NP-R2 Range Estimation

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by Luke Mason, Feb 16, 2003.

  1. Luke Mason

    Luke Mason Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Regarding range estimation with the NP-R2 reticle, I read in previous posts that the accuracy potential is greater than that with the mil-dot reticle. I am currently using a NF NXS with mil-dot reticle. When I mil my intended target sometimes my readings are in smaller fractions than 10ths...e.g., instead of reading .6mil, or .7mil, I may get a more precise reading of say .65, or .75

    In an example using a 20" target (top to bottom) If I get a mil reading of .65, my distance equals 854.46yds. In comparison, using the 2 moa tick marks, I would need a reading of approx 2.35moa to get the same answer. Question, Is it possible to get this type of fine reading?
    Obviously in this example, the users familiarity with this type of reticle is going to play a major role, since visualizing the differentiation is a difficult skill. My question is, how are you visually breaking down the 2&5moa tick marks on the NP-R2, to get the most precise reading?

    Thanks,
    Luke
     
  2. Brent

    Brent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Hey Luke,

    The best resolution I think the R2 reticle provides is .2 moa, or 1 tenth of a line. This is pretty easy to break down like this. The 12-42x56 has the advantage of twice this resolution if set on 42 power and would be .1 moa. On 42x the lines are equal to 1 moa now not 2 moa.

    The best use of the 5.5-22x NF is with bigger targets in the 36-40" range. Here you can stay under about 30-35 yards per .2 moa increment. If the target is say 20" like your example, it is much more difficult to range to within this 30-35 yard range.

    The larger the targets size you're dividing into the more closely each range increment will be to each other. Range increments get farther apart the longer the range as well. This is the exact opposite of what we want as a LR hunter too.

    After about 800 yards the the distance between each .2 moa increment on a 40" target is stretching to over 30 yards so it does have it's limitations beyond this. On a 20 inch target the limit might be around 600 yards. If you are using a 42x NF this of course would be a different story because of it's greater resolution.

    The method I use is to measure the animal and count the number of lines high, say 2.7 lines. I divide half the targets size by this number and move the decimal two places to the right. Example; 40" chest on this moose measures 2.7 lines tall. Half the chest size 20"/2.7 lines = 7.40 or 740 yards.

    Examples of other increments with a 40" target would be;

    3.0 = 666 yards
    2.9 = 689
    2.8 = 714
    2.7 = 740
    2.6 = 769
    2.5 = 800
    2.4 = 833
    2.3 = 869
    2.2 = 909
    2.1 = 952
    2.0 = 1000

    If you do the same thing using a 20" target (dividing by half that though) you'll see a much larger distance between the one tenth increments though.

    Examples of other increments with a 20" target would be;

    2.0 = 500 yards
    1.9 = 526
    1.8 = 555
    1.7 = 588
    1.6 = 625
    1.5 = 666
    1.4 = 714
    1.3 = 769
    1.2 = 833
    1.1 = 909
    1.0 = 1000

    In the same range, you can see the smaller target doesn't work as well and range increments are far too large to be usefull past about 600yds. If you factor in about a 10% error for judging the targets size, which could be at an angle or obstructed some, you'd probably be safe to 800 yards or so if you're shooting a high BC bullet at pretty high velocity on a 36-40" rangeable object.

    How are you judging size using the Mil-Dot to within .05 mil? Are you able to do this in increments of .05 mil?

    Given the fact that .05 mil is about .2 moa, that would be comparable to the NF 5.5-22 or 8-32, but again the 12-42 would give double this resolution.

    I don't see how the mil-dot can give increments of .05 mil (or .2 moa) but I'm open to ideas. It does have an outer ring that is .2 moa thick and a center dot that is .1 moa in size, I guess you could use these sizes in multiples to an extent, but as far as offering .05 mil or .2 moa increments that isn't there. This is one difficult thing to deal with, for me anyway.

    Here's something that might help with the mil-dot.

    Mil-Dot specs;

    1.0 mil = 3.6 moa (dots between centers)
    .88 mil = 3.2 moa (center crosshair to edge of first dot)
    .75 mil = 2.7 moa (between edges of dots)
    .50 mil = 1.8 moa (half way between dot centers)
    .25 mil = 0.9 moa (size of dot)
    .13 mil = 0.5 moa (half size of dot)
    .06 mil = 0.2 moa (thickness of dots outer ring) Nightforce Mil-Dot
    .03 mil = 0.1 moa (center dot size) Nightforce Mil-Dot


    [ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: Brent ]
     

  3. Luke Mason

    Luke Mason Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Brent,
    Thanks for the reply. Using an example to answer your question on mil estimation using .05 increments, I am basically visualizing what appears to be "not quit" a true .7 or .6, it then becomes .65

    I am not saying this is easy, however, very much possible.

    I can walk that out in the .05 increments as needed...e.g., 1.5,1.55,1.6,1.65,...etc

    All of the guys that use this reticle that I shoot with, maintain these types of readings to get the most accurate capability out of the estimation.

    As you said, out at 1000yds it becomes very difficult to get any reading period. At the greater distances, with the smaller targets, I am happy to break it down into the 10th's...e.g., .6, .7, .8,etc. I realize the limitations of the mil-dot at greater ranges, and was wondering if the NP-R2 moa ranging had a leg up on it somehow.

    Reading other posts about the NP-R2, there was mention of it working best as a calibrated hold over reticle if the velocity was up around 3300+fps. I am only humming along at around 3000fps (.300WM). Realizing that, the benefit I was hoping for was that I was thinking about speaking in the same moa language of the turrets. This would eliminate some extra thinking for the shooter I would think.

    Thanks for your input; if you have any more info, I would appreciate it.

    Luke
     
  4. Brent

    Brent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Hey Luke,

    I'm not sure I understand how you can do this in increments still.

    Walk me through it using your example if you would. My dad uses the mil-dot in several of his but I've never taken to them myself.

    I can walk that out in the .05 increments as needed...e.g., 1.5,1.55,1.6,1.65,...etc

    Tell me how you'd measure each of those increments with what you'd be using as a reference with each one.

    The R2's bars that are 2 moa apart can be visually split in half and then again 5 equal times for real .2 moa increments. This is really pretty easy to get that accurate. Sometimes you can even see it isn't falling on a "visualized" .2 moa line and falls in between, so it can be more accurate than this even, I suppose. This is especially true if the target has really defined edges.

    At this point I still see the R2 as being quicker to get a measurement, more accurate and quicker to figure the range in your head with the numbers you get.

    A custom modified R2 I'd like to see would add bars placed at 1 moa increments being 1 moa wide instead of 2, with bars placed at .5 moa increments being .5 moa wide and this one being a finer line as well, .1 moa width would be good.
     
  5. Luke Mason

    Luke Mason Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Brent,
    Thanks for explaining your NP-R2 in detail. I also appreciate the open mind. I hope this explains it well for you.
    Here is a basic idea of how I use my scope. As I mentioned, I am using a NXS, mine is in 3.5x15x50 w/mil dot reticle. As you’re aware, the dot represents .25mil, with half dot representing .125
    I too find the divisions difficult to work with, even though I have used this type of reticle for some time. Based on the .25 mil dot, the space between the inside edges of the dots represent .75
    Most guys will then visually divide the .75 into 6 even increments of .125 -The .75 added to each half dot of .125 equals the total 1.0 mil
    The problem I have, is the difficulty in quickly attaining the smaller increments as I had discussed with you previously, e.g. when you have a reading that is in the middle of a perceived division…5.5,6.5, etc. In the case of the .125 increments, the midway reading between your visual mark would give you a number like .0625 - This added to the whole of .125, gives you .1875 - This to me is not fast or easy to work with; like your Dad, making the smaller readings is not happening.

    This is what I do. I totally disregard the fact that the dot is .125, and treat it like it is .1 - I then treat the .75 spacing as if it where .8 - By doing this, I divide the inside .75 spacing into 8 divisions. To get the 10th reading that I am looking for, I add the halves of each dot on each side. Center of dot to center of dot is 1.mil regardless of how I mentally chop it. Breaking down the center .75 spacing into 8, I get 8 divisions of .0937, rounding to .094 – This is very close to the .1 value.

    Here is a breakdown taking the .75 space and dividing into 8ths equaling (.094) each. I add them along the way to show the progression as if you where reading your reticle. The first measurement starts from the inside edge of the dot. Take any of these numbers along the way, and add it to your half dot of .125 – If you have a full mil, you will be starting from the center of a dot to get the remaining measurement. This would be your base to start from where you know that regardless of anything that you are doing, the measurement is a full 1. mil. Your answer will be within a few hundredths.

    Divided actual increments - .094 - .188 - .282 - .376 - .47 - .564 - .658 - .752
    Shooters used increments - .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8
    Adjusted w/+ .125 half dot - .219 .313 .407 .501 .595 .689 .783 .877
    Shooters total reading - .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

    The bottom row represents the measurement from the center of the dot out to your divisions, adding along the way to show the reading.

    Here is a working example: 30” target – (30” x 27.77 = constant of 833.1)

    Shooters method: Mil reading 1.1 833.1 ¸ 1.1 = 757 yds
    School house method: Mil reading 1.125 833.1 ¸ 1.125 = 741 yds
    Difference = 18yds

    Shooters method: Mil reading .9 833.1 ¸ .9 = 926yds
    School house method: Mil reading .875 833.1 ¸ .875 = 952yds
    Difference = 26yds

    Let me know if you have any questions. I have more to tell you however, I have to get some sleep (work in 6hrs).
    Luke
     
  6. Luke Mason

    Luke Mason Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Brent,
    The formula didn't come out readable on the post, here it is again.

    Here is a working example: 30” target – (30” x 27.77 = constant of 833.1)

    Shooters method: Mil reading 1.1 -- C= 833.1 / 1.1 = 757 yds
    School house method: Mil reading 1.125 -- C= 833.1 / 1.125 = 741 yds
    Difference = 18yds

    Shooters method: Mil reading .9 -- C= 833.1 / .9 = 926yds
    School house method: Mil reading .875 -- C= 833.1 / .875 = 952yds
    Difference = 26yds

    Luke
     
  7. Brent

    Brent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Now that's a workable system there, great job! [​IMG]

    It's new so I'm a little slow at it yet. I don't understand one thing in your 30" target example though. You indicate two different mil readings, one at 1.1, the other at .9, will you explain the why there is two different ones and how you got them. I know I'm missing your point because of this. My brain hurts, so I'll let you explain it rather than study it any longer. I'm sure you'll point out in a sentance, what will take me an hour to figure out. [​IMG] I do fairly well with math, but mil-dot math is something I still have to try hard to follow, thanks for the detailed explanation, everything else makes perfect sense. [​IMG]

    Breaking it down into moa instead of mil's would be even simpler on the brain if it could be done as accuratly.
     
  8. Luke Mason

    Luke Mason Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Brent,
    The reason that I show a .9 and a 1.1, is that each or those are paired with what would be the reading had the .25 dot been a .20 dot.

    Like I said, when I have readings over 1.0mil, I disregard the .125 increments that a 1/8th division would give, and divide even 10ths.e.g.,1.1,1.2,1.3,..etc.

    This is also why in the original post, I make mention of how I break it down into 1.15,1.65,etc.

    Back to your original question, I show the difference between my way and the exact way. The difference is marginal, and in the field not and issue.


    Hope this helps. Thanks
    Marco
     
  9. Brent

    Brent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Hey Luke,

    Thanks for pointing out my reading comprehension. [​IMG] This was almost puttin me in the nut house. [​IMG]

    I went back and reread the whole thing again and figured out how it worked.

    Dropping the 1.25 mil to 1.0 was the first thing I forgot you did, then you threw in the constant, which I forgot how it worked using it, damn it's been a while. [​IMG] Next all the .94 mil multiples with the third didget had my brain in sever pain when there wasn't ten of them [​IMG] when I reread it I realized you were just breaking down the .75 mil section in between the edges of the dots, duuuuh! I assumed I understood what you were doing and missed a few things to say the least.

    Anyway, thanks for prying my eyelids open. [​IMG] You explained it very well, but you're right, the first formula was a bit confusing and having not used the constant 27.77 for a while I forgot what the hell to even do with it. [​IMG]

    Ok here we are now, it's say 25 yards off at most, less when it falls in the middle of the .75 mil range.

    Here's my thoughts on this now that I see the pros and cons, and I think the moa corallation question is of interest to you.

    Each 1/10th mil is equal to about .36 moa, so if you used this to range a 30 inch target and it took 1.1 mil, this equals 3.96 moa. (11*.36 = 3.96) This would indicate 757 yards when the 30" target is divided by 3.96 moa. So I guess it comes down to which formual do you want to use, 1.1/833 = range or 30/(1.1*.36) = range.

    I seems the .36 moa multiple wouldn't be as easy to add up in ones head like the multiple of .2 in the R2. Assuming you know the constant for the animal your hunting before hand, the 1.1/833 is a simpler calculation, not to do in your head, but simpler none the less.

    What do you think?

    It seems the 1/10th divisions equaling .2 moa is a little more precise than the .36 moa divisions of the mil-dot but I'm not sure if yours can be modified with a different power setting or not? What setting is it calibrated to range at, is it 10x?
     
  10. Luke Mason

    Luke Mason Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Brent,
    Going back a bit just to align ourselves…

    The best resolution I think the R2 reticle provides is .2 moa, or 1 tenth of a line. This is pretty easy to break down like this. The 12-42x56 has the advantage of twice this resolution if set on 42 power and would be .1 moa. On 42x the lines are equal to 1 moa now not 2 moa.

    When you speak of “a line” are we talking about 1moa or the 2moa spaced lines of the tick marks?

    Is the 42x scope designed to read at another power setting, how come the “lines” are equal to half the value?

    The method I use is to measure the animal and count the number of lines high, say 2.7 lines. I divide half the targets size by this number and move the decimal two places to the right.

    I realize that you do this to give yourself (and the animal) a margin of era however, in your example of the 40” target; the chart is actually for a 20” target/vital zone, correct? If so, the 20” is actually a 10”.

    That would make things much more impressive in my mind regarding the capabilities. Not looking close enough at your formula, I was going off of the prescribed NF formula that they use.

    Given the fact that .05 mil is about .2 moa, that would be comparable to the NF 5.5-22 or 8-32, but again the 12-42 would give double this resolution.

    Please explain the whole difference in resolution comparison.e.g. what does the 22x,32x,and 42x read a 2 moa tick to tick division at full power?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When I initially broke this down, I started by breaking down a mil, which is equal to 3.444moa – 3.44 rounded.

    I then divided that by 10 (same division used with the mil dot reticle .1mil reading) for a .34moa reading. .34moa = .1mil

    If I break the mil down to .05 as you mentioned, I would see a .17moa (.2moa rounded. This .2moa should be easy to read as you said.

    It may even be possible to break it down further like you said. Having not looked down behind one, I don’t know.

    However, after speaking with the NF people, they seem to think that if I was breaking down the mil into .05 increments, that I should be able to break the moa down into .1..we’ll see.

    Another realization that I now see, is that by having the 2 moa tick mark divisions, it is like having a reference point every .6mil on the mil-dot reticle. This is great!

    It seems the .36 moa multiple wouldn't be as easy to add up in ones head like the multiple of .2 in the R2. Assuming you know the constant for the animal your hunting before hand, the 1.1/833 is a simpler calculation, not to do in your head, but simpler none the less.
    What do you think?

    I agree with you. I wouldn’t really use the mil reticle as a moa reticle. I would simply treat each as they are. Using the mil dot in the .1, or 1.5 increments and doing the math as usual is a good way to go.

    The reality of the speed of your method is apparent when transferring into dialed or held corrections.

    It seems the 1/10th divisions equaling .2 moa is a little more precise than the .36 moa divisions of the mil-dot but I'm not sure if yours can be modified with a different power setting or not? What setting is it calibrated to range at, is it 10x?

    It is set for a 15x reading. However, tell me what your thinking. I have ranged using the 5x and simply multiplied by 3. I can also use the 10x and do the same.

    Thanks,
    Luke


    nullnullGiven the fact that .05 mil is about .2 moa, that would be comparable to the NF 5.5-22 or 8-32, but again the 12-42 would give double this resolution.It seems the .36 moa multiple wouldn't be as easy to add up in ones head like the multiple of .2 in the R2. Assuming you know the constant for the animal your hunting before hand, the 1.1/833 is a simpler calculation, not to do in your head, but simpler none the less. It seems the 1/10th divisions equaling .2 moa is a little more precise than the .36 moa divisions of the mil-dot but I'm not sure if yours can be modified with a different power setting or not? What setting is it calibrated to range at, is it 10x?The best resolution I think the R2 reticle provides is .2 moa, or 1 tenth of a line. This is pretty easy to break down like this. The 12-42x56 has the advantage of twice this resolution if set on 42 power and would be .1 moa. On 42x the lines are equal to 1 moa now not 2 moa.The method I use is to measure the animal and count the number of lines high, say 2.7 lines. I divide half the targets size by this number and move the decimal two places to the right.Given the fact that .05 mil is about .2 moa, that would be comparable to the NF 5.5-22 or 8-32, but again the 12-42 would give double this resolution.
     
  11. Luke Mason

    Luke Mason Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Sorry for the screw up on that last post. [​IMG]
     
  12. Brent

    Brent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Hey Luke,

    Been working on some figures and reply off line, I'm kind of stumped over Nightforces suggestion on pg. 6 that at 3.5x the dots will give holdover points at 10, 20, 30 moa etc. From everything I can figure they would be 14.62 moa (or 4.25 mil) apart at 3.5x?

    I see 5x as being real close to 10 moa spacing though, 10.32 to be exact.

    Have you checked this suggestion of theirs?

    There are plenty of errors in the manual of theirs, so this doesn't really surprise me, just thought I'd check it out though.
     
  13. Brent

    Brent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,537
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Brent:The best resolution I think the R2 reticle provides is .2 moa, or 1 tenth of a line. This is pretty easy to break down like this. The 12-42x56 has the advantage of twice this resolution if set on 42 power and would be .1 moa. On 42x the lines are equal to 1 moa now not 2 moa.


    When you speak of “a line” are we talking about 1moa or the 2moa spaced lines of the tick marks?

    What I meant by this; Yes, a line/bar/tic, as you see it in the reticle is 2 moa spaced, so .2 moa equals 1/10th of a line.
    And why I think the R2 only offers .2 moa resolution is this; I break the 2 moa lines down visually in half “first” (1moa), then I can only see to break each 1 moa down into 5 equal lines (.2 moa each), and if the target has really sharp edges “maybe” smaller, but unlikely on game.

    If you really think about it, .1 moa pretty much equals 1/10th of an inch, this is what you’re trying to discern. This is hard enough to do at 22x with the imaginary lines already numbering 10, I just don’t think that I could discern 20 of them at 22x.
    At 42x the 1/10th spacing does the same as dividing the 22x into 20 spaces, it just recalibrates the lines to nearly 1 moa to do it.

    Is the 42x scope designed to read at another power setting, how come the “lines” are equal to half the value?

    The 42x is calibrated for 2 moa spacing between lines at 22x, same as the 22x and 32x scopes. If you could turn the scope to 44x it would be exactly 1 moa spacing, but 42x would be very close. One always has 22x with it also to verify the 42x reading if in question or you couldn’t use 42x because of mirage or some reason.

    Brent:The method I use is to measure the animal and count the number of lines high, say 2.7 lines. I divide half the targets size by this number and move the decimal two places to the right.

    A previous example above for reference;

    40" chest on this moose measures 2.7 lines tall. Half the chest size 20"/2.7 lines = 7.40 or 740 yards.

