So I can't get a straight answer from anyone I know. So I came to the board. What the f@#k is the advantages to each. I run and moa and a old school mil dot . Also throw in best reticles for each. I know someone can explain it in a way even a dumb redneck like me can comprehend and no I don't what to read a damn novel to understand it.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Mil or moa
- Thread starter Onarampage247
- Start date
The search bar is your friend.
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/blogs/lowlight/6252897-mils-vs-moa-which-one-is-right-for-you
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/blogs/lowlight/6252897-mils-vs-moa-which-one-is-right-for-you
Short answer is they are two ways to get to the same place. Whichever you feel comfortable with will work.
You want a scope with matching reticle and knobs so what you have is not ideal but it's what most here, including myself, used to use 15-20 years ago because that is all there was. Now there are much better choices if matches systems.
Reticles are a personal preference but I would want at least .5 mil marks on a mil reticle and at least 2 moa marks on a moa reticle with 1 moa being better.
Also a FFP scope allows for using the reticle on any power so might be something to look at as well.
You want a scope with matching reticle and knobs so what you have is not ideal but it's what most here, including myself, used to use 15-20 years ago because that is all there was. Now there are much better choices if matches systems.
Reticles are a personal preference but I would want at least .5 mil marks on a mil reticle and at least 2 moa marks on a moa reticle with 1 moa being better.
Also a FFP scope allows for using the reticle on any power so might be something to look at as well.
An advantage that I didn't really think about until a coworker (who is transitioning from working in MOA to MIL) mentioned it is that when dialing, one advantage to the MIL is that it's easier to determine the number of clicks that you need; so, if you need a 2.3 MIL adjustment, it's 23 clicks, as opposed to MOA, where you may need to divide the whole number of MOA by your click resolution (for a scope with 1/4 MOA per click adjustments, multiply the whole number of MOA by 4) then multiply in order to determine the number of clicks.
While scope knobs are (obviously) marked, if you're in a situation where you don't want to come off the glass even long enough to look at your knobs (let's say your spotter/buddy calculates your hold off, then calls it out to you), it could be helpful.
While scope knobs are (obviously) marked, if you're in a situation where you don't want to come off the glass even long enough to look at your knobs (let's say your spotter/buddy calculates your hold off, then calls it out to you), it could be helpful.
I guess I was a little confusing in the post. I have a straight moa/ moa scope and a mil dot/ moa scope. I think the moa/ moa is good. Mil dot is slower for firong solutions . My questions was more on the lines of mil/ mil vs. Moa/ moa. Seems like all the prs guys I know like running mil/Mil and the match guys like moa/moa. Just wanted input on what the true advantages are for both. Sorry for the confusion.
Maybe you can tell us why you're finding mil is slower for a firing solution. It's most likely because you're used to MOA. One isn't faster or slower than the other. Where people often trip up is applying linear measurements (as opposed to angular) into the equation where it's not necessary. The only linear measurement you really need is your distance to target. After that, everything should be based on what your reticle tells you, whether that's in MOA or Mil.
Im glad you included that disclaimer in the end because its the only time that it makes what you said applicable and Im still not so sure on that.
I can much more quickly look up, move to the turret to 2.3 and get back on the rifle that I can sit there and count 23 individual clicks. And that goes doubly so for your moa statement. Whats the point of taking the time to get your call out, multiply it by 4 and then sit there to individually count the clicks when you can just use the turret with the reference points plainly and easily marked for you? If youre taking the time to do all of the mental arithmetic then you might as well go back to iphy and using a yard stick.
The only true advantage to mil is that its a base 10 system as opposed to the moa which uses quarter increments but I dont know of anyone who is so dumb as to not know that 4 quarters makes a dollar. So functionally they are exactly the same. Its just whether you like counting using dimes or quarters.
rob said it best. it's all about what system your comfortable with. I also suggest guys ask people they are shooting with/instructors what they use if they are taking classes. that can help make the decision
Not only that, but you don't need to worry about 10 or 1/4 or whatever in the first place. I've never done any math while behind my rifle. Ever. I mean, beyond figuring out wind-hold compensations. Like if a shot lands wide, I'll hold in the opposite direction by however many little lines on my reticle. No need to do any math. I don't care if the reticle/turret units are in MOA or MRAD or Wonton Soups. As long as the reticle and turrets match, I just use the ruler right in front of my face (the reticle). For elevation... well, that's what my ballistic app or range card or the back of my hand and a sharpie are for.
If I'm at 1148 yards and I need to hit my target, I plug that into my app and it spits out a number. I dial my turret to that number and take the shot. Easy.
If I don't have my app, I look at my range card and dial my turret. Easy.
If I don't have my range card, I go by memory. And I know my drops at major distances out to 1200 yards. Easy.
No math involved. I save the math for when I'm at home.
But we all know this already as this is like the 94784839393th thread on the subject on the net by now.
That's great, as long as you're shooting stationary targets. If you're hunting (as my coworker mostly does), you rarely get a chance at that second shot.
I'm starting to switch from MOA to MIL. As others have said, they both do the same thing, but I will share why I'm switching.
One, MIL is just more standardized for the kind of shooting I'm getting into, which is PRS. MOA may be the standard for other disciplines. But if I'm at the range, class, or competition shooting with other people, I want to make communication as easy as possible. More than likely, most people will be shooting MIL. Also, if I ever take a class, which I intend to do in the future, I'm guessing the instruction will be more based in MIL than MOA.
Two, if I'm memorizing my dope, it's easier to remember 6.2 than 21 1/4.
Three, if I'm using a dope card instead of a calculator because the batteries died, it's raining, or I need a quick reference, etc, it's easier to use MIL than MOA to extrapolate for uneven yardage shots in my head. For example, if i have a target at 563 yards and my card is written out in hundreds, my drop at 500 is 10.75 MOA, and at 600 is 14.5 MOA. In MIL it's 3.1 at 500 and 4.2 at 600. See which one is easier to figure on the fly in your head.
With all that being said, the above example is really the only one I can think of where doing math in your head is justified. If you're doing mental math to convert inches of drop into MOA or MIL, you're doing it wrong.
Anyway, Those are the reasons I'm switching, and they are based off the kind of shooting I like to do. I can hit the same targets with either style, but in some situations, I think MIL just makes things a little easier for me. Hope that rambling helped a little.
One, MIL is just more standardized for the kind of shooting I'm getting into, which is PRS. MOA may be the standard for other disciplines. But if I'm at the range, class, or competition shooting with other people, I want to make communication as easy as possible. More than likely, most people will be shooting MIL. Also, if I ever take a class, which I intend to do in the future, I'm guessing the instruction will be more based in MIL than MOA.
Two, if I'm memorizing my dope, it's easier to remember 6.2 than 21 1/4.
Three, if I'm using a dope card instead of a calculator because the batteries died, it's raining, or I need a quick reference, etc, it's easier to use MIL than MOA to extrapolate for uneven yardage shots in my head. For example, if i have a target at 563 yards and my card is written out in hundreds, my drop at 500 is 10.75 MOA, and at 600 is 14.5 MOA. In MIL it's 3.1 at 500 and 4.2 at 600. See which one is easier to figure on the fly in your head.
With all that being said, the above example is really the only one I can think of where doing math in your head is justified. If you're doing mental math to convert inches of drop into MOA or MIL, you're doing it wrong.
Anyway, Those are the reasons I'm switching, and they are based off the kind of shooting I like to do. I can hit the same targets with either style, but in some situations, I think MIL just makes things a little easier for me. Hope that rambling helped a little.
That's cool and all, but I think it's understood that SnipersHide isn't really a community for hunting. And as such, I think a lot of the discussions here center around tactical shooting, ELR, competition shooting, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, though. But if you're shooting a moving target like an animal that's running around, you REALLY don't have time to sit there and do math, methinks. But I don't hunt, so maybe I'm wrong. But hey! If that deer or boar or elk wants to hold still while you bust out a calculator, awesome.
Exactly. If youre having to do any math on the fly it means you've already failed in proofing and verifying your dope before hand and are unprepared to make that shot. And burnouts original argument was about call outs for follow up corrections but then immediately states that its for a scenario that rarely allows for follow ups?
And how is knowing 6.2 any different than knowing 21.25? And how is splitting the difference in 10.75 and 14.5 any different than splitting the difference in 3.1 and 4.2 other than the fact that one has a 1 in front? They are just arbitrary numbers as far as memorization and basic proportions go. I know they arent arbitrary in real world application but for the sake of this argument they are.
I get that we arent very far off in our actual.. comprehensions? Understandings? Grasp of the topic at hand? The proper word is failing me to describe it right now but I can tell we arent all too far off base from one another based on the disclaimers every one is putting at the end of their statements that seem to point to as much. It just seems like these if and but scenarios we use to justify one or another actually come at the sacrifice of what we state in our disclaimers.
Last edited:
What is this Moa we are talking about and why would one want to mil it??
Is it this extinct flightless bird?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa
Or is it one of these acronyms?
Rank Abbr. Meaning
Just kidding....don't get all upset about it and everything.
To the OP; only concern yourself with the first 3 responses to your question (posts #2-4) as those contain all the answers that you need to know and then some. The rest is just us trying to find words to describe why we like our chosen method better than another one. The truth is, some shooting disciplines lend themselves to the use of one of these angle measurement techniques better than others.
Those shooting benchrest and F-class competitions often find that the scopes that work best for those disciplines are offered in MOA/MOA and 1/8 minute clicks. Those scopes will not be optimal for practical field shooting and PRS style matches, where 1/4 MOA or .1 mil scopes are more advantageous. On the other, side, you have hunters, who for many many years have been using MOA subtensions and are used to them. I suggest that they should continue to do so if that is what they are familiar with.
And then we have the whole subject of FFP vs. SFP...
Is it this extinct flightless bird?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa
Or is it one of these acronyms?
| MOA | Making of America (Cornell University) | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Memorandum Of Agreement | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Mall of America | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Minute Of Angle (shooting accuracy) | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Ministry of Agriculture | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MoA | Mechanism of Action | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Museum of Art | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Municipality Of Anchorage | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Mall of Asia (Philippines) | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Mode of Action | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Maîtrise d'Ouvrage (French) | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Medal of Honor (game) | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Medical Office Assistant | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Military Operations Area | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Microlensing Observations in Astrophysics | [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"21","width":"21","src":"https:\/\/www.acronymfinder.com\/~\/st\/i\/find2.gif"}[/IMG2] |
| MOA | Minute of Arc |
Rank Abbr. Meaning
Just kidding....don't get all upset about it and everything.
To the OP; only concern yourself with the first 3 responses to your question (posts #2-4) as those contain all the answers that you need to know and then some. The rest is just us trying to find words to describe why we like our chosen method better than another one. The truth is, some shooting disciplines lend themselves to the use of one of these angle measurement techniques better than others.
Those shooting benchrest and F-class competitions often find that the scopes that work best for those disciplines are offered in MOA/MOA and 1/8 minute clicks. Those scopes will not be optimal for practical field shooting and PRS style matches, where 1/4 MOA or .1 mil scopes are more advantageous. On the other, side, you have hunters, who for many many years have been using MOA subtensions and are used to them. I suggest that they should continue to do so if that is what they are familiar with.
And then we have the whole subject of FFP vs. SFP...
...or you're on the gun while your spotter is on a range-finder and runs the ballistic app for you.
Look what the OP started lol.
I wouldnt say it is an advantage basing anything off a 1/10th system or 10 based system, but this is probably the most legit answer that is short and easy to understand. pick 1.047 @ 100 or 3.6 at 100y whatever you fancy. Match your reticle it will make life easier. More importantly stick with one of the systems until you really learn it. It takes time either way. If someone is a spotter for you and has one of the two systems...calling holds might be easier if your shooting partner/spotter has a matching reticle. Also don't listen to anyone that says mil is for metric and moa is imperial. They are angular measurements, and have nothing to do with linear math. Both systems with work regardless of range in meters or yards.
I switched to mils about 3 yrs ago and I never looked back, it really wasn't that confusing.. Now whenever I get behind an moa scope it confuses me, (weird I know) To me, mils is easier.. If I had a target at 800 yd, shooting my .308 all I would have to write on my dope card would be 7.5- If I was shooting moa I would have to write 25.7 and dope cards don't offer a lot of real estate seems like.. plus my turrets don't have tons of cluttered numbers on them.. but that's my opinion.. I would say too, roll with whatever feels like home to ya
All good points expect that snipers hide is not about hunting . By definition a sniper is a trained marksman that normally hunts human beings. of course they are usually gathering some sort of information on targets . Not that I do that or have any experience with it . Just my understanding of what a snipers roles is. but applying skills learned from precision shooting can only help make you a more efficient hunter. I live in the wide open spaces of the southwest and why it is possible most of the time to get with in 300 yards of the animal. Which for most hunters in my area, that is a acceptable range for a game animal to be taken. I figure if I can ring the 1200 gong with regularity that 300 yard should be a chip shot.
okay now the math- a mil is equal to 3.6" at 100yd ,7.2" at 200 , 14.4" at 300 yards and so on. 1 moa is equal to a little over 1" at 100 yards , 2" at 200 yards. Seems easier to me. I would agree it doesn't seems as precise , .25" for moa instead of .10" mil increments.
Okay last I try to know how to do the math in my head in case my phone isn't working or I forgot the dope card. I Just figure if you can do some of the math in your head then you will understand the solution your ballistic app is spitting out. Just my opinion not slamming anyone elses.
okay now the math- a mil is equal to 3.6" at 100yd ,7.2" at 200 , 14.4" at 300 yards and so on. 1 moa is equal to a little over 1" at 100 yards , 2" at 200 yards. Seems easier to me. I would agree it doesn't seems as precise , .25" for moa instead of .10" mil increments.
Okay last I try to know how to do the math in my head in case my phone isn't working or I forgot the dope card. I Just figure if you can do some of the math in your head then you will understand the solution your ballistic app is spitting out. Just my opinion not slamming anyone elses.
I had a good conversation last week with the guy who got me into precision shooting. He uses MOA still, while I jumped to Mils. It is simple...I don't need the "finer" adjustment of 1/8moa or 1/4moa. Mils put me on target or in the kill zone in a quick manner. He wants to hit the small little 'X' every time and has the time to do it. Then again, I am a 0.7moa shooter, and he is a .3moa shooter on his off days. lol They both do the same thing, but one is a little finer than the other if you want to split hairs.
I encourage one to choose based off of their fellow shooting friends. If you have PRS or tactical shooting buddies, go Mil. If you shoot with a few benchrest guys, nothing wrong with MOA.
I encourage one to choose based off of their fellow shooting friends. If you have PRS or tactical shooting buddies, go Mil. If you shoot with a few benchrest guys, nothing wrong with MOA.
There is no math to do. People bringing in linear are just making their life harder. You miss then use the reticle to tell the correction. Simple.
Your ballistic app on your phone goes down and you don't have a back up then that's on you as you should always have hard copy back ups in your gear and it can be stuck to range side of which rifle. Knowing what an moa is or mil is in linear doesn't tell you your data or even help. If you know enough to convert linear to your angular data then why didn't you just dial on or hold that angular data to start?
Also again, 1/4 moa is literally 1" finer at 1000 yards. In practical use it is not a finer adjustment than .1 mils.
Your ballistic app on your phone goes down and you don't have a back up then that's on you as you should always have hard copy back ups in your gear and it can be stuck to range side of which rifle. Knowing what an moa is or mil is in linear doesn't tell you your data or even help. If you know enough to convert linear to your angular data then why didn't you just dial on or hold that angular data to start?
Also again, 1/4 moa is literally 1" finer at 1000 yards. In practical use it is not a finer adjustment than .1 mils.
Last edited:
I don't feel its a dumb question. We as a community have made dumb terms that are technically not what they are....like i could say you are incorrect in your questions wording and that accuracy isn't measured in MOA...IPHY...etc...precision is....accuracy would be the direction of fires deviation from its orientation. Precision would be how precise or consistent a shooter, load, or both are at set distance or overall, but it would be pointless to correct language like that since most of use still use the word accuracy to describe precision, even though 80% of this board actually knows the difference, we still say accuracy. Tomato, Potato, its all the same lol
To answer your questions...
For me, working with smaller numbers in tenths is easier than working with larger numbers in fractions. Fewer digits=easier to memorize. Smaller numbers based in tenths=easier mental math than larger numbers in fractions... for me.
That's why I stated my caveat....i try, like everyone else, to avoid any mental math through the use of calculators, dope cards, etc. But, in the rare situation i need to, i want it to be simpler if possible. Is it a big deal? No. If I found a screaming deal on a MOA scope would I buy it? Yep.
Also, I realize that in a prs competition setting, which is what most people on this forum are into, it is probably faster to just make an educated guess on the first shot at a funky distance target then see the miss and adjust using your reticle. But if I'm just out shooting by myself, I like the challenge of getting that first round hit. Especially without the use of calculators and kestrels and all the other fancy tools we have at our disposal. I don't know why, that's just really fun to me.
Also also, I'm still pretty new to this and I'm still learning what I like through trial and error, so I'm kinda looking for an excuse to upgrade some scopes, haha
I know these topics get beaten to death sometimes, but I was where the OP is now not too long ago. I always appreciated people chiming in and answering questions for me that they had already answered a hundred times before.
Or make a master dope/super elevation chart. And use the math for correction values. For example to get your correction for baro you can do std baro - measured x correction value (whats on your master sheet. and plus or minus the value if its higher or lower then what was on your master sheet. Same for ambient temp. The problem with doing it this way is it requires writing down a lot of very correct information.
I honestly can't tell if that's sarcasm or not...
Anyway, I didn't say I was good at it or that it was practical. I didn't say I went out there without any data or tools at all, or that i never use that stuff. I said I enjoy trying. That is all. I don't waste a ton of ammo or time trying it. I'm just saying that occasionally, whether by my own choice or not, I shoot without all the possible tools at my disposal. And in those circumstances, I think MIL is just a wee bit easier than MOA, which is what this thread is about. I didn't tell the guy he had to get MIL because it's hands down better and he will never be able to hit a target with MOA, and if he gets MIL it's basically like shooting a laser guided missile. I told him it really doesn't matter, but here are a few small reasons that I am switching to MIL.
If you were being sarcastic, sorry for the long winded post. If you were being serious, well, I don't know what else to say.
Since some of y'all want to split hairs, let's look at one of the traditional (perhaps the primary) targets for actual snipers: people. People, like game animals, usually aren't willing to stand still as you walk in your shots.
Now, I don't know about you guys, but I cannot fathom a likely scenario in which I would turn my long range shooting skills, such as they are, against people. I understand that some Hide members are active/reserve military/police, but if I were to guess, the vast majority are not. Thus, I would argue that hunting at long range is as much in the "sniper" tradition as is banging steel or shooting groups at long range... perhaps even moreso, since with hunting, you have to concern yourself with delivering enough energy on target to not only show splash on a steel plate or punch a hole in paper, but to cause a fatal wound to your target.
All of that being said, I recognize that there is already a forum for Long Range Hunting... but let's not pretend that because our scopes have exposed knobs and our rifles have heavy barrels that we (Hide members) are any closer to being snipers than are LRH members in regard to relative shooting skill sets.
Sorry for the threadjack...
Now, I don't know about you guys, but I cannot fathom a likely scenario in which I would turn my long range shooting skills, such as they are, against people. I understand that some Hide members are active/reserve military/police, but if I were to guess, the vast majority are not. Thus, I would argue that hunting at long range is as much in the "sniper" tradition as is banging steel or shooting groups at long range... perhaps even moreso, since with hunting, you have to concern yourself with delivering enough energy on target to not only show splash on a steel plate or punch a hole in paper, but to cause a fatal wound to your target.
