which mil dot scope for $300 to $500

SS, that is interesting info. I never heard of the stadia subtension method, sounds interesting. Do most scopes give the subtension between post tips? I like the lines instead of dots, plus the .5 mil lines are an added bonus. I may just have to check into some different types/brands of scopes. I am kind of partial to the higher magnification as it's wide open country up here. Plus i like to not just aim at a target or coyote, but aim at a spot on the target/coyote. One of my buddies has a rangefinder, but he doesn't get out much. Plus when it gets cold the batteries don't last long and sometimes with the snow, sun and open country you can't find anything to range. I go by myself alot so i wanted to be able to range things fairly quickly, accurately and reliably. My one buddy and i are always disputing over distances, it's kind of funny really. I always think they're farther and he thinks they're closer, not sure who's been right... yet!
wink.gif


The formula i've been using is the basic mil equation i guess.

---Target Size(inches) / 36 x 1000 / Mils read = Range(yards)

I have since simplified it a little,

---Target Size(inches) x 27.77 / Mils read = Range(yards)

1000 / 36 = 27.77 saves me an extra step or two

I may have to play around with your formula, although i know it's dependant on the scope's reticle subtension. I was trying to understand your formula a little better...

18 x 27.77 / 1.2 = 416.55 yds... 1.2 mils = 4.32"(100yds)

18 x 100 / 8.63 / .5 = 417 yards... 8.63 / 2 = 4.32"(100yds)

My mind is drawing blanks now, so tomorrow i'll have to play around with your "reverse mil" to figure out target size. I'm not sure what the Nikoplex reticle looks like offhand, but i think your way would be more accurate. You could really narrow it down and get an accurate reading vs trying to measure the little space between dots. Thanks for the information!! I think it will be pretty handy and definitely more accurate, i just have to play around with it. One thing i don't get is how an 18" object at 400+ yds covers half your scope (tip to tip) at 8x??
 
TG, your formula is the same as mine just increased by a factor of 10 (you use 36x1000, and i use 3.6x100). Your formula also inverts the 1st 2 calcs. compared to mine. The problem with the 27.8 factor is just that. It's a factor that many guys never realize where it comes from. It's what i refer to as the "subtension unit". It's just the subtension of the mil-dot at 100 yds. (or 1000 yds. in your equation). 100/3.6=27.8. The SU for the Nikon would be 100/8.63=11.59.

The 417 yd. range in the example above is the yardage the 18" tgt. subtends between x-hair and plex post tip (1/2 of the 8.63 inch spacing between plex post tips).

You know it's really not enough to know how to calculate the formula. A quick system of application is important too. I've seen guys put their rangefinding dope on a piece of paper taped on the side of the gunstock. That's OK but i've found the best way to do it is to put it in a Blizzard style Butler Creek scope cap cover, so all i have to do is glance up to it to reference the chart, without getting out of position for the shot. Here's mine for Darrell Holland's Ultimate Mil reticle using 1/2 mil as my subtension unit for an 11" back to brisket coyote to as far out as that reticle will take me practically--
IMG_0630.jpg


HUMRDiagram.jpg

It's always in that order too--mil reading, then yardage as the mil-reading is the 1st information that's known, then ydge. The "P" is point blank range. So if i have to shoot fast i can still tell if the coyote is within PBR or not by simply bracketing him quickly. If he's as big as the designated gap or bigger, then just aim dead center and shoot.
 
Last edited:
Another advantage to understanding the complete formula (whichever arrangement your using), is that it also defines downrange zeroing as well, since if u think about it a tgt. size at distance is really the same sort of dimension as a bullet drop when refernced with an optic (turret or reticle). I.e. suppose u want to know how many mils to hold for 43" drop at 534 yds. (this is actually reverse-milling once again). Just fill in the variables--

43 x 100 / 3.6 / X = 534
X=2.2 mils

Hows about 46" drop with a .25 MOA turret at 624 yds.--

46 x 100 / 0.24 / X = 624
X=30.7 .25 MOA clicks.

Fun stuff man, fun stuff!
 
Last edited:
So how many "charts" do you put on your gun? I am thinking i can write everything down in a little notebook so i have all the information. Then make some small charts and see which ones i would want or use most often. I like the scope cap idea.
I've come up with a lot of charts one can make, but how many is too many and what's practical and not.

1. Mils for ranging distance (could have more than one depending on power setting, ex. 24x & 30x)
2. Moa adjustments at x yards, drop and windage
3. Mil adjustments at x yards, for holdover and windage
4. Wind drift (would only need to chart 5 mph, seems close enough to just x2 for 10, x3 for 15, etc.)

I think it'd rather dope the scope for better accuracy, but if mr yote doesn't give you the time to, or if there's multiple yotes and multiple distances.(one comes in and one stands out there) It would be "quicker..."
I've thought of marking the turrets with tape for moa adjustments? But then if i switch between different bullets, i'd have to take them on and off. During the season though maybe it wouldn't hurt. I don't know maybe my friend is right and i'm "over thinking" things haha. You don't get many opportunities, so i just want to make every one count.

That "P" is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
That's the big question really--how far do you take this stuff for hunting? I've put a lot of study into this and the best system i've come up with is a simple chart in both Butler Creek scope cap covers. The ocular has the zero dope, and the objective has rangefinding. I'm only going out to 600 yds, maximum with my rigs--an AR-15 and specialty pistols. Here's the ocular dope for another reticle designed as efficiently as i could think of just like the one for this XP-100 6.5 WSM. The nice thing about the BC system is all i have to do is glance up to it WITHOUT HAVING TO GET OUT OF POSITION. For coyotes you have to be fast most of the time, and this is the best system i could think up--range, elevation and windage (@10 mph). All my dope is calcd. for only one magnification usually the highest (except for a point blank range power i've calcd. most of the time)--





Got another buddy of mine i've been hunting with that has dope all over his gun, and uses reticle as well as turrets. He also carries an I-Pod Touch with the JBM ballistics program he's calcd. and tested using a G-7 drag funcion for the 87 V-Max out of his AR-10. He calls in for air density updates several times a day and uses a Kestrel for elevation and temp. Too much, huh? I thought so too, but he's got 4 1st-shot kills from 470-785 yds. this year with only 1 miss beyond 400.--amazing. So who knows what works best. Each to his own.
 
I have 2 of the 10X SS scopes from SWFA. I have one on a 308 and one on a 223. Each have been excellent and have held their zero well. The glass is good and I believe it is comparable to my Leupold VX-II. I use the rear focus models, a friend of mine has a side focus model and to me it's a little harder to reach the side focus than the rear. I have practiced a lot and have gotten decent at finding range with it. I use one of the paper calculators to help when in a hurry.

One problem with the 10x is that it makes it tougher to get doubles. The 10x does focus well up close and out far.
 
Originally Posted By: joshua79109I have 2 of the 10X SS scopes from SWFA. I have one on a 308 and one on a 223. Each have been excellent and have held their zero well. The glass is good

I second this. I have 2 also and no complaints. The other optic in this price range is the Wonder Optics WOTAC-10, very close to the SS except I like the fine lines of the WOTAC for longer range targets. I am seriously considering buying another WOTAC-10 for my new AR 243wssm purchase. I like fixed power scopes though.
 
Krakkon, that's what my buddies doing too. He's got his trajectory dead nuts on...but he had to use the G7 drag function to eliminate some error beyond 600.


ThanksGuys, wnet out today with a buddy that just bought a 3.5-10x Mk4 with M3 turret. He has the mil-dot reticle in it. I was showing how to apply it for rangefinding and downrange zeroing. At the last range we were shooting at 425 yds. on an 18" plate. I told him to bracket the plate and we would calculate the range. He told me about 1 mil. So i ran it in to the equation and got--

18x100/3.6/1.0=500

I thinks to myself, something's wrong--should be better than this. So i asked to take a look at it. And it appeared to actually occupy just a hair less then 1.2, figured a guess at 1.18--

1800/3.6/1.18=423.7

The guy just couldn't believe it. He said, i didn't realize u had to break the reticle up that closely. I told him it makes a geometrically greater difference the further out u go. Imagine that though--a rangefinding accuracy level to ~.3 percent using a reticle. Gotta love it!
 
SS, that is crazy. I think being able to breaking the reticle up closely and accurately will come with practice. I was actually just looking at a Mil scope that was broken into .2 mils. They were lines instead of dots. Then i was looking at an MOA reticle and thought hey that might be easier math.

Target size(inches) / MOA read x 100 = distance in yards
12 / 3 x 100 = 400yds

BUT that reticle was in 2 MOA lines. So as i played with the "easier" ranging math i quickly realized it may not be the best. 12 / 3 x 100 = 400yds and 12 / 2 x 100 = 600yds. As if the 2 MOA spacing between lines didn't seem small enough, HALF of that covers 200yds!!! It looked like there was more space between the .2 Mil lines than the 2 MOA lines on the reticles. So i think that would make it easier to get a much more accurate reading.
 
The way i see it is that when using the mil-ranging formula with any stadia to stadia gap the whole idea is to break it down into tenths of whatever unit u have available (the 2 MOA would actually be 2.094 inch per hundred yds.). Even though it's true that the difference between 2 MOA and 4 MOA would be a lot, u're still going to break it down into tenths of that gap. So IMO you should be able to achieve an accuracy level of one tenth of the 2 MOA gap or .2094 IPHY (basically 1 tenth of 200 yds. in your example or ~ +/- 20 yds.). If u think about it the 2 MOA gap is still more accurate than the mil-dot (smaller).

Now the .2 mil is very accurate of course @ .2 mil or 0.72 IPHY, which if my theory is correct would give u an accuracy level of ~ +/- .07 IPHY interpolatively. So in your 12" tgt. example at ~300 yds. that would be--

12 x 100 / .72 / x = 297

x=5.6

So +/- .1 error would give--
303 for 5.5
292 for 5.7

5 yds is of course insignificant.

Awhile back i came upon something though that gives even a hair better accuracy with line reticles (like the .2 mil systems). If u think about it most guys bracket their tgt. between lines not from center of line to center of line, so in an attempt to get the most accuracy from reticle-rangefinding the thickness of 1 line should be subtracted from your subtension unit. So in the example of Leupold's .2 mil TMR reticle above, that amounts to 0.02 mil (line thickness) or 0.648 subtension unit instead of true .2 mil. I actually stumbled upon this concept a couple years ago while attempting to reticle-range a buck antelope i came upon while coyote hunting using the Burris 3-12x pistol scope with Ballistic Plex reticle (line stadia). Darrell Holland actually teaches this in his long-range shooting school too. But i think he's the only one.

When reticle rangefinding with a ballistic reticle that doesn't have a repeating subtension unit (like the mil-dot), then u have to do a bit more math. It gets a little more complicated too (i.e. more practice), which is why i have this article on-line for ballistic and rangefinding reticles-- www.ottllc.com/specialtypistols/sp20.pdf Item C) Reticle Rangefinding

Actually just looked again at your example and you were using an avg. of 500 yds. instead of 300 as i quoted--sorry, then +/- .1 SU would be ~ 100 yds....which is why my reticle-rangefinding on game usually ends at 500 yds.
 
Last edited:
With all my data i have come to the conclusion that u really can't do much better than about 3% error CONSISTENTLY with any reticle that i've used (many ballistic and rangefinding reticles). You will get accuracy to the level i mentioned earlier often but it's not the std. 3% ain't bad though--sure beats guessing...IMO.

U know what's really cool about all this is the feeling your getting while punching the figures into the calculator (not while hunting, BTW). I mean this guy was probably looking at me like i was some kinda' nut. But when i showed him th result, it was sure fun watching the look on his face change.
 
i ran in to the $ problem last year and went with a konus pro for a 22-250 it got good glass and i paid around 400 for it well worth the money for the quality
 
Back
Top