So fine..

Flashpoint

Smile, wait for flash
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
3,915
Location
Alamance County
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
...but not in a positive way.

A couple of years or so ago I decided that I wanted to standardize on MOA/MOA for my magnified optics, I see absolutely no reason to go with MIL anything other than the unfortunate dominance of of MIL/MIL or MIL/MOA (or vice versa?) optics. Therefore I purchased an example of a new line of MOA/MOA scopes from Bushnell called Engage. I went for one of the quite affordable ones, not one of the 30mm tactical turret style but a 1" tube with capped turrets because I would use the holdovers instead of spinning turrets and it's half the weight, still with side focus though. I really liked the reticle with 1 moa divisions. It was fine lined but I used it more for target shooting and it worked well against paper targets.

So I recently decided to get a 2-7x lightweight version for my RA 300BLK and move the 4-12 to a precision 22LR I will own soon. The application is primarily shooting subs out to 200yds and anything in between, which hopefully explains why I want a graduated reticle and not just a duplex style. Unfortunately I didn't consider the consequences of halving the size of an already very fine reticle. I wanted lightweight because this is a rifle I would someday take to the field, but dang the reticle is pretty much unusable for anything real world, and certainly not quick to pick up. Not impressed with the quality either, it was missing the front scope cap and has a piece of trash on the reticle glass. Thank God I bought it from Amazon, it's already boxed back up and waiting for UPS.

Pics are the best an impatient prick could do with a cell phone and not indicative of the quality of the optic. Now I'm looking for another affordable MOA/MOA scope of about the same magnification but perhaps with 2 moa divisions and a thicker reticle, lol. I may just get another 4-12, but anything under that is not going to work with that fine a reticle. So why did I post this? Just bored, take it as a PSA. :)

Pics are sideways, deal with it, :p

20190824_120210_HDR.jpg 20190824_120218_HDR.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am sticking with MOA scopes as well so you are not alone.

Lots of choices out there. Vortex, Athlon, and SWFA are good for the money at the price points they serve. I don’t want to mess with really cheap scopes. Not worth the hassle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Other than the reticle trash on this one I have no issue with the quality of this scope line for my intended purposes. The 4-12 I have now has been great and I'm not the only one who thinks so if you care to read some reviews: https://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Eng...shnell+engage&qid=1566772285&s=gateway&sr=8-4

The main issue and purpose of the post is my failure to realize what effect almost halving the magnification would do to such an already fine reticle.

Also if the plan is to use the graduated reticle for holding over the scope doesn't really need to have precise and repeatable turret operation because they will be rarely used. All I want is relatively clear glass, relatively light weight, and ability to hold zero.
 
Last edited:
I had a bushnell elite series once upon a time and was happy with it. A little larger than your looking for but good glass for the money. I currently have a vortex diamondback tactical not mounted on anything if you would like to take a look at it. I can’t remember the specs on it but it was cheaper than the bushnell by about $150.
 
I think mil keeps the math simpler for ranging and also works equally well between metric and english systems. 1 mil = 1 inch at 1000 inches = 1 meter at 1000 meters = 1 yard at 1000 yards = etc.......
 
I think mil keeps the math simpler for ranging and also works equally well between metric and english systems. 1 mil = 1 inch at 1000 inches = 1 meter at 1000 meters = 1 yard at 1000 yards = etc.......
It only is simpler if you stay in the metric system. Yes a mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards but I want to work in inches at the target, it doesn't scale like it does in the metric system. If you stay in metric it's great. MOA all day for working in inches/yards mostly due to the 1" = 1 moa @ 100yds relationship which is just a happenstance and not perfect but it's easy and good enough for what I do which is shoot subs. I never plan to shoot them farther than 200yds.
 
I was going to post something similar but realized that I _could_ (but don’t want to) think of things in yards. 1/2 yard for shoulder width. 1 yard tall fence post. 2/3 yard tire diameter. But I am with you all the way - MOA is easier for me. For values over 15MOA or so I can do the 5% adjustment if things need to be that exact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have a Diamondback as well and it's not a bad scope for the money. I switched to MIL mainly because I always try to learn something new. I kinda like it. 1 mil =1 cm @ 100 meters, approximately. But then again I like my FFP scopes too. My reticle has a 1/10 mil scale so if I'm hitting off center (maybe due to wind) I just measure and click and I'm right back on in seconds. I second the SWFA scopes. Great scopes for the money. I like the 12X fixed SS. It may be something you wish to look at for your .22. They make them in a 16X and 20X too.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom