Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Grizzdude

Grizzdude

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Sep 2, 2011
784
3
sites.google.com
#1
I was just wondering why people are saying MIL is better than MOA, especially for long range shooting (1700-2000 yards). But I noticed the MOA scopes adjust at .250 increments .25" at 100 yards and the MIL adjust at .1mil which is .36" at 100 yards. that makes each adjustment at 2000 yards with the MIL scope is 7.2" and with the MOA scope it's 5". Does that really make a difference between the two?
 
#2
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

MOA is more precise but more time consuming to dial dope at a distance. MIL is more coarse but can crank up elevation faster.

MIL = better for tactical high speed stuff.
MOA = better for precision bench rest stuff.
 
#3
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

It's not better, only different. FOr practial work, it makes no differance at all. You can't see the differance between a 1/4 MOA and .1 mil ar 2000 yards on the best day you ever had.

PB is pulling your chain.
 
#4
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

again not better but different. It is best, however, to have the reticle and adjustment match. I know that for years people have run mil dot reticles with MOA adjustment. My brain thinks in MOA, and when I look at a mil--I don't see a mil, when I am thinking speed, I think 3.5 minutes (its rough, but close). I now have a Sightron with the MOA-2 reticle with 1/4 MOA adjustments, it is nice to have them match...I have never had a mil/mil scope....
 
#5
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not better, only different. FOr practial work, it makes no differance at all. You can't see the differance between a 1/4 MOA and .1 mil ar 2000 yards on the best day you ever had.

PB is pulling your chain.

</div></div>
Cory is 100% correct. you wont see the difference at 2k. The only time i saw mil/mil to be an advantage was in the military where there we no targets to check. You marked splash, measured the with mils and adjusted. I wouldn't want to try to convert in those high pressure situations. Now that I'm a civ all my personal stuff is moa
 
#6
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

There is no clear advantage of one over the other. They are both angular measurements, thats it.

Think in terms of ice cream. Both systems are ice cream. Choose Vanilla or Chocolate. The croud will tell you why one tastes better than the other but at the end of the day they are both ice cream. Try them and pick your preference.

A mil is a mil at any distance just like a minute of angle is a minute of angle at any distance, they are both angular measurements.
 
#7
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

You can get Scopes with .05 mil adjustments and scopes with 1/8th moa adjustments, so if you are after extremely precise adjustments at long range there are other options.
 
#8
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I don't think that anyone chooses on over the other based on the .16in @100yds difference. I think the bigger differences are in the ranging abilities of the reticle. MIL is nice because it subtends to a ratio of 1/1000 which makes quick rough guesses of range easy, and the math for more precise range estimation easy to. It really all depends on what you were taught, or what your willing to learn. I was taught on a M14 topped off with a MK4 3-9 MIL/MOA turrets. So learning MILs for ranging and MOA for drop, using holds to correct off splashes. Now that I've got MIL/MIL I don't see why anyone would want it different. If I had learned to range in MOA it might be different. I would just suggest that whatever someone gets make sure the turrets and reticles match.
 
#9
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

To help you understand...

Degree's is in a total number of 360* which is where Minutes of Angle comes from

Mils is in a total number of 6400, which is where Mils comes from.

Mils is a better standard because it allows for Ranging a Target of Known Size in a Mil Reticle, allows for the ability to learn Holdover for Wind/Moving target, and with a well annotated DOPE book you can increase first hit possibilities. Mils seems to me a bit more advanced but is not hard to learn. It just depends on what you're doing and what you want the results for. If its Bench Rest - I'd stick with MOA. if its hunting MOA or MIL. if its for long range shit thats quick fast and in a hurry - MIL.

As far as adjustments on your scope for Wind/Elevation, the finest you'll get for MOA is 1/8 or 1/16 for benchrest. even still there is .02Mil which is very fine tune as well
 
#10
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Also, just for knowledge purposes.

Its like comparing whether you like Metric or Standard measuring. Both measure, and if you're more informed about one over the other - you might stick with that. When you add MOA adjustments to a Mil scope - thats extra math you will need to factor in. 1Mil at 100m is 3.6" and 1MOA at 100y is 1". They have reticles for both, if you notice that US Optics has Mil and MOA scales. Its all on you and what you want to learn. I prefer mils because the math is easier to do for me, and i learned on an M24 and M14EBR.
 
#12
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin4590</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not better, only different. FOr practial work, it makes no differance at all. You can't see the differance between a 1/4 MOA and .1 mil ar 2000 yards on the best day you ever had.

PB is pulling your chain.

</div></div>
Cory is 100% correct. you wont see the difference at 2k. The only time i saw mil/mil to be an advantage was in the military where there we no targets to check. You marked splash, measured the with mils and adjusted. I wouldn't want to try to convert in those high pressure situations. Now that I'm a civ all my personal stuff is moa </div></div>

Convert what, or to what exactly? Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA see the splash call the miss in Mil or MOA and hold off or dial the correction if you have time because your reticle and turret match.
 
#13
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

What he's talking about in conversions, If you call a splash it'll be in Mils generally. So you can add (X)mils into your hold in mils or convert the holdoff in Mils to how many MOA it's off and adjust your MOA/MOA turrets, then figure if you still have to hold in Mils at all. It just comes to being a complete bitch if you're doing it quick, fast, and in a hurry. thats why most people stick to a scope with MOA Reticle and MOA turrets, or Mil reticle with Mil turrets. All of the major brands offer Mil ret with both MOA or Mil turrets, and in different graduations. To someone that plays with it a lot and likes to be well versed in both and in the conversions - that might be a way to go. I prefer any math that is base 10 because it's just that much easier to do quickly.
 
#14
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

FYI, A mil is based off 6283 and not 6400. That is a rounded military mil used for artillery not rifle scopes. The only scope to use 6400 as a basis was Leupold M3A and not really any others, especially the main stream ones.

So using 6400 as a basis is not correct.
 
#15
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

What is important in the comparison of Mil to MOA is the marriage of turrets to the reticle. Life is easier with a Mil reticle and Mil turrets or MOA reticle and MOA turrets. There are a lot of Mildot scopes which use Milradian Mildot reticles that have MOA turrets. This requires additional info on the DOPE card like Mil holdover and wind hold. To keep it simple and fast use either Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA. IMHO one is not necessarily better than the other.
 
#16
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I'm with the "not better, only different" crowd. I used Mils when in the military but MOA is easier for me to process now. All my gear is MOA.

My Mil-dot master makes converting mils to MOA and back easy.
Jeffvn
 
#17
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Mil vs MOA is like Metric vs standard, yards vs meters.

It's what you were trained on, how you grew up, and what you use now.

I'm an old fart, I think in yards and MOA. I ranged in MOA.

One is easier then the other, MOA is easier for me, Mils are easier for others.
 
#18
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

who makes a scope with .05mil adjustments?


fwiw, i had a leupold scope with 1/10 MOA clicks. their extreme varmint. great scope for its intended purpose
 
#20
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Still new to this and I have never actually used a reticle to range a target. Im however more familiar in MOA and am going to be getting a USO in an Inch per hundred yard reticle. Why because that is what makes sense to me and my other scopes have MOA adjustments. Yes I realize the difference between true MOA and inch per hunder but just thinking in inches in general is easier for me to wrap my mind around. I think that both systems are good and it really is up to the individual person to decide whats better for their personal application. I dont think there is a downside to MOA at long range if you know how to use it. If there was a huge downside then people probably wouldnt use it. For now Im gonna stick with what Ive got and run with it but that's just my $.02.
 
#21
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Tell you what, you jump onto a shooting line and dial or hold your scope for a 1050 yd shot starting at zero on your moa scope and me with my mil. I'll have my dope dialed make the shot and be back on zero before you count your revolutions up to your moa dope!
 
#23
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VonReich</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What he's talking about in conversions, If you call a splash it'll be in Mils generally. So you can add (X)mils into your hold in mils or convert the holdoff in Mils to how many MOA it's off and adjust your MOA/MOA turrets, then figure if you still have to hold in Mils at all. It just comes to being a complete bitch if you're doing it quick, fast, and in a hurry. thats why most people stick to a scope with MOA Reticle and MOA turrets, or Mil reticle with Mil turrets. All of the major brands offer Mil ret with both MOA or Mil turrets, and in different graduations. To someone that plays with it a lot and likes to be well versed in both and in the conversions - that might be a way to go. I prefer any math that is base 10 because it's just that much easier to do quickly. </div></div>

What the man says is correct. MIL/MIL,...FFP,...No math to work out at all. Simply dial the correction you see in th ret! Working with non-matching ret and turrets just makes work for the shooter.

MRAD's are as Frank said not Military MILS and even outside of NATO both Russia, Finland and Sweden adopted diffrent Military MIL values.

Take a look at the SuB MSR ret. You wont want to work with mismatched ret/turrets ever again!
 
#24
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?


I assume this was about my post. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Tell you what, you jump onto a shooting line and dial or hold your scope for a 1050 yd shot starting at zero on your moa scope and me with my mil. I'll have my dope dialed make the shot and be back on zero before you count your revolutions up to your moa dope! </div></div>

I didnt say it was perfect or fastest just makes sense as far as the math goes. I didnt want some of my scopes to be MOA and other stuff mil and make it confusing if one week I do an F-class match the next a tactical and start cranking on my turrets and making the wrong adjustments. Like I said Im still new to all of this and yes it may take longer and who knows maybe I will regret going with MOA later on after I get more experience but thats what Im going to use for now. I do know that having a matched turret/reticle combo is important and thats also something Im going for in all my scopes. Like I said earlier to each his own I think it will work for me wheras your happy with mil.
 
#25
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2shots</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell you what, you jump onto a shooting line and dial or hold your scope for a 1050 yd shot starting at zero on your moa scope and me with my mil. I'll have my dope dialed make the shot and be back on zero before you count your revolutions up to your moa dope! </div></div>

Interesting, if I were to dial I could get there in one rev, but while your wasting time dialing, I'll hold it all in my IPHY reticle an just pull the trigger. 60 IPHY of reticle (16mils +)will get my .308 deep if required, an the one on the 300wm will get her much deeper yet. Then, I can still add the total up, in the 1/2 IPHY EREK's, should need more.
 
#26
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I take it from the sounds of it that you use a USO scope Gunfighter. Is that correct? If so what type of shooting do you normally do and what exact model of scope did you go with?
 
#27
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Five7guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I take it from the sounds of it that you use a USO scope Gunfighter. Is that correct? If so what type of shooting do you normally do and what exact model of scope did you go with? </div></div>

The .308 has a 17X Sn-3, 1/2 IPHY EREK (an wind)44mm ERGO, MDMOA reticle.(ERGO's are way more forgiving than any S/F I've ever used) An for night I prefer a dedicated system.
The 300wm has a 22X SN-3, 1/2 IPHY EREK (an wind) 58MM ERGO, MDMOA as well. Both are used for everything.

If you decide to learn to hold the reticle instead of dialing, set your 100yd zero at the 20IPHY + line. That puts my ctr cross at a 700yd zero, with 40 more left, before I have to add anything with the EREK. The 300wm has a ctr zero of 900 yds with the +20 at 100yds.
I wish USO would do the MDMOA with the cross at the 20 plus then run to 60 down. The nice thing about the MDMOA is, it's very easy to break up the single IPHY ticks into 1/4 IPHY points for ranging or holding if needed. An the ranging math is much simpler to me, Range = Target in inches, divided by reticle subtention, X 100.
No factors to worry about, most all the math can be done in your head, hold an shoot.

Edit to add, if I can't touch the target with just reticle holds, I move most of the time. As my fieldcraft is normally much better than my shooting ability on any given day.
 
#28
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Thanks for the info. I was thinking with going 5-25 T pal with the MDMOA 1/4 IPHY EREK but man your the second guy who has said go ergo. And I've had two people tell me go T-pal with that magnification range. When you say forgiving do you mean when adjusting the focus it doesnt have to be so finely tuned to get a crips image?
 
#29
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Five7guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">. When you say forgiving do you mean when adjusting the focus it doesnt have to be so finely tuned to get a crips image? </div></div>
Correct, an the error range is much better as well.
 
#30
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Find someone near you that has one or the other or both an see which one works for you best. Both have advantages an disadvantages, but don't get caught up in the Tacticool wave.
 
#31
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Ok sounds like its a good thing. Im not sure if the Tacticool comment was directed to me but I personally found the T-pal much cooler looking than having the ergo model with that big objective with the paralax adjustment on top of it. If it was to me I will go to a buddy of mine that's got several USO and see what I like best. Thanks for the help.
 
#32
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I was never trained with scopes, as in the Military or any class, however once I picked up a mil based scope, it was so much easier for me for doing hold overs with the reticle. I don't poop on the MOA scopes, just they are harder for me.

I think it is like being in math and doing stuff in degrees then one day you are taught radians, and you never go back.
 
#33
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

MOA vs IPHY, when does it really matter?

With MOA, you can use 1"/100 yards for group size, the difference is only 5%. No one is within 5% on their group size.
At 1000 yards IPHY gives group of 10" and MOA gives group of
10 1/2". Is anyone shooting tactical so accurate that 1/2" matters at 1000 yards? At 100 yards it is .05". Like nothing. So use MOA like IPHY for group size you will be fine.

With MOA ranging, you can use 1"/100 yards (IPHY) for ranging. Again you will only be off 5%. If you want to correct for that 5%, just subtract 5% from your ranging and you will be right on. (like you can range with a reticle within 5% anyway). Does anyone range with a reticle anymore? The point is pretty much moot unless you do.

Where MOA vs. IPHY does MATTER is in ballistic charts. 5% of 30 moa is 1.5moa so that is certainly enough to matter. However, everyone gets their ballistic charts off a computer, just make sure you set the units to MOA if that is whay you are using and you will be fine.

So except for ballistic charts just use 1" per 100 yards for MOA, any inaccuracy will pretty much be in the noise. It makes the math easier to be able to ignore the .047 in 1.047. Just round it to 1 and you will be fine. 1" in 100 yards, 2" in 200 yards etc.... Hope you get the idea without a doctor's dissertion on error analysis.
 
#35
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

To each their own. Both have their advantages. I can use both but both of my NF are in MOA.

The mil based knobs will allow a much faster dope change to get.

The MOA will allow finer adjustments, keeping in mind that the difference in .25 MOA and .1 MILS is only 1.1" and I don't believe anyone here is worried about 1.1"@1000 yards.

More and more we are moving towards the Mil system so learning it in my opinion is a must.

Just make sure that your scope has matching knobs/reticle, ie MOA/MOA or MIL/MIL.
 
#36
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

It's your life, do what you like. A Ford/Chevy/Dodge debate is fine as long as it's only about stature, but race day is somewhat different.
Add Stress, Batterys, an a 5% error rate if not accounted for, whats not to like. Intermixing numbers never bites back,... correct?
I prefer ranging in IPHY's, dialing up in Mils, on a MOA retical, whats to go wrong?
 
#39
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Ill second the chocolate verse vanilla response. For my mind it is easier to use MOA at odd distances but truth be told with a good reticle its so indifferent it's about the same.
 
#40
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Five7guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Tell you what, you jump onto a shooting line and dial or hold your scope for a 1050 yd shot starting at zero on your moa scope and me with my mil. I'll have my dope dialed make the shot and be back on zero before you count your revolutions up to your moa dope! </div></div>

</div></div>

Wow..... I'll take that bet all day long... with a FFP moa/moa scope with zero stop... what would make you think mil is better??? I just think it's different...

If you're ranging, to me at least, it's easier too in moa....

inches of target x 100 / moa in reticle.... pretty simple really...

with mils you have to translate your target to yards before you can do your division... it's an extra operation or maybe there's a faster way but, to me, it's hard to say it's easier than the moa calculation. ( I'm not the one throwing stones here )


( translate that fast for me for a 47" target!!! )

Again... I don't think one is better than the other but, I take major attitude with someone that claims such a thing as this guy.

