Not to my limited knowledge. I think it would be foolishness to build them now.
However, we still have people trying to do convoluted math to figure out how many clicks they need to zero their scope at 100yds, with their mil/mil optics.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Why would a scope be made with MOA turrets and Mil-Dot reticle
- Thread starter Frgood
- Start date
Not to my limited knowledge. I think it would be foolishness to build them now.
However, we still have people trying to do convoluted math to figure out how many clicks they need to zero their scope at 100yds, with their mil/mil optics.
I guess the Leupy Mk 4 and those Mk12 Mod 0 scopes recently listed for sale on Midway USA or Optics Planet most have been close-outs/old stock.
why would anyone ever zero a mil/mil optic a 100yds not 100 meters...
Probably because rifle ranges in the States have not yet embraced the metric systemwhy would anyone ever zero a mil/mil optic a 100yds not 100 meters...
Don't put yourself into a box thinking that Mils are metric.why would anyone ever zero a mil/mil optic a 100yds not 100 meters...
They are metric, English and anything else. That's one of the beauties of it.
There is zero advantage to zeroing your rifle at 100 meters versus 100 yards. Both are close the top of the ballistic curve of most cartridges and scope height setups, so either would work equally well.
The value is 1/1000th of the distance regardless of the unit of measurement. You could literally use cubits, furlongs, meters, yards, feet and astronomical units in a Mil translatable fashion.
I owned of those. 3x9 Redfield. Had it on my Remington 700 in .25-06 that I purchased in 1972. Top of the line stuff back then. never used it. Never had a shot on anything, anywhere past 100 yards. Also had a 4X Redfield Wide Field. Still have it but it’s been long since retired.Hey, Fokker! I resemble that!
Simple Redfield ranging hairs. Bracket an 18-inch space (shoulders to solar plexus, nuts to nipples, or nipples to top of noggin), shoot it, kill it.
.JPG)
Other variations:
100 yards vs 100 meters. We used (the few who still partake of that sport still do) meters. 50, 100, 150 and 200 meters. The trick was to find a range that had 200 meters. The range we rebuilt for IHMSA, had to have the 100 meter and 200 meter lines half way up the berms. (It was originally an IHMSA range so they really screwed up) It really makes no difference as to which to use. UNLESS, your handgun is sighted in for the ranges using meters and the match director has set everything up in yards AND Not bothered telling anyone. Been there what a fuck up.
Last edited:
There aren't many. The ones I know of are Kahles and Swarovski, but it's pretty limited.
Z3/Z5 scopes with 1/4 IPHY turrets and Mil-dot trees
Z6/Z8 scopes with 2 MOA wind hashes and Mil turrets.
K16i with the SI1 reticle is 1/10th mil clicks but an MOA subtended reticle.
Those designs are all 10-30 years old, and the Z3/5 are oriented to the US market. No idea if anyone else is making that kind of setup.
Winner. The sun is .0093 AU in diameter, or 9.3 mils viewed from Earth.
The advantage to zeroing at 100M is that if you can't see the bullet holes through your optic and are measuring the target with a tape measure/ calipers you already know .1 mil is 1cm at 100 meters vs any other distance you have to do some math to figure it out.
I'm sure NCStar, Nico Sterling, Centerpoint, Hawkeye and some other Chinesium brands still do.
I gave my mark ar 3-9 of same insanity to my FIL. Replaces a tasco with a broken reticle on a 22lr that never gets dialed.
If you can't see your bullet holes at 100, you got bigger problems.
Stop shooting into black targets for one thing.
#2, you should be able to resolve 17 caliber holes at 100. If not, you need better eyesight, better optics or maybe clean your freaking lenses once in a while.
Someone is gonna bring up mirage now.
What power can you come down to and still see those bullet holes? (and also accurately measure with the reticle)
What if it was something like a 223 with a LPVO.
I do have sub par vision but there is nothing more I can do about it.
That's a you problem. LOLBTW,
Our tape measures are in inches.
I own exactly 1 LPVO (1.5-5x) and it's currently on a Grendel. I can see the bullet holes as long as they aren't in the black.
So, to partly answer your first question, 5x. Haven't tried at lower magnification.
The lines on my BR targets are 1/4" apart. That gives me a reference for my 1/4" turrets.
With a 223? I'd have to shoot some 22 holes in paper and then look through that scope.
I don't actually have an answer for the 223 question.
Seems like a lot of work I don't want to do.
Call me lazy.
Sorry about your vision.
Mine started a rapid decline right when I hit 41.
It easily corrects to 20/20 with glasses, but I don't use them to shoot. Other than a bit of double vision, my long range eyesight is still pretty decent relative to 20/20.
(It still sucks ass, but my optometrist assures me most people can't see for shit)
Pics of the targets I use.
For the Imperialists.
For those who have Met Rick.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,394
- 19,474
So have we officially settled the moa/mil debate?
No. That will take about 3 more pages at a minimum.
SETTLE the MOA/MIL debate? Are you kidding. Do you realize how much entertainment is generated by the MOA/MIL Debate? Heck, I’ll bet three quarters data outside of the of the non-motivational picture thread is generated by that one subject alone.
Snipershide might collapse without that dialog. Poor Frank might have to make a living doing nothing but classes. (Something he is pretty darned good at). He might even have to write another book, not like the last one is probably the best book on long range shooting I have read) @Lowlight you better be paying attention to all the compliments I’m giving you and remember them the next time I really screw up!
Without the MOA/MIL threads, we might all have to start reading facebook or ladies home journey into sexchange or something
Don’t even consider the consequences of such a foolish action. Think of how many lives will be ruined.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,394
- 19,474
It's a holdover from when the military started to be interested in reticles that are more useful than a basic crosshair, and the industry had a lot of inertia to make scopes that only adjust in MOA.
Similar threads
