I agree and I should have elaborated a little more. I started with MOA because I also thought it was easier. After additional research and before I took my first long range class I switched to MILs and haven't looked back. MIls are the primary units being used in the tactical precision world.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Another mil vs moa thread
- Thread starter Alabusa
- Start date
Yes but you shoot with whom you can. Its also very rewarding to have long time shooters become new long range shooters. Everybody brings what they have and more often than not its the old leupold hunting scopes sometimes a newish Vortex - but never FFP with match turrets/reticle.
Here's the short answer. If you shoot PRS-style stuff, use mils. If you shoot high power (including F class), use MOA. If you do anything else, use whatever the hell you want because it doesn't really matter.
People want to be held by the hand, minus any real knowledge on the subject they just want to do what everyone else is doing.
in the end, they don't want to stand out and most people "Believe" MOA is the right answer because here in the US Mils are relatively new-(ish) so they are sure if they should enter that doorway.
Fractions, Base 10, it's all pretty simple, the questions arise from the point of perception. "If I show up with X, will I be accepted" ...
This is the root of the question.
However that said, I agree with @Skookum and still want to see the MOA users answer to this, beyond the typical PRS answer of, "edge of the plate".
in the end, they don't want to stand out and most people "Believe" MOA is the right answer because here in the US Mils are relatively new-(ish) so they are sure if they should enter that doorway.
Fractions, Base 10, it's all pretty simple, the questions arise from the point of perception. "If I show up with X, will I be accepted" ...
This is the root of the question.
However that said, I agree with @Skookum and still want to see the MOA users answer to this, beyond the typical PRS answer of, "edge of the plate".
The most important reason to pick one over another is "what is everyone else doing?" If everyone you shoots with shoots in MOA, buy MOA. If you are going to shoot PRS, buy mrad, because that's what everyone else will play be using. This is not a "what are the cool kids doing?" decision, but a practical consideration.
"Hey, what was your wind call?"
"Point 4."
It's rare you get an answer in mph. Speaking the same language makes gathering stage dope easier... It also makes spotting and making wind calls for others easier.
"Hey, what was your wind call?"
"Point 4."
It's rare you get an answer in mph. Speaking the same language makes gathering stage dope easier... It also makes spotting and making wind calls for others easier.
If shooting a Milaradian based scope, you are selling yourself short if you do not range in meters, and measure corrections in CM.
Example:
Range 817 Meters
Correction Value for Impact 30 CM High.
Value Per Tenth Mil. At Range 8.17CM
Correction to Dial- 30/8.17 = 3.75
Actual to Dial = 4 Tenths
Example:
Range 817 Meters
Correction Value for Impact 30 CM High.
Value Per Tenth Mil. At Range 8.17CM
Correction to Dial- 30/8.17 = 3.75
Actual to Dial = 4 Tenths
I just look,
I SEE where I hit on the reticle, and then I let the Reticle TELL ME where to hold
No math, no thinking, I am just reading the ruler.
I SEE where I hit on the reticle, and then I let the Reticle TELL ME where to hold
No math, no thinking, I am just reading the ruler.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
You have been a member here since 2012, so you have got to be trolling.
I was a real fan of metric man when I was a child!
Really I end up evangelizing for Mil every time I shoot. I also help a lot of shooters who do it understand the true valued of adjustments at range.
You see this a lot with new F-Class shooters. They are trying to calculate an adjustment after sighted while using a Milaradian based system.
It is rudimentary for people on the hide but mode blowing to the uninitiated.
Really I end up evangelizing for Mil every time I shoot. I also help a lot of shooters who do it understand the true valued of adjustments at range.
You see this a lot with new F-Class shooters. They are trying to calculate an adjustment after sighted while using a Milaradian based system.
It is rudimentary for people on the hide but mode blowing to the uninitiated.
The F class ruler is the target. The rings are spaced a specific way for a reason and it's no secret what that is. Fuck you don't even need to know the spacing if your elevation is on and you're just chasing the spotter.
Break the shot center X, target comes back up with spotter edge 10 left. Hold right edge of X ring and blast it. 99% sure it will come back up an X
Nobody who's good at F class is doing any of the following:
Break the shot center X, target comes back up with spotter edge 10 left. Hold right edge of X ring and blast it. 99% sure it will come back up an X
Nobody who's good at F class is doing any of the following:
- Using a mil scope
- Measuring how far off they missed the x, in any unts
- Doing any math in their head
Last edited:
Nice troll or one of the dumbest things I've heard here in a while
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
AGNTSA
Don't confuse the happy coincidence that you came across with mils with some sort of "unified theory". Or I might ask for your rigorous proof.
Scandinavian metal?
In Flames.... but Jinjer is not far behind, but they are Croatian.....
I'll have to check them out.
Meant that as most of my favorite bands these days are Scandinavian and generally metal or rockish. Nightwish, Poets of the Fall, Within Temptation, Sunrise Avenue, Sabaton, Sonata Arctica, Delain. Oh and ive never been to Europe. I've seen all but poets of the fall, within temptation, and sunrise avenue live.
Other favorites are Schandmaul, thefatrat, Juli (all German), Queen, Muse (both English) , Linkin Park, and Red Hot Chili Peppers.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I know exactly what you're talking about.
You continue to confuse an empirical rule of thumb with some sort of scientifically or mathematically derived rule. A lot of people here can't tell the difference but many others can.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I'm not getting dragged into one of your endless arguments. I've seen them already.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I am not just trying to argue. I have no contempt for you whatsoever. What I am trying to do is drag you... kicking and screaming... down a path of logic.
But, because I don't know you, I don't have any idea what you understand of the MIL method and WHY it works. It isn't the magical "MIL" unit of measure, it is the methodology upon which it is based that makes it adaptable.
The same methodology can be used for MOA. But my point in all of this is that to date, every MOA shooter I've had these conversations with, for whatever reason, just doesn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
“What’s the wind?
8 mph half value.
Ok, dope chart says 1.8 for 10, full value
Ok, half of that is 0.9, plus half of that is 1.3 (this gives me 75% of my full value 10 mph call), come back 20% (80% of 10 mph) gives 1.1.”
This is 0.082 too much (20% of 1.3 is 0.26), but likely still close enough.
Mrad or moa, doesn’t matter.
But, really, many of those in prs competitions are using a somewhat different approach to doping their first shot...
“Hey, what was your wind call?”
Tenths may be easier to calculate than fractions (in general) because you just move the decimal place, but “half” is easier to visualize. So is half of a half, and half of a half of half, or half + half of a half. Our brain is remarkably good at picking a centerline, that is why “come down half a target” or “come left a one target” is a useful call without angular measurements.
My observation in the local matches I have shot in is that few spotters on the line have reticles. Spotters don’t call angular corrections because they are equipment limited.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Ok, so your method is to figure fractional values from a pre-printed dope chart.
Do you memorize your dope chart?
Would you be able to apply what you know about your dope to call for someone shooting a different caliber?
Yep. Dope the rifle before hand. Every shot fired before the current one is useful info. Write it down and use it.
No, I don’t memorize it. It’s a chart. I have a full 8.5x11 sheet for ease of use, and a miniaturized chart in a wrist coach for quick use. I also carry paper and pen to write down the info I need for the stage to be shot. These notes can be tucked into the wrist coach or affixed to the rifle.
In a hunting scenario, the wrist coach is fine as time on a long range shot is not as critical as it is on a match stage.
I don’t need ballistic data on another caliber to call a correction from a spotter. Every shooter on the line should have good dope for his or her rifle for that first shot, SWAG or not. PPPPPP
No, I don’t memorize it. It’s a chart. I have a full 8.5x11 sheet for ease of use, and a miniaturized chart in a wrist coach for quick use. I also carry paper and pen to write down the info I need for the stage to be shot. These notes can be tucked into the wrist coach or affixed to the rifle.
In a hunting scenario, the wrist coach is fine as time on a long range shot is not as critical as it is on a match stage.
I don’t need ballistic data on another caliber to call a correction from a spotter. Every shooter on the line should have good dope for his or her rifle for that first shot, SWAG or not. PPPPPP
Last edited:
Note to self......
Never bring up this subject again, at least on this forum.
Never bring up this subject again, at least on this forum.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Yeah, your thread got derailed, but you have the info you need to make decision.
Now it's all academic, but at least we are being civil this time.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
That's one way of looking at it.
This really deserves it's own thread, this one has probably been derailed enough. I'm out.
Good shooting to all.
Wind calculation: walk over to other squad “what did Morgan hold for wind? Thanks.”
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Mil spotter and the MOA shooter.
Spotter: You're .3 mils high.
Shooter: WTF?
Spotter: That don't confront me. Come down 1 MOA.
Shooter: What?
Spotter: Because .1 mil equals .34 MOA. You're .3 mils high. 3 times .34 equals 1 MOA because you're limited to .25 MOA clicks. From now on I'll call in MOA.
Spotter: You're .3 mils high.
Shooter: WTF?
Spotter: That don't confront me. Come down 1 MOA.
Shooter: What?
Spotter: Because .1 mil equals .34 MOA. You're .3 mils high. 3 times .34 equals 1 MOA because you're limited to .25 MOA clicks. From now on I'll call in MOA.
I shoot in Pepperonis. I custom ordered all my scopes so the turrets and reticle are in Pepperonis instead of MIL or MOA. Specifically, the size of a 'roni from my favorite pizza shop. Very accurate and delicious.
If I miss a shot, I simply look through my scope and line up the reticle at my POA. Then I count how many pepperonis I missed by. Maybe 2 pepperonis left and 1.2 pepperonis low. So I take aim again, but this time I aim 2 pepperonis right and 1.2 pepperonis high. Take the shot. Impact. Sweet... time for pizza.
If I miss a shot, I simply look through my scope and line up the reticle at my POA. Then I count how many pepperonis I missed by. Maybe 2 pepperonis left and 1.2 pepperonis low. So I take aim again, but this time I aim 2 pepperonis right and 1.2 pepperonis high. Take the shot. Impact. Sweet... time for pizza.
lol he is NOT asking for corrections, but predictions.
As an example I have a 6mph gun.
The wind is blowing @1:30 12mph that is about a 50% value wind so I now I’ll use .1 mil or 1 click value of bind per 100 yards otvto about 1k.
I did that as faster than I could type, no calculator or dope card.
If your a MOA user how do you do your first round on the fly calculation?
Never mind I answered a question in the wrong thread. Check out Lowlights other thread.. so far it appears MOA user do not have a short cut that works like mil wind.
By the way if nobody else is using pepperonis oh you’re going to do is get fat by yourself
I've never had anybody call out corrections for me. Ever. Never used a spotting scope. I bought one but it just sits in the box unused. When I'm shooting a match, people are not telling me where/how to shoot. When I practice, people are more concerned about what they're doing than what I'm doing. So I guess I've just learned from the get go how to spot my own shots and correct on my own without someone calling out wind corrections.
As far as how I predict for wind? Again, I'm not formally trained. So it's all just intuitive for me. I know that's bad because there is a science/method to it. But to me, wind is the "art" when it comes to long-range shooting. So it's more of a feel thing for me. I see the mirage. I see the dust and grass and trees and shit. I feel mother earth, yo. I talk to Gaia and shit I guess lol...
I've also just learned the pattern at the local ranges at which I shoot. So I kinda have a feel for what the wind does through the landscape. I know that's bad. If I ever travel to a different range somewhere else, I'm sure I'll have trouble. I dunno... for wind calls I just sort of... intuitively pick it up? Wish I knew the exact science behind it. But I'm too busy these days to pay attention.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Best wind shooters I know are all old and don't use gadgets. Takes time.
Thread seems to have disappeared. I posted a MOA shortcut on it, that works extremely well and quickly but that post no longer appears in my content.
Maybe the thread didn't go as planned.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Since the other thread disappeared, re-post it here in this thread. It is a viable method as long as you have 308 like ballistics. Or better yet, start a new post of your own.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
It was sent into outer space where it belongs. The OP attempted to get MOA fans the opportunity to visually see that mils is the preferred angular measurement to achieve a first round hit in the wind. This is fucking why for some many years we had MOA turrets and MIL reticle for holdover as a means to an end. But you know what? All of us fucking assholes told the manufactures to stop that shit. It wasn't confusing until we got involved. We're the motherfucking problem.
The shortcut posted was Jeff Hoffman's modification of the of the long hand formula, sort of a modified British Method
It still requires a constant that has to be calculated it's just a smaller number,
Hoffman’s Formula As initially developed, his formula is intended for .308 Match Cartridges, either the 168- gr. BTHP round, or its cousin, the 175-gr. round. His formula has three basic steps:
1. Make an accurate range estimate and preliminary wind speed calculation as if it were a 10 MPH full-value wind
2. Adjust this calculation for actual wind speed
3. Adjust again for actual wind value His formula’s First Step requires estimating the range and then using this figure as RANGE (in hundreds of yards) –1 (a constant) = Required Correction in Minutes of Angle.
