View Single Post
  #15  
Old 03-30-2014, 2:12 PM
ExtremeX's Avatar
ExtremeX ExtremeX is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 7,160
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hks95134 View Post
Redfield and Nikon also make great scopes, at half the price of Leupold's.

MOA reticles are better than mil dot reticles because they are more precise, and they allow you to make fast corrections within the scope as well as lead moving targets.

Check out the Redfield BattleZone scopes. Only $200 each at Cabela's.
Have you actually used both systems?

I own both MOA and MRAD based scopes and over the years started to favor the MRAD options even after starting out as a diehard MOA scope user.

You are correct in saying MOA is a more granular unit, but for practical purposes that really doesn’t matter. If you can actually tell the difference between .261” and .36” leading a target or holding over you must be one hell of a shooter. Difference in various reticle subtensions may just chew up the .099” difference.

Even if you dial correction I generally get more correction per revolution on MRAD turrets making it faster than MOA.

That said, I do like my MOA scopes for benchrest applications, and prefer them with SFP reticles in that role. All my field scopes and are MRAD based in FFP.

After using both systems they are both simple and easily adoptable. Switching back and forth presents no problems except for not having unified dope sheets to work from. Little more work, but it’s not a big deal.
__________________
ExtremeX
Reply With Quote