S2H Scope Interest

[schmidty3]

Nice. I wish we had places to do that in the eastern US.

Or, alternately, a shooting range set up like a golf course where you hiked from 'hole' to hole and each shot was different.

Its called NRL hunter. But its just a game.

 

[Jake Larsen]

In a thread like this, you have to skip right past the $0.10 words and the $1.00 words and go straight to the $3.44 words.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can round that up to “about three fiddy.”

 

[schmidty3]

You finally found the only logical explanation for this contumelious pertinacity. Chris thinks that if he is stubborn enough, he can earn a free trip to S2H.

Its 22 man on garand thumb all over again!

 

[AZ Gator]

Well, this potentially useful thread has been ruined. What a waste. Sticking to the topic would be so nice…

 

[UpNorth89]

Well, this potentially useful thread has been ruined. What a waste. Sticking to the topic would be so nice…

Agreed. It's adult daycare season again.

 

[Chris in TN]

Only on the internet is “you have more experience and ability” somehow a negative.




I want you to stop because you go into threads, write walls of drivel about things you don’t have experience in, and then argue with everyone that does.

Read this thread, and more so- the owners direct statement-

Thread 'A Plea for Direct Experience'

Dec 5, 2025

"Back in the old days" there would be some reminder posts, every once in a while, calling for folks to chime in with direct experience, and not simply repeat what the group was saying. There was also the infamous "parrot" accusations a while ago, ha. Snyder's UPS/Fedex truck review joke. Etc, etc.

"In my experience" of course can be extrapolated into some topics without harm, so I do not think this is a 100% all the time kind of thing. I'm sure I've broken faith with this "rule" at some point.

But I feel compelled to post, and ask, for this simple go/no go before posting - am I...

• MT_Wyatt
• Replies: 125
• Forum: General Discussion Forum

• 
• 

Experience and ability aren't negatives. The pride that comes with them, can be. But that's a choice you get to make.

I read the thread you refer to when it was posted. It's a great thread with great points. But there's your club again - I'm honest about my experience and make no claims to be an expert, certainly not *the* expert in the very specialized world of long range where you're shooting 600+ in high winds, but I *do* have a decent amount of experience in the light to moderate winds at 0-600, the arena the rokscope was designed for. Am I the *most* experienced wind shooter? No. But it is factually incorrect of you to dismiss what I'm saying as 'things you don't have experience in'. You seem to not be able to differentiate between other people with experience versus other people with your experience.

In my experience, the vast, vast majority of shooters and hunters - the people you seem to want to help - need the most work on basic positions and getting their guns zeroed with scopes that don't break and other basic things, maybe being able to walk a mile without supplemental 02, and worrying about mrads versus moas is somewhere close to dead last on the list of things they could change that would have a significant impact on their skill level.

If I'm wrong about that, someone tell me. Until then I'm pretty convinced that mrads vs moas is a very low priority at very best.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

If I'm wrong about that, someone tell me. Until then I'm pretty convinced that mrads vs moas is a very low priority at very best.

 

[Marbles]

I'm not saying real world experience doesn't count. I'm saying that when the grand guru of the forum says the difference is incremental then some other guy says the difference is night and day, there needs to be some reconciliation there. And the base four aspect of MOA isn't a given nor a necessity. We could use 1/2moa or 1/5moa adjustments just as easily (not sure why, though, as 1/4moa works fine). Again, dividing by 4 isn't *that* hard, and isn't even needed for elevation, nor wind. I've demonstrated that well beyond certainty in this thread. Nobody needs to think in fractions of MOA - just dial the turret to the spot between your 300 and 400 yard marks for a 350 yard shot. Whether that's 4 clicks or 24 or 31 doesn't matter.

Man, my shooting conditions without leaving my area can swing from a DA below -5000 to 8000. Plus I shoot different bullets at the range. I'm not swapping out multiple turrets.

Having said that, I will happily note that you are maybe the second(?) person in the thread to appeal to the psychology aspect of this, and the first to make any significant attempt to flesh it out, and that is admirable and worth applause. Thank you. It's a start. It's not a finish, but it's a start, and if we ever got to the point of making an exhaustive list of the reasons y'all think mrads are superior, we could put it first, and perhaps have a different thread where we focused on that. If we do, I'm going to posit that one of the goals of training is to teach people how to do things under stress and you can actually train people to divide by 4 under stress (again, if you needed to, which, again, you really don't, since nobody is counting clicks here or being forced to count in wholes-and-quarters when they could just use some form of yardage turret system as I have explained before). But that could be another discussion in another thread. To reiterate, I appreciate the attempt to bring up the psychological aspect. Thank you.

You keep harping on can, of course you can use MOA and divide by 4 under stress. But, it is demonstrably a higher load condition, so beyond some nerdy desire, why? You can train people to use DOS, but modern GUIs are more efficient.

As for zeroing at 100 there's nothing efficient about zeroing then having to dial. Because now you have two 'base' numbers. After a shot do you dial back to zero or dial back to the MPBR mark? Which was it? Think fast, you're halfway to the deer and it jumped up and is trying to run. I really prefer to have a single 'zero' range and never have to think about it at 0-300 yards or so, which, again, is the vast, vast majority of where I, and the vast, vast majority of others, actually shoot game.

You are over complicating it. There is no using two systems or two zeros.

Example, for my 243 at a DA of 0, 250 yards is my MPBR. I get there by being dialed for 200 yards, which is 0.4 mil.

If I need to dial to 427 yards, that is 2 mils. You turn the knob to 2 mils and shoot. Then dial back to 0.4 mils.

MPBR doesn't care what the turret indicator is pointing at, only an OCD brain.

Approaching this from a triage standpoint, which I'd hope you'd appreciate as you seem to have some sort of med(?) background, if I'm building a model for a shooting solution, I want it to be the strongest where it's going to get used the most.

From a triage stand point, you want a robust system that can handle everything from walkie-talkie sore throats to mass casualty. You don't say, 90% of what we see are walkie-talkies so we are going to stop having trauma activations or we have never had a mass casualty event so lets stop making people learn color tags.

You actually want the system to be strongest/simplest (color tags and SALT or START or jumpSTART) as you use it less and the stakes go up. Same with treatment modalities, which is where MARCH, CAB, ABCD, Etc come in.

Point being, that 'just dial to mpbr' introduced the sort of uncertainty you're seeming to want to eliminate. Also, I'm not sure how to set a zero stop (on most scopes, anyway) to 'stop' at ~3moa above zero without hindering it from dialing even further when needed.

It is very easy on the RS1.2 or the SWFA with shims. I cannot speak to other systems.

Unless you mean dialing down further. But whether you stop at 0.4 or 0 on the turret the problem is the same. You are either stuck not being able to dial down to a closer range, or having to remember to stop at a specific point.

As you like marking your turrets, just put a mark on it for MPBR, then you don't have to remember 0.4 or whatever.

 

[KHntr]

Very few people on this forum started with a MIL scope. The vast majority of us hunted with MOA scopes for a decade or two. We had the critical thinking skills and open-mindedness to see skilled shooters and hunters switching to MIL scopes and listened to their experiences. We bought a MIL scope to test out, draw our own conclusions and experiences from, and made the switch after seeing the improvements.

Shucks, some of us started out with a SFP 4x Tasco and figured we on to something. And then stepped up to a 3x9 Leupold to upgrade and make us more effective at last light…. Then moved to an M1 equipped 3.5-10 because it was the most easily obtained upgrade there was when matched to a printed off JBM card taped to the stock.

I bought a FFP in a mil etched reticle with a mil turret after merely reading ‘Stick talk about correcting misses “using the ruler in your scope”….

After the first one, on the first day, that was it. I’m all about making effective shots in the most efficient way possible. Etched reticle in a FFP, in mils, paired with a rf bino and that is one fast system to get behind and make an effective shot. If there was something easier, I would do that.

 

[mlevimadden]

Shucks, some of us started out with a SFP 4x Tasco and figured we on to something. And then stepped up to a 3x9 Leupold to upgrade and make us more effective at last light…. Then moved to an M1 equipped 3.5-10 because it was the most easily obtained upgrade there was when matched to a printed off JBM card taped to the stock.

I bought a FFP in a mil etched reticle with a mil turret after merely reading ‘Stick talk about correcting misses “using the ruler in your scope”….

After the first one, on the first day, that was it. I’m all about making effective shots in the most efficient way possible. Etched reticle in a FFP, in mils, paired with a rf bino and that is one fast system to get behind and make an effective shot. If there was something easier, I would do that.

Similar journeys we have all been on for sure.

I had a $40 Simmons on my first 243 in the 1990s and my dad had a 3-9 Tasco on his 270 I borrowed next. I was big time once I got a 4-12 mildot reticle with capped turrets on my 223. Then it was Leupold VX-3s with CDS and vortex razors with taped on dope cards. Oh how the times change…

I’m sure I’ll look back at what I’m doing now as just as stupid and obsolete in 10 years. But if that isn’t the case then you aren’t growing or improving.

 

[philcox]

I have 6 Maven RS 1.2, I'd have to see
1. how it compared to them
2. How much I could sell my Maven's for
3. If the delta in cost was worth the stuff in number 1

If 3 turned out to be "yep, worth it", then I'd be in for 6

 

[KHntr]

As for zeroing at 100 there's nothing efficient about zeroing then having to dial. Because now you have two 'base' numbers. After a shot do you dial back to zero or dial back to the MPBR mark? Which was it? Think fast, you're halfway to the deer and it jumped up and is trying to run. I really prefer to have a single 'zero' range and never have to think about it at 0-300 yards or so, which, again, is the vast, vast majority of where I, and the vast, vast majority of others, actually shoot game.

You keep bringing up zeroing at 100 like it’s some sort of deal breaker that will mean the difference between hitting a deer at 300 yards or not in a shoot fast situation.
Zero’d at 100, if a deer or what have you pops up at 40 yards, I’m a 3rd of an inch low. If a deer pops out at 300 and is on the move, I’m 13” low. Is he in stabbing range? No? Is he middle ways? No? Is he getting out there a bit? Yes? Hold in the hair and let drive.
If you are using MPBR as a talking point then you are using Kentucky windage (be it hold overs or hold unders) so holding an extra 6” higher isn’t going to take any measurable amount of mental gymnastics.

 

[huntnful]

About 300 scopes willing to have a deposit placed on them for an early shipment, after just one day of polling….. do the right thing @Ryan Avery

 

[pathnz]

I hate to contribute to the massive derail. but


I've shot nothing other than Mil/FFP scopes for about 15 years, for guns where I have the choice. It is clearly a superior system. However:

the advantages are largely small optimisations in situations that only occur occasionally, only when you hunt in some specific ways. For the vast majority of hunting scenarios I encounter, any aspect of shooting is not terribly difficult or really a factor at all, let alone optimisations in speed and managing mental load, and the small and largely theoretical optimisation available makes no difference.

Let's not get too caught up in the moment and pretend that using Mil based scopes is the single biggest thing that will make a positive difference to your hunting success and anything else is asking for universal failure


I don't use quick drop or "gun number" based wind systems (although I have used similar rules of thumb for many years) and I rarely struggle to kill an animal that I decide to kill. It's actually not that hard.

minor optimisation is far from essential. But then again, what else is there to argue about on the internet?

 

[pathnz]

Zeroing at 100 is definitely the way to go and then just dial it up to .6mil for a walking around half-ass mpbr for if there is some sort of hurry