Re: Why the love for MOA?
I wasn't really referring to the distance between hash marks, but the reticle thickness itself -with power changes.
As to why the NF eypiece/reticle focus affects magnification, I don't know. Maybe they all do, but because of NF's setup -vs- my glasses, I lose a lot of power. Yet I don't with Leupold.
If I were relying on an NPR2 reticle for ranging, I would for sure do some mods for calibrated power settings in the field. Absolutely no way around that.
These are things I'm left to gamble with for scope purchases, because scopemakers and sellers don't ever talk about them.
For example, how would anyone find out the actual adjustment value of a Swarovski scope, without buying one and measuring it?
Their brochure loosely implies 1/4". Really?
Is this .25IPHY, or some sort of 'european hunter' 1/4IPHY, given that their duplex reticle already obscures over 1/4IPHY?
I'm suspicious of other aspects of scope design as well but I'm too ignorant to define it.
I think there are 2 approaches to magnification: Gathering information, and/or zooming in on information.
Gathering a lot of information takes size to collect it.
To get around this, I think there is a trend to merely zoom in on a relatively smaller amount of information. I can do this through 'boosting'(to regain 32x with a NF). But I found that this sucks.
It's not the same result.