S2H Scope Interest

[Jake Larsen]

Dunning-Kruger is out in force. We aren’t changing his mind even though people with experience are giving him good advice.

At a certain point it’s not for him. It’s about making the logical argument in a way that others who are reading can see it. I personally know of 3 guys who are aware of these threads and reading, all of whom will be making the jump from MOA to MILs if they choose to use this scope. I’m sure there are many many more.

And I want this scope to be a roaring success. because then we might get a 2-8x36 also

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris in TN]

Very well said. To drive this point home:

I made the switch after ONE AFTERNOON of shooting a buddies MIL based system.

That doesn't drive the point home. It actually raises a red flag.

I try hard to approach shooting as a science and there's no way I'd do some science thing and change everything after a single observation without being very certain that I wasn't missing an assumption somewhere.

 

[Chris in TN]

At a certain point it’s not for him. It’s about making the logical argument

Then stop talking about how you 'seen the light' and start explaining something science-ey that those dudes can grab on to, to understand why one system is better.

ETA: and conversely, the exact reason I post here is that so people who are considering a massive expense for swapping everything, can grasp that being able to make lightning fast wind holds without understanding why, is somewhere way down the totem pole on the list of stuff that'll make them better hunters.

If the superiority is a real thing, someone explain the science to us. And at the same time I'd tell your buddies they can always buy the scope - reticle graduations be darned - for its obvious advantages, and make their own minds up about whether mils matters.

 

[NateTP38]

No, not necessarily. Weight has gotten close as well.

Interesting. How low are we talking? My current pick would be a SWFA UL at 9.5 ounces, unless something better at a similar weight comes along....

 

[DangerRanger]

Op: Who would buy this scope, if so who would put a deposit

Winter rokslide: MOA vs MRAD round 478

 

[Chris in TN]

Dunning-Kruger is out in force. We aren’t changing his mind even though people with experience are giving him good advice.

I'm literally the only person here who has said a word in recognition of their own susceptibility to bias. So you accusing me of D-K is kinda funny.

 

[Axlrod]

I don't understand the 3.4 comment. I've already described not only than an moa system could be devised (I mean, I use it - won't say I've perfected it, I'm not the standard here, and make no claim to be) but how 3moas of wind holds could very easily be used to very quickly 'bracket' wind. At no point in that did I need to divide anything by 3.4 because I wasn't observing anything in mils in the first place. Two moa base wind (hypothetical number for a hypothetical rifle) at 500 for 10mph, multiplied by the actual wind (6mph wind means 60% or a little over one moa and shoot. If the range is 287, split the wind in half-ish. If the range is 500+ (or the wind is greater than 10-12mph) we're now making a category error and trying to apply a fast formula to what ought to be a precise calculation done with great care. We aren't at war with the elk, we're trying to kill them cleanly.

Second paragraph - yes, fair point that I'll freely concede.

Man you could have saved yourself a LOT of typing, and just voted NO in the poll!

 

[dårlig jeger]

That doesn't drive the point home. It actually raises a red flag.

I try hard to approach shooting as a science and there's no way I'd do some science thing and change everything after a single observation without being very certain that I wasn't missing an assumption somewhere.

A scientific approach is always seeking ways to be proven wrong.

That's the opposite of what your approach appears to be in this thread, which is defensive.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

Props to this guys dedication though typing these responses all out probably took more effort than it did for me to sell all my MOA scopes I was worried about and replace them all.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Then stop talking about how you 'seen the light' and start explaining something science-ey that those dudes can grab on to, to understand why one system is better.

ETA: and conversely, the exact reason I post here is that so people who are considering a massive expense for swapping everything, can grasp that being able to make lightning fast wind holds without understanding why, is somewhere way down the totem pole on the list of stuff that'll make them better hunters.

If the superiority is a real thing, someone explain the science to us. And at the same time I'd tell your buddies they can always buy the scope - reticle graduations be darned - for its obvious advantages, and make their own minds up about whether mils matters.

I really feel like you’re either trolling or trying to self-justify your own decisions. Especially because you qualify everything with “take the necessary time” for shots where you say this only matters.

Mils are faster than moa at all ranges in novel field conditions and scenarios. I will make that declarative statement. I’ll even say mils are faster for all people under the same conditions as moa, no matter how much time you a lot for practice on either. 10 hrs, 100 hrs, 1,000,000 on either system… it does not matter.

If moa works for you, great. No problem. You’d be more efficient under stress and time with mils though, and your “slow make sure I do all the calcs right scenario” would be over sooner with mils than moa.

 

[Chris in TN]

A scientific approach is always seeking ways to be proven wrong.

That's the opposite of what your approach appears to be in this thread, which is defensive.

I'm the guy asking y'all to explain to me in some scientifically explainable way how I'm wrong.

You're seeing what you want to see here.

