Rifle Scopes Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA reticles?
- Thread starter sscoyote
- Start date
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA reticles?
It's simply incorrect to assert that "most turrets adjust in IPHY."
In addition, a minute of angle is an internationally recognized unit of angle derived from degrees, while IPHY has no such claim.
It's simply incorrect to assert that "most turrets adjust in IPHY."
In addition, a minute of angle is an internationally recognized unit of angle derived from degrees, while IPHY has no such claim.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA reticles?
So that's the reason the optics manufacturers chose reticles based on 1.0472 IPHY subtension instead of 1.0 IPHY subtension? Just seems odd that they would use MOA instead of IPHY just because it's based on degrees.
So that's the reason the optics manufacturers chose reticles based on 1.0472 IPHY subtension instead of 1.0 IPHY subtension? Just seems odd that they would use MOA instead of IPHY just because it's based on degrees.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA reticles?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So that's the reason the optics manufacturers chose reticles based on 1.0472 IPHY subtension instead of 1.0 IPHY subtension? Just seems odd that they would use MOA instead of IPHY just because it's based on degrees.</div></div>
Well, 1 IPHY isn't based on <span style="font-style: italic">anything</span>. I suspect it made a lot more sense to base scope adjustments on a subunit of a universally-recognized angular measurement than on <span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span>.
Anyway, who cares?
Scopes adjust the way they adjust, and often differently than the way the manufacturer says they adjust. The only way to find out the precise measurement of the way a particular scope adjusts is to check it yourself.
Optically Checking Rifle Scopes
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So that's the reason the optics manufacturers chose reticles based on 1.0472 IPHY subtension instead of 1.0 IPHY subtension? Just seems odd that they would use MOA instead of IPHY just because it's based on degrees.</div></div>
Well, 1 IPHY isn't based on <span style="font-style: italic">anything</span>. I suspect it made a lot more sense to base scope adjustments on a subunit of a universally-recognized angular measurement than on <span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span>.
Anyway, who cares?
Scopes adjust the way they adjust, and often differently than the way the manufacturer says they adjust. The only way to find out the precise measurement of the way a particular scope adjusts is to check it yourself.
Optically Checking Rifle Scopes
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA reticles?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So that's the reason the optics manufacturers chose reticles based on 1.0472 IPHY subtension instead of 1.0 IPHY subtension? Just seems odd that they would use MOA instead of IPHY just because it's based on degrees.</div></div>
Well, 1 IPHY isn't based on <span style="font-style: italic">anything</span>. I suspect it made a lot more sense to base scope adjustments on a subunit of a universally-recognized angular measurement than on <span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span>.
Anyway, who cares?
Scopes adjust the way they adjust, and often differently than the way the manufacturer says they adjust. The only way to find out the precise measurement of the way a particular scope adjusts is to check it yourself.
Optically Checking Rifle Scopes
</div></div>
Are you saying that IPHY is nothing? I don't understand that statement. Can you clarify it?
And I care, and some must since someone else asked me.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So that's the reason the optics manufacturers chose reticles based on 1.0472 IPHY subtension instead of 1.0 IPHY subtension? Just seems odd that they would use MOA instead of IPHY just because it's based on degrees.</div></div>
Well, 1 IPHY isn't based on <span style="font-style: italic">anything</span>. I suspect it made a lot more sense to base scope adjustments on a subunit of a universally-recognized angular measurement than on <span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span>.
Anyway, who cares?
Scopes adjust the way they adjust, and often differently than the way the manufacturer says they adjust. The only way to find out the precise measurement of the way a particular scope adjusts is to check it yourself.
Optically Checking Rifle Scopes
</div></div>
Are you saying that IPHY is nothing? I don't understand that statement. Can you clarify it?
And I care, and some must since someone else asked me.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
Perhaps it's worth focusing on the fact that the Y in IPHY is "Yards", a measure that's only recognized anymore is few former British colonies. As stated, MOA is a universal standard, based on long established geometry.
It's also worth noting that many military systems have moved to meters. My Mark 4, for example, is in Meters. Shooting at "1000yds" requires me to dope at 915 meters. In both cases, the POI is the same because MOA is constant.
The result of an MOA at a meter is different than at a yard. MOA is constant, the units of measure change. The comment "it's based on nothing" means that the concept of IPHY is not, unto itself, a constant measure.
IPHY started out as "Shooter's MOA" or SMOA. This was the concession that 1" at a hundred yards was close enough, particularly for combat situations where the targets are 30"X19". If you're off a fraction, no biggie. The measure, however, is in fact imprecise -- perhaps something akin to a "pinch" of salt, rather than a level teaspoon.
Perhaps it's worth focusing on the fact that the Y in IPHY is "Yards", a measure that's only recognized anymore is few former British colonies. As stated, MOA is a universal standard, based on long established geometry.
It's also worth noting that many military systems have moved to meters. My Mark 4, for example, is in Meters. Shooting at "1000yds" requires me to dope at 915 meters. In both cases, the POI is the same because MOA is constant.
The result of an MOA at a meter is different than at a yard. MOA is constant, the units of measure change. The comment "it's based on nothing" means that the concept of IPHY is not, unto itself, a constant measure.
IPHY started out as "Shooter's MOA" or SMOA. This was the concession that 1" at a hundred yards was close enough, particularly for combat situations where the targets are 30"X19". If you're off a fraction, no biggie. The measure, however, is in fact imprecise -- perhaps something akin to a "pinch" of salt, rather than a level teaspoon.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
"Why MOA instead of IPHY"
Only because they dont understand Mills yet
"Why MOA instead of IPHY"
Only because they dont understand Mills yet
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
There is nothing imprecise about IPHY. 1 inch per hundred yards is an exact measurement. MOA and Mils are precise, just use the ones you like.
There is nothing imprecise about IPHY. 1 inch per hundred yards is an exact measurement. MOA and Mils are precise, just use the ones you like.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
I think what they are saying is just because your scope says it adjusts X amount per click doesn't mean it really does.
there is nothing "exact" about a scopes adjustment. The best thing you can do is pick one, learn your scope and learn what one click really gives you from that particular scope.
I think what they are saying is just because your scope says it adjusts X amount per click doesn't mean it really does.
there is nothing "exact" about a scopes adjustment. The best thing you can do is pick one, learn your scope and learn what one click really gives you from that particular scope.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
What scope maker has their dials calibrated in IPHY?
What scope maker has their dials calibrated in IPHY?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Why MOA instead of IPHY"
Only because they dont understand Mills yet
</div></div>
I'd not take that to the bank. I believe there is a Tacticoolness factor that goes with owning a mil scope, these days.
Mil is not the end all, nor is MOA or IPHY. It's want you use correctly an fastest, when the brain is in overload, because time is short.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Why MOA instead of IPHY"
Only because they dont understand Mills yet
I'd not take that to the bank. I believe there is a Tacticoolness factor that goes with owning a mil scope, these days.
Mil is not the end all, nor is MOA or IPHY. It's want you use correctly an fastest, when the brain is in overload, because time is short.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hired Gun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What scope maker has their dials calibrated in IPHY? </div></div>
USO
Cheers,
Doc
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hired Gun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What scope maker has their dials calibrated in IPHY? </div></div>
USO
Cheers,
Doc
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
Thanks Doc,
I just spent 10 minutes poking around the US Optics page and could only find MOA and Mil adjustment options. http://www.usoptics.com/upgrades.php?recordID=SN3-2200&rectype=Knob%20-%20Elevation
Where can I see the IPHY options or anything that shows me they are standard?
Thanks Doc,
I just spent 10 minutes poking around the US Optics page and could only find MOA and Mil adjustment options. http://www.usoptics.com/upgrades.php?recordID=SN3-2200&rectype=Knob%20-%20Elevation
Where can I see the IPHY options or anything that shows me they are standard?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
Some Leupold knobs are also in IPHY, but they don't have a ranging retical worth anything, in IPHY.
USO is the way to go for these setups. I don't cry anymore, or so the wife says. Both of my SN-3's are in IPHY for up, wind, and retical ranging. My reticals (MDMOA) test correct for ranging in IPHY as well as the knobs. I find the USO's with a 1/2 IPHY EREK the easest to use for a quick long setup. If I need anything over 50" of up, I'll dial 50 then hold the rest in the retical. With the zero stop an 45 IPHY in one turn it's faster, plus you won't get, elevation lost, like some other glass. With 50 on the knobs and another 40 waiting in the retical, the math is easy. Or just use the retical for everything within the first 40, as it's marked in 1 IPHY hashs.
Some Leupold knobs are also in IPHY, but they don't have a ranging retical worth anything, in IPHY.
USO is the way to go for these setups. I don't cry anymore, or so the wife says. Both of my SN-3's are in IPHY for up, wind, and retical ranging. My reticals (MDMOA) test correct for ranging in IPHY as well as the knobs. I find the USO's with a 1/2 IPHY EREK the easest to use for a quick long setup. If I need anything over 50" of up, I'll dial 50 then hold the rest in the retical. With the zero stop an 45 IPHY in one turn it's faster, plus you won't get, elevation lost, like some other glass. With 50 on the knobs and another 40 waiting in the retical, the math is easy. Or just use the retical for everything within the first 40, as it's marked in 1 IPHY hashs.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
That's exactly my point. I understand that MOA is a geometric concept, but then so is IPHY, some ODD fraction of the radian of a circle. But in it's practical application, as a measuring tool in a reticle where most shooters still use inches and yards as a system of measurement, it seems like it would be much easier applied than 1.0472 IPHY. Correct me if i'm wrong here, but the concept of MOA has nothing to do with a measurement of length or height, and although angles are important to understand for shooting applications, length, width and height are just as important.
As far as i can see in many parts of the world where inches and yards are the standard (not to mention that most scopes are sold in the USA), and turrets are cald. for 1/8th and 1/4th IPHY, the "uneven" 1.0472 reticle system of measurement is a mistake. I mean think about it--when most guys think of MOA they're actually thinking in IPHY--1.0472 of them.
That's exactly my point. I understand that MOA is a geometric concept, but then so is IPHY, some ODD fraction of the radian of a circle. But in it's practical application, as a measuring tool in a reticle where most shooters still use inches and yards as a system of measurement, it seems like it would be much easier applied than 1.0472 IPHY. Correct me if i'm wrong here, but the concept of MOA has nothing to do with a measurement of length or height, and although angles are important to understand for shooting applications, length, width and height are just as important.
As far as i can see in many parts of the world where inches and yards are the standard (not to mention that most scopes are sold in the USA), and turrets are cald. for 1/8th and 1/4th IPHY, the "uneven" 1.0472 reticle system of measurement is a mistake. I mean think about it--when most guys think of MOA they're actually thinking in IPHY--1.0472 of them.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Why MOA instead of IPHY"
Only because they dont understand Mills yet
</div></div>
I'd not take that to the bank. I believe there is a Tacticoolness factor that goes with owning a mil scope, these days.
Mil is not the end all, nor is MOA or IPHY. It's want you use correctly an fastest, when the brain is in overload, because time is short.
</div></div>
EXACTLY!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Why MOA instead of IPHY"
Only because they dont understand Mills yet
I'd not take that to the bank. I believe there is a Tacticoolness factor that goes with owning a mil scope, these days.
Mil is not the end all, nor is MOA or IPHY. It's want you use correctly an fastest, when the brain is in overload, because time is short.
</div></div>
EXACTLY!!!
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
I know most here know this but it appears a few don't. MOA is based on degrees in
a circle. All land is surveyed in degrees, your gps is in degrees. 116 degrees, 32 minutes (MOA) and 21 seconds. 116 32' 21" look familiar? 360 degrees 60 minutes
and 60 seconds breaks a circle into 1,296,000 parts. The best of the optical theodolites will read .1 second or 12,960,000 graduations in a circle. Stars are located in the heavens by this method. So that is why it is a popular measuring system. It just so happened 1 MOA works out close to 1 inch per hundred yards so it sufficed for scopes.
Millidrans are based on the fact there are 6.2832 radians in a circle. I have done a
few searches on the mil system and it was employed by the French first for a sighting measurement the best I can tell.
I starting using mils in the mid 90's, I still think in yards and inches. So I switched
to IPHY and am glad I did. I will send my last mil scope off someday and have it
changed over as well. Lowlight posted the best info I ever saw on the subject, make
up a chart with the most common things you range and use it, no math, no calculations on the fly. Here are a couple in Mil and MOA based on common animal
sizes. (the MOA chart is actually IPHY, just forgot to rename it.)
I know most here know this but it appears a few don't. MOA is based on degrees in
a circle. All land is surveyed in degrees, your gps is in degrees. 116 degrees, 32 minutes (MOA) and 21 seconds. 116 32' 21" look familiar? 360 degrees 60 minutes
and 60 seconds breaks a circle into 1,296,000 parts. The best of the optical theodolites will read .1 second or 12,960,000 graduations in a circle. Stars are located in the heavens by this method. So that is why it is a popular measuring system. It just so happened 1 MOA works out close to 1 inch per hundred yards so it sufficed for scopes.
Millidrans are based on the fact there are 6.2832 radians in a circle. I have done a
few searches on the mil system and it was employed by the French first for a sighting measurement the best I can tell.
I starting using mils in the mid 90's, I still think in yards and inches. So I switched
to IPHY and am glad I did. I will send my last mil scope off someday and have it
changed over as well. Lowlight posted the best info I ever saw on the subject, make
up a chart with the most common things you range and use it, no math, no calculations on the fly. Here are a couple in Mil and MOA based on common animal
sizes. (the MOA chart is actually IPHY, just forgot to rename it.)
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I mean think about it--when most guys think of MOA they're actually thinking in IPHY--1.0472 of them. </div></div>
Correct, but it's LR, ranging, where the difference will bite an arty (AKA .308win) shooter.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I mean think about it--when most guys think of MOA they're actually thinking in IPHY--1.0472 of them. </div></div>
Correct, but it's LR, ranging, where the difference will bite an arty (AKA .308win) shooter.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hired Gun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What scope maker has their dials calibrated in IPHY?</div></div> nikon, uso, many others
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Why MOA instead of IPHY"
Only because they dont understand Mills yet
</div></div>
I'd not take that to the bank. I believe there is a Tacticoolness factor that goes with owning a mil scope, these days.
Mil is not the end all, nor is MOA or IPHY. It's want you use correctly an fastest, when the brain is in overload, because time is short.
</div></div>
EXACTLY!!!</div></div>
then who makes a MOA/MOA scope with .1 adjustments? No one does because it isn't practical. .1 mil however.......
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So that's the reason the optics manufacturers chose reticles based on 1.0472 IPHY subtension instead of 1.0 IPHY subtension? Just seems odd that they would use MOA instead of IPHY just because it's based on degrees.</div></div>
Well, 1 IPHY isn't based on <span style="font-style: italic">anything</span>. I suspect it made a lot more sense to base scope adjustments on a subunit of a universally-recognized angular measurement than on <span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span>.
Anyway, who cares?
Scopes adjust the way they adjust, and often differently than the way the manufacturer says they adjust. The only way to find out the precise measurement of the way a particular scope adjusts is to check it yourself.
Optically Checking Rifle Scopes
</div></div>
Are you saying that IPHY is nothing? I don't understand that statement. Can you clarify it?
And I care, and some must since someone else asked me.</div></div>
IPHY is not a recognized unit of angular measure anywhere in the world, except in the small little shooting world who just invented it to satisfy a non understanding of existing units of angular measure.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hired Gun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What scope maker has their dials calibrated in IPHY?</div></div> nikon, uso, many others
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Why MOA instead of IPHY"
Only because they dont understand Mills yet
I'd not take that to the bank. I believe there is a Tacticoolness factor that goes with owning a mil scope, these days.
Mil is not the end all, nor is MOA or IPHY. It's want you use correctly an fastest, when the brain is in overload, because time is short.
</div></div>
EXACTLY!!!</div></div>
then who makes a MOA/MOA scope with .1 adjustments? No one does because it isn't practical. .1 mil however.......
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So that's the reason the optics manufacturers chose reticles based on 1.0472 IPHY subtension instead of 1.0 IPHY subtension? Just seems odd that they would use MOA instead of IPHY just because it's based on degrees.</div></div>
Well, 1 IPHY isn't based on <span style="font-style: italic">anything</span>. I suspect it made a lot more sense to base scope adjustments on a subunit of a universally-recognized angular measurement than on <span style="font-style: italic">nothing</span>.
Anyway, who cares?
Scopes adjust the way they adjust, and often differently than the way the manufacturer says they adjust. The only way to find out the precise measurement of the way a particular scope adjusts is to check it yourself.
Optically Checking Rifle Scopes
</div></div>
Are you saying that IPHY is nothing? I don't understand that statement. Can you clarify it?
And I care, and some must since someone else asked me.</div></div>
IPHY is not a recognized unit of angular measure anywhere in the world, except in the small little shooting world who just invented it to satisfy a non understanding of existing units of angular measure.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lowlight posted the best info I ever saw on the subject, make
up a chart with the most common things you range and use it, no math, no calculations on the fly. </div></div>
Yep, charts are the best. I can flip to either side, gives me the range an up number, then I just use the retical for the first 40 IPHY of up. Saves alot of time doing it this way if your shooting clock times. Learned this the hard way in Feb. this year. Hard headed old dog, but I'm still learning.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lowlight posted the best info I ever saw on the subject, make
up a chart with the most common things you range and use it, no math, no calculations on the fly. </div></div>
Yep, charts are the best. I can flip to either side, gives me the range an up number, then I just use the retical for the first 40 IPHY of up. Saves alot of time doing it this way if your shooting clock times. Learned this the hard way in Feb. this year. Hard headed old dog, but I'm still learning.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
I rely on Exbal for my corrections and I can change the outputs to Mil's, MOA or IPHY in any clicks value I want so none of this really matters to me. I can adapt to any of them. I don't need any charts or fancy reticals. I am banking the hunt on my Swarovski rangefinder. No, I will never be caught with a dead battery but I am subject to weather in which it will not get readings. This happens alot. Then I fall back to my old method. I know my max point black range and if it looks like I'm inside that range I've gor a dead critter. If not then I'm just a spectator.
I rely on Exbal for my corrections and I can change the outputs to Mil's, MOA or IPHY in any clicks value I want so none of this really matters to me. I can adapt to any of them. I don't need any charts or fancy reticals. I am banking the hunt on my Swarovski rangefinder. No, I will never be caught with a dead battery but I am subject to weather in which it will not get readings. This happens alot. Then I fall back to my old method. I know my max point black range and if it looks like I'm inside that range I've gor a dead critter. If not then I'm just a spectator.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IPHY is not a recognized unit of angular measure anywhere in the world, except in the small little shooting world who just invented it to satisfy a non understanding of existing units of angular measure. </div></div>
One could apply that same logic to anyone not speaking the oldest language of the planet, or not using the metric system (or some older system it replaced) for every measurement they make.
Existing unts of angular measurement are no different, better, or worse than a new one you might invent in the next five minutes.
All of them were defined by man and all of them are subject to replacement by man at some future date.
If it works for you, use it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ewoaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IPHY is not a recognized unit of angular measure anywhere in the world, except in the small little shooting world who just invented it to satisfy a non understanding of existing units of angular measure. </div></div>
One could apply that same logic to anyone not speaking the oldest language of the planet, or not using the metric system (or some older system it replaced) for every measurement they make.
Existing unts of angular measurement are no different, better, or worse than a new one you might invent in the next five minutes.
All of them were defined by man and all of them are subject to replacement by man at some future date.
If it works for you, use it.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2manygunz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am going to have all of my future scopes done in DFBE -- Distance From Bull's Eye. This way, I'll leave it set on "0" and always be perfect. </div></div>
I'd be in for a GB on one of the those... Lord knows I need it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2manygunz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am going to have all of my future scopes done in DFBE -- Distance From Bull's Eye. This way, I'll leave it set on "0" and always be perfect. </div></div>
I'd be in for a GB on one of the those... Lord knows I need it.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
Here is a post I posted a while ago. Might help:
"O.K. Here are the results of my phone calls to Leupold, Nightforce, Schmidt & Bender, U.S. Optics, S.W.F.A and Bushnell Optics.
Before I get into my great conversation with U.S. Optics, here are the results:
They all use “real” mathematical millradians, (which is 3.6 inches at 100 yards based on 6283.2 mils per circle) for their reticles.
Except for U.S. Optics, they also all use “true” Moa (1.047 inches at 100 yards) for their reticle spacings.
U.S. Optics, who were very helpful, say’s they make their scopes in real “mils”, but make most of their “moa” scopes in “shooters” moa (1 inch at 100 yards). They do sell a “true” moa scope also for those who want it.
Their refurbishing of the Unertl scopes also reveled that the original Unertl scopes were in “real” mils (3.6 inches at 100 yards). That is how U.S. Optics makes their scopes now. "
Thanks,
runner (Bob)
Here is a post I posted a while ago. Might help:
"O.K. Here are the results of my phone calls to Leupold, Nightforce, Schmidt & Bender, U.S. Optics, S.W.F.A and Bushnell Optics.
Before I get into my great conversation with U.S. Optics, here are the results:
They all use “real” mathematical millradians, (which is 3.6 inches at 100 yards based on 6283.2 mils per circle) for their reticles.
Except for U.S. Optics, they also all use “true” Moa (1.047 inches at 100 yards) for their reticle spacings.
U.S. Optics, who were very helpful, say’s they make their scopes in real “mils”, but make most of their “moa” scopes in “shooters” moa (1 inch at 100 yards). They do sell a “true” moa scope also for those who want it.
Their refurbishing of the Unertl scopes also reveled that the original Unertl scopes were in “real” mils (3.6 inches at 100 yards). That is how U.S. Optics makes their scopes now. "
Thanks,
runner (Bob)
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
</div></div>
could you explain how to read this chart? will it work with a mil/mil setup as it sits right now? and what are the numbers next to the animal name, are they mil readings of the size of the vitals area, or overall average height of that animal or what?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
</div></div>
could you explain how to read this chart? will it work with a mil/mil setup as it sits right now? and what are the numbers next to the animal name, are they mil readings of the size of the vitals area, or overall average height of that animal or what?
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
First column is your animal size measurement using your reticle. Pick the line for your animal to get distance to target.
Based on the fact that 12 IPHY gives 100 yards for the coyote which has a 12 next to it, the numbers next to the animals are animal size in inches. Based on actually knowing something about the sizes of the animals in question, I am GUESSING that the "size" in question is depth of the body, i.e, measure the distance from the stomach to the back when the animal is side-on to you. Of course they are average values and animal sizes will vary from animal to animal so the ranging will not be perfect.
Also, I would venture to guess that the reason MOA was originally used instead of IPHY for rifle scopes is that practically every other type of instrument that adjusted for any kind of angle used degrees, minutes, and seconds (or just degrees and minutes, or just degrees, depending on the fineness of the adjustment).
For that matter, a quick search of Wikipedia states that the telescopic sight originated in the early 1800s and that at that time the inch was defined as the length of three barleycorns laid end-to-end. Hardly a precise measurement.
First column is your animal size measurement using your reticle. Pick the line for your animal to get distance to target.
Based on the fact that 12 IPHY gives 100 yards for the coyote which has a 12 next to it, the numbers next to the animals are animal size in inches. Based on actually knowing something about the sizes of the animals in question, I am GUESSING that the "size" in question is depth of the body, i.e, measure the distance from the stomach to the back when the animal is side-on to you. Of course they are average values and animal sizes will vary from animal to animal so the ranging will not be perfect.
Also, I would venture to guess that the reason MOA was originally used instead of IPHY for rifle scopes is that practically every other type of instrument that adjusted for any kind of angle used degrees, minutes, and seconds (or just degrees and minutes, or just degrees, depending on the fineness of the adjustment).
For that matter, a quick search of Wikipedia states that the telescopic sight originated in the early 1800s and that at that time the inch was defined as the length of three barleycorns laid end-to-end. Hardly a precise measurement.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: runner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is a post I posted a while ago. Might help:
"O.K. Here are the results of my phone calls to Leupold, Nightforce, Schmidt & Bender, U.S. Optics, S.W.F.A and Bushnell Optics.
Before I get into my great conversation with U.S. Optics, here are the results:
They all use “real” mathematical millradians, (which is 3.6 inches at 100 yards based on 6283.2 mils per circle) for their reticles.
Except for U.S. Optics, they also all use “true” Moa (1.047 inches at 100 yards) for their reticle spacings.
U.S. Optics, who were very helpful, say’s they make their scopes in real “mils”, but make most of their “moa” scopes in “shooters” moa (1 inch at 100 yards). They do sell a “true” moa scope also for those who want it.
Their refurbishing of the Unertl scopes also reveled that the original Unertl scopes were in “real” mils (3.6 inches at 100 yards). That is how U.S. Optics makes their scopes now."
Thanks,
runner (Bob)</div></div>
good to know
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: runner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is a post I posted a while ago. Might help:
"O.K. Here are the results of my phone calls to Leupold, Nightforce, Schmidt & Bender, U.S. Optics, S.W.F.A and Bushnell Optics.
Before I get into my great conversation with U.S. Optics, here are the results:
They all use “real” mathematical millradians, (which is 3.6 inches at 100 yards based on 6283.2 mils per circle) for their reticles.
Except for U.S. Optics, they also all use “true” Moa (1.047 inches at 100 yards) for their reticle spacings.
U.S. Optics, who were very helpful, say’s they make their scopes in real “mils”, but make most of their “moa” scopes in “shooters” moa (1 inch at 100 yards). They do sell a “true” moa scope also for those who want it.
Their refurbishing of the Unertl scopes also reveled that the original Unertl scopes were in “real” mils (3.6 inches at 100 yards). That is how U.S. Optics makes their scopes now."
Thanks,
runner (Bob)</div></div>
good to know
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
Why MOA instead of IPHY, It's a personal choice. Both get the results you want if you know how to use them properly. So at 100yds 1 MOA=1.047" and 1 IPHY=1.00". 0.047 of an inch is the difference between those two at a 100yds.
Read what Lindy said, it does not matter what unit you use, just learn to use what you have. Put a yardstick at exactly 100yds and figure out how much does each click on your scope correspond.
If you're going to buy a scope and don't know what unit to use. Pick a scope that has the same unit on the reticle and on the turrets if you can. UsOptics is one company that offers that. I personally like MOA/MOA and that's what I have on all my scopes.
Why MOA instead of IPHY, It's a personal choice. Both get the results you want if you know how to use them properly. So at 100yds 1 MOA=1.047" and 1 IPHY=1.00". 0.047 of an inch is the difference between those two at a 100yds.
Read what Lindy said, it does not matter what unit you use, just learn to use what you have. Put a yardstick at exactly 100yds and figure out how much does each click on your scope correspond.
If you're going to buy a scope and don't know what unit to use. Pick a scope that has the same unit on the reticle and on the turrets if you can. UsOptics is one company that offers that. I personally like MOA/MOA and that's what I have on all my scopes.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
Lindy is like the old EF Hutton commercial - when he speaks about scopes I lean in a little bit to hear what he is saying and as the poster stated above - it doesn't matter as long as you know how to use your optic. I have two IPHY USO scopes and I have used them on UKD courses and they work awesome but so will the others if I know how to use the scope.
Lindy is like the old EF Hutton commercial - when he speaks about scopes I lean in a little bit to hear what he is saying and as the poster stated above - it doesn't matter as long as you know how to use your optic. I have two IPHY USO scopes and I have used them on UKD courses and they work awesome but so will the others if I know how to use the scope.
Re: Why MOA instead of IPHY in the first MOA retic
FING hilarious
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2manygunz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am going to have all of my future scopes done in DFBE -- Distance From Bull's Eye. This way, I'll leave it set on "0" and always be perfect. </div></div>
Alot of good info here.
I've always used Mil-dot reticles and moa dials so I keep with it because it's second nature to me.
Pick something and master it.
FING hilarious
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2manygunz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am going to have all of my future scopes done in DFBE -- Distance From Bull's Eye. This way, I'll leave it set on "0" and always be perfect. </div></div>
Alot of good info here.
I've always used Mil-dot reticles and moa dials so I keep with it because it's second nature to me.
Pick something and master it.
Similar threads
