I am wondreing still , do I want a mil scope or moa for long distance shooting?
Which is better, or more easily used ?
Which is better, or more easily used ?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes mils vrs. moa for scopes??
- Thread starter relentless1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mils vs moa
This topic has been discussed many, many times, if you search you will find tons of threads with answers to this question. Both mils and MOA work equally as well, I prefer mils since it is a decimal system vs franctions, but other than that there is no benefit to one system over the other.
Kirk R
Kirk R
There are many, many people who will dispute that. I'm an moa guy because it's all I've ever dealt with but as Rob01 and Lowlight will tell you, a mil is a mil. It doesn't matter if it's 100yds or 1000yds whereas with an moa, at 100yds it's 1" and at 1000yds it's 10".
Decide which system/calculations you want to use and are most comfortable with. Both will get you there and this is the Ford vs. Chevy discussion here.
Whatever you decide, do yourself the favor and get a matching reticule that corresponds with your turrets.
Whatever you decide, do yourself the favor and get a matching reticule that corresponds with your turrets.
It is good to learn both and then find out which you like best. The MOA based scopes are usually finer in adjustment i/e .25" vs .36", but I find the Mil easier to use (personal preference and proficiency). Also I like to dial elevation and hold wind, so I use the wind hold (in the below link) and its been pretty darn close. Not sure who came up with the idea but it is very simple to memorize.
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-basic-marksmanship/163617-reading-wind.html
In the end if your turrets match your reticle, you should be golf tango golf
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-basic-marksmanship/163617-reading-wind.html
In the end if your turrets match your reticle, you should be golf tango golf
Yeah once Snipers Hide went to the new server all of the hyperlinks are in the same font and color as the body of the messege. Click on "Reading Wind" in my above post
The formula or table I use is in "Big Johns" post in red font.
The formula or table I use is in "Big Johns" post in red font.
Last edited:
HUH???
A MOA is a MOA is a MOA. Both MOA and mill are angular measurements. A MOA is a minute of angle. A MOA is 1/60 of a degree. A mil is 1/1000 of a radian.
But both of them equal a certain LINEAR measurement at each given range. And that linear measurement increases linearly with range.
A mil is 10 cm at 100 meters. It is 20 cm at 200 meters, and 100 cm at 1000 meters.
And BTW, a true MOA is 1.047" at 100 yards.
I know what true MOA is, but thanks for your explanation for someone who may not understand. I also understand IPHY is 'inch per hundred yards', etc.
Perhaps this will explain it better, from Lowlight himself...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Very little difference as long as your reticle and turrets match. Pick mil or MOA and just get out and shoot. That's the most efficient way to develop accuracy and precision. Most new scopes seem to be mil/mil, but that's just my unscientific observation.
Can't do that, less I re-scope a number of my rifles. It's an angular mind game, but this question has been masticated on this and a host of other forums to the point that I wonder if the low information folks have a clue on how to search a topic, anywhere. Forgive me for being blunt, but I'm tired.
Skip
.
Either system will work fine and it's merely personal preference, but I think you should consider who you're going to be communicating with in the field most of the time. If you're working with military or practical match shooters, you're mostly going to be talking in MIL's or 0.1-MIL holds for elevation/windage,...etc. If you're talking with hunters, you're talking mostly MOA/inch-based lingo i.e. 1/4-minute, zero'd 3-inches high at 100-yards,...etc. Personally, I started with MOA-based scopes, but found the lingo of MOA vs. INCHES and the constant intermixing of the two by shooters (they are NOT the same thing), as well as the 'fraction' adjustments made things overly confusing. Since going to all MIL-RADIAN scopes (MIL reticle & MIL adjustment) it's a lot simpler. Just make the leap to MIL,... it's worth it.
Ry
Ry
I know what true MOA is, but thanks for your explanation for someone who may not understand. I also understand IPHY is 'inch per hundred yards', etc.
Perhaps this will explain it better, from Lowlight himself...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Could you clarify to a noob what this means? If both mil and moa are just units of measure, then why would the manufacturing process be accurate for one and rounded off for the other? I was just about to get a moa/moa PST (strictly because I am already familiar with MOA), but now I am re thinking this purchase?
I've used Mil and MOA scopes. I prefer MOA, the system just speaks more to me and frankly I don't care what works better for others...it only has to work well for me if I'm the one using it. Something else to think about is what do your shooting/spotting buddies use. My friends and I use MOA scopes so spotting for each other is easy. Just another thing to keep in mind.
A few years ago I switched to MILS in all my scopes and have not looked back. Better system for me.
Depends on what you plan on doing with rig
Tak type = FFP mil scope
Target = SFP MOA scope
simple MOA is a Finer adjustment than MIL, You dont need FFP for known distance target shooting
They both do their intended job
My method of selection, yours may vary
Tak type = FFP mil scope
Target = SFP MOA scope
simple MOA is a Finer adjustment than MIL, You dont need FFP for known distance target shooting
They both do their intended job
My method of selection, yours may vary
I use both, both have their purposes and uses.
I shoot a lot of iron sights. They are in MOA. I know the size of the target and what MOA click I need to use to move my impact on that target. I also like MILs on scope, makes it easy for range estimating.
You just have to remember if the sight you're using right now is .1 MIL or 1 MOA. or 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 clicks. It's not rocket science.
I suppose if all you shot was precision matches then the MIL/MIL would be all you need. If you shoot High Power, then MOA is all you need. If you shoot vintage rifle matches then again MOA works.
I even like a MIL/MOA scope for hunting. I know a given animal is 18 inches from his back to stomach so MILs work great for determining distance. That same animal may have a 9 in Vital area. Its easier for me to think in inches. I know what 9 inches is in reference to the 18 inches (inches not MOA) so its easier for me to hold over or under to keep the bullet in the vital area or even click with a MOA.
In my hunting I know what my PBR (Point Blank Range) for my rifle. I know if the animal (top to bottom). I know that if I keep that animal in the cross hairs 1.5 MIL its with in my PBR meaning I can hold in the center of that vital area and never be too high or low. If its more then 1.5 MILS then I have to stalk to get closer or adjust. Since I think of animals in inches its easer for me to adjust using MOA.
Animals are inches tall, not MOA or MILs, but constant inches. It's easer for me to instantly convert inches to MOA (if I have to come up 6 inches because the critter is beyond my PBR, its easer to think MOA to get there which (I know 1.047) but for all practical purposes I can click in MOA figuring 1" per hundred yards. 6 X .047 is only .282 or just a hair more then 1/4 inch in this case. I don't really see 1/4 inch being critical when you're shoot at a 9 inch target (vital area).
Everyone has their opinions based on what and how they shoot, we are all different and shoot different. If I only shot one venue, I'd pick one method, but I don't so I use different methods or a combination of the two.
I don't use one rifle for everything, and I don't use the same sights for everything. I think we are all intelligent enough to walk and chew gum, or know that you don't swallow gum but you do dinner. Both go in your mouth for different purposes. No Brainer.
I shoot a lot of iron sights. They are in MOA. I know the size of the target and what MOA click I need to use to move my impact on that target. I also like MILs on scope, makes it easy for range estimating.
You just have to remember if the sight you're using right now is .1 MIL or 1 MOA. or 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 clicks. It's not rocket science.
I suppose if all you shot was precision matches then the MIL/MIL would be all you need. If you shoot High Power, then MOA is all you need. If you shoot vintage rifle matches then again MOA works.
I even like a MIL/MOA scope for hunting. I know a given animal is 18 inches from his back to stomach so MILs work great for determining distance. That same animal may have a 9 in Vital area. Its easier for me to think in inches. I know what 9 inches is in reference to the 18 inches (inches not MOA) so its easier for me to hold over or under to keep the bullet in the vital area or even click with a MOA.
In my hunting I know what my PBR (Point Blank Range) for my rifle. I know if the animal (top to bottom). I know that if I keep that animal in the cross hairs 1.5 MIL its with in my PBR meaning I can hold in the center of that vital area and never be too high or low. If its more then 1.5 MILS then I have to stalk to get closer or adjust. Since I think of animals in inches its easer for me to adjust using MOA.
Animals are inches tall, not MOA or MILs, but constant inches. It's easer for me to instantly convert inches to MOA (if I have to come up 6 inches because the critter is beyond my PBR, its easer to think MOA to get there which (I know 1.047) but for all practical purposes I can click in MOA figuring 1" per hundred yards. 6 X .047 is only .282 or just a hair more then 1/4 inch in this case. I don't really see 1/4 inch being critical when you're shoot at a 9 inch target (vital area).
Everyone has their opinions based on what and how they shoot, we are all different and shoot different. If I only shot one venue, I'd pick one method, but I don't so I use different methods or a combination of the two.
I don't use one rifle for everything, and I don't use the same sights for everything. I think we are all intelligent enough to walk and chew gum, or know that you don't swallow gum but you do dinner. Both go in your mouth for different purposes. No Brainer.
The wrong in this thread is amazing...
Kraig, you need a remedial math class... 6x.047 is only 6 MOA not the error for 600 yards.
Not knowing the difference is huge and at 1000 yards with a 175gr SMK is a miss, a 20"+ miss don't believe it matters here is JBM to explain it.
Inches Per Hundred Yards, the "round version" or Shooter MOA to 1000 yards is 40.5 under standard conditions, for True MOA that same dope would only need 38.7 MOA. 17 Inches of error....
The idea that both Mils and MOA are the same if you get them match only works on Paper... not in practice because of the very reason Kraig has demonstrated.
Manufacturers round, and still advertise it as MOA... The issue, you have very little clue what you are actually buying.
They might make the reticle MOA and the Turrets IPHY and advertise it as MOA. When you get home, you have mix and 99% of the shooters out there never check.
People wonder why software doesn't work, why they are an inch or 2 off ... here you go.
In practice the numbers are the same, that theory was lost years ago because people thought that it was only .047 x 10 when it is really 30x more than that.
Mils are 1 number, not a combination of 2... not a built in acceptable compounding error. You have 1/10th turrets and no matter the reticle you can break it down into 10 x .1 segments, the only variation is the way a manufacturer helps you determine what .1 looks like. MOA do not work that way, and you have the fact they do not tell you what you are buying. It's a 50/50 or worse chance you have a one or the other or a mix of both.
I have even seen them advertise MOA Scopes with IPHY Math for ranging... another compounding error.
Fractions of anything other than 10 are harder to work with than .25 or .50, or .1250, it is much easier to .1 to 1... it's 10.
Pennies, Nickels and Dimes... You have a 10 pennies in a Dime, a Nickel shows you the middle... you break mils exactly the same way.
If all you do is read the internet they are the same thing, a unit of angular measurement if you go out and try and buy something you run head first into the reality of life. The sloppiness of MOAs has been diluted and polluted to where it barely works.
if all you do is shoot by yourself, or on a KD range, whatever, you can use any unit of adjustments. You can stay I dial, 25 Franks to 1000 yards, and 12.5 to 500 and you can make it work. But if you do anything else, shoot with others, UKD, etc... they work far less than they should. Not without a lot of work on the part of the shooter. A lot of extra work, testing, confirming, measuring... just to make sure the manufacturer didn't promise one thing and give you something else. We do well to adapt and repetition breeds consistency, but if you don't know what is going from the start how you can expect to be right at the end.
Kraig, you need a remedial math class... 6x.047 is only 6 MOA not the error for 600 yards.
Not knowing the difference is huge and at 1000 yards with a 175gr SMK is a miss, a 20"+ miss don't believe it matters here is JBM to explain it.
Inches Per Hundred Yards, the "round version" or Shooter MOA to 1000 yards is 40.5 under standard conditions, for True MOA that same dope would only need 38.7 MOA. 17 Inches of error....
The idea that both Mils and MOA are the same if you get them match only works on Paper... not in practice because of the very reason Kraig has demonstrated.
Manufacturers round, and still advertise it as MOA... The issue, you have very little clue what you are actually buying.
They might make the reticle MOA and the Turrets IPHY and advertise it as MOA. When you get home, you have mix and 99% of the shooters out there never check.
People wonder why software doesn't work, why they are an inch or 2 off ... here you go.
In practice the numbers are the same, that theory was lost years ago because people thought that it was only .047 x 10 when it is really 30x more than that.
Mils are 1 number, not a combination of 2... not a built in acceptable compounding error. You have 1/10th turrets and no matter the reticle you can break it down into 10 x .1 segments, the only variation is the way a manufacturer helps you determine what .1 looks like. MOA do not work that way, and you have the fact they do not tell you what you are buying. It's a 50/50 or worse chance you have a one or the other or a mix of both.
I have even seen them advertise MOA Scopes with IPHY Math for ranging... another compounding error.
Fractions of anything other than 10 are harder to work with than .25 or .50, or .1250, it is much easier to .1 to 1... it's 10.