 

[Formidilosus]

Interesting. How low are we talking? My current pick would be a SWFA UL at 9.5 ounces, unless something better at a similar weight comes along....

Oh no. There are no truly durable scopes that are 9oz. The SWFA UL is decent, but has significant shortcomings.

Sub 20oz.

 

[solarshooter]

MILs: Americans discover the superiority of base 10

I don't understand the 3.4 comment.

For drop, the key thing is actually not that mils are "base 10", it's that the bullets and cartridges we shoot happen by some divine miracle to drop roughly 1 mil per 100yds for the majority of their useful trajectory. This allows us to relate range to drop with a really simple factor, 1/100. If bullets happened to fall 1 moa per 100 yds, moa would be the better system, though you might want to use tenths of a moa rather than 1/4s. Ironically, if you worked in feet as your unit of measurement rather than yards, moa would be a better match, ie 1 moa per 100 feet, give or take. 3.4 moa, aka 1 mil, is roughly how much a bullet drops in 100yds, so your scalar to go from range to drop is 3.4/100, which is a much less clean factor to do mental math with.

I've already described not only than an moa system could be devised

Two moa base wind (hypothetical number for a hypothetical rifle) at 500 for 10mph, multiplied by the actual wind (6mph wind means 60% or a little over one moa and shoot. If the range is 287, split the wind in half-ish.

There is a system. You are essentially doing it, but with really awkward base ranges/winds and the wrong units. Let me explain.

The mil wind number method is as follows. I determine the amount of wind it takes to push my bullet 0.1mil per 100yds, let's say 6mph. Once I know the range to my target, I round to the nearest 100 and take that as my "base" in 0.1mil increments. So 480 = 0.5, 320 = 0.3, 240 = 0.2. You can go even simpler and just take the first digit of the range as your base (in tenths). Then you think about the wind bracket, is it a low, med, or hi wind, let's say 3, 6, or 9+mph. You then scale your base hold by the ratio of the observed wind to the gun wind number. So in this example, 0.5, 1, 1.5 scaling of your base.

My mental flow goes like:
Range 480, base 0.5
Crosswind is light, cut that in half, hold 0.2.

or

Crosswind is heavier, 6-10, hold 0.7.

And really, I'm just trying to center my prediction on the target, not hold a perfect amount. I think you agree with this based on your bracket comments earlier.

The most equivalent way to do this with moa would be to find the wind speed it takes to blow your bullet 1moa per 100yds. But the issue is that this number will be big, like 18mph. So the scalar of crosswind/gun wind number will often be some awkward small fraction, like 1/6 or 0.2 rather than simpler halves and wholes.

Your method of using 2moa at 500yds to determine the wind number is all sorts of complicated, since you now have to carry that through all your math.

 

[BLJ]

@BjornF16

Not to speak for other people, but I’m going to say that the Dunning Kruger guy would be in for two.

Anyone else??

 

[Jake Larsen]

Then stop talking about how you 'seen the light' and start explaining something science-ey that those dudes can grab on to, to understand why one system is better.

The science has been kicking you in the face this whole thread

Some of us have gone through the whole process. You’re stuck at “Hypothesis”. Anybody who has gone through to the end all tend to come to the same conclusion, and see the same results.

Everything you’re saying about MOA being just as good is a hypothesis, because you haven’t tested it. Others have. It’s pretty simple.

If you were to test it for yourself, you may also find the results to be measurably better. Then you may also notice that many others have experienced the same exact thing.

You can call my improved hit rate a red flag, purple flag or any other flag. I’ll take it though, because I like to hit stuff I’m shooting at. The fact that it happened so quickly goes to show how much more intuitive and easy the system is than what I was using before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[43.6N]

Look nobody has to convince anybody except themselves. And it’s pretty simple to prove.

Go to BLM, and place a 10” gong. Get all your shooting gear on your back, and start at 0yds from the gong.

Set a 1min timer and start hiking away from the gong. When it beeps stop hiking, build your position, and shoot the target. Then reset the timer and keep hiking away from the gong. Stop when you start missing, and record your overall time and distance.

Repeat with a scope set in the other unit of measure, and record the difference.

Do this for a few days in different conditions, different winds, maybe even different shooters.

 

[Firth]

That doesn't drive the point home. It actually raises a red flag.

I try hard to approach shooting as a science and there's no way I'd do some science thing and change everything after a single observation without being very certain that I wasn't missing an assumption somewhere.

What's your workflow for making a shot that requires dialing and correcting for wind? That would be one place to start in order to have a real discussion. Specific advantages depend on how you're doing things. Are you ranging and reading off a dope chart or maybe your rangefinder gives you drop?

 

[dårlig jeger]

I'm the guy asking y'all to explain to me in some scientifically explainable way how I'm wrong.

You're seeing what you want to see here.

A scientific approach would be, "wow, all of these people who have used both and switched are data points. I shall use them in my process."

You are jumping up and down and saying, "but my math says....!!!!!!"

 

[Shortschaf]

Is this still available?

 

[Chris in TN]

For drop, the key thing is actually not that mils are "base 10", it's that the bullets and cartridges we shoot happen by some divine miracle to drop roughly 1 mil per 100yds for the majority of their useful trajectory. This allows us to relate range to drop with a really simple factor, 1/100. If bullets happened to fall 1 moa per 100 yds, moa would be the better system, though you might want to use tenths of a moa rather than 1/4s. Ironically, if you worked in feet as your unit of measurement rather than yards, moa would be a better match, ie 1 moa per 100 feet, give or take. 3.4 moa, aka 1 mil, is roughly how much a bullet drops in 100yds, so your scalar to go from range to drop is 3.4/100, which is a much less clean factor to do mental math with.



There is a system. You are essentially doing it, but with really awkward base ranges/winds and the wrong units. Let me explain.

The mil wind number method is as follows. I determine the amount of wind it takes to push my bullet 0.1mil per 100yds, let's say 6mph. Once I know the range to my target, I round to the nearest 100 and take that as my "base" in 0.1mil increments. So 480 = 0.5, 320 = 0.3, 240 = 0.2. You can go even simpler and just take the first digit of the range as your base (in tenths). Then you think about the wind bracket, is it a low, med, or hi wind, let's say 3, 6, or 9+mph. You then scale your base hold by the ratio of the observed wind to the gun wind number. So in this example, 0.5, 1, 1.5 scaling of your base.

My mental flow goes like:
Range 480, base 0.5
Crosswind is light, cut that in half, hold 0.2.

or

Crosswind is heavier, 6-10, hold 0.7.

And really, I'm just trying to center my prediction on the target, not hold a perfect amount. I think you agree with this based on your bracket comments earlier.

The most equivalent way to do this with moa would be to find the wind speed it takes to blow your bullet 1moa per 100yds. But the issue is that this number will be big, like 18mph. So the scalar of crosswind/gun wind number will often be some awkward small fraction, like 1/6 or 0.2 rather than simpler halves and wholes.

Your method of using 2moa at 500yds to determine the wind number is all sorts of complicated, since you now have to carry that through all your math.

You're mixing arguments here. Starting with your drop argument, which assumes a 100-yard zero. The problem with that assumption is that it's inefficient for the vast majority of hunting that most people do. Guys who teach LR doctrine simply get that one flat wrong. There's a cost to the 100-yard zero and it's reduced efficiency where most of us need it most - the 0-300 yard realm. Period. Full stop. A MPBR zero is more efficient - at least for the 0-300 range where the vast majority of big game is killed - and y'all have low-key conceded that in this scope with a 'aim short' and 'aim long' argument. Congrats. You reinvented the duplex with a MPBR zero. Don't mind us, we're just aiming short and aiming long.

Now having said that....your 100 yard zero making mils and yards line up by something close to a 100-yard factor....yeah, that's a neat thing. Granted. But at the end of the day it's functionally no different than a turret marked in yards. I'd argue that it's less efficient - because instead of reading the yardage and interpolating it, stopping the dial between, say, 300 and 400, for your 347 yard shot, you have to take your quick drop and move the decimal then subtract your 0.2 or whatever, then move the turret just like I did.. The subtraction....ehhh, it's math, it's not hard, it works fine, but I don't think it helps your speed at all. I'm not sure the guys who object to dividing by 4 can remember to subtract 0.2. And I don't say that to be snarky. I mean it.

Moving on to the mrad quick wind system..... I wasn't trying to explain *your* system to you - I was simply and only explaining to you how a moa system could work. And I say 'could' because I'm not pretending to have perfected such a system. Just saying 'ehhh, we can do that too'. Starting with some base 500-yard wind figure (like 2moa for 10mph) then dividing it by the actual wind factor (0.6 for a 6mph wind) is honestly sufficient for the majority of shots. Yes, you can take the actual range, round it, refactor it, and be slightly more accurate. But if I start with a 2moa wind basic hold, times 0.6 for a 6mph wind, that's about 1.2 moa or round to 1moa. Hold 1moa and bang. If you want to fudge that downward to reflect that the wind is less at 300 than 500, sure....what what does that buy you in this case? You were holding 3 inches (~1moa) into the wind on this hypothetical shot. You're not even on the edge of the vitals here on even a coyote. Taking the extra step to refactor for 300 yards instead of 500 bought you another, what, inch of precision? On a 300 yard shot? Not needed.

The resulting mental flow (to respond to your bothering to post yours, which I appreciate) would be:

Range 480, round to 5, that's a 2moa hold.
Crosswind is medium, cut that in half, 1moa. Hold 1moa, shoot.

Or

Crosswind is near full value, hold 2moa, shoot.
Or

Crosswind is light, bracket between the 0 and 1moa marks. Shoot.