for a total new guy to high end scopes, what is easier to learn?
or does it not matter, because ignorance is bliss?
or does it not matter, because ignorance is bliss?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes mil or moa
- Thread starter corey4
- Start date
Re: mil or moa
Doesn't really matter, just that you get good with whatever you choose. Do you prefer counting 1/4's half's and .75's? or would you rather deal with a base ten system .1, .2, .3, .4 ect.? I prefer the latter, of course you could of also found this info in one of the many threads already discussing this topic. Use the Google custom search right here--->
Doesn't really matter, just that you get good with whatever you choose. Do you prefer counting 1/4's half's and .75's? or would you rather deal with a base ten system .1, .2, .3, .4 ect.? I prefer the latter, of course you could of also found this info in one of the many threads already discussing this topic. Use the Google custom search right here--->
Re: mil or moa
if you haven't learned either one no. Look at
http://shooterready.com/
It will will give you some decent info and a small demo.
if you haven't learned either one no. Look at
http://shooterready.com/
It will will give you some decent info and a small demo.
Re: mil or moa
I would say if you are going to shoot competition or run classes for long range, run mil/mil. If you are LEO or already used to MOA.... run MOA/MOA. That said... looks like most of the long range world is set up for mil work.
I would say if you are going to shoot competition or run classes for long range, run mil/mil. If you are LEO or already used to MOA.... run MOA/MOA. That said... looks like most of the long range world is set up for mil work.
Re: mil or moa
i have already been doing research. there is just a lot of information out there, and can been kinda overwhelming.
i have already been doing research. there is just a lot of information out there, and can been kinda overwhelming.
Re: mil or moa
Here on SnipersHide ("for the serious tactical marksmen") a guy put it to a poll. About 60% of the guys here (or at least that voted) use Mils. About 40% use Moa or other.
If you go over to Longrangehunting.com about 70% of the guys that voted use Moa and 30% use mils.
Pick your flavor. IMO it doesn't matter as long as the scope is repeatable, durable, and has decent glass. If you can, try to find a scope that you like that has turrets that match the reticle. I.E. Mil reticle Mil turrets, etc. It nice when spotting your shots to hold or dial in a matching system.
Here on SnipersHide ("for the serious tactical marksmen") a guy put it to a poll. About 60% of the guys here (or at least that voted) use Mils. About 40% use Moa or other.
If you go over to Longrangehunting.com about 70% of the guys that voted use Moa and 30% use mils.
Pick your flavor. IMO it doesn't matter as long as the scope is repeatable, durable, and has decent glass. If you can, try to find a scope that you like that has turrets that match the reticle. I.E. Mil reticle Mil turrets, etc. It nice when spotting your shots to hold or dial in a matching system.
Re: mil or moa
I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death here on SH, but i will throw in my $.02. If you are starting out, both can be used just as effectively as one another but for simplicity I would definitely choose either mil/mil or moa/moa and not a moa/mil scope as it will be easier to learn ranging and holdover.
I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death here on SH, but i will throw in my $.02. If you are starting out, both can be used just as effectively as one another but for simplicity I would definitely choose either mil/mil or moa/moa and not a moa/mil scope as it will be easier to learn ranging and holdover.
Re: mil or moa
I went to my first long distance shoot. Surprise eveyone talks in mils. The only downside to having a scope in MOA is that you will have to convert from MILs if using a MIL dot reticle. Other than that it really up to you convert or not to convert.
I went to my first long distance shoot. Surprise eveyone talks in mils. The only downside to having a scope in MOA is that you will have to convert from MILs if using a MIL dot reticle. Other than that it really up to you convert or not to convert.
Re: mil or moa
I would make a choice using the following priorities, in order:
1) If I already had scopes that were one way or the other, I'd stick with it. This way you only have to learn one system.
2) If I had shooting buddies, spotters, or expected future partners to use one or the other, I'd go with what they use. It will make spotting, corrections, and conversation easier.
3) If none of the first two priorities existed, I'd select MIL today. The MIL reticle is more common so you will have more choices of scopes. Also, the MOA formula isn't exactly 1 inch at 100 yards, so at longer distances or for precision work, you have some extra math to do (unless you are using MOA that is really IPHY).
I personally run MOA due to #2 and I like it pretty well.
I would make a choice using the following priorities, in order:
1) If I already had scopes that were one way or the other, I'd stick with it. This way you only have to learn one system.
2) If I had shooting buddies, spotters, or expected future partners to use one or the other, I'd go with what they use. It will make spotting, corrections, and conversation easier.
3) If none of the first two priorities existed, I'd select MIL today. The MIL reticle is more common so you will have more choices of scopes. Also, the MOA formula isn't exactly 1 inch at 100 yards, so at longer distances or for precision work, you have some extra math to do (unless you are using MOA that is really IPHY).
I personally run MOA due to #2 and I like it pretty well.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bedlam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...the MOA formula isn't exactly 1 inch at 100 yards, so at longer distances or for precision work, you have some extra math to do (unless you are using MOA that is really IPHY).</div></div>How?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bedlam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...the MOA formula isn't exactly 1 inch at 100 yards, so at longer distances or for precision work, you have some extra math to do (unless you are using MOA that is really IPHY).</div></div>How?
Re: mil or moa
1 mil = 1.047 so you would be off by 2% at 400 yards, 4% at 800 yards etc if rounding to 1 inch.
If you are adjusting for 24" of drop at 800 yards you would over compensate by 1.128".
1 mil = 1.047 so you would be off by 2% at 400 yards, 4% at 800 yards etc if rounding to 1 inch.
If you are adjusting for 24" of drop at 800 yards you would over compensate by 1.128".
Re: mil or moa
Sorry - i did not calculate the percenages right. It would be 4.5% off at all ranges. My 24" at 800 example is valid.
Sorry - i did not calculate the percenages right. It would be 4.5% off at all ranges. My 24" at 800 example is valid.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SGT Ticklefight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 mil = 1.047</div></div>
I think you mean one MOA, not one mil.
IPHY - 1.0000 inch at 100 yards. IPHY = Inch Per Hundred Yards
MOA - 1.047 inches at 100 yards. MOA = Minute of Angle
MIL - 3.5"(field) at 100 yards MIL = Milliradian
MIL Army 3.375" at 100 yards.
Mil Marines 3.438" at 100 yards
The differences in Mils are reticle designs (round dots vs. footballs, etc.). Both branches use slightly different measurements.
On my scopes, I use 3.375 (Army) for ranging and my 1/10 mil adjustments.
To do more exact math, here are some additional numbers:
360 degrees in one circle
21600 MOA in one circle
6400 Mils in one circle (Army)
6283 Mils in one circle (Marines)
Personally, I use Mils. I know how my 1/10 Mil turrets will adjust and am now comfortable with it. When I started down this path in 2008, all I knew was hunting scopes with MOA adjustments. That could well have been IPHY for all I knew.
The trend these days seems to be towards Mils and scopes with 1/10 mil adjustments (roughly .325" per click.), but scopes with 1/4 MOA adjustments are very slightly more precise when it comes down to it -- .25" per click. Assuming that the scope tracks right and don't assume that, check it.
Choose your poison. There is no wrong answer. For some people, it can be easier to think in 1/4 inch increments and clicks.
Once you drink the Mil Kool Aid (or a can of Spin-D), you will work your math w.out thinking in mils just as natural as all get-up. The hard part is probably switching between the two.
Apologize in advance for any math errors above. I suck at math and that's from memory. So don't claim the above to be 100 percent and welcome corrections and dope-slaps from those who have better memories.
Check your own scope with a tracking drill and with a reticle check. Make sure the distances between the dots are what the manufacturer says they are. Often, they are not.
Cheers
Sirhr
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SGT Ticklefight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 mil = 1.047</div></div>
I think you mean one MOA, not one mil.
IPHY - 1.0000 inch at 100 yards. IPHY = Inch Per Hundred Yards
MOA - 1.047 inches at 100 yards. MOA = Minute of Angle
MIL - 3.5"(field) at 100 yards MIL = Milliradian
MIL Army 3.375" at 100 yards.
Mil Marines 3.438" at 100 yards
The differences in Mils are reticle designs (round dots vs. footballs, etc.). Both branches use slightly different measurements.
On my scopes, I use 3.375 (Army) for ranging and my 1/10 mil adjustments.
To do more exact math, here are some additional numbers:
360 degrees in one circle
21600 MOA in one circle
6400 Mils in one circle (Army)
6283 Mils in one circle (Marines)
Personally, I use Mils. I know how my 1/10 Mil turrets will adjust and am now comfortable with it. When I started down this path in 2008, all I knew was hunting scopes with MOA adjustments. That could well have been IPHY for all I knew.
The trend these days seems to be towards Mils and scopes with 1/10 mil adjustments (roughly .325" per click.), but scopes with 1/4 MOA adjustments are very slightly more precise when it comes down to it -- .25" per click. Assuming that the scope tracks right and don't assume that, check it.
Choose your poison. There is no wrong answer. For some people, it can be easier to think in 1/4 inch increments and clicks.
Once you drink the Mil Kool Aid (or a can of Spin-D), you will work your math w.out thinking in mils just as natural as all get-up. The hard part is probably switching between the two.
Apologize in advance for any math errors above. I suck at math and that's from memory. So don't claim the above to be 100 percent and welcome corrections and dope-slaps from those who have better memories.
Check your own scope with a tracking drill and with a reticle check. Make sure the distances between the dots are what the manufacturer says they are. Often, they are not.
Cheers
Sirhr
Re: mil or moa
I still don't understand why, if the 'formula' isn't exactly 1 inch at 100 yards, at longer distances or for 'precision work' one would have extra math to do 'unless using MOA that is really IPHY'.
It's not meant as an attack, I just have no idea what he is talking about.
I still don't understand why, if the 'formula' isn't exactly 1 inch at 100 yards, at longer distances or for 'precision work' one would have extra math to do 'unless using MOA that is really IPHY'.
It's not meant as an attack, I just have no idea what he is talking about.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still don't understand why, if the 'formula' isn't exactly 1 inch at 100 yards, at longer distances or for 'precision work' one would have extra math to do 'unless using MOA that is really IPHY'.
It's not meant as an attack, I just have no idea what he is talking about.</div></div>
Technically, Bedlam is right. But... the 1.047" at 100 translates to an additional .470 inches at 1000. (10 x .047" = .47"... just shy of 1/2 inch.)
On paper, you have to compensate 1/2 inch. In reality, there is no extra math, since compensating for 1/2" at 1000 is impractical unless you are Mark Wahlberg.
Cheers,
Sirhr
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still don't understand why, if the 'formula' isn't exactly 1 inch at 100 yards, at longer distances or for 'precision work' one would have extra math to do 'unless using MOA that is really IPHY'.
It's not meant as an attack, I just have no idea what he is talking about.</div></div>
Technically, Bedlam is right. But... the 1.047" at 100 translates to an additional .470 inches at 1000. (10 x .047" = .47"... just shy of 1/2 inch.)
On paper, you have to compensate 1/2 inch. In reality, there is no extra math, since compensating for 1/2" at 1000 is impractical unless you are Mark Wahlberg.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sirhrmechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Technically, Bedlam is right...</div></div>It's a 5% error.
Assume a load drops 380 inches at 1000 yards (not far off for a .308 Winchester). That would be 38 adjustments if each were 1.00 inches at 100 yards. That would be be 36.29 adjustments if each were 1.047 inches at 100 yards. The difference in point of impact is about 17 inches if you think it's IPHY when its MOA. On many targets that's a miss.
IPHY is about .95 MOA, so where's the extra math?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sirhrmechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Technically, Bedlam is right...</div></div>It's a 5% error.
Assume a load drops 380 inches at 1000 yards (not far off for a .308 Winchester). That would be 38 adjustments if each were 1.00 inches at 100 yards. That would be be 36.29 adjustments if each were 1.047 inches at 100 yards. The difference in point of impact is about 17 inches if you think it's IPHY when its MOA. On many targets that's a miss.
IPHY is about .95 MOA, so where's the extra math?
Re: mil or moa
MOA vs IPHY when does it matter:
For group size you can use 1moa = 1" per hundred yards. Close enough.
For Dope, (comeups) it does matter. 30moa is 31.5IPHY enough to matter
For Box test it does matter (same argument as for Dope)
For ranging, its debatable. Just use IPHY and subtract 5% if you want (few can range that accurately with a reticle anyway we're all using rangefinders)
MOA vs IPHY when does it matter:
For group size you can use 1moa = 1" per hundred yards. Close enough.
For Dope, (comeups) it does matter. 30moa is 31.5IPHY enough to matter
For Box test it does matter (same argument as for Dope)
For ranging, its debatable. Just use IPHY and subtract 5% if you want (few can range that accurately with a reticle anyway we're all using rangefinders)
Re: mil or moa
To be exact, 1 MOA is 1/60 of one degree. There are 360 degrees in a circle, so 1 MOA is exactly 1/21600 of a circle. At 100 yards though, it comes out roughly that 1 MOA = 1.05", so 1/4 an MOA is roughly 0.26". Here's the exact math though:
100 yards = 300 feet = 3,600 inches (300' * 12"), so at 100 yards (or 3,600 inches) you have
3,600 * tangent(1/60) = 1.047197581" or approx 1.05"
Remember back to trigonometry, tangent is equal to opposite over adjacent. So tan(1/60) = X/3600, solving for X gives the above equation.
Keep in mind if you are using most graphing calculators and Excel, they will default to radians, so you have to convert it to degrees. The proper formula in excel to return the above answer is
=3600*TAN((1/60)*PI()/180)
This is because there are 2 PI radians per 360 degrees. On a graphing calculator just specify DEG instead of RAD. Clear as mud right?
Trust me on this, I'm an engineer.
To be exact, 1 MOA is 1/60 of one degree. There are 360 degrees in a circle, so 1 MOA is exactly 1/21600 of a circle. At 100 yards though, it comes out roughly that 1 MOA = 1.05", so 1/4 an MOA is roughly 0.26". Here's the exact math though:
100 yards = 300 feet = 3,600 inches (300' * 12"), so at 100 yards (or 3,600 inches) you have
3,600 * tangent(1/60) = 1.047197581" or approx 1.05"
Remember back to trigonometry, tangent is equal to opposite over adjacent. So tan(1/60) = X/3600, solving for X gives the above equation.
Keep in mind if you are using most graphing calculators and Excel, they will default to radians, so you have to convert it to degrees. The proper formula in excel to return the above answer is
=3600*TAN((1/60)*PI()/180)
This is because there are 2 PI radians per 360 degrees. On a graphing calculator just specify DEG instead of RAD. Clear as mud right?
Trust me on this, I'm an engineer.
Re: mil or moa
Sorry guys, I just have to ask...?
How on earth does such an amazing country still work in inch & yards...
Mil makes a lot more sense if one is used to a metric system.
My 2c
Rgds
R-Raven
Sorry guys, I just have to ask...?
How on earth does such an amazing country still work in inch & yards...
Mil makes a lot more sense if one is used to a metric system.
My 2c
Rgds
R-Raven
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RSA-Raven</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just have to ask...?
How on earth does such an amazing country still work in inch & yards...
Mil makes a lot more sense if one is used to a metric system.</div></div>There's nothing metric about Mils. With either system you can measure linear distance using with whichever unit you choose.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RSA-Raven</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just have to ask...?
How on earth does such an amazing country still work in inch & yards...
Mil makes a lot more sense if one is used to a metric system.</div></div>There's nothing metric about Mils. With either system you can measure linear distance using with whichever unit you choose.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RSA-Raven</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just have to ask...?
How on earth does such an amazing country still work in inch & yards...
Mil makes a lot more sense if one is used to a metric system.</div></div>There's nothing metric about Mils. With either system you can measure linear distance using with whichever unit you choose. </div></div>
Mils are metric.... You have to use a conversion to use yards, inches, ect...
You need to do more work.... That is the history and origin of Radians.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RSA-Raven</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just have to ask...?
How on earth does such an amazing country still work in inch & yards...
Mil makes a lot more sense if one is used to a metric system.</div></div>There's nothing metric about Mils. With either system you can measure linear distance using with whichever unit you choose. </div></div>
Mils are metric.... You have to use a conversion to use yards, inches, ect...
You need to do more work.... That is the history and origin of Radians.
Re: mil or moa
I made the jump from MOA to Mil earlier this year and it takes awhile to wrap your head around not doing the math constantly, but I like the mil concept immensely better. No matter distance, i know if the bullet strikes the target 1.5 mils to the right, all I need to do is hold 1.5 miles to the left to make a hit. Same goes for scope adjustments, etc. You adjust turrett off of the target, no need to do math.
For me, I am still learning a mil/mil scope, but am glad I purhcased one and am slowly changing out from MOA scopes to mil, as money allows.
I made the jump from MOA to Mil earlier this year and it takes awhile to wrap your head around not doing the math constantly, but I like the mil concept immensely better. No matter distance, i know if the bullet strikes the target 1.5 mils to the right, all I need to do is hold 1.5 miles to the left to make a hit. Same goes for scope adjustments, etc. You adjust turrett off of the target, no need to do math.
For me, I am still learning a mil/mil scope, but am glad I purhcased one and am slowly changing out from MOA scopes to mil, as money allows.
Re: mil or moa
The reason people say mils are "metric" is this. 0.1 mil is 1 centimeter at 100 meters, 2 cm at 200 meters....10 cm at 1000 meters etc. So if we did target size and group size in cm and ranged in meters, mils would have the advantage.
IPHY is 1 inch in 100 yards, 2 inches in 200 yards...10 inches in 1000 yards.
MOA is 1.05" in 100 yards, 2.1" in 200 yards....10.5" in 1000 yards. (roundable to what IPHY is)
The reason people say mils are "metric" is this. 0.1 mil is 1 centimeter at 100 meters, 2 cm at 200 meters....10 cm at 1000 meters etc. So if we did target size and group size in cm and ranged in meters, mils would have the advantage.
IPHY is 1 inch in 100 yards, 2 inches in 200 yards...10 inches in 1000 yards.
MOA is 1.05" in 100 yards, 2.1" in 200 yards....10.5" in 1000 yards. (roundable to what IPHY is)
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RSA-Raven</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry guys, I just have to ask...?
How on earth does such an amazing country still work in inch & yards...
Mil makes a lot more sense if one is used to a metric system.
My 2c
</div></div>
It's terrible. Just last week I lost a bet for a firkin of mead because I couldn't hit a one palm diameter target at 1500 cubits. I think it's because there was a 5 rod per second cross wind that didn't register on my FurlongDotMaster which is calibrated in picas. ;-)
Cheers, Sirhr
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RSA-Raven</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry guys, I just have to ask...?
How on earth does such an amazing country still work in inch & yards...
Mil makes a lot more sense if one is used to a metric system.
My 2c
</div></div>
It's terrible. Just last week I lost a bet for a firkin of mead because I couldn't hit a one palm diameter target at 1500 cubits. I think it's because there was a 5 rod per second cross wind that didn't register on my FurlongDotMaster which is calibrated in picas. ;-)
Cheers, Sirhr
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are metric.... You have to use a conversion to use yards, inches, ect...</div></div>
No you don't. The formula for ranging in mils is exactly the same in yards as it is in meters.
Height of Target in yards / mils x 1000 = Distance to Target in yards
Height of Target in meters / mils x 1000 = Distance to Target in meters
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are metric.... You have to use a conversion to use yards, inches, ect...</div></div>
No you don't. The formula for ranging in mils is exactly the same in yards as it is in meters.
Height of Target in yards / mils x 1000 = Distance to Target in yards
Height of Target in meters / mils x 1000 = Distance to Target in meters
Re: mil or moa
I never thought that I'd see 'Firkin' used on SH. Sirhr, you have outdone yourself.
My vote is mil. Here's my logic. I brought three rifles with me on my last training. Two had USO SN-3 optics with .1 mil adjustments. The other rifle sports a Leupold with 1/4 moa adjustments. To get my 1000 yard dope (7.0 mils) on my 300 wsm rifle with my SN-3, I adjust 70 clicks to 7.0 on the EREK and I'm done. To get my 1000 yard dope (35.75 moa) on my rifle with the Leuopld, I have to dial in 143 clicks.
Admittedly, the SN-3 has the EREK knob, so I had 9.0 mils of elevation per revolution, as opposed to the Leupold which has 15 moa per revolution. Apples to oranges as far as scope value, I get that. It's just easier for me to dial in .1 mil increments on the fly, than have to do the math with the 1/4 moa adjustments.
I never thought that I'd see 'Firkin' used on SH. Sirhr, you have outdone yourself.
My vote is mil. Here's my logic. I brought three rifles with me on my last training. Two had USO SN-3 optics with .1 mil adjustments. The other rifle sports a Leupold with 1/4 moa adjustments. To get my 1000 yard dope (7.0 mils) on my 300 wsm rifle with my SN-3, I adjust 70 clicks to 7.0 on the EREK and I'm done. To get my 1000 yard dope (35.75 moa) on my rifle with the Leuopld, I have to dial in 143 clicks.
Admittedly, the SN-3 has the EREK knob, so I had 9.0 mils of elevation per revolution, as opposed to the Leupold which has 15 moa per revolution. Apples to oranges as far as scope value, I get that. It's just easier for me to dial in .1 mil increments on the fly, than have to do the math with the 1/4 moa adjustments.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cactusbrew</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I made the jump from MOA to Mil earlier this year and it takes awhile to wrap your head around not doing the math constantly, but I like the mil concept immensely better. No matter distance, i know if the bullet strikes the target 1.5 mils to the right, all I need to do is hold 1.5 miles to the left to make a hit. Same goes for scope adjustments, etc. You adjust turrett off of the target, no need to do math.</div></div>
WTF??? That's exactly what you would do with an MOA scope also. If you're 1.5 MOA to the right, dial 1.5 MOA to the left and shoot.
In fact, you can do this with any scope where the reticle and the knobs were matching units, regardless of the units. What math are you talking about?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cactusbrew</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I made the jump from MOA to Mil earlier this year and it takes awhile to wrap your head around not doing the math constantly, but I like the mil concept immensely better. No matter distance, i know if the bullet strikes the target 1.5 mils to the right, all I need to do is hold 1.5 miles to the left to make a hit. Same goes for scope adjustments, etc. You adjust turrett off of the target, no need to do math.</div></div>
WTF??? That's exactly what you would do with an MOA scope also. If you're 1.5 MOA to the right, dial 1.5 MOA to the left and shoot.
In fact, you can do this with any scope where the reticle and the knobs were matching units, regardless of the units. What math are you talking about?
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Mils are metric.... You have to use a conversion to use yards, inches, ect...</div></div>
Mils work just as easily with inches and yards as they do with centimeters and meters. You just have to understand that a mil is 1/1000 of the straight line distance.
I.E. 1 mil equals 1" at 1000", 1m at 1000m, 1 yard at 1000 yards, etc. It really isn't difficult unless you make it difficult. No conversion needed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Mils are metric.... You have to use a conversion to use yards, inches, ect...</div></div>
Mils work just as easily with inches and yards as they do with centimeters and meters. You just have to understand that a mil is 1/1000 of the straight line distance.
I.E. 1 mil equals 1" at 1000", 1m at 1000m, 1 yard at 1000 yards, etc. It really isn't difficult unless you make it difficult. No conversion needed.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not meant as an attack, I just have no idea what he is talking about.</div></div>
I don't take it as an attack. I actually have no idea what I was talking about either.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not meant as an attack, I just have no idea what he is talking about.</div></div>
I don't take it as an attack. I actually have no idea what I was talking about either.
Re: mil or moa
As other have mention, both works. If you are just starting out, I recommend MIL/MIL only because that is the direction that everyone seems to be going.
