Vacation week and along with that comes idle hands. I shot most of the week even during some rain. Pistol a bit as I try to keep competent for carry purposes but I really shot both of my ARs quite a bit. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that over 150-200 yards that my vision is getting worse and I am having difficulty hitting targets with my EoTech and Aimpoint. I am now wearing my glasses with these 2 optics and it helps but it's still not ideal.
I have been itching kind of for a new AR but have not found any Colts around. Not even new ones and I'll admit that I prefer older ones. Yes, I'm a Colt snob. Imagine my surprise when I spotted an FN AR in the sea of M&P's, Rugers, Deltons and more. It was even marked down $200 as my LGS is overstocked right now.
So I handled it, looked it over and said WTH and bought it. Model is FN Tactical 2 carbine and it comes with some goodies on it. Flat top receiver with no sights so I wanted an optic.
On to the optics section and I knew I wanted something magnified but not fixed magnification, I've already been through that. Vortex, Leupold, Weaver and more and I did look through most of them. FFP and SFP also and I'm used to SFP as I used to hunt and still have my hunting rifles with scopes still attached. I ended up purchasing a Weaver 1-5x LPVO that is FFP. Glass is excellent and the reticle is not overly busy but still has what I need. It has what Weaver calls the CIRT (Close-Intermediate Range Tactical) reticle that perfect for me. This is not a precision rifle and my goal is those targets that are 200-400 yards away. Can I hit 200 yards with a red dot or holographic? Yes but this makes it easier.
Here's the interesting thing about this optic and I found it mildly confusing until I sat down, did some math and ultimately went to a site and downloaded a ballistics table. The reticle is in mils but the adjustments are in MOA. Thank God the table I downloaded has a column for MOA and a column right beside it for mils. I know what a mil is at 100 yards but I hate math.
Zeroed at 50 yards and it wasn't difficult. 3 shot groups and within 9 shots, I was done. The targets help with 1" blocks. Surprisingly, windage was about dead on and I only had to do about 4 clicks to get it dead center. Elevation was a bit high but after counting 1" blocks and doing math again(easy math), I ended up 16 clicks down.
Anyways, I love the rifle even though it's not a Colt and the Magpul furniture plus the very nice, slim handguard (Mlok) adds up to a winner for me.
Obligatory pics of course.

If I follow this correctly a scope designed by people who do reticles in mils and adjustments in MOA are beyond stupid. Why on earth.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
If I follow this correctly a scope designed by people who do reticles in mils and adjustments in MOA are beyond stupid. Why on earth.

I don't get it either.
I didn't know until I got home and mounted the scope.
I got my torx bits, level and a few other tools and mounted the scope. Adjusted it for my eye relief and I thought I was GTG. I pulled out the booklet and started reading. That's when I found out the marks on the reticle were in mils.
When I was at my LGS, I took off the turret caps and saw MOA. 1/4 @ 100 yards and they were finger adjusted. Selling point to me.
I'm glad I knew about the site that you can input information about a load and get MOA and mil data or I'd be converting myself.
I do love the clarity and reticle of this scope so I'll run with it.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
If I follow this correctly a scope designed by people who do reticles in mils and adjustments in MOA are beyond stupid. Why on earth.

Weaver is not the only manufacturer that has done this. Leupold did it on Mark 4 models, with the TMR reticle. I ignorantly purchased one. Schmidt & Bender did the same for many years, as they tried serving MOA users. The lack of vision from these companies is astounding, and I can't imaging purchasing a scope from them in the future.

A mis-match of mil/MOA reticle/turrets severely hampers a shooter's ability to use the reticle. In such cases, a simple crosshair or duplex reticle might work almost as well. The reticle & turrets on modern scopes should serve as an aiming system. When they're mis-matched, it's essentially like the left hand won't work in combination with the right hand.

Today, if I purchased a mis-matched scope and wasn't aware of it, I'd return it and ask the seller for a refund.

I had thought about it Fritz but I'll give it a try for now.
I went to a site and input specific grain weight(M855), mount height, zero and came up with this.



Could I just use MOA adjustments on the turrets? Yes but it defeats the purpose of the reticle. I also understand that this graph is not end all be all too.
I bought it, mounted it, zeroed it so for now, I'll use it and see what happens.
This is my 1st LPVO and even though I looked through a bunch of them, I now know that if there's a next time, I will be getting the booklet out and seeing what the reticle actually calibrates for.
I have plans for next weekend with my friend that has a 600 yard range with 100 yard increments. That will be final judgement for me.

For reference, here's the reticle in the booklet that came with it.




I do like how it's set-up and it's not that busy but has what I think I need.
Again, time will tell.

A dope chart from a manufacturer may be close to your flight ballistics, or maybe it won't. It's best to start with your own calculations -- based on your ammo's muzzle velocity & bullet, adjusted for the air density where you shoot.

Field testing on targets is the final confirmation of your aiming system. Confirmation requires that the rifle, ammo, and you are capable of consistent results.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:
A dope chart from a manufacturer may be close to your flight ballistics, or maybe it won't. It's best to start with your own calculations.

Field testing on targets is the final confirmation of your aiming system. Confirmation requires that the rifle, ammo, and you are capable of consistent results.

