S2H Scope Interest

[rbutcher1234]

At least two for me.

 

[Geewhiz]

It’s just not that hard to learn mils.

An app like shooter makes it super simple. You plug in your rifle and ammo. Then adjust the number of clicks. It doesn’t matter whether it is mils or moa.

This is my CZ 527 with a MOA scope.

This is my old Tikka with a mils scope:

All I have to do is validate those clicks and memorize or put them on the rifle in any number of ways.

I've had mil scopes but my brain has a hard time comprehending it when I have lived my life using MOA.

If I take a shot at 800 and my impact is 14 inches low I know I am 1.75 moa for my correction and it is very simple for me to come to that correction on the fly. If using mils my brain decides to take a crap on me while I am dividing inches by 3.6 or whatever it is and then multiplying it again by the distance, meanwhile the deer walks into the trees and then I throw a fit and curse the fact that SWFA was sold out of MOA scopes when I made my order.

 

[clperry]

2 off the bat. 4 more as I can. Then buying them as I add things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Schmo]

If I take a shot at 800 and my impact is 14 inches low I know I am 1.75 moa for my correction and it is very simple for me to come to that correction on the fly. If using mils my brain decides to take a crap on me while I am dividing inches by 3.6 or whatever it is and then multiplying it again by the distance, meanwhile the deer walks into the trees and then I throw a fit and curse the fact that SWFA was sold out of MOA scopes when I made my order.

Why are you translating anything to inches? How do you know you’re specifically 14” low? Your reticle, whether MOA or MIL, is your ruler 5” in front of your face. Simply adjust the amount your reticle tells you. Pretty simple really

 

[MuleyFever]

Why are you translating anything to inches? How do you know you’re specifically 14” low? Your reticle, whether MOA or MIL, is your ruler 5” in front of your face. Simply adjust the amount your reticle tells you. Pretty simple really

I was thinking the same thing.

Also, where will these scopes be sold? Through UM?

 

[Schmo]

Also, where will these scopes be sold? Through UM?

I’d guess either UM or the S2H site like the Teratorn

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Which is the very last thing I want to be doing when I'm trying to shoot something.

Do you think dialing to "3 or 3.1" is easier or harder than "10.25 or 10.5"? What about dialing to 7 (on a mil turret that is 5 per revolution, mental math = 2 instantly) versus dialing to 23.8 (on a turret that is 15moa per revolution, mental math is slower to obtain 8.8)?

 

[Schmo]

I've had mil scopes but my brain has a hard time comprehending it when I have lived my life using MOA.

It’s a very simple switch. I had the same thoughts before changing, and it’s been a complete non-issue. A simple 10 based system is far simpler under pressure than a quarter based system

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

If I take a shot at 800 and my impact is 14 inches low

This is where FFP comes into play regardless of the system you are using, you just measure with the reticle how far off and never even get into inches and division. Reticle says "X" units off, change turret X units or hold X units, fire again.

 

[Geewhiz]

This is where FFP comes into play regardless of the system you are using, you just measure with the reticle how far off and never even get into inches and division. Reticle says "X" units off, change turret X units or hold X units, fire again.

You make a valid point.

 

[Jake Larsen]

You make a valid point.

That’s the whole premise of FFP and MILS. There no converting anything ever. Add in quick drop and wind brackets like the THLR reticle, and you don’t even have to think about it. Out to 600+\- anyways. Beyond that, like others have said. Use the reticle to measure and adjust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris in TN]

That’s the whole premise of FFP and MILS. There no converting anything ever. Add in quick drop and wind brackets like the THLR reticle, and you don’t even have to think about it. Out to 600+\- anyways. Beyond that, like others have said. Use the reticle to measure and adjust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Minor but important correction: there's no need to do conversion in moa either, with FFP.

I prefer MOA. It's a preference, possibly a nod to tradition but certainly not some false belief that one system is superior to the other. But because math isn't half as hard as some people make it out to be, I'd buy a .mrad version, if that was its only shortcoming.

 

[bellboy]

I’m in for one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jake Larsen]

Minor but important correction: there's no need to do conversion in moa either, with FFP.

I prefer MOA. It's a preference, possibly a nod to tradition but certainly not some false belief that one system is superior to the other. But because math isn't half as hard as some people make it out to be, I'd buy a .mrad version, if that was its only shortcoming.

I was MOA diehard for years.

Can’t do quick drop with MOA. As soon as I converted, I was honestly pissed at myself at how long I resisted. By using MILS/quick drop, I can get to a shooting solution in a tiny fraction of the time it used to take me. I’ve timed myself a bunch. It’s not even close, especially when you add stress/pressure test it. It’s definitely superior than MOA for me, and many many others who do similar testing agree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I've had mil scopes but my brain has a hard time comprehending it when I have lived my life using MOA.

If I take a shot at 800 and my impact is 14 inches low I know I am 1.75 moa for my correction and it is very simple for me to come to that correction on the fly. If using mils my brain decides to take a crap on me while I am dividing inches by 3.6 or whatever it is and then multiplying it again by the distance, meanwhile the deer walks into the trees and then I throw a fit and curse the fact that SWFA was sold out of MOA scopes when I made my order.

The impact isn’t “14 inches low.” The impact is “1.75 MOA low.” Stop thinking in inches. Think only in MOA or mils. Use your scope reticle to measure or have your spotter give you the measurement in the same unit as your scope. Your problem isn’t MOA or mils, it’s inches.

The difference between MOA and mils is “small dogs” and “puppies.” When you add in “inches”, then you are adding in “cute little domesticated wolves.”

Edit - I wrote this up a while ago and didn’t hit send. I didn’t know several other people had chimed in since I typed it. Don’t mean to pile on.

 

[Chris in TN]

I was MOA diehard for years.

Can’t do quick drop with MOA. As soon as I converted, I was honestly pissed at myself at how long I resisted. It’s not about which math is easier. It’s the fact that with MIlS there is NO MATH when you’re actually shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going to say this with the most gentleness I know how to use. I'm not saying it to be mean, or argumentative, but I'm going to say it because it irks me that you believe that strongly enough to go to the trouble to say it.

Quick drop is a dead giveaway that you aren't that great at math and that you are for some reason predisposed to appeals to authority.

We've had yardage-marked BDC knobs for fifty years now, and y'all won't use them because you'd need to own, what, two, maybe three knobs, or do like I do and use glo-paint ($10 worth will last a decade) to smear an indicator on your elevation turret for 300/400/500 yards - and you think that's a bridge too far.

Then you'll turn around and blab about 'quick drop' like it was lightning in a bottle. I've even seen people post about adjusting their load to make 'quick drop' work. You'll literally downgrade your ballistics to make a turret do a trick we were doing (badly, I'll admit - the concept was sound, the implementation was not) before I was born, with yardage-marked turrets from Bushnell and Tasco and Redfield all through the 70's and 80's. Your 'hack' that legions of you appeal to, is nothing more than a poor substitute for the BDC turret we had decades ago. And if you needed multiple turret variations to make yardage-marked turrets work at different elevations, guess what? Your quick drops suffer from the same problem. They'll work across a band of elevations but not everywhere universally, so you either adjust your load or do....gasp.....more math.

Also - it's factually incorrect to say that there's no math involved. You're matching two numbers up (like, 3.9 for 390 or whatever) but that's still math. It's just math that you're not afraid of.

If you're wanting to reply further, just ask yourself.....why? It's a useless diversion. I've said my peace. I'd buy the mrad scope. It wouldn't be the first .mrad-based scope I have, likely not the last, but it wouldn't be my preference, either. And that's all it is - a preference. It's just a preference that dogmatic dudes have convinced each other is something more.

 

[rbutcher1234]

I'm going to say this with the most gentleness I know how to use. I'm not saying it to be mean, or argumentative, but I'm going to say it because it irks me that you believe that strongly enough to go to the trouble to say it.

Quick drop is a dead giveaway that you aren't that great at math and that you are for some reason predisposed to appeals to authority.

We've had yardage-marked BDC knobs for fifty years now, and y'all won't use them because you'd need to own, what, two, maybe three knobs, or do like I do and use glo-paint ($10 worth will last a decade) to smear an indicator on your elevation turret for 300/400/500 yards - and you think that's a bridge too far.

Then you'll turn around and blab about 'quick drop' like it was lightning in a bottle. I've even seen people post about adjusting their load to make 'quick drop' work. You'll literally downgrade your ballistics to make a turret do a trick we were doing (badly, I'll admit - the concept was sound, the implementation was not) before I was born, with yardage-marked turrets from Bushnell and Tasco and Redfield all through the 70's and 80's. Your 'hack' that legions of you appeal to, is nothing more than a poor substitute for the BDC turret we had decades ago. And if you needed multiple turret variations to make yardage-marked turrets work at different elevations, guess what? Your quick drops suffer from the same problem. They'll work across a band of elevations but not everywhere universally, so you either adjust your load or do....gasp.....more math.

Also - it's factually incorrect to say that there's no math involved. You're matching two numbers up (like, 3.9 for 390 or whatever) but that's still math. It's just math that you're not afraid of.

If you're wanting to reply further, just ask yourself.....why? It's a useless diversion. I've said my peace. I'd buy the mrad scope. It wouldn't be the first .mrad-based scope I have, likely not the last, but it wouldn't be my preference, either. And that's all it is - a preference. It's just a preference that dogmatic dudes have convinced each other is something more.

If you can do wind bracket math at distance where it actually matters just as fast with a moa as you can with mils under pressure, you are one of the first people on the planet.

 

[sndmn11]

With all the interest in the "Would you buy this scope" thread, thought I would help consolidate interest.


.
.

Guy started this thread with the stated purpose in the first sentence, and you yahoos are arguing about MOA vs MIL with random charts.
...and then some people get snooty about a person asking for price confirmation because it is buried in the other thread.

Keep this one clean and on point.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

Take my money!!!

 

[grifmXC]

I’d be interested in 1-2 this first go around


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk