Issues with Swarovski Z3 Retcile subtensions

[JOC Fan]

I missed a huge Argali in KG two years ago as the bullet sailed over the rams back at 700 yards. I has a Swarovski Z3 in 3-10x42 with a BRH reticle. The same scenario repeated at 405 yards on day 4 and I was devastated. Luckily, I killed a respectable ram on the last day using my Kentucky windage system at 390 yards by just holding over the top of his back. After I came back, I re-tested the reticle and the same shenanigan. Swarovski didn't believe me either. I had used my own Sierra Infinity program as well as the Online Swarovski program using the correct barometric parameters to arrive at my dope chart for the reticle subtensions. They both matched.

Just wondering if others have had the same issue or not with this reticle. Thank you.

 

[Marble]

It's probably soemthing wrong with data for your ballistics. You'll need to confirm speed through a good chrono and then go shoot at distance. What you'll find is the ballistics coefficient will change with the speed of the bullet and the distance. If you figure out this difference, then you'll figure out what the correct numbers are.

I dont know why this is, but it's a real thing. I thought the BC was solely based on the shape of the bullet, but it's more complicated than that.

With whatever bullet you are using, there are two different BCs to use. Expierment with both and you'll have to confirm at 600, preferably 800, yards to ensure the proper dope.

I know when I went to confirm my dope at 600 it was off by 6". Made some adjustments to numbers and all has been good since.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

Their reticle is basically mil dots.

It's a sfp scope, so they're 1:1 at max power. Not really a lot there to have a problem with.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

I missed a huge Argali in KG two years ago as the bullet sailed over the rams back at 700 yards. I has a Swarovski Z3 in 3-10x42 with a BRH reticle. The same scenario repeated at 405 yards on day 4 and I was devastated. Luckily, I killed a respectable ram on the last day using my Kentucky windage system at 390 yards by just holding over the top of his back. After I came back, I re-tested the reticle and the same shenanigan. Swarovski didn't believe me either. I had used my own Sierra Infinity program as well as the Online Swarovski program using the correct barometric parameters to arrive at my dope chart for the reticle subtensions. They both matched.

Just wondering if others have had the same issue or not with this reticle. Thank you.

Change the max magnification setting to 9.69 on Swaro then the program will line up with .5 mil increments.

If the ballistic solver you have matches the current solver something is wrong. Assuming correct MV from a chrono, temp and pressure you should be on the money.

 

[Formidilosus]

It's probably soemthing wrong with data for your ballistics. You'll need to confirm speed through a good chrono and then go shoot at distance. What you'll find is the ballistics coefficient will change with the speed of the bullet and the distance. If you figure out this difference, then you'll figure out what the correct numbers are.

I dont know why this is, but it's a real thing. I thought the BC was solely based on the shape of the bullet, but it's more complicated than that.

With whatever bullet you are using, there are two different BCs to use. Expierment with both and you'll have to confirm at 600, preferably 800, yards to ensure the proper dope.

I know when I went to confirm my dope at 600 it was off by 6". Made some adjustments to numbers and all has been good since.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Ummm no.

 

[Formidilosus]

I missed a huge Argali in KG two years ago as the bullet sailed over the rams back at 700 yards. I has a Swarovski Z3 in 3-10x42 with a BRH reticle. The same scenario repeated at 405 yards on day 4 and I was devastated. Luckily, I killed a respectable ram on the last day using my Kentucky windage system at 390 yards by just holding over the top of his back. After I came back, I re-tested the reticle and the same shenanigan. Swarovski didn't believe me either. I had used my own Sierra Infinity program as well as the Online Swarovski program using the correct barometric parameters to arrive at my dope chart for the reticle subtensions. They both matched.

Just wondering if others have had the same issue or not with this reticle. Thank you.

So you went hunting for rams in a different country, took a shot at 700 yards, without practicing and confirming before you left…?

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

Ummm no.

Um, yes: https://www.sierrabullets.com/product/22-caliber-77-gr-hpbt-matchking/

".372 @ 3000 fps and above .362 between 2500 and 3000 fps .362 between 1700 and 2500 fps .343 @ 1700 fps and below"

 

[Formidilosus]

Um, yes: https://www.sierrabullets.com/product/22-caliber-77-gr-hpbt-matchking/

".372 @ 3000 fps and above .362 between 2500 and 3000 fps .362 between 1700 and 2500 fps .343 @ 1700 fps and below"

That’s a stepped BC, I’m well aware of what it is and why Sierra uses it. Reread his post. I literally shoot and true guns daily and that post will only confuse people. You do not need to use a stepped BC at the ranges being discussed and it certainly has nothing to do with missing a sheep at 700 with a SFP scope that is notorious for losing zero.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

That’s a stepped BC, I’m well aware of what it is and why Sierra uses it. Reread his post. I literally shoot and true guns daily and that post will only confuse people. You do not need to use a stepped BC at the ranges being discussed and it certainly has nothing to do with missing a sheep at 700 with a SFP scope that is notorious for losing zero.

Not sure why you went to losing zero, since he connected at 400 yds holding over in space.

Basically every ballistic program has a function for flight truing, and, as I'm sure you know, after 600 yds that's typically done by BC adjustment. Rereading the post I quoted it looks like further down it might be getting into confusing G1 and G7 bc with truing your data. G1 vs G7 modeling will not affect flight path at these distances. (Unless we're talking about a rimfire)

I think you probably landed on the problem with your second post ITT.

 

[JOC Fan]

The ironic part of this whole experience was that three other friends bought the same exact scope after me and we all had the same experience; the hold over lines are shooting too high. One of them is a close friend who also makes some of the best barrels in the business and has won several BR matches.

I am not new to the ballistic game and understand all the parameters involved. After I contacted Swarovski, they were asking me dumb questions such as : did you specify the correct elevation when you ran your dope chart, did you use the correct temperature, was your magnification set at 10x power, ...etc.

I also know I had not bumped the scope because after the second miss, when I returned to camp, I fired a couple of shots and confirmed the 240 yard zero I had started with.

Those who are interested in the actual hunt story can read it here:

- Journal of Mountain Hunting

The year was 1973. At the age of 12, I accompanied my late dad and uncle to the newly opened wildlife museum in Tehran to see the mountain sheep collection. ...

journalofmountainhunting.com

 

[Formidilosus]

Rereading the post I quoted it looks like further down it might be getting into confusing G1 and G7 bc with truing your data. G1 vs G7 modeling will not affect flight path at these distances. (Unless we're talking about a rimfire)

That’s what I was referring to, not that stepped G1’s don’t exist. As for the scope losing zero comment, the story is an overall theme park of questionable choices.

 

[Marble]

Ummm no.

Ok...that's why they give different BCs and bullet manufactures like berger even suggest doing this. Confirming the dope and experimenting with BC.

It may not be his issue at all. But I've seen it and done it. The OP left a lot of info out that could cause his miss, not even considering making a bad shot.

We don't know his ES, his zero yardage, what angle it was at, what his original zero conditions were and what they were at the time.

Just be open to the possibility.

I'm not familiar with that particular scope but if it's know to lose zero...deal breaker.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

Um, yes: https://www.sierrabullets.com/product/22-caliber-77-gr-hpbt-matchking/

".372 @ 3000 fps and above .362 between 2500 and 3000 fps .362 between 1700 and 2500 fps .343 @ 1700 fps and below"

Ty. That's exactly what I was getting at. But I want the OP to look into it himself in caaeits something he has not confirmed.

Appreciate it!

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[BBob]

the story is an overall theme park of questionable choices.

After reading the story and his comments in the first post I'm with this ^^^. It doesn't sound like the hold overs were ever field checked and were taken for granted. Tell me that's not the case???

I learned long ago everything must be verified by me. So many times I've found things that are flat wrong and if I didn't verify I'd end up with a story like this one.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

The ironic part of this whole experience was that three other friends bought the same exact scope after me and we all had the same experience; the hold over lines are shooting too high. One of them is a close friend who also makes some of the best barrels in the business and has won several BR matches.

I am not new to the ballistic game and understand all the parameters involved. After I contacted Swarovski, they were asking me dumb questions such as : did you specify the correct elevation when you ran your dope chart, did you use the correct temperature, was your magnification set at 10x power, ...etc.

I also know I had not bumped the scope because after the second miss, when I returned to camp, I fired a couple of shots and confirmed the 240 yard zero I had started with.

Those who are interested in the actual hunt story can read it here:

- Journal of Mountain Hunting

The year was 1973. At the age of 12, I accompanied my late dad and uncle to the newly opened wildlife museum in Tehran to see the mountain sheep collection. ...

journalofmountainhunting.com

Those all seem like fairly reasonable questions to ask.

The only way that the holdover lines would be shooting too high as a manufacturing problem would be if they were somehow not engraved properly, which is an easy check. Put a yard stick in the ground 100 yds away from you. At 10x, put the cross hair on the top of the stick; each dot should be 3.6" (~3 5/8") from the next dot. If you have a meter stick, put it at 100 meters and each dot should be 10 cm from the next dot. If you can't see the markings, put a dot every 10 CM or 3.6". I'm sure that Swarovski would be happy to help you if their reticle is engraved wrong, but if the reticle is engraved right that's not a reticle problem.

 

[Formidilosus]

Ok...that's why they give different BCs and bullet manufactures like berger even suggest doing this. Confirming the dope and experimenting with BC.

If you are screwing with a verified BC above transonic, you are almost guaranteed to be inputting errors. Note I said verified- Doppler radar, Litz, etc. The majority of shooters- as in not in the ELR comp game do not have the ability to verify BC. With modern bullets and companies doing a pretty solid job of giving correct BC’s now, it is the least likely source of error. Someone missing sheep and thinking that three Swaros have incorrect reticles, doesn’t have a BC issue- he has a shooting fundamentals issue. But let’s say they do have three Swarovski scope with incorrect reticle subtentions…. Why weren’t those checked before going on a hunt?

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

DOPE "Data On Previous Engagements"

The word of the day being "Previous"

Adjective; existing or occurring before in time or order.