Pennies, Nickels and Dimes... You have a 10 pennies in a Dime, a Nickel shows you the middle... you break mils exactly the same way.
If all you do is read the internet they are the same thing, a unit of angular measurement if you go out and try and buy something you run head first into the reality of life. The sloppiness of MOAs has been diluted and polluted to where it barely works.
if all you do is shoot by yourself, or on a KD range, whatever, you can use any unit of adjustments. You can stay I dial, 25 Franks to 1000 yards, and 12.5 to 500 and you can make it work. But if you do anything else, shoot with others, UKD, etc... they work far less than they should. Not without a lot of work on the part of the shooter. A lot of extra work, testing, confirming, measuring... just to make sure the manufacturer didn't promise one thing and give you something else. We do well to adapt and repetition breeds consistency, but if you don't know what is going from the start how you can expect to be right at the end.
Thanks for that Lowlight. I am not afraid of making the switch to mils, its just easier to stick with what I already know. So how would I check my scope to see if it is true MOA?
Lets look at it another way;
I don't know of any one who makes MIL Palma type iron sights. If you shoot a 1000 yard match you'll probably shoot three 20 shot matches (4 if shooting a team match).
Any Rifle - Any Sight
Any Rifle - Iron Sight
Service Rifle
Most people use the same rifle in the first to matches. For example I have a Model 70 Target rifle I use for the two first matches. I use a Redfield Palma rear sight for the iron sights, its has 1/4 minute clicks. Then I throw on a scope for the Any Sight match. It wouldn't make any sense to switch to a Mil/Mil Scope. You get use to your wind calls in MOA, you know the scoring rings in inches so you can look into the spotting scope and adjust in 1/4 Min clicks. Why would you switch back and forth.
As to my math, I don't see where I'm that far off.
Let say you're shooting at an antelope at 300 yards. You are six inches high (not MOA but six inches) You have 1 MOA clicks, You have to come down 6 inches. One MOA is 3.141 inches per click at 300 yards (3 X 1.047 = 3.141). I need to come down 6 inches. So I come down two MOA Clicks. 2 X 3 is 6, and 2 X 3.141 is 6.282. So talking antelope, I'm going to be .282 inches below the center of the 8.5-9 inch vital (heart lung) area.
I don't know of any one who makes MIL Palma type iron sights. If you shoot a 1000 yard match you'll probably shoot three 20 shot matches (4 if shooting a team match).
Any Rifle - Any Sight
Any Rifle - Iron Sight
Service Rifle
Most people use the same rifle in the first to matches. For example I have a Model 70 Target rifle I use for the two first matches. I use a Redfield Palma rear sight for the iron sights, its has 1/4 minute clicks. Then I throw on a scope for the Any Sight match. It wouldn't make any sense to switch to a Mil/Mil Scope. You get use to your wind calls in MOA, you know the scoring rings in inches so you can look into the spotting scope and adjust in 1/4 Min clicks. Why would you switch back and forth.
As to my math, I don't see where I'm that far off.
Let say you're shooting at an antelope at 300 yards. You are six inches high (not MOA but six inches) You have 1 MOA clicks, You have to come down 6 inches. One MOA is 3.141 inches per click at 300 yards (3 X 1.047 = 3.141). I need to come down 6 inches. So I come down two MOA Clicks. 2 X 3 is 6, and 2 X 3.141 is 6.282. So talking antelope, I'm going to be .282 inches below the center of the 8.5-9 inch vital (heart lung) area.
Don't know about you but i think lowlight might have been in a hurry in his response (understandably so, as this topic has been beaten so hard it brought a horse back to life).
I am pretty sure kraig got his math right - 6 X .047 IS .282 and IS the amount of error to expect, should you be thinking in inches when adjusting "6 inches" for a target at 100 yards on a scope with true MOA turrets.
I am pretty sure kraig got his math right - 6 X .047 IS .282 and IS the amount of error to expect, should you be thinking in inches when adjusting "6 inches" for a target at 100 yards on a scope with true MOA turrets.
I either shoot known distances or use an semi-cheapo laser rangefinder. I have only ever made a half-assed effort at Mil-Dot ranging; it's not really mandatory for my needs.
