Rifle Scopes MOA vs Mil

L

lcpiper

Private
Minuteman
Jan 12, 2019
6
2
#1
Gents, I have some lower grade scopes that are either MOA or Leupold's TMR reticle. Been teaching my kid while I myself learn and mostly using a SWFA 10x42 MOA scope. She just ordered her first rifle, a Bergara LRP in 6.5 CM, and I am building a .308 off a 700 Police 5R from Eurooptic on a Bravo chassis.

Our local range tops out at 600 meters steel, we could start moving out and shooting on BLM land, but we aren't there yet. When my kid's rifle comes in, were putting the SWFA 10x on it for now, but I am looking at newer better glass for my new .308, my eyes are older, I may have to compensate with better magnification.

I've been coming really close to ordering a Leupold B-10 for it but I can't decide on which reticle standard. I figure MOA exists for good reasons, seems many of you guys who are more serious opt for Mil, there must be good reasons for both.

I'm open to some educating.
 
#4
lcpiper said:
Gents, I have some lower grade scopes that are either MOA or Leupold's TMR reticle. Been teaching my kid while I myself learn and mostly using a SWFA 10x42 MOA scope. She just ordered her first rifle, a Bergara LRP in 6.5 CM, and I am building a .308 off a 700 Police 5R from Eurooptic on a Bravo chassis.

Our local range tops out at 600 meters steel, we could start moving out and shooting on BLM land, but we aren't there yet. When my kid's rifle comes in, were putting the SWFA 10x on it for now, but I am looking at newer better glass for my new .308, my eyes are older, I may have to compensate with better magnification.

I've been coming really close to ordering a Leupold B-10 for it but I can't decide on which reticle standard. I figure MOA exists for good reasons, seems many of you guys who are more serious opt for Mil, there must be good reasons for both.

I'm open to some educating.
Click to expand...
www.snipershide.com

Rifle Scopes - MOA vs Mil.

With Mil so prevalent now, does that mean that MOA is dead or dying? Anybody still running them?
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com
This was one of the better threads on the topic. Good explanations.

Things that I have learned from these types of threads.

Biggest thing to remember is that they are both angular measurements.

Use the calibrated ruler that is 3 inches in front of your nose.

Mils are not metric only.

Don't try to convert to a linear measurement. Talk about all measurements you are going to make in whichever you choose. Example pulling random numbers. How much did I miss by? .3 mils. Or .75 moa. Or half plate. DO NOT say 6 inches.

The only time to really use linear measurements on a target is when talking about group size. Ex. I got 5 shots in a 100 yard group and it measured .45 inches.

Was wondering when another of these threads was going to pop up again. Btw welcome to the forum. Reading and searching can be your friend. Also this part of the forum is good as well.
www.snipershide.com

Practical Marksmanship Questions

Ask your Long Range Marksmanship question here. We are happy to answer any questions you can come up with when it comes to shooting a rifle at a distance.
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: cornhusker86, 308pirate and rydah
#5
Use either.

I switched to Mils because most everyone I shoot with uses it and it makes calls easier speaking the same lingo.

If you like MOA then use it, I never had and issues using it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seansmd
#8
for me its all about It's a personal preference. Both mils and MOA are angular calculations to achieve the same results.
After all You can use yards and inches with either.
I'd say Pick one and learn it. perfect on it.
 
#12
I have both and use both. Though, I think if I were going to teach a young shooter, I'd stick with mil. Based on my non-scientific data gathering, mil has gained massive traction in the consumer market in a very short amount of time. I think it's probably the better "future-proof" choice. But who knows...
 
#14
Mil is easier to learn if you're starting from scratch. If you already shoot MOA and are comfortable with it, then it's up to you on whether it's worth it to switch. Unless you plan to shoot benchrest or something of that sort where all of your shooting partners will be using MOA, there is no compelling reason to use MOA if you're starting out and aren't super-familiar with either.
 
#19
Gentlemen, thank you all for your time and effort on my behalf.

I wish to share my take-away from your comments.

Both seem to be equally effective if one is starting from scratch. Of course, as described, my daughter and I have already begun using MOA on our primary scope so that may rule my decision.

I did notice that some manufacturers seem to offer more reticle options for Mil vs MOA systems. For instance, the Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44, is offered with three reticle choices for MOA, but something like seven choices for Mil. Someone comfortable with both measures may not see this as anything to comment on, but someone with a strong preference might see it as such.

On the one hand, I can't really go wrong. Sticking with MOA at the moment is easier while we are still learning a lot of information. I have more to think on but it's a comfort that there is really no wrong move.

Again Thank you, Lloyd.
 
#21
7091653


R
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: antithesis, Lionsbreath and Squibbler
#23
lcpiper said:
Gentlemen, thank you all for your time and effort on my behalf.

I wish to share my take-away from your comments.

Both seem to be equally effective if one is starting from scratch. Of course, as described, my daughter and I have already begun using MOA on our primary scope so that may rule my decision.

I did notice that some manufacturers seem to offer more reticle options for Mil vs MOA systems. For instance, the Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44, is offered with three reticle choices for MOA, but something like seven choices for Mil. Someone comfortable with both measures may not see this as anything to comment on, but someone with a strong preference might see it as such.

On the one hand, I can't really go wrong. Sticking with MOA at the moment is easier while we are still learning a lot of information. I have more to think on but it's a comfort that there is really no wrong move.

Again Thank you, Lloyd.
Click to expand...
Also some older moa scopes aren't actually moa (the ones you've mentioned are good). They are sometimes IPHY (inches per hundred yards). Also they have done reticle turret mismatches in the past. Those stink. Bought one years ago before I knew better.
 
#33
Are you using your moa scope that you currently have for windage and elevation calculations, or just for zero adjustments? Those are very different beasts.

Calculating windage adjustments for MOA on the fly with changing wind is significantly more difficult. And remembering elevation corrections is also considerably more difficult. Neither is impossible, but unless you're using your moa scopes for long range shooing already, then just sticking with moa because you currently have an moa scope still isn't a great reason. But if you are already using it for long range shooting, then you do have a leg up in sticking with that system. Just my $.02 - worth what you paid for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steel+Killer
#35
patriot07 said:
Are you using your moa scope that you currently have for windage and elevation calculations, or just for zero adjustments? Those are very different beasts.

Calculating windage adjustments for MOA on the fly with changing wind is significantly more difficult. And remembering elevation corrections is also considerably more difficult. Neither is impossible, but unless you're using your moa scopes for long range shooing already, then just sticking with moa because you currently have an moa scope still isn't a great reason. But if you are already using it for long range shooting, then you do have a leg up in sticking with that system. Just my $.02 - worth what you paid for it.
Click to expand...
It matters little if scope/s are in MOA , MIL, IPHY, rat turds, or monkey tails, or if the rets match the knob, learn what you have. Throwing money at a tool you can't master is telling, about over all mind set an ability, in the long run. A true craftsman never blames his tools, he master's them.
Interesting how the GWOT has drove the tacticool market an ones perception of required tools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rizzle
#36
Gunfighter14e2 said:
It matters little if scope/s are in MOA , MIL, IPHY, rat turds, or monkey tails, or if the rets match the knob, learn what you have. Throwing money at a tool you can't master is telling, about over all mind set an ability, in the long run. A true craftsman never blames his tools, he master's them.
Interesting how the GWOT has drove the tacticool market an ones perception of required tools.
Click to expand...
Would you not agree that some tools are easier to use for a particular job than others?

Look at the elevation and wind correction charts for a 308 or 6.5 in mil vs moa and tell me which one is easier to remember. Let's not pretend that ease of use is 100% irrelevant. In fact, for a tool like a scope, I believe ease of use is really high on the list of importance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diver160651 and Steel+Killer
#37
patriot07 said:
Would you not agree that some tools are easier to use for a particular job than others?
Click to expand...
Yes,.... but the question is,..... "at what cost". What skill set are you shorting yourself of?
Many believe they can buy ability/skill an that is not reality,.... no matter what the gun rags, internet hype, or all the tacticool ads tells you.
 
#38
patriot07 said:
Would you not agree that some tools are easier to use for a particular job than others?

Look at the elevation and wind correction charts for a 308 or 6.5 in mil vs moa and tell me which one is easier to remember. Let's not pretend that ease of use is 100% irrelevant. In fact, for a tool like a scope, I believe ease of use is really high on the list of importance.
Click to expand...
This guy is never wrong. Ever.
 
#40
wade2big said:
If you aren’t using a ballistic calculator to make adjustments then yes mils are easier. It is easier and quicker to breakdown and multiply whole numbers than fractions. Like other members said though, both can be mastered.
Click to expand...

Multiplication? WTF in hell are you people doing? I don't multiply shit. If I need to find how far away something is I don't waste time ranging with a reticle. A Leica CRF2000 comes out and a few seconds later I have the answer.

Even if I have to split a full value wind, it's quick and dirty. A 3/4 value for a 5.75 MOA full value wind, I'll dial or hold 4 minutes and go. Don't need to figure out that 5.75 x .75 = 4.31 cause dirty math will be close enough.

When I shot service rifle I memorized my comeups and wind dope. Now that I shoot PR, I still memorize the comeups and wind/10 mph for common distances. I don't give a shit if the number is 27.5 or 3.2 memorization is memorization.

I will say this again: you have to be stupid if you find one harder than the other.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: HenryTheAce and clcustom1911
#41
308pirate said:
Multiplication? WTF in hell are you people doing? I don't multiply shit. If I need to find how far away something is I don't waste time ranging with a reticle. A Leica CRF2000 comes out and a few seconds later I have the answer.

When I shot service rifle I memorized my comeups and wind dope. Now that I shoot PR, I still memorize the comeups and wind/10 mph for common distances. I don't give a shit if the number is 27.5 or 3.2 memorization is memorization.

I will say this again: you have to be stupid if you find one harder than the other.
Click to expand...
For windage not ranging.
Example: 1.7 mil 10 mph full value wind
Need to hold for a 7 mph.
Take .17 x 7 = 1.2 mils. Quick and easy

Same hold in Moa is 5.75moa
Need a 7mph hold.
take 5.75 x .7 = 4 moa (I had to use a calculator for this one for the sake of time)

Why are you making this personal. Seems like you are getting offended.
Either way there is no wrong choice. Calling people stupid is foolish and where you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
#42
Mils vs Minutes, like a dog returneth to his vomit...... My advice is that if your used to shooting MOA scopes, then quickly switch to the Mils.. You will honestly be happier in the long run all the way around.. Funny thing is, that the guys that post up these mil vs moa questions already kinda know deep down there’s a better way...don’t put it off any longer just switch!! I’ve never seen any Mil scope guys scratching their heads and saying damn, what about these MOA scopes, maybe I need to make the switch from Mils
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 113831 and Steel+Killer
#44
wade2big said:
For windage not ranging.
Example: 1.7 mil 10 mph full value wind
Need to hold for a 7 mph.
Take .17 x 7 = 1.2 mils. Quick and easy

Same hold in Moa is 5.75moa
Need a 7mph hold.
take 5.75 x .7 = 4 moa (I had to use a calculator for this one for the sake of time)

Why are you making this personal. Seems like you are getting offended.
Either way there is no wrong choice. Calling people stupid is foolish and where you are wrong.
Click to expand...
LOL bullshit there's no way you can do .17 x 7 in your head any faster than you can do 5.75 x .7.

It's all dirty math

For mils I'd round up the .17 to .2 times .7 is 1.4 then round down to 1.2 or 1.1

For MOW I'd round up the 5.75 to 6 times .7 (or .6 times 7) is 4.2 then round back down to 4

BOTH of them done in my head in seconds.

It's obvious who has never used MOA, or even had to do math under pressure in their head.
 
#45
308pirate said:
LOL bullshit there's no way you can do .17 x 7 in your head any faster than you can do 5.75 x .7.

It's all dirty math

For mils I'd round up the .17 to .2 times .7 is 1.4 then round down to 1.2 or 1.1

For MOW I'd round up the 5.75 to 6 times .7 (or .6 times 7) is 4.2 then round back down to 4

BOTH of them done in my head in seconds.

It's obvious who has never used MOA, or even had to do math under pressure in their head.
Click to expand...
Ok. ?
 
#46
Gunfighter14e2 said:
Yes,.... but the question is,..... "at what cost". What skill set are you shorting yourself of?
Click to expand...
Nothing
Gunfighter14e2 said:
Many believe they can buy ability/skill an that is not reality,.... no matter what the gun rags, internet hype, or all the tacticool ads tells you.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying anyone can buy anything. Do mil scopes cost more than moa where you live? Or what point are you trying to make that I'm missing...?
 
#49
patriot07 said:
Nothing
Click to expand...
Really??? If you really think so, your not thinking beyond the next few minutes. Good luck to you as I don't trust luck down the road at all.

Yes, many think they can buy groups at range, then you have those who once off their home range, understand they don'y know what they think they knew prior to,... You keep doing as you wish,...
 
#50
I have a Leupold Mk 4 4.5-14x50mm LR/T w/M1 turrets (MOA, numbered and marked really well) and TMR reticle on my 308 Win. I don't use the scope/reticle for ranging or anything, just use the crosshairs.

It's zeroed at 100 yds. I'm 4" low at 200 yds., so I dial up 2 MOA (8 clicks). I'm 15" low at 300 yds. so I dial up 5 MOA (20 clicks). Haven't shoot past 300 yds. with it yet.

I'm just your average paper puncher so the above works for me.

NYH1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clcustom1911 and lcpiper
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
New scope??.
Replies
6
Views
460
Cody S
Cody S
F
Why would a scope be made with MOA turrets and Mil-Dot reticle
Replies
69
Views
1K
roostercogburn98
roostercogburn98
Lowlight
Rifle Scopes Form and Function of MOA and MIL
Replies
6
Views
497
375fan
3
P
ATACR 4-16x42 - Usable hold distance with MIL XT reticle w/ 100 yard zero and 5.56 rifle (and mount concerns)
Replies
13
Views
867
jLorenzo
jLorenzo
eboggs
Spotters Impact reticle in Leupold Gold Ring... Experience?
Replies
0
Views
225
eboggs
eboggs
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts