-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
- Thread starter mattyferocious
- Start date
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
You might want to try the search function first.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showgallery&Number=779323
This thread is about four pages, should keep you busy, and there are plenty more.
You might want to try the search function first.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showgallery&Number=779323
This thread is about four pages, should keep you busy, and there are plenty more.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
Go FFP MOA/MOA. Kidding, do some reading and pick one that will work out for you. I shoot MOA/MOA, partly just to be different. MIL's are more commonly used and have many attributes that make it an attractive option.
Go FFP MOA/MOA. Kidding, do some reading and pick one that will work out for you. I shoot MOA/MOA, partly just to be different. MIL's are more commonly used and have many attributes that make it an attractive option.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
MOA is dying out. Mil is the standard that is being adopted by military customers. Since it doesn't make a difference when you're using FFP, why choose the one that is becoming less and less popular? It doesn't make a difference in practical use, but it does when you go to sell it, and that is just going to get worse with time. In the long run, people want what the military is using, and that is what the guys coming out of the military will be used to. Plus, most of the new stuff is coming out in mils. Some of it will never be offered in MOA.
MOA is dying out. Mil is the standard that is being adopted by military customers. Since it doesn't make a difference when you're using FFP, why choose the one that is becoming less and less popular? It doesn't make a difference in practical use, but it does when you go to sell it, and that is just going to get worse with time. In the long run, people want what the military is using, and that is what the guys coming out of the military will be used to. Plus, most of the new stuff is coming out in mils. Some of it will never be offered in MOA.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
I think in MOA not mils. I'm not a wannabe 'operator' so it really doesn't matter to me what they do or do not use. When I think in terms of range and distance, I think in inches and therefore, MOA is easier for me to figure up in my head.
I think in MOA not mils. I'm not a wannabe 'operator' so it really doesn't matter to me what they do or do not use. When I think in terms of range and distance, I think in inches and therefore, MOA is easier for me to figure up in my head.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
With FFP you don't need think about inches or centimeters, you have a ruler in your scope (the reticle) that you just measure with and input the correction directly into the turret. I'm not a wannabe operator, but I also don't have a strong urge and desire to perform arithmetic in my head when there are options that negate the need to. I'd rather use brain cycles doing things like reading the wind that doing needless math.
With FFP you don't need think about inches or centimeters, you have a ruler in your scope (the reticle) that you just measure with and input the correction directly into the turret. I'm not a wannabe operator, but I also don't have a strong urge and desire to perform arithmetic in my head when there are options that negate the need to. I'd rather use brain cycles doing things like reading the wind that doing needless math.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
Ford vs Chevy
Table saw vs Radial arm saw
Conservative vs liberal
coffee with cream or black
meat well done or rare
You pay your money and you take your choice.
I like moa/moa SFP with the elevation turret labeled in moa, not yards.
I like the trajectory chart strapped to the range finder to be based on a 200 yard zero, and in increments of 100 yards with the elevation change in moa and the windage change in moa for 10mph wind at 90 degrees to the barrel.
Ford vs Chevy
Table saw vs Radial arm saw
Conservative vs liberal
coffee with cream or black
meat well done or rare
You pay your money and you take your choice.
I like moa/moa SFP with the elevation turret labeled in moa, not yards.
I like the trajectory chart strapped to the range finder to be based on a 200 yard zero, and in increments of 100 yards with the elevation change in moa and the windage change in moa for 10mph wind at 90 degrees to the barrel.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
If you have to ask, go Mils.
MOA has it's adherents but mostly because we already know it.
If you have to ask, go Mils.
MOA has it's adherents but mostly because we already know it.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Clark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ford vs Chevy
Table saw vs Radial arm saw
<span style="color: #FF0000">Conservative vs liberal </span>
coffee with cream or black
meat well done or rare
You pay your money and you take your choice.
I like moa/moa SFP with the elevation turret labeled in moa, not yards.
I like the trajectory chart strapped to the range finder to be based on a 200 yard zero, and in increments of 100 yards with the elevation change in moa and the windage change in moa for 10mph wind at 90 degrees to the barrel. </div></div>
I disagree! Mil, MOA, it dont matter they both work.
Your example above is comparing something that works and something that doesnt!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Clark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ford vs Chevy
Table saw vs Radial arm saw
<span style="color: #FF0000">Conservative vs liberal </span>
coffee with cream or black
meat well done or rare
You pay your money and you take your choice.
I like moa/moa SFP with the elevation turret labeled in moa, not yards.
I like the trajectory chart strapped to the range finder to be based on a 200 yard zero, and in increments of 100 yards with the elevation change in moa and the windage change in moa for 10mph wind at 90 degrees to the barrel. </div></div>
I disagree! Mil, MOA, it dont matter they both work.
Your example above is comparing something that works and something that doesnt!
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA is dying out. </div></div>
That's a little dogmatic. Vortex came out with Moa versions as did Premier and S&B fairly recently. As far as what the military uses i personnaly could care less. The military doesn't always use things because they are the best option.
There are a couple of advantages of going mil. There are more scope options for the mil/mil crowd if you are on a budget. One big advantage is that you can get good quality spotting scopes with Mil reticles in it which is nice if you are spotting for a Mil shooter. As far as i know there is only one option for an Moa spotting scope. There are fewer options for the Moa guys but i choose to use Moa. If i range a buck at 500 yards and i am sizing him up with my reticle and his rack is 5 moa or wider i am in my head doing 5 Moa x 5" = a 25" or better buck. I cant do that with Mils without a calculator.
One of the other arguments that you hear is that you get different click values with Moa. As in some manufacturers use Shooter's Moa (1"@100yds) and some use true Moa (1.047"@100yds). Which is probably true. But then they say that the Mil adjustments are all true Mil which is not true. Even high end manufacturers scopes are off just a little. For example i had a $3,000 scope that was supposed to be .250" adjustments at 100yds that when measured was .245" at 100yds. Did .005" error matter? Well it equated to 3/8 moa error when i dialed to 20moa which matters to some. For fun, if you take your calipers and measure from the bottom of the scope body to the top of the turret, then adjust one click up and measure the difference, you will see just how fine those adjustments are and will understand why they are all off, some more than others. If you want the best precision you will check every scope for it's true click value and put that in the ballistic program. You should check all of the turrets whether Moa or Mil. So to me the 'accurate click' argument doesn't hold water.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA is dying out. </div></div>
That's a little dogmatic. Vortex came out with Moa versions as did Premier and S&B fairly recently. As far as what the military uses i personnaly could care less. The military doesn't always use things because they are the best option.
There are a couple of advantages of going mil. There are more scope options for the mil/mil crowd if you are on a budget. One big advantage is that you can get good quality spotting scopes with Mil reticles in it which is nice if you are spotting for a Mil shooter. As far as i know there is only one option for an Moa spotting scope. There are fewer options for the Moa guys but i choose to use Moa. If i range a buck at 500 yards and i am sizing him up with my reticle and his rack is 5 moa or wider i am in my head doing 5 Moa x 5" = a 25" or better buck. I cant do that with Mils without a calculator.
One of the other arguments that you hear is that you get different click values with Moa. As in some manufacturers use Shooter's Moa (1"@100yds) and some use true Moa (1.047"@100yds). Which is probably true. But then they say that the Mil adjustments are all true Mil which is not true. Even high end manufacturers scopes are off just a little. For example i had a $3,000 scope that was supposed to be .250" adjustments at 100yds that when measured was .245" at 100yds. Did .005" error matter? Well it equated to 3/8 moa error when i dialed to 20moa which matters to some. For fun, if you take your calipers and measure from the bottom of the scope body to the top of the turret, then adjust one click up and measure the difference, you will see just how fine those adjustments are and will understand why they are all off, some more than others. If you want the best precision you will check every scope for it's true click value and put that in the ballistic program. You should check all of the turrets whether Moa or Mil. So to me the 'accurate click' argument doesn't hold water.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
With Moa there is also a shorter distance between whole numbers which i find easier than mil. For example, visibly it's easier for me to dial to 14.25 moa than it is to go to 2.8 mils where i have to dial to 2 mils then count 8 clicks. Its a small point that im sure can be trained out but i personnaly found it annoying.
With Moa there is also a shorter distance between whole numbers which i find easier than mil. For example, visibly it's easier for me to dial to 14.25 moa than it is to go to 2.8 mils where i have to dial to 2 mils then count 8 clicks. Its a small point that im sure can be trained out but i personnaly found it annoying.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
You can. Or dial back 3 or 4. Personally i don't have to count clicks at all on Moa. If it is 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 i can still turn directly to it without counting clicks.
You can. Or dial back 3 or 4. Personally i don't have to count clicks at all on Moa. If it is 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 i can still turn directly to it without counting clicks.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
When i am behind these to turrets the Moa one i can dial direct without counting clicks. I get a little lost in the Mil one. Like i said it can be trained out but its not for me. Probably because i started on Moa.
When i am behind these to turrets the Moa one i can dial direct without counting clicks. I get a little lost in the Mil one. Like i said it can be trained out but its not for me. Probably because i started on Moa.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MuleHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The military doesn't always use things because they are the best option.
</div></div>
True that.
Beretta M9. 'Nuff said.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MuleHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The military doesn't always use things because they are the best option.
</div></div>
True that.
Beretta M9. 'Nuff said.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
I started with moa/moa, but then switched to mil/mil because it is more common. It doesn't really matter which you use, just pick one with matching reticle and turrets. It does however matter if you shoot with anyone else who spots for you, of course it is better to have matching systems.
I started with moa/moa, but then switched to mil/mil because it is more common. It doesn't really matter which you use, just pick one with matching reticle and turrets. It does however matter if you shoot with anyone else who spots for you, of course it is better to have matching systems.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
moa vs mil is like asking whether you like vanilla or chocolate. Some pick one, some the other, its a matter of preference really, no real advantage to either as anyone can be trained to work with either. I like mil/mil, but I understand and respect peoples opinions on moa/moa.
moa vs mil is like asking whether you like vanilla or chocolate. Some pick one, some the other, its a matter of preference really, no real advantage to either as anyone can be trained to work with either. I like mil/mil, but I understand and respect peoples opinions on moa/moa.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
That's not really a mil vs MOA issue though is it? The Premier has 22 mils in one turn vs 10 MOA for the NF. That's 8x as much adjustment in one turn so you really have to cram the markings on there and there isn't room for lots of number labels.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MuleHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When i am behind these to turrets the Moa one i can dial direct without counting clicks. I get a little lost in the Mil one. Like i said it can be trained out but its not for me. Probably because i started on Moa.
</div></div>
That's not really a mil vs MOA issue though is it? The Premier has 22 mils in one turn vs 10 MOA for the NF. That's 8x as much adjustment in one turn so you really have to cram the markings on there and there isn't room for lots of number labels.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MuleHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When i am behind these to turrets the Moa one i can dial direct without counting clicks. I get a little lost in the Mil one. Like i said it can be trained out but its not for me. Probably because i started on Moa.
</div></div>
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA is dying out. Mil is the standard that is being adopted by military customers. Since it doesn't make a difference when you're using FFP, why choose the one that is becoming less and less popular? It doesn't make a difference in practical use, but it does when you go to sell it, and that is just going to get worse with time. In the long run, people want what the military is using, and that is what the guys coming out of the military will be used to. Plus, most of the new stuff is coming out in mils. Some of it will never be offered in MOA. </div></div>
Not sure I agree, seems like I am seeing many new MOA reticles from shot show. Nightforce, Leupold, and even S&B have new MOA.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA is dying out. Mil is the standard that is being adopted by military customers. Since it doesn't make a difference when you're using FFP, why choose the one that is becoming less and less popular? It doesn't make a difference in practical use, but it does when you go to sell it, and that is just going to get worse with time. In the long run, people want what the military is using, and that is what the guys coming out of the military will be used to. Plus, most of the new stuff is coming out in mils. Some of it will never be offered in MOA. </div></div>
Not sure I agree, seems like I am seeing many new MOA reticles from shot show. Nightforce, Leupold, and even S&B have new MOA.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
Like said many times before, it doesn't matter if you use mils, moa, oranges, apples or axe handels......as long as the knobs and reticles are matched. If you know your approximate dope you can measure with whatever reticle and correct accurately
http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=010955838166721108978:qcbx5qqy10o&hl=en
Like said many times before, it doesn't matter if you use mils, moa, oranges, apples or axe handels......as long as the knobs and reticles are matched. If you know your approximate dope you can measure with whatever reticle and correct accurately
http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=010955838166721108978:qcbx5qqy10o&hl=en
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dreiaugen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's not really a mil vs MOA issue though is it? The Premier has 22 mils in one turn vs 10 MOA for the NF. </div></div>
The new nightforce turrets have 20 moa per rev, but that wasn't my point. There are only 3 lines between a whole number on moa. I can turn without counting. There are 9 tenth mark lines between a whole mil. It just preference for me. I was trying to highlight the advantages and disadvantages for each system based on my experience and personal opinion.
I freakin hate touch phones! Its impossible to type or move the cursor urg!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dreiaugen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's not really a mil vs MOA issue though is it? The Premier has 22 mils in one turn vs 10 MOA for the NF. </div></div>
The new nightforce turrets have 20 moa per rev, but that wasn't my point. There are only 3 lines between a whole number on moa. I can turn without counting. There are 9 tenth mark lines between a whole mil. It just preference for me. I was trying to highlight the advantages and disadvantages for each system based on my experience and personal opinion.
I freakin hate touch phones! Its impossible to type or move the cursor urg!
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
Well I decided to go to the mil/mil to see what the fuss was about. I picked up a pst ffp mil/mil and haven't spent much time behind it. I really kind of new to this side of things. I'm getting enlightened and confused at the same time!
If I'm reading right, and I wouldn't bank on that! I'm hearing measure it with the reticle and dial that many mils? Is that right or is it early and I fell off the tracks somewhere? Sorry for my ignorance as I have not studied up on the whole mil/mil thing so much. I've had this setup for about a month and I put 5rds through it yesterday as the light was fading out of the sky. I was essentially just getting it in the ballpark to be able to actually zero the rifle, however, once at the range, I learned that I forgot my targets and well it went downhill from there!
I've got to do more reading apparently, because it sounds easy, but my brain is saying "that can't be right, it's too easy!". Thanks, Jason
Well I decided to go to the mil/mil to see what the fuss was about. I picked up a pst ffp mil/mil and haven't spent much time behind it. I really kind of new to this side of things. I'm getting enlightened and confused at the same time!
If I'm reading right, and I wouldn't bank on that! I'm hearing measure it with the reticle and dial that many mils? Is that right or is it early and I fell off the tracks somewhere? Sorry for my ignorance as I have not studied up on the whole mil/mil thing so much. I've had this setup for about a month and I put 5rds through it yesterday as the light was fading out of the sky. I was essentially just getting it in the ballpark to be able to actually zero the rifle, however, once at the range, I learned that I forgot my targets and well it went downhill from there!
I've got to do more reading apparently, because it sounds easy, but my brain is saying "that can't be right, it's too easy!". Thanks, Jason
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MuleHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dreiaugen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's not really a mil vs MOA issue though is it? The Premier has 22 mils in one turn vs 10 MOA for the NF. </div></div>
The new nightforce turrets have 20 moa per rev, but that wasn't my point. There are only 3 lines between a whole number on moa. I can turn without counting. There are 9 tenth mark lines between a whole mil. It just preference for me. I was trying to highlight the advantages and disadvantages for each system based on my experience and personal opinion.</div></div>
I see your point - mil turrets are generally going to have a lot more hash marks between numbers than MOA turrets. I would think they could fit more numbers in between each whole mil and still have it be readable if they were creative. But generally they're not doing that.
Seems like on the Premier the problem is compounded by the fact that the markings are only .2 mil while the clicks are .1.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MuleHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dreiaugen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's not really a mil vs MOA issue though is it? The Premier has 22 mils in one turn vs 10 MOA for the NF. </div></div>
The new nightforce turrets have 20 moa per rev, but that wasn't my point. There are only 3 lines between a whole number on moa. I can turn without counting. There are 9 tenth mark lines between a whole mil. It just preference for me. I was trying to highlight the advantages and disadvantages for each system based on my experience and personal opinion.</div></div>
I see your point - mil turrets are generally going to have a lot more hash marks between numbers than MOA turrets. I would think they could fit more numbers in between each whole mil and still have it be readable if they were creative. But generally they're not doing that.
Seems like on the Premier the problem is compounded by the fact that the markings are only .2 mil while the clicks are .1.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
If you have a degree in electrical engineering or physics, you have written the formula thousands of times, the angle Omega is equal to two pi r [that would be in radians].
If you took geometry in high school, you have memorized that the sine of 30 degrees is 1/2.
Degrees and radians are both used in a lot of things.
In astronomy, the angle of the telescope is described in both radians and degrees.
In motor control, the position of the armature is described in both radians and degrees.
In gunsmithing, surveying, road building, and navigation, I only hear degrees.
That's fine.
But I have lost count of how many scopes I own with miliradian hatch marks on the reticule, and the elevation is adjusted in 1/4 moa clicks.
That sucks.
In 2011, I showed up two days early for hunting with a new Kahles scope that has .1 milradian clicks on the turrets. I set up a target and tried to build a chart for 300, 400, 500, and 600 yards with my measurements made on the target in inches.
That sucks.
Once an old brain gets the idea that 1 moa is 1 inch at 100 yards and 2 inches at 200 yards is 1moa, then change is painful.
If you have a degree in electrical engineering or physics, you have written the formula thousands of times, the angle Omega is equal to two pi r [that would be in radians].
If you took geometry in high school, you have memorized that the sine of 30 degrees is 1/2.
Degrees and radians are both used in a lot of things.
In astronomy, the angle of the telescope is described in both radians and degrees.
In motor control, the position of the armature is described in both radians and degrees.
In gunsmithing, surveying, road building, and navigation, I only hear degrees.
That's fine.
But I have lost count of how many scopes I own with miliradian hatch marks on the reticule, and the elevation is adjusted in 1/4 moa clicks.
That sucks.
In 2011, I showed up two days early for hunting with a new Kahles scope that has .1 milradian clicks on the turrets. I set up a target and tried to build a chart for 300, 400, 500, and 600 yards with my measurements made on the target in inches.
That sucks.
Once an old brain gets the idea that 1 moa is 1 inch at 100 yards and 2 inches at 200 yards is 1moa, then change is painful.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
MOA for me its much easier for me to think in terms of inches.
MOA for me its much easier for me to think in terms of inches.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dreiaugen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems like on the Premier the problem is compounded by the fact that the markings are only .2 mil while the clicks are .1. </div></div>
Yeah, that was probably one of the least flattering mil knobs to show as far as reading the numbers. The double turn Premier knob isn't like that. I don't think I ever took a closeup pic of it though.
Most Mil knobs have a longer hash at .5 mils, so there are only four short hashes in between. There's no need to count.
There are a couple examples. Just dial to where you want to be, no need to count. I only count clicks when I'm shooting in the dark.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dreiaugen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems like on the Premier the problem is compounded by the fact that the markings are only .2 mil while the clicks are .1. </div></div>
Yeah, that was probably one of the least flattering mil knobs to show as far as reading the numbers. The double turn Premier knob isn't like that. I don't think I ever took a closeup pic of it though.
Most Mil knobs have a longer hash at .5 mils, so there are only four short hashes in between. There's no need to count.
There are a couple examples. Just dial to where you want to be, no need to count. I only count clicks when I'm shooting in the dark.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
I shoot moa/moa on my us optics 1.8x-10x. With the erek knob it's impossible to get lost in clicks and works great for me. Can't go wrong with either system. Once you know your bullets ballistics and zero you can find about 50 programs for free which will give you your dope cha all the way out to however far you want to shoot.
It's not so much a question of mil/mil or moa/moa. It's the type of scope you use and how it's built and features than makes things more simple.
I shoot moa/moa on my us optics 1.8x-10x. With the erek knob it's impossible to get lost in clicks and works great for me. Can't go wrong with either system. Once you know your bullets ballistics and zero you can find about 50 programs for free which will give you your dope cha all the way out to however far you want to shoot.
It's not so much a question of mil/mil or moa/moa. It's the type of scope you use and how it's built and features than makes things more simple.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
For me MOA's are just easier to work with 1=100 yds. 2=200 yds. and so forth . where as Mil's are 3.6 = 100 yds. 7.2 = 200 yds just to me get harder to do in your head.
For me MOA's are just easier to work with 1=100 yds. 2=200 yds. and so forth . where as Mil's are 3.6 = 100 yds. 7.2 = 200 yds just to me get harder to do in your head.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rezmedic54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For me MOA's are just easier to work with 1=100 yds. 2=200 yds. and so forth . where as Mil's are 3.6 = 100 yds. 7.2 = 200 yds just to me get harder to do in your head.</div></div>
That is because you don't understand a mil and you are doing it wrong,
1 mil = 1 mil at 100, at 342yards, at 886 yards. At 1000 yards,
A mil is a mil, if you see .3 in the reticle you dial .3 on the scope, linear equlivilents have nothing to do with it. Range does not matter.
MOA can be the same but people have always taught it and learned it wrong so it continues to be wrong just like said above. Sure the values are right but they are also completely unnecessary.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rezmedic54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For me MOA's are just easier to work with 1=100 yds. 2=200 yds. and so forth . where as Mil's are 3.6 = 100 yds. 7.2 = 200 yds just to me get harder to do in your head.</div></div>
That is because you don't understand a mil and you are doing it wrong,
1 mil = 1 mil at 100, at 342yards, at 886 yards. At 1000 yards,
A mil is a mil, if you see .3 in the reticle you dial .3 on the scope, linear equlivilents have nothing to do with it. Range does not matter.
MOA can be the same but people have always taught it and learned it wrong so it continues to be wrong just like said above. Sure the values are right but they are also completely unnecessary.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
I just thought of a new product.
A 20moa scope mount to 5 milli rad converter.
The device will fit under the front of the scope mount.
The Rem700 short action model will be .0000004 furlongs thick.
I just thought of a new product.
A 20moa scope mount to 5 milli rad converter.
The device will fit under the front of the scope mount.
The Rem700 short action model will be .0000004 furlongs thick.
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: msr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA is dying out. Mil is the standard that is being adopted by military customers. Since it doesn't make a difference when you're using FFP, why choose the one that is becoming less and less popular? It doesn't make a difference in practical use, but it does when you go to sell it, and that is just going to get worse with time. In the long run, people want what the military is using, and that is what the guys coming out of the military will be used to. Plus, most of the new stuff is coming out in mils. Some of it will never be offered in MOA. </div></div>
Not sure I agree, seems like I am seeing many new MOA reticles from shot show. Nightforce, Leupold, and even S&B have new MOA. </div></div>
If you're include target/hunting scopes, or mean tactical scopes that they released last year, the year before or many years ago in mils, then sure. If you mean completely new models and not old ones that just now have MOA turrets, then not so much... How many of the new, top-of-the-line <span style="text-decoration: underline">tactical scopes</span> came out with MOA turrets as an option? Few compared to all of the new mil models.
There still aren't many options with Horus or "Christmas tree" style reticles in MOA either. I use my Gen2 XR reticles as BDC reticles all the time...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: msr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kombayotch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA is dying out. Mil is the standard that is being adopted by military customers. Since it doesn't make a difference when you're using FFP, why choose the one that is becoming less and less popular? It doesn't make a difference in practical use, but it does when you go to sell it, and that is just going to get worse with time. In the long run, people want what the military is using, and that is what the guys coming out of the military will be used to. Plus, most of the new stuff is coming out in mils. Some of it will never be offered in MOA. </div></div>
Not sure I agree, seems like I am seeing many new MOA reticles from shot show. Nightforce, Leupold, and even S&B have new MOA. </div></div>
If you're include target/hunting scopes, or mean tactical scopes that they released last year, the year before or many years ago in mils, then sure. If you mean completely new models and not old ones that just now have MOA turrets, then not so much... How many of the new, top-of-the-line <span style="text-decoration: underline">tactical scopes</span> came out with MOA turrets as an option? Few compared to all of the new mil models.
There still aren't many options with Horus or "Christmas tree" style reticles in MOA either. I use my Gen2 XR reticles as BDC reticles all the time...
Re: Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA?? That is the question
Thanks for all the input, guys I really appreciate it. Ive been going back and forth with this decision for a while i had my eye on SFP MOA/MOA because thats what I really want to shoot, but my partner uses mil/mil. I realize that having matching setups makes it easier when shooting together, but if i were to go mil/mil i would definitely want FFP, for the ease of it all.
Thanks for all the input, guys I really appreciate it. Ive been going back and forth with this decision for a while i had my eye on SFP MOA/MOA because thats what I really want to shoot, but my partner uses mil/mil. I realize that having matching setups makes it easier when shooting together, but if i were to go mil/mil i would definitely want FFP, for the ease of it all.
Similar threads
