Higher magnification = smaller reticle? Explain this.


PDA






dodging230grainers
October 13, 2008, 12:46 AM
Just a thought...


With variable scopes, the highest magnification usually represents the most accurate mil system, dot to dot.

So comparing a 3.5-10x with a 4.5-14x scope, how could you range a target using mil dots the same with one scope on 10x, and another on 14x? Wouldn't the 14x reticle have to be smaller to compensate?

How does this work/balance out?

thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Higher magnification = smaller reticle? Explain this." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Guns R Tools
October 13, 2008, 01:19 AM
On second focal plane types; Usually ranging is done on one set-magnification, specified by manufacture. In all other magnification rangin won't be correct.

However on first focal plane scopes the reticle grows and shrinks with magnification and ranging is always correct.

Sunray
October 13, 2008, 01:52 AM
High magnification means one thing. A lower field of view.
"...how could you range a target using mil dots..." Read the manual.

dodging230grainers
October 13, 2008, 10:26 AM
I know how to range a target using mil dots, but my original question was, there has to be something to compensate for the fact that at 10x, on a 3.5-10x scope, you will see a shorter man than you would looking through a 4.5-14x scope on 14x.

On 14x, the man would look taller through your scope than the same man on 10x, which means unless there is something to compensate, you would be ranging two completely different heights/ranges, even though it's the same man.

USSR
October 13, 2008, 10:40 AM
So comparing a 3.5-10x with a 4.5-14x scope, how could you range a target using mil dots the same with one scope on 10x, and another on 14x? Wouldn't the 14x reticle have to be smaller to compensate?

Actually, the 14x reticle would have to be slightly larger than the 10x reticle in the other scope. This is readily seen if you have ever looked thru a scope where the mil dot reticle is in the first focal plane, in which the reticle gets smaller as you turn down the power. In this case, ranging actually becomes impossible at the lower range settings of a 3.5-10x scope, as the reticle becomes so small that the mil dots are no longer visible.

Don

waterhouse
October 13, 2008, 10:58 AM
I know how to range a target using mil dots, but my original question was, there has to be something to compensate for the fact that at 10x, on a 3.5-10x scope, you will see a shorter man than you would looking through a 4.5-14x scope on 14x.

As mentioned, if the reticle is in the second focal plane, it will only be correct at one magnification. Often (not always) this magnification is the highest setting.

When they make the scope, they make the dots the "correct distance apart" at 14x on one scope, and at 10x on another scope. If you put either scope at 8x, your ranging will be incorrect on both scopes.

With a second focal plane, you can only range at one magnification, and this magnification is specified in your owner's manual for that particular model of scope. If you set up a yard stick at a distance, and looked at it at 10x in one scope and 14x in the other scope (if that is what the mil dots are set up for), the yard stick will appear larger in the 14x picture, but the dots in each reticle should cover the same marks on the yardstick.

If you enjoyed reading about "Higher magnification = smaller reticle? Explain this." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!