All of that being said, I recognize that there is already a forum for Long Range Hunting... but let's not pretend that because our scopes have exposed knobs and our rifles have heavy barrels that we (Hide members) are any closer to being snipers than are LRH members in regard to relative shooting skill sets.
Sorry for the threadjack...
I wasn't implying that we are "snipers" or anything like that. Quite the opposite actually. I agree with you that hunting is probably closer to being a "sniper" than any PRS or tactical shooter. Because at the end of the day, we are basically playing golf with rifles. We are shooting (mostly) stationary targets and making a game of it. During a match, I have time to figure out my data before each stage (unless the stage prohibits it). It's not exactly realistic. And if someone on this forum is a real military or LEO sniper, I'm willing to bet they wouldn't be in this thread, asking about MOA vs MIL
That'd be like Tiger Woods heading to a forum to ask about the difference between a driver and a putter.
this article Lowlight wrote is good. Down at the bottom covers MOA-MIL. Hope this helps
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/articles/travel
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/articles/travel
MOA and Mil discussion will always be the never ending story. I live in USA but was born abroad and had all my education using what is call the Metric System. True is that when you are shooting you don’t need to convert linear numbers into angle numbers or vice versa in order to calculate a target. The only thing you need to have a the same system between your reticle and turrets (MIL/MIL) or (MOA/MOA) When you see thru your reticle that your POI is 1 MIL or 3 MOAs to the right then the only thing you need to do is making the corrections on your turrets (I MIL or 3 MOAs) to the opposite direction (in this case to the left) and that’s it, period.
Then why MOA or Mil? The answer is simple: Imperial System and Metric System
Here in the States we use the Imperial System which is based on arbitrary numbers, like 1 yard equals to 3 feet, 1 foot equals to 12 inches, 1 pound equals to 16 ounces, etc. In this system 1 MOA equals to 1.045 inches at 100 yards which is equal to 10.45” at 1000 yards.
Even though Mils existed for a long time, they were added to the Metric system which is based on a tenths multiples. 1 Mil equals to 100 millimeters at 100 meters which is equal to 1 meter at 1 kilometer.
Again, those are linear measurements and for Long Range shooting we don’t need to mix them with the angle measurements. 1 MIL will always be 1 MIL no matters if it’s to the right, left, up or down at any distance, the same applies to 1 MOA and that’s is all we need to know to make corrections between our POA and POI.
Then why MOA or Mil? The answer is simple: Imperial System and Metric System
Here in the States we use the Imperial System which is based on arbitrary numbers, like 1 yard equals to 3 feet, 1 foot equals to 12 inches, 1 pound equals to 16 ounces, etc. In this system 1 MOA equals to 1.045 inches at 100 yards which is equal to 10.45” at 1000 yards.
Even though Mils existed for a long time, they were added to the Metric system which is based on a tenths multiples. 1 Mil equals to 100 millimeters at 100 meters which is equal to 1 meter at 1 kilometer.
Again, those are linear measurements and for Long Range shooting we don’t need to mix them with the angle measurements. 1 MIL will always be 1 MIL no matters if it’s to the right, left, up or down at any distance, the same applies to 1 MOA and that’s is all we need to know to make corrections between our POA and POI.
Last edited:
Meters and yards are linear measures, MOA and Mil are angular measures. Meters and Mils today are part of the Metrical System, yards and MOAs are part of the Imperial system.
NO. Mils has nothing to do with metrics. You can use Mils and it does not matter if your linear measurements are in meters, inches , feet, yards, or cubits ......If your linear unit of measurement is donkey dicks, MILS would work as well for it.....That's because Mils is an angular expression and equals to one thousandth of any unit of measurement. Usually used in engineering for precise measurements.
Technically it is an SI unit but its a derived unit and not a base unit like a gram or meter is. Like the metric unit of a milimeter a miliradian is 1/1000 of something. But unlike a milimeter the radian's 1/1000 of something is based off of mathematical function and not a defined unit in time length or mass as a base unit would be. So semantics but still technically correct.
Last edited:
The term "mil" that we throw around all the time in this sport is short for milliradian. Radian is the standard unit of angle measurement. 2*pi radians in a circle. ~6283 milliradians in a circle.
My grad school research utilized pulsed lasers that operate in the femtosecond time domain. You want to talk about precise measurements
.
Well it's been a while since we rehashed the mils is/isn't metric subject. At least that means we know that we are on Snipers Hide.
So true, every once in awhile I get in a mood where I just want to nit pick any and everything I can and I can always count on the scope section to provide ample picking ground
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/i.imgur.com\/1ACsTmm.gif"}[/IMG2]
I would agree that outside of Maggie's Drawers, the scope section provides the most entertainment here. I don't think that any other shooting subject elicits near as much personal emotion and disagreement.
I would say that for me making the decision on going with either MIL or MOA comes down to what type of measurement do you naturally think in. Ex, If you see a target at distance do you say to yourself that target look to be about 3 feet high, or do you say it looks to be 0.9144 meters high. It all comes down going with what you are comfortable with and then learning all you can to use what equipment you have selected. Not saying you cant learn one or the other.
I think in inches and feet as that is what I've used all my life. I don't apply it to my scopes, I measure with the reticle, doesn't matter if it is inches, meters, or cubits. I think using 10ths is easier than 1/4 inches and as long as my reticle and turrets match it really doesn't matter.
This ^ 100%
It's personal preference. I have and use both. I'm American, think in inches, feet, yards and miles. Most of my scopes are in mils. I do personally prefer things being in .1's (mil). I did however just purchase a NF scope in moa. And it's SFP! OMG, I might get lynched for being a witch!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A SFP scope in moa. I'm not sure how I'll hit a target.
MOA vs MIL has been beaten to death more times than I can count on this site alone. It doesn't matter! There is no math for either one. If your first thought it "I think in ............., so I need ............", then you have already f**cked up. They both get the job done. Just make sure your reticle and the turret adjustments match (which virtually all do nowadays). To me, the most important thing is that you like (for your intended use) and understand the reticle. Don't worry about moa vs mil because it just doesn't matter from a pure performance standpoint. If you shoot with friends and regularly rely on them for spotting/corrections, you might want to go with whatever they shoot for the sake of communication and consistency.. Other than that, I recommend you have at least one of each just so that you can help educate the next generation of shooters.
Play with both, then after awhile you will decide whats right for your style of shooting an perceived needs. I run both (mil/mil & moa/moa) depending the weapons caliber & task. Everything I own in MOA has a Christmas tree ret.
The real debate by FNG's (of all ages) is FFP vs SFP. If all your throwing is high speed even that debate is none interesting, but add all rds used IRL to reach all objectives an the FFP plays second fiddle quickly.
Love these debates, as they are very entertaining but remember the intent of this site was never air-soft or tacticool safe queen ownership. Everyone answers/reply's based upon their experience, (or lack there of) the trick is to extract replied info for Your type of shooting.
Bottom line either will serve you well on Most all one or two way ranges, if you know how to use them properly.
Well it's not a dumb question 'cos it gets asked often enough. However that is the clue. It has been done to death. Repeatedly. Therefore you can Google this question for Lowlight's answers. Please do.
Read the answers (there are many from the straightforward to being run over by a truck). Save yourself some heartache and ignore everything else.
p.s. the answer is some slight advantages to mil only due to consistency and commonality of usage but you pays your money and takes your choice.
Read the answers (there are many from the straightforward to being run over by a truck). Save yourself some heartache and ignore everything else.
p.s. the answer is some slight advantages to mil only due to consistency and commonality of usage but you pays your money and takes your choice.
I went from MOA to Mils and will never look back. My mind works a lot faster when dealing with factors of 10.
Honestly it is like choosing Jiff peanut butter or Skippy.
Both will work but you may have more experience/taste with one over the other.
I use mils myself.
R
Both will work but you may have more experience/taste with one over the other.
I use mils myself.
R
What does that have to do with it? Either one are angular measurements, and have nothing to do with linear ones.
