Rifle Scopes Another mil vs moa thread

[Alabusa]

I am going to put an Athlon Ares etr on my .300wm. I have always been moa and can't see an advantage to go mil. In fact, the way I see it, moa is better.
At 100 yards, 1/10th mil is about .36" vs .25 or .125 with moa.
At 1000 yards, 1 moa is 10 inches while 1 mil is about 36 inches. Is that correct? If it is correct, why would anyone use mil?? Other than that it is what everyone else is using, less clicks and smaller numbers to work with.

Can anyone give me a definitive answer why mil is better? Please educate my dumb ass.

 

[David C]

For starters 1 MOA is not .25 or 1” at 100 yards it is 1.047” at 100 yards. Then there is the fact that there are scopes that say .25” at 100 and in fact are adjusting in true MOA or vice versa true MOA reticle and shooter MOA turets meaning adjusting at .25” at 100. It’s just a Cluster Cluck.

 

[Broc]

Not quite correct, 1 MOA equals 1.047". 1" at 100yds is often referred to as "shooter moa" and is often found in cheaper scopes. The Ares will be true MOA.

David beat me too it. It can get confusing when a scope is adjusting in true MOA but the mfg puts .25" @ 100 on the turret. Fortunately most mid/high end mfgs don't do that.

 

[308pirate]

Neither system is better than the other. Milliradians are not metric and minutes of angle aren't imperial.

Use whichever you like. People who know how to shoot know how to use both.

 

[Diver160651]

I am going to put an Athlon Ares etr on my .300wm. I have always been moa and can't see an advantage to go mil. In fact, the way I see it, moa is better.
At 100 yards, 1/10th mil is about .36" vs .25 or .125 with moa.
At 1000 yards, 1 moa is 10 inches while 1 mil is about 36 inches. Is that correct? If it is correct, why would anyone use mil?? Other than that it is what everyone else is using, less clicks and smaller numbers to work with.

Can anyone give me a definitive answer why mil is better? Please educate my dumb ass.

You really should buy the system that the people you will shoot with most often are using. More often than not, as you grow in your shooting, you'll branch out and shoot with new people.. Their systems is what you might want to spin up for.

In addition:
1. I would search some of the threads
2. I would try not to think in linear measurements at the target - it really just really slows down comunication and confuses stuff
3. If you find yourself interested in most tactical precision shooting you find that the langue spoken most isn't moa

 

[Lowlight]

1. Stop thinking Linear, we are using Angles

Milliradian

• An Angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex

Minute of Angle

• MOA is a unit of angular measurement equal to 1/60th of 1 degree

Mil Adjustments

.1 Mil per click
.05 Mil per click

MOA Adjustment

1/8 Minute
1/4 Minute
1/2 Minute
1 MOA

For an example of the linear value, .3 Mils (3 clicks on .1 Mil Scope) = 1.08" at 100 yards

You have 3.6 for a full Mil definition because 100 yards = 3600 inches, now apply the above definition

We like Mils better because Base 10 is easier than Fractions

The human brains like multiples of 10, why, we can relate, 10 fingers and toes.

 

[Kickin45]

.1 mil per click, 10 Mils per revolution takes a lot of the thinking out of it. 15 mils per revolution is still pretty easy as well until you go past 15. Then a bit of quick calculations come in.

 

[Diver160651]

The human brains like multiples of 10, why, we can relate, 10 fingers and toes.

and wind is way easier too, using a 10 base system -- especially if you want a adopt a fast and dirty formula

 

[Alabusa]

For starters 1 MOA is not .25 or 1” at 100 yards it is 1.047” at 100 yards. Then there is the fact that there are scopes that say .25” at 100 and in fact are adjusting in true MOA or vice versa true MOA reticle and shooter MOA turets meaning adjusting at .25” at 100. It’s just a Cluster Cluck.

1. Stop thinking Linear, we are using Angles

Milliradian

• An Angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex

Minute of Angle

• MOA is a unit of angular measurement equal to 1/60th of 1 degree

Mil Adjustments

.1 Mil per click
.05 Mil per click

MOA Adjustment

1/8 Minute
1/4 Minute
1/2 Minute
1 MOA

For an example of the linear value, .3 Mils (3 clicks on .1 Mil Scope) = 1.08" at 100 yards

You have 3.6 for a full Mil definition because 100 yards = 3600 inches, now apply the above definition

We like Mils better because Base 10 is easier than Fractions

The human brains like multiples of 10, why, we can relate, 10 fingers and toes.

I understand angles as I have been a machinist for 25 years.
I also understand there are 6283.185 mils to a circle and 21,600 minutes.

What I am asking, and what I have searched for, is how is 6283.185 units better than(or more accurate) than 21,600. Why is mils BETTER? Not what is everyone using or there is less clicks or the numbers are easier to use.

 

[Alabusa]

I guess I am over complicating it.

Mils is not better, it is more convenient to use, correct?

 

[Lowlight]

Accuracy is relative

One is not more accurate than the other, they are saying the same thing

If I have a target at 400 yards, to hit center I can dial

2.2 Mils on Scope

or

7.5 MOA on the scope

Both will hit the target the same,

The discussion from accuracy is incorrectly applied to the difference between .36" and .25" which is less than 1/2 a bullet width. However both methods have finer adjustments available

if you cannot shoot a group under .5 Inches in size on a consistent basis, who cares about the .11"

 

[ReaperMedic]

Easier is better.

 

[308pirate]

Alabusa, neither system is any more accurate than the other when it comes to delivering rounds on target. You're looking at it wrong if you're comparing the number of graduations or intervals in 360 degrees.

This isn't surveying, navigation, or any other application where your question is relevant.

 

[Alabusa]

Accuracy is relative

One is not more accurate than the other, they are saying the same thing

If I have a target at 400 yards, to hit center I can dial

2.2 Mils on Scope

or

7.5 MOA on the scope

Both will hit the target the same,

The discussion from accuracy is incorrectly applied to the difference between .36" and .25" which is less than 1/2 a bullet width. However both methods have finer adjustments available

if you cannot shoot a group under .5 Inches in size on a consistent basis, who cares about the .11"

Easier is better.

Got it. It is the K.I.S.S. principle.

 

[Bender]

Use the ruler in your scope. No need to confuse any linear measurement.

Both do the exact same thing.

 

[b6graham]

mil > moa

just like

km > mile. base 10 FTW

 

[spife7980]

Why is mils BETTER?

I guess I am over complicating it.
Mils is not better, it is more convenient to use, correct?

Now youre getting on track.

<≠>
Less does not equal more. It is logically and mathematically impossible.

Thinking about how one can be better than the other when "one = x inches" misses the point of using angles so you will never get a satisfactory answer to that question. Its an impossible question asked by a limited point of view so it has an impossible and unsatisfying answer. Something can not be better or less than something it is equivalent to.

You never have to worry about how many inches something equals for what we do with good scopes. Measure it on your reticle and adjust based on what the reticle says to do. You have a ruler in your reticle that gives you the adjustments for your scope, throw your stanley tape measure away.

Once you learn your reticle the whole thing becomes easier.

For me it comes down to: mills has less digits and numbers, thats pretty much it. 6.8 mils or 23.5 moa. I can remember 6.8 easier off the top of my head. If I were reading the call in my ballistic calculator is as easy as changing the unit, there is zero actual tangible difference. Its not even a base 10 thing for me, its just a smaller number so I can scale them easier in my mind. If youre Will Hunting then thats no problem for you, so it matters even less.

 

[wtmyers]

What finally convinced me to change from MOA to MIL was the quick wind formula you can use with the G1.
The example I was given originally was that the G1 BC for .308 is .4XX so you use a 4 mph, therefore:

100 = .1 mil at 4 mph
200 = .2 mil at 4 mph
300 = .3 mil at 4 mph
400 = .4 mil at 4 mph
500 = .5 mil at 4 mph
600 = .7 mil due to velocity bleed off and correcting the estimate
700 = .8 mil
800 = .9 mil
900 = 1 mil

The base 10 was a lot easier for me to quickly find a number to use. I think Frank had a great podcast on this one.

 

[Alabusa]

What finally convinced me to change from MOA to MIL was the quick wind formula you can use with the G1.
The example I was given originally was that the G1 BC for .308 is .4XX so you use a 4 mph, therefore:

100 = .1 mil at 4 mph
200 = .2 mil at 4 mph
300 = .3 mil at 4 mph
400 = .4 mil at 4 mph
500 = .5 mil at 4 mph
600 = .7 mil due to velocity bleed off and correcting the estimate
700 = .8 mil
800 = .9 mil
900 = 1 mil

The base 10 was a lot easier for me to quickly find a number to use. I think Frank had a great podcast on this one.

So I did learn something today that makes sense and life easier. Thank you.

 

[Zack_va248]

I am going to put an Athlon Ares etr on my .300wm. I have always been moa and can't see an advantage to go mil. In fact, the way I see it, moa is better.
At 100 yards, 1/10th mil is about .36" vs .25 or .125 with moa.
At 1000 yards, 1 moa is 10 inches while 1 mil is about 36 inches. Is that correct? If it is correct, why would anyone use mil?? Other than that it is what everyone else is using, less clicks and smaller numbers to work with.

Can anyone give me a definitive answer why mil is better? Please educate my dumb ass.

Both are just units of measure. How they are broken up on a given reticle can however make it easier or more difficult depending on how the hash marks are laid out. but even then that would mostly be for target ranging and most people don't do that anymore. don't need to. many excellent range finders for that. a great tool to know how to use, yes, but a reason to choose mil over moa, no.

 

[Zack_va248]

Now youre getting on track.

<≠>
Less does not equal more. It is logically and mathematically impossible.

Thinking about how one can be better than the other when "one = x inches" misses the point of using angles so you will never get a satisfactory answer to that question. Its an impossible question asked by a limited point of view so it has an impossible and unsatisfying answer. Something can not be better or less than something it is equivalent to.

You never have to worry about how many inches something equals for what we do with good scopes. Measure it on your reticle and adjust based on what the reticle says to do. You have a ruler in your reticle that gives you the adjustments for your scope, throw your stanley tape measure away.

Once you learn your reticle the whole thing becomes easier.

For me it comes down to: mills has less digits and numbers, thats pretty much it. 6.8 mils or 23.5 moa. I can remember 6.8 easier off the top of my head. If I were reading the call in my ballistic calculator is as easy as changing the unit, there is zero actual tangible difference. Its not even a base 10 thing for me, its just a smaller number so I can scale them easier in my mind. If youre Will Hunting then thats no problem for you, so it matters even less.

this 100 percent!

 

[Diver160651]

I find these topics hilarious because people will post good reasons why you might pick one or the other and then somebody follows up with “there’s no reason” to pic one over the other.

There are several reasons that people pick one or the other and they tend to be very important to those people

 

[Zack_va248]

Accuracy is relative

One is not more accurate than the other, they are saying the same thing

If I have a target at 400 yards, to hit center I can dial

2.2 Mils on Scope

or

7.5 MOA on the scope

Both will hit the target the same,

The discussion from accuracy is incorrectly applied to the difference between .36" and .25" which is less than 1/2 a bullet width. However both methods have finer adjustments available

if you cannot shoot a group under .5 Inches in size on a consistent basis, who cares about the .11"

So many people get caught up on that .11". It's mind numbing sometimes why people can't see the fact that almost no one can shoot well enough nor don equipment and systems precise enough to have any kind of relative difference. It's just a ruler.

 

[Zack_va248]

I understand angles as I have been a machinist for 25 years.
I also understand there are 6283.185 mils to a circle and 21,600 minutes.

What I am asking, and what I have searched for, is how is 6283.185 units better than(or more accurate) than 21,600. Why is mils BETTER? Not what is everyone using or there is less clicks or the numbers are easier to use.

not better. just easier to break down for most. it'd be like driving a car with a km/h speedo. most would still be like well not sure how fast I'm really going still. its all what your familiar with and how your brain breaks things down in your head easier. for most sliding that decimal point for thousandths is easier. for others that have used inches and yards their whole life, moa is probably more relatable. as you know both can be easily converted back and forth so it really doesn't matter which. Although Id say if you shoot prs and most guys there are using MIL then why not speak the same language?

 

[ShtrRdy]

What finally convinced me to change from MOA to MIL was the quick wind formula you can use with the G1.
The example I was given originally was that the G1 BC for .308 is .4XX so you use a 4 mph, therefore:

100 = .1 mil at 4 mph
200 = .2 mil at 4 mph
300 = .3 mil at 4 mph
400 = .4 mil at 4 mph
500 = .5 mil at 4 mph
600 = .7 mil due to velocity bleed off and correcting the estimate
700 = .8 mil
800 = .9 mil
900 = 1 mil

The base 10 was a lot easier for me to quickly find a number to use. I think Frank had a great podcast on this one.

I don't think that's right but I'm going to have to do an example myself to see if I'm wrong and also learned something new.

 

[Gohring65]

If you want the potential to sell it to me, or anybody I shoot with, get it in mils.

 

[Zack_va248]

If you want the potential to sell it to me, or anybody I shoot with, then get it in mils.

Another great point, resale.

 

[Geno C.]

1. Stop thinking Linear, we are using Angles

Milliradian

• An Angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex

Minute of Angle

• MOA is a unit of angular measurement equal to 1/60th of 1 degree

Mil Adjustments

.1 Mil per click
.05 Mil per click

MOA Adjustment

1/8 Minute
1/4 Minute
1/2 Minute
1 MOA

For an example of the linear value, .3 Mils (3 clicks on .1 Mil Scope) = 1.08" at 100 yards

You have 3.6 for a full Mil definition because 100 yards = 3600 inches, now apply the above definition

We like Mils better because Base 10 is easier than Fractions

The human brains like multiples of 10, why, we can relate, 10 fingers and toes.

10 fingers, 10 toes, now the world makes sense! ?

I’m an moa guy simply because I had a ton of moa scopes before I started shooting with some mil people and I still have moa friends in our group.

You do get screwed on the total elevation adjustment when using a Gen 2 razor being moa though...

 

[b6graham]

I don't think that's right but I'm going to have to do an example myself to see if I'm wrong and also learned something new.

It's a generalization. But there is normally a wind speed that works like this. It may be 4 or it may be 8mph

There are two different projections. Both at 7mph. 90 degrees to shooter

 

[b6graham]

 

[Diver160651]

What happens when you are up 1 mile an hour on your saw

 

[NineHotel]

"The discussion from accuracy is incorrectly applied to the difference between .36" and .25" which is less than 1/2 a bullet width. However both methods have finer adjustments available "

More correctly, this is a precision difference, not an accuracy difference. Quarter MOA clicks are slightly more granular than tenth mil, making them technically more precise - but down in the noise difference for practical use.

 

[Diver160651]

I am always inclined to let the 800+ ranges be an extra click And have the intermediate range is dead on.

Mostly because that’s where most the match distances take place. It’s easier to read the wind there to begin with

 

[b6graham]

What happens when you are up 1 mile an hour on your saw

7.5

 

[b6graham]

For reference on BC

95 SMK .600
162 ELDM .670

 

[308pirate]

Another great point, resale.

Not really. The precision rifle enthusiast market (the only market in which milliradian scopes sell well) is tiny in comparison with the total firearms market.

Billy Bob hunter/plinker/casual shooter doesn't want some "furrin metric" scope. If it ain't quarter inch clicks he don't want it.

I doubt 2 gun or 3 gun competitors care since they use scopes differently than how precision rifle shooters do.

You will not sell one to any benchrest or NRA rifle competitor, guaranteed.

For the widest possible market appeal, MOA is king.

 

[Zack_va248]

Not really. The precision rifle enthusiast market (the only market in which milliradian scopes sell well) is tiny in comparison with the total firearms market.

Billy Bob hunter/plinker/casual shooter doesn't want some "furrin metric" scope. If it ain't quarter inch clicks he don't want it.

I doubt 2 gun or 3 gun competitors care since they use scopes differently than how precision rifle shooters do.

You will not sell one to any benchrest or NRA rifle competitor, guaranteed.

For the widest possible market appeal, MOA is king.

Probably true. I was going off of my experience with the guys I've seen at the matches and on here.

 

[Diver160651]

Not really. The precision rifle enthusiast market (the only market in which milliradian scopes sell well) is tiny in comparison with the total firearms market.

Billy Bob hunter/plinker/casual shooter doesn't want some "furrin metric" scope. If it ain't quarter inch clicks he don't want it.

I doubt 2 gun or 3 gun competitors care since they use scopes differently than how precision rifle shooters do.

You will not sell one to any benchrest or NRA rifle competitor, guaranteed.

For the widest possible market appeal, MOA is king.

Your logic is faulty.

Benchrest, belly bench test guys don’t want most of our tach type scopes. There are weight issues and reticle issues.

Most hunters will not want to pay the high $; just look at what “most” US hunters buy. Then a entire host of high end guys don’t like the weight of the top tactical scopes.

Sorry for a tac scope, the market is bigger in mil based users

 

[Alabusa]

My next scope will be a mil scope just to broaden my knowledge base. I am always interested in learning as to the reason I posted this thread.

