2muchgun
New member
Only 97.64% of the time, Jeff? I figured that number would be much higher
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
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
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
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