Rifle Scopes Recomend a scope and reticle
- Thread starter Ferryman
- Start date
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
We need more info. What distance is long range for you? will you be shooting known distance or tactical? The more we know the better when can help.
We need more info. What distance is long range for you? will you be shooting known distance or tactical? The more we know the better when can help.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
Hi Longshot.
It will be mainly known distance as there is not much oportunity for tactical here in UK.
Bisley we can stretch anywhere out to 1000yds
Calibre 300WM
All of my hunting has been with duplex reticles
Hi Longshot.
It will be mainly known distance as there is not much oportunity for tactical here in UK.
Bisley we can stretch anywhere out to 1000yds
Calibre 300WM
All of my hunting has been with duplex reticles
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
6.5x284 or 260
Nightforce 5.5x22x50 NP-R1 if you think in MOA
MLR/MIL if you think in MIL.
Good luck.
6.5x284 or 260
Nightforce 5.5x22x50 NP-R1 if you think in MOA
MLR/MIL if you think in MIL.
Good luck.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
I'm happy with my Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50 MIL/MIL. It proved itself at the latest PSR class.
I'm happy with my Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50 MIL/MIL. It proved itself at the latest PSR class.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
Well depends on your application.
But the Nightforce 5.5-22x56 with an NP-R1 I see as the perfect "all around" scope.
Well depends on your application.
But the Nightforce 5.5-22x56 with an NP-R1 I see as the perfect "all around" scope.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
Your from the UK, don't fuck around with MOA, while MilRads are not metric they do IMHO lend themselfs more easilly to your system of measurements, I say this because 1 mil is 1/1000 of any unit you desire to give it, and .1 milrad is 1/10000 and so on, kinda sounds like the metric system doesn't it, but it's not, Nightforce 5.5-22x56 with MLR reticle and .1milrad knobs would be my choice, or maybe increase your budget and go Hensoldt.
Your from the UK, don't fuck around with MOA, while MilRads are not metric they do IMHO lend themselfs more easilly to your system of measurements, I say this because 1 mil is 1/1000 of any unit you desire to give it, and .1 milrad is 1/10000 and so on, kinda sounds like the metric system doesn't it, but it's not, Nightforce 5.5-22x56 with MLR reticle and .1milrad knobs would be my choice, or maybe increase your budget and go Hensoldt.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
Here is what I settled on
Here is my build spec.
USO
SN3 3.2 -17 X44 withAdjustable objective
Elevation: EREK 1/10 Mil
Windage: 1/10 Mil
Tube: 30mm
Reticle: Mil-Scale GAP
Finish: Matte Black
Eypiece Standard Option
Housing
Eyepiece: Rapid Focus
Here is what I settled on
Here is my build spec.
USO
SN3 3.2 -17 X44 withAdjustable objective
Elevation: EREK 1/10 Mil
Windage: 1/10 Mil
Tube: 30mm
Reticle: Mil-Scale GAP
Finish: Matte Black
Eypiece Standard Option
Housing
Eyepiece: Rapid Focus
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
MILRAD is <span style="text-decoration: underline">so</span> much more convenient to use - when combined with metric measurements. IMHO MILRAD doesn't help much if you measure in inches, feet and yards (and miles). It makes a ton of difference when you measure in centimeters, meters and kilometers.
MILRAD is <span style="text-decoration: underline">so</span> much more convenient to use - when combined with metric measurements. IMHO MILRAD doesn't help much if you measure in inches, feet and yards (and miles). It makes a ton of difference when you measure in centimeters, meters and kilometers.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
Hogwash.
There are no such things as "metric" scopes, and there is nothing "metric" about mils.
Milliradians, MOA and IPHY (inches per hundred yards) are measurements of <span style="font-weight: bold">angle</span> which have <span style="font-weight: bold">nothing</span> whatsoever to do with any system of linear measure.
There are two times Pi radians in a circle, and a milliradian is simply one-thousands of a radian.
One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.
In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).
It has nothing to do with any English or Metric system of linear measure.
Hogwash.
There are no such things as "metric" scopes, and there is nothing "metric" about mils.
Milliradians, MOA and IPHY (inches per hundred yards) are measurements of <span style="font-weight: bold">angle</span> which have <span style="font-weight: bold">nothing</span> whatsoever to do with any system of linear measure.
There are two times Pi radians in a circle, and a milliradian is simply one-thousands of a radian.
One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.
In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).
It has nothing to do with any English or Metric system of linear measure.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ferryman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is what I settled on
Here is my build spec.
USO
SN3 3.2 -17 X44 withAdjustable objective
Elevation: EREK 1/10 Mil
Windage: 1/10 Mil
Tube: 30mm
Reticle: Mil-Scale GAP
Finish: Matte Black
Eypiece Standard Option
Housing
Eyepiece: Rapid Focus
</div></div>
Ah, great choice, I have pretty much the same thing but in Mil Scale Canadian. I love it and wouldn't trade it for anything.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ferryman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is what I settled on
Here is my build spec.
USO
SN3 3.2 -17 X44 withAdjustable objective
Elevation: EREK 1/10 Mil
Windage: 1/10 Mil
Tube: 30mm
Reticle: Mil-Scale GAP
Finish: Matte Black
Eypiece Standard Option
Housing
Eyepiece: Rapid Focus
</div></div>
Ah, great choice, I have pretty much the same thing but in Mil Scale Canadian. I love it and wouldn't trade it for anything.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
Lindy,
The point is <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> whether the <span style="text-decoration: underline">scope</span> is metric or not - because (as you say) of course it isn't. The point is that using one system of angular measurements (MILRAD) <span style="text-decoration: underline">together</span> with one system of distance measurements (metric) makes calculations much simpler as your formulas degenerate (mostly) to adding or removing zeroes (and the step of converting stupid feet, inches, yards, etc. into each other is eliminated).
Again, as long as you use metrics - your unit conversion between distance to target, target size and bullet drop is trivial (add or remove zeroes). Using imperial - it requires calculations and formulas (at least for me, as I did not grow up with this weird system).
One way to carry over this MILRAD advantage to Imperial would be to measure <span style="text-decoration: underline">everything</span> in (for example) yards - bullet drop, target size and distance to target. The only way it's done now - AFAIK - is by converting units on the spot before plugging value in.
Lindy,
The point is <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> whether the <span style="text-decoration: underline">scope</span> is metric or not - because (as you say) of course it isn't. The point is that using one system of angular measurements (MILRAD) <span style="text-decoration: underline">together</span> with one system of distance measurements (metric) makes calculations much simpler as your formulas degenerate (mostly) to adding or removing zeroes (and the step of converting stupid feet, inches, yards, etc. into each other is eliminated).
Again, as long as you use metrics - your unit conversion between distance to target, target size and bullet drop is trivial (add or remove zeroes). Using imperial - it requires calculations and formulas (at least for me, as I did not grow up with this weird system).
One way to carry over this MILRAD advantage to Imperial would be to measure <span style="text-decoration: underline">everything</span> in (for example) yards - bullet drop, target size and distance to target. The only way it's done now - AFAIK - is by converting units on the spot before plugging value in.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
Where's my buttered popcorn? We did make it to the moon on the imperial system,so I would not exactly call it stupid. Its what works for you.
Where's my buttered popcorn? We did make it to the moon on the imperial system,so I would not exactly call it stupid. Its what works for you.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mouse07410</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lindy,
The point is <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> whether the <span style="text-decoration: underline">scope</span> is metric or not - because (as you say) of course it isn't. The point is that using one system of angular measurements (MILRAD) <span style="text-decoration: underline">together</span> with one system of distance measurements (metric) makes calculations much simpler as your formulas degenerate (mostly) to adding or removing zeroes (and the step of converting stupid feet, inches, yards, etc. into each other is eliminated).
Again, as long as you use metrics - your unit conversion between distance to target, target size and bullet drop is trivial (add or remove zeroes). Using imperial - it requires calculations and formulas (at least for me, as I did not grow up with this weird system).
One way to carry over this MILRAD advantage to Imperial would be to measure <span style="text-decoration: underline">everything</span> in (for example) yards - bullet drop, target size and distance to target. The only way it's done now - AFAIK - is by converting units on the spot before plugging value in.</div></div>
You don't know how to drive a scope... there is no calculation and there is no difference between doing it in meters or yards... Only in "ranging" is there a calculation, in anything there is not. What you see is what you get.
Dope is dope, and it doesn't matter if you dope it for yards or meters... this has been discussed at nausea-um.
If you have a target, and I don't care how big it is, at 500m, you use your dope in mils... if you have a target at 500 yards you use you dope in mils. if you are confusing ranging with shooting -- well i can't help you there, use a mil dot master, or ranging card with no math required, or you can try and argue about math on the fly using centimeters and inches, where yes, you can just move the zero around... but proper prior planning prevents any of that from being necessary.
However engaging the target is about the rifle's dope, which doesn't care if you shoot yards or meters... follow up shots require no calculations only reading of the reticle. If you see a spotter on the target .3 mils low of center you simply dial .3 mils up, if the wind puts your spotter .4 mils left of center you simply dial .4 mils right, where is the math ? Cause I don't use any ?
There is no need for any linear conversion with a Mil / Mil scope, it becomes unnecessary to think in such terms. Tell me where in the shooting process with a mil / mil scope am I required to think in "inches" or do any calculations ?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mouse07410</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lindy,
The point is <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> whether the <span style="text-decoration: underline">scope</span> is metric or not - because (as you say) of course it isn't. The point is that using one system of angular measurements (MILRAD) <span style="text-decoration: underline">together</span> with one system of distance measurements (metric) makes calculations much simpler as your formulas degenerate (mostly) to adding or removing zeroes (and the step of converting stupid feet, inches, yards, etc. into each other is eliminated).
Again, as long as you use metrics - your unit conversion between distance to target, target size and bullet drop is trivial (add or remove zeroes). Using imperial - it requires calculations and formulas (at least for me, as I did not grow up with this weird system).
One way to carry over this MILRAD advantage to Imperial would be to measure <span style="text-decoration: underline">everything</span> in (for example) yards - bullet drop, target size and distance to target. The only way it's done now - AFAIK - is by converting units on the spot before plugging value in.</div></div>
You don't know how to drive a scope... there is no calculation and there is no difference between doing it in meters or yards... Only in "ranging" is there a calculation, in anything there is not. What you see is what you get.
Dope is dope, and it doesn't matter if you dope it for yards or meters... this has been discussed at nausea-um.
If you have a target, and I don't care how big it is, at 500m, you use your dope in mils... if you have a target at 500 yards you use you dope in mils. if you are confusing ranging with shooting -- well i can't help you there, use a mil dot master, or ranging card with no math required, or you can try and argue about math on the fly using centimeters and inches, where yes, you can just move the zero around... but proper prior planning prevents any of that from being necessary.
However engaging the target is about the rifle's dope, which doesn't care if you shoot yards or meters... follow up shots require no calculations only reading of the reticle. If you see a spotter on the target .3 mils low of center you simply dial .3 mils up, if the wind puts your spotter .4 mils left of center you simply dial .4 mils right, where is the math ? Cause I don't use any ?
There is no need for any linear conversion with a Mil / Mil scope, it becomes unnecessary to think in such terms. Tell me where in the shooting process with a mil / mil scope am I required to think in "inches" or do any calculations ?
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
You should be able to get in to a USO sn3 or Premier 3-15 for 2k if you look around in the classifieds. On the other hand what make it so difficult for people's tiny brains to under stand two different measurement systems? It really is not that hard and neither have anything to do with MOA/Mil.
You should be able to get in to a USO sn3 or Premier 3-15 for 2k if you look around in the classifieds. On the other hand what make it so difficult for people's tiny brains to under stand two different measurement systems? It really is not that hard and neither have anything to do with MOA/Mil.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
I shoot both MIL and MOA scopes. I like them both.
As already stated, MILs and MOAs/IPHYs are units of ANGULAR measurement. They are not METRIC vs IMPERIAL, therefore neither are the scopes. We often think of them that way because of where we are from and what LINEAR method of measurement we use or were trained to use.
Naturally, as a beginner, it will absolutely be easier for someone acquainted with the metric system to use MILs and likewise someone who is acquainted with the imperial system to use MOA/IPHY because in the users mind they are inadvertently converting a MIL to a centimeter per 100 meters or a MOA/IPHY to an inch per 100 yards. They think "I need to raise my shot XX centimeters/inches" and then dial it in.
Proper training will educate a shooter that this is simply not the case. I MIL is not a centimeter and a MOA is certainly not a inch.
But, in the long run, even imperial system based thinkers will benefit from a MIL/MIL setup simply because of the simplicity of the mathematics involved.
YMMV.
I shoot both MIL and MOA scopes. I like them both.
As already stated, MILs and MOAs/IPHYs are units of ANGULAR measurement. They are not METRIC vs IMPERIAL, therefore neither are the scopes. We often think of them that way because of where we are from and what LINEAR method of measurement we use or were trained to use.
Naturally, as a beginner, it will absolutely be easier for someone acquainted with the metric system to use MILs and likewise someone who is acquainted with the imperial system to use MOA/IPHY because in the users mind they are inadvertently converting a MIL to a centimeter per 100 meters or a MOA/IPHY to an inch per 100 yards. They think "I need to raise my shot XX centimeters/inches" and then dial it in.
Proper training will educate a shooter that this is simply not the case. I MIL is not a centimeter and a MOA is certainly not a inch.
But, in the long run, even imperial system based thinkers will benefit from a MIL/MIL setup simply because of the simplicity of the mathematics involved.
YMMV.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We did make it to the moon on the imperial system</div></div>
It's not about possibility (though I could list a few expensive sparecraft crashes because of software errors) - it's about practicality. For example you can probably learn to shoot standing on your head or something, but most prefer simple and nice prone position.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you are confusing ranging with shooting -- well i can't help you there</div></div>
Lowlight, I'm not confusing the two - I just don't see how (in most cases) you can do one (shooting) without the other (ranging). It seems obvious that the less math you need to do - the easier it is to make error-free calculations, and you can hardly beat multiplying and dividing by 10.
Are you guys arguing that it's <span style="text-decoration: underline">possible</span> to use Imperial system with MILRAD scopes (for <span style="text-decoration: underline">ranging and</span> shooting)? We all know that it is done. Are you trying to prove that it's as convenient as using metric? In that case we'll agree to disagree (and I'd give you benefit of the doubt of having no experience with metric
).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We did make it to the moon on the imperial system</div></div>
It's not about possibility (though I could list a few expensive sparecraft crashes because of software errors) - it's about practicality. For example you can probably learn to shoot standing on your head or something, but most prefer simple and nice prone position.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you are confusing ranging with shooting -- well i can't help you there</div></div>
Lowlight, I'm not confusing the two - I just don't see how (in most cases) you can do one (shooting) without the other (ranging). It seems obvious that the less math you need to do - the easier it is to make error-free calculations, and you can hardly beat multiplying and dividing by 10.
Are you guys arguing that it's <span style="text-decoration: underline">possible</span> to use Imperial system with MILRAD scopes (for <span style="text-decoration: underline">ranging and</span> shooting)? We all know that it is done. Are you trying to prove that it's as convenient as using metric? In that case we'll agree to disagree (and I'd give you benefit of the doubt of having no experience with metric
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you trying to prove that it's as convenient as using metric?</div></div>
Of course it is.
The general form of the ranging equation is:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>
target size * constant
distance = ----------------------
image size
</pre></div></div>
It doesn't matter what units the distance is in, or the target size is in. In fact, it's perfectly OK to mix those units, as in target size in inches and distance in meters.
All that changes is the constant. And here they are, if you need some:
Ranging Formulas
The image size is mostly going to be a number with a decimal fraction anyway, so it doesn't matter what the other numbers are. And, if you're smart, you're going to use a Mildot Master to do the calculation anyway.
So, it makes no difference whether the units are metric, imperial, or something made up for the purpose like IPHY. It's all the same.
Q.E.D.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you trying to prove that it's as convenient as using metric?</div></div>
Of course it is.
The general form of the ranging equation is:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>
target size * constant
distance = ----------------------
image size
</pre></div></div>
It doesn't matter what units the distance is in, or the target size is in. In fact, it's perfectly OK to mix those units, as in target size in inches and distance in meters.
All that changes is the constant. And here they are, if you need some:
Ranging Formulas
The image size is mostly going to be a number with a decimal fraction anyway, so it doesn't matter what the other numbers are. And, if you're smart, you're going to use a Mildot Master to do the calculation anyway.
So, it makes no difference whether the units are metric, imperial, or something made up for the purpose like IPHY. It's all the same.
Q.E.D.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
Lindy, you have a point (as usually
). Thanks for putting the formulas neatly together.
Lindy, you have a point (as usually
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TrooperBrian</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well depends on your application.
But the Nightforce 5.5-22x56 with an NP-R1 I see as the perfect "all around" scope. </div></div>
1+, Have to agree that NXS 5.5-22x56 NP-R1, is as close to the "perfect" scope within my price range and for my applications.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TrooperBrian</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well depends on your application.
But the Nightforce 5.5-22x56 with an NP-R1 I see as the perfect "all around" scope. </div></div>
1+, Have to agree that NXS 5.5-22x56 NP-R1, is as close to the "perfect" scope within my price range and for my applications.
Re: Recomend a scope and reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ferryman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK order is in with USO the only thing I changed was the tube diameter from 30mm to 35mm
Now I need to choose rings and base, again Rem 700 LH Action
Calibre 300WM </div></div>
Seekins or USO for Rings - I have Seekins Rings on a 35mm tube USO and USO Rings on a 34mm USO, both SN3. The Seekins rings are nice and clean with nothing exposed to snag. Either will serve you well. I don't have any Long Actions so can't speak to that specifically, however I like Badger Bases, have several and they are spot on. You selected a fine optic, I have one with almost the exact same specs, don't skimp on mounting. Well given that 35mm rings are only made by a select few, kind of hard to skimp on those. IOR makes them as well but I haven't used them.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ferryman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK order is in with USO the only thing I changed was the tube diameter from 30mm to 35mm
Now I need to choose rings and base, again Rem 700 LH Action
Calibre 300WM </div></div>
Seekins or USO for Rings - I have Seekins Rings on a 35mm tube USO and USO Rings on a 34mm USO, both SN3. The Seekins rings are nice and clean with nothing exposed to snag. Either will serve you well. I don't have any Long Actions so can't speak to that specifically, however I like Badger Bases, have several and they are spot on. You selected a fine optic, I have one with almost the exact same specs, don't skimp on mounting. Well given that 35mm rings are only made by a select few, kind of hard to skimp on those. IOR makes them as well but I haven't used them.
Similar threads
