Mil-Dot vs Mrad hash reticle

[TheBlackMambaXD]

So i'm going to put a scope on my ar15 20''.the two scope i narrowed down to are:
Vortex Viper HS-T 6-24x50mm $629 optics planet
Vortex Viper 6.5-20x50 PA $459 optics planet

so i like them both, and the only thing different that i see aside from the price is the reticle. The Viper has a Mil-Dot and the Viper HS-T has a MOA or MRAD hash mark. I wanted to know from you guys, a couple things

1. for and ar15 in or around 600yds is mil-dot all I need
2. the viper hs-t has a reticle with more precise marks than the mil-dot, would it be worth
the extra money.
3. to be honest i'm not an experienced shooter so a more complicated reticle may be a hassle.
4. The HS-T has exposed turrets, is that a good feature. Part of the reason I wanted to go for a more precise reticle is i want to stick to just hold over if possible.

Thank a lot guys.

 

[TheBlackMambaXD]

well, as of yet no replies. But i made up me own mind i guess. going with the HS-T

 

[FearNoWind]

.... to be honest i'm not an experienced shooter so a more complicated reticle may be a hassle.

So that makes it difficult for me to understand why you'd be focused (no pun intended) on a MilDot system. Except for ranging at a fixed power (assuming it's a second focal plane scope - as most are) MilDot calculations can be a mathematical challenge. The MOA reticle would, IMO, be much easier to learn and use.
However, if you're set on the MilDot/MilRadian approach, my choice would be for the MRad hash reticle.
But the HS-T is sold with an MOA reticle ....
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/36...6-24x-50mm-side-focus-vmr-1-moa-reticle-matte

 

[TheBlackMambaXD]

Honestly I wasn't sure the specifics. I know mildot is real popular, so I figured it was decent. As stated I'm gonna go with the moa reticle on the HS-T, as the HS-T turrets are in moa also.

 

[Danehunter]

Pray tell how the Mil Dot reticle system is a "mathematical challenge??

For me it is dead easy since I have both a Bushnell ARC 1 Mile LRF binocular (10 X 42, set to read in mils) and a Mil Dot Master slide rule to utilize should the binocular LRF system fail.

The Mil Dot/mil hash mark system is all done in decimals of 1/10 mil (base ten system) which is fast to calculate as opposed to the MOA English measurement system of fractions of inches and yards. Ya want a "mathematical challenge"? Try MOA/yards.

 

[royinidaho]

I am a fairly experienced shooter.
I get confused between MIL and MOA when the reticle is MIL and turrets are MOA.

Using a reticle for ranging is pure nonsense. Been there done that and found the poorest of LRFs better.

Thus reticles are useless for range finding. Period! Who want's to do any sort of calc when the typical game shot is around a minute of time.

I shoot extreme long range at stuff and moderate range at game.

I have two favorite scopes. One is a ancient Weaver Tactical 4.5-14 X44 MIL reticle. Great glass, through my eyes, and totally reliable on any rifle I have.

Problem, MIL reticle and MOA turrets.

I just mounted moved it from my 338 RUM to 270 AM. Zero'd at 300 I get 5 mils drop at 1140. So I'm good to 1140 at 23"Hg and below (6000' and above) without having to dial.

On the 338 RUM using hold overs I was game confident to 800 yards. Much practice moderate range rock taking with it proved the MIL reticle plenty precise to keep POI within 1 MOA rolleyes: Mil - MOA mixed units again)

In other words, coyote accurate to moderate LR.

When on the 270 I hold over to 1140 or so and dial from there out to 1500 yards, 10.5 additional MOA come ups)

Heck its pretty simple: With the Weaver MIL dot its hold over and dial for wind.

With tne NXS NPR-1 its dial come ups and hold for wind.

Life is good...

 

[FearNoWind]

Pray tell how the Mil Dot reticle system is a "mathematical challenge??

