Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Dialing elevation vs mil dot holdover
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SBruce" data-source="post: 479049" data-attributes="member: 21068"><p>Jon A, </p><p>I respectfully have to both agree and disagree. </p><p> </p><p>The mil system has been in use longer, true.</p><p> </p><p>But, I believe the 1/2 mil marks/ticks are also relatively new, probably even newer than the 1 moa vertical spacing (most scope makers anyway). Regardless, my reason for disagreement is not the timeline, but the precision.</p><p> </p><p>A 1/2 mil <u>visually</u> divided into 3rds is still .6 IPHY................An MOA visually divided into 3rds is .35 IPHY.......nearly double the precision a mil system is capable of (visually speaking only).</p><p> </p><p>As far as windage marks being 2 moa...............Windage correction changes very little relative to distance, when compared to elevation correction relative to distance. I am speaking of overall distance and more so toward long range, with higher velocity/BC's, so this may or may not be relavent to Phillie Timothy's question.?</p><p> </p><p>I do<u> Totally</u> agree that both are capable of precision, and what matters most is practice/use with any system and learning said system. </p><p> </p><p>Personally, I learned the mil dot system before I learned the IPHY/MOA system, and after using all 3; I firmly believe the IPHY is the quickest, easiest way for precision ranging and holdover/windage without ever dialing any knobs (short of custom designed BDC reticles, which is another story, LoL).</p><p> </p><p>Not trying to be combative here, just showing another viewpoint.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SBruce, post: 479049, member: 21068"] Jon A, I respectfully have to both agree and disagree. The mil system has been in use longer, true. But, I believe the 1/2 mil marks/ticks are also relatively new, probably even newer than the 1 moa vertical spacing (most scope makers anyway). Regardless, my reason for disagreement is not the timeline, but the precision. A 1/2 mil [U]visually[/U] divided into 3rds is still .6 IPHY................An MOA visually divided into 3rds is .35 IPHY.......nearly double the precision a mil system is capable of (visually speaking only). As far as windage marks being 2 moa...............Windage correction changes very little relative to distance, when compared to elevation correction relative to distance. I am speaking of overall distance and more so toward long range, with higher velocity/BC's, so this may or may not be relavent to Phillie Timothy's question.? I do[U] Totally[/U] agree that both are capable of precision, and what matters most is practice/use with any system and learning said system. Personally, I learned the mil dot system before I learned the IPHY/MOA system, and after using all 3; I firmly believe the IPHY is the quickest, easiest way for precision ranging and holdover/windage without ever dialing any knobs (short of custom designed BDC reticles, which is another story, LoL). Not trying to be combative here, just showing another viewpoint.:) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Dialing elevation vs mil dot holdover
Top