle or custom reticles like it that are calibrated to an exact load in YOUR gun will really work and even that has problems at long ranges when altitude and temp come into play. Plus your stuck with one load. Sell the rifle and whats the scope worth?

    I personally think that the NP-r2 reticle by nightforce is the best. Easy ranging and 2 moa per bar. Mil-dots are good except I prefer MOA instead. At extended ranges clicking is the best method since precision matters most at ranges past 500 yards. I wish Leupold, nikon, burris and others would make a reticle similar to the NP-R2.

    My biggest problem with mil-dots is that the clicks are MOA and the reticle is mils. I think the clicks should match the reticle.
     
  10. sakofan

    sakofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    528
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    [ QUOTE ]
    My biggest problem with mil-dots is that the clicks are MOA and the reticle is mils. I think the clicks should match the reticle.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Thats the very reason I went with the US Optics MOA reticle. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif....sakofan.....It's a MOA world!!!!
     
  11. Aussie

    Aussie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    250
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Greenhorn ,
    I think that some have missed the point of the B &amp; C and Varmint Hunter's reticles . They're not designed for people who take shots at 600 yards or more from a portable benchrest . No arguement that cranking the dials will be better at those ranges .
    Out to 400 or 500 yards the B &amp; C and Varmint Hunter reticles are quick to use and work quite well provided you do a little shooting to set them up for the ballistics of your cartridge / load . The recommended power settings from Leupold are a starting point only .
    Using a target that has plenty of vertical height for 500 to 600 yds sight the rifle in at 200 yds or 300 yds as suggested by Leupold then shoot at the longer ranges and mark clearly with a felt pen the impact point of the groups on your target . Mark horizontal lines that are thick enough to be seen from where you are shooting . Adjust the power setting of your scope until you get the horizontal crosshairs to coincide as closely as possible to all the marks on your target .
    This is pretty simple and you should be able to find a power setting that gets the crosshairs within 1 inch or so of your impact point at all the various ranges that the reticle caters for .If you can get your projectile that close to your intended impact point off a bipod or over a field rest at 300 ,400 or 500 yds then 95% of the time you'll have a dead animal while the dial crankers are still consulting their drop charts .
     
  12. marketello

    marketello Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    63
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Aussie.

    First time anybody has explained it like that.

    So what you are saying is that the 400 yd mark in the B&amp;C retical might not hit where it should with the scope at 9X, but if you back it off to say 7X it would hit at 400 yds?

    So you have to learn at what power each of the B&amp;C lines will hit their intended range, or will one power setting cause them all to match up?

    I had no idea that the power setting on your scope would matter. If I'm understanding you correctly, wouldn't it defeat the purpose though if you had to turn your power down from 9X to 7X to make a 400 yd shot?
    Bare with me /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
     
  13. wapiti13

    wapiti13 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Greenhorn,
    The scope reticle is designed to be accurate at its max power (or designated on a high power variable). On a 3.5X10 for example, stadia spacing is set for 10 power. The spacing is based on the trajectory most seen for a given group of calibers. You can check the spacing out by doing a little homework on your computer. The factory can tell you the relative holdover for each mark. Usually, a 200 yd zero is assumed for a flat shooting cartridge. Using a ballistic program, you can compare the drop at the 300,400,&amp;500yd ranges and then see how Leupolds holdover marks compare. If they are off by much, you can compensate several ways. One is to shoot your rifle at the given range and see how far off you are &amp; then compensate your hold in the field. Second is to change your sight in point which can put your holdover marks back into correct spacing. For example, sighting in at 225 vs 200 yds will raise your overall trajectory and help to realign your marks. Third method is the one referred to above. Changing your power ring downward will raise the impact for each given distance.
    I agree with your comment, I don't like to be messing around with my power setting. I prefer to adjust my zero so the holdover marks are real close to the intended impact point. Most of the scopes will work with a little tweaking.
     
  14. Aussie

    Aussie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    250
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Greenhorn and Wapiti ,
    Possible to find ONE POWER SETTING for all ranges . May have to alter sight in distance as per Wapiti's suggestion but not necessarily .
    eg. When sighted in at 200 yds I found that approx 18 power gave near perfect results for my .243 Ackley shooting 70gn Nosler BT at 3550 FPS . This is not one of Leupold's recommended power settings on the 6.5 - 20 VX 111 .
    Just changed to the 55gn Nosler BT at 4030 FPS and found that the same power setting will be good if I sight in at 250 yds . Trajectory of the 55gn is virtually identical to the 70gn albeit at 50 yds longer ranges . 55gn drops about the same at 350 , 450 and 550 yds as the 70gn at 300 , 400 and 500 .
    Need a chronograph , your bullet's B.C. and a ballistics program to work this out easily . Good free web - based ballistics program at http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/calculators/balistics/DATA.htm /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif