Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

[RemingtonSPS]

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

Not true. And when im hunting and i range a buck and measure him with the moa reticle i could care less how many mils he was. The game was just to mimick hunting. When im at a match i measure splash and adjust with the reticle just like you would with a mil system.

Sorry for the late posts im trying to read what you said, think about it, and collect my thoughts for a reply and i keep catching in between posts.

Like it or not you use inches in hunting when sizing an animal, if you are sizing it up with a mil reticle you are doing math that requires more thought than with an moa system.

 

[Lowlight]

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

You keep saying "you" and " I "

and to range something you still need to know the size of it, exactly the same as a mil. There is no difference they are both angular measurements that say the exact same thing just in different linear value. But at the end of the day there is no different, one is just 10s, the others is fractions.

The fact of the matter is, most people are not doing to the degree necessary to both understand it correctly or get it right enough.

consider yourself the exception... if it works for you, great have it at. It works for you, end of story.

This is why I said it was a tired debate... your arguing it is easier for "you" well congratulations. But other than the US, the entire world save a few hold outs, find mils easier... you're in the minority.

 

[Lowlight]

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

I don't do any math, none, no calculators, sorry to disappoint you.

Most of the world thinks in CM, they just slide the decimal point over, and also do no math.

you are overlaying a singular way of thinking to something you do as opposed to recognizing with anything there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Forget the fact it is 2012, I would just tap it with a laser range finder, but I can still range with the reticle and do no math at all.

 

[encore man]

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

i dont mean to get in the middle of anything but if a person is just starting out to learn the concept of dialing to the ranges would it be easier to learn in mils.

 

[Lowlight]

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

on average, based on the experience of working multiple precision rifle classes, people who learns mils correctly the first time and just work in mils are up to speed faster and more effectively than someone who is taught moa. they are generally more well rounded to including shooting holds, movers, etc.

 

[RemingtonSPS]

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

You're missing my point Frank.

If i range with my laser rangfinder a buck at 800yds and my reticle measures the spread of his rack at 2 moa im going to pass him up because instantly in my head i know that that buck is only about 16" wide when im after a 24-30" wide buck. Now given that same scenario you with your mil setup is forced to do the math right? You need two sides to complete a triangle. In my application im not trying to range the buck, im using the known range and moa to determine size in inches. Not known size in inches, how many mils, then getting a range.

I'm not the exception in fact alot, if not most, long range hunters that also compete use an moa based system for the reasons i listed.

The op's title is 'Why is mil better than moa for long range?'

If you actually read my replies you would understand the point im trying to make. Predominately that its preference, but also that different systems are better suited for different applications.

If it is strictly a tac match rifle than by all means go Mil. F class IMO benefits from finer adjustments than even 1/4moa. Tac only or steel shooting, mils works fine. Or use whatever you want but the idea of an Moa shooter being handicapped at a tac match is a load of crap!

 

[encore man]

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

i have just started and reading on dailing in moa i understand the concept but i dont like having to what the reticle is is set up for as far as moa and to try an figure out the extra numbers where as it sounds like it would be easier to do when you know a mil is a mil no matter the scope or reticle correct

 

[RemingtonSPS]

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">you are overlaying a singular way of thinking to something you do as opposed to recognizing with anything there is more than one way to skin a cat.

</div></div> No im not. Im saying the exact same thing, there is more than one way to do it, you seem to be saying 'stay away from Moa its going to hinder your abilities'....Not true.

 

[Lowlight]

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

Why not, all I need to do put my .5 mil mark on the buck;s rack at 800 and know the exact thing... not big enough

I know for every .25 mil i have 1 MOA ... 2 MOA is a 1/2mil on my reticle.

No math, I know it by heart. You don't get it, for everything you think you know there is someone doing it different, which can be the same thing, and possibly just as easy.

Hate to differ but "most" hunters are actually pretty ignorant to the facts of long range shooting and most shots are done well inside 300 yards. Hunters that shoot game far are pretty limited.

 

[Lowlight]

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

If I wanted to shoot F class and you think 1/4 MOA or 1/8 MOA Is better suited, I tell you they sell .05 Mil scopes... So I am right in there with the 1/8th...

Shoot, targets drops, spotter goes in, read the reticle, to center, dial the mils and shoot.

Exactly the same, so where is MOA better suited ?

Again, the rest of the world uses mils, don't you think they do all the same stuff without knowing anything about inches or moa ? The guys from Europe hunting game in Africa, are using MOA, no, they use Mils...

 

[RemingtonSPS]

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

Not really you have a section dedicated to it and there are whole forums about it. It is growing more and more as people are learning what rifles are capable of.

I agree that there are people switching to a mil system, but most that i have met are not LR hunters. There are alot of people rocking the 308 too that doesn't mean its an ideal long range caliber does it?

 

[encore man]

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

very true. can you dail as far out as say 1/2 or 1/4 moa scopes ? i assume it just takes more clicks?

 

[RemingtonSPS]

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">Again, the rest of the world uses mils, don't you think they do all the same stuff without knowing anything about inches or moa ? The guys from Europe hunting game in Africa, are using MOA, no, they use Mils... </div></div>

So what? They also probably know how many centimeters tall they are. I couldn't tell you that. I wasn't raised in Africa. Most Americans are pretty familiar with inches, feet, and yards.

You can use a .05 mil scope but aren't the choices a little more limited? The majority of the scopes sold in America are MOA or shooter MOA adjusted.

 

[jasonahull]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rusty815</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let the banhammer speak.</div></div>





Chap stick anyone?

 

[Lowlight]

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

We're global, No more limited than any number of true MOA / MOA scopes. In fact March is making a .05 mil scope, Zeiss, Leupold... shall I continue ?

If you want to know inches, I gave you the answer. .25 mils =1" I don't' have to count any higher than 4. In my reticle for the purposes you stated, 1 mil = 4" if you can't remember that for your purposes then you need to hang it up.

This is such a tired debate, for any example you try, including the equally tired, "americans think in inches" I can tell you more and more "americans" are seeing the benefits of mils. The fact some Americans don't' understand it, is a training issue.

Up until a few years ago, the MOA choices were completely limited... prior to 2005 who was selling MOA based scopes that had matching reticles... NF, and who else ? while giving you a reticle with ranging, and don't say a duplex.

Face it I can walk in the woods alongside you and give you ever ounce of information without conversion, with a calculator, just as fast and as accurate. its not hard to do if you understand the system.

I speak both mils and moa, have for a long, long time... after using both with pretty equal success, mils are more effective, more efficient, at leas that is my opinion and a lot of others.

total waste of my bandwidth these threads are...

 

[RemingtonSPS]

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">Face it I can walk in the woods alongside you and give you ever ounce of information without conversion, with a calculator, just as fast and as accurate. its not hard to do if you understand the system.

I speak both mils and moa, have for a long, long time... after using both with pretty equal success, mils are more effective, more efficient, at leas that is my opinion and a lot of others.

</div></div>

If you walked in the woods with me i would be afraid of you telling me how many centimeters wide my buck was.

If you are having to convert mils to inches how is that better suited than converting Moa to inches?

Should we switch to centimeters and meters because that is what the rest of the world is using?

I grew up with these units of measure, Moa makes more sense to me and that is why you have these endless threads soaking up your bandwidth because there will always be two opinions on this subject, Moa or Mil?

We will see manufacturers continue to make both.

If you think mils are more effecient i respect that, but disagree. Im not going to buy one of those gay scarfs either

 

[jasonahull]

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

I personally don't care what people say is better. For me I want the easiest math. I hate math. So I am down for what ever is easiest. It makes sense to me that people round moa ,1 inch at 100, 2 inches at 200 and so on, which the further out you go will result in completely missing. But I also think that the popularity of mils and other things is more about what the military uses. From caliber, to barrel lenght, to brand names. People especially in this country want to use what the military uses, even when they don't fully understand why.
One system of measurement may be easier to learn for one Guy and the other way around for the other. I don't see how it makes one way of measuring better than an other. It seems from what I have read in this thread, if a person goes moa, know the exact numbers so you can get the data right.
Either way with all the ballistic calculators and range finders out now it makes either one doable for most shooters. And unless you are in a competition where you are forced to to range a target with your scope for points, or your in the military and knowing how to range with your scope means the difference between life and death, the whole concept of which is better is stupid. Get what you like or what is easier for you.
A nightforce in mil mil or moa moa is still a great scope. So I say get what is easier for you to wrap your head around and get a quality scope and all is well.

 

[jasonahull]

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

To the o.p. Not saying that the question is stupid. Just that with all the technology now available that I think it is stupid for someone to say one is better than another. A person can put a hole in a target with either.

 

[Chanonry]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Either way with all the ballistic calculators and range finders out now it makes either one doable for most shooters... the whole concept of which is better is stupid. Get what you like or what is easier for you.
</div></div>

nothing more to be said

 

[Guest]

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

Range & hold it, twisting knobs past zeroing, was so yesterday.

 

[jwoolf]

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">My rifles don't shoot different from the 1st shot to the second and we have done it in class after class with a host of students, I think we have learned something since the 70s.

Jwoolf, your wisdom will be missed..

</div></div>

You're referencing a post I deleted.

Yes, we went round and round about a cold barrel and you contend that a rifle will not deviate from the first coldbore shot to a hot bore.

My 300wm cares to differ. Either way, we're not going to agree on that but, it's my rifle and, I know what it does. I don't want to re-start that debate here either way. You have your opinion and, I have mine.

I'm about to replace the barrel on that rifle anyway... it's shot out at this point.

I do have a theory on the first shot thing though... the barrel that is on it now is a Lothar Walther button rifled barrel and, as I'm sure you know, they're stress relieved most likely... that may have something to do with it but, that's just a guess.

I'm replacing it with a krieger and, maybe with a cut rifle barrel, this deviation will go away but, it has existed in the old barrel... only on the first round... 1/2 moa low 1/2 moa to the right... with another loading it was 1/2 moa high 1/2 moa to the left but, only on the first round.

So, I don't want to debate it, I know we disagree... I'd just rather watch this thread die and make no further comments.

I did not think you called me "rocketman" but was referring to the name calling and chest puffing.

 

[TOP PREDATOR]

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

perhaps do what they do with horses, measure in hands and throw in a few fingers for more precise measurements.

meauring my girlie sized hand, it's 4" from pinkyouter edge to the thumb outer edge, or roughly 1 mil.

plus mils saved me money on my car insurance.

 

[vinsonr]

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

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOP PREDATOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">perhaps do what they do with horses, measure in hands and throw in a few fingers for more precise measurements.

meauring my girlie sized hand, it's 4" from pinkyouter edge to the thumb outer edge, or roughly 1 mil.

plus mils saved me money on my car insurance.

</div></div>

It's only 1 mil if you are 111 yards away from it - that might hurt a bit.

 

[Early Cuyler]

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

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

The real reason MIL is said to be "better" than MOA at long range is because once you get to 1000yds+ and are using a MIL-based reticle, you can then see the Devil. Once contact with said Devil is made (through blinking a secret code and/or cutting the heads of three pigeons) the shooter then makes a deal with the Devil for the next shot, 5 shot group, etc. to be successful. That all depends on the negotiating skills of the shooter, the quality of the shooter's soul, and whether the Devil just lost a music contest to Johnny.

Personally, I want to go to heaven so I use MOA.