What is the minimum magnification you would require for ELR or PRS and what turrets do you prefer? (Mil or MOA)
Thanks, because I'm curious.
Migs
Thanks, because I'm curious.
Migs
- Thread starter ceruleanblue
- Start date
Sorry, it sounds like fun! A poll if you will. Speak up about the magnification too
There’s tons of mil vs MOA threads. They will always turn into a shit show just a heads up
But on a serious note,
If you want to play in prs just go Mils. That’s the standard there and you’ll be happier being able to communicate with other shooters. Among other benefits
As far as optics go 5-25 or 7-35 will be adequate. The 7-35 ATACR is one of the more popular options. The ZCO 527 etc are another. Most times shooting you’ll play in the 15-20x range. Also keep the scope internal adjustment range in mine for ELR when selecting an optic
But on a serious note,
If you want to play in prs just go Mils. That’s the standard there and you’ll be happier being able to communicate with other shooters. Among other benefits
As far as optics go 5-25 or 7-35 will be adequate. The 7-35 ATACR is one of the more popular options. The ZCO 527 etc are another. Most times shooting you’ll play in the 15-20x range. Also keep the scope internal adjustment range in mine for ELR when selecting an optic
Perfect answer. Thank you. An aside: Why would you not use 25x or 35x in ELR (and stay in the 20x range)?
I edited that. I stay in 15-20 for general shooting. The way out there ELR guys can add their suggestions. Mostly my magnification use comes down to,
1) Mirage- I’ll crank the power to read mirage but shoot on lower power for better clarity
2) With the recoil of the rifle I like to keep the scope backed off slightly to have a larger field of view to spot misses so I can correct for follow up shots
I’ve shot out past a mile a few times which I consider decent range. But in today’s world ELR is well beyond that now. I’m assuming the field of view wouldn’t be so much an issue as seeing impacts through the scope at very long distances can be a challenge anyways.
So the mirage on that particular day would have an effect on what magnification I can run
For fclass (1,000 yard) we start off the morning on 45-55 power. By noon your shooting sometimes (same target/distance) on 15 power due to heavy mirage
Mirage is more of a pain to deal with at high zoom.
Can you put a shingle over your barrel to mitigate?
Unless you are shooting a rapid string of 15 to 20 rounds as in F class mirage shield is really not necessary. Personally I prefer mils and all of my precision rifles are mil. Shooting with a spotter its much easier to call corrections in mils v MOA IMHO. In shooting ELR rarely dialed up to max power either due to mirage or observing impacts.
We use mirage shields for fclass but that only helps with the barrel heat that causes mirage from the 22+ strings of fire
The mirage we’re referring to is coming off the earths surface the entire distance between you and the target
It’s a tool to read the wind and easier to do with high magnification but the target gets very distorted causing you to back off the magnification for the shot
Hi,
Mirage is more of a pain to deal with in MOA scopes or MIL scopes?
Sincerely,
Theis
@Dthomas3523 or @MarinePMI can we get this thread moved to the bear pit where it belongs?
My professional opinion is that everything is more of a pain to deal with in MOA, unless it’s both MOA and SFP at known distance
Above what cross wind speed do you make a correction? What caliber are you shooting? What distance? - Thank you.
One of the people here said most communication is easier in MILs in ELR or PRS competitionMy professional opinion is that everything is more of a pain to deal with in MOA, unless it’s both MOA and SFP at known distance
This isn't a fight. Just friendly banter and advice from folks more experienced than I.
120x an my scope has MIF (Minute of Frank) units.
They are very tiny units and you can fit a lot of them in every revolution.
They are very tiny units and you can fit a lot of them in every revolution.
jejeje Sounds like the infamous Micro Radian (microradian (μrad) is a millionth of a radian)
Yes, this is accurate. The benchrest world is still using SFP/MOA for the most part - reticle subtensions don’t matter since you know exactly how much to dial based on where you are on paper, and it’s mostly “legacy shooters”.
Personally, with the sole exception of a point-and-shoot lever gun with a maximum effective range below 150yd, I won’t buy another scope that isn’t FFP/MRAD. With said lever gun, the lightest 1-6 with a bright red dot happens to be a SFP Leupold without any reticle details that happens to dial in MOA, which I don’t expect to deal with ever again once I’m sighted in.
Personally I shoot usIng MOA. They’re just different angles of measurement and both can be used with the same level of success
I’ve also used mils and the same concept applied
The only competition i shoot is fclass and that’s all MOA users there for various reasons. The other shooting I do is steel and hunting. Mainly shooting deer for farmers on issued crop permits.
For me MOA works great. It’s what I’m familiar with and most importantly the other guys I shoot with for steel, hunting and comps all run MOA and many use optics like Sightron SIII that were around before mil was popular.
However since you plan to shoot prs competition the majority of shooters there shoot in mils which is why I suggested that earlier. Better communication and if your new to the sport the system of 10 with mils is easier to use and make wind calls vs the MOA
If I had any indication I’d shoot prs in my future I would convert to MIL. How I currently shoot I wouldn’t gain anything on my end converting now and would just make calling shots for the other shooters a bit more of a task. Not that it can’t be done. I also know everyone I shoot with here isn’t going to spend the money to convert over when they’re happy with what they have
I’ve also used mils and the same concept applied
The only competition i shoot is fclass and that’s all MOA users there for various reasons. The other shooting I do is steel and hunting. Mainly shooting deer for farmers on issued crop permits.
For me MOA works great. It’s what I’m familiar with and most importantly the other guys I shoot with for steel, hunting and comps all run MOA and many use optics like Sightron SIII that were around before mil was popular.
However since you plan to shoot prs competition the majority of shooters there shoot in mils which is why I suggested that earlier. Better communication and if your new to the sport the system of 10 with mils is easier to use and make wind calls vs the MOA
If I had any indication I’d shoot prs in my future I would convert to MIL. How I currently shoot I wouldn’t gain anything on my end converting now and would just make calling shots for the other shooters a bit more of a task. Not that it can’t be done. I also know everyone I shoot with here isn’t going to spend the money to convert over when they’re happy with what they have
Last edited:
i thought it was because f-class target markings were in moa, thats why moa optics were used. if the targets were marked in mil then mil optics would apply. is there another reason?
F class is just a subset of NRA long range and mid range prone competition. A discipline that is over a century old. That's why MOA is used.
People that shoot moa have this innate sense that it is their duty to make sure you do complicated math formulas to detect inches of drop at a known distance target all the while they spew words like “angular measurements”and degrees per hundred yards etc etc. whereas people that shoot mill usually just speak in mills. Yes. Just mills. I can’t explain why moa shooters do this but they do and they turn everything into a mathmatical equation and they give me a headache. Mill shooters do not act like this although they could they don’t.
I reccomend you learn moa well enough to confuse the shit out of new shooters; to the point they say fuck this I quit, and you get to buy all their new shiny gear.
I reccomend you learn moa well enough to confuse the shit out of new shooters; to the point they say fuck this I quit, and you get to buy all their new shiny gear.
Last edited:
but its their targets that are measured in moa where by using any other measurement makes no sense to make corrections right?
and just did a bit of reading about f-class, fuck that, too confusing. i don't like that game, i'm happy to stick with the game played in mils.
My groups are small in MIL.
.1 groups very common
Yes the fclass target rings are based on MOA
As @308pirate once said
“Neither system is better than the other. Milliradians are not metric and minutes of angle aren't imperial.
Use whichever you like. People who know how to shoot know how to use both.”
Finding any NRA rifle discipline confusing says nothing good about you.
That shit is about as simple as it gets: lay down and shoot the same fucking huge target 20 times over trying to keep all your shots in the center.
If that's difficult to understand, I can't imagine what it would take to make it easy for you.
FIFY
I shot NRA/CMP service rifle for years before I ever knew what a milliradian was or that some shooters used it for dope.
Never once in those many years did I wonder about drop or windage in anything other than MOA. I memorized the size of the scoring rings from X to 7 of the NRA rifle bullseye targets in MOA, so that regardless of the yardline I could make windage or elevation corrections without thinking (or doing math) as soon as I could look at the target through my spotter. Even the target plots in every service rifle data book I ever saw or bought was in MOA.
Enough of the exaggerations and generalizations.
It is truly amazing the amount people can over complicate this. At one point I owned and shot both MOA and MIL. I truly never felt like I couldn’t accomplish my task better with one or the other. I stuck with MOA for communication with other shooters
If your new to LR shooting and not currently sitting on a stash of MOA scopes then go MIL
Here’s why,
1) If you plan to shoot PRS they use MILS
2) If you plan to frequent SH most here use MILS. (Communication)
3) If you plan to attend one of Frank’s courses he suggests MILS and the wind etc they use read/teach is done in mils and converted to MOA if you need it
4) If you like a reticle better that is MILS than the MOA counterpart
5) The used options in the px here are heavy to the MIL side. So it’s easier to find used optics in MIL vs MOA. Likewise it seems MOA optics go a bit cheaper because they don’t seem to be as popular here
6) A system of 10 is easier to learn on. Your wind calls inside 600 will be easier to compute with mils
If your new to LR shooting and not currently sitting on a stash of MOA scopes then go MIL
Here’s why,
1) If you plan to shoot PRS they use MILS
2) If you plan to frequent SH most here use MILS. (Communication)
3) If you plan to attend one of Frank’s courses he suggests MILS and the wind etc they use read/teach is done in mils and converted to MOA if you need it
4) If you like a reticle better that is MILS than the MOA counterpart
5) The used options in the px here are heavy to the MIL side. So it’s easier to find used optics in MIL vs MOA. Likewise it seems MOA optics go a bit cheaper because they don’t seem to be as popular here
6) A system of 10 is easier to learn on. Your wind calls inside 600 will be easier to compute with mils
Last edited:
Good Summary -Thank you
Elr matches are pretty split moa/mil. I run almost all the time at 25x even in heavy mirage.
Good t
Good to know. Ever wanted more magnification? Say 35x?
thank you for the free lesson on mils vs moa, are your arms long enough to give yourself a pat oh the back, asking for a friend?
what i read was a few years old, but did i read the wrong rules as they're a little longer than your simplified reply?
maybe ask if you can write the rules if all you do is lay down and shoot 20 times at a huge target?
would save so much time reading through 30 pages when one can just read one line.
40x's is my favorite mag , I have hardly had to change it used it at 100 yards used out to 1k so far its wonderful I have tried everything from 5 to 50 but 40 is my favorite the view is wonderful from mount Olympus from seeing my hits and misses to seeing others hits and misses . Good luck with what ever you decide to get .
Sorry brah, I don't have time to spoon feed anyone
Sports have rulebooks. Maybe PRS is more your speed.
maybe prs is the way i lean...
Like my dad used to say "No fights boys!"
Run a "CounterSniper"
They were a mil contract over run scope. Export may be limited but the only way to get one is through import...
I think they had both a MIL and an MOA reticle in there.
www.opticsplanet.com
They can survive being shot by someone you are standing on top of....
Im joking......kind of.
They were a mil contract over run scope. Export may be limited but the only way to get one is through import...
I think they had both a MIL and an MOA reticle in there.
Counter Sniper Optics 3-12x50mm Tactical Rifle Scope DOH319
Shop Counter Sniper Optics 3-12x50mm Tactical Rifle Scope | 4 Star Rating on 1 Review for Counter Sniper Optics 3-12x50mm Tactical Rifle Scope + Free Shipping over $49.
www.opticsplanet.com They can survive being shot by someone you are standing on top of....
Im joking......kind of.
Last edited:
When I first joined here I was researching to get a "precision" rifle.
My antiques heavy gun shop came in with a savage 10 or something like that with a CS scope.
I had no clue about shit but I asked a question about the scope/rifle combo here.
Someone quietly PM'd me and said to delete the entire post quickly or I would be forever psychologically scarred for having asked the question.
To you now long forgotten PM guy I still owe you thanks........
I'm using MOA/SFP scopes and have run a Vortex Crossfire II 6-24X50, and Athlon Argos BTR 10-40X56 Gen 2, and now I'm running a Vortex Golden Eagle 15-60X52. I have shot out to a mile and pretty much know my distances at all times....I do not compete in F class nor PRS. Personally I like as much magnification as I can get and run the Vortex GE between 40 and 60X all the time.
It depends on what you want to do with your shooting and whether yer shooting for teeny groups on paper or banging steel at 1000 yards. There is not a one size fits all. I basically bought my glass for the reticles and magnification. I use MOA because my turrets are calibrated in MOA as is the reticle. If I ever see a scope I like better than my GE and decide to change I'll start running FFP and Mils if that scope is calibrated to do that. It doesn't matter to me as long as I hit what I want to and can see it.
VooDoo
It depends on what you want to do with your shooting and whether yer shooting for teeny groups on paper or banging steel at 1000 yards. There is not a one size fits all. I basically bought my glass for the reticles and magnification. I use MOA because my turrets are calibrated in MOA as is the reticle. If I ever see a scope I like better than my GE and decide to change I'll start running FFP and Mils if that scope is calibrated to do that. It doesn't matter to me as long as I hit what I want to and can see it.
VooDoo
When you want it low, 3X-4X is a min, 6X is more common. When you want it long you want a reasonable max, consistent with mirage, which is generally around 18X. Coming in closer, splitting the hair, more is better, mine goes to 32X; those desiring no Mil-Dots can get this, even more is available. By comparison, 3-9x40 is the deer hunter's 'standard'.
I shot 1000yd F Open for years with an El Cheapo Tasco 6-24X42 Varmint/Target scope; never let me down (I now own 3)
Very long distance and very high powers can be frustrating as air clarity (dust - sub micron) can rob you of a lot of clarity. We get a lot of that here in the AZ high desert.
Bear fully in mind that that sometimes, neither the rifle nor the shooter can shoot to the resolution that the higher magnifications provide, and that once beyond 100yd, the wind dominates accuracy.
Obviously, none of these scopes get endorsed around here very much, mainly because they are "horse crap". This translates to "cheap".
There is a psychological virus rampant on gun sites that inexpensive translates to cheap, and that cheap translates to horse crap. This may be true, but most of those who make such pronouncements have never even seen the inside of the boxes that the scopes I suggest arrive in. I've been shooting them for years. They do what I need them to do.
Are the expensive scopes better? Undoubtedly so. In many cases, better than the user's skills can justify. Start with a reasonably priced scope. Then work up. The cheap scope will find an equally good home on a 22lr, a trainer rifle, or sit in a spares box as an emergency replacement scope that can save your match for you.
Greg
I shot 1000yd F Open for years with an El Cheapo Tasco 6-24X42 Varmint/Target scope; never let me down (I now own 3)
Very long distance and very high powers can be frustrating as air clarity (dust - sub micron) can rob you of a lot of clarity. We get a lot of that here in the AZ high desert.
Bear fully in mind that that sometimes, neither the rifle nor the shooter can shoot to the resolution that the higher magnifications provide, and that once beyond 100yd, the wind dominates accuracy.
Obviously, none of these scopes get endorsed around here very much, mainly because they are "horse crap". This translates to "cheap".
There is a psychological virus rampant on gun sites that inexpensive translates to cheap, and that cheap translates to horse crap. This may be true, but most of those who make such pronouncements have never even seen the inside of the boxes that the scopes I suggest arrive in. I've been shooting them for years. They do what I need them to do.
Are the expensive scopes better? Undoubtedly so. In many cases, better than the user's skills can justify. Start with a reasonably priced scope. Then work up. The cheap scope will find an equally good home on a 22lr, a trainer rifle, or sit in a spares box as an emergency replacement scope that can save your match for you.
Greg
Last edited:
Thank you Greg for the extensive answer. I agree that low cost does not indicate poor performance. I shoot my hunter rifle in benchrest with a Tasco scope because of the weight restriction. (Can't find a 6x scope that is "high end" while lite at the same time. It works fine. My Athlon scope is relatively inexpensive and works VERY well. On another note, if my target is small and beyond 500 m then high magnification is necessary. Thanks again! -Migs
A lot of low cost scopes are indeed crap, much caution is necessary, and some investments never pan out.
Such is life.
I've been doing this stuff for going on 3 decades, getting started as a member of a Marine Corps League Detachment Pistol team, then moving up to start up and help coordinate 20+ such teams in NJ (in the 90's, it's a different state now). We introduced rifles and the programs took off like an interplanetary rocket. I had waited until my later 40's to get started, I had a family to raise first.
I did a lot of research in how to get the shooter onto the range and working on their skills for as small change as possible. A lot of mistakes got made (by one guy, this guy), and some gems were also unearthed. My post reflects both extremes. What flew got passed on up to the rest of the teams.
One often needs to walk into the wind, and catch some rain in the face. Such challenges draw benefit.
Unfortunately, the virus mentioned above has proven that the average competitive shooter cannot accept anything but the best, regardless of their personal skill levels, and they have demonstrated to the scope manufacturers and distributors that the low cost market really doesn't need to demand very much of their attention.
Are there lemons on the top shelf? Probably, but a lot less than on the lower shelf. But the trend is also to reduce the providers' interest in low shelf products, and they are drying up fast. Pretty soon there will only be junk on the low shelf, and the scopes I recommend will be history, many of them already are. The reps say there's little interest in the products, and they're right. The virus carriers have seen to that.
Nobody can tell you how to spend your money, and asking questions will get a lot of recommendations that favor the scope the poster owns themselves. Nothing wrong with that, it's exactly what I'm doing.
The only thing I'm doing differently is starting my searches on a lower shelf.
All I ask is that more folks try that, too.
Many will tell you that better shooting is expensive. It is, but is doesn't have to be that expensive, top shelf expensive.
There's a lot of gear out there that's top notch, champion shooter's expensive. A lot more than there are champions. Many of these folks will tell you that you're wasting your money on the lower shelf.
I'll tell you that some of them are wasting their money on the top shelf, and often a lot more money then you are. It takes more than money to win. Skills are also required, and they can't be bought. More expensive gear will help some, but only some.
I used to be a competitive shooter, but my competitive shooting is in the past. Age is the great equalizer, but it also the source of experience, and that can sometimes lead to wisdom.
Others will judge whether that's been my fate.
Greg
Such is life.
I've been doing this stuff for going on 3 decades, getting started as a member of a Marine Corps League Detachment Pistol team, then moving up to start up and help coordinate 20+ such teams in NJ (in the 90's, it's a different state now). We introduced rifles and the programs took off like an interplanetary rocket. I had waited until my later 40's to get started, I had a family to raise first.
I did a lot of research in how to get the shooter onto the range and working on their skills for as small change as possible. A lot of mistakes got made (by one guy, this guy), and some gems were also unearthed. My post reflects both extremes. What flew got passed on up to the rest of the teams.
One often needs to walk into the wind, and catch some rain in the face. Such challenges draw benefit.
Unfortunately, the virus mentioned above has proven that the average competitive shooter cannot accept anything but the best, regardless of their personal skill levels, and they have demonstrated to the scope manufacturers and distributors that the low cost market really doesn't need to demand very much of their attention.
Are there lemons on the top shelf? Probably, but a lot less than on the lower shelf. But the trend is also to reduce the providers' interest in low shelf products, and they are drying up fast. Pretty soon there will only be junk on the low shelf, and the scopes I recommend will be history, many of them already are. The reps say there's little interest in the products, and they're right. The virus carriers have seen to that.
Nobody can tell you how to spend your money, and asking questions will get a lot of recommendations that favor the scope the poster owns themselves. Nothing wrong with that, it's exactly what I'm doing.
The only thing I'm doing differently is starting my searches on a lower shelf.
All I ask is that more folks try that, too.
Many will tell you that better shooting is expensive. It is, but is doesn't have to be that expensive, top shelf expensive.
There's a lot of gear out there that's top notch, champion shooter's expensive. A lot more than there are champions. Many of these folks will tell you that you're wasting your money on the lower shelf.
I'll tell you that some of them are wasting their money on the top shelf, and often a lot more money then you are. It takes more than money to win. Skills are also required, and they can't be bought. More expensive gear will help some, but only some.
I used to be a competitive shooter, but my competitive shooting is in the past. Age is the great equalizer, but it also the source of experience, and that can sometimes lead to wisdom.
Others will judge whether that's been my fate.
Greg
Last edited:
Yep. Couldn't agree more! Thank you.
"Cheap" or "Inexpensive" there is a difference.
I have lots of fun with a Remington varmint wearing an inexpensive 3-9X Leupold with capped turrets.
With torso sized targets and holding mil dots I don't worry about the internals not returning to zero because I don't move anything.....just hold.
Around 20x will enable you to see an IPSC target pretty easily out to about a mile. The absolute lowest useful max magnification seems to be about 15x. Like others have noted, very high magnifications can degrade image quality. Mirage on a hot day in the desert can be like looking through a jar of vaseline at 25x. Also, the scope might exhibit some chromatic aberration at maximum magnification, but better glass can diminish this.
I prefer mils, but the choice of units is of secondary importance, as long as the reticle matches the turret.
I prefer mils, but the choice of units is of secondary importance, as long as the reticle matches the turret.
Similar threads
- Poll
