I am in the market for new glass. I have been looking exclusively at Nightforce. I want the reticle to be the same as the knob adjustments. I like the Mil/Mil setups, but only because I have no firsthand experience with MOA/MOA setups. What are the general opinions out the regarding the differences?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
The differences in what, exactly? Mil/Mil vs. MOA/MOA?
It boils down to this, as long as the turrets match the reticle, (and your spotter, if available, has the same) go with whatever ranging system you prefer.
I personally prefer MOA ranging for many reasons, but that is all that is is, a personal preference (I think the formula is easier and the graduations are better). Go with what you prefer.
The differences in what, exactly? Mil/Mil vs. MOA/MOA?
It boils down to this, as long as the turrets match the reticle, (and your spotter, if available, has the same) go with whatever ranging system you prefer.
I personally prefer MOA ranging for many reasons, but that is all that is is, a personal preference (I think the formula is easier and the graduations are better). Go with what you prefer.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
As long as you stay mil/mil or moa/moa, I think it's a matter of personal preference. Mixing the two would be very confusing to my brain.
I've gone mil/mil and one thing I like is the math is smaller!
As long as you stay mil/mil or moa/moa, I think it's a matter of personal preference. Mixing the two would be very confusing to my brain.
I've gone mil/mil and one thing I like is the math is smaller!
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
I have that exact scope in MOA/MOA. I like it alot. Inches works for me.
-dan
I have that exact scope in MOA/MOA. I like it alot. Inches works for me.
-dan
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
....and inches will work "really" well if you use them with an Inch Per Hundred Yards (IPHY) reticle rather than a 1.0475" per hundred yards reticle (MOA).
USO offers IPHY reticle and adjustments.
I am not saying any system, MOA/IPHY/Mils are better or worse.
I am not going there.
Just reminding that MOA does not translate to round inches at 100 yards.
....and inches will work "really" well if you use them with an Inch Per Hundred Yards (IPHY) reticle rather than a 1.0475" per hundred yards reticle (MOA).
USO offers IPHY reticle and adjustments.
I am not saying any system, MOA/IPHY/Mils are better or worse.
I am not going there.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
Some of these posts lead me to another question. Is the formula for ranging with the MOA reticle as accurate as the MIL formula?
Some of these posts lead me to another question. Is the formula for ranging with the MOA reticle as accurate as the MIL formula?
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
just ordered a 3.5X15X50 NP-R1, i find it's easier to use moa then mils, i agree with dag1055
just ordered a 3.5X15X50 NP-R1, i find it's easier to use moa then mils, i agree with dag1055
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
As Rafael mentioned, True MOA has a real problem associated with it versus the other two. You should stick with mil/mil or IPHY/IPHY in my opinion. Nightforce offers mil/mil but not IPHY/IPHY (their MOA scopes are true MOA)
The reason for this is that both the mil/mil and the IPHY/IPHY setups will not only provide an angular measurement adjustment, but also accommodate easy linear measurements for reticle ranging depending upon your familiarization with either meters or yards (choose mil for meters, choose IPHY for yards).
The true MOA is a bit of a problem and not my preferred option. While true MOA provides an angular measurement it doesn't easily accommodate linear measurements as well as the other two without math that requires a calculator versus easy conversions in your head(some folks don't care about this part). As an example, 1 true MOA = 1.047" @ 100yds. If you are shooting 1000 yards, 1 MOA = 10.47" which means you're now ~.50" off from where you think you'll be in inches (you'll be off ~.25" @ 500 yds). Now stack the MOA multiplier on top as you will need multiple MOA to account for bullet drop (assume 308 Win @ 2800fps with an inch drop of 342.9" or 32.7 MOA) you are now off by .047 x 32.7 x 10 = 15.9" which really adds up if you are expecting true MOA to deliver 1" adjustments!
I'm really hoping Nightforce begins offering IPHY in their product lineup. For that matter, I'm hoping Premier does as well!
So my $.02 is to go mil with Nightforce since you can't go IPHY.
As Rafael mentioned, True MOA has a real problem associated with it versus the other two. You should stick with mil/mil or IPHY/IPHY in my opinion. Nightforce offers mil/mil but not IPHY/IPHY (their MOA scopes are true MOA)
The reason for this is that both the mil/mil and the IPHY/IPHY setups will not only provide an angular measurement adjustment, but also accommodate easy linear measurements for reticle ranging depending upon your familiarization with either meters or yards (choose mil for meters, choose IPHY for yards).
The true MOA is a bit of a problem and not my preferred option. While true MOA provides an angular measurement it doesn't easily accommodate linear measurements as well as the other two without math that requires a calculator versus easy conversions in your head(some folks don't care about this part). As an example, 1 true MOA = 1.047" @ 100yds. If you are shooting 1000 yards, 1 MOA = 10.47" which means you're now ~.50" off from where you think you'll be in inches (you'll be off ~.25" @ 500 yds). Now stack the MOA multiplier on top as you will need multiple MOA to account for bullet drop (assume 308 Win @ 2800fps with an inch drop of 342.9" or 32.7 MOA) you are now off by .047 x 32.7 x 10 = 15.9" which really adds up if you are expecting true MOA to deliver 1" adjustments!
I'm really hoping Nightforce begins offering IPHY in their product lineup. For that matter, I'm hoping Premier does as well!
