Rifle Scopes moa/moa or mil/mil??

[TresMon]

I have a possible teeny window of opportunity to purchase a scope...maybe.
It is available in MOA/MOA as well a Mil/Mil. I have been using a mil/mil set up for a few years and like it.

Any reason to change to moa/moa?

The only reason's I could think of is that in our culture we think in COMMON fraction of inches easily and instantly, (instead of running multiples of .35" or .36" in your head) and

2. a finer click value at range- I shoot 1000yd matches with some regularity.

Any other point's, perks or rebuttle?

Thanks!

 

[Lindy]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

Going from mil/mil to MOA/MOA is going the wrong way, <span style="font-weight: bold">unless</span> there's a MOA reticle you like better than your mil reticles.

 

[TresMon]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??


I'm all ears when you speak buddy, can i have a few details of the why?

Thanks!
Tres

 

[Crazy Dog ll]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

No real reason, but think of this, should one be in warfare and lost his " mil-mil " weapon,and found a weapon equip with moa/moa,would you know how to use it? I'd say its better to be able to run both.

 

[Lindy]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

Well, a transition from one system to the other takes mental effort and practice. Like I said, unless there is a MOA reticle you prefer - and I've never seen one <span style="font-weight: bold">*I*</span> prefer to a mil reticle, why would you switch?

Tactical shooters are mostly using mil reticles, which means someone who might be giving you shot corrections at a tactical match is probably using one.

If you just shoot paper targets, then it doesn't make much difference.

 

[tookinkee]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

I spoke with an ex military sniper who had been shooting for over 20 years. He prefered MOA only bc that is was he was taught to shoot. It is PREFERENCE, however the metric system is far superior and more accurate than MOA. He stated if you in your head can figure MIL/MIL then go that route.

 

[vman]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

I have mil/mil and its working ok for me

I think it comes down to how you understand how your scope works.

Obviously a good understanding of both leaves you with no questions about mor or mil, but i would suggest sticking with paired reticle and turrets

 

[Lindy]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">however the metric system is far superior and more accurate than MOA.</div></div>

You're new here, so I'll just post the standard screed from the file. Anyway, it's been awahile, so here it is:

<begin>

There is nothing "metric" about mils.

Both milliradians and MOA are measurements of angle which have <span style="font-weight: bold">nothing</span> whatsoever to do with any system of linear measure.

There are two times Pi radians in a circle, and a milliradian is simply one-thousands of a radian.

One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.

In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:

1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).

It has nothing to do with any English or Metric system of linear measure.

<end standard screed>

 

[sharac]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

Actually it has but indirectly. For persons thinking in imperial system it's much easier to imagine 1" @ 100yards than it is to imagine 2.5cm at 90meters or 2.9cm at 100m as its easier for us metric system users to imagine 1cm@100m as everything is 10 based. Most can multiply and divide between both systems easily however if you were seriously stressed you'd do what is native to your brain - that's why training exists to rewire your brain to automatically do and not waste time thinking about it...

Same goes for pounds and kilos in UK they had a transition to metric with consumer goods (foods, vegetables) if i'm not mistaken and it's not the easiest thing to do (rewire your basic concepts of volume/mass etc...).

 

[TresMon]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??



Will people laugh, or be stunned by brilliance if I call wind in attoparsecs? I hear Team Klingon uses the Attoparsec. Perhaps in their advanced technology they know something I do not. Yep, it's official- I'm moving to attoparsecs.

Thanks Lindy & everyone!!!

 

[biodegraded]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're new here, so I'll just post the standard screed from the file. Anyway, it's been awahile, so here it is:

<begin>

,,,, snip</div></div>

Ah, Lindy, you fell into the trap. See, *I* knew you really remembered the moa/mil relationship as

21600 / (2000 * pi)

Now everyone else does, too. Your screed is a dead giveaway!

 

[jwp475]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually it has but indirectly. For persons thinking in imperial system it's much easier to imagine 1" @ 100yards than it is to imagine 2.5cm at 90meters or 2.9cm at 100m as its easier for us metric system users to imagine 1cm@100m as everything is 10 based. Most can multiply and divide between both systems easily however if you were seriously stressed you'd do what is native to your brain - that's why training exists to rewire your brain to automatically do and not waste time thinking about it...

Same goes for pounds and kilos in UK they had a transition to metric with consumer goods (foods, vegetables) if i'm not mistaken and it's not the easiest thing to do (rewire your basic concepts of volume/mass etc...). </div></div>


Why would you think in terms of a linear measurement? All that is required to know is how many mils or tenths of a mill adjustment is needed, nothing else realy matters

 

[Lindy]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually it has but indirectly.</div></div>

Hogwash.

What part of "it's an angular measurement which has nothing to do with any system of linear measurement" did you not understand?

It is a decimal measurement, sort of, but so is the U.S. dollar, and I doubt anyone would say that's a metric system.

 

[ranger1183]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??


Sharac, meet Lindy. Lindy be gentle.

[spoken tongue-in-cheek]
Forgive them Lindy for Sharac knows not what he doing ...

 

[azimutha]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

The one thing that milliradians have in common with the metric system is that it is based off decimal math. I find it easy to take whatever target size I'm ranging and convert it to a decimal value, e.g. 18" = .5 yards, then multiply that by 1000. The only hard part (for me anyway) is dividing that number, e.g. 500, by a mils when it's not a whole number, e.g. 1.7 mils.

 

[benjaminzero]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

My mil-dot master does range math for me.

 

[Lindy]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

And a Mildot Master is the fastest way there is to do range math. Even if I could do it in my head, the MDM instantly shows me the difference in range if I change the image size up or down by 0.05 mils from what I measured.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

1) mil is NOT metric, as Lindy put so well above. I like the dollar analogy, it may cause the lightbulb to go off in some folks heads.

2) knowing the subtensions and th linear measurements that they cover at different ranges (or being able to do that in your head or some other way quickly) is often very handy.

You WILL NOT ALWAYS have the luxury of either seeing your impact or having a spotter call corrections in the unit of your choice. When a angular correction isn't available, I prefer spotters to gove me correction in target widths ("half a target left", etc), you will hear someone say something like "8 inches low" every once in a while. I can usually change rough moa and to rough mil faster than I can type that, and I don't think knowing how to convert back and forth is a bad thing. Knowing how to make up the 5% difference between moa and smoa quickly helps at time too.

Then there's being able to do percentages in your head quickly-because that's what you angle cosines are........

There is no ONE PERFECT way to do any of this! The trick is to learn all you can and practice being able to put it to practical use.

I recently switched to mil/mil from moa/moa and I have been doing more translating than I thought I would, because the majority of shooters still have mil/moa setups. I still print my dope cards for common cartridges I shoot in mil and moa, so I can help new shooters at least get close. Its all about balance and flexibility.

 

[sharac]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

Hi lindy nice to meet you...

Seriously though you might have gizmo or three around to do math for you where will you go when your gizmo juice runs out or it gets lost...unless you live with angular measurements and you measure your bread in mils instead of kilos...i'm sure to open to suggestions if there is a better way to do the range math (without Cray parked nearby).

I personally do the numbers in my head. For example i shoot at 500m and i'm 20cm low, what i do is divide 20 by 5 and on mil scope with 0.1 click adjustment crank up 4 clicks up - sounds longer that it actually is. If i mil the target i do the same, xy mils with known distance i can estimate size of an object in a matter of seconds.

Now if i did same math with moa system and not converting to yards and inches, its doable as 1 moa = .29mil = 2,9cm however it will take me a bit longer...

My point was when doing math its easier to use native system as your brain is used to it. And back to you yes if you wire your brain to megaparsecs you will be quicker in megaparsecs.


The guy had a question and while it was asked here many times i see no harm in answering it.

 

[jkkfam89]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

mil/mil is the way to go. I just started using it and really like it. Like everything, to each there own.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

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

I personally do the numbers in my head. For example i shoot at 500m and i'm 20cm low, what i do is divide 20 by 5 and on mil scope with 0.1 click adjustment crank up 4 clicks up - sounds longer that it actually is. If i mil the target i do the same, xy mils with known distance i can estimate size of an object in a matter of seconds.

Now if i did same math with moa system and not converting to yards and inches, its doable as 1 moa = .29mil = 2,9cm however it will take me a bit longer...

</div></div>

It's even easier if you record your dope in Mrad drop instead of cm drop in the first place. Then @ 500m you're 0.4Mrad low and you just dial that on the scope. Shoot, look through the reticle see that you were blown 0.3 Mrad left, directly dial that on the scope and shoot again. No math needed at all.

 

[sharac]

Re: moa/moa or mil/mil??

Agree and probably that is what Lindy meant. But when i shoot at the target i know exactly what is the size of it and how far the bullet is from the center so it's more accurate that estimating with miling it as most scopes don't have .1 marks. For tactical application i think you are totally correct and if one trains a lot one can think in mils/moas and yeah then that is way faster. In army we did use mils for distance measurement and corrections necessary however we didn't train enough to get it native to the brain (conscript 7 month duty in mortar platoon). If however you are able to think in mils (house size, body size, etc..) then yeah i guess doing math is unnecessary.