See the link below.

It all makes perfect sense until you get to items F & G. Then the math doesn't make sense for this scope. Who has a NP-R2 reticle and can you clarify that items A-E are correct? Scope is a Nightforce 3.5-15 x 50

NP-R2 Reticle

Never mind. It's clearly a mistake. I am sure it has to be 2 MOA increments on the elevation and 5 MOA on the windage @ 15x. From there I am sure I can add.

In the owners manual is the following statement.

"1 MOA is 1.047” at 100 yards, 2 MOA is 2.094” at 200 yards, 3 MOA is 3.141” at 300 yards"

Isn't ONE MOA equal 1.047, 2.094 and 3.141 respectively?

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
In the owners manual is the following statement.

"1 MOA is 1.047” at 100 yards, 2 MOA is 2.094” at 200 yards, 3 MOA is 3.141” at 300 yards"

Isn't ONE MOA equal 1.047, 2.094 and 3.141 respectively?

Yes. Sounds like it's a misprint.

The NP-R2 reticle is divided into 2 MOA increments on the vertical reticle> I have made hits to 1,000 yards using only the reticle on an eleven inch circular plate consistently. I like this reticle better than the NP-R! since it is much less busy

I've just used the NP-R1 and prefer that reticle for specific aiming point on the elevation, but I do see the 2MOA marks being less cluttered...

Thanks. You would think that they could get their owners manual info correct. That is two "math" errors and I have not gotten past the first couple pages.

It's all pretty easy to understand, until they make a mistake and you start doubting what you know to be true.

I have a 12-42 NSX and my reticle looks like that picture (the 22x version). Supposedly the lower magnification scopes have more divisions (the same pattern continued). Is that what you're claiming doesn't add up?



I like the NP-R2 in most cases. The only time I wish I had a "busier" reticle is when trying to range a target of a known size at unknown range. Then it would be nice to have more divisions instead of guestimating how big the target appears against the reticle. The smallest clearly marked division is 1MOA (half of the D dimension). I've worked up a formula for ranging at 42x based on measurements taken on known sized targets at known ranges. The reticle markings, turret adjustments, and magnification markings all seem to agree pretty well between ballistics, range calculations, and results.

If there is any doubt I would conduct some measurements/experiments with your particular scope. What I don't understand is the MIL reticle with MOA turrets. I guess if you like arithmetic...

JPL,

Your picture of the NP-R2 is different than the picture I found. Your picture jives with their math. Makes sense.

Anyway, it's all pretty simple math, just curious why my math didn't add up with theirs. Now I see why. Thanks.

Wendell--there has always been some confusion regarding those advertised subtensions. They are not all for the same scope--they are for the 5 different models of scope respectively--so the subtensions won't add up mathematically.