Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold finally built it

Got it! Thanks!

I can't debate that point, touche!

It's all in the togetherness of the system. Reticle shows clongs, dials adjust in clongs, dope chart in clongs = all set.

+1

And mrad simplifies any mental computation by using base-10 increments, but MOA is serviceable, as well.

Good choice. I've been using Ballistic:AE for years, and after using most of the others, it is still my preference.

Two things: 1) does it look like a 24mm objective? 2) your link takes us to a page where in big bold letters the scope is labeled as a 42mm objective.

What is the significance of 214 yards, in red?

PBR using a 5" vital zone radius.

On lower power scopes for targets I really like a center diamond around a floating dot or a mil/MOA type reticle that has hash marks in even increments from the center that I can use to frame the circle on a target or a steel disc. Hunting we do, a #4 with an illuminated dot is my favorite but a lot of my hunting scopes are a simple duplex. Our hunting is mostly in close, in thick woods though. Hunting I’m rarely above 4-5x because that’s what I leave a variable set at. Normally no need or no time to crank it up.

And I’m with Jordan, an MOA reticle is doable but mils are so much simpler especially with FFP
Why anyone ever produced a scope with Mil reticle and MOA adjustments is beyond me, Absolutely stupid

When you don't understand how things happened much of history will befuddle you.

Leupold was the first scope manufacturer to offer a Mil reticle.

At that time all adjustments in the high end Leupolds were MOA.

Nobody offered a Mil Reticle with Mil adjustments at that time so just having a Mil reticle was ground breaking.

Through Premier Reticle I had custom reticles in MOA and adjustments in MOA long before you knew which end of a Red Ryder spit out the BBs.

You and girlz like you sit back with 30years of hindsight and whine but have no understanding of how and why the things you take for granted were pushed into production.

Zip those lips and enjoy what the PLAYERS have done to give you so many reticle and adjustment options.

Custom MOA reticle and MOA adjustments long before any scope had Mil Reticle/Mil Adjustments.

I hunt about the same kinda places at home and run similar stuff. This year we took a few elk around and I don't think the scope went above 8X or so (490, 595 and 605 were the last readings before the shots). Brother and I have been shooting the SS 6X's for so long, anything above that seems like ALOT more. It is nice to have on target work, but on elk sized stuff 8X was plenty, especially with the dot in the center. The scope was a 3-18 so it had a bunch more to go, but as you know, sometimes you don't have a ton of time to mess with stuff. Lotsa ways to skin the cat and I think whatever works for you to get a shot down range as quick as possible is best.

Kahles made a Mil-Dot reticle w/MIL adjustments in 1969, the ZF69. Does Leupold's Mil-Dot option pre-date the Kahles?

I had the same?

In my inquiry re MIL v MOA, there was much debate but it appeared to come down to personal preference to most and it appeared that MIL had a stronger following but nobody would come out and say MOA was not ok. It was more a matter of what others were using in group events, everyone wanting to use the same standard. I was on the fence but an instructor at a shooting school that I highly regard said they use MOA at the school now but had used MIL in the past, that was good enough for me to tilt slightly in the direction of MOA.

As others have stated, dialing with dope cards, the come-up is just as easy with either although I've noticed that the MOAs are less finite, ie 3.1, 4.5, 7.5 vs 0.9, 1.3 or 2.2 for MIL if that makes any difference for people who need to wear glasses to read but don't have them handy for hunting/shooting.

I agree 257. It's a unit of measure. Get whatever one you feel best with. It don't make a bit of difference. I like mils, just since it is a 10 based system and I drag knuckles when I walk, but I can get along with either fine. Shooting is the difference, get to know either one or even both.

Did they say why?

No, the guy was pretty generous with his time and I didn't ask but probably should have.

Using MOA instead of Mils is like doing science stuff with Imperial measurements instead of metric. Base ten is more easier every time.

My father had a stopwatch with 1/100th minute increments. Some people couldn't get their head around it.