 
#41
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jwoolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Five7guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Tell you what, you jump onto a shooting line and dial or hold your scope for a 1050 yd shot starting at zero on your moa scope and me with my mil. I'll have my dope dialed make the shot and be back on zero before you count your revolutions up to your moa dope! </div></div>

</div></div>

Wow..... I'll take that bet all day long... with a FFP moa/moa scope with zero stop... what would make you think mil is better??? I just think it's different...

If you're ranging, to me at least, it's easier too in moa....

inches of target x 100 / moa in reticle.... pretty simple really...

with mils you have to translate your target to yards before you can do your division... it's an extra operation or maybe there's a faster way but, to me, it's hard to say it's easier than the moa calculation. ( I'm not the one throwing stones here )


( translate that fast for me for a 47" target!!! )

Again... I don't think one is better than the other but, I take major attitude with someone that claims such a thing as this guy.

</div></div>

Except Jwoofl you would be wrong..

The formula for MOA Reticles uses 95.5 and not 100, the formula for IPHY is 100... which is part of the problem. Nobody knows the difference and believe they have one when they really have the other. If you shoot at mid and short ranges no big deal but once you go out to distance you start to fall apart very quickly.

This is a very common misconception

 
#42
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I'm not throwing stones, Lowlight.

I'm only saying that I don't think that anyone can make such a claim and be accurate about it.

moa OR mil is only a calculation and one is not really better than the other if the operator does his job and has good equipment.

I didn't even see who made the quote before I posted a response. I just saw a reply and though it was pretty silly and decided to reply.

I like my MOA reticle just fine. NP-R1 does just fine for me most times and has held true for me so far and, although I'm in the best of company here, I can hold my own here, I believe.

I'd love to meet many here and need to come to one of the events soon. I love to listen more than I talk and hope not to make a fool of myself much is such good company.

I do believe; however, that one is not better than the other and if there is some piece of information I'm missing, I know it can be had here but, I'm not sure that my reticle doesn't work when, it always has for me even out past 1400yds on my 300wm.

 
#43
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Doesn't change the fact you are wrong... I did not comment about the merits of any system, only what you said was incorrect.

Fact is, like you, many have no idea which is which, including the manufacturers who tell you its MOA and then give you IPHY.

At the end of the day, getting the formula right makes a difference... you happen to have your facts wrong, never said a mil was better, or an MOA worse, at all.

You wouldn't claim you have 1/4 minute clicks if they were 1/8 minute but mentioning the wrong formula is darn close to the same thing.
 
#44
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Nightforce says in the instruction manual that everything is calibrated in true moa.

That said most scopes click values are usually off a little too. Its good to check every scope whether MIL, MOA, or IPHY. I had a high end scope that was supposed to be IPHY and it was off a little too. A simple test at 100 yds would get rid of any guess work.
 
#45
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesn't change the fact you are wrong... I did not comment about the merits of any system, only what you said was incorrect.

Fact is, like you, many have no idea which is which, including the manufacturers who tell you its MOA and then give you IPHY.

At the end of the day, getting the formula right makes a difference... you happen to have your facts wrong, never said a mil was better, or an MOA worse, at all.

You wouldn't claim you have 1/4 minute clicks if they were 1/8 minute but mentioning the wrong formula is darn close to the same thing. </div></div>

Ok, I'm using NightForce as a scope and, you're telling me that they don't calculate MOA correctly and, I'm wrong, is that correct? I'm honestly not trying to be a smartass and am trying to learn something.... I get that you're telling me that some of the manufacturers don't make their scopes to true moa but, Nightforce?

Ok, so let's go back to the original quote... Do you think that with a 1050yd shot that mil is so much better than moa that someone could support such a claim??? That was what I was responding to...

And, I already know the answer to that one... with my 300wm, it would not make a damned bit of difference... with my 375CT it would make a LOT less.

AND, for the benefit of the poster that made such boasts... I'll respond only to him on this one.... while you're dialing your mil scope, I'll hold over 18moa ( from a 100yd zero )and shoot the shot without doing a damned thing to my scope. LOL

flame me if you wish... I'm a good sport.
 
#46
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, A mil is based off 6283 and not 6400. That is a rounded military mil used for artillery not rifle scopes. The only scope to use 6400 as a basis was Leupold M3A and not really any others, especially the main stream ones.

So using 6400 as a basis is not correct. </div></div>

thank you for the Correction man, I do use a M3A on my M24 so that was how i was taught. I had assumed this was standard. Thanks
 
#47
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

If you don't test it out completely, you will never know what quirks it has, an they all have quirks. Intermixing MOA an IPHY numbers is a disaster in the making. Matters little on a known one way. However walk thru door number 2, where reality an Murphy are waiting, an see what happens.

There use to be a barber pole at Hardrock, an many a guy having issues on the range, found their problem using that pole.
No one would step off, carrying a weapon they have never inspected, shot an zeroed.
Why would you do that with a scope?

I had 2 Leupold Mk4's, the instructions an scope body both, said the knobs were in 1/4" clicks. The very first thing I did after zeroing, was put 20" of up on the scope the weapon printed at 21" (100yds), went up another 20" it was now at 42", see anything wrong with the instructions or body print?
Checked the reticle it was close per the Barber pole, but I had to change the numbers I used for ranging, because the reticle was not 100% true, either.

 
#48
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had 2 Leupold Mk4's, the instructions an scope body both, said the knobs were in 1/4" clicks. The very first thing I did after zeroing, was put 20" of up on the scope the weapon printed at 21" (100yds), went up another 20" it was now at 42", see anything wrong with the instructions or body print?
Checked the reticle it was close per the Barber pole, but I had to change the numbers I used for ranging, because the reticle was not 100% true, either.</div></div>

Exactly!

I don't understand the comment saying that some manufacturers say they offer MOA and the scope is actually IPHY because they all have an error margin.

I had a scope that was supposed to be 1/4 IPHY adjustment. When i tested it the click value was actually .245" per hundred yards, an error of .005" per click. A 1/4 MOA scope should be .261" per click at 100yds, the difference between that an IPHY scope is only .011" per click at 100yds. So if i have a Nightforce that is off a little on the click value and its .256" per click at 100 does that mean its misinformation and i have a IPHY scope? I don't think so. In the same way that a 1/10th Mil adjusted scope thats off a little is still a mil scope. At the end of the day its still a good idea to check your scope and make sure you know what the errors are. The good ballistic programs have an error factor for adjusting your scope values for this very reason.
 
#49
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

It's simple, because look what i was questioning above there Mulehunter...

JLWoolf posted the formula he used for ranging as inches X100 / MOA of his NF scope...

if you take an 18" target and range it using that with a NF getting 1.5 MOA you are off by 54 yards, at 1150 yards. Which is clearly a miss.

When manufactures screw up the most basic of information, forget the error factor of the mechanics, just the basic differences you have a problem.

The errors in the turrets is another thing but I will say, I thoroughly check my scopes using a 4ft level and FFS to calibrate and I do not have 1 scope in my stable that I use which is off. They all subtend dead nuts .1 mils, if there was one who was off, I would return it.

But using the IPHY formula for MOA is non-starter, saying you have MOA turrets and they are really IPHY is a non-starter... that is the point of saying manufacturers are leading people in the wrong direction.
 
#50
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JFComfort</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where's my freaking pop corn? </div></div>

poop-that-corn.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
ATACR 4-16x42 - Usable hold distance with MIL XT reticle w/ 100 yard zero and 5.56 rifle (and mount concerns)
Replies
13
Views
783
jLorenzo
jLorenzo
Don'tnegotiatew/terrorist
It makes no sense, Why do Tikka TAC A1 rifles come with 0 moa scope bases.
Replies
36
Views
1K
DubfromGA
DubfromGA
R
Plumb line distance when mounting a scope?
Replies
13
Views
461
Harman117
Harman117
Lowlight
Rifle Scopes Form and Function of MOA and MIL
Replies
6
Views
454
375fan
3
Toast
Optics FATHER'S DAY PRICE: Nightforce BEAST i4F Mil-Radian 5-25x56 - C448 $2700 - SOLD
Replies
3
Views
1K
Toast
Toast
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts