Originally Posted by Scot E
Not sure if this will help but the NPR-1 will subtend to cover .625 at 1000 yards whereas the MOAR subtends to 1.4 inches at the same distance. So the MOAR covers just a bit over twice as much as the NPR-1.
On a lower powered scope like the 3-15 I would tend to lean to the MOAR because it will be easier to see in conditions where that is important. On the 5-22 it would be more of a tossup.
I think it also depends how far you intend to shoot and at what sized targets.
For stuff over 1k, and smaller targets, a finer reticles has its advantages. But its disadvantage is that you can loose it in twilight, dark vegetation or moving targets scenarios like you could get in dark timber.
It's all about managing the tradeoffs for YOUR shooting style and intended purpose.
I "hear" your reasoning, one of them is 1/16" = 0.0625 and the other one is 1/8" = 0.125 so at 1000 yards would cover 0.625" and 1.25" respectively.
Unless your target is smaller than a square 1.25"x1.25" and you're shooting at 1000 yards it would not be good for you.
If you could hit a 5" diameter plate at 2000 yards, the reticle of the MOAR would still not be a hindrance. Not for me anyway! It would only cover a square of 2.5"x2.5".
Bottom line, I don't think the marksman that would be slowed down by the MOAR reticle has been born... Then again I could be wrong!
Happy Thanks Giving To All!
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Our Lord Jesus said that as it was in the days of Noah and
also as it was in the days of Lot so it shall be in the days...
It's happening again!!! God sent to us His prophet, and His Word
to this generation and we once more are rejecting it as was prophesied!!!
---> As promised, God Sent His Prophet to us!