I seen a interesting youtube video by Travis Haley on battlefield zero's. Well it got me rethinking my zero choice . So I figured I would consult the experts, by the way he recommends the 300 yard zero.
- Thread starter darthceadus
- Start date
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
I use 200y, merely because I also hunt with my rifle and the fields we have to hunt on are farm property and bucks never get closer than that...
I use 200y, merely because I also hunt with my rifle and the fields we have to hunt on are farm property and bucks never get closer than that...
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
The M4 and M16 A4 have a detachable carry handle Bullet Drop Compensating sight. For this sight to have a BDC function the rifle must be zeroed initially for a 300 meter battle sight zero, whereby, the M4 sighted-in at 25 meters or the A4 sighted-in at 32 meters, will cause line of sight and bullet path to intersect again at 300 meters. This battle sight zero will produce a maximum ordinate 7 to 10 inches high at 150 meters. At 350 meters, impact will be about 10 inches low, and at 400 meters, impact will be about 20 inches low. Thus, using a center of mass hold on an E sized target, good hits are possible on any unknown distance target out to about 400 meters. For targets beyond the effective range of the battle sight zero the sight's elevation wheel can be hastily adjusted using the BDC function to hit known distance targets out to about 600 meters. At any rate, to zero this sight at any distance other than 300 meters diminishes its versatility. Using the sight as designed allows good hits for any targeting scenario to the maximum effective range of the bullet, which is the point before such bullet begins to fly erratically and begin to tumble end over end.
The M4 and M16 A4 have a detachable carry handle Bullet Drop Compensating sight. For this sight to have a BDC function the rifle must be zeroed initially for a 300 meter battle sight zero, whereby, the M4 sighted-in at 25 meters or the A4 sighted-in at 32 meters, will cause line of sight and bullet path to intersect again at 300 meters. This battle sight zero will produce a maximum ordinate 7 to 10 inches high at 150 meters. At 350 meters, impact will be about 10 inches low, and at 400 meters, impact will be about 20 inches low. Thus, using a center of mass hold on an E sized target, good hits are possible on any unknown distance target out to about 400 meters. For targets beyond the effective range of the battle sight zero the sight's elevation wheel can be hastily adjusted using the BDC function to hit known distance targets out to about 600 meters. At any rate, to zero this sight at any distance other than 300 meters diminishes its versatility. Using the sight as designed allows good hits for any targeting scenario to the maximum effective range of the bullet, which is the point before such bullet begins to fly erratically and begin to tumble end over end.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
That is pretty much what he is saying , the spread for the same point of aim at all 3 distances was about 5 inches . So even a 500 yard shot would put one right in the old family package , effectively putting him out of the fight . Now the spread was double that for a 100 yard zero. For the test he was using aimpoint micro.
That is pretty much what he is saying , the spread for the same point of aim at all 3 distances was about 5 inches . So even a 500 yard shot would put one right in the old family package , effectively putting him out of the fight . Now the spread was double that for a 100 yard zero. For the test he was using aimpoint micro.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
I've been a civilian for some time now . But I have a private range that I can shoot to 400 yards. I still love to run timed drills at man size targets with my Gap-10. I'm in the process of putting a M-4 together with a ultramatch barrel so it will be cheaper and easier to run speed reload drills and such.
I've been a civilian for some time now . But I have a private range that I can shoot to 400 yards. I still love to run timed drills at man size targets with my Gap-10. I'm in the process of putting a M-4 together with a ultramatch barrel so it will be cheaper and easier to run speed reload drills and such.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
Those are some nice charts which is exactly what Travis says, just point and shoot.
Those are some nice charts which is exactly what Travis says, just point and shoot.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
Knowing the danger space.
Inside of 300 holding center mass you will be taking the target out of the fight.
If you need to be THAT accurate then have a 100 yard zero and dial and make them land where you want them.
Knowing the danger space.
Inside of 300 holding center mass you will be taking the target out of the fight.
If you need to be THAT accurate then have a 100 yard zero and dial and make them land where you want them.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
Till now I've always used a 100 yard zero but I will be rezeroing tonight. Holding center mass is a hell of a lot easier and faster. I guess 15 plus years as a civilian has made me a little rusty in the fundamentals .
Till now I've always used a 100 yard zero but I will be rezeroing tonight. Holding center mass is a hell of a lot easier and faster. I guess 15 plus years as a civilian has made me a little rusty in the fundamentals .
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/ad20/ShootingVoodoo/Publication2-1.jpg
http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/ad20/ShootingVoodoo/Publication2-1.jpg
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sithlord</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Till now I've always used a 100 yard zero but I will be rezeroing tonight. Holding center mass is a hell of a lot easier and faster. I guess 15 plus years as a civilian has made me a little rusty in the fundamentals .</div></div>
I think you found my earlier post to be useful. Interestingly, once you become familiar with trajectory you will understand the center of mass hold can be temporarily abandoned by holding off for more accurate bullet placement. For example if I have a target at 100 meters I can hold low about 3 inches for a very good hit. At 200 meters I can hold low about 6 inches for a very good hit. In fact, I could hold low for most any target out to about 225 meters for a very good hit. BTW, simple range finding can be accomplished by comparing the apparent width of the front sight on an M4 or M16 to the E target. At 175 meters the target and sight will seem to have the same width so when the target appears to be wider than the front sight you know it is inside 175 meters. And, when the target is at a distance greater than 175 meters the target will appear to be less than the width of the front sight.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sithlord</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Till now I've always used a 100 yard zero but I will be rezeroing tonight. Holding center mass is a hell of a lot easier and faster. I guess 15 plus years as a civilian has made me a little rusty in the fundamentals .</div></div>
I think you found my earlier post to be useful. Interestingly, once you become familiar with trajectory you will understand the center of mass hold can be temporarily abandoned by holding off for more accurate bullet placement. For example if I have a target at 100 meters I can hold low about 3 inches for a very good hit. At 200 meters I can hold low about 6 inches for a very good hit. In fact, I could hold low for most any target out to about 225 meters for a very good hit. BTW, simple range finding can be accomplished by comparing the apparent width of the front sight on an M4 or M16 to the E target. At 175 meters the target and sight will seem to have the same width so when the target appears to be wider than the front sight you know it is inside 175 meters. And, when the target is at a distance greater than 175 meters the target will appear to be less than the width of the front sight.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you planning on using it in battle or practical rifle application?</div></div>
What would it matter? If a versatile sight setting is paramount, adjusting the BDC to have it properly function maximizes capability in any scenario where both kd and ukd targets are likely. Don't let the word battle make you think that a battle sight zero only has value for that prescribed usage.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you planning on using it in battle or practical rifle application?</div></div>
What would it matter? If a versatile sight setting is paramount, adjusting the BDC to have it properly function maximizes capability in any scenario where both kd and ukd targets are likely. Don't let the word battle make you think that a battle sight zero only has value for that prescribed usage.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/ad20/ShootingVoodoo/Publication2-1.jpg </div></div>
Love this... makes it very easy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/ad20/ShootingVoodoo/Publication2-1.jpg </div></div>
Love this... makes it very easy
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you planning on using it in battle or practical rifle application?</div></div>
What would it matter? If a versatile sight setting is paramount, adjusting the BDC to have it properly function maximizes capability in any scenario where both kd and ukd targets are likely. Don't let the word battle make you think that a battle sight zero only has value for that prescribed usage. </div></div>
It matters in that most practical rifle applications I believe the focus to be more on precision accuracy rather than just hitting your target in the kill zone ergo the term "battle".
