Rifle Scopes I said I'd always use MOA. I switched to mils because...

[DownhillFromHere]

... of practical reasons I don't recall seeing in the 8,432,789 threads on the subject. Not to say the rationale isn't there; it just took experience for me to see the light.

I was an MOA holdout - 60 years of shooting and MOA worked. I'm now a convert to mils - and not because "everybody else" uses mils. It's more practical for me: It's faster to dial mils in a match for two reasons:

• On the Vortex Razors and Viper PSTs I've used for awhile now, one rotation of the MOA elevation turret gets you 25 MOA - but the mils turret gives you 10 mils. At 100 yards, that's 26.175 inches compared to 36 inches. So what... well, last rimfire match I shot, we had targets from 87 yards (4.0 MOA / 1.2 mils) out to 300 yards (44.0MOA / 12.8 mils) on one stage. I found out that spinning the dial over a revolution and a half and stopping in just the right place takes longer compared to just over one revolution, especially when...
• ... you've had cataract surgery and it's hard to stay in the gun and read those 25 little bitty major increment marks on the MOA turret, compared to 10 larger major increment marks and 10 "half-marks" on the mils turret.

Short version: Much easier for old eyes to see the numbers on a mils turret and significantly faster to dial in large elevation changes.

I also said, two years and an AMP annealer, FX-120i scale, etc. ago that I wouldn't reload.

I also said as recently as three days ago that Vortex scopes were fine for me.

Well, they still are but ZCO gets me 15 mils of elevation per turret revolution with gi-normous turret numbers plus that amazing glass, so the hook's almost set... I have a potential buyer for my last MOA gen-2 Razor... Will a ZCO scope make me a better shooter? O hades no. But one morning in the not too distant future I'll wake up and be physically unable to do matches anymore at all (I do them like molasses in January now). Guess I'll sell all the stuff then 'cuz I won't do F-class.... and I mean what I say...

Never say never, never say always, leave room to learn and change your mind.

 

[gunsnjeeps]

Interesting take on MIL vs MOA.

 

[Pckphunter]

Great write up. Really has me rethinking

 

[Go Cougs]

 

[acudaowner]

Have both , like both , understand neither fully . But I am trying and trying really hard lol at least I am having fun in the process

 

[rustyinbend]

I switched because the "old guys" that do all the spotting at my range's long distance clinics ... think in Mil's and don't like converting. That said, I really like the "old eyes" excuse as much as the "old guys" excuse.

 

[FishDr]

Interesting perspective I had not thought of... makes sense tho.

 

[45cal4life]

Easier for me to keep tracker of the numbers and less turning of the turrets. Example above; 44 MOA vs 12.8 MIL = I can relate to 12.8 better than 44. Obviously personal preference, both have a proven track record

 

[Romeo458]

I just started the conversion. Bit of a learning curve but I'm getting there.

 

[HousePlant]

I use MIL simply because the metric system is superior and I hate feet. Like... seriously I hate feet.

Also, when talking about MILS, I give myself a French accent so I sound superior and mysterious at the same time.

 

[DownhillFromHere]

I really like the "old eyes" excuse as much as the "old guys" excuse.

I was severely nearsighted / astigmatic from age nine until about 5 years ago... cataract surgery gave me uncorrected 20/20, often 20/15, vision at distance. Awesome! BUT. Until one experiences it, one has no idea how critical it is to be able to read small print and see things up close - which is impossible without readers. For the first year or two after surgery, about 2000 times a day my wife would hear the "WHERE ARE MY #$&@!! GLASSES" refrain.

In matches, I just tried to use holdover so I wouldn't have to dial. I won a 50%-off Vortex cert last year and decided to try a mils scope - and found, hey, I can read the turret enough to dial! But it was that rimfire stage that was the biggest revelation. Spin and spin and spin... is that the right spot? Dammit I can't see... back way off the rifle... squint... [tick... tick... tick...] BEEP. TIME.

We had a centerfire stage with targets at 300, 500, 700, 1000... and back to 400. Holdover didn't do so well in the match, even with the mils scope. So I went back and practiced it. I found I could run that stage dialing the turret and get off ten decently-aimed shots with about 5-10 seconds left of a 90-second par. Easy for many people, not so much for me, but now it's quite doable. Live and learn.

 

[GhostFace]

All the guys around me still use MOA with the exception of one guy and he doesn't go out with us any longer so. I doubt I will be changing anytime soon plus it would be a royal pain at this point with all of the scopes that I have.

 

[amymorgan20]

I have scopes with MOA and MILs. I don't really feel there is an advantage to one or the other. Only advantage is whatever your friends shoot

 

[rust4brains]

.........

Never say never, never say always, leave room to learn and change your mind.

I have both. Everything is in metric at work so the conversion to MILs is pretty easy. The quote at the end, I have said the first half many times based on life's experiences. Thanks for sharing the second half. It is now a complete thought, one that our society needs to embrace.

R4B

 

[supercorndogs]

Milradians are not metric.

 

[rust4brains]

Milradians are not metric.

No they aren't, but the mental math aligns more easily for me just like the metric system.

 

[supercorndogs]

What mental math are you doing?

 

[SniperWolf6mm]

The quote at the end, I have said the first half many times based on life's experiences. Thanks for sharing the second half. It is now a complete thought, one that our society needs to embrace.

Well you know what they say...there are two types of people in this world, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.

 

[iukamedic]

Moa has always seemed easy 1 at 100, 2 at 200 etc. mils 3.6 at 100, 7.2 at 200 etc seemed more complicated. Mil reticle are faster to dial. Most of the time dope is not what’s figure it’s what exist Until you have to make a correction to your different dope. All my scopes are mils but moa is easier for to calculate for me on the fly. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Rob01]

Moa has always seemed easy 1 at 100, 2 at 200 etc. mils 3.6 at 100, 7.2 at 200 etc seemed more complicated. Mil reticle are faster to dial. Most of the time dope is not what’s figure it’s what exist Until you have to make a correction to your different dope. All my scopes are mils but moa is easier for to calculate for me on the fly. Just my 2 cents.

There is no need for inches with either. Once you stop trying to convert to inches with either it will make life easier. Neither the scope adjustments or reticle are in inches so you convert to convert back when you can just use the reticle as a ruler and make the quick and easy correction.

 

[rust4brains]

What mental math are you doing?

I don’t do any now that I have a Razor spotter with the MIL reticle eyepiece. But having worked in metric for so many years, I see everything in millimeters. .1 MIL is approximately 10 millimeters. Simple math.

 

[Rob01]

Unneeded math. A mil is a mil at 10 yards or 756 yards. No need for any linear.

 

[Leftie]

Once you stop trying to convert to inches with either it will make life easier. Neither the scope adjustments or reticle are in inches so you convert to convert back when you can just use the reticle as a ruler and make the quick and easy correction.

Can't agree with this point enough - the reticle is a ruler - adjust given what you see. I admit, as soon as I learned to think like this, multiple lightbulb moments happened for me, and I attribute my reluctance to change my perspective due to how I always looked at angular and linear units of measurement as "joined at the hip", which is probably the shooting industry's fault. Once I broke myself of the habit of needing to know the linear difference on every adjustment, it was definitely for the better.

For me, the only real reason to use a linear unit of measurement, generally speaking, is to either calculate unknown distance with a known target size, or to calculate an unknown distance and an unknown target size from using known sizes of objects within the environment. Once I have figured out the known distance to the target and dialed appropriately, everything goes back to using the reticle as a ruler and correcting based off of what I see in a unit of measurement which, when at the proper ranging magnification (for SFP optics) does not have a coefficient associated with that I see in the reticle. (Eg: with a SFP optic 1MIL seen on the reticle =1MIL value at 10x - the ranging power, vs. 1MIL seen on the reticle=2MIL value at 5X -the 1/2 ranging power).

 

[SniperWolf6mm]

Can't agree with this point enough - the reticle is a ruler - adjust given what you see.

I think this is where mils has an advantage over moa with FFP and not mag'd in completely (12x on a 25x scope for example). Easier to see the "ruler" and adjust accordingly

 

[Leftie]

I think this is where mils has an advantage over moa with FFP and not mag'd in completely (12x on a 25x scope for example). Easier to see the "ruler" and adjust accordingly

That and the fact that the metric system and MILs coincides to a base-10 system when it comes to doing multiplication/division. Once you become comfortable with your reticle/subtension details, reading the ruler becomes fast and efficient - it can be done in MOA or MILs, I just like the math MUCH better using the metric system if you're using MILs.

Then again, when I started learning about precision shooting, there was some sick fascination from my instructor in making me calculate linear values using MIL-based reticles and MOA-based adjustments, which never made a single bit of sense to me, and definitely impeded my learning progress.

Now I run with whatever unit measurement makes the most sense to me, and with a setup that works most efficiently. for me, that's an MRAD-based reticle, turrets with MRAD-based adjustment increments, and linear units of measurement which are based on the Metric system. If someone is able to run an MOA-based reticle with MOA-based adjustment increments using the Imperial measurement system, then that's great too if it works for them. Same-same but different.

 

[Huskydriver]

Are we really about to do this again?

 

[Newbie2020]

@Rob01 keep battling. Some folks just won’t get it I guess.....

 

[pell1203]

Yep! One more Cytokine Storm (Mil vs MOA) coming up!
Cover up America!

 

[Rob01]

That and the fact that the metric system and MILs coincides to a base-10 system when it comes to doing multiplication/division. Once you become comfortable with your reticle/subtension details, reading the ruler becomes fast and efficient - it can be done in MOA or MILs, I just like the math MUCH better using the metric system if you're using MILs.

Then again, when I started learning about precision shooting, there was some sick fascination from my instructor in making me calculate linear values using MIL-based reticles and MOA-based adjustments, which never made a single bit of sense to me, and definitely impeded my learning progress.

Now I run with whatever unit measurement makes the most sense to me, and with a setup that works most efficiently. for me, that's an MRAD-based reticle, turrets with MRAD-based adjustment increments, and linear units of measurement which are based on the Metric system. If someone is able to run an MOA-based reticle with MOA-based adjustment increments using the Imperial measurement system, then that's great too if it works for them. Same-same but different.

If you are still thinking this then you need to learn some more.

 

[AnimalMother224]

I use mils because I shoot a metric round. 6.5mm

 

[...]

That and the fact that the metric system and MILs coincides to a base-10 system when it comes to doing multiplication/division. Once you become comfortable with your reticle/subtension details, reading the ruler becomes fast and efficient - it can be done in MOA or MILs, I just like the math MUCH better using the metric system if you're using MILs.

Then again, when I started learning about precision shooting, there was some sick fascination from my instructor in making me calculate linear values using MIL-based reticles and MOA-based adjustments, which never made a single bit of sense to me, and definitely impeded my learning progress.

Now I run with whatever unit measurement makes the most sense to me, and with a setup that works most efficiently. for me, that's an MRAD-based reticle, turrets with MRAD-based adjustment increments, and linear units of measurement which are based on the Metric system. If someone is able to run an MOA-based reticle with MOA-based adjustment increments using the Imperial measurement system, then that's great too if it works for them. Same-same but different.

man....your life is going to change when you realize you dont need to to use math when shooting MILS.....

MILs are MILs

 

[dirthead1]

Are we really about to do this again?

It has been a couple of weeks......

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

IPHY, bitches.
Bottom line,... being good with one set up is all that, until your gear goes to shit and you have to use what you find laying around. Never limit your ability's to knowing but one system,... it may be your undoing one day,...

 

[Rob01]

They all work the same being angular. I can pick up an moa scope and use it like a mil scope. Simple. Actually did it for a few years. As long as linear isn’t brought into it they both work the same.

 

[Newbie2020]

I’m a dumbass but even I get it. I feel sorry for the poor bastards that insist on doing all this angular to linear back to angular math.

 

[DownhillFromHere]

 

[checkmate101]

Never say never, never say always, leave room to learn and change your mind.

Like someone above, I have used the first part for years. I like the completed thought. Never have understood why changing your mind is viewed as a bad thing. When presented with new/better information it is the correct thing to do. Thanks for finishing out that thought.

 

[moaorbust]

Not to add gas to the fire but I’ve always found ranging with MOA scopes to be far more intuitive. Times 100 or 95.5 is easier to factor than 27.77. I agree MILs have mental advantages using base 10 for much the same reason. Measurement wise .25 allows more precision than .36 but few could shoot the difference so it’s kinda moot.

Did anyone ever make a reticle with the strengths of both? I have been imagining a SFP crosshair with FFP hashes as an advancement. You get the best of both worlds as most people I know, including me, grump about not being able to see the damn target sometimes.

 

[Steel head]

... of practical reasons I don't recall seeing in the 8,432,789 threads on the subject. Not to say the rationale isn't there; it just took experience for me to see the light.

I was an MOA holdout - 60 years of shooting and MOA worked. I'm now a convert to mils - and not because "everybody else" uses mils. It's more practical for me: It's faster to dial mils in a match for two reasons:

• On the Vortex Razors and Viper PSTs I've used for awhile now, one rotation of the MOA elevation turret gets you 25 MOA - but the mils turret gives you 10 mils. At 100 yards, that's 26.175 inches compared to 36 inches. So what... well, last rimfire match I shot, we had targets from 87 yards (4.0 MOA / 1.2 mils) out to 300 yards (44.0MOA / 12.8 mils) on one stage. I found out that spinning the dial over a revolution and a half and stopping in just the right place takes longer compared to just over one revolution, especially when...
• ... you've had cataract surgery and it's hard to stay in the gun and read those 25 little bitty major increment marks on the MOA turret, compared to 10 larger major increment marks and 10 "half-marks" on the mils turret.

Short version: Much easier for old eyes to see the numbers on a mils turret and significantly faster to dial in large elevation changes.

I also said, two years and an AMP annealer, FX-120i scale, etc. ago that I wouldn't reload.

I also said as recently as three days ago that Vortex scopes were fine for me.

Well, they still are but ZCO gets me 15 mils of elevation per turret revolution with gi-normous turret numbers plus that amazing glass, so the hook's almost set... I have a potential buyer for my last MOA gen-2 Razor... Will a ZCO scope make me a better shooter? O hades no. But one morning in the not too distant future I'll wake up and be physically unable to do matches anymore at all (I do them like molasses in January now). Guess I'll sell all the stuff then 'cuz I won't do F-class.... and I mean what I say...

