Mil-Dot Vs. Traditional Reticle Scopes

[pabst_20]

i am looking to buy a scope for my Remington 700 in .270 i use it for primarily deer hunting but i have two choices of scopes a Nikon Prostaff Rifle Scope 4-12x 40mm Mil-Dot Reticle or a Nikon Prostaff Rifle Scope 4-12x 40mm Nikoplex Reticle. just need some help deciding which one is good for me thanks for all the input in advance.

 

[G27RR]

If you don't plan to use the mildot for ranging, etc. you may as well go with a less "busy" sight picture and get the Nikoplex since hunting will be the primary use. I personally like mildots and use them, but not really for hunting.

 

[ChristopherG]

Agreed. I get the sense there are a LOT more people using mil-dot reticles than know how to use them or have a practical need for them.

 

[GunTech]

For the average American shooter, an MOA reticule is probably far more useful than a mildot anyway. How many ranges have you seen with targets set in meters? Mildots are particularly frustrating if you have the typical mildot scope with MOA adjustments. I suspect the majority of people who buy mildot scopes do so for the military 'cachet' - because that's what snipers use.

If you want/need a graduated reticule there are better solutions for the majority of shooters. Ones that don't require doing match in your head or using a special calculator.

 

[taliv]

agree with Tod

While I don't begrudge people buying something to learn how to use it, and fortunately "need" is not a requirement as far as firearms are concerned in the US, mil-dots are the wrong tool for deer hunting.

I say that because 300 yrds is point-blank range still for deer. So you really don't need to use the dots for hold over or ranging at any ethical hunting distance

 

[Uncle Mike]

just need some help deciding which one is good for me

Well, open sights are the best for you.....

You did not say what your intentions where concerning the Mil-Dot reticle.

Are you actually going to 'use' this reticle to range and dope with, or you are you just getting it for, as Guntech mentioned, the 'military cachet' of it?

Many folks like the mil-dot reticle for hunting, they have no intention or desire to use this reticle as it was designed, but use it for the enhanced 'pick-up' ability of the thicker stadia lines(crosshairs) while sighting into or through brush. The 'dots' offer a much easier crosshair to see in the brush, and the fact that this same crosshair is not a 'solid', thick, crosshair, it allows finer aim at distance, or a better, less obscured view.

So, you can have it your way....as was mentioned, buying a scope with MOA adjustments and a Mil-Dot reticle is just b.a.d., it is frustrating, and very 'head math' dependent to use. And, if your going to actually use the Mil-Dot reticle for what it was designed for, get a scope that adjusts in Mils also.

MOA offers an easier method of measurement(for most people), albeit at a 'finer' graduation than mil measurement. You know, ANY reticle can be used to 'range and dope'(measure) with, not just the popular Mil-Dot reticle, or one of the various proprietary reticles we have today.

Once you learn the 'substentions' of ANY reticle your using, you will be able to measure and adjust with it well enough to make hits on deer sized animals at range.

 

[pabst_20]

Leupold

went with a Leupold vx-i 3x9-40 duplex matte thanks for the advice

 

[Maverick223]

Mil-Dot Vs. Traditional Reticle

Coming in late, but neither is my preference. I prefer the German No. 4 for most hunting (though it is not available in many optics) because it is easy to acquire the target, a ranging reticle (stadia marked for yardage & matched to the cartridge; like the Zeiss "Rapid-Z") because it only requires dialing in to the correct magnification level, and mil-hash reticle for target use. This may not be a big departure from a mil-dot, but it provides a cleaner, more precise view IMO.

For the average American shooter, an MOA reticule is probably far more useful than a mildot anyway.

I don't know that I really agree with that, as the math is a bit easier when in Milliradians, but I despise when the reticle and adjustments are not match (which is typical of most low-moderately priced optics)...that only serves to make things much more complicated.

If you want/need a graduated reticule there are better solutions for the majority of shooters. Ones that don't require doing match in your head or using a special calculator.

For hunting (like the OP)...absolutely. That said, you typically don't need any ranging reticle at all for most hunting (varmint hunting and LR target shooting is different).

went with a [...] duplex

Good decision.

 

[GunTech]

There aren't many MRAD knobbed scopes available to the US shooter - particularly at 'reasonable' prices. Shooter's MOA works quite well on yard measured shooting ranges - the vast majority of US ranges - where 1 MOA is approximately one inch at 100 yards (1.042 actually). I'd wager that the vast majority of Americans, shooters included, can't visualize 100 metes or 1cm unless they are a scientist or engineer.

Further, a 1/10 MRAD knobbed scope moves the POI at 100 yards by 0.36 inches vs. 0.25 for the typical 1/4 MOA knob, making the latter more precise.

I am not arguing one is better than the other. Only that the typical American shooter is going to be better off using MOA since that's what most scope makers provide, what most ballistic tables show and what most ammunition manufacturers use, not to mention what most shooters are most familiar with.

 

[Maverick223]

Further, a 1/10 MRAD knobbed scope moves the POI at 100 yards by 0.36 inches vs. 0.25 for the typical 1/4 MOA knob, making the latter more precise.

True, but sometimes the extra precision is unwarranted. If more precision is necessary you might want a 1/8in. instead of either.

 

[justgoto]

How many ranges have you seen with targets set in meters?

Mildots are 1000 to 1 ranging ratio in any measurement scheme.