Those who are new to this: don't do it like this guy.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes MOA vs Mil
- Thread starter lcpiper
- Start date
For 200 bucks + freight to them, Leupold will instill a MOA tree ret in that scope, I doubt you will regret it one bit. It's on their web sight as Impact 32. All my Mk 4's have it plus when you learn to drive that scope on all powers you will find the 92moa + or - moa on 3.5 power has many uses. If you install a home made ret doubler stop an shoot subs the 64moa will get you to 400yds quickly for precise shots.
This is a discussion about MOA vs MIL. I think you're off on your own rabbit trail talking about buying groups. Why are we even talking about money - there is no inherent price difference outside of a couple of specialty reticles. And you don't sacrifice any skills going from one unit of measure to another.
Yes it is about MOA vs Mils vs IPHY, an sticking/knowing one only is great if you are but a rec shooter. Many that come here think, an are led to believe by others they can buy groups at range, I an others see it all the time reading between the lines, an at matches/classes
Buying groups has nothing to do with mil/moa. That’s why I was confused - your rant has nothing to do with my original post or the topic of the thread.
No shooter, rec or otherwise, has a need to know more than one if you stick with buying equipment in the format that you know.
You seem to have an axe to grind about things that aren’t remotely relevant to this discussion, and you wanted to be unnecessarily condescending in the meantime. I don’t have any use discussing things with people like that. Have a nice day
One of the main reasons to choose moa over mil is that you can get much finer adjustment if you get one with 1/8 moa per click turrets. That finer adjustment yields a much more precise zero. The trade off is that when you try to dial under time pressure, you’ll be faster with the larger clicks from a 1/4 moa per click turret, and even faster with 1/10 mil per click turret. That’s a main reason to choose mil for hunting, combat sniping, and competitions that attempt to simulate those conditions with time pressure. Target shooters who don’t shoot under time pressure have a good reason to prefer the 1/8 moa per click turrets for that application. Second focal plane reticles can even be preferred in some target sports because the reticle lines remain thin at high magnification.
That statement alone proves you don't have a clue.
Long range? Well, as said in my opening post, max target distance on our local range is 600 meters, my daughter is nailing 500 consistently, 600 has been giving us problems. Her intent is to work out to 1000+ so that is the direction we are headed. She just ordered a Bergara LRP in 6.5 CM for the purpose.
We have changed out the scope base replacing the flat base with a 20MOA Badger, trying to get on that 600 meter steel. It's possible that she's hit it and I am just not hearing it, missing the trace, etc. But the range is laid out on a mountain slope and the inclination increases greatly from 500 to 600 so it's tough to figure out just how short we are. It's mostly moot now with the .223 as she will switch to her new 6.5CM and I'll be using my new .308 build.
Perhaps I didn't wait to hear from enough people, I have already bought the MOA version of the Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 from Leupold. It's for me, I'm 60 and don't see as well anymore anyway. I'll suggest to her to consider Mil instead.
Again gentlemen, Thank You for the helpful comments.
For those who are enjoying bickering, I'll leave you to your fun.
Last edited:
Nothing like a snipers hide shit fight!!!! Id like to add my 2 cents from someone who went the other way. I'm in Australia grew up with metric so cm, metres, mils naturally makes more sense to me my ranges are in metres. I used a swfa mil mil and it worked fine no issues. Next scope I bought was in moa.... why because the reticle and scope I liked was only in moa so I rolled with it. Guess what the world hasn't ended I find no difference in the shooting I do. I use my ballistic calculator to give me my numbers for my first shot, once that first shot is off I'm using the reticle to hold for the wind based on the results. Whether that is a .3mil hold or a 1 moa hold it makes no difference to me its just a number. What is more important to me is how easy the reticle is to work with.
I’ve used both extensively and I would rather dial 1/2 turn into the one than a full turn when competing. MOA is definitely more precise and easier to read for benchrest or general shooting but all my comp scopes are mil
An important factor that no one ever mentions is using a canted rail.
Most rails, like 99.9% of them are MOA cant Not MIL!
By sticking to a MOA scope the calculations are so much easier than combining MOA and Mil.
Most rails, like 99.9% of them are MOA cant Not MIL!
By sticking to a MOA scope the calculations are so much easier than combining MOA and Mil.
Some lucky folks learned with and used a Mildot reticle with MOA turrets for their first few years of shooting. They didn't know their equipment was "wrong" until the internet said so. ???
This is an interesting statement. These scopes are not wrong - they're just inferior. You can certainly shoot with them, but they take at least some of the shooter's focus away from the actual task at hand in order to operate the tools required to do the job. Not impossible, but also not even close to ideal.
