In another thread addressing comparisons between "Magnums" and "Standard" cartridges, a comment was made regarding sighting in 'scopes at 1" high at 100 yds. Since there seems to be some interest in 'scopes and "proper" 'scope settings, I thought I'd open a thread for discussion. The primary purpose being to discuss those elements of 'scope adjustment that are associated with HUNTING. Target shoting is an entirely different matter.

To start the discussion off, I'll post the settings I use now, and how I've come to that decision.

For probably 30 or more years, I "listened" to the "experts" tell me what was "right" in terms of how "high" to be at 100 yards when sighting in a 'scope for a "flat-shooting" rifle. From my first days with a big game caliber rifle (a .270 Win.), all the "experts" agreed that 3" high at 100 yards was the "correct" setting. Their logic seemed reasonable: Being 3" high at 100 generally meant that you would be no more than 3" low at 300 yards. Therefore, you could aim "in the center" of a big game animal, and be "sure" of a lethal hit without having to make a particularly accurate estimate of range. This is not a false statement, nor is it particularly faulty logic. However, over the years, it has not "worked" very well for me. These days, I set my 'scopes' settings so that the point of impact is either dead on at 100 yds, or no more than 1" high.

The reason for this choice is pretty simple: I like to hit where I aim - exactly. In my experience, the "plus 3 minus 3" philosophy subtly leads to an attitude akin to "flock shooting". Hence I feel it actually detracts from a hunter's need to develop an attitude about accuracy. You will never be a "good shot" if you're satisfied with "plus or minus 3 inches". When I shoot at an animal using a 'scoped rifle, I aim at a very specific feature on that animal. When I walk up to that animal, I expect to see a bullet hole in the spot where I aimed. Even if the animal was cleanly killed, I am not as satified with the shot if it is off that point of aim. I'll relate a recent shot that is a perfect example.

While hunting pigs in California, I had occasion to shoot a coyote at what turned out to be 104 paces. The rifle I was hunting pigs with, the Collath drilling, was not the best choice of the rifles we had on hand, so I used the rifle my Dad was carrying, a TCR-83 chambered in .257 Roberts AI. The bullet was an 87 grain Combined Technology Ballistic SilverTip. At the offhand shot, the coyote dropped like the proberbial stone. Congratulations all around of course, but when we walked up to the animal I noticed that the bullet had hit high and forward, going through the shoulder blade and the spine in a line running directly up the leg from the foot to the back. Trouble was, I had aimed at the heart. That bothered me. I had missed my intended point of aim by 2 inches left and 5 inches high. That bothered me. Was the animal dead? Sure? Had I had to chase it? Nope. Had it suffered? Nope. Still, as far as I was concerned, I had missed the shot. That bothered me. And it did so for the next two days.

I mulled that shot over and over in my mind's eye for the next two days, unable to accept the fact that I had so badly missed the shot. I ALWAYS assume "operator error" with missed shots. Experience has too often shown the painful truth - "guns" don't miss, people do. Because of that basic attitude, I forgot about a change I had made to the rifle's aiming that I had made to accomodate the differences between my Dad's and my sight pictures. When I sighted the gun for my Dad just before we left to hunt pigs, I had had to adjust the scope 5 inches up and 2 inches left from my sight picture. Exactly (without actually measuring), how far I had missed that coyote's heart.

I hunt mostly caribou and dall sheep, animals whose hunting is generally regarded as "long range" in "open country". I've shot lots of sheep and lots more caribou. The longest shot I've ever taken on a sheep is 219 paces, and the longest shot on a caribou has been 319 paces. Most shots are near 150. With the "plus 3 minus 3" 'scope settings, I would rarely hit my point of aim exactly. Finally, back in the early '80s, regardless of the 'flatness' of the cartridge's trajectory, I started sighting my rifles in at 'dead on' at 100 yds. I find myself much less botheredthese days.

CAfrica, you may recall a dicussion before "The Crash of '04" in which you wondered why people tend to shoot "too high". I submit, that this "plus 3 minus 3" attitude is a contributing factor.

Paul

gitano,
 
A good subject for discussion.........should prove interesting!
 
I will post my "how I do it" later..........
 
Ol' John

I've got the .264 WinMag, 7mm RUM and 7.82 Warbird zeroed at 300 yds.  2 1/4" - 2 1/2" high at 100 yds. accomplishes this.  A 300 yd. zero seems to be just about perfect for these higher velocity cartridges and my needs.
 
For the .270, I stuck with 2 1/2" high at 100 yds., which puts the zero right around 260 yds.  Functional for this cartridge.
 
I do have the 94AE .307 zeroed at 100 yds.  >>  klallen

Gitano, I can agree with your statements 100%.  I am just curious what your max range with a gun sighted dead on at 100 yards.....I know it depends on caliber, bullet weight, etc.  I am just curious how you know exactly where your pill will strike your target, say at 300 yards... do you just memorize ballistics in your head or do you put out targets at each different distance and see where the pills strike?
 
Oh...I have my .260 Rem. sighted for 2" high at 100 yds and my .204 dead on at 100 yards because it is so flat I am okay up to 300 or so without touching it....At 300 I may aim a tad high though....

Gitano,
 
My philosophy is that I am a bad estimator of range!!!  (Full stop).
 
With your approach, one has to be a good estimator of range.
 
I would go for your approach only if I had some means of accurate range measurement.
 
Currently, I only need to determine one thing, is it closer than my PBR.  In this regard I am very conservative (i.e. if PBR (2.5" up 2.5" down) is 300 yards, I don't shoot at anything more than an estimated 250 yards (and even that only in a pinch)).
 
The one exception is when you are in a hide and know the ranges around you fairly accurately.
 
 
But to come back to your approach.  What is the difference? In the 3" up 3" down, you know your rifle will shoot 3" high at (say) 180 yards.  In the "dead on at 100 yards" you know your rifle will shoot 3" low at 180 yards. So if you know the range, you can adjust for both shots.
 
The difference is, in the 3" up, 3" low situation, you will never have to take more Kentucky elevation than 3" (up to PBR).  In the 100 Yard dead on, you might have to take 8" elevation for a 250 yard shot!!
 
Now, if your range estimation is out by ONLY 50 yards, which rifle will shoot closest to POA?
 
 
Comment?
 
C

I too like to hit where I aim, exactly. That is why about 20 years ago I changed all my rifles from a 100 yard zero to various zeros that fit me and the rifles. Since I have a great aversion to aiming off the hair of an animal, I choose to have my rifles sighted such that I don't need to. To shoot accurately and to hit the desired spot are dependent on knowing your rifle, knowing how it is sighted in and being able to judge range and wind accurately enough to put the bullet exactly where you wanted it. How you sight your rifle is not nearly as important as knowing how it is sighted. Hitting your target is a mathmatical calculation combined with practice with your firearm. It really isn't any more romantic than that.  One more consideration that does enter in for me is settling my nerves when I actually have the animal in my sights.  A true hunting encounter just can't be simulated in practice, at least not for me.

Gmoney,
 

Quotedo you just memorize ballistics in your head or do you put out targets at each different distance and see where the pills strike?

In a word, "Yes".

First, numbers are important to me, so I do a lot of number crunching. Committing these numbers to memory is not a chore for me.

Second, I do indeed check points of impact at the range to 1) verify the numbers, and 2) to 'cement' the numbers in my knowledge of my rifle. If the range numbers don't match the arm-chair numbers, I adjust as necessary.

Since I don't take shots at ranges greater than 300 yards, the other issues are moot.

CAfrica,
 

QuoteMy philosophy is that I am a bad estimator of range!!! (Full stop).
Because you are (self-admitedly), does not make me one.
With your approach, one has to be a good estimator of range.
Not any better than with the "3 up 3 down" approach.
I would go for your approach only if I had some means of accurate range measurement.
 
Currently, I only need to determine one thing, is it closer than my PBR. In this regard I am very conservative (i.e. if PBR (2.5" up 2.5" down) is 300 yards, I don't shoot at anything more than an estimated 250 yards (and even that only in a pinch)).
 
My approach is not significantly different. I simply have to determine if the animal is less than 300 yards distant.
 
The one exception is when you are in a hide and know the ranges around you fairly accurately.
 
 
But to come back to your approach. What is the difference? In the 3" up 3" down, you know your rifle will shoot 3" high at (say) 180 yards. In the "dead on at 100 yards" you know your rifle will shoot 3" low at 180 yards. So if you know the range, you can adjust for both shots. (Emphasis mine.)
 
This is precisely the point, and I'll return to it in response to Numberfarmer as well. With the "3 up 3 down" approach, there are more elements to the 'calculations' required. With a simple 100 yd zero, I know that everything beyond 100 yds is drop. Additionally, the 3" high at 100 rarely represents the true apogee of the bullet's flight while a 100 yd zero establishes 100 yds as the point at which ht ebullet wil never be higher than the lin of sight. In fact, unless you sight your rifle in at the precise range of the apogee, you only have an estimate (another estimate in the shot 'calculation'), of where it occurs. Therefore, not only do you have to estimate the range, but you have to estimate it in the context not of drop, but of where the animal's range is relative to the true apogee of the bullet's flight meaning; a two-way estimation.
 
The difference is, in the 3" up, 3" low situation, you will never have to take more Kentucky elevation than 3" (up to PBR). In the 100 Yard dead on, you might have to take 8" elevation for a 250 yard shot!!
 
Those numbers don't 'compute'. No cartridge that is 3" high at 100 yds and only 3" low at 300 yds will have 8" of drop at 250 with a 100 yd zero unless the bullet's true apogee occurs at about 200 yds and is over 4" above the line of sight. There aren't many of those cartridges "in play" these days, and I certainly don't currently, and wouldn't choose to shoot such a rifle/cartridge combination at an animal 300 yds distant.

EVEN SO, so what? Holding 8" over at 250 is preferable to holding "somewhere in the middle" and hoping it hits "good".
 
Now, if your range estimation is out by ONLY 50 yards, which rifle will shoot closest to POA?
 
Even disregarding the error of the underlying assumption (8" low at 250), the answer to that is not as simple (or relevant) as your question implies. A 50 yard underestimate at 125 means an actual range of 175. So what? Before it can be determined which "approach" delivers the bullet closer to the point of aim, the bullet's BC and muzzle velocity must be known. The same holds true for a 50 yard error at 300 yds. Keep in mind that regardless of the sighting in "approach", if we're comparing the same bullet fired from the same gun, it's falling EXACTLY the same vertical distance over the same horizontal distance, regardless of whether it was 'dead on' at 100 or 3" high at 100. In other words, if it drops 3" in the 50 yards from 300 to 350 with a 100 yd zero, it will do the same with a 3"-high-at-100-yds zero.

Numberfarmer,

QuoteI too like to hit where I aim, exactly. That is why about 20 years ago I changed all my rifles from a 100 yard zero to various zeros that fit me and the rifles.
 
That's pretty much what I said with, "These days, I set my 'scope's settings so that the point of impact is either dead on at 100 yds, or no more than 1" high."
 
Since I have a great aversion to aiming off the hair of an animal, I choose to have my rifles sighted such that I don't need to.
 
Again we agree.
 
To shoot accurately and to hit the desired spot are dependent on knowing your rifle, knowing how it is sighted in and being able to judge range and wind accurately enough to put the bullet exactly where you wanted it.
 
I don't believe I said or even implied anything to the contrary. However, I would submit that with regard to big game, and in light of keeping shots under 300 yards, estimating wind drift is moot for a kill zone that is reasonably represented by an 8" x 12" ellipse. UNLESS... You really do want to hit exactly where you aim.
 
How you sight your rifle is not nearly as important as knowing how it is sighted.
 
Hunh?
 
Hitting your target is a mathmatical calculation combined with practice with your firearm. It really isn't any more romantic than that.
 
I don't believe I suggested that hitting a target was more, or less, or even, "romantic". Neither did I imply any mysticism associated with it. However, hitting an animal cleanly is more than "a mathmatical calculation combined with practice", and your next two statements are in direct conflict with that concept.
 
One more consideration that does enter in for me is settling my nerves when I actually have the animal in my sights. A true hunting encounter just can't be simulated in practice, at least not for me.
 
And this comes back to both Numberfarmer's and CAfrica's assertions about "calculating". When I 'draw down' on an animal, the fewer "calculations" I have to make the better I like it. (The less "unsettled" I'll be.) The fewer the number of elements that make up those calculations, the better I like it. Estimate range; estimate drop; lock on and fire.

I have not suggested, although I suppose it could be construed, that I think that the "3" up 3" down" "appraoch" is wrong. I do not. I did in fact say,

QuoteHowever, over the years, it has not "worked" very well for me.

[/color][/size][/font]
The truth of the matter is, I would argue strongly that the choice of sighting in "approach" is rendered moot if one "know's" one's rifle.

My primary reason for engaging this discussion was NOT to argue about which method is BEST or RIGHT, but rather to bring to the fore the attitude one has about hitting what you aim at. Thousands upon tens of thousands of words are written every year about the importance of "accuracy", and "practice to be accurate". Then, practically in the same breath, the same preachers advocate that when aiming, "close is good enough". "Just sight your rifle in "properly" (read "As I tell you is RIGHT") and you just have to aim "in the middle of the animal." This statement is often followed immediately by "then you don't have to make good range estimations".

Ultraflat-shooting (compared to 50 years ago) cartridges, laser rangefinders, "tactical" 'scopes, "close is good enough" with regard to aim, and commercialization of hunting are combining to render unimportant the very purpose of going afield - HUNTING. Hunting should be a complex activity whose focus is the Hunt, and all it involves, not just collecting the animal regardless of method, means or attitude.

The justifications given for the avalanche of technical advancements,and "simplifying" are usually couched in "it ensures clean kills". I would argue that "it ensures kills" is closer to the truth, and that is ALL about ATTITUDE.
 
Paul

I posted something in another thread that is similar to what Paul said here.  Wish I'd seen this thread first, but I honestly didn't.
 
I'm like you Paul; I aim for an exact spot on an animal.  A particular hair on a deer makes a lot better aim point than the whole deer.
 
Daryl

Gitano
I think you may have taken my post as one of argument to yours instead of one to add to a continuing thread. In answer to your Hunh, I was referring to a number of hunters that I have met over the years who could tell me how they had sighted their rifles in, for example 3" high at 100, but didn't have a clue where their firearm actually shot. I have taken deer hunters out to my range to check their 3" high at a hundred yard rifles only to find that they were dead on, or two inches low, or in one case 8 inches to the right. They had not taken the time to find out were there rifle was really shooting. Thus they could tell how they had sighted it in, or what concept they had used, but they didn't have a clue where the point of impact really was.  In reference to the romance, I was actually referring to the feeling that many hunters have, knowing that since they have sighted their guns in with the correct PBR, they will have no problem hitting their intended target within that range.  As far as the calculations are concerned, everyone must do the calculations in one form or another. Different people adapt to different systems and must choose the one that works for them.  And finally, I never assumed you were pro or con to the PBR concept as much as I assumed you were trying to illustrate why you choose to sight in your rifles as you do.  The only point I was trying to make is that I changed to a different system from the 100 yard zero because I want the bullet to hit in exactly the spot where I am aiming.  We have the same goal we just use a different formula to get there.

Quote from: NUMBERFARMERGitano
I think you may have taken my post as one of argument to yours instead of one to add to a continuing thread.

In fact, you are correct, but it is more the momentary "chip" on my shoulder, than anything you wrote. THL has gotten a litle 'cranky' lately, at least the sites I most frequent, and I have been getting some real garbage via e-mail. Mea culpa.

In answer to your Hunh, I was referring to a number of hunters that I have met over the years who could tell me how they had sighted their rifles in, for example 3" high at 100, but didn't have a clue where their firearm actually shot. I have taken deer hunters out to my range to check their 3" high at a hundred yard rifles only to find that they were dead on, or two inches low, or in one case 8 inches to the right. They had not taken the time to find out were there rifle was really shooting. Thus they could tell how they had sighted it in, or what concept they had used, but they didn't have a clue where the point of impact really was. In reference to the romance, I was actually referring to the feeling that many hunters have, knowing that since they have sighted their guns in with the correct PBR, they will have no problem hitting their intended target within that range. As far as the calculations are concerned, everyone must do the calculations in one form or another.

Amen.

Different people adapt to different systems and must choose the one that works for them.

And amen.

And finally, I never assumed you were pro or con to the PBR concept as much as I assumed you were trying to illustrate why you choose to sight in your rifles as you do. The only point I was trying to make is that I changed to a different system from the 100 yard zero because I want the bullet to hit in exactly the spot where I am aiming. We have the same goal we just use a different formula to get there.

And amen.

Paul

Here's the extra "5" characters necessary for publication. :)

Keep in mind that regardless of the sighting in "approach", if we're comparing the same bullet fired from the same gun, it's falling EXACTLY the same vertical distance over the same horizontal distance, regardless of whether it was 'dead on' at 100 or 3" high at 100. In other words, if it drops 3" in the 50 yards from 300 to 350 with a 100 yd zero, it will do the same with a 3"-high-at-100-yds zero.

Gitano,  this is the part I don't agree with.
 
The bullet sighted to shoot 3 inches high AT THE HIGHEST POINT IN THE TRAJECTORY, will still be climbing when it goes past 100 yards.  As a matter of fact, a rifle with a 300 yard 6" PBR will only reach its highest point in the trajectory at about 150 yards (I.e. it is not 3" high at 100 but only about 2.5).  This means it only starts falling at this point [150yards] (and it drops 6" by the time it reaches 300 yards).  The bullet that is dead on at 100, has allready "peaked" and is falling and I do believe it will fall close to 8" below sightline by 250 yards while the 300 yard PBR setting will be spot on at 250 yards. (My ballistics calculator (3050ft/s, 0.4BC) places the 100yard dead on bullet 6.2" low at 250 yards).
 
I would therefore still go for a longer PBR rather than just dead on at 100.  If you were to zero your rifle (above ballistics) at 200 yards, highest point in the trajectory would be 1.5" above sightline and now you only have to start worrying about "holdover" for shots beyond about 230 yards. I cannot imagine wanting to be closer than 1.5" from a field position when hunting.
 
Regards.
 
C