Rifle Scopes Mil or MOA ?

[jtb33]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ccoker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">had this chat with a Nightforce tech once:

told me to reach in my pocket and pull out a dollar bill and tell me how long it is.

My response was of course in inches

He asked if I was out shooting with a buddy and he missed would I call the miss in inches, feet or yards or in metric.

get where I am going?
I would say if you are going to get ultra serious about LR shooting then perhaps Mil/Mil, if more of a hunter with the occasional LR stuff for fun and the challenge, then perhaps MOA/MOA makes more sense.

I fall in the latter camp personally
</div></div>

How do you get that Mil/Mil is "metric"? It isn't.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

This is a web site for the serious tactical marksman.

Such a person will have a scope with a graduated reticle.

The <span style="font-style: italic">correct</span> answer is that the spotter will call the miss in terms of whatever his or her reticle is graduated in, not in a unit of linear measurement, which would take a calculation.

It might be mils, MOA, or IPHY.

And given how many years it took us to convince Nightforce to produce an FFP scope, I wouldn't leap to cite them as a source of authoritative information.

 

[ccoker]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

I understand and respect what you are saying Lindy
You are definitely the subject matter expert on this..

BTW, I lived in Rockport for about 5 years in the early 80s

You definitely must know how to read the wind down there

 

[Lindy]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

The standard afternoon wind hold at 1000 yards at Rifles Only is 4 mils - and sometimes the wind <span style="font-style: italic">really</span> blows...

 

[ccoker]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

yep !

 

[ccoker]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ccoker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">had this chat with a Nightforce tech once:

told me to reach in my pocket and pull out a dollar bill and tell me how long it is.

My response was of course in inches

He asked if I was out shooting with a buddy and he missed would I call the miss in inches, feet or yards or in metric.

get where I am going?
I would say if you are going to get ultra serious about LR shooting then perhaps Mil/Mil, if more of a hunter with the occasional LR stuff for fun and the challenge, then perhaps MOA/MOA makes more sense.

I fall in the latter camp personally
</div></div>

How do you get that Mil/Mil is "metric"? It isn't. </div></div>
You right, that was an incorrect term, meaning thinking in units of measurement based on 10ths

 

[tactic-als]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

I personally would only go will mil reticle/mil turrets... BUT, I'm a nobody.

 

[ccoker]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

I am new to to true long range shooting and have been reading and reading trying to really understand this.

There are too many voices of experience saying go Mil/Mil/FFP for me to ignore it any longer

 

[BaileyMoto]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ccoker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">had this chat with a Nightforce tech once:

told me to reach in my pocket and pull out a dollar bill and tell me how long it is.

My response was of course in inches

He asked if I was out shooting with a buddy and he missed would I call the miss in inches, feet or yards or in metric.

get where I am going?
I would say if you are going to get ultra serious about LR shooting then perhaps Mil/Mil, if more of a hunter with the occasional LR stuff for fun and the challenge, then perhaps MOA/MOA makes more sense.

I fall in the latter camp personally
</div></div>

Personally, I wouldn't correlate the length of a dollar bill to a missed shot. So given the opportunity, I'd prefer not to call shots based on a linear measurement (inches, yards, meters, etc) I'd tell my buddy to call out my miss in Mils (or MOA for that matter, I suppose).

"1.5 mils left, 1 mil up" - Easy enough and I don't have to rely on what he thinks is 8" (or 3 yards) at an unknown distance. Not to mention that I now have to make that conversion at an unknown or entirely guessed distance.

 

[thoegler]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

this is an awesome thread and helped me make an important decision, thanks guys mil/mil it is

 

[ccoker]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

I had a "I get it" moment last weekend at our hunting lease
wanted to shoot my 308 where I know the distance was right at 500 yards..
Have a Mark 4 4.5-14x50 TMR SFP scope on it, and I knew the Mil holdover points in my head.. shot a few times and was on.

I wanted to dial in the correction and didn't have my cheat sheet with me to use the MOA turret.

Sure is easer to remember 3.5 for example than 28.3

 

[thoegler]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

thats why i am buying a mil ret with mil turrents

 

[ccoker]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

yep
I should point out the Mark 4 is a loaner T&E item.
today I received a Mark 4 TMR 4.5-14x50 mil/mil/ffp to test

 

[Dave308]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

Good stuff! I learned a lot reading this thread!

 

[sandsniper]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

Yes it is possible to get a scope 1/10 reticle is called the the new msr from S&B there is a L scale built into the reticle for spotting and .2 on the main cross. If you need to range accurately this is reticle dreams are made of there is no equal. I will own one as soon as taxes come in.

 

[kiterme]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

Either mil/mil or moa/moa rather than mil/moa works for me.

 

[fox5]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

I loved reading this thread, a lot of what I already knew, but positive reinforcement. I just sent funds for a mil/mil scope. I usually shoot with a ACOG TA31RCO and never knew how many turns of the dial i needed at 15 yards

 

[ccoker]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

crossposted from another thread...
but applicable to this

I got to test this first hand this weekend
had 2 identical (almost) scopes
M4 TMR 4.5-14.5x50

1 SFP and M1 MOA knobs
The other, FFP and M5 mil knobs

I had a chart with both mil and MOA values for out to 1K
Targets were 250, 500, 750 and 1K

Both were new scopes being dialed in..
The SFP model had been zeroed at 100 yards.

After shooting for about an hour with the SFP version and having to keep referencing the chart for mil to MOA I got fed up and mounted the FFP version, removed bolt, bore sighted at the 250 yard with my eye and dialed the scope in to the same plate using the 1 Mil line below the center crosshair which gave me my 100 yard zero.

After about 4 shots I was on and moved out to 500, 750 and 1K

The rest of the day was with the FFP/mil/mil
To me, it was SO much easier and like the other poster said, why in the world would they EVER make a mismatched turret/reticle system is beyond me.. it makes zero sense whatsoever to me. Mil or MOA is personal preference though I do find Mil easier personally.

I found I could easily use the reticle at 250 or 500 and dialed to 750 and 1K
Or I could dial in at 250 or 500, but it was so simple and fast and with the FFP it didn't matter which power setting I was on (say I backed off from max for a bigger field of view at 250 moving between targets fast and then moved out to 500)

 

[6Dasher]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

The bad-ass scope video sure does these threads justice

 

[Xdguy]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

Ok, I've read this thread 3 times now because I'm really trying to figure out what to buy. I think I finally understand the nuts and bolts of it. So, here's what I've gatherd.

Mils and MOA are simply units of measurement just like an inch or meter.

They don't have to be converted to any other unit of measurement providing your reticle and turret match up.

If the reticle and turrets match up, and you are spotting for yourself, both can be used the exact same way to determine your dial or hold.

There is no real standard for MOA reticles, but this shouldn't really matter providing your scope's reticle and turrets match.

You can range with both, but the math is different. Not really harder, just different.

So far, spotting scope reticles are all mil based. Therefore, Mils might have an advantage because your spotter will most likely be calling misses in Mils, not MOA.

Do I pretty much have this summed up?

I do have just one question. Assuming your spotter doesn't have a reticle in his spotting scope, wouldn't the likelyhood of him calling misses in terms of feet or inches be pretty high(at least in America). If that's the case, wouldn't a MOA based system be easier to dial or hold for? I think in inches and feet, so it just seems like converting to MOA at a known distance would be easier than converting to Mil. Am I wrong about this?

ETA...I know that threads like these suck for the experts, but they are real learning tools for the newbs like myself. So, thank all of you who have participated!!

 

[fox5]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

There are spotting scopes with MOA reticles, US optics is one example.

If you had a spotter, wouldn't he know what adjustment to call windage and correction/holds for you?

 

[kennypowers]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

I like my MOA turrets since it is easy for me to understand that each click is 1/4MOA per 100 yards so .25" @ 100yards, .5" @ 200yards, etc. Which seems logical to me since everything is a multiple of 4 and there is less rounding involved.

But like most I have a mil/moa setup which complicates it.

I am considering switching to a mil/mil system and the benefits of a mil/mil are
1.) Majority of shooters use the mil system
2.) More optics in mil set up
3.) .1 mil=.36" at 100 yards, ideal incriments(.25<.36<.5)
4.) Instead of having to dial in 4.9MOA at 300yards its simply 1.4mil. Therefore less clicks

Any advantages I am missing?

 

[Quickdraw40]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

deja vu

 

[PanaDP]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kennypowers</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Any advantages I am missing?
</div></div>

Knowing your come-ups in mils makes hold-overs easier.

 

[PeterN]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

No matter which you have a good (leica) rangefinder makes life easier

 

[PeterN]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

No matter which you have a good (leica) rangefinder makes life easier

 

[Graham]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PeterN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No matter which you have a good (leica) rangefinder makes life easier </div></div>But this is a Mils or MOA Thread. How does a range finder make Mils or MOA easier?

