Your opinion on the Nikon BDC reticle


PDA






sleepyone
November 22, 2009, 05:05 PM
I bought a Nikon Buckmaster scope with BDC reticle last year w/o knowing anything about the reticle other than what magazines and Nikon reported. After reading the instructions provided with the scope, I discovered the process to actually use the BDC reticle effectively is laborious and expensive. I spoke with some gunsmiths and other hunters who feel the same way. Even a Nikno rep was unable to defend it.

It seems to me, if you simply know the ballistics of your grain, you can accomplish the same thing in many calibers by zeroing at 2" high at 100 yards and usually you will not have to worry about holdover until you get past 300 yards. Is that an accurate statement?

If you enjoyed reading about "Your opinion on the Nikon BDC reticle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
R.W.Dale
November 22, 2009, 05:36 PM
My gripe about the BDC reticle is the inordinately thick crosshairs. Making it very difficult to shoot this scope for groups

Horsemany
November 22, 2009, 05:55 PM
My gripe about the BDC reticle is the inordinately thick crosshairs. Making it very difficult to shoot this scope for groups

+1. Nikon does a lot of mysterious stuff with reticle sizing. The BDC was possibly invented for their muzzleloader joint venture with T/C. They also make an 8-32 Monarch not offered with their fine crosshairs. ***??? Anyone who's ever dealt with their customer service probably knows Nikon just barely knows what they're doing in the sporting goods market.

berettashotgun
November 22, 2009, 07:02 PM
The BDC reticle is an excellent idea, just carried out in a crappy manner.
I had one and sold it to my brother, he had an actual legitimate use for it- a beginner 300-350-400-450-500yard target scope.
I originally bought it with hunting purposes in mind; it was terrible for me, I hunt deer on open plains and need a circle that approximates 18" at the calibrated distance.
I THOUGHT this was what I was buying, I'm an idiot. I will read up more on any purchase over $30 from now on. my bad.
As far as the glass - it was pretty decent, and the scope itself seems to be of great value.
More than likely I'd never buy any more Nikon products; I like (B & L) Bushnell Elite rifle scopes and Steiner binoculars best (value- money) for the task I use them for.

robphillips
November 22, 2009, 10:05 PM
I have one of those too. Why the heck couldn't they have just put a line across the crosshairs?
I have a weaver that is setup up with lines across it, it is much better.
Who lines up through a circle anyway?

dakotasin
November 22, 2009, 10:47 PM
i like the bdc reticle, but the circles do not accurately line up as they are claimed to be. you'll still have to shoot the gun at various distances to get the actual zero for each circle.

i don't care for most of the range compensating reticles out there, but have not had a chance to try the doa by bushnell or the rapid 600/800 by zeiss, yet. i think the hhr by sightron, the lrd by leupold, and the whatever by pentax are possibly the worst 3. well, maybe the brx in swarovski's z-3 line rates up there w/ the hhr (but the z-5 line is good).

anyway, i find it best to zero your rifle for 250 yards, and then you can hold on hair out to 350 yards. beyond that, you have time to twist turrets, or plan and execute a stalk...

Red State
May 9, 2010, 01:17 AM
I know this is an old(er) thread, but I just had to chime in with some of my new experience.

I LOVE the BDC reticle. It works really well for my .308 with an 18" barrel. If the center of the cirlcle doesnt tie exactly in to a given range, the top or bottom of the circle will.
Zeroed in at 100 yards, I can use the circles to bust clay pigeons at 200 and 300 yards.

On my 30.06 with a 24" barrel, I like the Sightron HHR. With cross haris zeroed in at 200 yards, the hashmarks are almost right on at 300 and 400.

lopezni
May 9, 2010, 01:58 AM
it gets in the way

juk
May 9, 2010, 08:45 AM
Works on my 308 out to 350. I have no doubt it will work farther, I just don't have a longer range. It took a little time for me to figure it out, but it is bang on now. Best 100 dollars i've ever spent on a gun related item.

earlthegoat2
May 9, 2010, 09:06 AM
Just like all scope manufacturers these days, when in doubt make a new reticle then overhype the heck out of it in magazines and the public will be duped once again with something that was perfected by Leupold when they developed the duplex reticle.

If anything it convinces mediocre shooters they can take longer shots which is never a good thing. Of course the rifle and hunting media would have you believe 300+ yard shots are childs play and anyone can do them with minimal rifle handling experience.

Basically it is a gimmick that plays at the minds of the inexperienced and the Jones'.

Not to mention it is an imprecise system. They claim it works for a certain range of bullets at certain velocities and thats great but I guess if I was going to invest in a reticle I would want it to be spot on with my particular load. A little handloading experimentation might be able to narrow the margin of error but once again, something like this is not needed on a HUNTING rifle that may not ever see a 300 yd shot and if it does should the shooter be trying to make that shot anyway?

Opinionated rant done. I need a good reticle thread every once in a while to keep me evened out. Just noticed this was an older thread as well. Oh well. It still worked.

skoro
May 9, 2010, 01:34 PM
I have a Team Primos w/ BDC on my 30-06. Works pretty well for me. I can see where some would find it distracting, though. A lot of things to line up together to make a long distance shot.

Rokman
May 9, 2010, 01:48 PM
I don't care for it. It is distracting for me also. I would prabably like the rapid Z on the Ziess if I could afford one.

viking499
May 9, 2010, 01:54 PM
I like the scopes and the BDC idea, but could be improved on. Other scopes out there do a better job with this.

I own 3 Nikons with the BDC and one without. Mainly because I got terrific deals on them. Would buy another one because they have good glass for the money.

Walkalong
May 9, 2010, 02:58 PM
The BDC reticle is an excellent idea, just carried out in a crappy mannerYep. Great idea. Really screwy reticle. I like the Vortex and the Burris BDC reticles much better. It's a shame, I really like Nikon scopes.

boricua9mm
May 9, 2010, 08:28 PM
I haven't shot with yesteryear's BDC reticle, but I have shot with the current Nikon BDC. The girth of the current models' reticle is not an issue whatseoever. As other posters have pointed out, it actually offers more reference points than other bullet-drop comps. From what I understand, the models available right now have thinner lines than the ones from 2 years back.

Now, while I haven't been on a hunt, I realize that this is the arena in which Nikon has marketed it. From my side of the world, this reticle is a good match for a lot of the semi-auto rifle applications we see today. If this reticle were matched with a rifle capable of sub-MOA, I can see how it would be a letdown. On the other hand, it is a great match for rifles like the AR10, FAL, and M1A, where absolute precision is hopeful, but making hits on a general area is acceptable within the weapon's capabilities.

If Nikon gets wind of this we'll see it next year badged as the "Tactical reticle." :D

Maverick223
May 9, 2010, 08:44 PM
Nikon is a great scope, good optics, good durability, fair price, and the worst BDC reticle I have ever seen. I would recommend going with the duplex and investing the extra cash in a different scope that actually offers a BDC reticle instead of Nikon's three ring circus, or just get something better to begin with (Vortex is the first that comes to mind).

:)

boricua9mm
May 9, 2010, 09:51 PM
Nikon is a great scope, good optics, good durability, fair price, and the worst BDC reticle I have ever seen. I would recommend going with the duplex and investing the extra cash in a different scope that actually offers a BDC reticle instead of Nikon's three ring circus, or just get something better to begin with (Vortex is the first that comes to mind).

Of course, you're going to tell us, in your own experience with this scope, how the reticle is the worst, or how Nikon's offering might not constitute a BDC (Bullet Drop Compensation) reticle? Or maybe we'd be asking too much? :rolleyes:

Over the years I've used various compensating reticles. Again, Nikon's BDC is no slouch unless you are expecting pinpoint precision and have it mounted on a rifle that is capable of such performance.

Enough with the hear-say and the "I don't like how it looks..."

Maverick223
May 9, 2010, 10:27 PM
Of course, you're going to tell us, in your own experience with this scope, how the reticle is the worst, or how Nikon's offering might not constitute a BDC (Bullet Drop Compensation) reticle? Or maybe we'd be asking too much?I call it like I see it. I have used it and find it to be inaccurate, and cluttered despite having very little valuable information contained within. The only more cluttered reticle that I know of is the various ones by Horus, and at least they afford a multitude of elevation and windage points. Windage is a bigger factor at long range, than is the elevation, and if you can't effectively utilize the reticle for windage calculations then it is near useless to me. The reticle is also thick, despite your claim of it being improved, I have noticed no such improvements, and therefore would (and have) put my cash into better scopes with better reticle choice when a BDC reticle is required. I guess I just ask to much of a scope. :rolleyes: Good thing there are a multitude of other manufacturers that cater to my needs and don't mimic Nikon's designs...can't imagine why that would be.

Over the years I've used various compensating reticles. Again, Nikon's BDC is no slouch unless you are expecting pinpoint precision and have it mounted on a rifle that is capable of such performance.An optic, particularly one with a BDC reticle, is nothing without precision. The sole use of such an scope is (or at least is intended) for use at long range, and precision is very important for long range. Again there are reticles that are better designed for this use and that is what I have purchased, will continue to purchase. Take the Zeiss Rapid-Z series which incorporate thin, easy to acquire, stadia for precision as well as hashes for windage adjustment. I even prefer a standard Mil-dot over the Nikon abomination, because it incorporates better precision, less clutter, and windage markings.

As for yourself, you can buy up every last one of them...wouldn't bother me one bit.

boricua9mm
May 11, 2010, 07:01 PM
I call it like I see it. I have used it and find it to be inaccurate, and cluttered despite having very little valuable information contained within. The only more cluttered reticle that I know of is the various ones by Horus, and at least they afford a multitude of elevation and windage points. Windage is a bigger factor at long range, than is the elevation, and if you can't effectively utilize the reticle for windage calculations then it is near useless to me. The reticle is also thick, despite your claim of it being improved, I have noticed no such improvements, and therefore would (and have) put my cash into better scopes with better reticle choice when a BDC reticle is required. I guess I just ask to much of a scope. Good thing there are a multitude of other manufacturers that cater to my needs and don't mimic Nikon's designs...can't imagine why that would be.

Couldn't disagree more. Despite your claims otherwise, Nikon's BDC offers two reference points per circle. Plenty of folks have gotten along just fine without windage stadia for many a decade. Heck, even the majority of currently used magnified optics used in combat don't have much in the ways of windage compensation, ACOGs being a good example.

Thick reticle? I'm not sure what you're comparing it to, but again, I couldn't disagree more. This is a photo through the scope at 3x, taken by me, looking at an area 150 yards away from where I was standing. This is not a FFP scope, so the reticle size remains the same. If these lines are too thick for you to use, then a visit to the optician might be in order...

http://www.ricanhavocproductions.com/images/monarch_bdc_reticle.jpg

An optic, particularly one with a BDC reticle, is nothing without precision. The sole use of such an scope is (or at least is intended) for use at long range, and precision is very important for long range. Again there are reticles that are better designed for this use and that is what I have purchased, will continue to purchase. Take the Zeiss Rapid-Z series which incorporate thin, easy to acquire, stadia for precision as well as hashes for windage adjustment. I even prefer a standard Mil-dot over the Nikon abomination, because it incorporates better precision, less clutter, and windage markings.

Lemme guess, all of your rifles shoot sub-MOA and you can outperform all of their mechanical abilities. Man, I need to buy rifles wherever you guys are shopping and train with you snipers! The BDC is intended to make hits. Pinpoint accuracy will depend first on the inherent accuracy of your rifle/ammo combo, and then your ability to shoot it from field positions. Feel free to compare a Zeiss Rapid Z ($1k+) to the Nikon BDC all you want, but the bottom line is that the BDC is not complete unusable crap. Money where my mouth is? Here's my last 15 shots from last Sunday at the 200 yard line, using my M1A and the Monarch 3-12x42 with *drum roll* BDC reticle. I used the 200 yard holdover. These were fired from the bench off my bipod, but they were fired after I had already shot 100 rounds of surplus and commercial loads. Not bad for a fatigued shooter with a worthless holdover reticle...

http://www.ricanhavocproductions.com/images/m1agroup5910.jpg

If you don't like the scope, fine. I don't stand anything to gain by convincing anyone. However, you'd be hard pressed to say that the BDC is NOT a working bullet drop compensator. Not liking it and expressing your opinion on it is one thing. Trashing it b/c you couldn't make it work for you is another. There's a lot of things that don't work for me, but that doesn't make 'em crap.

I'll be putting my money where my mouth is again at 575 yards in a few weeks.

Enjoy and shoot safe!

Red State
May 11, 2010, 08:14 PM
Nice shooting Borica!

Not bad at all.

AKElroy
May 11, 2010, 08:23 PM
Basically it is a gimmick that plays at the minds of the inexperienced and the Jones'.

Easy, now. I fall into neither catagory, and this type of generalization threatens to disturb my calm. I like the BDC. I do not care for the circles, and I still sight them in 2" high @ 100. I really like the German #4 reticle, and sans circles this is pretty close. Contrary to an earlier post, I find the crosshairs finer than nikoplex; it is the reason I prefer the BDC to the standard offering. I just ignore the circles.

Maverick223
May 11, 2010, 11:09 PM
Couldn't disagree more.So my opinion is wrong...that is a tough argument to make. :rolleyes:

Plenty of folks have gotten along just fine without windage stadia for many a decade.Plenty of folks did fine with irons for many a century...I suppose I should retire all of my magnified sighting devices. :rolleyes:

Lemme guess, all of your rifles shoot sub-MOA...All of the ones outfitted with a scope equipped with BDC reticles do. I don't feel the need for a BDC reticle for a rifle that is incapable of a shot at the distances for which the stadia are designed.

Feel free to compare a Zeiss Rapid Z ($1k+) to the Nikon BDC all you want, but the bottom line is that the BDC is not complete unusable crap.A Rapid-Z 600 equipped Zeiss Conquest is $575.00 shipped from Liberty Optics (ask for the THR discount and it is less) while the Nikon goes for about 30% less. Want a good example of another reticle done right...try the Vortex with similar quality for 25%+ less money. Furthermore I do find the reticle to be crap, and I won't share my experience with my own scope with that reticle...why?...because I don't own one, and refuse to because I find it to be inferior. I am not going to buy something that I find inferior just to prove a point...I don't like it, that isn't likely to change...deal with it.

:)

PedalBiker
May 11, 2010, 11:43 PM
My biggest gripe with the BDC is the same as the Burris, Leupold and others. It's in the second focal plane. Unless I'm missing something obvious, the hold overs work only at max magnification.

A while back I sent Leupold an idea for a reticle that could go in the first focal plane and not have a lot of the disadvantages of the current crop. So far they don't seem to like it. I'll post it here for grins.


The principle was to have thick stadia out at the perimeter with either steps or a gradual tapering into the center. That way no matter what magnification you're using you'd have precision in the center and good visibility of the lines at the outer edges. The key for me is having a reference that gives me a ball park figure of the range of my target and whether it's in range. I don't shoot beyond my point blank range ~250 yards for deer ~300 for elk.

Cabelas has a good stab at a first focal plane reticle, but it's a bit busy for me, and the scopes are too big. I really like 2x7x32 scopes.

WYcoyote
May 11, 2010, 11:50 PM
I'm sorry, BDC fans, but I can't stand the circles. I would never buy one.
But I do like the Burris Ballistic Plex.
I have matching Burris Signature Selects with regular duplex reticles on my 7mm RM and 300 WM and where the post reduces to the crosswire is right on at 400 yards on both when sighted 2" high at 100 yds.
That is all the reference I need.
The Ballistic Plex on my .223 Rem R-15 is still a work in progress but I think it's going to work out great.
No circles, please.

ms6852
May 12, 2010, 12:43 AM
The BDC reticle is a good way to shoot long distance if your scope does not have enough elevation adjustment. I have a nikon monarch with bdc that I use on a remington 513T, and since I do a lot of rimfire shooting 22lr, it allows me to shoot to 300yds easily. I use the bottom of the reticle as my baseline and elavate with adjustment knob as needed.

boricua9mm
May 12, 2010, 04:25 PM
So my opinion is wrong...that is a tough argument to make.

Opinions without experience are little more than range chatter.

Plenty of folks did fine with irons for many a century...I suppose I should retire all of my magnified sighting devices.

Irons have only been useful since the advent of the rifled barrel. As for optics, you're a consistent sub-MOA shooter with your rifles. You probably don't need 'em :D

Furthermore I do find the reticle to be crap, and I won't share my experience with my own scope with that reticle...why?...because I don't own one, and refuse to because I find it to be inferior. I am not going to buy something that I find inferior just to prove a point...I don't like it, that isn't likely to change...deal with it.

Just to clarify: You don't own one, probably haven't used one for any reasonable amount of time, yet you're declaring it garbage. The internet sure is a magnificent place...

Maverick223
May 12, 2010, 04:51 PM
Opinions without experience are little more than range chatter.What do you know about my experience? :scrutiny:

Irons have only been useful since the advent of the rifled barrel.No, wrong again, irons have been successfully employed long before the advent of the rifle, or even musket, which they were also successfully employed on. Crossbows and cannons were the first devices to use the sights and would have been far less effective without them, as would muskets and rfles in later times.

Just to clarify: You don't own one, probably haven't used one for any reasonable amount of time, yet you're declaring it garbage.It would be pretty stupid to buy something that I consider inferior, and FWIW I have a buddy that has one on a rifle that I have shot quite a bit. Probably more than some folks have shot their own rifles. :scrutiny:

dtvburns
May 12, 2010, 06:41 PM
In the last week I purchased a Nikon BDC scope, it came at the recommendation of the gun dealer. Then I saw this post. Now I am a novice with rifle shooting, but not with guns I have spent many hours shooting pistols and clays or upland hunting. I began reading this post while I was waiting for the gun to come in and I was getting worried about the scope being a dog.

I have the scope mounted on a Save 12 VLP in 22-250 and I like it. As mentioned before the circles allow for more than one point to use a reference. I shot the gun twice and have 80 rounds through it. Below is a photo of a group of four I shot at 100 yards yesterday, it is just a cell phone pic but that was the best group I have ever shot. The scope seems to work for me.

AKElroy
May 12, 2010, 06:48 PM
that was the best group I have ever shot. The scope seems to work for me.

That is all that matters. Excellent group; no anonymous opinion can change that group, or the future performance of your rig. None of your THR peers are looking through your scope when you shoot anyway.

I have a lot of scoped rifles, two of them wear BDC's & I like them. They simply present an option I may never use, but what is the harm in that? I have crap on my truck I am just figuring out after owning it 3 years.

earlthegoat2
May 12, 2010, 07:15 PM
With a crosshair you get a precise point to aim with. With the BDC you get a precise point for zero and then a bunch of vague circles for the longer and more precise shot. What bozo thought that would be a good idea.

I dont really blame Nikon though. I bet they knew it was sell like crazy with every average schmo out there thinking they can shoot the elk at 500 yards uphill with a 20 mph wind. Isnt it just like shooting at the range?

AKElroy
May 12, 2010, 10:50 PM
I bet they knew it was sell like crazy with every average schmo out there thinking they can shoot the elk at 500 yards uphill with a 20 mph wind.

Dude--What is with the slam? Some, like me, like it with ZERO intention of using it as you describe.

earlthegoat2
May 13, 2010, 12:14 AM
Well, OK

Then why get it? I know it is only 10 dollars more but it really mucks up the picture.

Reticles like this are not handy unless they are going to be used exactly the way they were designed. How many people out there actually know how to use a Mil-Dot scope? Not nearly as many as buy them because they heard somewhere that military snipers have that reticle (that happens to be precisely tuned to the cartridge load they use).

AKElroy
May 14, 2010, 07:59 AM
I do not care for the Nikoplex, and I needed two affordable quality scopes & the Prostaff fit the bill nicely.

lhodges
January 15, 2011, 10:53 AM
Sometimes I don't understand people ? Nikon's BDC is a very good product for the amount that they are !!! And really shouldn't we shoot to really see exactly what range the circles are ? I have a 3x9x40 on a 280 Ackley Improved, as far as the crosshairs I didn't find them to coarse? My rifle shoots out the bullseye at 100yds !!! Then the first circle is around 250 yards and consistently is in about 4" circle !!! What more does one need for hunting for around $150 dollars? You get in the mention 6x20 VX-III with varmint reticle they are $800 dollars so if thats what suits your fancy splurge by all means but as far as being a quality hunting optic the Nikon BDC works Plain and Simple for hunting purposes. People should use their equipment more and not just a few rounds before the seasons they hunt and I bet they will become better marksman with what they already have. Enough Said.

BrocLuno
January 15, 2011, 12:11 PM
I think the issues are in the fine print. I'm sure the circles are calibrated to some known target factor, just like an old 30/30 reticle is. You need to know what the circles represent? If it's a common game animal belly to back, that's a good ranging tool. If it represents a human torso, same applies. I also notice that each circle gives you two precise points. Top of circle and center "wire" and bottom of circle. I can see that working for 150 grainers, 165 grainers as a pair. Seems it's about how you apply it? Would I buy one - maybe if I had a claiber and barrel length to match their calcs - which are?

I have a couple of Nikons. They are nice scopes. To say they know nothing about "sports" is a bit over the top. They likely know as much about optics as anyone on the planet? What you put on your gun is up to you. What they supply may be useful :)

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 15, 2011, 04:37 PM
Lawdy we are awaking the dead here. I did have a good giggle at the one poster stating Nikon knew little to nothing about sport optics. Just what kind of quality do you think goes into all those high dollar cameras that the PROFESSIONAL photographers use to photograph your favorite sporting events? Which do you think is easier to produce? A high end camera or a high end scope? News flash, camera! As far as the BDC reticle goes, I don't like it much really but mainly because I have little to no use for it. I install target turrets and dial in my distance after using a range finder. Does the BDC have it's uses? I am sure it probably does but it just isn't for me. I hand load and to sit and calculate each and every "circle" would take a LONG couple of days at the range for true precision not to mention a pretty hefty amount of bullets, primers, and powder. For others though it may just well be the ticket. I do have the BDC in my Nikon Coyote Special sitting on a 220swift so my "experience" isn't from a "buddies" weapon or from the net or magazines. As far as quality of scope, it is top notch which I have come to expect from Nikon since I own 33 scoped weapons (rifles and pistols) and every single one of them have a Nikon of some model sitting on them. I have owned most all the "Big Brands" such as Leu, Zeiss, Swarov, and it seems to me that not a single one of them are any brighter, clearer, longer lasting, or the main thing more ACCURATE, than your higher end Nikons. And sorry but if they aren't 2 times better why are the 2 times more expensive? Makes no sense at all to me to go spend an extra 100 to 400 dollars more on a scope that is, in real world use, no better. Especially in todays economy.

HKGuns
January 15, 2011, 04:48 PM
I have no problems with mine. The reticle is not too thick BTW, works just fine.

earlthegoat2
January 15, 2011, 04:51 PM
Sometimes I don't understand people ? Nikon's BDC is a very good product for the amount that they are !!!

Nikon's scopes are a very good product to be sure. The BDC reticle is something else entirely and in no way makes Nikon's scopes good just because of the BDC reticles mere presence. The optics are going to be good no matter what. It is the reticle that is the topic here.

Pacsd
January 15, 2011, 08:29 PM
Sleepyone, your thoughts about 2 high at 100 dead on out to 300 I think, and that's just me, is a stretch. The only way you are going to insure this is to go out to those ranges and shoot. There was an interesting post on here a few days ago about being 3 high at 100 and then knowing your muzzle velocity, ie; 3100 FPS..dead on at 310, etc. If I was going to go on your premise I surely would test that at various ranges.

supercalvin56
January 15, 2011, 11:59 PM
If I wasn't already married I'd be looking very hard at the Nikon's BDC reticle system. Ok, that is a little extreme but, I do think it is a very good system and a fine product. No discussion is complete without mentioning Nikon's free ballistic software designed for any BDC equipped scope. Simply enter the data from your load and it tells you the drop for all the circles.....VERY useful. If you haven't gone through the software you don't have all the information need to make a informed decision.

http://www.nikonhunting.com/spoton/

LoonWulf
January 16, 2011, 12:08 AM
Ive found the bdc software and reticle to be pretty close to on for my 6x47 shooting 70grn balistics at 3kish using noslers advertised BC and the data from my Chrono....not bad for a 140 dollar scope and free software. Its niffty using the circles i like them beter then hash marks. Ive only shot out to about 500 and im not a good enough shot, or good enough at reading wind to make consistant hits on the 5 gal bucket i was shooting at that far out, but trajectory was pretty much dead on. i just couldnt dope the windage.

KingMedicine
January 16, 2011, 12:52 AM
Nikons are (imho) one of the best scopes for the money. I dont really care for the BDC, but if i can keep getting them for 100 bucks shipped, i will keep buying them. got two of them on my Marlin XS7 and AR

JDMorris
January 16, 2011, 01:51 AM
I like my Prostaff with BDC, I shot 2 fair groups with it, using my first handloads today, the groups were not as good as they could've been, but the scope was not at fault, it was my flinching, afraid my gun would explode from my loads. :neener:
I don't have an issue with the scope, it's not comparable to a zeiss, or NightForce, but I like it, and as long as I like it, I'm happy..
The reticle is not thick, because it lines up perfectly with a finely defined crosshair target at 100 yards.
Anyhow, It's a different reticle, and most people would prefer a regular Nikoplex or dualplex type.

sscoyote
January 16, 2011, 02:29 AM
Here's mine--a 2.5-8x Encore BDC on a buddies Sav. Striker 22-250. If u look at the pic above my reticle looks the same except of course with only 2 circles instead of 4 as shown. Just matched subtension to verified trajectory, and will be testing it next Thurs. probably. Upper right corner of reticle is the dope as seen on a sticker inside Butler Creek ocular cover. Each whole number of which is where the circles intersect reticle's vertical axis--

P= point blank range (coyote), and wind is calcd for 10 mph relative to 5 SMOA plex post tips--

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t49/sscoyote1/Reticles_BDC_Encore.jpg

sscoyote
January 16, 2011, 02:41 AM
For my uses it's not good enough to know just where the center of each circle's zero is at--i wanna know each 50-yd. zero, as well as it's corresponding windage zero. I don't wanna' have to think of where 435 yds. is, just knowing that the circles zeros are 350 and 500.

On some of the BDC circles a fairly accurate system of windage compensation can be applied since the circles are .875 SMOA from the reticle's vertical axis. Some of the reticles use a horizontal plex post tip subtension of 3 SMOA. So if the wind is calcd at .3 of this 3 SMOA PPT subtension or close to it, the windage compensation can be resolved very accurately, since the edge of the circle is right at .3 (.875/3) of the total plex post tip subtension itself (not so on the Encore reticle i posted above).

brotus2
January 16, 2011, 04:13 PM
+1 on post # 40 the Nikon BDC software site.

bhammell
November 19, 2013, 09:21 PM
I've written about the BDC here (http://www.bestar15scopes.com/articles.php?p=nikon_bdc_reticle_guide). It is a a pretty useful tool, especially for those longer shots at distances you would never zero for.

