-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Another mil vs moa thread
- Thread starter Alabusa
- Start date
I find it easier to use mils when ranging targets - especially if I'm pressed for time. When bench shooting where I already know the distance and windage and have time to sit there and think about it, either one is fine with me.
Nope, it's just as easy
For cartridges that fly like a 308: drift in 10 mph FV wind = (distance in yards/100) -1. Takes about a second to do the math in your head. Then you have to scale it for actual wind speed and angle, which you have to do for the mil wind formula as well.
With the MOA formula, actual wind speed comes into it after you get your base drift based on distance alone. But I agree with your basic point: at some point in the process you have to be able to dope the wind speed otherwise you will never get the right answer, mils or MOA.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
You mean like the complaint about the new TT Gen3xr center dot being .07 mil or... 1/4” at 100 yards? ;D
Agreed, people are silly.
But but it’s 1.4” at 1000 yards...
Like anyone can make 1” wind calls at that distance.
Don't know, don't care. Don't have one and probably never will. If I did it's easy to find a relation after you work up a load.
I know you have a hard on for this mil wind formula but you have to understand that it isn't the ultimate answer to everything.
So one click on the windage turret at 100 yards on mil at 4 mph? 2clicks at 200 yards? and so on?
If your scope adjusts in 0.1 mil increments yes. If it doesn't, then no.
While we’re beating this dead horse, coke or Pepsi? Nikon or Canon?
I prefer MOA but have to use MILS also for work. Sub 1000m MOA is PERSONALLY easier/faster for me. If over 1000m I’m faster on MILS. All that said in personal time I’m usually shooting 500-800m. Ipso facto...
I prefer MOA but have to use MILS also for work. Sub 1000m MOA is PERSONALLY easier/faster for me. If over 1000m I’m faster on MILS. All that said in personal time I’m usually shooting 500-800m. Ipso facto...
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Ok... I'm NOT advocating for MIL in this particular post,...but I am curious to hear your MOA method for my own personal edification.
There are so many ways that have been developed, I am genuinely curious about the particular methods people are using for MOA, and where they learned them.
Mils (when I get a non mismatched scope), Coke, Canon, Xbox, pc, android, Toyota trucks, imperial measurements, Lamborghini, tikka (for common factory rifle) , ar15, 9mm, 6.5 creed, 870, no to glock, automatic handgun, thunderbeast, KRG chassis, stainless, kydex, dark blue, first focal, old Jazz team, Scandinavian metal.
Any other major controversies I forgot to mention?
Last edited:
I know a MOA is just under 1.05 but for this post I’m gonna refer to 1 MOA @ 100 as an inch. I usually shoot on steel at unknown distances between 500 to 800 as stated above. At these ranges I can always witness either the shot or the trace myself. Let’s be honest, at those ranges for an experienced shooter a 12” plate is an easy target. Misses for me are usually windage. 4” off plate left converts to an easy hold 1.5 right at 500m. Again personal, but I can picture 7 and a half inches, 2.2 MILIRADIAN not so much (nohomo). Even budget MOA reticles like the Deploy or XLR make this beyond brainless. Past 1000m is when you really start to have to do actual math. Just my opinion though.
WTF was that explanation?
Worthless on so many levels it's hard to understand what was trying to be explained.
Worthless on so many levels it's hard to understand what was trying to be explained.
I also want to go mil so that I can only think of it as an angle and so I DON'T try to translate it to a linear measurement. Moa is too associated in my head to linear (I know it is just an angle but too long of thinking if it wrong). Thanks for all of you since I joined helping (especially @Lowlight ) get it corrected in my understanding.
Also
Let's clarify something, I believe the question to the MOA crowd is, "What method you use to dope the wind for a first round hit" vs what you do to follow up...
I like how the MOA guys will say, "4” off plate left converts to an easy hold 1.5 right at 500m"
Okay, you can tell the difference between 4" at 500m and 6" at 500m ? How are you doing that?
The reticle is a calibrated ruler 3" from your nose, you can read an actual distance using both, its about the unit in front of you and not a linear distance you pulled out of the air.
Mils still have the exact same linear distance, if as stated above, MOA is 1.047" at 100 yards, or 1.05 as rounded above, well .3 Mils is 1.08" at 100 yards ...
The common misinterpretation is comparing 1 MOA to 1 Mil instead of comparing the .25" vs the .36" which is the actual difference. Everyone wants to say, 1 MOA is 1.047 but 1 Mil is 3.6" so they start playing with that, vs saying .25 vs .36
Let's clarify something, I believe the question to the MOA crowd is, "What method you use to dope the wind for a first round hit" vs what you do to follow up...
I like how the MOA guys will say, "4” off plate left converts to an easy hold 1.5 right at 500m"
Okay, you can tell the difference between 4" at 500m and 6" at 500m ? How are you doing that?
The reticle is a calibrated ruler 3" from your nose, you can read an actual distance using both, its about the unit in front of you and not a linear distance you pulled out of the air.
Mils still have the exact same linear distance, if as stated above, MOA is 1.047" at 100 yards, or 1.05 as rounded above, well .3 Mils is 1.08" at 100 yards ...
The common misinterpretation is comparing 1 MOA to 1 Mil instead of comparing the .25" vs the .36" which is the actual difference. Everyone wants to say, 1 MOA is 1.047 but 1 Mil is 3.6" so they start playing with that, vs saying .25 vs .36
4” vs 6” does not matter on a 12” plate. You could call 1 favor right and it’s still going to connect. Fastest round on target is the standard I go by. I never said one was better than another. I just said in 500-1000 range I am faster spotting my own shots and prefer MOA. Either way no matter what you preference is, there is no “right” answer.
But there is a WRONG ANSWER
You still have not answered the question and simply confirmed you are not actually using a system of angular adjustment you are just winging it
Nothing you said is correct or precise
You still have not answered the question and simply confirmed you are not actually using a system of angular adjustment you are just winging it
Nothing you said is correct or precise
Someone should ask about spin drift now.
You know you want some cucumber.
Lowlight is into Lady Gaga, so he's definitely in for some cucumber, too.
That is the entire point, to not do MATH ...
Sure we can do the long hand formula but if you are using it, you already lost.
What is being asked is more about the shortcuts like the British Method,
British Method
10MPH wind is your base wind.
1 MOA @ every 100 yards
Wind MPH 2-3 MPH = light, 5MPH = medium
10MPH = base, 20MPH = heavy
Example
Range 600, velocity 10mph = 6 MOA
Range 600, velocity 5 mph = 3 MOA
Range 600, velocity 2-3mph=1.5 MOA
Range 600, velocity 20 mph = 12 MOA
Instead, most are just winging it with no real idea of what they are doing, they are just repeating talking points like, "I think in inches" or any other lame excuse why they cling to MOA.
What can we say, Ignorance is bliss
Sure we can do the long hand formula but if you are using it, you already lost.
What is being asked is more about the shortcuts like the British Method,
British Method
10MPH wind is your base wind.
1 MOA @ every 100 yards
Wind MPH 2-3 MPH = light, 5MPH = medium
10MPH = base, 20MPH = heavy
Example
Range 600, velocity 10mph = 6 MOA
Range 600, velocity 5 mph = 3 MOA
Range 600, velocity 2-3mph=1.5 MOA
Range 600, velocity 20 mph = 12 MOA
Instead, most are just winging it with no real idea of what they are doing, they are just repeating talking points like, "I think in inches" or any other lame excuse why they cling to MOA.
What can we say, Ignorance is bliss
What amazes me, baffles me really; is that otherwise smart people will get on a forum and argue everything wrong to justify their use of something.
It surprises me more that people do this on the Hide where there is a higher than average group of very squared away shooters giving the correct info.
It surprises me more that people do this on the Hide where there is a higher than average group of very squared away shooters giving the correct info.
You are really asking what everybody's favorite color is... You are going to get opinions on why MILS or MOA is better and in the end you need to decide for yourself. In my opinion MILS is a better system because I never could stop trying to do the mental gymnastics all the time of "how many inches is that at XXX yards?" As stated by Lowlight the reticle is your ruler 3" in front of your face, use it for what it was designed. When I swapped to MILS I finally quit trying to translate it in my head and started talking/thinking in MILS. If you can stop thinking in inches and think in MOA then the advantage is nullified. Everybody I've ever shot with that was using MOA sooner or later started trying to talk in inches and once you do that you have already lost. Go to MILS and spend more time shooting and less time doing math!
It never gets old... By the time you pick a scope with the features you want, the decision has very likely been made for you.
P.S. Mils are metric. This is an undisputed fact.
P.S. Mils are metric. This is an undisputed fact.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Really, you've never had a guy that shoots only mil scopes spot your shots in inches? Cause I have.
I learned to shoot in MOA because my first exposure to mid and long range rifle was NRA highpower. Every highpower data book I've ever seen comes with an MOA grid overlaid on the target for plotting your shots. After about 1 hr of using such a data book, one memorizes the MOA from the edge of every scoring ring to the center and the word inches never crosses your mind again when making sight adjustments (which are in 1/4 MOA increments on every match and service rifle I've ever seen).
The first "long range" scope I bought was a Bushnell 10X mildot with 1/4 moa turrets because I didn't know something better was out there. It didn't take long to figure out the "ruler in front of your eye" thing and just as long to figure out that I wanted the same units in the turrets as the reticle. It's just commong fucking sense.
This whole "MOA shooters think in inches" thing is as much bullshit as assuming that MIL guys never think in linear units.
Put a reticle that matches the turret units in front of me and I don't GAF what units it's in nor how many inches it covers.
ETA: I have all kinds of scopes, mil/mil/ffp, moa/bdc/sfp, moa/duplex/sfp, and mil/mil/sfp and know how to use every one of them. It's just not that hard
Last edited:
See this I just will never understand. A number is a number. It comes out of my brain and through the mouth with the same effort as any other number.
I just don't buy it. 4.7 mils or 16 minutes to 600 yards. Same shit takes same amount of effort to remember and use.
Same as dialing. A particular scope's erector tube needs to move the same amount to span 4.7 mils or 16 MOA so assuming the stem threads are the same pitch on both you're spinning the turret the same amount. How on earth could someone not see that?
I look at my car's speedometer and the 75 mph and 120 km/h markings are in the same spot on the speedometer's face. So I don't GAF which of those two is on the speed limit sign. Just match numbers. who gives a damn what the conversion is?
Didn’t say it was logical. Just that my brain interprets as “easier.”
Also, while the travel of the erector may be the same, the effort is not. In your example, you are moving through 47 detents vs 64 detents. That’s over 25% more detents that you will push through.
Again, not a huge deal, but the perception is there. Some people will “feel” like it takes longer because of more detents. It doesn’t, but again, perception.
Is it easier to count 10 dimes, or 100 pennies? The end number is the same?
Why do you prefer a reticle that someone else may not, it’s all mils (or moa) right??
When you multiply 12x12, your brain might solve it by doing 10x12 + 2x12. My brain might do 11x12 +12. Someone else may do it differently. Same end result, but we all get there differently.
Life isn’t always about what is 100% logical, there is a good amount that is perception.
Last edited:
I may be a heretic, but there's nothing wrong with thinking in linear units. "You hit about 3 feet to the right" contains all the information that "you hit 3 MOA to the right" (because the target is fixed), and it's just as easy to line up the reticle and dial it. SOMEONE has to have a reticle to measure the angle. I've never met someone who could accurately estimate minuscule angles by eye.
You have to do math in your head. That's what's the first thing wrong with it.
You're calling the miss, not the correction. That's the second thing wrong it.
I'd rather spot for myself than listen to someone tell me where I missed in linear units. If you can't call out the correction (something the shooter can act upon immediately without thought) using angular units, at least call it out in fractions of a target.
This is a shit show.
Here are couple examples we have all seen even at a club level match: Lets picture typical up and down wind.
Example 1 (Spotter) Ah, you ah, hit about 2-1/4 plates right and ahw just a bit low, ah maybe a half plate.
Example 1 (Spotter) Correction U .6; L 1.2
Example 3 (Spotter) Correction U .6; L 1.2
Go on keep talking Latin it works for you. But learn how to use and think in scope units. Doing the extra linear stuff is just noise unless you looking for post shooting data.
Here are couple examples we have all seen even at a club level match: Lets picture typical up and down wind.
Example 1 (Spotter) Ah, you ah, hit about 2-1/4 plates right and ahw just a bit low, ah maybe a half plate.
