Rifle Scopes MIL or MOA Reticle

[jaredinco]

I couldn't find a thread on this so I thought I would start a new one. Reticles with elevation and wind hold points come in either option as well as some caliber specific or BDC options. I'm looking for a"Christmas tree" reticle and can't decide between MIL and MOA holds. All my other ranging reticles are MIL but being able to think in inches per hundred yards seems easier than thinking in MIL values. I use ballistic data in both because of the MIL/MOA scopes I have but this will have matched turrets.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Ultraman550]

You couldn't find or were too lazy to look? I'm going with the latter unless you're retarded and then you have an excuse.

Are you looking for SFP or FFP and whats your price point? Vortex Razor HD is an amazing scope for what you pay especially when you buy from Chad at Mile High because its $1999 for the scope, SPUHR mount 20 moa or 0 and their customer service. Bushnell XRS is another very quality scope for the money.

 

[jaredinco]

Looking for FFP. Nothing as helpful as this turned up in the search. I saw lots of opinions on FFP vs. SFP and turret vs. reticle but nothing on the benefits of one subtension over another.

Price point is $1,000 to $1,500 plus a mount.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Kirk]

They are both equally as effective, there is no system that is better than the other. I personally prefer mils from a communication aspect, due to the fact it is a decimal vs a fraction system. You do not need to learn or know the metric system or even know what a CM is to use a mil based reticle/turret optic, which is a common thought. The most important factor is purchasing a optic that has matching turrets and reticle, whichever system you use.

Kirk Roberts

 

[Ultraman550]

I would also say that since you have MIL might as well stay with it. Unless you just want to know both which I am interested in as well.

 

[Irokcrawl]

Use what others who will be calling corrections will be calling them in. In most cases for what I do that is Mils. Dont think about a measurement such as inches etc, especially with a FFP optic; just use it as a ruler and your good to go. I do have a mil to moa conversion deal I keep on my wrist during matches but it does add time to have to look down in some cases. Most of the time I just call out how many inches I think they were off and let them figure what they dial out. if its MIL the correction is usually spot on if the conditions are the same.

 

[shaggyaggie01]

They are both equally as effective, there is no system that is better than the other. I personally prefer mils from a communication aspect, due to the fact it is a decimal vs a fraction system. You do not need to learn or know the metric system or even know what a CM is to use a mil based reticle/turret optic, which is a common thought. The most important factor is purchasing a optic that has matching turrets and reticle, whichever system you use.

Kirk Roberts

this has me scratching my head...

1/4 MOA = .25 MOA is that what you mean by a fraction system? you know .1 MIL = 1/10 of a MIL, right?

where does the metric system come into play in angular measurements ? or CM?

generally ballistic programs spit out a decimal anyway, which you just round to the nearest .25, instead of .1 on a MiL turrett, not sure how that is more complicated?

not trying to flame, honest, I just don't see the argument.

ETA: I see the communication being easier with my non-pro shooting peers, as they call misses by inches and feet, which, at least for me, is easier to convert to MOA, using the rounded 1 MOA = 1"/100 yards, or 10" at 1000 yards, etc.

 

[Captain Kirk]

That was my point, you don't want to confuse metric and mils, which is why many are shy to go with mils. What I mean by calls, it's easier for me to call a correction in mils, ie come up .7 mils vs 2 and 1/2 MOA (.7 x 3.438 = 2.40) for example. Now we could say "2.25 or 2.5 MOA, but most call the fraction. I don't call a 1/10th mil correction, its .1 for me and that's what I was refering to when I mentioned fractions. It is much easier to use the decimal system when using calls no matter which system you are using, it is really more a question of verbage and communication that works for a shooter/spotter.

Don't worry, I didn't read it as a flame or a argumentitive response, that is why its such a hot button for many, there is no answer as to which one is better, its all preference.

 

[rw496]

For me, all the math is hard. I think and speak in terms of inches, but I can't multiply any better by 95.5 for MOA than I can multiply anything times 27.78. So, I'll be using a calculator either way...if for some reason I was to find myself having to do range estimation at various unknown distances and have no dope card....at least for the first shot, then you'll know how many MOA /MILS you were off.

 

[Irokcrawl]

My dope for my 308 and 6mm creedmoor is 100% committed to memory for my location but I do have a dope card in multiple places for reference or for a team member to use. I don't think in inches. I just think such as I aimed here and impact was there which was 1mil left and 0.8mils low (must have been a really bad shot lol) so I correct exactly the way I measured the miss by which would be hold 1mil to the right and 0.8mils up and it should center punch the target. I do know what a mil is at distances out to 1k yards but rarely need to use that info.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[GhostFace]

For me, all the math is hard. I think and speak in terms of inches, but I can't multiply any better by 95.5 for MOA than I can multiply anything times 27.78. So, I'll be using a calculator either way...if for some reason I was to find myself having to do range estimation at various unknown distances and have no dope card....at least for the first shot, then you'll know how many MOA /MILS you were off.

I agree with this 100%

 

[Caliper]

being able to think in inches per hundred yards seems easier than thinking in MIL values.

Personally, I agree and this why I am shopping MOA/MOA scopes. Sure, it's not what the cool kids use but I think in inches. Using mils and inches works, but is awkward because the English system is not base ten. Measure an 8" object at 1 mil and, sure it's 8000 inches away, but how many yards is that? Measure an 8" object at 1 moa and it's 800yd (or 760 for those using true moa). Just easier for me.

Obviously if you have an MOA/MOA scope, second shot corrections will work the same as on a MIL/MIL scope.

 

[fnfan]

Both systems are good.....but as previously stated, choose whatever system your shooting partners have. If everyone is in MOA and you are the odd guy in MIL, calling shots is a pain in the ass.

 

[Irokcrawl]

I think also the different reticles available for mil helps some people's decisions. Hell I have to do binary or hex math every day so a few quick conversions are usually not a huge issue when I'm not under a clock. Add that stress and I'm screwed. Sometimes I find it easier just to tell a person shooting moa to hold left upper edge or something of that nature rather than giving an actual numerical correction. Both ways works just fine though. 1/4moa will be a finer adjustment than 1/10mil. Either way just make sure that turrets match the reticel. Thats a pain in the ass to mess with if not. Throw SFP optics in the mix with someone who new to that has a mixed reticel/turret and they are usually lost within a few shots. Start with something, learn it and stick with it and if you have to have a team mate/partner find someone who uses the same corrections as you.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[dAyLiTe]

Blimey... I'm glad I live in the metric system.

 

[rw496]

If you're picking MOA because 1 inch at 100 yards sounds easy to understand you should realize that 1 MOA is not 1 inch at 100 yards, it's 1.047". Turrets that click 1/4 MOA are not .25 inch clicks, the clicks are .26 inches at 100 yards. For range estimation your constant is not 100, it's actually 95.5. If you're thinking in terms of 1 inch per 100 yards then you're allowing nearly a 5% error. For me, that is unacceptable.

 

[shaggyaggie01]

If you're picking MOA because 1 inch at 100 yards sounds easy to understand you should realize that 1 MOA is not 1 inch at 100 yards, it's 1.047". Turrets that click 1/4 MOA are not .25 inch clicks, the clicks are .26 inches at 100 yards. For range estimation your constant is not 100, it's actually 95.5. If you're thinking in terms of 1 inch per 100 yards then you're allowing nearly a 5% error. For me, that is unacceptable.

Lol. Ok heres the scenario: you're shooting 12"steel at 1000 yards. You miss, buddy says you hit 2 feet right. You adjust assuming you are 2.4 moa right. You are only off by 5% on your adjustment. All other variables the same, you still hit the steel, but 1.2" off center.

GIGO - your buddy's 2 foot measurement isn't within 5%, so its a SWAG anyway.

 

[Km22]

I couldn't find a thread on this so I thought I would start a new one. Reticles with elevation and wind hold points come in either option as well as some caliber specific or BDC options. I'm looking for a"Christmas tree" reticle and can't decide between MIL and MOA holds. All my other ranging reticles are MIL but being able to think in inches per hundred yards seems easier than thinking in MIL values. I use ballistic data in both because of the MIL/MOA scopes I have but this will have matched turrets.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Use whatever your shooting partners use. It will make life much easier.

 

[rw496]

Lol. Ok heres the scenario: you're shooting 12"steel at 1000 yards. You miss, buddy says you hit 2 feet right. You adjust assuming you are 2.4 moa right. You are only off by 5% on your adjustment. All other variables the same, you still hit the steel, but 1.2" off center.

GIGO - your buddy's 2 foot measurement isn't within 5%, so its a SWAG anyway.

If you hadn't made a 5% error maybe you would have hit your first shot.
lol...just kiddin'
I am being a little bit of a devils advocate and most of the time it's Purdy darn close, but you should know what you got or what your getting, and a 5% error can matter at extended ranges. Here's a scenario: you need 40 moa to reach 1000 but instead you're dialing 40 IPHY because you think it's the same. This results in a nearly 19 inch miss . Maybe your buddy gets you there on the second shot, unless he's using a mil spotting scope and you have no idea what he's talking about.
Plus, I hate to give up 5% accuracy for no reason. That's 5% on top of anything else I might be doing wrong, and I need all the help I can get. I bet if I told most re loaders that they would achieve a 5% increase in accuracy by soaking their brass in chicken blood there would be a lot of dead chickens out in garages

 

[shaggyaggie01]

If you hadn't made a 5% error maybe you would have hit your first shot.
lol...just kiddin'
I am being a little bit of a devils advocate and most of the time it's Purdy darn close, but you should know what you got or what your getting, and a 5% error can matter at extended ranges. Here's a scenario: you need 40 moa to reach 1000 but instead you're dialing 40 IPHY because you think it's the same. This results in a nearly 19 inch miss . Maybe your buddy gets you there on the second shot, unless he's using a mil spotting scope and you have no idea what he's talking about.
Plus, I hate to give up 5% accuracy for no reason. That's 5% on top of anything else I might be doing wrong, and I need all the help I can get. I bet if I told most re loaders that they would achieve a 5% increase in accuracy by soaking their brass in chicken blood there would be a lot of dead chickens out in garages

I agree, most calculations would be too far off, you need your rifle dope no matter which system you use. but it is handy, at least for me, to be able to do a quick adjustment from time to time using the IPHY method YMMV.

 

[rw496]

I agree, most calculations would be too far off, you need your rifle dope no matter which system you use. but it is handy, at least for me, to be able to do a quick adjustment from time to time using the IPHY method YMMV.

I definitely agree. In fact, that's exactly why I went MOA when I ordered my new scope

 

[Opticsspecialist]

I play with both, if you plan on taking classes, I would see what said class recommends, most are former military, so they like the mil system. if your just shooting on your own, i'd play with both and see what you like better.

 

[Caliper]

Here's a scenario: you need 40 moa to reach 1000 but instead you're dialing 40 IPHY because you think it's the same. This results in a nearly 19 inch miss .

If your ballistic calculator says you need 40moa to reach 1000 and your scope has MOA turrets, it's easy to dial 40moa, not seeing the problem.

If your turrets are in IPHY as some offer now, then turn your ballistic calculator to IPHY and dial away.

Subtracting 5% from a range estimate is easy to do (no harder to do than calculating a tip ) and puts you within 0.5%.

 

[Matno]

Haha! I'll bet waiters LOVE you...