Nightforce MOAR Reticle: Your thoughts

[Earnhardt]

I just bought a NF scope with the MOAR reticle.
The center cross hair is .140 MOA, where as the NPR1 & 2 are .060 MOA I think.
It's hard for me to get used to the thicker reticle on the MOAR.
I've read that some guys thought that the .060 MOA reticles were too thin.

Your thoughts?

 

[HAMMERHAND]

A finer reticle is what I'm looking for. Right around high 600 yards a Zeiss conquest rapid Z-800 reticle washes out a precise vital hold on a target antelope sized and smaller on 14 power. Lesser power even moreso. I looked at the MOAR and found it to be even slightly heavier than the Rapid Z. I suppose it is a great choice for those with poor night time vision, or those that desire a quicker target acquisition, or have acquisition issues with a smaller reticle. For my taste the MOAR is simply too heavy...it drives me berzerk to have the reticle wash out a precise target hold (especially for dead on shooting. I took out a scope with NP-R1 reticle on the lowest brightness setting and it stood out fine enough to see it against targets placed in the shadows of the woods so I cannot imagine it will be a hindrance in the hunting woods as most suggest that lighted reticles are. In the daylight I rather enjoy the precision of the NP-R1 reticle, which will be the next choice for me a 5.5-22 with an NP-R1 in it.

 

[Broz]

I just bought a NF scope with the MOAR reticle.
The center cross hair is .140 MOA, where as the NPR1 & 2 are .060 MOA I think.
It's hard for me to get used to the thicker reticle on the MOAR.
I've read that some guys thought that the .060 MOA reticles were too thin.

Your thoughts?

I have been shooting the NP-R1 and 2 for years now. I was excited about the MOAR until I read about its thickness of subtensions. I will be ordering a new scope soon for my latest LR build. It will be another NP-R1. I have never found the R1 to be too thin. I like thin for my LR work.

Jeff

 

[SBruce]

I am somewhat unfamiliar with the MOAR reticle, haven't seen one yet. If it's in a FFP scope, I personally wouldn't mind that thickness at all. Especially in an "all around" scope........meaning some prarie dogs, some coyotes, some big game, some steel and paper, and for ranges from 100 yds to 1000 yds.

If I did the math correctly, it would cover ~1.5" at 1000 yds or 2 1/8" at the corners of the intersection. I've always felt the NPR1 (even though I love the reticle-especially in the 5-22) is just a little too fine for my eyes in low light. When it's first light or last light, or if the sun is directly in my face, I need to light the reticle for best aquisition.

I can see how the very center of it would appear to cover quite a bit at 1000 yds and more though. There wouldn't be much left of a 3" diameter aiming dot (7/8"), or prarie dog for that matter at 1000 yds. Perhaps if the very center of the reticle was a floating dot that only measured .140 MOA, and a little spacing before the "wires" started.........?? that coverage amount maybe wouldn't appear to be so thick. Still though, it's quite a bit finer than some other supposed long range scopes offer. ????????? Count me as undecided on this one.

 

[Greyfox]

I actually went with the G7 version of the Nightforce with the thicker Reticle for this reason. While my finer NF reticles, NPR1 and 2 were ok when lighting conditions a were good, for me they washed out in lower light conditions/shadows; don't like lighting them up, even at the lowest setting, just me. I'm primarily a mulie, whitetail, coyote hunter. I have had no problem at all resolving the vitals of a coyote well past 1000 yards, certainly good enough for resolving the vitals of larger game at any range I would ever shoot at. Both reticles will do the job, I think much of this is a personal preference and what you are used to. I started out my long range shooting with a Mark4 3.5x10 with a .2 substention Mildot years ago and never had a problem resolving and hitting pretty small targets at the ranges I use twice the power and finer reticles today. My eyes were a little better than though. IMHO.

 

[Earnhardt]

I actually went with the G7 version of the Nightforce with the thicker Reticle for this reason. While my finer NF reticles, NPR1 and 2 were ok when lighting conditions a were good, for me they washed out in lower light conditions/shadows; don't like lighting them up, even at the lowest setting, just me. I'm primarily a mulie, whitetail, coyote hunter. I have had no problem at all resolving the vitals of a coyote well past 1000 yards, certainly good enough for resolving the vitals of larger game at any range I would ever shoot at. Both reticles will do the job, I think much of this is a personal preference and what you are used to. I started out my long range shooting with a Mark4 3.5x10 with a .2 substention Mildot years ago and never had a problem resolving and hitting pretty small targets at the ranges I use twice the power and finer reticles today. My eyes were a little better than though. IMHO.

How thick are the center crosshair subtensions on the G7 Nightforce?

 

[Greyfox]

How thick are the center crosshair subtensions on the G7 Nightforce?

I believe them to be the same as the MOAR.

 

[marinetowgunner]

The MOAR isn't really a target shooting reticle IMHO. Great for hunting but not so much for paper punching. I have a 5.5-22x56 MOAR on my Sako TRG. I use it for banging steel and hunting. I think a MOAR fine would be pretty sweet for the guys that are just looking to shoot paper. Wouldn't be surprised if we see it in the future.

 

[C.O. Shooter]

I love the moar reticle, however, I am now trying to decide between 50 or 56mm! If I go 56mm I have to get new rings to accommodate! Is there that much difference?

 

[Broz]

Is there that much difference?

Nope... I have both and can't see it. But I would guess at last light there would be a little. Probably another personal choice and whether or not you need to be a little more compact too.

I have sighted on game till the last minutes of legal shooting here. Never had an issue seeing the R1 even at 1500 yards. But when I put the crosshairs on a coyote at 1500 I sure do not want a thicker reticle than the R1. If the MOAR "thin" ever comes about I will probably try one. But it really offers me nothing for my prefered type of hunting or shooting over the R1.

Jeff

 

[cummins cowboy]

I have looked at the MOAR in the 3.5-15 and the 5.5-22 models and the reticles look totally different in the different models. the reticle is much thicker and larger in the 5.5-22 model. anyone know what the and why the differences are??

 

[bronco]

I am completely sold on the MOAR. I am going to set it on top a 338 RUM as a long range elk hammer. WAITING for the FFP 5.5-22 model to come out. Don't know how long I have to wait but hopefully it's not too long.

 

[marinetowgunner]

I have looked at the MOAR in the 3.5-15 and the 5.5-22 models and the reticles look totally different in the different models. the reticle is much thicker and larger in the 5.5-22 model. anyone know what the and why the differences are??

They fit 30moa into the reticle in the 3.5-15 because of the field of view difference. 5.5-22 only has 20moa on the reticle.

 

[Greyfox]

I love the moar reticle, however, I am now trying to decide between 50 or 56mm! If I go 56mm I have to get new rings to accommodate! Is there that much difference?

I can't see the difference. I prefer the less bulky dimensions, and had a nice set of med mark 4 rings that I was able to use. The bell of the scope is 1/8" above the barrel.