Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold finally built it

Gotcha.

What I'm getting at is you may be impressed with what you can do with "only 10x" if the clarity and mechanical reliability are there.

The fact that it's MOA is really neither here or there with respect to the FFP aspect. The reticle is just a ruler. The FFP part means the marks on the the ruler will keep the same spacing relative to the target no matter the magnification. MOA, mils, or dillyfloops, it doesn't matter. What you want is for the scale on the adjustments to be the same as that of the reticle.

Is there a particular reason you chose the MOA scale?

You'll have a blast 257. You build some great looking rifles that shoot.

I agree with MM, you'll be able to do a bunch of good shooting with it as a 10X. I have found as I have gotten a little older I like some more X's, but for about 95% of everything a 10X top end in a good optic is pretty good. We still tear stuff up pretty good with the old 6X SS, but the reticle is pretty awesome for distance work.

I'll add just a couple of points to this.

In addition to the clarity and mechanical reliability of the scope, the reticle design makes a big difference when it comes to suitability of the scope for LR shooting. The ideal FFP reticle design for most hunters/shooters is to have bold outer bars that extend to about 5 mrad from the center of the scope, and then a very fine center portion with 0.2-0.5 mrad graduated hash marks. I also personally like a floating center dot, but that's largely up to personal preference. How fine the center of the reticle is, i.e., its subtension, will determine how small of a target the reticle will fit within and you can shoot, assuming sufficient magnification and clarity for you to resolve the target.

The other point, is that like mathman said, the units on the ruler don't really matter too much for your own usage, as long as the reticle and turrets match, but if you shoot with other people or plan to spot for other people and have them spot for you, it is also very useful to have common units and speak the same language.

Agree about the center dot's Jordan. Really just started using more of them recently and really like them up close for target work or planting it on hide/fur at distance.

Yeah, over the years I've grown to really like a nice, fine center dot for close- and long-range work.

I asked for opinions re MIL v MOA as well as illuminated and did some research online, the replies were about equal for both, depending on what the respondent was used to and how they used it. I chose MOA because it's more relatable to me (many say the same about MIL) and I really didn't want a battery in my scope or pay the extra $200 for illuminated, if I use the scope for hunting, I may regret that decision.

FFP is entirely new to me so will have to see if I can get used to it, my eyes are not what they were but the initial focus on the scope seems fine. I doubt I'll use the reticle for measuring distances as I carry a rangefinder (it was a really nice Leica when I bought it, seems dated now) but I would like to educate myself on the process.

I've really no clue if I'll like FFP or not but I'll find out pretty soon.

Thanks Beretzs, to say I "build" them is a bit too much credit but I do assemble the parts once they are accumulated, getting them all is the hardest part. One of the reasons I like McMillan is that they typically turn out the stocks in less than two months.

This!: "as long as the reticle and turrets match"

This worries me a bit. You should get away from thinking along the lines of "an MOA is about an inch at a hundred yards" if that's what you mean.

Make your dope charts in MOA of correction rather than amounts of linear drop at various distances.

That is handy. That is one thing they have gotten right after the change of ownership. They do make great stocks.

That's good because with today's quality LRFs, using the reticle to estimate range is pretty far down the list of useful applications of a graduated reticle.

I find the math of MOA more relatable, for example:

308/168 gr/2700 fps

-32" at 400 yards

32/4 (distance) = 8 MOA come-up

or

475 yards, -50", 50/4.75 = 10.5 come-up

But then again, I'd have my dope cards sorted before I did any real shooting, I'm just scratching the surface on this stuff.

It may be obvious to you that "maths" is not my vocation, the university (FSU) has other ideas for me in that regard.

Skip the steps like the ones I highlighted.

Generate your dope in MOA at distance.


The point is you shouldn't have to do any math, whatever the scale. Put your load into the ballistic calculator. Generate the dope directly in MOA, mils, or dillyfloops to match your scope scale whatever it is.

I've found that mine is a bit bulky, really needs two hands to operate and struggles beyond 500 yards on non-reflective surfaces, a new one will have to wait a bit, a few other priorities are ahead on the list.

Roger that!

I just let my ballistic ap on my phone generate that stuff

Take this and reduce to range and MOA come-up only

Need to get that app!

Exactly. My point is there's no real relatability issue because you could read off the mils come up column just as easily.

Not sure, but I have an easy one called Bullet Drop + on my Iphone I keep for easy stuff. It works well enough for getting started and is pretty user friendly. I think it is still free or maybe 5 bucks. Allows you to save a ton of profiles as well, so I use it when someone asks me this or that. I also have Ballistic AE for more dedicated stuff. I am sure the others will have some good rec's as well.