Rifle Scopes Why not an MOA-Dot instead of mil-dot?

[ba_50]

Why is there a mil-dot but no MOA-dot? I doubt if there is any advantage, just wondering. I do think shooters would consider MOA before mils because it is the standard. MOA hash marks sound good but some are hard to see under some conditions so I've read.

 

[BobD]

There are a good number of MOA reticles... Circle and hash type.

 

[Joop]

Good question, but in some circles, mil is "the standard". Also, I've never had problems with mil dots in any situation that would not require an illuminated reticle, no matter what the system was.

 

[Knight6]

Agree why not? Should send this question to USO/NF/Vortex etc

 

[Chanonry]

Agree why not? Should send this question to USO/NF/Vortex etc

NF MOAR is excellent

 

[turbo54]

As already covered, there are many MOA-based reticles on the market.

The way I read the question though, is why aren't there MOA-dot reticles... In a mildot reticle, each dot is one mil apart. A reticle with dots every MOA would be really busy with dots, and in my opinion, would suck.

 

[BobD]

sense
Here's a good example from Holland above and Vortex below, sorry pictures got jumbled around. The moa dots used for wind hold while hash marks are used for the rest. I guess you could make the traditional dot cross sections from moa but they would represent a larger value than is traditionally used. It's pretty common for moa reticles to be spaced by two with hash marks that are either 1 or 2 moa.


I think one were to mimick the design of a standard mil dot it would be less useful than other designs (again, if kept the design and proportions the same). The reticle pic from Holland up top has 3moa spacing with 1/2moa dots. I guess it could work out just using the dots but I don't feel that it would gain any advantage over the current reticles that utilize either hash or incorporate both. There would be farther spacing in this design than most moa reticles that I've seen and the dots covering a significantly larger portion of the target. I just can't see it being advantageous unless its strayed away from the traditional mil design and used hollow circles and additional sub tensions in some form.
Im a fan of moa reticles I just think it would need some work before it interested me (back to reticles that are out there or in development)
just my opinion-


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[00bullitt]

The original Mil-Dot was made by crimping balls of solder on to a wire reticle. The Mil being a rather coarse measurement; the dots were spaced far enough apart as to not crowd each other.

Had the MOA been a popular system of reticle measure when the Mil-Dot came to be, there most likely would have been an MOA-Dot reticle. But if so, the dots would be too crowded since a Mil equals 3.3438 MOA. The lined MOA reticles just make way more sense with today's reticle technology.

The advancements in etched reticle technology has allowed a much more precise reticle; hence the hash mark and line type reticles.

 

[One-Eyed Jack]

As already covered, there are many MOA-based reticles on the market.

The way I read the question though, is why aren't there MOA-dot reticles... In a mildot reticle, each dot is one mil apart. A reticle with dots every MOA would be really busy with dots, and in my opinion, would suck.

One point is that MOA are too fine a subtension to have "MOA dots", while "mil dots" work pretty well (1 milliradian = 3.44 MOA). It would make more sense to have MOA dots every 2 or 5 MOA, and there are MOA-scale reticles with those subtensions.

Another point is that it is common to have 10 turret clicks between "mil" dots. So, a scope with 1 mil between dots would normally have 0.1 mil clicks. The Hensoldt SSG scope has 0.15 mil clicks and 1.5 mils between dots on the reticle, still 10 clicks per dot.

Typically MOA-scale reticles have tic marks every 2 or 5 MOA and turret clicks every 1/4 or 1/2 MOA. With 1/2 MOA clicks and 5 MOA tic marks you get 10 clicks between tic marks; with 1/4 MOA clicks you would need tic marks every 2.5 MOA to have 10 clicks per tic mark.

 

[ba_50]

The hash marks in MOA look just as complicated as mils. I haven't had time to really study them but it looks like Mils will reign. Thanks for your explanations.

 

[BobD]

Honestly, I feel the hashes are much easier to read and break down. I know there are plenty out there that use a traditional mil dot as fast and accurate, but straight lines are faster and more accurate for me. Even a small enhancement to the traditional such as Burris G2 reticle that marks 1/2 mil I find to be incredibly useful. I actually find the contrast between two different shapes and sizes faster as well.

 

[Knight6]

Interesting, thanks all

 

[Rem40xb1]

Mill dot works for me