Add: If BDC knobs always worked as intended then everyone would have them, but they aren't reliable IMO. And judging from what I can see in all the diagrams presented they're going on the basis that the shooter will be doing hold offs, not using their BDC knobs.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you planning on using it in battle or practical rifle application?</div></div>
What would it matter? If a versatile sight setting is paramount, adjusting the BDC to have it properly function maximizes capability in any scenario where both kd and ukd targets are likely. Don't let the word battle make you think that a battle sight zero only has value for that prescribed usage. </div></div>
It matters in that most practical rifle applications I believe the focus to be more on precision accuracy rather than just hitting your target in the kill zone ergo the term "battle".
Add: If BDC knobs always worked as intended then everyone would have them, but they aren't reliable IMO. And judging from what I can see in all the diagrams presented they're going on the basis that the shooter will be doing hold offs, not using their BDC knobs.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
I zero'd at 50, putting me back on zero at 120 to 150 (depending on the round fired). I just make scope adjustments to suit the range I'm shooting.
I zero'd at 50, putting me back on zero at 120 to 150 (depending on the round fired). I just make scope adjustments to suit the range I'm shooting.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
My ARs have a 100yard zero because that is what the Elcan SpecterDR is calibrated for.
My ARs have a 100yard zero because that is what the Elcan SpecterDR is calibrated for.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
On my bullet hose carbine I use a 300 yard zero on the SPR I use a 100 yard zero.
On my bullet hose carbine I use a 300 yard zero on the SPR I use a 100 yard zero.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you planning on using it in battle or practical rifle application?</div></div>
What would it matter? If a versatile sight setting is paramount, adjusting the BDC to have it properly function maximizes capability in any scenario where both kd and ukd targets are likely. Don't let the word battle make you think that a battle sight zero only has value for that prescribed usage. </div></div>
It matters in that most practical rifle applications I believe the focus to be more on precision accuracy rather than just hitting your target in the kill zone ergo the term "battle".
Add: If BDC knobs always worked as intended then everyone would have them, but they aren't reliable IMO. And judging from what I can see in all the diagrams presented they're going on the basis that the shooter will be doing hold offs, not using their BDC knobs.</div></div>
Really! Your perception equating precision with practical is novel. Precision, when defined as hitting exactly where aimed, is an antonym to practical. That's because hitting where aimed exactly, except at zeroed point and the earlier point where line of sight intersects trajectory from a bore at a greater angle than horizontal, will always require an adjustment from initial zero to compensate for effects on trajectory and trajectory itself. This adjustment may even be necessary when a BDC function is present.
Also, the BDC I was alluding to earlier is the one as issued on the M4 and M16 A4. This sight is magnificent. For any who choose to exploit it, good hits on the E target at 600 meters are indeed possible. The ACOG's BDC is magnificent too. These sights are of course designed for a particular cartridge driven at a specific velocity. Generic BDC's as opposed to those of the type mentioned or those calibrated by the shooter are always suspect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you planning on using it in battle or practical rifle application?</div></div>
What would it matter? If a versatile sight setting is paramount, adjusting the BDC to have it properly function maximizes capability in any scenario where both kd and ukd targets are likely. Don't let the word battle make you think that a battle sight zero only has value for that prescribed usage. </div></div>
It matters in that most practical rifle applications I believe the focus to be more on precision accuracy rather than just hitting your target in the kill zone ergo the term "battle".
Add: If BDC knobs always worked as intended then everyone would have them, but they aren't reliable IMO. And judging from what I can see in all the diagrams presented they're going on the basis that the shooter will be doing hold offs, not using their BDC knobs.</div></div>
Really! Your perception equating precision with practical is novel. Precision, when defined as hitting exactly where aimed, is an antonym to practical. That's because hitting where aimed exactly, except at zeroed point and the earlier point where line of sight intersects trajectory from a bore at a greater angle than horizontal, will always require an adjustment from initial zero to compensate for effects on trajectory and trajectory itself. This adjustment may even be necessary when a BDC function is present.
Also, the BDC I was alluding to earlier is the one as issued on the M4 and M16 A4. This sight is magnificent. For any who choose to exploit it, good hits on the E target at 600 meters are indeed possible. The ACOG's BDC is magnificent too. These sights are of course designed for a particular cartridge driven at a specific velocity. Generic BDC's as opposed to those of the type mentioned or those calibrated by the shooter are always suspect.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
Us older folks call it (haleys zero) zeroing for max point blank range. it been around for many years.
arborpro
Us older folks call it (haleys zero) zeroing for max point blank range. it been around for many years.
arborpro
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sithlord</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Those are some nice charts which is exactly what Travis says, just point and shoot. </div></div>
Sterling got it spot on. I'm a visual guy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sithlord</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Those are some nice charts which is exactly what Travis says, just point and shoot. </div></div>
Sterling got it spot on. I'm a visual guy.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It matters in that most practical rifle applications I believe the focus to be more on precision accuracy rather than just hitting your target in the kill zone ergo the term "battle".
Add: If BDC knobs always worked as intended then everyone would have them, but they aren't reliable IMO. And judging from what I can see in all the diagrams presented they're going on the basis that the shooter will be doing hold offs, not using their BDC knobs.</div></div>
Really! Your perception equating precision with practical is novel. Precision, when defined as hitting exactly where aimed, is an antonym to practical. That's because hitting where aimed exactly, except at zeroed point and the earlier point where line of sight intersects trajectory from a bore at a greater angle than horizontal, will always require an adjustment from initial zero to compensate for effects on trajectory and trajectory itself. This adjustment may even be necessary when a BDC function is present.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">Also, the BDC I was alluding to earlier is the one as issued on the M4 and M16 A4.</span></span> This sight is magnificent. For any who choose to exploit it, good hits on the E target at 600 meters are indeed possible. The ACOG's BDC is magnificent too. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">These sights are of course designed for a particular cartridge driven at a specific velocity. Generic BDC's as opposed to those of the type mentioned or those calibrated by the shooter are always suspect.</span></span> </div></div>
Where did I say that no adjustment would ever be required? Also, I don't see how "precision" is the opposite of "practical" even with your loose interpretation.
