Moa Reticles

MikeCR, I have to disagree with you on your last post. I shoot tactical matches that don't allow LRFs and I manage to make first or second shot hits on 2 MOA sized targets out to 1200yds. Your comment about mildots being used for ranging and not holdoffs is wrong. So is your MOA comment. I don't use a MOA reticle, but do perform ranging, holdoffs and second shot corrections with the mildot reticle. The MOA reticle can be used just the same with slightly different math.

With regards to your detent comment, the scope should be tested to ensure the reticle is calibrated. This is quite easy and can be done with a yard stick placed at 100yds. If it doesn't calibrate correctly, simply turn the power to where is does calibrate and place a tick mark on the power adjustment ring so this setting can be repeated. Pretty easy.

Keep in mind what these reticles were designed for; to range/hit man sized targets at long range. Exact dimensions of the target are required for pinpoint accuracy, which is still difficult, but the idea for the military is to "hit" the target for a kill or take them out of the fight. A success is when the threat is eliminated. If that means a leg/abdomen/shoulder shot at 700yds, the mildot was accurate enough.

I wouldn't and don't use it for ranging game. The idea is to kill the animal with a single shot, and the mildot system can be hard to get that kind of precision. However, I routinely use it for follow-up shots if I miss. It's quicker and in most cases more accurate than trying to dial in a miss. I also use it to hold off for wind, and it has proven quite accurate.

Now as far as varmints are concerned, go for it. It will be hard to get the precision on such a small animal, but if you hit them anywhere they are going down. Practicing on varmints is a great way to become proficient, but can be frustrating. I even have a mildot reticle on my 22LR that I use for headshots on groundhogs out to 125yds. It's sighted for 50yds and I don't ever touch the dials. Simply hold mildots for elevation and windage, but I do range using a LRF.
 
Different standards I guess..
I never suggested that these systems COULDN'T be used other ways, or that they aren't. I simply stated their actual purpose, and tried to highlight error potential outside this.

This is not a sniper site. Throwing lead at water heaters, gongs, or whatever until you finally hit them, really departs from what people strive to achieve here. This isn't a target shooting site. There are no sighters, known target sizes, at known distances, grazing those fields in front of benchrests.
And frankly, neither impresses me at all.

If nothing more than my opinion:
You will not improve on Laser ranging with optical guessing. It does sound like fun, it's required in some competitions, but don't create any delusions about it's value for LONG RANGE HUNTING (dot com)
 
Before laser rangefinders were invented and made life simple for people, the only thing we had were optical range finding techniques. With practice and with experience one could do very well with them. I would also mention that there were no PDA nor PCs and the abilitiy to adjust ones drop chart for altitude and temperature was very limited. Nor was there any internet to make people into instant experts. Some of us did the best we could with what equipment we could put together. If you never have taken the time to learn any of the old skills then that is up to you, but it does not diminish the effectiveness of the old skills.
 
In addition to what Buffalo said, people still do take sighters even with a LRF. LR hunters routinely crack off a round at a rock or structure near the target (animal) to get real time data on what the wind is doing and to ensure proper come-ups before engaging the animal. I'm not argueing with your points on the LRF. You obviously use them and rely on them. But don't put out misinformation on the mildot/MOA reticles when you clearly don't understand them and how they can be used effectively.
 
U know honestly, it's just plain fun to apply a system few know anything about really-- heck, if nothing else it might just be good for a free beer when you're hitting or coming closer to varmint tgts. on the 1st shot than any of your other buddies will, that's for sure. IMO it's just 1 more feather in the long-rangers cap, that can be pulled out when needed.

It does have some side effects that one may not consider too. Awhile back we were shooting a "500 yd. tgt." somebody else had set up. A buddy of mine couldn't quite figure out why he wasn't making 1st shot connections on it. One of the other guys wanted to learn a little about reticle ranging with his optic, so we set a tgt. up @ a known closer distance and we were gonna apply his reticle to range it. Well even with all the literature (catalogs i brought with me) i couldn't find the specs on his Burris BP reticle he had, but understanding the system, we improvised. We adjusted the power of his scope so the tgt. fit perfectly between 2 stadia. We then had our "subtension factor" to plug into the "modified mil-ranging formula", as noted in an earlier post, since we then knew reticle subtension, and range. I told the guy to "mil" the 500 yd. tgt, and then we could punch it into the MMRF as noted above. We calculated a range of 440 or 460--can't remember exactly now, but it just wasn't fitting right, so i knew something was wrong. Just for the heck of it, i picked up my laser, and ranged the 500 yd. tgt. @ 440 yds.---several times!! Just understanding "the system" allowed us to do 3 things--

1) Apply a ballistic reticle for accurate ranging

2) Manipulate the subtensions to get a reasonably accurate "subtension factor."

and 3) Help a guy that was starting to lose confidence in the system.

Heck, i like my reticle ranging, and i'm gonna have it under my hat whenever needed.
 
The NP R1 reticle does work pretty slick for ranging... if you know the target size to a very close degee.

The NightForce reticles are second focal plane, as mentioned, and they are true MOA (1.047" @ 100yds) vs. IPHY (1" @ 100yds), aka 'shooters MOA'.

Where I tend to agree w/ Mike is that it is all well and good to be able to range with your reticle on a paper or steel target that is of known dimensions (even then mirage and other optical distortion can play hob with the observed size of the target vs. the stadia)... but in the field, on game... how do you know if the animal you are looking at is 15", 16"o r 17"? Add that to any optical distortion... and you might well be clean over the target, or under it.

We had a practical/tactical match recently (more of a get-together of friends, all fairly 'serious' riflemen), and one of the stages involved shooting a 12"wx16"h piece of steel. By the time you got to the firing point that most people used... it was about 632yds (lazed afterwards, as you *had* to range the target w/ your scope for this stage) to the target, which should have been a chip shot, so to speak. I ranged it @ something right around 700yds using the reticle. Most other people ranged it at something like 530-550yds.

Everybody had 3 shots.Nobody hit it on the first shot, not even the guys w/ 6.5-284s and similarly 'flat' shooting cartridges. Only two got it on the second shot. My .308 Winchester sailed waaaay over the target on the first two, and I think I nicked the conveyor belt holding the plate on the third. Nobody else hit it, period.

I went back and played with the numbers on the PDA to see *** was the deal, as I was 'sure' I'd measured the target @ 2.2MOA with my R1 reticle. Turns out, if I was 'off', and it should have measured... 2.4 moa, I would have been dead-nutz on. 0.2 moa was pretty hard to make out in the haze and mirage, and that was at 0900 in the morning, before it got *hot*.

As such... I came to two conclusions... one, I need to practice ranging w/ the reticle more often, and two... use a laser rangefinder for ranging, and save the reticle for hold-offs when possible.

YMMV,Monte
 
Last edited:
Had the privelage of watching a couple of masters at rangeing and holding over with the R2 reticle a couple years ago.The spotter is a walking calculator that had me lost most of the time on his figureing but I did pick up a little of it,very little! I finaly gave up trying to range with it...epecially past 400yards and went to a range finder:eek:
Shot prairie dogs with a guy that had a NF 5-22 last spring.I was spotting for him and calling off the hash holdovers. He was a clicker and didnt understand what I was talking about so I started reading off MOA up and windage. He started hitting with relative ease but asked how I knew how much to hold over and click?
Thats easy=He had an R2 reticle marked off in 2 MOA hashes and I had my 6-24IOR calibrated to MOA hashes.I could see where the hit was and used the reticle to call corrections. In his 25 years of varminting he had never done this and had ben wasting the value of the R2 reticle by not useing it :confused:
I can use either MOA or Mills for guestaments and follow up shots but prefer MOA for its finer hashes! If I only get one shot please hand me my Geovids:cool:
 
Monte, if i'm not mistaken that reticle has 2 MOA subtensions in it, right?? I have the TMR reticle that has .2 mil subtensions. That equates to .72 inch per hundred yds. (i like inches to yds.). Using the 2 MOA system the interpolative difference between 540 yds. and 630 yds. on that 16" tgt. is only .2 of a subtension unit. With the finer stadia subtension of .2 mil, the difference is .6 of a subtension unit. This is much easier to define with the eye than just .2. Now i'd bet dollars to donuts that most guys are just gonna use the TMR at 1 mil subtensions (3.6 IPHY), and attempting to interpolate only .25 of the .2 mil subtension unit. The reticle is capable of much better than that, and should be used at the finer .2 mil subtension, divided interpolatively into .1 of a subtension unit.

Admittedly, 630 yds. is a far distance for reticle-ranging, but still better than guessing if the laser doesn't cooperate. Plus it's a lot of fun to do, IMO.
 
Last edited:
The R2 reticle has 2 moa hashes on the vertical stadia (wider ones @ 10 & 20) and 5 moa windage hashes.

The R1 reticle has 1 moa ticks on the vertical, w/ wider ones every five, and 2 moa windage ticks.

The shooters were using everything from SA Gen III w/ mil-dots to NF/Leupold/USO w/ mil-dots, NF w/ R1, R2, USO w/ GAP reticles, S&B w/ whatever reticle, etc.

It sure seems like the difference between 2.2 (a little more than 2) and 2.4 (just about half) would be plain obvious to the user... but it wasn't. Don't know if I 'caught' part of the belt or frame holding the target up, or if it was all just mirage/optical fuzz (there was a good bit of that), or what. Later in the day we had a *very* interesting stage where we had five targets, measuring 10x15" (last one was 21" circle). We had a five minute 'group' ranging period, where people ranged w/ their reticles, crunched the numbers, shared notes, argued, etc. about what they thought the ranges really were. Then we started shooting, one at a time. The trick was... once you shot, you couldn't adjust the scope again. So you not only had to range w/ the reticle, you had to hold off w/ the reticle. R1 + Exbal was a life saver there for us .308 shooters. First target was about 420 (people ranged it as anywhere between 400 and 450), next was 440-ish, then 600 (I ranged it at a hair under 650), then 650 (I ranged it as 700), then 830. I hit the first two, shot over the next two, and center punched the last one. I'd initally ranged it as something like 990, though. Found that on that particular target, I got one reading measuring horizontally, another measuring vertically. All on a perfect circle target, of known dimensions. That time I'm pretty sure I was 'seeing' some of the frame in the vertical measurement. FWIW, nobody got all five, and only two people (again shooting very flat trajectory 6.5-284 and 6-6.5x47L rounds) got more than three.

Again, it illustrates (to me) the difficulty of taking an accurate measurement with a ranging reticle even on a target of *known* dimensions. On something like an animal where you have a general 'range' of sizes, or an 'average', and an even smaller target area (the typical 8-10" diameter 'vital zone' shot)... it seems like the odds stack against the shooter making an accurate assessment of the range. Someone who practices religiously might be the exception. It's still a good skill set to have for when (not if) the batteries die in your rangefinder ;)

Monte
 
Last edited:
During the winter i hunt coyotes quite a bit. In the country i hunt them there are a lot of antelope running around. Last season i did some reticle-ranging on them using a PFI rapid reticle in their 3-9X 22 LR reticle. I really like this reticle as it provides excellent direct windage reference, sort of like a mini-Horus vision system. Anyways 1 day i was playing around with a buck and some does. Using that reticle i was approximately 30-50 yds. off everytime between 400 and 500 yds. (can't remember exact calcs now). When it really comes down to it, i think reticle-ranging game is probably only good to 400-500 yds. maybe. No further at all for me...unless it's a pr. dog or groundhog.

Hey Monte, how'd those guys like that 6X6.5-47L??
 
They seem to get excellent accuracy and performance similar to a 6XC or .243 Win. Not sure about the barrel life yet, but both of them are machinists by trade and can fit a new barrel any time they want... so they don't see short barrel life as as big of a problem as other people might ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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