-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
- Thread starter CK_32
- Start date
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
My guess is Military has used Mil based reticles. Folks like to do what the Military does.
Of course both will work fine. If you find yourself shooting or spotting with someone it is helpful if both you and your partner are using the same system. I guess you will find more Mil/Mil shooters than MOA/MOA.
My guess is Military has used Mil based reticles. Folks like to do what the Military does.
Of course both will work fine. If you find yourself shooting or spotting with someone it is helpful if both you and your partner are using the same system. I guess you will find more Mil/Mil shooters than MOA/MOA.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
I'd like to hear people's reasoning as to this as well. One guy told me that a "mil is always a mil but an moa changes as you go farther out" which didn't make sense.
I'd like to hear people's reasoning as to this as well. One guy told me that a "mil is always a mil but an moa changes as you go farther out" which didn't make sense.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
My understanding is you want your reticle to match your turret adjustment. It speeds up your ability to adjust your shot based on the impact point.
My understanding is you want your reticle to match your turret adjustment. It speeds up your ability to adjust your shot based on the impact point.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
It didn't make sense because the statement is wrong.
Both MOA and milliradian are angular measurements, and the farther one gets from the vertex, the greater the distance subtended by the angle.
MOA reticles are relatively new. Some people like them, and some don't. I started with milliradian reticles, specifically the Premier Reticles Gen II mildot, and I've never seen an MOA reticle I like as well.
Taste varies. Use what you like, but it's a good idea to have a reticle and turret adjustments in the same units.
It didn't make sense because the statement is wrong.
Both MOA and milliradian are angular measurements, and the farther one gets from the vertex, the greater the distance subtended by the angle.
MOA reticles are relatively new. Some people like them, and some don't. I started with milliradian reticles, specifically the Premier Reticles Gen II mildot, and I've never seen an MOA reticle I like as well.
Taste varies. Use what you like, but it's a good idea to have a reticle and turret adjustments in the same units.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
After using both moa/moa setups and mil/mil I prefer mil/mil because its even simpler. For my go-to rifle I can now remember most of my come up's without having to look at a dope card, for example 4.7mil drop and 1.5 mil for 10mph wind for my 750 yard dope is a lot easier for me to remember than 16.75moa for elevation and 5.25moa for wind.
I also like the slightly coarser click value over the typical .25moa, IMO .25moa is too fine for field use and .5moa is too coarse and .1mil is pretty much prefect. It's also nice having a mil based reticle for spotting for others since the majority of people out there use mil based reticle's whether they are combined with mil or moa knobs.
This is just my reasoning for prefering the mil system over moa. I really don't think it makes a big difference though as long as the knobs and reticle match. If they don't match then you have a handicap. I'll never understand why people still buy moa/mil scopes, I still see people to this day purchase NF scopes with moa knobs and mil reticle when for the same price they could have a moa reticle and be at a huge advantage.
After using both moa/moa setups and mil/mil I prefer mil/mil because its even simpler. For my go-to rifle I can now remember most of my come up's without having to look at a dope card, for example 4.7mil drop and 1.5 mil for 10mph wind for my 750 yard dope is a lot easier for me to remember than 16.75moa for elevation and 5.25moa for wind.
I also like the slightly coarser click value over the typical .25moa, IMO .25moa is too fine for field use and .5moa is too coarse and .1mil is pretty much prefect. It's also nice having a mil based reticle for spotting for others since the majority of people out there use mil based reticle's whether they are combined with mil or moa knobs.
This is just my reasoning for prefering the mil system over moa. I really don't think it makes a big difference though as long as the knobs and reticle match. If they don't match then you have a handicap. I'll never understand why people still buy moa/mil scopes, I still see people to this day purchase NF scopes with moa knobs and mil reticle when for the same price they could have a moa reticle and be at a huge advantage.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
Couple reasons.
First, you must understand that both MILs and MOAs are units of ANGULAR measurement. Not linear.
Second, you must understand that it has nothing to do with metric or imperial. This is not centimeters vs inches, its MILs vs MOAs.
Keep that in mind as you read this thread: http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=779323
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It didn't make sense because the statement is wrong.
Both MOA and milliradian are angular measurements, and the farther one gets from the vertex, the greater the distance subtended by the angle.
MOA reticles are relatively new. Some people like them, and some don't. I started with milliradian reticles, specifically the Premier Reticles Gen II mildot, and I've never seen an MOA reticle I like as well.
Taste varies. Use what you like, but it's a good idea to have a reticle and turret adjustments in the same units.
</div></div>
Lindy, don't you have a canned reply for this one yet?!?
Take a look at Lindy's homepage. He has all the ranging formulas you will need to understand why MILs are inherently easier to use. Plus, there is tons of useful information there.
Couple reasons.
First, you must understand that both MILs and MOAs are units of ANGULAR measurement. Not linear.
Second, you must understand that it has nothing to do with metric or imperial. This is not centimeters vs inches, its MILs vs MOAs.
Keep that in mind as you read this thread: http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=779323
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It didn't make sense because the statement is wrong.
Both MOA and milliradian are angular measurements, and the farther one gets from the vertex, the greater the distance subtended by the angle.
MOA reticles are relatively new. Some people like them, and some don't. I started with milliradian reticles, specifically the Premier Reticles Gen II mildot, and I've never seen an MOA reticle I like as well.
Taste varies. Use what you like, but it's a good idea to have a reticle and turret adjustments in the same units.
</div></div>
Lindy, don't you have a canned reply for this one yet?!?
Take a look at Lindy's homepage. He has all the ranging formulas you will need to understand why MILs are inherently easier to use. Plus, there is tons of useful information there.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
While I preferred MOA/MOA personally for my shooting and in my head, I've since crossed to the dark side of mil/mil because it is a more prevelant system on the lines I shoot. Communication is easiest when everyone is speaking the same language...
While I preferred MOA/MOA personally for my shooting and in my head, I've since crossed to the dark side of mil/mil because it is a more prevelant system on the lines I shoot. Communication is easiest when everyone is speaking the same language...
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
Mils are faster for the spotter to call to the shooter, and then for the shooter to apply as correction (either adjusting dials or holding by reticle) -- especially at extreme range.
Mils are faster for the spotter to call to the shooter, and then for the shooter to apply as correction (either adjusting dials or holding by reticle) -- especially at extreme range.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are faster for the spotter to call to the shooter, and then for the shooter to apply as correction (either adjusting dials or holding by reticle) -- especially at extreme range. </div></div>
Flat out BS! If the spotter and the shooter have the same reticle it does not matter one bit whether its mils or monkeys.
There's othe arguments for mils being better, but this isn't one of them.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are faster for the spotter to call to the shooter, and then for the shooter to apply as correction (either adjusting dials or holding by reticle) -- especially at extreme range. </div></div>
Flat out BS! If the spotter and the shooter have the same reticle it does not matter one bit whether its mils or monkeys.
There's othe arguments for mils being better, but this isn't one of them.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are faster for the spotter to call to the shooter, and then for the shooter to apply as correction (either adjusting dials or holding by reticle) -- especially at extreme range. </div></div>
Like Sober said, this is flat out wrong.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are faster for the spotter to call to the shooter, and then for the shooter to apply as correction (either adjusting dials or holding by reticle) -- especially at extreme range. </div></div>
Like Sober said, this is flat out wrong.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
Really up to you.
MOA is easier for us Americans who already think in terms of inches and yards. However, if you memorize your drop table and use the reticle for your adjustments, then the actual measurement values really do not matter.
I got so use to conversion between mil/moa because mil-reticle/moa-knobs is all I have ever owned till just recently, so I am use to both. But it sure is dam nice when you have a MOA reticle that matches your MOA knobs.
Really up to you.
MOA is easier for us Americans who already think in terms of inches and yards. However, if you memorize your drop table and use the reticle for your adjustments, then the actual measurement values really do not matter.
I got so use to conversion between mil/moa because mil-reticle/moa-knobs is all I have ever owned till just recently, so I am use to both. But it sure is dam nice when you have a MOA reticle that matches your MOA knobs.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
The biggest problem with MOA is the people who say "oh, one MOA is an inch at 100 yards." A MOA is not an inch at 100 yards. It's 1.047" at 100 yards. For short ranges the difference doesn't matter. At 1000 yards with 40 MOA drop you will be off 19".
The biggest problem with MOA is the people who say "oh, one MOA is an inch at 100 yards." A MOA is not an inch at 100 yards. It's 1.047" at 100 yards. For short ranges the difference doesn't matter. At 1000 yards with 40 MOA drop you will be off 19".
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
You either understand the 5% difference between IPHY and MOA or you don't.
None of this is rocket science, and has been hashed out umpteen times here......
You either understand the 5% difference between IPHY and MOA or you don't.
None of this is rocket science, and has been hashed out umpteen times here......
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The biggest problem with MOA is the people who say "oh, one MOA is an inch at 100 yards." A MOA is not an inch at 100 yards. It's 1.047" at 100 yards. For short ranges the difference doesn't matter. At 1000 yards with 40 MOA drop you will be off 19". </div></div>
Uh what? NO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The biggest problem with MOA is the people who say "oh, one MOA is an inch at 100 yards." A MOA is not an inch at 100 yards. It's 1.047" at 100 yards. For short ranges the difference doesn't matter. At 1000 yards with 40 MOA drop you will be off 19". </div></div>
Uh what? NO
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The biggest problem with MOA is the people who say "oh, one MOA is an inch at 100 yards." A MOA is not an inch at 100 yards. It's 1.047" at 100 yards. For short ranges the difference doesn't matter. At 1000 yards with 40 MOA drop you will be off 19". </div></div>
Uh what? NO
</div></div>
If you are sure I am wrong please explain how. I can't wait.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The biggest problem with MOA is the people who say "oh, one MOA is an inch at 100 yards." A MOA is not an inch at 100 yards. It's 1.047" at 100 yards. For short ranges the difference doesn't matter. At 1000 yards with 40 MOA drop you will be off 19". </div></div>
Uh what? NO
</div></div>
If you are sure I am wrong please explain how. I can't wait.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
The difference is that you are not dialing your scope with "1.047 inches" in mind. You are dialing MOA as per the ballistic performance of your rifle/bullet using DOPE (Data On <span style="text-decoration: underline">Previous Engagement</span>). The mathematical difference is academic.
The difference is that you are not dialing your scope with "1.047 inches" in mind. You are dialing MOA as per the ballistic performance of your rifle/bullet using DOPE (Data On <span style="text-decoration: underline">Previous Engagement</span>). The mathematical difference is academic.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw-X5Nt...jMThj&hl=en
here is a white paper i completed while at crane SWAF.
It may be of interest to you regarding your topic.
I encourage any feedback that you may have.
Thanks!
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0Bw-X5Nt...jMThj&hl=en
here is a white paper i completed while at crane SWAF.
It may be of interest to you regarding your topic.
I encourage any feedback that you may have.
Thanks!
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that you are not dialing your scope with "1.047 inches" in mind. You are dialing MOA as per the ballistic performance of your rifle/bullet using DOPE (Data On <span style="text-decoration: underline">Previous Engagement</span>). The mathematical difference is academic.</div></div>
Except that many, many people who don't shoot often at long range don't do it that way and say... "I am shooting at 1000 yards with 400 inches drop that's 40 MOA" when in fact it is 38.2 MOA.
I agree that if you do everything right there is no error.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that you are not dialing your scope with "1.047 inches" in mind. You are dialing MOA as per the ballistic performance of your rifle/bullet using DOPE (Data On <span style="text-decoration: underline">Previous Engagement</span>). The mathematical difference is academic.</div></div>
Except that many, many people who don't shoot often at long range don't do it that way and say... "I am shooting at 1000 yards with 400 inches drop that's 40 MOA" when in fact it is 38.2 MOA.
I agree that if you do everything right there is no error.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The biggest problem with MOA is the people who say "oh, one MOA is an inch at 100 yards." A MOA is not an inch at 100 yards. It's 1.047" at 100 yards. For short ranges the difference doesn't matter. At 1000 yards with 40 MOA drop you will be off 19". </div></div>
Uh what? NO
</div></div>
If you are sure I am wrong please explain how. I can't wait. </div></div>
Nevermind, I see you point now, you were talking about true MOA while I was talking about IPHY.
Scopes don't use true MOA (1.047" at 100 yards), instead their adjustments are IPHY (1" at 100 yards).
So if you go up 40 MOA (again MOA here meaning IPHY and not true MOA) with a scope, you are going 400" and not 419" inches.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The biggest problem with MOA is the people who say "oh, one MOA is an inch at 100 yards." A MOA is not an inch at 100 yards. It's 1.047" at 100 yards. For short ranges the difference doesn't matter. At 1000 yards with 40 MOA drop you will be off 19". </div></div>
Uh what? NO
</div></div>
If you are sure I am wrong please explain how. I can't wait. </div></div>
Nevermind, I see you point now, you were talking about true MOA while I was talking about IPHY.
Scopes don't use true MOA (1.047" at 100 yards), instead their adjustments are IPHY (1" at 100 yards).
So if you go up 40 MOA (again MOA here meaning IPHY and not true MOA) with a scope, you are going 400" and not 419" inches.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that you are not dialing your scope with "1.047 inches" in mind. You are dialing MOA as per the ballistic performance of your rifle/bullet using DOPE (Data On <span style="text-decoration: underline">Previous Engagement</span>). The mathematical difference is academic.</div></div>
Except that many, many people who don't shoot often at long range don't do it that way and say... "I am shooting at 1000 yards with 400 inches drop that's 40 MOA" when in fact it is 38.2 MOA.
I agree that if you do everything right there is no error. </div></div>
Many, many people are being sloppy and lazy then. There are great tools, incuding JBM, which will generate very accurate drop charts. Using a "rule of thumb" is stupid when accurate data is so easy to obtain.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that you are not dialing your scope with "1.047 inches" in mind. You are dialing MOA as per the ballistic performance of your rifle/bullet using DOPE (Data On <span style="text-decoration: underline">Previous Engagement</span>). The mathematical difference is academic.</div></div>
Except that many, many people who don't shoot often at long range don't do it that way and say... "I am shooting at 1000 yards with 400 inches drop that's 40 MOA" when in fact it is 38.2 MOA.
I agree that if you do everything right there is no error. </div></div>
Many, many people are being sloppy and lazy then. There are great tools, incuding JBM, which will generate very accurate drop charts. Using a "rule of thumb" is stupid when accurate data is so easy to obtain.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
maladat said:
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that you are not dialing your scope with "1.047 inches" in mind. You are dialing MOA as per the ballistic performance of your rifle/bullet using DOPE (Data On <span style="text-decoration: underline">Previous Engagement</span>). The mathematical difference is academic.</div></div>
Except that many, many people who don't shoot often at long range don't do it that way and say... "I am shooting at 1000 yards with 400 inches drop that's 40 MOA" when in fact it is 38.2 MOA.
I agree that if you do everything right there is no error. </div></div>
Many, many people are being sloppy and lazy then. There are great tools, incuding JBM, which will generate very accurate drop charts. Using a "rule of thumb" is stupid when accurate data is so easy to obtain.</div></div>
I agree completely, with the sole reservation that many of those people don't even realize it IS just a rule of thumb and not completely correct.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that you are not dialing your scope with "1.047 inches" in mind. You are dialing MOA as per the ballistic performance of your rifle/bullet using DOPE (Data On <span style="text-decoration: underline">Previous Engagement</span>). The mathematical difference is academic.</div></div>
Except that many, many people who don't shoot often at long range don't do it that way and say... "I am shooting at 1000 yards with 400 inches drop that's 40 MOA" when in fact it is 38.2 MOA.
I agree that if you do everything right there is no error. </div></div>
Many, many people are being sloppy and lazy then. There are great tools, incuding JBM, which will generate very accurate drop charts. Using a "rule of thumb" is stupid when accurate data is so easy to obtain.</div></div>
I agree completely, with the sole reservation that many of those people don't even realize it IS just a rule of thumb and not completely correct.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I agree completely, with the sole reservation that many of those people don't even realize it IS just a rule of thumb and not completely correct. </div></div>
Then why are you trying to play "Mr. Exact in an Ideal Vacuum"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I agree completely, with the sole reservation that many of those people don't even realize it IS just a rule of thumb and not completely correct. </div></div>
Then why are you trying to play "Mr. Exact in an Ideal Vacuum"
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
maladat said:EricCarrtmann said:Scopes don't use true MOA (1.047" at 100 yards), instead their adjustments are IPHY (1" at 100 yards).</div></div>
Some scopes use IPHY, some use MOA. </div></div>
And some use their own as they are neither MOA or IPHY. I have no idea what my Nightforce is but it appears to be IPHY, then again I have no clue as MOA or IPHY are just approximates. Heck if I am only off 19" at 1075 yards I can easily adjust for that.
You should have a drop table anyways. Every 100 yards of your particular scope, with this particular gun, and this particular ammo. That will greatly increase your success ratio (as long as your ranging is correct). Ranging someone at 900 to 1000 yards is very difficult, they appear to be the same size at this distance and if your ranging is off 50 yards that means you be off 20" anyways.
All this discussion is a moot point anyways, as Elevation adjustments are easy, wind calls much tougher.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are more than welcome to be as inexact as you please.
</div></div>
It's an inexact science. Hate to burst your bubble.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are more than welcome to be as inexact as you please.
It's an inexact science. Hate to burst your bubble.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
It makes not difference which you use as long as you are using the same in reticle and turrent. It is slightly more difficult to use say a MilDot reticle to read adjustment and then adjust with MOA knobs. At least for me.
I have come to like mil/mil better and am slowly converting all my "go to guns" to that. But one could just as easily do the same with MOA/MOA.
I guess my point is "pick you poison" and stay with it.
It makes not difference which you use as long as you are using the same in reticle and turrent. It is slightly more difficult to use say a MilDot reticle to read adjustment and then adjust with MOA knobs. At least for me.
I have come to like mil/mil better and am slowly converting all my "go to guns" to that. But one could just as easily do the same with MOA/MOA.
I guess my point is "pick you poison" and stay with it.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you guys figured out why this topic gets on the nerves of everyone?</div></div>
Nope.
But it always does! Hahaha.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you guys figured out why this topic gets on the nerves of everyone?</div></div>
Nope.
But it always does! Hahaha.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are more than welcome to be as inexact as you please.
</div></div>
It's an inexact science. Hate to burst your bubble.</div></div>
There's a difference between accepting the potential for error you can't control and giving up even trying to eliminate errors you CAN control because it'll never be perfect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are more than welcome to be as inexact as you please.
It's an inexact science. Hate to burst your bubble.</div></div>
There's a difference between accepting the potential for error you can't control and giving up even trying to eliminate errors you CAN control because it'll never be perfect.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are more than welcome to be as inexact as you please.
</div></div>
It's an inexact science. Hate to burst your bubble.</div></div>
There's a difference between accepting the potential for error you can't control and giving up even trying to eliminate errors you CAN control because it'll never be perfect. </div></div>
Whatever you have to tell yourself so you get a good nights sleep.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are more than welcome to be as inexact as you please.
It's an inexact science. Hate to burst your bubble.</div></div>
There's a difference between accepting the potential for error you can't control and giving up even trying to eliminate errors you CAN control because it'll never be perfect. </div></div>
Whatever you have to tell yourself so you get a good nights sleep.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you guys figured out why this topic gets on the nerves of everyone?</div></div>
Nope.
But it always does! Hahaha. </div></div>
Discussions are fun to some of us
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you guys figured out why this topic gets on the nerves of everyone?</div></div>
Nope.
But it always does! Hahaha. </div></div>
Discussions are fun to some of us
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CK_32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why does it seem like every one is getting Mil/Mil turrests instead of MOA/MOA??</div></div>
Myself it's IPHY Reticles an Knobs only.
MOA works, as does Mils, but not having to conform to Uncles standards anymore I'll use the system I'm best with and most all those I shoot with, know as well.
Mil's are tacticool no doubt about that, but every item I have in my ranging data book is given in inch's. I find it easier to work everything that way. Your data book may have PC's, Tank's, AK's, 14's, 16's, signs, doorways, crotch to top of head in Mil's or MOA, but all of mine are in inch's, and I'm not changing now. Most of the time I'll be well within the error range(drop)doing the math in my head.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CK_32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why does it seem like every one is getting Mil/Mil turrests instead of MOA/MOA??</div></div>
Myself it's IPHY Reticles an Knobs only.
MOA works, as does Mils, but not having to conform to Uncles standards anymore I'll use the system I'm best with and most all those I shoot with, know as well.
Mil's are tacticool no doubt about that, but every item I have in my ranging data book is given in inch's. I find it easier to work everything that way. Your data book may have PC's, Tank's, AK's, 14's, 16's, signs, doorways, crotch to top of head in Mil's or MOA, but all of mine are in inch's, and I'm not changing now. Most of the time I'll be well within the error range(drop)doing the math in my head.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Flat out BS! If the spotter and the shooter have the same reticle it does not matter one bit whether its mils or monkeys.
There's othe arguments for mils being better, but this isn't one of them.
</div></div>
Not quite sure what you're talking about.
"Hold five left," "Hold ten right," or "Hold 1 mildot higher" are a hell of a lot quicker than minute calls -- bullseye, E-types, or people.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Flat out BS! If the spotter and the shooter have the same reticle it does not matter one bit whether its mils or monkeys.
There's othe arguments for mils being better, but this isn't one of them.
</div></div>
Not quite sure what you're talking about.
"Hold five left," "Hold ten right," or "Hold 1 mildot higher" are a hell of a lot quicker than minute calls -- bullseye, E-types, or people.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you guys figured out why this topic gets on the nerves of everyone?</div></div>
Nope.
But it always does! Hahaha. </div></div>
Discussions are fun to some of us
</div></div>
Reading them is fun for the rest of us!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCarrtmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you guys figured out why this topic gets on the nerves of everyone?</div></div>
Nope.
But it always does! Hahaha. </div></div>
Discussions are fun to some of us
Reading them is fun for the rest of us!
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Hold five left," "Hold ten right," or "Hold 1 mildot higher" are a hell of a lot quicker than minute calls -- bullseye, E-types, or people. </div></div>
Not sure I would agree with that, based on those I shoot, or have shot with.
Even when the knobs have to stay 0/0 and it's reticle only to 1400yds, I don't think calling in Mils only would make it any faster. I will agree if the guys that are shooting/spotting are using two different systems time will lag.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Hold five left," "Hold ten right," or "Hold 1 mildot higher" are a hell of a lot quicker than minute calls -- bullseye, E-types, or people. </div></div>
Not sure I would agree with that, based on those I shoot, or have shot with.
Even when the knobs have to stay 0/0 and it's reticle only to 1400yds, I don't think calling in Mils only would make it any faster. I will agree if the guys that are shooting/spotting are using two different systems time will lag.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
But what if they're both shooting MOA/MOA, but one shooter is using shooters MOA and the other is using 1.047? That's a huge difference at distance and wind.
But what if they're both shooting MOA/MOA, but one shooter is using shooters MOA and the other is using 1.047? That's a huge difference at distance and wind.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Granted, but you know as well as I do, the bulk are in reality using shooter moa, instead of true moa.
If the team/group is on the same page before they hit the field I don't see any system, being faster than another, on first or follow up.</div></div>
Agreed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Granted, but you know as well as I do, the bulk are in reality using shooter moa, instead of true moa.
If the team/group is on the same page before they hit the field I don't see any system, being faster than another, on first or follow up.</div></div>
Agreed.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Hold five left," "Hold ten right," or "Hold 1 mildot higher" are a hell of a lot quicker than minute calls -- bullseye, E-types, or people. </div></div>
If the spotter sees impact five minutes right in an MDMOA reticle on a USO spotting scope and calls "hold five left" to a shooter using the same reticle (or a NF NPR1, etc) <span style="color: #CC0000">its the same </span>as someone seeing 1.5 mil splash right in a Leupy MK4 spotting scope with TMR and and calling "hold 1.5 left" to someone shooting a GenII XR (or mildots or MPR, etc).
With all due respect to your experience, <span style="font-weight: bold">as long as everyone's on the same page reticle-wise, and reticles match adjustment its personal preference, period. One measurement is not faster than another measurement when there is no conversion going on. </span>
As I said, I only switched to mil/mil because its easier to be on the same page, but if I could pick everyone else gear too I'd be mirroring gunfighter14e2's sentiments.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Hold five left," "Hold ten right," or "Hold 1 mildot higher" are a hell of a lot quicker than minute calls -- bullseye, E-types, or people. </div></div>
If the spotter sees impact five minutes right in an MDMOA reticle on a USO spotting scope and calls "hold five left" to a shooter using the same reticle (or a NF NPR1, etc) <span style="color: #CC0000">its the same </span>as someone seeing 1.5 mil splash right in a Leupy MK4 spotting scope with TMR and and calling "hold 1.5 left" to someone shooting a GenII XR (or mildots or MPR, etc).
