quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:

I will agree with fritz that 100 yards is a very short distance for the likes of the rifle/caliber combo you are contemplating.

It's so short, that in all of the rifle competitions I still participate in (High Power SR, F-Class, and PRS), I've never taken a shot under 200 yards. I've heard of some PRS style matches that throw in some short shots, but haven't been to one.

O.P., if you are certain that you aren't going to get into longer distance shooting, then just get a mid-level Nikon. If you are uncertain and want something nicer, then get a Vortex Viper PST or Nightforce SHV. Bushnell Tactical Elite are nice too, but that might be pushing the limits of what you want to spend.

I only buy Mrad scopes now, but if you are certain that you won't be shooting past 100 yards, it doesn't matter, and MOA will be fine.

Out of curiosity, why do you think MOA isn’t good past 100yds??? I have both MOA and mil scopes and have used both well past 100yds, I agree mil is probably easier to use for some but it’s not like MOA is all that difficult to work with, at least for me it wasn’t.

quote:

Originally posted by newmexican:

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:

I will agree with fritz that 100 yards is a very short distance for the likes of the rifle/caliber combo you are contemplating.

It's so short, that in all of the rifle competitions I still participate in (High Power SR, F-Class, and PRS), I've never taken a shot under 200 yards. I've heard of some PRS style matches that throw in some short shots, but haven't been to one.

O.P., if you are certain that you aren't going to get into longer distance shooting, then just get a mid-level Nikon. If you are uncertain and want something nicer, then get a Vortex Viper PST or Nightforce SHV. Bushnell Tactical Elite are nice too, but that might be pushing the limits of what you want to spend.

I only buy Mrad scopes now, but if you are certain that you won't be shooting past 100 yards, it doesn't matter, and MOA will be fine.

Out of curiosity, why do you think MOA isn’t good past 100yds??? I have both MOA and mil scopes and have used both well past 100yds, I agree mil is probably easier to use for some but it’s not like MOA is all that difficult to work with, at least for me it wasn’t.

I'm not saying that you can't be effective with an MOA scope past 100 yards. But the math with milliradian is far easier to use, especially in the tight time constraints of PRS. And that's coming from an old fart who had to make the transition, which is never easy.

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:

quote:

Originally posted by newmexican:

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:

I will agree with fritz that 100 yards is a very short distance for the likes of the rifle/caliber combo you are contemplating.

It's so short, that in all of the rifle competitions I still participate in (High Power SR, F-Class, and PRS), I've never taken a shot under 200 yards. I've heard of some PRS style matches that throw in some short shots, but haven't been to one.

O.P., if you are certain that you aren't going to get into longer distance shooting, then just get a mid-level Nikon. If you are uncertain and want something nicer, then get a Vortex Viper PST or Nightforce SHV. Bushnell Tactical Elite are nice too, but that might be pushing the limits of what you want to spend.

I only buy Mrad scopes now, but if you are certain that you won't be shooting past 100 yards, it doesn't matter, and MOA will be fine.

Out of curiosity, why do you think MOA isn’t good past 100yds??? I have both MOA and mil scopes and have used both well past 100yds, I agree mil is probably easier to use for some but it’s not like MOA is all that difficult to work with, at least for me it wasn’t.

I'm not saying that you can't be effective with an MOA scope past 100 yards. But the math with milliradian is far easier to use, especially in the tight time constraints of PRS. And that's coming from an old fart who had to make the transition, which is never easy.

I don’t shoot PRS so I guess the speed thing isn’t something I noticed, I do though think that eventually I’ll need to settle on one or the other, I have 2 of each at this point. Mils would be easier to learn but I’ve been on MOA for awhile now so it’s a tough call for me. I’d imagine in the end I’ll go mil.

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:
I'm not saying that you can't be effective with an MOA scope past 100 yards. But the math with milliradian is far easier to use, especially in the tight time constraints of PRS. And that's coming from an old fart who had to make the transition, which is never easy.

I have MOA scopes. I shoot in PRS, National Rifle League, Competition Dynamics, and local matches. Never had an issue with MOA math. Age has nothing to do with it.

The tightest time constraints I experienced was at the New Mexico Precision Rifleman's PRS match. IIRC 8-12 shots per stage, 120 seconds per stage on the first day, reduced to 90 seconds on the second day. Most stages required substantial movement between multiple barriers, often 4 to 6 different shooting positions, sometimes with substantial distances between barrier locations. Only on a couple of prone stages did we have time to dial individual targets -- most were done a single elevation dial, then holds after that. Sidewinders for dope were the rule. Often in 10-20+ mph winds, increasing as the day progressed. MOA worked no better or worse than mils.

Sometimes the hold over/under values line up better with the subtension marks of a mil reticle, other times they line up better for the subtensions of an MOA reticle. It's all luck of the draw for a given stage.

I have never tried using a reticle calibrated in minutes of angle*, but just from a mathematical standpoint it’s easier for me to use the decimal system (tenths of milliradians) when making mental calculations than it would be to use quarter MOAs. If a spotter (or I) see that I must adjust my aim by 1.5 mils, I immediately know that’s 15 clicks with my scopes calibrated in 0.1 mils. If I were to see that I needed to adjust my aim by 4.5 MOA (18 clicks), the math wouldn’t be exceptionally difficult, but it’s somewhat harder to calculate and easier to become confused.
But some people obviously have no problem with such things; the British managed shillings, pence, Guineas, etc., for centuries before switching to the decimal system for their money, and we benighted Americans still calculate in multiples of 3, 12, 36, and, for all I know, furlongs per fortnight. (That led to an embarrassing space launch failure some years ago, but, hey, it’s a small price to pay to keep our 5280s [a point of pride in my state].)

As I say, I haven’t examined the subject in depth, but as far as I can tell from discussions about the subject, minutes of angle are easier to use for competitors who are dealing with precisely known target distances and target sizes in yards and inches. Because I don’t work with either, I prefer (I believe) the simplicity of decimal numbers.

I sometimes wonder if there would ever be a demand for sight adjustments calibrated in tenths (or perhaps two-tenths) of MOA rather than quarter minutes.

* Not entirely true. I still own a fixed 12× Leupold that I had modified long ago by Premier Reticles to include a fine grid with 3 MOA increments for range estimation when hunting 9-inch prairie dogs. It worked well for the purpose, but it was primitive by today’s standards.

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:

I will agree with fritz that 100 yards is a very short distance for the likes of the rifle/caliber combo you are contemplating.

It's so short, that in all of the rifle competitions I still participate in (High Power SR, F-Class, and PRS), I've never taken a shot under 200 yards. I've heard of some PRS style matches that throw in some short shots, but haven't been to one.

O.P., if you are certain that you aren't going to get into longer distance shooting, then just get a mid-level Nikon. If you are uncertain and want something nicer, then get a Vortex Viper PST or Nightforce SHV. Bushnell Tactical Elite are nice too, but that might be pushing the limits of what you want to spend.

I only buy Mrad scopes now, but if you are certain that you won't be shooting past 100 yards, it doesn't matter, and MOA will be fine.

I can't speak to PRS, but for F-class and Service Rifle, it's all MOA reticles. Bringing a Mil scope to an F-class match is just a way to make it more difficult. The entire target is based on MOA, as are all High Power competition targets. The LR target is 7MOA wide and high. The concentric rings are MOA-based. I have LR qualified people with Mil scopes, but if they are not on target quickly they are a pain (for me) to get on target.

That said, once on target You only need a maximum of 3.6 MOA to get to the middle and I believe that is the equivalent of a Mil. The problem is the rings are not set up in Mils so you'll have to figure it out yourself. If you shoot on a team, the coach will instruct you to put in a certain correction on your scope in MOA but he or she will finalize your aim by ring placement.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGWolf:
I live in the Williston, VT area and shoot at Chittenden County Fish and Game Club. I've been shooting there since about 2004 mostly pistols, then began doing some rifle shooting.

