Why would a scope be made with MOA turrets and Mil-Dot reticle

Frgood

One Sec.
Full Member
Minuteman
May 7, 2019
175
128
63
Apopka, FL (Orlando area)
I recently received an older used Sightron SIII series scope. It has [per label] 0.125 MOA adjustments and is configured with a Mil-Dot Reticle. Since the manufacturer produced it this way, I assume there is some valid reason for this configuration.
  1. What is the reasoning for this type of thing?
  2. Are there any good references for getting the most out of this configuration?
Thoughts?

20240821_134556.jpg
 
I recently received an older used Sightron SIII series scope. It has [per label] 0.125 MOA adjustments and is configured with a Mil-Dot Reticle. Since the manufacturer produced it this way, I assume there is some valid reason for this configuration.
  1. What is the reasoning for this type of thing?
  2. Are there any good references for getting the most out of this configuration?
Thoughts?

View attachment 8484779
Because long ago, when the mil ret came out it was simple to reprogram to etch that ret, The erector had to be completely retooled, money & time. Some units are still that way. Some people who can't quickly operate in both still use those kinds of set ups as training aids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frgood
Well, I never would have any of that. Sightron is willing to charge $175 to change the reticle to their MOA or fine cross hair reticle.

Is there any risk (aside from the cost) of having them perform that task. Is it something that Could impact its precision?

No worries with Sightron.

Get what makes you happy.

I still have and use a 3-12x42 mil dot with 1/4 moa capped turrets in SFP. Works great for hunting, as it gets dialed every few years when I put a new barrel on for sight in. Otherwise it's a 100% hold only on 12x.

That said, I'd never use that for a match with the great tech we have today.

I also have a .125moa dot reticle with .125moa target turrets. Works great for fixed distance indoor benchrest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and Frgood
Not to mention second focal plane to really fuck things up

Depending on your usage you have two options

Tape the magnification dial at the prescribed power where the reticle reads true and hold mils
Or
Disregard the dots and dial only

That is a good scope, particularly for something like load testing
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
We live in a world in which Riflescope manufacturers are now on their 5th or 6th generation of riflescopes.

Gen 1: either no internal adjustments or adjustable for elevation only. Virtually all fixed power (Pre-1960 mostly)
Gen 2: Internal adjustments, but the reticle was not centered. Adjustments to elevation and windage changed the appearance of the reticle in the scope with regards to left/right/up/down orientation. Variable zoom was introduced. (Pre 1990)
Gen 3: External turrets with centered reticles (position of reticle in field of view unaffected by turret adjustments) introduced. Variable zoom is now common. Scopes begin to have turrets with indexes to mark a zero. Dialing for distance is uncommon, the "distance reticle" is basically a mil dot reticle. Pre-2000
Gen 4: Exposed dialing turrets and "tall target turrets" become more common. Scopes begin to not only have zero-set features, but also hard zero stops. Many scopes are starting to have their increment of adjustment labeled in "MOA" or "Mils" instead of I@100 yds or cm@100m: Pre-2010
Gen 5: Post 2010. Scopes are expected to have turrets that match the reticle. Reticles are expected to be subtended in Mils or MOA, rather than in a BDC that approximates bullet flight. Scopes with exposed turrets are expected to have zero stops.

We're now in an era where the riflescope has been fully developed. Any advances at this point are cost/benefit decisions or preference decisions. Most of the development is happening around enhancing the riflescope with things like:

1. Compatibility with lasers
2. Adding electronics
3. Increasing field of view
4. Improvements on light transmission / glass coatings, etc.

There are few improvements left to be made on what the core of a riflescope is and on what a riflescope does.

When you see a scope that's older, the answer to "why is it like this" is generally "because we weren't here yet".
 
Military binoculars had mil reticles for ground and anti-aircraft artillery adjustment (as well as range determination) in WWII (if not earlier).

Marines adapted the mil-dot reticle for rifle shooting in the Unertl sniper scope.

American military riflemen shot on Known Distance rifle ranges with berms at hundred yard lines against targets generally measured in minutes of angle.

The mil-dot reticle was used to determine range, while half and quarter-minute clicks were comfortable for those who had transitioned from irons to telescopes.

Americans will be faster in metric math once schools stop using common Standard American English (Imperial) measurements in school and commerce.
 
I recently received an older used Sightron SIII series scope. It has [per label] 0.125 MOA adjustments and is configured with a Mil-Dot Reticle. Since the manufacturer produced it this way, I assume there is some valid reason for this configuration.
  1. What is the reasoning for this type of thing?
  2. Are there any good references for getting the most out of this configuration?
Thoughts?

Because a while back dumb fucks with the Military wanted them that way , there are plenty of military optics with moa adjustments and mil reticles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wigwamitus
The reticles were never MOA.
While not using dots or hash marks, the variations of duplex reticles had known subtensions listed in the factory specs in units of MOA

MOA is not useful for measuring the distance to target, so they were never used.
This is totally incorrect.

MilDot Masters had MOA calcs built in right beside the MIL calcs 25 years ago.

Most of the modern ballistic apps that have passive range finding utilities can be toggled between MOA and MIL.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: nn8734 and sinister
I would love to agree with you on this. My thoughts are that "teachers" will find a way to Common Core the metric system.
I meant to be a little sarcastic.

I am an American.

There are two types of nations on this Earth -- those that use Metric, and those that have walked on the moon.
 
Well, I never would have any of that. Sightron is willing to charge $175 to change the reticle to their MOA or fine cross hair reticle.

Is there any risk (aside from the cost) of having them perform that task. Is it something that Could impact its precision?
This can't be a serious question
 
While not using dots or hash marks, the variations of duplex reticles had known subtensions listed in the factory specs in units of MOA


This is totally incorrect.

MilDot Masters had MOA calcs built in right beside the MIL calcs 25 years ago.

Most of the modern ballistic apps that have passive range finding utilities can be toggled between MOA and MIL.

Where do we find dumbasses like this in this day and age?


Show me an MOA based ranging reticle from when it was common to have scopes with unmatched turrets.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 308pirate
The M21 sniper rifle's Leatherwood Automatic Ranging Telescope hashes subtended 30 inches -- roughly (but not quite) nuts to top of noggin of a GI E-type silhouette.

FigB-6.gif
lighter


An E-type is closer to 1 Meter, but when I went to sniper school we only shot to 600 yards with the M21. It was close enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stanley_white
Our son loaned me a Leupold he purchased when he was still in college. had mil dot reticle and MOA turrets.

Put it on my RPR in 6.5 Creedmoor that I purchased in 2017. Got the thing worked out perfectly. Sighted in at 200 yards, the first mil dot was set for 300 yards. Perfect for Top Shot in Hodge, Louisiana which has a max range of 300 yards. For everywhere else, had 200 and 300 good to go, no sight changes necessary and everything else was MOA settings and the old scope always returned to zero. Crazy as heck, but I figured it out, worked like a charm and the old scope was built like a tank, never failed.

IMG_0838.jpeg
 
Last edited:
One thing people often overlook with "mixed" scopes.....they are mostly SFP.

So if having a mil reticle tweeks yer trousers too much. Just go ahead and back that magnification off just a scosh. Turn that 24X true mil subtended reticle into a 23.25X true MOA subtended reticle. Make every mil equal to 4 MOA instead of 3.438 MOA. Now if have the have half mil hashmark on your reticle layout....you got 2 and 4 MOA tickmarks.
boom-mind-blown.gif
 
Last edited:
One thing people often overlook with "mixed" scopes.....they are mostly SFP.

So if having a mil reticle tweeks yer trousers too much. Just go ahead and back that magnification off just a scosh. Turn that 24X true mil subtended reticle into a 23.25X true MOA subtended reticle. Make every mil equal to 4 MOA instead of 3.438 MOA. Now if have the have half mil hashmark on your reticle layout....you got 2 and 4 MOA tickmarks.
View attachment 8503402
 
Show me an MOA based ranging reticle from when it was common to have scopes with unmatched turrets.
Why?

That has exactly zero to do with what you posted earlier.

Even if I did you would simply deflect, make another inaccurate statement and then demand answers to another meaningless question.

**This is a test**
Technically, the "unmatched" scope I used for a couple of decades has a reticle that when on max magnification subtends about 3.438 MOA from the center of one funny little dot to the center of the next funny little dot. So, I could pretty much say that was an MOA based ranging reticle.
 



Yup, it's a conversion from a tedious measuring system into a useful one. MOA is great for quickly knowing the size of a correction in inches at a distance but determining the distance of an object of known size is unpleasant math.

The benefit of a "mil" for range estimation is that a mil is a distance up 1/1000th the size of the distance out. Target is 1 yd but measures 2 mils? 1/2 = 500 yds. Measures 1.2 mils? 10/12 = 830 yds. Measures 1.6 mils? 10/16 = 625 yds. Measures 0.4 Mils? 10/4 = 2500 yds.

