Rifle Scopes MOA or Mils for beginner?

[nick112288]

Alright, so completely new to the sport. Up to this point it’s been handguns, shotguns, or the occasional black rifle that was shot at a close enough range that you don’t need more than a red dot or 4x scope

For a beginner who has never shot long range, would a MOA or Mil scope be better? I understand MOA a bit, but not enough that I don’t need to do some more reading, but know nothing about mils.

I won’t be shooting any kind of competitions. Just friends shooting out to about 700 yards (for now)

 

[47guy]

mils are a bit more course adjustments and faster if that matters and more widely used.

Since your pretty new I’d push you towards mils unless your going to shoot F-class or bench rest

 

[Badfinger]

Here you go, explains it very well:

 

[Huskydriver]

Learn both its not that hard

 

[Flyingbullseye]

Either or it really doesn't matter. Me personally I've found it to be easier to range a target of unknown distances more accurately using mils but the math and learning either system is equal. Before you buy a scope I'd suggest going to shooter ready demo (https://www.shooterready.com/lrsdemo.html) and use both to see what system you like better. Most people now days in this hobby/sport use mils but its really personal preference.

 

[stello1001]

I don't think it matters much. For example, you can measure the length of your rifle, scope, house, or whatever in inches or in centimeters. Either way, you still measure length. If your friends already have some experience in this, use whatever they are using so you guys can communicate all "in the same language" because that's going to simplifythings when you all shoot together. Otherwise, they are both measurements of angles!

 

[Vodoun daVinci]

I'm a newbie that started this Spring and I chose MOA and purchased optics with the correct reticles and printed targets based on MOA.

I have not yet found a reason to regret my choice but feel I'd have done just as well to use Mil. It doesn't matter and learning the other one is not a show stopper.

VooDoo

 

[Deleted member 113831]

This discussion has gone on in many other threads. Here is the synopsis....some prefer one, some prefer the other, some couldn't care less either way.

For dialing drops it matters not one bit. One number is as good as another. For calling wind using a wind formula in your head, the math is easier in MILs. If you are just using a 10mph base wind and adjusting off that, then it doesn't matter.

 

[davsco]

it's just french vs spanish. a dog is a dog in either language. poll your buddies and see what they use and just use that so you're speaking in the same language. if not, the conversion from one to the other isn't that big of a deal.

 

[Bradu]

Alright, so completely new to the sport. Up to this point it’s been handguns, shotguns, or the occasional black rifle that was shot at a close enough range that you don’t need more than a red dot or 4x scope

For a beginner who has never shot long range, would a MOA or Mil scope be better? I understand MOA a bit, but not enough that I don’t need to do some more reading, but know nothing about mils.

I won’t be shooting any kind of competitions. Just friends shooting out to about 700 yards (for now)

I recommend using what your friends are using with the information you have given us. It makes corrections easier when calling out for each other.

 

[Spblademaker]

I thought that we agreed to use whatever all our Quigley-Ford scopes came with?? ?

 

[kentuckyMarksman]

I'm not much more than a beginner, been interested in precision shooting for about 18 months. I prefer mils, just makes more sense to me since 1 mil at 100 yards is 3.6 inches, and 36 inches at 1000 yards, so I just have to remember that and do some math.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I'm not much more than a beginner, been interested in precision shooting for about 18 months. I prefer mils, just makes more sense to me since 1 mil at 100 yards is 3.6 inches, and 36 inches at 1000 yards, so I just have to remember that and do some math.

This has been covered over and over also. Don't measure misses in linear measurements. Measure misses in angular measurements. You didn't miss by 10 inches or 5 inches or whatever..... you missed by 1moa or 2moa or 1mil or 2mil.

There should be no math going on at all. Measure it with your reticle, dial it or hold it...send it.

 

[Covertnoob5]

I would just add that if you do ever want to do competitions, you’ll find most shooters using mils. So when sharing wind calls etc, it’s easier. I started with moa then transitioned to mils.
Another thing to consider is around here, moa scopes take a bit longer to sell.

 

[Luke]

I used MOA for many years - Mil is the way to go.

 

[Geno C.]

Moa, that way you can talk to other moa guys and fuck with the mil guys with your wind calls ?

 

[Diver160651]

Moa, that way you can talk to other moa guys and fuck with the mil guys with your wind calls ?

That’s perfect — it is like learning Piglatin when most of the practical presision guys are now talking English AKA mils.

Other than legacy old man shooting sports, like benchrest; I would not start again in minutes. The logic for it is flawed. It is based on people thinking they need to know how many inches they are from the target. Guess what, that’s extra unnecessary math right there.. that’s what @Skookum was pointing out.

 

[Wildfire1550]

Go mils and don't look back

 

[beetroot]

Learn both, being stuck with only one limits your future options, typically most hunting scopes are MOA and long range/tactical scopes are mostly in MILs.

In reality they both achieve the same thing, any advantage one has over another is negligible.

 

[308pirate]

I'm not much more than a beginner, been interested in precision shooting for about 18 months. I prefer mils, just makes more sense to me since 1 mil at 100 yards is 3.6 inches, and 36 inches at 1000 yards, so I just have to remember that and do some math.

OP, pay no attention to this reasoning. While mathematically he is correct, conceptually his thinking is severely flawed.

No math is necessary at all to adjust fire when using scopes that have the reticle stadia and turret adjustments setup in the same units, be they minutes of arc or milliradians.

There is only one time you need to do math: using the scope's reticle to find distance to target, and that is something that takes a ton of practice and a really good reticle to do accurately. I'd rather just whip out my rangefinder. Incidentally, the ranging formula is just as easy/complicated to use in MOA than in mils.

There's no math to do when zeroing your scope.

If your scope has a reticle with stadia lines that measure in the same units as your turret adjustments you simply measure how far off you're vertically and horizontally from POA in MOA or mils (whatever your reticle is calibrated in) and enter that adjustment into your windage and elevation turrets REGARDLESS OF THE DISTANCE. No math required.

If your scope has no tickmarks in MOA or mils, use a sheet of paper with a grid that matches your turrets adjustments at 100 yards. There's paper targets all over the net with 1" (1 MOA @ 100 yds) grids and with 0.36" (1 mil @ 100 yds) grids or you can make your own.

FTR (and rounding up one decimal), 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1.05" and 10.5" at 1000.

 

[Geno C.]

^^^^ here is the real answer. Mine was a joke(I thought the little guy at the end was a dead giveaway...)

I am moa, half my shooting buddies are too. The other half are mil. We shoot together just fine. I do like to rib the spotter when they call corrections in inches though....”how many mils is that again?!” ?

 

[SporterII]

Lot to be understood with that 4 x Scope you have. Spot misses and impacts with a duplex use rocks or clay pigeons on a dirt berm. Rimfire and a 100 yd. range can learn a lot with 3.00 worth of ammo.

 

[kentuckyMarksman]

OP, pay no attention to this reasoning. While mathematically he is correct, conceptually his thinking is severely flawed.

To clarify, I was referring to ranging my target. I do not own a rangefinder. If I know the size of my target ahead of time, I can measure through the reticle how many mils the target is and with a little math, know approximately how far away my target is. For actual shooting, i measure the distances from my POIs and my POA through my reticle and adjust from there.

 

[308pirate]

To clarify, I was referring to ranging my target. I do not own a rangefinder. If I know the size of my target ahead of time, I can measure through the reticle how many mils the target is and with a little math, know approximately how far away my target is. For actual shooting, i measure the distances from my POIs and my POA through my reticle and adjust from there.

Understood and agreed.

My take on reticle ranging: it's a skill far more difficult than most will admit it is. It is very easy to make a tiny mistake in estimating the physical size of the target or the mil subtension on your reticle that will render your range estimate useless where you need it most (beyond point blank range). At $400, a Leica 2000 rangefinder is too good of a deal to screw with reticle formulas.

 

[kentuckyMarksman]

Agreed. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I'd benefit more from a chronograph, spotting scope, or range finder. Considering the longest range I have access to isn't very long (330 yards), I'm thinking a chronograph will be my next gear purchase.

 

[308pirate]

Considering the longest range I have access to isn't very long (330 yards), I'm thinking a chronograph will be my next gear purchase.

I agree.