I really appreciate the folks that have taken the time to respond here and have the patience to explain this to me.

 

[ShtrRdy]

b6graham - thanks for the examples. I didn't realize there were cases in which this held true.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

b6graham - thanks for the examples. I didn't realize there were cases in which this held true.

Not just "some" cases. This works for any cartridge within it's supersonic range. There will be a certain wind speed that will give it 0.1mil drift per 100 yards. It works as well for a 69 grain Sierra Matchking at 2800 fps as it does for a 300 grain Berger at 3150 fps

 

[b6graham]

b6graham - thanks for the examples. I didn't realize there were cases in which this held true.

Skookum is right.

Note that both my examples are a little fast for what those specific bullets would normally go from a short action non magnum. The velocity plays a big part. So its important to figure it out for your specific load. But it can be very useful for bracketing.

In the case for these loads. 7mph roughly is the normal jump so a 3-4mph wind will be half that (.1mil at 200, .5 at 1k) and a 12-14 will be closer to .6 at 300y and 1.4 at 700y for example

Now if only I could get average wind speed from me to target within 1mph every time haha

 

[NineHotel]

I grew up with MOA; it's my native language if you will. I translate to MIL; all my field rifle scopes (sans one mid weight hunter) are MIL. I read the wind in MOA, then translate to MIL. It all goes very quickly, especially when thinking in terms of 3 clicks per MOA. The reason I standardized on MIL was because of its dominance in real world application. MOA is the universal language for flat range civie shooters, MIL for 'real" shooters, as taught in the known government precision programs.

 

[supercorndogs]

I read wind in MPH.

 

[BurnOut]

Q: Which is better, putting on your pants left leg first, or right leg first?

A: It doesn't matter which method you choose, both will accomplish the same task; use whichever method you're most comfortable with.

 

[spife7980]

Q: Which is better, putting on your pants left leg first, or right leg first?

A: It doesn't matter which method you choose, both will accomplish the same task; use whichever method you're most comfortable with.

 

[BurnOut]

What is your formula for wind calling in MOA?

(UhIThinkThatLooksAboutRight) * (DammitLastShotWentWideLeft) / (FuckWhatWasMyHoldoverAgain) ^ (GeeISureCouldGoForADonut)

 

[Deleted member 113831]

(UhIThinkThatLooksAboutRight) * (DammitLastShotWentWideLeft) / (FuckWhatWasMyHoldoverAgain) ^ (GeeISureCouldGoForADonut)

Haha! The point I was getting at earlier, is that there are some outstanding wind callers in MOA, but...for some reason, most of them seem to be "intuitive" in thier approach. They are good just because they've done it so long and have the benefit of experience.

The MIL method has easy math behind it that isn't hard to understand and can be taught to a shooter in a very short time. There are of course formulas for MOA also, but the math is just a bit more involved and less handy to do on the fly.

Both methods require a shooter to accurately judge the wind in MPH first though. If you can't do that then none of this matters.

 

[BurnOut]

Haha! The point I was getting at earlier, is that there are some outstanding wind callers in MOA, but...for some reason, most of them seem to be "intuitive" in thier approach. They are good just because they've done it so long and have the benefit of experience.

The MIL method has easy math behind it that isn't hard to understand and can be taught to a shooter in a very short time. There are of course formulas for MOA also, but the math is just a bit more involved and less handy to do on the fly.

Both methods require a shooter to accurately judge the wind in MPH first though. If you can't do that then none of this matters.

All bullshit aside, the VAST majority of my wind calling has been done while prairie dog shooting... and for some reason, my complete seat-of-the-pants wind hold-offs tend to be a HELL of a lot more accurate than my distance calls/hold-offs.

Honestly, for some reason, distance calls are REALLY difficult for me; where we shoot, there aren't any distinguishing features that can be used to estimate distance (no trees, no rocks, no... nothing), and when moving from one part of a dog town to another, it's just damned difficult for me to get my drop correct. On the wind side of things, there are obviously no distinguishing features either, but I just have a knack for guessing pretty close.

FWIW, I'm a Mil shooter...

 

[Kickin45]

It’s like using tools or a measuring tape in the SAE or Metric debate.
If you know measurements and your tools very well, doesn’t matter which you use, your good with either.
With SAE though you need to be familiar with what the next size up is in let’s say a socket. And then let’s say it’s an odd size. What is the obscure size in between?
Metric is literally 1 2 3 4 5 etc.....ABC,123.