Nikon 6x18 Side Focus ???
- Thread starter 6mm06
- Start date
Jack Roberts
Moderator - Deceased
Describing a scope.
The low and high power of scopes is separated by a dash - after the X you put the objective lens diameter in mm.
e.g. 4.5-14X40 or 6-18X45
Your descriptions of a 4.5 power scope with a 14mm objective and a 6 power scope with an 18mm objective are probably not what you meant.
Just trying to get us all speaking the same language here.
Jack
The low and high power of scopes is separated by a dash - after the X you put the objective lens diameter in mm.
e.g. 4.5-14X40 or 6-18X45
Your descriptions of a 4.5 power scope with a 14mm objective and a 6 power scope with an 18mm objective are probably not what you meant.
Just trying to get us all speaking the same language here.
Jack
One of the best resources i have on hand at all times are the catalogs for all the companies, and 1 of the best of all them is Nikon. They provide all the subtensions of every reticle they have (including the mil-dot @ calibrated, low, and high powers). When applying tactical shooting afield this info is important, as it gives u all the info u need.
Ian McMurchy has really wrung out the BDC reticle and as far as i can see it should work well for intermediate range shooting, but when it really comes down to it it isn't gonna work any better than any other "trajectory specific" ballistic reticle (unless the trajectory of your particular load just happens to coincide perfectly with each stadia).
The BDC circle subtensions are only given for the highest power but they give it for both inside and outside diameters-- amazing attention to detail.
ID= 1.5 inch per hundred yds. (IPHY), OD= 2 IPHY @ 18X for your scope.
6mm-- your FCH dot diameter is .41 MOA @ 18X
I also like the plex reticle as it's the simplest of all ballistic and ranging reticles and just perfect to learn tactical systems for longer-range shooting. The Nikoplex post tips subtend right @ 2 IHPY @ 18X from center, and should be well suited for decent windage reference to intermediate range (and just perfect for reticle ranging).
Mil-dot is not offered in that scope-- only the abovementioned reticles. Coincidentally the mil-dot dots in the Monarch 6.5-20X subtend the same as your FCH dot does (@ 20X).
I highly suggest getting the catalogs for scope and reticle specs for Leupold, Nikon, Weaver, Sightron, and Burris as they're really the only 1's (of the more popular brands) that have a good specs pg.
Ian McMurchy has really wrung out the BDC reticle and as far as i can see it should work well for intermediate range shooting, but when it really comes down to it it isn't gonna work any better than any other "trajectory specific" ballistic reticle (unless the trajectory of your particular load just happens to coincide perfectly with each stadia).
The BDC circle subtensions are only given for the highest power but they give it for both inside and outside diameters-- amazing attention to detail.
ID= 1.5 inch per hundred yds. (IPHY), OD= 2 IPHY @ 18X for your scope.
6mm-- your FCH dot diameter is .41 MOA @ 18X
I also like the plex reticle as it's the simplest of all ballistic and ranging reticles and just perfect to learn tactical systems for longer-range shooting. The Nikoplex post tips subtend right @ 2 IHPY @ 18X from center, and should be well suited for decent windage reference to intermediate range (and just perfect for reticle ranging).
Mil-dot is not offered in that scope-- only the abovementioned reticles. Coincidentally the mil-dot dots in the Monarch 6.5-20X subtend the same as your FCH dot does (@ 20X).
I highly suggest getting the catalogs for scope and reticle specs for Leupold, Nikon, Weaver, Sightron, and Burris as they're really the only 1's (of the more popular brands) that have a good specs pg.
Last edited:
Oh, and BTW 6-06, with that rig, scope, a good rangefinder, a cheapo wind meter, and a good "tactical" system established for it (and a good spotter certainly helps) 400 yds is a chip shot for any shooter. That cartridge is tailor-made to shoot small tgts. at long-range.
Last edited:
me
New member
Quote:
Oh, and BTW 6-06, with that rig, scope, a good rangefinder, a cheapo wind meter, and a good "tactical" system established for it (and a good spotter certainly helps) 400 yds is a chip shot for any shooter.
What? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
No swiss army knife??? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Oh, and BTW 6-06, with that rig, scope, a good rangefinder, a cheapo wind meter, and a good "tactical" system established for it (and a good spotter certainly helps) 400 yds is a chip shot for any shooter.
What? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
No swiss army knife??? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
nomosendero
New member
Sorry Jack, I was being a bit lazy & assumed everyone knew &
I shouldn't have done that.
I shouldn't have done that.
6mm06
Well-known member
Well, I have a Leica 1200 Rangefinder, which should do the job just fine. I think, after looking at all reticles and listening to everyone, that the good old plex reticle will be hard to beat.
This is getting off subject slightly, but still on the subject of target scopes - Do you count clicks and do actual field testing at various distances, or do you convert the trajectory of particular rifle to MOA? Once you know the distance to a particular target, what process do you go through to adjust properly? I'm anxious to learn more about that process and what you do to make appropriate adjustments.
As far as shooting 400 yards, well, that is a chip shot. The farms I hunt really don't offer much more distance than that, some have a little over 500 yards, but most of my shooting will be under 400, this due to the circumstances of the terrain itself.
This is getting off subject slightly, but still on the subject of target scopes - Do you count clicks and do actual field testing at various distances, or do you convert the trajectory of particular rifle to MOA? Once you know the distance to a particular target, what process do you go through to adjust properly? I'm anxious to learn more about that process and what you do to make appropriate adjustments.
As far as shooting 400 yards, well, that is a chip shot. The farms I hunt really don't offer much more distance than that, some have a little over 500 yards, but most of my shooting will be under 400, this due to the circumstances of the terrain itself.
BuzzBee
New member
6mm06,
After reading your original post, I would like to point something out to you; the adjustment on the side of that scope actually is the parallax adjustment. It's very obvious the sight becomes clear when we turn this knobs one direction or the other, there is only a few truly understand the parallax and focus adjustment, that includes some of the so called scope experts, think about how many times you’ve read in the magazine the columnist doing the write-up would mislead the readers by refering it as the focus adjustment. On most of earlier models this feature is located on the bell portion of the scope, much like a telegraphic photo lends; consequently most of the people think that what that is. I have seen target shooters reduce their group by as much as 40% after setting the parallax correctly. Here is an article I found on another site, I hope it can you better understand this mystery in rifle scopes.
http://www.larrywillis.com/tip015.html
After reading your original post, I would like to point something out to you; the adjustment on the side of that scope actually is the parallax adjustment. It's very obvious the sight becomes clear when we turn this knobs one direction or the other, there is only a few truly understand the parallax and focus adjustment, that includes some of the so called scope experts, think about how many times you’ve read in the magazine the columnist doing the write-up would mislead the readers by refering it as the focus adjustment. On most of earlier models this feature is located on the bell portion of the scope, much like a telegraphic photo lends; consequently most of the people think that what that is. I have seen target shooters reduce their group by as much as 40% after setting the parallax correctly. Here is an article I found on another site, I hope it can you better understand this mystery in rifle scopes.
http://www.larrywillis.com/tip015.html
6mm06
Well-known member
BuzzBee,
I don't know why they call it a focus adjustment. I did realize that it is a parallax adjustment. The actual focus on the 6x18 Nikon, from my understanding, is a quick focus on the eyepiece.
You are very correct that not having proper parallax will decrease accuracy quite a lot. And, not all scopes are calibrated to the parallax range they so indicate on the dial, or so I have witnessed. I bought a brand new Leupold 4x12 A/O years ago and the parallax was way off the mark. I sent it back and they repaired it.
I don't know why they call it a focus adjustment. I did realize that it is a parallax adjustment. The actual focus on the 6x18 Nikon, from my understanding, is a quick focus on the eyepiece.
You are very correct that not having proper parallax will decrease accuracy quite a lot. And, not all scopes are calibrated to the parallax range they so indicate on the dial, or so I have witnessed. I bought a brand new Leupold 4x12 A/O years ago and the parallax was way off the mark. I sent it back and they repaired it.
What i do is run the ballistics program for whatever load i'm using. Once your rig is sighted in then loosen the allens on the turret and rotate to zero, then retighten. The shaft is calibrated for rotations and the turret housing (on that scope) is calibrated for 1/8th MOA (should be 8 clicks between #'s).
That turret should be accurate and repeatable,a s it has a reputation for being so. This can be checked but beyond the scope of this writeup for now.
Now go out and check the ballistics program calcs for accuracy at several different ranges. Suppose it says that u should be 4 MOA low @ 400 yds. and u find you're actually 20" low. Divide that # by 4 and u get 5 inch per hundred yds. (IPHY). To convert to MOA now just divide by 1.05 since there is 1.05 IPHY per 1 MOA. This means u're actually 4.8 MOA low instead of the calc'd 4 MOA. Now do this at several other yardages to find out what the correction should be. Now rerun the ballistics program changing muzzle velocity or bullet BC until the computed trajectory matches the actual trajectory. Now you're set FOR THOSE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS you're shooting in. Now check the program for +/- 10 degree variation, and see if there's a big difference in long-range "dope". Usually it's not too different to 500 yds. +/-. BP won't make a huge difference either to those shorter ranges. now put the info on a range card (or sticker) in 25 or 50 yd. intervals, and you're set. The scope's mounting system is important too, but probably won't make a lot of difference for now out to only 500 yds. since u have 50 MOA of adjustment range with it.
For windage, Radio Shack carries a small wind meter (anemometer) for about $25, and i think Midway has 1 too now that's pretty cheap. The ballistics prgram will calculate wind deflection in 10 mph @ 3 (or 9) o'clock in MOA also. Suppose at 300 yds. your windage is 1.5 MOA. That plex reticle subtends 2 MOA either side of the reticle's axis (@ 18X only). Just divide 1.5 by 2 and you've calculated the reference @ .75 of a "plex unit". Now do the same for all the 25 or 50 yd. intervals just like your vertical trajectory, and you're covered, and note it on your range card. Winds from 1,5,7,11 o'clock r not 33% of "full value". They're generally about 60%, and winds from 2,4,8,10 r usually about 80-90% (something to keep in mind). These r very general comps here, but they'll work to some degree. The best way to describe windage that i've ever heard is "stirring the cauldron", but it can be stirred with a degree of consistency to the short to intermediate ranges that'll surprise you once u start to apply this stuff afield...and why not?? Shooting woodchucks allows u time to apply a system like this, and before u know it, it'll become second nature, and u'll be able to do it faster the more experience u have. That in a nutshell is how it works.
Try it-- it's a kick getting that 1st shot on tgt. that'll frankly blow your buddies minds-- still blows mine every time i see it happen.
Reticle rangefinding is a little more complicated but can be done with a fair degree of accuracy (with your plex reticle), but again beyond the scope of this writeup.
That turret should be accurate and repeatable,a s it has a reputation for being so. This can be checked but beyond the scope of this writeup for now.
Now go out and check the ballistics program calcs for accuracy at several different ranges. Suppose it says that u should be 4 MOA low @ 400 yds. and u find you're actually 20" low. Divide that # by 4 and u get 5 inch per hundred yds. (IPHY). To convert to MOA now just divide by 1.05 since there is 1.05 IPHY per 1 MOA. This means u're actually 4.8 MOA low instead of the calc'd 4 MOA. Now do this at several other yardages to find out what the correction should be. Now rerun the ballistics program changing muzzle velocity or bullet BC until the computed trajectory matches the actual trajectory. Now you're set FOR THOSE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS you're shooting in. Now check the program for +/- 10 degree variation, and see if there's a big difference in long-range "dope". Usually it's not too different to 500 yds. +/-. BP won't make a huge difference either to those shorter ranges. now put the info on a range card (or sticker) in 25 or 50 yd. intervals, and you're set. The scope's mounting system is important too, but probably won't make a lot of difference for now out to only 500 yds. since u have 50 MOA of adjustment range with it.
