Does anybody by chance know how many MOA a Leupold varmint rretical has between the vertical lines at 20 power..Thanks Guys...
Rifle Scopes Leupolds varmint retical
- Thread starter summitsitter
- Start date
Re: Leupolds varmint retical
Okay since no one seems to know let me ask if this would work.
Place a .10" ruler at exactly 100yards. Then look thru the scope to tell how many MOA each line was. Would this work for at least get me pretty close???
Okay since no one seems to know let me ask if this would work.
Place a .10" ruler at exactly 100yards. Then look thru the scope to tell how many MOA each line was. Would this work for at least get me pretty close???
Re: Leupolds varmint retical
Should work just fine! I have one of those around that I have not gotten a chance to do it. Keep me posted if you get any data.
Should work just fine! I have one of those around that I have not gotten a chance to do it. Keep me posted if you get any data.
Re: Leupolds varmint retical
Thanks guys..i'll keep you posted. One more question..Is there any formula to figure out if I know the 2nd line is 1.8 MOA on 20x how much is it on say 10x..Would it be double?
Thanks guys..i'll keep you posted. One more question..Is there any formula to figure out if I know the 2nd line is 1.8 MOA on 20x how much is it on say 10x..Would it be double?
Re: Leupolds varmint retical
Double is correct. The field of view is larger, which the reticle stays the same size, so the same angle on the reticle covers more distance.
Note, however, that the power rings are often not accurately marked, so you'll want to check that yourself.
Double is correct. The field of view is larger, which the reticle stays the same size, so the same angle on the reticle covers more distance.
Note, however, that the power rings are often not accurately marked, so you'll want to check that yourself.
Re: Leupolds varmint retical
So in theory if the power rings were correct. If I knew the MOA at 14x then I could figure the MOA on 20x. It would be 14x MOA divided by .7 correct
So in theory if the power rings were correct. If I knew the MOA at 14x then I could figure the MOA on 20x. It would be 14x MOA divided by .7 correct
Re: Leupolds varmint retical
No. Now you're going from a larger field of view to a smaller one.
Dividing by a number less than one gives you a bigger number, but your field of view is getting smaller, so the reticle covers less distance.
Multiply by 0.7.
Look, if you're really shooting varmints with a second focal-plane scope, trying to do so using holdovers at various powers is way too hard. You're going to miss a lot.
My recommendation is to get a laser rangefinder. Dial the elevation. Or buy a first focal-plane scope.
Notice my sig. It's there because I'm over 60 years old, and I have a lot of experience trying to do things the hard way. I suggest that you learn from my experience.
No. Now you're going from a larger field of view to a smaller one.
Dividing by a number less than one gives you a bigger number, but your field of view is getting smaller, so the reticle covers less distance.
Multiply by 0.7.
Look, if you're really shooting varmints with a second focal-plane scope, trying to do so using holdovers at various powers is way too hard. You're going to miss a lot.
My recommendation is to get a laser rangefinder. Dial the elevation. Or buy a first focal-plane scope.
Notice my sig. It's there because I'm over 60 years old, and I have a lot of experience trying to do things the hard way. I suggest that you learn from my experience.
Re: Leupolds varmint retical
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have a lot of experience trying to do things the hard way.</div></div>
That's hilarious Lindy
You have a good sense of humor,cracked me up! It's the best way to learn though aye.
Edit to say " not the most efficient though"
steve
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have a lot of experience trying to do things the hard way.</div></div>
That's hilarious Lindy
Edit to say " not the most efficient though"
steve