For the sake of the formula, assume this correction is for a full-value, 10 MPH wind. This means, if your target is 700 yards away, you would calculate: 7 (hundreds of yards) – 1 (Jeff’s constant) = 6 Minutes of Angle Compensation. I emphasize: This first step does NOT consider the actual wind velocity or direction. It is only the First Step of a three-step formula. His formula’s Second Step: Adjust the Minutes of Angle Compensation for the actual wind velocity, expressed as a percentage of a 10 mph wind. Continuing with our first example, with a 700-yard target, let’s now consider that the actual wind speed is 5 mph. Already we found that 6 Minutes of Angle [7 – 1 = 6 MOA] was yielded, so we now multiply that 6 by 0.5 because the A increment riflescope. Or, you would hold the equivalent of 2 MOA into the wind – at 700 yards, that means holding 14 inches into the wind.
Restating Our Example To keep things clear, let’s follow the example again, from beginning to end. Your target is 700 yards away. So expressing it in hundreds of yards, we have 7 – 1 (Jeff’s constant) = 6 Minutes of Angle. In the second step, that 6 MOA is multiplied by the actual wind velocity, expressed as a percentage of a 10 mph wind. Thus, with a 5 MPH wind, we take that 6 MOA and multiply it by 0.5 = 3 MOA of correction. And finally, in the third step, you apply this 3 MOA to the angle of the wind on your bullet’s flight. At 45 degrees, that means ¾ value, so multiple the 3 MOA x 0.7 = 2.1 MOA, rounded off to 2 MOA. You apply this final result to your scope so you can hit dead-on in this wind. One point Jeff emphasizes is that this formula works just fine for the .308 Winchester 175-gr. Match load all the way to 1000 yards, but he recommends not employing it for the 168-gr. load after 600 yards. As well, he recommends rounding down your range estimate a bit because his formula slightly overstates the wind at longer distances – thus, consider a 735-yard target as 700 yards. And when you find yourself in especially hot weather or high altitude, he found that his Step One constant is better as -2 rather then -1.
Applying the Formula to Other Cartridges The Hoffman Formula is caliber-specific for .308 Winchester Match loads, but Jeff experimented with other popular sniping rounds, too. For the .223 cal. 77-gr. Match load, use no constant – in Step One: 700 yards yields 7 MOA. Calculate it the regular way in Steps Two and Three. In firing tests he’s found that this is accurate only to 600 yards because beyond that the wind increasingly drifts the lightweight, 77-grain bullet. What about the .300 Winchester Magnum? The 190-grain Match projectile is 30 percent less affected by wind than a .308 bullet. In other words, you need only 70 percent of the indicated wind compensation. The easiest way to calculate this is to follow all three steps exactly as explained above, then, as an additional step, multiply the final result by 0.7 (70 percent).
Had our earlier example involved a .300 Winchester Magnum, 190-grain Match load, we’d take the final result, 2 MOA, and multiply that by 0.7 which yields 1.4 MOA, rounded off as 1.5 MOA. Thus, dial six clicks on a ¼ MOA increment scope, or hold 1.5 MOA into the wind – at 700 yards that would be 10-1/2 inches. Similarly, Hoffman found that .338 Lapua Magnum projectiles were 40 percent less affected by wind than a .308 bullet. Therefore, calculate exactly as if the .338 were a .308 round through all three steps, and then multiply the final result by 0.6 (sixty percent) for the windage adjustment. I congratulate Jeff Hoffman for his contribution to long-range shooting, both through
The other shortcut is the straight up British method, which has already been talked about.
It's not new or unknown, or special, nor is it the same level of adaptability to other calibers. There is still a bit of fudge to it, just read the text.
You all ruined the other thread with a ton of BS it was not removed because it contained an answer I was not looking for, Hell here and the other I showed where it came from, nobody else knew the origin of it.
It still requires a constant that has to be calculated it's just a smaller number,
Hoffman’s Formula As initially developed, his formula is intended for .308 Match Cartridges, either the 168- gr. BTHP round, or its cousin, the 175-gr. round. His formula has three basic steps:
1. Make an accurate range estimate and preliminary wind speed calculation as if it were a 10 MPH full-value wind
2. Adjust this calculation for actual wind speed
3. Adjust again for actual wind value His formula’s First Step requires estimating the range and then using this figure as RANGE (in hundreds of yards) –1 (a constant) = Required Correction in Minutes of Angle.
For the sake of the formula, assume this correction is for a full-value, 10 MPH wind. This means, if your target is 700 yards away, you would calculate: 7 (hundreds of yards) – 1 (Jeff’s constant) = 6 Minutes of Angle Compensation. I emphasize: This first step does NOT consider the actual wind velocity or direction. It is only the First Step of a three-step formula. His formula’s Second Step: Adjust the Minutes of Angle Compensation for the actual wind velocity, expressed as a percentage of a 10 mph wind. Continuing with our first example, with a 700-yard target, let’s now consider that the actual wind speed is 5 mph. Already we found that 6 Minutes of Angle [7 – 1 = 6 MOA] was yielded, so we now multiply that 6 by 0.5 because the A increment riflescope. Or, you would hold the equivalent of 2 MOA into the wind – at 700 yards, that means holding 14 inches into the wind.
Restating Our Example To keep things clear, let’s follow the example again, from beginning to end. Your target is 700 yards away. So expressing it in hundreds of yards, we have 7 – 1 (Jeff’s constant) = 6 Minutes of Angle. In the second step, that 6 MOA is multiplied by the actual wind velocity, expressed as a percentage of a 10 mph wind. Thus, with a 5 MPH wind, we take that 6 MOA and multiply it by 0.5 = 3 MOA of correction. And finally, in the third step, you apply this 3 MOA to the angle of the wind on your bullet’s flight. At 45 degrees, that means ¾ value, so multiple the 3 MOA x 0.7 = 2.1 MOA, rounded off to 2 MOA. You apply this final result to your scope so you can hit dead-on in this wind. One point Jeff emphasizes is that this formula works just fine for the .308 Winchester 175-gr. Match load all the way to 1000 yards, but he recommends not employing it for the 168-gr. load after 600 yards. As well, he recommends rounding down your range estimate a bit because his formula slightly overstates the wind at longer distances – thus, consider a 735-yard target as 700 yards. And when you find yourself in especially hot weather or high altitude, he found that his Step One constant is better as -2 rather then -1.
Applying the Formula to Other Cartridges The Hoffman Formula is caliber-specific for .308 Winchester Match loads, but Jeff experimented with other popular sniping rounds, too. For the .223 cal. 77-gr. Match load, use no constant – in Step One: 700 yards yields 7 MOA. Calculate it the regular way in Steps Two and Three. In firing tests he’s found that this is accurate only to 600 yards because beyond that the wind increasingly drifts the lightweight, 77-grain bullet. What about the .300 Winchester Magnum? The 190-grain Match projectile is 30 percent less affected by wind than a .308 bullet. In other words, you need only 70 percent of the indicated wind compensation. The easiest way to calculate this is to follow all three steps exactly as explained above, then, as an additional step, multiply the final result by 0.7 (70 percent).
Had our earlier example involved a .300 Winchester Magnum, 190-grain Match load, we’d take the final result, 2 MOA, and multiply that by 0.7 which yields 1.4 MOA, rounded off as 1.5 MOA. Thus, dial six clicks on a ¼ MOA increment scope, or hold 1.5 MOA into the wind – at 700 yards that would be 10-1/2 inches. Similarly, Hoffman found that .338 Lapua Magnum projectiles were 40 percent less affected by wind than a .308 bullet. Therefore, calculate exactly as if the .338 were a .308 round through all three steps, and then multiply the final result by 0.6 (sixty percent) for the windage adjustment. I congratulate Jeff Hoffman for his contribution to long-range shooting, both through
The other shortcut is the straight up British method, which has already been talked about.
It's not new or unknown, or special, nor is it the same level of adaptability to other calibers. There is still a bit of fudge to it, just read the text.
You all ruined the other thread with a ton of BS it was not removed because it contained an answer I was not looking for, Hell here and the other I showed where it came from, nobody else knew the origin of it.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
Is this the method you use to call MOA in classes? Or have you chosen another more efficient method? Dealing with students on a continual basis that have these MOA scopes and diverse calibers, I would think, has provided some insight.
