MilDots, MOAs, and BDCs, Oh My!

[Graham Smith]

I'm in the process of planning for a bolt-action rifle (in .308) that I can shoot paper and steel from 100 to around 700 yds including unknown distance targets. IOW, a civilian sniper rifle. One of the most bewildering things in all of this is the array of different reticles.

I basically understand the idea behind Mil-Dots but they seem almost crude in comparison to some newer reticles. The question is, are any of these newer offerings any better or are they just so much smoke and mirror?

BDCs seem like a good idea but they don't seem to be that good for doing range estimations and they are pretty much limited to a particular ballistic path. One example is the Burris Ballistic Plex and Ballistic Mil-Dot reticles. If you are using the loads they are designed for, you can pretty much count on them being accurate, but if you are not, you may find that the 300yd hash mark is closer to 327yds with your load so you end up having to use a specific range card with clicks - which eliminates the advantage of the reticle in the first place.

MOA reticles look like a improved version of a Mil-Dot which use the same math and offset calculations.

Mil reticles look like a variation of the MOA but appear to have a slightly simpler math.

The big question is, does one of these newer reticles offer anything that the others don't or does it make more sense to just stick with a standard Mil-Dot and learn to work it?

[maineshootah]

Goo starting point for Mildots...

http://www.shooterready.com/

Nice pics & quiz questions to boot.

[Religious Shooter]

For a precision rifle I wouldn't get a BDC reticle or a standard mil-dot reticle.

I would get a reticle that had at least 1/2 mil or 1 or 2 MOA gradients. IMHO the standard mil-dot reticle is too coarse for ranging and hold overs.

A BDC reticle isn't good enough for use in a precision rifle. BDC reticles are calibrated for a certain condition --- elevation, velocity, BC, etc. Conditions change too much for it to be useful to consistently engage 1 MOA targets.

I would also get turrets to match the reticle. MOA adjusments with a mil reticle is so last decade. MOA/MOA or MIL/MIL is the way to go.

After that, IMHO, the rest is personal choice.

Personally I prefer mils and a reticle with a mil tree for windage.

[Graham Smith]

Personally I prefer mils and a reticle with a mil tree for windage.

That's kind of what I was thinking, but wasn't sure if this was just the "reticle of the year" sort of thing of if it was something that had real legs.

Is there a particular manufacture that you would look to for a moderate priced mil/mil scope - I haven't got a spare $1200 lying around to drop on a scope right now.

[Religious Shooter]

I'd check out Vortex. Their PST line is going to come out anytime now. Under $1K with Mil/Mil and MOA/MOA set-ups.

After that pricewise its going to be something in the lines of Leupold, Nightforce, USO and S&B for MIL/MIL set ups.

[Boats]

Two ways to go entirely different.

Old way was have a table of elevations for different distances and dial them in off the scope or rear sight knob for individual shots. Most match shooting your spotter or coach tells you what to dial and often times the rifle will have the table pasted to the side of the stock. I only know what I read about snipers but understand this was the method used for years, spotter tells the shooter what to dial while he observes the shot through a spotting scope. When I used to shoot on a local team as a junior often the coach would turn the sights knobs and not trust the shooter to do it right.

Now we see scopes full of dots with the idea being the shooter can calculate bullets impact by counting off the dots. That may be a good way but last scope I had with more than one aiming point, Varmint Unertl with two elevation cross hairs, I missed more than once on live varmints by using the wrong one. Critter starts to move you have to act quick. Back to targets. How is a spotter going to tell a shooter which dot to use in a repeatable reliable way ? He can't see the reticule, he can read your scope knob.

Personally I only want to see one aiming point and put all my focus on the target. I rarely go wrong dialing in the proper scope setting for distance. I think you will find formal target shooting were precision is an issue dialing in for elevation is the most common method.

Get used to it and your rifles trajectory you can look at the target, estimate distance, and think right away how many MOA the shot will take. Mine are all set for zero at 100 yards. Silhouette rifle is zero 100 200 yard Chickens 1 300 pigs 3 385 turkeys 7 1/2 500 yard Rams 12. Paper target rifles or hunting rifle same idea. Take it hunting and see a 250 yard shot with a laser finder then set the scope on 2 it's going to be a hit. Go to a range marked in Meters I can do the math in my head get rough zeros. Cold day I know to add 1/2 to 1 moa to the sight. Get a wind change you can click the scope without even looking and make the adjustment, then go back to looking at one Dot.

Somebody able to make those calculations off a scope full of dots is better than I am. However if it works for you it's fine with me.

Boats

Edited October 20, 2010 by Boats

[Caspian_45]

Yes go with a scope that is MOA/MOA or MIL/MIL. It make the math so much easier. You can range with either. You can do holdover/under with either.

I like the Nightforce 5.5x22's with their TMR tactical milling reticale. I think thats what they call it anyway. It has half mil marks and is very easy to use the holdover/under to hit targets quick.

A benefit of MIL/MIL is that if you miss your miss is your correction. Say you hit one mil low and half mil right. Just hold one mil high and half mil left. Or you can dial it in the scope. It may work the same on MOA/MOA I just have not messed with them much.

Get you a great ballistics program and then have it proved with your rifle/ammo/scope. Holdovers/unders are quick but not very precise. A high end LRF and dial for range if you really want first shot hits at long range.

[Graham Smith]

Now we see scopes full of dots with the idea being the shooter can calculate bullets impact by counting off the dots.

That's part of it, but the other part of it is ranging. As I understand it, Mil dots and their kin were originally designed for determining range to target, which you could then refer to a chart for how much to dial in. Supposedly, you can also use them for holdovers as well.

I've been researching this more and here is what I have found.

BDC's are "aiming trees" calibrated to a specific loads ballistic curve. Best example is the mil-spec 62gr 5.56.

MilDot reticles come in several types including versions that don't have dots at all, just lines and have names like MRAD and ML16.

There are MOA reticles, but I'm not sure who makes them.

Turrets are calibrated in either 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, or 1 MOA or in 0.1 Mil. with 1/4 MOA being the most common.

One MOA is approximately 1" @ 100yds and one Mil is 3.5" @ 100yds. So, 1 click on a 1/4 MOA turret moves the bullet 0.25" at 100yds and 1 click on a 0.1 Mil turret moves it about 0.35" @ 100yds.

For precision shooting, 1/4 or even 1/8 is required but that's too fine for some uses while 1/2 MOA is a bit too course. 0.1 Mil splits the difference.

Also, the "big advantage" to the Mil/Mil scope is that the math is easier because the reticle and the turret use the same scale.

And that's pretty much the limit of my knowledge. There will be a quiz tomorrow on this.

[Bigpops]

Thanks for posting all of this. I need an education in scopes.

A buddy of mine just got his JP LR 308 and NightForce scope. He did a bunch of research and found some great articles. If I can find them tomorrow at work I will forward them on to you.

[Caspian_45]

Give this site a read.

http://www.shootingvoodoo.com/index.php/articles/maximizing_the_mil_based_reticle/

Actually a mil is 3.6 inches. At 1000 yards one mil is 36 inches. Also on that site is some printable data cards. Or you can buy a pre-made data book with a lot of the info you need and range cards already put together for you.

[Boats]

Guys will take your point on mil dots being a good system. I have been reading MOA for 50 years and you can't teach a old dog new tricks.

However on the cluttered reticules. Basic in any shooting game is primary focus on the front sight, translate that to scopes and it's hold using the centered dot or cross hair. I don't see any successful shooters using reticules to figure out point of impact in organized target matches. Might be some out there but I don't see winners with anything but single aiming points and they all adjust the sight for the range. Hold overs or off's sound good but in practice don't work as well.

Perhaps in a match with no spotter and using a caliber with light recoil so the shooter can see the impact there is a point for extra dots.

Boats

Edited October 22, 2010 by Boats

[Graham Smith]

Hold overs or off's sound good but in pratice don't work as well.

One supposed advantage of a mil/mil reticle/turret is that it can instantly be used to tell you how many clicks to adjust. If you are one half mil down, turn 5 clicks up

[Wap wap]

Some things to keep in mind:

it depends on how much you want to spend on the scope, a Zeiss varipoint for 2k with a z1000 reticle will work very well even though its second focal plane. (just dial in the the holdoffs if you don't like to holdover) most second focal plane scopes (the good expensive ones NF, Zeiss, SWaro) will shoot to poi at any magnification if your dialing in-- all second focal plane scopes will change poi with change of magnification when using reticle hold over. _

milling is accurate to about 3-5% of the distance milled, and works best on the scopes highest power sfp, or ffp

holdoff is necessay when shooting movers, which if your going to need this, a ffp works best or at least a reticle and turrets in the same, system,

a 5 mph wind at 500 yds is about a mil or around 3.5 moa holdoff with around 3 mils or 10 moa in your standard 308 stuff. select a reticle that will allow this.

a 308 is used by people who don't have a choice (300 win, or wsm, 7mmwsm, 6.5x284 etc. chose a caliber that is single turn so you don't need a scope that has elevation single turn. (Ex. 300 win. 155 amax at 3300 fps is about 7 mil to 1000 yds)

it doesn't matter what the bullet weighs( heavier bullets aren't affected less, its just that by co-incidence most calibers have higher bc in the heavier weights), the ballistic coefficient is all that matters. the higher the bc the less drag thus less wind drift.

Traditional mil-dot is dated, but it depends on how much you want to spend.

[bushmeat]

I learned the fundamentals of range estimation using a mil-dot scope and a calculator. Used this for several years until I played with a Leupold with a Boone&Crockett reticle. The horizontal hash marks denote a specific value at a respective distance - say 18 inches at 100 yards. Other BDC scopes have similar reference marks for bracketing your target. Range estimation and hold overs/unders are, in my opinion, markedly quicker to do. With the 100-700 ranges you have in mind, transitioning from one target to the next without having to punch numbers in is such a convenience.

Also, while BDCs are geared towards a particular load, reference points are simpler to keep in mind. You only need a spotter whenever you're using different ammo. Subsequently, you'll know to just hold high or low within a specific bracket.

[Wap wap]

ranging is different with sfp scopes than ffp. sfp has a linear relationship to the subtension of the target by the magnification, while ffp is the same through out the power range. using an equally spaced set such as mildot, tmr, or the variations as a bdc will give really weird yardages in your calculations, and will rarely be on the whole number of yards or meters. Your chances of getting them to come out are higher with a sfp and bdc reticle. When the cone of fire of the rifle/load combination is taken into account with the error in estimation (even with a laser) the statistical range of impact will vary as to how many yards of "forgivness" in front of and behind the target you have, which is of course smaller -- the smaller the target.For an example of this visit the swarovski web sight and run some simulations with a load you are thinking about, and watch the figures as to the hold values against the reticle hash mark. If you are still interested visit the Zeiss sight and run there software especially the optimize reticle which will recalculate the power on the variable to "make your numbers" come out on whole yardages.

[Jeff686]

When is this going to become mainstream enough for wide spread adoption? http://www.burrisoptics.com/laserscope.html

It measures distance and inclination, and is programmable to any load/bullet.

[Graham Smith]

Some things to keep in mind:

And after your brain explodes...

You make my point very well. It was all so simple when targets were all at 100yds.

