Ok, I think I got the FFP vs SFP concept down pad, now it's go with MOA or MIL adjustments. I realize that the way to definitely to go is MOA-MOA or MIL-MIL. I agree that having turrets and reticles of the same is better. Now It's deciding wether MOA or MIL. What do you guys think, which one is better???? Iv'e been looking at NF for my rifle....
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes MOA or MIL
- Thread starter peterh
- Start date
~95 percent are using MIL-MIL in tactical matches.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk 4
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk 4
I went through the same thing hen I was looking to buy a few pst's. I went with the moa only because that is what I was brought up on and I understood it, as in I could do the math in y head on the fly
That being said I do feel that mil is faster and possibly better if you took the time to get used to it.
Just my 2 cents
That being said I do feel that mil is faster and possibly better if you took the time to get used to it.
Just my 2 cents
Both are acceptable, I prefer mil-mil for long range because I can apply wind corrections easier with mil. I use the correction method written in red in this thread link below. Its may not be perfect but its a matter of proficiency.
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-basic-marksmanship/163617-reading-wind.html
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-basic-marksmanship/163617-reading-wind.html
This is an ongoing argument; folks that use MIL/MIL setups say it is superior; those that use nothing but MOA/MOA say it is just a good as MIL/MIL; interestingly nobody argues that MOA/MOA is a superior system.
There are a few reasons for that phenomenon, and I'm going to list them, so those who have not used either system can judge for themselves.
1) Spotting scopes with reticles - Most of the spotting scopes that do have reticles, are graduated in MILS. So if your ever going to have to use a spotter, like in a match or in training, your MOA/MOA scope will be speaking a different language from your spotter and the language of most of your fellow shooters as well.
2) Memory - Although many shooters have drop tables plastered over various parts of their rifle, and/or data books with comprehensive tables and/or a smart phone in their hand, for all ranges to be encountered, many of the better shooters actually memorize their gross drop points, for speed, out to say 900 yds or so.
So which is easier to memorize; This:
<tbody>
</tbody>
Or This:
<tbody>
</tbody>
So which sequence of numbers (top is MILS, bottom is MOA) is easier to memorize and less likely to be forgotten under pressure??
3) Precision - Looking again at the two drop tables, which are for my 5.56MM 77 Gr Nosler CC @ 2700 FPS, come directly from JBM Trajectory Simplified, which is a common resource tool, and one that is emulated in many smart phone apps.
So if your using MILS, and your target is 600 yds away you dial or hold -4.3 MILS exactly. It is no problem with the common 0.10 MILS (or .1 CM) per click scopes which encompass 99% of the MIL based scopes available.
On the other hand, if you have a scope that adjusts in MOA and your 600 yd hold is -14.7 MOA. Guess what? There are no MOA scopes made that can dial exactly 14.7 MOA. They can dial in 0.125 MOA or 0.25 MOA or 0.50 MOA or 1.0 MOA increments, but none can dial in exactly 0.10 MOA increments.
So you can dial above that number or below that number, but you still have to think for a micro second and make a choice of going some amount above or below the exact number your supposed to dial. It's small thing, but it does force you to think and make a decision about something other than just dialing and shooting at your target, whatever it is....
4) Reticles - The vast majority of MIL based reticles measure (subtend) in either 1 MIL or 0.5 MIL increments via a series of dots; dots and dashs; or just dashs. They are very simple to use and understand with a modicum of training.
Not so with MOA reticles, which are in different graduations, and those graduations are sometimes expressed not in MOA but SMOA (or IPHY) which is a similar system, but not identical.
5) Dials - Again MIL dials mostly come in 0.1 MILS per click, though there are a few that come as 0.05 MILS or 0.2 MILS per click they are very few.
MOA dials come in 0.125 MOA, 0.25 MOA, 0.50 MOA, and 1.0 MOA, increments and some are not MOA at all but SMOA (IPHY). Which is close, but no cigar...
MILS is a standard, MOA is a concept that is followed by some makers, but not all makers.
So there you have it. Whatever advantages, abet small, are all accrued to the MILS side.
Training and experience with MOA can alleviate most of these "advantages" that a MIL based shooter gets for nearly free. But it is incumbent on the shooter and chooser of an MOA based scope to get that training and experience and put in the time....There are no free lunches when you pick something that has no standards.
IMHO and YMMV
There are a few reasons for that phenomenon, and I'm going to list them, so those who have not used either system can judge for themselves.
1) Spotting scopes with reticles - Most of the spotting scopes that do have reticles, are graduated in MILS. So if your ever going to have to use a spotter, like in a match or in training, your MOA/MOA scope will be speaking a different language from your spotter and the language of most of your fellow shooters as well.
2) Memory - Although many shooters have drop tables plastered over various parts of their rifle, and/or data books with comprehensive tables and/or a smart phone in their hand, for all ranges to be encountered, many of the better shooters actually memorize their gross drop points, for speed, out to say 900 yds or so.
So which is easier to memorize; This:
| 200 | 0.0 |
| 300 | -0.8 |
| 400 | -1.8 |
| 500 | -2.9 |
| 600 | -4.3 |
| 700 | -5.9 |
| 800 | -7.8 |
| 900 | -10.1 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Or This:
| 200 | 0.0 |
| 300 | -2.7 |
| 400 | -6.1 |
| 500 | -10.0 |
| 600 | -14.7 |
| 700 | -20.2 |
| 800 | -26.8 |
| 900 | -34.6 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
So which sequence of numbers (top is MILS, bottom is MOA) is easier to memorize and less likely to be forgotten under pressure??
3) Precision - Looking again at the two drop tables, which are for my 5.56MM 77 Gr Nosler CC @ 2700 FPS, come directly from JBM Trajectory Simplified, which is a common resource tool, and one that is emulated in many smart phone apps.
So if your using MILS, and your target is 600 yds away you dial or hold -4.3 MILS exactly. It is no problem with the common 0.10 MILS (or .1 CM) per click scopes which encompass 99% of the MIL based scopes available.
On the other hand, if you have a scope that adjusts in MOA and your 600 yd hold is -14.7 MOA. Guess what? There are no MOA scopes made that can dial exactly 14.7 MOA. They can dial in 0.125 MOA or 0.25 MOA or 0.50 MOA or 1.0 MOA increments, but none can dial in exactly 0.10 MOA increments.
So you can dial above that number or below that number, but you still have to think for a micro second and make a choice of going some amount above or below the exact number your supposed to dial. It's small thing, but it does force you to think and make a decision about something other than just dialing and shooting at your target, whatever it is....
4) Reticles - The vast majority of MIL based reticles measure (subtend) in either 1 MIL or 0.5 MIL increments via a series of dots; dots and dashs; or just dashs. They are very simple to use and understand with a modicum of training.
Not so with MOA reticles, which are in different graduations, and those graduations are sometimes expressed not in MOA but SMOA (or IPHY) which is a similar system, but not identical.
5) Dials - Again MIL dials mostly come in 0.1 MILS per click, though there are a few that come as 0.05 MILS or 0.2 MILS per click they are very few.
MOA dials come in 0.125 MOA, 0.25 MOA, 0.50 MOA, and 1.0 MOA, increments and some are not MOA at all but SMOA (IPHY). Which is close, but no cigar...
MILS is a standard, MOA is a concept that is followed by some makers, but not all makers.
So there you have it. Whatever advantages, abet small, are all accrued to the MILS side.
Training and experience with MOA can alleviate most of these "advantages" that a MIL based shooter gets for nearly free. But it is incumbent on the shooter and chooser of an MOA based scope to get that training and experience and put in the time....There are no free lunches when you pick something that has no standards.
IMHO and YMMV
Last edited:
Another bad thing about moa/moa is the reticle and turret may not be the same. One may be true moa and the other iphy. You would think that the manufacturer would be consistent on the scope they build but sometimes they are not. You are better of to avoid moa.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 by Fapatalk.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 by Fapatalk.
Last edited:
Very good write-up. One thing you didn't mention is the fact that since most shooters are using MILS at matches, it is much easier to communicate wind holds, etc. If my buddy has a similar load as I do, and he says he needed an additional .3 mils of come-up at 900 yards, I can easily transfer that info to my own rifle, no math involved. Standards are nice in many aspects of life.
MOA FTW! FUCK mils. I'm not British. I don't know milimeters, centimeters, meters or any of that bullshit. I'm not the fucking limey. Inches ftw. I'm a red-blooded American =D
Truth be told, it doesn't matter lol. Find what works best for you. Most ex-mil guys like the mil system because they don't have to learn anything new from what I understand. I truly do like MOA though because I can measure things in inches all day long. It really is like arguing which gun is the best or which optics are the best. I know it's the answer people keep giving when it's asked but it's really the truth. Who knows one of these days I may get off my ass and actually learn mils and find out I was being an idiot the whole time. But for me it's MOA. old habits die hard. Pick what you think is simplest and works best for you.
Truth be told, it doesn't matter lol. Find what works best for you. Most ex-mil guys like the mil system because they don't have to learn anything new from what I understand. I truly do like MOA though because I can measure things in inches all day long. It really is like arguing which gun is the best or which optics are the best. I know it's the answer people keep giving when it's asked but it's really the truth. Who knows one of these days I may get off my ass and actually learn mils and find out I was being an idiot the whole time. But for me it's MOA. old habits die hard. Pick what you think is simplest and works best for you.
The only real difficulty of MOA is whether your 1/4 MOA adjustment is 0.25" or 0.26175" @ 100 yards. Once you know and the reticle coincides with your adjustment, the other PITA is conversion to mils if your buddy/spotter is running mils.
Technically though, 0.26175<0.36... so you would have inherently more precise division in a 1/4 MOA system. Precise enough to matter? Nope.
They accomplish the same task, I like mil mil mainly because I like 10ths over quarters or halves. Base 10 has merit for my shooting, and my buddy can read back mil corrections from his spotting scope.
Technically though, 0.26175<0.36... so you would have inherently more precise division in a 1/4 MOA system. Precise enough to matter? Nope.
They accomplish the same task, I like mil mil mainly because I like 10ths over quarters or halves. Base 10 has merit for my shooting, and my buddy can read back mil corrections from his spotting scope.
While the mil system is not really based on the metric system......1 mil =10cm @100 yards or .1 mil = 1cm @100 yards so I can see a relation to the metric system.
DDavis, thanks for taking the time to give this thorough explanation. Most of my shooting has been done with regular scopes like the Leupold VX3 W/duplex reticle, no dialing up or down. This tactical long range shooting is something new to me. Maybe this is a good thing because if I go with Mil-Mil I don't have to un-learn anything.
I like NF scopes but they only make one FFP scope the F1, I don't know why that is?. I like the NSX NF 3-15X50 Mil-Mil or the NSX 5.5-22X50 Mil-Mil, I just can't decide!!
Anybody have a preference between these two. As for me I probably will not be doing any 1000 yard shooting until I learn more and develop some level of proficiency.
Go with MILs. I am an MOA guy (have one of the few S&B P4F-MOA scopes even), but don't recommend it for new shooters. Here are the benefits I can see:
1- More reticle options including holdovers such as Horus or the new Vortex offerings
2- Easier/quicker dialing in for range
3- Easier communication with others at competitions
MOA works fine for me as so far I only do casual (slow) competitions and paper/steel punching with friends so time is not an issue for me. I also just think of stuff in inches rather than yards which guides me to MOA. I'm also pretty quick at math and when doing simulations I'm almost (we're talking 1-2 seconds) slower converting range to clicks to dialing elevation.
So while MOA works for me, MIL will probably serve you better in the long run. And if you get a S&B with the MIL reticle and just want to trade, I'm you're huckleberry!
1- More reticle options including holdovers such as Horus or the new Vortex offerings
2- Easier/quicker dialing in for range
3- Easier communication with others at competitions
MOA works fine for me as so far I only do casual (slow) competitions and paper/steel punching with friends so time is not an issue for me. I also just think of stuff in inches rather than yards which guides me to MOA. I'm also pretty quick at math and when doing simulations I'm almost (we're talking 1-2 seconds) slower converting range to clicks to dialing elevation.