Exactly.
The table is a tool to start with and go from there.
Real time with weather factored in and more is final confirmation/judgment in my case.

Cost-wise it probably makes some sense. not having 2 models (mil/moa) and re-using parts.

On a 1-5 scope with holdover reticle, you're not really going to be cranking on the adjustments much, especially capped ones, for the 2-400yds (or meters if your dealing with mils )

most people just turn the dial anyway, few know MOA/Mil calculations (including me, up until recently)

Looks like a nice shooting rifle.

I didn't know they made scopes that weren't matched.
The Strelok app has that reticle and can give you a starting point for the BDC.
Playing around with it, it matches the BDC MIL drops
200 yd hold over with m855


Primary Arms ACSS reticle holdover at 200 yds.

quote:

Originally posted by snidera:
Cost-wise it probably makes some sense. not having 2 models (mil/moa) and re-using parts.

On a 1-5 scope with holdover reticle, you're not really going to be cranking on the adjustments much, especially capped ones, for the 2-400yds (or meters if your dealing with mils )

most people just turn the dial anyway, few know MOA/Mil calculations (including me, up until recently)

https://www.longrangeshooting....s%20at%20100%20yards.

Something I'm currently reading up on and I think this is good.
I am not a long range competition shooter so if I need to make a calculation, I have time to figure it out.
As for holdovers/under, I have a little experience using my EoTech and Aimpoint. There again using yards and MOA which I'm more used to. Can I switch to mils/meters? I'm sure I can with a bit of calculating.
I honestly see this as learning a new skill and a new tool.

quote:

Originally posted by powermad:
Looks like a nice shooting rifle.

I didn't know they made scopes that weren't matched.
The Strelok app has that reticle and can give you a starting point for the BDC.
Playing around with it it matches the BDC MIL drops
200 yd hold over with m855


Primary Arms ACSS reticle holdover at 200 yds.

I didn't know they made scopes like that either.
This is my 1st jump into scopes like this and I'll admit that I'm used to SFP scopes like what I used when hunting so this is a learning experience.
Thank you for that also Powermad and I'll check that out.

Strelok is free, Strelok+ has the reticle data base and is $5 I believe.

Seems to give a reasonable prediction for trajectory.

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:
As for holdovers/under, I have a little experience using my EoTech and Aimpoint. There again using yards and MOA which I'm more used to. Can I switch to mils/meters? I'm sure I can with a bit of calculating.

You don't need to use meters. The majority of PRS/NRL/steel/precision rifle shooters use mil-based scopes and they use target distances in yards. If the match director provides target distances in such competitions, they will be measured in yards. Competitors talk in yards, range officers talk in yards. If a competitor states a target distance in meters, it's inevitable someone will reply along the lines of "Dude, this is America. We use yards."

Your reticle manual lists the holdover lines in mils -- 1 mil, 2.6 mils, 4.9 mils, 8 mils. The yardage distances listed in Powermad's upper illustration are probably pretty accurate for your 55 grain bullet. You can note the distances fairly easily with some form of dope card attached to the rifle.

Your reticle is designed to have the elevation turret set at zero. Probably best if you just forget about the MOA clicks. You just hold over for the various distances, using the proper reticle subtension. Understand that holdover reticles are not gnat's ass precision. But with larger targets and some room for error, they work. Now if you start using different loads -- say SMK 69 or SMK 77 -- you must calculate new figures for these heavier & slower bullets.

Nice setup OP. Whatever works for you, use.

Me personally, I’m a NF whore. I like them for what they offer; clear glass, bright illumination and bomb proof construction. Down side to the NF optics; battery life is horrible. I currently own 3 NX8 1-8 and 1 2.5-10x24 MOAR. Love them all.

quote:

Originally posted by davidjinks:
Nice setup OP. Whatever works for you, use.

Me personally, I’m a NF whore. I like them for what they offer; clear glass, bright illumination and bomb proof construction. Down side to the NF optics; battery life is horrible. I currently own 3 NX8 1-8 and 1 2.5-10x24 MOAR. Love them all.

From what I've read, same glass that NF uses is also in the Weaver line up. Japanese IIRC.
I am not sure about battery life right now but I do like having the option of green, red or when it's off, black.

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:
From what I've read, same glass that NF uses is also in the Weaver line up.

What is your source for this statement?

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:
From what I've read, same glass that NF uses is also in the Weaver line up.

What is your source for this statement?

I've been trying to find it on Google and haven't found it yet.

It is Japanese glass from a certain factory if I remember correctly. I'm still searching.

We discuss the Mils/MOA issue in our basic precision rifle classes. I'm clear in stating two things. One, neither is better as a form of measure. They are just different languages that the user should learn to speak. Two, avoid optics that combine both where the turrets are one measurement and the reticle another. It makes it more difficult to add/change dope and needlessly harder on the shooter. That said, if one doesn't expect to make many turret adjustments, or use reticle holdover frequently, it can be a none issue.

My NXS 5.5x22 *had* the dumbness of mil reticle and moa turrets - until I sent it back and had the reticle changed to moa and zero stops added.
(Neither was available when I bought mine years ago)

When talking to the Nightforce rep that took my order, he said it was due to military contracts that specified that very set up.
Never again will I make that expensive mistake!