Rifle Scopes MOA vs Mil.

[L2bravo]

With Mil so prevalent now, does that mean that MOA is dead or dying? Anybody still running them?

 

[brianf]

i still have all three types:
MIL ret MOA turrets
MOA to MOA
MIL to MIL

i really dont find a difference in MIL MIL or MOA MOA, once you have it down.

MIL MIL is a little easier, but if data cards match ret match turrets it just practice.

but some people like to speak in inches so MOA MOA is easier to communicate with.

if just shooting or hunting there is no difference, if you are timed or PRS type stuff that is where the difference comes in

the MIL MOA is just a disaster. lol

 

[Lowlight]

If you shoot F Class or Benchrest MOA Is still viable, as well the Hunter Crowd is still MOA but beyond those three, it's dying a long painful death and needs to be retired.

it's been bastardized, it's not right, you have IPHY scopes labeled as MOA, you have Reticles that are TMOA and Turrets that are SMOA, it's a mess.

But it's too long in the tooth to die a proper death that it rightly deserves

 

[JMGlasgow]

All my dialed scopes, including the ones for hunting, are Mil. The only ones that aren't are scopes I don't ever touch the turrets on like my scout scope, and my 22 plinker.

 

[AIAW]

If you shoot F Class or Benchrest MOA Is still viable, as well the Hunter Crowd is still MOA but beyond those three, it's dying a long painful death and needs to be retired.

it's been bastardized, it's not right, you have IPHY scopes labeled as MOA, you have Reticles that are TMOA and Turrets that are SMOA, it's a mess.

But it's too long in the tooth to die a proper death that it rightly deserves

Hehe, damn MOA mess.

At least the Army only screwed up the MIL once

 

[ingraham]

I'll stick with MOA for it's smaller unit of measurement.

 

[pilotjoe]

All my shooting mentors were MOA people. All my scopes are MOA scopes. Guess I'll stick with it. Yes, I'm a dinosaur. Deal with it.

 

[treillw]

When people start talking about rifle accuracy in terms of mils, I'll consider a mil based scope. I have never heard a single person say I just shot a .13 mil group, or seen any rifle advertisements with such lingo. It's undeniable that the moa system is easier for the US system of measurements and makes more sense in terms of inches. Yeah, I know it's not exactly an inch, but close enough for discussion purposes and mental math.

 

[lash]

Well, that clinched it folks! We have us a real honest to goodness MOA vs mil thread here! It took a bit to get started, but it is on like donkey Kong.

Can we get someone on here that still just uses clicks? That would be nice...

 

[AIAW]

Well, that clinched it folks! We have us a real honest to goodness MOA vs mil thread here! It took a bit to get started, but it is on like donkey Kong.

Can we get someone on here that still just uses clicks? That would be nice...

Damnit lash it was just starting to get juicy!

 

[Lowlight]

I'll stick with MOA for it's smaller unit of measurement.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhha

There we go enter the ninja

 

[Lowlight]

The peanut gallery is in full effect already,

People with no idea should take a class lol

 

[Spblademaker]

 

[308pirate]

When people start talking about rifle accuracy in terms of mils, I'll consider a mil based scope. I have never heard a single person say I just shot a .13 mil group, or seen any rifle advertisements with such lingo. It's undeniable that the moa system is easier for the US system of measurements and makes more sense in terms of inches. Yeah, I know it's not exactly an inch, but close enough for discussion purposes and mental math.

I'll stick with MOA for it's smaller unit of measurement.

OK, I'll say it....neither of you knows shit from shinola when it comes to this topic.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Now you fuckers did it....

All we need now is someone to say that MILS is metric and MOA is feet and inches.

 

[dirthead1]

Now you fuckers did it....

All we need now is someone to say that MILS is metric and MOA is feet and inches.

Mils is metric and MOA is inches, isn’t is???

 

[Steel+Killer]

Well I might as well shit in the punch bowel.......I think MILS are loosely based on the metric system.........LOL
@Lowlight what is you opinion of MILS being based on the metric system?

 

[Lowlight]

I thought Mils were an Angle, but since it took like 200 years and the powers that be added it to the Metric System in the 1950s, I guess we can call it metric, it is a Base 10 system so why not.

But it works with Inches, just the same as meters, angles, after all, don't care.

if it is indeed metric how does it work with yards ?

 

[Ruggedtouch]

I believe the obvious solution to this dilemma is a scope with mil turrets and a moa reticle. Take the average and shoot.

 

[thestacche]

Hopefully when MOA dies duplex reticles die along with it.

 

[Tree]

I prefer MOA turrets with MIL reticle then I can be bilingual and talk everyone's language.

 

[spaniel]

Heaven forbid we consider a balanced opinion and comparison.. https://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/07/20/mil-vs-moa-an-objective-comparison/

I guess this Bryan Litz doesn't know anything, we all know if you don't shoot MIL and a 6.5 Creedmoor you don't know what you're talking about....

I shoot MOA because I had over 20 years of experience with it before MIL became popular and it just works for me. I have no need to reprogram my brain. My shooting is primarily range, hunting, and F-Class. I'm not going to scope range an animal, I'm going to laser it or pass.

I quit caring about the opinion of "Precision" Rifle Series shooters when they explained to me that they shot too much to bother reloading....precision ammo...the shooting sports are all just games catering to their specific rules.

If I were a blank slate today I suppose I'd give MIL serious consideration.

 

[AMTGMC]

I prefer MOA turrets with MIL reticle then I can be bilingual and talk everyone's language.

Exactly, you can hold wind for a 5mph rifle and have a smaller click value to be more precise.
Win Win,
Now where did I put my popcorn?

 

[Bender]

Heaven forbid we consider a balanced opinion and comparison.. https://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/07/20/mil-vs-moa-an-objective-comparison/

I guess this Bryan Litz doesn't know anything, we all know if you don't shoot MIL and a 6.5 Creedmoor you don't know what you're talking about....

I shoot MOA because I had over 20 years of experience with it before MIL became popular and it just works for me. I have no need to reprogram my brain. My shooting is primarily range, hunting, and F-Class. I'm not going to scope range an animal, I'm going to laser it or pass.

I quit caring about the opinion of "Precision" Rifle Series shooters when they explained to me that they shot too much to bother reloading....precision ammo...the shooting sports are all just games catering to their specific rules.

If I were a blank slate today I suppose I'd give MIL serious consideration.

Litz Is a great guy and has brought a lot of new information to the sport, but he is not the be-all and end-all of information. As far as having to reprogram your mind? Can you read the either side of a ruler with inches on one side and millimeters on the other? There is no reprogramming.

 

[spaniel]

Litz Is a great guy and has brought a lot of new information to the sport, but he is not the be-all and end-all of information. As far as having to reprogram your mind? Can you read the either side of a ruler with inches on one side and millimeters on the other? There is no reprogramming.

Why should I have to change when what I am doing works for me? If you are used to estimating and working things in inches, are you really claiming there is no mental change to thinking in centimeters? Decades of efforts to change the US to metric beg to differ. Not claiming one is imperial and one is metric, but they are different, and the precedent holds. What have you accomplished that makes your opinion more valid than Litz's?

The fact that you think there is no change for someone very versed in doing things in MOA changing to MIL invalidates your opinion. As I said I'm open to both and if I was a blank slate I would be open to MIL...but you are simply claiming there is no penalty to changeover, which is complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Bender]

Why should I have to change when what I am doing works for me? If you are used to estimating and working things in inches, are you really claiming there is no mental change to thinking in centimeters? Decades of efforts to change the US to metric beg to differ. Not claiming one is imperial and one is metric, but they are different, and the precedent holds.

The fact that you think there is no change for someone very versed in doing things in MOA changing to MIL invalidates your opinion. As I said I'm open to both and if I was a blank slate I would be open to MIL...but you are simply claiming there is no penalty to changeover, which is complete and utter bullshit.

Whoa up there kiddo. I never said you had to change. moa does exactly the same thing as mil. I was only commenting you saying you didn’t want reprogramming. I’m saying there is no reprogramming. You measure, you make a correction. Simple as that. You’re overthinking this.

 

[Dthomas3523]

@TheGerman

 

[Dthomas3523]

Why should I have to change when what I am doing works for me? If you are used to estimating and working things in inches, are you really claiming there is no mental change to thinking in centimeters? Decades of efforts to change the US to metric beg to differ. Not claiming one is imperial and one is metric, but they are different, and the precedent holds. What have you accomplished that makes your opinion more valid than Litz's?

The fact that you think there is no change for someone very versed in doing things in MOA changing to MIL invalidates your opinion. As I said I'm open to both and if I was a blank slate I would be open to MIL...but you are simply claiming there is no penalty to changeover, which is complete and utter bullshit.

Because “thinking in inches” is wrong.

You shouldn’t even be “thinking in inches” for MOA.

You’re throwing around “20 years experience” as if that means something.

You’ve mistaken repitition for expertise.

I have over 20 years experience shooting. Was shooting moa turrets and mil reticles in the military. Moa/duplex reticles for hunting. I can tell you 100%, if you’re using moa or mils correctly, there is zero penalty for changing over.

You’re not using MOA correctly is the problem.

 

[lash]

You can think in both at the same time, it’s not difficult at all and requires no retraining. At work, we use both imperial and metric measurements every day and can and do switch back and forth at will, sometimes referencing both in the same sentence. At long range practice, especially while working with shooters new to long range, we work with both mils and MOA. And yes, often while working with a single scope. Not hard and certainly doesn’t require retraining the dog.

That’s why I find these threads so hilarious.

 

[spaniel]

Whoa up there kiddo. I never said you had to change. moa does exactly the same thing as mil. I was only commenting you saying you didn’t want reprogramming. I’m saying there is no reprogramming. You measure, you make a correction. Simple as that. You’re overthinking this.

If you think there is no difference in the mental math and familiarity, you have little shooting experience using these systems. Yes they do similar things, but they are not the same. I know what each of my rifles do in MOA, my scopes are set up in MOA, and you claim there is no changeover penalty going to MIL?? Do you want me to shoot MIL through 10 grand worth of MOA scopes? When I encounter a game animal at 700 yards there is no difference in thought in getting to a shooting solution in 30 seconds?

 

[308pirate]

You can think in both at the same time, it’s not difficult at all and requires no retraining. At work, we use both imperial and metric measurements every day and can and do switch back and forth at will, sometimes referencing both in the same sentence. At long range practice, especially while working with shooters new to long range, we work with both mils and MOA. And yes, often while working with a single scope. Not hard and certainly doesn’t require retraining the dog.

That’s why I find these threads so hilarious.

Yep

 

[308pirate]

If you think there is no difference in the mental math and familiarity, you have little shooting experience using these systems. Yes they do similar things, but they are not the same.

Some people are beyond help

When I encounter a game animal at 700 yards there is no difference in thought in getting to a shooting solution in 30 seconds?

You're slow as fuck if it takes you 30 seconds to a solution once you know the range to target.

 

[Dthomas3523]

If you think there is no difference in the mental math and familiarity, you have little shooting experience using these systems. Yes they do similar things, but they are not the same. I know what each of my rifles do in MOA, my scopes are set up in MOA, and you claim there is no changeover penalty going to MIL?? Do you want me to shoot MIL through 10 grand worth of MOA scopes? When I encounter a game animal at 700 yards there is no difference in thought in getting to a shooting solution in 30 seconds?

Zero difference.

Again, you’ve been using the moa system incorrectly for 20 years.

This is why Frank says it’s been bastardized and continues to be bastardized.

 

[Bender]

If you think there is no difference in the mental math and familiarity, you have little shooting experience using these systems. Yes they do similar things, but they are not the same. I know what each of my rifles do in MOA, my scopes are set up in MOA, and you claim there is no changeover penalty going to MIL?? Do you want me to shoot MIL through 10 grand worth of MOA scopes? When I encounter a game animal at 700 yards there is no difference in thought in getting to a shooting solution in 30 seconds?

Overthinking it. But keep what you want. I never told you to change shit, except the chip on your shoulder.

MOA guys know everything. Just ask them.

 

[mdmp5]

A radian is the angle which subtends an arc length of a circle that is equal to the radius; like an equilateral triangle with one side being arced. A milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian, or .0573 degrees. At 100 yards, a mil equals 0.1 yards (3.6 inches). At 100 m, a mil is 0.1 m (10 cm). Mils are NOT metric; the metric system ostensibly works better with mils because they operate on a log base 10 system. But last I checked, it ain’t so hard to move the decimal place starting from .36

 

[spaniel]

Because “thinking in inches” is wrong.

You shouldn’t even be “thinking in inches” for MOA.

You’re throwing around “20 years experience” as if that means something.

You’ve mistaken repitition for expertise.

I have over 20 years experience shooting. Was shooting moa turrets and mil reticles in the military. Moa/duplex reticles for hunting. I can tell you 100%, if you’re using moa or mils correctly, there is zero penalty for changing over.

You’re not using MOA correctly is the problem.

Perhaps you should use greater reading comprehension. The point was neither is really inches or centimeters, but they are different, and not comparable. But at hunting precision at realistic ranges MOA and inches are reasonably comparable. Certainly within the range of comparison of PRS shooters who can't be bothered to reload ammo tuned to their rifle.

I'll take expertise which enables me to reliably hit game where I intend to at long range over the "experise" of internet blowhards who can't be bothered to reload their own ammo every time...

 

[Bender]

Perhaps you should use greater reading comprehension. The point was neither is really inches or centimeters, but they are different, and not comparable. But at hunting precision at realistic ranges MOA and inches are reasonably comparable. Certainly within the range of comparison of PRS shooters who can't be bothered to reload ammo tuned to their rifle.

I'll take expertise which enables me to reliably hit game where I intend to at long range over the "experise" of internet blowhards who can't be bothered to reload their own ammo every time...

The fact that you still use MOA and Inches as a comparative proves you have no idea what you are doing.

And I do, and many here reload their own ammo.

Wait... did you try to use reloading ammo as a superiority?


Lmaoooooo!!!!!!!!??

 

[Dthomas3523]

Perhaps you should use greater reading comprehension. The point was neither is really inches or centimeters, but they are different, and not comparable. But at hunting precision at realistic ranges MOA and inches are reasonably comparable. Certainly within the range of comparison of PRS shooters who can't be bothered to reload ammo tuned to their rifle.

I'll take expertise which enables me to reliably hit game where I intend to at long range over the "experise" of internet blowhards who can't be bothered to reload their own ammo every time...

Wow.....you are a stupid, stupid fuck.

You mentioned thinking in inches and centimeters.

They ONLY reason to use either is if you are ranging your target with your reticle.

Which you should already know what/who you are hunting and the average size in inches, centimeters, what ever you want. And have either a calculator or a chart in MOA or MIL, which tells you the range. At which time your dope card, phone, or kestrel tells you what your dope is.

So, explain to me how either system requires you to be familiar with inches or centimeters?

 

[TheGerman]

Ya'll got any Schott glass?

 

[Dthomas3523]

Cause guess what......inches/yards work in mils and centimeters/meters work in moa.

Back to high school trigonometry for you.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Ya'll got any Schott glass?

They only etch moa reticles in Schott. So, no ?

 

[AIAW]

 

[TheGerman]

Perhaps you should use greater reading comprehension. The point was neither is really inches or centimeters, but they are different, and not comparable. But at hunting precision at realistic ranges MOA and inches are reasonably comparable. Certainly within the range of comparison of PRS shooters who can't be bothered to reload ammo tuned to their rifle.

I'll take expertise which enables me to reliably hit game where I intend to at long range over the "experise" of internet blowhards who can't be bothered to reload their own ammo every time...

You know what 11 inches at 780 yards looks like?

 

[Freediver111]

Ok, relatively newer guy here. Up until last year I didn’t dial and didn’t know shit about Mils/MOA.
For the past year I’ve been doing a ton of reading and shooting. While I have a long way to go, I was fortunate to start off with a MIL scope (thanks to the everyday sniper podcast!). From what I do know albeit limited, I’m glad I went Mils after playing around with an MOA scope this summer.

So, am I missing something if I never think in terms of inches/cm/ft whatever when shooting? I just get a good dope, input environmentals and shoot. Wind holds are similar and I tend to use brackets for wind calls when it isn’t howling. Seems to be working great.

So is there any reason to do any conversions when shooting from Mil or MOA to inches? It just seems unecessary. Who cares if I’m 6” off target, I read my reticle and correct. Right or wrong?

 

[Dthomas3523]

 

[QuickNDirty]

You know what 11 inches at 780 yards looks like?

Your dick?

 

[spaniel]

The fact that you still use MOA and Inches as a comparative proves you have no idea what you are doing.

And I do, and many here reload their own ammo.

Wait... did you try to use reloading ammo as a superiority?


Lmaoooooo!!!!!!!!??

At normal hunting ranges the difference is inconsequential. Once it is consequential, either method can be used effectively. Finishing on the podium in 2000yd competition, I guess I must know a thing or two. And yes, if one considers themselves a "precision" shooter, I expect they reload their own ammo or I discount them.

Given how we must divide and cut our own throats on each factor of this sport and have no capacity to accept differences of opinion, it is no surprise to me how easily the liberals divide and take us down...what a silly argument.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Ok, relatively newer guy here. Up until last year I didn’t dial and didn’t know shit about Mils/MOA.
For the past year I’ve been doing a ton of reading and shooting. While I have a long way to go, I was fortunate to start off with a MIL scope (thanks to the everyday sniper podcast!). From what I do know albeit limited, I’m glad I went Mils after playing around with an MOA scope this summer.

So, am I missing something if I never think in terms of inches/cm/ft whatever when shooting? I just get a good dope, input environmentals and shoot. Wind holds are similar and I tend to use brackets for wind calls when it isn’t howling. Seems to be working great.

So is there any reason to do any conversions when shooting from Mil or MOA to inches? It just seems unecessary. Who cares if I’m 6” off target, I read my reticle and correct. Right or wrong?

You got it.

You just learned more in your short time than the genius up there who’s been shooting for 20 years.

I bet he neck sizes too......

 

[Veer_G]

You know what 11 inches at 780 yards looks like?

Nah, but he's got a good idea from across a motel room.

 

[Dthomas3523]

At normal hunting ranges the difference is inconsequential. Once it is consequential, either method can be used effectively. Finishing on the podium in 2000yd competition, I guess I must know a thing or two. And yes, if one considers themselves a "precision" shooter, I expect they reload their own ammo or I discount them.

Given how we must divide and cut our own throats on each factor of this sport and have no capacity to accept differences of opinion, it is no surprise to me how easily the liberals divide and take us down...what a silly argument.

Meh, Jamie Gold won the WSOP main event.

Guess he knows how to play poker......