Comments on: Verifying the True Value of Your Scope Clicks

By: mikee

mikee — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 03:10:43 +0000

Other elements that need to be taken into account once ranges exceed approximately 300 meters include wind direction, air pressure and density, humidity, temperature and elevation. For very long range shooting, over 1,000 meters the Coriolis effect also must be considered in some instance. Cartridge and projectile performance data must also be included. Whatever the perceived strengths and weaknesses that scope adjustments indicate (there is a very strong case for adoption of industry universal standards regarding scope adjustments and repeat ability), it is advisable to tailor a range card based on the adjustment parameters of the scope being used and the performance characteristics of the cartridge in use at the time. If adjustment repeat ability of a particular brand of scope is assured through observation, that is what one needs to work with for consistent performance. The discussion on scope manufacturer dialing standards has been going on for decades and still has not been satisfactorily addressed in general, especially at the lower price range of scopes. A computer calculation of a trajectory, as helpful as it, is only a model of an ideal simulation. In a real world scenario, slight adjustments will always need to be made – very carefully. Hence the need for a range card tailored for the one scope and load data in use at the time.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:58:31 +0000

The real question is why do scope makers either not know what their scopes adjust at, or why are they lying to everyone?
I suspect most(even high end) makers generalize MOA as ROUGHLY 1 IPHY.

Most Leupolds adjust in IPHY, but their Mk4s are true MOA. A Nightforce NXS I tested produced 1.09 IPHY per ‘MOA’ of adjustment, and this validated other reported results.

Your ballistic software needs to allow input for actual adjustment value per click. Mine does & with this I use ‘click cards’ in the field which define adjustments in clicks rather than MOA.
It’s been suggested that MOA is easier than clicks to lookup & set in the field, but no it is not, -especially when your scope doesn’t actually adjust in true MOA.

By: Colin

Colin — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:29:33 +0000

This is nice for MOA adjustments then you have Mil dot variations from NATO milradian(1 NATO MRAD = 3.375″ @100 Y) to Russian milRadians (1 Russian MRAD = 3.6″ @100 Y) and Swedish Milradians (1 Swedish MRAD = 3.428″ @100)

Why does this have to so convoluted and shitty.

By: Kendall Comeaux

Kendall Comeaux — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:05:29 +0000

I don’t want to sound picky, but an engineer’s tape would give you a true 37.7 inch measure. I don’t know of any “carpenter’s rule” that is in tenths or hundredths of an inch.

By: John Frogge

John Frogge — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:56:14 +0000

Gary Meyer: One mil equals 3.6 inches at 100 yards, so 10 mils (worth of clicks) at 100 yards should be 36 inches. Using these figures you should be able to determine check the accuracy of a scope having mil adjustments, rather than MOA adjustments.

By: KilerMT

KilerMT — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:51:35 +0000

Very interesting, but you must make sure that your barrel is at 100 yards, couse few centimeters more or less than 100 yards can make different data.

By: Bryan Litz

Bryan Litz — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:15 +0000

Very good and important article, especially from a ballistics point of view. If a ballistics program predicts 30 MOA of drop at 1000 yards for example, and you dial 30 MOA on your scope and hit high or low, it’s easy to begin questioning BC’s, MV’s, and everything else under the sun. In my experience, more than 50% of the time error in trajectory prediction at long range is actually scope adjustment error. For serious long range shooting, the test described in this article is a MUST!

By: gary meyer

gary meyer — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:41:32 +0000

the H25 reticle is in mils…
is the test different?