Why the love for MOA?

[LouBoyd]

With NXS scopes, I'm forced to crank the eyepiece all the way into the stops to get a reticle focus. \

Youi probably need prescription saftety glasses. I have eyes which need a +4 diopter lens to correct at infinity. Many rifles copes don't have enough adjustement range. Prescription glasses can also correct for astigmatism which riflescope eyepieces do not.

 

[Mikecr]

Yeah I wear glasses for astigmatism.

 

[Loner]

Thanks Lou, that makes sense.

 

[sscoyote]

Interesting info. Never knew that by simply screwing the eyepiece in to adjust focus the magnification itself changed--especially from 32-25x.

When it comes to companies not knowing about their own products i was often appauled at what some professionals didn't know. There was an article written by a police sniper instructor in a highly regarded publication about applying the plex reticle just like a mil-dot for rangefinding. The guy was trying to approximate the plex reticle subtension for rangefinding. He obviously didn't understand the fact that the mil-ranging formula was not specific to the std. mil-dot subtension and can be used with any subtension. Another company has a piece circulating that says u can't use the plex reticle to range a coyote-sized target-crazy stuff really.

Mike--U said that magnification is not linear to subtension in a SFP optic? I've alwasy assumed this to be so (assuming the power ring is correctly calibrated), although i've seen some deviation especially with Leupold power rings. I know my Nikon BM 6-18x mil-dot is correct, as i've measured it, and it is as caluclated at 18x where the dot to dot spacing becomes 66% of the 12x calibration (12/18x3.6=2.4 IPHY). I know some optics companies use a cam for changing magnification but i thought that was reflected on the power ring such that the linear relationship is maintained? This should be the case since many ballistics programs have this option in their menus including Exbal.

 

[Mikecr]

I wasn't really referring to the distance between hash marks, but the reticle thickness itself -with power changes.
As to why the NF eypiece/reticle focus affects magnification, I don't know. Maybe they all do, but because of NF's setup -vs- my glasses, I lose a lot of power. Yet I don't with Leupold.
If I were relying on an NPR2 reticle for ranging, I would for sure do some mods for calibrated power settings in the field. Absolutely no way around that.

These are things I'm left to gamble with for scope purchases, because scopemakers and sellers don't ever talk about them.
For example, how would anyone find out the actual adjustment value of a Swarovski scope, without buying one and measuring it?
Their brochure loosely implies 1/4". Really?
Is this .25IPHY, or some sort of 'european hunter' 1/4IPHY, given that their duplex reticle already obscures over 1/4IPHY?

I'm suspicious of other aspects of scope design as well but I'm too ignorant to define it.
I think there are 2 approaches to magnification: Gathering information, and/or zooming in on information.
Gathering a lot of information takes size to collect it.
To get around this, I think there is a trend to merely zoom in on a relatively smaller amount of information. I can do this through 'boosting'(to regain 32x with a NF). But I found that this sucks.
It's not the same result.

 

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

Well I for one heve learned alot from all this chatter thanks guys

 

[Loner]

My swaro in a 3x12 habitch is in .3600037 per inch clicks. The reticle is 50.4 @ 100 yards between the posts, 5.4 inches @ 100 on the thickness of the posts and .54 @
100 on the crosshair thickness. Try and remember that out in the field.