What's your preferred zero these days?

[ABNAK]

While it has fluctuated a bit in the OP's poll, roughly 3/4 of us use the 50/200. Apparently the IBSZ has gained a good deal in popularity over the years. I remember when it was a relatively new idea. LtCol Santos is the supposed pioneer and coined the phrase "IBSZ".

[Amos]

25 yard irons, 50 yards eotech.

[556BlackRifle]

For me, 50 is easiest due to the setup at my local range and it covers my needs.

[T2C]

Interesting. I live out west so long range is easy. Been thinking of trying a 200yd. and even a 300yd. zero while checking increments like you to know my holds. 2" approx. hold inside 15yds. is acceptable. Not asking like an ahole at all, but was it in yds. or meters for your testing?

The zero was established at 200 meters or 219 yards and all other increments were in yards. The only time I touch the elevation knob on the iron sights is when I shoot beyond 300 yards.

[Kdubya]

While it has fluctuated a bit in the OP's poll, roughly 3/4 of us use the 50/200. Apparently the IBSZ has gained a good deal in popularity over the years. I remember when it was a relatively new idea. LtCol Santos is the supposed pioneer and coined the phrase "IBSZ".

I'd say the 50/200 remains the clear "winner". The distribution for the rest was a bit surprising. Spending some time around the forums, and amongst other shooters at the range, it's clear the 100 (IBSZ) has gained a good amount of traction. So, it's not exactly shocking to see it as the second most popular. Still, I'd figured the distribution between the 25/300 and 100 zeros would have been a little less lopsided.

As I stated in an earlier post, my investigation into the MPBR zero ended up illustrating why so many enjoy the 50/200 zero. While loads and individual deviation requirements will cause some variances, a 50/200 is pretty dang close to what one would end up with if opting for a MPBR. It's hard to complain about minimal holds from point blank out to around 250 yards.

[Failure2Stop]

Depends on what optic or sighting device you are using.
I won't use a 100 yard/meter zero on an NF 1-4 w/ FC3G reticle, or a Leupold 1-6x Multigun, because they are both built around a 200 yard zero.

Either a 200 or 100 will work well with a shooter that knows their holds at distance, and both will fall apart if the shooter doesn't do their part.
Far more interesting than what zero one is using is how fully the user is actually zeroing the optic, and what they're doing to confirm their holds.

Further, as distance starts to increase, wind becomes the largest unknown variable, and if your reticle doesn't support holds and wind, it's an equal level of guesstimation regardless of the nuance of the zero.

To put a bow on this, if you aren't shooting at 200, you don't have a 200 zero, and you don't need one, therefore the discussion is really, "100 or 50", and I can prove that the hold differential with a high level of precision expectation between the 50 and 100 highly favors the 100 zero for everything between 20 and 120.

ETA: I do show an advantage for a 50 zero with irons.

[6933]

Further, as distance starts to increase, wind becomes the largest unknown variable, and if your reticle doesn't support holds and wind, it's an equal level of guesstimation regardless of the nuance of the zero.

Learning to read the wind, which may be blowing in several diff. directions; especially in the mountains, is something I haven't mastered, but am learning. The wind here can blow pretty hard regularly at elevation. I feel this is an area(long range precision) where I will need to take several classes to become proficient.

I don't know what I don't know.

[Kdubya]

Depends on what optic or sighting device you are using.
I won't use a 100 yard/meter zero on an NF 1-4 w/ FC3G reticle, or a Leupold 1-6x Multigun, because they are both built around a 200 yard zero.

Either a 200 or 100 will work well with a shooter that knows their holds at distance, and both will fall apart if the shooter doesn't do their part.
Far more interesting than what zero one is using is how fully the user is actually zeroing the optic, and what they're doing to confirm their holds.

Further, as distance starts to increase, wind becomes the largest unknown variable, and if your reticle doesn't support holds and wind, it's an equal level of guesstimation regardless of the nuance of the zero.

To put a bow on this, if you aren't shooting at 200, you don't have a 200 zero, and you don't need one, therefore the discussion is really, "100 or 50", and I can prove that the hold differential with a high level of precision expectation between the 50 and 100 highly favors the 100 zero for everything between 20 and 120.

ETA: I do show an advantage for a 50 zero with irons.

Great post, and thanks for sharing this insight.

Regarding the bolded portion, I'd be interested to hear more about the noteable benefits you've realized with the 100 zero (also the 50 zero with irons). I'm clearly not alone in favoring a 50/200 zero. While I'm comfortable and familiar with it, I'm not necessarily married to its exclusive use.

Given the praise others have shared in regards to your methods and training, I'm certainly open to a switch.

[Renegade04]

For me, with non-magnified optics and iron sights, I prefer a 50 yard zero. For magnified optics, I do a 100 yard zero.

[5.56 Bonded SP]

I'm surprised nobody here likes the 36 yard zero for Iron sights. I think the 36-37 yard zero with iron sights works really well, and I have had great experience with it. If you haven't tried it, or looked into, I suggest taking a good look at it.

Optics are a different story, I used to enjoy the 50 yard zero with red dots, but now I really do feel the zen of the 100 yard zero. With the 100 yard zero, I feel like I can shoot with surgical precision at a variety of ranges.


Edit
Here is a chart for 37 yard zero that I plugged into hornadys ballistic calculator.