Do you think "clicking" and "holdover" are equally effective methods of aim?

Do you think "clicking" and "holdover" are equally effective methods of aim?

Joined: November 15th, 2007, 4:52 am

November 4th, 2011, 2:34 pm #1

I'm curious to hear what you all think about this especially with some of the new reticles on the market today.
Reply
Share

Joined: March 8th, 2009, 4:24 pm

November 4th, 2011, 2:47 pm #2

proficiency with one or the other. I used holdover only for about a year and a half using an SR 12 reticle. Did pretty well most of the time. I wanted a little more precision so went to a combination of holdover and minimal clicks for fine tuning. That worked pretty well. I recently changed scopes and went to the Hawke tactical half milldot reticle and am using only clicks. I think it is the best solution for me. I have shot a personal best regular match and a personal best State match using it so i have confidence in it.

LD has been using holdover for as long as i have known him and does very well with it but there are others who use clicks to very good effect. If i am not mistaken Doug Miller uses clicks.
Reply
Share

Joined: July 6th, 2002, 8:59 pm

November 4th, 2011, 3:21 pm #3

I'm curious to hear what you all think about this especially with some of the new reticles on the market today.
I'd expect the trick to make holdover (just as) effective is to have a "friendly" reticle.

HookEm
Reply
Share

Joined: December 23rd, 2007, 5:14 pm

November 4th, 2011, 3:25 pm #4

I'm curious to hear what you all think about this especially with some of the new reticles on the market today.
having effective results in matches using mil-dots in Hunter class, I consider holdover marginal for match use in other classes...c
Reply
Share

Joined: March 29th, 2010, 6:51 am

November 4th, 2011, 4:19 pm #5

I'm curious to hear what you all think about this especially with some of the new reticles on the market today.
I believe the trick to accurate shooting with either approach is being able to effectively range your target. Putting that variable behind us, the next hurdle for holdover shooters is the reticle of their scope. If you have a reticle that you can repeatedly measure hold over/under calculations in 0.2 to 0.3 mildot increments you will be successful. The Hawke ½ mildot reticles are a step in the right direction. If I could get a big Nikko or Sightron 60x scope with a reticle with 0.2 mildot markings I think I could match the accuracy of clicking all other things being equal.

So to answer the question, given a scope with good ranging capabilities and the appropriate reticle the results of a match, for me, would be a tossup between holdover and clicking.

Jim in Sacramento
Reply
Share

Joined: May 31st, 2011, 9:43 pm

November 4th, 2011, 4:54 pm #6

I'm curious to hear what you all think about this especially with some of the new reticles on the market today.
from a Nikko 10-50x60 with Nato to 8-32x56 Centerpoint with mildots.. Like Jim said, with real good mildots, one can do well... but this last year I switched to clicking since I had sold all my mildot scopes... I'm using the Nato - Nikko 10-50x60 at 35 power, and on darker targets, I can reduce the power down to 17.5 and use half the click numbers between my zero and what it reads at 35 power... works great!

I made lots of mistakes on revolutions while I was starting out, but now that issue is way less for me. What I like about clicking the most, is being able to hold dead on the cross hairs, (except for windage)

I don't use the programs to figure my click position.. I set up paper targets from 10 to 55 yards at 2 yard increments, and from a bench rest, I shoot ten shots at each distance and note the center of the average. I then mark the sidewheel with the turret numbers... ie 4 lines showing and 5.6 on the turret dial etc.. No charts to look at, when the target is in focus, the correct turret setting is in my face on the sidewheel.. quicker system than a chart... and I can't loose the chart either:-)

Wacky Wayne,
Match Director,
Ashland Air Rifle Range
Reply
Share

Joined: April 19th, 2004, 7:02 pm

November 4th, 2011, 7:35 pm #7

I'm curious to hear what you all think about this especially with some of the new reticles on the market today.
those metal targets don't run away quite as fast....so there is time to click. Sometimes I'll guesstimate yardage, click and shoot because most critters won't allow you time to rangefind.



"Thumper2"
Reply
Share

Joined: August 24th, 2003, 10:09 pm

November 5th, 2011, 1:22 am #8

I'm curious to hear what you all think about this especially with some of the new reticles on the market today.
...but nothing really useful for most airgunning.



I think it has more to do with what someone is used to. Most of us gravitate to the center of the reticle. I have to remind myself to hold off sometimes. But other that that, it can be just as accurate and allows for quicker followup shots if you can spot the miss.

Paul

***********************************************
Map to the FT Park> http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=115 ... AL%2036264
Reply
Share

Joined: November 15th, 2007, 4:52 am

November 5th, 2011, 1:54 am #9

I believe the trick to accurate shooting with either approach is being able to effectively range your target. Putting that variable behind us, the next hurdle for holdover shooters is the reticle of their scope. If you have a reticle that you can repeatedly measure hold over/under calculations in 0.2 to 0.3 mildot increments you will be successful. The Hawke ½ mildot reticles are a step in the right direction. If I could get a big Nikko or Sightron 60x scope with a reticle with 0.2 mildot markings I think I could match the accuracy of clicking all other things being equal.

So to answer the question, given a scope with good ranging capabilities and the appropriate reticle the results of a match, for me, would be a tossup between holdover and clicking.

Jim in Sacramento
With my Simmons 44mag scope. At the lower X-mag your basically using one dot..lol! It forced me to come up with an "integrated holdover" technique which actually worked pretty ok I guess. But I understand what your saying there with the mildot spacing.
Reply
Share

Joined: November 15th, 2007, 4:52 am

November 5th, 2011, 2:06 am #10

...but nothing really useful for most airgunning.



I think it has more to do with what someone is used to. Most of us gravitate to the center of the reticle. I have to remind myself to hold off sometimes. But other that that, it can be just as accurate and allows for quicker followup shots if you can spot the miss.

Paul

***********************************************
Map to the FT Park> http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=115 ... AL%2036264
I wasn't aware they got so complex. But I suppose for long range ballistics that could be pretty articulate once you mapped it all out. Amazing!
Reply
Share