Why the love for MOA?

[Loner]

Scot , I don't know how well you understand the math behind mildots , iphy and moa
but 6400's mils is a made up number. 6283 is the real number. They all three are
angular measurements. And no matter which way you go you have to go out and
make the numbers match your load. And everyone I know checks their scopes against
a yardstick to see how it really tracks, makes no matter what the manufacture says it
is. And I think you'll find in a sfp your diopter adjustment changes it all anyway from the
factory specs.

 

[Scot E]

Scot , I don't know how well you understand the math behind mildots , iphy and moa
but 6400's mils is a made up number. 6283 is the real number. They all three are
angular measurements. And no matter which way you go you have to go out and
make the numbers match your load. And everyone I know checks their scopes against
a yardstick to see how it really tracks, makes no matter what the manufacture says it
is. And I think you'll find in a sfp your diopter adjustment changes it all anyway from the
factory specs.

HUH? I never said anything about 6400 or 6283 MILS in a circle. And the specific point I made is that both MOA and MIL ARE angular measurements. What am I not understanding?

 

[Loner]

HUH? I never said anything about 6400 or 6283 MILS in a circle. And the specific point I made is that both MOA and MIL ARE angular measurements. What am I not understanding?

And again you prove my point. There is nothing regular about mil. True mil is 6283 milliradians in a circle. The mildot system uses 6400. It's made up. You can break a
circle into as many parts as you want and each and every one will have a sine for it's
angle. None is more "correct" than the other. It is just easier for mathmaticians to
use radians as they have a direct ratio of 1:1 between the radius when the arc length
matches it. A radian is the result of the angle that is created. For shooters it is mute.
Iphy is angular too is my point.

 

[Scot E]

And again you prove my point. There is nothing regular about mil. True mil is 6283 milliradians in a circle. The mildot system uses 6400. It's made up. You can break a
circle into as many parts as you want and each and every one will have a sine for it's
angle. None is more "correct" than the other. It is just easier for mathmaticians to
use radians as they have a direct ratio of 1:1 between the radius when the arc length
matches it. A radian is the result of the angle that is created. For shooters it is mute.
Iphy is angular too is my point.[/QUOTE


I must be really tired tonight because I still fail to see how anything I said was incorrect. I never said IPHY wasn't angular, never said anything about how many angular units were in a circle. In fact I purposely didn't say anything about it because it doesn't matter. Again, reread my post. If you are using numbered measurements for MIL or any other system you really are using the system incorrectly IMO. There really isn't any need to know how many units of angle there is in a circle. A shooter needs to understand that in order to get past the math and realize that he can measure misses in MILs or MOA, and yes IPHY and then transfer that info directly to the reticle or turret for adjustment. NO MATH OR NUMBERS OR MEASUREMENTS NEEDED.

 

[Loner]

I guess I read more into you saying moa and mil are angular. In my own mind I assumed
you were saying iphy was not by omission. Coupled with the linear measurement
comment. My mistake. As a hunter I don't usually get the chance to correct off a miss
so dialing in the correction can be done with a visual but the initial ranging is not. Which
is what the ranging reticles are for. Getting the range without a calculator or cheat sheet
is not that easy for most.

 

[Silverback7]

Yeah, 'targets' are not animals of varying aspect.. Use a laser.
Silverback7, who said anything about focal length?
IPHY is inches per hundred yards. 1/8 IPHY is the highest of adjustment resolutions I know of, which is .125" @100YDS -vs- .360" with 1/10mil(the smallest I've seen in mil).
Maybe there has been 1/16", I don't know..

I highly doubt there are a lot of USO scopes in IPHY(other than 3.6/MRAD or 1.047MOA). I could be wrong, but it would stun me if this was so at 1.000"/100yd. Afterall, their market is tactical/LE/'snipers', LOL, and IPHY is obviously either too simple or too complicated for that bunch..
Apparently SFP subtensions and laser ranging are complicated also.

I'm in alignment with SBruce on this.

Hey Mike I know very little about scopes and long range hunting. I'm just trying to get educated on optics and the variables. So I did ask about focal length. Cause I dont know much about it.

 

[LouBoyd]

Hey Mike I know very little about scopes and long range hunting. I'm just trying to get educated on optics and the variables. So I did ask about focal length. Cause I dont know much about it.

Focal length (of the objective lens) does set the image scale of the reticle and affects the overall design of any scope. Look at WWII though Viet Nam era Unertl target scopes used for sniping. Some of those were well over two feet long. Optical designers now have better optical glasses and design tools which allow more complex (better?) trade offs in the designs. Focal length is rarely mentioned in rifle scope sales brochures because it really doesn't matter to the end user. Overall size and weight as well as optical performance does matter.

 

[sscoyote]

When it comes down to it even reticle rangefinding with an IPHY or MOA scale is not that easy to do in the head (at least mine). If your interpolative number isn't a whole number then it gets harder. I.E. suppose your IPHY reading is 4.4 on an 11" target, then the math is--

11x100/1.0/4.4=250

For me it's just not easy.

BTW Lou--what is a vertical offset you referred to before?

 

[Mikecr]

Is there somebody out there ranging in IPHY?
Never seen that one.
If with some kind of IPHY hash marks, your 11" target brackets at 4.4" then the target is now 2.5x smaller(11/4.4), or 2.5x 100yds.
Now that's with an even 1.00" per 100yd system, which should be easiest if left in a situation where you forgot your LASER RANGING.

Have you tried the same scenarios with a 1.047 or 3.6 per 100yd systems?
They don't seem as easy as 1.00 to me..
You know what IS easier for 'long range hunting'? LASER RANGING.

 

[ken snyder]

I don't know why people use minutes of angle either. I think a lot of people don't realise there is no math required other than the ability to divide by 1000. Lots of folks probably have problems with mil rad simplicity and create there own problems by trying to use radian and minute of angle at the same time. For those of us that stick to mil rad, it sure is nice to have range finder, B.D.C. and windage correction all in a set of lines or dots. Not having to crank on the scope knobs is very nice as well. It also allows the use of scope adjustment covers that prevent the scope from being readjusted by every twig in the forrest.

 

[Mikecr]

But laser MEASUREMENT is more accurate than bracket range ESTIMATING.
And Dialing is more accurate than holding off for it.
We can have BDC turrets or click cards or calculators with any system desired. It's not like we're doing any math in our heads out there in the field.
Also, if the wind is gonna push it 10" we can hold off 10" just fine, without any dots OR adjustment.

Regardless of the reticle or the adjustments you choose, I know of nothing more accurate than laser ranging, and correction dialing.

 

[LouBoyd]

BTW Lou--what is a vertical offset you referred to before?

I wa referring to scopes with Horus Vision(TM) reticles, particularly the H37 reticle which subtends 35 MILS of vertical angle, approximatly two degrees. The beauty of the Horus reticle is that it allows precision aiming without the use of target knobs. The problem however that the field of view of long eye relef eyepieces is limited. The entire reticle can only be viewed at low magnification settings aound 4x and at that magnifcation the fine makrings of the reticle cannot be read, at least not with my eyesight. or for most people. Sure, the scope can be zoomed and the rticle becomes resonable to read in the 10 to 16 X region, but then only the top quarter or third of the reticle is visible. Having an eyepiece which could move vertically (rather than moving the reticle position relative to the target) would solve that problem. No present manufacturer I'm aware of offers that capability. That would not need to be a precision adjustment since the position of the image in the eyepeice doesn't affect the pont of aim.
Horus Vision

 

[Loner]

Is there somebody out there ranging in IPHY?
Never seen that one.

I range in IPHY, so do a lot of other USO scope owners. Maybe they just never
bothered to check.

 

[ken snyder]

What ever type of anything a person prefers is what that person should use. I cant imagine recommending my eyeglass perscription to someone because it works for me! The Geography of different areas makes a one size fits all an impossibility. Here in the hills that I hunt not many use electronic range finders or any type of wind meter because they simply are of no value while actually hunting. All of the electronics are prone to failure with out notice and range finders do bounce off of boulders that are no where close to the game animal. To say that using milrad is less acurate than m.o.a. is only said by those who do not use it. There is absolutely no difference between the two they are both a different type of measurement system. In all actuality moa is not as accurate because it expresses an arc angle instead of an actual distance. MOA is radial while mil rad is linear. What if any difference a person chooses is up to them. An interesting consideration is that using mil rad eliminates dependency and all that is needed is already in the reticle.