Given equal training with milradian and moa based scope measure, is there really any reason these days for a civilian to stick to mil over MOA or IPHY?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes is there any reason to go mil anymore?
- Thread starter Oddball Six
- Start date
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
If you shoot at known ranges - no. You're just looking at dope and applying it for the range you know you're shooting at.
For a true "tactical" rifle course with unknown ranges or "real-world" use, mil is vastly superior, as the translation of measurement with the reticle to target distance is much easier.
If you shoot at known ranges - no. You're just looking at dope and applying it for the range you know you're shooting at.
For a true "tactical" rifle course with unknown ranges or "real-world" use, mil is vastly superior, as the translation of measurement with the reticle to target distance is much easier.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
I drive my car some speed in mph and km/h - but which do I use? The one I'm more comfortable in and matches the units used by other systems I interact with, namely speed limit signs.
If you only shoot by yourself then use whatever you like or have. If you work with others then it is easier to use the same units.
I drive my car some speed in mph and km/h - but which do I use? The one I'm more comfortable in and matches the units used by other systems I interact with, namely speed limit signs.
If you only shoot by yourself then use whatever you like or have. If you work with others then it is easier to use the same units.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bpnelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you shoot at known ranges - no. You're just looking at dope and applying it for the range you know you're shooting at.
For a true "tactical" rifle course with unknown ranges or "real-world" use, mil is vastly superior, as the translation of measurement with the reticle to target distance is much easier. </div></div>
That is simply not true. You can range with either just as well, you just use a different formula.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bpnelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you shoot at known ranges - no. You're just looking at dope and applying it for the range you know you're shooting at.
For a true "tactical" rifle course with unknown ranges or "real-world" use, mil is vastly superior, as the translation of measurement with the reticle to target distance is much easier. </div></div>
That is simply not true. You can range with either just as well, you just use a different formula.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vinson</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bpnelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you shoot at known ranges - no. You're just looking at dope and applying it for the range you know you're shooting at.
For a true "tactical" rifle course with unknown ranges or "real-world" use, mil is vastly superior, as the translation of measurement with the reticle to target distance is much easier. </div></div>
That is simply not true. You can range with either just as well, you just use a different formula. </div></div>
For mils, whatever the target size is (and in whatever units you want to use), the distance is 1000 times that. It works for every unit imaginable. MOA is not so simple.
ETA: For myself, having grown up during my childhood using the MOA system, I have no issues. But I also recognize that the mil system is much better to teach to true beginners as the concept is much simpler.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vinson</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bpnelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you shoot at known ranges - no. You're just looking at dope and applying it for the range you know you're shooting at.
For a true "tactical" rifle course with unknown ranges or "real-world" use, mil is vastly superior, as the translation of measurement with the reticle to target distance is much easier. </div></div>
That is simply not true. You can range with either just as well, you just use a different formula. </div></div>
For mils, whatever the target size is (and in whatever units you want to use), the distance is 1000 times that. It works for every unit imaginable. MOA is not so simple.
ETA: For myself, having grown up during my childhood using the MOA system, I have no issues. But I also recognize that the mil system is much better to teach to true beginners as the concept is much simpler.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vinson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That is simply not true. You can range with either just as well, you just use a different formula.</div></div>
True, it's 'just' a different formula. But one that involves an extra step making it slower and more prone to error. Mils are a superior system for subtension ranging.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vinson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That is simply not true. You can range with either just as well, you just use a different formula.</div></div>
True, it's 'just' a different formula. But one that involves an extra step making it slower and more prone to error. Mils are a superior system for subtension ranging.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
So you range in inches or measure things in yards? Just another step indeed...
So you range in inches or measure things in yards? Just another step indeed...
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">True, it's 'just' a different formula. But one that involves an extra step making it slower and more prone to error. Mils are a superior system for subtension ranging. </div></div>
Whenever I look up the formulas for using mils for a target whose known dimension is in inches, it doesn't seem very easy to me. I don't have my 27.7s table memorized.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">True, it's 'just' a different formula. But one that involves an extra step making it slower and more prone to error. Mils are a superior system for subtension ranging. </div></div>
Whenever I look up the formulas for using mils for a target whose known dimension is in inches, it doesn't seem very easy to me. I don't have my 27.7s table memorized.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
You're making it way too complicated. inches/36 -> /mils move the decimal, use brain. Besides, a lot of sizes are easy to remember the decimals for, so just type in and divide. A soda can is .132x.072 for example, 100 IPSC is .666667 waist to shoulder, etc etc. Whatever, you guys use what you want. I've got a system, I practice, it works. Have fun.
Sorry Oddball, all this was supposed to helpful.
You're making it way too complicated. inches/36 -> /mils move the decimal, use brain. Besides, a lot of sizes are easy to remember the decimals for, so just type in and divide. A soda can is .132x.072 for example, 100 IPSC is .666667 waist to shoulder, etc etc. Whatever, you guys use what you want. I've got a system, I practice, it works. Have fun.
Sorry Oddball, all this was supposed to helpful.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're making it way too complicated. inches/36 -> /mils move the decimal, use brain. Besides, a lot of sizes are easy to remember the decimals for, so just type in and divide. A soda can is .132x.072 for example, 100 IPSC is .666667 waist to shoulder, etc etc. Whatever, you guys use what you want. I've got a system, I practice, it works. Have fun.
Sorry Oddball, all this was supposed to helpful.</div></div>
It is. I actually prefer mil because thats what i learned as i got into rifles but I am always open to other points of view so if there is a strong current toward MOA its worth spending some time with.
sounds like the Mil work isnt going anywhere soon, however.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're making it way too complicated. inches/36 -> /mils move the decimal, use brain. Besides, a lot of sizes are easy to remember the decimals for, so just type in and divide. A soda can is .132x.072 for example, 100 IPSC is .666667 waist to shoulder, etc etc. Whatever, you guys use what you want. I've got a system, I practice, it works. Have fun.
Sorry Oddball, all this was supposed to helpful.</div></div>
It is. I actually prefer mil because thats what i learned as i got into rifles but I am always open to other points of view so if there is a strong current toward MOA its worth spending some time with.
sounds like the Mil work isnt going anywhere soon, however.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
IPHY: estimated target size in inches/number of iphy subtensions target displaces = number of hundreds of yards to target
Mil: (estimated target size in yards/number of mil subtensions target displaces)1000 = yds to target. Or use the equation that Pinsandpitons gave and estimate in inches. The mil system works best when used with the metric system it was designed for and from. (argument ensues)
MOA is based on dividing the degrees of a compass not the size of the subtension. The math is not as simple as either of these two systems. I like IPHY and Mils, but all systems will work with practice.
IPHY: estimated target size in inches/number of iphy subtensions target displaces = number of hundreds of yards to target
Mil: (estimated target size in yards/number of mil subtensions target displaces)1000 = yds to target. Or use the equation that Pinsandpitons gave and estimate in inches. The mil system works best when used with the metric system it was designed for and from. (argument ensues)
MOA is based on dividing the degrees of a compass not the size of the subtension. The math is not as simple as either of these two systems. I like IPHY and Mils, but all systems will work with practice.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're making it way too complicated. inches/36 -> /mils move the decimal, use brain. Besides, a lot of sizes are easy to remember the decimals for, so just type in and divide. A soda can is .132x.072 for example, 100 IPSC is .666667 waist to shoulder, etc etc. Whatever, you guys use what you want. I've got a system, I practice, it works. Have fun.
Sorry Oddball, all this was supposed to helpful. </div></div>
Last week I was looking at that and my soda cans came at a rounded a tiny bit up value of .135.
Oh, nevermind, that's a difference of 2.27%. 27 yards makes a difference at 1,000 yards, other errors would count for more inside of that distance.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pinsandpitons</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're making it way too complicated. inches/36 -> /mils move the decimal, use brain. Besides, a lot of sizes are easy to remember the decimals for, so just type in and divide. A soda can is .132x.072 for example, 100 IPSC is .666667 waist to shoulder, etc etc. Whatever, you guys use what you want. I've got a system, I practice, it works. Have fun.
Sorry Oddball, all this was supposed to helpful. </div></div>
Last week I was looking at that and my soda cans came at a rounded a tiny bit up value of .135.
Oh, nevermind, that's a difference of 2.27%. 27 yards makes a difference at 1,000 yards, other errors would count for more inside of that distance.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Oddball-Six</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Given equal training with milradian and moa based scope measure, is there really any reason these days for a civilian to stick to mil over MOA or IPHY? </div></div>
I find mils just plain easier to deal with.. much easier to remember and work with "5.1" than "18.25", the 1:1000 ratio with mils is very nice for various math tricks, and the scope turrets are much less cluttered (number every 10 clicks instead of every 4).
I think the only 'advantage' to be had in MOA/IPHY is familiarity for people who are used to it and/or can't get past wanting to thinking in terms of 'inches' downrange at the target.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Oddball-Six</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Given equal training with milradian and moa based scope measure, is there really any reason these days for a civilian to stick to mil over MOA or IPHY? </div></div>
I find mils just plain easier to deal with.. much easier to remember and work with "5.1" than "18.25", the 1:1000 ratio with mils is very nice for various math tricks, and the scope turrets are much less cluttered (number every 10 clicks instead of every 4).
I think the only 'advantage' to be had in MOA/IPHY is familiarity for people who are used to it and/or can't get past wanting to thinking in terms of 'inches' downrange at the target.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IPHY: ......The mil system works best when used with the metric system it was designed for and from. (argument ensues)
</div></div>
HA! LOL
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IPHY: ......The mil system works best when used with the metric system it was designed for and from. (argument ensues)
</div></div>
HA! LOL
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
MOA all day. As someone not fully versed in the metric system it just works better for me. Also my shooting buddies use MOA for the same reasons and we all like to use the same reticle in case we are spotting for each other etc. I never liked the mil system, although I do understand how it works. In my mind when I look at the target and think or corrections, range, etc. I always think in inches, feet, yards, etc. It's just the American in me I guess lol.
MOA all day. As someone not fully versed in the metric system it just works better for me. Also my shooting buddies use MOA for the same reasons and we all like to use the same reticle in case we are spotting for each other etc. I never liked the mil system, although I do understand how it works. In my mind when I look at the target and think or corrections, range, etc. I always think in inches, feet, yards, etc. It's just the American in me I guess lol.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Genin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA all day. As someone not fully versed in the metric system it just works better for me. Also my shooting buddies use MOA for the same reasons and we all like to use the same reticle in case we are spotting for each other etc. I never liked the mil system, although I do understand how it works. In my mind when I look at the target and think or corrections, range, etc. I always think in inches, feet, yards, etc. It's just the American in me I guess lol. </div></div>
Really? When I use my mil based reticles and turrets I think in yards, yards, and yards.
Joe
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Genin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA all day. As someone not fully versed in the metric system it just works better for me. Also my shooting buddies use MOA for the same reasons and we all like to use the same reticle in case we are spotting for each other etc. I never liked the mil system, although I do understand how it works. In my mind when I look at the target and think or corrections, range, etc. I always think in inches, feet, yards, etc. It's just the American in me I guess lol. </div></div>
Really? When I use my mil based reticles and turrets I think in yards, yards, and yards.
Joe
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Oddball-Six</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Given equal training with milradian and moa based scope measure, is there really any reason these days for a civilian to stick to mil over MOA or IPHY? </div></div>
Not really.
Either system works well if you practice.
Two things I see now that I've done them for a while. Get a useable reticle. My moa reticle is far more useable than a standard mil reticle. However, any mil reticle with the same range as my moa reticle will work just as well.
The thing I don't have to overcome is figuring out 'mil sizes'. I already know inch or yard sizes. It is then easy to convert to moa and then use your dope.
With either system you have to know your dope for every range. It's then a quick hold over and shoot. Or dial if you wish. You need to record your dope in moa or mil so that you don't have to convert.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Oddball-Six</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Given equal training with milradian and moa based scope measure, is there really any reason these days for a civilian to stick to mil over MOA or IPHY? </div></div>
Not really.
Either system works well if you practice.
Two things I see now that I've done them for a while. Get a useable reticle. My moa reticle is far more useable than a standard mil reticle. However, any mil reticle with the same range as my moa reticle will work just as well.
The thing I don't have to overcome is figuring out 'mil sizes'. I already know inch or yard sizes. It is then easy to convert to moa and then use your dope.
With either system you have to know your dope for every range. It's then a quick hold over and shoot. Or dial if you wish. You need to record your dope in moa or mil so that you don't have to convert.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
mils is roughly 1/3 of an inch its a little more course but is quicker in my opinion vs 1/4 moa.
Mils to me are vastly easier on the fly vs moa and I've learned both. Formulas are easier I think but thats irrelevant. For quick rough estimate apply the rule of threes.
1 inch @100 is roughly 3 clicks 2 inches at 200 yards is roughly 3 clicks.
so for example 12 inches @ 300 yards is 12 clicks or 1.2 mils roughly its actually 1.33 but with a little swag (scientific wild ass guess) its quicker then moa.
Granted their are little tricks to doing moa just as quick in your head I don't think they are easier especially if your tired or exhausted.
Most of us don't shoot past half a mile some us may push a mile not many people have the cash for a rig to shoot farther. You don't need to be doing rocket science on the fly spit out the call and press the trigger, adjust, re-engage.
I think moa has its place for set yard lines but real world or tactical match mils are king.
mils is roughly 1/3 of an inch its a little more course but is quicker in my opinion vs 1/4 moa.
Mils to me are vastly easier on the fly vs moa and I've learned both. Formulas are easier I think but thats irrelevant. For quick rough estimate apply the rule of threes.
1 inch @100 is roughly 3 clicks 2 inches at 200 yards is roughly 3 clicks.
so for example 12 inches @ 300 yards is 12 clicks or 1.2 mils roughly its actually 1.33 but with a little swag (scientific wild ass guess) its quicker then moa.
Granted their are little tricks to doing moa just as quick in your head I don't think they are easier especially if your tired or exhausted.
Most of us don't shoot past half a mile some us may push a mile not many people have the cash for a rig to shoot farther. You don't need to be doing rocket science on the fly spit out the call and press the trigger, adjust, re-engage.
I think moa has its place for set yard lines but real world or tactical match mils are king.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scudzuki</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Genin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA all day. As someone not fully versed in the metric system it just works better for me. Also my shooting buddies use MOA for the same reasons and we all like to use the same reticle in case we are spotting for each other etc. I never liked the mil system, although I do understand how it works. In my mind when I look at the target and think or corrections, range, etc. I always think in inches, feet, yards, etc. It's just the American in me I guess lol. </div></div>
Really? When I use my mil based reticles and turrets I think in yards, yards, and yards.
Joe </div></div>
I switched to Mil a few years ago.
My first ranging experiences were almost 30 years ago using a SFP scope with a second horizontal crosshair that subtended 18" at 200 meters and about 16" at 200 meters. That worked okay, but with the occasional brain fart and no real way to range if there was not time to twist the zoom.
FFP and mils works better for me.
But if my target is 4 inches or some number evenly divisible by 4, I tend to think in .1 meter increments there. Until I mark my dials with meters, I'll subtract 10% from the ranged figure, then add back 1%, to get the yards.
That's from the 10mm/.40 cal approximation.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scudzuki</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Genin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA all day. As someone not fully versed in the metric system it just works better for me. Also my shooting buddies use MOA for the same reasons and we all like to use the same reticle in case we are spotting for each other etc. I never liked the mil system, although I do understand how it works. In my mind when I look at the target and think or corrections, range, etc. I always think in inches, feet, yards, etc. It's just the American in me I guess lol. </div></div>
Really? When I use my mil based reticles and turrets I think in yards, yards, and yards.
Joe </div></div>
I switched to Mil a few years ago.
My first ranging experiences were almost 30 years ago using a SFP scope with a second horizontal crosshair that subtended 18" at 200 meters and about 16" at 200 meters. That worked okay, but with the occasional brain fart and no real way to range if there was not time to twist the zoom.
FFP and mils works better for me.
But if my target is 4 inches or some number evenly divisible by 4, I tend to think in .1 meter increments there. Until I mark my dials with meters, I'll subtract 10% from the ranged figure, then add back 1%, to get the yards.
That's from the 10mm/.40 cal approximation.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Mil: (estimated target size in yards/number of mil subtensions target displaces)1000 = yds to target. Or use the equation that Pinsandpitons gave and estimate in inches. The mil system works best when used with the metric system it was designed for and from. (argument ensues)
</div></div>
People don't get it...
Mils (1/1000th of a radian) have nothing more to do with metric measurements than minutes (MOA) do -- and for that matter, MOA has nothing more to do with yards/inches than Mils do. Both are just cutting up a circle into different sized angular measurements. In and of themselves, they are utterly agnostic as to what unit of distance you use with them.
The association that people make between mils/meters and moa/yards is purely because of historical coincidence (and possibly that 1 MOA coincidentally happens to correspond pretty closely to 1 IPHY)... there is absolutely no mathematical link between the two different units of angular measurement and any particular unit of distance (yard, meter, inch, or otherwise).
If you think that an MOA has any special relationship to yards, or that Mils have any special relationship to meters, you. just. don't. get it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Mil: (estimated target size in yards/number of mil subtensions target displaces)1000 = yds to target. Or use the equation that Pinsandpitons gave and estimate in inches. The mil system works best when used with the metric system it was designed for and from. (argument ensues)
</div></div>
People don't get it...
Mils (1/1000th of a radian) have nothing more to do with metric measurements than minutes (MOA) do -- and for that matter, MOA has nothing more to do with yards/inches than Mils do. Both are just cutting up a circle into different sized angular measurements. In and of themselves, they are utterly agnostic as to what unit of distance you use with them.
The association that people make between mils/meters and moa/yards is purely because of historical coincidence (and possibly that 1 MOA coincidentally happens to correspond pretty closely to 1 IPHY)... there is absolutely no mathematical link between the two different units of angular measurement and any particular unit of distance (yard, meter, inch, or otherwise).
If you think that an MOA has any special relationship to yards, or that Mils have any special relationship to meters, you. just. don't. get it.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
First of all, the correct term for the "mils" we use in scopes is <span style="font-weight: bold">mrad</span> (for milliradiant), which means 1/1000th of a radiant. A radiant is the part of the circle that subtends the same distance as the radius of same circle. There are different "mils" that don't represent the 1/1000 ratio but divide the full circle into an even number like 6400 instead of the 6283,18.. mrad in a full circle. This was done in order to be able to work with large angles. Small arms shooting deals with small angles, so we can afford to have an odd number in the full circle, while gaining the advantage of having an even ratio of 1/1000 to work with.
The 1/1000th is the part that connects mrad to the metric system. They are not based upon each other, but both are <span style="font-weight: bold">decimal</span> systems (meaning base ten), and that's why they work so well together. If one yard contained 100 inches, yards and inches would work together with mrad just as well als meters and centimeters do.
It's the odd ratios of "12 inches in one foot" and "three feet in one yard" that ruin it for the imperial system guys. If you don't start using the same unit of measurement for target distance and target size, you might as well keep on using MOA because there will always be an odd factor needing to be figured into your calculation.
First of all, the correct term for the "mils" we use in scopes is <span style="font-weight: bold">mrad</span> (for milliradiant), which means 1/1000th of a radiant. A radiant is the part of the circle that subtends the same distance as the radius of same circle. There are different "mils" that don't represent the 1/1000 ratio but divide the full circle into an even number like 6400 instead of the 6283,18.. mrad in a full circle. This was done in order to be able to work with large angles. Small arms shooting deals with small angles, so we can afford to have an odd number in the full circle, while gaining the advantage of having an even ratio of 1/1000 to work with.
The 1/1000th is the part that connects mrad to the metric system. They are not based upon each other, but both are <span style="font-weight: bold">decimal</span> systems (meaning base ten), and that's why they work so well together. If one yard contained 100 inches, yards and inches would work together with mrad just as well als meters and centimeters do.
It's the odd ratios of "12 inches in one foot" and "three feet in one yard" that ruin it for the imperial system guys. If you don't start using the same unit of measurement for target distance and target size, you might as well keep on using MOA because there will always be an odd factor needing to be figured into your calculation.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
Pick the best tool for the job at hand, MOAs are a finer unit of adjustment and are better suited for known distance shoting from static positions, like benchrest or f-class, Mils are a courser unit of measurement are perfect for fast action shooting from varying distances with little time. I have scopes with both systems, I consider them tools and use them as such.
Pick the best tool for the job at hand, MOAs are a finer unit of adjustment and are better suited for known distance shoting from static positions, like benchrest or f-class, Mils are a courser unit of measurement are perfect for fast action shooting from varying distances with little time. I have scopes with both systems, I consider them tools and use them as such.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
I agree with you david, almost completely. I further my point citing the decision to divide the radian by 1000 was made by men utilizing the metric system, for men using the metric system. Call it base ten, call it decimal, call it thousandths, call it whatever your feelings will allow you to, but that's a metric recipe. To try to draw some intellectual distinction between the choice to divide the radian (geometry) by 1000 (Mils) and the metric system of measuring distance is emotion fueled dishonesty. It's an over-simplification to plainly call it metric, which I have not, but it's just obtuse to act like it's a stand alone alien without allegiance to either the American or metric system.
The advantage of the subtension being relative to radius proved the mil system superior, to MOA, certainly simpler math. IPHY or SMOA provides the same functional advantage with units an American uses everyday. I think this will prove quickest and most accurate system for the type of Americans the OP asked about.
No, MOA does not have a special relationship to yards, it has a special relationship to degrees.
Yes, Mils or Mrads do have a special relationship to meters, they are both divisible by 1000. To hear you guys that's just a happy accident. I think that's a "special relationship".
Yes, IPHY has a special relationship with yards, hence the Y.
I.
Do.
Get.
It.
To the OP, for civilian use I think you'll find IPHY more instinctive than Mils for range estimation. Nothing wrong with a laser rangefinder and a dope card using any of these systems. The only reason I can think of to use mils would be to smooth the exchange of information with other shooters. Make sure the reticle and click adjustments match.
I agree with you david, almost completely. I further my point citing the decision to divide the radian by 1000 was made by men utilizing the metric system, for men using the metric system. Call it base ten, call it decimal, call it thousandths, call it whatever your feelings will allow you to, but that's a metric recipe. To try to draw some intellectual distinction between the choice to divide the radian (geometry) by 1000 (Mils) and the metric system of measuring distance is emotion fueled dishonesty. It's an over-simplification to plainly call it metric, which I have not, but it's just obtuse to act like it's a stand alone alien without allegiance to either the American or metric system.
The advantage of the subtension being relative to radius proved the mil system superior, to MOA, certainly simpler math. IPHY or SMOA provides the same functional advantage with units an American uses everyday. I think this will prove quickest and most accurate system for the type of Americans the OP asked about.
No, MOA does not have a special relationship to yards, it has a special relationship to degrees.
Yes, Mils or Mrads do have a special relationship to meters, they are both divisible by 1000. To hear you guys that's just a happy accident. I think that's a "special relationship".
Yes, IPHY has a special relationship with yards, hence the Y.
I.
Do.
Get.
It.
To the OP, for civilian use I think you'll find IPHY more instinctive than Mils for range estimation. Nothing wrong with a laser rangefinder and a dope card using any of these systems. The only reason I can think of to use mils would be to smooth the exchange of information with other shooters. Make sure the reticle and click adjustments match.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
I think I didn't realise that in the US "metric" and "decimal" is largely used synonymously when it comes to units of measurement until I changed from the german Wikipedia page about "SI prefixes" to the english version which reads "metric prefixes".
Interestingly though, even though distance (inches, feet, yards) and weight (grain, ounces, pounds) are not based on the decimal system in the US, the denominations of money are. One <span style="font-weight: bold">cent</span> is 1/100 of a dollar, just like one <span style="font-weight: bold">centi</span>meter is 1/100 of a meter. Also, other common prefixes like thousand, million etc. follow the decimal system. Yet I doubt that anybody would consider the US dollar to be a "metric" currency.
I think I didn't realise that in the US "metric" and "decimal" is largely used synonymously when it comes to units of measurement until I changed from the german Wikipedia page about "SI prefixes" to the english version which reads "metric prefixes".
Interestingly though, even though distance (inches, feet, yards) and weight (grain, ounces, pounds) are not based on the decimal system in the US, the denominations of money are. One <span style="font-weight: bold">cent</span> is 1/100 of a dollar, just like one <span style="font-weight: bold">centi</span>meter is 1/100 of a meter. Also, other common prefixes like thousand, million etc. follow the decimal system. Yet I doubt that anybody would consider the US dollar to be a "metric" currency.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Genin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">scudzuki,
Yep. Really. </div></div>
My point was that mils is a unit of angle and is independent of the underlying linear units.
The mil is not a metric unit.
It does, however, let the user think in base 10, which makes performing the math in your head on the fly easier.
Joe
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Genin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">scudzuki,
Yep. Really. </div></div>
My point was that mils is a unit of angle and is independent of the underlying linear units.
The mil is not a metric unit.
It does, however, let the user think in base 10, which makes performing the math in your head on the fly easier.
Joe
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<span style="font-weight: bold">David S. Thank you. Correct and well put.</span>
I wish I had a dollar every time I've had to explain that.
I've never understood (since i was about 5years old) why we use Imperial measurements
then mathematically apply these in a base ten system.
Back then I always thought, "Why not 10 inches in a foot?"
Its like Joe Blow dividing a inch into 12ths. Or a machinist dividing a inch into 12000thou.
Right, an inch is imperial but machinist break it down into a divisible that works beautiful in a base ten system.
Tenths, Thousandths, Ten Thousandths, Millionths ect (hey that's all divisible by 10, who would of thought!)
They also use decimal, fraction, angular, ect. Think we all see what I'm saying.
Also, yes I use Imperial every day.
Sorry /vent
I just went Mrad.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scudzuki</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My point was that mils is a unit of angle and is independent of the underlying linear units.
The mil is not a metric unit.
It does, however, let the user think in base 10, which makes performing the math in your head on the fly easier.
Joe </div></div>Right
<span style="font-weight: bold">David S. Thank you. Correct and well put.</span>
I wish I had a dollar every time I've had to explain that.
I've never understood (since i was about 5years old) why we use Imperial measurements
then mathematically apply these in a base ten system.
Back then I always thought, "Why not 10 inches in a foot?"
Its like Joe Blow dividing a inch into 12ths. Or a machinist dividing a inch into 12000thou.
Right, an inch is imperial but machinist break it down into a divisible that works beautiful in a base ten system.
Tenths, Thousandths, Ten Thousandths, Millionths ect (hey that's all divisible by 10, who would of thought!)
They also use decimal, fraction, angular, ect. Think we all see what I'm saying.
Also, yes I use Imperial every day.
Sorry /vent
I just went Mrad.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scudzuki</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My point was that mils is a unit of angle and is independent of the underlying linear units.
The mil is not a metric unit.
It does, however, let the user think in base 10, which makes performing the math in your head on the fly easier.
Joe </div></div>Right
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
The math with mils is easier, but the fundamentally concept behind MOA is superior and newer. The future is going to see more electronic integrated inside scopes which will allow for easier calculations.
The math with mils is easier, but the fundamentally concept behind MOA is superior and newer. The future is going to see more electronic integrated inside scopes which will allow for easier calculations.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
I wouldn't have a problem calling the dollar an American creation. By Americans, for Americans.
Just like I don't have a problem calling the Swiss born mrad a metric creation. By metric practitioners, for metric practitioners.
I wouldn't have a problem calling the dollar an American creation. By Americans, for Americans.
Just like I don't have a problem calling the Swiss born mrad a metric creation. By metric practitioners, for metric practitioners.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
I learned with mil formulas using the standard mil reticle, MOA dial setup. I hated it and before mil/mil became cool, I had switched to MOA/MOA.
I understand the mil philosophy and see where its useful, but I have since bought everything in MOA/MOA and do not plan on having a full equipment exchange to just go mil/mil.
Use what you know and works. Thats all that matters.
I learned with mil formulas using the standard mil reticle, MOA dial setup. I hated it and before mil/mil became cool, I had switched to MOA/MOA.
I understand the mil philosophy and see where its useful, but I have since bought everything in MOA/MOA and do not plan on having a full equipment exchange to just go mil/mil.
Use what you know and works. Thats all that matters.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheGerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Use what you know and works. Thats all that matters.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Radar86</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Learn one or the other, or learn both. Either way works, just learn how to use. </div></div>
Those two quotes basically sum it up. There is so much BS in this thread it would be funny if some didn't actually believe it. LOL You can find 5000 posts just like this. A new one weekly.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheGerman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Use what you know and works. Thats all that matters.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Radar86</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Learn one or the other, or learn both. Either way works, just learn how to use. </div></div>
Those two quotes basically sum it up. There is so much BS in this thread it would be funny if some didn't actually believe it. LOL You can find 5000 posts just like this. A new one weekly.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wouldn't have a problem calling the dollar an American creation. By Americans, for Americans.
Just like I don't have a problem calling the Swiss born mrad a metric creation. By metric practitioners, for metric practitioners.</div></div>
The radian; which, when divided by 1000 becomes a "mil-radian", is the distance around the circumference of a circle equal to one length of it's radius.
It was conceived by an English mathematician named Roger Cotes (b. 1682 - d. 1716) Please note that his use of this was due to the natural relationship of the radius to the circumference of a circle. Please also note that the "metric" system was introduced in 1799 in France. Approximately 100 years after the radian (and it's mathematical divisions such as the milradian) started being used.
The metric system is based on the meter. Which was first derived as 1/<span style="color: #3333FF">10,000,000</span> of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole. All other metric units are derived from the meter. For instance mass is a gram. Which is derived from one cubic CM of water. One liter then equals one kilogram or about 2.2046 pounds avoirdupois.
Keep in mind the inexactness of the meter as a standard, as the earth is not round nor symetrical. If you divide it enough it'll average out though. It has been revised numerous times to it's current length standardised (1983) as how far light travels in a vacuum for 1/299,792,458 of a second. Since we now have atomic clocks, seconds can now be standardised.
A couple things to keep in mind. Neither the metric or avoirdupois systems have adopted a standard angular measurement or a standard measure of time. Mils or mrads and moa's are units of angular measurement. Either system <span style="color: #3333FF">(metric or avoirdupois)<{needed to clarify}</span> can use degrees, radians, or gradians.
It seems like every time we sharpen the pencil, life gets more complicated....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakelly</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wouldn't have a problem calling the dollar an American creation. By Americans, for Americans.
Just like I don't have a problem calling the Swiss born mrad a metric creation. By metric practitioners, for metric practitioners.</div></div>
The radian; which, when divided by 1000 becomes a "mil-radian", is the distance around the circumference of a circle equal to one length of it's radius.
It was conceived by an English mathematician named Roger Cotes (b. 1682 - d. 1716) Please note that his use of this was due to the natural relationship of the radius to the circumference of a circle. Please also note that the "metric" system was introduced in 1799 in France. Approximately 100 years after the radian (and it's mathematical divisions such as the milradian) started being used.
The metric system is based on the meter. Which was first derived as 1/<span style="color: #3333FF">10,000,000</span> of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole. All other metric units are derived from the meter. For instance mass is a gram. Which is derived from one cubic CM of water. One liter then equals one kilogram or about 2.2046 pounds avoirdupois.
Keep in mind the inexactness of the meter as a standard, as the earth is not round nor symetrical. If you divide it enough it'll average out though. It has been revised numerous times to it's current length standardised (1983) as how far light travels in a vacuum for 1/299,792,458 of a second. Since we now have atomic clocks, seconds can now be standardised.
A couple things to keep in mind. Neither the metric or avoirdupois systems have adopted a standard angular measurement or a standard measure of time. Mils or mrads and moa's are units of angular measurement. Either system <span style="color: #3333FF">(metric or avoirdupois)<{needed to clarify}</span> can use degrees, radians, or gradians.
It seems like every time we sharpen the pencil, life gets more complicated....
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical_Tom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the fundamentally concept behind MOA is superior <span style="font-weight: bold">and newer.</span></div></div>
That's funny, I could have sworn that the minute arc was first used in ancient Greece (a few hundred years BC)...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical_Tom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the fundamentally concept behind MOA is superior <span style="font-weight: bold">and newer.</span></div></div>
That's funny, I could have sworn that the minute arc was first used in ancient Greece (a few hundred years BC)...
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
In this day and age if a shooter can not read/ dial/ range/ or calculate both Mil and MOA they are way behind the curve.
Yes I did.
In this day and age if a shooter can not read/ dial/ range/ or calculate both Mil and MOA they are way behind the curve.
Yes I did.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
the reason not to use MOA and IPHY is there is no standard between reticles among manufacturers and it is a not a 1 to 1 ratio between reticle and turret.
All Mil reticles have a 1 mil mark, and everyone makes a 1/10th turret.
Not all MOA / IPHY reticles have 1 MOA / IPHY and they do not all adjust in 1/4 or as easily as there is no standard. You can have 1/8th, 1/4, 1/2 and 1 MOA adjustments and 1 MOA, 2 MOA, or even 5 MOA reticles ... lots of people get MOA based reticles and then don't know what the hash marks subtend in, or confuse say, and NPR 1 with a NPR 2 for example. A USO IPHY reticle will not have the same subtension as a NF, etc.
And I have yet to see in any Class an MOA guy be as successful, this include competitions as well. Most the top shooters use Mils, you'll probably only find a few exceptions, guys who claim success with MOA / IPHY are doing 90% or of their shooting on their own, never venturing into another pond where they can't control the situation. Take it out of their hands and they fall apart... seen it too often to be wrong.
the reason not to use MOA and IPHY is there is no standard between reticles among manufacturers and it is a not a 1 to 1 ratio between reticle and turret.
All Mil reticles have a 1 mil mark, and everyone makes a 1/10th turret.
Not all MOA / IPHY reticles have 1 MOA / IPHY and they do not all adjust in 1/4 or as easily as there is no standard. You can have 1/8th, 1/4, 1/2 and 1 MOA adjustments and 1 MOA, 2 MOA, or even 5 MOA reticles ... lots of people get MOA based reticles and then don't know what the hash marks subtend in, or confuse say, and NPR 1 with a NPR 2 for example. A USO IPHY reticle will not have the same subtension as a NF, etc.
And I have yet to see in any Class an MOA guy be as successful, this include competitions as well. Most the top shooters use Mils, you'll probably only find a few exceptions, guys who claim success with MOA / IPHY are doing 90% or of their shooting on their own, never venturing into another pond where they can't control the situation. Take it out of their hands and they fall apart... seen it too often to be wrong.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the reason not to use MOA and IPHY is there is no standard between reticles among manufacturers and it is a not a 1 to 1 ratio between reticle and turret.
All Mil reticles have a 1 mil mark, and everyone makes a 1/10th turret.
Not all MOA / IPHY reticles have 1 MOA / IPHY and they do not all adjust in 1/4 or as easily as there is no standard. You can have 1/8th, 1/4, 1/2 and 1 MOA adjustments and 1 MOA, 2 MOA, or even 5 MOA reticles ... lots of people get MOA based reticles and then don't know what the hash marks subtend in, or confuse say, and NPR 1 with a NPR 2 for example. A USO IPHY reticle will not have the same subtension as a NF, etc.
And I have yet to see in any Class an MOA guy be as successful, this include competitions as well. Most the top shooters use Mils, you'll probably only find a few exceptions, guys who claim success with MOA / IPHY are doing 90% or of their shooting on their own, never venturing into another pond where they can't control the situation. Take it out of their hands and they fall apart... seen it too often to be wrong. </div></div>
So what you are saying is, that because no one in the industry even standardizes between their own stuff, it's not an effective system? In essence a manufacturing issue as opposed really, to a system issue is how I take your meaning. A valid point though if/when true. A spotter speaking in IPHY and a shooter in true moa. As was pointed out to me once, that is a 17" difference @ 1k.
I was kind of wondering about that, so I started another thread asking who makes moa and what is it (reticle) It would be nice to see all the moa systems manufacturers put out.
Personally, I saw a lot of mil-dot before I ever saw a useable moa system.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the reason not to use MOA and IPHY is there is no standard between reticles among manufacturers and it is a not a 1 to 1 ratio between reticle and turret.
All Mil reticles have a 1 mil mark, and everyone makes a 1/10th turret.
Not all MOA / IPHY reticles have 1 MOA / IPHY and they do not all adjust in 1/4 or as easily as there is no standard. You can have 1/8th, 1/4, 1/2 and 1 MOA adjustments and 1 MOA, 2 MOA, or even 5 MOA reticles ... lots of people get MOA based reticles and then don't know what the hash marks subtend in, or confuse say, and NPR 1 with a NPR 2 for example. A USO IPHY reticle will not have the same subtension as a NF, etc.
And I have yet to see in any Class an MOA guy be as successful, this include competitions as well. Most the top shooters use Mils, you'll probably only find a few exceptions, guys who claim success with MOA / IPHY are doing 90% or of their shooting on their own, never venturing into another pond where they can't control the situation. Take it out of their hands and they fall apart... seen it too often to be wrong. </div></div>
So what you are saying is, that because no one in the industry even standardizes between their own stuff, it's not an effective system? In essence a manufacturing issue as opposed really, to a system issue is how I take your meaning. A valid point though if/when true. A spotter speaking in IPHY and a shooter in true moa. As was pointed out to me once, that is a 17" difference @ 1k.
I was kind of wondering about that, so I started another thread asking who makes moa and what is it (reticle) It would be nice to see all the moa systems manufacturers put out.
Personally, I saw a lot of mil-dot before I ever saw a useable moa system.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TJ.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do Eotech and Aimpoint offer their reticles in MOA not MIL ? </div></div>
For the same reason for a long time tactical scopes came with MOA clicks and mil reticle... inertia. Even some .mil scopes that were bought recently still had mil based reticles and MOA clicks
I feel sorry for all the people that have battle with an inferior system that is not decimal based (hint, hint
) and continously make excuses to perpetuate its use.
Life is sooo much easier for a metric user with a mrad based reticle and 0.1 mrad clicks. Everything is intuitive, fully compatible, fast and easy to learn.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TJ.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do Eotech and Aimpoint offer their reticles in MOA not MIL ? </div></div>
For the same reason for a long time tactical scopes came with MOA clicks and mil reticle... inertia. Even some .mil scopes that were bought recently still had mil based reticles and MOA clicks
I feel sorry for all the people that have battle with an inferior system that is not decimal based (hint, hint
) and continously make excuses to perpetuate its use.Life is sooo much easier for a metric user with a mrad based reticle and 0.1 mrad clicks. Everything is intuitive, fully compatible, fast and easy to learn.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TJ.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do Eotech and Aimpoint offer their reticles in MOA not MIL ? </div></div>
For the same reason for a long time tactical scopes came with MOA clicks and mil reticle... inertia. Even some .mil scopes that were bought recently still had mil based reticles and MOA clicks
</div></div>
You might be right but i don't buy that for two reasons 1. if there is money to be made by making something better then companies tend to do it and 2. it is better because Frank says so
ok i mean he says below which is probably for a different style of shooting than may be applied to red dots but i don't see the logic being that much different.
He said: And I have yet to see in any Class an MOA guy be as successful, this include competitions as well. Most the top shooters use Mils, you'll probably only find a few exceptions, guys who claim success with MOA
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TJ.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do Eotech and Aimpoint offer their reticles in MOA not MIL ? </div></div>
For the same reason for a long time tactical scopes came with MOA clicks and mil reticle... inertia. Even some .mil scopes that were bought recently still had mil based reticles and MOA clicks
You might be right but i don't buy that for two reasons 1. if there is money to be made by making something better then companies tend to do it and 2. it is better because Frank says so
He said: And I have yet to see in any Class an MOA guy be as successful, this include competitions as well. Most the top shooters use Mils, you'll probably only find a few exceptions, guys who claim success with MOA
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
It would be nice if the companies would standardize the MOA reticles and adjustments. I do not do tactical shoots. I did one and I had lots of fun but when I go shooting I do not want to run. When I run I run because I want to. Just a personal thing.
I would use MIL but the adjustments are not fine enough for me. I only bang steel and long range hunt. Being able to more precisely dial in my shot gives me an edge in hitting my pray. In long range hunting nothing happens fast. If it is you are probably going to mess something up or just wound the critter.
Both can be used very well you just need to learn your stuff.
It would be nice if the companies would standardize the MOA reticles and adjustments. I do not do tactical shoots. I did one and I had lots of fun but when I go shooting I do not want to run. When I run I run because I want to. Just a personal thing.
I would use MIL but the adjustments are not fine enough for me. I only bang steel and long range hunt. Being able to more precisely dial in my shot gives me an edge in hitting my pray. In long range hunting nothing happens fast. If it is you are probably going to mess something up or just wound the critter.
Both can be used very well you just need to learn your stuff.
Re: is there any reason to go mil anymore?
Or the question could perhaps be asked "is there any reason to go MOA anymore?"
I like LL's explanation that the MOA and IPHY scopes can vary between the manufacturers. A mil is a mil is a mil regardless if it's a USO, Nightforce, or Vortex, etc.
I kind of get a kick out of those that say they can't get used to the base 10 system.
Check your fingers and toes! YOU are a base 10 system.
And it has been pointed out above also. Do you use money? I hope you don't get too stumped with that?
1/1000 can correspond to yards, meters, coyotes, or Chevrolets.
No need to over think this.
Of course MOA and IHPY can work well enough for those who want to use them as well.
Or the question could perhaps be asked "is there any reason to go MOA anymore?"
I like LL's explanation that the MOA and IPHY scopes can vary between the manufacturers. A mil is a mil is a mil regardless if it's a USO, Nightforce, or Vortex, etc.
I kind of get a kick out of those that say they can't get used to the base 10 system.
Check your fingers and toes! YOU are a base 10 system.
And it has been pointed out above also. Do you use money? I hope you don't get too stumped with that?
1/1000 can correspond to yards, meters, coyotes, or Chevrolets.
No need to over think this.
Of course MOA and IHPY can work well enough for those who want to use them as well.
this puts into simple concepts what I have always understood. if you want to change angular measurements into linear, with MRAD, 1 MIL equals one yard at 1000 yards, etc., etc...
it's tougher get use to coming off a hunting scope and open sight background but in the long run, MRAD is easier if I stay familiar with it..
From a pretty newb perspective, I really prefer mil. I had an old MOA turret scope and tried to think "how do I convert this to inches per hundred yards" after ranging. Kind of sucked. I switched to a mil scope quickly and after a brief learning curve it's much better for me. Just FYI.
It doesn't look like MOA needs any assistance around here. When I look at scopes locally, I'll use NF as an example, they have 20 MOA models for every mil model on the shelf, and they claim that's about how they sell percentage-wise. So mil is the minority around me, which is why I give them special preference, all in the name of diversity.
I use the p4f in my s&b with MOA turrets. I like to range with mil and adjust MOA. Some people say I'm crazy, I love it. I don't care who you are tho, it's near impossible to tell if the target subtends .70 or .80 mils at nearly 800yrds. It's so damn close you can't hardly tell which it is. But if you guess the wrong one it could mean MISS with a .308!
Similar threads
