>dialing for wind >dialing at all >not using holdovers

Just Kentucky windage that shit. You'll be fine.

>>32986769
>never shooting beyond 300 yards

I do agree with the wind part though

>>32986769
>never shooting beyond 600 yards
>never shooting at moving targets, where you have to hold over for ballistic drop/other dope considerations, windage AND movement

Just out of curiosity, what does it feel like to hoist that idiot flag up where the whole interwebs can see it and laugh at you?

>>32986769
If you're taking shots at a group of targets over 400m and holding over for anything but movement and target distance variations from the median target range for the group of targets, you're fighting way too stupid and wasting way too many rounds.

>>32986968
>>32986923
Dialing is a fucking pain in the ass if you are strapped for time. Why not just get a lined reticle and take the 20 or so minutes to figure out what to hold and tape it to the side of the scope?

>>32987057
Because those values are going to vary drastically past 500 yards, and being just 50 yards off at 700 gets you a miss. You still have sheets for all conditions, making only minor adjustments, but dialing from cheat sheets only takes 5 seconds.

>>32987057
>Why not just get a lined reticle and take the 20 or so minutes to figure out what to hold and tape it to the side of the scope?
If you actually get turrets for the calibre you're shooting, each 100yd increment will be on or one hash off a number. When I hunt in the mountains, shooting across the cut at 300yds plus, I always take the 10 seconds it takes to dial the dope in, at least the drop if nothing else.

Also, when you get over 600 yards, you start getting well off the scope depending on load being shot. When you're that far out and you've serious windage to consider, you're so far away from the X or Y axis that it makes it very difficult to make a precise shot, if you're even still on scope with the target.

Same story with iron sights. Get out that far and your sight base or barrel is often obscuring the target so you can't even get an accurate hold on it.

If you want to be a solid practical hand with a rifle over 400yds, you need to start figuring out how to work your booger hooks on that dope dial.

File: 1483731665544.jpg (176KB, 606x474px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 606x474px

old jack shot yankees off of riverboats a half mile away with none of that modern bullshit

File: CW-Sniper-Winslow-Homer.jpg (81KB, 599x402px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 599x402px

>>32987453
That's up to 880yds with the following rig:
>"Old Jack Hinson's sniper rifle was never meant for firing from the shoulder," McFarlin added. "It was always mounted on an iron tripod or rested on the limb of a tree for long-range firing.

So, he was firing from a mount or rest. Now, it's still incredible shooting if true. I personally believe he may have gotten lucky once or twice at that range but generally took his shots between 300 and 600yds, which is still damn impressive for that type of rifle.

It should also be noted that most civil war snipers employed primitive scopes like the rig in pic related (though Old Jack's rig was pure iron sights). These were usually dial-able for drop at least via screw mount behind the lock.

But fine. If you've got Old Jack's ridiculously awesome eyesight, incredible skill and decades of practice, well, go ahead and roll with Kentucky windage on everything.

>>32987187
Literally what?

Real long range scopes that are worth a shit are in first focal plane and either use miliradian or minute of angle hash marks and each hash marks distance from one another is not simply in 100y increments

>>32988585
>Real long range scopes
I wasn't talking about bench shooting rigs. I was discussing practical shooting rigs in ranges from 400 to 800yds. Ranges where it's retarded to buy your 4,000 NF optic just to get banged up on the mountain when you can drop 1,000 on a solid optic and get the turret appropriate to the calibre and load you are shooting, which makes practical bush shooting much simpler in low light or time sensitive situations.

Have you never bothered trying one of the newer chamber specific turrets? They're fucking nifty, m8. I wouldn't use one at a bench shooting comp but I switched over both my main hunting rifle optics turrets.

>>32987453
>>32987695

The trick is using the same bullet mold, pure lead, and the same batch of powder.

That gets rid of a ton of variables

>>32987187
Also, I shoot 600-800y regularly with .308 and I've never experienced difficulty with Windsor or elevation as you explain it.

You either are trying to explain you lack knowledge of, or you just have no idea you're talking about

>>32988623
The hash marks are only somewhat accurate at a certain magnification and even then you're limited

File: n8Ty7.jpg (735KB, 3021x1991px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 3021x1991px

>>32988623
>thinking people only use NF scopes for benchrest
yeah i guess all those guys who carry them into the mountains of afghanistan are using them for benchrest comps.

anyways if you're smashing your scope onto shit you need to get a fucking sling, it's not that hard to not be a fucking klutz.

>>32988688
This.

>>32988648
I get that, but even getting a supply of the same powder batch to last him the entire war and getting reliable access to pure lead rather than the more common antimony-cut lead would be a fucking wizard status back during the Civil War. Man was a hell of a rifleman either way.

>Also, I shoot 600-800y regularly with .308 and I've never experienced difficulty with Windsor or elevation as you explain it.
Windsor? What the fuck?
And if you're putting in any kind of decent groupings using only holdover at 600+ yards, or consistently making heart/lung shots on large game at 600+ yards with only holdover, I'll eat my entire favorite .308. What kind of bullshit are you trying to sell me here?

>>32988668
>The hash marks are only somewhat accurate at a certain magnification and even then you're limited
If you're not at full mag on a variable scope at 600 yards, you're doing it wrong.

>>32988688
There's a difference between carrying the very best you can afford/get through supply because it's combat and it's your life to miss and smashing 4k dollars worth of optics because you slipped while kick stepping up a glacier and ended up sliding into a talus field.

I suppose it depends on where you hunt, and whether you're doing serious hiking/climbing to get there, but I don't take my most expensive toys out to get beat to shit when my reasonably priced gear works just as well at the ranges I'm working with. Maybe if all I were doing was stumbling up a tree stand half drunk at 4am and sitting there until something walks by I would be less careful about that.

>>32986783
Shot out too 800 yards using Kentucky windage, a spotter, and a steel target.

6 shots to get spot on. 0311 just fucking around in the field. My battle buddy could spot my shots and adjust me.

At that distance it takes about 3 seconds for the sound to travel if you heard you got a ping or not. Plus dry dirt, so you can see impacts. That's with the standard USMC acog, which is a 4× zoom iirc, or almost certain.

>>32988623
>Caliber specific turrets
>for sea level ballistics on a 70 degree day

Kill yourself moronic faggot retard

>>32988732
if anything my experience has been that nightforce optics can keep working through beatings that have wrecked some of my cheaper optics. ymmv

also seriously i don't get why it's so hard to believe holdover works. just talk to todd hodnett.

>>32988769
>also seriously i don't get why it's so hard to believe holdover works.
It works fine up to a point. Actually dialing your dope works a hell of a lot better.

Do you want to wing what you're shooting at or do you want to put your round exactly where the fuck it should go?

>>32988796
Exactly. Kentucky windage means less potential for good hits

>>32988767
>you can't adjust by +/- one or two clicks after zeroing at altitude
anon...
I get this is a really tough topic for you, but at least try.

>>32988796
>i know better than some of the best long range shooters in the world because i say so!

>>32988811
except it's not kentucky windage, retard. you're just aligning a different set of scope markings with the target.

>>32988826
Confirmed for never shot in different temperatures and different altitudes ever, especially with "custom" turrets

>>32988839
Are you a range commando or what? Because I get the distinct impression you've never actually shot at anything over 100yds.

>>32988839
Shit like this is why the internet and /k/ suck. If we were at the range, a simple demonstration would be all that is required. 10 rounds with your dope dialed, 10 rounds with holdover. Two shooters and best groups prove the point. Easy. Done. Doesn't even matter if it's off the bench or from the shoulder.

>>32988873
>not able to make a counterargument on technical merit
>hurr noguns

nice argument bro, you're really showing me so much about precision rifle shooting.

>>32988889
Why? there's nothing inherently different between lining up on target the center of the crosshair and the marks on a H27 reticle.

and that's a shitty testing methodology, leaves a ton of variables uncontrolled

>>32988903
>nice argument bro, you're really showing me so much about precision rifle shooting.
You show me a long range competitive shooter of any type who doesn't bother dialing dope and I'll bow the fuck down.

>H27 reticle
>all that shit obscuring target vision
If that's your bag, m8. Whatever. I can barely pick out game against trees, scree or other complex target pictures with all that shit going on. A simple Mildot reticle is my bag.

>>32988923
>If that's your bag, m8. Whatever. I can barely pick out game against trees, scree or other complex target pictures with all that shit going on. A simple Mildot reticle is my bag.
This.

>>32988769
>just talk to todd hodnett
He does prefer holdover. But only with the rarer type Christmas tree reticles. You can't claim one way of shooting is qualitatively better when you need a pretty special snowflake piece of gear to make it so.

>>32986769

That is one haunting pie.

>>32988585
MOA/MOA is shit, MOA/MIL should not be a fucking thing but alas it is because faggotry - unadulterated garbage.
MIL/MIL keeps shit simple.

Agree as well on FFP - that said if you know what the fuck you are doing it shouldn't be hard for you to zero a SFP and know your holds POI in 3 settings - min, max, middle. Also some SFP reticles aren't shit and will help you in this endeavor, but some of that would be BDC's.
MIL/MIL on an FFP is the way to go. The harder thing imo is choosing a reticle

I abhor hunting reticles, people need to stop buying them - I get they zero for one range and leave it but there is no reason whatsoever to not have a BDC.

Also not a fan of MOA/Mil dots, much prefer MOA/Mil line reticles

>>32987695
Bad eyesight fucking sucks for sure. As soon as I hit 20 my eyes went haywire and my vision got pretty shitty before settling down. Now I can't shoot open sights very well and I'm left wondering if it's worth it to get laser surgery or just to continue on with impractical and shitty glasses.

>>32990551
Lens replacement is also an option. You can get laser surgery, and later in life when you get cataracts (most people do as they age) you can get whatever most modern lenses available.

>>32988737
They let you have ammo just to fuck around with in the field?
t. 08fag

I wonder how many people in this thread have used a decent FFP scope with a good christmas tree reticle. You guys realize that the etched reticle is both more precisely made and repeatable to utilize than the threads and detents of the turret adjustment mechanism, right?