Is there a "hard use" grade variable scope with BDC for 223/556?

[PD Sgt.]

I am a little surprised no one has mentioned Nightforce. I believe their "Velocity" reticles are set up as BDC reticles. Very good, very rugged scopes. I currently have a 2.5-10x 24mm and love it.

I agree though that mil based scopes are much more versatile across the board.

[AverajeJo]

Nightforce is a fine optic.

[joedirt199]

I have the weaver tactical 1-5 and it's built like a tank. FFP, BDC reticle capped terrets with easy zero set dials. The caps also hold extra batteries for the lighted reticle. Wideners has the cheapest price I have seen on them. Little over $600. I have not put mine through anything I would call rigorous but it feels like it could hold up in tough conditions.

[dramabeats]

I ran my Vortex PST 1-4x over with a four wheeler and it still held zero, I'd say it's rugged enough.

[sidewaysil80]

BDC fixed is easily the ACOG, but if you must have a variable I would go with the Vortex. They have built a huge reputation on durability and customer service.

[Singlestack Wonder]

I have the weaver tactical 1-5 and it's built like a tank. FFP, BDC reticle capped terrets with easy zero set dials. The caps also hold extra batteries for the lighted reticle. Wideners has the cheapest price I have seen on them. Little over $600. I have not put mine through anything I would call rigorous but it feels like it could hold up in tough conditions.

Weaver and "hard use" shouldn't be used in the same sentence....

[NongShim]

Agreed the Elcan is fundamentally flawed.

Many professional shooters agree with your opinion on Mils, but I lean towards the BDC side.

In theory a scope with mil indications is more flexible for different calibers and if you have a rangefinder and the time to use it you can take a more exact shot. However if you don't have a rangefinder or don't have time to use it, you must access your higher brain functions in a potentially tense situation whether due to buck fever or being shot at. Plus what you don't typically see on mil reticles like the TMR or mildot is holdover points out in the lower left and right quadrants for wind. Yes you can get that with a Horus reticle, but I don't see many of those in 6x and lower carbine optics. If you've got to hold much wind at all it can be very difficult to hold for a 400m shot and exactly 10 or 20 mph wind which would be pretty easy with a CMR-W in the Mk6.

Add to this that the ballistic difference between bullet weights using a 200m zero is usually an MOA or less at 5.56 distances and a BDC reticle starts to look pretty good. If you're willing to put in the time it takes to learn your holds in Mils you can also learn to compensate for whatever small ballistic differences there are between your reticle and real world performance, provided one can shoot well enough to tell the difference.

If "close enough" isn't good enough you can always get a custom BDC dial made exactly to the load/rifle you want. It works whether your reticle is in mils or a BDC. If precision shooting at distance is a high priority then a 4x or 6x optic and an AR is not going to make you happy no matter what scope/reticle you go with.

To the OP, the pattern I have seen is the more sophisticated/experienced shooters tend to prefer mils, beginners tend to prefer BDC. Look where you are in that spectrum when you make your decision.

I am with you, BDC is easier to use. I have used both BDC and mils for real work. Mils take more practice.

If I don't misunderstand you, you are flawed in several areas. Mils are incredibly useful for ranging and with practice can reduce or eliminate the need for a laser range finder. BDC reticles are based in MOA which makes them harder for most people to use for range estimation when the object intended for ranging is not presented. Perfect example is ACOG, which uses the width of a man's shoulders for each sub line on the BDC. If you don't have shoulders to bracket, ranging is tough. With mils a shooter can measure any object near target of a known size, including other parts of the anatomy.

As a far as a custom BDC dial goes, that doesn't apply to a BDC reticle. The whole point of a BDC reticle is to zero at one range and just do holds for everything else rather than dialing. That is what makes it so easy and fast.

Once again we agree that with a 200m zero, most loads are SIMILARish in trajectories. However, most BDCs call for a 100m zero to jive with the rest of the holds. 100m zeros are great for certain things, but have sharp drops after 100m and differences in loads are more obvious at farther ranges. What I was really getting at though with my comment about the versatility of a mil reticle is that you can use one scope on multiple caliber guns. That means a thrifty guy can use the same scope on his 5.56, .308, .300blk, etc.. Re-zero or just use the knobs to apply various logged adjustments for each respective gun and you're in business.

If I misunderstood the meaning of your comments and that is what you were saying, apologies and disregard the above.

Apologies for bad grammar, syntax and disjointed thoughts...pecking on the ipad is tough.

[Hochsitz]

NongShim, I very much appreciate your candor and will do my best to clarify MY understanding of the issues you mention. I hate when these things turn into an argument and I can tell that's not what you're after. Here goes...

Mils are incredibly useful for ranging and with practice can reduce or eliminate the need for a laser range finder.

100% agree, I was trying to make the point that you need practice to the point where you can execute under fire. That's tough for most people on this forum and especially for the 19 yr old recruit who's only had 200 rds of practice before heading to theater.

BDC reticles are based in MOA

Not sure I agree. BDC reticles subtend whatever the size of the object is as well as the drop at that distance regardless of units. Plus I can reference the Mark 6 1-6 BDC reticle that the numbers next to the shoulder width indications are for meters not yards. If it was calculated in mils or MOA the difference would be a rounding error too small to measure.

which makes them harder for most people to use for range estimation when the object intended for ranging is not presented. Perfect example is ACOG, which uses the width of a man's shoulders for each sub line on the BDC. If you don't have shoulders to bracket, ranging is tough. With mils a shooter can measure any object near target of a known size, including other parts of the anatomy.

Agreed. I'll again reference the scope I have the most experience with, the Mark 6 1-6, that has a BDC reticle but also horizontal and vertical mil scales in case you need them and have the training to do so, something the ACOG no longer offers because they can't keep them in focus at the same diopter due to the design. You brought up the limitations of the ACOG BDC so I'm pointing out why their reticle doesn't have some features you desire (not just a cheap shot at ACOG).

As a far as a custom BDC dial goes, that doesn't apply to a BDC reticle.

Nothing about a BDC reticle prevents the user from dialing distance and using the center aiming point if that is what they prefer. I did have someone tell me they thought they could dial 5 mils then use their BDC for the rest which is total BS. I could see a case where the person's primary function for that optic is a certain weapon/caliber and they prefer a BDC. Then they manage to scrape together enough cash for a 300 blk but not another optic and decide to opt for a 300 blk dial. Or maybe their BDC is for supersonic and they have a dial for subsonic. Granted it's not ideal, but it would technically work, agreed?

However, most BDCs call for a 100m zero to jive with the rest of the holds.

I don't have data on how prolific the zeros are, I know my Mark 6 is designed for a 200m zero.

100m zeros are great for certain things, but have sharp drops after 100m and differences in loads are more obvious at farther ranges. What I was really getting at though with my comment about the versatility of a mil reticle is that you can use one scope on multiple caliber guns. That means a thrifty guy can use the same scope on his 5.56, .308, .300blk, etc.. Re-zero or just use the knobs to apply various logged adjustments for each respective gun and you're in business.

Totally agree. My opening comment stated mil reticles are more flexible for different calibers.

Obviously you're a more sophisticated/highly trained user that represents a very small percentage of the customer base for these optics. The OP appears to be relatively new, looking for advice. Given your knowledge and real world experience, would you still recommend non-BDC for that customer given he can indeed get a 200meter zero BDC reticle with "similarish" holds and mil scales for measuring those non-torso targets?

Nothing but respect for you NongShim, just trying to clarify where you believe I am "flawed in several areas" ouch...sounds like that girl that broke up with me in high school. You sure that's not you?

[NongShim]

BDC reticles are generally based in MOA. Having the BDC in yard or meter increments has zero to do with whether or not it is based in MOA. Like mils, MOA are simply a unit measure of angular deviation, just like degrees. Being a metric or standard graduated reticle has no bearing on that. Yes, BDC reticles use some known object to estimate range, like the shoulders you mentioned. They do this by figuring out how many MOA cover the prescribed number of inches at a given range, and making the bracketing device that size. Trijicon, Vortex, Bushnell, USO, Elcan, and others use this method. For example, your bracket for 18-19" which is fairly standard, is 9ish MOA at 200, 5.5ish at 300, etc.. Your MK6 is unique in that it incorporates mils and MOA. It is one of the more sophisticated BDC reticles and one of the best.

A person can dial on a BDC dial while still using a BDC reticle, but the whole point of having holds built into the reticle is to avoid having to dial which is slow. Even if you had a custom dial, that wouldn't change your reticle spacing values. Whatever the spacing (which is usually based in MOA) between your 200 and 300 lines are isn't going to change, which is what matters. So if you put a 300blk or 308 dial on your 5.56CMR-W, it won't change the holds. The holds are still graduated for whatever 5.56 load they were calibrated for.

Those are the areas where your understanding is flawed. Not a dig on you, just trying to help. You're right that I am not being argumentative.

The BDC stuff is much easier and faster. The CMR-W certainly has a lot going for it if BDC is what someone wants. For most a BDC is the best answer. However I'll raise you this point to consider. Do you buy as many weights as you can lift now, or do you buy as many as you want to lift as you train and gain?

[Hochsitz]

I still don't understand how you can say a BDC reticle is based in MOA. Where are you getting your information from? "They do this by figuring out how many MOA cover the prescribed number of inches". Nope. The optical engineer figures out how many microns wide and long the features have to be on the reticle to subtend the size of the shoulders. What units the shoulders were measured in is irrelevant, just like this part of the discussion that is based on your response to my original email.

"the whole point of having holds built into the reticle is to avoid having to dial which is slow". YES, YES, YES, and so is using mils for someone who is not as trained as you are. That's all I was saying in my original post.

As a person on a budget I can appreciate the flexibility of a one-scope-fits-all mentality, but it also means I'm still working off the same AR-15 5 years after I bought it. Given the scope hasn't moved off that rifle that it is calibrated for, would I have been better off with an optic that is built for everything? I'll let the OP decide for himself.

If you still believe my thinking is flawed, please quote whatever statement I made that is flawed. I didn't say the reticle holds would change with caliber, I said with a 200 yard/meter zero the holds are not all that different out to the 600m effective range of the 5.56 cartridge. You agreed in your response they were "similarish" right?

I honestly can't tell if we disagree, have differing opinions, or have simply absorbed so much lead from handling ammunition over the years that neither of us can comprehend the other's statements. The whole purpose here is to provide the OP and others with information they didn't have. Shall we move on and let them make up their minds with what they've read? Thanks for your input on this post, you clearly understand your optics and weapons better than the average user.