which reticle, moa? mil?

[atomic41]

Ok here's my stupid question...

If you were able to go back and start from the beginning, which reticle would you pick to learn on? I'm talking hindsight being 20/20 sort of thinking...which is better for learning, or does it matter.

I'm not new to shooting, but I am new to long range shooting and I'm getting ready to buy a scope. I just can't pick a reticle...help! moa, mil, reticle match the turrets?

 

[Darkside-Six]

well which reticle all comes down to personal preference but regardless of which one you decide on you always match the turrets to the reticle.

 

[chevytruck_83]

The mil system makes things easier. If u decide to shoot tactical style matches where they like to induce stress. The less u have to think about the better.

 

[Jrb572]

well which reticle all comes down to personal preference but regardless of which one you decide on you always match the turrets to the reticle.

+1 to this ^

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Neither, IPHY is my choice all the way.

 

[ZiaHunter]

Have both MIL/MIL scopes as well as MOA/MOA and comfortable using both. Most of my hunting rifles are MOA SFP while my tactical scopes are all MIL FFP. As mentioned above reticles are a matter of personal preference and take a look through as many scopes as possible before you make a decision as well as deciding if you want a FFP or SFP scope.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

I like MOA reticle and MOA dials. This is because I like to range with greater precision than possible with mil reticle; and because, I can favor wind in MOA using math that does not require a calculator, all while executing the firing tasks. I also think an MOA reticle with fractional value in the FFP will aid a shooter who needs to range LR targets with the scope reticle. Nevertheless, I sometimes see value in a scope with mil dot reticle and MOA dials when dialing is seen to be a better solution than hold overs and favoring. Thing is, for capability with such a shooter will need to know how to both favor and dial for each unit of measurement, which can tax the inexperienced shooter in need of a quick solution.

 

[tylerw02]

I like MOA reticle and MOA dials. This is because I like to range with greater precision than possible with mil reticle; and because, I can favor wind in MOA using math that does not require a calculator, all while executing the firing tasks. I also think an MOA reticle with fractional value in the FFP will aid a shooter who needs to range LR targets with the scope reticle. Nevertheless, I sometimes see value in a scope with mil dot reticle and MOA dials when dialing is seen to be a better solution than hold overs and favoring. Thing is, for capability with such a shooter will need to know how to both favor and dial for each unit of measurement, which can tax the inexperienced shooter in need of a quick solution.

My mil reticle breaks down into .2 mRad. I don't think an MOA reticle offers greater precision than .2 mRad. I can also use this for wind without use of a calculator. There is no advantage to an MOA reticle over a mRad reticle. More shooters use the mRad and more spotting scopes use the mRad, being the biggest advantage. Other than that, its six of one, half a dozen of another.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

MDMOA,... So Easy A Cave Man Can Do It!

 

[Sterling Shooter]

My mil reticle breaks down into .2 mRad. I don't think an MOA reticle offers greater precision than .2 mRad. I can also use this for wind without use of a calculator. There is no advantage to an MOA reticle over a mRad reticle. More shooters use the mRad and more spotting scopes use the mRad, being the biggest advantage. Other than that, its six of one, half a dozen of another.

MOA = 1.047 at 100. Mil = 3.6 at 100, and the reticle hash markings can subtend finer in fractional MOA. Also, typical mil dial is tenth mil or .36 at 100 while typical MOA dial is 1/4 minute or .25 at 100. For wind counters average .308/.223 can use the constant of 10, allowing for math in head while on gun.

 

[Pat M]

Moa / moa

 

[tylerw02]

You shouldn't be doing any math! It doesn't matter what something is in inches unless you're ranging.

Why are you worried about how many inches in wind something is? That is backwards logic. Use your data and get your data in mils or MOA, whatever you prefer.

If you can shoot the difference calling wind between .1mrad vs .25 MOA...you're a world champion. If you're holding wind, Mrad scopes are usually broken down into .2 Mrad while MOA are usually 1 MOA.

Honestly, your logic just doesn't make sense at all.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[varmint slayer]

You shouldn't be doing any math! It doesn't matter what something is in inches unless you're ranging.

Why are you worried about how many inches in wind something is? That is backwards logic. Use your data and get your data in mils or MOA, whatever you prefer.

If you can shoot the difference calling wind between .1mrad vs .25 MOA...you're a world champion. If you're holding wind, Mrad scopes are usually broken down into .2 Mrad while MOA are usually 1 MOA.

Honestly, your logic just doesn't make sense at all.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I only know of maybe a handful of mil reticles that have .2 mil sub tensions on the windage. H2CMR, AMR, Horus, and probably a few others but most are marked every .5 mil. I could be wrong but I would say %90 are .5 mil wind holds.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

You shouldn't be doing any math! It doesn't matter what something is in inches unless you're ranging.

Why are you worried about how many inches in wind something is? That is backwards logic. Use your data and get your data in mils or MOA, whatever you prefer.

If you can shoot the difference calling wind between .1mrad vs .25 MOA...you're a world champion. If you're holding wind, Mrad scopes are usually broken down into .2 Mrad while MOA are usually 1 MOA.

Honestly, your logic just doesn't make sense at all.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to do the math to determine the wind value in either MOA or mils. For example, you are shooting at 600 yards with a full value 8 mph wind using a bullet that takes the constant of 11 for an MOA solution. Now, without a math formula in head or with calculator tell me how many mils or MOA you need to put on the sight. Without having charted the possibilities you will need to do the math.

 

[tylerw02]

I use H2CMRs myself. You're right lots are .5 mils, I shouldn't have said "usually" and said "some", however the point remains. You shouldn't be doing math in you head while shooting. That's what ballistic calculators are for. I program mine for 1 MPH or 10 MPH and the most math I would ever need to do is apply that. You aren't going to be able to predict it the difference between one unit and the other no matter what silly formula you try to come up with. If you miss, you just use the ruler in front of your face no matter what units it's in.

The most popular MOA scopes from vortex are 2MOA...the only 1 MOA I can think of is NF's NPR1. Maybe Premiere had one?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

the only 1 MOA I can think of is NF's NPR1.

US Optics MDMOA. Also wind holds to your max distance should already be KIM'ed

 

[Sterling Shooter]

I use H2CMRs myself. You're right lots are .5 mils, I shouldn't have said "usually" and said "some", however the point remains. You shouldn't be doing math in you head while shooting. That's what ballistic calculators are for. I program mine for 1 MPH or 10 MPH and the most math I would ever need to do is apply that. You aren't going to be able to predict it the difference between one unit and the other no matter what silly formula you try to come up with. If you miss, you just use the ruler in front of your face no matter what units it's in.

The most popular MOA scopes from vortex are 2MOA...the only 1 MOA I can think of is NF's NPR1. Maybe Premiere had one?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The silly formula I use is the one Soldiers participating the USAMU SDM course are taught to use.

 

[tylerw02]

That's cool but that doesn't make one measurement better than the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sterling Shooter]

That's cool but that doesn't make one measurement better than the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For wind counters, the formula which uses a constant for solution in MOA, being less fractional than using a constant for solution in mils, allows for fast processing without need for a calculator or a ballistics program, as would be required for a quick solution in mils; and, when the shooter is shooting M855, or M118LR, the constant of 10, which only requires division of wind value in mph to constant, is fast and accurate enough to assure good hits to the maximum effective range the bullet can get to nose-on.

 

[tylerw02]

If you like it rock on, doesn't make it a superior or inferior unit system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atomic41]

Thanks for the feedback and the debate. I think I've finally narrowed down my decision on a scope and reticle.

 

[varmint slayer]

Thanks for the feedback and the debate. I think I've finally narrowed down my decision on a scope and reticle.

Well what is it so we can argue over your decision lol

 

[atomic41]

Well what is it so we can argue over your decision lol

Ha! I'm going for the vortex viper pst 2.5-10x32 moa. It's going on a mega arms .308 build that will be done soon...can't wait!

Did I chum the waters enough now? Let's hear the battle over my rifle choice too!

 

[Sterling Shooter]

I did not know there was an argument or debate here. Folks have preferences for the means to accomplish a task from what they have come to understand about how to accomplish the task. When the understanding is limited, that's to say, when a shooter does not have a comprehensive knowledge about all the methods of ranging and means to counter ballistic trajectories then such shooter's success in any given circumstance may be more compromised than would be the case for a shooter having more resources. For example, while a ballistics program on a smart phone can give solutions to ballistic counters, the device must be handy, and the shooter must relate to the device on notice of changing wind and weather conditions. Having the ability to just do quick division with an MOA wind formula while on the rifle using a fraction free MOA constant could be better for a scenario where conditions are rapidly changing and good quick hits are necessary. My point is know the math, then you can choose what's best from a bigger tool box.

 

[atomic41]

I did not know there was an argument or debate here. Folks have preferences for the means to accomplish a task from what they have come to understand about how to accomplish the task. When the understanding is limited, that's to say, when a shooter does not have a comprehensive knowledge about all the methods of ranging and means to counter ballistic trajectories then such shooter's success in any given circumstance may be more compromised than would be the case for a shooter having more resources. For example, while a ballistics program on a smart phone can give solutions to ballistic counters, the device must be handy, and the shooter must relate to the device on notice of changing wind and weather conditions. Having the ability to just do quick division with an MOA wind formula while on the rifle using a fraction free MOA constant could be better for a scenario where conditions are rapidly changing and good quick hits are necessary. My point is know the math, then you can choose what's best from a bigger tool box.

Makes sense. I'm ready to learn. Thanks guys.

 

[tylerw02]

which reticle, moa? mil?

There are lots of ways to skin a cat, but there will be fractions no matter what unless you are shooting full value all the time. The real world doesn't work as well as we'd like.

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...stics/240098-accuracy-first-wind-formula.html

The BC based calculation seems to match my rifle's actual data pretty well and it's easy enough to use.

It's not a resource intense thing to use JBM or one of the many free online calculators and print off data pages for the numerous DAs you will encounter. It's silly to use one system or the other based on a silly formula that isn't going to work as well as we would like. At the same time, if you need to range accurately, which is easier on the fly?

I guarantee you, any match you go to, spotters will be set up with mil reticles...not MOA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Silly wind formula, what's silly about it: distance divided by 100 times wind value divided by 10. Works for high velocity rounds like M855 and M118LR to maximum effective range of bullet. Example: 600 yards and wind seen as raising dust and blowing loose paper from 1 to 7: 600 divided by 100 times 5 divided by 10 equals 3 MOA of drift. Dial it or favor it. It's basic marksmanship and not silly. What's silly is not entertaining all means and methods to range finding and counters for effects on external ballistics, using what works for sight increment scale and environment demands. What's even sillier is looking for a counter for appraised wind on a ballistics chart when you could do it faster by formula while on the gun before the wind changes velocity or direction. But, hey maybe the USAMU SDM curriculum is silly.

 

[tylerw02]

It's silly when you choose to go to a system where 90% of the spotters are incompatible wish your system because you view a formula as the end-all be all because you think the "math" is easier for lack of fractions. But what happens when the wind value is 3/4, 8 mph at you firing location, full value 12 mph half way to the target, and 3/4 value 15 mph 2/3 the way up the target and 2-3 mph 1/2 value at the target? Unless it's a full value, everything is a fraction.


You'll see my scenario more frequently than just plugging in a formula with ideal, easily quantifiable conditions. Wind formulas are a tool, but one of many. If you think you won't be using fractions because of X formula and will with Y formula, you're not being honest with yourself.

I find it much easier to use either a generated chart on ballistics program in my hand or consulting a pre-printed chart. Ballistic calculators are free and there are plenty of formulas for wind with either system.

If you don't ever intend to shoot with spotters with mil reticles and prefer MOA that's all good and well. But the reality is you won't show up to many matches with MOA spotters---if it happens to be one which allows communication.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

This is most interesting,...

 

[Sterling Shooter]

It's silly when you choose to go to a system where 90% of the spotters are incompatible wish your system because you view a formula as the end-all be all because you think the "math" is easier for lack of fractions. But what happens when the wind value is 3/4, 8 mph at you firing location, full value 12 mph half way to the target, and 3/4 value 15 mph 2/3 the way up the target and 2-3 mph 1/2 value at the target? Unless it's a full value, everything is a fraction.


You'll see my scenario more frequently than just plugging in a formula with ideal, easily quantifiable conditions. Wind formulas are a tool, but one of many. If you think you won't be using fractions because of X formula and will with Y formula, you're not being honest with yourself.

I find it much easier to use either a generated chart on ballistics program in my hand or consulting a pre-printed chart. Ballistic calculators are free and there are plenty of formulas for wind with either system.

If you don't ever intend to shoot with spotters with mil reticles and prefer MOA that's all good and well. But the reality is you won't show up to many matches with MOA spotters---if it happens to be one which allows communication.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wind velocity can be bracketed from highest to lowest possible velocity for an average then valued at full or half value. The fraction-less aspect is the MOA constant of 10 which can be used for fast calculation of counter to drift for a good hit without need for a calculator for cartridges such as Mk262, M855, M852, and M118LR. This method is practical for many scenarios that require a good quick hits. It's one reason MOA/MOA is a offering from folks like Nightforce for today's shooters. Their MOAR-T reticle as I understand it is very popular. The MOA scale allows for precise holdoffs at small targets at extended distances.

 

[tylerw02]

which reticle, moa? mil?

Again, how is it fractionless, care to share? If it's 3/4, 1/4 value? Maybe I'm not smart enough to understand this without spelling it out for me.

I'll argue that the reason for NF's success with MOA reticles is not that people are utilizing this wind formula, but that they have the misconception that "mils are metric and for meters" and they are afraid of mils. I run into these guys all the time.

Why does choosing your entire system based on the unlikely scenario that you've lost your data charts, lost your calculator, and can't remember your holds better than choosing the standard system (that has formulas that aren't difficult either) which 90% of be spotters out there use? Meanwhile it makes range estimation more difficult as you would have to use evil fractions vs choosing to use mil/meter or mil/yard.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sterling Shooter]

The constant of 10 is fraction-less. The idea that the MOAR-T is being bought by folks who have misconceptions is both speculation, and perception coming it appears from your experiences in limited applications for the concepts being discussed on this thread.

 

[tylerw02]

How is the "10" fractionless once velocity and direction are applied an advantage over 3,4,5,6, etc used in mil formulas? I'm not saying your formula isn't useful, but there are other disadvantages and it is no more useful than anything else. Seems like there should be more reasons to select reticle than the chance one may do mental math because other methods have failed.

When I bought my first NF, long before the MOAR was developed, their most popular reticle was said to be the NP-R2. I don't think either one of us can claim anything other than speculation, as there are also lots of MOA knobs/mil reticle scopes sold my NF and others. Many NF users grew up with MOA knobs or SMOA knobs. Leupold is just now catching up and offering matching reticle/knob combinations. The Navy just bought S&Bs with H2CMRs and .25 MOA knobs. Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is because of the purchaser or maker utilizing the best methods for a given outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

I'll argue that the reason for NF's success with MOA reticles is not that people are utilizing this wind formula, but that they have the misconception that "mils are metric and for meters" and they are afraid of mils. I run into these guys all the time.

I doubt that is the case, just because a system works for you, does not mean it works for everyone. Ford/Chevy debate
The other thing is there are still many of us above ground that came up w/ MOA/Yards an weapon front sights (among other things)you ranged w/ect.
I (like many others) don't like Mil or MOA I prefer IPHY myself, much easier across the board for me.

 

[tylerw02]

In the other post, I actually mentioned some started with MOA.

Why is IPHY easier?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sterling Shooter]

How is the "10" fractionless once velocity and direction are applied an advantage over 3,4,5,6, etc used in mil formulas? I'm not saying your formula isn't useful, but there are other disadvantages and it is no more useful than anything else. Seems like there should be more reasons to select reticle than the chance one may do mental math because other methods have failed.

When I bought my first NF, long before the MOAR was developed, their most popular reticle was said to be the NP-R2. I don't think either one of us can claim anything other than speculation, as there are also lots of MOA knobs/mil reticle scopes sold my NF and others. Many NF users grew up with MOA knobs or SMOA knobs. Leupold is just now catching up and offering matching reticle/knob combinations. The Navy just bought S&Bs with H2CMRs and .25 MOA knobs. Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is because of the purchaser or maker utilizing the best methods for a given outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Read post #25 from Sinister in the Advanced Marksmanship thread on "Reading" wind.

 

[tylerw02]

I will check it out sometime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Why is IPHY easier?

Because you don't have to use 95.5 when ranging or the .047 at the end, everything is in 1's. 1 IPHY at 100 yds is 1, not 1.047. 1 IPHY at a grand is 10" not 10.47 Ranging is easier yet,...target dimensions in inches/retical subtentions/100=yards, no other numbers needed or anything to covert, and most of the math can be done in your head on the fly. Granted w/o pen an paper it's a WEWAG** but normally it's close enough to count. The target data book with all TO&E, be it Russian, Chinese, or American back when was all in inches. Most things under 600 w/ a 308 the last 0.047 means nothing in minute of chest. Much past that however if you forget the tail end and hose the light/color deflection w/a minor subtention error everything starts stacking. Also most use IPHY in reality over calling an math'ing in true MOA. Makes more sence to me to have the workhorse in IPHY. This is why the MDMOA retical and EREK in 1/2 IPHY of up is my choice. If I need 1/4 IPHY I can either break it down at the hold point or hold the top of the X. Like anything else in life it's want works for you, not everyone else, and I could care less about paper targets w/ scoring rings. To a man that is in our group it's MOA or IPHY across the board, and of those guys that run MOA in reality, they call everything in IPHY. That said if it's a KD range it's never a problem but when we shift to subsonic's out to 4-500 yds where the slightest ranging error equals a miss very quickly the true IPHY Retical'ed (if thats a word)scopes shine.


WEWAG**-----> Well educated wild ass guess.

 

[tylerw02]

which reticle, moa? mil?

Thanks for the explanation. I see that you really like it and it's working for you. The way I see it, with mil or MOA, you call misses in whatever unit you see in the reticle, rather than inches. No reason for conversions of any unit really. Anybody that grasps the concept can use any of them interchangeably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Thanks for the explanation. I see that you really like it and it's working for you. The way I see it, with mil or MOA, you call misses in whatever unit you see in the reticle, rather than inches. No reason for conversions of any unit really. Anybody that grasps the concept can use any of them interchangeably.

We do not call a miss in X inches it's 1/4-1/2 IPHY ect, retical subtention. We are well versed in all 3, but for us when a target is given in inches it's easier to WAG the math and shoot when your under time constraints, as your LRF may be a none starter from the get go. Be it course rules, or otherwise.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Because you don't have to use 95.5 when ranging or the .047 at the end, everything is in 1's. 1 IPHY at 100 yds is 1, not 1.047. 1 IPHY at a grand is 10" not 10.47 Ranging is easier yet,...target dimensions in inches/retical subtentions/100=yards, no other numbers needed or anything to covert, and most of the math can be done in your head on the fly. Granted w/o pen an paper it's a WEWAG** but normally it's close enough to count. The target data book with all TO&E, be it Russian, Chinese, or American back when was all in inches. Most things under 600 w/ a 308 the last 0.047 means nothing in minute of chest. Much past that however if you forget the tail end and hose the light/color deflection w/a minor subtention error everything starts stacking. Also most use IPHY in reality over calling an math'ing in true MOA. Makes more sence to me to have the workhorse in IPHY. This is why the MDMOA retical and EREK in 1/2 IPHY of up is my choice. If I need 1/4 IPHY I can either break it down at the hold point or hold the top of the X. Like anything else in life it's want works for you, not everyone else, and I could care less about paper targets w/ scoring rings. To a man that is in our group it's MOA or IPHY across the board, and of those guys that run MOA in reality, they call everything in IPHY. That said if it's a KD range it's never a problem but when we shift to subsonic's out to 4-500 yds where the slightest ranging error equals a miss very quickly the true IPHY Retical'ed (if thats a word)scopes shine.


WEWAG**-----> Well educated wild ass guess.

Very good post. I read MOA at target distance without the fraction. I also convert from MOA to inches and inches to MOA when using irons without the fraction. It's current SDM doctrine for wind favors. The only place I take the fraction is in come ups from SR to LR.

 

[skeeterIII]

I have both and like and feel more comfortable with the moa-moa system. The only disadvantage I can see is in ranging were the mil-mil system is superior.
I too am used to and grew up using the moa-moa system on my Nightforce while the Steiner has the mil-mil.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

I have both and like and feel more comfortable with the moa-moa system. The only disadvantage I can see is in ranging were the mil-mil system is superior.
I too am used to and grew up using the moa-moa system on my Nightforce while the Steiner has the mil-mil.

In ranging with MOA you multiply 95.5 times target height in inches and divide by height of target in MOA for yards to target, with mils it's height of target times 27.78 divided by height of target in mils, so how is mils superior? Seems to me the process with either unit is the same and only quicker with mils when the target is seen in yards rather than inches, where target size in yards would be multiplied by 1000. And since you can actually multiply 100 times target height in inches divided by MOA for some scenarios while on the gun and without a calculator it would appear MOA may be quicker, and accurate too if the shooter considers the 5 percent error in hold over.

 

[mforsch]

Play it on paper; that is, make an imaginary shot at 1,2,3,4,500, etc., monkey with the wind from 5 to 10-----see if you can run the numbers in your head with each type of reticle--------if it's hard---so is your shooting experience-----and your results in real shooting may not be so rewarding.
Personally, I always thought that trying to multiply oddball numbers while trying to hit a distant target was-----making the easy become difficult---you can divide the inch or you can divide the 3.6 inches---whichever is easier for you to mess with....

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Play it on paper; that is, make an imaginary shot at 1,2,3,4,500, etc., monkey with the wind from 5 to 10-----see if you can run the numbers in your head with each type of reticle--------if it's hard---so is your shooting experience-----and your results in real shooting may not be so rewarding.
Personally, I always thought that trying to multiply oddball numbers while trying to hit a distant target was-----making the easy become difficult---you can divide the inch or you can divide the 3.6 inches---whichever is easier for you to mess with....

Your suggestion of playing it on paper is an awesome aid, and it is seen in modern curriculum workbooks on ranging, zeroing, and countering for wind. Requiring the shooter to do the math for wind without a calculator allows the shooter to discern preference for reticle sub tension, as well as dial units.

 

[Emouse]

You need to do the math to determine the wind value in either MOA or mils. For example, you are shooting at 600 yards with a full value 8 mph wind using a bullet that takes the constant of 11 for an MOA solution. Now, without a math formula in head or with calculator tell me how many mils or MOA you need to put on the sight. Without having charted the possibilities you will need to do the math.

MSR ret,..MIL. No math on second shot!Just shoot what the ret indicates and shoot in same wind condition.

 

[Ledzep]

I fall along in the category of thinking it's either IPHY or Mils. I have MOA and Mil scopes. Doesn't matter much to me, it's just getting familiar with them, but I wish my MOA scopes were IPHY.