For a bit I had a Remington 700 LTR with a Bushnell Elite scope, but sold it for personal reason and am not wanting to get back to shooting bolt action and trying for precision with a good rifle.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with that area. I spend quite a bit of time in and around Burlington, but mostly in winter time and decades ago. I was a skier in my younger days and I skied Stowe several times. I've been back to Burlington several times since but have not recently spent any time in the area. I always thought Vermont to be the most beautiful state in the Union, for my tastes.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I have never tried using a reticle calibrated in minutes of angle*, but just from a mathematical standpoint it’s easier for me to use the decimal system (tenths of milliradians) when making mental calculations than it would be to use quarter MOAs. If a spotter (or I) see that I must adjust my aim by 1.5 mils, I immediately know that’s 15 clicks with my scopes calibrated in 0.1 mils. If I were to see that I needed to adjust my aim by 4.5 MOA (18 clicks), the math wouldn’t be exceptionally difficult, but it’s somewhat harder to calculate and easier to become confused.

If dialing elevation by feel works for you, then stick with it.

Very, very few steel/tactical/precision competitors change elevation by feel alone for more than a few clicks -- even with scopes which have superior tactile feedback. Virtually all of us have mis-counted clicks or dialed in the wrong direction. So we pull our eye out of the scope, look at the elevation turret, then spin away. I wouldn't even consider counting 10 more clicks of elevation. It's easier to just spin the turret while watching it, and stopping on the desired elevation number.

If time constraints are so tight that dialing is a challenge, we use the reticle for holds. And it doesn't matter if the correction or next target is 10 clicks or 50 clicks different.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
As I say, I haven’t examined the subject in depth, but as far as I can tell from discussions about the subject, minutes of angle are easier to use for competitors who are dealing with precisely known target distances and target sizes in yards and inches.

There really is no difference between mils and MOA on known distance targets. If the targets of unknown distances, we use laser range finders.

Yes, most target distances in competition in the USA are listed in yards. And the targets are generally made by suppliers who cut their dimensions in inches. Sure, it can be nice to know a target is 8" or 12" or whatever. But we know the distance and we have dope cards for elevation and windage. We use our dope cards and reticles to know that a target of a given size may allow up to a 6 mph wind call error for a side-to-side impact. But there is absolutely no difference if that wind call allowance gives a shooter a .6 mil window or a 2 MOA window. It's up to the shooter to understand the ballistics of his own rifle & ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by NikonUser:
The entire target is based on MOA, as are all High Power competition targets.

Thank you. That’s evidently what I was thinking of.

Edited: After thinking about the comment about counting clicks by feel, it took a bit to figure out what it referred to since I said nothing about that. I finally did, however, and I therefore deleted what I was going to say.
And I am too glad that some shooters find that their systems work for them. I am also thankful for yet another description of a shooting discipline I am not familiar with. These discussions are extremely enlightening.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
And lest someone be led astray by the discussion, my comment about converting angular measurements to sight adjustment clicks had nothing to do with counting clicks by feel.

Then why even count clicks? If you know you have to increase elevation from, say, 3 mils to 4.5 mils, then just spin the turret to the desired outcome.

If I have to add 4.5 MOA to the existing 8.5 MOA elevation, I just spin up to 13. I don't care how many clicks it is, I just grab a handful of turret and twist.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
And lest someone be led astray by the discussion, my comment about converting angular measurements to sight adjustment clicks had nothing to do with counting clicks by feel.

Then why even count clicks? If you know you have to increase elevation from, say, 3 mils to 4.5 mils, then just spin the turret to the desired outcome.

If I have to add 4.5 MOA to the existing 8.5 MOA elevation, I just spin up to 13. I don't care how many clicks it is, I just grab a handful of turret and twist.

And that's exactly what we do when we shoot F-class in Palma format, which is 800, 900 and 1000 and then back again. I don't count the clicks, I spin the dial to a specific number on the dial. I even have little stickers that I can put on the dial to point out the specific spots. Anything over 3-4 click, I use the numbers and if it's more than 10 MOA, I use the rotations.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:
I'm not saying that you can't be effective with an MOA scope past 100 yards. But the math with milliradian is far easier to use, especially in the tight time constraints of PRS. And that's coming from an old fart who had to make the transition, which is never easy.

I have MOA scopes. I shoot in PRS, National Rifle League, Competition Dynamics, and local matches. Never had an issue with MOA math. Age has nothing to do with it.

The tightest time constraints I experienced was at the New Mexico Precision Rifleman's PRS match. IIRC 8-12 shots per stage, 120 seconds per stage on the first day, reduced to 90 seconds on the second day. Most stages required substantial movement between multiple barriers, often 4 to 6 different shooting positions, sometimes with substantial distances between barrier locations. Only on a couple of prone stages did we have time to dial individual targets -- most were done a single elevation dial, then holds after that. Sidewinders for dope were the rule. Often in 10-20+ mph winds, increasing as the day progressed. MOA worked no better or worse than mils.

Sometimes the hold over/under values line up better with the subtension marks of a mil reticle, other times they line up better for the subtensions of an MOA reticle. It's all luck of the draw for a given stage.

I brought up age to show that I started out with MOA scopes, and switched to mrad. Most people get set in their ways, and don't like to change, so for someone to change after many years, there must be a good reason for it. Having used both extensively, I greatly prefer mrad. That doesn't mean that MOA can't be effective, which I clearly stated in my original post. It's personal preference. But there are valid reasons why Mrad scopes far outnumber MOA scopes in PRS.

quote:

Originally posted by DamageInc:
It's personal preference. But there are valid reasons why Mrad scopes far outnumber MOA scopes in PRS.

Quite true.

First, FFP scopes are indispensable for competitive PRS shooters. A while back, virtually all FFP scopes were mil-based. A few companies produced scopes with MOA turrets, but they often were paired with mil reticles. I recall such offerings from S&B and Leupold. Nightforce finally came through with its FFP NSX 3.5-25x -- my first FFP optic -- although it probably didn't get much following from the precision rifle crowd.

When I first started shooting precision/steel matches, most locals were shooting 308s with 175 SMK bullets. A few early adopters had transitioned to 6.5x47, 260, or 243, but they were in the minority. Most were launching the same bullet at virtually the same speed. Fellow shooters could easily share elevation and windage information for a given target in mil values.

As calibers, bullets, and muzzle velocities became more diverse, sharing dope and windage in mils became almost meaningless. Windage values were eventually shared in MPH, as a 10 MPH drift for any given bullet made sense, even if absolute number of drift inches for a 308 might be twice that of a 6x47.

A personal example of this is a team match, where one person shoots a carbine and the other a bolt action. At Competition Dynamics team matches I have been the carbine shooter for both Alpine and offgrid. They have no desire to translate the drift of a 73 grain .223 bullet to their slippery 6mm and 6.5mm bullets, but if I state I experienced an effective 8-9 mph breeze from the right, they can use their respective dope tables to get on target with their first shot. Even if we both used mil scopes, the drift my 223 is so great that talking wind values in mils isn't very useful.

The one place where mil scopes have an undeniable advantage is dope tables. Especially those dope tables kept on the shooter for a given stage. In many stages a mil-based shooter can write his dope in 2 digits -- i.e. 9.8 mils of elevation will take a good bullet a long ways, and .9 mils of wind covers many conditions I've shot in. But MOA dope is a little more complicated. Writing 20-3/4 MOA for elevation on a dope card takes up a lot of real estate for position map. Add 10 mph windage values and the dope card gets busy quickly. So I write in decimal form and drop the hundredth's value. For me 20-3/4 MOA is listed as 20.7 -- still, it's three digits, which is a one-digit disadvantage when compared to mil scopes.