Rifle Scopes Vortex Viper PST clarity

[Matno]

I realize that much of the discussion on this forum focuses on high-end scopes, but for now, my budget is limited by..., well, let's just say I actually do love my wife...

Looking at the Viper PST FFP scopes for a long range rig (AR-10) and a couple of people have told me that the 4-16x seems to have better edge to edge clarity than the 6-24x. Since the higher magnification range is probably better suited for what I want, I was leaning in that direction, but from past experience, I'll take a lower power scope with better glass any day. I've only been able to compare them in the store, which is a fairly limited exposure under one lighting condition. I didn't notice a significant difference, but have any of you with real-world experience noticed that the lower mag looks clearer?

 

[MoBoost]

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...elp-picking-scope-my-build-need-opinions.html

 

[ckfarris]

I have a PST 4-16 SFP and have been very pleased with the glass clarity. I also run a Nightforce NXS and personally can't tell a noticeable difference between the two.

 

[Bear24]

I had a 6-24x before I switched to the Razor. I had no complaints about it and would buy it again if that's the price range I was going for.

 

[jake_c02]

I have heard some people say that the 6-24s have the better glass. I have the 6-24 and my dad has 4-16 and they look to have the same clarity to my eyes.

 

[Triple D]

I've got the 4-16 and 6-24. Both of them seem to have the same clarity and resolution. I think the earlier 4-16's may have had "inferior" glass. Perhaps a more informed member can chime in on that.

 

[LibertyOptics]

Guys, I think current production PSTs will have no noticeable difference in optical performance, at least when comparing the 4-16x and 6-24x...

Buy with confidence, the PST series (with maybe the exception of the 44mm) is well worked out

Scott

 

[Smooth_87]

Both are great

 

[BoilerUP]

Give serious consideration to the Bushnell Elite Tactical 6-24x G2DMR.

 

[JSTARSZ]

I have a PST 4-16 SFP and have been very pleased with the glass clarity. I also run a Nightforce NXS and personally can't tell a noticeable difference between the two.

your joking right? I also have to same scopes, amongst others, and the Vortex PST and the Nightforce in terms of clarity and crispness is not even close. If you don't believe me try looking for 223 holes at 100 yards between the two of them and tell me which one is easier to spot. Or, put out poker cards at 200 and look through it and tell me which is crispier. If your PST and NSX are the same then sale the Nightforce and buy more PST's because you have found a way to beat the optics world.

OP, I have several Vortex optics to include PST's and a Razor, USO's, and Nightforces...the PST's are a good value for their capability and Vortex's customer service; but, in the terms of getting what you paid for, this is that category. They are nice but they are not a NSX in in way shape or form.

 

[ckfarris]

No, wasn't joking. I guess I need to take them both out and look at them back and forth rather than just on different days.

I guess a better statement would be that I don't notice a drastic difference in clarity between the two. The PST seems very clear to me. Then again, I'm by no means an expert.

 

[SPAK]

Fwiw, I have a 2.5-10x32 ffp pst and had a 4-16x50 pst... I much prefererred the 2.5-10 glass. For my purposes 10x is better suited to my needs. I never went above 12x on the 4-16 because the image became slightly less sharp.... My eyes, my opinion...

 

[Matno]

Everybody has a different level of picky. I wouldn't put an NSX in the same category as a PST (my dad has an 8-32x Nightforce, and it's really nice). But a Nightforce isn't in my budget. (I laugh every time I see a post that says "just get a used Nightforce instead." Around here I've looked for over a year, and the used "discount" usually amounts to not paying sales tax. These things don't go down much in price at all!) If there's a difference that most people wouldn't notice unless they do a very careful side by side comparison, I can live with that.

On the other hand, if, as was mentioned above, the top end of the magnification range becomes noticeably more blurry, I'm probably better off going with the 6-24x and just leaving it at 20x. I have a couple of other scopes like that (like a high end Burris 4.5-14x), and I rarely use the high end of the magnification because it's actually harder to see with them. That's also the main reason I want an FFP scope, because with an SFP, the reticle holdovers are much harder to use unless you're at full magnification.

 

[britishtq]

I have the 4-16 SFP PST and I can see clearly at about a mile. Obviously not shooting at man size targets but it's not out of the realm of possibility. The Viper is a fantastic scope and I would go for it. Nice glass just becomes a way to show off how much money you make after a certain point. I've looked through glass that costs three times as much and it's so negligible a difference. Go buy another gun instead of spending an extra $1500 on top of the viper for glass.

I'm not saying there's no merit in it for some people and I like nice things but really, do we need the bugati scope for hunting and range time? You're not all military snipers, even if you are wearing multicam

 

[powder monkey]

british, consider the pot stirred.... : )

 

[fargo007]

From the perspective of running a training company, we see a lot of scopes succeed and have watched others dramatically fail. I can tell you that the PST's perform extremely well from what I have seen personally. I haven't seen one fail a student yet, and we have added them to the list of optics we recommend. You can definitely do better with more money, but that said I don't think the PST line has a peer in its price range.

I think the 4-16 is where you need to be. 6-24 Is too much. Trying to shoot on higher magnification (18+) does more harm than good.

--Fargo007

 

[Shortcut]

There is no glass difference between the two PST scopes you mention. It's exactly the same. However, when getting to the higher magnification on the 6-24x you will loose more clarity. If you stay at 16x you won't notice any difference.
Vortex PST's glass i basically on the same level with Leupold VX-2 which means it's a fantastic scope for the money, for use during the day but it will be a major dissapointment in the twilight. They've got pretty poor light transmission. I guess though, you cannot get everything in that kind of price range.
There are some chromatic aberrations in their glass and I found that quite irritating at times, when trying to focus on smaler targets. It feels like it messes up your image a bit.
Would I recommend them? Yes, definitely.
Are there potentially better alternatives? Yes, I guess there are but they will probably lack some of the features that the PST offers, in terms of illumination, Zero Stop, nice reticle etc.

 

[cramey74]

You will get exactly what you pay for when it comes to optics. The Vortex is a decent scope and deserves attention in that price bracket. Someone mentioned a Bushnell elite earlier in the thread and that is what I would look at also. The other alternative is to save a little more and get yourself into the next bracket. You would be glad you did.

 

[BangBangBlatBlat]

I use a 4-16 PST. Glass is not as good as the Mark IV Leupolds I've looked through. Adjustments are better and the zero stop is functional.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[Matno]

I think the 4-16 is where you need to be. 6-24 Is too much. Trying to shoot on higher magnification (18+) does more harm than good.

--Fargo007

Care to elaborate? I've heard that 18x is a minimum for true long range precision (from several sources). You can always go down to 6x...

From my limited benchrest experience, small groups at 200 yards are much easier at higher mag. For really long range, it seems like that would be even more true. I've only shot to 300 yards, and at that range, 14x was pretty easy to get dead center hits on a 12" gong. I'm looking for something that can take me out to 800-1000 on the same gong.

 

[Matno]

I use a 4-16 PST. Glass is not as good as the Mark IV Leupolds I've looked through. Adjustments are better and the zero stop is functional.

Yes, but the Mark 4 is twice the price (starting at $1400 for an illuminated TMR reticle), and as far as I can tell, no MOA or FFP option.

 

[cramey74]

Care to elaborate? I've heard that 18x is a minimum for true long range precision (from several sources). You can always go down to 6x...

From my limited benchrest experience, small groups at 200 yards are much easier at higher mag. For really long range, it seems like that would be even more true. I've only shot to 300 yards, and at that range, 14x was pretty easy to get dead center hits on a 12" gong. I'm looking for something that can take me out to 800-1000 on the same gong.

I would ignore that entire comment. It is as far from truth as it could possibly be. Although a lot of the time you would not need a high magnification range, it certainly won't hurt a thing. I would not buy a lower end high magnification optic. I think it is a waste. I would rather see you buy something fixed with better glass.

 

[58blackflag]

Care to elaborate? I've heard that 18x is a minimum for true long range precision (from several sources). You can always go down to 6x...

From my limited benchrest experience, small groups at 200 yards are much easier at higher mag. For really long range, it seems like that would be even more true. I've only shot to 300 yards, and at that range, 14x was pretty easy to get dead center hits on a 12" gong. I'm looking for something that can take me out to 800-1000 on the same gong.

It depends on what kind of "long range" shooting you're doing...if you're shooting groups on paper, more mag is better but if you're shooting steel, a max magnification of 12-16x out to 800-1000 yards (likely AR10 max) is plenty.

If you can see and hit a 1" circle at 100 yards a 10" circle will appear the same size at 1000 yards in the scope.

 

[Matno]

I can see and hit a 1" circle at 100 yards, but it's a lot easier with the 32x scope than a 14x. Intended use is paper targets to 300 yards, steel out to 1000, and coyotes/hogs at any range in between. I'd like good glass, but I'm not willing to sacrifice versatility (i.e. variable power). Illumination I can live without, but I want MOA hash marks (not dots, not mils), side parallax (won't ever buy another AO scope), zero stop, and decent turret adjustment range. I'm still not sure anything else fills that bill in the price range of the PST.

 

[fargo007]

It depends on what kind of "long range" shooting you're doing...if you're shooting groups on paper, more mag is better but if you're shooting steel, a max magnification of 12-16x out to 800-1000 yards (likely AR10 max) is plenty.

If you can see and hit a 1" circle at 100 yards a 10" circle will appear the same size at 1000 yards in the scope.

Yes, this is on the way to what I mean but there are some technical and practical reasons that some fail to come to grips with simply because they've convinced themselves that "more is better," "I just need it so that makes it OK," or they have always shot this way as a matter of habit.

At magnification levels higher than 18 or so, you will begin to see your own physiology appear: heartbeat, effects of digestion, and twitch response moving the reticle. Lock up on the gun, turn it up and see. Dead still at 11-12x, but twitching at 22-25x. You will naturally attempt to compensate against that by moving the gun; with disappointing effects. You've also got far less FoV, several times worse the mirage, and cannot monitor other targets, or regard mid-distance wind indicators while you are lining up the shot. It also takes longer to fix a target when you're cranked way up, and on a long shot it's much more likely you will come off target in the scope and not be able to see target effects from the shot and have to re-acquire it.

We're not talking about benchrest shooting with a 75 pound gun here. It's an AR10.

Higher magnification is for target id, RE, etc. it isn't at all necessary to shoot with, and it does not follow suit that the more magnification you have the more accurate or precise your shots will be. I agree with blackflag's assessment - your ar10 would be overscoped with the 6-24.

There are though, very few situations when higher IS better when shooting, like when you need to immediately see your holes in paper in a competition and adjust, but that's about it. And 16x can STILL do that for you.

If you're going with a vortex PST, the 4-16 is the right scope for that platform.

--Fargo007

 

[Matno]

Thanks Fargo. That's a good explanation. I guess my real question is, since I'm not planning to use the lowest end magnification (4x), is there any downside to having the extra magnification just in case? There's no real cost difference, so if I leave it at 16x most of the time it's basically the same thing with more options. I realize that it's hard to hold steady above 12x, but the gun is fairly heavy (too heavy to shoot off hand) and will be pretty much exclusively fired with an atlas bipod/monopod setup. I've found that I can minimize my physiologic input pretty well with that setup (for my "day job" I'm a micro vascular surgeon, where steady is pretty important. I figure if I can put 10 sutures around a 1mm diameter artery, I should be able to isolate my trigger finger with a little practice).

 

[SPAK]

Field conditions will more than likely limit your usage of higher magnification if you're trying to hit targets out at 1000 yards. On several hunts taking shots at 600 yards, I never went above 10x on my razor 5-20. Mirage was killer. Being on 10x didn't affect my ability to ID targets and take clean shots.

Unless your purpose is Benchrest, more mag doesn't necessarily make it easier to hit your target.

 

[MoBoost]

Sightron: Sightron 6-24x50 SIII 30mm Riflescope

Bushnell: Bushnell 6-24x50 Elite Tactical 30mm Rifle Scope

 

[bschneiderheinze]

I have a brand new nightforce 5.5x22 and a vortex pst 6x24 in my gunroom I think I might test this tomorrow I was always of the opinion the pst glass was a little clearer after owning several nightforces but maybe their glass has improved. My dealer is a nf vortex and swarvoski dealer and he swares by vortex glass and cant keep them in stock although he as anyone else will say that swarvoski and zeiss glass is the best.

your joking right? I also have to same scopes, amongst others, and the Vortex PST and the Nightforce in terms of clarity and crispness is not even close. If you don't believe me try looking for 223 holes at 100 yards between the two of them and tell me which one is easier to spot. Or, put out poker cards at 200 and look through it and tell me which is crispier. If your PST and NSX are the same then sale the Nightforce and buy more PST's because you have found a way to beat the optics world.

OP, I have several Vortex optics to include PST's and a Razor, USO's, and Nightforces...the PST's are a good value for their capability and Vortex's customer service but in the terms of getting what you paid for this is that category. They are nice but they are not a NSX in in way shape or form.

 

[BangBangBlatBlat]

Yes, but the Mark 4 is twice the price (starting at $1400 for an illuminated TMR reticle), and as far as I can tell, no MOA or FFP option.

Eh. You can find them used on here for the same as a PST. And Leupold Mark 4 should really be called "Mark 2004".

There's nothing special about the PST glass. Its functional, but its the same league as SWFAs non-HD glass. Everything else about the PST is great.

Now if I could just sacrifice the illumination I don't use for slightly better glass or high speed turrets...that'd be great.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[fargo007]

You are not alone my friend. There is a huge oversampling of MD's in this shooting discipline. I won't begin to guess as to what the attraction is but to the man they make really good students, I can say that.

That's really not that heavy of a gun, and even more reason to keep it as light as possible. The higher magnification scopes are usually heavier and ounces add up. You say now that it's going to be a bipod gun only but once you get a taste of precision rifle competition you will be singing a very different song. ;-D

I'm talking about a subconscious corrective reflex via gross motor skills, to the visual input of seeing the reticle twitching.

The 4-16 is a great range because you can just leave it on 16x all the time, enjoy acceptable FoV, and not have this problem. If you're going to go this route, you could even go with an SFP and just use it like a fixed, and get a thinner more precise reticle. I shot for years with a 3.5-15x this way. If there were a fixed 14x out there from a quality company, I'd probably think hard about selling everything and buying them. The durability, simplicity...

There are a lot of choices, but mostly they should reflect the type of shooting you intend to do. I've made some assumptions based on my knowledge of the platform but it's what you intend to accomplish with the rifle that should drive the choice and carry the most weight in the decision.

If you are ever in PA, look me up.

--Fargo007

 

[MoBoost]

At magnification levels higher than 18 or so, you will begin to see your own physiology appear: heartbeat, effects of digestion, and twitch response moving the reticle.

You make it sound like higher magnification causes the twitching - just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. But without seeing the twitch - you can't learn the technique to minimize it either.

I agree that some shooting requires less magnification - but not all shooting involves white squares on black background; and implying that not shooting steel on the run makes you a "75lb benchrest gun" shooter is shortsighted.

True, to shoot accurately you don't need lots of magnification; as a matter of fact you don't need ANY - proven by iron sight shooters. But you can't shoot what you can't see. We are so programmed with all these shooting "games" that targets getting bigger as the distance gets larger - but in reality an 8" prairie dog at 100 yards is still 8" prairie dog at 500 yards and 10x it's going to look just like any other brown spot on the ground: you need magnification to engage low contrast targets - that goes for rings on black targets and varmints at longer distances.

There are a lot of choices, but mostly they should reflect the type of shooting you intend to do. I've made some assumptions based on my knowledge of the platform but it's what you intend to accomplish with the rifle that should drive the choice and carry the most weight in the decision.

Aint that the truth

 

[BangBangBlatBlat]

True, to shoot accurately you don't need lots of magnification; as a matter of fact you don't need ANY - proven by iron sight shooters. But you can't shoot what you can't see. We are so programmed with all these shooting "games" that targets getting bigger as the distance gets larger - but in reality an 8" prairie dog at 100 yards is still 8" prairie dog at 500 yards and 10x it's going to look just like any other brown spot on the ground: you need magnification to engage low contrast targets - that goes for rings on black targets and varmints at longer distances.



Aint that the truth

I'd wager that it won't be any problem seeing a 2+ MOA target at 16X magnification, which is what seems to be what's getting recommended.

I can see a 3 inch shot black on black shot spotter with my old beat up KOWA TSN-1 on 20X @ 600 yards. That's a 1/2 moa object...it'd seem that something relatively bigger would be easy to see at less magnification.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[afate45]

I had a 6-24x before I switched to the Razor. I had no complaints about it and would buy it again if that's the price range I was going for.

Same story here. I put the PST on my 308 and put the Razor on my 260. The PST has amazing glass at that price point and if I was buying a scope in that range again, I'd buy another PST in a heartbeat.

 

[Hatexoc]

I have a 4-16 on my OBR and love it. I took it out this weekend and shot multiple .5 MOA groups and have shot steel out to 400.
The scope does everything I need it to, I have no complaints about the clarity in fact the only thing I think could improve is the illumination.

 

[rockbox]

Everybody has a different level of picky. I wouldn't put an NSX in the same category as a PST (my dad has an 8-32x Nightforce, and it's really nice). But a Nightforce isn't in my budget. (I laugh every time I see a post that says "just get a used Nightforce instead." Around here I've looked for over a year, and the used "discount" usually amounts to not paying sales tax. These things don't go down much in price at all!) If there's a difference that most people wouldn't notice unless they do a very careful side by side comparison, I can live with that.

On the other hand, if, as was mentioned above, the top end of the magnification range becomes noticeably more blurry, I'm probably better off going with the 6-24x and just leaving it at 20x. I have a couple of other scopes like that (like a high end Burris 4.5-14x), and I rarely use the high end of the magnification because it's actually harder to see with them. That's also the main reason I want an FFP scope, because with an SFP, the reticle holdovers are much harder to use unless you're at full magnification.

My sightron is perfectly clear at 24X. I can see the fringe around 22 holes at 100 yards and I have crappy eyes with extreme astigmatism. It's not nice as the S&B I looked through today but it was close enough to not leave me wanting to spend over 3K for a scope. Okay that's a lie, the S&B was badass and I will own one in the future.

 

[Matno]

Ha ha. That's why I won't look through a S&B...

Well, this thread has been more informative than I initially planned. Sounds like my original question's answer is that the glass is the same. I guess I'll have to go compare them side by side again, but I'm now leaning more toward the 6-24x than I was before.

Two reassuring things:
1)I need a lower power scope for another (shorter range) rifle and can always swap them if needed (maybe even another PST?)
2) if I don't like it, resale on the Vortex scopes is practically full value, so at most I lose a couple hundred bucks with a future upgrade. (I know, buy once, cry once, but I figure incremental upgrades just make you appreciate the quality that much more...)

Thanks for all the input! This forum is awesome.

 

[Matno]

On the other hand, street price on the Sightron SIII series is less than I thought. Not quite as cheap as the PST, but close enough to make it worth considering. Not sure how they compare though...

 

[Rattler56]

I am happy with my PST and have shot NF and S&B, however for the difference in price 1400 to 2500 more, I can build another gun.

 

[bodywerks]

Yes, but the Mark 4 is twice the price (starting at $1400 for an illuminated TMR reticle), and as far as I can tell, no MOA or FFP option.

My mk4 m5 5-20x50 is ffp. It's not MOA, but it is mil/mil and turrets that match the reticle are infinitely more important than whether it's mil or MOA. They both serve the same exact purpose. If you only know MOA I suggest you learn mils as well.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[bodywerks]

Thanks Fargo. That's a good explanation. I guess my real question is, since I'm not planning to use the lowest end magnification (4x), is there any downside to having the extra magnification just in case? There's no real cost difference, so if I leave it at 16x most of the time it's basically the same thing with more options. I realize that it's hard to hold steady above 12x, but the gun is fairly heavy (too heavy to shoot off hand) and will be pretty much exclusively fired with an atlas bipod/monopod setup. I've found that I can minimize my physiologic input pretty well with that setup (for my "day job" I'm a micro vascular surgeon, where steady is pretty important. I figure if I can put 10 sutures around a 1mm diameter artery, I should be able to isolate my trigger finger with a little practice).

If you're thinking vortex, by all means choose the 6-24. There are several threads validating my personal experience that the 4-16 glass quality has the potential to be cloudy. Some people got lucky and didn't have that problem(or they have never looked through super high end glass to know the difference), but mine was so bad that I sold it within a month of owning it.
I gave vortex another chance with their 2.5-10x32 and am much happier with the glass. The turrets and the zero slow down(not stop) system is another story.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Matno]

I am happy with my PST and have shot NF and S&B, however for the difference in price 1400 to 2500 more, I can build another gun.

The difference is that I always have a hard time convincing the wife that I NEED another gun. When I have a gun without a scope, it's fairly obvious that I NEED a scope! She doesn't need to know that there are cheaper options...

 

[Matno]

My mk4 m5 5-20x50 is ffp. It's not MOA, but it is mil/mil and turrets that match the reticle are infinitely more important than whether it's mil or MOA. They both serve the same exact purpose. If you only know MOA I suggest you learn mils as well.

Not that I don't enjoy a challenge, but MOA is the way I've always thought about shooting, so it comes easily. (I'm familiar with mils, just not nearly as comfortable with them).

I can only think of two reasons to learn mils: If a mil/mil scope fell my lap (or at least was a super good deal), or if i had a spotter who only knew mils. Since neither scenario is likely, I'll stick with MOA for now...

 

[Rattler56]

The difference is that I always have a hard time convincing the wife that I NEED another gun. When I have a gun without a scope, it's fairly obvious that I NEED a scope! She doesn't need to know that there are cheaper options...

I like the way you think.

 

[Matno]

Just came across this pic...

 

[Notso]

Not that I don't enjoy a challenge, but MOA is the way I've always thought about shooting, so it comes easily. (I'm familiar with mils, just not nearly as comfortable with them).

I can only think of two reasons to learn mils: If a mil/mil scope fell my lap (or at least was a super good deal), or if i had a spotter who only knew mils. Since neither scenario is likely, I'll stick with MOA for now...

NO NO NO. The unit of measure is irrelevant! Don't even think of either by name - it is just a "unit". The point being that the turrets have to match the reticle. What you're "used to" makes no difference. If you see the bullet hole or splash on the target or in the dirt - you use the reticle to measure the distance of the miss and then put that correction into the turrets (or hold using the reticle). Whether your brain knows its mils or MOA DOES NOT MATTER.

The only two times that knowing the actual measurement makes a difference is if you're trying to use the reticle to range something - then you need to think of the target size in inches or cm (height or width). For people not familiar with the metric system - that can get tricky and could require some mental gymnastics to do conversions to mils. But in this day and age of cheap and very accurate LRFs, the need to do ranging with the reticle is remote. I'm not saying it could never happen - its just unlikely. The other case where shooters traditionally needed to understand MOA was when they were shooting with old style target crosshairs. The would shoot at a paper target that they knew the ring was X number of inches in diameter, they would then try to eyeball how far the bullet hole was from the center and then convert that number of inches into MOA. But with a dot (usually mil) reticle - you are simply using the reticle itself to measure and then converting that directly to the turrets. bullet is 1.7 units left and .3 units low........ click the turrets 1.7 units right and .3 units up. No brain required.

Mil is the new standard. MOA is dying. Get on board for the big win.

 

[Notso]

To the OP question.... I had a PST FFP 6-24x and it was very nice glass for the money. It wasn't an S&B, but I would put it on par with or very close to Leupy Mark 4s and yes even NF NXS's. Definitely worth the money. I would have kept it, but it was an extra scope I had laying around and a buddy of mine just got a Rem 700 AAC and needed glass, so I sold it to him for cost to get him shooting faster. I kinda wish I had kept it.

 

[Pinecone]

NO NO NO. The unit of measure is irrelevant! Don't even think of either by name - it is just a "unit". The point being that the turrets have to match the reticle. What you're "used to" makes no difference. If you see the bullet hole or splash on the target or in the dirt - you use the reticle to measure the distance of the miss and then put that correction into the turrets (or hold using the reticle). Whether your brain knows its mils or MOA DOES NOT MATTER.

The only two times that knowing the actual measurement makes a difference is if you're trying to use the reticle to range something - then you need to think of the target size in inches or cm (height or width). For people not familiar with the metric system - that can get tricky and could require some mental gymnastics to do conversions to mils. But in this day and age of cheap and very accurate LRFs, the need to do ranging with the reticle is remote. I'm not saying it could never happen - its just unlikely. The other case where shooters traditionally needed to understand MOA was when they were shooting with old style target crosshairs. The would shoot at a paper target that they knew the ring was X number of inches in diameter, they would then try to eyeball how far the bullet hole was from the center and then convert that number of inches into MOA. But with a dot (usually mil) reticle - you are simply using the reticle itself to measure and then converting that directly to the turrets. bullet is 1.7 units left and .3 units low........ click the turrets 1.7 units right and .3 units up. No brain required.

Mil is the new standard. MOA is dying. Get on board for the big win.

I agree with what you say.

But what does being familiar with metric have to do with anything?

Mils are NOT metric.

You just have to use a different constant to convert. And with mils, if you stay with yards/yards or meters/meters, the math is simple (the constant is 1000).

Object size in meters x 1000/Object reading in mils = Distance in Meters
Object size in yards x 1000/Object reading in mils = Distance in Yards
Object size in inches x 27.78/Object reading in mils = Distance in Yards
Object size in inches x 25.4/Object reading in mils = Distance in Meters

Distance to Target(Yards) = Height of Target (inches)/Image Size(MOA)* 95.5
Distance to Target(Meters) = Height of Target (inches)/Image Size(MOA)* 87.3
Distance to Target(Meters) = Height of Target (Meters)/Image Size(MOA) * 3438
Distance to Target(Meters) = Height of Target (cm)/Image Size(MOA)* 34.38

 

[Notso]

I agree with what you say.

But what does being familiar with metric have to do with anything?

Mils are NOT metric.

You just have to use a different constant to convert. And with mils, if you stay with yards/yards or meters/meters, the math is simple (the constant is 1000).

Object size in meters x 1000/Object reading in mils = Distance in Meters
Object size in yards x 1000/Object reading in mils = Distance in Yards
Object size in inches x 27.78/Object reading in mils = Distance in Yards
Object size in inches x 25.4/Object reading in mils = Distance in Meters

Distance to Target(Yards) = Height of Target (inches)/Image Size(MOA)* 95.5
Distance to Target(Meters) = Height of Target (inches)/Image Size(MOA)* 87.3
Distance to Target(Meters) = Height of Target (Meters)/Image Size(MOA) * 3438
Distance to Target(Meters) = Height of Target (cm)/Image Size(MOA)* 34.38

My brain just exploded!

Correct. Mils are not necessarily metric. It is an angular measurement, just like MOA is an angular measurement. But mils are most often associated with metric. However, it does correspond closely with the metric system in that the normal turret (like on the S&Bs) will equate .1 Mrad = 1cm @ 100 m. Whereas the MOA (minute of arc) =1.047" @ 100 yds.

The fact that the mil is a base 10 thing just like the metric system is, makes is 10x easier (pun intended) than the MOA system.

The rest of you need to ignore this! What your reticle is called is irrelevant as long as the reticle matches the turrets. Measure what you see in the scope with the reticle - apply that amount to the turrets. That's all you need to know.....

 

[Pinecone]

Mils are DECIMAL.

And decimal is associated with metric, since the metric system is decimal. But not everything decimal is metric.

As for a mil being 1cm at 100 m, it is also true that 1 radian (1000 mils) = 1 yard at 100 yards. So it is also English.

Interesting history:

The milliradian (circle/6283.185…) was first invented in the mid nineteenth Century by Charles-Marc Dapples (1837–1920), an engineer and professor at the University of Lausanne. Degrees and minutes were the usual units of angular measurement but others were being proposed, with “grads” (circle/400) under various names having considerable popularity in much of northern Europe

Around the time of the start of World War I, France was experimenting with the use of milliemes (circle/6400) for use with artillery sights instead of decigrades (circle/4000).

They were adopted by France although decigrades also remained in use throughout World War I. Other nations also used decigrades. The United States, which copied many French artillery practices, adopted mils (circle/6400).

In the 1950s, NATO adopted metric units of measurement for land and general use. Mils, meters, and kilograms became standard, although degrees remained in use for naval and air purposes, reflecting civil practices.