Leupold LR reticle vs Boone and Crockett, which to you like and why

[AZmark]

I'm kind of stuck between which reticle works best. I know its a personal preference so I'm just after opinions of why you like one over the other.

 

[Varminterror]

Neither for me. BDC’s, especially 500-600 yard BDC’s like these you’re discussing, are a terrible gimmick which never should have garnered market attention.

 

[Ks5shooter]

I like a scope reticle that is not busy to the eye for consistent shooting. My personal preference.

 

[mcb]

What are you using the scope for? Hunting? Target? Long range? short range?

I don't mind busy reticules especially in longer range scopes.

 

[Chuck R.]

For hunting the B&C does have the advantage of having the 10 Mph wind holds.

Whether it's busy or not is a personal thing. Some guys are fine with the Horace style (X-Mas tree) reticle, other's hate them.

 

[Varminterror]

These are the reticles in question. Both SFP reticles, designed for 200 or 300 yard zero, depending upon cartridge, with only two BDC hashes meant for 500 or 600 yard compensation (which doesn’t compute for me based on the subtensions, but that’s the claim in the add copy). No windage information at all in either of them. BDC’s are a weak gimmick in general, these two in particular, especially weak among their class. Both share common subtensions - dots or hashes at 2.2moa and 4.8, and the tip of the post at 7.8, with an extra hash at 6.3 MOA in the B&C. Naturally, these subtensions are only applicable at ONE magnification setting. So these are reticles designed for 500ish yards, without sufficient information to successfully shoot at 500ish yards.

 

[Laphroaig]

Actually we have 3 such scopes in our family. I guess you can debate their worthiness, but they give a hunter a point of reference that is better than guessing a holdover. Yes, they only apply at the highest magnification, but that is not an unreasonable expectation if you are taking a long shot. We have compared the subtensions to load specific trajectory calculations rather than taking the claims at face value.

Mine is a LR Duplex 3-9 on a 30-06. My 180 Partition load, using a trajectory calc from JBM meant to simulate Craig Co., if sighted in at 200 yards is pretty darn close to 300 and 400 yds. on the two lower dots. I can't find my notes presently and don't remember if I even did the duplex post.

Two of my kids have a B&C and a Weaver EBX that are similar in concept. They too are darn close if sighted at 200 to 300 and 400 on the lower tics (270 WSM, 150 Partitions and 300 WM, 180 Power Points). The outside of the hashes are for a 10 MPH crosswind, by the way. My son with the EBX killed a nice bull elk at 390 yds. a couple of years ago using the holdover. He also missed another one because he didn't crank up to 10x and shot over it. Live and learn.

 

[Chuck R.]

Laphroaig,

Mine are all close to spot on also in actual shooting. Better IMHO than "holding on hair" or ears like we used to with a straight duplex.

You can also use an APP like Strelok Pro uploaded with your actual load/data and you'll have a good idea. Then you can confirm by actually firing. My .270 is close to the picture below due to a higher MV than standard, I just use the top of the dot for my aim point and hold slight low at 500.



The Leupold manual goes into some detail on how to "calibrate" it using the magnification for a family of cartridges on page 2:

https://cdnp.leupold.com/products/p...aiming-system-manual.pdf?mtime=20170626163401

and a description of the wind hold-offs on page 10.

 

[mcb]

I was about to post about Strelok too and using it to re-calculate the ranges for the rest of the reticle. As long as you have an accurate muzzle velocity and a good BC it works pretty well. Did that for my 450 BM and a Vortex Dead-Hold BDC reticle. I then output the image of the reticle with the new ranges and windage values for the hash marks and print that and glue it under my scope cap.

 

[jmr40]

I like the Boone and Crockett better, the dots on the LR reticle cover more of the target than I like. But I actually like the reticle choices by other scope makers better than the options Leupold offers.

Varminterror, don't try to overthink this. The BDC reticles work just fine for what they a meant to do. I zero at 100 yards. The first hashmark or dot is close enough for big game at 200 yards with any rifle I own. The 2nd dot/hash mark will do the same at 300 yards and where the crosshairs change from thick to thin will be close enough for big game at 400 yards. The scopes I tend to use have more hashmarks to account for ranges every 50 yards and farther than 400.

Experience has taught me that my 308 loads may still hit a little low, but still be in the kill zones at those ranges, my 30-06 maybe a touch high, but still in the kill zone. If shooting at a small varmint, or trying to hit the bullseye in competition they don't provide the precision you'd get by twisting dials. But they are a lot faster and easier to use. I also have scopes with dials and like them. But they are a different tool for a different job. For big game hunting I like the BDC style reticle just fine.

I don't even worry with knowing the exact velocity and trying to do bullet drop calculations like I would when using dials. Out to 500 yards the difference in drop between most common cartridges and bullet weights is going to be just a few inches from worst to best. When shooting at a 10-12" kill zone a couple of inches either way just doesn't matter.

I do get to the range and actually shoot so I'll know where I'll hit at those ranges. With a 100 yard zero a typical 308 load will be almost 3' low at 400 yards. I may know from range practice that my bullet is still going to be 6" lower at 400 yards even using the correct mark on the reticle. But 6" is a lot easier to compensate for than 3'.

And yes, this only works at maximum magnification on most hunting scopes. But this isn't a negative. Any shot longer than 200 yards and I go straight to max magnification anyway. There is no need for a hunting scope to be above around 9X or 12X. The only time FFP is an advantage is target shooting with very high magnification variable scopes where max magnification is too much.

 

[AZmark]

I’ve got both reticles. The LR on a 270 and the B&C on a 7mm08. What I do for initial sight in is run the Federal calculator for my 1 most used load which happens to be a Nosler Partition bullet in both calibers. I figure out where I have to sight in at 100 to make the 400yd impact at or close to zero. This is right at 2” high for the 270. This put me within .3” at 300 and right on at 400 and 500. With the 7mm08, 2.1 at 100 put me at .4 low at 300, 0 at 400, 1.3 low at 500. Then I went out and shot at those ranges. I’m not a good enough shooter to verify these down to the inch but it’s more than close enough for any big game kill zone. Now up to now the longest shot I’ve actually taken at game is 324 yds at a bull elk and it was a heart/lung shot and it fell in its tracks. Works for me. Now if I was shooting prairie dogs it may be a different story.

 

[sscoyote]

I've been applying subtension reticles for downrange zeroing and rangefinding for many years. Now have a Burris 3-9X Timberline Ball. Plex reticle on my AR and have killed coyotes to 500-550 many times using subtension, and it's worked as well as anything else I've ever used for 1st shots. Easy enough to calibrate them several different ways some mentioned above, I usually calibrate them in 50-yd. intervals for elevation as well as windage, i.e. one reference may look something like this 4-2.2-.7 = 400 yds., 2.2 units below center x-hair, .7 of the plex post tip for 10 mph full value wind almost always at optic's highest power. Could also calibrate a magnification for a better trajectory to reticle fit, which is the fastest system of application, since magnification is inversely proportional to subtension, but that takes some study to understand--fun stuff though IMO. Have also shot many prairie dogs using this system on slow coyote hunting days, and it's worked great for me.