Should turrets match the reticle

B

boxhitch

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
50   0   1
Location
Okanagan
So far the scopes I have experience with all match properly as I would expect, 1/10 mil clicks and 2/10 mil spacing on the reticle, easy peasy
have been looking at details of a few other scopes lately and have seen things that puzzle me

I've seen scopes that have moa turrets combined with reticles that have mil dot spacings
also 1/10 mil clicks with a reticle divided by .5 mil hash marks, how can fine adjustments be accurately made
and just now one with 1/4 moa clicks but has 1/5 moa reticle marks, how is that intuitive,

I know all these have been on the market for while guessing by the make/model, one being pumped as the latest/greatest
so maybe I'm making more of an issue than others obviously, but I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
I think US Army wanted the mil-dot reticle as a ranging device - to work out the range to target - then use your "dope" and the MOA adjustments to set the scope for increased probability of first round hit - I do not think the Mil-dot reticle was originally for an "aiming" thing, so much as for a "ranging" thing. Of course, marketers, consumers and therefore manufacturers all "improved" on that original concept.
 
The adjustments on the Nightforce scope on my favorite rifle (Ruger Gunsite Scout) are in MOA. The reticle is graduated in Miliradians.

It is easy enough to translate at 3.5 moa to one mil.

At distances a short barrelled 308 shoots reliably (out to seven or eight hundred yards) the amount of error is a difference that makes no difference.

Better to spend the effort of accurate wind and distance estimation.
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
I think US Army wanted the mil-dot reticle as a ranging device
Click to expand...
a case of maybe mixing range in metric while still holding onto the old standard for talk and dialing
moa can be used for ranging also, just works better for standard while mrads works better for metric, yards vs meters

easy to do the math for conversions when at a bench or in a hide, but when on the clock and on the fly its so much easier when increments are equal and compliment each other

certainly something to be aware of. The three examples i posted are from new on the shelf scopes in 3 common name brands
 
If you have a second focal plane scope you can crank it done to about 85% of full power
snd that will give change your reticle to 4 MOA instead of 1 mil.it’s probably not perfect math just numbers I pulled out of my ass. A 25 power scope works out in practice to 21 and 14 to a bit less than 12. You have to confirm for yourself.

4 MOA is about as useless to me as mildots, but a 1/2 mildot reticle comes out to 2 MOA and I work with that. You can range estimate just fine with MOA, either way you need to know the target size.
One mil is the distance from from some
unlucky persons nuts to his noggon
at a 1000 yards and 2 mlls puts him at 500. Everything in between is somewhere is somewhere in between.
With MOA its target size divided by MOA times .95 because 1 MOA isn’t really 1”
at 100. If you forgot your abacus at home
knock 5 yards off per 100. ie 18” deer body depth with 3 MOA subtension is 600 yards then knock 6x5 for 30 yards to subtract for 570 yards.
I suppose you could find the power that actually measured in inches and not have to do the correction but I never bothered because I embraced those new fangled
laser rangefinder thingies🤣
 
I try and keep things as uncomplicated as possible, so most everything I hunt gets ranged with my MOA laser range finding Geovids first unless the critter is so close I don't need to. I simply cannot abide busy reticles in a hunting scope , so I mostly shoot with a standard plex cross hair style. The one scope I turret with in a hunting scope has turrets in MOA
In Fclass scopes I use the MOA turrets and the corresponding rings tgat are in MOA on our targets .
Cat
 
In what world? distance absolutely matters, just like target size matters, when using a scope to its potential.

For simple point-n-shoot a basic duplex scope is fine for normal hunting distances, crosshair for 200-zero then top of thick post for 300+/-

but thats nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, I guess not many look at the small details like I did
carry on
 
There's no excuse in this day and age for a manufacturer to produce a scope that does not use the same unit of measurement in the turrets as in the reticle, that's just dumb and a leftover from when mil-dot reticles were first put into scopes with moa turrets ( I had an older Leupy mk4 like that, mil-dot reticle, M1 turrets, what a pain in the ass).

As to your other examples , the turret adjustments don't need to be in the same increments as the reticle subtensions (and almost never are, per your example of 0.1mrad turrets and 0.2mrad subtensions). The reason to have 0.1mrad increment turrets but 0.5mrad subtensions is to permit fine adjustments for zeroing purposes (or dialling on elevation and/or wind) but to keep the reticle "less cluttered" than 0.2mrad subtensions would. It's a personal preference thing. Same for the 1/4moa turrets and 1/5moa subtensions (assuming this is Leupold and the moa version of their 0.1mrad turrets with .25mrad subtensions?). Both options allow you to use the turrets for fine adjustments and the reticle for more coarse adjustments with the benefit of making the reticle "less cluttered". Personally I prefer 0.1mrad turrets with 0.2 subtensions (on both the vertical and horizontal axes) like in the Vortex EBR-7D in the Gen 3 Razors but I still have a few Gen 2 Razors with the EBR-7C (that has 0.2s on the horizontal but 0.5s on the vertical) and it is very usable. I also used to have a few Leupold Mk5s with the older CCH reticle (that had subtensions in 0.25mrad increments) and they were plenty usable too. So much of that is personal preference and use case.
 
Excellent details, just what I was getting at. I get the less cluttered part, imo .5 mil hashmarks are too course for fine wind calls but usable.
With a floating dot reticle, the space to the first mark can be difficult to use for wind calls or even dialing a zero, often need to use the first larger mark.
All a matter of personal preference and application
 
rugbydave said:
There's no excuse in this day and age for a manufacturer to produce a scope that does not use the same unit of measurement in the turrets as in the reticle, that's just dumb and a leftover from when mil-dot reticles were first put into scopes with moa turrets ( I had an older Leupy mk4 like that, mil-dot reticle, M1 turrets, what a pain in the ass).
Click to expand...
100%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom