-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes mils vrs. moa for scopes??
- Thread starter relentless1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mils vs moa
Yeah, I don't get why your "viewing your target in inches" matters one bit on what angular measurements you use to adjust your scope or to use for range-finding. It doesn't matter if you view them in inches, nanometers^1000, cunthairs, or centimeters. All you do is read it like a tape measure, slide the mildot master or plug in a simple formula and you have range. If holding, you look at your data book, dope card, or computer and hold based on what the data says. There's not any need to convert anything or view it in any special way. If you think it matters which system you use if you "view your target in inches", you don't know how to use your gear.
When I see new shooters struggling with their scope it's usually because they do not understand the unit of measurement they are working with. Mainly because most people don't use MOA or MILs in their everyday life.....so when you tell them they need to move 1MOA or 0.3MIL up at 100yards they have no idea what you're saying...only that they need to turn the dial that much. When you finally explain that at 100yrds 1MOA and 0.3MIL is roughly one inch.....then the light bulb turns on. Even more so when you give the inch conversion (@100 yrds, 1MOA = ~1" and 1MIL = ~3.6").
P03's illustration is great and it illustrates that both MOA and MIL are units of measurement for an angle...just one unit of measurement is a bigger angle than the other.
I understand the pitfalls of using an MOA scope....you just need to know your equipment. I can't argue which one is better...mainly because I feel that it's a piece of equipment that is personal to your shooting preference and style.
P03's illustration is great and it illustrates that both MOA and MIL are units of measurement for an angle...just one unit of measurement is a bigger angle than the other.
I understand the pitfalls of using an MOA scope....you just need to know your equipment. I can't argue which one is better...mainly because I feel that it's a piece of equipment that is personal to your shooting preference and style.
Exactly. I use mils, I didn't need to convert to the metric system, I don't know CMs worth a shit, a mil is a mil and MOA is MOA. Know the system your using, but they both work
the Bigger is a misconception as well... or at least an exaggeration.
Yes 1 Mil is "bigger" than 1 MOA but how we use it doesn't equal out to the same (mis)representation.
You can ( & we do) break a Mil down to .05 Mils (like they have in some scopes) which means .18 inches ... so can you go smaller than the whole, sure just like anything. When milling a target I break it down to the extra place, I use .72, or .68, not just the whole .1, but .10 place wise.
We compare .25" to .36" in more cases, which means your most common MOA scope that adjusts in 1/4 Minute clicks is .11 smaller than your most common Mil based scope. That is 1/3 the width of the bullet you are shooting. (308) So the idea you are closer to center with a MOA scope is not necessarily practical, especially for 99.9% of the shooters out there. We never talk impacts in percent of the bullet width.
Pointing out the size difference in terms if 1 MOA to 1 Mils is a bad way to demonstrate it unless you biasing the debate. 1 Mil just happens to cover 3.6 Inches, as opposed to 1.047" for what they call ONE MOA. We talk and use .1 Mils the same as guys use .25 MOA, as noted. We can't see or hold the difference.
We already know you can say:
200yds = 2 MOA or .58 Mils if you dialed .6 mils it's a difference of .02 mils or .05 inches away from center.
300yds = 5 MOA or 1.45 Mils no difference to speak of as you can dial .4 mils, the .05mils barely matters.
Etc... they both are adjusting your dope to the center of a target at a given distance. The only place it would matter is if you had to zero center punched a 1/8" dot, with no deviation from center. Equal distance all around, but who does that ?
Yes 1 Mil is "bigger" than 1 MOA but how we use it doesn't equal out to the same (mis)representation.
You can ( & we do) break a Mil down to .05 Mils (like they have in some scopes) which means .18 inches ... so can you go smaller than the whole, sure just like anything. When milling a target I break it down to the extra place, I use .72, or .68, not just the whole .1, but .10 place wise.
We compare .25" to .36" in more cases, which means your most common MOA scope that adjusts in 1/4 Minute clicks is .11 smaller than your most common Mil based scope. That is 1/3 the width of the bullet you are shooting. (308) So the idea you are closer to center with a MOA scope is not necessarily practical, especially for 99.9% of the shooters out there. We never talk impacts in percent of the bullet width.
Pointing out the size difference in terms if 1 MOA to 1 Mils is a bad way to demonstrate it unless you biasing the debate. 1 Mil just happens to cover 3.6 Inches, as opposed to 1.047" for what they call ONE MOA. We talk and use .1 Mils the same as guys use .25 MOA, as noted. We can't see or hold the difference.
We already know you can say:
200yds = 2 MOA or .58 Mils if you dialed .6 mils it's a difference of .02 mils or .05 inches away from center.
300yds = 5 MOA or 1.45 Mils no difference to speak of as you can dial .4 mils, the .05mils barely matters.
Etc... they both are adjusting your dope to the center of a target at a given distance. The only place it would matter is if you had to zero center punched a 1/8" dot, with no deviation from center. Equal distance all around, but who does that ?
But an MOA is NOT an MOA when it is actually IPHY ... that is the point and why Mils are Superior
A Mil IS a Mil, but an MOA can be TMOA or SMOA .
ONLY ON PAPER IS AN MOA AN MOA NOT IN PRACTICE
A Mil IS a Mil, but an MOA can be TMOA or SMOA .
ONLY ON PAPER IS AN MOA AN MOA NOT IN PRACTICE
OK lets try this again:
When I hunt, I travel quite lite. If I'm on horse back or 4 wheeler I can carry all the gimmicks I want. However I don't do that when hunting antelope. Normally I just have my rifle and picket knife. Suckers aren't that big, if not too far from my spike camp, I'll gut and carry, it its too far (for me at my age it don't take much to be too far), I gut & leave, coming back with the horse or 4 wheeler to fetch it.
As mentioned, I have a PBR zero on my rifle. Its 250 yards. The theory (and it works) is I can aim to the center of the vital heart/lung) area (9 inches on an antelope) and never be to high or too low to any distance just a hair past 300. Not the top to bottom of the antelope is about 15 inches. Not depending on a laser range finder or a map, I can look through the scope and see if the critter is with in 1.5 mils or more, if it is, its in range using PBR zero of my rifle as I carry it. Its super quick, if I can see the cross hairs I know if its in range or not.
As I said, 99% of my hunting is under 300 yards, but on a rare occasion where conditions are perfect, the critter isn't spooked, then I may go farther. Last year I did just that. I ranged the antelope and got 600 yards. Looked like about .7 mils in the scope. I do know my come ups about 10 moa (which would be a bit less then 3 mils), but since I'm more use to inches and moa, FOR ME it would be easier to come up in moa then inches. Sure you can do it with a MIL/MIL scope, but I'd rather use the system in this case that I've been using for over 50 years of hunting.
There are some occasions, some venues that I shoot, you can't use MILs or not easily any what. That would be my 1000 yard rifle and my vintage sniper rifles. My 'A1 clicks in 1 MOA, as does do most of my surplus rifles, and as does the M1A I've been shooting since '77. For me, adjusting in MOA (in most cases) is easier because I've been doing it for over 50 years.
As I said, I do use a MIL/MIL in some occasions, but I stated that venue with mils so there is no confusion.
If I was a kid, and was starting out all over again, shooting nothing but glass and not venues requiring non MIL scopes, yeah I'd probably go MIL/MIL, but I'm too old or lazy to change now plus I'm getting more into vintage military rifles, not getting away from them.
Its a case of one size doesn't fit all. I don't use one rifle for everything, I don't shoot all pistol matches with the same pistol/revolver and I don't use the same sighting system on everything.
I fail to see the MYTH part.
When I hunt, I travel quite lite. If I'm on horse back or 4 wheeler I can carry all the gimmicks I want. However I don't do that when hunting antelope. Normally I just have my rifle and picket knife. Suckers aren't that big, if not too far from my spike camp, I'll gut and carry, it its too far (for me at my age it don't take much to be too far), I gut & leave, coming back with the horse or 4 wheeler to fetch it.
As mentioned, I have a PBR zero on my rifle. Its 250 yards. The theory (and it works) is I can aim to the center of the vital heart/lung) area (9 inches on an antelope) and never be to high or too low to any distance just a hair past 300. Not the top to bottom of the antelope is about 15 inches. Not depending on a laser range finder or a map, I can look through the scope and see if the critter is with in 1.5 mils or more, if it is, its in range using PBR zero of my rifle as I carry it. Its super quick, if I can see the cross hairs I know if its in range or not.
As I said, 99% of my hunting is under 300 yards, but on a rare occasion where conditions are perfect, the critter isn't spooked, then I may go farther. Last year I did just that. I ranged the antelope and got 600 yards. Looked like about .7 mils in the scope. I do know my come ups about 10 moa (which would be a bit less then 3 mils), but since I'm more use to inches and moa, FOR ME it would be easier to come up in moa then inches. Sure you can do it with a MIL/MIL scope, but I'd rather use the system in this case that I've been using for over 50 years of hunting.
There are some occasions, some venues that I shoot, you can't use MILs or not easily any what. That would be my 1000 yard rifle and my vintage sniper rifles. My 'A1 clicks in 1 MOA, as does do most of my surplus rifles, and as does the M1A I've been shooting since '77. For me, adjusting in MOA (in most cases) is easier because I've been doing it for over 50 years.
As I said, I do use a MIL/MIL in some occasions, but I stated that venue with mils so there is no confusion.
If I was a kid, and was starting out all over again, shooting nothing but glass and not venues requiring non MIL scopes, yeah I'd probably go MIL/MIL, but I'm too old or lazy to change now plus I'm getting more into vintage military rifles, not getting away from them.
Its a case of one size doesn't fit all. I don't use one rifle for everything, I don't shoot all pistol matches with the same pistol/revolver and I don't use the same sighting system on everything.
I fail to see the MYTH part.
Kraig the constant fall back to Iron Sights is getting old, I get it, so back to Vintage Sniper Rifles
Adjust this scope in MOA for me
Adjust this scope in MOA for me
I don't disagree with you and the illustration wasn't to bias in any way. It is intended to illustrate the linear correlation that the two have in order for those who get hung up on the "inches" involved with each, to visually picture it side by side. Your explanation further breaks down and clarifies that relationship and how it works out when all is said and done. But more importantly, as you pointed out, a MOA isn't a MOA when it's IPHY.
A MOA is a MOA not a myth.
I'll quote Gen Hatcher:
The can be said for a MIL, a radian is 2 X Pi, or 6.2832, a MIL is 1000th of a radian, or there are 6,283.2 mil radians in a circle. If your MIL adjustments don't measure a mil or part of a mil (depending on the clicks) then the scope is off, but a MIL is still a MIL just like a MOA is a MOA. May not be in the real world, that's why we check our scopes (MIL OR MOA) and record or memorize the difference.
A MOA is a MOA, if the scope clicks on a MOA don't relate to MOA then its the scope, not MOA. As Hatcher points out at 1000 yards 1 MOA is going to be 10.476 inches. So if you adjust in inches instead of MOA you're going to be .476 inches off.
What is a myth is to assume one can hold .476 and the rifle ammo combo can shoot that well. You're going to have more error in estimating the range with a MIL Dot unless you have magic eyes.
I'll quote Gen Hatcher:
The can be said for a MIL, a radian is 2 X Pi, or 6.2832, a MIL is 1000th of a radian, or there are 6,283.2 mil radians in a circle. If your MIL adjustments don't measure a mil or part of a mil (depending on the clicks) then the scope is off, but a MIL is still a MIL just like a MOA is a MOA. May not be in the real world, that's why we check our scopes (MIL OR MOA) and record or memorize the difference.
A MOA is a MOA, if the scope clicks on a MOA don't relate to MOA then its the scope, not MOA. As Hatcher points out at 1000 yards 1 MOA is going to be 10.476 inches. So if you adjust in inches instead of MOA you're going to be .476 inches off.
What is a myth is to assume one can hold .476 and the rifle ammo combo can shoot that well. You're going to have more error in estimating the range with a MIL Dot unless you have magic eyes.
What rifle shoots using 1 MOA to 1000 yards, you have no idea what you are saying... 1 MOA is .476, but now dial 38 MOA and round it.
Math and Paper is not practice
Math and Paper is not practice
Why do you keep bringing up MOA and inches?
What are you doing? Carrying around a drop chart in inches and converting to MOA in the field?
What are you doing? Carrying around a drop chart in inches and converting to MOA in the field?
I'm reference MOA to inches. Moving 1 MOA at 1000 yards moves your impact 10 inches, now if your sights are 1 inch per hundred yards the moving 10 clicks is actual 10.47 inches. And no I don't carry around a drop sheet converting MOA to inches, I frankly don't care, I can not hold .47 inches at 1000 yards.
Actually in my High Power shooting or 1000 yard shooting I don't use any charts, I have a zero for 200, (two actually one for offhand one for setting rapid) I have a zero for 300, and for 600 & 1000. My sights are marked so I don't count clicks, but that's another subject.
I'm questioning the ideal that a MOA changes, it doesn't a MOA is a MOA, just as a MIL is a MIL, neither had changed since somebody invented circles.
But we can error in how we read MOA and we can error in how we read MILs, or errors do not change trig.
An example we take the sight radius of an MI and by dividing it by 3600 (inches) we get the amount we need to move the sights to move the impact at 100 yards. But that only works if we set the sight at 200 yds. At 200 yards the sight radius of an M1, is 28 inches. If we set the sights at 1200 yards then the sight radius is 28.5, which also changed the amount needed to move the sights 1 inch at 100 yards.
The same thing with Mils. A mil dot scope will change by changing the eye relief. Just like in machine gun training. The average thumb held 15 inches from the eye covers 50 MILs. But what if we are 14.75 or 15.5, or if we don't have an average thumb. The MILs haven't changed but our measurement of those mils do. But how much and does it matter. I guarantee you if you stuck your thumb out to 14.5 or 15.5 and use that to measure 50 MILs you'll still be able to use the MG to deny terrain to the enemy.
The same thing if you're sights are in IPHY, it wont be exactly what you would get if you used a MOA sights, but who can see the difference from the firing line to the target 1000 yards down range. If you are zeroed for a pin wheel at 1000, and you use IPHY instead of MOA you'll still touch the X mark in the center of the X ring.
Frank, tell me what type and model that scope is and I'll probably tell you the adjustments, assuming its a vintage military scope.
Also read what I wrote, its "said one inch on the target for every hundred yards of range" not just one inch"
My A4 scope has 1 inch click, each click would move the impact 1 inch per hundred yards, Assume its a 1 MOA scope then it would move the impact 1.047 inches per hundred yards. The difference would be 10 inches per click at 1000 yards or 10.47 inches at 1000 yards.
All this doesn't change the fact that are times when MIL/MIL is better, or MIL/MOA, or MOA/MOA and that was the point of my involvement in this topic.
Actually in my High Power shooting or 1000 yard shooting I don't use any charts, I have a zero for 200, (two actually one for offhand one for setting rapid) I have a zero for 300, and for 600 & 1000. My sights are marked so I don't count clicks, but that's another subject.
I'm questioning the ideal that a MOA changes, it doesn't a MOA is a MOA, just as a MIL is a MIL, neither had changed since somebody invented circles.
But we can error in how we read MOA and we can error in how we read MILs, or errors do not change trig.
