As more of a rifle shooter I actually have a preferrence towards hold over. I shoot enough, handload, and just know how to hold on an animal. I have a range finder, but am a pretty good estimator to 400 yds. Don't miss too often.
So, I am leaning towards holdover for a ML scope, I like Leupolds FDR, but have been looking at their LDR. (I mean LRD, or long range reticle) It basically has a duplex-type crosshair with a couple of ranging dots equally spaced below the center.
Hold over/under suits me best.
I had a crossbow scope with one crosshair and one aiming point above & three under. It is designed for a 20 yard zero with the crosshair and the point above is for 10 yards, with the points below being 30 - 40 - 50 yards. Very accurate, but I've been shooting with a scope with one crosshair and using hold over/under for decades now. Too many times in hunting and 3-D shooting, when the pressure was on, I forgot all about the range markings and used the crosshair (and missed) [:@]
I finally got a crossbow scope with 3 crosshairs! With 3 crosshairs in the view I have to slow down and think!
Never tried a ranging type reticle on a muzzleloader scope, but I figure I would make the same mistakes, so I just stick to hold over/under and the KISS theory.
I'm a fan of precision. Hold-over is not precise. Graduated reticles are a little better, but holds must still be used as no reticle is exact for any gun.
When I hold on a deer, I want the bullet to go where the crosshairs are. I used hold in my younger years, but really dislike them with a ML for anything over 200 yds. My ML wears a tactical scope so I can dial to the exact range and hold right on.
I'm a firm believer in the graduated scope. I wasn't until a few years ago when I purchased my first Burris scope with the ballistic-plex. When set up properly and verified at the extended ranges it is terrific. I've since purchase 3 more I like them that much. They work. The only rifles I don't have these on are the ones that I know I won't use where shooting 300+ may present itself.
As for putting one on a ML - that's not my cup o tea but if the ads are right, that Nikon one should work nice for you.
__________________ PLEASE NOTE THAT DUE TO THE RISING COST IN AMMO PRICES I WILL NO LONGER BE FIRING A WARNING SHOT.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
I'm not as good as I'm gonna get - but I'm better than I used to be. "Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point."
I've never used a tactical scope that required adjustment prior to the shot. Other than side paralax/focus adjustment.
I'm asking if an adjustment under hunting conditions (after determining range), has a significant effect on the time or lack thereof you have to make the actual kill shot. Do you hunt a little differently because of this, stand hunting...? Etc. Or maybe a better question is, do you find yourself not using certain hunting methods because it may take more time to adjust your equip?
I've always stayed away from one pin adjustable archery sites for the same reason, they take too long to calibrate at close range. But, maybe a turret adjustment on a scope is different? Maybe more like the reflex of sticking a piece of brass in your shirt pocket for reloading purposes rather than letting it hit he ground as you cycle for a second shot? Sometimes I do that sometimes not, depends on the situation.
Glad to hear that you like the Burris. I have a preference for Burris scopes and decided to skip the Omega scope and go with the Burris Ballistic plex for three of my muzzleloaders. Now if I could just get enough time to determine which one is the best rifle and where it shoots at each range I may be happy. Maybe not??? I do like the dots below the crosshairs and should be able to assign a range to each. Have passed up shots over 100 yards with standard scopes as I do not trust hold over for me.
Graduated recticles are a must for ML'ing IMO. With a rifle at 400 yds your only 15-18" low, easy because thats about deer sized. With a Ml its not uncommon to be over 40" low at 300 yrds and thats alot harder to "eyeball". The ballistic recticles can help, at long range you can lose 4" every 10 yds. Range finder becomes a necessity real quick. I havea burris ballistic plex on my ml and I love it, shots past 225 wouldn't possible (for me) without it. On my rifle, the marks are 200yds-1.5moa, 250yds-4.5moa, and 300yds-7.5 moa.(and hopefully soon the bottom post-11moa will be 340-350yds after some load tweaking.)
Okay, I think I am between the Leupold 4.5-14 x 40 BC, and the Burris ballistic plex. Which Burris do you have exactly? I see one for standard cartridges, magnums, 17 hornady magnum and long rifle. Is there a specific one for ML's?
I guess it is my feelings that hold over/under works and often works well with practice because the calculations are occurring in your head. But for precison I would prefer the graduations in the scope.
There are basically two methods that seem to be raising to the surface. A mil-dot type reticule and ballistic compensation type reticule. For many years te military survived on the mil-dot for both elevation and windage - today many compainies are offering compensation type reticules.
Personally I guess both types will required education and i do believe that both types are going to be better than "dead reckoning" especially as the range increases.
__________________
Keep on Shooting Muzzleloaders they are a Blast
Hold-over or gradiated reticles?