Never say never, never say always, leave room to learn and change your mind.

 

[Steel head]

Not to add gas to the fire but I’ve always found ranging with MOA scopes to be far more intuitive. Times 100 or 95.5 is easier to factor than 27.77. I agree MILs have mental advantages using base 10 for much the same reason. Measurement wise .25 allows more precision than .36 but few could shoot the difference so it’s kinda moot.

Did anyone ever make a reticle with the strengths of both? I have been imagining a SFP crosshair with FFP hashes as an advancement. You get the best of both worlds as most people I know, including me, grump about not being able to see the damn target sometimes.

H-25 Horus reticle.
Mils tree with moa ranging bracket.

 

[Rob01]

Not to add gas to the fire but I’ve always found ranging with MOA scopes to be far more intuitive. Times 100 or 95.5 is easier to factor than 27.77. I agree MILs have mental advantages using base 10 for much the same reason. Measurement wise .25 allows more precision than .36 but few could shoot the difference so it’s kinda moot.

Did anyone ever make a reticle with the strengths of both? I have been imagining a SFP crosshair with FFP hashes as an advancement. You get the best of both worlds as most people I know, including me, grump about not being able to see the damn target sometimes.

The constant for moa is 95.5. Not 100. Some always say 100 as they get it confused with IPHY or shooter moa. Not saying you were but even mentioning it will make someone think it’s 100 for moa.

Second neither is intuitive. They are just a number used in a formula. You won’t be doing any of those ranging formulas in your head in the field or range. Save the few examples of perfect and easy numbers as they never work that way when actually ranging. You want easy? Get a mildot master which actually works with moa as well.

 

[jrbet83]

It’s odd you say you like mil better than moa due to eye sight, I’m the exact opposite. Granted all my person guns are Razor Gen 2 and the mil scope i shoot is a Mark 8 on a work gun (so not the same exact manufacturer), but I find myself getting lost knowing whether I’m on .2 or .3, as well as .7 or .8. It seems easier identifying between 3 small dashes between marked numbers (1/4, 1/2, 3/4) vs 4 small dashes between a marked number and a slightly taller unmarked .5 dash. Granted the .5 dashes on the Mark 8’s are pretty small and being off .1 mil is irrelevant, but that’s something I’ve noticed

 

[Pckphunter]

How is someone that is just getting started suppose to decide which to go with. Man I’m confused and torn

 

[Steel head]

How is someone that is just getting started suppose to decide which to go with. Man I’m confused and torn

I’ve had both.
I definitely prefer Mils.
Cleaner and the smaller numbers are kinder to my mentally challenged small monkey brain.

 

[hafejd30]

How is someone that is just getting started suppose to decide which to go with. Man I’m confused and torn

Easy, they just come here and start a “Mil vs MOA” thread. Usually without reading the other 15,000,000 already out there.

We calmly take them by the hand and guide their confused little minds in the right direction!

That said I’m an MOA guy. But have had both and use both the same. Only reason I stay MOA is the guys I shoot with all have MOA as well. Makes things easier when everyone is on the same page for calling misses/corrections etc. So see what the guys you will be shooting with use as that may help you if just starting out.

 

[fcyle10]

How is someone that is just getting started suppose to decide which to go with. Man I’m confused and torn

Go with mil esp getting started. Chances are you’ll change your setup and mil just sells easier. Nothing wrong with either tho, I have both and have started going all mil because of resell.

 

[Pckphunter]

Everyone I shoot with is moa. I’m leaning that way just because I know I will have built in teachers if I go moa. If I go mil I’m on my own

 

[Pckphunter]

But it seems like the lions share of people suggest starting with mil I just don’t want to buy a moa and wish I had gone mil and don’t want to go mil and wish I had gone moa. I know there are more reticle choices with mil for sure

 

[DownhillFromHere]

They all work the same being angular. I can pick up an moa scope and use it like a mil scope. Simple. Actually did it for a few years. As long as linear isn’t brought into it they both work the same.

THIS. The reason I switched had nothing to do with the units of measurement - it was the realization, on the clock during a match, that I had to turn the turret, let it go, and turn it again in order to get the elevation change I needed, and that I couldn't read the numbers on the turret without coming way out of the gun. I couldn't care less if the units were mils or minutes or fractions of the angle defined by the grease stain on tonight's pizza box. It doesn't matter. I changed because it is faster to dial big elevation changes on a mils turret and easier for me to read the numbers on the turret.

WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER F'ING MILS VS MOA THREAD!

JUST F'ING STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dthomas3523]

After seeing that we are gonna talk about this shit again, covid is now the second worst thing to happen in 2020.