SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Help with new scope selection
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Help with new scope selection Login/Join 
Get busy living
or get busy dying!
Picture of heathtx
posted
Gonna put a new scope on my 6.5 rifle for deer hunting and shooting paper and steel to 1,000 yds.

I want FFP and MOA reticle. The info on the Leupold is confusing, it says you can choose FFP or SFP, have asked Leupold website for specific model number.

Choices are:
Leupold 8-25X #L172345
Sig TNGO6 SOT65013

Any thoughts
 
Posts: 931 | Location: Rockwall County (God's Country) TX | Registered: February 14, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Good question, but this Leupold page lists that scope with front focal plane reticle only in the milliradian version; the MOA version is listed only with the rear focal plane reticle.

For FFP and MOA reticle, it appears you’d have to go with a 6.5-20× sight.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 38268 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I've never hunted deer in Tx. But in the many other places I have hunted you will be really unhappy with 8x as the low end, if hunting is actually a criteria.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 6926 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of swage
posted Hide Post
I don't see the value of FFP with MOA reticle. It would be difficult to make adjustments after you spotted your misses. That's the beauty of having turrets and reticle being same/same. You mentioned shooting out to 1000 yards. Unless you're a mental math whiz making the conversions in your head is going to be difficult.
 
Posts: 1701 | Location: Ohio | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by swage:
That's the beauty of having turrets and reticle being same/same.


In that line of Leupold scopes, the turret adjustments and reticles are both calibrated the same, either milliradians or minutes of angle. The fact that the scope has a first focal plane reticle doesn’t preclude both being MOA.

What is a little more complicated with an MOA scope is that clicks are 1/4 MOA and the reticle is calibrated in 1 MOA marks. Converting 0.1 mil to 1 mil is a little more straightforward for those of us accustomed to the decimal system rather than 0.25 to 1 MOA, but not too much.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 38268 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of swage
posted Hide Post
I misunderstood the question. Now that I read it again I see what he was looking for. I prefer mil myself. Metric adjustments, although not as fine, are simpler to convert. I'm at 8 mils at 1000 for my 6.5 Creed. Pretty easy to holdover and spot my misses and make quick adjustments.
 
Posts: 1701 | Location: Ohio | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by swage:
Metric adjustments, although not as fine, are simpler to convert.


Definitely true, IMO.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 38268 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by heathtx:
Gonna put a new scope on my 6.5 rifle for deer hunting and shooting paper and steel to 1,000 yds.

I want FFP and MOA reticle. The info on the Leupold is confusing, it says you can choose FFP or SFP, have asked Leupold website for specific model number.

Choices are:
Leupold 8-25X #L172345
Sig TNGO6 SOT65013

The Leupold VX-3i is a good scope. After years of not understanding matched reticles and turrets, Leupold has it good with this model. The MOA reticle is decent. The issue I see with this scope is its magnification level -- it's OK for 1000 yard steet, but I probably too high for close in deer hunting. Unless you're doing long-distance prairie hunting, a scope in the 3-9X ballpark would serve you better.

I don't know much about the Sig Tangos. I've looked through a few in stores, but that's about it. The Sig's 5X power on the low end would be better for hunting than the Leupold's 8.5X. Sig's MOA reticle just flat out sucks. The guy who designed it should be required to use it for holdovers, holdunders, and windage calls for the rest of his life. There are no larger-value markers to tell you what value is being used -- i.e. 5 MOA, 10 MOA, or whatever. Move more than one or two hash marks off center and you can easily get confused on value.

1,000 yard steel and close-ish distance deer hunting are different games. If you want a high magnification scope for long distance steel, consider a QD mount on the LD scope. Then get another QD mount for a value-line lower-magnification simple cross hair or duplex reticle for hunting.
 
Posts: 5407 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by fritz:
Move more than one or two hash marks off center and you can easily get confused on value.


Good observation. I can keep track of where I am with five mils of calibration marks without any numbers because the end point is clearly defined with much wider crosshairs, but it would be about impossible with that SIG reticle.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 38268 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by swage:
Metric adjustments, although not as fine, are simpler to convert. I'm at 8 mils at 1000 for my 6.5 Creed. Pretty easy to holdover and spot my misses and make quick adjustments.

A lot depends on what the shooter has used more often. I have much more experience with MOA scopes, but can transition to mil scopes without issues.

IMO the angular value difference between 1/4 MOA and 1/10 mil is of little consequence to all but the most accurate bench rest shooters. At 100 yards 1/4 MOA is approximately .26", whereas 1/10 mil is approximately .36". It's pretty rare to find a shooter who can consistently place his shots within .1" at 100 yards. Or within 1" at 1,000 yards.

Most higher magnification FFP MOA scope reticles have hash marks in 1 MOA increments. For holdovers/holdunders/windage such subtentions work well enough for me on steel targets -- 1 MOA or something less than 1 MOA (I consider it 1/2 MOA) is good. Mid-power FFP MOA scopes may have reticle hash marks of 2 MOA.

Mil FFP reticles can vary. Some have hash marks every .2 mils. Others a combination of .2 and .3 mils marks. Older designs such as mil dots only have .5 mil marks.

With a quality FFP reticle -- mil or MOA -- reading misses, correcting for the previous shot's errors, or just holding is pretty easy. I don't think one angular measuring system is easier than the other. It comes down to the user knowing his reticle to calculate the angular value of misses. We shouldn't think of inches, feet, centimeters, or meters down range if we want to react quickly.

Calculations of mil vs. MOA come into play if one is using the reticle to range distances to targets and/or determine sizes of targets. In USA we tend to have target sizes and distances listed in inches and yards, which makes MOA reticles useful in the calculations. Many of us can do these calculations quickly without a calculator. The same can be said for mils if sizes and distances are in centimeters and meters, but not so much for inches and yards.

IMO the place where mils has an advantage is on written dope cards for steel match stages with a lot of dialing, primarily due to the lower number of digits in the elevation value. At 1,000 yards my rifle requires 25.25 MOA of elevation, where the equivalent would be about 7.5 mils -- 4 digits vs. 2 digits in mils. My dope card shows 25.2 for elevation in this case, as the ".05" for .25 and .75 are meaningless to me. So...a dope card for me will be listed as 25 or 25.2 or 25.5 or 25.7 MOA in elevation.
 
Posts: 5407 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of swage
posted Hide Post
With my NF 7-35 at 15x I still have enough usable reticle to hold all the way to 1000 yards. I don't own an MOA scope but I'm assuming there isn't 25MOA of usable reticle to get you there to make holding an option. I can dial the closest target and hold for targets at further distances with very minimal reticle movement. I know this is possible with MOA but the holds are larger adjustments and require more movement of the rifle in less than ideal shooting positions.

If I wanted to hold a Mil of wind at 1000 yards I'd have to hold more than three MOA to equal the same adjustment. The problem compounds itself the more hold off that is required. Mils are larger units and are easier in my mind to communicate when spotting for a shooting partner.

I have 12 Mils per revolution on my elevation turret. I'm still on the first revolution with plenty left at the distances I shoot.

These are most of the reasons I prefer it over MOA.
I use a Kestrel with a custom ballistic curve tailored to my rifles, so in known distance situations yards vs meters is never a problem.
 
Posts: 1701 | Location: Ohio | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by swage:
With my NF 7-35 at 15x I still have enough usable reticle to hold all the way to 1000 yards. I don't own an MOA scope but I'm assuming there isn't 25MOA of usable reticle to get you there to make holding an option. I can dial the closest target and hold for targets at further distances with very minimal reticle movement. I know this is possible with MOA but the holds are larger adjustments and require more movement of the rifle in less than ideal shooting positions.

I suspect you haven't shot mil and MOA scopes side by side. I have. The field of view in your NF scope is the exactly same for both mil and MOA versions. Only the scale of the reticle (mil vs MOA) is different. If you can obtain a hold at a given magnification with a reticle, you can do the same with a MOA reticle. The number on the scales will be different, but they will both be in the exact same visual portion of the eyepiece. Whether it is 7.3 mils or 25.2 MOA (my elevation requirement for 1,000 yards), the target's hold position in the lens will be the same.
quote:
Originally posted by swage:
If I wanted to hold a Mil of wind at 1000 yards I'd have to hold more than three MOA to equal the same adjustment. The problem compounds itself the more hold off that is required. Mils are larger units and are easier in my mind to communicate when spotting for a shooting partner.

Wind holds are just numbers. We go with what works for us. Rarely are wind holds exactly on a round number for a given scale. Sure, 1 mil is easier to deal with than 3.4 MOA. But 6 MOA wind hold is easier to deal with than 1.7 mil hold.

In the steel match competition game, only in team matches can both the shooter and observer be on scope at the same time. But then we're likely on different platforms -- 6mm or 6.5mm bore bolt action for one guy and a 223 carbine for the other. So we communicate in effective wind values. Sometimes there is the the option of stating "you're .4 mils left", but often it's "your impact was half a plate low". Or "wind is 3/4 value from the right". In solo matches the observers are often using LRF binos, which generally don't have a scaled reticle.

quote:
Originally posted by swage:
I have 12 Mils per revolution on my elevation turret. I'm still on the first revolution with plenty left at the distances I shoot.

This translates to 41 MOA per rev. Your NF scope in the MOA version has 30 MOA per rev, which is equivalent to 8.7 mils. So this is one place the scales are a little different. Using a mil NF I could get to 1350 yards on one rev. Using an MOA NF I could get to 1125 on one rev. So....on a single elevation turret rev basis, the mil version gets a shooter a little further. That's because both turrets have 120 clicks per rev, and we all know that a .1 mil click translates to a slightly greater angular value than a .25 MOA click.

Ultimately, the scopes have similar total elevation capabilities. Per the NF website, the MOA scope has 100 MOA of elevation (~29.1 mils) and the mil scope has 27.3 mils of elevation (~93.8 MOA).

****
A few weeks ago I shot a match where a few stages had time, target location, and movement issues that favored dialing elevation for one target and holding over/under for the others. The first stage favored a mil reticle, as the hold overs/unders compared to the dialed target were very close to .5 and 1 mil increments. Things were a bit more complicated in my MOA reticle. I don't recall the numbers, but I ended up dialing and was rushed for time.

A later station worked well for me. It was something along the lines of dialing an odd value for the 2nd target -- maybe 7.7 MOA or such. Then I had a hold under of 2 MOA for the first target, zero for the second, over 4 MOA for the third, and over 6 for the fourth. A mil guy in my squad stated his holds were in increments of .6 or .7 mils, which was harder to track in his reticle. He decided to dial each elevation and was rushed for time.

IMO there are times when one angular system works better than the other, and times when the tables are turned. Ultimately it comes down to the user knowing his dope tables and being able to apply them to a given rifle & optic.
 
Posts: 5407 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Help with new scope selection

© SIGforum 2018