You can get inexpensive scopes in Mil/Mils. MOA/MOA scopes seems to be pricey. Only inexpensive MOA/MOA scopes I know are Vortex PST's. However, at $600 they are not that inexpensive.
As other have mention, both works. If you are just starting out, I recommend MIL/MIL only because that is the direction that everyone seems to be going.
You can get inexpensive scopes in Mil/Mils. MOA/MOA scopes seems to be pricey. Only inexpensive MOA/MOA scopes I know are Vortex PST's. However, at $600 they are not that inexpensive.
Re: mil or moa
I myself am going to stick with MOA/MOA. I am seriously considering the Premier Heritage in MOA/MOA... now that is some good whack off material at night! oh yeah!!!
I myself am going to stick with MOA/MOA. I am seriously considering the Premier Heritage in MOA/MOA... now that is some good whack off material at night! oh yeah!!!
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Mils are metric.... You have to use a conversion to use yards, inches, ect...
You need to do more work.... That is the history and origin of Radians. </div></div>
Mils are not "metric."
Take a math class and tell me if radians are "metric."
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Mils are metric.... You have to use a conversion to use yards, inches, ect...
You need to do more work.... That is the history and origin of Radians. </div></div>
Mils are not "metric."
Take a math class and tell me if radians are "metric."
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are metric.... You need to do more work....</div></div>At a distance of 10011100010000 parsecs (binary), one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is 1010 parsecs (binary). How is that metric?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are metric.... You need to do more work....</div></div>At a distance of 10011100010000 parsecs (binary), one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is 1010 parsecs (binary). How is that metric?
Re: mil or moa
Milliradian is Metric!
Some people also call SI units the "metric system".. it is NOT INCORRECT to to call SI units (or units derived from SI units) the metric system.
The seven base units in the SI System are:
1) meter (length)
2) kilogram (weight)
3) second (time)
4) ampere (electric current)
5) kelvin (temperature)
6) mole (amount of substance)
7) candela (luminous intensity, aka "brightness")
From these 7 units, you can derive other units of measurements. One of these derived units is the milliradian (Mils). Just like "Watt" and "gram" are also derived from the base SI unit. Therefore if you believe "gram" to be part of the metric system, you also should believe "milliradian" to also be part of the metric system.
Here is the the list of SI derived units, as you can see Radian is in there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit
Milliradian is Metric!
Some people also call SI units the "metric system".. it is NOT INCORRECT to to call SI units (or units derived from SI units) the metric system.
The seven base units in the SI System are:
1) meter (length)
2) kilogram (weight)
3) second (time)
4) ampere (electric current)
5) kelvin (temperature)
6) mole (amount of substance)
7) candela (luminous intensity, aka "brightness")
From these 7 units, you can derive other units of measurements. One of these derived units is the milliradian (Mils). Just like "Watt" and "gram" are also derived from the base SI unit. Therefore if you believe "gram" to be part of the metric system, you also should believe "milliradian" to also be part of the metric system.
Here is the the list of SI derived units, as you can see Radian is in there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are metric.... You need to do more work....</div></div>At a distance of 10011100010000 parsecs (binary), one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is 1010 parsecs (binary). How is that metric?</div></div>
everyone knows THAT is just the angle of the dangle.......just sayin.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are metric.... You need to do more work....</div></div>At a distance of 10011100010000 parsecs (binary), one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is 1010 parsecs (binary). How is that metric?</div></div>
everyone knows THAT is just the angle of the dangle.......just sayin.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lostcoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a radian is a dimensionless unit.
it stems from pi...ya know, 3.141592654yadayadayadayada...on and on forever and ever.
there are 2*pi radians/circle.... 6.2831852......
which is where 6230mRad comes from. they rounded it.
it's really not metric per-se.... but they did divide the radians by 1000 similar to the way a millimeter is 1/1000'th of a meter.
==========
i think what is important here is that the scope reticule and the knob adustments are in the same system of units.
an mRad reticule ought to have mRad turrets.... it just makes for fewer conversions. </div></div>
I can see both sides. Saying "milliradians is metric" is not entirely wrong. However, saying "milliradians is Not-Metric" is also not entirely wrong
It's just a matter of perspective, and we can't really argue perspective can we? Well most here on SnipersHide they do LOL
As for matching reticles, I don't need them as I have used mismatched MIL reticles with MOA knobs for ages and I can easily make adjustments with this set up. Even with my MOA/MOA set up, I don't think I am really that much faster either. What takes long (for me) is confirming the number of hashes I missed by, that takes way more time than the conversion. The conversion is super easy for me and really no math involved.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lostcoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a radian is a dimensionless unit.
it stems from pi...ya know, 3.141592654yadayadayadayada...on and on forever and ever.
there are 2*pi radians/circle.... 6.2831852......
which is where 6230mRad comes from. they rounded it.
it's really not metric per-se.... but they did divide the radians by 1000 similar to the way a millimeter is 1/1000'th of a meter.
==========
i think what is important here is that the scope reticule and the knob adustments are in the same system of units.
an mRad reticule ought to have mRad turrets.... it just makes for fewer conversions. </div></div>
I can see both sides. Saying "milliradians is metric" is not entirely wrong. However, saying "milliradians is Not-Metric" is also not entirely wrong
As for matching reticles, I don't need them as I have used mismatched MIL reticles with MOA knobs for ages and I can easily make adjustments with this set up. Even with my MOA/MOA set up, I don't think I am really that much faster either. What takes long (for me) is confirming the number of hashes I missed by, that takes way more time than the conversion. The conversion is super easy for me and really no math involved.
Re: mil or moa
Mils can be used equally on the English or Metric system. It is more intuitive in Metric, since 0.1 mils = 1 cm at 100 meters, whereas 0.1 mils = 0.36" at 100 yards. Unlike MOA though, this is not rounded, it's exactly 0.36" (see my previous post about MOA).
1/4 MOA adjustment at 100 yards: 0.26" approximately
0.1 mil adjustment at 100 yards: 0.36" exactly
While a 1 MOA adjustment would be approx 1.05" at 100 yards, a 0.3 mil adjustment would be 1.08" at 100 yards.
Interestingly enough, the MOA allows for finer measurements. If you like metric, I'd say go with mils, because it's more intuitive. If you deal in yards and inches, the MOA will serve you fine and probably be easier for you to use.
Mils can be used equally on the English or Metric system. It is more intuitive in Metric, since 0.1 mils = 1 cm at 100 meters, whereas 0.1 mils = 0.36" at 100 yards. Unlike MOA though, this is not rounded, it's exactly 0.36" (see my previous post about MOA).
1/4 MOA adjustment at 100 yards: 0.26" approximately
0.1 mil adjustment at 100 yards: 0.36" exactly
While a 1 MOA adjustment would be approx 1.05" at 100 yards, a 0.3 mil adjustment would be 1.08" at 100 yards.
Interestingly enough, the MOA allows for finer measurements. If you like metric, I'd say go with mils, because it's more intuitive. If you deal in yards and inches, the MOA will serve you fine and probably be easier for you to use.
Re: mil or moa
Ford or Chevy MOA or Mil. They both do the job the key is knowing your kit and working with it (buy the best quality glass you can afford). I can run both but find MOA/MOA and the IPHY method to be the quickest for me persoanlly when shooting where time restrictions are in place. Easier math for an old guy. If I was new to scopes (and not older) I would recommend Mil/Mil
Ford or Chevy MOA or Mil. They both do the job the key is knowing your kit and working with it (buy the best quality glass you can afford). I can run both but find MOA/MOA and the IPHY method to be the quickest for me persoanlly when shooting where time restrictions are in place. Easier math for an old guy. If I was new to scopes (and not older) I would recommend Mil/Mil
Re: mil or moa
You are right, i did mean moa, not mils. I tought myself through simple math, not what a dept. adopted. The error is closer to 4.5% and the conversion factor is 3.438.
Radians and degrees are not metric or english. Calling them either is incorrect. They mean nothing unless you provide a point of reference. A 1 moa hold off doesn't mean anything until you have a reticle at a certain power in front of your eye or the distance to target is indicated.
A heading for example doesn't mean crap unless you know which way is north.
You are right, i did mean moa, not mils. I tought myself through simple math, not what a dept. adopted. The error is closer to 4.5% and the conversion factor is 3.438.
Radians and degrees are not metric or english. Calling them either is incorrect. They mean nothing unless you provide a point of reference. A 1 moa hold off doesn't mean anything until you have a reticle at a certain power in front of your eye or the distance to target is indicated.
A heading for example doesn't mean crap unless you know which way is north.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lostcoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the math is RILLY EASY......
since there is 2*pi radians/circle = 6.2831853....
a 100 yard circle has the cicumfrance of 2*pi*100yards*36"/yard = 22619.4671088 inches.
====================
if we are going to use 1/4MOA clicks...
then there are 360 degrees/circle * 60 minutes/degree * 4 (1/4 moa clicks/minute) = 360*60*4=86400 1/4 moa clicks/circle.
and so 1/4 moa at 100 yards = 22619.4671088/86400 = 0.2617994 inches
(not quite 1/4 inch.... but we round it off anyways)
==================
if we are going to use 0.1mRad clicks...
then there are 2*pi radians/circle * 1000 mrad/radian * 10 (0.1 mrad clicks/mrad) = 2*pi*1000*10=62831.85308 0.1mrad clicks/circle.
and so 0.1 mrad at 100 yards = 22619.4671088/62831.85308 = 0.36 inches
=================
see how easy that is?
LOL </div></div>
Not how I do it. I only remember 4 numbers:
1) 1 mil ~ 3.5 MOA
2) .5 mil ~ 2 MOA - 1 click (for 1/4 MOA turrets)
3) 1/4 mil ~ 1 MOA
4) 1/8th Mil or 1/10th mil ~ 2 clicks (for 1/4 MOA turrets)
Some one can just say some random number like you are 1.7 mils too low... well I just go up 3.5 (this is one mil), then go up another 2 MOA - 1 click (.5 mil), and go up another 1 MOA (about .25 mils).. I don't know what that adds up to, but I just semi-precisely made my adjustments
See no math involved!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lostcoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the math is RILLY EASY......
since there is 2*pi radians/circle = 6.2831853....
a 100 yard circle has the cicumfrance of 2*pi*100yards*36"/yard = 22619.4671088 inches.
====================
if we are going to use 1/4MOA clicks...
then there are 360 degrees/circle * 60 minutes/degree * 4 (1/4 moa clicks/minute) = 360*60*4=86400 1/4 moa clicks/circle.
and so 1/4 moa at 100 yards = 22619.4671088/86400 = 0.2617994 inches
(not quite 1/4 inch.... but we round it off anyways)
==================
if we are going to use 0.1mRad clicks...
then there are 2*pi radians/circle * 1000 mrad/radian * 10 (0.1 mrad clicks/mrad) = 2*pi*1000*10=62831.85308 0.1mrad clicks/circle.
and so 0.1 mrad at 100 yards = 22619.4671088/62831.85308 = 0.36 inches
=================
see how easy that is?
LOL </div></div>
Not how I do it. I only remember 4 numbers:
1) 1 mil ~ 3.5 MOA
2) .5 mil ~ 2 MOA - 1 click (for 1/4 MOA turrets)
3) 1/4 mil ~ 1 MOA
4) 1/8th Mil or 1/10th mil ~ 2 clicks (for 1/4 MOA turrets)
Some one can just say some random number like you are 1.7 mils too low... well I just go up 3.5 (this is one mil), then go up another 2 MOA - 1 click (.5 mil), and go up another 1 MOA (about .25 mils).. I don't know what that adds up to, but I just semi-precisely made my adjustments
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TBannister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Easier/ faster= mils
A little more difficult/ more precise = moa </div></div>
I disagree 100% with this statement. MOA is less precise, it's a rounded number when used in yards or meters. Mils are exact. 1 mil = 1,000 of a unit. 1 MOA = 1/60 of a degree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TBannister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Easier/ faster= mils
A little more difficult/ more precise = moa </div></div>
I disagree 100% with this statement. MOA is less precise, it's a rounded number when used in yards or meters. Mils are exact. 1 mil = 1,000 of a unit. 1 MOA = 1/60 of a degree.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lostcoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
and so when i meassure one of my shots relative to center of target, the control knobs directly translate. i don't need to translate to inches and vice versa..... just keep everything in angular form.... makes life easier. </div></div>
You don't have to range do you? How tall is a man, in Mils, when he is 650 meters away? Do it without looking it up.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lostcoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
and so when i meassure one of my shots relative to center of target, the control knobs directly translate. i don't need to translate to inches and vice versa..... just keep everything in angular form.... makes life easier. </div></div>
You don't have to range do you? How tall is a man, in Mils, when he is 650 meters away? Do it without looking it up.
Re: mil or moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lostcoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that would be an estimate.... in any case... unless that man told you just how tall he actually is.
but i do have to ask.... is this man a 4' midget or a 7' basketball player?
LOL
let's assume he's an average 6' tall....
that would be ~2*1000/650 = 3mrads
(what's so tough about that?)
wanna work in MOA?
that would be ~72*100/650 = 11moa
or... 2*3600/650=11moa
i find the first easier to calculate rapidly....
and these ARE approximations.
</div></div>
OK man you passed hahah. However your math takes a little calculations...
I can range in mils anytime, but I have to convert to MOA first before ranging.
Unless if I am ranging a man by his width (20" across), then I just remember as super easy Mil table.
So for me mismatch reticles are not a big deal, and I am not that much slower when it comes to adjustments.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lostcoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">that would be an estimate.... in any case... unless that man told you just how tall he actually is.
but i do have to ask.... is this man a 4' midget or a 7' basketball player?
LOL
let's assume he's an average 6' tall....
that would be ~2*1000/650 = 3mrads
(what's so tough about that?)
wanna work in MOA?
that would be ~72*100/650 = 11moa
or... 2*3600/650=11moa
i find the first easier to calculate rapidly....
and these ARE approximations.
</div></div>
OK man you passed hahah. However your math takes a little calculations...
I can range in mils anytime, but I have to convert to MOA first before ranging.
Unless if I am ranging a man by his width (20" across), then I just remember as super easy Mil table.
So for me mismatch reticles are not a big deal, and I am not that much slower when it comes to adjustments.