My rifles which will reach significant distances all have stock table drop charts laminated below the cheek piece. Their true relationship to actual trajectories is marginal. I don't expect a first shot hit; but I'm pretty sure I could probably scare the poop out of a Badguy if I really tried. I seriously doubt I will ever be called upon to place effective fire on a breathing Badguy. If I ever was, I'd probably decline the honor in favor of somebody with younger eyes and younger skills than my over-the-hill tomfoolery. Honestly, I'm too old to seriously consider anything like that.
My scopes all pretty much have SFP Mil-Dot reticles and MOA knobs, and about the only thing I've ever used the Mil-Dot reticle markings for was to try out a wind hold after somebody on the line made an audible wind call in mils. Usually we're both wrong. For my limited needs, they are just an interesting reticle design that has some limited usefulness when I'm trying to center the crosshair against a large black Bullseye.
Greg
My rifles which will reach significant distances all have stock table drop charts laminated below the cheek piece. Their true relationship to actual trajectories is marginal. I don't expect a first shot hit; but I'm pretty sure I could probably scare the poop out of a Badguy if I really tried. I seriously doubt I will ever be called upon to place effective fire on a breathing Badguy. If I ever was, I'd probably decline the honor in favor of somebody with younger eyes and younger skills than my over-the-hill tomfoolery. Honestly, I'm too old to seriously consider anything like that.
My scopes all pretty much have SFP Mil-Dot reticles and MOA knobs, and about the only thing I've ever used the Mil-Dot reticle markings for was to try out a wind hold after somebody on the line made an audible wind call in mils. Usually we're both wrong. For my limited needs, they are just an interesting reticle design that has some limited usefulness when I'm trying to center the crosshair against a large black Bullseye.
Greg
Last edited:
6 inches is all well and good but it doesn't tell the big picture by any stretch of the imagination.
How do you know you are "6 inches high" at 300 yards you know the difference between 6 inches and 9 inches 300 yards away ? Was there a backer board behind the animal If so, how come you can see it hit 6 inches high but you can't say, it hit .5 mils over the target so I hold down .5 mils on the scope ? If I put a block of wood 300 yards yard you can tell me how many inches it is by looking it at it ? Or a rock, if I point to a rock at 300 yards away you can say how many inches across it is to within, say 1 inch ?
If you can "see it hit" anything with one you can say you saw it hit with Mils and move down EXACTLY what you saw with ZERO conversion
To Echo KYS
What do iron Sight have to do with anything, that is like saying with a Battleship you can hit the target 26 miles away.
How do you know you are "6 inches high" at 300 yards you know the difference between 6 inches and 9 inches 300 yards away ? Was there a backer board behind the animal If so, how come you can see it hit 6 inches high but you can't say, it hit .5 mils over the target so I hold down .5 mils on the scope ? If I put a block of wood 300 yards yard you can tell me how many inches it is by looking it at it ? Or a rock, if I point to a rock at 300 yards away you can say how many inches across it is to within, say 1 inch ?
If you can "see it hit" anything with one you can say you saw it hit with Mils and move down EXACTLY what you saw with ZERO conversion
To Echo KYS
What do iron Sight have to do with anything, that is like saying with a Battleship you can hit the target 26 miles away.
This:
That is to say, not every type works in every situation. As said, I use both, Mils and MOAs, depending on what I'm doing, I don't think one is better then the other in ALL situations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to errors in clicks on scopes/irons. They are there, or not there, on cheap scopes and expensive scopes, maters not if its MOA or MIL. Briyan Litz covers this in his book: "Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting".
Regardless if you're using a MIl/MIL, MIL/MOA or MOA/MOA you should check your clicks through out the range of the scope then record any difference you find. You may have a .1 mil click up to 15 clicks and then a .1 +/- click or two, (for example) at 16 or 17, then back to .1.
You check this when you check your can't simply buy setting up 4 ft target with a line down the center at 100 yards and walk your shots up and down the line, or better yet the box system.
Granted scopes made on CNC machines are often better then the old manual lathes and milling machines but they can be off. Not always though, I have an old El Paso K 2.5 Weaver on my M1903A4 that is right on throughout it range. I have some better quality scopes that aren't.
Just a good ideal to check.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't check your scope... we all agree knowing is the right thing to do. Bryan is saying that in a sense of "calibration" not a sense that manufacturers are selling you a Mil Scope that is Rounded to something else... like they do with MOA. There is no SHOOTER MILS.
