Moar or moar t

[johnlittletree]

Depends somewhat on which scope (power) and how good's your rangefinder.....

Ditch the range finder it will be your limiting element. Learn to range with your eyes and optics. Civilian Laser Range Finders will let you down freq.!!! Nightforce seems like a bit much for plinking at stones! LOL Seriously though how far can you accurately range a rock or a deer with your range finder and how far can you accurately shoot? How well do you handle mirage because the high you twist that ring the worse it becomes? Once you go past a certain point of magnification you have no choice but to pay for the finest glass money can but if you stay under that point it does not matter as much. It is about like trying to make a case for 4K and 8K resolution standards at 60fps or better or like making the case for uncompressed wav files instead of 320kbps MP3 when only 1 out of 1000 people can reliably tell the difference.

Ok that said I like MOAR far better than the MOAR T. The finer you make the reticle the easier it is to lose it when looking through the scope especially if it is bright out. One the other hand depending on how far away you are shooting and how small the object is "small stones" a fat reticle can obscure what you are trying to see and shoot at. Do not get me started on fine cross hairs with a big dot in the center! LOL I do not own any myself but all my single friends do! LOL

No arguing they are fantastic scopes with great glass for sure! Which do you prefer? How are your eye's? How old are you? Are you diabetic? It all matters. I have a fantastic varmint scope that I hate use. When I was in 35 it was fantastic now that I am 45 it sucks! LOL

 

[Bulletspitter]

I have F1 ATACR'S with MOAR reticle on my match rifles. I prefer this over the MOAR T, but that's just my preference.

 

[Bootsnall74]

Hey mate run the nxs MOAR and the Atacr with moar t reticle ,

Save that little more and run the ATACR Moar t
The atacr , beast and top Benchrest model scope ,are the only three
Nightforce scopes that run the swarvoski glass in them .
The rest is Minolta glass
Still great glass but you can tell the difference in comparison .

 

[johnlittletree]

No right or wrong this is very much about preference. That said the age of your eye's and how you intend to use it does matter. Either way it is hard to go wrong.

I can tell you from my work with athletes and musicians people gauge quality with their eye's. Put a famous name brand on something and it is always better than it is with some generic name in absence of empirical measurements.

Put a weight inside of an electronic devise and again even before it has been used it is clearly "quality".

Our beliefs rule over us if it comes down to actual facts vs beliefs! Never fail to take your own bias into consideration as well. I would love be in a position to actual do some hard research in this area with rifle scopes. I would love to be in a position to write a paper with hard facts as to were the limit of a human beings ability to discern optical qualities with just the naked eye as it applies to hunting optics and competition shooting optics and exactly where the cut off point is and what properties are the most important to each. You would have to have a standardized scope and be able to change out the lens and have different lens coating and standardized outdoor and indoor lab conditions and a huge data pool. This has been done with other things that use the eye but I doubt academia has done this as it relates to hunts and target shooter's specifically. Likely an extrapolation from other non-related research in other area's.

Does anyone know if the military has done this? They have deep pockets!

 

[Greyfox]

Having used both, I prefer the MOAR reticle in NF scopes used for lighting conditions frequently encountered while hunting. The MOAR has just enough weight to maintain visibility in the shadows and late/early low light conditions, while still being fine enough for precise LR shots on small targets/game. IMO.

 

[McRem45]

I don't have an MOAR T but do have the MOAR in a SHV and a NXS. I prefer the center illumination only in the MOAR in the SHV. For a purely target gun I would go MOAR T. That said I still prefer my NP-R2, whish they still made it in the NXS.

 

[Warbird2006]

I had MOAR T and could nor see the buck on 200 yards in lowlight. When I turned the illumination on, even on the lowest was too bright and was diminishing the view. So I bought Leica which has better glass for low light and illuminated center dot. With a Leic range finde it works wonders. But again, works for me and very low light.

 

[jskmtd]

Thanks for all of the replys and advise. I just ordered the nxs 5.5-22x50 with the moar t reticle. I went with the nxs because it is a 1/2 lb lighter than the atacr. This will be going on a rifle I will backpack with and needed to save some weight. If I decide I don't like the reticle because it is too fine I will sell it and try the moar.
Thanks,
Jon

 

[KFBR392]

Thanks for all of the replys and advise. I just ordered the nxs 5.5-22x50 with the moar t reticle. I went with the nxs because it is a 1/2 lb lighter than the atacr. This will be going on a rifle I will backpack with and needed to save some weight. If I decide I don't like the reticle because it is too fine I will sell it and try the moar.
Thanks,
Jon

Hey,

I know this thread is pretty old, but to the OP, do you have a review of the MOAR-T? I'm in your shoes now.

Thank you,

Nick

 

[Rhett Crider]

Just click on the illumination if you're worried about it. Center only, no big red wash. I really like my moart

^This

 

[jskmtd]

So far I really like the moar-t. I haven't had it out hunting yet, leave this week, but for load development and shooting steel it has been perfect. Some of the steel shooting has been right before dark and the reticle has worked great.
Jon