An example we take the sight radius of an MI and by dividing it by 3600 (inches) we get the amount we need to move the sights to move the impact at 100 yards. But that only works if we set the sight at 200 yds. At 200 yards the sight radius of an M1, is 28 inches. If we set the sights at 1200 yards then the sight radius is 28.5, which also changed the amount needed to move the sights 1 inch at 100 yards.
The same thing with Mils. A mil dot scope will change by changing the eye relief. Just like in machine gun training. The average thumb held 15 inches from the eye covers 50 MILs. But what if we are 14.75 or 15.5, or if we don't have an average thumb. The MILs haven't changed but our measurement of those mils do. But how much and does it matter. I guarantee you if you stuck your thumb out to 14.5 or 15.5 and use that to measure 50 MILs you'll still be able to use the MG to deny terrain to the enemy.
The same thing if you're sights are in IPHY, it wont be exactly what you would get if you used a MOA sights, but who can see the difference from the firing line to the target 1000 yards down range. If you are zeroed for a pin wheel at 1000, and you use IPHY instead of MOA you'll still touch the X mark in the center of the X ring.
Frank, tell me what type and model that scope is and I'll probably tell you the adjustments, assuming its a vintage military scope.
Also read what I wrote, its "said one inch on the target for every hundred yards of range" not just one inch"
My A4 scope has 1 inch click, each click would move the impact 1 inch per hundred yards, Assume its a 1 MOA scope then it would move the impact 1.047 inches per hundred yards. The difference would be 10 inches per click at 1000 yards or 10.47 inches at 1000 yards.
All this doesn't change the fact that are times when MIL/MIL is better, or MIL/MOA, or MOA/MOA and that was the point of my involvement in this topic.
It's a German K98, and they used Mils, that is what it adjusts in...
The error in 1 MOA at 1000 yards is irrelevant, because we don't use JUST ONE, we use 30+ so multiple 38(MOA) x .47" and you have 17.86 Practical (Real World) Inches you are off... Hatcher is theory and not reality... You continue to claim .47 as it is nothing but in fact it's the number of MOA dialed in X .47, go out to 1500m with you .47 and how far off are you if you are converting MOA to Inches.
You're argument is misleading people at best. I invite you to teach anyone your methods of explaining MOA because it is just right enough to get them in a lot of trouble. Nothing based in reality and all theory.
The error in 1 MOA at 1000 yards is irrelevant, because we don't use JUST ONE, we use 30+ so multiple 38(MOA) x .47" and you have 17.86 Practical (Real World) Inches you are off... Hatcher is theory and not reality... You continue to claim .47 as it is nothing but in fact it's the number of MOA dialed in X .47, go out to 1500m with you .47 and how far off are you if you are converting MOA to Inches.
You're argument is misleading people at best. I invite you to teach anyone your methods of explaining MOA because it is just right enough to get them in a lot of trouble. Nothing based in reality and all theory.
Kraig, go back and read post #14 in this thread.Frank's quoted text breaks the issue at hand out as this is what the topic had originally been about before we diverged onto the current line of conversation. It will answer your question quite clearly. No one is debating what MOA is on paper and in explanation but rather the real world variances seen in scopes made by different manufacturers that make the paper explanation invalid.
I absolutely understand and agree with this. If you had a perfect MOA reticle and IPHY turret, the error is considerable.
Can you help us out with which manufacturers are mismatching reticles and turrets this way?
Another question (not an assertion of fact) would be: How accurate are the reticle etchings and turret graduations? If the MOA/IPHY difference of about 5% is clearly enough to miss at 1000yds, how confident can we be that the MIL hash marks are placed +- 5% on the reticle or that the adjustments actually track within +- 5% throughout the adjustment range? These questions could apply regardless of if MIL or MOA is in play.
Etched reticles are much more accurate than turrets. Adjustments tend to vary more than reticles. They can get much more accurate etching the reticle, then building a moving / mechanical part.
If a "batch" of reticles are off, then they are off and not right to begin with, also I have seen wrong power reticles put in scopes. 10x reticle in a 16x scope etc.
Another reason for the need to calibrate and test a scope's tracking regardless of the type, is the turrets can be both off per click or also have a curve in the high end from going to the extremes in it's elevation range. You get a curve in tracking. Simply put they start to walk off center as you move away. Where it might be find 30 MOA up, but after 36 they are off. That is why software has a place to put actual click values in overriding the commonly assumed correct value.
If a "batch" of reticles are off, then they are off and not right to begin with, also I have seen wrong power reticles put in scopes. 10x reticle in a 16x scope etc.
Another reason for the need to calibrate and test a scope's tracking regardless of the type, is the turrets can be both off per click or also have a curve in the high end from going to the extremes in it's elevation range. You get a curve in tracking. Simply put they start to walk off center as you move away. Where it might be find 30 MOA up, but after 36 they are off. That is why software has a place to put actual click values in overriding the commonly assumed correct value.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
It is possible to calculate the subtend of an angle to a linear measurement. I have done it and use it on occasion when zeroing but there is not one damn good reason for it other than something to do on your iPod conversion app for the hell of it. There is no need for algebra or trigonometry here whatsoever. You just need to know the fundamentals and let the charts, apps, clicks, and reticle do the work for you.
I have yet to test a scope that was materially off to the point I could say it is not me, the shooter, but rather the scope. If you can't trust the manufacturer than knock yourself out but you're never going to know it is truly off unless it is downright broken. I've seen newbies come to a match like a kid that just learned how to read a ruler and stomp the shit out of the regulars because newbies tend to at least read the instructions that come with the scope rather than over study/over kill. They seem to have a clue. Keep it simple.
BTW, my vote is mil/mil FFP.
I used to confuse the word "line" with something linear like an inch.
I have yet to test a scope that was materially off to the point I could say it is not me, the shooter, but rather the scope. If you can't trust the manufacturer than knock yourself out but you're never going to know it is truly off unless it is downright broken. I've seen newbies come to a match like a kid that just learned how to read a ruler and stomp the shit out of the regulars because newbies tend to at least read the instructions that come with the scope rather than over study/over kill. They seem to have a clue. Keep it simple.
BTW, my vote is mil/mil FFP.
Last edited by a moderator:
My first "tactical" scope was MOA/MOA. I was using it, more or less, because I was blindly adhering to the MOA is an inch thing, and as I'm an American I'll do inches. After actually learning that wasn't the case I ended up switching to Mil/Mil because I found out the overwhelming majority of shooters (especially fellow military) use it and getting sight corrections that I'd have to convert in my head was less than helpful to the long range learning curve.
In the end, if you're 3/4 MOA low adjust accordingly. .7 mils off? Adjust accordingly, no math required. I didn't know until reading this thread there were multiple "versions" of MOA, but I guess it's not a concern I have to bother with anymore.
ETA: Kraig, that wasn't a slight towards you. I was responding to the OP's question, not jumping into the discussion between you, Lowlight, et al.
In the end, if you're 3/4 MOA low adjust accordingly. .7 mils off? Adjust accordingly, no math required. I didn't know until reading this thread there were multiple "versions" of MOA, but I guess it's not a concern I have to bother with anymore.
ETA: Kraig, that wasn't a slight towards you. I was responding to the OP's question, not jumping into the discussion between you, Lowlight, et al.
Last edited:
Other than the actual adjustments errantly being in IPHY rather than true moa, who is a common manufacturer that would tell you plainly it's MOA/MOA when the turrets maybe are actually IPHY?
Example...
Nightforce, Vortex, S&B, & Premier (5-25) all use true moa, right? (Reticle & Turrets)
USO would do both IPHY & MOA I would assume if it is ordered as such?
I guess several hunting scopes would have 0.25" turrets and MOA reticles or reticles with holdovers that are in MOA subtentions?
I guess my question was mainly aimed at the high end optics.
I guess my question was mainly aimed at the high end optics.
<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/beating%20a%20dead%20horse" target="_blank"><img src="http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll25/ArwingAce21/beating-a-dead-horse.gif" border="0" alt="beating a dead horse photo: Beating a Dead Horse beating-a-dead-horse.gif"/></a>
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Not to mention reading Hatcher doesn't mean you understand what he is saying.
I posted in B&W the 17" different between your dope in MOA or IPHY and still he keeps repeating .47 as if that is all you have to worry about.
I posted in B&W the 17" different between your dope in MOA or IPHY and still he keeps repeating .47 as if that is all you have to worry about.
People seem to take parts of one's post out of contact and use pieces to make their point.
.047 is the difference between 1 inch and 1 MOA at 100 yards. A one inch click moves the impact one inch PER HUNDERD YARDS. One MOA click moves the impact 1 MOA per hundred yards which is 1.047 inches. One MIL movement moves the impact 1 MIL at 100 yards or 3.6 inches. How hard is that to under stand. There is only 1 MOA, there is only 1 MIL, there is only one inch. When we click either of the three, it moves their respective movement per hundred yards.
If the click doesn't move its respective movement, then the scope or sights are off. That is why we check the scope/sights and record any difference at what ever distance we may shoot.
My point at the start of this BS was and still remains, there are reasons for each, no one will cover the whole spectrum of shooting sports.
If you move your "1" inch click and you don't get the results you're looking for, adjust some more but record the change. Most scope/sights have parts of a minute, parts of an inch or parts of a MIL, how difficult is it to move two 1/4 inch clicks to make up for the .47" you are off, if you thought you were using MOA. If you only have 1 in clicks then do the closest click to your desired point.
People seem to harp on my mentioning iron sights, OK, I agree we the topic was scopes and scope adjustments. If you go back to my first post, I use irons in reference to my any/rifle-any sight and any rifle iron sights. That was the reasoning for my choice of a MOA scope instead of a MIL/MIL scope. Shooting same gun with two different sight systems in a match seems one would want the same sight movement. Sense I don't know of a MIL iron sight, I chose a MOA scope, both of which had 1/4 MOA adjustments.
But I'm sure someone will pick this post apart also. But it don't matter, I doubt any one's mind will be changed but what the heck, if we all agreed about everything we wouldn't have nothing to talk about.
.047 is the difference between 1 inch and 1 MOA at 100 yards. A one inch click moves the impact one inch PER HUNDERD YARDS. One MOA click moves the impact 1 MOA per hundred yards which is 1.047 inches. One MIL movement moves the impact 1 MIL at 100 yards or 3.6 inches. How hard is that to under stand. There is only 1 MOA, there is only 1 MIL, there is only one inch. When we click either of the three, it moves their respective movement per hundred yards.
If the click doesn't move its respective movement, then the scope or sights are off. That is why we check the scope/sights and record any difference at what ever distance we may shoot.
My point at the start of this BS was and still remains, there are reasons for each, no one will cover the whole spectrum of shooting sports.
If you move your "1" inch click and you don't get the results you're looking for, adjust some more but record the change. Most scope/sights have parts of a minute, parts of an inch or parts of a MIL, how difficult is it to move two 1/4 inch clicks to make up for the .47" you are off, if you thought you were using MOA. If you only have 1 in clicks then do the closest click to your desired point.
People seem to harp on my mentioning iron sights, OK, I agree we the topic was scopes and scope adjustments. If you go back to my first post, I use irons in reference to my any/rifle-any sight and any rifle iron sights. That was the reasoning for my choice of a MOA scope instead of a MIL/MIL scope. Shooting same gun with two different sight systems in a match seems one would want the same sight movement. Sense I don't know of a MIL iron sight, I chose a MOA scope, both of which had 1/4 MOA adjustments.
But I'm sure someone will pick this post apart also. But it don't matter, I doubt any one's mind will be changed but what the heck, if we all agreed about everything we wouldn't have nothing to talk about.
Most Leupold scopes presently in use have adjustments marked in MOA. The overwhelming majority of Leupold M1 turrets that I have tested actually adjust in IPHY. With a .308, the difference in point of impact on a 1000 yard shot between using MOA and IPHY adjustments is twenty inches. Even if you limit your effective range to under 500 yards the difference is not to be ignored.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
They are not 1" clicks. They are not 1/4" clicks. Each click would be 1/4 MOA or .26175" @100 yards. Subtend that out to 1000 yards and you have a material margin of error. Subtracting 1 MOA from 1" to equal .047" is not the right approach because 1" is linear and so is .047" but an MOA is angular. Present your argument just using the minute of arc argument. You seem to be going back and forth between angular and linear measurements. That is confusing and not necessary. If you take the time to reverse engineer what you posted translating every thing to minute of arc I think you will see how it is mixing oil with water. I leave you with another Catch-22 quote because lets not take this too seriously
I've been watching this thread for awhile and in my opinion (we all know what that means) it's pretty simple.... mil vs moa, it really doesn't matter. Figure out a system and stick with it. I run a mil reticule with MOA turrets but I figured out a system. My data card has an extra column, calculated vs actual. I take a shot and record the results so in my world it's pretty simple. Shoot a lot, record the results then repeat.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
WTH? I just saw my posts = 19 when I had over 100 before the site change.....
Less posts with older join date equates to wisdom. You have become very wise, grasshopper.
I think you're not coming across clearly and Graham has touched on it. The problem is not MOA but miss matched turrets.
My ballistic calculator for my 338 Lapua says I need to come up 25 MOA to reach a 1000 from a 100 yard zero. Now if my turrets were miss matched showing MOA adjustments but were in fact IPHY I would need to dial in 26 MOA. If I dialed in 25 I would come up 15" low.
Nothing wrong with MOA so long as you know it's MOA and not IPHY. I would think its mostly a problem with less expensive optics.
Hope I got that right and it clears a few things up.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
I wish people would stop leaving out the shooter and external ballistics that makes it almost impossible to make this sort of determination. Apps only get you in the ballpark and are subject to garbage in, garbage out. Just assume your scope is manufactured correctly and make the appropriate correction.
Last edited by a moderator:
Its already been discussed how that isn't true----the difference isn't simply .047". You do understand that if each click is 5% off, and you have to click 120 clicks in your dope and stack that error built into each click, thinking linearly, you're going to miss the target every time at extended range. Furthermore, why does it matter if its 10"? Why do you care about inches at all? You should care that it drops 1 MOA or 1 SMOA. You should only care about the angular measurement. Linear measurements have no place unless you're ranging. I can't look at a target through a piece of glass and tell if I missed by 10" or 12" or 13" or 15" at 1,000 yards unless there is a way to actually measure it. Enter the reticle. The reticle uses an angular measurement.
No, there is nothing "ideal" about this system. As its been discussed before, companies don't actually make their gear in MOA. Some use MOA reticles with IPHY clicks. Some use MOA clicks with IPHY reticles. Companies screw stuff up. While MOA is MOA, the gear advertised as MOA isn't necessarily.
Last edited:
That's not true. When I referenced 1000 yard shooting and MOA sights, as posted, I was talking about NRA long range shooting.
The X-10 ring on these targets is 20 inches in diameter. The 9 ring is 30 inches in diameter. So on each side of he 10 ring you have 5 inches of the 9 ring. If you shoot a 9, you know you are 5 inches (not moa, inches) out of the 10 ring. The X ring is 10 inches so you have 5 inches on each side before you get into the 9 ring. So if you shoot a 9, you know you have to adjust 10 inches to get into the X ring.
If you know the size of your target in inches, you can get a good estimate in inches on how far you have to adjust. Another example is the E Silohettet target, we know its 19 X 40 inches. If your miss is half the width of the target you know you if you move your sights 9-10 inches you're going to get a hit.
Really not that difficult.
Last edited:
^^^ Will have to agree. If I'm shooting at a 20" diameter steel plate and I can obviously see I have hit between dead-center and the edge - I know I need to correct about 5" to hit dead center. Using an MOA reticle this can be easily accomplished and also just as possible with a MIL reticle. There's many ways to skin a cat.
EDIT: Guess I better note that I don't do it this way... lol I, personally, would put the reticle on target and see how many MILs or MOAs I was from center and correct.
EDIT: Guess I better note that I don't do it this way... lol I, personally, would put the reticle on target and see how many MILs or MOAs I was from center and correct.
Last edited:
You are making this debate so convoluted with NRA shooting, high power, service rifle, and iron sight BS that a lot of people are going to think you are beating around the same bush.
How exactly is an inch, not an inch in any type of measurement? Again, we are not talking iron sight shooting here leave that crap at the door please. If you cant hit a 20" target at 1000 yards with an optic it is time to pack you bags and get off the damn range before you make yourself look even worse.
This is not a complicated answer. Some will find MOA to be to their liking and some will find MIL to their liking. I used to be an MOA guy and when I tried MILS I preferred to work in whole numbers. It was a much more simple process to learn and use in the field.
KYS go back and read my post.
The whole reason I said there are different radicals is because there are different venues of shooting. I compared NRA (you could include F-Class) with precission steel shooting. In precision I agree the MIL/MIL works best. In High Power the MOA works best.
If you only shoot one venue, then you only need to learn one radical, but if you switch from precision to high power and back and forth you need to learn both.
And again, if you read my post instead of just taking bits and pieces I explained why a MOA scope is better in NRA LR, because you shoot both iron sights and scopes. If you're shooting the same right, same target with two separate sighting systems then it would make since the two have the same type of adjustments. I really don't see how that is beating around the bush.
We all know there are different rifle shooting venues just as there are different pistol shooting venues and shot gun venues.
The whole reason I said there are different radicals is because there are different venues of shooting. I compared NRA (you could include F-Class) with precission steel shooting. In precision I agree the MIL/MIL works best. In High Power the MOA works best.
If you only shoot one venue, then you only need to learn one radical, but if you switch from precision to high power and back and forth you need to learn both.
And again, if you read my post instead of just taking bits and pieces I explained why a MOA scope is better in NRA LR, because you shoot both iron sights and scopes. If you're shooting the same right, same target with two separate sighting systems then it would make since the two have the same type of adjustments. I really don't see how that is beating around the bush.
We all know there are different rifle shooting venues just as there are different pistol shooting venues and shot gun venues.
You can't see an impact at 1,000 yards with irons. You can't see holes in paper often times at 1,000 yards with a scope.
Because you can mis-measure with something that is maybe MOA or maybe Shooter's MOA, doesn't make it somehow superior. Why is somehow knowing the diameter of at target at known range, looking through your spotter and guessing based on the size of the target, somehow superior than simply using the reticle in your scope and KNOWING? How does this give an advantage to MOA? You use them both the same way. The difference is that there's MOA and SMOA marketed the same, whether they are right or not.
I really don't think you get what the issues are by your responses.
Because you can mis-measure with something that is maybe MOA or maybe Shooter's MOA, doesn't make it somehow superior. Why is somehow knowing the diameter of at target at known range, looking through your spotter and guessing based on the size of the target, somehow superior than simply using the reticle in your scope and KNOWING? How does this give an advantage to MOA? You use them both the same way. The difference is that there's MOA and SMOA marketed the same, whether they are right or not.
I really don't think you get what the issues are by your responses.
I just caught that. Odd Statement. Apparently you haven't shot many HP 1000 yard matches. We know the X-10 ring is 20 inches, we also know there aren't that many cleaned targets. I suggest you check the LR range scores at Perry and see how many people you'd have packing their bags. If you can shoot cleans at NRA LR matches every time you'd be in the record book.
I like reading these MIL vs MOA threads.
I have always been into precision and physics and hated to see the way people would mis-understand the angle and substended parts. I like the way some keep beating it into peoples head about the subtile differences between the MIL and MOA. I tried to do this on Rimfire central forum and they were like 1 click is 1MOA at 100y and 1/2MOA at 50y. I could not get them to understand that a click has the same MOA no matter what the distance because it is an angle.
LowLight - My last two scopes were MIl/MIL S&B and Vortex, but I was always curious why the course adjustment of .1mil per click. You mentioned there is one out with 0.05mil per click. Can you please post up what that scope is?
Thanks,
Bill
I have always been into precision and physics and hated to see the way people would mis-understand the angle and substended parts. I like the way some keep beating it into peoples head about the subtile differences between the MIL and MOA. I tried to do this on Rimfire central forum and they were like 1 click is 1MOA at 100y and 1/2MOA at 50y. I could not get them to understand that a click has the same MOA no matter what the distance because it is an angle.
LowLight - My last two scopes were MIl/MIL S&B and Vortex, but I was always curious why the course adjustment of .1mil per click. You mentioned there is one out with 0.05mil per click. Can you please post up what that scope is?
Thanks,
Bill
I'm no Lowlight, but the mil version of the March 5-40 has 0.05 mil adjustments, and I believe some Hensoldt stuff did/does as well.
OK lets try this again. There are different venues in rifle shooting, High Power is one such venue. You shoot 1000 yard NRA LR targets with both irons and scopes.
Of course you can't see the miss with irons, you can't see the miss or bullet holes with a scope. BUT, when you shoot your first shot, your target is pulled. A 6 inch spotter is put in the bullet hole which shows the location of the bullet. You can see the spotter with a scope OR you can glance through your spotting scope laying by your head to see where the bullet hit.
In needed you make adjustments in your sights to move the impact toward the X. You know the size of the scoring rings in "inches" there for its a simple matter of moving the sights in the direction you need to go. If you don't know the size of the scoring rings all you have to do is look in your score or data book. You should have marked the hit in the book. The score book for High Power has lines up and down, and left and right giving you an idea of how many MOA clicks you need to get to where you want your bullet to hit.
Since the scoring rings on the target are in inches, and you corrections listed in the score book is in MOA, then wouldn't it make sense to use sights with MOA adjustments?
Most MOA scopes used in High Power are in 1/4 min. increments. Most MIL/MIL scopes are in .1 mils. If the high power target rings are in inches (not mils) wouldn't it be easier us use minutes.
Using the example I posted above, your first shot is in the 9 ring. You need 5 inches to get into the and another 5 to get into the X ring. I contend moving 1/4 inch 4 times is easier then trying to get centered with a .1 mil.
This is just one shooting venue, I also agree if you are shooting steel at different ranges, then the MIL/MIL scope would be better.
If you only shoot one venue, then you only need to learn one method, if you shoot both venues then learn both. It's not real hard.
Is counter sniper making a scope reticle in inches now that I am unaware of? All of my scopes have Mil reticles in them, if I miss (and see the splash) half the width as stated in your example, I can hold or dial in the correct amount of mils and hit the target, inches have nothing to do with my thought process. The fact that you know how big/far the target ring is apart and or the persons width is secondary information to help confirm/verify range and or extent of the miss but if you saw this through the scope the correction thought process should be either in Mils or MOA depending on your reticle, not inches, thats a completely unnecessary and pointless step.
EDIT to ADD: In reply to to your NRA LR comment. if the spotter comes up from the Pit and you look at it through your spotter with a MIL reticle and can see the correction all you have to do is dial that correction onto your MIL scope, no need for log book lines and inches math.
The more you post, the more I think I should redact my statement made earlier about having an idea of what you are trying to say. You think people are picking your posts apart but the fact still remains, you have not acknowledged that THE TOPIC of this thread has to do with the fact that MOA scope manufacturers have no standard for how they produce their reticle/turrets (TMOA vs SMOA, IPHY) from one to another. ( See post #14 for an explanation)
I've come to the conclusion that your insistence on different (MIL/MOS)systems for different venues has nothing to do with the topic of the discussion per say, but is the way you've wrapped your head around and rationalized using both systems for the different types of shooting you do and are comfortable with. As you've seen, there is a good deal of opposition to your explanation(s). However, if at the end of the day your shots are in the X, in the animals shoulder, etc, then thats what works for you, but it doesn't make it any more right of an explanation than saying one needs to pour a whole packet of pop rocks into into their mouth and chase it with a swig of Tab if they want to hit the target. But hey, if the way you do things works for you, drive on to the objective, just don't expect others to agree with your techniques/explanations.
Last edited:
In terms of Rifles Scopes which is the Context of this discussion it is... unless you want to get into the weed like you did.
Only 1 scope was built that deviated from using the same adjustments, the M3A back in 82... they used the Military Mil of 6400, which is also what Kraig is talking about with machine guns and artillery ... scope use the same mil adjustments ... not a variation.
We are talking about SCOPES, not IRON SIGHTS, not Military MAPS, S C O P E S that are readily available today...
Maybe this will help to understand why I think MOA is better then MIL's at long range high power. IF you're scope doesn't accurately click MOA, then learn the sight settings at different ranges and write them down in your score book, there is a place for a zero on the book for what ever yard line your shooting. How ever I've been shooting my Weaver T-10 for over thirty years. It's not broke.
And in what way does the paster make MOA better?
And in what way does it matter how many inches the ring is? I look through my optic. I see I'm .2 mil below the x low, so I adjust .2 mil. It doesn't matter one bit if I have a data book that says the scoring ring is 3 cunt hairs, 10cm, or 9 inches. My scope doesn't subtend in any of those and neither does yours. Why go through the hassle of converting anything? Your reticle is the only measuring device you need.
Why does it matter if the rings are in inches? Your scope isn't. MOA is not in inches. And as you seem to misunderstand, not all scopes advertised in 1/4 MOA adjustments are anyway. There is really no advantage here. Its easier to just use your reticle and adjust or hold based on what you see on the target.
How? Minutes are minutes. Inches are inches. Mils are mils.
Why do I give a shit if its 5" off? All I'm going to do is use my reticle to measure it and not "guess" if I'm 5" off, 6" off, or 7" because I can't walk down and measure the target. But I can measure it with mils in my reticle from my position and apply the appropriate correction. The inches don't mean shit.
How is applying a linear measurement somehow "better" than the actual angular measurement that is right in front of my eye and is the same unit I apply to my scope?
Similar threads
