which is easier to calculate: MOA or MILS?

[rocknwell]

Yes sir. I see most scopes use this standard. That is definitely easiest for me to use. using 1/8 would just be too much clicking. if I needed to be that accurate for hunting then A: i shouldn't be shooting at the animal or B: just hold over that extra tiny bit. I don't see any need for 1/8 MOA unless I was shooting competition at long ranges.

 

[Mike 338]

I'm using Mils. although I don't see how it matters that much in a hunting application. Estimating range from objects of a known size is more applicable in tactical scenarios more so than hunting. When making those conversions, using metrics IMO has an advantage if your comfortable with it. I'm not naturally comfortable with it because I've known inches, feet and yards my whole life and it's not that easy to decide your going to think in different increments. Game animals come in all different sizes and stand at all different angles so knowing their dimensions from a distance is more or less a guess past 5 or 600 yards. A range finder and app or cheat sheet is the way to go regardless of what you use. If you want a non-electrical back up, a Mil Dot Master is great and easy on the head too.

I'm using Mils because it's a little different and sometimes it's fun to do things a little outside of your comfort zone. In the strictest sense, using metric units of measure are the way to go if they were universally used but for most of us, it's like learning a different language, albeit an easy language.

 

[rocknwell]

Ok so I have some follow-up questions. Regardless of MOA or MIL reticles, how does using the reticle for ranging work in regards to SFP and FFP in a variable power scope? Tell me if I am understanding this correctly: if I am ranging a distance target, I would most likely be using the highest magnification on the scope. is ranging on an SFP scope designed to work only on the highest setting? What if I jump a deer at 25 yards and it starts to run? that's too close to be using full magnification. i'd want to have the lowest mag setting for something that close. can ranging be done on different mag settings? I assume this would take a considerable amount of practice/shooting to figure all this out. I like the simple concept of ranging and calculating using the reticle, but does this become considerably more complicated with SFP/variable power scopes?

 

[Broz]

Ok so I have some follow-up questions. Regardless of MOA or MIL reticles, how does using the reticle for ranging work in regards to SFP and FFP in a variable power scope? Tell me if I am understanding this correctly: if I am ranging a distance target, I would most likely be using the highest magnification on the scope. is ranging on an SFP scope designed to work only on the highest setting? What if I jump a deer at 25 yards and it starts to run? that's too close to be using full magnification. i'd want to have the lowest mag setting for something that close. can ranging be done on different mag settings? I assume this would take a considerable amount of practice/shooting to figure all this out. I like the simple concept of ranging and calculating using the reticle, but does this become considerably more complicated with SFP/variable power scopes?

First off if that deer jumps out and you don't shoot before he is out of the point where you need to dial or hold over you are not likely to be successful off hand anyway. So at this time you need to go prone and wait for him to stop and then range him and make the correction. This should allow time to crank a SFP scope up to where the reticle reads the same as a FFP. But ranging an object of unknown size with a reticle is not a perfect science. Lets say a deer is 18" from brisket to back. I am here to tell you I have seen plenty of them 16" or 20". So a 4" or more miscalculation is possible. 4" on a 20" target is a 20% discrepancy. So a 20% discrepancy under on a range of 500 yards is??? 400 yards You just missed or wounded the animal. This is why I use a good Rangefinder. And that is on calm deer that is not moving increasing the error factor while trying to size him up.

All I use is second focal plane scopes and I do not range with them. I only use the reticle to measure things like groups, animal antler size or misses like I stated before.

Jeff

.

 

[rocknwell]

Ok, so for hunting purposes, the scope reticle is useful to calculate adjustments, but for ranging you simply use a rangefinder. But in tactical situations, FFP is the way to go. Is this a good understanding?

 

[Broz]

Ok, so for hunting purposes, the scope reticle is useful to calculate adjustments, but for ranging you simply use a rangefinder. But in tactical situations, FFP is the way to go. Is this a good understanding?

I still have not witnessed one advantage of a FFP scope. That is after biting the bullet and paying the added price for one and also looking through many at the range. For the way I hunt and shoot a SFP does all a FFP will do and also what a FFP will not.

Jeff

 

[rocknwell]

Thank you again for your help! This makes things a bit more simple.

 

[Mike 338]

What Broz said about different sized deer is absolutely correct. I've seen some deer the size of small elk. Because they are not a known size to start with, ranging them with your reticle is just a guess but I don't see any reason why a person shouldn't practice it a bit for when your range finder craps out, your horse steps on your pack or you hand it to a buddy and next thing you know, it's rolling down the mountain.

