Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Another "SHOOTER" QUESTION
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="orkan" data-source="post: 705083" data-attributes="member: 25377"><p>You're entitled to do it whichever way you prefer, but having different zeros for different applications makes no sense to me, unless I'm dealing with rimfire. </p><p></p><p>You're right, this is long range hunting. It's more important to me to hit an animal where I want to, than a target at a tactical match. As such, I want every bit of precision and accuracy afforded me by the equipment I'm using. To admit that its appropriate for a tactical match where utmost precision and accuracy is warranted, but somehow not appropriate for hunting is... well I don't know what it is. There's a word for it I'm sure. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p>Mentally, the aspect of holding "under" for closer shots introduces a variable that otherwise wouldn't have to be there. With my 338LM, I would have to hold under nearly a full mil at 100yds if I set a 300yd zero. That isn't a small amount. While that is only 3.5" and in theory will not matter at 100yds, it is not something I'm willing to accept as "good enough." Anyhow, I'm sure you've heard both sides of the argument and are intelligent enough to do it whichever way you see fit. I'm just expounding on what I see to be flawed logic. If you agree its more precise and will work better for a precision rifle match... why is it not adequate for long range hunting? After all, inside of 400yds doesn't really meet the definition of long range hunting does it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="orkan, post: 705083, member: 25377"] You're entitled to do it whichever way you prefer, but having different zeros for different applications makes no sense to me, unless I'm dealing with rimfire. You're right, this is long range hunting. It's more important to me to hit an animal where I want to, than a target at a tactical match. As such, I want every bit of precision and accuracy afforded me by the equipment I'm using. To admit that its appropriate for a tactical match where utmost precision and accuracy is warranted, but somehow not appropriate for hunting is... well I don't know what it is. There's a word for it I'm sure. ;) Mentally, the aspect of holding "under" for closer shots introduces a variable that otherwise wouldn't have to be there. With my 338LM, I would have to hold under nearly a full mil at 100yds if I set a 300yd zero. That isn't a small amount. While that is only 3.5" and in theory will not matter at 100yds, it is not something I'm willing to accept as "good enough." Anyhow, I'm sure you've heard both sides of the argument and are intelligent enough to do it whichever way you see fit. I'm just expounding on what I see to be flawed logic. If you agree its more precise and will work better for a precision rifle match... why is it not adequate for long range hunting? After all, inside of 400yds doesn't really meet the definition of long range hunting does it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Another "SHOOTER" QUESTION
Top