Dialing vs Holdover

[Blkram]

An interesting topic of conversation has started in another thread, and I thought I would ask my question here instead, to respect the OPs original thread there...

For those who dial and shoot, or those who have holdover BDC type reticles (B&C, TDS, BRH, etc.), what are the advantages to you in your style of aiming when shooting and/or hunting?
Or do you use both, depending on your style of shooting at the moment? (Target shooting vs hunting)

Myself, I love the Leupold Boone & Crocket reticles, and the older Kahles/Swarovski TDS reticles. As a hunter first, when in the field, I find this faster to adjust my aiming point on the animal in that I can just range, aim and shoot vs range, dial and shoot. But this just my preferred practice.
While many of my Leupolds have the option for the CDS cap to be cut for free for my rifle's preferred load, I have not done so as yet.

I have just acquired a couple of used VX-6HD scopes, one a 3-18x44 with the illuminated B&C reticle, and the other a 3-18x50 with the illuminated Varmint Hunters reticle, as they illuminate the entire BDC portion of the reticle. Having two of the illuminated B&C reticles already (a 2-12x42 and a 3-8x50), I like them a lot for their better quality glass and improved coatings, for low light hunting scenarios, as I can dial down the intensity of the illumination so that it doesn't overwhelm the aiming point on the target animal in low light conditions. And the illuminated reticle stands out better than a black reticle, especially on darker animals such as bear or moose, in the thick timber, or lower light conditions.

The newer Gen 2 sopes only illuminate the centre crosshair, not the entire BDC portion of the reticle. I can see where the smaller illuminated cross, just at the crosshair would be nicer as it would not cover so much of the aiming point on a target under lower light conditions, and the CDS dial would negate the use of the BDC portion of the reticle when you have more time to range, dial and shoot. Not owning one as yet, I have no direct comparison from the field to judge the pros and cons between the two for myself.
The biggest advantage here (to me) is that it is a toolless system for setting your Zero. I like this...I would love to get a Gen 2, but the price of these scopes with the current exchange ratee and tariffs is very expensive here north of the border. And I am getting both of these used, excellent conditions scopes for the price of one new Gen 2.

With these two new-to-me scopes, as they will be going on my 25 Creedmoor, and the planned for the next build (a 257 AI Improved), And will be mainly for deer, sheep, and antelope in wide open spaces, I am wondering if I should order the CDS caps for more precise holds on longer shots (300-500 yards) under normal lighting conditions not requiring the illumination, and where I may have more time for the range, dial, shoot action, or target practice to verify the POIs and jsut get better at shooting the longer distances in preparation fr the hunts.
Thoughts on this from those who practice this method?

 

[JD338]

Good question GIL.
I do both but it depends on the rifle/scope and the circumstances at that moment. I have three VX-6HD scopes with the TMOA illuminated reticle. Even though I’m a one bullet/load per rifle kind of guy I prefer the basic MOA turret as opposed to a CDS reticle that is set up for yardage.
Using a LRF to get my distance I normally use a proven drop chart and dial my distance but I will sometimes just use the MOA hash marks in the TMOA reticle to make minor corrections for distance.
With my VX-5HD scopes, they all have the FireDot standard DuPlex reticle and I dial in the distance if needed.
For Sue, I set her up with CDS dials in yardage. All she needs to do is laser distance, dial that on her turret and shoot. It’s easier for her and it works well.
JD338

 

[JMRhino]

This is a fun topic.

My response is probably more about how my brain processes information and less about the pros/cons of the various systems. I prefer 1st focal plane with sub-tensions in MOA for target shooting. I know MILs should make more sense, but my brain thinks in feet and inches.

With respect to BDC recitals vs dialing, I prefer dialing with a single point of aim such as a Fire dot for hunting scenarios. Seems simpler to me. I never dial for wind. For me, there seems to be too many variables using B&C or BDC type reticles for hunting.

I am very fond of my Leupold's with the CDS and the fire dot for open areas, but it's not needed in the timber.

 

[xphunter]

Jack Of Adjusting All Ways & Master Of None...
This is where I typically say, I can help you answer your question(s) better by a phone call that texting or typing.
It is just figuring out what is going to work best for that person, with that scope for that type of hunting situation.

 

[Charlie-NY]

I have found that the B&C type hash marks work very well out to about 400yds. They are fast and simple to use. Of course, the hash marks aren't perfect for every bullet and speed. Typically, I sight the 400yd hash mark in dead on at 400yds and then check the 200yd and 300yd POIs to see how close they are to the point of aim. They are generally very close.

Other than that, it's hard to beat a dial up scope. They are a bit slower, and you need to remember to zero the scope, but they can't be beat for shooting beyond 400yds.