Rifle Scopes Moa or Mil... yawn, old news

[Topax454]

So here's the issue.

We range with laser now. So detailed accurate ranging using the Mil Dot/hash mark is not an issue.

I have been an MOA guy all my shooting life. So is there some mysterious reason why I should recalibrate my brain and gear from MOA to MIL that I am missing at this point?
My spotting scope is in MOA. My long glass is in MOA but that can all be changed if there is something I'm missing here.
Most, (not all) quality scopes can be had in MOA.
Average guy around me can't "really use or communicate in clear 'Mil' ".
New guys joining the group here in Seattle, can't either unless they are prior military long gun.

So without the ranging feature, isn't one "equal" to the other. Like use what you know for calling and making adjustments?

Since I'm asking, is there a clear preference between calibrated crosshair reticles and the Christmas Tree reticle?

 

[Eostech]

yes

 

[cuz]

The only reason I see is reticle choice. While many scopes can be had either way, it seems the reticle I like most at the moment is only offered in MIL. It’s the MR4 reticle from Minox.

 

[spife7980]

So without the ranging feature, isn't one "equal" to the other. Like use what you know for calling and making adjustments?

Yes.

Since I'm asking, is there a clear preference between calibrated crosshair reticles and the Christmas Tree reticle?

Yes, only its a personal preference.

 

[Diver160651]

yes

I say NO. But I get what your saying

There is a clear choice and it will be the system the people around you shoot and speak.. Just remember that who you shoot with today may change as your shooting grows into something else.

For me it is certainly mil, at the matches I see mostly mil..

But if you are a BR guy mil might be bad choice - however they talk in target inches and most have no need for any type of ruler.

 

[Olen_4504]

i only made the switch just recently because the guys I shoot with shoot mil and at PRS matches I want to be speaking the same language. but if not for that, i would have stuck with MOA which I grew up on

just personal preference. i'll support either decision.

 

[Milo 2.5]

I shoot both, I could really care less what those around me speak as to mils-moa. I came aboard moa, and really like it better, other than cranking the dial, but reticle choice for mil scopes way more advanced. I like a floating dot or crosshair, and NF MOAR reticle is the only one I've seen that I will use in an moa scope. So by reticle choice, I am converting to mils slowly.

 

[hlee]

Reticle graduations is a place where it is good to follow the crowd. I see the MOA guys scratching for dope at matches where everyone else is talking in mrad.

If you are dialing for elevation and holding for wind, then there really isn't much reason to have a "Christmas tree" reticle. But, if you are holding for both, or find yourself holding for both, the Christmas tree sure does help. It sucks to be holding off in the blank space in your scope.

1 MOA is 1.047 inch at 100 yards
1 Milrad is 3.6 inches at 100 yards
1/4 MOA (common turret adjustment) is 0.26175 inch at 100 yards
1/10 mrad (common turret adjustment) is 0.36 inch at 100 yards
MOA turret adjustments allow for slightly finer refinement of your zero.

If all of your glass is already in MOA, you are already calibrated to speak in MOA, all of the shooters you shoot with shoot MOA, and new shooters you are likely to shoot with also are shooting in MOA, there is NO REASON to change to milrad.

But, not being able to communicate in milrad (when you can communicate in MOA) is like saying you cannot solve a math equation written in blue ink where black is no issue.

 

[Huskydriver]

Why not learn to shoot both it really is not that hard? People get so wrapped up into what which angular measure translates to linearly that that miss the whole point in having a FFP holdover reticle in their scope regardless of whether its moa or mil...if you miss measure how many moa or mil you are off adjust and reengage no inches no cm no linear measurement needed. The problem people run into is when they start trying to linearly adjust poi by using inches,feet.,cm etc...completely unnecessary with a modern FFP holdover scope when the unit of measure is right in front of your eyeball. Knowing and understanding the linear translations of either angular measurement are really important if you need to be able to quickly range without the use of a laser rangefinder and can be easily mastered using either measurement system with practice. Mil has a distinct advantage of having a slightly coarser unit of measure which in addition to being based on a scale of 10 will translate to a smaller number to remember as range increases ie 7.3 mil vs 25.25 moa at 1000 yards. Moa imo has the distinct advantage of being able to get a quick range from an unknown distance target of a known size but this is usually the "fatal trap" of people thinking moa is better than mil because of the "close relationship" between moa and inches. IMO Mil's are sure nice when your bracketing an artillery strike in on some baddies in the Farah Rud river valley and your giving quick on the spot corrections to the fist team. Because mils are the language of artillery there is no conversion needed from what the guy on the battlefield sees in his scope to what he relays to the FO to what the FO relays to the FDC to what correction the FDC gives to the gun line. Mils is mils is mils and if measured right equals 8 rounds of HEDP fire for effect on target with maximum casualties way faster than you can rip your bolt action trying to get those head shots high speed.

 

[Milo 2.5]

But, not being able to communicate in milrad (when you can communicate in MOA) is like saying you cannot solve a math equation written in blue ink where black is no issue.

You apparently understand both and can call in either w/o a reticle, which is good. I shoot with younger guys that understand neither, they understand lines on a reticle, which is fine too, until they get told they were 4"left of the target. Vapor lock.

 

[Huskydriver]

You apparently understand both and can call in either w/o a reticle, which is good. I shoot with younger guys that understand neither, they understand lines on a reticle, which is fine too, until they get told they were 4"left of the target. Vapor lock.

In this example even if you had no flipping clue how many moa or mils is 4inches at the range your shooting you simply put your crosshairs about 4" left of target read correction amount however far over on the reticle center mass is an engage by holding or dialing shooters choice. That's what I wish more guys understand too many get wrapped up trying to do the conversion from 4inches to angle measurement...keep it simple

 

[hlee]

You apparently understand both and can call in either w/o a reticle, which is good. I shoot with younger guys that understand neither, they understand lines on a reticle, which is fine too, until they get told they were 4"left of the target. Vapor lock.

you need a reticle in your spotter so that you can call 1.1 mil, or 11 clicks, or 4 MOA, or 16 clicks, or whatever for correction. Why convert back an forth? The reticle is the ruler.

 

[Campguy308]

I learned with MOA. I still use MOA in club PRS matches. I don't really want to change, but the next scope I get will probably be MIL because it's the common language at PRS matches. And that is the only reason I am considering changing.

 

[Milo 2.5]

you need a reticle in your spotter so that you can call 1.1 mil, or 11 clicks, or 4 MOA, or 16 clicks, or whatever for correction. Why convert back an forth? The reticle is the ruler.

No, I really don't need a reticle, I can make the call, if not, they get that far off, they can figure out. I do nont need to spend 1500 upgrading my spotter, it gets little use now.

 

[SLG]

You can range with MOA scopes too.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Most of you are using 10mph for your wind reference. A 10 mph full value wind causes the bullets that MOST of you are using to drift between 6 and 7 MOA at 1000 yards. So, working that backwards to figure the drift at random distances using math gets a bit more cumbersome to do quickly in your head.

However, using MILS, that same drift is right around 2 MILS (1 MIL for 5mph). Figuring percentages of 1 and 2 is quite a bit easier for most, than figuring percentages of 6 and 7.

Of course, if you are not the kind of shooter that figures wind in your head, then none of this matters.

 

[cuz]

In this example even if you had no flipping clue how many moa or mils is 4inches at the range your shooting you simply put your crosshairs about 4" left of target read correction amount however far over on the reticle center mass is an engage by holding or dialing shooters choice. That's what I wish more guys understand too many get wrapped up trying to do the conversion from 4inches to angle measurement...keep it simple

Whoa, reading this post is like a break-through moment for me. This might actually hep me understand how to use a reticle. Can I get this explained again in slow simple English? Or can you point me to a source to get more info.

 

[spife7980]

Whoa, reading this post is like a break-through moment for me. This might actually hep me understand how to use a reticle. Can I get this explained again in slow simple English? Or can you point me to a source to get more info.

Its a tape measure inside your scope but for angles. Read how far you need to go on the reticle and dial appropriately.

 

[Huskydriver]

Whoa, reading this post is like a break-through moment for me. This might actually hep me understand how to use a reticle. Can I get this explained again in slow simple English? Or can you point me to a source to get more info.

Given that you have a FFP scope regardless if its moa or mil or if you have a sfp scope just makes sure its on the correct power for measuring... lets say you miss 4" off the left edge of a target after aiming CENTER MASS. Its important to know where your shot broke in order for corrections to be accurate. Now simply put your center crosshair on the spot where the bullet impacted off to left the side of the target...Now count how many moa or mils to the right center mass is. Lets say center mass is 1 moa to the right of impact or .3 mils. You can choose to either hold 1moa/.3 mil right or you can dial the correction then shoot center mass again...no conversion necessary no knowledge of what 4" means because you just MEASURED THE CORRECTION without converting anything. Sure its also useful to know that 4" is roughly 1 moa or .3 mils at 400 yards (exact is .95 moa and .26 mils) but is not needed to correct your shot because your scope does not care if you are shooting at 1400 yards or 100 yards 1 moa/.3 mils to the left is 1 moa/.3 mils to the left.

 

[cuz]

Wow, I gotta print this out and stick it in my rifle case. Thanks. That really simplifies something that was causing me a lot of headaches at the range yesterday.

 

[eklarsen]

Dude, your so not tactical if you dont use mil, I am embarrassed.

 

[Rob01]

So here's the issue.

We range with laser now. So detailed accurate ranging using the Mil Dot/hash mark is not an issue.

I have been an MOA guy all my shooting life. So is there some mysterious reason why I should recalibrate my brain and gear from MOA to MIL that I am missing at this point?
My spotting scope is in MOA. My long glass is in MOA but that can all be changed if there is something I'm missing here.
Most, (not all) quality scopes can be had in MOA.
Average guy around me can't "really use or communicate in clear 'Mil' ".
New guys joining the group here in Seattle, can't either unless they are prior military long gun.

So without the ranging feature, isn't one "equal" to the other. Like use what you know for calling and making adjustments?

Since I'm asking, is there a clear preference between calibrated crosshair reticles and the Christmas Tree reticle?

You can range with both. You can hold with both. You can do anything the other does with both. Can now and always have been able to. Two ways to get to the same place.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

You can range with both. You can hold with both. You can do anything the other does with both. Can now and always have been able to. Two ways to get to the same place.

You are right of course, but it never ceases to amaze me how some can be so afraid of MILS just because they are unfamiliar, when the wind math is so easy.

Yet they cling so tightly to MOA, which is exactly the same concept, just a more familiar unit of measurement that happens to make quick wind math just a bit more complicated.

 

[Stereodude]

I just like how even the people who are proponents of mils are still using imperial units for distance (yards) and windspeed (mph).

 

[Bender]

I just like how even the people who are proponents of mils are still using imperial units for distance (yards) and windspeed (mph).

Mil is not metric. MOA is not imperial or metric.... just. Stop.

 

[Huskydriver]

Mil is not metric. MOA is not imperial or metric.... just. Stop.

This part of the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread...using linear units of measure is unnecessary to get accurate hits on target. It's like using muzzle energy and distance to convert to fps/mps when you have the chrono reading in fps/mps right in front of your face.

 

[Rob01]

I just like how even the people who are proponents of mils are still using imperial units for distance (yards) and windspeed (mph).

One has nothing o do with the other.

 

[SLG]

One has nothing o do with the other.

And even if they did, who cares? I don't care if my dope is in meters as long as I'm ranging in meters. I don't care if I range in yards as long as my dope is in yards. And that's true if I use an LRF, or if I use a mil relation formula and measure it with my reticle. Exactly the same issue with MOA or MILS. As long as I'm consistent, it really doesn't matter. Though to be honest, I prefer mils for several reasons, not the least is the easier math for wind. Math major I was not, so smaller numbers in general are easier for me. 7 mils to 1000 seems much cooler than 26moa, or whatever it would be if I converted for real.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I just like how even the people who are proponents of mils are still using imperial units for distance (yards) and windspeed (mph).

I lived in Europe for 4 years. I have no problem with the metric system. For shooting purposes, we don't generally need to add, subtract, multiply and divide Yards and MPH. If we did, then Meters and KPH would definitely be easier.

 

[Stereodude]

Mil is not metric. MOA is not imperial or metric.... just. Stop.

One has nothing o do with the other.

Except for the fact that radians are a SI unit, which are well... Not imperial.

 

[patriot07]

Most of you are using 10mph for your wind reference. A 10 mph full value wind causes the bullets that MOST of you are using to drift between 6 and 7 MOA at 1000 yards. So, working that backwards to figure the drift at random distances using math gets a bit more cumbersome to do quickly in your head.

However, using MILS, that same drift is right around 2 MILS (1 MIL for 5mph). Figuring percentages of 1 and 2 is quite a bit easier for most, than figuring percentages of 6 and 7.

Of course, if you are not the kind of shooter that figures wind in your head, then none of this matters.

I agree 100% with this. If you're trying to memorize wind holds and make quick adjustments based on changing environmentals, then mils is absolutely superior. If you don't do that, you're either at a disadvantage or not shooting someplace like Texas where the wind always blows and always changes.

 

[coach4christ]

Why do people make this so hard????

 

[Bender]

Why do people make this so hard????

I have no idea why. Other than they want it to seem like blackmagic mixed with algebra to convey the image of being smart or knowing a huge dark top secret knowledge....

 

[user]

I like both.....I just like a variety...

 

[Steel+Killer]

Mil is not metric. MOA is not imperial or metric.... just. Stop.

To say Mils is not based on the metric system is not completely accurate IMO. Obviously 1 mil is 10 centimeters at 100 meters and 100 centimeters at 1000 meters. Yes I know we don’t really need to think about the linear equivalent, but to say it’s not metric based just isn’t entirely correct. What I think is funny is most people that is use mils still attach inches and yards to it when they should be attaching centimeters and meters to it. I know most ranges in the US are laid out in yards not meters, but if you were going to build a new range from scratch and you use mils why the hell wouldn’t you lay it out in meters if you’re going to put one foot in the metric system why not both.

 

[flyright]

Angular measurements have nothing to do with units of measurement unless you want to think that way. I LMAO when some of the guys I'm shooting with tell me "it's yards not meters" because I'm the odd man out using mils with many of the BR types I often shoot with. Most think I'm having to convert yards to meters before I can make an adjustment with an MRAD scope. So, if I were to build a range, it would not matter if I marked it as 1000 meters (1093.61 yds) or 1000 yards - not at all. Now, do I think - "Hmmm that was about 14 centimeters low"? No. I still think in inches. But, it makes absolutely no difference in what I dial or correct...

 

[Eostech]

One thing I do find is that many of the MOA shooters at local ranges (like F class guys) are totally ignorant about Mills. I use Mills and can roughly convert between both pretty quickly if need be, when asked how much elevation I dial, a MiLLS response ends up with a blank face with these guys.

To the OP, you basically answered your own Question.
So IF you're good with MOA, a MILL change will make little difference except for reticle choice.
I would say you have a lot more options in MILL.

 

[308pirate]

To say Mils is not based on the metric system is not completely accurate IMO.

That may be your opinion, but it's an incorrect opinion.

Mathematically, radians are a UNITLESS ratio. So, like many things in gunworld, common knowledge is typically wrong.

 

[308pirate]

Except for the fact that radians are a SI unit, which are well... Not imperial.

Go back to math class. A radian is a unitless ratio. That SI picked it (arbitrarily) does not make it a metric unit the way a meter or gram is.

 

[308pirate]

I shoot with younger guys that understand neither, they understand lines on a reticle, which is fine too, until they get told they were 4"left of the target. Vapor lock.

People who don't know how to spot for a shooter:
"you were X inches low"
"you were a little bit left"
Neither means shit that a shooter can use

People who know how to spot:
"Add .2, left .3 (mils)"
"Drop 1/4, right 1/2 (moa)"
"Down half a plate, wind good"

Stupid:
Telling someone which way they missed
Telling someone they were off so many inches
Telling someone they were close or way off

Smart
Telling someone the correction to get on target in scope units
Telling someone the correction in fractions of target size

 

[Steel+Killer]

For those with mil based scopes do you zero them at 100 yards or 100 meters? 100 meters makes more sense to me because that 1/10th mil adjustment is calibrated for 1/10th mil at 100 meters not 100 yards. If you do a tall target test you should be doing it at exactly 100 meters not 100yds. So yeah some times you do need to bring a linear measurement into the equation at least to zero the scope for the first time.

 

[Eostech]

For those with mil based scopes do you zero them at 100 yards or 100 meters? 100 meters makes more sense to me because that 1/10th mil adjustment is calibrated for 1/10th mil at 100 meters not 100 yards. If you do a tall target test you should be doing it at exactly 100 meters not 100yds. So yeah some times you do need to bring a linear measurement into the equation at least to zero the scope for the first time.

Hopefully you zero at whatever measurement system you are using/putting into your ballistic software regardless of your scope adjustments.
If you are checking how your scope tracks then yes the range needs to be measured accurately.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

For those with mil based scopes do you zero them at 100 yards or 100 meters? 100 meters makes more sense to me because that 1/10th mil adjustment is calibrated for 1/10th mil at 100 meters not 100 yards. If you do a tall target test you should be doing it at exactly 100 meters not 100yds. So yeah some times you do need to bring a linear measurement into the equation at least to zero the scope for the first time.

A mil is 1/1000 of any linear unit you wish. It is 1 meter at 1000 meters, 1 yard at 1000 yards, 1 cubit at 1000 cubits. The angle remains exactly the same.

 

[308pirate]

For those with mil based scopes do you zero them at 100 yards or 100 meters? 100 meters makes more sense to me because that 1/10th mil adjustment is calibrated for 1/10th mil at 100 meters not 100 yards. If you do a tall target test you should be doing it at exactly 100 meters not 100yds. So yeah some times you do need to bring a linear measurement into the equation at least to zero the scope for the first time.

Holy shit you have a gross misunderstanding of how this works.

 

[308pirate]

A radian or any subdivision of it isn't "calibrated" to any specific linear unit or any specific measurement system. Our education system fails again.

 

[Stereodude]

Go back to math class. A radian is a unitless ratio. That SI picked it (arbitrarily) does not make it a metric unit the way a meter or gram is.

And yet no matter how much you post it isn't going to stop being an SI unit. It is based on the metric system. Yes, it's a ratio. Big deal... It's real clean with the metric system. However, since imperial distance measurements of yards, feet, and inches are not multiples of 10 the math to drop them into a ratio and calculate miliradians becomes complicated to try to do in your head quickly.

Missing by 1cm at 100 meters is .1mils. [10(mm)/100(m) ] = .1mils That's real easy to figure in your head.

Now lets try it using imperial measurements.

Missing by 1 in at 100 yards is ? Well, we can either:
1) Convert to each measurement into metric and calculate. 25.4(mm)/91.44(m) = 0.278 mils
2) Keep using imperial units, convert yards to inches, and calculate. [1(")/3600(")]*1000 = 0.278 mils
3) Use MOA. 1(")/100(yd) ~ 1MOA

You aren't really going to try to claim that either of the two mil calculations based on imperial measurements are easily done in your head are you?

 

[Steel+Killer]

A mil is 1/1000 of any linear unit you wish. It is 1 meter at 1000 meters, 1 yard at 1000 yards, 1 cubit at 1000 cubits. The angle remains exactly the same.

Yes I get that a mil can be 1/1000 of any linear measurement, but we are not talking about just any linear measurement we are talking about a mil and how it applies to rifle scopes.

Holy shit you have a gross misunderstanding of how this works.

A radian or any subdivision of it isn't "calibrated" to any specific linear unit or any specific measurement system. Our education system fails again.

Once again I understand what a mil radian is, but once again we are talking about what a mil is as we use them in rifle scopes I get that you could use any linear measurement and call it a mil. So answer me this did it just happen by chance that a 1/10 of a mil at 100 meters happened to be 1cm or did the people smarter than you actually designed it to be exactly that.
Schmidt and Bender in one of their brochures I can't find it now but they actually refer to the mill being based on the metric system.

 

[Rob01]

Except for the fact that radians are a SI unit, which are well... Not imperial.

 

[Dthomas3523]

For those with mil based scopes do you zero them at 100 yards or 100 meters? 100 meters makes more sense to me because that 1/10th mil adjustment is calibrated for 1/10th mil at 100 meters not 100 yards. If you do a tall target test you should be doing it at exactly 100 meters not 100yds. So yeah some times you do need to bring a linear measurement into the equation at least to zero the scope for the first time.

Ummmm........or you do it at 100 yards and 10 mils is a yard.

I break mine down into 3.6” each for a tall target test. Takes about 5 min with a level, ruler, and marker to draw a tall target test for 100 yards.

So where is this “should” shit you’re talking about?

 

[Badfinger]

And the number one reason..................... I've noticed MOA scopes are harder to resell and have less value than MIL, at least on here.