Texas Solo the BDC reticles are almost always setup in MOA. Like 1.5, 4.5, 7.5,11 and they have MOA turrets. You then zero at 100, 200 or 300 yards to make something fall into place with a certain mystery gun that uses those substensions.
Printable View
I bought a BDC scope once. Big mistake. Bought a couple MOA scopes after that for other rifles and lived happily ever after.
1- Voluntarily commit myself to the nearest mental institution; WHAT WAS I THINKING..?!?
2- Be somewhat impressed I got THAT close with my shot.
3- SNEAK in closer...
But seriously- I just got a Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-14x40 Mildot and I ordered the calculator they offer for $5.00 handling when you buy the scope. I am VERY anxious to learn how to properly use it and then test it in real world situations. The little "Mil Magic" booklet they give with the scope is informative and interesting.
The scope is mil - recticle and MOA turret adjustments, but I dont believe it will give me too much problem once I learn how to use them together.
FWIW- I had two Nikon BDC scopes; a Prostaff Rimfire 150 on my .22LR (still have that one) and another on my 110 .223 that I sold to help fund the Buckmasters. BOTH worked amazingly well at short distance i.e. 100 yds. for the .223, 50 yards for the .22LR, and the weather / wind were both very favorable. I honestly believe that for what they are, the Nikon BDCs in conjunction with their program are very usable- BUT NOT in the same class / usefulness as a MilDot system.
Brian
well first understand that im old and probably set in my ways and opinions. then also understand that we were killing lots of deer
with unertle target scopes before all these new and (better) ones came along. the dials on those scopes werent as user friendly for
what we were doing with them compared to todays scopes. most of us counted clicks as a means of adding the required elevation.
now at least most guys werent so dumb as to count say 96 clicks. you knew how many were in a full rev say 50. so you would go
around twice then back off 4 clicks in the case i just described. the key was and frankly still is knowing your equiptment and how to use it.
many of us use what you might know as the one shot zero method in a case where the miss was larger than a hold over might be good for.
in other words simply dial to the hit and shoot again. so the scope system wether it be mills, moa or neither isnt important.
granted target situations will be different but not really. as for the spotter, we always use them. but we also hunt with large tripod mounted
binnoculars which are mostly made up from 2 spotting scopes in brackets. so we also use those for spotting shots. one spotting scope is good till youve used two. close one eye and use your binnoculars and see what i mean.
Very interesting thread. I am looking at getting a new scope and have been seriously considering a mil/mil set up. I have always used MOA, like it well enough and am comfortable with it. I like the idea of a mil system and like the idea of learning and using a new system. Will it be better? Only one way to find out, that's a lot of the fun. Do I really need a new scope? What a silly question.
Also- am always impressed with the way people on this board can discuss very different views/opinions and keep things decent- a number of forums aren't like that- well done guys.
well if your shooting and not hunting it makes no difference what you do or use. hunting requires everybody
to be on the same page and the same line on the page. your gong plate will be there tomorrow at exactly
the same place. no telling where an animal will show up and how long he will stay around when and if he does.
a few seconds could make the difference between success and failure. so get a system that works and stick with it.
My scope has 1/4 inch clicks at 100 yards. But I don't use a ranging reticle so there are no conversions to be made.
Simple system. I like it just fine.
MOA makes sense to me but I would love to understand MRAD better
either nobody noticed or were to polite to mention, (doubtfull) my dan qualle mistake on the spelling of (potatoes)
poor dan really took a beating over that from the press. maybe many here are to young to remember dan?
Ever been quail hunting yobuck?
yobuck, it didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. I'm the world's worst speller. Bye the way did you know Ol McDonnell was a terrible speller?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zebvFBNZ3Mg
well i was always pretty good at it. when i was in grade school (40s) we had spelling contests
within the class. a few girls and i always won. yes fish i have hunted quail a few times back when there still were a few in pa.
in fact i have a pair mounted here that i shot in the crate before they were released. i could be wrong but i think dan spelled
his name differently. for sure he spelled (potatoes) differently.
thomae, that was pretty funny. Thanks
Yo- he did, "Dan Quayle".
Chuck- I did not have to watch the video as I have seen that before...but that is a classic response to anything about spelling. Dagnabbit.
MOA for me...as long as I can have MOA in both reticle and turrets, but if I had to make a choice between a scope that had MOA reticle and Mil turrets and one that was all Mil, I'd DEFINITELY take the one with the reticle and turrets matching.
I got started back in the day when everyone used mil-dot reticles and MOA knobs. No one complained either, that's just the way it was. I spent so many years shooting that way and still have so many good scopes with the mil reticle and MOA knob combo that I still do most of my shooting that way. Now it's just habit and I really don't think much about it until someone is showing me their new scope and I realize how old-fashioned my gear is.
If I were to go back and start over again in modern times I'd probably be a Mil-Mil fan as I personally find it easier to comprehend under stress.
For me, mil-mil FFP is the way to go.
Easy holdover, easy math, no zoom issues while measuring.
Wouldn't change it for anything (only target high zoom with thin duplex for pure groups shooting of the stand - in case I would wanna shoot that way).
I use both. Milrad on my 308, MOA on my 30-06 hunting rifle. I do like milrad better.
It will be interesting to look at this poll in let say 2 years.
The funny thing about mils, they have nothing to do with a metric system other than the fact that it can be used with meters as well as with yards. 1 mil is 1 meter at 1000 meters. 1 mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards. 1 inch at 100 yards is not 1 MOA, close but not quite.
All that mils and moa are is simply a measure of an angle. That is it, period.