MOA vs Mil

So many truth bombs were dropped even among (and with) the snark I say yes.

Posts 341 and 342 were such amazingly simple and concise explanations for the OP to free his mind and he still can't (or won't) grasp it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aftermath
Shit what a relief. I though I missed 8 pages of MILF MOAN discussion.

But as long as I am here, this is my .02 on the MOA vs MIL discussion.

1613449775159.png
 
If someone could give an answer that had some type of intelligent response, then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have been waiting this entire time for someone to post something along the lines of this. But no.. everything but this. That's it.. that simple. This was the first thing I learned and I practiced it.. not very practical compared to the tools we have and I would never bust this out at a match. So if your argument is, who gives a shit, I use Mil because of whatever random shit you want to tell yourself, then that's ok by me. My first Vortex Razor was MOA because I was like, who would use Mil, that's stupid.. Then I went to a match and was like.. ok.. I get it.

1 MOA spreads about 1″ per 100 yards. (actually 1.047″)

1 MOA is a different size at different distances, 8″ at 800 yards is still just 1 MOA.

This:
(Distance to target in yards) / (100) = inches per MOA at that distance

(Number of inches of adjustment needed) / (inches per MOA at that distance) = MOA adjustment

(Number of clicks per 1 MOA on scope) x (MOA adjustment) = adjustment in clicks on scope




Mils:

One Mil's Size at Various Distances (in Yards)

1002003004005006007008009001000
3.6"7.2"10.8"14.4"18.0"21.6"25.2"28.8"32.4"36.0"
One Mil's Size at Various Distances (in Meters)

1002003004005006007008009001000
10cm20cm30cm40cm50cm60cm70cm80cm90cm1 Meter

and This:
20 mm/50 m = 0.4 mrad, or 4 clicks with a 1/10 mrad adjustment scope.
50 mm/1000 m = 0.05 mrad, or 1 click with a 0.05 mrad adjustment scope.

There are literally thousands of references to this all over the place and you guys have no clue what I'm talking about? Kinda hard to believe. This has to be some kind of joke.
You really are a special kind of stupid.
 
Also one other thing. As a machinist I don't use inches. I use milliinches. 0.001" or a thou. Everything I measure is done in thousandths or tenths of thousandths (0.0001" pronounced as a tenth). Every measurement I talk about is in terms of thousandths. For example what I am cutting tonight. 3.369-3.371". Said as three point three seventy +/- a thou.

Here I will do some comparisons as well.

0.0001"@1" = 1/10 mil
0.001" @1" = 1mil.
1 head @1000 head lengths = 1 mil
1 light year @ 1000 light years = 1 mil
1 squirrel ball @1000 squirrel balls = 1mil
1 opossum ball @1000 opossum balls = 1mil
3.6" @3600" (100 yards) = 1 mil
1 mile @1000 miles = 1mil.

VS
1.047" @ 3600" (100 yards) = 1 MOA
 
Last edited:
Added to the Legendary Thread for reasons stated above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TriggerJerk!
Also one other thing. As a machinist I don't use inches. I use milliinches. 0.001" or a thou. Everything I measure is done in thousandths or tenths of thousandths (0.0001" pronounced as a tenth). Every measurement I talk about is in terms of thousandths. For example what I am cutting tonight. 3.369-3.371". Said as three point three seventy +/- a thou.

Here I will do some comparisons as well.

0.0001"@1" = 1/10 mil
0.001" @1" = 1mil.
1 head @1000 head lengths = 1 mil
1 light year @ 1000 light years = 1 mil
1 squirrel ball @1000 squirrel balls = 1mil
1 opossum ball @1000 opossum balls = 1mil
1 mile @1000 miles = 1mil.
1613451056228.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeftyJason
Beyond the cursory and coincidental "oh yeah, that's kinda neat" fact that 1.047" per 100yd is pretty close to 1.000" per 100yd, there is no benefit to MOA over Mils.

It
Does
Not
Matter
Because
You
Measure
Everything
In
Angles
And
NEVER EVER
Have to convert it to inches, cm, m, yd, mm, km, dm, mi.....

"That was .2 mils left"
<Adjust .2 mils right>

That was .5 MOA high
<HOLD A HALF MOA LOWER NEXT TIME>

By now you'd think the point was made... but that's it. End. No further mathematical gymnastics required.
 
Last edited:
So you are telling me this guy ( Ryan Cleckner is a former Army Ranger sniper and instructor with the 1st Ranger Battalion of the US Army) is a complete idiot and the other 100 references I have found with MOA use inches and Mil uses meters and there is actual math you can use? I you really don't know this, please watch both videos, you might learn something.


 
So you are telling me this guy ( Ryan Cleckner is a former Army Ranger sniper and instructor with the 1st Ranger Battalion of the US Army) is a complete idiot and the other 100 references I have found with MOA use inches and Mil uses meters and there is actual math you can use? I you really don't know this, please watch both videos, you might learn something.




one flaw in your thinking regarding referencing metric and imperial, Frank mentioned it earlier, you are NOT down range measuring the difference. the reticle, whether mil or moa is a calibrated ruler. in the case of moa, it is known that some manufacturers don't spec their turrets to 1.047 and leave it at 1 inch.

the real question you should be asking yourself is why do you want to convert something from an angle into a linear figure, doesn't make any sense. if under pressure can you think on the fly to make the correction you need? most probably not.

and referencing Ryan Cleckner, you might want to watch this video where he is using a mil scope and trying to convert to moa, cause he thinks in moa, to make his adjustments while zeroing. not having a go a Ryan at all, he knows his stuff. he has been shooting moa most of his life and only changed to mil in the not to distant past going off this video.



please stop flogging a dead horse. people will either entertain you or ignore you. don't be surprised if you are the only one left talking to yourself in this thread...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newbie2020
one flaw in your thinking regarding referencing metric and imperial, Frank mentioned it earlier, you are NOT down range measuring the difference. the reticle, whether mil or moa is a calibrated ruler. in the case of moa, it is known that some manufacturers don't spec their turrets to 1.047 and leave it at 1 inch.

the real question you should be asking yourself is why do you want to convert something from an angle into a linear figure, doesn't make any sense. if under pressure can you think on the fly to make the correction you need? most probably not.

and referencing Ryan Cleckner, you might want to watch this video where he is using a mil scope and trying to convert to moa, cause he thinks in moa, to make his adjustments while zeroing. not having a go a Ryan at all, he knows his stuff. he has been shooting moa most of his life and only changed to mil in the not to distant past going off this video.



please stop flogging a dead horse. people will either entertain you or ignore you. don't be surprised if you are the only one left talking to yourself in this thread...

Thank you for a descent comment that makes sense. I agree there are easier tools to use, but this was the foundation I was talking about that everyone says doesn't exist. Army Snipers use Mil so I'm not sure he is a MOA guy. It is referencing MOA because most hunter use MOA and they don't have crazy reticles like our 2-4K scopes do. This video is 10 years old so the scope craze was just getting going.

But but but I think we got a break through here!!!! People literally don't know this is a thing?

I agree, I'm done with this man.. if people don't want get it, they don't get it and it really doesn't matter to them.
 
Last edited:
The math only matters if you're using your reticle to measure an object of known size so you can estimate range...

Example: If you look through the scope at a target that you know is 36 inches wide and it brackets at 1 mil then you know the target is 1000 yards away.

So now that you know the range (and assuming you know your bullet drop @ 1000) then you can adjust or hold over by that value.

Estimating range is basically the only time the math comes in to play. And it's a ballpark figure at best.

A good rangefinder pretty much negates having to use the math but it doesn't hurt to know it because, well... caca occurs.

Mike
 
No he is not an idiot. I do not think you are either, but it seems that you have ingrained a shortcut into your calculations that is confounding the issue. I have just finished reading this entire thread from start to finish. I can sense your frustration, but I suspect that you are too closely associating meters to MRAD's and MOA to yards. Also, everyone dog piling is probably obfuscating the issue a bit.

Please review starting at the 5:55 mark for a couple of minutes then move to the 8:47 mark in the video link you provided. He is utilizing the MRADs to discuss shooting in yards without converting from MOA's to Mil's.

Then see 15:30 wherein he discusses that mils and MOA's and mils are both being angular units of measurement.

MRAD is a unit of angle. MOA is a unit of angle. The unit of distance that you are measuring is abstract.

Perhaps it will help redefining the terminology.
MRAD = .0572958 degrees <-derived from the Formula (360 /(2 * pi)/1000
MOA = .0166666 degrees <- derived from the formula (1/60)

.0572958 degrees x unit = 1/1000th of the unit in distance.

Stealing Cleckner's example from the video,
Lets assume that your target is an Elk. The Elk is now your unit. The Elk is 1 milliradian tall in your scope. You are 1,000 Elk heights away from your target. If you believe an Elk is 57 inches tall. You are 1,000 (57 inch) units away. You can convert to the Elk being 57,000 inches away. Dividing by 36 inches will give you 1,583 yards to the Elk. If you shot at the Elk and missed by a single MRAD in your scope, then you know that you missed center by one length of Elk, being 57 inches.

If the Elk is 5 milliradians tall in your scope, then the Elk is 5/1000 Elk Heights away from you. Which will mean the Elk is 316.66 yards away. This of course assumes that your estimation of height is correct. If you shot at the Elk and your POI was single MRAD from your POA, in your scope, then you know that you missed your POA by 1/5th of an Elk, or 11.4 inches.

(Someone please check my math. Its late and I have been drinking.)

The shortcut I think you are using, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you are automatically converting everything to inches, then attempting to convert back to Mils or MOAs to make adjustments. I would argue that this is unnecessary. Simply convert the MOAs to Mils if that is your goal and skip the conversion of distance.
 
Wow, all the sudden we have a logical discussion going here.
Sort of... Like I said it only matters for ranging. If you're shooting somewhere with a predetermined distance to target the math doesn't mean squat... Mils are mils and minutes are minutes.

If my shot is .5 mils left at 200 yards I'm going to click over .5 and keep shooting... I don't care if it was 3.6" left.

Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aftermath
I was saving this one for my last comment.. What triggered this topic my head was this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE ON THIS SITE

Notice how he is "converting everything from yds to mil adjustments? My entire point made here. If you were using MOA adjustments, there would be less backend math involved. He did it for you so that's what make this so great.

This is an awesome tool and would recommend trying what this gentlemen has put together one day on the range.

 
Last edited:
No he is not an idiot. I do not think you are either, but it seems that you have ingrained a shortcut into your calculations that is confounding the issue. I have just finished reading this entire thread from start to finish. I can sense your frustration, but I suspect that you are too closely associating meters to MRAD's and MOA to yards. Also, everyone dog piling is probably obfuscating the issue a bit.

Please review starting at the 5:55 mark for a couple of minutes then move to the 8:47 mark in the video link you provided. He is utilizing the MRADs to discuss shooting in yards without converting from MOA's to Mil's.

Then see 15:30 wherein he discusses that mils and MOA's and mils are both being angular units of measurement.

MRAD is a unit of angle. MOA is a unit of angle. The unit of distance that you are measuring is abstract.

Perhaps it will help redefining the terminology.
MRAD = .0572958 degrees <-derived from the Formula (360 /(2 * pi)/1000
MOA = .0166666 degrees <- derived from the formula (1/60)

.0572958 degrees x unit = 1/1000th of the unit in distance.

Stealing Cleckner's example from the video,
Lets assume that your target is an Elk. The Elk is now your unit. The Elk is 1 milliradian tall in your scope. You are 1,000 Elk heights away from your target. If you believe an Elk is 57 inches tall. You are 1,000 (57 inch) units away. You can convert to the Elk being 57,000 inches away. Dividing by 36 inches will give you 1,583 yards to the Elk. If you shot at the Elk and missed by a single MRAD in your scope, then you know that you missed center by one length of Elk, being 57 inches.

If the Elk is 5 milliradians tall in your scope, then the Elk is 5/1000 Elk Heights away from you. Which will mean the Elk is 316.66 yards away. This of course assumes that your estimation of height is correct. If you shot at the Elk and your POI was single MRAD from your POA, in your scope, then you know that you missed your POA by 1/5th of an Elk, or 11.4 inches.

(Someone please check my math. Its late and I have been drinking.)

The shortcut I think you are using, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you are automatically converting everything to inches, then attempting to convert back to Mils or MOAs to make adjustments. I would argue that this is unnecessary. Simply convert the MOAs to Mils if that is your goal and skip the conversion of distance.
I was just trying to make the simple point that MOA is easier for me to do quickly vs MIL and there is math involved. The formulas are the same, you just have to have a constant value (meters or inches) when applying them. If you want to convert one to the other, then there is more math.

That's it what all this has turned into.. not sure how.. but it did
 
  • Like
Reactions: TriggerJerk!
I am beginning to realize this! You guys are so defensive!!

I could care less if you use MOA or Mil.
I don't think one is better than the other.
I don't think MOA is more of a precise adjustment (even though it is, just really not enough to make a difference at most yardage)

I use Mil myself since I started PRS for the easy of interaction with others. When I'm on the range and start spitting out numbers like.. 3in low @ 600yard.. need to come up 1/2 MOA.. the dude shooting with me is like WTF are you talking about.

I'm not talking about the practical applications of either.. Once you get past the initial calculations, neither MOA or Mil are different, they are just reference numbers based off of MATH!

thank all of you for entertaining this beat to death horse.
Couldn’t*
And milliradians aren’t specific to any linear unit of measure.
1 mil @ 100 yards = .1 yards.
1 mil @ 500 yards = .5 yards
1 mil @ 250m = .25m
1 mil @ 1000 miles = 1 mile
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
I was just trying to make the simple point that MOA is easier for me to do quickly vs MIL and there is math involved. The formulas are the same, you just have to have a constant value (meters or inches) when applying them. If you want to convert one to the other, then there is more math.

That's it what all this has turned into.. not sure how.. but it did
The only math involved in mils IF you MUST relate it to a linear distance, which you really don’t and shouldn’t ever until you’re measure the group size and then you’re using a linear measuring tool anyway since you don’t measure group size with your scope, is shifting the decimal. I don’t even consider that math.
 
You are focusing on the definition of the thing and not the practical hands on USEAGE of the thing.

If your dope is written in mils/moa

Your corrections are measured and given in mils/moa

Your leads are held in mils/moa

There is ZERO need to backtrack into inches.

Your reticle is calibrated directly to your dials.

You see a miss and think "that's 2 feet left".

Your supposed to measure with your reticle in real time....your 2.5 mils left....your 9 minutes left.

If you are using feet and inches....YOUR DOING IT WRONG.

Your focused on the definition if a Mil being 3.6".....that information is there for you the layman to visual it. ITS NOT THE USEAGE.

You dont read a speed limit sign and do a bunch of math backtracking inches per second traveled. You speed up till the speedometer reads 35mph for that street and move on.

You have a target at 500 yards/meters. You have your dope in mils/moa for 500 yards/meters. You dial (or hold it). You hit or miss....upon the miss you measure with your reticle in mil/moa and apply it as needed. Done. No inches anywhere.

The gun and scope doesnt care if you call a target 200 meters or 219 yards away. It only cares that you need 0.7 mils to hit it. Done.

You must be laying down some Three oh Hate!😁
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
I think the confusion is that you want to do math. I get it, you want to go to what you have trained and learned on, and as an engineer, that's math.
The problem is that there really isn't any math involved when you are actually shooting. You might do math to determine range, but once you have range, you rely on your dope to dial the correction. Once you shoot, you our your spotter sees the miss and call the correction by the value of your scope, MOA or MIL, doesn't matter. When you are on the clock, you don't have time to say "I missed 6" at 1000, so I need X correction". Missed by .2, correct by .2, send it. I've yet to see the guy who can accurately measure in inches at 1000yds anyway, unless there is a ruler attached to the target and the area around it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuildingConceptsllc
Thank you for a descent comment that makes sense. I agree there are easier tools to use, but this was the foundation I was talking about that everyone says doesn't exist. Army Snipers use Mil so I'm not sure he is a MOA guy. It is referencing MOA because most hunter use MOA and they don't have crazy reticles like our 2-4K scopes do. This video is 10 years old so the scope craze was just getting going.

But but but I think we got a break through here!!!! People literally don't know this is a thing?

I agree, I'm done with this man.. if people don't want get it, they don't get it and it really doesn't matter to them.
The reason you're getting shitted on like there's no tomorrow is because you think that we're idiots and that you came here like Moses down from the mountain to teach us a revelation.

All of us can derive the distance subtended by an angle at a give range. This isn't new nor rocket science.

You have nothing you can teach us. Go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444
I use MOR.

Minute of radian.

It's why I'm better than everyone else.

I use the SRS. What is that you might ask?
It's the Skittles Reference System.
It's not MIL, it's not MOA, nor is it IPHY.
So, what is this measuring system based on?
Well, it's skittles you dumbass. If you need a size reference, it readily converts to angular nipples.

I don't have any pics handy, but I'm sure someone here has a pic or two of a Skittles Smuggler.

Little help!!?

Here's the layout of the reticle. I would have made a complete vertical and horizontal reticle, but I ate 'em instead.
Seriously, who doesn't like a bit of Skittles chewing?

20210216_073436.jpg


Now, I'm sure you'll notice the center Skittle is red. That's your aiming point. I woulda used pink or light brown, but like I said, I ate them.
The center Skittle is known as the head light. It's also been referred to as the turkey popper.

Anyway, we're gonna offer our turrets in a few different configurations.

The most popular will be the 1/2 Skittle and the optic will have at least 36DD elevation with half that much windage.

There will also be a 1/4 Skittle click value but it cuts the available movement in half.

For those looking for a lighter weight system for fall hunting, we're going old Skool and offering short, capped friction adjustable turrets (ala old Leupold Vari-×-II).
The caps are made of cashmere for comfort.

They'll have 34A Skittles of adjustment, but the reticle remains very perky.

Why covered you might ask? Hunting is normally a fall/winter thing. We want to make sure the Skittles aren't damaged due to cold or wet weather.

All you need to do is remove the cover and you can adjust the Skittles as much as you like. Once you place the cover back on the turret and the Skittles will return to their normal state.

The tall turret model will be available throughout the country as spring rolls in. Look for it at your favorite park, restaurant or beach.

The smaller turret model will be available in some office environments throughout the year. Once fall returns, expect to see an increase in the covered turret model.
 
I was saving this one for my last comment.. What triggered this topic my head was this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE ON THIS SITE

Notice how he is "converting everything from yds to mil adjustments? My entire point made here. If you were using MOA adjustments, there would be less backend math involved. He did it for you so that's what make this so great.

This is an awesome tool and would recommend trying what this gentlemen has put together one day on the range.


You have zero understanding of what you read in that link. You have zero understanding of the practical application of any of this.
 
I think this is what is going on:

Cargo cult programming - Wikipedia

There are a group of people who do things because they have seen others do it, but have no understanding of why it's being done that way.

I'm guilty if this myself on occasion. I'm not a general contractor, but when I had to repair a wall in my house I followed what had been done before. I had no idea what the building code was or any of that shit, it was just monkey see, monkey do, monkey cut stud, monkey toe nail stud. Monkey hang drywall (loathsome task). Good monkey, have a peanut! We all do this at times, because none of us can know everything about everything. The difference is I don't come here and tell the contractors they are building houses wrong.

Our OP has seen some stuff on precision rifle, and is copying and repeating what he has heard but with no understanding of the why and the context and application behind it!

I see this a lot at work too. I ask why someone did something and they can't explain it, other than they did it and it worked before. Great, and are the 2 cases the same? Deer in headlights look. The ones that do explain it all are immediately punished rewarded with more responsibility, and over average pay rises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and 308pirate
This was in that Stop the debate article.

But I “think” in Inches:"

Ya. makes sense, just converter one thing too another has nothing to do thing inches or distance in is calculation. You did that calculation separate.​

6.3Mils x 3.43 = 21.6 MOA​

21.6 MOA / 3.43 = 6.3 Mils​


If you run with the target size x 100.. it's make this pretty damn easy which is my point again. And why do we have to use 27.7 boys and girls.. because it's metric

Mils

Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 27.7 / Mils Observed

TMOA

Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 95.5 / TMOA Observed

IPHY / SMOA

Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 100 / SMOA Observed
 
Thank you for a descent comment that makes sense. I agree there are easier tools to use, but this was the foundation I was talking about that everyone says doesn't exist. Army Snipers use Mil so I'm not sure he is a MOA guy. It is referencing MOA because most hunter use MOA and they don't have crazy reticles like our 2-4K scopes do. This video is 10 years old so the scope craze was just getting going.

But but but I think we got a break through here!!!! People literally don't know this is a thing?

I agree, I'm done with this man.. if people don't want get it, they don't get it and it really doesn't matter to them.
The ONLY thing fucking funnier than the AMAZINGLY lonnnggggggg list of things you don't know is the list of things you THINK you "know". Congratulations?!?

As per always you'll do best by shutting the fhuqk up; taking notes and applying same. Hint.
 
I was saving this one for my last comment.. What triggered this topic my head was this FRONT PAGE ARTICLE ON THIS SITE

Notice how he is "converting everything from yds to mil adjustments? My entire point made here. If you were using MOA adjustments, there would be less backend math involved. He did it for you so that's what make this so great.

This is an awesome tool and would recommend trying what this gentlemen has put together one day on the range.


He’s not converting anything at all......

They took their known dope at 100yd increments across different platforms and came up with a constant value for gravity at each yardage increment.

Are you sure you’re an engineer? If so, please give me the name of the company so I can never use them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and 308pirate
This was in that Stop the debate article.

But I “think” in Inches:"​

Ya. makes sense, just converter one thing too another has nothing to do thing inches or distance in is calculation. You did that calculation separate.​

6.3Mils x 3.43 = 21.6 MOA​

21.6 MOA / 3.43 = 6.3 Mils​


If you run with the target size x 100.. it's make this pretty damn easy which is my point again. And why do we have to use 27.7 boys and girls.. because it's metric

Mils

Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 27.7 / Mils Observed

TMOA

Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 95.5 / TMOA Observed

IPHY / SMOA

Range in Yards = Target size Inches x 100 / SMOA Observed
 
That's pretty much about 90% of the Internet's firearm content creators.
I guess you never taken statistic based calculus


For statistical thinking, what’s needed instead of quadratics and factoring is the incorporation of covariates. This can be as simple as the linear function with two inputs, z = a + bx + cy. This general-purpose form—extended often to more than two variables but remaining linear—is the workhorse of statistical modeling. It’s a first representation of what might be called complexity that more than one variable can play a role.

A powerful way of thinking about functions like z = a + bx + cy is to ask how the output changes when either of the inputs, x or y, is changed.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: lash and 308pirate
I guess you never taken statistic based calculus


For statistical thinking, what’s needed instead of quadratics and factoring is the incorporation of covariates. This can be as simple as the linear function with two inputs, z = a + bx + cy. This general-purpose form—extended often to more than two variables but remaining linear—is the workhorse of statistical modeling. It’s a first representation of what might be called complexity that more than one variable can play a role.

A powerful way of thinking about functions like z = a + bx + cy is to ask how the output changes when either of the inputs, x or y, is changed.
You're a fucking MORON. There are people here that have forgotten more mathematics than you will ever live to learn.

I am ashamed to be an engineer at this point. I would love to send a transcript of this to your "college" so we can ensure that ANYTHING you engineer never comes into contact with humanity. Is that Moronica U on the island of Moronica?

They did a show about you called ENGINEERING DISASTERS