MOA vs MRAD - am I making too much of this?

[cliffy110]

My project may be odd to this forum, but whatever... I'm trying to push the boundaries of a scout rifle. I've been hunting and training with this platform for over 20 years and I understand where it shines. Fast shots, at shorter distances (inside 300 yards) is the wheelhouse for this. But y'all have finally convinced me that I've limited myself too much. The gun is capable of more. I set out on a systematic effort to find an optic that would open up the possibility of longer shots while retaining most of the handiness that is so appealing to me.

The criteria is this: no more than 3x on the low end and preferably 2.5X. Top end around 10X. SFP because much of my hunting happens at dusk and I value speed onto target. 20 ounces or less. Must have at least 26 mils of internal adjustment because my rifle doesn't have the option of a canted base. The Steyr Scout has Weaver slots for scope mounting built into the aluminum receiver. Easily adjustable turrets - not capped.

There are surprisingly few scopes that meet all of this but I settled on the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10X42.

My problem is the reticle. I have a store credit at Optics Planet because they sold me a Leupold Mark 3 that was advertised with 36 mils of internal adjustment when it really only has 18. Since I had mounted it, they would only do credit for the return. Fine, but they don't have the MRAD version of the Nightforce in stock and the backorder is 2-5 months. I've only ever used MOA and I'm not looking for a specialized long range optic but I did want to take a class or two with it and figured MRAD would be advantageous. I know MOA will work but I feel like the language of the long range community is nearly universally MRAD. I don't want to limit my training because I have an MOA scope.

Am I making too much of the MRAD issue? Does it matter? Related to this, is there a scope I'm not considering? I considered the Swampfox 1-10 but I just don't trust the long term robustness of it and the reviews seem mixed.

 

[lash]

First off, you should understand why the Leopold only had 1/2 of the advertised range of elevation adjustment. It’s simply because that is total range from top to bottom. Once you zero the scope to you rifle, you will only ever have the amount of up adjustment left After your zero.

From the factory, a typical scope will be centered in the elevation adjustment range as that usually puts the least amount of stress on the mechanism.
With your rifle and rings not adding any elevation to the equation, your zero was pretty much in the center of the adjustment range also, giving you half, or 18 mils of adjustment.

Secondly, how many mils of adjustment do you figure on having to use with that scout rifle? Even with the shorter barrel and shooting .308, 18 mils should get you to 1000 yards, with some left over. After that, the 10x itself can become a limiting factor if the platform itself hasn’t done so.

Thirdly, while I am certainly not telling you that it’s not possible for you to get hits much past 1000 yards with that platform, it most certainly is going to be much more challenging and less satisfying to all but the most determined marksman.

Fourth, Consider getting some Talley rings or similar that can be adjusted to add elevation to the Leopold scope and run with that, or just use the NF if you prefer. Any long range training class that cannot help you because you have an MOA scope isn’t worth it’s salt anyway.

 

[cliffy110]

First off, you should understand why the Leopold only had 1/2 of the advertised range of elevation adjustment. It’s simply because that is total range from top to bottom. Once you zero the scope to you rifle, you will only ever have the amount of up adjustment left After your zero.

From the factory, a typical scope will be centered in the elevation adjustment range as that usually puts the least amount of stress on the mechanism.
With your rifle and rings not adding any elevation to the equation, your zero was pretty much in the center of the adjustment range also, giving you half, or 18 mils of adjustment.

Secondly, how many mils of adjustment do you figure on having to use with that scout rifle? Even with the shorter barrel and shooting .308, 18 mils should get you to 1000 yards, with some left over. After that, the 10x itself can become a limiting factor if the platform itself hasn’t done so.

Thirdly, while I am certainly not telling you that it’s not possible for you to get hits much past 1000 yards with that platform, it most certainly is going to be much more challenging and less satisfying to all but the most determined marksman.

Fourth, Consider getting some Talley rings or similar that can be adjusted to add elevation to the Leopold scope and run with that, or just use the NF if you prefer. Any long range training class that cannot help you because you have an MOA scope isn’t worth it’s salt anyway.

Ummm... no. I understand how optically centered works. If one removes the scope cap from the Mark 3 and use a 7/16" wrench to turn the dial (and it has a zero stop that limits the cap to 5.6 mils so you have to remove the cap to realize the full limits), you will get 3 total revolutions from full up to full down. There are 6 mils per turn. When I got it, it had 9 up and 9 down. I used 4 up to sight in at 100 yards so I only had 5 mils left worth of elevation adjustment for dialing range.

I called Leupold and explained the problem. They said the website is in error and thought it was crazy that I thought a scope could have 36 mils of total adjustment (silly me... I just read their web site which still shows that amount as of today). The non illuminated version of the same scope is advertised with 15 mils and the guy claimed that is what it should show on the web site. I never probed into how I had 16 but gave up at that point.

You are very correct that even 1000 will be a challenge with this thing. My goal is NOT a dedicated long range rifle. It is one that can shoot long range but is still a handy at the typical distances I use it at.

Finally, I know a good trainer can train with either, but I also worry that learning outside of a class will be limited since I will not be speaking the same language as the rest of the long range community. Again, I might be overthinking that.

 

[_Windrider_]

Without getting into the nuances, MOA is old school MILS is the future. But like it has be said a million times before, pick what you like, learn it and try and master it. At the end of the day both get you where you want to go. But, most modern shooters are using MILS in scopes and spotters.

 

[davsco]

mil vs moa is just spanish vs french. one isn't necessarily better than the other. definitely want your turret to be in the same "language" though as your crosshairs.

if the guy calling your hits or misses doesn't 'speak' moa and you have a moa scope, just ask him to call in target increments (hold half a target high...). and if you see your hits and misses are two hash marks high, then just hold two hash marks low, no dialing or special language or any math needed.

that said, i prefer moa which is roughly based on inches. just because an inch at 100yds is ROUGHLY one moa (as is 2 inches at 200yds etc). most sight-in targets are based in inches and it's just easy to see you hit two lines high and thus need to dial down 8 clicks at 1/4 moa per click. but again using scope hash marks will do that also.

edit - obviously didn't explain that well...

 

[_Windrider_]

mil vs moa is just spanish vs french. one isn't necessarily better than the other. definitely want your turret to be in the same "language" though as your crosshairs.

if the guy calling your hits or misses doesn't 'speak' moa and you have a moa scope, just ask him to call in target increments (hold half a target high...). and if you see your hits and misses are two hash marks high, then just hold two hash marks low, no dialing or special language or any math needed.

that said, i prefer moa which is roughly based on inches. most sight-in targets are based in inches and it's just easy to see you hit two lines high and thus need to dial down 8 clicks at 1/4 moa per click. but again using scope hash marks will do that also.

Roughly based on inches?

No. Let’s not go there please. Let’s keep this train on the tracks.

 

[cliffy110]

mil vs moa is just spanish vs french. one isn't necessarily better than the other. definitely want your turret to be in the same "language" though as your crosshairs.

if the guy calling your hits or misses doesn't 'speak' moa and you have a moa scope, just ask him to call in target increments (hold half a target high...). and if you see your hits and misses are two hash marks high, then just hold two hash marks low, no dialing or special language or any math needed.

that said, i prefer moa which is roughly based on inches. most sight-in targets are based in inches and it's just easy to see you hit two lines high and thus need to dial down 8 clicks at 1/4 moa per click. but again using scope hash marks will do that also.

That's good info. I know MOA isn't "based" in inches but it does happen to line up nicely with them and I assume that's what you were saying. My brain has always thought of MOA exactly as you're describing. An inch is 4 clicks at 100. Four inches at 200 is 8 clicks. Easy to figure out.

You also helped me thinking about hearing wind calls and doing it with the reticle. That makes sense.

If I can't figure out a way to get the MRAD version of the NXS, I can mentally tell myself that I'll be fine with the MOA version. This really is a big help.

 

[_Windrider_]

That's good info. I know MOA isn't "based" in inches but it does happen to line up nicely with them and I assume that's what you were saying. My brain has always thought of MOA exactly as you're describing. An inch is 4 clicks at 100. Four inches at 200 is 8 clicks. Easy to figure out.

You also helped me thinking about hearing wind calls and doing it with the reticle. That makes sense.

If I can't figure out a way to get the MRAD version of the NXS, I can mentally tell myself that I'll be fine with the MOA version. This really is a big help.

You can most definitely get mRAD in the NXS

 

[cliffy110]

You can most definitely get mRAD in the NXS

Back ordered 2-5 months

 

[davsco]

Roughly based on inches?

No. Let’s not go there please. Let’s keep this train on the tracks.

yeah yeah bad terminology but cliffy got it so we're all good.

 

[corsairpilot62]

Not sure if you’re set on the scope. Its a little heavier and has capped turrets buuuut the vortex razor gen 3 1-10. Also mils and moa thing…you can always math. 1mil is approx 3.5moa.
Hope this helps.

 

[Eustice]

Back ordered 2-5 months

I know you have a credit for Optics planet but even in stock it may still be 2-5 months. Eurooptic has them in stock right now.

 

[cjs88]

I know you have a credit for Optics planet but even in stock it may still be 2-5 months. Eurooptic has them in stock right now.

Came here to say this. Optics Planet is universally known to have terrible backorder times. You can purchase something and it will say backordered 2-5 months but it may end up like a year. Use the credit for some other gear and buy from EO. They have a military discount program and if you chat with someone online they usually knock a couple more % off if you ask what the best they can do is.

Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42mm Mil-R Riflescope C461

Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42mm Mil-R Riflescope C461 | Only at EuroOptic.com!

www.eurooptic.com

 

[spamassassin]

SFP because much of my hunting happens at dusk and I value speed onto target.

One has nothing to do with the other. Exactly zero things.

Must have at least 26 mils of internal adjustment because my rifle doesn't have the option of a canted base.

Why specify this particular value? If you're on the .308win version of a Steyr Scout then about 12mils is the upper end of what you'd likely ever use at maximum supersonic range.

I've only ever used MOA and I'm not looking for a specialized long range optic but I did want to take a class or two with it and figured MRAD would be advantageous. I know MOA will work but I feel like the language of the long range community is nearly universally MRAD. I don't want to limit my training because I have an MOA scope.

This is true and the only real consideration. MOA or mils doesn't actually matter other than when it comes time to do interpolation. It's a lot easier to deal with mils for that just because the numbers are smaller.

Am I making too much of the MRAD issue? Does it matter? Related to this, is there a scope I'm not considering? I considered the Swampfox 1-10 but I just don't trust the long term robustness of it and the reviews seem mixed.

100% absolutely making too big a deal about it. It matters for the convenience of a long range class but more to the instructor than to the student. Yes, the LR community has shifted large scale to mils and for practical but subtle reasons that you don't realize until you've done something like a match with both and then you see that using a mil/mil scope in FFP can give you back precious seconds. In the world of practical application shooting at critterdom, it's never made two squirts of cold piss worth of difference to me but in that pursuit my self-imposed maximum range is way down in intermediate range distances under 500m outside of the exceedingly rare "perfect conditions".

YMMV.

 

[TheHorta]

The science is settled on this.

MRAD is a Communist plot to overthrow America! Leaked documents show.

Che Guevara used MRAD Fidel Castro used MRAD Joseph Stalin invented MRAD Chairman Mao made MRAD “the Peoples’ reticle” Kim Jong Un’s favorite dog is named MRAD Obama was the first US President to endorse MRAD George Washington invented MOA Thomas Jefferson enshrined MOA in the Constitution for...

www.snipershide.com

 

[cliffy110]

Why specify this particular value? If you're on the .308win version of a Steyr Scout then about 12mils is the upper end of what you'd likely ever use at maximum supersonic range.



YMMV.

26 mils is total adjustment. As in 13 up and 13 down, unless I’m wrong in my assumption that these things are shipped with the adjustment in the middle. The Mark 3 was and I had to adjust it up quite a bit out of the box. I only had 5 mills of adjustment left.

Thanks for the info on the practicality of MOA vs MRAD. Makes sense

 

[lash]

Here, get yourself a set these rings:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0000V2O8U/ref=sspa_mw_detail_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9waG9uZV9kZXRhaWw&th=1

They will fit your weaver base cuts and provide up to 20 moa of extra elevation. That’s over 5.75 mils extra elevation.

These rings have been proven over the years and do work.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

MRAD is an angular unit of measurement that cool people use, and MOA is a sound a cat makes.

 

[sawman556]

I have both moa and mils. I prefer moa. I don't care what all the cool kids use.

 

[Taylorbok]

I recently just switched to mils, smaller numbers are easier to deal after first rev, and at comps it's easier to compare your numbers to everyone else just to make sure you are in the ball park

 

[FuhQ]

My project may be odd to this forum, but whatever... I'm trying to push the boundaries of a scout rifle. I've been hunting and training with this platform for over 20 years and I understand where it shines. Fast shots, at shorter distances (inside 300 yards) is the wheelhouse for this. But y'all have finally convinced me that I've limited myself too much. The gun is capable of more. I set out on a systematic effort to find an optic that would open up the possibility of longer shots while retaining most of the handiness that is so appealing to me.

The criteria is this: no more than 3x on the low end and preferably 2.5X. Top end around 10X. SFP because much of my hunting happens at dusk and I value speed onto target. 20 ounces or less. Must have at least 26 mils of internal adjustment because my rifle doesn't have the option of a canted base. The Steyr Scout has Weaver slots for scope mounting built into the aluminum receiver. Easily adjustable turrets - not capped.

There are surprisingly few scopes that meet all of this but I settled on the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10X42.

My problem is the reticle. I have a store credit at Optics Planet because they sold me a Leupold Mark 3 that was advertised with 36 mils of internal adjustment when it really only has 18. Since I had mounted it, they would only do credit for the return. Fine, but they don't have the MRAD version of the Nightforce in stock and the backorder is 2-5 months. I've only ever used MOA and I'm not looking for a specialized long range optic but I did want to take a class or two with it and figured MRAD would be advantageous. I know MOA will work but I feel like the language of the long range community is nearly universally MRAD. I don't want to limit my training because I have an MOA scope.

Am I making too much of the MRAD issue? Does it matter? Related to this, is there a scope I'm not considering? I considered the Swampfox 1-10 but I just don't trust the long term robustness of it and the reviews seem mixed.

Simple answer... Yes, you're overcomplicating it. Pick a platform and convert everything to it. I prefer MILs (MRAD), but still have some older German MOA scopes...Kind of sucks, but it is what it is. But all of my scopes I've bought in the last decade have been MILs (MRAD).

 

[308pirate]

that said, i prefer moa which is roughly based on inches. most sight-in targets are based in inches and it's just easy to see you hit two lines high and thus need to dial down 8 clicks at 1/4 moa per click. but again using scope hash marks will do that also.

OMFG

 

[Mncoyotehnter]

March 1.5-15x42

 

[acudaowner]

yes just pick which ever one gives you thrills and run with it mix and match our mill scopes work just as well as our moa scopes or don't choose and get one of both and end the madness .

 

[Blaster7Romeo]

Do you shoot with anyone? If you shoot with a group, use what seems to be used in that group and stick with it.

I would call it more standerd vs metric. How big a pain in the ass it it to work on a car with metric and standard bolts?

Personally I would go with Mils and forget it... because that is the way the market is moving and once I learned mills i forgot about MOA. but that was also before any major purchases


( now let the bickering commence)

 

[Bakwa]

Do you shoot with anyone? If you shoot with a group, use what seems to be used in that group and stick with it.

I would call it more standerd vs metric. How big a pain in the ass it it to work on a car with metric and standard bolts?

Personally I would go with Mils and forget it... because that is the way the market is moving and once I learned mills i forgot about MOA. but that was also before any major purchases


( now let the bickering commence)

Simple, but great advise.

 

[stanley_white]

The gun is capable of more. I set out on a systematic effort to find an optic that would open up the possibility of longer shots while retaining most of the handiness that is so appealing to me.

I wish you luck, but warn that this is a slippery slope.

I say this as a Pseudo Scout owner and precision rifle owner.

First, you'll want to just stretch out the range.

Then you'll realize that light and handy + long range = wobble = more misses than you'd like.

Then you'll buy a new rifle with a heavier barrel.

Than you'll realize that...

Than you'll buy...

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

If you like your Scout, and can afford to, you might be better off in the long run leaving it how it is and getting another platform for experimenting.

-Stan

 

[cliffy110]

I wish you luck, but warn that this is a slippery slope.

I say this as a Pseudo Scout owner and precision rifle owner.

First, you'll want to just stretch out the range.

Then you'll realize that light and handy + long range = wobble = more misses than you'd like.

Then you'll buy a new rifle with a heavier barrel.

Than you'll realize that...

Than you'll buy...

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

If you like your Scout, and can afford to, you might be better off in the long run leaving it how it is and getting another platform for experimenting.

-Stan

The lure of specialization is strong. I can already see that. If I lived out west or had access to a long range facility, I would have already gone that direction.

 

[carbonbased]

For scopes, perhaps consider Quigley-Ford? Especially their dual-focal plane model.

Expensive, but like fine Scotch, so worth it. Highly respected in these parts.

I’m sure others will agree and chime in.

 

[Emerson0311]

My project may be odd to this forum, but whatever... I'm trying to push the boundaries of a scout rifle. I've been hunting and training with this platform for over 20 years and I understand where it shines. Fast shots, at shorter distances (inside 300 yards) is the wheelhouse for this. But y'all have finally convinced me that I've limited myself too much. The gun is capable of more. I set out on a systematic effort to find an optic that would open up the possibility of longer shots while retaining most of the handiness that is so appealing to me.

The criteria is this: no more than 3x on the low end and preferably 2.5X. Top end around 10X. SFP because much of my hunting happens at dusk and I value speed onto target. 20 ounces or less. Must have at least 26 mils of internal adjustment because my rifle doesn't have the option of a canted base. The Steyr Scout has Weaver slots for scope mounting built into the aluminum receiver. Easily adjustable turrets - not capped.

There are surprisingly few scopes that meet all of this but I settled on the Nightforce NXS 2.5-10X42.

My problem is the reticle. I have a store credit at Optics Planet because they sold me a Leupold Mark 3 that was advertised with 36 mils of internal adjustment when it really only has 18. Since I had mounted it, they would only do credit for the return. Fine, but they don't have the MRAD version of the Nightforce in stock and the backorder is 2-5 months. I've only ever used MOA and I'm not looking for a specialized long range optic but I did want to take a class or two with it and figured MRAD would be advantageous. I know MOA will work but I feel like the language of the long range community is nearly universally MRAD. I don't want to limit my training because I have an MOA scope.

Am I making too much of the MRAD issue? Does it matter? Related to this, is there a scope I'm not considering? I considered the Swampfox 1-10 but I just don't trust the long term robustness of it and the reviews seem mixed.

SFP but wanting Mils? What difference does it make? Holdovers are a thing at any magnification. An illuminated reticle and you are ready. I’ve noticed that those who seem obsessed with the scout concept also are dogmaticly attached to other things that hold them back.

 

[frank320]

Most of my scopes are MRAD. But I have a couple of scopes in MOA because they were great deals that I could not pass up - not going to give up a good deal on great glass just because it is MOA instead of MRAD. Most ballistic apps let you configure whether the scope is in MRAD or MOA. Just set it up correctly the first time, then follow the same procedures and dial the clicks/turrets accordingly.

It is a simple linear conversion between MOA and MRAD, it is not rocket science...

 

[chevy_man]

SFP but wanting Mils? What difference does it make? Holdovers are a thing at any magnification. An illuminated reticle and you are ready. I’ve noticed that those who seem obsessed with the scout concept also are dogmaticly attached to other things that hold them back.

I've noticed the same. "I need a handy rifle, and that means a scout rifle." They then proceed to do everything possible to take away from the handiness. Generally there will be quotes from Cooper eventually, while forgetting what tech he was limited to in his time.

 

[spamassassin]

SFP but wanting Mils? What difference does it make? Holdovers are a thing at any magnification. An illuminated reticle and you are ready. I’ve noticed that those who seem obsessed with the scout concept also are dogmaticly attached to other things that hold them back.

Well, to be fair, the entire original post is a magnum opus of not getting it, misstating the essential matter at hand and ignoring the glaringly obvious. One of those cases of asking someone what car they're buying and they say, "blue".

 

[cliffy110]

I've noticed the same. "I need a handy rifle, and that means a scout rifle." They then proceed to do everything possible to take away from the handiness. Generally there will be quotes from Cooper eventually, while forgetting what tech he was limited to in his time.

I appreciate the concern but it is misplaced. http://cliffy109.blogspot.com/2022/10/beyond-scout-rifle.html

 

[spamassassin]

oooh. A blog post which merely reiterates the failures of understanding that you've expressed in this thread. Clearly it's not misplaced concern but it's not concern either. It's simple discomfort knowing that someone came to us for advice but had their head and their ass inverted to such a degree that said advice was not just eschewed but vigorously though not usefully argued against. You've totally lost the plot and the dictionary. Typical I guess. Come here asking for advice but can't take or accept anything you weren't expecting to receive.

 

[cliffy110]

oooh. A blog post which merely reiterates the failures of understanding that you've expressed in this thread. Clearly it's not misplaced concern but it's not concern either. It's simple discomfort knowing that someone came to us for advice but had their head and their ass inverted to such a degree that said advice was not just eschewed but vigorously though not usefully argued against. You've totally lost the plot and the dictionary. Typical I guess. Come here asking for advice but can't take or accept anything you weren't expecting to receive.

Ummm… y’all answered the question I asked and I’m grateful for it. Not sure what’s got you so fired up. I’m not looking to make a long range rifle. I’m quite comfortable with the Scout and understand its limitations. I’m looking to learn from this community to make me a better rifleman but I have no ambitions to specialize. If that’s a problem… well, I don’t know what to tell you.

If you’re concerned about my desire for SFP over FFP, maybe you can do a better job than the others at explaining why I need to change my mind. I get why one would want FFP on a higher magnification scope. But if 10x is the top end, it seems pointless. Anything I might need to range on 7x would be just as easy to range at 10x. From what I’ve seen of lower power FFP reticles, they aren’t very visible below that anyway.

There seems to be serious down sides on lower magnification that would be detrimental to snap shots.

If your experience is different and you’ve got a compelling argument for FFP that I’m missing, let me know. I’ll listen.

 

[davsco]

i will say that an illuminated ffp reticle gets back some of the advantages of a sfp reticle when at low magnification, eg, you can see the reticle easier.

 

[corsairpilot62]

The blog read was interesting. So a General Purpose rifle build? Seemingly compromise between a scout rifle, old school remington 700 hunting rifle, and a long range precision rifle…well ive done some weird/dumb ar builds…so i cant fault ya.

In my opinion, i think the 16” barrel will be a detriment to the “long range shots.”

In the blog you mention “dialing elevation in the field” are you planning on hunting with the rifle? Most hunting scopes are capped to prevent unintentional movement of the turrets. Even some of the leupold mark 4 surplussed/rebuilds of the M24 had capped turrets.

As far as choosing an ffp or sfp and/or lpvo. I still think an first focal lpvo would be the best choice. I agree that on the low end the measurement markings (whether mils or moa) is hard to read. However, on the low end a illuminated reticle will act more like a red dot sight. Which i feel would be better at close range shots rather than second focal reticle. But on the top end of an lpvo 6-10x the measurement markings are useable and if first focal is accurate at whichever magnification setting you can use it at.

So my recommendation for this general purpose rifle of yours would be the Vortex gen iii 1-10. While a little heavier and definitely not a budget friendly option. I think that that scope would be the best option for being able to engage close targets and take that long range shot. As you said in the blog 10x has served snipers well.

Lastly, as for the original question mils or moa. Id say its more of a shooter preference. I personally have scope that are mil/mil moa/moa and mil/moa. Just collect data on the equipment and remember which scope/rifle you are working with.

Questions for you @cliffy110 do you plan on using rifle along or with support gear? Ex: kestrel, spotting scope…etc.

Hopefully you found this useful.

 

[GreenGO Juan]

Go mil, learn something new. Transitioning between them if needed is simple.

I don’t think the low magnification “snap shots” will be an issue FFP.

Other FFP advantage is the markings in the reticle actually representing what they are. At every other magnification you have a bunch of useless markings.

Have fun, go shoot, don’t waste too much time over thinking it.

 

[Emerson0311]

A 16” 308 is 1K capable with the right bullet choice. Only a bad choice optic handicaps the range of a centerfire 6MM or above. Like putting restrictions plates on a nascar rig, or only iron sights on an AI rifle.

 

[NewsShooter]

Ummm… y’all answered the question I asked and I’m grateful for it. Not sure what’s got you so fired up. I’m not looking to make a long range rifle. I’m quite comfortable with the Scout and understand its limitations. I’m looking to learn from this community to make me a better rifleman but I have no ambitions to specialize. If that’s a problem… well, I don’t know what to tell you.

If you’re concerned about my desire for SFP over FFP, maybe you can do a better job than the others at explaining why I need to change my mind. I get why one would want FFP on a higher magnification scope. But if 10x is the top end, it seems pointless. Anything I might need to range on 7x would be just as easy to range at 10x. From what I’ve seen of lower power FFP reticles, they aren’t very visible below that anyway.

There seems to be serious down sides on lower magnification that would be detrimental to snap shots.

If your experience is different and you’ve got a compelling argument for FFP that I’m missing, let me know. I’ll listen.

But the measurements would be different at each magnification for an SFP scope. An SFP scope is only accurate at one magnification. Is it half, is it double, is it somewhere in the middle? FFP is always the same because the reticle changes size to match the magnification change.

 

[cliffy110]

The blog read was interesting. So a General Purpose rifle build? Seemingly compromise between a scout rifle, old school remington 700 hunting rifle, and a long range precision rifle…well ive done some weird/dumb ar builds…so i cant fault ya.

In my opinion, i think the 16” barrel will be a detriment to the “long range shots.”

In the blog you mention “dialing elevation in the field” are you planning on hunting with the rifle? Most hunting scopes are capped to prevent unintentional movement of the turrets. Even some of the leupold mark 4 surplussed/rebuilds of the M24 had capped turrets.

As far as choosing an ffp or sfp and/or lpvo. I still think an first focal lpvo would be the best choice. I agree that on the low end the measurement markings (whether mils or moa) is hard to read. However, on the low end a illuminated reticle will act more like a red dot sight. Which i feel would be better at close range shots rather than second focal reticle. But on the top end of an lpvo 6-10x the measurement markings are useable and if first focal is accurate at whichever magnification setting you can use it at.

So my recommendation for this general purpose rifle of yours would be the Vortex gen iii 1-10. While a little heavier and definitely not a budget friendly option. I think that that scope would be the best option for being able to engage close targets and take that long range shot. As you said in the blog 10x has served snipers well.

Lastly, as for the original question mils or moa. Id say its more of a shooter preference. I personally have scope that are mil/mil moa/moa and mil/moa. Just collect data on the equipment and remember which scope/rifle you are working with.

Questions for you @cliffy110 do you plan on using rifle along or with support gear? Ex: kestrel, spotting scope…etc.

Hopefully you found this useful.

This is good stuff and I appreciate where it is coming from. You make a good point about the turret caps and that's something I'll have to consider. I also understand your point on the accuracy of the reticle at lower magnifications and that is something I am still unsure about my reasoning. My thought is that anything that any target for which accurate use of the reticle is important is likely to be beyond 300 yards. At that range, I'm unlikely to see any benefit from using 6-9 power and would probably be at 10X anyway. I could be wrong.

As for support gear... I almost jumped down that rabbit hole but didn't do it yet. I think I need the training and some field and/or competition use before I jump. I have had conversations with Andy Reinhart and he suggested Ballistics ARC app and to pair that with a simple Weatherflow meter as a good starting point and I'm taking that suggestion. I of course own a spotting scope (15-45X Leupold) and a shooting mat. I did just purchase a rear bag from SSgt Taylor. I'm open to suggestions on other gear to get me started but I remind myself that this is still a scoutish rifle and my primary use is Central Virginia hunting where shots beyond 250 are extremely rare. This is just layering on capabilities.

I also want to stress that I appreciate the rest of the contributors to this. If I'm reading the consensus correctly, it sounds like MRAD is preferred but it isn't something I need to get wrapped around the axle about. That, combined with the comment on capped turrets makes me think the Nightforce SHV 3-10X42 might be a good option as well.

 

[Bakwa]

I also want to stress that I appreciate the rest of the contributors to this. If I'm reading the consensus correctly, it sounds like MRAD is preferred but it isn't something I need to get wrapped around the axle about. That, combined with the comment on capped turrets makes me think the Nightforce SHV 3-10X42 might be a good option as well.

Spend just a few more bones and get the NXS 2.5-10 over the SHV 3-10. You'll thank me if you ever get a chance to use both.