Yeah. 1 click = .25 MOA, but AT WHAT DISTANCE!
Edit to add that this post is a joke.
Last edited:
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
moa vs mils, the forbidden thread
- Thread starter giveemshell2
- Start date
Edit to add that this post is a joke.
Yeah. 1 click = .25 MOA, but AT WHAT DISTANCE!
You do realize that exact statement is true for mil?
Really?
So to know how many Milliradians I need to correct for then I need to know the distance?
Really?
So to know how many Milliradians I need to correct for then I need to know the distance?
They’re both angular. Both are tied to distance. One uses .25 one uses .36.
What about that mystifies you?
Shouldn’t you have similar rifles or be able to communicate in the same distance method? I’ve never heard anyone not say adjust 1 mil left or even just hold left edge I guess.
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying, I do understand how even using MOA or MILs becomes irrelevant with matching turrets and a dope card. At some point it does just become dots and a ballistic calc telling you how many reticle notches to hold so from a practical point of view I get what they are saying. I didn’t intend to have people actually start discussing MOA/MILs just needed some advice on a weird scope thing..Really?
So to know how many Milliradians I need to correct for then I need to know the distance?
You guys can use whatever you want individually …unless or as long as it’s communicated to your team if you need to do such things.
for both 1 moa and 1 mil the distance you are at changes the amount of distance that measurement is.
At 500 yards
1mil = 3.6inches x 5 = 18.0 inches
1moa = 1 inch x 5 = 5inches
Crazy. They both needed distance to measure.
No the distance doesn’t change the measurement of 1 moa or 1 mil. They are measurements of angle.
Angles know no distance! It’s an angle.
1 degree is 1 degree. Right?
I radian is 1 radian. Right?
Both are angles. Right?
Don’t mix linear and angular.
The reticle measurement gives you a measurement of ANGLE. Simple.
You just argued against yourself and the point I’ve been making to you this whole time. Moa and mil are both angular. Both have distance components.
You tried to make it seem like moa was unique to mil in that respect. You now pointed out it’s not. Thanks.
But then you said “ Angles know no distance! It’s an angle.”
This whole time I’ve pointing out you’re not even argueing anything. Do you need a hotline number or something? Are you okay?
Haha! That first one was a joke, as this thread is full of the usual gooberish.
What is the .36? Demystify me. Cause that’s the biggest nonsense in this whole thread.
Exactly. For the life of me, I don’t know why this is so hard to understand….
Leupold commonly had Shooters MOA depicted and explained in their supplied scope manuals of their MK4's.
Or we could start teaching geometry in skool again.
you were the only one here not understanding and argueing against yourself?
I don't know a lot but here is what I know. I like MOA and my optics are MOA.
Mils is also good. In fact, somefind it easier to range in reticle or hold over because it is in base 10 without out actually being metric. However, if you are at a metric range, your math may be easier.
I have heard that Mil is easier for target acquisition and holdover.
But it is only an measurement of angle and not actual metric distance.
I have also heard that MOA is a finer or smaller amount of adjustment.
I also know that people talk about a 1 MOA gun, regardless of the denomination of the scope.
There, I think I have muddied the waters enough to make me happy.
Mils is also good. In fact, somefind it easier to range in reticle or hold over because it is in base 10 without out actually being metric. However, if you are at a metric range, your math may be easier.
I have heard that Mil is easier for target acquisition and holdover.
But it is only an measurement of angle and not actual metric distance.
I have also heard that MOA is a finer or smaller amount of adjustment.
I also know that people talk about a 1 MOA gun, regardless of the denomination of the scope.
There, I think I have muddied the waters enough to make me happy.
This thread is either early for 2025 or late for 2024. We do not discuss MILOA unless it is February.
Or you use the target.
If my spotter is spotting with a MIL reticle and I am shooting a MOA scope (or vice versa or whatever) you simply call shot according to target size.
"Miss, left half a target"
EXACTLY...it's simple, you look at that target with your ruler and you hold or dial accordingly. Now, if you and your spotter are both using the same scale, then I can see being a little peeved that they aren't calling the measurement but using the target as the scale is universal.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
Can just use .35 moa per .1 mil also. Pretty fast in the head when practiced. Missed a mil left then correct 3.5 moa right. I have done it a bunch spotting for moa guys. Target thing works ok if close enough and not needing wind and elevation adjustments.
Or you use simple math because moa doesn’t need a .36 multiple
That really came full circle
Sure...but then you, the spotter, is doing mental math and the shooter has to have confidence in your mental gymnastics. If you call the target, the onus is on the shooter.
I'd say calling the impact is allowing for that current wind and elevation.
Let's say a call was "5:30, 2 targets"
How would you adjust your next shot? Windage AND elevation?
Or you use simple math because moa doesn’t need a .36 multiple
That really came full circle
No you are trying to use some linear. I am keeping is angular. That .36 is only at 100 yards. You aren’t as smart as you think you are and it shows.
My scope reticle is marked in phlibits. On this target, I just dialed 1.0 phlibit up and .5 phlibit left and the next shot was dead center.
I can't find the conversion of phlibits to inches, but, to be honest, it seems fucking stupid to convert angular to linear anyway when the scope tells me exactly what to dial....
I can't find the conversion of phlibits to inches, but, to be honest, it seems fucking stupid to convert angular to linear anyway when the scope tells me exactly what to dial....
Targets off is linear. You just agreed it was acceptable - okay thanks. However you can’t do math well enough to use it at distance - thanks for admitting.
If you used moa you’d realize it’s an easier system because (as you noted) you have to include distance in angular measurements.
You keep trying to blatantly misinterpret what I’m saying and call me dumb. It’s really funny
But it’s not hard to do and the target is actually harder if he is not just off the edge of it. If he is a good deal off the mil to moa is much easier and faster. If you were doing it a lot having a cheat sheet is even easier but if you do it the mental math is not hard at all as you learn what it is. Also luckily we don’t have to do it much anymore.
No you are that dumb. Been doing this over thirty years and have used moa/mil, moa/moa and mil/mil scopes and know how to use them all and never use a linear with any of them. You obviously think the .35 is some linear. It’s not. But you keep thinking you’re smart. Lol
Then why arent you any better at the math? I clearly explained you need to multiply the .36 by distance as its angular like 10 times and even did the math above.
Again calling me dumb and blatantly misinterpreting like 10 messages I’ve put in here.
Do some reading.
Long Range Shooting - MOA and MILS explained
A MIL or an MOA linear equivalent increases proportionally with distance. With the MOA and MIL systems, you correct the position of the reticle inside the scope, based on wind deflection and trajectory of the bullet at the target’s distance.
www.longrangeshooting.org
Do some reading.
Long Range Shooting - MOA and MILS explained
A MIL or an MOA linear equivalent increases proportionally with distance. With the MOA and MIL systems, you correct the position of the reticle inside the scope, based on wind deflection and trajectory of the bullet at the target’s distance.
I don’t need to read it. I live it. Lol
Then why are you so blatantly wrong? And incapable at simple ballistic math?
Skoash. One skoash is equal to 1 phlibit at 113 yards. There is no known formula to convert to inches.
Unless you are a red headed femaleSkoash. One skoash is equal to 1 phlibit at 113 yards. There is no known formula to convert to inches.
Lol I’m not wrong. I am sure that write up has all sorts of linear to angular as most do to confuse new shooters more and it says 1 mil is 3.6” at 100 somewhere. Even you can do the math where you got the .36 in your original posts from.
Well....Skoash. One skoash is equal to 1 phlibit at 113 yards. There is no known formula to convert to inches.
If 1 skoash=1 philbit at 113 yards then 1 skoash = 1 philbit at 4068 inches.
Math
Dang, you're right! I remember my dad using "skoash" as a unit of measurement when I was a kid back in the '50s and 60s! But he was working in the confines of his woodworking shop and I guess the pieces were too small to use phlibits...Skoash. One skoash is equal to 1 phlibit at 113 yards. There is no known formula to convert to inches.
Man, so many Brooklyn 99 gifs captured my reactions as I read through this shitshow
The first one is the one I can relate to. Sad. LolMan, so many Brooklyn 99 gifs captured my reactions as I read through this shitshow
If you need me to explain that to you then you are making me sadder as you aren’t making the point you think you are.
Ok I am going to bed. You keep posting your linear messes. Lol
Says the guy talking in linear. Lol Dude you crack me up and no I never want you to spot for me ever! Maybe if you do it a little longer you will learn too.
Similar threads