So while MOA works for me, MIL will probably serve you better in the long run. And if you get a S&B with the MIL reticle and just want to trade, I'm you're huckleberry!
That is not quite correct: When using MILS with Metrics; 1 MIL = 10 CM @ 100 Meters (3.93701") and each 0.1 MIL = 1 CM @ 100 Meters (0.39701"). When speaking in Inches and YDS. 1 MIL = 3.6" @ 100 YDS and each 0.1 MIL = 0.36" @100 YDS.
1 meter = 39.93701" and of course 1 yd is 36.0" so 1 MIL will cover 1/10th of a meter @ 100 meters, or 1/10th of a yd @100 yds. Just remember 1 MIL is exactly 1/10th of any unit of measurement.
Last edited:
I say pick the one that is more popular with the people you shoot with most often.
I've used both and right now my comp gun sports a PST with an MOA/MOA reticle. Reason being, most of the people I shoot with on a regular basis use MOA for the most part. Both are easy to learn and its all close enough for practical/tactical shooting. The two guys I shoot with most use MOA and it works for us. So if you and most of the people you shoot with use the same system you don't need to worry about communication errors or converting. but even then it's easy to convert. (maybe not super quick but doable).
Granted most of the top PRS shooters (according to the enquipment the pro's use thread) use the MIL/MIL system but that doesn't necessarily mean the MIL system is "better" or that the MOA system sucks. It just mean most of the pro's use MILS. That could be because that is what they learned growing up, used during possible military service, or what was available in scopes when they started out and never felt it necessary to switch to MOA because they learned with MILS.
I say as long as the turrets match, use which ever the most people you shoot with use.
I've used both and right now my comp gun sports a PST with an MOA/MOA reticle. Reason being, most of the people I shoot with on a regular basis use MOA for the most part. Both are easy to learn and its all close enough for practical/tactical shooting. The two guys I shoot with most use MOA and it works for us. So if you and most of the people you shoot with use the same system you don't need to worry about communication errors or converting. but even then it's easy to convert. (maybe not super quick but doable).
Granted most of the top PRS shooters (according to the enquipment the pro's use thread) use the MIL/MIL system but that doesn't necessarily mean the MIL system is "better" or that the MOA system sucks. It just mean most of the pro's use MILS. That could be because that is what they learned growing up, used during possible military service, or what was available in scopes when they started out and never felt it necessary to switch to MOA because they learned with MILS.
I say as long as the turrets match, use which ever the most people you shoot with use.
Thank you for the correction, I was thinking in yards instead of the metric meters at the time of the post
I'm not a scope guy. I know nothing about them. I just read this whole thread and didn't really understand what was going on. I have a MOA/MOA scope. When I get my dope its in MOA. When I range a target I look at my dope and it tells me how many MOA's up I need to dial and then I dial that many MOA's and then I hit my target (most of the time). If I had a Mil/Mil scope my dope chart also tells me how much to dial in Mils. Pretty damn simple, so obviously ya'll are talking about something I don't understand.
I found a class up in Arkansas that holds a four day course and alot of it is how to use your scope. I would really like to do that so I can understand post like this one.
I found a class up in Arkansas that holds a four day course and alot of it is how to use your scope. I would really like to do that so I can understand post like this one.
I have designed magnetics with both the MKS system of units, or the CGS system of units.
I have cut boards with the radial arm saw and with the table saw.
I have driven both the Ford truck and the Chevy truck.I have cut steel with a mill and cut steel with a shaper.I have shot deer with the Winchester M70 and I have shot deer with the Remington 700.
And I am ok with that.
But all these mil dot reticle Leupold and IOR scopes at my house.... please trade me for equivalent moa reticle scopes that match the turrets
And get this mil turret Kahles out of here too.
And all my FFP scopes are only worth half as much to me as my SFP scopes.
I can't see the reticle at all on low power.
I have cut boards with the radial arm saw and with the table saw.
I have driven both the Ford truck and the Chevy truck.I have cut steel with a mill and cut steel with a shaper.I have shot deer with the Winchester M70 and I have shot deer with the Remington 700.
And I am ok with that.
But all these mil dot reticle Leupold and IOR scopes at my house.... please trade me for equivalent moa reticle scopes that match the turrets
And get this mil turret Kahles out of here too.
And all my FFP scopes are only worth half as much to me as my SFP scopes.
I can't see the reticle at all on low power.
Last edited:
Oh. Well color me stupid. But yeah inches always worked for me. my philosophy was always, why try to learn something new when you can work with something you already know.
Do you know how many fingers you have? Or how much money you have in your wallet? Both of which are American, right?
Even so, nothing wrong with choosing either MILS or MOA. Both work. It's just the reasoning that gets kind of mixed up.
I can't believe I got suckered into this one.
Last edited:
Mils are mils, regardless. MOA may have inconsistencies in regard to what is represented (as has been mentioned above). Mils are your safer bet.
Don't sweat it. Imponderable question. Marginal benefits either way do not outweigh personal preference, hence the number of these threads
I love the debate but the simple answer depends on type of shooting your doing and what your comfortable with when you shoot. I just attended an advanced sniper course (LE sniper) that had a ton of ranging, unknown distance, movers and shooting out to 1000. I brought both my primary duty rifle equipped with the NF ATACR MOAR and a back up with the SS 5-20 mil/mil. I shot the courses mostly with the ATACR but did several quals a second time with the SS and achieved more or less the same results with both moa and mil. There were some benefits with moa and other in mil. Biggest benefit in mil is that most of the other scopes had mil reticules as dose most spotting scopes making shooting solutions a tad faster but overall both work and as long as you know the system both will get the job done. I do prefer ffp/mil but the LE community uses sfp/moa (and there are reasons for that) so I practice both systems and attempt to maintain proficiency in both.
For a new shooter I still think moa even though it is not as user friendly. My reasoning is that in my area (New England) most of the shooting community is moa based. Your area may be different but up here every range has 3-4 instructors trolling for work and all of them are moa guys. They know about mils but teach moa. Up at the Sig Academy in NH where they teach a ton of scoped rifle most courses are moa based. Now the level of instruction there is VERY HIGH, and the instructors know both systems well, but handouts and lectures are moa based. This would make it a faster pick up for a new shooter, at least around here. Your individual range instructors or classes may differ so this is not an absolute, just an observation.
And as far as your interest in a NF, great choice!
Sully
For a new shooter I still think moa even though it is not as user friendly. My reasoning is that in my area (New England) most of the shooting community is moa based. Your area may be different but up here every range has 3-4 instructors trolling for work and all of them are moa guys. They know about mils but teach moa. Up at the Sig Academy in NH where they teach a ton of scoped rifle most courses are moa based. Now the level of instruction there is VERY HIGH, and the instructors know both systems well, but handouts and lectures are moa based. This would make it a faster pick up for a new shooter, at least around here. Your individual range instructors or classes may differ so this is not an absolute, just an observation.
And as far as your interest in a NF, great choice!
Sully
If you are going to indulge yourself in pedantry then you could at least be accurate. It is imponderable because there are no criteria set in the question. You can set subjective criteria and assess it from that but that is personal preference. Try reading the whole post. I kept it short for people like you, I mean there weren't even two lines for you to read. Next time you want to be a smart ass try engaging your brain.
MOA or MIL
Brain engaged:
The criteria vary, but objective answers can be found that have little to do with personal preference.
That is, unless you are making your decision as a non participant, in which case what you buy for Saturday morning range outings probably isn't relevant to anyone else.
Imponderable? You appear to be pondering it with vigor.
Brain engaged:
The criteria vary, but objective answers can be found that have little to do with personal preference.
That is, unless you are making your decision as a non participant, in which case what you buy for Saturday morning range outings probably isn't relevant to anyone else.
Last edited:
To the OP............If you do a search you'll find this topic addressed a painfull number of times with quite a bit of information. I find it easier/faster to work with tenths/decimals than fractions, when dialing the adjustments can be either fine or coarse, I've never really had a MOA reticle that I've been in love with (especially for holds,) and you'll find MANY more mil users (over MOA) so when making calls it's more widely used.
What's better. The .260 rem or 6.5 creedmore?
Choose one, learn it. I'm an MOA guy. I don't do comps, I just lay on the ground and shoot as far as I can taking as long as I want so MOA works well for my needs. I am going to buy an inexpensive mil/mil scope though just so I can learn both systems as I find everything about this hobby interesting.
Choose one, learn it. I'm an MOA guy. I don't do comps, I just lay on the ground and shoot as far as I can taking as long as I want so MOA works well for my needs. I am going to buy an inexpensive mil/mil scope though just so I can learn both systems as I find everything about this hobby interesting.
Funny thing about Mil Vs Moa. Like most guys, I was a MOA guy until Mil/Mil scopes started showing up. Until then I was perfectly happy using minutes, now I can't imagine life without mil/mil... Kinda like life before cell phones
MOA or MIL
It often most depends on what your team mate has, meaning what your team uses. Regardless of what you call the same measurement, to communicate effectively you've got to speak the same language.
It often most depends on what your team mate has, meaning what your team uses. Regardless of what you call the same measurement, to communicate effectively you've got to speak the same language.
Last edited:
phillip61, I see you did the Recondo course in 84. I did mine in 89, where did you go through? I did Air Assault in 91 and Recondo kicked my ass more then Air Assault!
Sully
Sully
What do you do to work in inches? Walk out to the target, measure it, walk back, range, shoot, look at where you missed, walk back to the target, measure in inches, then walk back to your position and shoot again, "knowing" the correction in inches? I'm confused about what you mean about using inches? mRad and MOA are angular measurements and have nothing to do with the linear inches.
Both @ Ft. Campbell. Air Assault was tough, but not much more than boot camp. Recondo was all in the field and was a bitch. Every patrol there was opp-for roaming around and if you got caught they made you start over. The coolest thing I remember about the class was on the last exercise we had 36 hours to get from one point to the objective, do a salute report, then get back to the end point with out getting picked up by opp-for. We had made it to the objective, got our report and was resting in a wood line just after dark beside a dirt road. When two opp-for pulled up in a jeep, parked it not 25yds from us. We could hear them talking saying they was gonna walk down to the end of the road and ambush people that would be trying to walk down the road. So when they got aways down the road and it got darker we snuck-up and looked in the jeep and what did we find. Those dumb asses had left the log book with the keys attached in the jeep. We did not hesitate. We jumped in and drove to the end point. When we got there the cadre was wwanting to know why we were in a jeep and ore importantly where did we get the jeep. We told them the story and they were laughing there asses off. They immediately sent someone to pick up the two guys we stole the jeep from and when they got back they were screaming that we cheated and should be dropped from the course. The sarge in charge pulled them off to the side and tore their asses off then made them come and tell us "good job". They were mad ass hell, but I got my arrowhead so I didn't care...........good times.
My experience at tactical matches is that most competitors want to be helpful if you miss people will call out your misses in mils. In fact I find myself doing the same. Mil/mil scopes typically have 1/10 mil adjustments. MOA scopes have 1, 1/2, 1/4, or 1-8 adjustments. 1/10 are more intuitive and easier to deal with than MOA fractions.
This is why our military is #1 in the world. I enjoyed the read. I had visions of Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson in my head as I read this. Thanks for your service and Happy Veterans Day! I was a AF crew chief on C-130's, 87-91.
Back to OP. I entered the realm of long range shooting this year. What little knowledge I had prior to this was moa. I sought the advice of local long range shooters and went with mil/mil. I took a 3 day LR class in June. The instructors were well versed in moa. So I struggled a bit on my own on the first day. The 2nd and 3rd day I was fine and very comfortable with mil/mil. I now wouldn't shoot anything but mil/mil.
Basically pick a system and get comfortable with that, whether its moa or mil.
MOA, minute of angle is = Circle / 360 degrees /60 minutes per degree = Circle/ 21,600
1/2 moa = C/43,200
1/4 moa = C/ 86,400
1/8 moa = C/172,800
Mil, milliradian, = C/1000 pi = C/6,283.1853
tenth mill = C/ 10,000 pi = C/62,831.853
We can get any of these ratios we want when designing a scope while using standard thread pitch on the turrets. We control the ratio with the distance between the turret and the ring where the erector pivots.
I think my father was required to us mils for the M55, M107, and M110 artillery designs he sold to Detroit Arsenal. I do know he used a split gear with spring load between them so there would be no backlash.
1/2 moa = C/43,200
1/4 moa = C/ 86,400
1/8 moa = C/172,800
Mil, milliradian, = C/1000 pi = C/6,283.1853
tenth mill = C/ 10,000 pi = C/62,831.853
We can get any of these ratios we want when designing a scope while using standard thread pitch on the turrets. We control the ratio with the distance between the turret and the ring where the erector pivots.
I think my father was required to us mils for the M55, M107, and M110 artillery designs he sold to Detroit Arsenal. I do know he used a split gear with spring load between them so there would be no backlash.
I started in MOA and after going to a few training classes put on by Scout snipers I wish I had MIL. ANybody want to trade two nightforce ATACR in MOA for 2 ATACR in MIL. Hahahaha
I'm the same as Scorpion King. I started MOA, did well, was perfectly happy. I started shooting around some more. Shooting with tactical crowd, and switched to mil-mil. Glad I did it. Spotting scopes all in mil. Buddies all in mil. Over all it became easier to share data quickly.
I have used both and currently shoot Mil/Mil primarily. I don't think either is better but both have advantages for certain crowds. My Nightforce's with Mil turrets adjust 10 Mil's per rev. That means I adjust 34.38 MOA per revolution. This means faster adjustments to distances if needed... for me... However, if I'm shooting prairie dogs at 1000 yards, .1 Mil adjustments are a little course. I would use something with 1/8 MOA adjustments.
The primary reason I shoot Mil's though is because I can use one of my mil based scopes and spot for my friends that use MOA based scopes and convert it in my head when spotting their point of aim/point of impact deviation. But when I let my ex or current military friends who aren't as experienced as myself use my guns, they are more comfortable with Mil's because that is what they are used to. Additionally, there is only one spotter with an MOA reticle on the market that I am aware of which is made my USO and I think it is good for some uses but I have never been overly impressed with their products. All other spotters that utilize a reticle are mil based and it is best to have your spotter and rifle scope speaking the same language so to speak.
If I were to be at square one trying to figure out whether to go with Mil's or Minutes of Angle - I would ask myself the following questions;
1. Do I shoot or see the world in yards or meters? (It is easier to use a formula in MOA to range in yards where it is easier to use a Mil reticle to range in meters)
2. Do I plan to utilize any supporting equipment that may limit or commit me to Mil's or MOA? For instance, are you using a spotter with a Mil reticle, or are you using a rangefinder that only ranges in yards? The whole shooting system has to work together.
3. What do the people I spend most of my time shooting with use? (You don't want to be the only Mil-weed in a group of shooters using MOA scopes. You won't be speaking the same language.)
The primary reason I shoot Mil's though is because I can use one of my mil based scopes and spot for my friends that use MOA based scopes and convert it in my head when spotting their point of aim/point of impact deviation. But when I let my ex or current military friends who aren't as experienced as myself use my guns, they are more comfortable with Mil's because that is what they are used to. Additionally, there is only one spotter with an MOA reticle on the market that I am aware of which is made my USO and I think it is good for some uses but I have never been overly impressed with their products. All other spotters that utilize a reticle are mil based and it is best to have your spotter and rifle scope speaking the same language so to speak.
If I were to be at square one trying to figure out whether to go with Mil's or Minutes of Angle - I would ask myself the following questions;
1. Do I shoot or see the world in yards or meters? (It is easier to use a formula in MOA to range in yards where it is easier to use a Mil reticle to range in meters)
2. Do I plan to utilize any supporting equipment that may limit or commit me to Mil's or MOA? For instance, are you using a spotter with a Mil reticle, or are you using a rangefinder that only ranges in yards? The whole shooting system has to work together.
3. What do the people I spend most of my time shooting with use? (You don't want to be the only Mil-weed in a group of shooters using MOA scopes. You won't be speaking the same language.)
