Dope charts

[jt4]

Recently put a new to me Nightforce nxs scope on my rifle so this will be the first time making a dope chart.

I typically zero at 200 and only shoot out to about 400 if the scenario calls for it.

The plan is to have 25 yard increments, but how do you get as accurate as possible on the in between distances (say 275 or 350 for example) when you only have access to ranges in 100, 200, 300 and 400 yard targets?

 

[bnewt3]

Compare your actual results to what a ballistic calculator spits out, take that correction factor and apply to the 25, 50, 75yd in between each hundred

So assuming 200yd zero, if the calculator says you should be 2" low at 300 and 4" low at 400 but you find you are 2.5" low at 300 and 4.5" low at 400, then take the drop/comeup from the calculator at each 25yd increment and add .5" to each.

 

[conradhp]

Compare your actual results to what a ballistic calculator spits out, take that correction factor and apply to the 25, 50, 75yd in between each hundred.

What bnewt3 said

 

[100 others]

most calculators let you change the yardage increments. If you’re confirmed at the hundreds, it’ll be on at the 25’s in between.

 

[bnewt3]

Another option is to adjust muzzle velocity(assuming everything else is correct, this is the variable most likely to be off without a chronograph) in the calculator until the chart lines up with reality.

 

[JohnJohnson]

most calculators let you change the yardage increments. If you’re confirmed at the hundreds, it’ll be on at the 25’s in between.

Basically this. There is no reason at all for inches or any other linear unit to come into the discussion either. Your scope doesn't adjust in inches.

 

[bnewt3]

Basically this. There is no reason at all for inches or any other linear unit to come into the discussion either. Your scope doesn't adjust in inches.

unless someone thinks linear and translates it to angle through the scope. How you do it is right for you. Doesn't mean it's the only way.

 

[JohnJohnson]

unless someone thinks linear and translates it to angle through the scope. How you do it is right for you. Doesn't mean it's the only way.

It's needlessly complicated if the NXS has a reticle with subtensions (which I think it does? not entirely sure what reticle his has). There's a ruler in front of your eye and it's in the same units that the scope adjusts in, which are not linear.

 

[bnewt3]

again, thats how you see it. its not necessarily how everybody sees it.

Im not disagreeing with your rationale, it is more complicated that just using whats there.........but that assumes everyone uses what is there.

Plenty of people buy a 300 Win Mag to hunt whitetail from a stand and never make a shot beyond 200yds......they aren't wrong. Just not the way I would do it.

 

[100 others]

unless someone thinks linear and translates it to angle through the scope. How you do it is right for you. Doesn't mean it's the only way.

So you have a MOA or MIL scope with an MOA or MIL reticle/dial but your drop chart is in inches?

 

[bnewt3]

So you have a MOA or MIL scope with an MOA or MIL reticle/dial but your drop chart is in inches?

Me personally, no. Again, what you or I think makes sense does not apply to everyone. Some people grew up thinking in inches and they will always think in inches and they see no need to ever change.

 

[JohnJohnson]

again, thats how you see it. its not necessarily how everybody sees it.

Im not disagreeing with your rationale, it is more complicated that just using whats there.........but that assumes everyone uses what is there.

It's something that people should be encouraged to correct, not given false validation for a bad habit. It's an inefficient way to think about adjusting a scope. I want hunters to become better shooters so animals get killed humanely.

 

[bnewt3]

calling it a "bad habit" is an opinion not a fact. Inefficient, yes. Wrong, no.

 

[JohnJohnson]

calling it a "bad habit" is an opinion not a fact. Inefficient, yes. Wrong, no.

Inefficiency being needlessly introduced into a (usually) time sensitive situation where you are about to shoot a living animal is, in my opinion, objectively a bad thing. Some of it (for the first shot) is obviated by having a range card in the first place but if there's a miss or correction needed for some other reason it becomes a straight up bad way to do things.

 

[bnewt3]

The same could be said for a lot of things in hunting. You could make that case for not having "top of the line" clothing because you are less comfortable especially in bad weather, poorly fitting or overly bulky clothes that require frequent adjusting to be comfortable, choosing to shoot offhand or hope for a decent prone opportunity vs carrying stick/tripod, etc.

 

[Shortschaf]

The same could be said for a lot of things in hunting. You could make that case for not having "top of the line" clothing because you are less comfortable especially in bad weather, poorly fitting or overly bulky clothes that require frequent adjusting to be comfortable, choosing to shoot offhand or hope for a decent prone opportunity vs carrying stick/tripod, etc.

It costs many dollars to buy top of the line anything.

It costs zero dollars to use the reticle as it was intended, and it's genuinely good advice to tell others that you should use reticle subtensions over guesstimated linear measurements.

Yes it works to use a crescent wrench as a hammer, but I still advise people not to do it when they have a hammer in their other hand

 

[bnewt3]

It costs many dollars to buy top of the line anything.

It costs zero dollars to use the reticle as it was intended, and it's genuinely good advice to tell others that you should use reticle subtensions over guesstimated linear measurements.

Yes it works to use a crescent wrench as a hammer, but I still advise people not to do it when they have a hammer in their other hand

the statement was
"Inefficiency being needlessly introduced into a (usually) time sensitive situation where you are about to shoot a living animal is, in my opinion, objectively a bad thing"

That should mean ANY inefficiency. Or are we just cherry-picking which inefficiencies we are talking about to support our current point? Statistically speaking virtually nobody needs to hunt to eat, said another way (according to the assertion above) virtually all hunting should be done at maximum efficiency in all areas that affect the shot being taken or it shouldn't be done at all.

 

[bnewt3]

And a better analogy is its better to use the wrench for the size bolt you have vs a crescent wrench. but the crescent wrench still works.

 

[JohnJohnson]

That should mean ANY inefficiency. Or are we just cherry-picking which inefficiencies we are talking about to support our current point?

So we shouldn't encourage people to use their scopes correctly because it would open a pandora's box of having to spend thousands of dollars on clothing or something? I don't think I follow.

 

[bnewt3]

"There is no reason at all for inches or any other linear unit to come into the discussion either."

Thats not encouragement, thats lecturing.