scope sight in ?

coonbait said:

if you have a scope that has 1/4'' click adjustments and you are off 1'' at 100yds you move it 4 clicks to zero it. how much do you move it if you are 1'' off at 200yds, 300yds ect.?

Click to expand...

Rotate 4 clicks for 1" @ 100, 2 clicks @ 200, etc. At 50 yards, for one inch movement w/ 1/4 turret, you would double the number of clicks to 8 for 1 inch.

Is that what you're looking for? You have 1 moa = approx 1" at 100. 2" @ 200, 3" at 300 thought it remains "1 moa".

Best way to sight it in is to center your scope on the target bullseye, brace the gun, then adjust the crosshairs to the center of your shot group one axis at a time. I know it's not easy out in the field but on the bench even with sandbags or your range bag as a rest it will work.

An easy way to think of MOA is to picture a large symmetrical cone that runs at a constant taper of 1" per 100 yards, so at 200 1 MOA would be 2", at 458.5 yard 1 MOA would be 4.585."

To figure 2 MOA at say 360 yards you would multiply your 1 MOA by 2. 1 MOA at 360 yards being 3.6" so 3.6" x 2 for 7.2" gives you 2 MOA at 360 yards.

So with your 1/4" MOA clicks you would use 8 clicks to move 7.2" at 360 yards.

coonbait said:

thank you that is what I was thinking but wasn't 100% sure

Click to expand...

People find it confusing. In my experience, mostly LEOs.

If you have something you can put the rifle in so it can’t move you don’t even need to count “clicks”, just drive the crosshairs from the aim point, to the impact point and your done.

If you know your load and run it through a ballistics calculator or look up the information on the manufacturers website, so you know the trajectory, then you can calculate how high you need to be at 100 for other ranges.

Sometimes this information is even printed on the box.

In the real world most scopes, even good ones, don't move exactly 1/4 MOA for each click. It is usually CLOSE, but not something I'd bet on. Counting clicks will usually get you close enough to hit paper, often very close to perfect. But you still need to shoot at all ranges you anticipate just to be certain.

If you actually chronograph the loads in YOUR rifle to get an accurate indication of muzzle velocity the ballistics programs are quite accurate. But using velocity numbers printed on a box of ammo or a ballistics table provided by the ammo manufacturer is rarely accurate. Those are the numbers they got with their test barrel. The speeds you get with your rifle may be pretty close, but most of the time are slower. Often a lot slower.

jmr40 said:

The speeds you get with your rifle may be pretty close, but most of the time are slower. Often a lot slower.

Click to expand...

I've actually been chronoing all the factory fodder I've been shooting and lately it's been pretty bloody close, good enough for 0-400ish guestimation.
Suggested drops have also been good starting point.

Not saying you shouldn't check all this properly, just saying that at least for the ammo I've gotten in the past couple years (and in my guns) they have all been pretty much on, or +/-50ish fps.
Most.of what I've shot has been the cheaper Hornady, but the superformance 7mms we're faster than rated, as we're the federal Atypical.

Winchester silver boxes are always kinda slow....those are really all I can think of that I've used recently that I EXPECT to see more than a 50 fps loss.

jmr40 said:

In the real world most scopes, even good ones, don't move exactly 1/4 MOA for each click. It is usually CLOSE, but not something I'd bet on. Counting clicks will usually get you close enough to hit paper, often very close to perfect. But you still need to shoot at all ranges you anticipate just to be certain.... But using velocity numbers printed on a box of ammo or a ballistics table provided by the ammo manufacturer is rarely accurate. Those are the numbers they got with their test barrel. The speeds you get with your rifle may be pretty close, but most of the time are slower.

Click to expand...

Yeah, all the “often”, “rarely, “pretty” and “close” stuff in there is why I like the method in #7.