For windage, Radio Shack carries a small wind meter (anemometer) for about $25, and i think Midway has 1 too now that's pretty cheap. The ballistics prgram will calculate wind deflection in 10 mph @ 3 (or 9) o'clock in MOA also. Suppose at 300 yds. your windage is 1.5 MOA. That plex reticle subtends 2 MOA either side of the reticle's axis (@ 18X only). Just divide 1.5 by 2 and you've calculated the reference @ .75 of a "plex unit". Now do the same for all the 25 or 50 yd. intervals just like your vertical trajectory, and you're covered, and note it on your range card. Winds from 1,5,7,11 o'clock r not 33% of "full value". They're generally about 60%, and winds from 2,4,8,10 r usually about 80-90% (something to keep in mind). These r very general comps here, but they'll work to some degree. The best way to describe windage that i've ever heard is "stirring the cauldron", but it can be stirred with a degree of consistency to the short to intermediate ranges that'll surprise you once u start to apply this stuff afield...and why not?? Shooting woodchucks allows u time to apply a system like this, and before u know it, it'll become second nature, and u'll be able to do it faster the more experience u have. That in a nutshell is how it works.
Try it-- it's a kick getting that 1st shot on tgt. that'll frankly blow your buddies minds-- still blows mine every time i see it happen.
Reticle rangefinding is a little more complicated but can be done with a fair degree of accuracy (with your plex reticle), but again beyond the scope of this writeup.
Last edited:
6mm-06:
Here's my $.02 on the subject - although there are guys who have a heck of a lot more experience on this subject than me I thought I'd throw in my recent field experience with a bunch of different reticles.
I was on a PD shoot in S.D. this spring and between myself, my dad and my brother we had quite a few different scope, reticle and rifle combinations to try out. If I was picking one that I didn't want to mess around with target turrets I would pick the Leupold Varmint reticle by a long shot over a mil-dot. I found that trying to use the dots to hold off for windage and elevation (I know that's not their actual purpose, but that's what we are talking about here) was very difficult on long shots as you had to imagine the place they would intersect in your head and try to repeat it shot after shot when walking rounds in. Conversely, the Leupold Varmint Reticle has multiple horizontal crosshairs and dots that extend out on the same plane, which makes shots that have a lot of holdover and windage much easier.
That being said I actually found that the set-up that was the most accurate for me was using my target turrets on my Leupold Tactical to dial into a dead zero for each distance and windage. This is fairly easy to for drop if you have a range that goes out that far, but doing it for the windage in advance would take a heck of a lot of time. In my case, I was just shooting at PD's and could walk them in under the real field circumstances so it wasn't a big deal. Once you knew it took X clicks up and y clicks over at a certain distance (determined with the good old Leica rangefinder) you had that shot doped out for good. The only real issue I had was that my scope is 1/4 MOA and at some of the really long distances on something as small as a PD one click was too much. If you had some kind of wind meter and recorded all the info relative to the wind over time I think you could make up a pretty good range card for a certain rifle and load.
I also had the chance to use my brothers Nikon Buckmaster in 4.5x15 SF and I really liked the scope a lot. I am a bit of a Leupold fanatic, but I have to admit that the Nikon was sharp and clear and I loved the side focus. He just had the standard reticle which was not good for what we were doing and although it has finger adjustable elevation and windage dials, they don't have a resettable zero scale which is less than ideal. However, I have checked out the 6x18 SF with the target dot and it has full blown target turrets with resettable zero scales and is 1/8 MOA which would be great for what I was doing. The target dot and crosshairs are very fine - they would be great for long distance target shooting (although a little too fine for quick acquisition in hunting situations - can't have everything). I am seriously considering this scope for my new Browning Varmint Stalker in .204 Ruger.
Overall, my vote is for a fine cross hair or target dot with target turrets and a good old index card with the clicks for your rifle and load. Trying to keep all that other info re: specilaized reticles straight in your head (since it won't match your rifle and load exactly as descrbed in the brochure)seems too much like work to me.
Hope this helps-
Here's my $.02 on the subject - although there are guys who have a heck of a lot more experience on this subject than me I thought I'd throw in my recent field experience with a bunch of different reticles.
I was on a PD shoot in S.D. this spring and between myself, my dad and my brother we had quite a few different scope, reticle and rifle combinations to try out. If I was picking one that I didn't want to mess around with target turrets I would pick the Leupold Varmint reticle by a long shot over a mil-dot. I found that trying to use the dots to hold off for windage and elevation (I know that's not their actual purpose, but that's what we are talking about here) was very difficult on long shots as you had to imagine the place they would intersect in your head and try to repeat it shot after shot when walking rounds in. Conversely, the Leupold Varmint Reticle has multiple horizontal crosshairs and dots that extend out on the same plane, which makes shots that have a lot of holdover and windage much easier.
That being said I actually found that the set-up that was the most accurate for me was using my target turrets on my Leupold Tactical to dial into a dead zero for each distance and windage. This is fairly easy to for drop if you have a range that goes out that far, but doing it for the windage in advance would take a heck of a lot of time. In my case, I was just shooting at PD's and could walk them in under the real field circumstances so it wasn't a big deal. Once you knew it took X clicks up and y clicks over at a certain distance (determined with the good old Leica rangefinder) you had that shot doped out for good. The only real issue I had was that my scope is 1/4 MOA and at some of the really long distances on something as small as a PD one click was too much. If you had some kind of wind meter and recorded all the info relative to the wind over time I think you could make up a pretty good range card for a certain rifle and load.
I also had the chance to use my brothers Nikon Buckmaster in 4.5x15 SF and I really liked the scope a lot. I am a bit of a Leupold fanatic, but I have to admit that the Nikon was sharp and clear and I loved the side focus. He just had the standard reticle which was not good for what we were doing and although it has finger adjustable elevation and windage dials, they don't have a resettable zero scale which is less than ideal. However, I have checked out the 6x18 SF with the target dot and it has full blown target turrets with resettable zero scales and is 1/8 MOA which would be great for what I was doing. The target dot and crosshairs are very fine - they would be great for long distance target shooting (although a little too fine for quick acquisition in hunting situations - can't have everything). I am seriously considering this scope for my new Browning Varmint Stalker in .204 Ruger.
Overall, my vote is for a fine cross hair or target dot with target turrets and a good old index card with the clicks for your rifle and load. Trying to keep all that other info re: specilaized reticles straight in your head (since it won't match your rifle and load exactly as descrbed in the brochure)seems too much like work to me.
Hope this helps-
Goody's system is definitely another way to go. There r several ways to skin this cat. My partner always runs clicks for windage. I never do, but clicking is a simpler system, and easier for follow-up shooting, no question.
I also have the Varmint Hunter reticle , and just love it-- and for the exact reason he describes. Since it's a ballistic reticle i apply the reticle for both horizontal as well as vertical trajectory compensation-- BUT my load doesn't match up to the "10 and 20 mph" windage stadia. My load calculates to right at .6 of the 10 mph stadia to long-range, so i really have to interpolate the same as if i were using a plex reticle. The system that i describe is an accurate one once you learn to apply it "tactically". In other words when u take the shot u must consciously be thinking to yourself that this shot is going to be .6 of the "stadia unit." Then if you're off, your spotter will say 5" left. The next shot will need to be consciously referred to as .7 (or whatever).This kind of shooting (interpolation) is exactly the same as the system applied by mil-dot users for ranging, which WITH PRACTICE is very accurate and repeatable. I've proven this several times by shooting small gps. at long-range using an interpolative zero, as well as telling a partner-- "OK aim .4 of the distance between 2nd and 3rd stadia, and .6 stadia unit left" on small silhouettes at intermediate range. One thing's for sure, if u learn all the systems, u will never look at a tgt. turret or plex/custom/ballistic/ranging reticle the same way again, plus it will allow u to apply a "tactical" system to other scopes u may have that don't have turrets, or conversely apply the turrets with a FCH, i.e. it makes u a flexible tactical-type shooter. Either way will provide the most accurate system of reference to get the 1st shot on tgt. at long-range with a higher degree of probability than Kentucky Windage/Elevation-- WHEN TIME ALLOWS IT TO BE APPLIED.
I also have the Varmint Hunter reticle , and just love it-- and for the exact reason he describes. Since it's a ballistic reticle i apply the reticle for both horizontal as well as vertical trajectory compensation-- BUT my load doesn't match up to the "10 and 20 mph" windage stadia. My load calculates to right at .6 of the 10 mph stadia to long-range, so i really have to interpolate the same as if i were using a plex reticle. The system that i describe is an accurate one once you learn to apply it "tactically". In other words when u take the shot u must consciously be thinking to yourself that this shot is going to be .6 of the "stadia unit." Then if you're off, your spotter will say 5" left. The next shot will need to be consciously referred to as .7 (or whatever).This kind of shooting (interpolation) is exactly the same as the system applied by mil-dot users for ranging, which WITH PRACTICE is very accurate and repeatable. I've proven this several times by shooting small gps. at long-range using an interpolative zero, as well as telling a partner-- "OK aim .4 of the distance between 2nd and 3rd stadia, and .6 stadia unit left" on small silhouettes at intermediate range. One thing's for sure, if u learn all the systems, u will never look at a tgt. turret or plex/custom/ballistic/ranging reticle the same way again, plus it will allow u to apply a "tactical" system to other scopes u may have that don't have turrets, or conversely apply the turrets with a FCH, i.e. it makes u a flexible tactical-type shooter. Either way will provide the most accurate system of reference to get the 1st shot on tgt. at long-range with a higher degree of probability than Kentucky Windage/Elevation-- WHEN TIME ALLOWS IT TO BE APPLIED.
nomosendero
New member
Yes, you are right the Mil-Dots cover small targets & this is why I like the idea of the circles. And clicking up is great, I would prefer to use in this case the circles up to
5-600 yards on Coyotes or bigger animals & out to maybe 400 or so with small Varmits like PD & click up for the longer
shots, the longer shots take longer to perform anyway &
the clicks will offer the extra precision needed for those.
5-600 yards on Coyotes or bigger animals & out to maybe 400 or so with small Varmits like PD & click up for the longer
shots, the longer shots take longer to perform anyway &
the clicks will offer the extra precision needed for those.
6mm06
Well-known member
Goody523,
Do you know how much area the dot on the 6x18 Nikon will cover? You mentioned that it and the crosshairs are very fine. I am just curious how much the dot might cover. I prefer that it is fine for long range work since that is my main purpose for the scope. If I can get the clicks right, then I think I would prefer this system over the circles. I definitely want target turrents. I think the Nikon 6x18 is the one I will get, with target turrents. The biggest consideration I have had is which reticle to get.
Do you know how much area the dot on the 6x18 Nikon will cover? You mentioned that it and the crosshairs are very fine. I am just curious how much the dot might cover. I prefer that it is fine for long range work since that is my main purpose for the scope. If I can get the clicks right, then I think I would prefer this system over the circles. I definitely want target turrents. I think the Nikon 6x18 is the one I will get, with target turrents. The biggest consideration I have had is which reticle to get.
The 6.5-20X Monarch mil-dot dot to dot subtends only 2.16 IPHY @ 20X and at 600 yds. that's less than 2X the length of a laying pr. dog which should be very easy to reference windage. The dot itself is .43 IPHY in diameter, which is only 2.6" at 600 yds. This reticle in the 2nd focal plane along with the .125 IPHY turrets provides a world of flexibility for the precision shooter, IMO. That's the 1 i'd get if i had the $.
Last edited:
I don't know how fine it is - I suppose the catalog says so if you can find it, but I will say this: from a practical point of view I don't think you could see it if it was much smaller. It is very small, which is exactly what I would want from a scope with this purpose in life. I am pretty sure my .204 will be wearing one of these soon, much to the chagrin of all the Leupold's in the safe.
6mm06
Well-known member
Well, I finally made a decision and took he "plunge" today and ordered the Nikon. After listening to everyone's comments and trying to understand the dot reticle better, I decided to stay with what I know best, so I ordered the Nikoplex reticle in the Buckmasters 6x18x40 with side focus. I still like the idea of a dot, but was just too afraid it might not serve me well at long range. And too, the dot will become larger as the power decreases. Perhaps I'll try a dot down the road sometime, but for now I'll just use the good old plex reticle.
I feel really good about all the input I got from everyone, that the Nikon is a good scope. I am very anxious to get it mounted and out to the groundhog fields. I'll keep everyone posted.
Thanks guys for all the info and time you took to explain about reticles etc. I really do appreciate that.
Good shooting to all.
I feel really good about all the input I got from everyone, that the Nikon is a good scope. I am very anxious to get it mounted and out to the groundhog fields. I'll keep everyone posted.
Thanks guys for all the info and time you took to explain about reticles etc. I really do appreciate that.
Good shooting to all.