Rifle Scopes Reticle suggestion for newb...MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA??

[Anton Chigurh]

I have very little experience in using anything other than duplex reticles in scopes but have become interested in ranging type reticles.

I'm looking at Vortex PST scopes right now. One for a 6.5 Grendel build, maybe a 2nd for a 243 bolt gun. I will predator some hunt with both, and do some range work also. No competition or real long range at this time, but I would like to become proficient out to possibly 500 yds.

I would like to try using the reticle for some ranging and holdover work. I naturally think in terms of inches, yards, feet etc and have read that will lend itself to MOA based reticle calculations. Of course, Mil based systems are more popular.



I'm inclined to go MOA/MOA, any suggestions?

 

[roggom]

You are probably gonna catch flack as this topic comes up on the weekly, but I'm bored.

My reason for mil/mil, is I dial elevation and hold wind. Using the BC of the bullet, it is as easy as .1mil for 100, .2-200, .3 for 300 and so on until you hit 600 which is .7 So for a 308 smk with BC of 4xx 8 mph full value 500Y = 1 mil hold.

Dont get confused with inches, meters, and all that other linear measurement crap. All ballistic calculators spit out anything you ask, so you should not have to calculate anything.

Lastly, a "proficient" shooter knows both and can use either without bitching.

 

[slm9s]

I stated moa/moa as it seemed easier to "grasp". And that works fine until you go shooting with other experienced guys, you'll probably be the only guy with moa and calling corrections/taking corrections will be difficult. I'd suggest starting mil/mil.

 

[mdmp5]

Either or, doesn't matter. If you shoot with a partner that will be calling your misses, get the same reticle configuration as him. Otherwise, flip a coin

 

[sulcop96]

Got both, use both but if it was an either or I would sway more to mil/mil even though I mostly run moa/moa. I just find shooters new to ranging, holds etc. adapt to mils faster.

Sully

 

[sib1948]

Mil/mil would be easier if you're not already used to MOA.

 

[EricCartmann]

I don't own a single Mil/Mil Scope... but if you are newbie first getting into it, I would say Mil/Mil since the scope industry seems to be moving that way.

I myself prefer MOA only because it is what I am use to. MOA and yards and inches are measurements I am use to. I have no issues using mil/moa, been using that setup so long that it's natural to me (to make adjustments). However, matching is better and it's very nice having matching reticle/knobs with MOA/MOA.

 

[PKT1106]

I have always heard mil/mil for tac shooting and moa/moa for benchrest shooting.

 

[bjay]

Ive always been a moa guy for who knows how many years now.. and i recently purchased atacr in mil r. I wanted taste milradian col aid.. like everyone said if u already started moa stick to it for now.... otherwise its goin be pain in d back! Tryig to use your moa knowledge on mil scope

 

[prause13]

I love MOA because I know inches already. Was military for ten years, know mils like the back of my hand, but just prefer MOA. Honestly man, it's like everyone else is saying, which do you like more. I would read more on the formulas for both and see which one makes more sense to you... then get that setup

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[sulcop96]

I have always heard mil/mil for tac shooting and moa/moa for benchrest shooting.

I have been "tac" shooting for 22 years using moa/mil then moa/moa. In fact my duty optics are all moa/moa. The only think I use the bench at the range for is to hold my gear. Either system can be used effectively for either application, although MOA with 1/8 adjustments would be better for BR. It is all what you train with.

Sully

 

[Anton Chigurh]

Thanks for the replies guys. To tell the full story, I already bought a viper pst 2.5-10x42 sfp mrad reticle, I have just been second guessing myself and wondering if I should exchange it for an MOA model before mounting it. Judging from the comments here, and a ton of stuff I have read this weekend it seems like learning mil/mil will work just fine for me. I think I'll most likely just keep it and mount it up later this week.

 

[sulcop96]

Thanks for the replies guys. To tell the full story, I already bought a viper pst 2.5-10x42 sfp mrad reticle, I have just been second guessing myself and wondering if I should exchange it for an MOA model before mounting it. Judging from the comments here, and a ton of stuff I have read this weekend it seems like learning mil/mil will work just fine for me. I think I'll most likely just keep it and mount it up later this week.

Anton,

That is a good choice, go with it. Like I stated above, been a moa guy for decades but picked up mil in about one range day. So you have a good optic and good system so shoot with confidence.

Sully

 

[Caliper]

I have always heard mil/mil for tac shooting and moa/moa for benchrest shooting.

I thought benchresters just used a duplex or dot reticle. Benchrest is shot on a square range at known distances and with targets of a known size. What is there to range?

For a ranging reticle, get what you like. As long as the turrets match the reticle, you'll be fine. Personally, being as I think in inches and yards I like MOA.

Mils aren't metric, but work better with meters due to everything converting with factors of ten. Moa just works better with yards. If you have a 7" target that is 1mil tall, how far is it? Sure, 7000", but how many yards is that? You really become reliant on a calculator of some sort. Now if a 7" target is 1moa, we can approximate 700 yd. The 1" approximation works ok out to 500yd or so on full size targets, but for more precision to get to real MOA, we need to subtract 5% or 35yd for 665yd distance. All easy to do in my head. I like that. YMMV.

 

[prause13]

I thought benchresters just used a duplex or dot reticle. Benchrest is shot on a square range at known distances and with targets of a known size. What is there to range?

For a ranging reticle, get what you like. As long as the turrets match the reticle, you'll be fine. Personally, being as I think in inches and yards I like MOA.

Mils aren't metric, but work better with meters due to everything converting with factors of ten. Moa just works better with yards. If you have a 7" target that is 1mil tall, how far is it? Sure, 7000", but how many yards is that? You really become reliant on a calculator of some sort. Now if a 7" target is 1moa, we can approximate 700 yd. The 1" approximation works ok out to 500yd or so on full size targets, but for more precision to get to real MOA, we need to subtract 5% or 35yd for 665yd distance. All easy to do in my head. I like that. YMMV.

Could not have said it better myself!

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[Notso]

Holy fuck! How many times are we going to go through this same topic????? Does no one understand how to do a search before asking a question???

I'm so sick of people saying: "I prefer a MOA reticle because I think in inches". If you use the reticle correctly for 99% of the things you'll use it for - then inches, cm, yards, meters, etc. are irrelevant. Those linear measurements are irrelevant.

The bottom line is: Mil is the new standard, live with it. MOA is dying. Get on board for the big win.

 

[prause13]

Really dude? Epitome of a fucktarded poster right there. If you're sick of it, then don't read it moron. Plus how many people you know say, "my rifle shoots under .36 mils!!" No one.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[EricCartmann]

Holy fuck! How many times are we going to go through this same topic????? Does no one understand how to do a search before asking a question???

I'm so sick of people saying: "I prefer a MOA reticle because I think in inches". If you use the reticle correctly for 99% of the things you'll use it for - then inches, cm, yards, meters, etc. are irrelevant. Those linear measurements are irrelevant.

The bottom line is: Mil is the new standard, live with it. MOA is dying. Get on board for the big win.

I shoot for fun though