Reply With QuoteIt's easy to change the specs on a reticle during manufacture. Adding a mil dot reticle to a scope that's already been designed and proven was the easy way out for the manufacturer. Changing the turrets to dial up in mils required total redesign.
So why did they ever make scopes with mix and match units, like Mil reticle with MOA turrets? was a rational behind it?
newbie from gr, mi.
It's easy to change the specs on a reticle during manufacture. Adding a mil dot reticle to a scope that's already been designed and proven was the easy way out for the manufacturer. Changing the turrets to dial up in mils required total redesign.
Originally Posted by keeki
Guess it doesn't really matter. If ya cant afford $15, you won't be buying much anyways
Because Leupold and Nightforce scopes will sell either way and there's no point in trying harder?
A mil based reticle is a sales gimmick for most scope makers and buyers. The majority of the population doesn't know what a mil is let alone how to use a reticle based off it(or any angular measurement for that matter). It sounds tacticool, and it's what "snipers" use so the masses buy them. Hotolds hit it on the head, much easier to add a different reticle to an existing product than do a total rework.
There are companies that sell to the masses and companies that sell to the industry (competitors etc.) Some carry multiple lines of scopes to cover the whole field. I think the whole thing evolves in the MOA being the first standard measurement in the US used for long distance shooting by the military, but the MilDot Reticle was found to be easier to use in range calculations. Up until recently all the scopes on USMC Sniper rifles were based strictly on the 308 and instead of a come up in MOA or Mils on the dials there was literally a 100, 200, 300, 400, Etc markings on the turret. Some integrated a second knob for minute adjustments but most stuff in between was covered by hold offs on the MilDot Scale. All of the transitions that have come about in shooting today have developed from Military and the now ever growing competitive shooting world. Big name shooters that understand all the concepts are now heard by the industry designers and the industry is producing what the customer wants. Some types of shooting guys like MOA for adjustments, but find Mils easier for holdovers. For the masses it is much easier to learn if only working in one scale the entire time.Originally Posted by KRP
I prefer Mil/Mil but when you're on the clock in a Precision Rifle match you want as few things to think about as possible.
I'm just thankful you can get it either way now days.
Mil/Mil or Moa/Moa.
I have no preference and just consider myself lucky to have options.
For most people, ranging with the reticle is a totally different and unrelated task to adjusting for windage and elevation and I think that MOA is easier to teach people who have only a passing interest in the inner workings of scoped shooting. The military was no different when they adopted mils, which were carried over from artillery. When the U.S. first switched to mil-dot scopes, they already had MOA turrets and a system for shooting with them. The mil dot reticle was added as "another tool", not necessarily as an extension of an existing one.
In the U.S. we think in inches, feet and yards. MOA is easy to express that way. The idea of expressing things in mils or in MOA is foreign to most shooters, including most people in the military. Even some very experienced shooters have never heard of these systems and shooters that have a lot of experience can be guilty of "thinking in inches". How often have you heard 1" group, 14" of drop, etc.? It's really easy to teach people 1MOA is 1", 2", 3", etc. and we almost always have yard based ranges in the U.S. Meaning it just gets you up and running faster, which is the name of the game in most military training and the military is where the MIL/MOA scope was born.
^^^ Honestly, I mean no disrespect, but if that's the case, (and I am confident it is) then the people who introduced it to the military didn't know what they were talking about.
They really missed the boat somewhere.
No one should be taught to think in inches under any circumstances. They should be given either an MOA/MOA scope or a Mil/Mill scope and taught to think MOA or MIl's as viewed through their scope.
Period.
So easy a caveman can do it. IF they get linear measurement at/on the target out of their heads.
Last edited by foxx; 02-05-2015 at 09:57 PM.
It came from artillery ranging, where they had a lot of experience with MILS. No one in the military had extensive experience using MOA ranging at the time, as far as I know.
Honestly, it doesn't matter how the turrets are setup, because once you learn any system, including MIL/MOA, it just works. We're talking about tools for soldiers, not competition shooters or enthusiasts. There's more than one dead guy out there who couldn't tell you if his shot was dialed in on a MIL or MOA scope.
roger that......
Life is tuff.....its even tuffer when your stupid
{John Wayne}
Well who ranges with a reticle anyway? I have a lazer which can be set in either yards or meters. I assume most others can be also.
I also have and still use several military coincedence type rangfinders made in different eras from the 40s to the 70s when lazer techknowledgy
took over. Two of those units measure in meters and one measures in yards. I personaly prefer (some type) of a mildot reticle simply as a reference tool
and for no other purpose. Where i see the shot hit is where i hold for my follow up shot. Everybody i know does the same thing. As for dialing, moa has been the standard for eons here and most of us resist change from something that works for us. Many of the experienced hunters i know have no clue how much change they might have added to
the scope. After the initial dialing of say 20 minits, their just holding or dialing to the hits and not counting anything. So yes, i agree with acridsaint, it dosent really matter what you use.
It just depends on how your mind prefers to work.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, but some ways are better and easier than others.
For most mathematical problems I could use an abacus or slide rule, but electronic calculators are a lot easier and more efficient, especially when under stress. :)
Oh, well.
Just curious, though, does the military still issue and train soldiers with mil/moa scopes?
Believe they are using S&B PMII's the 3-12 variant mil/mil
On the M40A5 for Marine Snipers
I bought the ultimate snipers book thinking id come away from reading it with some information.
He used a Nightforce scope dialed to as i recall 400 yds. That way he could just hold using the reticle
for the majority of his shots which were primarily with the 300 win mag. So i came away learning nothing
and convinced he could have used anything. His longest shot used all the elevation adjustment on the 338 lapua
and again as i recall all the reticle. He was surprised to make the hit which he credited to more luck than skill.
I dont recall any reference to any preferred system or reticle. I think he simply trained himself to use his equiptment
how it best suited him.
It don't get no simpler than that!
Yes, I deal with this daily and it is the extreme few who even know what " Mil dots" are. The ones that do ask for mil/mil setup.
More shooting, less typing.
We do not have any s&b in our inventory. We do have normal acogs, aimpoints, cmores both red dot and 1-5x, and leupold mk4s. Our mk4 has calibrated turrets for the bdc. Rather than mil/mil. Theyre mounted on our m14 ebr rifles. A normal unit may have s&b as well as other better optics.
Pretty sure that's what was on the M40A5 I took a couple shots with on the range over in the sand box. I have also seen Nightforce and Leupolds though. I guess it really depends on the unit's preference with those items.
Yep and their budget and ability to requisition orders to get new equipment. Otherwise youre stuck with what works enough.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks