Ranging and wheels

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Which scope giving you trouble? Ranging at that yardage is not easy even for some FT specific scopes. This is probably why top shooters have their scope very high so the longer range shots are more forgiving.

Key to shallow depth of field is large objective lens and high magnifications, March scopes supposed to be able to range under a yard at 45-55 yards, my sightron S8 does a pretty good job too at telling the difference between 54 and 55 yards but does take some focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigHUN and cavedweller
Upvote 0
I'm far from a scope diva, and I haven't used any of the true high end $$$ field target scopes. (I've looked through friends Marches and Kahles, etc, just haven't completed in a match with them).

So, not personally a scope diva, BUT I have shot in a considerable # of field target matches and my input is that success in field target requires a scope that'll range to the yard from 10-20 yards and discern 45 from 50 from 55. Guys get worked up about being able to tell if the target is 53 or 55 yards for example, when calling it either will still make it fall, so long as the wind read and trigger break are good. There are various ways to test this, but something like shooting 5 shots on paper at a 55 yard 1 inch circle using 55 yard trajectory dope, and then shoot at another 1 inch circle at 55 yards, but use your 52 or 53 yard dope. Any shots that hit outside of that circle will be wind or pulled shots, not dope related. (Ie. The trajectory is flat enough that 2 or 3 or sometimes even 4 yards off on those max distance targets will still put it in the kill zone).

Furthermore, being VERY familiar with how your scope ranges is more important than spending big money. The story goes that Philip Hepler won nationals a few years ago with a UTG scope. I used SWFA fixed power 20x scopes for a few years and was match high at monthly matches more than a few times while using those $250 scopes. (Ie. Intimate familiarity with a scope, even a cheap one, will get your further than spending more money).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bustachip, Ezana4CE, doninva and 8 others
Upvote 0
As Cole stated, it’s not necessary to range to the yard to be successful if you have a good hold and good wind reading skill. I spent a summer practicing wftf without ranging any of the long targets. I would simply decide if the target was further than 48 or less. If I thought it was further I held for 52….if I thought it was less I held 44. My long term average hit ratio for the long targets was almost the same compared to rangefinding with my 40x Leupold that I normally use for wftf. It was close enough that I realized that I wasn’t missing long targets because of bad ranging with any significant frequency.

Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezana4CE, thane, qball and 3 others
Upvote 0
Several things help here:
  • Shallow Depth of field can help the target snap in and out of focus better. Larger objective usually helps this, but not all scopes with a given objective size have the same depth.
  • Higher magnification can make it easier to get it exactly. (Big difference trying it at 16x vs 50x
  • Scopes with side focus/parallax shortened for FT help by not wasting space with 100yds to infinity
  • The comma wheels help spread it out at the higher end
  • Practice and consistency matter!!! You can have those things above, but you have to practice and be consistent every turn to be repeatable.
Best is up for debate. Price can play a big part too, and as others have stated, you can do more with less with the right practice. Which class are you shooting? Some of the advantages of the larger scopes are minimized when only using 16x.

I loved my Kahles FT for open and wouldn’t trade it for that class, but many have done better with cheaper scopes… I loved how easy it was to document every yard up to 55 repeatedly. I sold it when I sold my Open rig.

I haven’t tried it yet, but I want to test a Sightron or Falcon 10-50 or cheaper and see if any of the benefits of the larger scope still come through at 16x.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller
Upvote 0
cavedweller said:
I guess I was hoping that this “spread” or exacting one yard focus difference was a known - I’ve got sightron S3, Athlon Heras, Aztec and Hawkes but all stack up or don’t differentiate from 40-55 yards all that well. I do have big wheels, commas and eccentric which help.
Click to expand...


My sightron S8 at 40x can tell between each yard out to 55 yards. Between 10-15 yards I can range down to inches. I put a 5 gallon bucket at 12 yards and I can focus around the rim of the bucket or follow the rim with focus, the depth of field under 15 yards is like around 4-5 inches.

But that scope is a little spendy and very heavy, I love it though since it’s almost like cheating. YMMV. I also tried the $3800 Khale FT scope(not mine) and I would take my S8 over it any day, way better in every way. One day I’ll try a march high master 60x or 80x.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller
Upvote 0
16x for Hunter is the great equalizer. Ive yet to see a scope @16x that doesn't struggle with the far distances.

Anybody got a scope that'll range to the yard at anything 45+ @ 16x??? I highly doubt it.

There's a reason the Hunter class guys have a big to-do every now and then to get the 16x limit raised.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jdanvers and cavedweller
Upvote 0
qball said:
My sightron S8 at 40x can tell between each yard out to 55 yards. Between 10-15 yards I can range down to inches. I put a 5 gallon bucket at 12 yards and I can focus around the rim of the bucket or follow the rim with focus, the depth of field under 15 yards is like around 4-5 inches.

But that scope is a little spendy and very heavy, I love it though since it’s almost like cheating. YMMV. I also tried the $3800 Khale FT scope(not mine) and I would take my S8 over it any day, way better in every way. One day I’ll try a march high master 60x or 80x.
Click to expand...
Well perhaps the problem is HFT because I can’t change magnification past x16 or use anything except the parallax knob.
Real hunters do what they gotta do to place a perfect shot so in a way the HFT rules are arbitrary but I don’t care as long as I’m having fun. I have had all of the scopes your referencing Franklink, but at 16X they all were very limited.
🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
cavedweller said:
Well perhaps the problem is HFT because I can’t change magnification past x16 or use anything except the parallax knob.
Real hunters do what they gotta do to place a perfect shot so in a way the HFT rules are arbitrary but I don’t care as long as I’m having fun. I have had all of the scopes your referencing Franklink, but at 16X they all were very limited.
🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Didn't realize you are on HFT or 16X which does make it a good amount more difficult but at least your trajectory is flatter. Also unfortunately to get good ranging with 16x it's even more important to have large objective lens or 56mm usually on 34mm tubes scopes. Still more difficult but very doable, my S8 still ranges pretty well at 16 and S&B I tried did quite well too at 16x.

Also if you have FFP it is very possible to range using reticle but good amount of work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller
Upvote 0
Smok3y said:
I haven’t tried it yet, but I want to test a Sightron or Falcon 10-50 or cheaper and see if any of the benefits of the larger scope still come through at 16x.
Click to expand...
They do. There's a reason why so many hunter class guys are using a Sightron SIII. For the last couple of weeks, I've been trying to figure out what scope to use for Hunter class. Most of the hunter class scopes I have are 20x or less, and they all struggled past 40 yards with a lack of snappiness.
I have an older 10-50x scope that also struggles with snappiness (even at 50x). I have a newer version of the same scope that is very snappy at 50x. It finally occurred to me to try this scope at 16x, and it retains the benefit of shallow depth of field at lower magnification. Don't get me wrong, there is a big difference between ranging at 50x vs 16x, but the difference between other scopes at 16x with deeper depth of fields is noticeable.

So, TLDR, the benefit of shallow depth of field for range finding is apparent at 16x. It's not as good as at 50x, but better than other scopes with deeper depth of field at 16x. While researching for my next hunter class scope, my main criteria are shallow depth of field and half mil markings on the reticle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdanvers, cavedweller and Smok3y
Upvote 0
scotton said:
They do. There's a reason why so many hunter class guys are using a Sightron SIII. For the last couple of weeks, I've been trying to figure out what scope to use for Hunter class. Most of the hunter class scopes I have are 20x or less, and they all struggled past 40 yards with a lack of snappiness.
I have an older 10-50x scope that also struggles with snappiness (even at 50x). I have a newer version of the same scope that is very snappy at 50x. It finally occurred to me to try this scope at 16x, and it retains the benefit of shallow depth of field at lower magnification. Don't get me wrong, there is a big difference between ranging at 50x vs 16x, but the difference between other scopes at 16x with deeper depth of fields is noticeable.

So, TLDR, the benefit of shallow depth of field for range finding is apparent at 16x. It's not as good as at 50x, but better than other scopes with deeper depth of field at 16x. While researching for my next hunter class scope, my main criteria are shallow depth of field and half mil markings on the reticle.
Click to expand...
which scope are you referring to?
 
Upvote 0
cavedweller said:
which scope are you referring to?
Click to expand...
Falcon T50 and T50+. And everything I said was a lie. The T50+ was range finding great at the club at 16x, but when I went to a shoot on Saturday it was an epic fail. Every target past 40 yards ranged as 40 yards. Thankfully I had bracket info for 50 and 55 yards, but every lane I would range a target and say "hmm, that doesn't look like 40 yards". Then I would bracket the block or the kill zone and it would be 53 yards. So this scope is going back onto the WFTF rig. Plus, I found the lack of half mil markings very frustrating. I have a Falcon M18 that has a better reticle for Hunter. It doesn't range great at 45-55, but at least the half mils make it easier to bracket with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MysticalDragon and cavedweller
Upvote 0
Rudy,

I have used both my Sightron and my Falcon X50 this year in Hunter. I found they both actually range pretty well at 16x. The key with them was using my tape measure to set my focus marker at the ranging distances to learn how and when the marker was just in focus for the ranging yardage. There is a very fine line that’s for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cavedweller and MysticalDragon
Upvote 0
Keith Rush said:
Rudy,

I have used both my Sightron and my Falcon X50 this year in Hunter. I found they both actually range pretty well at 16x. The key with them was using my tape measure to set my focus marker at the ranging distances to learn how and when the marker was just in focus for the ranging yardage. There is a very fine line that’s for sure.
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu