Effectively using Mil-Dots (or trying to) with different magnifications

[Peskådot671]

FFP vs SFP is an interesting controversy. I can see pros and cons for both so I think it really depends on the application. I run both and I’ve concluded that if one likes to dial SFP works great but if one likes to use holdovers than FFP is usually the way to go. JMO

For SFP, you would have to know what the manufacturer's specified magnification setting for the reticle subtensions to be "true" whether they are in MOA or MIL. Normally, they are "true" at 10 power or at the higher end of the magnification in a variable scope. As long as you have it set at that magnification, you can dial or holdover. One thing to take into consideration is to make sure that both the turret's click values are the same as the reticle.

I would rather use holdover for SFP at the "true" magnification setting because the reticle in a SFP scope is usually larger. For FFP, I would rather dial and hold center because it doesn't matter what magnification the scope is set at especially when set at the lower end of the scope's magnification. All this doesn't matter if your scope's turrets don't track true.

What’s the point of a FFP scope if you are going to dial anyway? The subtensions being accurate at every magnification is the primary purpose and advantage of FFP vs SFP…that’s why I said earlier that if you tend to dial just use a SFP…it’s reticle is easily visible at all magnifications and it’s less expensive.

It really depends on the type of reticle you have in a FFP scope. Let's say I have a 3-18× FFP scope with .2 mil spacing in the lower subtensions of the reticle. At 3x, it is difficult to make out the correct hash mark to use holdover. If you dial, it's easier to find the center of the reticle and hold dead on. If the scope has a daytime bright illuminated reticle, even better.

 

[peaceful_ruler]

FFP vs SFP is an interesting controversy. I can see pros and cons for both so I think it really depends on the application. I run both and I’ve concluded that if one likes to dial SFP works great but if one likes to use holdovers than FFP is usually the way to go. JMO

For SFP, you would have to know what the manufacturer's specified magnification setting for the reticle subtensions to be "true" whether they are in MOA or MIL. Normally, they are "true" at 10 power or at the higher end of the magnification in a variable scope. As long as you have it set at that magnification, you can dial or holdover. One thing to take into consideration is to make sure that both the turret's click values are the same as the reticle.

I would rather use holdover for SFP at the "true" magnification setting because the reticle in a SFP scope is usually larger. For FFP, I would rather dial and hold center because it doesn't matter what magnification the scope is set at especially when set at the lower end of the scope's magnification. All this doesn't matter if your scope's turrets don't track true.

What’s the point of a FFP scope if you are going to dial anyway? The subtensions being accurate at every magnification is the primary purpose and advantage of FFP vs SFP…that’s why I said earlier that if you tend to dial just use a SFP…it’s reticle is easily visible at all magnifications and it’s less expensive.

It really depends on the type of reticle you have in a FFP scope. Let's say I have a 3-18× FFP scope with .2 mil spacing in the lower subtensions of the reticle. At 3x, it is difficult to make out the correct hash mark to use holdover. If you dial, it's easier to find the center of the reticle and hold dead on. If the scope has a daytime bright illuminated reticle, even better.

Exactly. Also, the only time that I’d be running 3X is at close distances well inside the PBR in which case there is no need to dial or holdover. 


From a SFP perspective, at those longer distances when I do need to dial or holdover, the chances are higher that I will have time to dial it in or run it to the correct magnification for holdovers. 


My perspective is that for most hunting situations the only benefit of a FFP scope is faster holdover capabilities due to correct sub tensions…but even that is not much of an advantage because a higher magnification is needed to correctly use the hash marks! Therefore, for FFP or SFP both require manipulating the magnification in some way to correctly use the hash marks/mil dots…making it really a tossup as to which is actually faster. Most SFP scope reticle sub tensions are correct at the highest magnification and it takes literally 1 sec(especially with a throw lever) to get it there and now your holdovers are correct.

Frankly, I’m really not sure if FFP is all that it’s made out to be…particularly because of the accurate dialing capabilities of todays scopes.

 

[peaceful_ruler]

However, back to the OP’s original query…using mil dots at various magnification settings; my contention is that this shouldn’t really be a problem except with very high magnification scopes. 


If your PBR is 25-30 yards, any target beyond that is fairly easily acquired at the max magnification of 14 or so. This can depend upon 1) varying FOV of different scopes 2) different people have varying levels of aptitude at finding targets quickly in the scope 3) Is the target mostly stationary or moving quickly 

This means that if I’m hunting with a rig with a 25-30 yard PBR and see a squirrel at 42 yards I can quickly throw the mag dial to the right to the highest magnification(in my case 12X, 4-12X is my sweet spot for an all around, non dangerous game hunting scope) fairly easily locate that squirrel in the scope at 12X and holdover appropriately with the now correct mil dots/hash marks. If my highest mag setting was 18X this would be a lot harder to do because of the smaller FOV.

 

[peaceful_ruler]

So I have a higher end rifle that I had dialed in to 75 yards. Everything works great as long as my target is +/- 10 yards on either side of 75.

However, when trying to shoot game/targets closer, I prefer to us the mildots on the scope rather than the clicking method (even though the scope is a 'clicker-scope')

My question is; how do you know which magnification requires which number of mildot settings (up or down) given your current magnification?

I often hunt at 6-10 X; however there are times when I can crank up to 24 if the situation presents itself. Obviously the more you zoom in, the bigger the difference becomes between mil-dot settings. So can someone please explain to me how to keep both the magnification and mil-dot settings straight for 40 yard shots, 65 and 90 yards in the same outing? Do you just never change your zoom magnification?

I really should have read this before I commented, lol. Obviously, you are using a high mag scope of 24X and you are zeroed at a farther distance and holding under for closer distances. I’m not used to running like that because I’m always afraid that something will walk out in front of me at 20 feet and I won’t have time to calculate the hold under. 


If at 24X your mil dots are 1 mil apart than at 12X they will be 2 mils apart and obviously at 6X 4 mils apart. Its just a matter of some math…

 

[peaceful_ruler]

So I have a higher end rifle that I had dialed in to 75 yards. Everything works great as long as my target is +/- 10 yards on either side of 75.

However, when trying to shoot game/targets closer, I prefer to us the mildots on the scope rather than the clicking method (even though the scope is a 'clicker-scope')

My question is; how do you know which magnification requires which number of mildot settings (up or down) given your current magnification?

I often hunt at 6-10 X; however there are times when I can crank up to 24 if the situation presents itself. Obviously the more you zoom in, the bigger the difference becomes between mil-dot settings. So can someone please explain to me how to keep both the magnification and mil-dot settings straight for 40 yard shots, 65 and 90 yards in the same outing? Do you just never change your zoom magnification?

Incorrect. In a SFP scope this is actually the other way around because the higher the magnification setting is the larger the image in relation to the stationary reticle. Therefore the subtensions become smaller at higher magnifications and vice versa.