reticles....

[greyghostnw]

will be ordering a niteforce 2.5-10x42. anyone use the new mil-r reticle? or mil dot reticle to hunt with out there? the dots seem to be more clear to see to me than the light hash marks of the others but have not used either in the mountains. any users of either out there opinions would be appreciated, thanx.....

 

[yama49]

I have a 5.5x22x56 with the npr1 rec in it, no problems in the mountians.. I am also buying the the 2.5x10x42 with the moar rec, for a my light weight mountian gun..
I prefer MOA over mil-dot..JMO

 

[greyghostnw]

thanx.... i have looked through the moar reticle and liked it. not too heavy, not too light. i like moa and it is easy for me. i really like us survey feet over inches at work. the ten scale is like workin us money to me. i thought i would give miliradians a try. they seem easy as well just different. i shoot and hunt solo so the whole keeping it to what your buddys shoot scenerio is a mute point in my world so learning a new system is only a positive thing for me, well at least i think......

 

[Sam Millard]

MOA will be easier to learn. I run NPR1 reticles in all of my NFs. The only scope I don't like it in is a 2.5-10x32 mounted on a light 260. At distance, it's fine, but up close in the timber with quick shots, the crosshairs are hard to pick up. If I were to get a 2.5-10x42, I would look hard at a MOAR reticle.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I use Mil/Mil scopes and prefer them to MOA. .1 mil clicks are a little coarser than 1/4 MOA, so it takes a few less clicks to get your correction dialed.

Personally, I don't find thinking in mils any harder than minutes angularly.

 

[greyghostnw]

I use Mil/Mil scopes and prefer them to MOA. .1 mil clicks are a little coarser than 1/4 MOA, so it takes a few less clicks to get your correction dialed.

Personally, I don't find thinking in mils any harder than minutes angularly.

i appreciate the responses..... i honestly was asking about the reticles by niteforce be it the ''mil r'' and ''mildot''.... i want to order the 2.5-10x42 nxs compact zerostop digilum with either reticle i mentioned but have no field time with either. i am leaning toward the ''mil r'' due to the style it is, plus i like the inverted t off to the right side. my question was has anyone used either to hunt with and if they were happy with them being enough to see in the mountains. mil is easy as moa is easy i understand both and the math. i prefer mil i think because of the constant value i will give them. cant get much easier than .36'' per .1mil i land survey so i use us survet feet. tenths scale its as easy as our currency in the us, thats how i think of a mil to be honest.

 

[Sam Millard]

Either way you roll, I would advise you to stick to a simple reticle. The MIL-R looks cool, but that's a lot of crap you won't need for hunting stuffed into a 10x scope. I have looked through a MLR 3.5-15 NXS. It would work fine, and allow you to bracket targets for size estimation.

I know a few people who use the smaller NXS scopes successfully for hunting and they all use Velocity reticles. I have seen a pile of animals killed with long range rifles wearing NXS scopes (3.5-15 and 5.5-22). Almost all of them had NPR1 reticles, with just a few NPR2s mixed in.

For the record...When I see a bear, I wonder if he's 72 inches, not 1828 millimeters (or 20 mils)

 

[KMD]

Get a mil/mil scope and don't fall back on reverse measuring everything in inches.
A base 10 system is so much more intuitive than breaking down whole value numbers into quarters that MOA & IPHY requires.

Your dope is more simple, two digits vs. up to four digits with MOA. And the teeny tiny difference between 0.1mil and 0.25MOA turrets is negligible for shooting game animals. IE, you won't ever even come close to missing a vital zone shot with 0.1mil turrets.
I recommend you use the simple, base 10 system of miliradians, enjoy a two digit dope, more inutitive reticle substensions (tenths & halves) for wind calls, and stop reverse correcting everything back to inches!
If all you are wanting to measure game animals in the reticle, make up a cheat sheet of what your 'keeper sized' animal will subtend in the reticle in mils beforehand. I'd much rather do that for those rare instances, and enjoy the ease & simplicity of mil/mil for the other 98% of the time...
Just an opinion, good luck with your decision!

 

[Matt Cashell]

I like Nightforce's MLR and especially MLR 2.0 reticle designs, but unfortunately I don't have hunting time with them.

I prefer simple hash style reticles (especially labelled in-scope like the MLR 2.0) to the mil-dot, but either will work fine for me.

 

[HellsCanyon]

Get a mil/mil scope and don't fall back on reverse measuring everything in inches.
A base 10 system is so much more intuitive than breaking down whole value numbers into quarters that MOA & IPHY requires.

Your dope is more simple, two digits vs. up to four digits with MOA. And the teeny tiny difference between 0.1mil and 0.25MOA turrets is negligible for shooting game animals. IE, you won't ever even come close to missing a vital zone shot with 0.1mil turrets.
I recommend you use the simple, base 10 system of miliradians, enjoy a two digit dope, more inutitive reticle substensions (tenths & halves) for wind calls, and stop reverse correcting everything back to inches!
If all you are wanting to measure game animals in the reticle, make up a cheat sheet of what your 'keeper sized' animal will subtend in the reticle in mils beforehand. I'd much rather do that for those rare instances, and enjoy the ease & simplicity of mil/mil for the other 98% of the time...
Just an opinion, good luck with your decision!

Couldn't agree more... And if you are using your reticle to measure targets or calculate distance, the math is going to be the same just different values. I learned on MILS and don't know anybody that has converted back to MOA after using MILS. I do however know many shooters that have gone to MILS after shooting MOA based reticles/turrets.

Mike

 

[greyghostnw]

the mlr 2.0 is now my favorite after looking.... thanx for the replys.

 

[Retterath]

I have the nightforce F1 with the mlr 2 reticle used in a tactical match in kettle falls Washington this summer and loved it, hands down the best reticle I have ever used and also use the same gun for coyote hunting and also shot 2 deer with it and love the reticle.

 

[Broz]

MOA will be easier to learn. I run NPR1 reticles in all of my NFs. The only scope I don't like it in is a 2.5-10x32 mounted on a light 260. At distance, it's fine, but up close in the timber with quick shots, the crosshairs are hard to pick up. If I were to get a 2.5-10x42, I would look hard at a MOAR reticle.

I agree. I grew up knowing that 4 quarters make a dollar. .25 is just a first thought to me. After that if you can remember that for all practical purposes 1 moa is 1" at 100, 1 moa is 2" at 200, 3" at 300. 4" at 400. 1 moa is 6 1/2" at 650 yards, 10" at 1000 yards and so on you have it already whipped. Its that easy. Now go listen to an easy explanation of mils and see what is more natural to you. There is poll on a well know long range hunting forum here is the US and the results run 75% moa as the preferred method. Now take that poll over seas or to a Tacticool site where all want to be a sniper and the results may be different. But for the average American we grew up with .25 moa scopes and IPHY.

For the reticle choice in the 2.5 x10 x 42 compact. The MOAR will be a hard one to beat. The floating cross hair that is 1 moa all 4 directions is a sweet choice for that scope.

That's my opinion, now go look at a few and see what you like.

Jeff