Simple fractions.

Multiplying the size of your object by 95.5 and then dividing by how many MOA that resulted in? Gross. Even in the video you posted where he's writing the values down on a piece of paper and dividing by 1 (!) he got the value wrong. (He wrote 955.5 yds, but the answer is 955 yds)

Overall, there just weren't many reticles that used MOA based holdovers, let alone MOA based ranging reticles 20 years ago. So, again, the answer to why were there mil dot reticles in MOA turreted scopes is because there basically weren't MOA subtended hold reticles the way we think of an MOA reticle today.
Why?

That has exactly zero to do with what you posted earlier.

Even if I did you would simply deflect, make another inaccurate statement and then demand answers to another meaningless question.

**This is a test**
Technically, the "unmatched" scope I used for a couple of decades has a reticle that when on max magnification subtends about 3.438 MOA from the center of one funny little dot to the center of the next funny little dot. So, I could pretty much say that was an MOA based ranging reticle.

Hey, it's fine that you want to count the manufacturer publishing the distance from center of hair to post as there being an MOA subtend, or converting your mil-dot scope into minutes, but we both know that that's not what's being discussed.
 
The reticles were never MOA. MOA is not useful for measuring the distance to target, so they were never used.
These boys had MOA based rigs. How much rangefinding they did I can't say.
Screenshot_20230130_093330_Chrome.jpg


20230318_171433.jpg


Both Marine Corps and Army had some....not in massive quantities. I know pmclaine here has the original brochure that shows the moa subtentions of the reticle options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Cross
Hey, it's fine that you want to count the manufacturer publishing the distance from center of hair to post as there being an MOA subtend, or converting your mil-dot scope into minutes, but we both know that that's not what's being discussed.
You are making absolute statements.

I simply replying in absolute answers.

I stand by my original answer regarding range finding with MOA based duplex reticles. Lots of examples from the 80s through the earlier 2000s. Even manufacturers like Leupold, Redfield, Weaver and Bushnell published charts with the reticle values in MOA for getting rough range estimation based on the average vertical distance a typical deer and elk measure through the chest. There were other charts for ranging based on the vertical distance of a human torso and full human body using a duplex style reticle with known values.

We can all keep placing more and more constraints on statements to make them what you want.
 
You are making absolute statements.

I simply replying in absolute answers.

I stand by my original answer regarding range finding with MOA based duplex reticles. Lots of examples from the 80s through the earlier 2000s. Even manufacturers like Leupold, Redfield, Weaver and Bushnell published charts with the reticle values in MOA for getting rough range estimation based on the average vertical distance a typical deer and elk measure through the chest. There were other charts for ranging based on the vertical distance of a human torso and full human body using a duplex style reticle with known values.

We can all keep placing more and more constraints on statements to make them what you want.


You're right. This is a ranging reticle.

plex.png.webp
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Cross
These boys had MOA based rigs. How much rangefinding they did I can't say. View attachment 8503447

View attachment 8503448

Both Marine Corps and Army had some....not in massive quantities. I know pmclaine here has the original brochure that shows the moa subtentions of the reticle options.


Interesting, all of the versions I'm able to find of the T6 AO are either a fine hair, a center dot, or a plex. Pretty cool if they had an actual MOA-based drop/ranging reticle in a scope like that. Would love to see what it looked like. All of the older drop reticles that I'm familiar with are along the lines of either a mil-dot, a windage-ticked cross hair with a "ranging field", the TDS reticles, and some cartridge specific ranging/BDC reticles.
 
You're right. This is a ranging reticle.

plex.png.webp
Correct. If the user knows the manufacture specs for that version, it certainly is.

If you are just going to pull images from the web, why didn't you pull something like this one:
Duplex.png

There is a LOT of similar resources available. If the user is actually experienced with this type reticle, they can easily split some sections down even further. For example one half of A is easily discerned for a 2.5 MOA element.

There are a lot of older turds on this forum that have a zillion hours behind older scopes including SFP with mis-matched turret/reticles as well as using SFP scopes with known value Duplex reticles. They used to do brilliant work with such tools because they were using them out of necessity. When they post, they are speaking from experience and known examples. Their knowledge base is not limited to an internet search hoping Google gets it right.
 
Correct. If the user knows the manufacture specs for that version, it certainly is.

If you are just going to pull images from the web, why didn't you pull something like this one:
View attachment 8503502
There is a LOT of similar resources available. If the user is actually experienced with this type reticle, they can easily split some sections down even further. For example one half of A is easily discerned for a 2.5 MOA element.

There are a lot of older turds on this forum that have a zillion hours behind older scopes including SFP with mis-matched turret/reticles as well as using SFP scopes with known value Duplex reticles. They used to do brilliant work with such tools because they were using them out of necessity. When they post, they are speaking from experience and known examples. Their knowledge base is not limited to an internet search hoping Google gets it right.



As you said, "They were using them out of necessity". Why? Because the actual tool they needed didn't exist outside of a mil-dot reticle.

Knowing the values of your hair to post distance isn't the same as having an increment subtended reticle. Since the question was "When did the military scopes go from MOA to MILS?" the correct answer is "never".

Can you use an MOA scope to range targets at unknown distance? Of course, just not anywhere near as efficiently as with a Mil based scope with a milling reticle. That people were required to shoehorn knowledge of the dimensions of their reticle to fulfill the role of a holdover/ranging reticle to enable them to do what the mil-dot reticle readily accomplished out to much greater distances highlights how poor of a solution "ranging" and holding over off of a plex crosshair is, even if it's "possible".
 
You're right. This is a ranging reticle.

plex.png.webp


Many of the older scopes would seem to agree with your statement.

20240917_060135.jpg


20240917_060154.jpg


It's simply bracketing, regardless of the reticle used.
Knowing your target size and where it fits into the reticle subtension at specific magnification gives you a pretty good estimate of distance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Cross
We live in a world in which Riflescope manufacturers are now on their 5th or 6th generation of riflescopes.

Gen 1: either no internal adjustments or adjustable for elevation only. Virtually all fixed power (Pre-1960 mostly)
Gen 2: Internal adjustments, but the reticle was not centered. Adjustments to elevation and windage changed the appearance of the reticle in the scope with regards to left/right/up/down orientation. Variable zoom was introduced. (Pre 1990)
Gen 3: External turrets with centered reticles (position of reticle in field of view unaffected by turret adjustments) introduced. Variable zoom is now common. Scopes begin to have turrets with indexes to mark a zero. Dialing for distance is uncommon, the "distance reticle" is basically a mil dot reticle. Pre-2000
Gen 4: Exposed dialing turrets and "tall target turrets" become more common. Scopes begin to not only have zero-set features, but also hard zero stops. Many scopes are starting to have their increment of adjustment labeled in "MOA" or "Mils" instead of I@100 yds or cm@100m: Pre-2010
Gen 5: Post 2010. Scopes are expected to have turrets that match the reticle. Reticles are expected to be subtended in Mils or MOA, rather than in a BDC that approximates bullet flight. Scopes with exposed turrets are expected to have zero stops.

We're now in an era where the riflescope has been fully developed. Any advances at this point are cost/benefit decisions or preference decisions. Most of the development is happening around enhancing the riflescope with things like:

1. Compatibility with lasers
2. Adding electronics
3. Increasing field of view
4. Improvements on light transmission / glass coatings, etc.

There are few improvements left to be made on what the core of a riflescope is and on what a riflescope does.

When you see a scope that's older, the answer to "why is it like this" is generally "because we weren't here yet".
Agree 99%, but who knows what innovations could come down the pipe. The innovation over the last 15 years has been remarkable.
 
Since the question was "When did the military scopes go from MOA to MILS?" the correct answer is "never".
It was never the question........
The question was "when did the turrets go from MOA to Mils.....M40A1-Unertl 10 MOA turrets/lever, M24 -Leupy M3 MOA turrets.....Clearly the training went from using reticle Mils for ranging and doing drops/wind calls in MOA

When did the military start using Mils for elevation and windage correction?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Cross
There are a lot of older turds on this forum that have a zillion hours behind older scopes including SFP with mis-matched turret/reticles as well as using SFP scopes with known value Duplex reticles. They used to do brilliant work with such tools because they were using them out of necessity. When they post, they are speaking from experience and known examples. Their knowledge base is not limited to an internet search hoping Google gets it right.
Hey, Fokker! I resemble that! :ROFLMAO:

Simple Redfield ranging hairs. Bracket an 18-inch space (shoulders to solar plexus, nuts to nipples, or nipples to top of noggin), shoot it, kill it.

DSCN09162-(1).JPG


Other variations:

Mrad-ranging-reticle-with-silhouettes.gif
 
It was never the question........
The question was "when did the turrets go from MOA to Mils.....M40A1-Unertl 10 MOA turrets/lever, M24 -Leupy M3 MOA turrets.....

Thank you for clarifying that you were referring to turrets. Seems to have been a rolling change as more and more scopes were used more and more widely. You had S&B PMII 3-12x50s and Nightforce 2.5-10x32s being fielded alongside Leupold's and Unertl's. I think the PMII went on in 2007 but I'm sure that it was being fielded before then.

Watch out, some one will point out that 1/4 MOA is .0727 Mil and that all turrets are Mil turrets.
 
Hey, Fokker! I resemble that! :ROFLMAO:

Simple Redfield ranging hairs. Bracket an 18-inch space (shoulders to solar plexus, nuts to nipples, or nipples to top of noggin), shoot it, kill it.

DSCN09162-(1).JPG


Other variations:

Mrad-ranging-reticle-with-silhouettes.gif


I was really excited to see an MOA Ranging Reticle when I realized that the one on the bottom was in Mils.
 
So up until then, the training for estimating drop and wind calls were in MOA. Makes sense since as @sinister points out the rifleman's iron sights are MOA, and that's what they learned. Is the Designated Marksman scope still MOA turrets?

Maybe that's why these "mismatched" scopes are still being produced
 
It was never the question........
The question was "when did the turrets go from MOA to Mils.....M40A1-Unertl 10 MOA turrets/lever, M24 -Leupy M3 MOA turrets.....

When did the military start using Mils for elevation and windage correction?

I'm going to take a stab at an answer but without specific dates.
**This is just my opinion based on my best recollection of first hand experience and knowing people that were on the front end of the changes. I welcome someone with more knowledge and experience to correct any of the following.
------

While Mils existed for a long time in other parts of the military (Ex: Artillery ) I do not think it started to move into rifles and rifle scopes until the 60s and 70s. My opinion is that it had to do with influence from our heavy involvement in NATO and the Cold War.

Mil turrets, Mil reticles and FFP was a European thing before it that thinking filtered into the U.S. It almost seems to me that things only pointed down that road after the U.S. got involved with interoperability between all NATO members.

The first big change in the small arms arena was the development and introduction of two new "NATO" cartridges with metric designations, the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51mm. This occurred in the 1950s and now they are both staples in our everyday rifle world.

Other equipment and hardware slowly followed suit but U.S. optic companies were very slow to embrace any change.
Those companies were living in the same sheltered world as our own small arms infantry and sniping community lived in.
While we had world class infantry and sniper programs that generated a lot of successes, all of the programs and bloodlines were purposefully isolated from outside thinking or trends. It was our way or the highway and domestic optics companies followed that mindset.

By the 70's and 80's the demand for scopes equipped with some type of Mil based reticle was enough to make Unertl, Leupold and Dick Thomas at Premier produce the first US reticles with Mil references.

At the time, all were wire based reticles that were meticulously hand made and it was a constant struggle to consistently produce accurate subtensions. Almost all of the initial U.S. made scopes that hosted these reticles were fixed magnification at first. The fixed magnification design was more robust in severe conditions and of course eliminated any issue with SFP vs FFP.

All the U.S. manufacturers were heavily invested in tooling and design for MOA reticles and external adjust mounts.
The extremely small demand made them reluctant to re-design and re-tool for anything MIL based. So all the early scopes that sported MIL based reticles still used MOA turrets.

The early Unertl external adjust scopes and even the later Unertl MST-100 had MOA adjustments. The early Leupold M1 and M3 Ultra scopes had Mil reticles and MOA turrets. Even Premier Reticles did not have parts to convert turrets from MOA to MIL.

Not long after this, we started seeing some of the Schmidt & Bender scopes with Mil Reticles and Mil Turrets filter into the sniper community. They were also some of the first variable magnification FFP scopes to come into the country, at least in our lanes of use. Traditional American scope companies had their hand forced due to the sudden and dramatic adoption of the S&Bs.

So US companies were very reluctant to embrace anything other than MOA and SFP but once that zit was popped, they capitulated.
When one decided to play ball, the others had to follow or be left behind.

None of this happened all at once but rather was a slow (painfully slow) progression.
So the answer to your question of "when?" is really not a specific date or even year but a relatively prolonged time line of evolution.

I hope this makes sense and comes closer to answering your specific question via an un-specific answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S12A