Ok let’s correct this please tell me as a shooter how fast you can get your next shot off, especially if your new target is now a new distance and you need solid wind data. Hell for the above go ahead and substitute feet that you are some how estimating @ 737 on a plate that might be a diamond 10” or maybe 17” we as shooter aren't giving that info.
Example 1 (Spotter) Correction U .6; L 1.2
Fast and useful. Btw corrections are always back to the center and not where they impacted.
(Yes this Could happen with MOA, but the reality is it might only be 5-8 guys in a field of 45-100 mixed in.. So the MOA guys are at a disadvantage when the guy in the squad is giving them Mil info. dee example 3 below)
Example 3 (Spotter) Correction U .6; L 1.2
Shooter on MOA and the reason most have changed. Be honest with yourself , Imagine that you’re under pressure both task loaded and under the clock. Now times those numbers by 3.4 and add them to what you had quickly. Please try to shoot in the same wind value.
Again, I said many times in this thread you want to speak the same language. You can make up all of the things and say one is as good as the other, but they’re not in today’s Tactical Precision Shooting, because of the langue barrier.Go on keep talking Latin it works for you. But learn how to use and think in scope units. Doing the extra linear stuff is just noise unless you looking for post shooting data.
Last edited:
Reverse the call if that makes it easier, and use whatever linear units you want (inches, meters, targets, miles, whatever). But there is no math. Just estimating a linear dimension, holding the crosshairs over it to measure the angle. Same as if you have a spotter with a reticle. It's literally the same thing.
If you have a reticle marked in angles, then there is never any math (unless you have one of thos ungodly stupid mismatched scopes). If you don't, you have no reference for the angles, and you have to do math (or just guess). I don't understand why people are so opposed this.
+1
I always ask whoever spots for me to speak this way. If they can't or won't, I end up ignoring them because it's just useless noise that slows me down. I'd rather shoot blind than deal with bad data input.
Are you guys saying that you've seen people who have optics with marked reticles call things out linearly rather than use the reticle to measure the angle? I can't condone that level of stupidity. It's like looking out the window to guess your speed rather than looking at the speedometer. Mixing MOA and mils is marginally better, but still, do people do that by choice? I guess it takes all kinds.
Not meant as a slight to MOA shooters, just my own experience. I've not competed in any High-power or F class type events. Only other "amateur" shooters/hunters who have grown up hearing that 1MOA=1"@ 100 yards, etc. My point was that learning MILS is like learning a whole new language and the crutch is left behind.
Yeah those guys are the bottom of the barrel in terms of skills/knowledge. Don't ever listen to fudds.
MOA or MILs it doesn’t matter as long as you are using the reticle to adjust for your misses.
More importantly I’d say to just use the same as the people you shoot with. Makes corrections easy between spotter and shooter. Instead of trying to convert an MOA call to mils on the fly.
More importantly I’d say to just use the same as the people you shoot with. Makes corrections easy between spotter and shooter. Instead of trying to convert an MOA call to mils on the fly.
For Tactical Precision Long Range:
While I agree with what you are saying, "just use the same as the people you shoot with" this only works well if you are and always planning on staying in a very small ecosystem and not competing etc. So it ends up be unrealistic in that setting. If you're a die-hard F-class benchrest shooter the logic reverses.
Giving "new shooters" or people un aware of the differences advice that "it doesn't matter" is faulty logic. It matters VERY much depending on the discipline if one is ever planning on getting outside of the "me" sphere..For Tactical Precision Long Range, (Field matches, PRS, NRL, other positional stuff) MOA is a dying langue.
Don't be the guy that tells others that learning latin is a great skill for the masses, when everyone else is speaking English.
Hell, they are both the same, both get the job done, but one is better in a larger ecosystem than the classroom.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Everyone here should know what MIL shooters do to dope the FIRST shot... it's been discussed in multiple threads more than plenty.
What hasn't been discussed is what method all you experienced MOA shooters use to figure the first shot. Is it different for a .223, .308, 28 Nosler, 338 Lapua? What's the unified theory of MOA wind doping?
What hasn't been discussed is what method all you experienced MOA shooters use to figure the first shot. Is it different for a .223, .308, 28 Nosler, 338 Lapua? What's the unified theory of MOA wind doping?
