Concerning the mil/mil, mil/moa subject.
I have studied and comsidered it for a while now. I do not currently have a mil/mil scope so bear with me.
First, I thnk that the whole thing with the mil/moa is much ado about nothing. Keep in mind we are talking FFP scopes here, because in a tactical environment, they make absolute sense. I am also considering more specifically an LE scenario.
I am considering the .25 click, whether IPHY or MOA, they are essentially the same when you consider the tolerance factor of the gears and mechanism.
I am not saying that mil/mil is not an improvement, it is, but in my opinion, an incremental one. This is my reasoning, it is not a "defense" to mil/moa:
First thing, I am going to have range cards made up, in the field there will be virtualy no ability to "mil" a near miss.
So the "correcting your shot" ability is of almost no consequence.
When I am at the range, if I am shooting at sight in targets, they normally have 1" squares, so the ability to "mil" the correction is again, not a factor.
Likewise, if I am at the range and shooting targets of known, or fairly standard size, the approximation of inches can be determined by "guesstimation" for correction. For example, an IPSC sihouette target is 18" across. Draw an imaginary line to bi-sect the target into halves, if your shot fell to the right side, half the distance between the edge and the center, you correct for 4 - 5 inches.
The ability to correct your shot at long ranges is fully dependent on the ability to resolve the bullet holes. This is dependent on glass quality and magnification. Most scopes suitable for actual "tactical" use, do not have the magnification required to resolve these images at extended ranges.
If you MISS the target, unless your spotter was able to see the trace, you will have no idea of the correction needed anyway.
The only real advantage that I can see for the mil/mil, besides the obvious one of the correction matching the measurement, is when you are shooting an unknown distance at an object of unkown size and you have an opportunity to correct your shot.
There are VERY few opportunities to correct a shot in the field, once the bullet is on the way, that is normally the only chance you get, unless there are multiple targets or a really stupid bad guy.
Now, again, I am not saying I wouldn't have a mil/mil scopes. If I were buying one tomorrow and both were available with the same features, for the same price, I would get the mil/mil. I fully understand the desire for the corrections to match the measurement method. I just think far too much is made of it.
I have studied and comsidered it for a while now. I do not currently have a mil/mil scope so bear with me.
First, I thnk that the whole thing with the mil/moa is much ado about nothing. Keep in mind we are talking FFP scopes here, because in a tactical environment, they make absolute sense. I am also considering more specifically an LE scenario.
I am considering the .25 click, whether IPHY or MOA, they are essentially the same when you consider the tolerance factor of the gears and mechanism.
I am not saying that mil/mil is not an improvement, it is, but in my opinion, an incremental one. This is my reasoning, it is not a "defense" to mil/moa:
First thing, I am going to have range cards made up, in the field there will be virtualy no ability to "mil" a near miss.
So the "correcting your shot" ability is of almost no consequence.
When I am at the range, if I am shooting at sight in targets, they normally have 1" squares, so the ability to "mil" the correction is again, not a factor.
Likewise, if I am at the range and shooting targets of known, or fairly standard size, the approximation of inches can be determined by "guesstimation" for correction. For example, an IPSC sihouette target is 18" across. Draw an imaginary line to bi-sect the target into halves, if your shot fell to the right side, half the distance between the edge and the center, you correct for 4 - 5 inches.
The ability to correct your shot at long ranges is fully dependent on the ability to resolve the bullet holes. This is dependent on glass quality and magnification. Most scopes suitable for actual "tactical" use, do not have the magnification required to resolve these images at extended ranges.
If you MISS the target, unless your spotter was able to see the trace, you will have no idea of the correction needed anyway.
The only real advantage that I can see for the mil/mil, besides the obvious one of the correction matching the measurement, is when you are shooting an unknown distance at an object of unkown size and you have an opportunity to correct your shot.
There are VERY few opportunities to correct a shot in the field, once the bullet is on the way, that is normally the only chance you get, unless there are multiple targets or a really stupid bad guy.
Now, again, I am not saying I wouldn't have a mil/mil scopes. If I were buying one tomorrow and both were available with the same features, for the same price, I would get the mil/mil. I fully understand the desire for the corrections to match the measurement method. I just think far too much is made of it.
