Rifle Scopes Mil or moa

#52
Some of the posts here, like the wind calling and thinking in linear measurements to name a couple but not just those, just make me shake my head in amazement. Some people need to really take some classes and learn this subject because the lack of understanding is unbelievable.
 
#53
Rob01 said:
Some of the posts here, like the wind calling and thinking in linear measurements to name a couple but not just those, just make me shake my head in amazement. Some people need to really take some classes and learn this subject because the lack of understanding is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Especially considering that people have been explaining it in this very thread that they are posting in.
 
#54
vh20 said:
What does that have to do with it? Either one are angular measurements, and have nothing to do with linear ones.
Click to expand...

I used to think this way as well so I can understand why some can still get caught up with linear vs. angular measurements. It wasn't until Frank and other Hide members helped to educate me some years ago that I finally caught on and realized the benefits of using the angular measurements themselves and stop trying to do mathematical conversions in my head. My shooting background was based on target shooting and hunting at fairly close ranges (300yds and less). I grew up with scopes that had MOA knobs that were 1/4" per click at 100 yards (or so I thought) and therefore became used to the idea that MOA = inches and also learned that Mil or MRAD = centimeters which I thought was just fine for the Europeans who use the metric system. While these measurements may roughly coincide they are not exact as vh20 points out above, you should not think in linear measurements when MOA and Mil are angular measurements and I admit this is one bad habit that is hard to kick, but once I began to truly listen to the advice given me by Hide members it began to click (no pun intended) and soon I realized that my clicks had more to do with these angular measurements than linear ones. If I am spotting for a buddy and he is shooting at 1000 yards with wind from our side and I notice his splash while looking through my scope, there is nothing in my scope that is going to tell me his POI was 49" to the right but if I have a mil reticle then I can tell him to adjust 1.4 Mils or if I have a MOA reticle it would be 4.7 MOA and he will know exactly what he needs to do - click - click - click - click (as long as his turrets are the same measurement as my reticle - Mil/Mil or Moa/Moa). There is no need to do complex calculations in inches or centimeters in your head, you simply call out the value in Mils or MOA. See the chart below, this is based off a particular load at 6500' elevation with a 10mph crosswind, you can see the inch values as well as the MOA and MILS values, but again, there is nothing in your scope or on your turrets to tell you how many inches anything is so instead of trying to figure things out in your head, rely on your equipment which is already setup for Mils or MOA.
RANGE (YARDS)VELOCITY (FPS)ENERGY (FT.-LB.)TRAJECTORY (IN)COME UP IN MOACOME UP IN MILSWIND DRIFT (IN)WIND DRIFT IN MOAWIND DRIFT IN MILS
Muzzle27002266-1.500000
10001723923-285.927.37.949.44.71.4

One other point, it just so happens that 1 mil at 1000 yards = 36" or 3' (3 feet) and that can then be used to range an item of known size because at 500 yards 1 mil = 18" and 2 mils at 500 yards = 3' and 2 mils at 1000 yards = 6' and so forth. Trying to get the same equivalent at the same distances with MOA is not as straight forward which gives a slight benefit to Mil IMO. I used to be a huge proponent of MOA but now all my scopes are in Mil because I came to realize there are certain benefits with Mil now that I understand how angular measurements work.
 
#56
Skookum said:
Because for whatever reason, the way wind acts upon a bullet in flight falls much more neatly into MILS. All methods of calling wind in MOA must be skewed toward the farther ranges to avoid a miss, while calling in MILS allows the call to be much closer to the true angle of deflection/departure at all ranges.

If I find that say, a 4 mph wind moves my bullet 1 MIL at 1000 yds, then I know that I can apply that as a percentage at all ranges using the decimal equivalent. EX: my wind call at 750 yds would be 0.75 MILS, at 500yds it would be 0.5 MILS, at 300 yds it is 0.3 MILS etc.

Using the "basic" wind, I adjust the call to actual wind with just a little basic mental math. Say it's an 8mph wind, 8 is double my basic wind, then 1000yds is a 2 MIL hold, 750yds is a 1.5 MIL hold, etc. These values aren't absolutely perfect as far as true drift, but they are very close.

When trying to apply the same method to MOA ( aka the british method ), it can work, but you have to skew your rule of thumb (i.e basic wind) toward the farther ranges, and it can actually be far enough off to cause a miss at the shorter ranges if the target is small.
Click to expand...

WTF??
 
#57
Skookum said:
Because for whatever reason, the way wind acts upon a bullet in flight falls much more neatly into MILS. All methods of calling wind in MOA must be skewed toward the farther ranges to avoid a miss, while calling in MILS allows the call to be much closer to the true angle of deflection/departure at all ranges.

If I find that say, a 4 mph wind moves my bullet 1 MIL at 1000 yds, then I know that I can apply that as a percentage at all ranges using the decimal equivalent. EX: my wind call at 750 yds would be 0.75 MILS, at 500yds it would be 0.5 MILS, at 300 yds it is 0.3 MILS etc.

Using the "basic" wind, I adjust the call to actual wind with just a little basic mental math. Say it's an 8mph wind, 8 is double my basic wind, then 1000yds is a 2 MIL hold, 750yds is a 1.5 MIL hold, etc. These values aren't absolutely perfect as far as true drift, but they are very close.

When trying to apply the same method to MOA ( aka the british method ), it can work, but you have to skew your rule of thumb (i.e basic wind) toward the farther ranges, and it can actually be far enough off to cause a miss at the shorter ranges if the target is small.
Click to expand...


That proves nothing in the MOA vs Mil debate, as either system will do everything the other will. There are advantages an disadvantages to both, an that is pure unadulterated fact.
Your first four words "Because for whatever reason" are interesting.
 
#59
z28kid said:
I don't understand how this has made it three pages.
Pick one and learn it, matching reticles to turrets are the only way to go, now let's go shoot!
Click to expand...

It's because people have picked it and didn't learn it. They just think they did. And that's how we get people saying that the same thing gets skewed if you call it by another name. They don't 1) understand how wind works and 2) don't understand how basic math works.

Skookum, plug your information into jbm's trajectory calculator and then at the bottom select to show both mils and moa side by side and run it out to 2k yards or bump the wind speed up if you keep it close. It's not linear and your short hand is just a trick that happens to work up close but that's just luck of the dope. That actual fundamentals of both wind and angles are something very different.

.
 
Last edited:
#60
Skookum said:
Nobody here seems to be able to differentiate between plugging some formula into a computer vs. doing the mental math to make dynamic, swithching wind calls in an actual field situation. By your responses, it is clear that none of you has an inkling of what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Please explain wind calling to those of us who know nothing about it?
 
#64
Let me try with my poor English. MIL= coarse angle measurement vs easier math in metric system. MOA=finer angle measurement but more complex math either systems.
And yes, because MOA moans and this sounds disrespectful for a shooter.
 
#66
MRAD is not metric. .1 mil clicks converts to .34 moa click. Thus, the difference between a .25 click and .1 mil click is .09 moa. I don't like converting back and forth like this but just showing there is not enough difference to matter or even see. There is no discernable difference down range between a 1/4 moa click and a 1/3 moa (.1 mil) click. Take a 2 MOA target at 500 yards and calculate how many .25 MOA clicks to travel across the target vs .1 mil clicks. You should be able to figure it out in your head.

And to add insult to injury for that target the firing solution on my rifle rounded to click values is 8.5 moa or 2.4 mils both of which is good for the same 44" of elevation.

And I hope this confuses the fuck out of everyone because I took a shit in your brain but you will never be able to find it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#67
culpeper said:
mrad is not metric. .1 mil clicks converts to .34 moa click. Thus, the difference between a .25 click and .1 mil click is .09 moa. I don't like converting back and forth like this but just showing there is not enough difference to matter or even see. There is no discernable difference down range between a 1/4 moa click and a 1/3 moa (.1 mil) click. Take a 2 moa target at 500 yards and calculate how many .25 moa clicks to travel across the target vs .1 mil clicks. You should be able to figure it out in your head.

And to add insult to injury for that target the firing solution on my rifle rounded to click values is 8.5 moa or 2.4 mils both of which is good for the same 44" of elevation.

And i hope this confuses the fuck out of everyone because i took a shit in your brain but you will never be able to find it.
Click to expand...

tl;dr
 
#70
gnatmm said:
Let me try with my poor English. MIL= coarse angle measurement vs easier math in metric system. MOA=finer angle measurement but more complex math either systems.
Click to expand...

Is this a serious post? I sure hope not.

"Milliradians" and "minutes" are both units that describe the same thing: angle. The former is in base units of radians, the latter is in base units of degrees. Mils = (radians/1000); MOA = (degrees/60). You can describe the same angle using either unit with arbitrary precision. This very basic concept of measurement seems to be lost on a good number of people here.

As was already mentioned, the difference in angle measurement precision using a scope of either unit system is completely negligible assuming standard clicks of 0.1mil and 0.25MOA.

At 100 yards, a 0.1 mil angle adjustment changes POI by ~0.36". A 0.25 MOA angle adjustment changes POI by ~0.26" at the same distance. That difference in precision is totally lost in the noise of other variables.
 
#71
The OP didn't ask about wind. And just because the military taught something 20 years ago and is still teaching it today is no monument to justice. The OP asked for the difference between mils and moa and since he is a redneck he asked for the short answer.
 
#72
I went back and looked just to make sure and you never addressed the OP. Your grief is of your own doing when you made a blanket statement about wind and mils. Also, you got the history of minutes vs mils reversed in a statement before the one about wind calling. As for me, I feel bad because I entered a little math into the #Equation by converting mils to moa to show that could be done and troll a liitle. Nevertheless, some people are visual and showing .1 mil is close to 1/3 moa might have been helpful. Basically, the OP got his answer on page 1 and the rest is just fluff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#73
Mils vs MOA vs IPHY There are advantages an disadvantages to them all. There are shooters who want 1/10 or 1/3 mil clicks. Those who want 1/8 or 1/4 moa or IPHY clicks. Plus those who want 1/2 MOA or IPHY clicks. Yet there are those who get it all done with 1 MOA clicks w/o issue. Yet some say dialing is only for scoring ring fun & games an holding it all is the only way to go. The world is full of different types of gear/shooters/shooting challenges. The trick is to wade thru all the hype of the mfg's, forum members and some board owners & sponsors there of. It matters little what you use as long as you understand what your using an can reap 100% of that it offers. If you like very fine adjustments 1/8 moa clicks are for you, if you are very limited in time learn to hold everything.

America is the land that proved with enough horse power you can make a rock fly, that mentality has been instilled into the shooting sports as well. Everyone came to this board for different reasons, there are hunters, recreational, target, run & gun, an the sites name sake who offer experience/incite from their world. The trick for the new guys is to first identify what type of shooting they really do/want to do, not something from dream land. There are draw backs to heavy high power scopes, same with light low power. FFP scopes suck shooting subs 300-400+ yards on a stick you also shoot high speed from. Can they be used for that sure, but there are some if's in there also.
Being real with ones self, is the first step. Not getting caught up in all the hype is second. If you don't know ask, but be truthful in your questions. Square ranges are fun, but on two ways there are no different levels of dead.
 
#75
Skookum said:
You guys keep getting hung up on the mathmatical differences between the two systems of measure. That is not what I am talking about. I would like to try this one more time.

There are three basic ways to call wind in the field... WITHOUT AN APP! ...You can:

1) Use one of a couple of formulas in which the wind speed is multiplied by the range and divided by a constant.
2) Assume a standard or "basic" wind (usually 10 mph) and adjust the actual deflection call based on the percentage the wind deviates from the standard.
3) Assume a standard deflection (i.e 1MIL or 10 MOA @ 1000 yds) and using the wind that causes that, call that your "basic wind", and adjust the call from there.

All of these methods have been taught at various times in various military schools.

Problem with #1: You are having to do actual math, either on a calculator or with pen and paper, while the wind is changing. The constants also change with the different ranges (which means they really aren't constants, but for lack of a better term...). However, this method does have the attribute of not needing either memorization or dope charts.

Problem with #2: You either have to memorize all your wind dope at each range to make the adjustment, or carry a dope chart (which can be destroyed or lost).

In my experience, #3 is the winner. It requires neither memorization, nor formulas, nor dope charts, and the math can be very quickly done in your head, on the fly, by just adjusting the basic call by the percentage of difference.

Does anybody get what I am saying so far?

So...when using method #3... the numbers that make that method work, are somewhat more awkward when doing it MOA, while doing it in MILS is a little faster, and a little bit closer to true drift.

That is the only point I was trying to get across! I didn't make this stuff up. Someone, who is smarter the me, at one of the military schools over 20 years ago came up with this method, and it is still being taught today.

Does this stuff matter to anyone....anyone at all?
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats great and all that youre guessing without an app or knowing your dope. But that doesnt change the fact that except for your one specific set up it doesnt work with your short hand. I will admit that with a 308 pushing 168s at 2600 fps it does line up with your .1 mils each 100 yards out to 1k in a 4 mph wind. But thats a dog of a round and not very indicative of predictability for any other set up. Heres a look at a 6xc and mind you this is with 4mph you mentioned earlier and not 10 like you said an assumed condition would be in this quoted post. If I were to guess that at 1k yards I would need to hold 1 mil of wind I would miss the plate by .3 mils, thats an error of 30%. And thats at only 40% of the assumed 10mph condition you spoke of. Look at a 223, its waaayyyyyy off.

So the issue seems to me to be that you dont realize all of your different methods are all rolled up together and you cant really do one without doing the other accurately. You like #3 which is an assumption and you state that you dont care about memorizing your dope, you dont know how to calculate it, or document it for reference, prefer to do crude math that you only assume works for you because you actually have memorized your dope after all that happens to line up with it in your fly by the seat of your pants cavalier attitude.

SO rather than going by what the military schools taught 20 years ago as short hand for their standard equipment set up that works from optics to iron sights on the only large frame round available why dont you re read some of the posts in this thread and try to internalize that math is not your enemy and we arent over complicating it. Sure you can say I used an app to get this but if I didnt how would I be able to show how wrong your basic assumptions are on a fundamental level. [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"753","width":"415","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/MFktimF.jpg"}[/IMG2]



[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"814","width":"414","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/oueiDRy.jpg"}[/IMG2]
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"784","width":"399","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/TUph45g.jpg"}[/IMG2]


With an app you can also switch to convert from mils to moa easy as pie and thats because they are both different units for the same thing and there is no skewing and there is no change other than the actual numbers them selves. The underlying math does not change and if you say that math has nothing to do with it then you obviously dont have a very good grasp on math.

Here is a picture with both degrees and radians together. They measure the same thing and if you can grasp the difference in linear inches and centimeters or the difference in force between pounds and newtons then you can grasp the difference in angular mils and moa. They are just different units of measure for the same thing.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/math.rice.edu\/~pcmi\/sphere\/degrad.gif"}[/IMG2]

So to sum up Im bringing back the first post for all of yall to reference as it says all thats needed in the link

z28kid said:
The search bar is your friend.

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/blogs/lowlight/6252897-mils-vs-moa-which-one-is-right-for-you
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#77
Culpeper said:
He was doing great as the party cadre of the thread and along came that statement about fast bullets vs ffp. That deserves its own dedicated thread for the NKVD spooks.
Click to expand...
I literally have no idea why you would NOT want FFP when switching between supersonic and subs. I've shot a lot of subs. Can't say my FFP reticle ever got in the way of anything.
 
#85
Gunfighter14e2 said:
You really mean those you have not experienced to-date.
Click to expand...

Quite obviously if I haven't experienced it, that means it isn't a problem for me. Other people's problems are not my own.

The concept that FFP reticles are not suitable for subsonic rounds holds no truth in my world. I've engaged targets to 500yds+ with subsonic 308 and 300BLK using FFP optics. Probably more than 10,000rnds of purposeful subsonic experience behind me in precision rifles. The only potential argument I could see someone make would be that when you dial to the lowest magnification to gain max hold-over, the reticle gets hard to read in low light without illumination or against a cluttered background, which also could be countered with illumination. While the argument "could" be made by someone using inferior hardware, it certainly doesn't mean the argument is correct as a blanket statement, because quite obviously - equipment exists where by that is not a problem.

All this being said in the vein of doing my part to ensure people are not mislead here. I have no sway over what you do, nor would I want. It's 2017 and I would have thought that incorrect blanket statements against FFP reticles would be behind the industry or at least people on this site... yet it persists.

 
#86
orkan said:
Quite obviously if I haven't experienced it, that means it isn't a problem for me. Other people's problems are not my own.

The concept that FFP reticles are not suitable for subsonic rounds holds no truth in my world. I've engaged targets to 500yds+ with subsonic 308 and 300BLK using FFP optics. Probably more than 10,000rnds of purposeful subsonic experience behind me in precision rifles. The only potential argument I could see someone make would be that when you dial to the lowest magnification to gain max hold-over, the reticle gets hard to read in low light without illumination or against a cluttered background, which also could be countered with illumination. While the argument "could" be made by someone using inferior hardware, it certainly doesn't mean the argument is correct as a blanket statement, because quite obviously - equipment exists where by that is not a problem.

All this being said in the vein of doing my part to ensure people are not mislead here. I have no sway over what you do, nor would I want. It's 2017 and I would have thought that incorrect blanket statements against FFP reticles would be behind the industry or at least people on this site... yet it persists.
Click to expand...

Every System Has Draw Backs, an one will find them if one uses said system long enough. Can the draw back be circumvented by changes in tactics absolutely but, in some circles time an movement is restricted or dangerous. Glad you have never had issues but just because you have never experienced them does not mean they don't exist. I used to think FFP was the be all, but one instance in a real world match proved me wrong, as well as many others I know who experienced the same issue. Is SFP the be all, no it's not but like I said all systems have issues, it's the venue you operate in most that dictates your choices. I simply pointed out a fact and you took it as a slam against FFP across the board. Glad you run lots of subs, because there are many of us that run way more subs than HS and have for many many years. It's a tactical advantage to end it in many ways with specialty ammo, before the other side knows it's even began.
Cheers,
 
#87
Gunfighter14e2 said:
but just because you have never experienced them does not mean they don't exist.
Click to expand...
... and just because you have had issues, doesn't mean a real problem exists. I never said each system didn't have drawbacks or compromises. If you want to debate me, do it based on things I say... not things you think I said.

Why are you being so vague? You claim one time in a match you had an issue, so did others. So what was the issue in that match, specifically?
What is the problem with subs and FFP, specifically?

... because continuing to reference some "problem" you had without outing what it is helps no one. If it helps no one, why mention it? If you "can't" tell anyone because it's classified, then maybe you shouldn't be even "alluding" to it. If you aren't willing to answer the two above questions, specifically... say so and I'll simply drop it. ... but if you want to keep saying "its a problem" over and over without saying why, what the hell is the point of it?
 
#89
For tactical and hunting I like ffp mils. Regarding wind holds it takes 5 min with a ballistics calculator to develop your own simple rule. I determine the wind speed that requires 0.1mil per 100 yards. For my 223 that is 5mph, and 7mph for my 6.5. Simple to do quickly in your head.

But for paper targets like Fclass, sfp moa is more straightforward because the circles are graduated in moa. And there are many more scopes available with 1/8moa vs .05mil as finer graduations are desired as well.
 
#91
orkan said:
... and just because you have had issues, doesn't mean a real problem exists. I never said each system didn't have drawbacks or compromises. If you want to debate me, do it based on things I say... not things you think I said.

Why are you being so vague? You claim one time in a match you had an issue, so did others. So what was the issue in that match, specifically?
What is the problem with subs and FFP, specifically?

... because continuing to reference some "problem" you had without outing what it is helps no one. If it helps no one, why mention it? If you "can't" tell anyone because it's classified, then maybe you shouldn't be even "alluding" to it. If you aren't willing to answer the two above questions, specifically... say so and I'll simply drop it. ... but if you want to keep saying "its a problem" over and over without saying why, what the hell is the point of it?
Click to expand...

The answer/issue is right under your nose/s. The difference between want can be held in the ret w/o dialing/moving at all. Shooting/training is great but when you induce past real world shots/events it can be a eye opening stage. No scope is perfect for everything, the trick is to know how to use what you have if/when the time comes it's all on the line.

One training venue as a stage that requires a 7-20(random) yd subsonic shot. What we don't tell the students is the main target (the training money shot) will present it's self at 385+/- yds while they are setting up on the close in shot. The spotter if he is doing his/her job should face ID the money shot. The issue comes from the fact it was a real world shot from 2005 where 2 enemy were but 25yds away looking right at the teams hide but never seen them. Any movement would have give them away, instead the shooter held correctly on 3.5 power, tagged the high priority target of opportunity, the spotter then did his job an the rest is history. Does this make SFP king no it does not, can it be done with a FFP yes it can as there are a "couple now a days" that have enough hold to use that way.
Gun was a .308win, scope was SFP Leupold 3.5x10x40 MK4 M3 Mil Dot. On 3.5 power there is ruffly 28.5 +/- mills of hold over.
The new TS32-1 MOA ret Leupold installs in the same scope allows ruffly 92 MOA of hold over on 3.5 power, before you add the 55 minutes more the knob allows.
 
Last edited:
#92
Gunfighter14e2 said:
The answer/issue is right under your nose/s. The difference between want can be held in the ret w/o dialing/moving at all. Shooting/training is great but when you induce past real world shots/events it can be a eye opening stage. No scope is perfect for everything, the trick is to know how to use what you have if/when the time comes it's all on the line.

One training venue as a stage that requires a 7-20(random) yd subsonic shot. What we don't tell the students is the main target (the training money shot) will present it's self at 385+/- yds while they are setting up on the close in shot. The spotter if he is doing his/her job should face ID the money shot. The issue comes from the fact it was a real world shot from 2005 where 2 enemy were but 25yds away looking right at the teams hide but never seen them. Any movement would have give them away, instead the shooter held correctly on 3.5 power, tagged the high priority target of opportunity, the spotter then did his job an the rest is history. Does this make SFP king no it does not, can it be done with a FFP yes it can as there are a "couple now a days" that have enough hold to use that way.
Gun was a .308win, scope was SFP Leupold 3.5x10x40 MK4 M3 Mil Dot. On 3.5 power there is ruffly 28.5 +/- mills of hold over.
The new TS32-1 MOA ret Leupold installs in the same scope allows ruffly 92 MOA of hold over on 3.5 power, before you add the 55 minutes more the knob allows.
Click to expand...

With due respect, just as I mentioned and suspected, this problem... isn't really a problem. Not in the context of this thread or in the context of almost any thread here. Not for civilian shooters, and I'd venture to guess not for a significant portion of mil/le shooters. If you go back and read this was exactly my first guess as to what you were going to say, so I don't see why it took so long to drag it out of you. ... and I'm not sure how you can start off with "its right there under your nose," as if this is some secret squirrel shit when I already stated what it likely was. There are literally more than a dozen FFP optics on the market right now that can give you a hold for a 385yd target with subs. If the shooter in the situation you describe gets in position at a low power and stays there, the shot will be made even MORE quickly and with more precision with the guy running FFP because at least his reticle will subtend the actual value. If either shooter, ffp or sfp gets in with a high magnification setting, they will both have to make a movement. You don't magically get more hold on high mag with a SFP just because the reticle isn't scaling.

The statement you made in which FFP is not good for subs simply doesn't hold water. If that shooter in the situation you described above had the right FFP optic on his rifle, he likely would have made the shot even faster and easier than he did with his SFP leupy. I have no doubt that your knowledge in the area of shooting people is absolutely valuable as it pertains to tactical decision making in real world threat situations. I'll happily bow out to you there as I have no experience as a sniper on a battlefield. However, I think it would be good for you to expand your horizons regarding equipment options and reticle selection before making blanket statements which condemn an entire classification of reticle just because a single situation an optic caused an issue once. Especially on a website where 99.9% of the discussion is civilian oriented.

A 175SMK at 1050fps only needs about 15.5 mils to make the trip to 385. It doesn't take a special kind of FFP optic to perform that kind of hold. The Tangent Theta 315P has almost 60 mils of holds beneath the crosshair on 3x magnification, with subtensions every 2 mils past 10 mils. I've made shots to 425 or so using nothing but holds. The reticle is MORE than functional and useable at 5x even against cluttered backgrounds. At 8x it has 22 mils worth of holds beneath center crosshair, and that is more than enough magnification for a body-sized target at 400yds.
 
#93
orkan said:
With due respect, just as I mentioned and suspected, this problem... isn't really a problem. Not in the context of this thread or in the context of almost any thread here. Not for civilian shooters, and I'd venture to guess not for a significant portion of mil/le shooters. If you go back and read this was exactly my first guess as to what you were going to say, so I don't see why it took so long to drag it out of you. ... and I'm not sure how you can start off with "its right there under your nose," as if this is some secret squirrel shit when I already stated what it likely was. There are literally more than a dozen FFP optics on the market right now that can give you a hold for a 385yd target with subs. If the shooter in the situation you describe gets in position at a low power and stays there, the shot will be made even MORE quickly and with more precision with the guy running FFP because at least his reticle will subtend the actual value. If either shooter, ffp or sfp gets in with a high magnification setting, they will both have to make a movement. You don't magically get more hold on high mag with a SFP just because the reticle isn't scaling.

The statement you made in which FFP is not good for subs simply doesn't hold water. If that shooter in the situation you described above had the right FFP optic on his rifle, he likely would have made the shot even faster and easier than he did with his SFP leupy. I have no doubt that your knowledge in the area of shooting people is absolutely valuable as it pertains to tactical decision making in real world threat situations. I'll happily bow out to you there as I have no experience as a sniper on a battlefield. However, I think it would be good for you to expand your horizons regarding equipment options and reticle selection before making blanket statements which condemn an entire classification of reticle just because a single situation an optic caused an issue once. Especially on a website where 99.9% of the discussion is civilian oriented.

A 175SMK at 1050fps only needs about 15.5 mils to make the trip to 385. It doesn't take a special kind of FFP optic to perform that kind of hold. The Tangent Theta 315P has almost 60 mils of holds beneath the crosshair on 3x magnification, with subtensions every 2 mils past 10 mils. I've made shots to 425 or so using nothing but holds. The reticle is MORE than functional and useable at 5x even against cluttered backgrounds. At 8x it has 22 mils worth of holds beneath center crosshair, and that is more than enough magnification for a body-sized target at 400yds.
Click to expand...

Interesting to for you to think I have nothing better to do than answer your questions, immediately.
Like I said before, no scope or mfg of same is 100% perfect for every venue. Knowing what you have, the ability to employ it properly, an quickly if need be, is the key to any tool. I see more folks coming out with all the latest an greatest having major issues finding the range let alone subdued targets on same, yet they can answer any question you pose about shooting. Then when the class is over they find many of their gear choices based upon only internet education is lacking. I own a few FFP USO's (60MOA MD-MOA ret's 1/2 MOA EREK's) and a few SFP Leupolds ( TS32 MOA 3.5X10X40 M3)and when push comes to shove the USO's are always left behind. Could it be the Leupolds are better, no. Could it be the Leupolds do the same or more w/o breaking the bank, having a high profile or weighing 50% or greater.
You like 175smk for subs? Many of us shoot a 311332-BV Lyman, an get much better on target performance. 400yds only take 54 MOA of flight (69 over a HS zero, dropping 15, 2 for barrel droop an 13 diff from HS)
 
#94
Gunfighter14e2 said:
Interesting to for you to think I have nothing better to do than answer your questions, immediately.
Click to expand...
Well you sure had the time to respond immediately 3 times... but apparently not the time to actually describe your "problem."

You clearly can only see this issue from the veil of shooting people... so I'll leave you to it. Your rant about idiotic gear queer shooters has nothing to do with me.
 
#95
orkan said:
Well you sure had the time to respond immediately 3 times... but apparently not the time to actually describe your "problem."

You clearly can only see this issue from the veil of shooting people... so I'll leave you to it. Your rant about idiotic gear queer shooters has nothing to do with me.
Click to expand...

I responded three times because I had puter access, the other times I posted here this thread never entered my mind. Sorry for being so forgetful, next time I'll have someone call me when your need to know is so important!

When this sight started it was not about shooting small groups or tacticool gear, it just evolved into that. One of the reasons many are no longer here, I would think. Do I have issue with that? Not at all if that is what folks like or want to do. I could care less about gear queers as the net, ranges, an classes are full of them. In reality I enjoy the fact they are out there because, if it were not for Frank and the Hide driving the tacticool market like he/it does, my Social Security check may not be forth coming every month. No, I don't see every issue as a hammer an nail, but that was/is the true intent of the tool and I just treat it as such.
 
#99
After reading the entire thread I just have to add my two cents:

-I enter the long range arena from a desire to be able to shoot well enough for long range hunting. I thought SFP was the best and MOA was the only way to go. A buddy who was a competitive shooter talked me into a FFP MIL/MIL scope and I thought I was never going to figure it out............... and then I quit screwing around trying to figure out the math and just used the damned thing the way it was designed. The reticle is your ruler and the the turrets match. Problem solved!
-My shooting partner also wanted to think in inches and do the math, we are finally to the point that we both just use the reticle to spot/wind call for each other and this works very well.
-As mentioned MIL and MOA are 2 different ways to accomplish the same thing. The target shooting community likes MOA because they score by dialing into the exact center of the target where the MIL adjustments are slightly more coarse adjustment and tactical/prs are usually scored by hit/miss.
-I know many hunters using the BDC reticles SFP and miss because they zoom past the calibrated magnification and it changes their BDC but doesn't register in their brain. User error.
-The whole wind is easier to do in Mils thing just doesn't make sense.......... If you can do it in MILS, you can do it in MOA. I agree that personally I prefer MILS but that doesn't exclude MOA from being able to do exactly the same thing.
-To sum up I am now a big believer in FFP MIL/MIL scopes for any type of long range shooting (except possibly ELR but thats not my gig) because it is a great tool and it simplifies all the little details that I could be screwing up!

Many awesome and informative comments here. Rob your comments are spot on. Orkan your comments are also informative and always entertaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lowlight
Rifle Scopes Form and Function of MOA and MIL
Replies
6
Views
496
375fan
3
F
Why would a scope be made with MOA turrets and Mil-Dot reticle
Replies
69
Views
1K
roostercogburn98
roostercogburn98
LC 6.5 Shooter
Rifle Scopes Dialing in MOA question. Only own mil scopes
Replies
3
Views
307
Mike Casselton
Mike Casselton
P
ATACR 4-16x42 - Usable hold distance with MIL XT reticle w/ 100 yard zero and 5.56 rifle (and mount concerns)
Replies
13
Views
865
jLorenzo
jLorenzo
L
NF Atacr FFP 4-16x42 v SFP 4-16x50 Mil-R
Replies
7
Views
740
sjbryan65
sjbryan65
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts