Rifle Scopes Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

mattmcg

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 19, 2007
867
2
CA
I'm interested in getting some poll results together for which angular measurements you prefer on your reticle/knobs. Do you prefer an MOA ret/MOA knob setup, a Mil ret/Mil knob setup, a Mil ret/MOA knob setup, or some other option newfangled option?

I know this is a personal preference but it will be interesting to see what the majority prefers. Feel free to also include "why" you prefer your specific option as well.

Happy voting!
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?



I chose MOA,because that is what I have and learned with,either system will work admirabley.....
thumb.gif
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I prefer <span style="font-weight: bold">moa reticle/moa knobs</span>. I have a NXS 5.5x 22 x 50 NP-R1 scope. It never made sense to me to range in mils and adjust in moa. They are two different measurements.

I like moa because it deals with unit inches (i.e. close to 1 inch, or 1.047 inches) compared to mils (which is 3.6 inches or different depending on what mil definition you are using).

Most people look at their accuracy in inches off target (unless you're shooting an sks) and it is easier for me to convert inches off target to inches needed to adjust. I like to keep the units the same,(moa to moa vice mils to moa). For instance, if I'm off target by 1.5 inches, all I have to do is turn my moa knob(.25 inchs per click) 6 clicks, or 1.5 inches.

The moa formula is also easier:

<span style="text-decoration: underline">H (inches)</span>x 100 = Dist (yards)
moa

You could do that in your head.

If your interested, I have written a paper on mils and moa and the math behind them. It might give some a better understanding of the difference. I don't want to take away from this post with a link, but if you're interested, search under advanced search under "Sniper Hide Optics" under the name "runner" and the title "MIL and MOA Range Equations Explained & Derived."

runner
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

I use mil/mil now and find it much easier than MOA. In Runners example if I'm 1.5" low I don't even think of it in inches to begin with. I look through the scope and see I'm about .4 mils off and then dial .4 mils. No conversions no muss no fuss. Thinking in inches is fine at 100 yards but once you start doing back farther it gets harder. Say you're 12" low at 840 yards? I adjust as I did in the first scenario and don't have to worry about how many inches in am MOA at 840 yards. Yes it can be done the same in MOA where you just hold your MOA reticle to figure your adjustment but that brings in another possible problem. What if your spotter that day is using mils as many more people do in the tactical shooting community than MOA? He calls a .4 mil correction and you have MOA? More conversions.

The ranging formula for MOA is more simple if you use whole numbers for examples but start breaking it down into fractions and you're still using a mildot master or calculator.

It's your money and you can buy what you want but after using MOA/Mil, MOA/MOA and Mil/Mil, I find Mil/Mil to be a better option for tactical shooting and competitions.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

Rob01 (above this) made some great points. I would say that <span style="font-weight: bold">I</span> think overall it is easier if both ranging and adjustment are in the same units (i.e. mil/mil, moa/moa).

runner
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: runner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I prefer <span style="font-weight: bold">moa reticle/moa knobs</span>. I have a NXS 5.5x 22 x 50 NP-R1 scope. It never made sense to me to range in mils and adjust in moa. They are two different measurements.

I like moa because it deals with unit inches (i.e. close to 1 inch, or 1.047 inches) compared to mils (which is 3.6 inches or different depending on what mil definition you are using).

Most people look at their accuracy in inches off target (unless you're shooting an sks) and it is easier for me to convert inches off target to inches needed to adjust. I like to keep the units the same,(moa to moa vice mils to moa). For instance, if I'm off target by 1.5 inches, all I have to do is turn my moa knob(.25 inchs per click) 6 clicks, or 1.5 inches.

The moa formula is also easier:

<span style="text-decoration: underline">H (inches)</span>x 100 = Dist (yards)
moa

You could do that in your head.

If your interested, I have written a paper on mils and moa and the math behind them. It might give some a better understanding of the difference. I don't want to take away from this post with a link, but if you're interested, search under advanced search under "Sniper Hide Optics" under the name "runner" and the title "MIL and MOA Range Equations Explained & Derived."

runner
</div></div>

Runner, yes I have read your paper and it is an excellent reference. Thanks for providing that.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I have always wondered why MOA based reticles haven't dominated over MILs. Thinking in terms of a fractions of an inch (effectively) vs fractions of a MIL seems easier. I'd think ranging with MOA would be really easy too.

Back to your question - doesn't matter much to me and IMHO everyone should be able to think (or call) in either or both.

Edited to add - as a matter of convenience and speed having you reticle and adjustments the same means less math.

Good luck

 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: runner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It never made sense to me to range in mils and adjust in moa. They are two different measurements. </div></div>AMEN!
1
I use Miliradian for preference. I dont even think in distances of offset anymore. "It's off <span style="font-style: italic">x</span> mil's" - adjust <span style="font-style: italic">x</span> mil's".

Mil's I feel have the upper edge but one reason being that it's so much easier to think metric. Face it - save the odd computer dinosaur (Who thinks in Octal, Hex or "words") - we all count in 10's.

If it's all in TRUE moa the same applies - forget distance and learn to think in angles!
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

MIL/MIL here

First, Mils are devided by 10. That's alot easier when you get further out to distances that arent multiples of 100.

Also, I'm Canadian, so I'm used to the metric system.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

I have the Horus reticle which has a ranging scale in moa but the reticle is in mils. Some think it is too busy but I am used to it and like it. I can range with the simple moa math and hold elevation and windage with the mil reticle. My knobs are mil also.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

I prefer the MOA system in general because the reticle tics and click graduations are usually finer. However, the MIL system can be better on a particular scope. For example, the USO EREK with 0.25-MOA clicks has 22.5MOA/revolution, which is more difficult to carry over to the second turn. In this case, the MIL version has an even 9MILS/revolution, which is easier on the brain. If the EREK had 25MOA/revolution, I would prefer it to the MIL version.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

Different things are easter for different folks....I stick with what I was taught...Mil ret/MOA knobs it works for me so I dont F'ck with it....though Im really really tempted to switch to MOA/MOA....
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

For the lack of MOA/MOA type scopes sold by manufacturers, I'm surprised at how high the percentage is for those that prefer them. I would guess that if MOA/MOA became a more available option from the likes of Leupold and others, MOA/MOA would outpace Mil/Mil in the US.

The second conclusion I can make is that you all spend some serious duckets on your scopes as USO and Nightforce make the only MOA/MOA scopes that I know of and they are dang expensive!

In talking with the USO folks last week, they commented that slightly over 50% of their scopes are shipped MOA/MOA these days.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hazardus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the lack of MOA/MOA type scopes sold by manufacturers, I'm surprised at how high the percentage is for those that prefer them. I would guess that if MOA/MOA became a more available option from the likes of Leupold and others, MOA/MOA would outpace Mil/Mil in the US.
</div></div>

That'd probably be true in countries that shun the metric system and think in terms of inches.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

What makes you categorize the U.S. as a developed country?
laugh.gif


What interests me is that some of the "MOA/MOA" scopes are mixtures of true MOA and inches per hundred yards, with the reticle in one and the adjustments in the other, and the owners haven't a clue as to which they have.

 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

Yeah the shooter's MOA vs. true MOA is a whole other discussion. You must make sure to match true MOA or shooter's MOA on your reticle and knobs to be precise. The difference is small between the two but a 1,000 yard shot will be .5" different if you mix the two.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only developed country that "shuns the metric system" is the USA... </div></div>

Every optics company be it in the US or not uses metric though. Well EVERY optical engineer uses metric.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hazardus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah the shooter's MOA vs. true MOA is a whole other discussion. You must make sure to match true MOA or shooter's MOA on your reticle and knobs to be precise. The difference is small between the two but a 1,000 yard shot will be .5" different if you mix the two. </div></div>

and that multiplied by the # of MOA it takes to get to 1k.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

.5" is a rounding too though... .47" But then you have to realize that that same rounding error is there in mils as well. Army mils versus marine mils versus real mils... They're not all one in the same.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

"Army mils versus marine mils versus real mils... They're not all one in the same."

Would you please provide evidence to back up this statement? I'm not talking about how Mils came about and all the long math that people start talking about either when Mils first came about for artillery firing.

I'm unaware of ANY Mil based scope anywhere, where a Mil isn't really a Mil.

Please enlighten me.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bh-ltr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every optics company be it in the US or not uses metric though. Well EVERY optical engineer uses metric. </div></div>

This is true, because the metric system is decimal and much more user friendly for engineering optics calculations than the fractional US system. I think that currently most engineering, chemical, electrical, etc. calculations in the USA are made in the metric system for this same reason.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but there are many advantages in the metric system: decimal, all compatible units, universal. The US armed forces use the metric system. And considering how many things you have to learn to shoot a long range, learning the metric system is a non-issue.

A true MOA reticle/MOA clicks scope does not correlate too well with inches (1 inch = 1.047 MOA at 100 yds). You need INCH reticle/INCH clicks to correlate exactly, most ballistic programs don't calculate in inches, and most available trajectory data, BDC, etc. are in MOA.

But this is still not optimal, if you use the US system the calculations are slower because of the fractional nature of the system (same reason why is not used by optical engineers): 1 yard = 3 feet = 36 inches . You normally range in yards but your measurement of objects is in feet + inches.

The metric system is decimal, much easier: 1 meter = 100 cm

We spend so much time debating trivia on rifles, loads, ballistics, scopes, etc., everyone wants the tiniest advantage in his SWS, yet so many people are not willing to spend a little time to learn and adopt the metric system...

 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Honestly, I really don't understand why anyone is so adamant about one system over another. My scopes are all Mil reticles with MOA knobs. Only two of six give ACTUAL MOA adjustments. I've got 1 Mil/Mil scope at the shope on a rental gun, it delivers .109 mil per click. So, just because the knob is marked one way does NOT mean that's what you get.

In any event, except for the zero process, WHO REALLY CARES? Shoot the rifle at the targets, adjust until you hit, note the adjustment required. Once the comeups are determined, just dial up the number on the knob that corresponds to the range. For those of you who dial wind, it's just a swag anyway. Even if I gave you a scope with the knobs painted over, could anyone really notice the difference between a .1 mil and 1/4 MOA scope?

I'm still amazed at the number of people in a class that will want to start making adjustments based on 2 shots at 600 yards. Even if the two shots went through the same hole, which way do you need to go and by how much? If you can shoot 1 MOA groups at 600 consistently from a field position, how do we know this is not the two highest shots of a 6" group? If these two shots are 3" high of center you are perfect, you don't need to dial down. If they are 3" low of center you actually need 1 MOA up, not 1/2.

Now, if you are using some ballistic calculator to make your correction, what you need is the actual value of the knob input into the software. It does not matter what the value IS, just that the software knows you get .263 MOA per click, or .248 MOA per click as the case may be. This means you need to calibrate the scope and the software needs to accept a correction value for that scope.

I'd have to say, working with as many scopes in as many classes as I do, I do not care at all what the knobs adjust in. I prefer a Mil reticle only because I've used it for so many years calculations and holds are automatic.

Cory Trapp
Gunsite Academy, Inc.

 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Cory I believe a deeper explanation of these statements is necessary:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In any event, except for the zero process, WHO REALLY CARES? Shoot the rifle at the targets, adjust until you hit, note the adjustment required. Once the comeups are determined, just dial up the number on the knob that corresponds to the range. For those of you who dial wind, it's just a swag anyway. Even if I gave you a scope with the knobs painted over, could anyone really notice the difference between a .1 mil and 1/4 MOA scope?</div></div>

If you are just adjusting until you hit, wouldn't it be better to have your Mil reticle and Mil Turret or MOA Reticle and MOA turret so you can actually "see" your miss and understand the difference in a number so you can adjust with the second shot. Your method sounds like the <span style="font-style: italic">'trial and error"</span> program. You must spend a lot of time with students who miss and make several additional follow on shots.

As well your method doesn't address UKD targets, angle shooting and ranges you don't have a number for. What happens when your student goes out and ranges a target wrong, missing and doesn't understand how to reconcile the numbers between his scope and reticle and can't make that one and only follow up shot under time pressures, having a similar system greatly improves your second round follow up. unless all your students never miss once they leave you class. Understand what you see and need is just as important as simply letting it fly or saying, well I hit "way" low, I'll try and hold "way" high and see what happens. I would rather someone say to me, I was " .75 Mils low" dial that number so when I want to record the information in my log book I can say, At 678 yards I need 5.25 Mils of elevation, and not, well I put my 600 yard dope on at 4.5, adding a way high mil hold, ah well next time I'll try 5 mils for that range. No, now I have a verifiable number.

<span style="font-style: italic">Where is the learning experience in your method?</span>

Personally I care, I have seen the need and I make sure I understand the process to adjust my elevation. I don't want to "guess" what elevation I need to use, I kneed to know. Sure I can use the reticle for every miss, but I don't always have to.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm still amazed at the number of people in a class that will want to start making adjustments based on 2 shots at 600 yards. Even if the two shots went through the same hole, which way do you need to go and by how much? If you can shoot 1 MOA groups at 600 consistently from a field position, how do we know this is not the two highest shots of a 6" group? If these two shots are 3" high of center you are perfect, you don't need to dial down. If they are 3" low of center you actually need 1 MOA up, not 1/2.</div></div>

I have also seen temperature changes that require the shooter to adjust the dope, maybe a 1/2 minute, maybe it is an angle shot that needs to be dialed down a hair so you can hold center. so you need to know these numbers and you need to use the adjustments. Sound more like area engagement, what size target you shooting at 600 an 20X40? You sound like you are glossing over the precision part of precision shooting and simply making do with any hit you get, ya, that caught the steel, that'll do.

<span style="font-style: italic">Fast and loose is great for some, but many others want to know this information and understand it. The tighter their adjustment the more room they have to correct a mistake down the road</span>
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Cory, I know very well any mix and match combination works if you take the time to learn it, but why not do it the easy way?

Most people can break/read the mils into tenths, wich is exactly the value of a 0.1 mil click. It is so easy to use a decimal system, measure objects AND distances in meters (same units, not yards/feet/inches), and use reticle, clicks, holds and trajectry data in mils. Your spotter says "0.5 mil left, 1.0 mil up" and you are ready to hold or dial instantly, no problem.

If you have maps in the metric system, as the military do, then it is stupid not to use the same system in everything else.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

>>If you are just adjusting until you hit, wouldn't it be better to have your Mil reticle and Mil Turret or MOA Reticle and MOA turret so you can actually "see" your miss and understand the difference in a number so you can adjust with the second shot. Your method sounds like the 'trial and error" program.

Since most people have a hard enough time spotting hits with a 30x spotting scope, spotting and making an adjustment through the rifle scope rarely happens. The spotter gives the correction, either in MOA or Mils, the shooter then dials it on. The spotter should know what adjustment system the shooter has, so the shooter can concentrate on the shot. I'm not saying that the shooter can't do it, it's just much harder. In any event, it's just the zero process. We use Pepper Poppers for zero at 500. The center plate area is a 12" circle. If you are off the plate at 11 o'clock, could you as the shooter even make a guess as to the adjustment? The spotter should see the trace or some dust from impact. Try down 1 minute and right 1 minute, that should get you on the plate. Point 4 mil will do if you have mil adjustments. Once on the plate, refine the adjustment until you print a nice 5-8 shots in the center of the plate. Now note the number, you are done.

For UKD's, it's simple. Say you have a 600 zero and a 500 yard zero, 15 and 11 on the knob. A target is at 560 yards. Split the difference, dial 13 and shoot. Does anyone have zeros for every distance? Past 600 I have targets every 50 yards, that seems more that good enough. We are talking about shooting bad guys, not bullseyes or chicken eggs, right?

If the first shot misses, there is no time to do anything other than hold the amount the spotter tells you and send it. If you are a half mil low, the spotter just says "up a 1/2", and you shoot. Now you have time to say, well, I guess I needed another 1.7 MOA up. Why? Maybe you missed the range, maybe it's 30 degrees colder than when you zeroed and you forgot to adjust.

Angles adjust by taking the cosine of the angle and applying it to the adjustment. Lets say you came up to 10 on the knob and it's 45 degrees down. The cosine of 45 is .7, 10 times .7 is 7, dial on 7 and shoot. Seven what? Don't matter. 10 mils is about a 1000 yard shot, 10 minutes is about 570 yards. The cosine is still the cosine and the answer is still the answer, just for different ranges and different adjustments. What I need to know is the setting, not what the value of the clicks might be.

>> I have also seen temperature changes that require the shooter to adjust the dope, maybe a 1/2 minute, maybe it is an angle shot that needs to be dialed down a hair so you can hold center. so you need to know these numbers and you need to use the adjustments. Sound more like area engagement, what size target you shooting at 600 an 20X40? You sound like you are glossing over the precision part of precision shooting and simply making do with any hit you get, ya, that caught the steel, that'll do.


Angles we just explained, tempurature adjustments should be in the logbook, every 20 degrees is worth 1 MOA for my gun/ammo, or how ever you want to note it. Once again, does it matter if the reticle is the same as the knob? No, there is no reference to the reticle for a temperature adjustment. Now if you are shooting fixed targets that leave marks you can see and you are zeroing or building dope during practice, you can spot the hit and more precisely measure the correction you might need using a reticle. You could also go to the target and use a ruler. I did not say you don't want to know what adjustment value you have, just that exactly what it is and matching the reticle is not really of all that much value in the field.

What IS important is that the spotter and sniper both use the same value to call adjustments, ideally they each have the same reticle in the rifle scope and spotting scope.

Students in my class all shoot LaRues or IPSC "A" zone steel at 800 to 1000. I submit if you hit an LaRue at 768 yards in a 10 MPH wind using only a reticle to range, you are right, I'm saying that'll do. Having a 1/4 MOA, 1/4" or cm, or Mil adjustment has nothing to do with it.

CT
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since most people have a hard enough time spotting hits with a 30x spotting scope, spotting and making an adjustment through the rifle scope rarely happens. </div></div>

I have been to classes where every student spots their own hits through their rifle scope and makes the necessary correction, a reticle reading method is applied, which addresses this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The spotter should see the trace or some dust from impact. Try down 1 minute and right 1 minute, that should get you on the plate.</div></div>

Again, you have a trial and error method, when in fact you have a measuring scale in your scope to "tell" you the number. Instead of "trying" 1 MOA or splitting the difference if you use the same reticle as adjustment scale, you can see and "know" what the number is.

Sure we addressed using a hold over and hold under method, but these guys asking "why" are not in combat they are mostly competitive shooters who in some cases do have the time to dial and record, so instead of just holding "something" over or under, they can read the reticle and adjust. This isn't a bad guy shooting thread... if it was, the answer is hold over or under.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What IS important is that the spotter and sniper both use the same value to call adjustments, ideally they each have the same reticle in the rifle scope and spotting scope.</div></div>

Not everyone has a spotter here, and in an individual competition like 90% of the people here are engaged in, they are not given someone to spot as well what happens to your shooter if his spotter gets hurt, he is now combat ineffective because he wasn't taught to get straight behind his rifle spot his own shot and adjust ? absolutely the sniper and spotter need to speaking the same language, and if that is the most efficient and effective mehtod for communication why wouldn't you, as an instructor advocate taking that one step further and pressing for using one language or unit of measurement for both reticle and adjustment ?

Reads like a lot of you could if you want, but why and sure there are numbers but who needs them, and that would be great if it wasn't so hard

 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

MOA is what I prefer. It just FEELS more comfortable.

I agree with those of you that shoot MOA & adjust MOA.
Doesn't seem right to shoot MIL & adjust MOA.

In my OCD mind it is just clearer and more ordered.
I just wish I were better at it...
grin.gif
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I'd sure like to know what kind of setup you use to spot your own hits at 500 to 1000 yards. No riflescope I've ever seen can see holes in anything at that distance. You can't see your own shot trace, so exactly what are you going to measure? If you actually can see your own shot group, just the relative size of the target is plenty good enough to dial a correction. for example, if you are in the bottom half of a Popper's circle at 600 yards, come up 1/2 a minute. 2 clicks on a MOA scope, 2 clicks on a .1 Mil scope.

In any event, those of you with MOA knobs and Mil reticles just dial 14 clicks to a mil instead of 10.

As I stated previously, you still can't correct with just one shot to a precise number anyway. Even with a reticle, that's just as much "trial and error". In the prior post example of the miss at 11, how could the shooter make a precise correction? It missed, you don't have a location from which to measure. Even if there is a splash from the shot, is it on the same plane as the target? Unless there is a spotter, with a reticle, spotting the trace as it appears past the target, whatever reticle and knobs you have don't matter, you are guessing anyway.

While a sniper without a spotter can still fight, I would say he is less than 50% of the teams capability. I've got plenty of UKD targets here. Of the 35 or 40 UKD targets you engage, a fair number are placed in such a way that if you miss, you see nothing. You will only know you are at least a little high, unless it strikes at the feet of the target. Anything you do as an individual is a guess. Only a good spotter can help in this situation.

Having and using a spotter is WAY more important than any reticle or click value. If I gave a good team a duplex reticle and a knob that adjusted in .3 inches per click at 100 along with the correct comeups, I bet they'd beat most any individual using what ever system they wanted.

Everybody is all happy about the metric system because it divides everything by 10. So the target is at 548 meters, what's a .1 mil click move the group, 5.48 cm? What's divisable by 10? Oh, the reticle. You can't see bullet holes in paper at 548 meters. The splash in a painted steel target is probably a couple inches in diameter, fire enough shots to get a group that you can move and I'm sure you can't find center to center within .1 mil. I have to go downrange with a ruler if I want perfect. Of course, perfect is relative. This is a fighting school, we need minute of bad guy. Here's a little test to explain where I'm at.

You'll need a partner and some kind of cover to prevent you from seeing the elevation knob. Take 10 UKD targets from say 400 to 1000 ( yards or meters, who cares). Make them a fair size, say a 12" square. Reticle range them and fire one shot. LET YOUR PARTNER DIAL ON THE ELEVATION SETTING YOU GIVE HIM. He can dial it +/- 2 clicks (+/- 1 on 1 MOA scopes). You then look at each shot and tell him what was set on the scope. Do this a few times to get a true feel for the reality of the situation.

Let's presume you can shoot a nice 1 MOA group each and every time you get behind the rifle. You look at one of the targets ans see your shot is 1/2 MOA high of center. The possibilities are;

1: The shot was perfect, the sights were set 1/2 MOA high
2: The sights were perfect, the shot is just the highest shot of a 1 MOA group.
3: The sights were set 1/4 low, you just pushed the shot a 1/4 high and it'sw the high shot of a group.
4: The sights were set 1/2 high, that's just the lowest shot of a 1 MOA group

I could go on, but you should have the idea. This is a 1 MOA swing in the sight setting AND YOU CAN"T REALLY TELL! Why, because it's just one shot, the one shot the sniper normally gets. So, exactly what good was the matching reticle and knob? Add in the wind and possible range error and it's enough work to actually hit all 10 targets.

I train my students for the real world. This is not F-Class competition. The real world has no range lines, no wind flags, the targets are camo'd and of varying sizes. I want you to hit a 1 MOA target in varying conditions, under time pressure with the first shot. If you should miss, you get 2 seconds to get the followup shot out, otherwise it does not count, the target is probably gone. No lasers, no wind meters, no PDA's, if it uses batteries, consider it busted.

I can (and have) take almost any reasonably coordinated person right out to the 800 yard KD range and get them to hit a 18x24 inch steel plate with the first shot, given a reasonable wind. All you need to do is hold where I tell you and press the trigger without moving anything. Now, can that person do it if I leave? Of course not. I need my students to be able to do it without my help. By day 6, I'm just watching.

TiroFijo - Is metric easier than imperial? Well, if you grew up using inches/feet/yards, I'd say when you look at a brick in a wall you'll guess the size in inches and distance in yards pretty much automatically. Kind of like me asking you how many feet wide your living room is if you grew up metric. I still don't know how many liters are in a gallon. People can get used to pretty much anything. I can still count in hexidecimal. What makes anyone think going by 10's is any simpler that going by 14's, or 8's or F's for that matter. What's simple for you may be convoluted for another.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

"What makes anyone think going by 10's is any simpler that going by 14's, or 8's or F's for that matter. What's simple for you may be convoluted for another."

Cory, I'm an engineer and VERY familiar with the US system, I can use it just like an american. If you cannot see the use of a decimal system then this discussion will take us nowhere...
Cheers
smile.gif
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

well cory, I have been to fighting schools, I have been in a combat as well, and I don't subscribe to your methods sure you make some accurate generalizations, but overall you leave a lot on the table . As well, you seem awful scared of the wind.

I can handle a two second follow up shot without a spotter at any range you want, I train for it, and practice it. in fact some countries with a far better sniper program then the US consider that shot vital, by the individual, not the team. I can spot my shots with a 10X leupold, not holes in paper, cause we're fighting here remember, and i can do it with just as much consistency as a spotter. Not to mention yo have a spotter reaching over and moving around to dial, observe,& call, which in my book, if you're teaching sniping, is an awful lot of movement by a team. sort ruins those 2 seconds, been around a lot teams and can't recall i remember that dance from any school.

Anyway, I see a tool for the tool box, but you see a waste of time, instead of leaving 2 MOA on the table here & there (you know a 22" Larue at 1000 yards) I see focusing on the precision side of precision shooting fighting or others.

Standardizing any system is always going to be more efficient, that not just for sniper / spotter dialog. if inches where all that much easier, why not just us an MOA Reticle with MOA Turrets, nobody says you have to marry a mil.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I've got no problem with wind, where did you get that from? If you are not seeing holes, and I know you can't see trace, exactly what do you see if you miss? I suppose if all your targets are two feet in front of a berm or wall, you'll be OK. Mine might stand on a ridgeline in front of a tree. Nothing to see unless you hit the ground short of the target. Hell, even the spotter with a good scope can have some problems with those.

Who said anything about the spotter dialing anything? I suggested a partner for a test, not as an operational system. The spotter confirms the range, TELLS the sniper what to dial, LOOKS to make sure he dialed it correctly, then OBSERVES. He makes the wind call, since he has the spotting scope and the best optics to get a read. The sniper can dial or hold, I prefer to hold in most situations. He then spots the trace of the round, so if a correction is required he calls it, hold X, the sniper just shoots.

When I asked for a reasonable wind, I was talking about taking someone who never shot a rifle before and having them hit a target at range. All I want there is a constant predictable value, since they can't shift aim quickly and accuratly yet, they have never done this before.

I never said it was a waste of time. I'm saying it's of very little importance. I'm not saying they should not match. It's sometimes convienent if they do, but mostly, does it matter? So I dial 7 clicks instead of 5 for a half mil, is that such a challenge for anyone?

What exactly am I "leaving on the table"? With a .308, to hit a 24" inch target at 1000 yards you need to have the range to +10/-15 yards, presuming you have everything else EXACTLY correct. That means a .05 mil error in ranging would lead to a miss. You can range with a Leupold 10x rifle scope on a 24" target to .05 mil at 1000 yards? I'll believe it when I see it.

MOA reticles are fine, it just that mils are pretty much universal. Other than some US scopes, what the heck it calibrated in MOA? Want to adjust some arty with your MOA reticle?

You seem to be reading a lot of things that are not there. If I'm unclear in a post, please feel free to ask a question.

If you can explain what you are doing to get the results you say you do, I'm sure many here would appreciate the education. I've only been doing this for 30 odd years, I've still got plenty to learn. There's always something new.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

WOW i just walked in need to reread so of this fresh material before i can make a post.

Cory i was looking on gunsites website and i dont see you listed on the instructor roster. Are you going by a different name here or are you a part time instructor for them. Not that it matters just wondering?

Back later on this!!
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I suppose I will have to go line by line, but we can start with this statement:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Other than some US scopes, what the heck it calibrated in MOA? Want to adjust some arty with your MOA reticle? </div></div>

Maybe you have been keeping up with modern times but this is what a current MOA Reticle looks like:

so I don't get where the arty reference comes in to play.

and USO has one too:

IMG_3588.jpg


But I can go line by line and point out where you posted the information I drew my replies from, this is just one example.

 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

OK, as I said, some US rifle scopes are calibrated in MOA. You showed some US made scopes. If you want to correct an artillery shot, you can use mils. They don't speak MOA. I asked what ELSE is in MOA, BESIDES a few US scopes. Nothing I can think of, not a compass, not a binocular reticle, not a T&E for MG or mortar.

So I'm still not tracking you, and I still don't see anything to contradict anything I've written. Please explain to me what you see when you spot and correct miss at 1000 yards with a 10x Leupold and its reticle. I don't see how it can be done.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I'm the full time Gunsmith and a Rangemaster for Precision Rifle, Pistol, SMG, Carbine and some specialty classes. You can call here at (928) 636 4565 and ask for me, or Ed Head, the Operations Director, who will be happy to tell you all about me. Not that anyone really wants to know.

CT
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

OK, that's right, 60 minutes to a degree. But do you call an azimuth in minutes or degrees or mils? If you told someone to shift fire 300 minutes right, do you think that would work?
grin.gif


Lat Long can be in decimal minutes and seconds. Surveyors transits have arc-seconds in some cases. I just can't think of many military/police users of MOA.

Am I crazy? Does everyone on this board really spot for themselves at 500 to 1000 yard unknown distance targets, correct via the reticle and dial on a correction for a followup shot? Are all my target placements that wickedly difficult? Around here, even if it's dry, you might not even get a puff of dirt you can see before the wind blows it away. If someone could come out here and show me how that works, I'll comp you the class of your chioce. It would be well worth it!
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

Cory,

Many shooters on this board practice and employ the method of self spotting and correction. It is pretty common with the main stream shooters here who attend the various tactical competitions, classes, as well it is taught to the military sniper associated to this site.

Having worked many of the classes as well as being present at the competitions, it is not uncommon to have an individual take a shot, and before the person next to them, be it spotter or shooter is able to call out a correction, 9 out of 10 times you hear the shooter say, "I got it" followed shortly by his shot. In fact it is an invaluable tool.

A good example I have outlined below:

At the Spring ASC, a field course that requires the shooter to engage various UKD targets with a maximum of two shots, under field conditions, it helped me stay within the top 5. On one particular stage, a range was established, roughly 850 yards, at a steep angle up the side of the Allegheny Mountains, an angle correction was made and the shot was fired. I should note, lasers are not allowed and all ranges are determined using Mils or MOA only. The group I was shooting in was all in agreement we had established a solid range, and I proceeded to fire first. I fired, and saw my round impact over the target on this steep inclination angle. I was using a S&B with Mil Adjustments, so when I read the impact in the scope, I dialed what I saw in the reticle on the scope and followed up with a solid center hit. By properly lining up behind the rifle, and following through on my shot, I was able to see my shot at over 800 yards up the side of a mountain. here is an example of the terrain in which we shot, and the target up the mountain.

ASC07090copy.jpg


I also recommend you follow this link to the complete picture thread so you can get a better idea of the field conditions.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=193578&page=2#Post193578

The target in the image is roughly 2 o'Clock from the dark green bush at the top of that ridge.

Regardless, looking at the conditions at this location, spotting your shots is not difficult and there really is no "dirt" or dust to fly, but if your position is right is can be done, is done and helps ensure a successful follow up shot.

I could have easily held under the target with the reticle, but I wanted to guarantee an accurate hold and hit to record this information, so I elected to dial my scope using my Mil adjustments which happen to match my P4 Mil Reticle.

As well you have to look to the original innovators of the Mil Dot scope and it's use, the USMC. They are currently employing scopes that not only have a GEN II Mil Dot reticle, but also use Mil adjusted turrets / scope. They could have easily said, that the scope will only adjust in MOA as they have for so many years.

