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
NP-R2 Range Estimation
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="Luke Mason" data-source="post: 15429" data-attributes="member: 912"><p>Brent,</p><p>Going back a bit just to align ourselves… </p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p> </p><p>When you speak of "a line" are we talking about 1moa or the 2moa spaced lines of the tick marks? </p><p></p><p>Is the 42x scope designed to read at another power setting, how come the "lines" are equal to half the value?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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". </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>When I initially broke this down, I started by breaking down a mil, which is equal to 3.444moa – 3.44 rounded. </p><p></p><p>I then divided that by 10 (same division used with the mil dot reticle .1mil reading) for a .34moa reading. .34moa = .1mil</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>It may even be possible to break it down further like you said. Having not looked down behind one, I don't know. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>What do you think? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>The reality of the speed of your method is apparent when transferring into dialed or held corrections.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Thanks,</p><p>Luke</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>null</strong><strong>null</strong><strong>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.</strong><strong>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. </strong><strong>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?</strong><strong>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.</strong><strong>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.</strong><strong>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.</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Luke Mason, post: 15429, member: 912"] 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 [B]null[/B][B]null[/B][B]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.[/B][B]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. [/B][B]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?[/B][B]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.[/B][B]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.[/B][B]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.[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
NP-R2 Range Estimation
Top