Thanks for all the nice comments on my last posting. Now I will try to address the comments of Zebra13 and MileHighAirGunner.
Zebra13, I may be a little prejudiced towards the MIL system as I was also in the military. Nevertheless, all of my dope cards and rangefinders are set up to use yards. The reason that I use yards instead of meters is that all of our shooting ranges in the US are set up with targets at different yardages and not meters.
I've still found that even when using yards that the MIL systems is superior to MOA simply because with MOA you need to think in terms of an MOA being 1.0467 inches for every 100 yards.
Like a lot of people I use to think in terms of an MOA being approximately 1 inch every 100 yards rather than 1.0467 inches. If you are doing that then there is a 4.67% difference in your calculations (and ultimately your firing solution) for every 100 yards. For airgunners, the 4.67% difference isn't going to mean a lot for the distances that we shoot.
On the other hand, I have PBs that I like to shoot at up to 1000 yards. That 4.67% difference at even a 500 yard shot on a groundhog with a varmint rifle could mean a little less than a 1/4 inch difference. Okay, I'll give everyone a minute to stop laughing.
Now that everyone has had a chance to stop laughing at my last statement think about this for a second. My .22-250 has a drop of 37.1 inches at 500 yards. That equates to approximately 7.1 MOA. Calculated like this: 37.1 inches divided by (1.0467 X 5) = 7.0889 MOA.
Now if we approximate an MOA at an inch per 100 yards rather than a true 1.0467 inches we get a different result. 37.1 inches divided by (1 inch X5) = 7.42 MOA.
The difference in our approximation and the actual drop (in MOA) is (7.42 - 7.0889) or .3311 MOA or a little more than 1.7 inches. Okay, I'll give everyone a little more time to stop their laughing.
Everyone had a chance to stop laughing? Good. Maybe I'm too much of a perfectionist but even a lowly varmint like a groundhog deserves a quick human kill. We all know how several errors in the shooting game can add up and have a compounding effect. With that said, the 1.7 inches can make a difference between a humane shot versus one that hits the animal in a leg and crippling it.
At airgun ranges this won't make much difference but with the PBs I think it makes a lot of difference.
My beef with MOA versus MIL also goes back about 20-25 years ago when the scope manufacturers were putting MIL DOT reticles in the scopes but leaving the turret adjustments in MOA! That's about as dumb as putting your underwear on outside your pants. I did buy some of those scopes but that's because I had no choice. Those were the only ones they were making for the civilian market at the time and that fit my budget.
The reason that I say it was dumb was because if you are going to think in MILs then everything on the scope should be in MILs. If you are going to think in MOA then everything in the scope should be in MOA. With that said there are quality scopes that are now being manufactured with MOA reticles and MOA turrets just as there are MIL reticles with MIL turrets.
So both MIL fans and MOA fans can now have their cake and eat it to. The reason that I say this is if you take a shot at a certain distance and you see the bullet or pellet impact at a certain number of indices from the center of the cross hairs then you can make your adjustment with the turret accordingly. It doesn't matter if those indices are graduated in MILs, MOA, cubits or handbreadths, so long as the turret adjustments are in the same method of measurement.
The reason I like the MIL system over the MOA system is being able to determine the range to the target. I just feel that I can be more accurate with rangefinding using the MIL system over MOA because I can think better knowing that a MIL is 1/1000 of whatever unit of measure I'm using whether it's in meters or yards.
This argument can be reduced to mere triviality because of the advancement of new rangefinders that have on-board sensors which measure the ambient conditions and provide a firing solution with minimal brain activity. We also have online ballistic calculators like Chairgun and JBM ballistics which give us the ability to print the information on paper or dope cards.
So if someone likes using MOA over MIL that is great. I would just recommend that if they get a scope with MOA turrets then they should ensure that there are MOA reticles.
Now I will address MileHighAirGunner's comments. Yes, you are correct, I did leave out the FFP versus SFP dilemma. I'll skip the explanation of FFP versus SFP because I don't have time to finish this tome.
Before reading any further watch these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XgugJSqpoE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr5Ohosp-Vw
Did you watch the videos? Good. The Burris video shocked me with the revelation that they are now making a dual focal plane scope!
So MileHigh, you are correct, the difference between the FFP and SFP scopes has huge implications for us as shooters. So you have to know what you are using.
I have several Vortex PST Viper 5-25X Gen II scopes. These are FFP scopes. When I got the first one, I thought I had gone to a rifleman's nirvana. I can't say enough about these scopes without sounding slightly pornographic. I'll leave all that to your imagination.
I have an SWFA SS 10X scope with MIL reticles and MIL turrets. It is a true MIL scope, in that, the indices are calibrated at exactly one milliradian.
Now it's time to segue into what this means for airgunners.
I took the SWFA scope off of my Anschutz .22LR trainer when I put the aforementioned Vortex 5-25X on it. Okay, you can start laughing now.
Now that everyone has stopped their giggling I'll answer the obvious question about why I would want to put an $1100 scope on a .22LR. It's because I like hitting golf balls at 100 yards and shooting cowbells at 300 yards. Yes, I can do that. I didn't say I could hit those diminutive little targets every time but I hit them a lot. NOTE: Thinking and using MILs helps me with that.
So I put the SWFA scope on my Beeman R9. I will admit that a 10X scope might be a little over kill for the air rifle but I'm making do with what I got. I'd rather have the same model in 6X.
At this point you may thinking, "Who does this guy think he is. The person must be a real scope-snob."
Guilty as charged. I am a scope-snob and a trigger snob. This has never stopped me to stooping to plebian pleasures and having fun in a pair of overalls with
cheap inexpensive airguns. I've also bought some
cheap inexpensive scopes for some of my air rifles.
One
cheap inexpensive scope is the UTG 4X True Hunter scope. I wanted something that had a parallax adjustment at around ten yards or less. My only options were going the
cheap inexpensive route. Enter the UTG 4X True Hunter scope.
The quality of the image blew me away. I've seen similar reactions at the range from other folks as well.
Now the downside to this
cheap inexpensive scope is that the dots are not a true MIL. I discovered that the spacing is three mils instead of one. So that means all my MIL DOT math has to be based on a 3 MIL spacing between the dots.
The following is my review of the scope from PA's web site:
Things I liked: The scope is clear and even though the cross hairs are a little thick, they are just right for off-hand shooting and hunting in low light. The TF2 turrets are great because I don't have to remove a cap to make any elevation or windage adjustments. For the money, this is a pretty good scope. It has the limitation of not being a true mil-dot scope and you will have to adjust accordingly. However that doesn't detract from this scope from helping you put your pellets on target as long as you do the mil-dot math and make your adjustments accordingly.
Things I would have changed: Get rid of the lens covers. They are no good because of the need to change the parallax setting for the objective lens. The cover is also no good for the ocular lens because of the need to focus the cross hairs for the individual shooter. So by getting rid of the lens covers, this should help bring the cost down a little. The spacing between mil-dots is not at true one mil displacement. The value between each mil-dot is three mils, not one.
What others should know: The rifle that I put this scope on is the RWS Diana Mauser K98 in .177 caliber. I discovered that the displacement between each mil-dot is three mils instead of one while at the range. With that said, I had to redo the mil-dot math. The first mil-dot was worth three mils instead of one. According to the JBM ballistics for the Crosman Premier Hollow Point pellet moving at 989.9 FPS the drop of three mils puts the pellet on target at 78 yards. The first dot is good for 78 yards. The second mil-dot is worth six mils instead of two. That puts the CPHP pellet on target at 106 yards for the 2nd dot. After sighting the rifle and scope in at 30 yards, I set a soup can up at the 75 yard line and was able to hit it about 75% of the time! After shooting at that can, I put another one on the 100 yard line. Believe it or not, I was able to hit that can about 75% of the time with a $65 scope and cheap pellets. This isn't a true mil-dot scope but for the money will do the job.
That scope came with 3/8" dovetail rings which is not available any more. PA has the same scope with the Weaver rings. It didn't get good reviews which I don't understand. I have this
cheap inexpensive scope on four air rifles and it has never let me down.
Here's a link to the same scope I have but with the weaver rings:
https://www.pyramydair.com/s/a/Leapers_UTG_4x32_AO_True_Hunter_Rifle_Scope_Mil_Dot_Reticle_1_4_MOA_1_Tube_See_Thru_Weaver_Rings/5798 I hope this helps. Thanks for reading this long-winded explanation from an old scope snob.
) and using scopes is not something I've had a whole lot of hands on experience with. Fairly recently I've just rediscovered how much fun airguns are. And wow! They've come along ways from when I was a teenager. I kinda like that they are relativity quiet and having virtually no recoil. Seriously, getting punch in the shoulder a hundred times or more on the sporting clay range and having your ears blasted by a 12 gauge can get a little tiresome and annoying after awhile. However, airguns, really makes it easy to actually enjoy shooting. So I'm here just trying to learn and understand how to use these fancy smancy scope thingies properly and as they were intended to be used. so thanks again. this was very informative for me. +1