MOA reticle versus Mildot...
- Thread starter green 788
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Well, we can measure with just about anything--and I've done it. One of the first things I learn when I get a duplex scope is how much the fine part of the reticle subtends at 100 yards, and this allows me to know how much I'm subtending at other ranges.
But my original reason for posting regards the ease of ranging with the reticle.
The laser rangefinder is not always going to send back a number. The calculator may fail to work in heavy rain or extreme cold. If we're to be able to estimate range in such conditions (rare for some of us, perhaps not so rare for others) we need a more "bullet-proof" method. I think the MOA reticle can be used to range with some simple math that most of us can do in our heads (and I mention the process in the original post).
Naturally the mil reticle will work--but you're not going to be nearly so likely to crunch that entire equation out in your head, and as mentioned, even if you do the liklihood of making a mistake is going to be at least twice that of the MOA reticle.
Dan
But my original reason for posting regards the ease of ranging with the reticle.
The laser rangefinder is not always going to send back a number. The calculator may fail to work in heavy rain or extreme cold. If we're to be able to estimate range in such conditions (rare for some of us, perhaps not so rare for others) we need a more "bullet-proof" method. I think the MOA reticle can be used to range with some simple math that most of us can do in our heads (and I mention the process in the original post).
Naturally the mil reticle will work--but you're not going to be nearly so likely to crunch that entire equation out in your head, and as mentioned, even if you do the liklihood of making a mistake is going to be at least twice that of the MOA reticle.
Dan
Pete Lincoln
Well-Known Member
Danm you got it the wrong way round mate, the beauty of the miliradian, adjustment in .1 mils and the mildot type reticles is that its all in 1's and 10's its the simplest math calculation you can do,
farting about with 1/3, 3/4, inches, yards 12s 36s or whatever is a pain in the butt.
Pete
farting about with 1/3, 3/4, inches, yards 12s 36s or whatever is a pain in the butt.
Pete
Pete,
The problem comes when one must impute the size of the target. Over here, we all go by inches. But I'll grant you that if one knows the target size in centimeters, your system can work well.
Let's say you're looking at a 42cm target.
First of all, you'd have to be able to determine whether you're at .3 mils, .6 or .7 mils, etc., on the reticle. Let's assume you get that part perfect: The target is .6 mils in height.
Since it's a 42cm target, you'll be doing this:
Height of item in meters x 1000/Mils read = Distance to item in meters
This target is 42cm, so it'll be .42 meters. Okay.
.42 x 1000/mils read
is
420/.6 = distance to target in meters (which is 700 in this case).
So I'll go along with you if we're doing everything by the metric system.
Over here, however, we've grown up using our own crotchety old system of measure. We'd end up having to convert inches to metric if we were to make good use of the mil reticle, which would defeat our purpose.
Too, with MOA graduated turrets, we'd lose the compatibility of the reticle and turrets. I know that the scopes made over your way will have mil graduated turrets, which is good if your reticle is a mildot.
I would not argue that for a "metric minded" person the mil reticle will work--although I would effectively argue that a mil reticle such as the Leupold TMR or the Premier Gen II will be the best choice for ranging, since they have hash marks which disect the mils...
Dan
The problem comes when one must impute the size of the target. Over here, we all go by inches. But I'll grant you that if one knows the target size in centimeters, your system can work well.
Let's say you're looking at a 42cm target.
First of all, you'd have to be able to determine whether you're at .3 mils, .6 or .7 mils, etc., on the reticle. Let's assume you get that part perfect: The target is .6 mils in height.
Since it's a 42cm target, you'll be doing this:
Height of item in meters x 1000/Mils read = Distance to item in meters
This target is 42cm, so it'll be .42 meters. Okay.
.42 x 1000/mils read
is
420/.6 = distance to target in meters (which is 700 in this case).
So I'll go along with you if we're doing everything by the metric system.
Over here, however, we've grown up using our own crotchety old system of measure. We'd end up having to convert inches to metric if we were to make good use of the mil reticle, which would defeat our purpose.
Too, with MOA graduated turrets, we'd lose the compatibility of the reticle and turrets. I know that the scopes made over your way will have mil graduated turrets, which is good if your reticle is a mildot.
I would not argue that for a "metric minded" person the mil reticle will work--although I would effectively argue that a mil reticle such as the Leupold TMR or the Premier Gen II will be the best choice for ranging, since they have hash marks which disect the mils...
Dan
Seems like a storm in a tea cup to me.
mil turret adjustments better off with mil reticle
moa turret adjustments better off with moa reticle. The next problem is there is smoa (shooters minute of angle 1" @100 yards) or tmoa (true minute of angle 1.0472" @ 100 yards)reticles seem to be made for both. On top of that how many of the scopes marked 1/4 moa are really that.
Guess I am lucky (for once) to live in metric land.
David.
mil turret adjustments better off with mil reticle
moa turret adjustments better off with moa reticle. The next problem is there is smoa (shooters minute of angle 1" @100 yards) or tmoa (true minute of angle 1.0472" @ 100 yards)reticles seem to be made for both. On top of that how many of the scopes marked 1/4 moa are really that.
Guess I am lucky (for once) to live in metric land.
David.
OK, I'll bite. I think the whole point of this is why don't we all buy scopes with MOA reticles and MOA turrets.
So who makes one of these? I have never seen one and I have done tons of web surfing for scopes and reticles over the years ....
Someone post a link to this scope ...
So who makes one of these? I have never seen one and I have done tons of web surfing for scopes and reticles over the years ....
Someone post a link to this scope ...
"Guess I am lucky (for once) to live in metric land."
It is a better system, no question about it. I think we Americans are stubborn and we don't want to change.
When the metric system is the basis for reticle ranging, the system of reticle measure is largely immaterial; the mildot or the MOA reticle would work equally well using metric calculations--you'd just have to use different equations.
But for us "inch-meisters" I maintain that the math is easier to do in one's head with the MOA reticle--as I've outlined here already. I believe the reason for this resides in the fact that MOA's are "inch friendly." Yes, a true MOA is more precisely 1.047 inches, but that amounts to less than 1/2" at 1000 yards. I can live with that kind of error... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
So, if we say that "A minute of angle is about 1 inch at 100 yards, two inches at 200, 3 at 300... and 10 at 1000 yards," we can get away with this for purposes of ranging and hold-off. There is more error inherent in the load recipe and rifle and shooter and environmental factors than you're going to find in the 1 inch MOA versus 1.047 inch MOA.
Dan
It is a better system, no question about it. I think we Americans are stubborn and we don't want to change.
When the metric system is the basis for reticle ranging, the system of reticle measure is largely immaterial; the mildot or the MOA reticle would work equally well using metric calculations--you'd just have to use different equations.
But for us "inch-meisters" I maintain that the math is easier to do in one's head with the MOA reticle--as I've outlined here already. I believe the reason for this resides in the fact that MOA's are "inch friendly." Yes, a true MOA is more precisely 1.047 inches, but that amounts to less than 1/2" at 1000 yards. I can live with that kind of error... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
So, if we say that "A minute of angle is about 1 inch at 100 yards, two inches at 200, 3 at 300... and 10 at 1000 yards," we can get away with this for purposes of ranging and hold-off. There is more error inherent in the load recipe and rifle and shooter and environmental factors than you're going to find in the 1 inch MOA versus 1.047 inch MOA.
Dan
dwm,
www.usoptics.com
I could not find info on there web site but I "think" they offer moa reticles.
David.
www.usoptics.com
I could not find info on there web site but I "think" they offer moa reticles.
David.
Green: [ QUOTE ]
I think we Americans are stubborn and we don't want to change.
[/ QUOTE ]
"1790 - Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal based measurement system for the USA. A subsequent vote in the US Congress to replace the current UK-based system with a metric system was lost by only one vote."
.. http://www.france-property-and-information.com/metric-system-and-history.htm
...how much simpler things could have been! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I think we Americans are stubborn and we don't want to change.
[/ QUOTE ]
"1790 - Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal based measurement system for the USA. A subsequent vote in the US Congress to replace the current UK-based system with a metric system was lost by only one vote."
.. http://www.france-property-and-information.com/metric-system-and-history.htm
...how much simpler things could have been! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
green 788,
True the difference between tmoa and smoa is small even for ranging over several moa lines (dots) but, if your turret says 1/4 moa or 1/4" it would be nice to have a reticle that exactly follows it, assuming it is a mega bucks scope - over a 10 moa scale in the reticle that is 4.7" error @ 1000 yards . Again the reality is that turret clicks will like as not be different to what ever is claimed causing much greater error - repeatability and reliability of adjustments tend to be reflected in the price.
David.
True the difference between tmoa and smoa is small even for ranging over several moa lines (dots) but, if your turret says 1/4 moa or 1/4" it would be nice to have a reticle that exactly follows it, assuming it is a mega bucks scope - over a 10 moa scale in the reticle that is 4.7" error @ 1000 yards . Again the reality is that turret clicks will like as not be different to what ever is claimed causing much greater error - repeatability and reliability of adjustments tend to be reflected in the price.
David.
Nightforce makes them with that famous npr2 or something like that reticle.
As ds says, get a moa ret-moa turret; or <mil ret-mil turret adjustment.
For me, metric system is way easier...besides I can´t measure in inches , I´m used to calculating sizes in cm. and the decimal, base is easier to count and use..so i´m going with the mil-mil combination.
As ds says, get a moa ret-moa turret; or <mil ret-mil turret adjustment.
For me, metric system is way easier...besides I can´t measure in inches , I´m used to calculating sizes in cm. and the decimal, base is easier to count and use..so i´m going with the mil-mil combination.
[ QUOTE ]
Nightforce makes them with that famous npr2 or something like that reticle.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's this one...
I chose this reticle in my Nightforce NXS for the reasons I outline in my initial post. The graduation lines are 2 MOA (5 MOA on windage lines), with the idea being that it's easy to visually split a graduation for 1 MOA. It seems to work, though I've not had this scope for very long yet...
Dan
Nightforce makes them with that famous npr2 or something like that reticle.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's this one...
I chose this reticle in my Nightforce NXS for the reasons I outline in my initial post. The graduation lines are 2 MOA (5 MOA on windage lines), with the idea being that it's easy to visually split a graduation for 1 MOA. It seems to work, though I've not had this scope for very long yet...
Dan
My US Optics SN-3 has an MOA reticle, which is actually a Shooter's MOA reticle, and the adjustments are in Shooter's MOA, as well. I actually like it better than a "True MOA" reticle, as it simplifies the ranging formula.
Also- although the Mildot Master is designed to work in both Mils and "True MOA"... I made a new mark on the Mildot Master, which makes it work with "Shooter's MOA", as well as function as a straight slide rule- multiply, divide, etc- I don't even need my calculator, now..... although I still carry it.
marc
Also- although the Mildot Master is designed to work in both Mils and "True MOA"... I made a new mark on the Mildot Master, which makes it work with "Shooter's MOA", as well as function as a straight slide rule- multiply, divide, etc- I don't even need my calculator, now..... although I still carry it.
marc
nighthunter264wm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2005
- Messages
- 68
Marc,
Can you explain the difference between true moa and shooters moa? I am in the process of getting a USO SN-3
3.2 - 17 X T-Pal Canadian and obviously need some clarification converting from a Super Sniper. Thanks!
Can you explain the difference between true moa and shooters moa? I am in the process of getting a USO SN-3
3.2 - 17 X T-Pal Canadian and obviously need some clarification converting from a Super Sniper. Thanks!