[Wap wap]

in general lasers in the scope body will not become common because-- long range shooting is very specialized and I would need 8 of these scopes to replace the ones currently being used. When 1 Swaro lrf works for everything. Also the bushnell/burris is not even close to a good long range scope. The zeiss model is just barely, but if they put one in a Hensholdt the cost would be around 6k. There isn't a bushnell/nikon/burris scope in the alpha scope class. Shooting past 800 yds with changing wind direction is a shooter problem and not something you can program into something. Elevation, bullet drop, ballistics are just physics--- windage is voodoo.

[h2osport]

I use MOA/MOA. I do not click. All of my scopes get out to over 1000 yds in the reticle. My newest scope has 40moa below and above center cross hair for a total of 80 moa with out clicking.

The game I am playing with my precision rifles is shot with par time. I just do not have the time to click between shots or I would have to really rush my shots(4 minutes for 9 shots ranging from 350-1350yds). It is a practical field course, so you have to locate targets in between shots as well.

I do not use my scope for ranging although it is possible with moa or mil scopes.

Randy

[Wap wap]

not to many scopes reticles have at least 9 mil. in holdover. You didn't mention if it was sfp or ffp and if you shoot on one magnification or how you range the distance

[Graham Smith]

My newest scope has 40moa below and above center cross hair for a total of 80 moa with out clicking.

Make and model?

[Bigpops]

Gents,

From theses postings I see there is a lot of knowledge on this subject here in the forums. Do you guys have any suggestions or references where I could learn more. Is there a magical "Scopes for Dummies"? Something that wont make my eyes glaze over.

[Graham Smith]

Is there a magical "Scopes for Dummies"?

I'll second that. Most of what I have found in the research is either very simple or very complicated. I'm beginning to understand things enough to also understand that, like most things, there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. I'm also starting to understand that may of these things build on each other, you have to understand A before you try and understand B.

Purpose plays a very big role - hunting, target shooting at a known distance, target shooting at an unknown distance, timed shooting, etc all effect what you need the scope to do and this dictates what you want in a scope.

[Bigpops]

Is there a magical "Scopes for Dummies"?

I'll second that. Most of what I have found in the research is either very simple or very complicated. I'm beginning to understand things enough to also understand that, like most things, there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. I'm also starting to understand that may of these things build on each other, you have to understand A before you try and understand B.

Purpose plays a very big role - hunting, target shooting at a known distance, target shooting at an unknown distance, timed shooting, etc all effect what you need the scope to do and this dictates what you want in a scope.

My thoughts exactly! I want a JP CTR02 and have struggled with what to put on it. I think I have it narrowed down and then I read something that throws it all off. Geez...I'm still stuck on MIL's and MOA's!

I was leaning towards the JP reticle Acog and just say the heck with it.

[Wap wap]

several problems with a scope for dummies approach, although I wish there was one. The physics and mechanics of the process are there from many sources, but not so much material as to the slight differences the maker either improves on or cuts corners with. Put this with a lack of agreement on which approach is really the best, and the confusion grows. Even if one person has good results from hobby optics, there will always be one on the other side that had their share of problems for one reason or other. Sometimes there is even alot of scope experts on the net, and while fluent in the mechanics and curosity, don't have enough trigger time to focus in on the purpose part. Scopes have come along way just in the last 10 yrs. and the best buys are usually in the slightly higher hunter class types, the Conquest, 4200's that kind of stuff. What you pay for in the top dog stuff --- it does the same thing except much longer. Tactical type scopes are always heavier, bulkier and made better. Slim trim racers of top quality, on light wt. mtn. rifles are yet another type of high dollar specialization. One of the best places to start is make sure have a good grasp of what trajectories are all about. Generally speaking if one knows the drop between 200 and 300 yds, you can calculate or predict all kinds of stuff. (this is the basis of most hold over reticles. Leupold uses it their BAS system with the varmit reticle and Swaro uses it their tds and holdover reticles.). The second thing to funderstand is the difference between ffp and sfp, especially if you think you can just change powers on sfp and have poi the same using holdover-- the difference is essential, and the cause of so much confusion in scope discussions.