This isn't a real issue. The rail cant has zero impact on your calculations after purchasing & zeroing the scope. The only reason it would have any up-front impact is doing research to make sure you don't buy a rail with too much angle to get a short-range zero. It's mostly irrelevant with today's scopes that have well over 20 mils of travel.
My targets are sized from 0.4mil to 1 mil so that forbids me from using MOA scope. I also custom ordered my rail to be changed from 20MOA to 6mil. Works very well 
Mate, you try calling a miss/ hold over in inches, convert it to Mils then subtract an MOA cant.
You ain't doing that shit under time pressure in a match, hunting or combat.
It's an irrelevant factor. It a conversion math done once just to see if you're going to run out of scope travel downwards when you first zero. It's never done again. EVER.
In fact, the math doesn't even need to be done with a 20 MOA base and a quality, 30 mm tube scope. I've never done it.
LOL holy shit you don't know what you don't know. Leave this conversation to those of us who actually have used our rifles in the field.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with your second sentence but your first sentence is an incorrect generalization.
How far the turret needs to be rotated for a given amount of erector vertical movement is ONLY a function of the thread pitch of the erector's elevation screw. A coarser pitch creates more elevation travel per degree of knob rotation. That's a completely different issue than how many detents there are under the elevation knob and how those detents are marked on the outside of the elevation knob. All three get manipulated by scope manufacturers to give you the number of mils or MOA per turret rotation.
You follow?
My only concern is ranging with the reticle. If i measure something in inches and then use a mil reticle to range it i have to convert to a metric mesurement correct? Thats the way i see mil as being metric. Not that the angular measurement is metric but that all my target measurememts would have to be metric or converted to metric. Maybe im wrong here. But im not too sure.
NO
Do you retards ever bother to google shit and LEARN?
Let's try that for an MOA reticle: Size in inches ÷ Size in MOA x 95.5 = Range (yards)
They both have a mathematical constant embedded in them. They are equally easy/hard to use.
Best ranging "formula":
R
R
he's trolling the shit out of you. and you took the bait
The other way is target in inches/subtention x 100 - 5% = distance. I've used this method for years upon years an have never missed do to my range call. The easiest is IPHY target size/subtention x 100 = distance.
All
Most all of the IPHY/MOA/Mil math can be done in your head on the fly if need be an you know what your doing. Having a sizing/range chart is good but, if your not a rec/taacticool shooter, you know about Murphy, Battery's, Electronics, & Lost Shit,...
One issue with some threads on here is this site was started base upon the sites theme/name. It has changed to mostly tacticool now, with a few SJW'ers thrown in. The interesting thing is the amount of threads/forums those types never enter, why would that be? Some things, can't be googled would be my answer,....
this seems to me to be the best most concise article around
Damnit.......sshhhhh.
10/10 troll though. I was impressed with people taking the bait.
Also, the fuck are all these operators ranging with their reticles?
I start every ukd session ranging each of my targets with reticle first then grade myself with my lrf...gotta stay frosty
First rule of PublicRangeOperating is that you don’t talk about PublicRangeOperating.
There are shoots were it's all UKD, but you can use a LRF if you think (A) it will give you the correct reading, or (B) you think you can out smart the MD who set up the targets an firing points. Those type of MD'ers post here,... an one lives in a very small place south of Opelika/Auburn Alabama an is known by jhuskey here, other names follow him if/when you are invited to one of his shoots.
Not everything is as it seems on the net where tacticool is the order of the day, there are many types of shoots that are invite only.
Last edited:
I did in the 80s and was highly disappointed. Until I learned that deer were made in different sized which was not what my Tasco manual led me to believe.
Reticle ranging is a legacy skill for many reasons that make it not very accurate at times.
Yes.
When I can buy a Leica 2000 yd rangefinder for less than $500, why the fuck would I do anything else?
Correct, as most people don't practice it enough or understand lighting, angle, target colors, ect. The biggest mistake most make is to verify the ret they are using in the first place, an not just one subtention either.
Yea, as mentioned above, lots of factors can make it less than ideal.
Nowadays, a rangefinder, backup batteries, and if either working or on the hunt of a lifetime, a backup laser takes care of most everything.
Suppose i should learn more about range finders. I had been led to believe that there is a high chance of inaccuracy because of the laser. Im not a veteran to the long range world so im just grasping some things and coming to terms with the fact that a good deal of what i "knew" about shooting is wrong and fairly useless in this world. Just trying my best to be better than yesterday. Wish i could find someone to mentor me but ill have to settle with the internet for now
Similar threads
