$1000 Scope Advice

[TheCougar]

The SHV I just bought is in MOA, and I am just more comfortable in quickly calculating MOA. I mean, 600 Yards, 8 MOA is 48 inches (approx). That's easy for me: 1 MOA = 1/100 of the range. Doing it backwards, how many MOA drop is 48 inches at 600 yards? 1 MOA is 6", so that is an 8 MOA hold. That's easy. What's 2.5 mils at 600 yards? Psssh, now I have to figure out what 6x3.6" is, then multiple that by 2.5. I have trouble multiplying 3.6x6 in my head (21.6), then x2.5 to get 54". Same if I do it backwards. I just am faster at MOA, assuming I drop the .047 at the end.

 

[204guy]

Why are you converting angular measurements to inches? You're using some type of ballistic program to shoot at distance right? It's no difference to me either way and they both end up in about the same place. Speaking for myself and others I know mils are just more intuitive and easier to work with.

 

[luke moffat]

The SHV I just bought is in MOA, and I am just more comfortable in quickly calculating MOA. I mean, 600 Yards, 8 MOA is 48 inches (approx). That's easy for me: 1 MOA = 1/100 of the range. Doing it backwards, how many MOA drop is 48 inches at 600 yards? 1 MOA is 6", so that is an 8 MOA hold. That's easy. What's 2.5 mils at 600 yards? Psssh, now I have to figure out what 6x3.6" is, then multiple that by 2.5. I have trouble multiplying 3.6x6 in my head (21.6), then x2.5 to get 54". Same if I do it backwards. I just am faster at MOA, assuming I drop the .047 at the end.

What's the MOA with a 119" drop at 719 yards? My point converting inches to MOA in my head is real easy with good round numbers. After that I am not smart enough to think like that in the fly and rely on my ballistic calculator anyways. So long as I stick with MIL or MOA and the reticle match the turrrts it doesn't matter to me much. Just a click of a button to swap from MOA to mils and back anyway.

 

[Wrongside]

Why not the mil version? Though I can work with both I'd never intentionally pick moa over mils.

Why are you converting angular measurements to inches? You're using some type of ballistic program to shoot at distance right? It's no difference to me either way and they both end up in about the same place. Speaking for myself and others I know mils are just more intuitive and easier to work with.

x2

I went from MOA to MRad this year and won't be going back. Mils have no real-world downside, IME.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

with mils it's ez to develop a wind bracket... in my case 7mph every 100 yards equals .1 mils

Example 15knot wind at 550 yards = 1.1 mils wind hold

The other thing I like about mils is a basic dope chart is super ez to memorize. I take a medium data set and a larger one and figure an ez formula to get in between.

That way when a big bull is looking over Is looking over his shoulder I'm ranging in one hand, 482 angle compensates yards, 2.1 mils is 500 so I'm putting my 2nd mil marker behind the shoulder. Fast, intuitive, I'm spending my 30 seconds to build a stable platform not trying to do math.

Again kiss, mils or Moa

as for your initial inquiry, based on your subsequent questions put forth I recommend 10x swfa quad reticle on a fast twist 223 feed it some 77gr pills and a 6x on your hunting rifle, you owe it to the animal to put a bullet where it needs to go.

and the adage of buy once cry once doesn't work here... what we want to buy is practice, the skill we are acquiring is placing a bullet within the vitals the first time, every time. the scope is the aiming device.

a lot of guys myself included start out over scoped and overgunned in this endeavour.

Shooting at longer ranges is a perishable skill, keep that in mind when budgeting.

 

[Jordan Smith]

After shooting and thinking in MOA for several years, I started going toward MRAD and away from MOA about 5 years ago. There's no going back. I'm well versed in either angular system, but I find myself getting more and more annoyed when I'm forced to use MOA. I still have one scope in MOA, and I'm likely going to sell it and replace it with something in MRAD shortly. The nuances between the two are subtle, but they are there.

For example, a 22.3 mil correction with a 10 mil per rev scope requires 2 spins of the turret and then dial to the 2.3 mark. An equivalent correction using MOA is about 76.75 MOA. Usually a 10 mil per rev scope is equivalent to a 25 MOA per rev scope, so to dial 76.75 MOA you'd have to spin the turret 3 times and then dial to the 1.75 MOA mark. It's simply not as intuitive, as 25 MOA revs are not nice, base 10 numbers, and the final position of the turret, 1.75, is not seen anywhere in the total 76.75 MOA correction. Using MRAD it's a nice, clean base 10 revolution and the final position of the turret represents the remainder of the correction number after dividing by 10. Simple. Intuitive.

Been using MOA scopes for years, and functionally they're no different than MRAD scopes, but they require a little more mental tracking to use. Those little tiny differences add up, and are just one more thing for you to potentially screw up. I'm all about minimizing the checklist of ways a guy can mentally drop the ball and blow the shot when under pressure.

 

[TheCougar]

I'm on the fence over a SWFA SS 3-15x or a LRHS 3-12x. I can't afford the 4.5-18x LRHS because I broke the bank and bought an SHV on a whim. I like the LRHS, but the top end magnification is a little low for 700 yards (says the bow hunter)... some guys say 12x is good, others say more is better. The LRHS edges out the SWFA in glass and features, but the magnification range of the SS is ideal for me. Any thoughts on the matter?

 

[Jordan Smith]

The increased resolution of the LRHS will likely more than make up for the 3x magnification deficit compared to the SS 3-15x. If money is no issue, the LRHS is the better choice here.

 

[TheCougar]

In the case of these two scopes, "money is no issue".

 

[Ndbowhunter]

Just was shooting my 3-15 swfa and the 3-12 lrhs on a rainy, dark Wyoming evening.


After 9x the view on the 3-15 swfa becomes dim, dark and critical. Lately I've been keeping it at 7.5x and pretending the mil quad is mil dots.

7.5x is fine for me out to 700

 

[30338]

When all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done. Talk about paralysis by analysis, buy some scopes, buy or reload a bunch of ammo and start shooting. A two month long thread hashing out the benefits of moa vs mil vs sfp vs ffp, unreal. A guy could have bought a $270 6x SWFA, a bunch of ammo and been on his way to being very effective at 600 yards in the amount of time this thread has run.

In the end, its far more about the Indian than the arrow.

 

[ams]

....was that a mic drop moment?!

 

[TheCougar]

Pretty much... but in my defense, over the course of the thread I have bought two scopes and 4 different bullets to work up, all on recommendations from guys on the forums. But yes, I do have paralysis by analysis!

 

[dotman]

Pretty much... but in my defense, over the course of the thread I have bought two scopes and 4 different bullets to work up, all on recommendations from guys on the forums. But yes, I do have paralysis by analysis!

Nothing wrong with it when we want to get the best bang for our $$$, not everyone can just buy and try buy and try constantly and not everyone wants to just settle with buying the first thing they see.

 

[30338]

Cougar, Don't take that advice wrong and I appreciate your service to our country. A 6x SWFA is running $300 now and you can use it and learn a lot of long range stuff. Once you get tired of it, if you do, you can sell it for $250 pretty fast. But regardless, buy whatever and get shooting. Best of luck to you. If you need 7mm Rem load advice, pm me anytime.

 

[geriggs]

Leupold just came out with a vx-5 3-15. Looks nice for 900

 

[Felix40]

So I see people saying the swfa ss glass is bad but never see any comparisons to other more common scopes. Is there anything you guys could compare them to that most folks would have in their house? Leupold vx2? Burris ff2? Nikon something? Even worse? I dont know where I could go to look through one.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Depending on the model, they've got VX2-VX3+ glass.

 

[Jesse Jaymes]

I have a pair of Vortex HS-T 4-16 and a pair of SWFA 3-15....in my opinion....the SWFA glass is FAR superior to the Vortex. I personally think the HS-T is close to garbage.

 

[Felix40]

That makes me think that guys are expecting more out of the swfa than the price point can offer.