LEUPOLD overall MOA

Eleazar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
71
This might be a dumb qestion...but why can you only get the following MOA elevation out of the following scope(s)? I would have thought you get get more out of the 6.5-20x50, or least the same...

Leupold's sight (SPECS):

Mark 4
4.5-14-50mm LR/T = 100 MOA of elevation
6.5-20X50mm LR/T = 70 MOA of elevation

VX-3
6.5-20x50mm Target = 90 MOA of elevation
8.5-25x50mm Target = 94 MOA of elevation

With the Mark 4 line of scopes being the "next step up" in their scope line in addition to being considered a LR(Long Range) scope, I would think that it would be able to achieve more than 70 MOA in elevation.

Am I missing something?
 
How much more do you want? 70 minutes is quite a bit. I do not know what determines the amount of vertical adjust. Of any given scope, but I will find out. Since you have asked the question, I to want to know. But to give you a partial answer to your question about the diff. In adjustments, it has to do with the power of the scope.

As you go up in power the internal adjustments will go down, in most cases. Why does this occur? I do not know but I will get us an answer.

Here are a few examples using NighForce optics:

2.5-10 x 32 , w/ Elev: 100 min, Wind: 100 min
5.5-22 x 56 , w/ Elev: 100 min, Wind: 60 min

Now look at a BR scope from NightForce:

8-32 x 56 BR, w/ Elev: 50 min, Wind: 50 min
12-42 x 56 BR, w/ Elev: 40 min, Wind: 40 min

Nikon Monarch X:

2.5-10 x 44 has a maximum internal adj. of 80 min.
4-16 x 50 has a maximum internal adj. of 50 min

Nikon Monarch Gold:

1.5-6 x 42 has a maximum internal adj. of 100 min.

Nikon Prostaff (Nikon's entry level scope):

2-7 x 32 has a maximum internal adj. of 80

I am sure the answer to your question is directly related to the power of the optic. It's kind of like FOV. As the power of the scope goes up, the FOV comes down. As the power goes down, the field of view (FOV) goes up.

I will get a more definitive answer and post my findings as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top