T/C Encore 209x50 using regular scope not ballistic reticle.

[yooper77]

I already had a T/C Encore, so I traded a used blue 24” 30-06 Spring rifle barrel for a used blue 26” 209x50 barrel with walnut forend.  I bought a set of new NON Pro-Hunter standard synthetic black stock that came with a limb saver recoil pad and forend.  I then installed a Weaver 3-9x38mm V-9 Duplex Hunting Riflescope I had on hand with standard Weaver brand high rings and Weaver brand base.  I can also take off the scope in the field to use the open sights.

My final results were 3 Pyrodex pellets and a sabot 240 grain Hornady XTP pistol bullet.  I sighted in at 3 inches high at 100 yards and at 200 yards I was approx 4 inches low.  I know now I can simple hold on hair out to 200 yards with complete confidence.

I use this same 3 inches high at 100 yards for my big game center fire rifles, and I don’t see a need for the ballistic reticle, plus some shots I know I wouldn’t have had enough time to see these lines or circles.

How does everyone else think of ballistic muzzleloader scopes?

yooper77

[jjas]

Yooper77,

The way I look @ it is this.  If you need a ballistic plex reticle with the rainbow trajectory of muzzleloaders and/or slug guns then you are probably lobbing bullets @ deer. 

A realistic ranges for muzzleloaders and slug guns a standard plex reticle will work just fine.  It comes down to practice and knowing your gun/load combination @ these ranges instead of relying on another marketing gimmick.

Jim

[Redhawk1]

I don't use the BDC scope any longer, not because they don't work. I just did not want to replace my scopes  (Leupold's) with them.

I did set up an Encore with the Nikon Omega scope and used 120 gr. of loose triple 7 powder and T/C 250 gr.  bonded shockwave bullets, and the gun was a tack driver and the BDC worked like a charm. I sold that set up to my buddy when I got my Savage Smokeless, and it is a true 200 yards muzzleloader.

Sorry but I don't think the BDC is a gimmick at all, they work. What I find is, people that don't understand them or just don't want to use them, write them off as gimmicks.

[AndyHass]

Ballistic scopes will rarely be accurate for an individual rifle.  You will be holding high or low.  I don't like that, I like precision, holding right where I want the bullet to hit.  I have a tactical scope on my workhorse muzzleloader so I dial the exact drop for the range my laser rangefinder tells me.  Through extensive shooting I know this all the way to 400 yds.  4-for-4 on bang-flops last year can't be wrong.

[jjas]

Sorry Redhawk1 (and with all due respect), I still think a bdc reticle for the average hunter can cause more problems that what it solves.   

For example.  The Omega bdc reticle is set up for 150 grains of pyrodex and a 250 grain bullet.  What if the guy is shooting a 250 grain bullet and 100 grains of 777.  Suddenly those little circles don't equate to the yardages that are advertised (and they shouldn't).  That means you have to take the time to determine what yardage each little circle equates to and remember what they are. 

For a slug gun it's even worse.  Most are 125 yard guns before the accuracy falls to pieces.  The BDC slughunter reticle is set up to shoot hornady's sst 12 gauge loads.  If you use that load (or a similar one) that fine.   But if you use a lightfield or a copper solid the trajectories are all different and again, it's off to the range to determine what all the little circles mean and trying to remember what they mean. 

As AndyHass stated, "Ballistic scopes will rarely be accurate for an individual rifle, you will be holding high or low".

If you are doing that already, why not just use a standard reticle? 

I'm glad you are happy with yours  but in hunting situations (using short range guns like sluggers and muzzleloaders) I'll stick with a standard reticle.  I like to keep it simple.  It rarely fails.

Jim

[youthpastorjon]

I was looking into buying one of the BDC Nikons but I don't see much use in using 150 grains where I live.  They don't work unless you use the precise measurement on the scope box.  Part of the fun with a muzzleloader is playing with powder and bullet weights.  I think yooper has the right idea.  3 inches high at 100 yards and 4 inches low at 200. 

[Redhawk1]

Sorry Redhawk1 (and with all due respect), I still think a bdc reticle for the average hunter can cause more problems that what it solves.   

For example.  The Omega bdc reticle is set up for 150 grains of pyrodex and a 250 grain bullet.  What if the guy is shooting a 250 grain bullet and 100 grains of 777.  Suddenly those little circles don't equate to the yardages that are advertised (and they shouldn't).  That means you have to take the time to determine what yardage each little circle equates to and remember what they are. 

For a slug gun it's even worse.  Most are 125 yard guns before the accuracy falls to pieces.  The BDC slughunter reticle is set up to shoot hornady's sst 12 gauge loads.  If you use that load (or a similar one) that fine.   But if you use a lightfield or a copper solid the trajectories are all different and again, it's off to the range to determine what all the little circles mean and trying to remember what they mean. 

As AndyHass stated, "Ballistic scopes will rarely be accurate for an individual rifle, you will be holding high or low".

If you are doing that already, why not just use a standard reticle? 

I'm glad you are happy with yours  but in hunting situations (using short range guns like sluggers and muzzleloaders) I'll stick with a standard reticle.  I like to keep it simple.  It rarely fails.

Jim

Jim, as you stated the scope is set up to use 150 gr. of powder and 250 gr. bullets. So that is how it should be used, and it works like that. Do not add variables to a simple idea.
If you do not intend to use it as such, it is not the scope you need.

I don't know how anyone can say "Ballistic scopes will rarely be accurate for an individual rifle"  If you get the correct scope for the bullet weight you intend to shoot, it will be dead nuts on.

I am not that anal about using BDC scopes, but I know from actual experience they work. I no longer have any BDC scopes, but I don't think that are inaccurate if used properly.

[30-06man]

Redhawk I couldn't have said it any better. They are also one of the only scopes with a very generous eye relief in their class and they also are wildly used one 45-70's, 300winmags, etc with high recoil. The scopes work and its not like it can't be used without using the the BDC250.

[30-06man]

yooper77 it sounds like you are set up and ready to go.

[yooper77]

Leupold has a new muzzleloaders/shotguns scope with a SA.B.R. (SAbot Ballistics Reticle).

Leupold UltimateSlam Muzzleloader/Shotgun Scope
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/shotgunmuzzleloader-scopes/ultimateslam/

They advertise this scope accurately allows for sabots with 2-pellet or 3-pellet loads and 12 gauge or 20 gauge shotgun loads.

I wonder if this means they use lighter bullets or sight in at a different spot on the reticle.

Anyway, if I were going to try a ballistic reticle scope for my T/C Encore 209x50 then Leupold would be my choice.

I already had the Weaver 3-9x40mm scope on hand and went the cheapest route with bases and rings and got lucky.

I am curious where my bullet would hit with only 2 Pyrodex pellets or some other loose powder charge and different bullet weight.

yooper77

[AndyHass]

Jim, as you stated the scope is set up to use 150 gr. of powder and 250 gr. bullets. So that is how it should be used, and it works like that. Do not add variables to a simple idea.
If you do not intend to use it as such, it is not the scope you need.

I don't know how anyone can say "Ballistic scopes will rarely be accurate for an individual rifle"  If you get the correct scope for the bullet weight you intend to shoot, it will be dead nuts on.

[/quote]

Let me count the ways:

1) You use a gun with a shorter barrel than the one used to develop the reticle
2) You use a different BP or BP sub than the scope dictates
3) You use a bullet of correct weight but significantly different ballistic coefficient than the one the scope was set for.
and my favorite...
4)  Your gun simply will not shoot the required bullet at the required powder charge accurately.

A Nikon Omega scope would be useless on either of my T/C Omegas.  With the supplied sabots on the 250gr bullets I literally need to use a hammer to get them down the barrel, and with a smaller sabot they still lose accuracy at 115 grains.  At the required 150gr charge I'd be shooting about 15-18 inch groups at 300 yds.

[jjas]

Yooper,

I don't see how the Leupold could be any better/worse than Nikon's BDC reticle.  It still is set up for a certain powder/bullet weight load and anything else will not be dead on accurate.  As AndyHass pointed out, even bullets of the same weight could have some differences due to different BC's.

I still say that unless you can live with their prescribed loads (and your gun shoots them well) then you will still have to figure out what yardages the hash marks will represent.  That may work fine for you and best of luck if you choose to go that way.

BTW,  Leupold's scope has less eye relief than Nikon's Omega or Slughunter scope for the same money.  You will give up a bit of FOV with the Nikon, but if you want longer eye relief the Nikon is the way to go.

Jim

[yooper77]

jjas,

I only buy Leupold from now on, just my choice new or used.  I have a few other scopes that are Weaver, Herters and Valor, but the rest are Leupolds.  I have shot my Encore 209x50 on the bench, standing, kneeling, prone, just about any hunting situation and I don't have a problem with my Weaver V9, 3 – 9x40mm scopes eye relief.  I don't plan on ever buying a ballistic reticle scope, but if I did I would be a Leupold.

Weaver V9, Eye Relief 3.25-3"
Leupold Ultimate Slam, Eye Relief 4.2 − 3.7”   
Nikon Omega, Eye Relief 5"
Burris Fullfield II, Eye Relief 3.1-3.8”

I agree with AndyHass, which is exactly what I was thinking when I chose not to buy a ballistic reticle scope.

yooper77

[AndyHass]

If you're looking at Nikon, the Buckmaster 3X9 is a GREAT scope.  When you take the turret covers off, the turrets are hand-turnable and marked for MOA, just like a tactical scope but less bulky.  So if long shots are possible but occasional, you can do it easily with that scope.  I'm told the turrets are supposed to even be waterproof without the cover but I can't verify that myself.  Eye relief is great too.  (ironic that mine is on a CZ453 .22lr, and the Nikon Tactical on my 300WM has short relief! Ouch!)

All those pre-determined scopes are very problematic on MLs.  Centerfire is easier; in my experience trajectories are easier to replicate.  Years ago I bought a Leatherwood range-compensating scope and put in on my Omega.  It took me the whole summer and 300+ shots to get the cams calibrated so that it dialed the trajectory correctly for my load -- and that one WAS tunable for your load, which a reticle-based system is not.  By comparison, I can calibrate a tactical scope from 100 to 400 yds in 2-3 range sessions and maybe 25-30 shots total.

[kyelkhunter3006]

I'm not sure why everyone is making these scopes so complicated.  Everyone says that the hold-over points aren't going to be accurate for every load, which is true to point.  What I mean is that the Burris Ballistic Plex will run the like this for the load they use, a 250gr Barnes/Knight Sabot a muzzle velocity of 2100fps--   Zero at 125yds, then the hash marks rate 150yds, 200 yds, 250yds, and 300yds. 

If you change anything, the hash marks are going to correspond differently.  Obviously, if you zero at 100 yds instead of 125yds, you aren't going to have a 300yd holdover mark.  We all say that you still have to shoot the loads/scope at predetermined ranges to see if they are going to relate, right?  So all you'd need to do is find the ranges where the marks correspond and make a chart for it. 

Decide what you want the center x-hair zeroed at and then shoot at the ranges you expect to encounter and to shoot at so you know where to hold.  If you are + or - an inch or so at any given distance, that isn't going to make a bit of difference in the shot.  If you're + or - 4" at any given distance (for example) then you note that and compensate a bit for it.  Not really any different from using a regular crosshair, but you do have a defined aiming point in the reticle instead of just "holding 'er a bit high".  I guess that what I'm saying is that the type of reticle doesn't matter that much regardless, more of personal preferance to what you want to look through.  Technically, even a regular duplex reticle gives you two or three definded aiming points, the tip of the top point, the center x-hair, and the tip of the the bottom point, you'd just have to shoot and see where the distances are.

Any kind of trajectory compensation system requires knowing the EXACT distance whether from milling with a mil-dot reticle or using a rangefinder.  None of them are going to work with the "looks like 210yds to me" system of ranging.   

[dmurphy317]

I had posted this on another forum and after reading this post, I thought it might help clear some details up.

"I have been atempting to get some info on the basic data that Nikon used when developing the BDC reticle for the Omega scope. I have recieved a response from them but it included a disclaimer about not posting the info to anyone or anywhere else. So, I am not going to give out the specific info they sent me but will give my take on it and the approximate drop data it is based on. Here is what I came up with based on their info and published data.

Bullet             250 grain SST/SW
Velocity          2000 to 2100 fps
Sight In          100 yards for crosshairs
First Circle       Down about 3.4"
Second Circle   Down about 10.5"
Third Circle      Down about 15.5"
Fourth Circle    Down about 22"

All drops are averaged (based on sea level and 5000') and based on the scope being set to 9x and using the center of each circle for the aim point.

Their published remarks suggest 150 grains of powder and a 250 grain bullet but as we all know, every gun is different and the results are not going to always match their results. i.e. I get similar velocity to theirs using 130 grains of pellets in one of my guns.

With this basic info someone can work up an accurate load with any bullet and run a ballistic table to find the ranges for each circle for that load based on drop. Then test it at the range to verify and fine tune based on actual shooting results. Of course you can do this with any ballistic reticle scope if you know the aim point spacing."

It is my opinion that basing a purchase of a BDC scope on a published "load" instead of actual results in a given gun is putting the cart before the horse. No gun is going to match the test gun that was used to develop the drops used in it's development with the exact load, some will come close, others will not. Because of this, it is better to develop a good load and then match the aiming points to the actual yardage that the drop corresponds to.

Also note that the Nikon scope is based on 9x power setting, lower settings don't work at the published yardages. Also, the 250 yard circle is roughly the size of a deers vitals at that range on 9x or about 4 MOA.

I hope this helps clear some questions up, it did for me.

[Redhawk1]

Jim, as you stated the scope is set up to use 150 gr. of powder and 250 gr. bullets. So that is how it should be used, and it works like that. Do not add variables to a simple idea.
If you do not intend to use it as such, it is not the scope you need.

I don't know how anyone can say "Ballistic scopes will rarely be accurate for an individual rifle"  If you get the correct scope for the bullet weight you intend to shoot, it will be dead nuts on.

Let me count the ways:

1) You use a gun with a shorter barrel than the one used to develop the reticle
2) You use a different BP or BP sub than the scope dictates
3) You use a bullet of correct weight but significantly different ballistic coefficient than the one the scope was set for.
and my favorite...
4)  Your gun simply will not shoot the required bullet at the required powder charge accurately.

A Nikon Omega scope would be useless on either of my T/C Omegas.  With the supplied sabots on the 250gr bullets I literally need to use a hammer to get them down the barrel, and with a smaller sabot they still lose accuracy at 115 grains.  At the required 150gr charge I'd be shooting about 15-18 inch groups at 300 yds.
[/quote]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No use discussing it with you any further, you have all the answers.
I guess my actual experience does not count for anything.  4 Encores, and 2 Omega's  I set up, shot like a dream with either the 250 gr. T/C bonded shock waves using either the black sabot or the yellow super glide sabot.  I guess I had the only Encore's and Omega's that will shoot well with the 250 gr. bullets and 120 gr. of loose triple 7 or 3 pellets of triple 7 and the Omega BDC scope .