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

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

</div></div>

Holy necropost Batman!

 

[mikeylikesit]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cocadori</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Damn fine conversation/thread actually.
Great article Frank.

I think I'm going to convert to Mil/Mil. It is making more sense than moa. </div></div>

+1

 

[MontanaKid]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

I am considering switching over to mil/mil scopes and I have to ask what may be a "noob" question. I am looking at the knights bullet flight app for the ipod and I'm trying to understand mils. It says at 400 yds (.308 zeroed @ 200) the poi would be -1.8 mrad. So, my question is: would you just put in 18 negative clicks assuming 1 click = .1 mrad? If this is correct, it makes the mil/mil system very attractive and simple.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

correct

 

[flyboy10]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaKid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am considering switching over to mil/mil scopes and I have to ask what may be a "noob" question. I am looking at the knights bullet flight app for the ipod and I'm trying to understand mils. It says at 400 yds (.308 zeroed @ 200) the poi would be -1.8 mrad. So, my question is: would you just put in 18 negative clicks assuming 1 click = .1 mrad? If this is correct, it makes the mil/mil system very attractive and simple. </div></div>
I'm sure this is a non-issue but just so we're clear: -1.8 mrad means that the bullet will impact 1.8 mils low. You need to adjust 18 clicks UP (which will move your crosshair center down) to account for that drop (on a standard XYZ scale, 'negative clicks' might make someone think you need to adjust down).

 

[MontanaKid]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flyboy10</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaKid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am considering switching over to mil/mil scopes and I have to ask what may be a "noob" question. I am looking at the knights bullet flight app for the ipod and I'm trying to understand mils. It says at 400 yds (.308 zeroed @ 200) the poi would be -1.8 mrad. So, my question is: would you just put in 18 negative clicks assuming 1 click = .1 mrad? If this is correct, it makes the mil/mil system very attractive and simple. </div></div>
I'm sure this is a non-issue but just so we're clear: -1.8 mrad means that the bullet will impact 1.8 mils low. You need to adjust 18 clicks UP (which will move your crosshair center down) to account for that drop (on a standard XYZ scale, 'negative clicks' might make someone think you need to adjust down). </div></div>

Thanks for the info. That makes everything so much easier. I am definitely switching to mil/mil.

 

[a_bishop]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

i just switched myself cant believe i waited so long

 

[flyboy10]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

The only problem with switching to mil/mil is that if you ever get stuck back behind a rifle that's mil/MOA, you feel like an absolute moron for not being able to do math anymore...

 

[jrivera1]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

tag

 

[lessthanfour]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

what i cant figure out is why anybody would make a mil/moa scope. if i bring a calculator with me its usable but why would they make it with an extra step? all i can think of is people knowing moa but wanting a mildot because thats what the military uses. im also assuming that these are the same people that wont ever shoot past 300 so it becomes almost a non issue. its a pita to read say 2.8 mils and having to multiply by 3.44 to get my turrets to match to 9.6 moa or 38 clicks. just reading the 28 milclicks is so much easier; i think vortex and other companies should clue in and offer practical scopes without mismatching offerings.

 

[sniperaviator]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

There is a reason they went with mil reticle and moa turrets. Here is the logic. Dope charts were always in moa, so the turret should be in moa. Lacking anything else, for a 10mph crosswind the correction is 1moa at 100 yds, 2moa at 200 ydss....10moa at 1000 yards. So put the turrets in moa.

Put the reticle in mils because mils are better defined (exactly 1 in 1000) and easier for ranging (no worrying about the pesky 5% of a true moa.

It was sort of a "best of both worlds" approach. I'm not defending it, just explaining it.

 

[Randoman5]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

I've been reading this and I guess the thing that seems to be separating people here is how space is measured at distance.

I've just gotten into using adjustable scopes and the MOA thing seems easiest to me. If I know the range and I know the size of the target it's easy to make adjustments in MOA.

Without a reticle I have no idea how much a mil is and it's in a odd fraction of the units I do know. So if I know I have to move over 4 inches on the target at 100 yards thats... I guess it would be about 1.1 mills. I have to do math in my head multiplying and adding .36 or 3.6 inches to figure that out.

If I had a MOA and MOA reticle I think it would simplify things for the way I think about the target.

It sounds like the mil guys on here don't think about space around the target in units of measure but in pure angles. Maybe I could get used to doing that but it doesn't come as easily as thinking about inches. I get that having everything in 10ths makes adjustments similar as every time I make an adjustment in inches I have to multiply the range and then I have to multiply that times 4 to get the clicks. If I learned and was used to mils it would be much simpler but I think that would be a difficult transition

As for why scopes are offered with Mil-Dots and MOA adjustments I imagine it's just because most shooters aren't that sophisticated. For the reasons I mentioned before MOA is much easier to understand conceptually and can be measured without the reticle because we know how big inches are. Having the mil-dot reticle on there is just to have some sort of measuring device built into the reticle. I imagine it's cheaper and easier to make dots every 3.6 inches at 100 yards than every 1 inch at 100 yards and people accept them.

I know I understand MOA and I don't have a difficult time with single digit multiplication. I'm sure I could figure out mils but spending the money on the scope and then trying to figure it out and seeing if I like it doesn't seem very appealing.

 

[tylerw02]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

You're over-complicating it, man!

ETA MOA has nothing to do with inches!

 

[Randoman5]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're over-complicating it, man!

ETA MOA has nothing to do with inches! </div></div>

It doesn't?

 

[FNARSHOOTER]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

Just some input to simplify this whole matter. If everybody took their rifle and shot at real targets at ranges from perhaps 50 to 1000+ yds(or meters) or your own personal limit. At what ever increaments you feel good about (subject to caliber and range) and recorded their dope. This would be a moot point. Shoot, adjust, record, repeat. Thats it. Might just learn to read the wind while you collect data.

 

[abilliott]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

This is actually what I have done with my rifle. I have recorded data that is in my scope cap and I dial it in base on target distance...... However I would be open minded about the Mil system if I ever got the chance of sitting down with someone who knew what they were doing and let me see the "light" so to speak using their rifle and their instruction.

 

[jtb33]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Randoman5</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're over-complicating it, man!

ETA MOA has nothing to do with inches! </div></div>

It doesn't?

</div></div>

No, it doesn't. MOA is an ANGULAR measure, just as MRAD is. 1 MOA does NOT equal 1" and 100 Yards. It's an angular measure that translates to 1.047" at 100 Yards. People just round it down to 1". It's purely coincidental.

Stop thinking "linear" - it's angular.

 

[Randoman5]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Randoman5</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're over-complicating it, man!

ETA MOA has nothing to do with inches! </div></div>

It doesn't?

</div></div>

No, it doesn't. MOA is an ANGULAR measure, just as MRAD is. 1 MOA does NOT equal 1" and 100 Yards. It's an angular measure that translates to 1.047" at 100 Yards. People just round it down to 1". It's purely coincidental.

Stop thinking "linear" - it's angular. </div></div>

Right, I get that. The fact that it corresponds so closely to a unit of measure everyone in this country uses on a regular basis makes it a very appealing option.

All I'm saying is that It's difficult to conceptualize reading degrees of angle on an object at distance and I was wondering if people use use only mils are actually looking at the target as sections of invisible circles or using linear measurements and working back to angles.

For instance if I miss 10 inches low at 500 yards I know I need to come up 2 MOA. If my spotter doesn't have a mil dot reticle in his sighting scope and he tells me I'm 10 inches low to figure out how many mills that is I need to do quite a bit of math. At that distance 1 mil would be 18 inches, then I need to figure out how many tenths of a mil I need to subtract to come down 8 inches... I guess it's something like .4.

I'm trying to figure out a way to think about it that makes that easier.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass. Is there some sort of trick you use? If everyone says Mils are better I believe them. I'm just trying to figure out how they use them.

 

[Mute]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Randoman5</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Randoman5</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're over-complicating it, man!

ETA MOA has nothing to do with inches! </div></div>

It doesn't?

</div></div>

No, it doesn't. MOA is an ANGULAR measure, just as MRAD is. 1 MOA does NOT equal 1" and 100 Yards. It's an angular measure that translates to 1.047" at 100 Yards. People just round it down to 1". It's purely coincidental.

Stop thinking "linear" - it's angular. </div></div>

Right, I get that. The fact that it corresponds so closely to a unit of measure everyone in this country uses on a regular basis makes it a very appealing option.

All I'm saying is that It's difficult to conceptualize reading degrees of angle on an object at distance and I was wondering if people use use only mils are actually looking at the target as sections of invisible circles or using linear measurements and working back to angles.

For instance if I miss 10 inches low at 500 yards I know I need to come up 2 MOA. If my spotter doesn't have a mil dot reticle in his sighting scope and he tells me I'm 10 inches low to figure out how many mills that is I need to do quite a bit of math. At that distance 1 mil would be 18 inches, then I need to figure out how many tenths of a mil I need to subtract to come down 8 inches... I guess it's something like .4.

I'm trying to figure out a way to think about it that makes that easier.

I'm not trying to be glib either. Is there some sort of trick you use? </div></div>

Yes, but the problem with an inexact measurement is that variables can add up to compound the differences. Over longer ranges that can easily be the difference between a hit an a miss.

The example you've given makes the assumption that your spotter not only doesn't have a way to give you adjustments in mil but also that he can actually correctly gauge 10 inches or 2 MOA at 500 yards just by guessing. He may as well guess in mils too. The easiest way to actually work it is for both of you be on the same page whether it be mil or MOA and also to have a measurable scale to call your shots. Without that, you're only slightly better off than consulting a psychic for the correct adjustment.

 

[billyburl2]

Re: Mil or MOA ?


Yes, but the problem with an inexact measurement is that variables can add up to compound the differences. Over longer ranges that can easily be the difference between a hit an a miss.

The example you've given makes the assumption that your spotter not only doesn't have a way to give you adjustments in mil but also that he can actually correctly gauge 10 inches or 2 MOA at 500 yards just by guessing. He may as well guess in mils too. The easiest way to actually work it is for both of you be on the same page whether it be mil or MOA and also to have a measurable scale to call your shots. Without that, you're only slightly better off than consulting a psychic for the correct adjustment. [/quote]
THIS! Or better yet, read your own reticle! Whether it is in mils, MOA, or IPHY, the measuring tape is in the scope! Over and over, what has been stated in this thread is: It does not matter which system you use, just as long as the reticle and adjustments match!

 

[SRSDriver]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Randoman5</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're over-complicating it, man!

ETA MOA has nothing to do with inches! </div></div>

It doesn't?

</div></div>


Nope. MOA is still angles, and your inches thinking won't work when you are shooting unknown size targets.

 

[jtb33]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Randoman5</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Randoman5</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're over-complicating it, man!

ETA MOA has nothing to do with inches! </div></div>

It doesn't?

</div></div>

No, it doesn't. MOA is an ANGULAR measure, just as MRAD is. 1 MOA does NOT equal 1" and 100 Yards. It's an angular measure that translates to 1.047" at 100 Yards. People just round it down to 1". It's purely coincidental.

Stop thinking "linear" - it's angular. </div></div>

Right, I get that. The fact that it corresponds so closely to a unit of measure everyone in this country uses on a regular basis makes it a very appealing option.

All I'm saying is that It's difficult to conceptualize reading degrees of angle on an object at distance and I was wondering if people use use only mils are actually looking at the target as sections of invisible circles or using linear measurements and working back to angles.

For instance if I miss 10 inches low at 500 yards I know I need to come up 2 MOA. If my spotter doesn't have a mil dot reticle in his sighting scope and he tells me I'm 10 inches low to figure out how many mills that is I need to do quite a bit of math. At that distance 1 mil would be 18 inches, then I need to figure out how many tenths of a mil I need to subtract to come down 8 inches... I guess it's something like .4.

I'm trying to figure out a way to think about it that makes that easier.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass. Is there some sort of trick you use? If everyone says Mils are better I believe them. I'm just trying to figure out how they use them. </div></div>

You're really over-complicating this.

If you like math, by all means, use MOA.
If you don't like math, use MRAD.

Assuming a mil-dot FFP reticle, if you are 2.8 Mils high on the reticle, simply adjust 2.8 mils on the elevation. There's no math.

Based on what you're saying, I'd assume you're probably using a mildot reticle and .25 MOA turrets. Also based on what you've said, your logic is probably similar to: "If I hit 2.8 inches high at 100 yards, then I need to adjust elevation by that many, multiplied by four, which comes out to..."

Just learn MRAD. Sounds like you're not entrenched in mildot/MOA, so start with a clean slate and learn the correct way from the get-go.

 

[Km22]

Re: Mil or MOA ?

I'm not expert, but I've read enough of these threads to come to the conclusion that if your turrets and reticle match, that they function exactly the same. Do not give a linear value to either and you'll be fine. I have an MOA/MOA NF on my .338 and I just bought a MIL/MIL F1 for my 300 win mag. I'm going to shoot it and see for myself if I like it. I already expect it to function the same, so there is no problem. If I NEED, I can send one back to NF to match the scopes. Just pick one and learn it.