Well, this is a forum about sharing opinions and each of us has our own. There are those who will disagree with mine but, for what it's worth, here it is:
Referring to second focal plane scopes:
For mildot scopes, the "standard" for spacing is usually accepted to be 3.6 inches, center to center, between dots. That works at only one level of magnification, usually the highest level for the scope that is so equiped. But some scopes, specifically the Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20, is one mil (3.6 inches) at 10 power. On its highest power it is 1.8 mils. The turrets on the Zeiss and most other common scopes are graduated at about 1/4 moa per click.
So, although 1 mil still equals 1 mil at any given distance, its relevance depends on the scope manufacturer's design and the level of magnification.
If my dope sheet tells me that my target demands a 2mil correction I am forced to either make the adjustment in the turrets or select a point on the cross hair that corresponds with that change. Selecting the correct dot is pretty easy of course. But turret input requires an adjustment of 28.8 clicks. So I settle for 29 clicks. But to get there I have to know that 2mils = 7.2 inches, multiplied by 4 = 28.8 clicks.
When I rely on moa reticles and my dope sheet tells me I need 2 moa of elevation for the shot I simply multiply the 2 moa by 4 and move the turret 8 clicks and I'm on target. If I elect to use the moa reticle markings I know that 2moa at 100 yards is still 2moa at 600 yards and selecting the mark that corresponds with that point on the reticle puts me on target more quickly and my reliably.
If the turrets were graduated in mils things might be easier. But if I have to convert mils to moa anyway I may as well stick with the system that is most comfortable for me. But most of my shooting is competitive target. My hunting days are few and far between at this point in my life. "Hold over" isn't very useful in long distance target competition.

 

[TheBlackMambaXD]

Well, I plan to try to use holdover as much as possible. I read a good article that stated, as I was wondering, If mils is better than moa. The article simply stated neither has a huge advantage, and If a turret is in MOA having a MOA reticle like the vipers VMR-1 MOA is well worth it.

 

[royinidaho]

FearNoWind,

My poor old Weaver has 1/8 MOA turrets. Ain't the simply the pits...

 

[ptrlcop]

Well, this is a forum about sharing opinions and each of us has our own. There are those who will disagree with mine but, for what it's worth, here it is:
Referring to second focal plane scopes:
For mildot scopes, the "standard" for spacing is usually accepted to be 3.6 inches, center to center, between dots. That works at only one level of magnification, usually the highest level for the scope that is so equiped. But some scopes, specifically the Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20, is one mil (3.6 inches) at 10 power. On its highest power it is 1.8 mils. The turrets on the Zeiss and most other common scopes are graduated at about 1/4 moa per click.
So, although 1 mil still equals 1 mil at any given distance, its relevance depends on the scope manufacturer's design and the level of magnification.
If my dope sheet tells me that my target demands a 2mil correction I am forced to either make the adjustment in the turrets or select a point on the cross hair that corresponds with that change. Selecting the correct dot is pretty easy of course. But turret input requires an adjustment of 28.8 clicks. So I settle for 29 clicks. But to get there I have to know that 2mils = 7.2 inches, multiplied by 4 = 28.8 clicks.
When I rely on moa reticles and my dope sheet tells me I need 2 moa of elevation for the shot I simply multiply the 2 moa by 4 and move the turret 8 clicks and I'm on target. If I elect to use the moa reticle markings I know that 2moa at 100 yards is still 2moa at 600 yards and selecting the mark that corresponds with that point on the reticle puts me on target more quickly and my reliably.
If the turrets were graduated in mils things might be easier. But if I have to convert mils to moa anyway I may as well stick with the system that is most comfortable for me. But most of my shooting is competitive target. My hunting days are few and far between at this point in my life. "Hold over" isn't very useful in long distance target competition.

Matching reticle and turrets are the ONLY way to go, anything else is foolish. With that said, I think mils is a more robust system particularly when you discover that many "MOA" turrets are actually IPHY(inch per hundred yards) which leaves you with a reticle that almost but not quite matches your turrets. Mils becomes even more attractive if you use meters(which I don't, because 'merica) because your .1mil adjustments will a true cm per 100 meters. If you think in the imperial measurement system MOA will initially be easier. After while though the decimal base of mils becomes easier for math in your head.

One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.

In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:

1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).

 

[Danehunter]

Back to the OP's original question, Mil Dot v.s. Mil hash mark

There is a reason all current military scopes use hash marks and that is because they are more precise and obscure less of the view. With hash marks there is no more estimating between the center of a dot and its edge (AND needing to know the dot size). Mil hash marks are usually designed with shorter 1/2 mil hash marks between them for a more precise hold.

For extreme windage holds small dots are found below and outside the hash mark areas at mil intervals on some reticles like Horus.

In the future we will see more and more LRF scopes much like the very good Burris Eliminator II. And these new electronic scopes will probably have a combination of hash mark reticles and small dots beyond the hash marks. They will likely include compass/corolis effect sensors and software as well as barometric pressure and temperature sensors for a better firing solution. But, yeah, wind calculation is still up to the shooter and perhaps the shooter's hand-held weather meter.

The "smartest" electronic hunting scopes may have Bluetooth enhancement to receive that wind data from a Bluetooth equipped weather meter.

With your electronic scope, GPS/EPRB (emergency locator beacon), digital camera/satellite phone, UV water purifier and maybe an iPod you'll need a slew of extra batteries or at least an efficient solar charger.
Welcome to the 21st Century!