Huskemaw Question

[cooperjd]

a little off topic, but for y'all that shoot husky's...do you find them to be a rugged optic?

I like NF for the ruggedness, but a 4-16 husky is one i've been considering for my next scope. It's a bit lighter than a big NF, and they seem to track awesome. I can't find much info on what kind of abuse they can take and hold zero.

 

[RG300WSM]

a little off topic, but for y'all that shoot husky's...do you find them to be a rugged optic?

I like NF for the ruggedness, but a 4-16 husky is one i've been considering for my next scope. It's a bit lighter than a big NF, and they seem to track awesome. I can't find much info on what kind of abuse they can take and hold zero.

Mine have held up good. I've had some whoops moments when hunting and the scope has stayed on. I really like the huskemaws cause the crosshairs aren't "busy" and are really thin.

 

[L.Sherm]

Mine have held up good. I've had some whoops moments when hunting and the scope has stayed on. I really like the huskemaws cause the crosshairs aren't "busy" and are really thin.

RG300WSM nailed it!

 

[Bravo 4]

If you don't know what your actual "click" value is, then you can change it all you want and still be off...until you get lucky. Just because a scope says 1/3 moa, or 1/4 moa (or whatever) doesn't mean that is what it actually does. Even then, just because it is 100% accurate in its adjustments in the center of its travel range doesn't mean it is on the fringes of that travel (or repeatable for that matter) Test it and know for sure.

Nice setup by the way!

 

[Aoudad shooter1975]

Correct--it is Mil--

 

[dxlbaile]

I have one Huskemaw and for the money it was a steal.. It has held up to a few of my kids dropping my gun in the rocks a couple times.. It has a few scratches but it keeps on tracking fine. I really like how the reticle is set for hunting.. It isn't really busy and and very functional.. Windage is 1 moa per hash.. simple and precise.. Not as rugged looking as the nightforce but, not as heavy.. Good scope for the money..

 

[oldmossy]

If you don't know what your actual "click" value is, then you can change it all you want and still be off...until you get lucky. Just because a scope says 1/3 moa, or 1/4 moa (or whatever) doesn't mean that is what it actually does. Even then, just because it is 100% accurate in its adjustments in the center of its travel range doesn't mean it is on the fringes of that travel (or repeatable for that matter) Test it and know for sure.

Nice setup by the way!

So to test your scope, Im assuming you'd do a tall target type test. But log how many clicks it takes to actually get to each moa? And do you mark your testing target at 1inch increments, or 1.047 increments? (not sure I can even measure that precisely)
I'm also shooting a huskemaw. Didn't realize there'd be that much of a difference at 1000yds using advertised 1/3 moa instead of 1/4 moa turrets. I always just figured 3 clicks was getting me to the same spot as 4 clicks did on any other scope.

 

[Bravo 4]

Your 1/3 moa should work same as 1/4 moa, just a courser adjustment. I would expect (not so much trust) but verify.
I do a tall target type test before I even mount a scope to a rifle. I've found scopes that I sent back before "waisting" any ammo. Even a big name-high dollar ($1700+) that's tracking was off by 10%.
It's much easier to do with a mil scope, just use a yardstick at 100. If you wanted to say check every 10mils, that would equal 1 yard at 100 yards. I will measure out and mark for moa and check it for every 10 moa of adjustment do 10.47", or do 20 moa or whatever you want. If the scope checks out within a reasonable amount (and is repeatable) I will mount it and see how it does under recoil. I've had scopes that couldn't hold up to that too.

 

[Clark54]

MOA is not 1" at 100 yards? Close, but not exact?

 

[338 dude]

MOA is not 1" at 100 yards? Close, but not exact?

That is correct one MOA at 100 yards is actually 1.047 inches, What am I doing up at 2:46 in the morning reading posts I don't know

 

[Bravo 4]

As 338 Dude stated, you are correct in that MOA is not exactly 1" per 100 yards, it's 1.047". People round it to 1" to make the math easier, this is called a Shooter Minute of Angle. The thing is that eventually that .047" adds up and needs to be accounted for.
Example:
@ 600 yards a true moa is 6.42" not 6". Big whoop right, can you hold or shoot the .42" difference at that distance? Maybe, maybe not. But what if you are adjusting (dialing) your turrets to compensate for the drop of your bullet at that distance and your ballistic app says you have to come up 16 moa to do so. If using true moa that is 102.72" of adjustment @ 600, if using shooter moa it is 96". Does that 6.72" difference in the two matter to you? If precision is the name of the game you bet your sweet bippy it does.
And I'm going back to bed!

 

[dxlbaile]

So, the question is if you plug 1/3 MOA into a ballistic program , wouldn't the program already have that information in it?? Wouldn't it adjust for that? Surely let's say a program like Strelok is going to compensate for the 1.047 of Moa and .3333 when you have 1/3 isn't it.. Otherwise it would be futile to put the data in the program I would think.. Doesn't a good ballistics program compensate for this??

 

[Capt RB]

Why do they do a moa reticle and a mil turret?

 

[338 dude]

Why do they do a moa reticle and a mil turret?

Good question