Your advice is based upon the assumption he's using standard issued equipment with standard issued ammunition for personal use? You just stated "generic BDC's" which would likely be what the average civilian is using in combination with non-mil ammo are suspect. If BDC's were so great then why don't most people use them. You're basing your opinion on the matter on your own skill level and equipment that might not be what the average person is using.
And I don't know where you pulled anything that I said as construing that hits at 600 or any range for that fact weren't possible. I never said anywhere that adjustments wouldn't be needed. I said judging by the diagrams they would be doing hold-offs which if you actually go pull up the diagram it shows how to hold-off and where the likely hit will be. I still maintain that by your method most shooters will have difficulty maintain sub-moa accuracy which was the entire point.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It matters in that most practical rifle applications I believe the focus to be more on precision accuracy rather than just hitting your target in the kill zone ergo the term "battle".
Add: If BDC knobs always worked as intended then everyone would have them, but they aren't reliable IMO. And judging from what I can see in all the diagrams presented they're going on the basis that the shooter will be doing hold offs, not using their BDC knobs.</div></div>
Really! Your perception equating precision with practical is novel. Precision, when defined as hitting exactly where aimed, is an antonym to practical. That's because hitting where aimed exactly, except at zeroed point and the earlier point where line of sight intersects trajectory from a bore at a greater angle than horizontal, will always require an adjustment from initial zero to compensate for effects on trajectory and trajectory itself. This adjustment may even be necessary when a BDC function is present.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">Also, the BDC I was alluding to earlier is the one as issued on the M4 and M16 A4.</span></span> This sight is magnificent. For any who choose to exploit it, good hits on the E target at 600 meters are indeed possible. The ACOG's BDC is magnificent too. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">These sights are of course designed for a particular cartridge driven at a specific velocity. Generic BDC's as opposed to those of the type mentioned or those calibrated by the shooter are always suspect.</span></span> </div></div>
Where did I say that no adjustment would ever be required? Also, I don't see how "precision" is the opposite of "practical" even with your loose interpretation.
Your advice is based upon the assumption he's using standard issued equipment with standard issued ammunition for personal use? You just stated "generic BDC's" which would likely be what the average civilian is using in combination with non-mil ammo are suspect. If BDC's were so great then why don't most people use them. You're basing your opinion on the matter on your own skill level and equipment that might not be what the average person is using.
And I don't know where you pulled anything that I said as construing that hits at 600 or any range for that fact weren't possible. I never said anywhere that adjustments wouldn't be needed. I said judging by the diagrams they would be doing hold-offs which if you actually go pull up the diagram it shows how to hold-off and where the likely hit will be. I still maintain that by your method most shooters will have difficulty maintain sub-moa accuracy which was the entire point.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need to be THAT accurate then have a 100 yard zero and dial and make them land where you want them. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I zero all my rifles, ARs included, at 100 yards as I know my mil holds out to 500 yards in my head. </div></div>
I don't see you telling either of these 2 that they're wrong and he can still maintain sub-moa accuracy by your method.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need to be THAT accurate then have a 100 yard zero and dial and make them land where you want them. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I zero all my rifles, ARs included, at 100 yards as I know my mil holds out to 500 yards in my head. </div></div>
I don't see you telling either of these 2 that they're wrong and he can still maintain sub-moa accuracy by your method.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It matters in that most practical rifle applications I believe the focus to be more on precision accuracy rather than just hitting your target in the kill zone ergo the term "battle".
Add: If BDC knobs always worked as intended then everyone would have them, but they aren't reliable IMO. And judging from what I can see in all the diagrams presented they're going on the basis that the shooter will be doing hold offs, not using their BDC knobs.</div></div>
Really! Your perception equating precision with practical is novel. Precision, when defined as hitting exactly where aimed, is an antonym to practical. That's because hitting where aimed exactly, except at zeroed point and the earlier point where line of sight intersects trajectory from a bore at a greater angle than horizontal, will always require an adjustment from initial zero to compensate for effects on trajectory and trajectory itself. This adjustment may even be necessary when a BDC function is present.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">Also, the BDC I was alluding to earlier is the one as issued on the M4 and M16 A4.</span></span> This sight is magnificent. For any who choose to exploit it, good hits on the E target at 600 meters are indeed possible. The ACOG's BDC is magnificent too. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">These sights are of course designed for a particular cartridge driven at a specific velocity. Generic BDC's as opposed to those of the type mentioned or those calibrated by the shooter are always suspect.</span></span> </div></div>
Where did I say that no adjustment would ever be required? Also, I don't see how "precision" is the opposite of "practical" even with your loose interpretation.
Your advice is based upon the assumption he's using standard issued equipment with standard issued ammunition for personal use? You just stated "generic BDC's" which would likely be what the average civilian is using in combination with non-mil ammo are suspect. If BDC's were so great then why don't most people use them. You're basing your opinion on the matter on your own skill level and equipment that might not be what the average person is using.
And I don't know where you pulled anything that I said as construing that hits at 600 or any range for that fact weren't possible. I never said anywhere that adjustments wouldn't be needed. I said judging by the diagrams they would be doing hold-offs which if you actually go pull up the diagram it shows how to hold-off and where the likely hit will be. I still maintain that by your method most shooters will have difficulty maintain sub-moa accuracy which was the entire point.</div></div>
You seem to want to make an argument on unarguable facts. First, I have no preferred sight adjustment method, I do what the scenario dictates is appropriate; and, second, most shooters will have difficulty getting sub MOA much less maintaining sub MOA accuracy no matter what aiming method is used. The OP wanted to know what distance shooters here zero their semi automatic rifles. Since many of these are AR style guns which do indeed come with a detachable carry handle BDC, a shooter would be wise to come to an understanding about the outcomes which are possible from using this device properly. Properly meaning to set the sight for a 300 meter zero so as to have a BDC function too. Now, considering that the M4 and M16 A4 are most useful for KD and UKD E sized targets inside 600 meters and understanding that good hits are possible to 600 meters with the BDC adjusted properly, setting the sight for proper function seems like a good idea, even if there's a need to hastily re-adjust the sight for, as you call it, a "precision" hit. But, get real, the term precision has very little meaning in context to a good quick hit at SR and even many MR scenarios. But, for MR and LR scenarios where a BDC function is suspect, no matter what the initial zero, if a hold off is not appropriate, the sight will need to be re-zeroed to distance. And this fact simply makes your comments moot. You'd be just plain stupid not to re-adjust the sight for the actual distance. This makes me think you have little experience with the concepts discussed here; and, perhaps, your notions of what will get the job done are just what you've heard or read somewhere. Please share your credentials if I'm wrong. I'm certain you have no experience with the detachable carry handle BDC as you apparently do not know that it cannot be set to any other than a 300 meter zero for the BDC function to work.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It matters in that most practical rifle applications I believe the focus to be more on precision accuracy rather than just hitting your target in the kill zone ergo the term "battle".
Add: If BDC knobs always worked as intended then everyone would have them, but they aren't reliable IMO. And judging from what I can see in all the diagrams presented they're going on the basis that the shooter will be doing hold offs, not using their BDC knobs.</div></div>
Really! Your perception equating precision with practical is novel. Precision, when defined as hitting exactly where aimed, is an antonym to practical. That's because hitting where aimed exactly, except at zeroed point and the earlier point where line of sight intersects trajectory from a bore at a greater angle than horizontal, will always require an adjustment from initial zero to compensate for effects on trajectory and trajectory itself. This adjustment may even be necessary when a BDC function is present.
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">Also, the BDC I was alluding to earlier is the one as issued on the M4 and M16 A4.</span></span> This sight is magnificent. For any who choose to exploit it, good hits on the E target at 600 meters are indeed possible. The ACOG's BDC is magnificent too. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 14pt">These sights are of course designed for a particular cartridge driven at a specific velocity. Generic BDC's as opposed to those of the type mentioned or those calibrated by the shooter are always suspect.</span></span> </div></div>
Where did I say that no adjustment would ever be required? Also, I don't see how "precision" is the opposite of "practical" even with your loose interpretation.
Your advice is based upon the assumption he's using standard issued equipment with standard issued ammunition for personal use? You just stated "generic BDC's" which would likely be what the average civilian is using in combination with non-mil ammo are suspect. If BDC's were so great then why don't most people use them. You're basing your opinion on the matter on your own skill level and equipment that might not be what the average person is using.
And I don't know where you pulled anything that I said as construing that hits at 600 or any range for that fact weren't possible. I never said anywhere that adjustments wouldn't be needed. I said judging by the diagrams they would be doing hold-offs which if you actually go pull up the diagram it shows how to hold-off and where the likely hit will be. I still maintain that by your method most shooters will have difficulty maintain sub-moa accuracy which was the entire point.</div></div>
You seem to want to make an argument on unarguable facts. First, I have no preferred sight adjustment method, I do what the scenario dictates is appropriate; and, second, most shooters will have difficulty getting sub MOA much less maintaining sub MOA accuracy no matter what aiming method is used. The OP wanted to know what distance shooters here zero their semi automatic rifles. Since many of these are AR style guns which do indeed come with a detachable carry handle BDC, a shooter would be wise to come to an understanding about the outcomes which are possible from using this device properly. Properly meaning to set the sight for a 300 meter zero so as to have a BDC function too. Now, considering that the M4 and M16 A4 are most useful for KD and UKD E sized targets inside 600 meters and understanding that good hits are possible to 600 meters with the BDC adjusted properly, setting the sight for proper function seems like a good idea, even if there's a need to hastily re-adjust the sight for, as you call it, a "precision" hit. But, get real, the term precision has very little meaning in context to a good quick hit at SR and even many MR scenarios. But, for MR and LR scenarios where a BDC function is suspect, no matter what the initial zero, if a hold off is not appropriate, the sight will need to be re-zeroed to distance. And this fact simply makes your comments moot. You'd be just plain stupid not to re-adjust the sight for the actual distance. This makes me think you have little experience with the concepts discussed here; and, perhaps, your notions of what will get the job done are just what you've heard or read somewhere. Please share your credentials if I'm wrong. I'm certain you have no experience with the detachable carry handle BDC as you apparently do not know that it cannot be set to any other than a 300 meter zero for the BDC function to work.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You seem to want to make an argument on unarguable facts. First, I have no preferred sight adjustment method, I do what the scenario dictates is appropriate; and, second, most shooters will have difficulty getting sub MOA much less maintaining sub MOA accuracy no matter what aiming method is used. The OP wanted to know what distance shooters here zero their semi automatic rifles. Since many of these are AR style guns which do indeed come with a detachable carry handle BDC, a shooter would be wise to come to an understanding about the outcomes which are possible from using this device properly. Properly meaning to set the sight for a 300 meter zero so as to have a BDC function too. Now, considering that the M4 and M16 A4 are most useful for KD and UKD E sized targets inside 600 meters and understanding that good hits are possible to 600 meters with the BDC adjusted properly, setting the sight for proper function seems like a good idea, even if there's a need to hastily re-adjust the sight for, as you call it, a "precision" hit. But, get real, the term precision has very little meaning in context to a good quick hit. For MR and LR scenarios, what ever the initial zero, the sight will need to be re-zeroed to distance. And this fact makes your comments moot. It also makes me think you have little experience with the concepts discussed here and perhaps you are just parroting what you've heard or read somewhere. Please share your credentials if I'm wrong. </div></div>
Wow your fucking dense. Go back and read where you started coming at me first and then ride that horse about who wants to argue. I'm was talking about making precision shots with sub-moa accuracy and how I don't think with a 300 zero it's very smart, and you went off in your BDC rant which for all purposes seems to agree with what I said that it's not accurate for precision shooting. As for your parroting comment I could give a shit less whether you think I'm parroting because at this point I don't think much of you since you're now disrespecting me for absolutely no reason than you're apparently a dick with credentials...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You seem to want to make an argument on unarguable facts. First, I have no preferred sight adjustment method, I do what the scenario dictates is appropriate; and, second, most shooters will have difficulty getting sub MOA much less maintaining sub MOA accuracy no matter what aiming method is used. The OP wanted to know what distance shooters here zero their semi automatic rifles. Since many of these are AR style guns which do indeed come with a detachable carry handle BDC, a shooter would be wise to come to an understanding about the outcomes which are possible from using this device properly. Properly meaning to set the sight for a 300 meter zero so as to have a BDC function too. Now, considering that the M4 and M16 A4 are most useful for KD and UKD E sized targets inside 600 meters and understanding that good hits are possible to 600 meters with the BDC adjusted properly, setting the sight for proper function seems like a good idea, even if there's a need to hastily re-adjust the sight for, as you call it, a "precision" hit. But, get real, the term precision has very little meaning in context to a good quick hit. For MR and LR scenarios, what ever the initial zero, the sight will need to be re-zeroed to distance. And this fact makes your comments moot. It also makes me think you have little experience with the concepts discussed here and perhaps you are just parroting what you've heard or read somewhere. Please share your credentials if I'm wrong. </div></div>
Wow your fucking dense. Go back and read where you started coming at me first and then ride that horse about who wants to argue. I'm was talking about making precision shots with sub-moa accuracy and how I don't think with a 300 zero it's very smart, and you went off in your BDC rant which for all purposes seems to agree with what I said that it's not accurate for precision shooting. As for your parroting comment I could give a shit less whether you think I'm parroting because at this point I don't think much of you since you're now disrespecting me for absolutely no reason than you're apparently a dick with credentials...
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'm certain you have no experience with the detachable carry handle BDC as you apparently do not know that it cannot be set to any other than a 300 meter zero for the BDC function to work. </div></div>
Since you added that little gem while I was typing... Nope, I have zero experience with a detachable handle because I've never needed one. I also don't own a SHTF bag, don't believe Zombie's are coming, and highly doubt the end of the world is near. Now go back and show me where the OP said he had a detachable carry handle BDC anywhere in the thread...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'm certain you have no experience with the detachable carry handle BDC as you apparently do not know that it cannot be set to any other than a 300 meter zero for the BDC function to work. </div></div>
Since you added that little gem while I was typing... Nope, I have zero experience with a detachable handle because I've never needed one. I also don't own a SHTF bag, don't believe Zombie's are coming, and highly doubt the end of the world is near. Now go back and show me where the OP said he had a detachable carry handle BDC anywhere in the thread...
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
Just as I thought, no informed opinion, just notions based on very limited experiences with the concept. You don't know what you don't know.
Just as I thought, no informed opinion, just notions based on very limited experiences with the concept. You don't know what you don't know.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as I thought, no informed opinion, just notions based on very limited experiences with the concept. You don't know what you don't know. </div></div>
And like all jackwagons you come back with a non-response for a response. Let me know when you can actually respond to the questions I gave rather than try and go after my "experience" as your argument. You may be an "experienced" shooter, too bad you have to ride that point as your only argument.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as I thought, no informed opinion, just notions based on very limited experiences with the concept. You don't know what you don't know. </div></div>
And like all jackwagons you come back with a non-response for a response. Let me know when you can actually respond to the questions I gave rather than try and go after my "experience" as your argument. You may be an "experienced" shooter, too bad you have to ride that point as your only argument.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need to be THAT accurate then have a 100 yard zero and dial and make them land where you want them. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I zero all my rifles, ARs included, at 100 yards as I know my mil holds out to 500 yards in my head. </div></div>
I don't see you telling either of these 2 that they're wrong and he can still maintain sub-moa accuracy by your method.</div></div>
These folks have informed opinions, their comments contain reasonable solutions to the field shooting problems which this thread highlights. Why would I say they are wrong when their comments clearly indicate enough experience with the concept to know what works.
What I suggest is you listen for awhile before you show anyone here how to do it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need to be THAT accurate then have a 100 yard zero and dial and make them land where you want them. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I zero all my rifles, ARs included, at 100 yards as I know my mil holds out to 500 yards in my head. </div></div>
I don't see you telling either of these 2 that they're wrong and he can still maintain sub-moa accuracy by your method.</div></div>
These folks have informed opinions, their comments contain reasonable solutions to the field shooting problems which this thread highlights. Why would I say they are wrong when their comments clearly indicate enough experience with the concept to know what works.
What I suggest is you listen for awhile before you show anyone here how to do it.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need to be THAT accurate then have a 100 yard zero and dial and make them land where you want them. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I zero all my rifles, ARs included, at 100 yards as I know my mil holds out to 500 yards in my head. </div></div>
I don't see you telling either of these 2 that they're wrong and he can still maintain sub-moa accuracy by your method.</div></div>
These folks have informed opinions, their opinions are factual, as well as reasonable solutions to field shooting scenarios. Why would I say they are wrong when their comments clearly indicate enough experience with the concept to know what works. </div></div>
Lmgdao... More like you won't argue with someone that you feel your credentials can win on alone so you tried to argue with me since you don't feel my credentials or experience measure up to yours...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you need to be THAT accurate then have a 100 yard zero and dial and make them land where you want them. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I zero all my rifles, ARs included, at 100 yards as I know my mil holds out to 500 yards in my head. </div></div>
I don't see you telling either of these 2 that they're wrong and he can still maintain sub-moa accuracy by your method.</div></div>
These folks have informed opinions, their opinions are factual, as well as reasonable solutions to field shooting scenarios. Why would I say they are wrong when their comments clearly indicate enough experience with the concept to know what works. </div></div>
Lmgdao... More like you won't argue with someone that you feel your credentials can win on alone so you tried to argue with me since you don't feel my credentials or experience measure up to yours...
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
You know nothing of the reasoning for any sort of zero to be initially set on a rifle. You do not understand aiming methods or the means to execute them; yet, you want folks here to appreciate your comments. Only when you've earned recognition though some sort of demonstration of skill in the arena will you get any recognition. Sorry, but that's the way it is for any endeavor. Folks seeking advice generally want to hear from those with some experience with what ever it is they want to know something about. When you juxtaposed precision with practical it raised a flag. It made me think of all the gobbledygook that new shooters sometimes need to unlearn before they can make any progress. In other words, your comments, rather than just addressing what you do about zeroing, gave faulty directions to the OP which could set him back in his pursuit of good shooting. The faulty direction was your statement alluding a battle sight zero was not practical as it was not precise. This has no application for an initial zero but a new shooter could waste a lot of time looking for an application or just be perplexed over it when there are other considerations to good shooting which the new shooter will not attend to while resolving this matter. Every day I see shooters who need to unlearn notions planted by folks who mean well like you. Folks who want to focus on the target, folks who think their nose must touch the charging handle, and folks who think the bullet rises as it clears the muzzle. At any rate, you get the picture. Come back with informed opinion and save the gobbledygook for another forum.
You know nothing of the reasoning for any sort of zero to be initially set on a rifle. You do not understand aiming methods or the means to execute them; yet, you want folks here to appreciate your comments. Only when you've earned recognition though some sort of demonstration of skill in the arena will you get any recognition. Sorry, but that's the way it is for any endeavor. Folks seeking advice generally want to hear from those with some experience with what ever it is they want to know something about. When you juxtaposed precision with practical it raised a flag. It made me think of all the gobbledygook that new shooters sometimes need to unlearn before they can make any progress. In other words, your comments, rather than just addressing what you do about zeroing, gave faulty directions to the OP which could set him back in his pursuit of good shooting. The faulty direction was your statement alluding a battle sight zero was not practical as it was not precise. This has no application for an initial zero but a new shooter could waste a lot of time looking for an application or just be perplexed over it when there are other considerations to good shooting which the new shooter will not attend to while resolving this matter. Every day I see shooters who need to unlearn notions planted by folks who mean well like you. Folks who want to focus on the target, folks who think their nose must touch the charging handle, and folks who think the bullet rises as it clears the muzzle. At any rate, you get the picture. Come back with informed opinion and save the gobbledygook for another forum.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know nothing of the reasoning for any sort of zero to be initially set on a rifle. You do not understand aiming methods or the means to execute them; yet, you want folks here to appreciate your comments. Only when you've earned recognition though some sort of demonstration of skill in the arena will you get any recognition. Sorry, but that's the way it is for any endeavor. Folks seeking advice generally want to hear from those with some experience with what ever it is they want to know something about. When you juxtaposed precision with practical it raised a flag. It made me think of all the gobbledygook that new shooters sometimes need to unlearn before they can make any progress. In other words, your comments, rather than just addressing what you do about zeroing, gave faulty directions to the OP which could set him back in his pursuit of good shooting. The faulty direction was your statement alluding a battle sight zero was not practical as it was not precise. This has no application for an initial zero but a new shooter could waste a lot of time looking for an application or just be perplexed over it when there are other considerations to good shooting which the new shooter will not attend to while resolving this matter. Every day I see shooters who need to unlearn notions planted by folks who mean well like you. Folks who want to focus on the target, folks who think their nose must touch the charging handle, and folks who think the bullet rises as it clears the muzzle. At any rate, you get the picture. Come back with informed opinion and save the gobbledygook for another forum. </div></div>
Lmao... You assume I know nothing. You're an elitist snob that thinks somehow everyone who isn't to your standards should line up to jockey your nuts because of whatever resume you think you have or whatever respect you think you've earned by it. I don't care if your Carlos Hathcock himself. I never made any statement alluding to a battle sight zero not being accurate or precise but that the 300 yard method was IMO not a preferred system for sub-moa precision shooting. You tried to take what I said and twist it. I respect you about as much as I respect any other oxygen thief that goes around toting their accolades and trying to demean others with it... like the tool you are. Respect isn't earned through accomplishments... It's earned by Character, and you're lacking in that department. I hate to break your heart sunshine, but I've stood in the shadows of MUCH greater men then you can ever be at the moment and I don't have to quantify them or myself to seek your approval, acceptance, or anything else for that fact since as far as I can tell you're not worth knowing... Have a great day and feel free to go make friends with other people that give a shit.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know nothing of the reasoning for any sort of zero to be initially set on a rifle. You do not understand aiming methods or the means to execute them; yet, you want folks here to appreciate your comments. Only when you've earned recognition though some sort of demonstration of skill in the arena will you get any recognition. Sorry, but that's the way it is for any endeavor. Folks seeking advice generally want to hear from those with some experience with what ever it is they want to know something about. When you juxtaposed precision with practical it raised a flag. It made me think of all the gobbledygook that new shooters sometimes need to unlearn before they can make any progress. In other words, your comments, rather than just addressing what you do about zeroing, gave faulty directions to the OP which could set him back in his pursuit of good shooting. The faulty direction was your statement alluding a battle sight zero was not practical as it was not precise. This has no application for an initial zero but a new shooter could waste a lot of time looking for an application or just be perplexed over it when there are other considerations to good shooting which the new shooter will not attend to while resolving this matter. Every day I see shooters who need to unlearn notions planted by folks who mean well like you. Folks who want to focus on the target, folks who think their nose must touch the charging handle, and folks who think the bullet rises as it clears the muzzle. At any rate, you get the picture. Come back with informed opinion and save the gobbledygook for another forum. </div></div>
Lmao... You assume I know nothing. You're an elitist snob that thinks somehow everyone who isn't to your standards should line up to jockey your nuts because of whatever resume you think you have or whatever respect you think you've earned by it. I don't care if your Carlos Hathcock himself. I never made any statement alluding to a battle sight zero not being accurate or precise but that the 300 yard method was IMO not a preferred system for sub-moa precision shooting. You tried to take what I said and twist it. I respect you about as much as I respect any other oxygen thief that goes around toting their accolades and trying to demean others with it... like the tool you are. Respect isn't earned through accomplishments... It's earned by Character, and you're lacking in that department. I hate to break your heart sunshine, but I've stood in the shadows of MUCH greater men then you can ever be at the moment and I don't have to quantify them or myself to seek your approval, acceptance, or anything else for that fact since as far as I can tell you're not worth knowing... Have a great day and feel free to go make friends with other people that give a shit.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know nothing of the reasoning for any sort of zero to be initially set on a rifle. You do not understand aiming methods or the means to execute them; yet, you want folks here to appreciate your comments. Only when you've earned recognition though some sort of demonstration of skill in the arena will you get any recognition. Sorry, but that's the way it is for any endeavor. Folks seeking advice generally want to hear from those with some experience with what ever it is they want to know something about. When you juxtaposed precision with practical it raised a flag. It made me think of all the gobbledygook that new shooters sometimes need to unlearn before they can make any progress. In other words, your comments, rather than just addressing what you do about zeroing, gave faulty directions to the OP which could set him back in his pursuit of good shooting. The faulty direction was your statement alluding a battle sight zero was not practical as it was not precise. This has no application for an initial zero but a new shooter could waste a lot of time looking for an application or just be perplexed over it when there are other considerations to good shooting which the new shooter will not attend to while resolving this matter. Every day I see shooters who need to unlearn notions planted by folks who mean well like you. Folks who want to focus on the target, folks who think their nose must touch the charging handle, and folks who think the bullet rises as it clears the muzzle. At any rate, you get the picture. Come back with informed opinion and save the gobbledygook for another forum. </div></div>
I never made any statement alluding to a battle sight zero not being accurate or precise but that the 300 yard method was IMO not a preferred system for sub-moa precision shooting.</div></div>
Not a preferred system? Sub MOA accuracy is independent of the zeroing task. You have confused sub MOA performance with bullet placement. When hitting exactly where aimed is important, an example of this might be to hit the X-Ring of the 600 yard decimal target, a shooter will need to abandon any point blank zero, whether its at 100 yards, or 300 yards. To accommodate such a target, coming up by reticle guided hold off or elevation adjustment to distance is useful. If, on the other hand, a good quick hit on a bigger target is the idea and the shooter has a BDC it of course could be employed. These facts make your comment regarding a 300 meter zero simply moot.But here's the good news Broker you appear to be simply ignorant. There's a cure for that. Until then stick with what you know. And watch the name calling it's a sign of a lack of character.
All,
Interestingly, sub MOA accuracy and bullet placement are both obviously desirable. For the competitive target shooter sub MOA performance and placement equals a very high X-count. For any shooter it effectively makes the target bigger. One more thing, shooting sub MOA will make triangulation of the group, when grouping to zero, yield a better zero. But, I assume most here know that already.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know nothing of the reasoning for any sort of zero to be initially set on a rifle. You do not understand aiming methods or the means to execute them; yet, you want folks here to appreciate your comments. Only when you've earned recognition though some sort of demonstration of skill in the arena will you get any recognition. Sorry, but that's the way it is for any endeavor. Folks seeking advice generally want to hear from those with some experience with what ever it is they want to know something about. When you juxtaposed precision with practical it raised a flag. It made me think of all the gobbledygook that new shooters sometimes need to unlearn before they can make any progress. In other words, your comments, rather than just addressing what you do about zeroing, gave faulty directions to the OP which could set him back in his pursuit of good shooting. The faulty direction was your statement alluding a battle sight zero was not practical as it was not precise. This has no application for an initial zero but a new shooter could waste a lot of time looking for an application or just be perplexed over it when there are other considerations to good shooting which the new shooter will not attend to while resolving this matter. Every day I see shooters who need to unlearn notions planted by folks who mean well like you. Folks who want to focus on the target, folks who think their nose must touch the charging handle, and folks who think the bullet rises as it clears the muzzle. At any rate, you get the picture. Come back with informed opinion and save the gobbledygook for another forum. </div></div>
I never made any statement alluding to a battle sight zero not being accurate or precise but that the 300 yard method was IMO not a preferred system for sub-moa precision shooting.</div></div>
Not a preferred system? Sub MOA accuracy is independent of the zeroing task. You have confused sub MOA performance with bullet placement. When hitting exactly where aimed is important, an example of this might be to hit the X-Ring of the 600 yard decimal target, a shooter will need to abandon any point blank zero, whether its at 100 yards, or 300 yards. To accommodate such a target, coming up by reticle guided hold off or elevation adjustment to distance is useful. If, on the other hand, a good quick hit on a bigger target is the idea and the shooter has a BDC it of course could be employed. These facts make your comment regarding a 300 meter zero simply moot.But here's the good news Broker you appear to be simply ignorant. There's a cure for that. Until then stick with what you know. And watch the name calling it's a sign of a lack of character.
All,
Interestingly, sub MOA accuracy and bullet placement are both obviously desirable. For the competitive target shooter sub MOA performance and placement equals a very high X-count. For any shooter it effectively makes the target bigger. One more thing, shooting sub MOA will make triangulation of the group, when grouping to zero, yield a better zero. But, I assume most here know that already.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
I think I should abandon my F-class build. I'm not an expert shooter, and I'm beginning to think I'm foolish to think I can ever comprehend the complexities of setting a proper zero for 1000-yard shooting.
I think I should abandon my F-class build. I'm not an expert shooter, and I'm beginning to think I'm foolish to think I can ever comprehend the complexities of setting a proper zero for 1000-yard shooting.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eracer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think I should abandon my F-class build. I'm not an expert shooter, and I'm beginning to think I'm foolish to think I can ever comprehend the complexities of setting a proper zero for 1000-yard shooting.</div></div>
There are no complexities, it's all in Broker's imagination. On the other hand, for 1000 yard Service Rifle competition with irons and sling, zeroing for exact elevation is imaginary for all.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eracer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think I should abandon my F-class build. I'm not an expert shooter, and I'm beginning to think I'm foolish to think I can ever comprehend the complexities of setting a proper zero for 1000-yard shooting.</div></div>
There are no complexities, it's all in Broker's imagination. On the other hand, for 1000 yard Service Rifle competition with irons and sling, zeroing for exact elevation is imaginary for all.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no complexities, it's all in Broker's imagination. On the other hand, for 1000 yard Service Rifle competition with irons and sling, zeroing for exact elevation is imaginary for all. </div></div>
The shit that comes out of your keyboard is amazing. I never said anything to the matter and yet you're now trying to put what other people say on me...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no complexities, it's all in Broker's imagination. On the other hand, for 1000 yard Service Rifle competition with irons and sling, zeroing for exact elevation is imaginary for all. </div></div>
The shit that comes out of your keyboard is amazing. I never said anything to the matter and yet you're now trying to put what other people say on me...
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no complexities, it's all in Broker's imagination. On the other hand, for 1000 yard Service Rifle competition with irons and sling, zeroing for exact elevation is imaginary for all. </div></div>
The shit that comes out of your keyboard is amazing. I never said anything to the matter and yet you're now trying to put what other people say on me...</div></div>
No, you put it on yourself.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no complexities, it's all in Broker's imagination. On the other hand, for 1000 yard Service Rifle competition with irons and sling, zeroing for exact elevation is imaginary for all. </div></div>
The shit that comes out of your keyboard is amazing. I never said anything to the matter and yet you're now trying to put what other people say on me...</div></div>
No, you put it on yourself.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no complexities, it's all in Broker's imagination. On the other hand, for 1000 yard Service Rifle competition with irons and sling, zeroing for exact elevation is imaginary for all. </div></div>
The shit that comes out of your keyboard is amazing. I never said anything to the matter and yet you're now trying to put what other people say on me...</div></div>
No, you put it on yourself. </div></div>
No, because unlike you I can actually read above a 3rd grade level and see where you're responding to other peoples comments and trying to use me as the excuse. But you just keep putting words in mouth if it helps you boost your ego...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no complexities, it's all in Broker's imagination. On the other hand, for 1000 yard Service Rifle competition with irons and sling, zeroing for exact elevation is imaginary for all. </div></div>
The shit that comes out of your keyboard is amazing. I never said anything to the matter and yet you're now trying to put what other people say on me...</div></div>
No, you put it on yourself. </div></div>
No, because unlike you I can actually read above a 3rd grade level and see where you're responding to other peoples comments and trying to use me as the excuse. But you just keep putting words in mouth if it helps you boost your ego...
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
OP,
No matter what battle sight zero you choose, when combined with a BDC function, you will have versatility galore. You do not need to buy a "BDC" sight. All you need is a bottle of finger nail polish and small brush to mark gained distance with specific elevation adjustment, from initial finger nail polish marked BSZ zero on your scope's target dial. When executed properly, you will be able to address both known distance and unknown distance targets in most scenarios to the maximum effective range of the bullet. For known distances, where you will use the BDC function, bullet placement will be assured when slope, as well as wind and weather effects have been countered.
When contemplating the initial BSZ, be realistic, that's to say, have a target size in mind and an idea for the likely distances such a target will appear to you. You can use your experience in the field to make this determination. If you are speculating, remember finger nail polish remover can get you off to a fresh start should reality be divergent from speculation.
The bottom line here is that a battle sight zero alone will limit you to far less than what is possible with today's highly accurate semi automatic rifles. Add a BDC function and you will extend capability commensurate with marksmanship skill.
OP,
No matter what battle sight zero you choose, when combined with a BDC function, you will have versatility galore. You do not need to buy a "BDC" sight. All you need is a bottle of finger nail polish and small brush to mark gained distance with specific elevation adjustment, from initial finger nail polish marked BSZ zero on your scope's target dial. When executed properly, you will be able to address both known distance and unknown distance targets in most scenarios to the maximum effective range of the bullet. For known distances, where you will use the BDC function, bullet placement will be assured when slope, as well as wind and weather effects have been countered.
When contemplating the initial BSZ, be realistic, that's to say, have a target size in mind and an idea for the likely distances such a target will appear to you. You can use your experience in the field to make this determination. If you are speculating, remember finger nail polish remover can get you off to a fresh start should reality be divergent from speculation.
The bottom line here is that a battle sight zero alone will limit you to far less than what is possible with today's highly accurate semi automatic rifles. Add a BDC function and you will extend capability commensurate with marksmanship skill.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
The FBI SWAT team from the Dallas office uses a 50 yard zero for their m4s, while Dallas police SWAT uses 100 yard zero. My two cents (which probably isn't worth as much) is that there are legitimate reasons for using a variety of different zeroes, but the most important thing is to know the bullet's trajectory with the respective zero. It's shocking how many new shooters do not understand their bullet will be low initially, then high, then low again ( with typica m4 zeros). Obviously if you are using an optic with a BDC, you should zero at the calibrated distance.
Not trying to incite the above argument further, just passing along some thoughts.
The FBI SWAT team from the Dallas office uses a 50 yard zero for their m4s, while Dallas police SWAT uses 100 yard zero. My two cents (which probably isn't worth as much) is that there are legitimate reasons for using a variety of different zeroes, but the most important thing is to know the bullet's trajectory with the respective zero. It's shocking how many new shooters do not understand their bullet will be low initially, then high, then low again ( with typica m4 zeros). Obviously if you are using an optic with a BDC, you should zero at the calibrated distance.
Not trying to incite the above argument further, just passing along some thoughts.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
100 for me.
100 for me.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jguerry81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's shocking how many new shooters do not understand their bullet will be low initially, then high, then low again ( with typica m4 zeros). </div></div>
I'm not shocked, there are folks who have really magnificent BDC's and don't have a clue about how they work or how to use them. These folks don't know MOA, BSZ, or anything about trajectory. Once zeroed at any distance they'd be hard pressed to get a good hit at any distance other than the distance zeroed. Thing is, they don't care about the stuff of this thread or marksmanship in general. They just want a cool rifle and scope that they believe is accurate. It's all good for these folks. After all, they are having some illiterate fun and as long as they are shooting safely why should I care if they are likely not to be learning anything. It's none of my business.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jguerry81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's shocking how many new shooters do not understand their bullet will be low initially, then high, then low again ( with typica m4 zeros). </div></div>
I'm not shocked, there are folks who have really magnificent BDC's and don't have a clue about how they work or how to use them. These folks don't know MOA, BSZ, or anything about trajectory. Once zeroed at any distance they'd be hard pressed to get a good hit at any distance other than the distance zeroed. Thing is, they don't care about the stuff of this thread or marksmanship in general. They just want a cool rifle and scope that they believe is accurate. It's all good for these folks. After all, they are having some illiterate fun and as long as they are shooting safely why should I care if they are likely not to be learning anything. It's none of my business.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not shocked, there are folks who have really magnificent BDC's and don't have a clue about how they work or how to use them. They just want a cool rifle and scope that they believe is accurate. </div></div>Agreed, when you started describing setting up iron sights and the BDC elevation wheel, I could almost imagine the horror and confusion out there in the $2000+ scope crowd.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not shocked, there are folks who have really magnificent BDC's and don't have a clue about how they work or how to use them. They just want a cool rifle and scope that they believe is accurate. </div></div>Agreed, when you started describing setting up iron sights and the BDC elevation wheel, I could almost imagine the horror and confusion out there in the $2000+ scope crowd.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
I have the EOTECH on my patrol M4 zeroed at 50. That way I can simply hold dead on for the realistic ranges I'm likely to encounter; especially without magnification.
I have the EOTECH on my patrol M4 zeroed at 50. That way I can simply hold dead on for the realistic ranges I'm likely to encounter; especially without magnification.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I zero all my rifles, ARs included, at 100 yards as I know my mil holds out to 500 yards in my head. </div></div>
Same here. It's around ~4 mils out to 500yds using 168 FGMMs. Even if you miss completely and don't know your dope but you can still see your splash. You can just hold over and tag your target on the second shot. When it come to variable power optics all you have to know is general dope to get 2nd round hits.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I zero all my rifles, ARs included, at 100 yards as I know my mil holds out to 500 yards in my head. </div></div>
Same here. It's around ~4 mils out to 500yds using 168 FGMMs. Even if you miss completely and don't know your dope but you can still see your splash. You can just hold over and tag your target on the second shot. When it come to variable power optics all you have to know is general dope to get 2nd round hits.
Re: What yard zero are you guy's using 100,200, or 300
What are you going to use the gun for? My son and I were with Travis during his Disruptive Environments Course just a couple weeks back.... he suggests a 50/200 yard zero.
Now, that advice is very dependent upon your weapon package and your ammo selection of course. You really need to decide what you are using your rifle for and what the typical engagement envelope will be and what types of effects you want on your target. Once you can answer that question then you can determine your zero.
What are you going to use the gun for? My son and I were with Travis during his Disruptive Environments Course just a couple weeks back.... he suggests a 50/200 yard zero.
Now, that advice is very dependent upon your weapon package and your ammo selection of course. You really need to decide what you are using your rifle for and what the typical engagement envelope will be and what types of effects you want on your target. Once you can answer that question then you can determine your zero.
