Brent:

**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?**
What I meant by this; Yes, a line/bar/tic, as you see it in the reticle is 2 moa spaced, so .2 moa equals 1/10th of a line.

And why I think the R2 only offers .2 moa resolution is this; I break the 2 moa lines down visually in half "first" (1moa), then I can only see to break each 1 moa down into 5 equal lines (.2 moa each), and if the target has really sharp edges "maybe" smaller, but unlikely on game.

If you really think about it, .1 moa pretty much equals 1/10th of an inch, this is what you're trying to discern. This is hard enough to do at 22x with the imaginary lines already numbering 10, I just don't think that I could discern 20 of them at 22x.

At 42x the 1/10th spacing does the same as dividing the 22x into 20 spaces, it just recalibrates the lines to nearly 1 moa to do it.

**Is the 42x scope designed to read at another power setting, how come the "lines" are equal to half the value?**
The 42x is calibrated for 2 moa spacing between lines at 22x, same as the 22x and 32x scopes. If you could turn the scope to 44x it would be exactly 1 moa spacing, but 42x would be very close. One always has 22x with it also to verify the 42x reading if in question or you couldn't use 42x because of mirage or some reason.

Brent:

**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.**
A previous example above for reference;

40" chest on this moose measures 2.7 lines tall. Half the chest size 20"/2.7 lines = 7.40 or 740 yards.

**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.
A previous example below for reference again;

Brent:

**If you do the same thing using a 20" target (dividing by half that though) you'll see a much larger distance between the one tenth increments though. **

Examples of other increments with a 20" target would be;

2.0 = 500 yards

1.9 = 526

1.8 = 555

1.7 = 588

1.6 = 625

1.5 = 666

1.4 = 714

1.3 = 769

1.2 = 833

1.1 = 909

1.0 = 1000
The vital zone size is not even considered here, I only use the animal's chest depth to determine range (40"), the 20" "half size" used in the formula above, it is only to keep the formula correct. I am dividing lines and 1/10th lines now, not MOA like the NF formula uses. This gives smaller numbers to divide in your head this way.

The second chart, it was with a 20" chest, correct. I also use half this number (10) in the formula as well. I only used this to contrast the 40" chest chart, and show how the target size influenced the total range between each 1/10th increment. You'll see how the range between 1.1 and 1.0 above is over 90 yards. At the same range on the 40" chest chart it is less than 50 yards. I look for the range that keeps each less than 30 yards really. The drop between each increment is too great for me to take a shot if it isn't.

I hope that clarifies the ranging and formula aspects a bit. Let me know if I left something out.

Brent:

**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.**
Again, all three are calibrated at 22x, the 42x setting obtainable with the 12-42x scope will "almost" make the line/bar/tics at 1 moa spacing by way of increasing the target size to double what it was.

**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?**
Refer to above.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**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
You are correct, it is specifically .34 not .36 moa as I had generalized.

**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.
15x might be a limiting factor in sizing up the animal to that degree, maybe, just a guess.

**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.**
I think it just depends on how small it is on the target, by that I mean, are you trying to split in half a ½", ¼" or what, and is it even feasible to do given the situation and distance.

**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!**
True. Wouldn't it be even nicer yet if they had a smaller tick mark at the 1 moa point? That would help out visualizing the 5 ticks between each 1 moa line then.

Brent:

**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?
You posted earlier;

** Reading other posts about the NP-R2, there was mention of it working best as a calibrated hold over reticle if the velocity was up around 3300+fps. I am only humming along at around 3000fps (.300WM). Realizing that, the benefit I was hoping for was that I was thinking about speaking in the same moa language of the turrets. This would eliminate some extra thinking for the shooter I would think.**

I was thinking back on that part there and it didn't seem it would help you much, if that's what you meant by... speaking the same language and such.

**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.**

Probably the fastest using the mil-dot is the way you are, like you say.

**The reality of the speed of your method is apparent when transferring into dialed or held corrections.**

Also, the ability to do the range formula in your head quickly has an advantage.

Brent:**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? **

I was only thinking that if the NF manual says you're dot spacing is 10 moa at 3.5x, it would be 3.6" approximately at 10x. This would leave you the ability to power up to 15x and vary your spacing a little tighter possibly at an even moa. I figured it wrong though. It would go 10 moa at 3.5x, 5 moa at 7x and 2.5 moa at 14x instead.

If it is indeed 10 moa per dot spacing when it's set at 3.5x, it would be 2.5 moa at 14x, this is still wrong and can't be 10 moa spacing at 3.5x if it is calibrated for "1 mil" at 15x. Considering when mine is set on 5.5x, a 1" square will be 4" and at 11x it will be 2".

**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. **

That works for me. Are the mils spaced exactly 3.6" at 100 yards on 15x? What are they spaced at set on 3.5x?

Take care,