F-Class Reticle Considerations

[Kyle Schultz]

Now realizing that I'm physically not up to the 'run and gun' style of tactical matches, I'm modifying the build specs of my upcoming 6.5x47 to conform to F-Class style shooting. In researching optics, it appears that folks generally use variable magnification scopes with a simple, non-graduated reticle. Something akin to a Nightforce 8-32x56 BR with a NP-2DD reticle.

In tactical shooting, I've been taught to dial elevation but hold windage. How does that translate to BR/F-Class shooting where shooters don't seem to rely on mil,or MOA)-dot scale reticles? Do you dial windage or do you hold off for wind,and I guess possibly elevation) based on the target rings themselves.

I'm trying to understand the mental process that F-Class shooters follow. Let's say we're shooting at 600 yards. I read the wind, go to my drop chart or PDA, and determine that I need 1 mil,roughly 3.5 MOA) of windage. On my .308 using a USO ST-10 mil-dot scope, I would simply hold 1 mil off the desired POI and take the shot. Does the F-Class shooter,1) dial 1 mil,or roughly 3.5 MOA) and take the shot or do they,2) calculate that 1 mil at 600 yards is about 21.5' and based on their knowledge of the target dimensions determine that this distance is X.X number of rings out from the center, hold there and fire? What if there's a strong enough crosswind so that the required POA is actually off the target?

Based on my limited experience, it does seem that there would be a big advantage in having a mil- or MOA-dot scale on the reticle. Then, if you accept that premise, then you forced to consider the first versus second focal plane debate. With my fixed power ST-10, it's not an issue. But I long ago accepted the argument that for variable-power scopes, it's imperative to use a first focal plane setup.

So, how are so many BR/F-Class shooters so successful with basically crosshair-only optics? Thanks in advance for the insight!

 

[memilanuk]

Speaking mainly from the point of view of F-Class...

Known-distance, with targets of known dimensions and having markings of known measurements. Any 'holding off' can be done using the target face itself. Most of the 'benefits' of FFP optics are null and void here - they work great on two-way ranges where 'minute of man' is the defining criteria - but how many FFP scopes do you know of in the 30-40+ magnification range? Very, very few, because what people who buy high-magnification scopes want is something that allows them to hold finer on the target, and see more detail of the target - not something where the reticle covers the same amount of real estate and appears 'coarser' in view against the target, while getting almost too fine to see at lower powers.

Whether a person clicks or holds off is largely personal preference. Some people might decline to adjust their scope as long as they can hold off somewhere on the target. Some of that may stem from the unfortunate effect of scopes being mechanical objects which sometimes don't work entirely as advertised,i.e. one or two clicks being more or less than anticipated). Me personally, if I get outside 1-1.5moa from center I usually correct accordingly. I also shoot on a range where wind corrections are often in *revolutions*, not clicks or minutes, between shots.

Some shooters do a modified form of 'chase the spotter' - i.e. Take a SWAG at the wind, dial it on, aim center and shoot. Spotter comes up mid-ring 10 @ 4 o'clock... so next shot aim mid-ring 10 @ 10 o'clock and shoot - should come up a center X,in theory). Adjust process as necessary to take into account for varying wind speeds and direction.

Others use a plot sheet that is a scaled representation of the target face, complete w/ a grid overlaid on it that matches the increments of their optics - usually in MOA. Take your SWAG @ the wind, dial it on, hold center and shoot. Shot comes up a 10 o'clock '8'... plot the shot on the sheet, look at the grid and take your corrections from that and dial the scope accordingly. Should put you in the center,or pretty close), assuming that you didn't completely ignore the wind in the mean time. Once in the center, hold off and shoot and plot, and if you see a 'group' forming,say low right in the 10 ring) either continue to hold high and left or apply the needed corrections to bring your group into the x-ring.

Just holding is generally faster, and allows the shooter to shoot fast and,hopefully) stay ahead of the wind. Plotting is more methodical and may save your bacon if the wind completely changes on you - it makes a good reference for dialing back the other way while staying in the middle of the target.

YMMV,

Monte

 

[Kyle Schultz]

Monte:

Thank you for taking the time to type out your thoughts. They are VERY helpful and I am grateful for them.

 

[ThunderDownUnder]

Milanuk, very well written and sighting options very well described!

 

[Jeffvn]

MOnte

Nicely done.

I use the NP-R1 reticle in my Nightforce and the PCMOA reticle in my USO. I'm used to teh clutter,not that I consider it cluttered but others with dots might) and hold the wind. Its easy with my reticles.

JeffVN

 

[Forum Boss]

Monte, your post was so well done, I've featured it in today's bulletin... and entered you in our 'TECH TIP' contest. Officially, a Tech Tip is about tool use, reloading, and shooting methods. Aiming effectively, in my book, certainly falls into the category of shooting methods.

 

[memilanuk]

Thanks guys. Not sure a 'tech tip' should have the term 'SWAG' in it, but it's about as good a term as any

 

[Kyle Schultz]

I've been studying the targets and plot sheets. One thing that's obvious is this game is set up for MOA knobs. My mil-rad knobs aren't going to be very useful after the initial dial-in.

 

[memilanuk]

Kyle,

There are a lot of different plot sheets floating around the 'Net... but I don't think I've ever seen one set up for NRA HP targets,with MOA rings) but with a mil scale on it. It's possible... if you know a little bit about working in M$ Excel, you can make your own plot sheets with whatever scales and fields on it that *you* want. I frequently use one that takes up most of a page. Itfits on a full-size 8.5x11 clipboard and gives plenty of room to plot on - even those ones where I pooched the wind call out into the seven ring :,

If you want one to start with so you don't have to do all the grunt work, let me know and I'll throw it up here for ya. Not sure I'm keen on doing the mil conversion work to make everything come out right... most plot sheets tend to expand the X/10/9 ring and compress the other scoring rings to give more plot room in the region where your shot density *should* be highest Given that the rings are in moa, fudging an moa grid that way is fairly simple. Doing that for mil-radians... could be a challenge.

Good luck,

Monte

 

[Kyle Schultz]

Monte...

Thanks again for all your help.

I'm shooting my first match,TSRA Mid-Range Championship) later this month. I'll be shooting F-T/R using my GAP .308 and mil-mil USO ST-10. I've already 'fudged up' some mil-rad plot sheets to get me through this first event.

My F-Class rifle is being built and I'm waiting for the match in order to watch and learn from all the more accomplished shooters at the match which optic would be best for me. But, whatever I choose, I'm sure it will have MOA knobs.