With the "great Migration" that alot of people have recently made to mil/mil scope I'm still suprised that people are still using a MOA canted base. would it be that difficult to create a base canted forward by so many mils? i understand that "1" mil is a larger deliniation that "1" MOA. larger by a factor of about three and a third if i have read all the stuff here on hide (1 mil = 3.36 MOA, i think) so why not make a 5 or 6 mil base. a 6 mil base would be really close to a 20 MO base. just idle thought
Rifle Scopes I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
- Thread starter The Mall Ninja
- Start date
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
I think the bigger question is. What would you gain?
If nothing then why try to fix whats not broken. the bases are static and only used to alow more adjustment range.
Howdy
I think the bigger question is. What would you gain?
If nothing then why try to fix whats not broken. the bases are static and only used to alow more adjustment range.
Howdy
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
That's right! Also make sure the color and smell match the scope.
That's right! Also make sure the color and smell match the scope.
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
well, all the metal on my remmy is black, and the hole thing smells like rem oil, sulfer, and chanel no.9 so i got my "bases" covered
well, all the metal on my remmy is black, and the hole thing smells like rem oil, sulfer, and chanel no.9 so i got my "bases" covered
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
Well, way I see it they already <span style="font-style: italic">make</span> "mil" -bases.
Its just not even number, and cant is given in different unit.
Solution is as close as closest pocket calculator.
Manufacturers could mention both mils and MOAs in specs tho.
Well, way I see it they already <span style="font-style: italic">make</span> "mil" -bases.
Its just not even number, and cant is given in different unit.
Solution is as close as closest pocket calculator.
Manufacturers could mention both mils and MOAs in specs tho.
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
Let me know if this still seems like quite the stroke of genius once the bong is empty and you sober up a little. I bet some pancakes sound really good right now.
Let me know if this still seems like quite the stroke of genius once the bong is empty and you sober up a little. I bet some pancakes sound really good right now.
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kahlendrrari</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the "great Migration" that alot of people have recently made to mil/mil scope I'm still suprised that people are still using a MOA canted base. would it be that difficult to create a base canted forward by so many mils? i understand that "1" mil is a larger deliniation that "1" MOA. larger by a factor of about three and a third if i have read all the stuff here on hide (1 mil = 3.36 MOA, i think) so why not make a 5 or 6 mil base. a 6 mil base would be really close to a 20 MO base. just idle thought </div></div>
Be sure to check your math... 1 mil = 3.43775 moa or rounded 3.438 moa or 3.6 inches at 100yrds
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kahlendrrari</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the "great Migration" that alot of people have recently made to mil/mil scope I'm still suprised that people are still using a MOA canted base. would it be that difficult to create a base canted forward by so many mils? i understand that "1" mil is a larger deliniation that "1" MOA. larger by a factor of about three and a third if i have read all the stuff here on hide (1 mil = 3.36 MOA, i think) so why not make a 5 or 6 mil base. a 6 mil base would be really close to a 20 MO base. just idle thought </div></div>
Be sure to check your math... 1 mil = 3.43775 moa or rounded 3.438 moa or 3.6 inches at 100yrds
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
Not a bad thought but wouldn't be logical at this point.
Problem is that the base is "fixed". Basically it becomes a static part of your setup. It is not something you manipulate or calculate into your shooting. Reticles and turret adjustments are, therefore having them in a user friendly language is a plus.
Having your current base not equal to a pretty even Mil number is lost in manufacturing tolerances anyway. I guarantee you this:
Pick 10 rifles that are exactly the same. Pick 10 top brand X scopes that are optically centered out of the package. Pick 10 sets of rings and bases that are identical. Mount all of the above into a shootable rifle X 10. I assure you that everyone of the 10 will reguire different elevation and windage inputs to bring you onto an initial 100yard zero.
They will all be in the same ballpark but the spread will be evident. So in my opinion, current bases that just give you a basic jump start to more available elevation in your scope is a solid start. Breaking bases down into less than 10 MOA increments or going to MILs will assuredly be lost in the maze.
Just my thoughts.
TC
Not a bad thought but wouldn't be logical at this point.
Problem is that the base is "fixed". Basically it becomes a static part of your setup. It is not something you manipulate or calculate into your shooting. Reticles and turret adjustments are, therefore having them in a user friendly language is a plus.
Having your current base not equal to a pretty even Mil number is lost in manufacturing tolerances anyway. I guarantee you this:
Pick 10 rifles that are exactly the same. Pick 10 top brand X scopes that are optically centered out of the package. Pick 10 sets of rings and bases that are identical. Mount all of the above into a shootable rifle X 10. I assure you that everyone of the 10 will reguire different elevation and windage inputs to bring you onto an initial 100yard zero.
They will all be in the same ballpark but the spread will be evident. So in my opinion, current bases that just give you a basic jump start to more available elevation in your scope is a solid start. Breaking bases down into less than 10 MOA increments or going to MILs will assuredly be lost in the maze.
Just my thoughts.
TC
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me know if this still seems like quite the stroke of genius once the bong is empty and you sober up a little. I bet some pancakes sound really good right now.
</div></div>
Ratbert,
Can I get a 5.55 mil base to-go with those pancakes.....Please
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me know if this still seems like quite the stroke of genius once the bong is empty and you sober up a little. I bet some pancakes sound really good right now.
</div></div>
Ratbert,
Can I get a 5.55 mil base to-go with those pancakes.....Please
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
Scopes have Variance. Receivers have Variance. Loads have variance.
I haven't seen a base that when mounted required exactly 20 MOA of up elevation to perfectly zero a rifle.
Even my USO which is setup for a 20 MOA base from the factory require a few tenths of a mil of adjustment to zero.
In the end it would require that manufacturers spend money to do something that has no benefit to the shooter.
Scopes have Variance. Receivers have Variance. Loads have variance.
I haven't seen a base that when mounted required exactly 20 MOA of up elevation to perfectly zero a rifle.
Even my USO which is setup for a 20 MOA base from the factory require a few tenths of a mil of adjustment to zero.
In the end it would require that manufacturers spend money to do something that has no benefit to the shooter.
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
All of my mil/mil scopes are sitting on 5.8 mil angled bases.
All of my mil/mil scopes are sitting on 5.8 mil angled bases.
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me know if this still seems like quite the stroke of genius once the bong is empty and you sober up a little. I bet some pancakes sound really good right now.
</div></div>
You know as well as I do that if they made them, there would be a bunch of people that would sell their 20 MOA bases and buy the new 5 mil variety so everything would match. This really might be genius... marketing genius.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me know if this still seems like quite the stroke of genius once the bong is empty and you sober up a little. I bet some pancakes sound really good right now.
</div></div>
You know as well as I do that if they made them, there would be a bunch of people that would sell their 20 MOA bases and buy the new 5 mil variety so everything would match. This really might be genius... marketing genius.
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
well now that i have had a little more sleep, 4 hours doesn't cut it anymore. (i haven't been on a normal sleep schedual since i got back from afghanistan) i can see why nobody has made the bases in mils yet. now as far as marketing i'm pretty sure that a lot of people would come flocking... damn i knew i should have sold the marketing ploy to a company and got some of the profit. oh well. mr. ratbert no i'm not high, or drunk for that matter i was just a little tired, and the wife tends to look at me funny when i express ideas aloud to myself. (if only i had a large pool of people who share my intrests in firearms, that i could openly air the ideas i have that pop into my head) and as far as the math wizard that posted above: i was close, hell at 4 o'clock in the morning i have trouble using the toilet let alone a calculator.
well now that i have had a little more sleep, 4 hours doesn't cut it anymore. (i haven't been on a normal sleep schedual since i got back from afghanistan) i can see why nobody has made the bases in mils yet. now as far as marketing i'm pretty sure that a lot of people would come flocking... damn i knew i should have sold the marketing ploy to a company and got some of the profit. oh well. mr. ratbert no i'm not high, or drunk for that matter i was just a little tired, and the wife tends to look at me funny when i express ideas aloud to myself. (if only i had a large pool of people who share my intrests in firearms, that i could openly air the ideas i have that pop into my head) and as far as the math wizard that posted above: i was close, hell at 4 o'clock in the morning i have trouble using the toilet let alone a calculator.
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about it
meh, I think we've all posted some pretty dumb ass stuff @ 4am. I know I have. And 4 pm, 5pm, 6pm...
meh, I think we've all posted some pretty dumb ass stuff @ 4am. I know I have. And 4 pm, 5pm, 6pm...
Re: I'm pretty sure someone else is thinking about
Kahlendrrari: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a 6 mil base would be really close to a 20 MO base.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CANAVAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Be sure to check your math... 1 mil = 3.43775 moa or rounded 3.438 moa or 3.6 inches at 100yrds </div></div>
Canavar, I'de say you need to check your understanding of English.
Rath
Kahlendrrari: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a 6 mil base would be really close to a 20 MO base.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CANAVAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Be sure to check your math... 1 mil = 3.43775 moa or rounded 3.438 moa or 3.6 inches at 100yrds </div></div>
Canavar, I'de say you need to check your understanding of English.
Rath
