|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 63
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 63 |
You don't "think" in Mils, MOA or anything else for that matter. I don't understand this thinking. Do you range a target, look at the data for hold over or hold off and try to figure out what 67.3" of drop "looks" like and 23" of wind drift "looks" like in relation to the target?
The turrets are marked.
If the data says the correction is 14.25, you dial the turret to 14.25.
If the data says the correction is 7.7, you dial the turret to 7.7
If the data says to hold off 2 "units" to the right for wind, it's pretty straight forward.
You don't do any conversions or calculations before your shot either with a mil reticle and MOA adjustments. Your drop data is in MOA and wind data is in mil
If you want to just use the reticle for hold over (drop data in mil) it's simple if your data is printed or on Ballistic AE to just look at it and do it.
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
You don't "think" in Mils, MOA or anything else for that matter. I don't understand this thinking. Do you range a target, look at the data for hold over or hold off and try to figure out what 67.3" of drop "looks" like and 23" of wind drift "looks" like in relation to the target?
The turrets are marked.
If the data says the correction is 14.25, you dial the turret to 14.25.
If the data says the correction is 7.7, you dial the turret to 7.7
If the data says to hold off 2 "units" to the right for wind, it's pretty straight forward.
You don't do any conversions or calculations before your shot either with a mil reticle and MOA adjustments. Your drop data is in MOA and wind data is in mil
If you want to just use the reticle for hold over (drop data in mil) it's simple if your data is printed or on Ballistic AE to just look at it and do it. I agree. I can hand my 12 year old son his mil/mil setup. He'll look at the chart and dial. Give him my MOA setup, he'll look at the chart and dial. Makes zero difference. And to further prove it doesn't matter, he and I don't even know WTF a MIL or MOA is....  Travis
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,900 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,900 Likes: 1 |
What happens when you fire and your spotter says that you hit 6 inches low at 600 yards?
If you're on an MOA system, you simply dial up one MOA (basically, I realize it's a bit off). If you're doing everything in Mils, you gotta do math and convert....so you dial .278 MILS.
System standardization across the board is a big help.
When systems become convoluted, it makes for confusion. If you and your spotter are both on the same system, it makes life a lot easier. Now your spotter can say "You hit .3 Mil low." You dial .3 mils and shoot.
Same thing with having a Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA scope. If I'm spotting for myself, I say "I hit .3 Mils low." Dial it, shoot again. No conversion = less time involved, so I take advantage of similar conditions, and less chance of effing up the math (because there really isn't any).
It has nothing to do with the drop chart....it's past that point. The issue has to deal with what you're seeing in the real world, and making those observations into a measurable number you can use to determine corrections.
Last edited by prairie_goat; 10/21/13.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,070
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,070 |
What happens when you fire and your spotter says that you hit 6 inches low at 600 yards? Prairie goat, not a problem, they never miss.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 63
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 63 |
What happens when you fire and your spotter says that you hit 6 inches low at 600 yards?
How does he know it's 6"? He's guessing. If you have a spotter that's using a spotting scope with a mil or MOA reticle and he actually measures the miss with it, OK
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395 Likes: 2 |
A lot of the above comments is proof that a company really has to be careful who they listen to when designing products. In this case everybody believes that they know what they are talking about, and that thier experience and opinion, no matter how little they actually have, holds the same weight as those who have a lifetime of skill and knowledge.
Tom and Bushnell chose experienced, knowledgeable and skilled shooters to help design this scope. Probably two of the best choices that they could have made.
Not trying to belittle anyone or be rude- however, the scope is called the LRHS- Long Range Hunting Scope. Not- "10oz hunting scope that I'm going to get turrets added, mount on a 6lb Kimber and pretend that it's a long range rifle" scope. If you don't "get" mils because your brain "thinks" in MOA and inches, than you don't understand what you are trying to talk about. Guess what? Bushnell went to people that actually have experience with normal hunting, LR tactical shooting, and LR hunting and that are successful at all three. There is a reason that the community that specializes in long range field shooting has moved to scopes the are FFP with mil adjustments, mil reticles, locking turrets, and zero stops.
Mils vs MOA:
MOA, and Mils are angular measurements. In practical use they are just a number. A tape measure for you to read and adjust the scope correctly. As was stated above: you don't think in clicks, MOA, or mils. You read the number of your drop chart and spin the turret until it lines up.
Matching reticle and turrets:
Mil reticles and mil turrets (or MOA/MOA) when paired together do really good things for the shooter. When you miss, and you will miss, there is no thinking involved. You read the reticle and adjust for the next shot. No trying to figure out whether you were 12 inches low or 18 inches low, and then if you can determine how much off you were, doing math to come up with the adjustment to use to correct for the next shot. That's the reason those who shoot at long range use scopes with reticles that have marks on the vertical and horizontal axis. With a mil based reticle and mil adjustment I see that my shot went 1.2mils low and .3 mils right. Instantly I know the correction is to dial (or hold)- UP 1.2 and left .3. That's it. No guessing, no math, no bs. The reticle is a ruler and I dial what it says.
FFP:
Front focal plane with a reticle designed correctly is absolutely the way to go. It allows you to do the above AT ANY POWER. That's why it works. If you shoot targets under time constraints from muzzle distance to where you need to start checking if the round is still supersonic, FFP is money.
Turrets:
Covered turrets are unnecessary if the turret locks. In order to adjust this scope you pull up on the turret to unlock it, adjust as needed, and then push down to lock it into place. When combined with a zero stop= virtually full proof.
Reticles:
Who cares. Really the only thing that matters is that the reticle is functional. Those who do not buy scopes because of how a completely functional reticle looks, care more about perception and less about reality. As long as something in the reticle is bold enough to draw my eye to the center at low power in low light, thin enough to not obscure the target at all on higher powers and long range, matches the scopes adjustments and is marked at least every mil (preferably every .5 minimum), than it doesn't matter. I will hit and kill with it. I personally do not care for the "CQB circle" around the cross hairs, however that will not stop me from using it.
Weight:
Lighter is better. Scopes that work are best. Make the scope how it needs to be to hold zero and track on EVERY shot and deal with the weight.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but if someone doesn't understand why they built the scope this way than they do not understand long range field shooting. If you are someone that thinks the Burris B-plex, Rapid Z800, or any other BDC reticle is the way to go, or someone who thinks that the Leupold CDS and a duplex are the greatest invention yet for your hunting, than you probably do not understand scopes like this.
For hunters and shooters that have the skill and need/want a scope to work from 800/900/1,000, etc yards while still being totally usable inside the woods than this is a great choice.
Pat and George, good job.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,590
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,590 |
Good lord. Do you feel better about yourself after that long ass rant?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,590
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,590 |
And to clarify, I like Pat and George (at least what I know about them from the internet as I've never met either of them), and I agree, Bushnell picked the right two guys to piece this thing together.
With that said, it doesn't mean that my opinion in what I like is any less valuable. It might be less valuable to Bushnell (obviously), but I know what I like. The fact that you're getting all worked up about that is humorous...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 63
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 63 |
Formid is not ranting, just trying to educate some that may not have the experience or understand what is important in Long Range Shooting. His post is on the money. Everyone has an opinion on lots of things in life like cars, food, wine and even rifles. A guy who doesn't understand his post or why Pat and George designed the scope that way probably drives a Yugo, eats at McDonald's, drinks White Zinfandel, and shoots a Savage.
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,893
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,893 |
George has my love and always has...and Competition in the market place,is THE best thing for the Consumer.
The premise is largely sound and I savvy the intent.
Mil/MOA,MOA/Mil,Mil/Mil,MOA/MOA is all MOOT/MOOT. Same goes Yds or Meters on parallax adjustment,or in a LRF or BRF. What matters is consistent adjustments,lineal in nature,that repeat,the rest is [bleep] semantics,no matter how much a Mall Ninja wishes otherwise.
The reticle is far too cluttered for me,the circle needs to go and it'd be nice if the horizontal stadia hashmarks were lesser in their sizing(retaining their spacing). Would be nice to see the vertical stadia clutter above the crosshair intersection,go away too. Noone is ever going to use it to holdunder(if they are,they've badly [bleep] up their initial zero range,for the cartridge/boolit) and subtending Critters for range determinations is a folly,unless you are playing Haybale & Crockett in a Golf Course. The Real World don't allow such things.
Turrets are far more precise than substension,so if given a choice,I'll take SFP. It is an inordinate circumstance(say 22LR at 400yds+,with it's very modest impact splash) ,that I'm not 100% catching trace/impact feedback as I shoot,so doping a correction on any scale or reticle(at any power) is a [bleep] breeze. That because I don't enter into an equation,less known dope and I'm not fending comeups,but rather wind. Comeups remain 100% Physics,Wind remains 100% VooDoo. Even at 400yds+ with a 22LR,if a Spotter says "a foot right",I can either slide whatever reticle is in the glass or adjust the turret,no matter it's scale. I prefer MOA,because it's my first language,but can happily squirt Mil's.
The fast focus eyepiece is a heart breaker,due to BC orientation and such designs tend to leak. Both are bitter pills.
I quizzed George on the turret's zero function,but he never got back to me and prolly missed the query. From afar,it appears that to zero,one must loosen the fastener atop the turret,remove the whole thing and re-index on the spline. Assumption all,but that is how it appears to my eye,from the wideangle pics.
Have yet to see mention of it's Waterprooftitude and that's a huge concern.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
What happens when you fire and your spotter says that you hit 6 inches low at 600 yards?
Get a new spotter. Travis
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
A lot of the above comments is proof that a company really has to be careful who they listen to when designing products. In this case everybody believes that they know what they are talking about, and that thier experience and opinion, no matter how little they actually have, holds the same weight as those who have a lifetime of skill and knowledge.
Tom and Bushnell chose experienced, knowledgeable and skilled shooters to help design this scope. Probably two of the best choices that they could have made.
Not trying to belittle anyone or be rude- however, the scope is called the LRHS- Long Range Hunting Scope. Not- "10oz hunting scope that I'm going to get turrets added, mount on a 6lb Kimber and pretend that it's a long range rifle" scope. If you don't "get" mils because your brain "thinks" in MOA and inches, than you don't understand what you are trying to talk about. Guess what? Bushnell went to people that actually have experience with normal hunting, LR tactical shooting, and LR hunting and that are successful at all three. There is a reason that the community that specializes in long range field shooting has moved to scopes the are FFP with mil adjustments, mil reticles, locking turrets, and zero stops.
Mils vs MOA:
MOA, and Mils are angular measurements. In practical use they are just a number. A tape measure for you to read and adjust the scope correctly. As was stated above: you don't think in clicks, MOA, or mils. You read the number of your drop chart and spin the turret until it lines up.
Matching reticle and turrets:
Mil reticles and mil turrets (or MOA/MOA) when paired together do really good things for the shooter. When you miss, and you will miss, there is no thinking involved. You read the reticle and adjust for the next shot. No trying to figure out whether you were 12 inches low or 18 inches low, and then if you can determine how much off you were, doing math to come up with the adjustment to use to correct for the next shot. That's the reason those who shoot at long range use scopes with reticles that have marks on the vertical and horizontal axis. With a mil based reticle and mil adjustment I see that my shot went 1.2mils low and .3 mils right. Instantly I know the correction is to dial (or hold)- UP 1.2 and left .3. That's it. No guessing, no math, no bs. The reticle is a ruler and I dial what it says.
FFP:
Front focal plane with a reticle designed correctly is absolutely the way to go. It allows you to do the above AT ANY POWER. That's why it works. If you shoot targets under time constraints from muzzle distance to where you need to start checking if the round is still supersonic, FFP is money.
Turrets:
Covered turrets are unnecessary if the turret locks. In order to adjust this scope you pull up on the turret to unlock it, adjust as needed, and then push down to lock it into place. When combined with a zero stop= virtually full proof.
Reticles:
Who cares. Really the only thing that matters is that the reticle is functional. Those who do not buy scopes because of how a completely functional reticle looks, care more about perception and less about reality. As long as something in the reticle is bold enough to draw my eye to the center at low power in low light, thin enough to not obscure the target at all on higher powers and long range, matches the scopes adjustments and is marked at least every mil (preferably every .5 minimum), than it doesn't matter. I will hit and kill with it. I personally do not care for the "CQB circle" around the cross hairs, however that will not stop me from using it.
Weight:
Lighter is better. Scopes that work are best. Make the scope how it needs to be to hold zero and track on EVERY shot and deal with the weight.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but if someone doesn't understand why they built the scope this way than they do not understand long range field shooting. If you are someone that thinks the Burris B-plex, Rapid Z800, or any other BDC reticle is the way to go, or someone who thinks that the Leupold CDS and a duplex are the greatest invention yet for your hunting, than you probably do not understand scopes like this.
For hunters and shooters that have the skill and need/want a scope to work from 800/900/1,000, etc yards while still being totally usable inside the woods than this is a great choice.
Pat and George, good job. Damn dude... I was already sold. Now I really want one... Travis
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453 |
I knew he could explain it correctly. FFP is the only way to go in a variable scope with a ranging reticle. Otherwise, the reticle can only (accurately) be used at specified power determined by the manufacturer, not the shooter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,110
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,110 |
I guess I was so animated about this because I actually LOVE the elite series of scopes. when I get behind one its like an old catchers mit. The scopes are easy to get behind without too much eye relief, like what leupold and zeiss have in many cases. the problem with bushnells in the past they lack the features I want in a scope.
I hear all the arguments about just look at what the chart and the data says. have you guys actually done much shooting outside of the gun range??? what if I want my data to be easier to understand in my head. what if I have to get off a shot faster than digging out a bunch of data. animals don't wait around forever. what is 3.5 mils at 700 yards equal in size, ok what is 3.5 MOA at 700 yards. the MOA units gives me a rough size doing simple math in my head. I think many of the experienced shooters love the mil system because the only equipment available to them in the past was all mil based. they are used to it and they know it because thats essentially all there used to be available.
I don't get the requirement for FFP reticle. I would also like to see how usable that reticle is at low power. If a FFP reticle is unusable at lower power why even have the reticle be FFP in the first place. While I haven't seen it, I really have a tuff time imagining all those horus like marks at the lower part of the scope being useable at all at low power. if the scope is SFP then you can figure out what the differences are at low power. my scopes are either on low or high power, its really rare I use the in between power setting. I suspect others are the same way. and if you have a scope set up to dial why have a funky reticle going on in the bottom of the scope?? hopefully those that are helping work on this project will see some of the comments and ponder them. otherwise I am happy with my nighforce and its MOAR reticle
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
I guess I was so animated about this because I actually LOVE the elite series of scopes. when I get behind one its like an old catchers mit. The scopes are easy to get behind without too much eye relief, like what leupold and zeiss have in many cases. the problem with bushnells in the past they lack the features I want in a scope.
I hear all the arguments about just look at what the chart and the data says. have you guys actually done much shooting outside of the gun range??? what if I want my data to be easier to understand in my head. what if I have to get off a shot faster than digging out a bunch of data. animals don't wait around forever. what is 3.5 mils at 700 yards equal in size, ok what is 3.5 MOA at 700 yards. the MOA units gives me a rough size doing simple math in my head. I think many of the experienced shooters love the mil system because the only equipment available to them in the past was all mil based. they are used to it and they know it because thats essentially all there used to be available.
I don't get the requirement for FFP reticle. I would also like to see how usable that reticle is at low power. If a FFP reticle is unusable at lower power why even have the reticle be FFP in the first place. While I haven't seen it, I really have a tuff time imagining all those horus like marks at the lower part of the scope being useable at all at low power. if the scope is SFP then you can figure out what the differences are at low power. my scopes are either on low or high power, its really rare I use the in between power setting. I suspect others are the same way. and if you have a scope set up to dial why have a funky reticle going on in the bottom of the scope?? hopefully those that are helping work on this project will see some of the comments and ponder them. otherwise I am happy with my nighforce and its MOAR reticle Every single one of your questions have been answered on this thread. Literally. Travis
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453 |
Simple answer is with the reticle located in the first (or front) focal plane, the image and reticle remain the same in relationship to each other with regards to distance measurements on the reticle (Mils/MOA).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,110
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,110 |
I guess I was so animated about this because I actually LOVE the elite series of scopes. when I get behind one its like an old catchers mit. The scopes are easy to get behind without too much eye relief, like what leupold and zeiss have in many cases. the problem with bushnells in the past they lack the features I want in a scope.
I hear all the arguments about just look at what the chart and the data says. have you guys actually done much shooting outside of the gun range??? what if I want my data to be easier to understand in my head. what if I have to get off a shot faster than digging out a bunch of data. animals don't wait around forever. what is 3.5 mils at 700 yards equal in size, ok what is 3.5 MOA at 700 yards. the MOA units gives me a rough size doing simple math in my head. I think many of the experienced shooters love the mil system because the only equipment available to them in the past was all mil based. they are used to it and they know it because thats essentially all there used to be available.
I don't get the requirement for FFP reticle. I would also like to see how usable that reticle is at low power. If a FFP reticle is unusable at lower power why even have the reticle be FFP in the first place. While I haven't seen it, I really have a tuff time imagining all those horus like marks at the lower part of the scope being useable at all at low power. if the scope is SFP then you can figure out what the differences are at low power. my scopes are either on low or high power, its really rare I use the in between power setting. I suspect others are the same way. and if you have a scope set up to dial why have a funky reticle going on in the bottom of the scope?? hopefully those that are helping work on this project will see some of the comments and ponder them. otherwise I am happy with my nighforce and its MOAR reticle Every single one of your questions have been answered on this thread. Literally. Travis dude, did you read what I said, where in there do you see a question??? in fact I haven't really asked any questions for the large part in any of my posts on this subject. rather I just stated my opinions. why is it people get put down for having an opinion that differs from theirs or the pack mentality. Why do you even bother coming here and reading anything if every one gets in a circle and decides thats how something should be. for that matter why did anyone even post about this scope?? I assume they were looking for comments on it. I am one of the very few that have taken the proposed features of this scope and argued on their merits. I would say for the most part I actually like the features of the scope and if other options were available while keeping the basic design of the scope I am interested. noone one seems interested in talking about what potential problems there are, but rather are fixated on how great and knowledgeable the people working on the scope are and how they must know everything. again why have an original thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 115,424 Likes: 13 |
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual. Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit. My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 63
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 63 |
.
I hear all the arguments about just look at what the chart and the data says. have you guys actually done much shooting outside of the gun range??? what if I want my data to be easier to understand in my head. what if I have to get off a shot faster than digging out a bunch of data. animals don't wait around forever. LOL
The people wringing their hands over Trump's rhetoric don't know what time it is in America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,160 Likes: 28
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,160 Likes: 28 |
dude, did you read what I said, where in there do you see a question???
Questions in what you said: have you guys actually done much shooting outside of the gun range??? Which is really very laughable if you're familiar with Pat's work at all. I don't know him but from what he's posted on various places. Dude's laid more meat on the ground than John Holmes. Question: what is 3.5 mils at 700 yards equal in size, ok what is 3.5 MOA at 700 yards. Question: If a FFP reticle is unusable at lower power why even have the reticle be FFP in the first place. You admit you've never even seen it- yet have the opinion that it doesn't work. Question: why have a funky reticle going on in the bottom of the scope?? Because when you're out of Ele in the turret, you can still get more via the cross lines in the FOV. All questions you claim you never asked and all were essentially answered in the thread. I count 4 in that one post. Not looking to bust your balls but it's laid out there.
Me
|
|
|
|
|
565 members (10gaugeman, 1936M71, 1minute, 1badf350, 17CalFan, 69 invisible),
2,404
guests, and
1,357
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,685
Posts18,494,008
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