FFP can be helpful in tactical scenarios when sitting behind a scope and needing to maintain a field of view to pick up other potential targets and calling out numbers to your partner with as little interaction with your power ring as possible. Virtually little or none of which applies to hunting. I have a couple FFP's and they're not making enough of a difference to made much matter. A slightly lesser magnification appears to remove hand shake but since I mostly have a range finder, it doesn't really matter.

Bottom line... if the critter is close, just shoot it and if its not close, use your range finder.

 

[sscoyote]

I'm the type that's into the math behind reticle-rangefinding and downrange zeroing. Nice part about investigating the math is it can allow you to improvise systems for longer-range shooting, and i want to know all that can be accomplished with the systems i have at my disposal.

Here's an example of understanding the systems of application--

This was a 100-yd. connection on this little piece of shale using this Ruger Mk. III/2x Barska on the second shot. I was headed back to my vehicle after prairie dog shooting with the little rig, and saw the light reflect off the rock on the side of a hill. It lasered at exactly 100 yds. so i thought to see if i could hit it. I checked the dope on this little rig and using a 50-yd. zero i needed 6 MOA of compensation to get to 100 yds. I wanted to see if i could accurately break up the plex-style reticle that's in this little Barska. I had previously measured the subtension between x-hair axis and plex post tip (PPT) and it was 15 MOA. Although i couldn't exactly figure the amount of compensation for the shot intuitively, i knew that 4 x 15/10 was 6. So i figured then that if i held 40% of the way down to the plex post tip it should be a hit or at least close. I knew that was correct since 50% (half way down) would be 7.5 MOA. I shot and missed but couldn't see the impact. I knew the math was correct though so i decided to trust it again, and held the same interpolative spot along the reticle and hit it on the 2nd shot. It split in 2 and rolled down the hill. When i went up to it it was laying there in 2 pieces. That was a very rewarding calcd. shot using the math that Scot detailed above but instead of being a MOA or mil reticle it was instead a plex-style reticle which can be applied the same way--obviously.

There are 2 mathematical concepts i believe it's important (or at least handy) to know and that is the following--

1) Downrange zeroing or rangefinding using either reticle or turret is defined by the mil-ranging formula, by simply replacing each variable in the equation with the values of your system.

2) Reticle subtension is ~inversely proportional to magnification.

By understanding these 2 concepts it should be easy to see that reticle-rangefinding itself can be applied with any 2 points at any distance relative to any other 2 points at a different distance. I often appy this concept using a mil-reticle at a magnification that's higher than mil-calibrated.

If you're into math at all, the practical application of these concepts can often be quite rewarding.

 

[rocknwell]

wow that's a great shot! i'd be proud of that too. This is very interesting. I wouldn't even think that a plex reticle would be designed for that. of course, a lot of that is beyond my scope of education right now. I feel like I need to become an experienced shooter with basic knowledge and skills before I can progress into the more complex issues-as with anything. But it's interesting to see how more accurate someone can be when using more in-depth factors and such. cool to know. thanks for sharing.

 

[sscoyote]

Rock, here's a good place to start for angular math apps.--

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f94/reticle-rangefinding-math-youtube-87994/

Using these concepts we've actually calcd. the size of a target to within .3" of it's true dimension at 1000 yds., ranged antelope while moving, calcd. ranges to tgts. by "reverse milling" a reticle subtension on a known dimension tgt. at a known distance, then remilling a tgt. at an unknown distance, etc. It really is a lot of fun. Good luck with it.

 

[Napolke]

Can you relate to there being 4 quarters in 1 dollar? or 4 .25's in 1

Can you remember this.

1 moa is 1" at 100 yds
1moa is 2" at 200
1moa is 3" at 300
1 moa is 4" at 400
1 moa is 5" at 500 and so on?

So 1 moa at 350 yards is 3.5" or 3 1/2" and also at 375 yds it would be 3.75" or 3 3/4"

This is all easy for me and why I choose MOA

Jeff

I hope you do realize that 1 MOA @ 100 is actually 1.047197580733"

 

[JackinSD]

I hope you do realize that 1 MOA @ 100 is actually 1.047197580733"

I can tell you he does. But if you can hold better than .047197580733 MOA than you are much better than most. The figure he gave is for "all intensive purposes".

 

[Napolke]

I can tell you he does. But if you can hold better than .047197580733 MOA than you are much better than most. The figure he gave is for "all intensive purposes".

It's not about who can hold better.
To compensate for the bullet drop you could end-up with lets say 20 MOA, the error will be ~ 10 inches in this case.