Easy setup too. Just enter some info on the SpotOn web app and you print out a little reference sheet to keep handy.

bhammell
bestar15scopes.com (http://www.bestar15scopes.com)

Queen_of_Thunder
November 19, 2013, 09:55 PM
there are several of the russian reticules I like.

FiveInADime
November 20, 2013, 12:06 AM
I've used the top circle on my BDC 6-18x Buckmaster for setting up targets to 600 yards. The outside diameter of the circles at max zoom represent 2" per one hundred yards per Nikon. For 600 yards, I draw a twelve-inch line on a target with a fat-tip marker and have someone move the target out while I look through the scope (bolt removed, calm down) until I match the line to the OD.

This is a very basic usage of the reticle, but there are guys that have applied the modified mil-ranging system to the Nikon BDC reticle with great effect for ranging coyotes/deer.

Getting drop tables/illustrations from Spot On for several magnification levels is very easy and if you input good zero data/velocity it works very well. I made a little pocket sized book that has a bunch of tables/illustrations from Spot On and although I don't hunt game at long range, I can usually drill milk jugs easily enough at ~500 yards in light/no wind.

With all of this said, I just use the BDC for fun and I would never attempt a shot on a game animal past my max point-blank range. A prairie dog or jackrabbit, I might give it a try :) If I wanted something for long-range game, I would want more accurate adjustments than Nikon offers.

Cee Zee
November 20, 2013, 09:07 AM
It's alive! It's alive! Just a few injections of electrons and badda boom badda bing - it's alive! (Frankenstein mode now off). Sorry. I just get a kick out of these zombie threads. Who says there's no such thing as reincarnation? This thread has been brought back to life 4 times now.

BTW I don't care much for reticles that block half the viewing area.

DeMilled
November 20, 2013, 09:18 AM
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/desertford/pinheadnecro2_zps155f618c.jpg

Bart B.
November 20, 2013, 09:38 AM
It's interesting that none of the BDC scopes I know of have altitude correction in their adjustments. Such stuff is needed if your scope's BDC system actually matches your loads balllistics (which is rare) and use at 600 feet altitude in Ohio then you go elk hunting in Colorado at 7000 to 8000 feet and the bullet drop at long ranges needs a 4 to 5 MOA less muzzle angle to hit the point of aim. That 7-point bull will walk away thinking large mosquitos are flying 2 to 3 feet over its back.

ms6852
November 20, 2013, 11:52 AM
I have the Monarch Nikon with BDC reticle on a RRA predator pursuit. Like to use it for coyotes. I zeroed mine at two hundred yards with a 62 grain bullet and was on target at 500 yards. Mine works as it is meant two at I have taken verrrry aggressive jack rabbits out at 300 yds and one at 375. It wont work if you use a 55 gr or 50gr or 68 gr. You have to rezero for each particular bullet weight so that the BDC can work. Just my 2 cents.

FiveInADime
November 20, 2013, 12:51 PM
It's interesting that none of the BDC scopes I know of have altitude correction in their adjustments. Such stuff is needed if your scope's BDC system actually matches your loads balllistics (which is rare) and use at 600 feet altitude in Ohio then you go elk hunting in Colorado at 7000 to 8000 feet and the bullet drop at long ranges needs a 4 to 5 MOA less muzzle angle to hit the point of aim. That 7-point bull will walk away thinking large mosquitos are flying 2 to 3 feet over its back.
Nikon's Spot on has an altitude factor. I have both Spot-On and Strelok on my phone to play with. I live at about 1100 feet and my dad lives at 6500, so if I were to go shoot up there I would print out new charts with the elevation difference considered. I consider all of that stuff as toys to play with. IMO, you have to spend gobs of money and time on a rifle, scope, rangefinder, spotting scope, learning to shoot, learning to handload, learning wind, ect to know for sure that when you pull the trigger on a game animal at 500+ yards your bullet will land where it is supposed to with an acceptable margin of error. Not to mention that it's an animal that can move several feet in less than a second.

I have the Monarch Nikon with BDC reticle on a RRA predator pursuit. Like to use it for coyotes. I zeroed mine at two hundred yards with a 62 grain bullet and was on target at 500 yards. Mine works as it is meant two at I have taken verrrry aggressive jack rabbits out at 300 yds and one at 375. It wont work if you use a 55 gr or 50gr or 68 gr. You have to rezero for each particular bullet weight so that the BDC can work. Just my 2 cents.

Use Spot-On, to figure for different loads. Fun, and easy.

ms6852
November 20, 2013, 01:44 PM
Hey fiveinadime, I am not familiar with Spot on but I do have Istrelok, I just downloaded it a while back but have not learned how to use Istrelok yet, been just kind of lazy.

FiveInADime
November 20, 2013, 01:50 PM
Spot-On is a flash-based ballistics application free on the Nikon website that is specific for Nikon scopes. They also sell it as an iPhone/Android app that cost like $5. It is very cool, and if you have a BDC reticle I think the program is essential for using it effectively.

CB900F
November 20, 2013, 03:36 PM
Fella's;

I bought a Nikon Monarch with BDC. I tried it out, found it to be very unsatisfactory for me and promptly sold it. It got replaced with another Nikon Monarch, but that scope has a mil-dot reticle that's much better in my opinion.

900F

WYcoyote
November 20, 2013, 07:49 PM
No offense to those who like it.
I cannot believe this idea left the Nikon concept room.

boricua9mm
November 20, 2013, 08:05 PM
Three years after my last post on this thread, and the Monarch 3-12 BDC is still residing on my M1A. It's still drilling nice 10-shot groups at 100 and with a slight holdover of the 500 yard circle, it's making consistent hits at 570 yards on torso sized targets.

The system works. It's not the right scope for people who expect to lay down tiny groups out to 500 yards, but it works exactly as advertised.

I've since discovered another nice thing about the BDC. When my M1A is zeroed for 168gr Match loads, the first circle is where the 147gr & 150gr loads will impact. No need to run afoul of my zero if I'm shooting cheap surplus. Works just fine for me.

Nikon makes one helluva piece of glass. I use their cameras and lenses everyday and the Monarch echoes that same level of quality.

CB900F
November 20, 2013, 09:13 PM
Boricua;

The BDC type reticle, regardless of who's it is, is a trajectory type reticle only. I don't know where you are, but the wind blows in Montana & Wyoming. Just to emphasize the point, I was in Casper & ran across the following bumper sticker: CASPER WYOMING next line
CAST IRON KITE FLYING CAPITOL OF THE WORLD.

Mil-dots work a lot better for me.

900F

Inebriated
November 20, 2013, 09:48 PM
I am into MPBR zeroing. I have a Nikon BDC scope, and I like the glass, but could take or leave the BDC. If I were in a place where I needed to be able to take shots further than a couple hundred yards, I'd probably like it a lot. Just kinda depends on what you're doing.

boricua9mm
November 21, 2013, 09:23 AM
The BDC type reticle, regardless of who's it is, is a trajectory type reticle only. I don't know where you are, but the wind blows in Montana & Wyoming.

I'm in Tampa Bay, Florida. The Gulf of Mexico and the changing temperatures create shifting winds throughout the course of the day. That said, a windy day for us may have 11-15 mph winds; not cast iron kity flying material. For my uses it's simply a matter of reading the wind. With 600 yards being the furthest distance that I shoot that particular rifle, compensating for windage is a quick and easy calculation.

I think a far more important part is matching an optic to a gun's capabilities, which may be hard for a lot of people to understand (as evidenced by people throwing large hunting scopes on M4s). For a rifle that is not capable of sub-MOA accuracy, Nikon's BDC reticle works pretty darn well. Likewise, the basic Trijicon ACOG (TA01) mounted on an AR15 is very effective at making hits at that same distance, but not for making tight groups. It's a matter of the optic being a good match for the rifle that it sits upon.

travisd
November 21, 2013, 11:49 AM
I dont think the scope is to cluttered, however ive never had a chance to use any of the circes yet. Will probably be getting something else after deer season as it has really inconsistent adjustments. Too bad because i like the scope and it went bad after only a year.

teetertotter
November 21, 2013, 12:05 PM
My 4.5-14 BDC Buckmaster Nikon is on my S&W 22a pistol with 7 inch barrel for Silhouette out to 77 meters. I can use the circles or elect to dial the elevation for correct distances. The dialed elevation is zeroed at 40 meters even though there is a closer target. I like having both options for distances.

Tony k
November 22, 2013, 09:18 AM
I've got a buckmaster 4.5-14bdc mounted on my 270. Good optics and holds its zero, which is all I really want in a hunting scope. I put the scope on in 2007, and I've never used anything but the crosshairs for hunting. Unless something drastic happens, I have no intention of getting rid of this scope.

If you really want to get the most out of the bdc feature without spending a mint on ammo, get the Nikon SpotOn App on your phone. It will give you a better idea of what each circle should hit without having to go through hundreds of rounds. As others have said, considering all the variables (like BCs, velocity, elevation,and atmospheric conditions) the idea that each circle could represent 100 yard incriments for dozens of calibers is a laughable.

I must admit that it's actually kind of fun to toy around with the SpotOn app at the range.

If you enjoyed reading about "Your opinion on the Nikon BDC reticle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!