The reason so many shooters on here are going to MOA Reticles and MOA adjustments is, Most scope in the US adjust in MOA, so they wanted a similar adjusting reticle and some people, because, exactly as you said, can tell you how big an objective is in inches want a reticle that is also in inches for easier range estimation. If you say, an object is 18" tall, and it subtends 4 MOA on the reticle it is therefore 450 yards away... if i did my math right, with that ease, they can the simply hold the reticle roughly 9 MOA high and fire, why because they already know their 450 yard dope is 9 MOA, and since their reticle is in MOA, for speed purposes they can simply hold that 9 MOA and fire. This also works the exact same way for Mils... so having the same units of measurement allows them to work without trying to figure where 9 MOA is on their Mil Dot Reticle.

We can address this in more detail, but I think I have rambled on enough for one night.

 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?

I'm sure that's fine when you can actually see the impact of the shot. I do stess follow through and calling your shot. If the target in the above picture was on the top of the ridge, exactly what would you see to correct the shot? Or we could put it right in front of that bush. Unless you clip a bit of it off and see it, how do you correct yourself?

Let's now put the target on a flat area, where you have nothing but the horizon behind it. You may clealy see the impact on the ground behind the target, but what can that tell you?

I fear many people are mislead as to what they can do by contolled range conditions. A backstop, such as the above photo is normal. Placing a target on top of that ridge is not. Placing the target in the open is normal. Putting it in a tree is not.

Since the target was nailed to the ground, you had the luxury of dialing a correction. I insist that you treat each target as an uncooperative living thing. That FORCES you to hold that correction. You MUST follow through, run the bolt and stay on the target to get the shot out in < 2 secs. Now having a knob that adjusts in the same increment as the reticle becomes moot.

I've actually made a hole in my schedule for the shoot at Badlands in September. It will be interesting to see how the competition course compares to reality.

In the photo above, one can just make out the small white spot of the target. Given your range, I'd guess the target to be in the 18 to 24 in square range in size, as much as 20 degrees up angle. Not at all an easy shot. How many first shot, first shooter hits? That is, without the knowledge of seeing or hearing what some other shooter did to hit it? I'd wager < 5%.

When I'm in the FFP, I'm going to set a zero on the gun that sets me up for the best target area. Then, we compute holds for the ranges we may expect to shoot. Since some math is involved anyway, is one extra step that big a deal? How about we just pretend the mils are MOA, just 3.4 spacing instead of 2.

On the new USMC scope, you should here some of the bitching about that from the old timers who already think in MOA/MIL/yards. You'd think it was somehow a step backwards.
 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

Well Cory,

I have to say, I don't think you have been paying much attention. A clear case of, Cory can't do it so no one can. Suffice to say I can meet all your requirements with the same results as your spotter.

And I was old school Marine, having made the switch is no problem.

I think we are done here, good luck.

 
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref

That's not at all what I said. I also never said I could not do it. It's simply limited to being able to see an impact that imparts useful information. My points still remain unaddressed.

If you don't see an impact, how do you adjust? No one has yet claimed they see trace in the riflescope as they shoot. Let's say you do see an impact, just off the left side but well behind the target. Can you easily tell the difference between a shot that just missed the left edge at center elevation and one that went just over the top at 12 o'clock and shows up left beacuse of the wind? How much of the correction there is based on the terrain behind the target and guesswork? You interpret the path of the bullet from the strike point and experiance, not a precise reticle measurement.

If you don't have time to dial, why is is important that the dial be the same as the reticle?

I did not say EVERY previously trained Marine sniper did not like the switch. I have no doubt that for every one I hear complain there are four more who are very pleased.

I never said having the same reticle/knobs was a BAD thing. I just think it is of little import in the scheme of things.

Let's examine the shot you made as described above. Well done, quite difficult. I don't wish to take anything away from the skill required to make the shot.

What was the target size?
What was the correction applied?
Where was the hit on the target?

The interest here is simply was the correction actually REQUIRED, or does it just appear that way because it worked?

For example, at that range .1 mil = about 3". If you saw the shot go .4 above center, and the target is only a 10" plate, what are the possibilties on the correction for the next shot? Can you dial .4 down and be assured of a hit, all other things remaining equal?

In theory we are 12" high. If in fact the first shot was the highest shot we may expect from a 1 MOA group, it is itself 4.5" high to start. If we had a .1 mil sight error high as well, that would be 7.5" of built in error, leaving a true correction of only 4.5", and only down .1 mil and a .05 mil hold low to center our group on the plate. If it was the lowest shot and our hold was .1 low, we'd need even more than the .4 down.

One should not read too much into a correction off a single shot.