Scope for learning Mils

[Chris in TN]

OP - if you're looking for a sign, this is it - you should take Q up on his offer.

 

[dreamingWest]

TLDR: Q's offer on the SWFA 10X is a great deal to learn mils.


I avoided SWFA for years. I didn't like the look of the long turrets, I didn't like that I couldn't just log into their website and buy one whenever I needed. I also wasn't sold on mil/ffp. I finally got convinced to seek out a SWFA 3-9 here in the classifieds and bought one within 24 hours. It looks much better in person, and it seems tailor made for doing what you are looking for, learn mils (and test ffp). Also, after using the mil-quad reticle, while I'll maintain the 3-9 is the best hunting option, I will admit that the fixed 10 is a screaming deal and that despite some of my previous posts otherwise, I do think it would be fine for most hunting situations. Not ideal, but adequate. I also think I would prefer the fixed 10 to the fixed 6 for range work and learning.

All that said, my first mil/ffp scope was a Nightforce SHV 4-14x50 with Mil-R. While not great at 4X (or 14X), the scope is excellent from 6-12. I've seen some of these in the classified here recently for $800-900. Some guys will try to "price gauge" SWFA 3-9s due to scarcity, so this SHV could be a great second choice.

 

[flyfisher117]

Then we're on the same page on both issues. Any theoretical speed advantage of one system is meaningless; any theoretical accuracy advantage of another system is meaningless. People should pay their money and make their own choices.

Yup. If you know me you will know I advocate for people to try both systems and pick what ever one works best in their brain under stress. Stick with that system and practice practice practice.
Hence why above I still recommended the SWFA because if he hates MILS he can sell the scope and not lose a ton of money.

 

[Chris in TN]

Yup. If you know me you will know I advocate for people to try both systems and pick what ever one works best in their brain under stress. Stick with that system and practice practice practice.
Hence why above I still recommended the SWFA because if he hates MILS he can sell the scope and not lose a ton of money.

I'm on board with that.

I absolutely do not think the OP can go wrong with a SWFA scope.

 

[270-300]

This has not been my experience. MRAD allows much easier and faster wind correction and elevation correction, often without needing dope cards or ballistic calculators.

With a .243 as OP is using, he probably doesn't have a "quick drop" friendly trajectory, but wind is still much more intuitive to hold .1 per hundred yards per 5 mph or 6 mph of wind (depending on specific bullet/speed) than it is to do a similar MOA formula.

Slower cartridges (.223 with 77s, 6mm ARC/Dasher, 6.5CM, some .308 loadings, etc) often have a trajectory that lines up as follows:
100 - 0
200 - 0.5
300 - 1.0
400 - 2.0
500 - 3.0
600 - 4.0
Every 10 yards is another 0.1 so 330 would be 1.3, 480 is 2.8 etc.

With lots of cartridges, I can make hits out to 600 without touching a dope card or ballistic calculator, doing drop and wind in MILs in my head faster than I can look at an MOA drop/wind chart.

My only regret in switching is not having done it sooner.

I could see where having a base 10 system would be appealing to some people.

For me, I like to sight in a solid point blank range, and use hold over reticles.

In my 270 this means o is 275. 350 is 2" low, or one reticle line down, the next line is 450, then 550. I hardly ever have to shoot past 200 yards on game.

I dont worry about systems aligning by the exact 100 yard increments because ive yet to find animals that will align with the 100 yard increments.

 

[270-300]

can you share a few instances where that finer adjustment mattered in a field scenario?

Varmit hunting.

 

[Chris in TN]

I could see where having a base 10 system would be appealing to some people.

For me, I like to sight in a solid point blank range, and use hold over reticles.

In my 270 this means o is 275. 350 is 2" low, or one reticle line down, the next line is 450, then 550. I hardly ever have to shoot past 200 yards on game.

I dont worry about systems aligning by the exact 100 yard increments because ive yet to find animals that will align with the 100 yard increments.

In fairness to the mrad guys here…..I have a couple rifles set up like that and once you get maybe 100 yards past MPBR scenarios, it gets iffy.

One hash mark extra elevation on a ‘aim long’ hurried scenario: great. I’ve done it often and several times under pressure including the most rushed shot of my life, and I nailed it. Two hash marks: doable but not ideal.

More than two hashes? My brain starts to slow down and wants to recount. Terrible idea for hunting. Maybe it would be OK if you had a custom reticle with marked distance hashes. But in the shooting I’ve actually done, once you get very far into those holdovers they start to slow you down.

I pretty often shoot a couple of .22lrs, one with a not so great holdover reticle out to 225 yards and one with a somewhat better reticle out to 330 yards. Neither are ideal and I’d much prefer to just dial if I am serious about hitting stuff. I realize that what I’m saying isn’t really a mrad versus moa point of discuss but to the credit of the mrad guys, most of them are adamant about dialing at distances if at all possible outside of that narrow, limited ‘aim long’ scenario, and I applaud them for that.

In short, one extra hash mark is ok. Two is workable. Three is downright iffy. If your brain can process all of that in a manner that is faster than just dialing, my hat is off to you, but I can’t do it.

If I was hunting with OP I’d much rather see him start dialing past 300, regardless of what graduations he was using. YMMV. I’m not saying you should switch. I’m just saying that my kids are learning to dial when possible.

ETA: also, another problem with secondary holds is that they really need to be less visible than the primary hold and at some point in field conditions you’re going to be relying on a less visible hold.

 

[eric1115]

I could see where having a base 10 system would be appealing to some people.

For me, I like to sight in a solid point blank range, and use hold over reticles.

In my 270 this means o is 275. 350 is 2" low, or one reticle line down, the next line is 450, then 550. I hardly ever have to shoot past 200 yards on game.

I dont worry about systems aligning by the exact 100 yard increments because ive yet to find animals that will align with the 100 yard increments.

The issue is that particular BDC reticle for that particular rifle may work that way, but they're all a little different. I can put any MRAD scope on a quick drop friendly rifle and go shoot. My fast 6mm doesn't line up, and while I have a solver in my rangefinder it's so nice to pick up one of my other rifles and just shoot. All my kids' rifles are quick drop friendly so that I'm not switching between profiles to get their solutions. It's not just that it's base 10. It's base 10 that scales incredibly well to multiple aspects of shooting rifles in many common chamberings. Switching from quarters to 0.1 MOA on a scope would not make it better.

I really don't mean to drag this thread into the weeds, but the claim that MIL has no advantage over MOA is simply not true in my experience (or the experience of anyone I know who has given it an honest try with decent information on how to best utilize it).

OP is interested in learning MIL system. If you've tried to learn it and had problems understanding the benefits, post up your issues and maybe we can help with input that would also be valuable to OP. If you haven't tried to learn it, respectfully I'd say you have no business making your "It has no advantages" claim.