So my $.02 is to go mil with Nightforce since you can't go IPHY.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hazardus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">True MOA has a real problem associated with it versus the other two. </div></div>
No problem whatsoever. It would only be a problem if operator was thinking inches while using it. That isn't a scope error, it's an operator error.
I see no reason why NF or Premier would produce such an animal (IPHY) - it's not needed, IMHO. Major PIA to produce new reticles, etc.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hazardus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">True MOA has a real problem associated with it versus the other two. </div></div>
No problem whatsoever. It would only be a problem if operator was thinking inches while using it. That isn't a scope error, it's an operator error.
I see no reason why NF or Premier would produce such an animal (IPHY) - it's not needed, IMHO. Major PIA to produce new reticles, etc.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
Sure, its not a problem if you want to think in angular measurements only..... If you'd like the simplicity of reticle ranging using commonly known linear measurements, you get this easily with IPHY/IPHY and mil/mil. True MOA becomes much more of an effort to quickly make an accurate conversion.
And matchking, I would also agree that IPHY would not be needed if we lived in a country that adopted the metric system. Unfortunately, much to my chagrin, we didn't go that route so when you shoot at a range measured in yards, can visually identify targets in feet and inches, and shoot at 8" inch targets, the IPHY reticle/turrets becomes relevant.
And perhaps my use of the word "problem" was a bit harsh. Perhaps the word "inconvenience" would have fit the explanation better.
Sure, its not a problem if you want to think in angular measurements only..... If you'd like the simplicity of reticle ranging using commonly known linear measurements, you get this easily with IPHY/IPHY and mil/mil. True MOA becomes much more of an effort to quickly make an accurate conversion.
And matchking, I would also agree that IPHY would not be needed if we lived in a country that adopted the metric system. Unfortunately, much to my chagrin, we didn't go that route so when you shoot at a range measured in yards, can visually identify targets in feet and inches, and shoot at 8" inch targets, the IPHY reticle/turrets becomes relevant.
And perhaps my use of the word "problem" was a bit harsh. Perhaps the word "inconvenience" would have fit the explanation better.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
You have officially lost me, but that is sometimes easy to do. I don't really understand how the adoption of the metric system would allow for easier use of MOA adjustments.
To me, as long as the reticle/knobs match, you are good to go. I just don't see the need to have two systems so close to one another (MOA/IPHY). I have heard two guys commenting on why one's load, with same bullet and virtually the same speed as the other, was so much flatter @ 1000. One had a NF and one had a Leupy, so one wasn't really flatter than the other; it just wasn't adjusting in horseshit and calling it 1/4 MOA.
You have officially lost me, but that is sometimes easy to do. I don't really understand how the adoption of the metric system would allow for easier use of MOA adjustments.
To me, as long as the reticle/knobs match, you are good to go. I just don't see the need to have two systems so close to one another (MOA/IPHY). I have heard two guys commenting on why one's load, with same bullet and virtually the same speed as the other, was so much flatter @ 1000. One had a NF and one had a Leupy, so one wasn't really flatter than the other; it just wasn't adjusting in horseshit and calling it 1/4 MOA.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
No worries, perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. What I meant was that if the US had adopted the metric system way back when, we probably wouldn't see near as many MOA based scopes and IPHY would have been antiquated from the start..... (we'd all be thinking in meters, centimeters, etc and mil would have been the absolute no brainer).
Till that time (which I would love to see), if you think in inches, feet, yards, miles, etc, IPHY would be preferable to True MOA. Too many people make the mistake that you identified of confusing MOA with inches and vice-a-versa.
Hope that makes sense.
No worries, perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. What I meant was that if the US had adopted the metric system way back when, we probably wouldn't see near as many MOA based scopes and IPHY would have been antiquated from the start..... (we'd all be thinking in meters, centimeters, etc and mil would have been the absolute no brainer).
Till that time (which I would love to see), if you think in inches, feet, yards, miles, etc, IPHY would be preferable to True MOA. Too many people make the mistake that you identified of confusing MOA with inches and vice-a-versa.
Hope that makes sense.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jwp475</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A Minute Of Angle is exactly that and all that one needs to know is how many MOA is neede no need for a linear mearsuremnet. The same with Mills </div></div>
Unfortunately not true. Mils are nice as they provide 1cm per .1mrad per 100 meters. This gives you a nice linear measurement if you would like to use it.
IPHY will give you 1 inch per 1 IPHY at 100 yards which is also very easy to resolve when reticle ranging.
True MOA, while providing a linear measurement of 1.047 inches at 100 yards, is not necessarily easy to resolve for reticle ranging accurately. Especially when considering shots to 500 or 1000 yards. Sure, you can estimate closely by using inches but it will be inaccurate.
I know that most of us take a shot and then adjust the angular measurement for the follow up requiring two shots to hit your target. Perhaps you use a laser rangefinder to know your range and simply adjust or hold over/under using your dope. That's all fine and good. What I'm saying is that mils and IPHY allow a very nice third option for easily rangefinding using your reticle when you need a first shot hit and don't have (or can't use) a laser rangefinder... Have a known 8 inch high target that covers 2 IPHY, by using the equation:
height_in_inches/IPHY * 100 you can quickly determine that the target is 400 yards. Adjust using your dope and send it for a first round hit. Nice and clean.
The equivalent equation for True MOA is height_in_inches/MOA * 95.5 = range in yards. This is a bit tougher to quickly resolve in your head. If you assumed inches as in the equation in the above paragraph, your shot would be range estimated to 382 yards instead of an accurate 400 yards (and off 0.376"). Perhaps insignificant but now stack more MOA adjustment or more distance into the equation and the inaccuracy multiplies.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jwp475</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
A Minute Of Angle is exactly that and all that one needs to know is how many MOA is neede no need for a linear mearsuremnet. The same with Mills </div></div>
Unfortunately not true. Mils are nice as they provide 1cm per .1mrad per 100 meters. This gives you a nice linear measurement if you would like to use it.
IPHY will give you 1 inch per 1 IPHY at 100 yards which is also very easy to resolve when reticle ranging.
True MOA, while providing a linear measurement of 1.047 inches at 100 yards, is not necessarily easy to resolve for reticle ranging accurately. Especially when considering shots to 500 or 1000 yards. Sure, you can estimate closely by using inches but it will be inaccurate.
I know that most of us take a shot and then adjust the angular measurement for the follow up requiring two shots to hit your target. Perhaps you use a laser rangefinder to know your range and simply adjust or hold over/under using your dope. That's all fine and good. What I'm saying is that mils and IPHY allow a very nice third option for easily rangefinding using your reticle when you need a first shot hit and don't have (or can't use) a laser rangefinder... Have a known 8 inch high target that covers 2 IPHY, by using the equation:
height_in_inches/IPHY * 100 you can quickly determine that the target is 400 yards. Adjust using your dope and send it for a first round hit. Nice and clean.
The equivalent equation for True MOA is height_in_inches/MOA * 95.5 = range in yards. This is a bit tougher to quickly resolve in your head. If you assumed inches as in the equation in the above paragraph, your shot would be range estimated to 382 yards instead of an accurate 400 yards (and off 0.376"). Perhaps insignificant but now stack more MOA adjustment or more distance into the equation and the inaccuracy multiplies.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
dk-1
No matter which way you choose to go would it not make a little more sense to look at the 5.5-22? Its only 2x on the bottom but 7x more on the top side. I would think that its easier to range with a little more magnification. The 5.5-22 ranges off both the 22x and 11x.
maybe thats more than you need but its nice of the bench to have a little more. Just a thought.
dk-1
No matter which way you choose to go would it not make a little more sense to look at the 5.5-22? Its only 2x on the bottom but 7x more on the top side. I would think that its easier to range with a little more magnification. The 5.5-22 ranges off both the 22x and 11x.
maybe thats more than you need but its nice of the bench to have a little more. Just a thought.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: crossgun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think that its easier to range with a little more magnification.</div></div>That depends on conditions. With a heavy mirage you're often forced to dial down.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: crossgun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 5.5-22 ranges off both the 22x and 11x.</div></div>You can range at any power. You just need to know how the reticle subtends at the power you are on.
Here are the easy ones:
If you want to range at 5.5x, the tick marks are worth 4X the value they had at 22X.
If you want to range at 11x, the tick marks are worth 2X the value they had at 22X.
You can do the same type of math for 16.5X, 14.2X, and anything else. Make a chart, and use it.
On any SFP scope, you should confirm that scope markings on the power ring are correctly marked.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: crossgun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think that its easier to range with a little more magnification.</div></div>That depends on conditions. With a heavy mirage you're often forced to dial down.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: crossgun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 5.5-22 ranges off both the 22x and 11x.</div></div>You can range at any power. You just need to know how the reticle subtends at the power you are on.
Here are the easy ones:
If you want to range at 5.5x, the tick marks are worth 4X the value they had at 22X.
If you want to range at 11x, the tick marks are worth 2X the value they had at 22X.
You can do the same type of math for 16.5X, 14.2X, and anything else. Make a chart, and use it.
On any SFP scope, you should confirm that scope markings on the power ring are correctly marked.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
All,
I've never had a problem using a mil rangefinding reticle with elevation and windage adjustments graduated in MOA. In my experience, the only problem is most scopes out there don't adjust in the direction I'm used to, using a Service Rifle's iron sights. That screws me up more than I'd like to admit.
Another problem is with the M16 A4 and M4 BDC carry handle. On an M4 the click value is 3/4 x 3/4 MOA, and, on the M16, it's 1/2 x 1/2 minute. That's somewhat confusing, but then when you consider the BDC carry handle may not be mil-spec, it's any body's guess at what the graduation value may be on either an M16 or M4.
My point is this, mils vs. MOA, is not an issue for anyone who's had a little bit of training in the arena of sight manipulation and zeroing.
All,
I've never had a problem using a mil rangefinding reticle with elevation and windage adjustments graduated in MOA. In my experience, the only problem is most scopes out there don't adjust in the direction I'm used to, using a Service Rifle's iron sights. That screws me up more than I'd like to admit.
Another problem is with the M16 A4 and M4 BDC carry handle. On an M4 the click value is 3/4 x 3/4 MOA, and, on the M16, it's 1/2 x 1/2 minute. That's somewhat confusing, but then when you consider the BDC carry handle may not be mil-spec, it's any body's guess at what the graduation value may be on either an M16 or M4.
My point is this, mils vs. MOA, is not an issue for anyone who's had a little bit of training in the arena of sight manipulation and zeroing.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
"I've never had a problem using a mil rangefinding reticle with elevation and windage adjustments graduated in MOA."
+1000
In fact, until recently this was the only choice available and if you have been doing this long enough and have sufficient training it would be a moot point. Having the reticle agree with the adjustments is very convenient but not necessary; we got along with mil reticle and moa adjustments just fine for a long time and wankering about having everything the same is keyboard commando bullshit. Lots of real shooters have made the mil reticle/moa adjustment system work just fine for many years. But we have choices now, and if you are learning having agreement between the reticle and the adjustments is a good thing and speeds up the learning curve. In my opinion IPHY is completely unnecessary. You just need to learn to use the system you have, whether it be mil/mil, moa/moa, or mil/moa. With practice its seamless and not a problem.
Sterling Shooter, you will find that many of the Schmidt & Bender turrets adjust the same direction as service rifles. I screw up (also more than I like to admit) switching back and forth between S&B and Nightforce, which on mine at least turn opposite directions. This of course is not a problem if you stick to one system, but too many rifles...
Best,
James
"I've never had a problem using a mil rangefinding reticle with elevation and windage adjustments graduated in MOA."
+1000
In fact, until recently this was the only choice available and if you have been doing this long enough and have sufficient training it would be a moot point. Having the reticle agree with the adjustments is very convenient but not necessary; we got along with mil reticle and moa adjustments just fine for a long time and wankering about having everything the same is keyboard commando bullshit. Lots of real shooters have made the mil reticle/moa adjustment system work just fine for many years. But we have choices now, and if you are learning having agreement between the reticle and the adjustments is a good thing and speeds up the learning curve. In my opinion IPHY is completely unnecessary. You just need to learn to use the system you have, whether it be mil/mil, moa/moa, or mil/moa. With practice its seamless and not a problem.
Sterling Shooter, you will find that many of the Schmidt & Bender turrets adjust the same direction as service rifles. I screw up (also more than I like to admit) switching back and forth between S&B and Nightforce, which on mine at least turn opposite directions. This of course is not a problem if you stick to one system, but too many rifles...
Best,
James
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
At the very best ranging witrh a reticule is not any where as close to the accuracy of a Laser Range Finder.
I have and use the Nightforce scope in MOA and I have found zero problems with this system and in fact prefer it to IPHY
At the very best ranging witrh a reticule is not any where as close to the accuracy of a Laser Range Finder.
I have and use the Nightforce scope in MOA and I have found zero problems with this system and in fact prefer it to IPHY
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
The following is by Darrell Holland
http://longrangehunting.com/articles/ranging-reticles-1.php
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Using the MOA scale we can also determine the distance to the target. Suppose we‘ve lost our mil-data cards and or our calculator vapor locked. Simply divide the number of “Minutes” the target subtends into the target size to determine range to the target. Example: 18 inch mule deer, bracketing our buck from the top of the back to the brisket he measures 6 MOA. Divide 18 by 6 and we get 3, our deer is 300 yards away. If he brackets 4.5 minutes of angle, 18 divided by 4.5 equals 4, he is 400 yards away. In this case we are actually using the “ Inch of Angle “ scale and not worrying about the extra .047 of an inch in True Minute of Angle. <span style="font-weight: bold">The extra .047 amounts to a 4.6% difference in range (at 400 yards this amounts to 18 yards) one can easily round the 4.6% to 5 % and add this to our range if so desired. This system is fast, accurate and we can do the math in our head.</span> </div></div>
The following is by Darrell Holland
http://longrangehunting.com/articles/ranging-reticles-1.php
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Using the MOA scale we can also determine the distance to the target. Suppose we‘ve lost our mil-data cards and or our calculator vapor locked. Simply divide the number of “Minutes” the target subtends into the target size to determine range to the target. Example: 18 inch mule deer, bracketing our buck from the top of the back to the brisket he measures 6 MOA. Divide 18 by 6 and we get 3, our deer is 300 yards away. If he brackets 4.5 minutes of angle, 18 divided by 4.5 equals 4, he is 400 yards away. In this case we are actually using the “ Inch of Angle “ scale and not worrying about the extra .047 of an inch in True Minute of Angle. <span style="font-weight: bold">The extra .047 amounts to a 4.6% difference in range (at 400 yards this amounts to 18 yards) one can easily round the 4.6% to 5 % and add this to our range if so desired. This system is fast, accurate and we can do the math in our head.</span> </div></div>
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
Thanks for all the replies!!!
From what I have gathered from these posts, the MOA ranging technique needs to be modified. As Hazardous stated "height_in_inches/MOA * 95.5 = range in yards". Just me thinking out loud here, but wouldn't it be - height_in_inches/MOA * 104.7 = range in yards?
Either way I can get a ball park figure in my head by using the MOA formula. The MIL formula requires me to use a calculator or scratch paper. My point is, if I need to use a calculator for accurate distances in MILS and MOA, but can get a reasonable distance estimation in my head using the MOA scale, wouldn't the MOA reticle be a no brainer?
Thanks for all the replies!!!
From what I have gathered from these posts, the MOA ranging technique needs to be modified. As Hazardous stated "height_in_inches/MOA * 95.5 = range in yards". Just me thinking out loud here, but wouldn't it be - height_in_inches/MOA * 104.7 = range in yards?
Either way I can get a ball park figure in my head by using the MOA formula. The MIL formula requires me to use a calculator or scratch paper. My point is, if I need to use a calculator for accurate distances in MILS and MOA, but can get a reasonable distance estimation in my head using the MOA scale, wouldn't the MOA reticle be a no brainer?
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
The advantage to the mil ranging is that you see your target size in Metric units, not in inches. Then the math is easier.
I am most familiar with inch targets (I know how wide a chest is, I know how tall a wheel is, I know ...)
I use the MOA formula, just with the figure of 100. I know that there is error built in and I adjust for that. It comes second nature to me and I do not have to think about it to much. That will be the case with any system you choose and practice enough.
Example:
I have an 18 inch target that spans 6 MOA. I divide 18 by 6, giving me 3. I then take that times 100 to come up with 300 yards. The actual distance is 294 yards, I am OK with that. I know that for a 300 yard estimated range, my dope is 4.7 MOA correction or 19 clicks (1/4 MOA turrets). That equates to the actual range of 294.
If I have the same target that spans 3 MOA, I come up with 600 yards. The actual distance is 556 yards. I know my dope for 600 yards estimated is 14.4 MOA or 58 clicks (which is the correction to the actual range)
Of coarse, the easiest way to acurately shoot at unknown ranges is to always use the same size target. i.e. find some thing on our target that is about 18 inches. Look at your dope, which is broken down into corrections for an 18" target.
Example:
I see that my 18 inch target spans 4 MOA, I don't care what the range is. I look at my card (or just know it) and it tells me that the correction for that target covering 4 MOA is 8.8 MOA or 35 clicks.
The advantage to the mil ranging is that you see your target size in Metric units, not in inches. Then the math is easier.
I am most familiar with inch targets (I know how wide a chest is, I know how tall a wheel is, I know ...)
I use the MOA formula, just with the figure of 100. I know that there is error built in and I adjust for that. It comes second nature to me and I do not have to think about it to much. That will be the case with any system you choose and practice enough.
Example:
I have an 18 inch target that spans 6 MOA. I divide 18 by 6, giving me 3. I then take that times 100 to come up with 300 yards. The actual distance is 294 yards, I am OK with that. I know that for a 300 yard estimated range, my dope is 4.7 MOA correction or 19 clicks (1/4 MOA turrets). That equates to the actual range of 294.
If I have the same target that spans 3 MOA, I come up with 600 yards. The actual distance is 556 yards. I know my dope for 600 yards estimated is 14.4 MOA or 58 clicks (which is the correction to the actual range)
Of coarse, the easiest way to acurately shoot at unknown ranges is to always use the same size target. i.e. find some thing on our target that is about 18 inches. Look at your dope, which is broken down into corrections for an 18" target.
Example:
I see that my 18 inch target spans 4 MOA, I don't care what the range is. I look at my card (or just know it) and it tells me that the correction for that target covering 4 MOA is 8.8 MOA or 35 clicks.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
Actually, that seems to be wrong. According to the article by David Holland, you would add 4.6% to your overall range estimation. It equates to the same result as using the following formula: Target height in inches / MOA X 104.7...... A true minute of angle is 1.047 inches inches at 100 yards. At 104.7 yards a minute of angle would be 1 inch exactly. So if you use the round "100" to multiply your figure at the end of the equation, you will get a distance closer than the actual range of the target.
Actually, that seems to be wrong. According to the article by David Holland, you would add 4.6% to your overall range estimation. It equates to the same result as using the following formula: Target height in inches / MOA X 104.7...... A true minute of angle is 1.047 inches inches at 100 yards. At 104.7 yards a minute of angle would be 1 inch exactly. So if you use the round "100" to multiply your figure at the end of the equation, you will get a distance closer than the actual range of the target.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dk-1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..... A true minute of angle is 1.047 inches inches at 100 yards. At 104.7 yards a minute of angle would be 1 inch exactly. </div></div>
Think about that statement for awhile.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dk-1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..... A true minute of angle is 1.047 inches inches at 100 yards. At 104.7 yards a minute of angle would be 1 inch exactly. </div></div>
Think about that statement for awhile.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
A MOA is a MOA, just like a mil is a mil. They are angular measurments.
A MOA is 1/60th of a degree.
Think of MOA's and mils as a triangle. The angle closest to you does not change, but the farther away the lines extend, the further apart the ends get.
So, if a MOA equates to 1.047 inches at 100 yards, then at 104.7 yards it would equate to more (1.096209 inches to be exact).
A MOA would equate to exactly one inch at 95.5109837631 yards (so we round to 95.5)
A MOA is a MOA, just like a mil is a mil. They are angular measurments.
A MOA is 1/60th of a degree.
Think of MOA's and mils as a triangle. The angle closest to you does not change, but the farther away the lines extend, the further apart the ends get.
So, if a MOA equates to 1.047 inches at 100 yards, then at 104.7 yards it would equate to more (1.096209 inches to be exact).
A MOA would equate to exactly one inch at 95.5109837631 yards (so we round to 95.5)
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
OOHHHHHHH!!! One inch would be equal to one MOA just under 100 yards. If so at what distance? Would the formula of "Target height in inches / MOA X 104.7" be accurate for ranging with an MOA reticle? If not then what of the article posted above? He suggests that you add 4.6% to the range estimation, not subtract.
OOHHHHHHH!!! One inch would be equal to one MOA just under 100 yards. If so at what distance? Would the formula of "Target height in inches / MOA X 104.7" be accurate for ranging with an MOA reticle? If not then what of the article posted above? He suggests that you add 4.6% to the range estimation, not subtract.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jwp475</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The following is by Darrell Holland
http://longrangehunting.com/articles/ranging-reticles-1.php
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Using the MOA scale we can also determine the distance to the target. Suppose we‘ve lost our mil-data cards and or our calculator vapor locked. Simply divide the number of “Minutes” the target subtends into the target size to determine range to the target. Example: 18 inch mule deer, bracketing our buck from the top of the back to the brisket he measures 6 MOA. Divide 18 by 6 and we get 3, our deer is 300 yards away. If he brackets 4.5 minutes of angle, 18 divided by 4.5 equals 4, he is 400 yards away. In this case we are actually using the “ Inch of Angle “ scale and not worrying about the extra .047 of an inch in True Minute of Angle. <span style="font-weight: bold">The extra .047 amounts to a 4.6% difference in range (at 400 yards this amounts to 18 yards) one can easily round the 4.6% to 5 % and add this to our range if so desired. This system is fast, accurate and we can do the math in our head.</span> </div></div> </div></div>
Sure that's all fine and good but why not dispense with the extra step of adding the 4.6% difference for every MOA adjustment at every yardage? Keep in mind there is stacking involved where each MOA has the extra .047" per 100yd MOA. IPHY is the exact angular measurement that remove the inaccuracy (1 IPHY = 1 inch @ 100 yards, 30 IPHY = 30 inches @ 100 yards, 30 IPHY = 300 inches @ 1000 yards)when corresponding angular measurements to linear measurements down range. Perform the same calculations using True MOA (1 MOA = 1.047" @ 100 yards, 30 MOA = 31.41" @ 100 yards, 30 MOA = 314.10" at 1000 yards).
This is why I say, if you use inches/yards/mph etc, IPHY is the easiest to use. If you think in terms of cm/meters/kph, mils is your ticket. True MOA while serving as a proper method of angular measurement does not work as well corresponding to linear measurements down range....
Now I realize that we don't tend to use whole even numbers when you're in the field but at least your estimates for ranging, target size, etc don't have an additional inaccuracy involved when using True MOA versus mil of IPHY.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jwp475</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The following is by Darrell Holland
http://longrangehunting.com/articles/ranging-reticles-1.php
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Using the MOA scale we can also determine the distance to the target. Suppose we‘ve lost our mil-data cards and or our calculator vapor locked. Simply divide the number of “Minutes” the target subtends into the target size to determine range to the target. Example: 18 inch mule deer, bracketing our buck from the top of the back to the brisket he measures 6 MOA. Divide 18 by 6 and we get 3, our deer is 300 yards away. If he brackets 4.5 minutes of angle, 18 divided by 4.5 equals 4, he is 400 yards away. In this case we are actually using the “ Inch of Angle “ scale and not worrying about the extra .047 of an inch in True Minute of Angle. <span style="font-weight: bold">The extra .047 amounts to a 4.6% difference in range (at 400 yards this amounts to 18 yards) one can easily round the 4.6% to 5 % and add this to our range if so desired. This system is fast, accurate and we can do the math in our head.</span> </div></div> </div></div>
Sure that's all fine and good but why not dispense with the extra step of adding the 4.6% difference for every MOA adjustment at every yardage? Keep in mind there is stacking involved where each MOA has the extra .047" per 100yd MOA. IPHY is the exact angular measurement that remove the inaccuracy (1 IPHY = 1 inch @ 100 yards, 30 IPHY = 30 inches @ 100 yards, 30 IPHY = 300 inches @ 1000 yards)when corresponding angular measurements to linear measurements down range. Perform the same calculations using True MOA (1 MOA = 1.047" @ 100 yards, 30 MOA = 31.41" @ 100 yards, 30 MOA = 314.10" at 1000 yards).
This is why I say, if you use inches/yards/mph etc, IPHY is the easiest to use. If you think in terms of cm/meters/kph, mils is your ticket. True MOA while serving as a proper method of angular measurement does not work as well corresponding to linear measurements down range....
Now I realize that we don't tend to use whole even numbers when you're in the field but at least your estimates for ranging, target size, etc don't have an additional inaccuracy involved when using True MOA versus mil of IPHY.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
gugubica, you replied while I was. That answers alot of my questions, that would indicate that the above article is incorrect.
gugubica, you replied while I was. That answers alot of my questions, that would indicate that the above article is incorrect.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
This turned into much more than I intended, but it's good stuff. So just to clarify, the proper formula for ranging with an MOA reticle is "Height of target in inches / MOA X 95.5?
This turned into much more than I intended, but it's good stuff. So just to clarify, the proper formula for ranging with an MOA reticle is "Height of target in inches / MOA X 95.5?
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dk-1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This turned into much more than I intended, but it's good stuff. So just to clarify, the proper formula for ranging with an MOA reticle is "(Height of target in inches/MOA) X 95.5 = Range (yds)? </div></div>
Added a bit but yes...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dk-1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This turned into much more than I intended, but it's good stuff. So just to clarify, the proper formula for ranging with an MOA reticle is "(Height of target in inches/MOA) X 95.5 = Range (yds)? </div></div>
Added a bit but yes...
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
hazardous, per the article
"If he brackets 4.5 minutes of angle, 18 divided by 4.5 equals 4, he is 400 yards away. In this case we are actually using the “ Inch of Angle “ scale and not worrying about the extra .047 of an inch in True Minute of Angle. The extra .047 amounts to a 4.6% difference in range (at 400 yards this amounts to 18 yards) one can easily round the 4.6% to 5 % and add this to our range if so desired. This system is fast, accurate and we can do the math in our head."
Using the 95.5 formula your range estimation would be 382 yards.
Using the 104.7 formula your range estimation would be 418.8 yards.
The 104.7 formula gives the added 18 yards mentioned in the article. Could the author have made a mistake and it should have actually been 382 yards?
hazardous, per the article
"If he brackets 4.5 minutes of angle, 18 divided by 4.5 equals 4, he is 400 yards away. In this case we are actually using the “ Inch of Angle “ scale and not worrying about the extra .047 of an inch in True Minute of Angle. The extra .047 amounts to a 4.6% difference in range (at 400 yards this amounts to 18 yards) one can easily round the 4.6% to 5 % and add this to our range if so desired. This system is fast, accurate and we can do the math in our head."
Using the 95.5 formula your range estimation would be 382 yards.
Using the 104.7 formula your range estimation would be 418.8 yards.
The 104.7 formula gives the added 18 yards mentioned in the article. Could the author have made a mistake and it should have actually been 382 yards?
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
I'm not sure where this 104.7 formula is coming from but it is incorrect. The author is simply dispensing with the extra .047" per MOA to simplify the calculation which is exactly my point of why IPHY is a more convenient solution.
I'm not sure where this 104.7 formula is coming from but it is incorrect. The author is simply dispensing with the extra .047" per MOA to simplify the calculation which is exactly my point of why IPHY is a more convenient solution.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
I believe he mis-spoke (mis-wrote?) and intended to use "add" as include, not litterally to add. Yes, you have to subtract the error factor from your rounded range figure.
So 400 yards estimated becomes 400 minus 18 which equals 382 (actual range).
One really should let the guy know to do a clarification, this stuff is confusing enough already!
Damn, now I have confused myself, fuck it, I'm swicthing to mils.
I believe he mis-spoke (mis-wrote?) and intended to use "add" as include, not litterally to add. Yes, you have to subtract the error factor from your rounded range figure.
So 400 yards estimated becomes 400 minus 18 which equals 382 (actual range).
One really should let the guy know to do a clarification, this stuff is confusing enough already!
Damn, now I have confused myself, fuck it, I'm swicthing to mils.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hazardus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure where this 104.7 formula is coming from but it is incorrect. The author is simply dispensing with the extra .047" per MOA to simplify the calculation which is exactly my point of why IPHY is a more convenient solution.
</div></div>
Because an MOA is 1.047" @ 100 yards......
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hazardus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure where this 104.7 formula is coming from but it is incorrect. The author is simply dispensing with the extra .047" per MOA to simplify the calculation which is exactly my point of why IPHY is a more convenient solution.
</div></div>
Because an MOA is 1.047" @ 100 yards......
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe he mis-spoke (mis-wrote?) and intended to use "add" as include, not litterally to add. Yes, you have to subtract the error factor from your rounded range figure.
So 400 yards estimated becomes 400 minus 18 which equals 382 (actual range).
One really should let the guy know to do a clarification, this stuff is confusing enough already!
Damn, now I have confused myself, fuck it, I'm swicthing to mils. </div></div>
This is why I am hashing this all out now, before I drop $1800 into new glass!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe he mis-spoke (mis-wrote?) and intended to use "add" as include, not litterally to add. Yes, you have to subtract the error factor from your rounded range figure.
So 400 yards estimated becomes 400 minus 18 which equals 382 (actual range).
One really should let the guy know to do a clarification, this stuff is confusing enough already!
Damn, now I have confused myself, fuck it, I'm swicthing to mils. </div></div>
This is why I am hashing this all out now, before I drop $1800 into new glass!!!!!!
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
dk, I commend you for figuring this out BEFORE you drop serious cash on glass.
What it boils down to is this. If you are comfortable with a ranging system, stick with it. If you are going to have to learn a new ranging system, you have a couple of options (you already know this) mil reticle or MOA reticle. As an aside, Nightforce also offers a dedicated ranging reticle (NP-RR1) that requires ABSOLUTELY NO math or calculations. I don't personally like it, but it may be worth checking out.
If you want to stick with the traditional methods, it simply becomes- can you learn to look at an object and think "that is 12 centimeters high" If you can do that, mil is the way to go. If not, MOA is the way to go.
Yes, you do have some error built into a simple (rounded) MOA distance calculation. If you can live with that and adjust for it, cool.
At the end of the day, all this is moot anyway. You will have to work up your dope for any of this to be useful at all. Like my previous example, I just have adjusted my dope to remove the rounding error.
If you do not want to use an actual card with your holds listed and are going to use a ballistic computer, this is all moot again. If you have time to punch data into a computer to get holds, then you have time to punch data into it to estimate range also.
So, through all my incohearant rambling, I hope you gathered this. Do what you think will be most comfortable. These are, after all, only estimates anyway.
Try hooking up with a couple of people that have the different ranging systems and go play with them. See which is easier FOR YOU.
dk, I commend you for figuring this out BEFORE you drop serious cash on glass.
What it boils down to is this. If you are comfortable with a ranging system, stick with it. If you are going to have to learn a new ranging system, you have a couple of options (you already know this) mil reticle or MOA reticle. As an aside, Nightforce also offers a dedicated ranging reticle (NP-RR1) that requires ABSOLUTELY NO math or calculations. I don't personally like it, but it may be worth checking out.
If you want to stick with the traditional methods, it simply becomes- can you learn to look at an object and think "that is 12 centimeters high" If you can do that, mil is the way to go. If not, MOA is the way to go.
Yes, you do have some error built into a simple (rounded) MOA distance calculation. If you can live with that and adjust for it, cool.
At the end of the day, all this is moot anyway. You will have to work up your dope for any of this to be useful at all. Like my previous example, I just have adjusted my dope to remove the rounding error.
If you do not want to use an actual card with your holds listed and are going to use a ballistic computer, this is all moot again. If you have time to punch data into a computer to get holds, then you have time to punch data into it to estimate range also.
So, through all my incohearant rambling, I hope you gathered this. Do what you think will be most comfortable. These are, after all, only estimates anyway.
Try hooking up with a couple of people that have the different ranging systems and go play with them. See which is easier FOR YOU.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
Oh, and as previously stated, I would consider the 5.5-22 model as well. It gives you alot more versatility.
Oh, and as previously stated, I would consider the 5.5-22 model as well. It gives you alot more versatility.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
Thanks for the advice. I have been using mil reticle with MOA knobs on a Leupold MK4. I already have dope worked up and have been through an LE Sniper School. I have always liked the idea of having the reticle and adjustments on the same page, and now is the time to upgrade. I am used to milling targets by height in inches and multiplying by 27.778, but all my dope is in MOA. I can either convert my dope to mils or learn to range with an MOA reticle. The choice is mine.
Thanks for the advice. I have been using mil reticle with MOA knobs on a Leupold MK4. I already have dope worked up and have been through an LE Sniper School. I have always liked the idea of having the reticle and adjustments on the same page, and now is the time to upgrade. I am used to milling targets by height in inches and multiplying by 27.778, but all my dope is in MOA. I can either convert my dope to mils or learn to range with an MOA reticle. The choice is mine.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hazardus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure where this 104.7 formula is coming from but it is incorrect. The author is simply dispensing with the extra .047" per MOA to simplify the calculation which is exactly my point of why IPHY is a more convenient solution.
</div></div>
I am with you on preference for IPHY for sure, but I think they all work equally well and all require more complex math and less complex math as the situation dictates. One can find situations with Mil and MOA similar to the " 2" tall target measuring 1 IPHY in the reticle means it is at 200 yards", but then we can't cherry-pick the problems in real life.
I prefer IPHY because I feel comfortable knowing the inch dimensions of common objects and easily adding them to the equation. I believe it is only personal preference. Many feel the need to justify their own personal choice by convincing others of the inferiority of any choice but theirs.... even though the others accomplish the very same task. To me it's like promoting the mechanical superiority of a Red car over that of a Blue car that is otherwise identical.
Just my dumbass opinion, subject to change at any moment.
I didn't earn the unsolicited title of "General Nuisance" without good reason.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hazardus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure where this 104.7 formula is coming from but it is incorrect. The author is simply dispensing with the extra .047" per MOA to simplify the calculation which is exactly my point of why IPHY is a more convenient solution.
</div></div>
I am with you on preference for IPHY for sure, but I think they all work equally well and all require more complex math and less complex math as the situation dictates. One can find situations with Mil and MOA similar to the " 2" tall target measuring 1 IPHY in the reticle means it is at 200 yards", but then we can't cherry-pick the problems in real life.
I prefer IPHY because I feel comfortable knowing the inch dimensions of common objects and easily adding them to the equation. I believe it is only personal preference. Many feel the need to justify their own personal choice by convincing others of the inferiority of any choice but theirs.... even though the others accomplish the very same task. To me it's like promoting the mechanical superiority of a Red car over that of a Blue car that is otherwise identical.
Just my dumbass opinion, subject to change at any moment.
I didn't earn the unsolicited title of "General Nuisance" without good reason.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dk-1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the advice. I have been using mil reticle with MOA knobs on a Leupold MK4. </div></div>
Hate to complicate things, but your Mark 4, unless it is different than ones I use/used, adjusts in IPHY. You will more than likely be re-doping no matter what scope you choose.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dk-1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the advice. I have been using mil reticle with MOA knobs on a Leupold MK4. </div></div>
Hate to complicate things, but your Mark 4, unless it is different than ones I use/used, adjusts in IPHY. You will more than likely be re-doping no matter what scope you choose.
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matchking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dk-1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the advice. I have been using mil reticle with MOA knobs on a Leupold MK4. </div></div>
Hate to complicate things, but your Mark 4, unless it is different than ones I use/used, adjusts in IPHY. You will more than likely be re-doping no matter what scope you choose. </div></div>
Nice...... Well I'll have to modify my ammo budget then!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matchking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dk-1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the advice. I have been using mil reticle with MOA knobs on a Leupold MK4. </div></div>
Hate to complicate things, but your Mark 4, unless it is different than ones I use/used, adjusts in IPHY. You will more than likely be re-doping no matter what scope you choose. </div></div>
Nice...... Well I'll have to modify my ammo budget then!
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
dk, the choise is indead yours. Personally, I would recomend sticking with the system you are most comfortable with and adjusting dope. It should be an ever evolving thing anyway.
Plus that way you have an excuse to shoot more.
And Rafael, every one knows Red cars are faster...sheesh
dk, the choise is indead yours. Personally, I would recomend sticking with the system you are most comfortable with and adjusting dope. It should be an ever evolving thing anyway.
Plus that way you have an excuse to shoot more.
And Rafael, every one knows Red cars are faster...sheesh
Re: NXS 3.5-15x50 MOA/MOA opinions needed
Thanks for the info everyone. I ended up ordering a NF NXS 3.5-15x50 NP-R1 today!
Thanks for the info everyone. I ended up ordering a NF NXS 3.5-15x50 NP-R1 today!
Similar threads
