Any Leupold guys replace their TMRs with TMOAs yet?

Only 97.64% of the time, Jeff? I figured that number would be much higher
grin.gif


I will readily admit to being "stubborn" or "narrow minded" on the subject. But not inexperienced, however. I have played with mil-dots, and they have their use in the world. Just not in mine.

I can honestly say I have lost track of how many rifles/scopes I have owned. It was a pleasure and a privelege to play with so many toys. Unlike some, I kinda looked at it like a student. Still do. The fact that something shoots lights out isn't good enough for me. I have to know WHY, and vice-versa. My point is, I think I have formed a pretty good basis for what works well, and what does not. Or what is needed and what isn't. In my mind, anyway.

As I already alluded to: When a guy wants to buy a new deer rifle and his choices are all scopes in the 4-16 and 6-18, etc. power range with mil-dot reticles that weigh over a pound, I am sorry, but this narrow-minded guy here don't get it, and never will. I cannot sit here and honestly recommend such optics to a fellow shooter when I truly believe "less is more".

They make scopes specifically for hunting, target shooting, and tactical. I tend to use them for that which they were designed. Nowadays, it seems, new hunters/shooters feel they need a scope with all 3 said applications rolled into one to go kill a coyote.

One thing I have learned is that more often times than not, simpler is better, providing you take the time to learn your craft. Not bragging, but for example: I have shot eggs (and lots of clay pigeons) at 600yds with a 10X scope with a duplex reticle. Also took one deer at 625yds with same setup. Why do I need a scope that weighs twice as much and costs a lot more money?

As scopes go up in power/size, a LOT of concessions come with it. But I never hear of anyone talk about said concessions. Just more power and bigger lenses.

As for mils, they were made for ranging. But it seems even the guys they were invented for just use rangefinders now, except when in a pinch or when being forced to travel lightly in tactical type situations. Since none of these situations apply to me, I have no use for them. Apparently, there are a LOT more snipers in the world than I had ever expected, as so many do need mils
grin.gif


I'd be willing to bet that 75% of the hunters who buy MD reticles do not even know how to use them as they were designed.

At one time I had figured out how to use mils for drop and noted what calibers/bullets (at what speeds) could come out in even increments of 100yds. As in, each mil on bottom crosshair is exact increment of 100 from 200-700 yds or whatever it was. Last bullet I did it with was the 75gr A-max. Still have the data somewhere, I think.

Yes I'm admittedly old school. I do have a couple of NF for LR shooting with NP-R1(MOA) reticles, and even still have a Mark 2 with MD on an AR. My other 3 dedicated target scopes simply have duplexes or variations thereof. I have yet to let anyone talk me into believing that I need something else for given applications. In other words, it isn't broken so I'll not try to fix.

So there, take that
tt2.gif
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: rookie7


I believe matching turrets and reticle is just common sense. One of those "duh" concepts that should have been done that way from the start.

I read a lot on internet forums about optics. Been paying attention to all of those that have more experience than I on the subject. Learned a lot.

Folks talk about using the reticle to range objects. 99.9% of us will never use the reticle to range objects. It's a perishable skill that has to be learned. Most guys will use the fancy reticles for holdovers, windage, or seeing about how much they need to make an adjustment on a missed shot.

Not to mention most of us, except me, have a laser rangefinder.

Again, I believe matching turrets and reticles is basic fundamentals. Like having the same size tires on your truck.

However, I am also with 2MG on this. I am beyond tired of seeing every Ricky Redneck hunter trying to be a Seal Team Sniper.

I've been a sniper since the age of 7. Just ask all the living relatives of birds, squirrels, and rabbits on my dad's farm!

Rookie,
Your right on with the common sense thing, it was only logical. Too bad they couldn't have done it 20+ years ago.

As far as you and 2MG being tired of the sofa snipers and the redneck rangers. You guys should take a page out of the Furhunters manual for basic survival. Chapter 3 is titled "I could give a rats azz as to what someone else is doing as long as it doesn't effect me"
laugh.gif


If they can't shoot what they got, it ain't my problem.
 
Make no mistake, I don't care what others use/shoot either. It is simply a case of when my opinion is asked, I can only comment on my own personal experiences/opinions/preferences.

I have no use for MD reticles given the types of shooting/hunting I do. That's just me. That doesn't mean someone else doesn't have a need for them, or can't "prefer" them over my methods/equipment.

I would be interested in hearing from the MD fans, however, what applications they use their MD reticles for in which they believe them better suited than other reticles/methods.

In other words, what do you "need" MDs for, and why do you feel they are "better" for your particular types of shooting/hunting? When/why does a simple duplex/rangfinder/target turrets not work for you?
 
2MuchGun...

As someone who doesn't have a great deal of experience in either long range hunting or target shooting, but would like to learn for recreational purposes, I like the idea of holdover marks on a reticle. I also understand dialing up turrets will be more precise on a good scope, but I feel like it'll be nice to have a reticle with some holdover marks. I do know enough to say I don't like BDC reticles or custom dials for myself, because I like to shoot a variety of bullets and change my mind often.

If a guy wants holdover points, it seems to me more precise to use an MOA or MIL reticle with ballistics chart than custom BDC anything tailored to a specific load and atmospheric conditions, some of which may not be accurate to the current situation.

There's also dialing elevation and using mils/moa marks just for windage.

I certainly see your point about less is more. I have a few scopes now with simple duplex reticles + moa elevation or target turrets. I just want to try out a good Mil reticle myself.

I won't argue with you about any of this being any better than your system, as I have not the experience to do so. And your comments here have made me rethink some ideas I've had recently. So thanks.

 
Last edited:
Furhunter, I like Chapter 3 in your book - I try to adhere to that - but make no mistake the tactical craze has affected us all.

Used to you could walk into a gun store and see mostly richly blued steel and walnut. Now, it's plastic and some sort of matte finish. You'll be lucky to fine one finely finished firearm.

I don't care how functional and reliable a Glock is - it is that - but it has no soul. I don't look to pass one down to my son, and him to his, and so forth. The Ruger Single Six in my safe that I have had since I was a teenager I do. It has countless rounds of .22 down the pipe. My dad has a nickel plated .32 S&W revolver in his safe from his grandfather. I do plan to pass it on.

My Marlin 39A that I saved for and bought new in 1983 is something I will always keep, and one day pass down to my children. The s&w mp-15/22 is a lot of fun to shoot, but that plastic rifle is a "now" toy. I don't have a connection with it as I do my Marlin. It's almost as if the guns of yesterday have a soul. Most of the guns of today don't.

I look forward to the day we can walk into our LGS - buy a .22 rifle for our children/grandchildren, and buy a brick of .22 at a normal price for them to go shoot that day.

Sorry to the OP for getting off topic.

My first mil-dot scope was a nikon buckmaster 4.5-14x40. I bought it for my "long range" rifle b/c that is what I thought I had to have. Now, 5 years later I see that spinning turrets and using a regular ole duplex works for me. When shooting at a live animal I'm not guessing about any kind of holdover or wind. If I don't know for sure, I don't squeeze the trigger.

I did get that Zeiss though. Regular z-plex reticle sitting on top of my 700. I will post of pic of a truck wheel that I was shooting at yesterday at 300 yards. It was kinda fun.
 
There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to try various methods/reticles/equipment etc. and drawing your own conclusions. MOF, I personally wouldn't do it any other way. I have spent more time/ammo/money "experimenting" than I care to admit. But I had fun doing it, and that is all that matters.

Hundreds of guns/scopes later, I am now at a point where most, maybe not quite all, of my experimenting is done. I have a pretty good idea of what I like, don't like, and why. Like Jeff said, and I readily admit to, I am pretty much set in my ways now. But I did not get that way by being closed-minded. Quite the opposite, actually.

I now look at gun/scopes as being specialized pieces of equipment. That probably has something to do with why I own so many of each. I do not build/buy "tweeners". BTDT. Result is always the same. You end up with something that is "acceptable" for more than one task, but "optimal" for none. I hunt with hunting rifles wearing hunting sights. I shoot LR/target with rifles/scopes designed specifically for that purpose, etc, etc.. When I try to roll it all into one, I get a tweener rig that I'm not happy with. Just trying to save some people the time/money/aggravation. But I guess I am straying off topic a bit
blushing.gif


Like I said, if one feels they need a 6-18X, a 50mm obj., or MD or BDC reticle on their deer or yote rifle, that is their prerogative. If you like holdover points, custom dials, rangefinding reticles, BDCs, etc. then by all means, use them. I have tried it, and have come to prefer to keep it simple. That's what works best for me. YMMV..........
 
Your advice "tweener" setups sounds right to me. It's tempting to try to build your next big project to do everything, but I can see how that wouldn't work so well.

And to clarify my comments above, I don't even want to try to replace turret dialing with holdovers. I was speaking to scopes with capability for both, and not BDC types.

You'll get no argument from me on the 6-18, 6-24X etc for general hunting rigs. FOV means more than magnification for most of us.
 
Originally Posted By: 2muchgunTrust me, you will never be the LAST holdout
grin.gif
I've no need for mils, nor will I ever. The whole "hunters going tactical" thing is quite amusing to watch though.

I hunt with duplexes, or variations thereof. Even shoot LR with some. Have a couple of MOA reticles for LR, F-class and such.

Mixing mils/MOA was laughable from the start. Hard to believe companies did it. Harder to believe shooters bought it.....
Personally, I have to agree with you....as a fellow old timer. I prefer less busy reticles and for hunting predators the only thing i need to accurately estimate is the range. Once I got that, the holdover is instinctive. Zeroed at 200 yds, on a coyote it sure doesn’t matter much out to 300. Just put the crosshairs on the shoulder and pull the trigger.
 
Back
Top