Rifle Scopes Moa or mil adjustments question

[rsplante]

I finally saved up for my NightForce scope and am aiming at an 8-32x56 NXS Zerostop Mil-dot but cannot decide if I should get it in moa adjustments or mil. I realize that you will need to know more about me to help me make this decision.

Alas, I have no military or law enforcement background. I am a 56 yo Engineer who is not a hunter (yet) so I guess that makes me a paper puncher. I bought my first centerfire rifle in January of this year. It is as close to a tack-driver as one could get in a gas gun. It is a LaRue Tactical 5.56 OBR with an 8:1 20” barrel, SJC Titan compensator, Harris bipod and Magpul PRS stock. I am still working on my own accuracy and working up a cartridge, so I am still at 100 yd. My range only goes out to 300 yd, but I am thinking of also joining one which goes to 1000 yd. (I will have to go single shot 80 gr bullets to be allowed beyond 600 yd.) I picked up a 10-40x50 Osprey scope at a gun show to hold me until I could save up for my NightForce. At the same gun show, I bought a box of genuine Hornady TAP (not the FPD stuff) and shot a five shot group of 0.4moa at 100 yd. I was firmly bitten by the accuracy bug then, but didn’t want to continue spending $1.70/round, so I figured I’d save money by starting to reload (hah).

I got a Dillon RL550B progressive reloader, RCBS 1500 Chargemaster (no Prometheus yet), Dillon carbide dies, an RCBS Casemate, and a Dillon Swage tool to remove military crimps. I was aiming to make a mk262 clone. 77gr Sierra HPBT (with and w/o cannelure), Lake City brass, GM205M primers, and 23.9gr. VARGET. My first batch produced a sub-moa group of five at 100 yd., with four of them at 0.25moa. Now I really wanted to get as accurate as possible. I got a Hornady concentricity gage and a Redding competition bullet seating die. This reduced my concentricity run-out to about 0.003” but with the Hornady gage I could reduce that to around 0.001. I switched toolheads to a CNC machined one by Whidden Gun Works with floating die heads and a clamp down by Uniquetek,
http://whiddengunworks.net/dilloncnctoolhead.html
http://www.uniquetek.com/site/696296/product/T1389

My concentricity immediately went from an average of .003 to less than .001 without having to make adjustments. I switched the dial indicator on my concentricity gage to a Starrett 25-211 which has a 0.0001 accuracy, plus I added a Starrett Roller Contact Point (4CER8 from Grainger.com) because I had noticed the dial indicator jumping. Now I am measuring an incredible 0.0001-0.0007 concentricity run-out. Have not been to the range yet, but I’m excited.

Oh, I also picked up a Dillon RT1200 case trimmer, sweeeeet. Just wish they would make caliber specific cutters which would debur and chamfer at the same time. (whaa-whaa).

With that background info, back to my question. I want to learn mil-dot rangefinding, but right now, I am still more comfortable with the concept of moa adjustments. Should I be leaning more towards mil adjustments?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Redmanss]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

Mil for me, easier to learn IMO, but I like Ford and others like Chevy. There's a few threads in the FAQ sticky on it.

Fill out your profile and maybe some here will be willing to meet up with you to shoot. Hard to know where you are otherwise.

WOW is that a lot of magnification and a huge scope for a 5.56 AR. I and many others like things a bit more compact and with a wider FOV.

Welcome to the Hide.

 

[Truck10]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

I've always had MOA scopes, but like said above it's personal preference i guess. If your set on a mildot reticle get Mil turrets, not MOA turrets which you can do. I would also consider the MLR or MLR2 reticle if your going mil. If you go minute turrets which will save you some money stick with the NP-R1 or 2 reticle.

Honestly, you will be much better suited with a lower power scope with that caliber at those ranges. Check out the NF 2.5-10 model or the 3.5-15, they will fit your needs alot better.

 

[VKC]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

I would have to agree with lower power, upper limits of 15x. Mil or MOA comes down to preference, but if you go with mil get the MLR and not the mildot because holdovers are easier.

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

First off, this has been beat to death on this forum. Just do a search and do some reading.

Second, both MOA and MIL are just angular measurements - nothing more. The MOA just happens to be ALMOST 1 inch at 100 yds, but the MIL is always 1/1000 of any measurement. For example a Mil is 1 yd at 1000 yds, or 1 ft at 1000 ft, or 1 inch at 1000 inches. So, if you have an 18inch target that appears to be 1 Mil in your reticle, then it must be 18,000 inches away (18x1000). 18,000 inches is 1,500 feet, or 500 yds. Easy! If the 18 inch target takes up .25 mils, then you divide by .25 and now it's 1200 yds away (300/0.25).

You have to get the idea that MIL's are metric out of your head. Mils are just 1/1000 of any measurement.

 

[Sami]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have to get the idea that MIL's are metric out of your head. Mils are just 1/1000 of any measurement. </div></div>

Very true. That being said, it does go extremely well with metric since you're not converting from inches to yards.

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have to get the idea that MIL's are metric out of your head. Mils are just 1/1000 of any measurement. </div></div>

Very true. That being said, it does go extremely well with metric since you're not converting from inches to yards.</div></div>

Very true Sami. The metric system is base 10 which matches perfectly with Mils.

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

I probably was premature in my post; however, I had initially planned on purchasing the NF scope today. After posting, I found the FAQ thread addressing this question. It does appear that the majority favor mil/mil. Thanks for the input.

 

[427Cobra]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

8-32 is way too much scope for a 5.56, my choice would be a 2.5-10x32, I'm also a Mil convert, so I recommend Mil Dot based reticle with MRAD knobs.

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

I understand your concern about my picking too high a power in my scope, and it is something I have thought about; however, I will not be engaging in normal hunting, i.e. large animals or zombies, I will probably be gravitating towards longer ranges soon, and/or varmint hunting which seems to call for a higher magnification. Also, with my chronological giftedness, my vision needs all the help it can get. While it is true that I am currently sticking to 100 yd., I plan on pushing the distance soon. I bought a "Bob Sled" which helps facilitate loading single shots and my barrel should be able to handle 80gr bullets, so I will be pushing to see if I can get to 1000 yd. eventually. Other than price, and reduced field of view (and it is variable power), what is the downside of having higher power available? The NXS I'm considering goes down to 8x and I do not plan on any CQB, and if I was, I would not have gotten a 20" barrel or a 15 lb rifle. Just asking, I have not bought the scope yet, and I am somewhat teachable (despite my advanced age.)
I realize that I did not pick the ideal rifle for long range shooting; however, my understanding is that it is still possible to reach 1000yd with an 80 gr. bullet, even in 5.56. My interests are evolving, and if my next rifle turns out to be .308 (AR-10 or M1A), Remington 700, or even a .338 Lapua Magnum (just kidding, the local 1000 yd range doesn't allow them), I figure the NF scope be happy to make the move and will probably outlive me (all three of my sons shoot).
Thanks,

 

[pupdawg]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

If NF makes that 8-32 with the MLR2 reticle then that's what I'd get.

If they don't then I would get whatever model they do offer that MLR2 reticle in. Of course with mrad turrets.

Get that scope, shoot on it and you'll learn it in no time.

Here's a link to a good read:

Mils and MOA

Read that 4x over (I'm not an engineer so I read it 8x ), remember the formula for your range calls and thats it.

 

[gstaylorg]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

Although it probably won't be a concern for your 5.56, one reason to consider an MOA/MOA scope such as the 8-32x56 you mentioned is that you can get them with either 0.250 or 0.125 MOA turret adjustments. I recently purchased that exact scope with the 0.125 MOA turrets for a .308 to be used in comp shooting because it's just a much finer click increment than 0.1 mil (for example: change per click in POI of 0.79" vs 2.16" @ 600 yd). All my other NFs are mil/mil, which are much easier to use for most general shooting purposes. Just something to think about if/when you get into LR shooting and go with a higher mag scope down the road.

 

[Sami]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fully Involved</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I figure the NF scope be happy to make the move and will probably outlive me</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fully Involved</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what is the downside of having higher power available?</div></div>
Yes, the scope would be a good long term investment but since you're starting this hobby (assuming from your post), a low power scope will help you develop your shooting skills much better. I would go as far and say that you should pick up a $100 Mosin-Nagant and shoot as much as you can with iron sights.

 

[JimHanks]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

Welcome to the site and the sport. Someone should warn you that long range and tactical shooting worst than any drug. Once you "ring" a plate @ 1000, it's over!

+1 on the iron sights. Once you move off the 100 yd. bench; the fundamentals, i.e. natural point of aim, trigger control, breathing, body position, etc.,make all the difference in the shot.

Also look in the training section; a lot of good information especially in the sub-section done by Rifles Only.

I'm not a youngster (53) either and just recently got involved with long range tactical shooting and matches (So I'm no expert.) IMO, the mil/mil is the way to go, I prefer the 3.2-17 or 5-22. Most of my shooting is done in the 14 to 16 range; at distance. I found that I have issues with mirage at higher powers.

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

8-32 is truly too much magnification. I think 5-25 range is probably the biggest you need. You may zoom in to around 20x just to look at your holes, but you will find that it's very difficult to shoot at higher magnification. I think 2.5-10 is too small because I think you'll find yourself enjoying the 10-14x range for long distance engagement. If you shoot on 32x, then as soon as you pull the trigger you'll completely lose your sight picture. Also, after about 16-18x your breathing will be seen heavily in the scope and you'll start to see your heartbeat as well.

Aside from 32x being unrealistic for your application, the 8x is too high of a low point. The lower magnifications allow you to gain a large field of view and identify the location of your targets before ranging them. 3.5-15 or 5-22 is the NF that you should be looking at. Either one is a long term scope . . . however as soon as you look through a Schmidt and Bender you will no longer want you NF!!!

Good luck!

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gstaylorg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I recently purchased that exact scope with the 0.125 MOA turrets for a .308 to be used in comp shooting because it's just a much finer click increment than 0.1 mil </div></div>

That is another thing I thought about. I like the idea of the finer adjustment; however, NF does not make the 0.125 moa turrets in zerostop. Do you find that you really don't need ZS, or just that the finer adjustment is more important?

 

[JimHanks]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

The zero stop would be the higher consideration. You can get "lost" on the turrets in a match. The finer adjustments will get lost in the wind. Once you can out shoot the wind; then worry about 1/8" adjustments.

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhTexas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Welcome to the site and the sport. Someone should warn you that long range and tactical shooting worst than any drug. Once you "ring" a plate @ 1000, it's over!
</div></div>
Hah, I hear you!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhTexas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
+1 on the iron sights. Once you move off the 100 yd. bench; the fundamentals, i.e. natural point of aim, trigger control, breathing, body position, etc.,make all the difference in the shot.
</div></div>
I figured as much, that's why I purchased the rifle with Troy DOA BUIS. Right now I am concentrating more on developing an accruate load, (as I said, working on a mk262 clone) than on my markmanship, so I need the optics assist; however, I will probably go to iron sights more after I have my load dialed in. On the other hand, I just went to the LaRue site and noticed they are now carrying something called a Dueck Defense Rapid Transition Sight, which is a BUIS canted at 45deg. out of the way so that you can quickly use both optics and iron sights.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhTexas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also look in the training section; a lot of good information especially in the sub-section done by Rifles Only.

I'm not a youngster (53) either and just recently got involved with long range tactical shooting and matches (So I'm no expert.) IMO, the mil/mil is the way to go, I prefer the 3.2-17 or 5-22. Most of my shooting is done in the 14 to 16 range; at distance. I found that I have issues with mirage at higher powers. </div></div>
I've heard the issue of mirage; however, even if I do stay in the range of 14-16, what is the downside of having 32x available (other than price)? I mean, I would still have it available for checking my shots if nothing else.

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would go as far and say that you should pick up a $100 Mosin-Nagant and shoot as much as you can with iron sights. </div></div>
My youngest son has one; however, with the stupid Berdan primers, they don't make a good choice for reloading. (and the Ruski stuff isn't known for accuracy, other than Vasili Zeitsev)

As for inaccurate Ruski rifles, I do have an SKS.

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">8-32 is truly too much magnification. I think 5-25 range is probably the biggest you need. You may zoom in to around 20x just to look at your holes, but you will find that it's very difficult to shoot at higher magnification. I think 2.5-10 is too small because I think you'll find yourself enjoying the 10-14x range for long distance engagement. If you shoot on 32x, then as soon as you pull the trigger you'll completely lose your sight picture. Also, after about 16-18x your breathing will be seen heavily in the scope and you'll start to see your heartbeat as well.
</div></div>
OK, now I am starting to see a downside to the higher power scopes. I have noticed losing my sight picture, but had assumed that would happen at any magnification. I will have to revisit that at lower power at the range. I also noticed the breathing and heartbeat; however, I had thought that that was something I just had to work around. How will not knowing the effect of breathing and heartbeat (through lower power) actually help my shots?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Aside from 32x being unrealistic for your application, the 8x is too high of a low point. The lower magnifications allow you to gain a large field of view and identify the location of your targets before ranging them. 3.5-15 or 5-22 is the NF that you should be looking at. Either one is a long term scope . . . however as soon as you look through a Schmidt and Bender you will no longer want you NF!!!

Good luck! </div></div>
Hah, I've seen the S&B vs. NF feud while lurking! You are probably correct, but as long as I am not 100% sure of the right scope for myself, I would rather make a $2K mistake than a $3.5K mistake. By the way, how come nobody seems to mention US Optics? They seem to be in the same price range as the S&B and show up a lot more at my range.

 

[Driftwood]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

It really doesn't matter which angular unit of measurement you use. Asking which is better Mil or MOA is close to asking which is better for measuring distance a foot or a yard. It just depends on which you suits your personal needs better. A yard is the same as 3 feet. A Mil is the same as 3.43 MOA. Its not quite as clean but I am sure you get the comparasion. I happen to like Mils better, but that doesn't make MOA inferior. The matching turret / reticle thing is very nice but I have gotten along most of my life using dyslexic scopes. I think its good to know both and be able to convert between the two just as I can describe distance in both feet and yards, I can also describe angle in moa or mil. Which is "better" is a personal preference.

 

[NBK-YOTIE]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

i went down this road before. i bought a nxs 12x42. thought it was the best thing. i didnt have any advice though. i shot 1k with it. however when shooting 1k i ended up not using more then 24 power. the other thing is it wasnt ff. i had a mildot reticle and in order to use the reticle u had to keep it on a certain power range. something to think about. these guys on this forum really do know what there talking about.

 

[adam1122]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

Personally, I shoot moa/moa on my us optics......you have a tremendous amount of scope power o that weapon. May want to consider a schmidt and bender short dot 1-8x. Once you look through the glass you will know why the scope costs so much.

Welcome to long range shooting and the hide. Nice groups at 100 even though that's really close. Be warned...accuracy is addictive.

 

[stan462]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First off, this has been beat to death on this forum. Just do a search and do some reading.

Second, both MOA and MIL are just angular measurements - nothing more. The MOA just happens to be ALMOST 1 inch at 100 yds, but the MIL is always 1/1000 of any measurement. For example a Mil is 1 yd at 1000 yds, or 1 ft at 1000 ft, or 1 inch at 1000 inches. So, if you have an 18inch target that appears to be 1 Mil in your reticle, then it must be 18,000 inches away (18x1000). 18,000 inches is 1,500 feet, or 300 yds. Easy! If the 18 inch target takes up .25 mils, then you divide by .25 and now it's 1200 yds away (300/0.25).

You have to get the idea that MIL's are metric out of your head. Mils are just 1/1000 of any measurement. </div></div>

I think that it should be 500 yd and not 300 in your calculations. : )

 

[stan462]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First off, this has been beat to death on this forum. Just do a search and do some reading.

Second, both MOA and MIL are just angular measurements - nothing more. The MOA just happens to be ALMOST 1 inch at 100 yds, but the MIL is always 1/1000 of any measurement. For example a Mil is 1 yd at 1000 yds, or 1 ft at 1000 ft, or 1 inch at 1000 inches. So, if you have an 18inch target that appears to be 1 Mil in your reticle, then it must be 18,000 inches away (18x1000). 18,000 inches is 1,500 feet, or 300 yds. Easy! If the 18 inch target takes up .25 mils, then you divide by .25 and now it's 1200 yds away (300/0.25).

You have to get the idea that MIL's are metric out of your head. Mils are just 1/1000 of any measurement. </div></div>

I think that it should be 500 yd and not 300 in your calculations. : ) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fully Involved</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">8-32 is truly too much magnification. I think 5-25 range is probably the biggest you need. You may zoom in to around 20x just to look at your holes, but you will find that it's very difficult to shoot at higher magnification. I think 2.5-10 is too small because I think you'll find yourself enjoying the 10-14x range for long distance engagement. If you shoot on 32x, then as soon as you pull the trigger you'll completely lose your sight picture. Also, after about 16-18x your breathing will be seen heavily in the scope and you'll start to see your heartbeat as well.
</div></div>
OK, now I am starting to see a downside to the higher power scopes. I have noticed losing my sight picture, but had assumed that would happen at any magnification. I will have to revisit that at lower power at the range. I also noticed the breathing and heartbeat; however, I had thought that that was something I just had to work around. How will not knowing the effect of breathing and heartbeat (through lower power) actually help my shots?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Aside from 32x being unrealistic for your application, the 8x is too high of a low point. The lower magnifications allow you to gain a large field of view and identify the location of your targets before ranging them. 3.5-15 or 5-22 is the NF that you should be looking at. Either one is a long term scope . . . however as soon as you look through a Schmidt and Bender you will no longer want you NF!!!

Good luck! </div></div>
Hah, I've seen the S&B vs. NF feud while lurking! You are probably correct, but as long as I am not 100% sure of the right scope for myself, I would rather make a $2K mistake than a $3.5K mistake. By the way, how come nobody seems to mention US Optics? They seem to be in the same price range as the S&B and show up a lot more at my range.</div></div>

I have three USO 1.5X6 on my LWRC 6.8, 3.8X17 on my Springfield M21, and 5X25 on my 338 Lapua. They are great scopes with good customer service.

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: stan462</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First off, this has been beat to death on this forum. Just do a search and do some reading.

Second, both MOA and MIL are just angular measurements - nothing more. The MOA just happens to be ALMOST 1 inch at 100 yds, but the MIL is always 1/1000 of any measurement. For example a Mil is 1 yd at 1000 yds, or 1 ft at 1000 ft, or 1 inch at 1000 inches. So, if you have an 18inch target that appears to be 1 Mil in your reticle, then it must be 18,000 inches away (18x1000). 18,000 inches is 1,500 feet, or 300 yds. Easy! If the 18 inch target takes up .25 mils, then you divide by .25 and now it's 1200 yds away (300/0.25).

You have to get the idea that MIL's are metric out of your head. Mils are just 1/1000 of any measurement. </div></div>

I think that it should be 500 yd and not 300 in your calculations. : ) </div></div>

OH! Good catch! Sorry about the typo (I corrected it in the post so as not to confuse any further). Here I am trying to explain something and I make a mistake - wow!

Thanks for the correction stan!! I think you're the only one who even read what I wrote

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

Good luck! [/quote]
Hah, I've seen the S&B vs. NF feud while lurking! You are probably correct, but as long as I am not 100% sure of the right scope for myself, I would rather make a $2K mistake than a $3.5K mistake. By the way, how come nobody seems to mention US Optics? They seem to be in the same price range as the S&B and show up a lot more at my range.[/quote]

I haven't seen many S&B vs NF, but I have seen S&B vs Hensoldt. The NF is a great scope and I have had three of them myself. They track well, are durable, and have clear glass with good coloration - you can't ask for anything more . . . rather just more of what you already have! It's impossible to make a $3.5K mistake with a S&B, rather you're more likely to eventually want to sell your NF (not definetely, just probably) and lose money on it while you upgrade to S&B. The only reason I know is that I, along with many other people on this sight, have owned every possible scope and eventually settle on a top notch scope like the S&B.

The USO's a good scopes as well. 'nuff said. I think you'll like your NF, but I also think you may want to look at a FFP scope from USO or Schmidt.

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

UncleBenji, I think you misinterpreted my comment.

[/quote]
as long as I am not 100% sure of the right scope for myself, I would rather make a $2K mistake than a $3.5K mistake. [/quote]

I was not saying that buying a S&B would be a mistake in itself, I was saying that since I might buy the wrong model, i.e. power, features, etc., on my first high dollar scope, a $2K mistake is less damaging than a $3.5K mistake. Like many on this site, I am sure that this purchase will be far from my last.

 

[adam1122]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

US Optics Scopes seem to be generally for those folks who want to truly customize their scopes to their liking. They may be the only US made manufacturer who lets you pick pretty much every option on your scope. You can pick pretty much anything you want on your scope.

I run a truly customized SN-3 with EREK turret, parrallax, illuminated reticle etc....scope cost close to $2500 so don't be fooled. They aren't cheap. The best part is that if you were to throw a USO scope off of a 3 story building it won't break or loose zero...just search youtube for the videos. You get what you pay for. Trade off is the weight.

Optical quality is just a shade under a Schmidt but while the Germans build kick ass optics they are not built like tanks and I doubt their ability to get the crap kicked out of them before the glass breaks or zero shifts in my opinion. I may be wrong, but anyone on the Hide want to volunteer up their S&B for a 2 story drop test? Don't think their will be alot of takers on this one. If so, let's see some video!

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It really doesn't matter which angular unit of measurement you use. Asking which is better Mil or MOA is close to asking which is better for measuring distance a foot or a yard. It just depends on which you suits your personal needs better. A yard is the same as 3 feet. A Mil is the same as 3.43 MOA. Its not quite as clean but I am sure you get the comparasion. I happen to like Mils better, but that doesn't make MOA inferior. The matching turret / reticle thing is very nice but I have gotten along most of my life using dyslexic scopes. I think its good to know both and be able to convert between the two just as I can describe distance in both feet and yards, I can also describe angle in moa or mil. Which is "better" is a personal preference.</div></div>

True, but at 100 yds an MOA is not exactly equal to any form of distance measurement that we use because it's based on a 360 degree circle, which is based on PI. It just makes it that much more difficult when ranging at long distances when an MOA is 1.0471975511966 inches at 100 yds.

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fully Involved</div><div class="ubbcode-body">UncleBenji, I think you misinterpreted my comment.

as long as I am not 100% sure of the right scope for myself, I would rather make a $2K mistake than a $3.5K mistake.
I was not saying that buying a S&B would be a mistake in itself, I was saying that since I might buy the wrong model, i.e. power, features, etc., on my first high dollar scope, a $2K mistake is less damaging than a $3.5K mistake. Like many on this site, I am sure that this purchase will be far from my last.</div></div>

Oh, I did misunderstand - my bad!

You can't go wrong with the NF. If you were asking about a Burris or something else, then I'd really be pushing you to get something else!

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fully Involved</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How will not knowing the effect of breathing and heartbeat (through lower power) actually help my shots?</div></div>

The best way I can explain it is like when you're watching a home video and the filmer as really jittery. They then try to zoom in on the action and their shacking becuase nearly impossible to watch. Then, when they zoom out again it's easier to watch becuase the jittery motions aren't as noticeable when zoomed out. So, when you're zoomed that far in with your scope it becomes very difficult to stay aligned and concentrated on your target when the whole picture is shacking and thumping from your heartbeat.

I hope that kinda helps.

 

[Driftwood]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

True, but at 100 yds an MOA is not exactly equal to any form of distance measurement that we use because it's based on a 360 degree circle, which is based on PI. It just makes it that much more difficult when ranging at long distances when an MOA is 1.0471975511966 inches at 100 yds.
</div></div>

One MOA is one MOA at 100 or 1,000 yards, meters, inches, parsecs or any other linear unit you can come up with. We are talking angles not linear units. As an angular unit of measure why bother trying to measure .0471975511966 of an inch at 100 yards?

 

[Sami]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can't go wrong with the NF. If you were asking about a Burris or something else, then I'd really be pushing you to get something else! </div></div>
I don't know if Burris makes tactical scopes much but their Euro and Black Diamond scopes are excellent hunting scopes in their price range.

Seems like they do make at least semi-tactical models.

http://www.sportoptics.com/burris-blackdiamond-scope-8--32x50-ballistic-mil-dot-200943.aspx
http://www.sportoptics.com/burris-blackdiamond-scope-6--24x50-ballistic-mildot-200934.aspx

 

[Truck10]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As an angular unit of measure why bother trying to measure .0471975511966 of an inch at 100 yards?</div></div>

Because i need that .47th when i'm shooting dimes @ 1k......

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

True, but at 100 yds an MOA is not exactly equal to any form of distance measurement that we use because it's based on a 360 degree circle, which is based on PI. It just makes it that much more difficult when ranging at long distances when an MOA is 1.0471975511966 inches at 100 yds.
</div></div>

One MOA is one MOA at 100 or 1,000 yards, meters, inches, parsecs or any other linear unit you can come up with. We are talking angles not linear units. As an angular unit of measure why bother trying to measure .0471975511966 of an inch at 100 yards?</div></div>

No offense intended, you're correct that it's just an angular measurement.

Allow me to clarify. At long distances that .0472 can make a difference in ranging. If you have a rangefinder, and you know your dope, then it makes no difference what angular measurement you use.

 

[bohem]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It really doesn't matter which angular unit of measurement you use. Asking which is better Mil or MOA is close to asking which is better for measuring distance a foot or a yard. It just depends on which you suits your personal needs better. A yard is the same as 3 feet. A Mil is the same as 3.43 MOA. Its not quite as clean but I am sure you get the comparasion. I happen to like Mils better, but that doesn't make MOA inferior. The matching turret / reticle thing is very nice but I have gotten along most of my life using dyslexic scopes. I think its good to know both and be able to convert between the two just as I can describe distance in both feet and yards, I can also describe angle in moa or mil. Which is "better" is a personal preference.</div></div>

True, but at 100 yds an MOA is not exactly equal to any form of distance measurement that we use because it's based on a 360 degree circle, which is based on PI. It just makes it that much more difficult when ranging at long distances when an MOA is 1.0471975511966 inches at 100 yds.
</div></div>

Driftwood covered it well.

I find it easier to think in "Inches per hundred yards" when I'm estimating distances without paper/pen/calculator. I also find it easier to employ MOA because of this.

If you like mils, shoot mils, if you like MOA, shoot MOA. The important piece to keep in mind is matching the reticle subtension to the turrets. Don't get a mil reticle on a scope with MOA turrets or visa versa. It used to be the norm and some people work just fine with it, but if you're just starting out I don't think there is a need to make it more difficult from the start.

Beyond that, angular measurements are angular measurements. Mils are still based upon a cicle just like MOA are.

1 mil = 1 milliradian, 2* pi radians in a circle means that PI is still involved.

Being able to quickly estimate between the two angular subtension systems is a skill just like quickly estimating from yards to meters. Doing it without anything but mental math takes some longer than others but practicing it is important.

Just pick one system or the other and run it.

 

[Driftwood]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

I am going to come off as being argumentive, but .0472 MOA = .01376 MILs. On a good day I can break a mil reticle down to .05 Mils depending on where it is on the scale and how much SWAG I can pull, but on my best day there is no way I could break it down to .02 Mils which a lot bigger than .014 Mils. The further out you go the harder it gets too. If you can, I bow down to your awesomeness. I didn't take offense, I hope you don't either. I am flying home from the sandbox tonight so I am a bit of a smart ass.

 

[jwp475]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

True, but at 100 yds an MOA is not exactly equal to any form of distance measurement that we use because it's based on a 360 degree circle, which is based on PI. It just makes it that much more difficult when ranging at long distances when an MOA is 1.0471975511966 inches at 100 yds.
</div></div>

One MOA is one MOA at 100 or 1,000 yards, meters, inches, parsecs or any other linear unit you can come up with. We are talking angles not linear units. As an angular unit of measure why bother trying to measure .0471975511966 of an inch at 100 yards? </div></div>

+1.... Just measure in angular units and you are done

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am going to come off as being argumentive, but .0472 MOA = .01376 MILs. On a good day I can break a mil reticle down to .05 Mils depending on where it is on the scale and how much SWAG I can pull, but on my best day there is no way I could break it down to .02 Mils which a lot bigger than .014 Mils. The further out you go the harder it gets too. If you can, I bow down to your awesomeness. I didn't take offense, I hope you don't either. I am flying home from the sandbox tonight so I am a bit of a smart ass.</div></div>

No problem! I have a tendency to come across blunt on text, but that's not my intention. Thanks for your service!

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It really doesn't matter which angular unit of measurement you use. Asking which is better Mil or MOA is close to asking which is better for measuring distance a foot or a yard. It just depends on which you suits your personal needs better. A yard is the same as 3 feet. A Mil is the same as 3.43 MOA. Its not quite as clean but I am sure you get the comparasion. I happen to like Mils better, but that doesn't make MOA inferior. The matching turret / reticle thing is very nice but I have gotten along most of my life using dyslexic scopes. I think its good to know both and be able to convert between the two just as I can describe distance in both feet and yards, I can also describe angle in moa or mil. Which is "better" is a personal preference.</div></div>

True, but at 100 yds an MOA is not exactly equal to any form of distance measurement that we use because it's based on a 360 degree circle, which is based on PI. It just makes it that much more difficult when ranging at long distances when an MOA is 1.0471975511966 inches at 100 yds.
</div></div>

Driftwood covered it well.

I find it easier to think in "Inches per hundred yards" when I'm estimating distances without paper/pen/calculator. I also find it easier to employ MOA because of this.

If you like mils, shoot mils, if you like MOA, shoot MOA. The important piece to keep in mind is matching the reticle subtension to the turrets. Don't get a mil reticle on a scope with MOA turrets or visa versa. It used to be the norm and some people work just fine with it, but if you're just starting out I don't think there is a need to make it more difficult from the start.

Beyond that, angular measurements are angular measurements. Mils are still based upon a cicle just like MOA are.

1 mil = 1 milliradian, 2* pi radians in a circle means that PI is still involved.

Being able to quickly estimate between the two angular subtension systems is a skill just like quickly estimating from yards to meters. Doing it without anything but mental math takes some longer than others but practicing it is important.

Just pick one system or the other and run it. </div></div>

True. It just so happens that Mil is defined as a ratio of 1/1000 so that's kinda nice for ranging, IMHP.

 

[gstaylorg]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

I took the lack of ZS into account and decided that for me personally, the finer adjustment was more important. I haven't been disappointed and don't regret the purchase at all. Analogous to magnification, you can always turn the turrets through more clicks, but if you don't have the finer adjustment, you're stuck with whatever your minimum adjustment happens to be. Although I use holds when necessary, I'd much rather dial a turret than hold, but that's just me. As noted, you really have to be on top of your adjustments with 0.125 MOA turrets; it's VERY easy to get lost if you're not careful. For most, 0.250 MOA or 0.1 mil turrets would be more useful, whichever matches your reticle of choice. I really purchased the 8-32x56 as somewhat of a "specialty" scope specifically for shooting F-T/R.

As mentioned by several above, you don't need anywhere near 32X and 8X may not be low enough for the bottom end. I only mentioned the adjustment increment as a factor for your future reference as you mentioned LR shooting may be something you want to get into later. For now, the 2.5-10x32 or 3.5-15x50 would be good considerations based on your weapon and intended purposes. I have both the F2 and F1 3.5-15x50 with MLR and MLR2 reticles, respectively, both with mil turrets and ZS. If you're willing to drop the coin, the F1/MLR2 is an awesome combination IMO. In addition, it would probably be more useful to you down the road for shooting at longer ranges than the 2.5-10x32. Although I will generally dial a little more mag if it's available, I routinely use the 3.5-15x50's out to 600 yd, and they're probably good well past that, even with my mediocre vision.

 

[Graham]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gstaylorg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...if you don't have the finer adjustment, you're stuck with whatever your minimum adjustment happens to be. Although I use holds when necessary, I'd much rather dial a turret than hold, but that's just me. </div></div> What's the smallest adjusment you can hold, and how does that work with windage?

Higher magnification doesn't automaticaly allow you to shoot at things that are farther away. How much elevation is available in an 8-32 or higher magnification scope, and what's the highest magnification you can use for the task?

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fully Involved</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How will not knowing the effect of breathing and heartbeat (through lower power) actually help my shots?</div></div>

The best way I can explain it is like when you're watching a home video and the filmer as really jittery. They then try to zoom in on the action and their shacking becuase nearly impossible to watch. Then, when they zoom out again it's easier to watch becuase the jittery motions aren't as noticeable when zoomed out. So, when you're zoomed that far in with your scope it becomes very difficult to stay aligned and concentrated on your target when the whole picture is shacking and thumping from your heartbeat.

I hope that kinda helps. </div></div>
I see what you are saying, but is the analogy necessarily accurate. My understanding of how to overcome breathing and heartbeat misalignments is to 1) some variation of holding breath or timing between breaths, and 2) for the heartbeat, try to send the bullet as the minor movement from your heartbeat has the crosshairs crossing the target. I might be wrong about the method of achieving my goal, but I thought the idea was to recognize the movement potential and deal with it directly, not effectively ignore it by reducing your visual acquity, (ie. the movement is still there, you just don't see it anymore.)

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am flying home from the sandbox tonight so I am a bit of a smart ass. </div></div>

Thank You for your service!

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gstaylorg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...if you don't have the finer adjustment, you're stuck with whatever your minimum adjustment happens to be. Although I use holds when necessary, I'd much rather dial a turret than hold, but that's just me. </div></div> What's the smallest adjusment you can hold, and how does that work with windage?

Higher magnification doesn't automaticaly allow you to shoot at things that are farther away. How much elevation is available in an 8-32 or higher magnification scope, and what's the highest magnification you can use for the task?

</div></div>
Graham,
I don't know you well enough to detect if that is a rhetorical question, so I will take it at face value. The NF 8-32 has 65 moa elev. and my LaRue 5.56 OBR has 20 moa built into the upper rail.

 

[bohem]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

edit post, delete, yes.

 

[rsplante]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">edit post, delete, yes.
</div></div>
Thanks for the super fast response. I figured it out and almost deleted in time but you beat me to it. lol

 

[bengates]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fully Involved</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fully Involved</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How will not knowing the effect of breathing and heartbeat (through lower power) actually help my shots?</div></div>

The best way I can explain it is like when you're watching a home video and the filmer as really jittery. They then try to zoom in on the action and their shacking becuase nearly impossible to watch. Then, when they zoom out again it's easier to watch becuase the jittery motions aren't as noticeable when zoomed out. So, when you're zoomed that far in with your scope it becomes very difficult to stay aligned and concentrated on your target when the whole picture is shacking and thumping from your heartbeat.

I hope that kinda helps. </div></div>
I see what you are saying, but is the analogy necessarily accurate. My understanding of how to overcome breathing and heartbeat misalignments is to 1) some variation of holding breath or timing between breaths, and 2) for the heartbeat, try to send the bullet as the minor movement from your heartbeat has the crosshairs crossing the target. I might be wrong about the method of achieving my goal, but I thought the idea was to recognize the movement potential and deal with it directly, not effectively ignore it by reducing your visual acquity, (ie. the movement is still there, you just don't see it anymore.)</div></div>

You're heart is going to beat and your breathing will move the scope regardless of the magnification of the scope. However, what you see will impact the way you shoot, but you don't have to take my word for it. Go ahead and get the 32x!

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Moa or mil adjustments question

Fully-
What seeing all the heartbeat movement does is make the novice shooter 'fight' harder to try and stop it- (in breath control the shot is taken at the respiratory pause helps with that jiggle)

Some might yoga there way out of the heartbeat but when the stress monkey climbs on your back that maybe easier said than done. For many dailing the power down eliminates SEEING the heartbeat and fretting about it. Have seen it work a WHOOOLE lot of times.

Now the great NF/SB/USO debate. If the biggest loss you take selling your NF off in a few years when you learn from your 'mistake' and go with S&B or whatever flavor of the month scope that is hot shit, if that is your biggest 'loss' you are major bucks ahead of many who are giving you advice.

While I personally wouldn't jump to a NF as an entry level scope I'll bet you a shiny nickle it will do you for years if you are not a gear queer.

And if you are, it appears half a gear queer's fun is being able to say, "I own a thisnthat but love my whatsagiggy."