Do Nikon BDC actually work

[Axis II]

I have a Nikon Inline XR scope on a 50cal muzzleloader and upon checking the Nikon bdc app it showed me what yardage each circle was for. Now, I don't have access to a range 200yards but there has been occasions where I could shoot a deer 150-200yards. How accurate is the BDC?

I know I should double check it and that I owe it to the animal to make sure I'm dead on. I do get that and I do plan on shooting the gun at 200yards once I get to the farm and just shoot off the hood at a target. I'm just curious how accurate the BDC is? I don't want to be out there screwing around and shooting a bunch of rounds if i don't have to.

 

[Laphroaig]

I know I should double check it

You're on the right track. As long as you're using the same load that they specify I'd think that it should be close. Its worth the time to verify.

I have a few BDC reticles for rifles, and compare the subtentions of the tic marks to a ballistic trajectory program for my specific load. Generally speaking, are within 10 yards of what they are supposed to be. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a range long enough to verify a shot long enough to need that amount of hold over.

 

[Axis II]

You're on the right track. As long as you're using the same load that they specify I'd think that it should be close. Its worth the time to verify.

I have a few BDC reticles for rifles, and compare the subtentions of the tic marks to a ballistic trajectory program for my specific load. Generally speaking, are within 10 yards of what they are supposed to be. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a range long enough to verify a shot long enough to need that amount of hold over.

I figured i could just put it at 2-2.5'' high at 100 to put me around 150-200yards dead on. I just don't want to be out there slinging lead all over the farm and scaring everything away. I figured the second bdc on there claims to be 150yards and even point blank at 100yards 150yards high or low should hit organs.

 

[Chuck R.]

Don't have the Nikon, do have a couple Leupolds.

Luckily I have a 760y range out my back door, so verification is easy.

For an 8" kill zone, both of mine (muzzle loader & .223) are well within minute of deer. You can probably contact Nikon (I did Leupold) and get the actual MOA values for the holdover lines. Then run a ballistic program and have an idea of what range they'll actually correspond to. Always best to verify by actually shooting, but the ballistic software solution was extremely close. I actually saw more deviation due to conditions than the holdover lines being incorrect.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

http://spoton.nikonsportoptics.com/spoton/spoton.html#:4

This will get you in the ballpark.
But yes, verification is still necessary.

 

[Armored farmer]

Yes they work.
I have one on my ar15.
Match your ammo on the app. It is close.

 

[ATLDave]

Yes, they and other drop reticles "work." The question is how the particular load you are using relates to the particular hashes/dots/circles on the reticle. Depending on the specific gun and ammunition, the reticle may or may not show impact points at nice round X00 distances... but they show impact at some distance. And precisely what distances is a knowable thing with a modest amount of experimentation at the range. Maybe your distances are 92, 180, 267, and 345 instead of 100, 200, 300, and 400. But once you know that, then the reticle "works" just as well.

 

[crestoncowboy]

On my 223 it was close but not really close enough to use on groundhog. It's a Monarch 5 ed 4-20x with handloaded/ chronoed ammo. Very nice scope. But the advanced BDC is far enough off to be laughable in my particular use. Obviously in some applications it will be better than others.

 

[Laphroaig]

I figured i could just put it at 2-2.5'' high at 100 to put me around 150-200 yards dead on. I just don't want to be out there slinging lead all over the farm and scaring everything away. I figured the second bdc on there claims to be 150yards and even point blank at 100yards 150yards high or low should hit organs.

So I read this to mean youre going to sight it in for a 150-175 point blank range and not use the bdc. That works too.

 

[Axis II]

So I read this to mean youre going to sight it in for a 150-175 point blank range and not use the bdc. That works too.

Yes. It depends on if i hunt AM or PM tomorrow and which farm. One has a huge 50 acre bean field i can prop a target up real quick against the base of big dead oak on the edge of the field and adjust. Other farms are just woods. Farmer 1 doesn't care much but the others would crap a brick if i was shooting at paper. If i cant mess with it ill keep shots 100yards or less.

 

[Armored farmer]

Yes they work.
I have one on my ar15.
Match your ammo on the app. It is close.

 

[Varminterror]

The Nikon BDC is my least favorite compensating reticle, and I hate compensating reticles in general - especially in second focal optics.

In particular, the Nikon BDC’s with the HOLES for their drop dots are terrible, because they are HOLES instead of lines. They’re too small to really use the top of the hole vs. bottom of the hole, but too large to really let you place a refined point of aim on a small target at distance. Equally, as you float your hold for windage AND range, the round circle doesn’t give you sufficient reference to make a solid horizontal AND vertical hold in the open space. It’s much easier to judge open space hold with a LINE than a hole.

Of course, if you are at anything but the reference magnification, the represented ranges change with the second focal Nikons.

So say your first hole is 178yrds, second is 347, and your target is at 244yrds... where do you hold? Man, that target is kinda small, zoom in a little more - crap, now your first circle is 152yrds and your second is 293yrds, so now where is the hold for that 244yrd target? Oh wait, the target, a coyote, now walked to 218yrds... what’s the hold for that?

If you have all of the time in the world to run Spot On and you’re not shooting in any wind, then they’ll work ok. If you’re shooting in the real world, you would do a hell of a lot better with a regularly graduated MOA’ing or milling reticle, and especially do better with a first focal reticle.

As others have mentioned, these things are like a stopped watch at their best. Most of the time, they just aren’t right. Which is fine, I don’t care if the marks are 243 yards instead of 200, but the fact they are not regularly graduated forces the shooter to do WAY too much math or rely upon the reticle solution software far too much. With a MOA’ing or milling reticle, you can live your life in MOA or Mils for your trajectory, then only have to correct your reading based on the magnification setting. Aka, if I know I drop 2.7mils at 500, set at 16x, at 12x I know my hold has to be 2.1mils instead. The math is a lot easier, and the shooter gets to work with their trajectory, not parse out arbitrary numbers for range which change for every environmental condition and every zoom setting. Learn your trajectory, and live your trajectory. Don’t mess with “this circle means 282yrds and that circle means 374yrds, unless I’m on 8x and then this circle means...”

Absolute waste of time and money.

 

[crestoncowboy]

I wouldn't necessarily say they are a waste of money unless you actually pay more for bdc (in which case I would agree) . Neither of my nikon's had the option of no bdc. Nor did they cost more than a comparable model that didn't have it. And they are good scopes with decent glass for the money. Right there with my midrange Leopolds, or higher end vortex scopes. I dang sure wouldn't pay any extra for it though.
That said I agree completely with the circles being nearly useless for adjusting for yardage, especially with any wind adjustment.
I also agree that the bdc is the worst of any ive personally used, and I don't like any of them. Even the vortex dead hold has lines rather than over sized dots. I'd choose mil-dot any day.
The op however was asking for use with a muzzle loader to 200 yards on deer, so I could see it being more viable to him than you or I at longer distances and smaller targets. If there has ever been any situation I think it could have value it would be a short range(200yd) fast dropping bullet like the op is referring to.

 

[Walkalong]

Absolute waste of time and money.

I am not going to let that hurt my feelings D), because I have one I caught on sale 40% off and for general shooting it is a nice scope, you just have to run the numbers and then go out, shoot, and see how it matches up to your load.

In the old days we just did that anyway, not ballistic apps, or apps like the Nikon one, just shoot.

We didn't have BDC reticles either, we would use the crosshairs, then eyeball 1/4 of the way between the crosshair and the bottom post, then 1/2, 3/4, then the top of the post. Shoot your gun and figure out about how far and what you need to hold over. Used our mental computer only. Eyeball the distance and mentally judge where to hold. Crows with a .222 Mag (Old Redfileld 5 Star 6-18x42 scope) was a lot of fun, and farmers liked you thinning them out.

So I can't agree with absolute waste, but will agree there are better options for those who need or want the better options.

OH isn't going to be shooting over 200 yards according to his post, and heck, for 200 yards I don't really need anything but crosshairs.

 

[ATLDave]

I don’t always agree with Varmint’, but I always read his posts with interest!

 

[cdb1]

The Nikon BDC is my least favorite compensating reticle, and I hate compensating reticles in general - especially in second focal optics.

In particular, the Nikon BDC’s with the HOLES for their drop dots are terrible, because they are HOLES instead of lines. They’re too small to really use the top of the hole vs. bottom of the hole, but too large to really let you place a refined point of aim on a small target at distance. Equally, as you float your hold for windage AND range, the round circle doesn’t give you sufficient reference to make a solid horizontal AND vertical hold in the open space. It’s much easier to judge open space hold with a LINE than a hole.

Of course, if you are at anything but the reference magnification, the represented ranges change with the second focal Nikons.

So say your first hole is 178yrds, second is 347, and your target is at 244yrds... where do you hold? Man, that target is kinda small, zoom in a little more - crap, now your first circle is 152yrds and your second is 293yrds, so now where is the hold for that 244yrd target? Oh wait, the target, a coyote, now walked to 218yrds... what’s the hold for that?

If you have all of the time in the world to run Spot On and you’re not shooting in any wind, then they’ll work ok. If you’re shooting in the real world, you would do a hell of a lot better with a regularly graduated MOA’ing or milling reticle, and especially do better with a first focal reticle.

As others have mentioned, these things are like a stopped watch at their best. Most of the time, they just aren’t right. Which is fine, I don’t care if the marks are 243 yards instead of 200, but the fact they are not regularly graduated forces the shooter to do WAY too much math or rely upon the reticle solution software far too much. With a MOA’ing or milling reticle, you can live your life in MOA or Mils for your trajectory, then only have to correct your reading based on the magnification setting. Aka, if I know I drop 2.7mils at 500, set at 16x, at 12x I know my hold has to be 2.1mils instead. The math is a lot easier, and the shooter gets to work with their trajectory, not parse out arbitrary numbers for range which change for every environmental condition and every zoom setting. Learn your trajectory, and live your trajectory. Don’t mess with “this circle means 282yrds and that circle means 374yrds, unless I’m on 8x and then this circle means...”

Absolute waste of time and money.

Please post something I don’t agree with occasionally.

 

[Varminterror]

I have one I caught on sale 40% off and for general shooting it is a nice scope

I'm probably more vocal than I might otherwise be about the Nikon BDC's because I ALSO own a few I caught on great sale prices. $350-400 optics for $75-150, just too good to pass up.

I use them the same as a plex reticle, I completely ignore the holdover circles and either dial all of my range corrections, or just shoot MPBR. I have one on my Savage B-mag (not for much longer) which does get some holdover use, and it makes me want to punch kittens every time I take it afield - my absolute least favorite thing about that rifle/rig. I'd probably pass right over threads like this if I had been able to resist the offer to dance with the devil and NOT buy them, but I itch all over every time I get my eye into those rifles and remember that awful reticle. I have a databook cooked as if they were regular intervals - so my data cards still show 50yrd intervals, then I write down fractional gaps between each circle - aka 2.5 is half way between circles 2 and 3. Top of circles and bottom of circles are T2 or B4. So it KINDA lets me use them like a milling reticle... KINDA...

The other criticism I have for Nikon's, which particularly sucks with their BDC's, is the fact they're so prone to lensing around the edges when on maximum magnification - which is where the BDC reticle is calibrated.

But really, my argument against BDC reticles is not brand specific. A guy shouldn't be distracted by the way they operate their reticle be used - learn your trajectory and life becomes REALLY simple. I've had to teach guys with BDC scopes how to use them many times, and at the end, they know how to use their rig, but they really don't understand their trajectory in the way the guys using MOA'ing or milling reticles do. It kinda feels like teaching a kid the alphabet vs. counting numbers. N is after M because we say so, which is really arbitrary, and saying the alphabet in the wrong order is still the same alphabet. Alternatively, 8 is after 7 because that's how numbers work - they go in a certain order for a reason.

In the old days we just did that anyway, not ballistic apps, or apps like the Nikon one, just shoot.

That's how I started over 25yrs ago too. No chronograph, just guesses based on tables in the back of reloading manuals. We'd go out to a safe pasture, measure out targets every 50-100yrds with a long tape measure, and shoot. We'd hold over based on what the reloading manual predicted, and walk our way into the center, then write down the fractional mils to get on target at each range. You could back into your BC and muzzle velocity by comparing your field results to the reloading book table. From then on, it was just a matter of scaling your magnification - which is part of why I favor 4-16x scopes over 3-9x's, as it's way easier to divide by 2's and 4's than by 3's to figure out your scaled hold value. Which is something you don't have the opportunity to really do with the BDC's, because you can't really measure and record regular intervals with the irregular interval reticle. Guys use the SpotOn software (or Zeiss's equivalent), and think in yards, instead of holdovers.

What might seem really strange to some folks: How I operate today really isn't much different than it was when I started, except I start with a chronograph and a trued BC from another shooter, and an exact data entry into a calculator, instead of an approximate interpolation based on estimated velocity and BC tables. I still start with an estimated trajectory, go shoot, and build a real world DOPE book. Still using a mil based reticle, but save a few rounds by hitting the target on the first shot more often than I did 25+ years ago, and save some systemic errors by using first focal scopes instead of second focals.

But without question - the fact I OWN a handful of them because they're decent scopes which could be bought at really good prices just makes me more aware of how much I dislike them...

 

[crestoncowboy]

My monarch 5 eds were also purchased at 50 percent off on black friday 2 years ago from natchez. 4-20x50 for 369. Free shipping with an extras10 percent off coupon. Hell of a scope for 350 bucks.
Ive used it extensively from 100-600 yards. I agree with the rest about the bdc. Ive not found a worse reticle for drop compensation. The circles are annoyingly bad.
I still say that's its hard to be a waste of money when it's free though. I do wish there were more mil-dot reticules in mid priced (4-8ish hundred) scopes. They all want to use some proprietary junk for some reason
Varmint is the only one ive heard to share my complaint about the circles though. The lines that make up the circles are entirely too thick too.

 

[Walkalong]

over 25yrs ago

Youngster....

 

[Walkalong]

My monarch 5 eds were also purchased at 50 percent off on black friday 2 years ago from natchez.

I can't buy from Natchez, which is a shame because they often have good deals, and that was the same time frame I also bought my Monach 5 ED on sale. Nice scope. My eyes like Nikon glass, some folks don't. Mine is the 3-15x50.

 

[Varminterror]

OH isn't going to be shooting over 200 yards according to his post, and heck, for 200 yards I don't really need anything but crosshairs.

I cut this out separately for a reason - because it's a really frequent sentiment, and as you might have guessed, I have a lot of thoughts about it.

For 0-200 with a typical bottleneck cartridge which is capable of a 250-280yrd 4-6" MPBR, I fully agree. Gimme a plex reticle and I'm groovy. I'll zero at 200-225, worst case hold a crosshair width or two high or low out to MPBR...

But a 50cal muzzleloader is a different game... For a normal plex reticle with 4moa from center to the heavy stadia, a 100yrd zero means you'd have to hold 3/4 the way up to the top stadia from center, and 200yrds puts the impact almost 1.5 times the length of the gap BELOW the tip of the heavy stadia... In the Nikon BDC reticle in the Buckmaster II's, 50yrds is about 3/4 the WIDTH of the center to the side heavy stadia (since there's no heavy wire at the top) above the center, then 200yrds is 3/4 of a circle dia below the 3rd circle... or a 1/4 of a circle below half way between the 3rd and 4th circle...

So in my 17WSM Bmag, 200yrds with the same scope means I have to hold at the TOP of the 1st circle. In @ohihunter2014's muzzle loader, he's doing a LOT of holding for 0-200yrds. Better to do it with a reticle which is more user friendly.

 

[jmr40]

I wouldn't own a scope without either long range dots, or dials anymore. Twisting dials takes longer, but is more precise. Probably the best choice for target shooting. The "BDC" type reticle isn't as precise, but faster to use and my preference for hunting. And FWIW the Nikon circle system is my least favorite. But to use it effectively ignore the circles. Just use the top and bottom of the circles where they intersect with the vertical post for aiming points.

With or without a BDC scope I have no use for the old MPBR method. I zero at 100 yards. With everything I own I'm no more than 2" low at 200 yards and close enough at 300 to need very little if any hold over out to 300 yards. It's true that most shooters with modern cartridges don't really need it until you get past 300 yards. But it doesn't hurt a thing to have it at closer ranges either.

When you start zeroing a rifle 2-3" high at 100 yards you end up being 5-6" high at 200 and shooting OVER game, and still hitting low at 300. Beyond 300 yards you need to know the precise range anyway and having a scope calibrated for it sure helps. Using the MPBR method only works out to about 300+/- a few yards anyway. I don't see where it gains me anything except to complicate things at closer ranges where I'm most likely to get a shot.

None of the BDC systems are perfect. In theory with a 100 yard zero the next hash mark, is going to be a 200 yard zero with most modern cartridges. Depending on the exact scope the next marks are good for an additional 50 or 100 yards out to about 400-600 yards. Each manufacturer is a little different. But don't expect it to be perfect. Using the exact same scope I find that the marks are pretty darn close with my 30-06. But on my 308 the bullets are still impacting slightly lower than the aiming point. But without a BDC type scope I have to compensate for almost 3" of bullet drop at 400 yards. With the BDC system my bullets are only hitting 3" below the aiming point. I can compensate for 3" a lot more accurately than I can 3'.

With any cartridge you still have to go out and actually shoot at those ranges to confirm exact drops. It is even more important with cartridges with arched trajectories. I've been playing around with shooting 22 LR out to 250 yards using both BDC systems and scopes with dials. There is no data to look up, but by using the trial and error method I've figured out where to set things to make hits from 50-250 yards with the same 50 yard scope zero. No way I could do that with a traditional scope cross hair.

 

[cdb1]

I do fine using MPBR and sighting my rifles 1.5” high at 100 yards but, I’ve shot them at 200 and 300 yards so I know how high or low they hit. It’s also written down and taped to each rifles gun case and is also on my iPhone.

 

[Dibbs]

Yes they work.
I have one on my ar15.
Match your ammo on the app. It is close.

There is a Nikon site which has BDC calculations for most manufactured ammo. IME, it's pretty
accurate, as long as you reference the proper ammo to the proper holdover distance.

 

[Chuck R.]

I wouldn't own a scope without either long range dots, or dials anymore. Twisting dials takes longer, but is more precise. Probably the best choice for target shooting. The "BDC" type reticle isn't as precise, but faster to use and my preference for hunting. And FWIW the Nikon circle system is my least favorite. But to use it effectively ignore the circles. Just use the top and bottom of the circles where they intersect with the vertical post for aiming points.

With or without a BDC scope I have no use for the old MPBR method. I zero at 100 yards. With everything I own I'm no more than 2" low at 200 yards and close enough at 300 to need very little if any hold over out to 300 yards. It's true that most shooters with modern cartridges don't really need it until you get past 300 yards. But it doesn't hurt a thing to have it at closer ranges either.

When you start zeroing a rifle 2-3" high at 100 yards you end up being 5-6" high at 200 and shooting OVER game, and still hitting low at 300. Beyond 300 yards you need to know the precise range anyway and having a scope calibrated for it sure helps. Using the MPBR method only works out to about 300+/- a few yards anyway. I don't see where it gains me anything except to complicate things at closer ranges where I'm most likely to get a shot.

None of the BDC systems are perfect. In theory with a 100 yard zero the next hash mark, is going to be a 200 yard zero with most modern cartridges. Depending on the exact scope the next marks are good for an additional 50 or 100 yards out to about 400-600 yards. Each manufacturer is a little different. But don't expect it to be perfect. Using the exact same scope I find that the marks are pretty darn close with my 30-06. But on my 308 the bullets are still impacting slightly lower than the aiming point. But without a BDC type scope I have to compensate for almost 3" of bullet drop at 400 yards. With the BDC system my bullets are only hitting 3" below the aiming point. I can compensate for 3" a lot more accurately than I can 3'.

With any cartridge you still have to go out and actually shoot at those ranges to confirm exact drops. It is even more important with cartridges with arched trajectories. I've been playing around with shooting 22 LR out to 250 yards using both BDC systems and scopes with dials. There is no data to look up, but by using the trial and error method I've figured out where to set things to make hits from 50-250 yards with the same 50 yard scope zero. No way I could do that with a traditional scope cross hair.

That's part of the reason I like the Leupold BDC and CDS combination. For those shots that are quick, the BDC is "good enough" on a deer sized kill zone. IF I have time I can easily click into it using the CDS dial. I and a friend of mine have the CDS system and have had the custom dials done by Leupold for a favorite load. It works very, very well as long as you capture the data before ordering. Of course it will be slightly off based on conditions, but still on enough to hit an 8" zone.