Affordable MOA/MOA scope

Flashpoint

Smile, wait for flash
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
3,915
Location
Alamance County
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
I've always wanted a MOA/MOA scope. I'd rather be working in MOA because it relates more directly to inches on target than MILs. Shot landing three inches right at 200yds? Six 1/4 MOA clicks left (1.5 moa) please. There is a big deal made about MIL/MIL because the turrets match the reticle but why not have the same thing in an angular measurement us unwashed imperials can relate to?

Anyway, Bushnell has recently released a new line of scopes that use MOA reticles and turrets. They're very affordable so I'm not sure of the glass and quality overall, but I'm thinking of getting one to try, specifically the 2.5 - 10x 30mm side focus. The reticle is nowhere near as thick as it appears in the stock pics, I found a through the scope pic and the lines are very thin and precise and it is easy to see between them.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_18/7...-2-5-10-came-in.html&page=1&anc=bottom#bottom
 
It's cool if you want an MOA/MOA scope. I get that is what you understand. Just for the record, mils does work for inches too.

1 milliradian at 1000 inches distance = 1 inch of elevation.

1 milliradian at 1000 yards distance = 1 yard of elevation.

1 milliradian at 100 yards distance = .1 yards of elevation = (.1 yard)*(3 ft/yard)*(12 inches/ft) = 3.6 inches of elevation.


But stick with what you like/know/want to and I'm not being sarcastic.
 
I have not heard of that model; I say that only to affirm it must be new, that's all. At that price, not a whole of reason not to try it.

MOA/MOA, MIL/MIL, either gets the job done. So does the infamous MOA/MIL it just takes a bit of getting used to.
 
I'm used to inches as are most Americans. It just makes sense. For ranging I know how big stuff is in inches, as well as sighting in I think in inches and most targets are marked in inches. Why would why would I chose to use a reticle that requires a conversion? KISS.
 
It's cool if you want an MOA/MOA scope. I get that is what you understand. Just for the record, mils does work for inches too.

1 milliradian at 1000 inches distance = 1 inch of elevation.

1 milliradian at 1000 yards distance = 1 yard of elevation.

1 milliradian at 100 yards distance = .1 yards of elevation = (.1 yard)*(3 ft/yard)*(12 inches/ft) = 3.6 inches of elevation.


But stick with what you like/know/want to and I'm not being sarcastic.

And one milliradian at 1000 smoots distance = 1 smoot of elevation. MILs aren't related to inches directly at all and require the 3.6 conversion.

Edit: To be fair MOA isn't exactly related to inches either but the coincidence of 1 MOA = 1.047 inches at 100 yds makes it good enough for my purposes.
 
Last edited:
I have not heard of that model; I say that only to affirm it must be new, that's all. At that price, not a whole of reason not to try it.

MOA/MOA, MIL/MIL, either gets the job done. So does the infamous MOA/MIL it just takes a bit of getting used to.
I can use any of them, but I'm lazy.
 
Is it second focal plane?
Yes, but that's not a biggie for me. I see FFP as mostly being an advantage with a high power scope where you may be looking long range at less than full power. I'll be at 10x if I'm ranging or counting hash marks.
 
Yes, but that's not a biggie for me. I see FFP as mostly being an advantage with a high power scope where you may be looking long range at less than full power. I'll be at 10x if I'm ranging or counting hash marks.

I was going to say, if the reticle is already razor thin, and it is FFP, then it might be really hard to see on the lower end of the magnification spectrum. SFP won't change it
 
I was going to say, if the reticle is already razor thin, and it is FFP, then it might be really hard to see on the lower end of the magnification spectrum. SFP won't change it
Yeah I had a 1-6x FFP and the FFP functionality was useless because at anything lower than 6x the reticle was too small to see, lol. SFP would have worked just as well.
 
Quite a few companies now make MOA/MOA scopes. Vortex and SWFA both come to mind. I started using MILS for the simple reason that I wanted to learn something new. And no conversions needed. I have several measuring tapes that are metric and some have both scales on them. Anyway, when I measure a group I just measure in cm and then just click up or down. For example, 1 cm at 100 meters equals 10 mm/100 m = 1/10 mil or 1 click on my scope. If I'm 7 cm high and 3 cm to the left I just click 7 down and 3 right. The major problem is that we want to convert from one to another. That's where it gets confusing. Just pick one and pretend the other one does not exist. I find myself using metric more and more. I was measuring a piece of wood the other day that I had to cut precisely to fit. I used mm's instead of inches and it was so simple. You can just add mm together. I have a difficult time adding 9/32 and 3/4 together but adding 7 and 19 is easy even for my old brain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil
 
Downeast you hit the nail on the head. We really don't need to convert if we adopt the measurement system we're presented with, but I'm just more comfortable and accurate estimating inches than cm, for example and I think most Americans are geared to inches as well (as are most targets themselves).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom