-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Please delete
- Thread starter Capri_Man
- Start date
Dude nobody uses reticles for that anymore. Buy an MRAD scope so you’re not lame, buy one that’s the quality of the Razor but not 3lbs to put on an AR15, buy a laser rangefinder, and buy a Kestrel with AB. Ideally buy one where they link together. Kestrel is having a sale right now where you get a Kestrel for free with the purchase of a LRF.
I agree with @redneckbmxer24 Laser your target, read the correction on your Kestrel, Dial your scope, hold for wind, squeeze the trigger.
The ballistic tools today are so good that a miss is generally a mistake in target range input. Especially at the longer range targets.
Your method has merit though as a doublecheck on a LRF return.
The ballistic tools today are so good that a miss is generally a mistake in target range input. Especially at the longer range targets.
Your method has merit though as a doublecheck on a LRF return.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,677
- 20,184
Dumbest fanboy statement ever. Buy whatever you want and learn to use it proficiently and reliably.
Yea but a Mil scope. Razor 3 is great but heavy. Then get any ballistics app and use that for drops. Almost no one ranges with a. Reticle anymore and most everyone uses some sort of app/calculator to get drop info. You’ll need a decently accurate velocity for your gun as well. Don’t make it rocket science cause it isn’t.
MRAD is the way. It’s so easy to remember drops with MRAD, almost everyone is using it, the scopes are more available and easier to sell for more money if you want to switch things around.
Mil is a better system, period. There is zero reason to buy a shitty MOA scope. When you end up shooting with a mil optic or a group of people calling shots in mils and decide to upgrade you can’t hardly give an MOA optic away.
MOA sucks balls and it’s for the fudds.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,677
- 20,184
Not the point of my reply. His statement was simply “buy it so your not lame”, so buy it because everyone else is. Don’t buy it for what “you” need/want. There were ZERO supporting facts presented.
Reminds me of high school and why the “cool kids” all had the same shit on the first day of school.
Nah, there's tons of facts supporting it. It's been hashed out so much even the military went that route.
At prs matches I'd go from 1 mil to 2.7 for example, while the moa guys had to rotate 3 moa to 10.3 moa. So they run out of time spinning the wheel of fortune turret on their scope while hoping they are on the correct Rev.
And don't take the be not lame comment too seriously, it's the internet. There are probably over 9000 threads of moa vs mil.
Depending on who he may find himself shooting with, there's something to be said for just being on the same system most people (in long range shooting) use.
Lol!
That’s only a third of a turn on the elevation turret of an ATACR in moa.
And a quarter of a turn on the same model in mil.
I said it in another thread, but I use moa because that’s what these guys local to me use. So we all use moa.
I can and have used both. Both are easy as each other.
I round my data to half moa increments. This makes numbers simpler, if I hear a whole number accompanied by another number then know I the fraction will always be half moa. Rounding factor keeps me within 1/4moa of true data, which is lost in the noise, aka, more precise than I am.
Either works fine.
@Capri_Man the main thing is to forget centimeters or inches on target. Measure with the reticle that’s in front of your eyeball.
And use a laser rangefinder.
Don’t do math.
Caveat, Gun Number for wind is slightly simpler with Mil.
Last edited:
I had a scope in moa originally on my rig bc I got a good deal on it. After shooting a little bit of long range stuff and seeing the difference I sold it to a hunter and bought the same scope in mils and I never looked back. Much better system. I still own moa scope on hunting rifles, but they get zeroed at 100 and left there as my shots will not be terribly far. Mils FTW.
I’d go mils and get a rangefinder. Once you learn the fundamentals of that, ranging and bracketing becomes much easier to understand.
Utilizing a reticle for range estimation has its place. It's a skillset like everything else.
There is a feature in the kestrel to estimate distance by putting in the size of the target and what you're reading on the scope reticle.
Either way you need to have a known measurement (target size) and do the math correctly. For that alone I'd say if money is tight get the Kestrel first and shoot known distances to true data.
There is a feature in the kestrel to estimate distance by putting in the size of the target and what you're reading on the scope reticle.
Either way you need to have a known measurement (target size) and do the math correctly. For that alone I'd say if money is tight get the Kestrel first and shoot known distances to true data.
The numbers I threw out there were on the short end. Increase those numbers and your taking more time rotating the turret. Not only is gun number simpler but consider this @Capri_Man
MIL is base 10, so it's easier to mentally track for most people. 3.1 + 4.6 = 7.7 is easier for most of us than 17 3/4 + 28 1/2 = 46 1/4
Malik chips, Do you compete or shoot with bros?
Any kind of practical/tactical shooting everyone will be using mils. Everyone pretty much summed it up but if i had a budget of 3k total id by a used scope in the 1500-2k range, a 300$ range finder and a kestrel 5700 elite. That would be the base for any precision system
I do both, and hunt, and shoot solo.
I didn’t mean to come across as laughing at you. Sorry. Mils typically do have more elevation per turn than moa.
But I don’t really understand when someone would have to add the numbers you say. Can you educate me cause I do want to learn?
Also, I would run everything mil except the normal guys I shoot with use moa.
Last edited:
Gross conceptual error
It takes the virtually the same amount of rotation. It's almost the same exact thread on the elevation and windage knobs regardless of the units printed on the knob.
The amount of erector tube movement (and turret rotation) for a given scope is the same for a 10 mil change as it is for a 34 MOA change.
Because angles
If you're going to talk shit at least understand the subject matter
Sorry man. Maybe subtract a bit off the scope budget and purchase a rangefinder.
How? Restate the question? Was it a trick question?
If you wanted answers for ranging with a reticle then you need a Mil Dot Master.
If you want to delete a thread then you can delete the OP, or else drop down options at the top of your own thread, select “delete”.
The only options I have on the drop down is edit or create a poll, nothing on deleting it
So, are you going to take your bat and ball home because you didn't get the answers you wanted?
And yes, most (all?) who replied know how to range with a mil reticle on a FFP scope.
And you were told that the reticle will only get you range, not a ballistic solution.
You got enough info that a 10 y.o. should be able to google the rest.
I'll help you with the first part
And how old are you???
He doesn't have enough posts for that option yet.
Moa,
Target size in inches, divided by target size in moa, multiplied by 95.5, equals target distance in yards.
Example
(14”/10moa)x95.5=133 yards
Mil
Target size in inches, divided by target size in mil, multiplied by 27.7, equals target distance in yards.
Example,
(14”/3mil)x27.7=129 yards
That better? Either works just the same. Not mathematically perfect enough to land you on the moon, but the method is the same for either, and equally as dumb.
Mildot master is better, also works for mil or moa.
All these methods are archaic and very imprecise. Guessing at target size in inches, rifle instability, target being not perpendicular to shooter, incorrect math, and more, makes for large variations in ranging error.
Try it and compare to what a rangefinder says.
Laser rangefinder is the only practical and accurate way.
