moa vs mils, the forbidden thread

[giveemshell2]

Hello dead horse. Looking for some advice. Bought a scope from a hide member, turned out to be MOA, decided to live with my mistake since it was a LPVO and l’ll run it anyway.

Edit: decided to send in the other MOA scope and get MRAD. Its important to standardize within your shooting team..

 

[oldrifleman]

Hello dead horse. Looking for some advice. Bought a scope from a hide member, turned out to be MOA, decided to live with my mistake since it was a LPVO and l’ll run it anyway.

Ordered a very expensive scope from a large online store in MRAD and I got an MOA scope lol completely wrong scope.

Should I just standardize MOA at this point like wtf.. I’ve only ever shot mils and there’s no version of any team shooting where someone I know speaks MOA rendering it kind of useless

Send the expensive MOA back !

 

[Maurygold]

moa is much easier to learn and new shooters to grasp if you haven't been forced to learn multiples of .36 yet.

 

[giveemshell2]

moa is much easier to learn and new shooters to grasp if you haven't been forced to learn multiples of .36 yet.

I haven’t even learned that I just miss and then hold X number of dots over on the tree

 

[giveemshell2]

Send the expensive MOA back !

That might be the option. Anyone want an expensive 1-10 LPVO in MOA too?

 

[saddlerocker]

The LPVO wouldnt matter to me really, send the mistake one back.

 

[Rob01]

You can have both. All your scopes don't have to be one or the other. I have a couple LVPOs that are MOA and all my long range are mil.

And MOA is not easier to learn. That's a fallacy that is parroted around the internet.

 

[Maurygold]

You can have both. All your scopes don't have to be one or the other. I have a couple LVPOs that are MOA and all my long range are mil.

And MOA is not easier to learn. That's a fallacy that is parroted around the internet.

lol it's not a fallacy.

please tell me how .36 times a number is easier than 1 times a number??

 

[Rob01]

lol it's not a fallacy.

please tell me how .36 times a number is easier than 1 times a number??

It is and if you are stupid enough to use linear numbers in your computing of ballistics then you deserve to think that way. There is no need for inches or cm and neither of the angular, MOA or Mil, is related to the linear. It's a fallacy people who don't know any better spread.

 

[clcustom1911]

lol it's not a fallacy.

please tell me how .36 times a number is easier than 1 times a number??

You don't measure in linear terms of inches, feet, meters, etc. You measure with marks on a ruler (your reticle). Regardless of what numbers are on the marks.

If I'm shooting and I miss, my spotter calls the correction in the unit of measurement. Not inches or centimeters. It's "Point 3 right" not "10 inches right".

 

[Rob01]

You don't measure in linear terms of inches, feet, meters, etc. You measure with marks on a ruler (your reticle). Regardless of what numbers are on the marks.

If I'm shooting and I miss, my spotter calls the correction in the unit of measurement. Not inches or centimeters. It's "Point 3 right" not "10 inches right".

See that is someone who knows what he is talking about and should be listened to.

 

[giveemshell2]

You don't measure in linear terms of inches, feet, meters, etc. You measure with marks on a ruler (your reticle). Regardless of what numbers are on the marks.

If I'm shooting and I miss, my spotter calls the correction in the unit of measurement. Not inches or centimeters. It's "Point 3 right" not "10 inches right".

This was my concern trying to screw with moa…

 

[Rob01]

This was my concern trying to screw with moa…

You do it the same way. You use the reticle like a ruler and hold or dial a correction. It's the same as mils but a different number.

 

[chevy_man]

moa is much easier to learn and new shooters to grasp if you haven't been forced to learn multiples of .36 yet.

If you're trying to convert inches to mill you're doing it wrong.

This was my concern trying to screw with moa…

It gets better, there's 2 different moa standards....

 

[Rob01]

It gets better, there's 2 different moa standards....

LOL Don't confuse the poor guy.

Luckily most are true moa now and not shooter moa. But even with shooter moa you can use the reticle the same. Anyone who had a USO years back knows that. LOL

 

[Maurygold]

It is and if you are stupid enough to use linear numbers in your computing of ballistics then you deserve to think that way. There is no need for inches or cm and neither of the angular, MOA or Mil, is related to the linear. It's a fallacy people who don't know any better spread.

I use both just fine. So that doesn’t make sense.

 

[chevy_man]

LOL Don't confuse the poor guy.

Luckily most are true moa now and not shooter moa. But even with shooter moa you can use the reticle the same. Anyone who had a USO years back knows that. LOL

Nothing better than trying to get a hit at 1400 yards and your spotter has shooter and you have true...

Mill is just mill. That's what hooked me once I let go of inches.

 

[Maurygold]

LOL Don't confuse the poor guy.

Luckily most are true moa now and not shooter moa. But even with shooter moa you can use the reticle the same. Anyone who had a USO years back knows that. LOL

No you’re right. Thinking of miss is in angular movement is much easier than the inches based system every single last person has been using their entire life.

 

[JerkyFreak]

...


It gets better, there's 2 different moa standards....

Please explain

 

[Maurygold]

You don't measure in linear terms of inches, feet, meters, etc. You measure with marks on a ruler (your reticle). Regardless of what numbers are on the marks.

If I'm shooting and I miss, my spotter calls the correction in the unit of measurement. Not inches or centimeters. It's "Point 3 right" not "10 inches right".

Yes. Because he already did the math. Argument totally invalid because an inches to angular was still the basis

 

[Rob01]

I use both just fine. So that doesn’t make sense.

No you’re right. Thinking of miss is in angular movement is much easier than the inches based system every single last person has been using their entire life.

You obviously don't get it if you are converting to linear so I'll just go back to helping the OP not turn out that way.

 

[Maurygold]

It is and if you are stupid enough to use linear numbers in your computing of ballistics then you deserve to think that way. There is no need for inches or cm and neither of the angular, MOA or Mil, is related to the linear. It's a fallacy people who don't know any better spread.

Every human spotting is interpreting the linear movement. That’s how humans measure things. If you think converting from inches to moa or mil leads to inaccuracy I’m intrigued

 

[Maurygold]

Don’t forget. Moa is also more precise

 

[chevy_man]

Please explain

Uh... Look up?

Every human spotting is interpreting the linear movement. That’s how humans measure things. If you think converting from inches to moa or mil leads to inaccuracy I’m intrigued

The average guy can't tell you anything reasonable through a scope without a grid to measure with.

So why would we say "hey, you missed by 1 mill, that's 36" because we're at 1000, move 1 mil up".

We simply say "you need 1 mill up."


I've found people who use tape measures daily are particularly resistant to abandoning inches. I bought a metric tape measure to break myself, and it actually surprised me how much better it was working with imported parts getting whole numbers!

 

[chevy_man]

Don’t forget. Moa is also more precise

So my .5moa gun is now a .15 mil gun?


Man, sounds like my life is going to get really hard.

 

[giveemshell2]

As funny as it was to see the measurement crowd get rowdy I’ve just decided to return it if they let me and standardize with my shooting team.

 

[JerkyFreak]

Uh... Look up?

I only know of one "MOA". That is one 60th of a degree. What other MOA is there? Please explain.

 

[Holliday]

 

[chevy_man]

I only know of one "MOA". That is one 60th of a degree. What other MOA is there? Please explain.

Some scopes have been sold as "shooters moa". They are truly 1" at 100, instead of the 1.047" at 100.

Out to 500 with the average hunter you'll never be bothered. But try 1000+ and suddenly you'll be frustrated if you find you mixed the two.

 

[Holliday]

Some scopes have been sold as "shooters moa". They are truly 1" at 100, instead of the 1.047" at 100.

Out to 500 with the average hunter you'll never be bothered. But try 1000+ and suddenly you'll be frustrated if you find you mixed the two.

I am always telling shooters to stop converting angular measurements to linear measurements, if your reticle matches your turrets. It is an utterly moronic waste of time and energy. It creates a muddled thought process and mindset.

Unfortunately BDC reticles are a different matter.

 

[JerkyFreak]

We all know '1" at 100 yards" is not 1 MOA. Who comes up with this shit? And who called that a MOA?

I've been using MOA for close to 2 decades now. It is no different than mills. Provided you don't mix the two, whats the problem?

 

[hafejd30]

I’d swap to what you’re used to and what is standardized among your shooting group. It’s just easier in the long run

Leave inches or centimeters completely out of the conversation

And “shooters moa” vs moa you’re talking 10” for 1 moa on the dial vs 10.5” at 1000 yds

Stick to using the reticle. Call the shots using your reticle and make adjustments using your reticle or dial

Most of us can and do use both. The biggest issue comes when spotting and calling for each other or sharing dope. Basically the communication end of things

 

[Rob01]

Every human spotting is interpreting the linear movement. That’s how humans measure things. If you think converting from inches to moa or mil leads to inaccuracy I’m intrigued

Lol dude you have no idea what you are talking about and I never want you to spot for me! Lol No one who knows how to use a scope calls corrections in any linear but you have fun. At least it’s worth a good laugh reading your posts.

 

[Maurygold]

I am always telling shooters to stop converting angular measurements to linear measurements, if your reticle matches your turrets. It is an utterly moronic waste of time and energy. It creates a muddled thought process and mindset.

Unfortunately BDC reticles are a different matter.

Using your reticle vs your natural inclination as a human is moronic.

It assumes you have matching reticles and leaves you untrained to handle a situation without. Using linear allows shooter and spotter to ensure the correction is right adding redundancy.

 

[Maurygold]

Lol dude you have no idea what you are talking about and I never want you to spot for me! Lol No one who knows how to use a scope calls corrections in any linear but you have fun. At least it’s worth a good laugh reading your posts.

Lol I call misses by the target. .5,1,2 targets l/r. That way my shooter can understand the call. I then return the correction in the moa/ mil to shooter.

Please don’t ever spot for me if you’re just going to call mil corrections at me

 

[oldrifleman]

If my spotter told me go left 15 inches I would replace that person by the next stage.

 

[Maurygold]

If my spotter told me go left 15 inches I would replace that person by the next stage.

That would be stupid. You’re spotter should see its 15 inches off then convert that to angular. I’m simply arguing that conversion with whole numbers is easier than .36 - which I guess deeply offends people

But thank you for supporting my point that humans naturally intake information likes this linearly in inches

 

[hafejd30]

That would be stupid. You’re spotter should see its 15 inches off then convert that to angular. I’m simply arguing that conversion with whole numbers is easier than .36 - which I guess deeply offends people

You simply don’t understand

It’s ok you can still learn

Most times it’s the OP who shows up to MIL vs MOA school. Rarely does someone like you step to the plate to absorb the knowledge

 

[Maurygold]

You simply don’t understand

It’s ok you can still learn

Most times it’s the OP who shows up to MIL vs MOA school. Rarely does someone like you step to the plate to absorb the knowledge

I use both at least 3-4 times a month, every month, out to 1k. I understand plenty.

Usually it’s old guys like you stuck in there ways trying to gate keep this hobby who can’t accept new perspectives and ways of thinking.

 

[hafejd30]

I use both at least 3-4 times a month, every month, out to 1k. I understand plenty.

Usually it’s old guys like you stuck in there ways trying to gate keep this hobby who can’t accept new perspectives and ways of thinking.

 

[oldrifleman]

I don’t and was using that as an example I would treat someone calling left 1/2 target the exact same way. Does me absolutely no good, I still have to process target size to mils to adjust the scope unless I do hold overs

 

[Maurygold]

I don’t and was using that as an example I would treat someone calling left 1/2 target the exact same way. Does me absolutely no good, I still have to process target size to mils to adjust the scope unless I do hold overs

Try reading. You’re just argueing a point no one is making. No one said to call thing in linear inches. People interpret things liberally in inches. I’m still suggesting the spotter and shooter confirm moa/mil drop

 

[Maurygold]

View attachment 8473744

Again. You’re just making stuff up. My spotter (in tmr) is probably nicer than your whole rifle……

 

[hafejd30]

I use both at least 3-4 times a month, every month, out to 1k. I understand plenty.

Usually it’s old guys like you stuck in there ways trying to gate keep this hobby who can’t accept new perspectives and ways of thinking.

Old guys? I’m 34

You probably win a lot of comps huh? Calling like that must confuse the competition immensely

 

[hafejd30]

Again. You’re just making stuff up. My spotter (in tmr) is probably nicer than your whole rifle……

View attachment 8473749

 

[oldrifleman]

No I am not, you may be too dense ( using distance) to understand. There is only one place where I allow my spotter to use distance directions and that is when I am shooting black powder cartridge in my sharps ( iron sights don’t do mild). My spotters call left point 5, up point 6. That is the only acceptable direction for me.

 

[hafejd30]

No I am not, you may be too dense ( using distance) to understand. There is only one place where I allow my spotter to use distance directions and that is when I am shooting black powder cartridge in my sharps ( iron sights don’t do mild). My spotters call left point 5, up point 6. That is the only acceptable direction for me.

Fclass they’ll sometimes call like that as well. But rings. Left 1, 1.5 etc. But some guys there use just fine reticles without mil/moa built into them

 

[JakeM]

Again. You’re just making stuff up. My spotter (in tmr) is probably nicer than your whole rifle……

View attachment 8473749

If your spotter has a TMR mil reticle with hash marks already used to measure, why are you thinking in inches and then converting to mils when there is already a Mil measurement in front of your face?

 

[XP1K]

The language I was first introduced to was moa so that's the direction I went. Oh how I wish I'd have just went mil. The scope gods even tried to save me. My first scope I ordered to start shooting longer distances I ordered in moa but when it came in it was in mils. I foolishly sold it and ordered another in in moa.

I've considered switching but I'm too heavily invested in it now. Most people I shoot with also shoot moa so there's another reason I stick with it.

 

[Maurygold]

If your spotter has a TMR mil reticle with hash marks already used to measure, why are you thinking in inches and then converting to mils when there is already a Mil measurement in front of your face?

That would be true for any mil/ mil or moa/moa setup so that’s not relevant since they’re identical in that respect.

I’m just saying I call the shot placement before a correction - you guys are twisting that. I call all corrections in mil/moa.

So therefore when are we stoping to describe misses? With new shooters (like I said and op is) because they are whole numbers.

If anyone thinks one is significantly or even marginally better than the other then you need help.