With all due respect to your experience, <span style="font-weight: bold">as long as everyone's on the same page reticle-wise, and reticles match adjustment its personal preference, period. One measurement is not faster than another measurement when there is no conversion going on. </span>
As I said, I only switched to mil/mil because its easier to be on the same page, but if I could pick everyone else gear too I'd be mirroring gunfighter14e2's sentiments.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
The only advantage one system has over another to me, is when the reticle has finer divisions for ranging or holds. Even then, if someone is looking to get the most from his system he'll find all the short cuts.
I do have a question for everyone,
Given any system, (MIl, MOA, IPHY) and why?
(A) Would you rather have a top notch shooter with poor reticle ranging skills shooting at you, or,
(B) A average shooter with top notch reticle ranging skills.
The only advantage one system has over another to me, is when the reticle has finer divisions for ranging or holds. Even then, if someone is looking to get the most from his system he'll find all the short cuts.
I do have a question for everyone,
Given any system, (MIl, MOA, IPHY) and why?
(A) Would you rather have a top notch shooter with poor reticle ranging skills shooting at you, or,
(B) A average shooter with top notch reticle ranging skills.
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
Not minutes -- inches (i.e., 5 inches left is neck-line on an E-type or human; ten is edge of silhouette or edge of human form; mil dots are 3.5 minutes).
Speed for multiple targets and dialing the advantage goes to mils vice entire turret revolutions (unless using something like an M3) -- like "Come up 7 mils" {vice 24 and a half minutes or two turrets + 1 minute if using a Nightforce). Even faster if using a Horud reticle.
Not minutes -- inches (i.e., 5 inches left is neck-line on an E-type or human; ten is edge of silhouette or edge of human form; mil dots are 3.5 minutes).
Speed for multiple targets and dialing the advantage goes to mils vice entire turret revolutions (unless using something like an M3) -- like "Come up 7 mils" {vice 24 and a half minutes or two turrets + 1 minute if using a Nightforce). Even faster if using a Horud reticle.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not minutes -- inches (i.e., 5 inches left is neck-line on an E-type or human; ten is edge of silhouette or edge of human form; mil dots are 3.5 minutes).
Speed for multiple targets and dialing the advantage goes to mils vice entire turret revoultions (unless using something like an M3) -- like "Come up 7 mils" {vice 24 and a half minutes or two turrets + 1 minute if using a Nightforce). Even faster if using a Horud reticle. </div></div>
Not sure I'm following this at all.
With a std X zero at 100yds (0/0 knobs)I have 40 IPHY of up and 40 wind in the reticle to play with, before dialing anything. If I reset to a +15 or 20 IPHY 100yd zero I now have 55-60 of hold only depending. Add a 1/2 IPHY EREK there's 45 IPHY of up dialing to be had in one turn, above the 55-60.
What am I missing?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not minutes -- inches (i.e., 5 inches left is neck-line on an E-type or human; ten is edge of silhouette or edge of human form; mil dots are 3.5 minutes).
Speed for multiple targets and dialing the advantage goes to mils vice entire turret revoultions (unless using something like an M3) -- like "Come up 7 mils" {vice 24 and a half minutes or two turrets + 1 minute if using a Nightforce). Even faster if using a Horud reticle. </div></div>
Not sure I'm following this at all.
With a std X zero at 100yds (0/0 knobs)I have 40 IPHY of up and 40 wind in the reticle to play with, before dialing anything. If I reset to a +15 or 20 IPHY 100yd zero I now have 55-60 of hold only depending. Add a 1/2 IPHY EREK there's 45 IPHY of up dialing to be had in one turn, above the 55-60.
What am I missing?
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
I am trying to learn something new too. How is holding over with Mils faster than MOA or IPHY if both spotter and shooter has the same reticle?
I am trying to learn something new too. How is holding over with Mils faster than MOA or IPHY if both spotter and shooter has the same reticle?
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me help:
Look here </div></div>
great dave, we're talking about accuracy and using proper sub-tensions, and you mis-spelled versus!!!
</div></div>
LOL!!
Oops! Spellin' is harder than shootin' stuff. Fixed it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave_</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me help:
Look here </div></div>
great dave, we're talking about accuracy and using proper sub-tensions, and you mis-spelled versus!!!
LOL!!
Oops! Spellin' is harder than shootin' stuff. Fixed it.
Similar threads