    I realize that you do this to give yourself (and the animal) a margin of era however, in your example of the 40” target; the chart is actually for a 20” target/vital zone, correct? If so, the 20” is actually a 10”.

    That would make things much more impressive in my mind regarding the capabilities. Not looking close enough at your formula, I was going off of the prescribed NF formula that they use.


    A previous example below for reference again;

    Brent:If you do the same thing using a 20" target (dividing by half that though) you'll see a much larger distance between the one tenth increments though.

    Examples of other increments with a 20" target would be;
    2.0 = 500 yards
    1.9 = 526
    1.8 = 555
    1.7 = 588
    1.6 = 625
    1.5 = 666
    1.4 = 714
    1.3 = 769
    1.2 = 833
    1.1 = 909
    1.0 = 1000


    The vital zone size is not even considered here, I only use the animal’s chest depth to determine range (40”), the 20” “half size” used in the formula above, it is only to keep the formula correct. I am dividing lines and 1/10th lines now, not MOA like the NF formula uses. This gives smaller numbers to divide in your head this way.

    The second chart, it was with a 20” chest, correct. I also use half this number (10) in the formula as well. I only used this to contrast the 40” chest chart, and show how the target size influenced the total range between each 1/10th increment. You’ll see how the range between 1.1 and 1.0 above is over 90 yards. At the same range on the 40” chest chart it is less than 50 yards. I look for the range that keeps each less than 30 yards really. The drop between each increment is too great for me to take a shot if it isn’t.

    I hope that clarifies the ranging and formula aspects a bit. Let me know if I left something out.

    Brent: Given the fact that .05 mil is about .2 moa, that would be comparable to the NF 5.5-22 or 8-32, but again the 12-42 would give double this resolution.

    Again, all three are calibrated at 22x, the 42x setting obtainable with the 12-42x scope will “almost” make the line/bar/tics at 1 moa spacing by way of increasing the target size to double what it was.

    Please explain the whole difference in resolution comparison.e.g. what does the 22x,32x,and 42x read a 2 moa tick to tick division at full power?

    Refer to above.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When I initially broke this down, I started by breaking down a mil, which is equal to 3.444moa – 3.44 rounded.
    I then divided that by 10 (same division used with the mil dot reticle .1mil reading) for a .34moa reading. .34moa = .1mil


    You are correct, it is specifically .34 not .36 moa as I had generalized.

    If I break the mil down to .05 as you mentioned, I would see a .17moa (.2moa rounded. This .2moa should be easy to read as you said.
    It may even be possible to break it down further like you said. Having not looked down behind one, I don’t know.


    15x might be a limiting factor in sizing up the animal to that degree, maybe, just a guess.

    However, after speaking with the NF people, they seem to think that if I was breaking down the mil into .05 increments, that I should be able to break the moa down into .1..we’ll see.

    I think it just depends on how small it is on the target, by that I mean, are you trying to split in half a ½”, ¼” or what, and is it even feasible to do given the situation and distance.

    Another realization that I now see, is that by having the 2 moa tick mark divisions, it is like having a reference point every .6mil on the mil-dot reticle. This is great!

    True. Wouldn’t it be even nicer yet if they had a smaller tick mark at the 1 moa point? That would help out visualizing the 5 ticks between each 1 moa line then.

    Brent:It seems the .36 moa multiple wouldn't be as easy to add up in ones head like the multiple of .2 in the R2. Assuming you know the constant for the animal your hunting before hand, the 1.1/833 is a simpler calculation, not to do in your head, but simpler none the less.
    What do you think?



    You posted earlier; Reading other posts about the NP-R2, there was mention of it working best as a calibrated hold over reticle if the velocity was up around 3300+fps. I am only humming along at around 3000fps (.300WM). Realizing that, the benefit I was hoping for was that I was thinking about speaking in the same moa language of the turrets. This would eliminate some extra thinking for the shooter I would think.

    I was thinking back on that part there and it didn’t seem it would help you much, if that’s what you meant by... speaking the same language and such.

    I agree with you. I wouldn’t really use the mil reticle as a moa reticle. I would simply treat each as they are. Using the mil dot in the .1 or 1.5 increments and doing the math as usual is a good way to go.

    Probably the fastest using the mil-dot is the way you are, like you say.

    The reality of the speed of your method is apparent when transferring into dialed or held corrections.

    Also, the ability to do the range formula in your head quickly has an advantage. [​IMG]

    Brent:It seems the 1/10th divisions equaling .2 moa is a little more precise than the .36 moa divisions of the mil-dot but I'm not sure if yours can be modified with a different power setting or not? What setting is it calibrated to range at, is it 10x?

    I was only thinking that if the NF manual says you’re dot spacing is 10 moa at 3.5x, it would be 3.6” approximately at 10x. This would leave you the ability to power up to 15x and vary your spacing a little tighter possibly at an even moa. I figured it wrong though. It would go 10 moa at 3.5x, 5 moa at 7x and 2.5 moa at 14x instead.
    If it is indeed 10 moa per dot spacing when it’s set at 3.5x, it would be 2.5 moa at 14x, this is still wrong and can’t be 10 moa spacing at 3.5x if it is calibrated for “1 mil” at 15x. Considering when mine is set on 5.5x, a 1” square will be 4” and at 11x it will be 2”.

    It is set for a 15x reading. However, tell me what your thinking. I have ranged using the 5x and simply multiplied by 3. I can also use the 10x and do the same.

    That works for me. [​IMG] Are the mils spaced exactly 3.6” at 100 yards on 15x? What are they spaced at set on 3.5x?

    Take care,
     
  14. Luke Mason

    Luke Mason Member

    Messages:
    14
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Brent,

    15x might be a limiting factor in sizing up the animal to that degree, maybe, just a guess. I think it just depends on how small it is on the target, by that I mean, are you trying to split in half a ½”, ¼” or what, and is it even feasible to do given the situation and distance.

    I aggree, that would be the best situation, conditions optimal. Like I had mentioned, there is no problem reading in the 20ths readings ,e.g.1.5,1.55,2.,2.5,2.55,etc.With practice. It does depend on the visability/weather/target though.

    Luke Realizing that, the benefit I was hoping for was that I was thinking about speaking in the same moa language of the turrets. This would eliminate some extra thinking for the shooter I would think.

    Brent I was thinking back on that part there and it didn’t seem it would help you much, if that’s what you meant by... speaking the same language and such.

    I was thinking that it would be a lot easier to hold over or dial in your corrections using the same correction language that say your spotter might give you (mil), without having to do the math of converting the mils to moa for the dialed in corrections. [​IMG]

    I was only thinking that if the NF manual says you’re dot spacing is 10 moa at 3.5x, it would be 3.6” approximately at 10x. This would leave you the ability to power up to 15x and vary your spacing a little tighter possibly at an even moa. I figured it wrong though. It would go 10 moa at 3.5x, 5 moa at 7x and 2.5 moa at 14x instead.

    I was told by the NF people that at 15x the mil will read 3.66" @ 100yds. They also mentioned that for the best readings, you should go to the 100yd line and see what the mil subtends at using the different power settings.

    Their math came out to 10.98moa using the 3.5x setting? Could you show me the math that you used to get your answers? [​IMG]

    They also mentioned, that if you half the power value, you end up doubling the 1mil spacing.e.g.,7.5x = 2moa

    True. Wouldn’t it be even nicer yet if they had a smaller tick mark at the 1 moa point? That would help out visualizing the 5 ticks between each 1 moa line then.

    Yes it would. Perhaps in the future, such a division will exist. Your other idea of the ideal R2 was also good....[b[A custom modified R2 I'd like to see would add bars placed at 1 moa increments being 1 moa wide instead of 2, with bars placed at .5 moa increments being .5 moa wide and this one being a finer line as well, .1 moa width would be good.[/b]

    I will be looking forward to switching out my mil-dot reticle for the NP-R2.

    If you have more info on things you have done with your R2..e.g. adjusting the power settings for specific holds..etc, I would be interested.

    Luke