Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles I been looking closely at Vortex MOA scopes.

Bruce Baer is a stocking dealer of nightforce scopes and he always swore by their MOA reticles for long distance. Minutes in the reticle, minutes on the knob. Less mental confusion. Makes sense to me! But it seems the shooting world, due to military influence is going Mil/mil instead. ARG! Ain't there no justice in this world??? LOL

I see Vortex is offering more and more options that are MOA MOA. Leupold gets so many things right when it comes to practical use of the scope in the field, but I get the impression Vortex has been taking notes.

http://swfa.com/Vortex-4-16x44-Viper-HS-T-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P63837.aspx

At 20oz this might be a little cumbersome on my SPR build but if it is I can screw it onto another rifle.

Kids in the Army can't do math, that is the reason for it. Mil-mil does speed up second shots after a first shot miss, IF the spotter can see bullet splash or read the trace well enough, IF his spotting scope has the same reticle. Other than that, I don't see the advantage. I especially don't see how it could help a lone hunter.

But, isn't there an app for that?

You nailed it. Formid posted in another thread that keeping a sniper data book was a waste of time since he had an I-phone.

And GPS units never run out of batteries, lose signal, or just quit working...same with radios.

Had so much fun running convoy TCs through the paces with maps and planning, and trying to get them to understand the issues of moving in foreign lands and cities, and the "what if" you are seperated from the main body, and have to navigate on your own.

On topic, The Vortex scope should be a great add on yopur rifle. I have three Vortexs, all have been solid and repeatable. One has a lit reticle that is a bit squirrly on the on/off stops...but is easy to read. Size-wise, can't be any worse than my SWFA 10 power tube...

I think Vortex is here to stay for awhile, they seem to listen to customer input, watch the market trends and match the holes with the tech. Haven't used their return policy, but seems to get good reviews on here when needed.

The one I linked weighs in at 20 oz or thereabouts which seem to be what the SWFA SS's weigh in at.

I cannot discern 1/10th of a mil/dot. Or at least I have not spent the hours to practice to try and do it, and as my old eyes get mo tired quicker I get a tad frustrated.

I might have better luck with the finer gradations of an MOA reticle.

its all in what you get used to IMHO.

You think you can't define 1/10 of a mil dot.

But I can define the difference of 3 inches of bullet placement with a post AR front sight at 600 yards. I"d have bet years ago I would not have been able to.

One would think that all MOA would be better in teh world, or all MIL, in the meantime pick what you work best with.

So let me get this straight: it's easier, it's faster, and it's more accurate for follow up shots? And exactly why would using two different measurement systems be better?

















Ok, so since you are both currently up to date with sniper capabilities walk me through this.... What does a "data book" offer the sniper that does not know what range his next target will be at, does not know the wind, does not know the elevation, angle, barometric pressure, probably doesn't know the lot of ammo he will receive when he gets there? He may not know where in the world that target will be.

Please explain how to use the data book that was "built" in NC, GA, SC, or CA in Afghanistan....

Me thinks you missed the point on an attempt at humor commenting on tech vs training.

Are you a graduate of a Level 1 SOCOM Sniper School? If so, what class #.

Mine was SOTIC class #3-87.

[quote=Formidilosus]



So let me get this straight: it's easier, it's faster, and it's more accurate for follow up shots? And exactly why would using two different measurement systems be better?

It is easier/faster for a sniper team IF the spotter has a mildot spotting scope. If it would offer anything to a hunter, I'm not aware of it. Enlighten me.

It is an easier system to teach to kids who have to use their I-phones to count change, as is the norm today.

Actually I find it's the opposite--people doing the math in their heads often find single-digit decimals easier to work with than fractions.

For example, when .8 mils is your dope for a 10 MPH wind, you estimate average windspeed at 6 MPH, that's a .5 Mil hold. Very easy. Very fast. If your dope is 2.75 MOA or 2 3/4 MOA, that times .6 = ....not something most want to try and do quickly in their heads.

If you're getting the answer spit out of a device for every shot, it doesn't matter as much.

I've got a lot of numbers rolling around in my head every day from my job dealing with high tech computer controlled machinery. I find that shifting gears to my hobby takes a real focus for me. I just cannot keep all the reticle math in my bad memory mind.

I hear what you are saying about decimals, but I am wired for yards. I would transition if I thought it were easier. 1 moa at 100 yds is for all practical purposes 1 inch. That seems simpler right out the gate for me.

I have to focus and go over the trig again; but I thought the basis for simplicity with mildots was the fact that the tangent of one mil-radian is .001

Help an idiot out here!! LOL

So am I. Virtually everybody in the civilian world in this country is, and that doesn't need to change. Most use yards for distance measurement, even when using mil scopes. It works just fine.


That certainly is, but what does that get you? Virtually nobody seriously uses the reticle to range with these days, so forget about that. If using inches for drop and drift, then MOA is easier but the best advice is to stop doing that. Once you make the transition to measuring drop and drift in angular units it no longer matters.


Basically just remember 1 in a thousand. A mil is one yard at 1000 yards. 1/10th yard at 100 yards. Very easy to remember.

The only thing that could be easier is if a yard was made up of 100 centi-yards which would make the math easier for ranging, but like I said, we have lasers these days.

Both systems work just fine, it's just a matter of preference. Don't take this as pushing you toward mils, I'm just saying don't be afraid of them. If you're "fully functional" on an MOA scope you can be the same on a mil scope in a whopping 5 minutes or so. It's really not a big deal. After some use you may find you like it better as many do. If not, you'll at least be competent with one if somebody hands one someday.