BDC Cams

Any chance of getting 6.5 Grendel BDC cams made for IOR Valdada or other scopes with BDCs? You could put worse optics on a Grendel than an IOR M1, M2 or Super M2 with a dedicated BDC cam.

Depending on which load you shoot a cam for the 308 and a 165 grain hunting bullet should be really close
For the 123 grain factory loading a 308 & 175 Matchking cam is real close out to 800 yards.

Yep. That came up in the "Project ACOG" thread. I'm building a launcher for Mk262 seconds and similar loads and am thinking about using an ACOG with the 7.62 reticle, because I've read Mk262 is a close match, too. (The barrel for which I ordered shortly before the 65 Grendel bolt and barrels sets became available, but that's another story :( )

I just think it would be great if more manufacturers offered interchangeable cams for multiple loads. ATN offers six cams for popular hunting rounds, but I don't know that much about their glass.

Scott of Liberty Optics had this to say about ATN at Sniper's Paradise.

ATN - this will be short and acidic. ATN’s motto should be “Nobody Does Less With More”. Case in point: 72mm objective lens scopes with a nice, fuzzy, yellow tint sight picture. Puh-leeze! If you buy ATN, my advice to you is to remain anonymous for fear of ex-communication from SP.

I've heard the opposite about IOR Valdada. I wish they offered more BDC options.

I've heard the opposite about IOR Valdada. I wish they offered more BDC options.

Essayons:

I would really reconsider using any sort of BDC cam, BDC elevation dial, or ranging stadia like ACOGs, Shephards, etc.

Anything will work just fine to 300 with any modern centerfire cartridge out of anything from a carbine through a Match Rifle in barrel length -- and firing any sort of issued ammunition. There isn't much ballistic difference in ordinate between cartridges to 300 yards or meters -- take your pick. If you are zeroed at 300, most all will give you a hit somewhere on a upper torso size target to 500 using the 500 stadia or the "5" on your BDC or cam. Past 500 yards and you really got to know where what to put on your elevation dial, just like a M-1 optic, if you want to index elevation. Most guys use hold overs from either a 300 or 500. If you want true precision, get a standard M-1 type of turret where you index precise elevation.

Right off the bat I would avoid a cam like the old ART scopes. Not sure if you ever had the pleasure of using one but they were extremely difficult to zero, really didn't hold a zero well, didn't calibrate well, and the cams were exposed to the elements.

I have seen a great number of M-3 optics on 24's in front of my eyes over the last umpteen years and was never really able to figure out if they were calibrated in yards or meters. Yes, the BDCs were all marked "M-118 Meters". I zero up the M-3s at 600 yards Known Distance as our ranges are in yards, and just have everyone slip the elevation to 550 meters. Is plenty fine for closer ranges and we give them an opportunity to get exact zeros to 1000 so they know if they need to add or take off elevation for longer shots.

Most recently, my experiences with ACOGs and M-149 MGO's are once again that given a zero at 300, they will give a hit somewhere on an upper torso to about 450 meters (500 yards). Most optics with fixed stadia for hold overs will tout the cartridge and the type of rifle or carbine. Won't make a bit of difference to 300, probably won't see any difference at 500, will see plenty of difference past 500.

He, he, he. About six months ago we shared our range with some fellows from my old outfit. They brought out the new SPR with a Leupold MR-T and its M-3 BDC. Supposedly calibrated for the 75 grain match load -- maybe the 77 grain load. We zeroed it up on steel at a known distance of 300 meters and the BDC was sufficient for hits on an upper torso to 600 meters using issued M-855 Ball. That Leupold MR-T was so nice I bought one -- with the M-1 turrets thank you! I rarely index elevation when I field fire. I almost always use a hold over from either a 300 or 500 zero.

Just some notes FYI.

LR1955

Greatly appreciate your input, LR. Do you happen to have a favorite type of reticule amongst all the choices out there?

John

http://www.kentonindustries.com/

They will make a BDC knob for almost any scope and will customize it based on your shooters book if you would like.

Why fool around with BDC when you just have to hold over...
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/3646/dsc003147tl.th.jpg (http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc003147tl.jpg)

Why fool around with BDC when you just have to hold over...
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/3646/dsc003147tl.th.jpg (http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc003147tl.jpg)


Ditto, I'll take holdover recticles, my PDA and a laser rangefinder any day of the week. The only thing that I don't like aout holdover recticles is that they are too busy for moving targets.

A BDC cam only works as well as a scope tracks. If a scope doesn't track that well then the cam will become almost useless.

Greatly appreciate your input, LR. Do you happen to have a favorite type of reticule amongst all the choices out there? John


John:

I don't have any favorite reticles. Just some that are easier for my eye to see than others.

I use hold overs for the most part so a standard cross hair with a few stadia at equal spaces are fine. Mil dots and the TMR reticle in the MR-T optic. I still think the TMR reticle has too many lines.

Its kind of like this. A trade off between speed and precision. The faster the optic is to use such as the ACOG, the less precise will be your shot placement. If you need to be more precise at the expense of speed, you will opt for an optic that gives you that precision. They will take more time to get the degree of precision.

I have found the reticles in the ACOGs to be too thick and too hard to see with any degree of precision so I avoid them. It is simply a visual issue with me. I am happier using a MGO on a carbine or rifle as the reticle directs my eyes to the center.

As I have grown accustomed to the M-68 sight over the years, for me a good reticle for field use would be a cross hair with a 1 MOA illuminated dot. Then one horizontal stadia that is ten minutes under the dot and is five minutes wide. Two or three vertical stadia left and right at five minute spacing for leads and wind holds. I figure a vari-X from 3 - 9 or 4 - 12 power would be OK. I would want 1/4 MOA adjustments.

LR1955

Why fool around with BDC when you just have to hold over...
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/3646/dsc003147tl.th.jpg (http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc003147tl.jpg)

Man -- what a great picture.

The reticle is what I would avoid if my life depended on it.

Too much clutter to the eye and situational awareness becomes lost.

Simplicity will focus the eye and the mind.

LR55

I always preferred a hold-over as well. The actual object provides the easiest measure of the amount of elevation needed - at least out to 4-500 yards.

I have loved the red-dot scopes since I first used them almost 20 years ago precisely because the scope is as uncluttered as can possibly be achieved.

My idea of a perfect rifle scope would be a red-dot the scope moves based on a 1000 meter range-finder and Kestral type hand MET station stuck in the ground within BlueTooth or WiFi range. The met station could have a solar-cell "hat" to keep the sun off of it and allow it to be powered in perpetuity. I favor a lawn-dart version that can be air-dropped by cargo planes in advance so MET is known to Distributed Operations and Recon units during infil and exfil and can be used at any time for all direct and indirect fire-support. To keep them hidden they should listen for requests and their datastream should be encrypted based on the pswd de 'jour. With this setup all you need to do is put the dot on the tango and pull the trigger. TIITS would make a single such MET station sharable by a squad, platoon, or entire company.

LR, I don't disagree with you. For those who want a BDC, it would be great to have more options (including 6.5 SPC).

I like IOR Valdada because I keep reading they are great glass for the money. The raves about ACOGs have more to do with form-factor and ruggedness.

I don't remember if I mentioned it in this thread or not, but I plan to use an ACOG with the 7.62x51 reticle on the Mk262 launcher I'm building. I've read it's a pretty good match for Mk262 like loads out of a flattop carbine.

I agree about the clutter issue - one of the things I don't like about the ranging ACOG reticle is the 200 yard (IIRC) line - the top two lines are too close together.

To drift my own thread, has anyone made a laser rangefinding scope that automatically adjusts the reticle or red dot for the range/elevation for a given set of load data? I'm not suggesting anyone bet their lives on such a system. It would provide a clean sight picture, though.

I don't remember if I mentioned it in this thread or not, but I plan to use an ACOG with the 7.62x51 reticle on the Mk262 launcher I'm building. I've read it's a pretty good match for Mk262 like loads out of a flattop carbine. I agree about the clutter issue - one of the things I don't like about the ranging ACOG reticle is the 200 yard (IIRC) line - the top two lines are too close together. To drift my own thread, has anyone made a laser rangefinding scope that automatically adjusts the reticle or red dot for the range/elevation for a given set of load data? I'm not suggesting anyone bet their lives on such a system. It would provide a clean sight picture, though.

Essayons:

Roger -- you did say you wanted to use a 7.62 X 51 reticle pattern for your Mk-262 equal. What I was trying to explain is that it probably has the same chances of working well past about 300 - 400 as a reticle designed around issued M-855, M-193, 7.62 M-80 or M-852 (Federal GM Match 168 gr), Soviet 7,62 X 54 R, etc.

As most shooters are set in their ways, try to get a reticle pattern in 7.62 X 51 that best equates to M-118 Special Ball or M-118 Long Range.

I think the laser thingee you describe was called the "White Feather" program. Not sure if it existed or not but what ever it did, it didn't do well enough to survive. I figure that by the time we have made such a device and made it cheap enough in cost to supply military snipers, the dependence on expanding gas pushing a kinetic energy projectile through a steel tube will have been rendered obsolete by directed energy where you don't need to estimate range, dope wind, or take a lead.

LR1955

I am new to this form so if I am stepping on toes please let me know, but IMHO I think that valdada is the best glass you can get for the money. I was actually at Vals shop this last weekend and they have all sorts of new toys they are releasing.

The two new scopes I really enjoyed and would look at for my 6.5 would be the following.

VALDADA R.D.S. EDGE RED DOT with the 3 power magnifier (which I picked up for my 6.8 spc). These are amazing for the price. I was able to pick up the magnifier and the optic for less than an aimpoint. The ONLY downfall I see is the battery life. On high the batteries last for about 180 hours and on low they last for 800 hours. But for the amount i was able to save, I can afford as many batteries as I want.

I know this sounds bad, but I can not figure out how to shrink the size of the file to upload it. So here is a link instead...if anyone wants to point me in the right direction on how to shrink it, I would be happy to attach the pics.

http://valdada.com/product/81e63ffe-067e-477a-b577-8c2725b2093a.aspx


The other scope I would get is a variation of the 3-18x42 35mm SF Tactical Scope First Focal Plane MP-8 Dot Mod Reticule.

The variation I am talking about deals with how the your adjust for range. The elevation knob is set for distances instead of MOA adjustments. Instead of your standard 1/4 moa adjustment per click, it adjusts for 50 meter increments for a .308. So range your target and turn the elevation knob to the correct elevation. I dont know the exact specs on bullet weight but my guess is that it will be pretty darn close for the 6.5. And it comes with the MP8 reticule. It was amazing. Throw on some of this quick detach scope mounts and you have the ultimate rifle for either short or long range.

I must say that I am bias because IOR is the only scope I will purchase.
I have known the guys at IOR for about 6 years and have never been disappointed with any of their products. I have put scopes from them on rifles ranging from .223 all the way up to 30-378 weatherby. They are amazing and like I said before, I will not buy anything else.

This is just my opinion...

Zeeb,

I had the IR SH 3-18 FFP scope with the modified MP8 reticle. Awesome glass loved the reticle. It's a Heavy scope. I had to goose neck a little too much with my current setup (bolt gun) to get the proper sight picture due to the rear tube for ring mounting being so short. Other than that it was great.

I switched to MILS rather than "MOA" and haven't looked back since. All manufacturer's who use mils are based on the same measurement - Not the case for MOA adjustments on different brands of scopes. Several are actually IPHY (Inch per hundred yards) and not true MOA.

Either way, get a reticle that matches the turret adjustments. SFP/FFP is up to you. Most folks do fine with SFP.