Rifle Scopes Mil or Moa

[dan46n2]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

Mil is much easier than MOA. If you can divide/multiply by 10 you have it made. Don't do this nonsense of trying to convert Mil to MOA that defeats the whole purpose. You need everything you're working with already in Mil, talking about your dope cards. Make sure your reticle and adjustments are both in Mil.

 

[dan46n2]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

I was reading the earlier comment about being better able to estimate in MOA. Well you estimate with your reticle, you don't need to know what 1 cm vs 1 inch looks like at 100 yards off hand.

 

[pazzo]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

MOA is easy to use.

I personally don't see the huge deal about true MOA being a HUGE different over IPHY, and MOA being any tougher than Mils.

For example:
At 1000 yds, 1 TRUE MOA = <span style="color: #990000">10.47"</span>
At 1000 yds, 1 IPHY = <span style="color: #990000">10"</span>

Are you telling me that you are capable of correcting 0.47" at 1000 yds? The average MOA scope can only adjust 1/4 MOA - which would equate to 2.5" adjustment increments at 1000 yds. It is impossible to hold off 0.5" at this distance, so whether or not you calculate for true MOA or IPHY shouldn't matter that much.

Lindy?

 

[Lindy]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahh, Grasshopper...

Here's the deal.

Let's say my .308 on a 1000 yard shot drops 415 inches.

Thinking my scope dials in true MOA, dividing 415 by 10.47, get 39.64, so, since my scope has "1/4 MOA" adjustments, I dial up 39.75 MOA.

Imagine my surprise when I watch the bullet impact, and upon investigation, find that my scope actually adjusts in IPHY.

So, dividing 415 by 10, I get 41.5.

The difference is 41.5 - 39.75 = 1.86 MOA.

At 1000 yards, 1.86 MOA * 10.47 = 19.5 inches.

Which is how far I missed the target by.

Oops.

Now, it's not harder - <span style="font-style: italic">if you know what the scope actually dials in</span>, and compensate for that.

But the only way to know is to test it.

 

[Lindy]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, the way I discovered that Leupold M1 adjustments are actually closer to IPHY than true MOA is when I performed that experiment after switching from a Leupold M3 to a Leupold M1. Testing confirmed that.

 

[dan46n2]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

If you have a calculator MOA isn't much harder. I wouldn't want to do those calculations in my head though, maybe under stress, without one. On the other hand it takes seconds to calculate Mil without a calculator.

 

[pazzo]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

Lindy,
Thanks a lot for the fast reply

I can see that your math is good and it makes sense, but I still don't quite understand how the difference between true MOA and IPHY (being so small) can equal 1.86 MOA?

 

[Lowlight]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pazzo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lindy,
Thanks a lot for the fast reply

I can see that your math is good and it makes sense, but I still don't quite understand how the difference between true MOA and IPHY (being so small) can equal 1.86 MOA?

</div></div>

Ah... Lindy did the math for you which shows you exactly <span style="text-decoration: underline">HOW</span> it can 1.86 MOA

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ahh, Grasshopper...

Here's the deal.

Let's say my .308 on a 1000 yard shot drops 415 inches.

Thinking my scope dials in true MOA, dividing 415 by 10.47, get 39.64, so, since my scope has "1/4 MOA" adjustments, I dial up 39.75 MOA.

Imagine my surprise when I watch the bullet impact, and upon investigation, find that my scope actually adjusts in IPHY.

So, dividing 415 by 10, I get 41.5.

The difference is 41.5 - 39.75 = 1.86 MOA.

At 1000 yards, 1.86 MOA * 10.47 = 19.5 inches.

Which is how far I missed the target by.

</div></div>

It doesn't get any clearer than that... black & white for the whole world to see.

 

[doc76251]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

The actual measurement is small. But when you stack 40 of those .047" together the result is cumulative. inside of 500 yards you will never notice. At 1K the difference is hit or miss. Mathematically the difference is 4.5%. 4.5% of 1K yards is 45 yards. Considering the drop of a .308 at that range the difference is significant.

Calibrate your reticle and carry on.

Cheers,

Doc

 

[pazzo]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL.
Yea no kidding Lowlight.

Doc,
You are not stacking it 40x. It is being stacked 10x, no?

 

[Lindy]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

No - because you need <span style="font-style: italic">around</span> 40 MOA to get to 1000. Please be so kind as to go back, and look at the numbers again.

 

[sharac]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

For each click or MOA you turn on the scope with IPHY you make error compared to true MOA. So more clicks/rotations more error you accumulate. So factor 10x is meaningless in this case as you crank those knobs to certain drop (10x or 1000y is already included in that drop i.e. its the cause of your crankiness

).

We got this thing all wrong (chicken and an egg) as human can get used to pretty much anything and with practice you can do anything. So basically if you have a scope get to know it, and start practicing if you're buying think what will you do, how will you use it and how fast or capable your CPU is. My target scope is mil/moa and i can tell you for anything else but target shooting with known dimensions of targets its pretty much useless (i can't imagine using knobs in some serious engagement - without predetermined distance zones/sectors) as it takes some time for me to do the math to correct. My next scope will be mil/mil with me working on dropping sizes in distance units altogether even for target shooting.

 

[pazzo]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

So if one were to shoot with a mil/mil scope, what would be a better suited range finder: Yards or Meters?
Would it be the opposite if you were using MOA/MOA?

 

[glock63]

Re: Mil or Moa

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kdxman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New guy question I have not used Mil or Moa before. Witch one would be the easier of the two to learn ?Also I not great at math so the simple is better thanks.
</div></div>

KDXman, thanks for your service. What years were you in the 75th? My good fried Luke Daniels was in the 3rd batallion 02-06. I prefer mills by the way. Easier to use. Took a little longer to learn to use effectively, but I wouldn't go back.

 

[dan46n2]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pazzo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if one were to shoot with a mil/mil scope, what would be a better suited range finder: Yards or Meters?
Would it be the opposite if you were using MOA/MOA? </div></div>

For mils it makes no difference. If you know the size of your target in yards divide by number of mils times a thousand for yards. If you want meters you would have to know the size of the target in meters then divide by mils and times 1000 for distance in meters. You can use any form of measurement you want. For a human size target thats about 6 feet tall or 2 yards. So lets say the target fills up 2 mils in your reticle. 2 yards divided by 2 mils times 1000 equals 1000 yards. Then adjust for elevation and windage.

 

[Lindy]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if one were to shoot with a mil/mil scope, what would be a better suited range finder: Yards or Meters?</div></div>

It's not obvious whether you're asking about range finders or whether to range in yards or meters.

It really doesn't make any difference whether you keep your dope in yards or meters.

It also doesn't make any difference whether you do UKD range calculations in yards or meters.

Irrespective of which you use, you're always going to find the range by multiplying the target size by a constant, and then dividing by the image size measured with your scope reticle.

The formulas for that are here: Ranging Formulas

The easiest way to do those calculations is with a Mildot Master. Get one. Practice.

Discussions about yards vs. meters are just mental masturbation. Stop that and go shoot.

 

[doc76251]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

After 4 pages this sounds vaguely reminiscent of 3 rednecks in a bar arguing Ford, Chevy or Dodge. They are TRUCKS.

Optical ranging via a reticle is a factor of math and accuracy in observation, PERIOD. Whether you multiply by 27.778, 95.5 or 100 matters NOT, just as long as you know how to do it for what your looking through. Holding for wind/lead is the same thought.

It's not that hard.

Cheers,

Doc

 

[sharac]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

Toyota!!! Comes from the murky dark corner and then there is silence....

 

[Lindy]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

I suspect this obsession is because the current education system has created a generation which doesn't understand even simple math, and as a consequence fears it.

In 1983 the National Commission on Education, headed by Nobel Laureate Glenn T. Seaborg, wrote that "If a foreign nation had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war."

 

[Guest]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doc76251</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After 4 pages this sounds vaguely reminiscent of 3 rednecks in a bar arguing Ford, Chevy or Dodge. They are TRUCKS.

Optical ranging via a reticle is a factor of math and accuracy in observation, PERIOD. Whether you multiply by 27.778, 95.5 or 100 matters NOT, just as long as you know how to do it for what your looking through. Holding for wind/lead is the same thought.

It's not that hard.

Cheers,

Doc </div></div>

+1

I matters little which system one uses in the end, as long as the target is no longer laughing at you. Ya, it's nice to have folks speaking same/same, but ask your self this, when it's all gone wrong, and your the loan Indian what system do you know/work best?

Kiss, is a word an a trait old guys, got old by.

 

[pazzo]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the replies everybody.

The correct answer for the vehicle would be Touareg

As for the math...
Lindy is indeed correct. I am academically (as a whole) quite bright, but mathematically quite slow. For some reason I just struggled with the numbers since elementary school...


I usually don't debate what is better, mils or MOA. I started with an MOA/MOA scope and a rangefinder which measures in yards. So I stuck with it.

If I were to do it again, I would probably use Mils/Mils for my scope and the rangefinder I would upgrade to one which does both yards/meters.

Living in Canada, EVERYBODY shoots with a mil/mil scope and has a rangefinder which measures in Meters. I feel all backwards when I go shooting with other people. It is kind of nice to be talking the same language when out with friends.

 

[Lindy]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

People tend to acquire the dope for their rifle by shooting on known distance firing ranges. Military ranges in the U.S. are marked in meters, while civilian ranges tend to be marked in yards.

It doesn't matter which you use. You just need to be prepared to service targets which are not at even increments of 100 yards or meters.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doc76251</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After 4 pages this sounds vaguely reminiscent of 3 rednecks in a bar arguing Ford, Chevy or Dodge. They are TRUCKS.

Optical ranging via a reticle is a factor of math and accuracy in observation, PERIOD. Whether you multiply by 27.778, 95.5 or 100 matters NOT, just as long as you know how to do it for what your looking through. Holding for wind/lead is the same thought.

It's not that hard.

Cheers,

Doc </div></div>

+1

I matters little which system one uses in the end, as long as the target is no longer laughing at you. Ya, it's nice to have folks speaking same/same, but ask your self this, when it's all gone wrong, and your the loan Indian what system do you know/work best?

Kiss, is a word an a trait old guys, got old by.


</div></div>

I think you said it as good as it can be said.

 

[Target In Sight]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suspect this obsession is because the current education system has created a generation which doesn't understand even simple math, and as a consequence fears it.

In 1983 the National Commission on Education, headed by Nobel Laureate Glenn T. Seaborg, wrote that "If a foreign nation had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war."
</div></div>

After reading the 2nd page of this thread.....This is exactly how I feel too. Some don't need education on how to use a tactical scope, but to review their math text books.

Wait till these individuals asking questions about shooting @ angles.....@#$%

 

[sharac]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

Who the F.... shoots at angels?? Just sick!!!

If it's any comfort to you this is spread worldwide however i'm currently unsure whether this is a good thing (troubling times coming some will have huge problems surviving - makes it easier to survive

) or a bad thing - are bad times coming because of this...

I think we can safely say this thread is done for.

 

[dan46n2]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems some people here are saying that one system is not better than the other. Well if your math is right you'll get the same result, but the original question was which one is easier to calculate. I think that means without a calculator, otherwise it's just punching in one set of numbers versus another. I don't see the comparisons being made to Dodge, Chevy, and Ford. It's more of stick versus auto to me.

 

[Stealthy]

Re: Mil or Moa

If one is easier than the other then it is MOA because MILs can be easily misinterpreted as a measurement of distance rather than angle whereas MOA is obviously an angular measurement.

The calculations difficulties are essentially identical.

MOA does NOT mean you must estimate target dimensions in Imperial, an MOA/MIL calculation will quite happily take any data.

There is no reason why you couldn't measure target's in the length of your cock. Wow that dude is only as tall as 5 "lengths of my cock". So long as your dope card is in "lengths of cock" to the target you are gold.

Edited: I say "Dude" because you shouldn't be shooting girls.







I totally dig that line on your link Lindy. Lindy's ArcanaMavens Link

"Recall the distinction between generalists and specialists: Generalists are persons who learn less and less about more and more, until, in the limit, they know nothing about everything, while specialists are persons who learn more and more about less and less until, in the limit, they know everything about nothing."

That totally fits in with my Signature, guess that makes me a Generalist.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Mil or Moa

 

[00037]

Re: Mil or Moa

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stealthy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no reason why you couldn't measure target's in the length of your cock. Wow that dude is only as tall as 5 "lengths of my cock". So long as your dope card is in "lengths of cock" to the target you are gold.

Edited: I say "Dude" because you shouldn't be shooting girls.</div></div>
"Target five cocks left, hold one cock high."
"Copy. Target acquired."
"Send it."

 

[sharac]

Re: Mil or Moa

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Target five cocks left, hold one cock high."
"Copy. Target acquired."
"Send it."

</div></div>

What if i can't get it up?

 

[Guest]

Re: Mil or Moa

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stealthy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If one is easier than the other then it is MOA because MILs can be easily misinterpreted as a measurement of distance rather than angle whereas MOA is obviously an angular measurement.

The calculations difficulties are essentially identical.</div></div>



The only way to put this to rest is to have a <span style="font-weight: bold">Scope Only </span> , ranging contest with about 10-15 guys each, that hawk, either Mil, MOA, or IPHY. No Mildot masters, no Calculators, no paper and pencils, just gray matter and targets on a range or none shooting venue, that is foreign to all competitors. It could be part of a landnav course as well.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Mil or Moa

Well, if you want to go that far, then they must have no dope on their load, either.

There is a certain point wheres one need conceed that there is a minimum equipment list needed to engage long-distance targets.

Except as an exercise in mental masturbation, I'm not very interested in such an exercise without that minimum equipment list.

If you're going to shoot UKD targets without a laser rangefinder, then I think it's useful to recognize that you need some equipment to perform the calculations, unless you've got sufficient time to do the calculation with a pencil and a piece of paper. While I can do that, I don't find it an interesting exercise.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Mil or Moa

Might as well have them guess the target size too because without being told how would you know.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Mil or Moa

Yep.

 

[Guest]

Re: Mil or Moa

The question was which one was easier, nothing more.

Don't give the target size, just throw some weapons/equipment out there, for more reality.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Mil or Moa

Reality had nothing to do with your original proposition so why quit now.

As stated, a certain amount of preparation is required. Which is why sniper school is one of the harder schools. That acknowledges the preparation necesssary to successfully engage an UKD target at long distances. If it was a matter of tossing rifles out there and seeing what happens everyone would be doing it with greater success.

Easier, all of it is a matter of simple math as it has been explained. If you want easier. Size of target in centimeters x 10 / size in mils = R. Pretty simple, as well many have been doing it for quite some time. Easier for you doesn't translate to easier for all.

It's a function of habit, not ease.

 

[VKC]

Re: Mil or Moa

Mil or MOA does not matter as long as turrets match reticle increments, and your spotter has the same. For me it is easier to remember and estimate size of objects in inches than yards so I prefer MOA. MilDot is much more common though, especially for military. Whichever one prefers is fine, as long as you remember the correct formula and range at the correct magnification.

 

[earthquake]

Re: Mil or Moa

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil or MOA does not matter as long as turrets match reticle increments...</div></div>

And if they don't?

 

[jhedg]

Re: Mil or Moa

being a moa guy for about 25yrs, I am finally dipping my hand into the mil/mil ring. It seems to me that I have over thought it for years. Correct me if I am wrong as long as you know your target distance, and drop its pretty simple. To me I have figure out its simpler for me to dial if my dope is 5.1 mils on a scope of .1mil/1cm dial to five plus one thingie. as far as rangeing as long as you know your target size in inches x it by a set 27.778 divide by mils you are GTG. I will actually see if it is that easy. But I know on "Shooter Ready" it is easy for me to make center mass hits to a 1000. the catch is if you dont know how to read the wind, it does not really matter what system you use you are still going to miss. So my advice is instead of Chevy/Ford I prefer Dodge

get out in the field and learn the conditions, that takes a hell of a lot more practice, then this basic math. And by the way Lindy you are the "friggen man!!!!!!" when it comes to this shit, thanks for your help

 

[Helidonna]

Re: Mil or Moa

For me the choice was simple, I was taught and think in inches. So the logical route was MOA, just my 2 cents worth and with todays economy it ain't worth the paper that it's printed on!!!

 

[Topstrap]

Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, makes me wonder how I ever hit anything...... I do use moa for my calculations but a lot of times just good ole WAG and let'r go. Love that ring at the end.

Topstrap

 

[doc76251]

Re: Mil or Moa

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COfox</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vkc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil or MOA does not matter as long as turrets match reticle increments...</div></div>

And if they don't? </div></div>

Then you need to know two different measurement systems and how they interact w/ your particular optic. It's even more fun when one or the other aren't as advertised.

Example: standard issue Loopy M3

DIAL wind and elevation in MOA (only if your dials click correctly to MOA adjustments)
HOLD Wind and elevation in Mils (only if your scope actually subtends correctly at the power you have on)

Cheers,

Doc

 

[runner]

Re: Mil or Moa

Oh man, sorry I'm coming to this topic late. Here is a link that has 3 papers that might help
explain: mils / moa / smoa (iphy).

They're titled:

Mils and MOA; A Tactical Shooters Guide (long math intensive version)

Mils and Moa Simplified (less math version)

Mil and Moa Range Formulas for different Combinations

Link to papers on mils and moa


bags

 

[Guest]

Re: Mil or Moa

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Easier for you doesn't translate to easier for all.

It's a function of habit, not ease. </div></div>
All my devices that give me a reading are in inchs, feet, yards, pounds, quarts, gallons, ect. When given target size it's always been in inchs. All my data from years back on weapons, tanks, trucks and other gear is/was in inchs, or feet. When ask how far it is from point A to B everyone replys in feet, yds, or miles.
Yes IPHY is the easest for me, fight like you train has merit. I was trained in inchs, feet, yards an miles, plus still use it in life every day. Like a knife, fork an spoon, nothing to relearn.
While many folks train with, or in, a different system thats great if they want it that way. If you don't instill/drill it as second nature, that split second or seconds your thinking, may or may not change the over all out come.

 

[dan46n2]

Re: Mil or Moa

Regarding the comments about being used to working with inches and thus prefering MOA is missing a few concepts about how range estimation/target size works IMO. If you have an object of unknown size or distance it really doesn't matter if you are familiar with inches, you use your reticle to determine the size by how many mil dots (if that's what you are using) it takes up. The same goes for zeroing the scope if you have enough mag to see the hits. The only time I can see that knowing how long an inch is would be beneficial is if your scope did not have enough mag, you were zeroing your scope, and walked up to the target to determine how many inches off the shots were. Most of the time you use your reticle again and adjust from there. So...

Can anyone explain how being familiar with inches actually helps you using an MOA scope? Are you not using the reticle to determine size/distance? I think most agree that the match is easier to do in your head if you use MIL, but about equal if you have a calculator since it's the same formula just using different non ten based numbers.

 

[runner]

Re: Mil or Moa

dan46n2,

You must know the height in inches (or any other measurement you are using, say cm, yards, meters, etc.) to get the range. The equations can't have 2 unknowns. You can't have both the height of an object and the range unknown. You must know the height to get the range. If you knew the range, then sure, you can get the height from the equation, but if you know the range, then you wouldn't need to do that.

To put it simply, the range is what a shooter wants. To get the range, you must know the height of the object if using the equations.

bags

 

[Guest]

Re: Mil or Moa

There are 3 different retical system view points.
(1) Mil
(2) MOA
(3) IPHY (AKA shooter MOA)

None of them will range a target distance correctly without the targets size. Any of those systems will subtend something in the retical, but w/o it's size it tells you nothing, but the subtention in your glass. Target data books have been around for years and years, and used to be given out after passing a target detection/ID course, and all data was in inchs. M1's to todays M4's, 91/30's to AK47's an beyond, all are known sizes, as is other gear no matter the set of boots humping it. In the civi world (LE) it's almost all in inchs as well, be it a door way, car tire, or the weapon the BG is holding.


I contend the IPHY retical/knob combo is the easiest of the three.
Target size in inchs/retical subtention X 100 = yardage

My reticals have 1 IPHY subtention marks, which can be read to 1/4 IPHY w/o any issue. If the target hole/mark is where ever it's very easy to use the retical to follow up if needed, same as a Mil/Mil scope or MOA/MOA. There are many comp's that have time constrants, and other than brain power may or may not be allowed after the target size is given. Also gear required to do your math, can, an does get lost.

 

[dan46n2]

Re: Mil or Moa

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: runner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">dan46n2,

You must know the height in inches (or any other measurement you are using, say cm, yards, meters, etc.) to get the range. The equations can't have 2 unknowns. You can't have both the height of an object and the range unknown. You must know the height to get the range. If you knew the range, then sure, you can get the height from the equation, but if you know the range, then you wouldn't need to do that.
To put it simply, the range is what a shooter wants. To get the range, you must know the height of the object if using the equations.

bags </div></div>

I guess my point is that if you do not know the size of the object then why would familiarity with inches matter? Most likely you will have some standardized target sizes like a torso, doorways, etc that you can compare to then you mil the unknown sized targets. However for the known target sizes you have to memorize the sizes so 72 inches tall for a person or 2 yards... both have to be memorized. For example off hand I don't know what the average diameter of a tire is so I would have to look it up and I can either choose to remember it in inches, meters, or yards. This is what I meant by milling the targets, as long as you have something to compare to or have a known object size you are always determining the size of unknown objects through the reticle making the familiartiy with the US system not much more helpful IMO. Then the next step to determine distance is where mils has the advantage where size (in yards or meters)/mils is multiplied by 1000. Moa is always multplied by a decimal to get distance in yards or meters unless you have an s-moa reticle. So you are really only doing one calculation with mils then moving the decimal over three places.