But if a Manufacturer sells you on a TMOA Scope and you find you have IPHY or you work in MOA and have IPHY turrets, you have a big problem.
Mil scopes don't suffer from this ... if they are off, it is because the mechanics are off, not because the Manufacturer built in a ERROR into your scope. Saying you have 1/4 Minute scope adjustment and it adjusts .22 would be a problem in the mechanics, not because the manufacturer intended it that way. But they certainly sell them as advertised One Way while building them another.
But if a Manufacturer sells you on a TMOA Scope and you find you have IPHY or you work in MOA and have IPHY turrets, you have a big problem.
Mil scopes don't suffer from this ... if they are off, it is because the mechanics are off, not because the Manufacturer built in a ERROR into your scope. Saying you have 1/4 Minute scope adjustment and it adjusts .22 would be a problem in the mechanics, not because the manufacturer intended it that way. But they certainly sell them as advertised One Way while building them another.
By reference to the size of a target. Knowing the range to the target. Knowing the drop from my zero of my round at 300 yards.
I just used 300 yards and 6 inches an example. The antelope I shot last year was 586, my rifle was sighted in for 250 yards which met I had to come up 9 MOA to hit the critter.
By the way I did use the Mil Dot to estimate the range (I came up with 600) actual measured via GPS was 586. It's a MIL/MOA scope. Close enough to keep it in the vital.
Realize, that just because a scope is advertised as MIL/MIL doesn't mean they match, even though they SHOULD.
Bottom line is, test what you have once you decide what you want to get.
As mentioned, to test, set up a large target at 100 yards. Dial the scope up in increments, shooting at each increment. Measure the difference between the increments. If using MOA, and you dial up 1 MOA, the next shot (or group) should be 1.047 inches higher than the last one. Maybe hard to measure, but when you get up to say 30 MOA, the difference between 30 inches and 31.41 is something you can check. And at 60 MOA (if your scope goes that high, it is 60 and 62.81 inches.
Bottom line is, test what you have once you decide what you want to get.
As mentioned, to test, set up a large target at 100 yards. Dial the scope up in increments, shooting at each increment. Measure the difference between the increments. If using MOA, and you dial up 1 MOA, the next shot (or group) should be 1.047 inches higher than the last one. Maybe hard to measure, but when you get up to say 30 MOA, the difference between 30 inches and 31.41 is something you can check. And at 60 MOA (if your scope goes that high, it is 60 and 62.81 inches.
Thanks pinecone, That seems easy enough. I don't know for sure if my scope is off. I would like to assume that a manufacturer would not lie like that. Ill have to try to check this at some point out of curiosity. Either way, I have been tossing the idea of switching to mil/mil around for a while, and I think this thread may have been the push I need.
And by your guessing and over complicated math you could have shot its nipple off or damaged the spine. Kind of like those guys that go out and make head shots only on deer and they are off by .2 Mils....
They end up blowing the jaw off the animal and causing it to suffer.
If you had the GPS, why not go to that in the first place?
I think what Lowlight is getting at is that the MIL system is true to itself and much more basic in use. There is no over complication of IPHY, MOA, or I ranged it in mils lets convert that over to this and so on.
An animal is the same size regardless of the units used to measure it. You are confusing linear measurements with angular ones. It's as easy to 'come up' in Mils as it is in MOA, and maybe easier because there are fewer actual adjustments.
What if you are a Mil shooter and are issued a Leupold M3A?
Last edited:
What year was the M3A made, it was only "X" number of them from 1980's with a problem, what year they changed it, even Leupold probably won't be able to tell you. A post 1990's M3A should not suffer from the problem of the original ones that used 6400 instead of 6283. The odds you are doing sub MOA reticle work with a 10x is pretty slim to begin with.
In any case, you have a mix of Mils & MOA which would have to be measured to check from the start. It's in the reticle, which then just becomes an Army Mil Reticle and not a Marine One... this is a one example of someone not knowing any better. And why you see the host of problems with MOA... you put a American Company messing with Mils and the first thing they did was screw it up, so you know why they totally have destroyed the MOA.
In any case, you have a mix of Mils & MOA which would have to be measured to check from the start. It's in the reticle, which then just becomes an Army Mil Reticle and not a Marine One... this is a one example of someone not knowing any better. And why you see the host of problems with MOA... you put a American Company messing with Mils and the first thing they did was screw it up, so you know why they totally have destroyed the MOA.
The MIL/MOA debate in this country revolves around shooters who think that they 'think in inches' and that therefore MOA are somehow easier to use. I've seen Sterling say it; I've seen Kraig describe it using a hunting example. It's a myth. It stems from the confusion of linear with angular measurements and can only be reinforced by the misapplication of technique.
No, I'm not guess, As said, I MIL'd the critter and estimated it was 600 yards. (Actual was 586 but still close enough to be in the vital). So yes I had an error of 14 yards, but my Model 70, 270 Win didn't care. I really couldn't use the GPS as a range finder until I knew where the animal would be at the time of the shot and my location. I was stalking and he was grazing. That's why I use the MIL system for ranging. On the prairie my range finder sucked at that range.
Here is a picture of the exit side of the wound, notice its not a nipple nor jaw.
Of course the target is linear not angular, an antelope is X inches tall regardless whether its 100 yards or 200 yards. But that liner measurement is in inches there fore its easer for me to used MOA which for practical hunting ranges or under 600 yards is 1 inch per hundred yards.
What I've been saying throughout this post and some people can comprehend is there are different methods or venues of shooting, some work better with MILS some work better with MOA. So I believe unless one only shoots one venue, then it would be a good idea to learn both.
That was the reason I brought up iron sights, its in MOA, so if I have to shoot both irons and scope with the same rifle, then in this case a MOA recital would be better. And the way I hunt, a combination works better for me, that being a MIL/MOA scope. The MIL for ranging and the MOA for adjustments, because I think of my targets while hunting in inches.
Where as, in a match, such as the Sniper Hide Cup, a MIL/MIL scope would be better.
Then again something that is growing in popularity is the Vintage Sniper Match, per rules, the gun/scope has to be that used prior to 1955 (or a replica of such scope). To my knowledge no one made a MIL Dot scope during that period. I do know there is none listed in the CMP GSM Rule book.
I know not every one shoots vintage sniper matches, not every one shoots precision rifle, not every shoots high power. Pick your poison, but some of us shoot everything so we need to learn the different sighting systems.
Because I say I like and use a MOA, or MIL/MOA scope in X venue I'm not saying its the only system to use, its not, that's like saying a car is better then a truck, its not, its different and has different purposes. Some may get by with a car only, some may get by with a truck only, but some of use need both, so we have to learn and use both.
This is nothing new, back at the turn of the century when machine guns came out, they (mostly) used MILS, the rifles of the period were based on MOA.
Some people seem think I'm saying something I'm not saying. I never said one is better then the other, I said they are different and have different uses.
That linear measurement is not in inches: It's the same measurement; whether in inches, centimeters or binary parsecs. That's the falsity at the core of the myth that MOA is more applicable. Proper technique requires not using 'inches of holdover'.
There is no difference, with regard to using a Mil or MOA system, between using proper technique when locating, ranging and shooting a target while hunting and during a match like the modern version of the 'Cup. That's one reason why PGS does so well at that match (the other reason is that he can read wind in a desert).
I agree with you that learning both systems is important. I disagree that Mils and MOA are different systems for different purposes. They are different systems derived for the same purpose.
Last edited:
That sir, is a matter of opinion. I've taught both, in machine guns and rifles, I use both and too me, in my hunting I find the MIL for ranging and MOA for adjusting works just find.
Its just based on my experience I can visualize 1 inch easier the I can 3.6 inches.
In some cases, as mentioned in my comment about the Vintage Sniper Rifle Matches, MILS don't even come into play.
Then again, if I'm shooting steel at verying distances, know and unknown, I like my MIL/MIL scope.
I measure my animals in inches, an antelope averages 14.5 inches from the top of his back to the bottom of its stomach, the vital (heart lung) area averages 8.5-9 inches. A mule deer averages about 18 inches, with a vital area of 10 inches. Elk is 24-26 with a vital area of about 15 inch vital area. I have no idea what that would be in centimeters and see no reason to change to the metric system for hunting at this late in the game.
I don't hunt past 600 yards, 99% is under 300 yards. Because at that distance a MOA is so close to actual inches MOA works perfect for me. If I have to come up 5 inches at 500 yards to bring my sights from the bottom of an elk then I come up 5 MOA clicks I'm moving the impact 5.235 inches, meaning I would be .235 beabove the center of the vital area.
So I fail to see the "myth" in my use of MOAs.
So lets move to shooting steel at distance, as in the precision rifle matches. I watch my impact through a MIL dot scope. Lets say I'm off one and one have MILS and want to adjust instead of favor to get on, it's simpler for me to move 1.5 MILs by clicking my .1 mil clicks 12-13 clicks. In this case FOR ME a MIL/MIL scope works better. The reasoning is I'm spotting my miss using the dots on my MIL dot scope. For me it would be faster to click in mils then to convert to inches and click that way. Unlike hunting where I view my targets in inches.
Because one doesn't use a certain system in no way makes that system a myth nor does it make it wrong.
Last edited:
Good information in here and nice debate taking place. It's been beat to death, but I think every new thread has something different to offer.
Kraig please explain how the size of the target or the where the vital area is has anything do to with what system your dope is dialed in ?
If the vital area is 10 inches in size and is 300 yards away, why can't i simply dial 1.5 Mils for my 300 yard dope... how does dialing 5 MOA work any better ? In fact with a 1/4 Minute scope I have to make 20 clicks with a mil scope 15... so the mil scope is better because it is faster and easier, 1.5 mils = 15 easy. 400 yards is 2.2 so that means 22 clicks. 8 MOA on the other hand is 32. Now you have to multiply instead of just slide the decimal.
If you ranged the animal using mils and know your dope in MOA the size of the vital area is irrelevant that goes to your accuracy ? can you hit a 10 inch area with your 300 yard dope on ?
Hence the MYTH.., you are projecting your thought process on to the conversation perperutating the myth that because you look at the animal in Inches (target size) that is why it is "easier" to use MOA which the method to overcome the drop needed, and has nothing to do with hitting the target based on size.
You dope in MOA / 3.43 = your same dope in Mils which requires nothing more than knowing your dope in mils, not knowing the size of the target you are hitting.
I can laser the target in yards, know my dope in mils, understand the target is close enough for me to accurately hit what i am aiming at and fire... If I called the correction to hit a 6 inch target at 300 yards 1.5 Spinny Winnies, if that mean the bullet will go where I am aiming it doesn't matter the unit used. Spinny Winnies are as good as anything if I know what that means.
Your mental process doesn't make it right or wrong, but your explanation of the process is a myth.
If the vital area is 10 inches in size and is 300 yards away, why can't i simply dial 1.5 Mils for my 300 yard dope... how does dialing 5 MOA work any better ? In fact with a 1/4 Minute scope I have to make 20 clicks with a mil scope 15... so the mil scope is better because it is faster and easier, 1.5 mils = 15 easy. 400 yards is 2.2 so that means 22 clicks. 8 MOA on the other hand is 32. Now you have to multiply instead of just slide the decimal.
If you ranged the animal using mils and know your dope in MOA the size of the vital area is irrelevant that goes to your accuracy ? can you hit a 10 inch area with your 300 yard dope on ?
Hence the MYTH.., you are projecting your thought process on to the conversation perperutating the myth that because you look at the animal in Inches (target size) that is why it is "easier" to use MOA which the method to overcome the drop needed, and has nothing to do with hitting the target based on size.
You dope in MOA / 3.43 = your same dope in Mils which requires nothing more than knowing your dope in mils, not knowing the size of the target you are hitting.
I can laser the target in yards, know my dope in mils, understand the target is close enough for me to accurately hit what i am aiming at and fire... If I called the correction to hit a 6 inch target at 300 yards 1.5 Spinny Winnies, if that mean the bullet will go where I am aiming it doesn't matter the unit used. Spinny Winnies are as good as anything if I know what that means.
Your mental process doesn't make it right or wrong, but your explanation of the process is a myth.
I think (stress the think part as I am not positive what you think) I have an idea what you are trying to say here but the way it's being relayed in your posts is not portraying an accurate picture. What I don't understand in your explanation is how you differentiate an elk from a man from a piece of steel if you know what the size of the target is or know what the average size is and know what that measurement looks like in relation to the reticle in your scope. This picture explains the relationship of Mil and MOA and how they break out linearly for those who need to see it in a linear fashion. However, it's as LowLight so clearly pointed out(and what this topic is about), there is no single standard for MOA in scopes. That little black bracket may be a smaller portion of the arc but with the issues LowLight pointed out about scopes, it's a mess.
Similar threads
