Do I need a rail with built in MOA?

[MHWASH]

I'm in the middle of a rifle build, Rem 700 in 280AI. I plan to shoot 180 ELDm @2800, hopefully. I currently have a Nightforce 4-14x50 that I plan on using. I now need a mounting system, but I'm unsure what to go with.
My plan is to shoot out to 1000.

 

[Marbles]

Probably not.

Plug in bullet and a conservative velocity estimate. See how much elevation you need in mils/MOA/Streck/whatever.

Find out the erector travel of your intended scope (look it up or dial from top to bottom) in the angular measure of your choice.

Divided the erector travel in half. Is that number larger than the elevation needed to get to your desired range? Throw in a bit of buffer.

For 1,000 yards with a 280AI, I would get a new scope if it doesn't have enough travel. My rifles have 20 MOA rails, not needed, but what is available with the other features I want. It shouldn't matter in your case with any decent scope (other than an S&B Klassik).

 

[wind gypsy]

180 ELD @ 2800 is probably around 24 MOA up at 1000 depending on atmospherics. You'd be getting a rail to get you near center of elevation travel @ 1000 yards. I'm not really aware of any scopes I'd use for shooting that far that would significantly benefit from the 20 MOA rail if not dialing in more elevation ever. But no issue if the rail you want has 20 MOA either.

 

[Castle Rock]

Absolutely, because anything above zero is wasted

 

[SDHNTR]

If you really want to shoot out to 1000 yards, yes.

 

[WoolyBugger]

Probably don’t need, but it wouldn’t hurt anything especially if you don’t have the a rail for it already?

 

[Jordan Smith]

Absolutely, because anything above zero is wasted

Yes and no. In principle, I agree with that, if there were no negative consequences. In some cases (some scope designs are worse than others), optical quality degrades when the erector moves away from center, so having the scope zeroed for use most of the time in the erector’s range where optical quality suffers, so that you can reach targets at a mile once in a while, doesn’t make much sense. It depends on the scope and the application of the rifle setup, but it’s not as straightforward as simply saying that anything above zero (or below, depending on your reference frame) is wasted.

 

[Castle Rock]

Yes and no. In principle, I agree with that, if there were no negative consequences. In some cases (some scope designs are worse than others), optical quality degrades when the erector moves away from center, so having the scope zeroed for use most of the time in the erector’s range where optical quality suffers, so that you can reach targets at a mile once in a while, doesn’t make much sense. It depends on the scope and the application of the rifle setup, but it’s not as straightforward as simply saying that anything above zero (or below, depending on your reference frame) is wasted.

Oh for sure, that was a consideration that was taken into account during my tall target tests.
It’s incredible that with the mid tier optics I tested there was no noticeable difference visually in good daylight at least.
Also tested was horizontal deviation at the extremes of travel and this was a non issue as well (care was taken during mounting that the scopes were well aligned and centered over the bore).

Withe the larger adjustment ranges (travel) typically seen in better scopes these days 20 MOA or 6 mils is not of much consequence.

 

[cuerro viejo]

You can but you don’t need too, that scope has 90 MOA/26mils of travel.

It takes me +- 7 mils to get to a 1000 with 175eldx @ 2900ft/s @1500 DA