Rifle Scopes Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

[SeanRT]

I've been doing quite a bit of research on scopes, conversions, and ballistics and I think that I've found the scope that I want/lust for (USO 3.2-17). However, I just can't decide on whether to go MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA. In your opinion, which one would be easier (in terms of the calculations required, etc.) for a newbie long-distance shooter?

 

[KeithR41]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Neither. Dial what you see with either system.

41

 

[DaveV]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

All the cool guys use MIL/MIL

 

[KeithR41]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Very true.

 

[Jayman_10X]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

For new shooters I like to keep it simple. Use MOA. Since 1 MOA is <span style="font-style: italic">approximately</span> 1 inch at 100 yards, that's a strong visual for the new shooters to grasp and translate into their adjustments. As they advance they can move up to MILS. But keep it simple and focus on sound shooting techniques rather than trivial units of adjustment.

 

[KeithR41]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Mils are no more complicated than MOA. Why learn two systems when you can learn one and spend more time shooting?

41

 

[jrob300]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Two things I often see overlooked in these discussions:

How many increments per turn on your turrets?

Most Mil scopes are set up for 5, 10 or 20 mil/turn. This makes the math VERY simple for dialing elevation at long range. Some are different, but most MOA scopes are odd numbers adding one more level of math involved.

How precise do you need your POI?

.1 Mil at 1000 yds is 3.6" 1/4 MOA is 2.61". Do you care? Are 3.6" adjustments fine enough, or do you need 2.6"? Target shooters use even finer at 1.3". (there are some .05 Mil scopes out there).

Some more to think about... it's not as simple as two different units of measure.

John

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

I use a combination of the two because I feel together they are more effective.

I like my dial in MOA as I see things in inches and the MOA equivs are very simple. @ 600 yds its 6". makes the drop charts easy, makes converting target sizes to MOA easy.

Under lowlight conditions the mildots standout where the fine lines of most moa reticles fade. Dots allow me to fractionalize to a finer degree than hashes. Takes some practise but it is finer.

I use the mildots to measure strike vs X ring in F-tr but not as a mil but as 3.5 moa. Its simple if you think about it. No need to learn two systems as the mil side never comes in.

No matter the distance, the mil reading is 3.5 MOA.

Now since you are a beginner I'd say the system doesnt matter near as much as other factors like will you use the scope in lowlight, engage running game, spot for yourself at the range, use it only on big paper at known distances...

I have found reticle design more important for a good versatile scope.

But I do like the marriage of a MOA dail and a MIL dot reticle.

Good Luck

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

If you don't have an opinion, then go MIL/MIL.

Later you will thank me.

Mainly because you can bet that 90% of the shooters on the line will have mil reticles. There aren't may spotters with MOA reticles. And just about anyone can spot for you in a language you will be able to use.

 

[jrob300]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There aren't may spotters with MOA reticles. And just about anyone can spot for you in a language you will be able to use. </div></div>

Thanks LW, that was the other thing I've run into, but didn't think about..

It depends a lot on the culture of the guys you shoot with. If it's a Tactical Match, you can guarantee that most scopes and spotters will have Mil. The guys I shoot with *mostly* are all ELR guys. Almost every one has a NF NPR1 reticle in MOA, so we have to do math when they give me wind calls (I have a Mil Razor) It's really not that hard... just one more thing to think about.

John

 

[Quickdraw40]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

I like MOA. I know (approximately) what an MOA is at 300 yards, 600 yards, 900 yards, etc without looking at a chart. YMMV

 

[300WSM]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

moa

 

[dcjs]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Quickdraw40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like MOA. I know (approximately) what an MOA is at 300 yards, 600 yards, 900 yards, etc without looking at a chart. YMMV </div></div>
I like mils. I know (exactly) that 1 mil is 0.3 yards at 300 yards, 0.6 yards at 600 yards, 0.9 yards at 900 yards, etc without looking at a chart <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> without ever thinking in yards at all in everyday life.

That's the beauty of mils.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Mils -- period.

You don't need to "know' anything, you simply read the reticle and it exactly corresponds to the adjustments on the turret, you break down the reticle to 10ths, you adjust in 10ths.

You don't have to know anything about the target size or where it hits, you simply read the ruler in front of your eyeball and you adjust accordingly. No math what so ever, if you are doing math you are doing it wrong.

Several problem with MOA...

1. There is no standard across reticles or companies

2. Turrets all adjust differently, in revolution as well as increment

3. You have to know whether you have True MOA or IPHY which even manufacturers get wrong so you are required to map your scope ahead of time

4. Use of MOA creates the problem all MOA shooters have, trying to "add" by yard line, 2" @ 200, 4" @400, 6" @ 600... while true for a linear representation, it removes the angular ability of true MOA and causes new shooters confusion.

5. 90% of those using MOA only shoot on their own, so of course it works for them, but I will tell you, once they arrive somewhere that requires them to operate by a different set of rules, the majority have problems. Both in ranging and execution. We see more opting to switch after being properly introduce to mils, than determine MOA was easier because they know what an inch is.

The argument that a 1/4 MOA is better than a 1/10th of a mils, please, who can hold that... maybe David Tubb on a good day for him, the rest of the world, not a chance in hell.

A mil is a mil no matter the distance, 1 Mil @ 100 yards is 1 Mil at 1000 yards, it doesn't get any easier and removes the need to convert to a linear value.

Linear thinking is what killed the MOA... converting it for ease brought on the rise of IPHY, which clouds the mix further.

 

[deadly0311]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two things I often see overlooked in these discussions:

How many increments per turn on your turrets?

Most Mil scopes are set up for 5, 10 or 20 mil/turn. This makes the math VERY simple for dialing elevation at long range. Some are different, but most MOA scopes are odd numbers adding one more level of math involved.

How precise do you need your POI?

<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">.1 Mil at 1000 yds is 3.6" 1/4 MOA is 2.61". </span></span>Do you care? Are 3.6" adjustments fine enough, or do you need 2.6"? Target shooters use even finer at 1.3". (there are some .05 Mil scopes out there).

Some more to think about... it's not as simple as two different units of measure.

John </div></div>

The bold part i think is a typo or you got confused on the decimal place. If we are converting the adjustment to a number it should read

.1 mil= .36 inches at 100
1.0 mil= 3.6 inches at 100
.25 MOA= .261 inches at 100
1 MOA= 1.0476 inches at 100

ahhhhh you went back and edited it before i could quote it

. Either way, JRob is right for the 1000 yd measurement and the 100 yd measurement is above in my post

Mils will be easier for you in the long run, due to the fact they are universal. Most people at comps are running Mil scopes so there for if they say hey you are off .4 mils to the left, you dont have to do any goofy math to convert it to MOA.

 

[SeanRT]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Thanks for the input, guys. I think that I'll do a little more research and then decide. Thanks again!

 

[jrob300]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The argument that a 1/4 MOA is better than a 1/10th of a mils, please, who can hold that... maybe David Tubb on a good day for him, the rest of the world, not a chance in hell. </div></div>

Frank,

This point was raised in a conversation with Tom Sarver about shooting little things at long distances, i.e. clay pigeons at a mile. Some people are just in a different universe.

For me, the ease of elevation math (Mils) outweighs the gain in precision measurements. If I miss by 1/2" at a mile, I hold a 1/2" different. Problem solved (unless the wind changes by .01 mph

)

John

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

John

they are benchresters, different animal... heavy guns.

 

[TEAMSENDIT]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

I think moa is easier to comprehend, but majority of competitors use mils which will help you more in the begining. plus there is now a much better selection of mil/mil scopes (bushnell, uso, leupold, nxs, vortex, weaver, falcon, premier, s&b, hensoldt). However how many moa/moa scopes are there? Nevermind the fact that you never know if you are getting moa/moa or iphy/iphy.

 

[Shooter21]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

MIL/MIL, as in the real world, if you are shooting at a target that has the potential to move shortly after a miss, your spotter (which will probably be you, especially if hunting) can call out by how man MILs you missed and without touching a dial, you can make a quick fix HOLD and send a followup shot. Trust me it works!!

HDC-Deadly and Lowlight know this better than anyone I know

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Rather than getting into a pissing contest as to which is better, MIL or MOA, let me post a real world example of a stage used at a tactical matche, and I'll let you all decide, which is easier or the best:

Your presented with 5 targets, all steel plates, spread in a field across 90 degrees of angle from the firing line, so you will have to pan your rifle from the prone to see and hit each target. The 5 targets are from 160 yds to 660 yds from the shooters.

In this exercise it is academic whether the targets are at known or unknown ranges, because when you get to the firing line, you have either been given the ranges, or your have been given the target size, and have calculated the ranges yourself, before you started firing.

So now 5 shooters lay prone on the firing line, and the range master will kick you on the foot, and yell target 1 through 5.

You now have 10 seconds, to both find the target and get the shot off, or it's called a miss and on to the next shooter. The stage was complete when each of the 5 shooters fired 5 rounds at 5 of the targets, round robin style.

That means reticle holds only, as you have no time to dial, and no time to consult a drop sheet. That means you will have had to memorize the 5 reticle holds you need to hit each target.

Here's your drop sheet, that you will have to consult before you get to the firing line:

MILS:

100 = 0
200 = -0.5
300 = -1.2
400 = -2.0
500 = -2.9
600 = -3.9
700 = -5.0

MOA:

100 = 0
200 = -1.7
300 = -4.1
400 = -6.9
500 = -10.0
600 = -13.4
700 = -17.2

Now the question that each of you has to answer is:

Is it easier and less prone to mistakes to memorize 5 x two digit numbers, or 5 mixed 2 and 3 digit numbers?? Also the shooters has to interpolate between there noted holds as the targets are at odd ranges.

Be honest now, and think about it some.....

Just for realism here's two reticles, for illustration :

First your MIL reticle from USO Mil scale GAP

Then also from USO PCMOA reticle:

Again, if you just look at the reticles, is it quicker and easier to find a spot on your reticle quickly, between -3.9 MILS and -5.0 MILS or between 13.4 MOA and 17.2 MOA? Again be honest with yourself....

In summary, many stages in tactical matches, are MIL v MOA neutral. However, many are like this one that favor MIL shooters. Are there stages used that favor MOA shooters? I've never seen a tactical match stage that favored an MOA shooter, have you?

If you never plan on shooting a tactical match, it simply does not matter which system you choose, MIL or MOA.

However, if you do shoot tactical comps or plan too, look again at my example again, and think about it a little....

Thanks,

Bob

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

A similar challenge is Moving Chaos at Rifles Only:

Shooter starts behind a loaded, ready to shoot rifle, prone. Five steel targets will be engaged, at known distances. If the target is hit on the first shot, transition to the next target. If the target is missed on the first shot, shoot at it again, then transition to the next target. Two shots is the maximum at any target.

The drill starts when a moving target appears at 400 yards moving right to left.

Then shoot targets at 209, 310, and 545 yards. The order of these targets may vary.

The last target will be the moving target which was the first one, now moving from left to right.

Time expires when the moving target disappears on the right - usually about 60 seconds total time for all targets.

Scoring: 20 points per target hit either on the first or second shot. Maximum score: 100 points.

It can be done by dialing - but it's a lot easier to use reticle holds, if you know how.

 

[Graham]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

</div></div>The purpose of a reticle is to define Cartesian space. How you split it up is arbitrary, and the values are up to you.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

You know, given that it was invented by Descartes, why don't we call it Decartesian space?

And, yes, that <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> a rhetorical question.

 

[tactic-als]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

I Think the more research you do, you will favor a mil/mil setup.

 

[Graham]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: alshirey</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I Think the more research you do, you will favor a mil/mil setup. </div></div>Exactly. I happen to know that Decartes used a Mil/Mil setup: He added to traditional Greek geometry the systematic biaxial plotting of position. There then became six directions created by being. The Cartesian grid was thus creative, as it altered his experience of space: As with space, so with time. Another reason to believe the bullet.

..and you thought your reticle wasn't an exercise in philosophy and that there was no new answer to the MIL/MOA question.

 

[ToddKS]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

As a relative newcomer to the issue I will offer this insight based on my experience.

"A mil is a mil no mater what distance", that is true, the same is also true of MOA. Both are angular units of measure. A minute of angle is a minute of angle at any distance as well. The issue comes when you are trying to convert angular units of measure into linear terms at distance (which is what many are trying to do with MOA).

The breakthrough for me came when I quit thinking in feet and inches and started thinking in units of angle (in my case mils, but is could have just as easily been MOA).

I no longer think about how many inches of hold I need, I simply think about my hold in mils because that is what my reticle measures. If I had a MOA based reticle, I would calculate my holds in MOA. Either way, I am not thinking in linear terms (no feet, no inches).

It took some time for me to finally arrive at this changed way of thinking, but once I did, life became much easier. Without the reading done on this site I don't know that I would have ever arrived at this point. I would probably still be in the same boat as my buddies thinking in inches and considering anything beyond 100 yards to be a long shot.

My point here would be whichever system you chose, think in terms of that system (MOA or Mils) not feet and inches.

 

[Scot_E]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils -- period.

You don't need to "know' anything, you simply read the reticle and it exactly corresponds to the adjustments on the turret, you break down the reticle to 10ths, you adjust in 10ths.

You don't have to know anything about the target size or where it hits, you simply read the ruler in front of your eyeball and you adjust accordingly. No math what so ever, if you are doing math you are doing it wrong.

Several problem with MOA...

1. There is no standard across reticles or companies

2. Turrets all adjust differently, in revolution as well as increment

3. You have to know whether you have True MOA or IPHY which even manufacturers get wrong so you are required to map your scope ahead of time

4. Use of MOA creates the problem all MOA shooters have, trying to "add" by yard line, 2" @ 200, 4" @400, 6" @ 600... while true for a linear representation, it removes the angular ability of true MOA and causes new shooters confusion.

5. 90% of those using MOA only shoot on their own, so of course it works for them, but I will tell you, once they arrive somewhere that requires them to operate by a different set of rules, the majority have problems. Both in ranging and execution. We see more opting to switch after being properly introduce to mils, than determine MOA was easier because they know what an inch is.

The argument that a 1/4 MOA is better than a 1/10th of a mils, please, who can hold that... maybe David Tubb on a good day for him, the rest of the world, not a chance in hell.

A mil is a mil no matter the distance, 1 Mil @ 100 yards is 1 Mil at 1000 yards, it doesn't get any easier and removes the need to convert to a linear value.

Linear thinking is what killed the MOA... converting it for ease brought on the rise of IPHY, which clouds the mix further. </div></div>

Lowlight,

Could you explain your post above for me, especially 1-5. I am not seeing how MIL is any different. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Possible as it is late!

1. There are various kinds of MIL reticles just like there are MOA reticles.

2. MIL turrets adjust differently and have turret increment error just like MOA. Do you mean that MOA has 1/8 and 1/4 vs MIL only having .1 MIL as an option?

3. Are you talking about the reticle here? All turrets should be mapped

4. Can't angular measurement be used for both?

5. Just interested in more specific experiences here. I don't shoot with a spotter so am not experienced in this aspect. Having said that I still like the MIL system but am having a hard time understanding the errors that occur with MOA.

I understand your point about linear vs angular and MOA reticles are often too busy for proper measurements. Is that what you are saying?

I understand the difference in MIL vs MOA vs IPHY, just trying to understand your points.

Thanks,

 

[Varget 7-08]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Lot of good info on here, I'd say MIL though

 

[treebasher]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

By Lowlight - Posted on 20 March 2009

Over the last 2 years we have seen a big increase in the number of scopes that offer their adjustments in Milliradian. I am personally a strong proponent of the use of Mil adjusted scopes with Mil based reticles. I find the graduations to be the right distance for both precision and tactical use, feeling we are all familiar enough with Mil Dot reticles to have a basis for understanding how to move forward with Milliradian based adjustments. The problem for most is the need to assign a value in the same way we assign a value to everything else in our lives. The biggest question most struggle with is, “how much is that at X yards in Inches”? Well the easy answer is, you don’t need to assign a linear distance to it because the angular measurement works so well. In fact, what you see is what you need; it’s really that simple. A Mil is a Mil whether it is 100 yards, or 686.792 yards, the number is the same.

A Brief Background

Before we get started down this road, I need to go over a few numbers related to using a Mil adjusted scope. Now, over the years there has been some confusion in how to term a Mil adjusted scope. For the record, it is not a “Metric” scope or calibrated in meters, nor does it require conversion to yards. By definition a Radian is, “the angle subtended at the center of a circle by an arc that is equal in length to the radius of the circle.” So, a Milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian. When applied to a circle the number we use is 6283.2, and while it has been taught and discussed at length that the number is 6400, that is not correct for a riflescope. Our scopes are calibrated using 6283 and only one scope on the market was ever built using the wrong number, that is the Leupold M3A, who’s reticle is based off the 6400 number… don’t let that fool you, the number we use is the true number of 6283, just because someone did it another way, or has taught 6400, doesn’t mean they are right either.

Now, because a milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian, it doesn’t matter what linear distance you use is, the reticle or adjustments subtends 1/1000 of that number. So you have a milliradian equaling:

1 mile at 1000 miles
1 meter at 1000 meters
1 yard at 1000 yards
10 centimeter at 100 meters
3.6 inches at 100 yards (3600 inches)

Most scopes adjust in .1 MRAD or 1/10th a Milliradian per click, so this allows the shooter to break up the space between each Mil Dot 10 times for an easy corresponding adjustment. The only exception to this I am familiar with is again, Leupold who uses a .05 adjustment. However for us, we will stick to .1MRAD-adjusted scopes as it makes for an easy transition. There are scopes that have their turrets marked as 1 click = 1cm at 100 meters, which is correct, but it also equals .36 per click at 100 yards. The manufacturers are trying to fulfill that need for a linear number. Lately many of the companies have reverted back to the correct marking of .1 mrad per click. This is the point we want to strive to reach, so that we can break a Mil based reticle down into 10th so we can accurately use the reticle and match the adjustments on our scope.

That should tell the shooter all they need to know. There are all sorts of math associated to this, and for those who want to dig deeper, at the end I will provide links for you to further explore the numbers behind this, but for the most part, this is all we need to know to get started. There is really no point in confusing yourself if you don’t have to. Stick to thinking a Mil is a Mil regardless if we hold or adjust, no matter how close or how far.

Know your Scope

Moving forward, we now have a Milliradian adjusted scope with .1MRAD clicks, and we have a Mil Based reticle, so what else do we need? What we need is to understand how our scope works, whether or not the reticle is located in the First Focal Plane or the Second Focal Plane. Now, both have their advantages and disadvantages based on their use and the user, but for the most part I recommend the First Focal Plane Scope (FFP) over the Second Focal Plane (SFP) scope. The reason being is I want my reticle sub tensions to be correct on every power within my zoom range. With a SFP scope the reticle only correctly subtends at 1 power, and I highly recommend checking to confirm that power on your own. Using the numbers the above you can find out which is the correct power by lining up the Mil Dots to intersect either 3.6” at 100 yards or 10 centimeters at 100 meters.

So, the first thing we are going to do is zero our new scope. We get in a nice position behind the rifle, obeying all the fundamentals of marksmanship and we shoot the best 3 shot group we can at the center of the target. Looking through our scope after shooting this group we ask ourselves, “How much adjustment do I need”? I know a lot of people like the sight in targets with the squares that are either a ½” or 1” so you know how much to adjust your scope, and right now you are saying we need to convert to figure out what .1MRAD means at 100 yards in inches, right? Wrong, we don’t care how many inches anything is, we simply look through our scope and read the reticle. This is key because learning to read a Mil Dot reticle to the 1/10th of a Mil will pay huge dividends down the road. This you will see again.

Reading the reticle I would estimate the shot group is 1.3 Mils Low and 1.9 Mils to the right of center. This would mean we need an adjustment of 13 clicks if we spoke in that terminology, but since we don’t we need 1.3 Mils up and 1.9 Mils Left to get this group in the center. That should be the end of the process, in fact you can even zero a scope faster if you like, but this method works very well. Remember, we are breaking up the space between the centers of the reticle to the center of the Mil Dot, not the edge, as that has a value too. Most Mil Dots are .2 Mils wide, but check your manual or online schematic at the manufacturer’s website as they could be .25 mils wide and in the case of Hash Mark type reticles even less as you need to account for the thickness of the reticle when reading a mil based scope.

Next we want to shoot at distance and you are saying, “all my dope is in MOA so how do I figure out what to use for 200 to 1000 yards”, which is a good question. If you have numbers for your rifle and your previous scope was adjusted in MOA we have a conversion you can use to keep your same dope only converted to Mils.

To convert your current MOA values to Mils divide the MOA by 3.438 and that will give you the Mils to use. For example if you use 8 MOA at 400 yards you would use 2.3 Mils at the same distance. Do this before you hit the range then simply read your range card in the same fashion as before, only now instead of needing to remember your dope from 0 to roughly 38MOA you can now do it only needed to count to 12 Mils. This same principal goes for windage. There are plenty of charts available to have you windage in Mils like found in the logbooks from Storm Tactical, not to mention the use of ballistic calculators.

Matching your reticle and scope to your adjustments

Now that we have the scope zeroed and we have our dope converted to Mils we are ready to start shooting. The key to using this system in a more efficient way is to be able to read the reticle and understand it matches exactly to your turrets. There are two schools of thought in long range shooting, well I am sure there are many schools of thought, but what I am referring to involves the Wind. There are those who dial their windage, and those who hold off for their windage. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, however for the sake of this conversation we are going to address them the same way.

Whether you hold or dial the number is the same. What you see in the reticle is the exact number you can dial or hold your windage regardless of range. 100% of the information necessary to hit your target is presented in the reticle for a follow up shot. If you have an unknown distance target that you hastily estimate to be 750 yards away and you estimate the wind hold to be 1 Mil, once you fire that shot observe the impact and make the correction. Sounds easy right? Well providing you are straight behind the rifle and you drove the rifle through recoil you should be able to spot your own impacts. If you observe the shot on the UKD target to be 2 Mil low and 2 Mils from the center that is your correction, which could be both dialed or held to correct for. This greatly reduces the time it takes to follow up the shot and greatly increases the accuracy of the correction because you “read” the correction in the reticle.

If you are accustom to dialing your changes, and adjustments its just as simple. If shooting a KD course and the target rises from the berm with a spotter in it, simply read the correction from the spotter to the center of the target and dial the correction exactly like you did at 100 yards. This is where the ability to read the reticle to the 1/10th of Mil plays an important role so that your reading will match your turret adjustments with greater accuracy.

To take this application a step further when used in conjunction with a Mil Reticle equipped spotting scope the shooter will become even more effective by working in one system receiving his corrections in Mils rather than a conversion of Mils to MOA or worse in the distance away from the target based on an estimate of size. You have a calibrated ruler in your scope it’s best to use it to your advantage. In advanced cases a shooter can work with another shooter to use two rifles where the second rifle can engage the target with the correction before the first shooter even reloads providing the first shot is coordinated. Speed is increased two fold along with accuracy thanks to unifying your adjustments.

The Future is Now

If anyone hasn’t notice we are progressing at leaps and bounds in the opening years of the 21st Century. Now we have hand held weather meters, ballistic calculators along with Laser rangefinders to assist in making the shot. Gone are the days of having to determine the long hand of the bullets’ drop and figure how that relates to our scopes adjustments. Today the easiest way to begin is to input your bullet’s caliber, weight and muzzle velocity along with some basic environmental conditions into a ballistic calculator and out comes a spread sheet providing the drop in Mils, wind holds in Mils, and Leads for Moving targets in Mils. It can be mixed and matched to suit your needs, but the flexibility is amazing. There are free online calculators that are extremely effective or you can invest in a hand held PDA with a ballistic program to store and retrieve information for all of your rifles.

The ballistic programs I recommend are from Nightforce with the ExBal engine, Patagonia’s LoadBase 2.0, and Lex Talus’ Field Firing Solutions. All run off a Windows Mobile device and all will allow you to customize the software to match your needs. The best part is they have options to exactly match the scope and reticle you are using. So the output can be tuned to give your scope even more information making you that much more effective.

The golden rule with any PDA based program is, garbage in, garbage out. Using the tools available to get yourself the best information possible is necessary. It is highly recommended you shoot every yard line recording the data to match your rifles characteristics to the output of the ballistic calculator. There is no substitute for rounds expended in practice and training. These programs can not guess what you are using, they must be tuned to your rifle and load and each have a method of “tweaking’ the results to match your rifle downrange.

As I mentioned above, you also have the ability to use Spotting Scopes and Binoculars with Mil Reticles inside to make calling corrections easier by matching your scopes’ reticle. I personally use a Carl Zeiss 65* spotter with a 30X Mil Dot Reticle, however several companies offer reticles at much more reasonable prices. US Optics also offers a spotter with their scope reticles installed to make the decision even easier. For those who don’t want to haul a spotting scope and tripod around, Steiner now makes several models of their Tactical Binoculars with reticles. Steiner calls them the SUMR, or Steiner Universal Mil’ing Reticle. Be sure it is the SUMR reticle and not the artillery based Military Mil Reticle.

Over the last 30 years there have been some serious misconceptions put forward that remain in print today. Myth and legends in shooting grow daily, especially with the advent of the internet, so Keep it Simple and you’ll find you’ll be a lot more effective that way.

 

[dmdakota]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Mil/Mil is the easiest way for me.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scot E</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils -- period.

You don't need to "know' anything, you simply read the reticle and it exactly corresponds to the adjustments on the turret, you break down the reticle to 10ths, you adjust in 10ths.

You don't have to know anything about the target size or where it hits, you simply read the ruler in front of your eyeball and you adjust accordingly. No math what so ever, if you are doing math you are doing it wrong.

Several problem with MOA...

1. There is no standard across reticles or companies

2. Turrets all adjust differently, in revolution as well as increment

3. You have to know whether you have True MOA or IPHY which even manufacturers get wrong so you are required to map your scope ahead of time

4. Use of MOA creates the problem all MOA shooters have, trying to "add" by yard line, 2" @ 200, 4" @400, 6" @ 600... while true for a linear representation, it removes the angular ability of true MOA and causes new shooters confusion.

5. 90% of those using MOA only shoot on their own, so of course it works for them, but I will tell you, once they arrive somewhere that requires them to operate by a different set of rules, the majority have problems. Both in ranging and execution. We see more opting to switch after being properly introduce to mils, than determine MOA was easier because they know what an inch is.

The argument that a 1/4 MOA is better than a 1/10th of a mils, please, who can hold that... maybe David Tubb on a good day for him, the rest of the world, not a chance in hell.

A mil is a mil no matter the distance, 1 Mil @ 100 yards is 1 Mil at 1000 yards, it doesn't get any easier and removes the need to convert to a linear value.

Linear thinking is what killed the MOA... converting it for ease brought on the rise of IPHY, which clouds the mix further. </div></div>

Lowlight,

Could you explain your post above for me, especially 1-5. I am not seeing how MIL is any different. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Possible as it is late!

1. There are various kinds of MIL reticles just like there are MOA reticles.

2. MIL turrets adjust differently and have turret increment error just like MOA. Do you mean that MOA has 1/8 and 1/4 vs MIL only having .1 MIL as an option?

3. Are you talking about the reticle here? All turrets should be mapped

4. Can't angular measurement be used for both?

5. Just interested in more specific experiences here. I don't shoot with a spotter so am not experienced in this aspect. Having said that I still like the MIL system but am having a hard time understanding the errors that occur with MOA.

I understand your point about linear vs angular and MOA reticles are often too busy for proper measurements. Is that what you are saying?

I understand the difference in MIL vs MOA vs IPHY, just trying to understand your points.

Thanks,</div></div>

It's pretty self explanatory really, but I can expand.

1. There are different mil type reticles, but they all subtend 1 MIL. They only change the reticle up to help the shooter break up the 10th, they don't change the Mil.

MOA reticle are not all uniformly the same. They all don't have 1 MOA increments, nor do they all give equal value to the spaces. Some the first hash mark is 2 MOA the next hash make is 5 MOA. They are getting better, but they are not all 1 MOA Or some form of 1 MOA.

All mil scopes have 1 Mil with differences between the 10th.

2. Most mil turrets adjust in .1MRAD... Leupold had a .05 and some Zeiss have a .05 but are not recommended nor are they tactical. If you want to get a .05 that is on you, but a smart end user would get the .1MRAD.

MOA adjusted scopes are of a much higher variety. Even tactically. M3 turrets are different from M1 turrets, as well what was written about the rotations of the turrets. How many MOA per turn is all over the place. Mils are generally 5 or 10, unless they are completely 1 rotation.

3. No both, they make them in both MOA and IPHY and some advertised as MOA are actually IPHY or what they used to call Shooter MOA. You can get IPHY reticles as well as turrets. If you have an MOA reticle, properly subtended and they advertise it as an MOA Turret and it turns out to IPHY, you have an issue at distance. Mils are mils, and not adjusted or Shooter MIls. Sure I always check accuracy, but you dont' have to check subtension with a ruler like MOA vs IPHY I can check Mils without measuring anything simply by seeing the reticle matches the turrets reading the reticle.

4. Technically yes, but realistically it doesn't happen that way. Because MOA is explained by giving people linear representations, they tend to remove the angular aspect of MOA. it's a training issue and people are taught to confuse themselves. Look at this thread... everyone advocating MOA does so because they know "how many inches" something is. Well that is linear, not angular. I think in Inches so I want Inches, not Minutes of Angle, but Inches. I know if I hit 6" off the target what that means on the scope... they know 1" @ 600 yards is 6" but they not looking at it angular. This is answered in black and white right here, which is why we have IPHY. The angular measurement is 1.047" not 1", if you have a 1.047" reticle and 1" turrets, you have an issue.

5. I am not explaining it more. Very few spotters are in MOA, only USO I know of and if you have a person on a second rifle why not use their reticle too, most likely mils. Calling an impact in Mils is easier when the spotter is in mils. Calling an impact in inches is not very effective. Especially if the target is hidden or partially obscured. if you can't see it how can you adjust, unless you have a definitive number. Most people calling in MOA are guessing, the target is 18" wide it half as far as the target, adjust 9", not very precise, when I have the reticle on the target and can say, adjust .75 mils because I have read it. As well everyone wants to use 100 as the constant for ranging instead of the 95.5 required by some. SO they add in an error there, plus they don't have a 1 MOA subtension on their reticle and have a hard time dividing it up for accurate ranging. I can call a mil to a 100th of a Mil, nobody is calling it that well with an MOA.

While the systems were originally designed to work as an angular measurement they have since been changed. As well people have not understood the system enough to get the most out of it, like Mils. Mils works because people let it work, with MOA everyone is always trying to adapt it to what "they" know and not adapt themselves to the system. Clearly a lot of training issues, but manufacturing too, it was easy to MOA in the past and give a person IPHY and just say they rounded it. But we know it can cause a miss at 1000 yards. So these differences stand out.

 

[DieTrying310]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

As another new to long range shooter, I went mil/mil and FFP. It makes zeroing and figuring hold overs so easy. Also, I know mil isn't metric, but breaking my scope measurements down into 10's just makes sense in my metric oriented mind.

MOA always gets equated to inches, which is still rounding, so therefore can get inaccurate real quick. Plus, everything gets divided into 1/4's which just seems to add more to the thought process than is really needed.

Having no previous experience shooting with a scope, I looked at both systems with no bias. Mils just made sense to me.

 

[Scot_E]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scot E</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils -- period.

You don't need to "know' anything, you simply read the reticle and it exactly corresponds to the adjustments on the turret, you break down the reticle to 10ths, you adjust in 10ths.

You don't have to know anything about the target size or where it hits, you simply read the ruler in front of your eyeball and you adjust accordingly. No math what so ever, if you are doing math you are doing it wrong.

Several problem with MOA...

1. There is no standard across reticles or companies

2. Turrets all adjust differently, in revolution as well as increment

3. You have to know whether you have True MOA or IPHY which even manufacturers get wrong so you are required to map your scope ahead of time

4. Use of MOA creates the problem all MOA shooters have, trying to "add" by yard line, 2" @ 200, 4" @400, 6" @ 600... while true for a linear representation, it removes the angular ability of true MOA and causes new shooters confusion.

5. 90% of those using MOA only shoot on their own, so of course it works for them, but I will tell you, once they arrive somewhere that requires them to operate by a different set of rules, the majority have problems. Both in ranging and execution. We see more opting to switch after being properly introduce to mils, than determine MOA was easier because they know what an inch is.

The argument that a 1/4 MOA is better than a 1/10th of a mils, please, who can hold that... maybe David Tubb on a good day for him, the rest of the world, not a chance in hell.

A mil is a mil no matter the distance, 1 Mil @ 100 yards is 1 Mil at 1000 yards, it doesn't get any easier and removes the need to convert to a linear value.

Linear thinking is what killed the MOA... converting it for ease brought on the rise of IPHY, which clouds the mix further. </div></div>

Lowlight,

Could you explain your post above for me, especially 1-5. I am not seeing how MIL is any different. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Possible as it is late!

1. There are various kinds of MIL reticles just like there are MOA reticles.

2. MIL turrets adjust differently and have turret increment error just like MOA. Do you mean that MOA has 1/8 and 1/4 vs MIL only having .1 MIL as an option?

3. Are you talking about the reticle here? All turrets should be mapped

4. Can't angular measurement be used for both?

5. Just interested in more specific experiences here. I don't shoot with a spotter so am not experienced in this aspect. Having said that I still like the MIL system but am having a hard time understanding the errors that occur with MOA.

I understand your point about linear vs angular and MOA reticles are often too busy for proper measurements. Is that what you are saying?

I understand the difference in MIL vs MOA vs IPHY, just trying to understand your points.

Thanks,</div></div>

It's pretty self explanatory really, but I can expand.

1. There are different mil type reticles, but they all subtend 1 MIL. They only change the reticle up to help the shooter break up the 10th, they don't change the Mil.

MOA reticle are not all uniformly the same. They all don't have 1 MOA increments, nor do they all give equal value to the spaces. Some the first hash mark is 2 MOA the next hash make is 5 MOA. They are getting better, but they are not all 1 MOA Or some form of 1 MOA.

All mil scopes have 1 Mil with differences between the 10th.

2. Most mil turrets adjust in .1MRAD... Leupold had a .05 and some Zeiss have a .05 but are not recommended nor are they tactical. If you want to get a .05 that is on you, but a smart end user would get the .1MRAD.

MOA adjusted scopes are of a much higher variety. Even tactically. M3 turrets are different from M1 turrets, as well what was written about the rotations of the turrets. How many MOA per turn is all over the place. Mils are generally 5 or 10, unless they are completely 1 rotation.

3. No both, they make them in both MOA and IPHY and some advertised as MOA are actually IPHY or what they used to call Shooter MOA. You can get IPHY reticles as well as turrets. If you have an MOA reticle, properly subtended and they advertise it as an MOA Turret and it turns out to IPHY, you have an issue at distance. Mils are mils, and not adjusted or Shooter MIls. Sure I always check accuracy, but you dont' have to check subtension with a ruler like MOA vs IPHY I can check Mils without measuring anything simply by seeing the reticle matches the turrets reading the reticle.

4. Technically yes, but realistically it doesn't happen that way. Because MOA is explained by giving people linear representations, they tend to remove the angular aspect of MOA. it's a training issue and people are taught to confuse themselves. Look at this thread... everyone advocating MOA does so because they know "how many inches" something is. Well that is linear, not angular. I think in Inches so I want Inches, not Minutes of Angle, but Inches. I know if I hit 6" off the target what that means on the scope... they know 1" @ 600 yards is 6" but they not looking at it angular. This is answered in black and white right here, which is why we have IPHY. The angular measurement is 1.047" not 1", if you have a 1.047" reticle and 1" turrets, you have an issue.

5. I am not explaining it more. Very few spotters are in MOA, only USO I know of and if you have a person on a second rifle why not use their reticle too, most likely mils. Calling an impact in Mils is easier when the spotter is in mils. Calling an impact in inches is not very effective. Especially if the target is hidden or partially obscured. if you can't see it how can you adjust, unless you have a definitive number. Most people calling in MOA are guessing, the target is 18" wide it half as far as the target, adjust 9", not very precise, when I have the reticle on the target and can say, adjust .75 mils because I have read it. As well everyone wants to use 100 as the constant for ranging instead of the 95.5 required by some. SO they add in an error there, plus they don't have a 1 MOA subtension on their reticle and have a hard time dividing it up for accurate ranging. I can call a mil to a 100th of a Mil, nobody is calling it that well with an MOA.

While the systems were originally designed to work as an angular measurement they have since been changed. As well people have not understood the system enough to get the most out of it, like Mils. Mils works because people let it work, with MOA everyone is always trying to adapt it to what "they" know and not adapt themselves to the system. Clearly a lot of training issues, but manufacturing too, it was easy to MOA in the past and give a person IPHY and just say they rounded it. But we know it can cause a miss at 1000 yards. So these differences stand out. </div></div>

Thanks for the explanation. Not sure I agree entirely with your points regarding MOA but do agree that in general MIL is the better system. For what it's worth I don't do tactical shoots or even competitive shooting, just long range target practice to get me in shape for hunting. I realize that makes my requirements different from some.

MIL reticles and MIL turrets should be checked to ensure that they are correctly calibrated just like any MOA setup should be. I don't see any difference there. Turret error can show up on any turret and MIL or MOA has nothing to do with it. Also reticle calibration must be done on SFP scopes to make sure you know exactly where your scope subtends correctly. This is true for MIL or MOA. With an FFP scope I still need to check the reticle to make sure it subtends correctly for MOA or MIL.

I think the bigger reason that MOA is thought of in linear format is because average guys with no military background learned to shoot with duplex reticles and adjusted their scopes linearly, ie 4 clicks moves your cross hairs 1 inch at 100 yards. They had no basis for using a reticle as part of a system. That option didn't really come available until NF and USO came out with their MOA reticles. But the reality is that MOA can be used in the same way and some guys do like the MOA math better if it is needed to estimate range.

If you do have a spotter that doesn't have a ranging reticle, you do come across this in hunting situations, he can still call the misses in inches and it is quicker to do the MOA math to make the necessary adjustments. MIL would work here too but I think the MOA math is easier in this example for the beginner.

My thoughts.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Testing scopes is different and I have demonstrated this in several videos...

With a Mil based scopes with a Mil based reticle, you can put a target any where on the paper, and test that the reticle reading correctly and transfers to the turret in one easy step. No rulers, but your reticle.

Example, just using an aiming point, you place another target anywhere on the paper. Read the reticle, no math, no ruler but the reticle, if the target is 3.3 mils high and 1.7 mils right you dial that on the turrets and shoot while holding center. If you hit the target your scope works.

MOA vs IPHY you have to use a ruler to test, is it tracking in MOA or IPHY, both can be accurate as far as tracking but if the manufacturer tells you it is an MOA scope and it tracks IPHY, that has to be solved with a ruler.

I agree and test all scopes, but you can short cut this with Mils, you cannot with MOA.

And sorry to argue with you, but you said:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the MOA math is easier in this example for the beginner. </div></div>

There is absolutely positively no math with a Mil / Mil scope.. None, Zero, you simply read the reticle and dial the correction. Yards don't matter, Meters don't matter, no math... zero. So here you are part of the problem, that math is required.

I even further simplify this, I assign 1 MOA per Quarter Mil with people with Mil reticles and MOA/IPHY knobs. So 1 Mil = 4 MOA, this is what you dial. Again, no math.

I do this for a living I see people who come to class having used MOA by themselves at Home and feel MOA is easier... they are never right ranging or with their math. They crunch numbers on their computer and figure it is easier but put them on a range they fall apart. Again, I can simplify this and reduce it to doing NO MATH. None, nada, you simply read the reticle.

if you are doing math I already won... the argument is moot. Not to mention I am not talking about 1 person on their own, but on demand during a class, it never works for them, trust me on this I see it every time an MOA guys shows up.

Because I work in Mils alot, even a spotter with no reticle I can call corrections in mils and do it all the time. I think in mils, although I can do it any way, I can call inches, MOA, I can call adjustments at the target, or at the shooter. Doesn't matter, but I practice this and teach it. Teaching mils is easier.

A new shooter, not exposed to either will be up and running faster more effectively using Mils, I will bet anyone $1000 to charity I can demonstrate this without fail, boy, girl, young or old. Reading is easier and more effective than guessing it is 9" off the target.

Playing out on your own, any system that is easy for the individual is going to be "easier" like in the context of target shooting or hunting. You never set yourself up to fail. Put in the context where you don't control the variables, MOA guys fall flat on their face. Sorry, fact of the matter, not one person's Opinion, but combined experienced over years of teaching and observing.

I drew up the first MOA Reticle USO offered. I sat and worked the numbers with John Sr during an Orlando SHOT SHOW many years ago. The first MOA reticle from them was my idea, it failed in my estimation to do what was necessary which was to work easier than mils.

I am fluent in all shooting languages, at will on demand, mils are easier.

 

[Scot_E]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Testing scopes is different and I have demonstrated this in several videos...

With a Mil based scopes with a Mil based reticle, you can put a target any where on the paper, and test that the reticle reading correctly and transfers to the turret in one easy step. No rulers, but your reticle.

Example, just using an aiming point, you place another target anywhere on the paper. Read the reticle, no math, no ruler but the reticle, if the target is 3.3 mils high and 1.7 mils right you dial that on the turrets and shoot while holding center. If you hit the target your scope works.

MOA vs IPHY you have to use a ruler to test, is it tracking in MOA or IPHY, both can be accurate as far as tracking but if the manufacturer tells you it is an MOA scope and it tracks IPHY, that has to be solved with a ruler.

I agree and test all scopes, but you can short cut this with Mils, you cannot with MOA.

And sorry to argue with you, but you said:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the MOA math is easier in this example for the beginner. </div></div>

There is absolutely positively no math with a Mil / Mil scope.. None, Zero, you simply read the reticle and dial the correction. Yards don't matter, Meters don't matter, no math... zero. So here you are part of the problem, that math is required.

I even further simplify this, I assign 1 MOA per Quarter Mil with people with Mil reticles and MOA/IPHY knobs. So 1 Mil = 4 MOA, this is what you dial. Again, no math.

I do this for a living I see people who come to class having used MOA by themselves at Home and feel MOA is easier... they are never right ranging or with their math. They crunch numbers on their computer and figure it is easier but put them on a range they fall apart. Again, I can simplify this and reduce it to doing NO MATH. None, nada, you simply read the reticle.

if you are doing math I already won... the argument is moot. Not to mention I am not talking about 1 person on their own, but on demand during a class, it never works for them, trust me on this I see it every time an MOA guys shows up.

Because I work in Mils alot, even a spotter with no reticle I can call corrections in mils and do it all the time. I think in mils, although I can do it any way, I can call inches, MOA, I can call adjustments at the target, or at the shooter. Doesn't matter, but I practice this and teach it. Teaching mils is easier.

A new shooter, not exposed to either will be up and running faster more effectively using Mils, I will bet anyone $1000 to charity I can demonstrate this without fail, boy, girl, young or old. Reading is easier and more effective than guessing it is 9" off the target.

Playing out on your own, any system that is easy for the individual is going to be "easier" like in the context of target shooting or hunting. You never set yourself up to fail. Put in the context where you don't control the variables, MOA guys fall flat on their face. Sorry, fact of the matter, not one person's Opinion, but combined experienced over years of teaching and observing.

I drew up the first MOA Reticle USO offered. I sat and worked the numbers with John Sr during an Orlando SHOT SHOW many years ago. The first MOA reticle from them was my idea, it failed in my estimation to do what was necessary which was to work easier than mils.

I am fluent in all shooting languages, at will on demand, mils are easier. </div></div>

Lowlight,

I am chucking at myself for arguing because I also like MIL best just like you and agree with most of your points but it seems you are being unfair to the MOA system in general. I am not sure it is as bad as you make it out.

I understand your point on the ease of sighting in a MIL based system. But you can do the same thing with a MOA reticle. If you hit 2 MOA low and 1.5 MOA right then dial that and you are dead on just as you would be with MIL. That is using no ruler but your MOA reticle and MOA turrets.

Also, tracking can be off on a MIL scope as it can with an MOA scope. So the .1MIL clicks aren't adjusting .1MIL. This is no different than a .25MOA adjusting .25 inch or .27MOA, etc. They both need to be checked if you are going to dial.

In the example I gave there does have to be math of some kind. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. The shooter didn't see the miss, the spotter saw it to be 8 inches left but has no reticle to call the miss in MOA or MIL, just in inches. If the shooter is going to dial the error he has to do math, although fairly simple, whether he has MOA or MIL.

Your simplification of assigning 4 MOA to 1MIL does make it easier but I would argue there is still math, just simplified, rounded math that ends up being off by more than what the linear inch to 1 MOA adjusts to. 3.6 MOA is really 1 MIL, that is a lot more error than using inches and and true MOA of 1.047.

A range card does eliminate math but I could make a range card in MILs that would do the same thing, right?

 

[ccoker]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Lowlight,

First and foremost, I want to sincerely thank you for taking the do write all of this out in such detail.

I am a guy who grew up hunting, reloading, etc..
I know how to shoot and feel confident out to 500 yards with a 308.

For the first time in our area, we now have a 1K range.

I went out and did it for the first time during the Larue event and using s S&B equipped Horus reticle scope with a spotter who call corrections in mils.
I hit 3rd, 4th and 5th time at 1K and was hooked.
Of course, I was using a gun that was dialed in and an experienced spotter. I thought "this is too easy"

I have been back to the same range and 500 yards is butter, 750 maxes my scope elevation out but I can hit it.

I have been researching a long range scope and been going back and forth on all of this stuff.

Your writings got it to click in my head and it does make so much more sense to have a Mil/Mil/FFP scope. Once I locked into the logic it was really like a "oh, duh!" moment

Again, thanks for taking the time and effort.
Much appreciated.

 

[Scot_E]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ccoker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lowlight,

First and foremost, I want to sincerely thank you for taking the do write all of this out in such detail.

I am a guy who grew up hunting, reloading, etc..
I know how to shoot and feel confident out to 500 yards with a 308.

For the first time in our area, we now have a 1K range.

I went out and did it for the first time during the Larue event and using s S&B equipped Horus reticle scope with a spotter who call corrections in mils.
I hit 3rd, 4th and 5th time at 1K and was hooked.
Of course, I was using a gun that was dialed in and an experienced spotter. I thought "this is too easy"

I have been back to the same range and 500 yards is butter, 750 maxes my scope elevation out but I can hit it.

I have been researching a long range scope and been going back and forth on all of this stuff.

Your writings got it to click in my head and it does make so much more sense to have a Mil/Mil/FFP scope. Once I locked into the logic it was really like a "oh, duh!" moment

Again, thanks for taking the time and effort.
Much appreciated.


</div></div>

How did you like the Horus reticle? Is it so busy that it is easy to get lost? I have a couple applications where I would really like to try that reticle out.

 

[ccoker]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Well, given that I was only shooting at 1K and it was a windy day being able to hold at X on the grid made a lot of sense.

When I first saw images of those reticles years ago it made my head hurt.. I wouldn't want it for a close range hunting gun of course but for the application, it sure worked. There was no imaginery intersection for hold over and wind

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

You are missing the point of training and intuition... people don't think like that...

Sure anything can be off, but again you miss the point of manufacturers, mixing MOA reticles with IPHY, because clearly IPHY is easier for them. They advertise MOA, but they rarely put that into practice.

You are talking theoretical versus practical, theoretically it is the same, but in practice it doesn't work that way. It just doesn't happen that way in real life, for a few it might, mostly those shooting alone, but for the majority, never happens like its suppose too.

I hate to tell you, there are more chances of me seeing my own impacts, especially at distance than me having a spotter on glass... I made the shot, I know what I held, I saw the impact I make the correction. If i have spotter, he better have a reticle, that is practice... hypothetically, not having a reticle in a spotter is a waste of time, I am better off on my own.

I hate to break it too people, but the average shooter is lazy, they rarely do what is necessary for success. They stumble along and walk rounds onto target with little concern for the better way to operate. Before this site, 99% of the shooters out there were happy to box test on an 8.5X11 inch sheet of paper.That tells you nothing. They had no idea what IPHY were, or how they differed from MOA. The idea of doing it right, doing it better was born here... Now people box test 40", they know the difference between MOA and IPHY, and everyday they are finding out manufacturers know less than they do.

Working in mils is intuitive, it's 10s, and not 1/8 or 1/4, or 1/2, 2MOA 5MOA or 1 MOA or some combination of them all, like when companies offer Elevation in one adjustment and Windage in another. No standard, which is what makes it less intuitive to work with. It's bigger numbers, that don't flow and changes that grow with distance... that is how people think of it. The 10% that can take advantage of an MOA system, good on them, and yes Technically it is the same, the rest of the 90% out there thinking it is easier, will never even attempt to understand the differences or how they effect their shooting, unless one day they get a wild hair to take class or shoot a tactical competition and then it all falls to hell. It's like asking a guy to read the manual... doesn't happen very often.

Arguing the technical aspects is all well and good, but that is the not the way things are put into practice. People don't work technically, they work by intuition and unless they put in the time, their intuition will fail them with MOA/IPHY.

You have very few posts, read a bit and see what questions come up on this site from new shooters. They get that 1 MOA is roughly 1" at 100, 2 @ 200, etc, but then, they can't even figure out how to make that work with 1/4 Minute clicks on their own scopes, they start compounding and adding and next thing you know they have 8MOA dialed on for a 2 yard shot. Been here a long time and in that time I collect a lot of the experience delivered to these pages, forget what i see on the range every week. Life doesn't always work according to the manual.

 

[Scot_E]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Out of curiosity, which companies mix MOA and IPHY? To my knowledge the only real ranging reticles in MOA are NF,USO, and Vortex. I haven't measured USO's or Vortex but NF's are true MOA,at least the ones I have seen.

Like I mentioned above I like MIL. I like the .1 click adjust(.36MOA)as far as adjustment is concerned. It isn't too fine which requires more turret rotation than necessary but is still enough to not have to worry about needing more precision out of my adjustments. The mil hash, especially with the 1/2 hash marks is about ideal for maintaining a clean, uncluttered look while still allowing for accurate ranging by 10ths. The numbers are smaller as well which is a real plus under pressure.

But 1/4's aren't hard either. Most everything in the States are done in 1/4s. Our money, our time, hell even our hamburgers! And if you are dialing correctly, with MIL or MOA, you aren't thinking in clicks anyway but instead in MOA or MIL so 1/4s aren't even thought of really. It is how many MOA do I dial. Give me a good 2 MOA ranging reticle like NF's and 1/4 MOA turrets and I essentially have a 1/2 MIL hash ranging reticle.

I don't train guys for a living, you got me there. so I will take your word that guys pick up MIL easier than MOA. My only question would be how would those same guys pick up MOA if it was taught to them correctly? In your words they technically are the same and in the end maybe the biggest advantage is having smaller numbers to remember and work with.

And you aren't assuming that expertise and shooting prowess in anyway correlates to post count are you!

I have read some pretty crazy stuff on this site from guys with crazy count numbers! Not you . . . but just saying!

Thanks for taking time to comment. Where are some of your videos I can watch?

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

USO has in the past, and people can and have mistakenly ordered it that way as they certainly mix it up offering both IPHY and MOA.

Right now go to the NF website and read the ranging formula they give for MOA it is wrong, technically which it is what you are talking about. As well very few owners know which reticle they have or how they work.

I never get MOA from Vortex but given the chance I am sure I will find errors.

Leupold was big for saying their turrets are MOA when they are inches. So it is fairly common.

No clearly you know this information in a technical manner but you fail to recognize the human element to shooting. People are mostly self taught, usually incorrectly and when they do come to training have more bad habits they you can count.

Your statements are true but break up an NPR-2 reticle into 1/4s, and see how that works, or how intuitive it is. A 1/4 mil is approximately 1MOA but we break down the mil finer for ranging, now break down the space between the 5MOA hash mark into equal 1/4 inch increments or better into 1/8 inch which is done in mil ranging.

Most untrained people think in clicks, then compound based on knowing an MOA is multiplied by 100 yard line. So that is a recipe for errors. Comes up all the time. They confuse drop in inches to MOA too.

Training a person in Mils is easy. Retraining correctly MOA take time and patience.

Again you are technically correct but that is not how it is applied. People start learning an MOA grows per hundred, it is written everywhere and starts them down the wrong road. Consider yourself in the minority that you know angles and not just the linear value. As I said early on, in this thread alone people are talking about linear benefits and none but you mention angles, which is probably because you use mils. A guy with no frame of reference doesn't understand angles, only linear distance. It's the same with mils for some and was even referenced by the USMC that they had to covert yards to meters because they switched to mils. They didn't understand mils work either way. many think they need to use meters or centimeters with it. Clearly this is bad information.

 

[KeithR41]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

LL, I have a feeling the wisdom you are attempting to impart is falling on deaf ears...................!

41

 

[ccoker]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

LowLight,
Do you know of any GOOD LR instructors in central Texas?
Or anyone else for may be reading this thread.

I have taken numerous classes with handguns and ARs, but I don't believe those guys do LR.

 

[KeithR41]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Rifles Only.

41

 

[Scot_E]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

It's not falling on deaf ears. I understand what he is saying. And in thinking about it, his explanation of moving to an entire different method (MILS) instead of trying to re-teach MOA, which means the necessity of getting rid of bad habits and stinking thinking, is a very legit point for many shooters. Like he mentioned guys are lazy and many don't spend the time figuring this stuff out for themselves or going to someone who will teach them correctly. And bad habits are hard to break.

The reality though, is that a true MOA reticle and turret can be used exactly the same way and for some guys the ranging math is easier and quicker in MOA than MIL. If my rangefinder craps out and I don't have a ranging card I can personally do the MOA math quicker in my head. The formula is shorter for one and the math is easier for me. YMMV.

I would like to find out how Vortex's MOA reticle is setup. I would be disappointed if it isn't true MOA.

I appreciate the time guys.

 

[Jon A]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scot E</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Out of curiosity, which companies mix MOA and IPHY? </div></div>
I've got a good example for you, not even a mismatch between knobs and reticle but the knobs themselves. My Weaver 4-20 Tactical clearly has "MOA" stamped on the knobs. But they actually measure IPHY. That could really screw a guy up at long range who didn't measure his scope.

 

[limamike56]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

MIL/MIL was a a fast learning curve for me.

 

[TiroFijo]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Short version:

for <span style="font-style: italic">tactical shooting</span> mil/mil is the present and the future...

mil/moa is the past, going the way of the dodo bird...

moa/moa (or inch/inch, inch/MOA or whatever mix) never was, will never be.

 

[RobG]

Re: Which is easier for a new long-distance shooter?

Great thread and info. I am in no way an experienced or great shooter but, I just started using a mil/mil Bushnell 10x, my first matching ret/turret scope. I was testing loads which were low and right. No matter as I was only looking for consistency and velocity. Afterwards I figured I may as well "zero" it up. I measured/milled what I thought was .5 low and .1 right of center. One shot and bam, elevation was dead on, but it was still, what I again measured as .1 right. Dialed .1 left and bam, dead center. I said to myself, "Holy shit, it actually works." It was really an epiphany, as retarded as that sounds. I won't debate moa vs. mils but will say matching ret/turrets is <span style="font-style: italic">the</span> way to go.