Rifle Scopes Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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? </div></div>
In that situation, I don't think there is any difference. Simply, the math is easier if you're <span style="font-style: italic">ranging </span>with mils.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Multiple targets at multiple range in a single engagement.

You aren't/shouldn't be dialing MOA changes from 300 to 600 and back to 400 (or whatever ranges) for a multiple target scenario where you need to shoot and scoot or be engaged (unless using a speed dial like an M3).

Bang. Transition from 300 to 600 yards, hold up two mils. Bang. Next target at 400, come down 1 mil. Bang, Scan. Prep to move out.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Multiple targets at multiple range in a single engagement.

You aren't/shouldn't be dialing MOA changes from 300 to 600 and back to 400 (or whatever ranges) for a multiple target scenario where you need to shoot and scoot or be engaged 9unless using a speed dial like an M3).

Bang. Transition from 300 to 600 yards, hold up two mils. Bang. Next target at 400, come down 1 mil. Bang, Scan. Prep to move out. </div></div>

Why can't you do that with MOA reticle?
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

I've driven enough in Canada and Europe that driving with metric is no big deal. Measure everything in KM.

When I am here, I measure everything in miles.

Moral of the story is that both mil/mil and MOA/MOA work exactly alike and equally well for field applications IF the driver bothers to understand the chosen system fully.

You can even go from one to the other and back with enough practice (it don't take much).

When I shoot NRA prone I measure and adjust everything in MOA and the rear sight knobs are CW for up and right.

When I shoot practical matches, I measure and adjust everything in mils and the scope's knobs are CCW for up and right.

No big deal
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Its six of one and a half dozen of the other. There are great shooters the world around using both systems. That's should say enough. If you are using a mil system, and a shooter of equal ability right next to you is using an moa system. Do you have a better chance of making your shot than he does? No. . .
if you use your system competantly, it works. I never understood this arguement. Its like telling someone your favorite fruit is apples, it has been for years. Then having that person break out all kinds of data to convince you that you actually SHOULD be liking oranges, because they're "better."
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Personally when I follow a miss I see it in feet and inches which for me converts easier to MOA logically. I have nightforce scopes that are MOA MOA and a schmidt that is MIL MOA and a spotting scope that has a MIL reticle. I'm all F***ed up. Whatever you get learn to use it and the ranging formulas and you will be fine. Kind of a Ford Chevy thing.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Wow wasnt expecting to get this kinda of out come from this question haha

I was just wondering which was "best" but it seems like its all personal prference but I never thought about it that way with MIL/MIL I've only used MOA scopes. Reason I asked.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

I hate the mental gymnastics of trying to work out an MOA adjustment for a Mil based reticule and vice versa. (Yep, could probably do away with this problem with some tricked out iThing and some whizo ballistic software but, to me relying on technology is going to end in tears some day!).

But as long as the collar and cuffs match, I have no real preference whether Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

o.k so I have always used MOA but the more I learn the more I'm liking MIL
just because it seems more uniform , i.e. not moa or shooters moa
a mil is a mil

it don't really matter what you use as long as you under stand it

remember believe the bullet
. Dave
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why can't you do that with MOA reticle?</div></div>

You can.
Spend the time to range properly and use the reticle for up, don't waste time dialing until your outside of your reticle.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Distance to target should become irrelevant if you shoot enough. You should NOT think in terms of inches, feet, yards, centimeters, or meters to determine your bullet drops. Instead you should start thinking in terms of mils or moa. You should think of how much Mils or MOA you need to come up based on how many Mils or MOA your target takes up on the reticle.

It will work something like this:
- "Haji is 5 MOA accross". This means I need to come up 7 MOA on my elevation"
- "I missed to the right by 2 MOA, which means I have to go 2 MOA to the left"

The only thing Mils has over MOA is the calculation of the actual distance measurements, which is not really needed when you are shooting as I already stated.

Mil-radians works in thousandths which is perfect for the metric system. Mils work like a machinist, everything is in 10ths and 1000ths. Nothing is better for 10ths and 1000ths than the metric system. The metric system just kicks ass.

MOA works like a woodworking smith. Everything is split into halves, and halves of halves, and halves of halves of halves, such as quarters, eights, sixteenth, etc.

You can use Mils for the English Measuring System, but it is very difficult. Nothing is separated by 10's like the metric system. You have special number to get to a different unit. 12" makes one foot, 3 feet makes one yard, etc.

Because the English Measuring System is whacked, you can't use Mils quickly with the English System. What's 1/1000th of 100 yards? It is .10 yards, but what the hell is .10 yards? No one really knows off the top of their head what .10 yards is. It's actually 3.6" (360 inches in 100 yards), hence where the number 3.6 comes from, it's 3.6" per mil per 100 yards.

With metric it's easy. 1/1000th of one kilometer is one meter. 1/1000th of 100 meters is 10 cm. Easy as pie.

Another argument against MOA is the inconsistencies of the word MOA itself. There are 2 types of MOA, true MOA (1.047" per 100 yards) and IPHY (inches per hundred yards, 1" per 100). However, everything is labeled MOA, so we never know if the label is referring to True-MOA or IPHY. Ballistic Calculators uses true MOA. We calculate in our head with IPHY. Some scopes come with IPHY knobs, and some come with MOA knobs. Some scopes have it where their true-MOA reticle matches their true-MOA knobs, some don't.

With Mils there is no confusion as one Mildot is always one Mildot
cool.gif


But the bottom line is as long as your turrets matches your reticles (MOA, IPHY, or Mils), you can be good with anything.

Now having said all that, and even though I said I should NOT think of my target in English or Metric length measurements (meters, feet, etc), I still do it. I prefer MOA/MOA or IPHY/IPHY, because I like to think of how far my target is away in yards, and how far my misses are in inches.
smile.gif
With MOA (true-MOA or IPHY) this is easy to do for me to do.

Soapbox Speech: I can't help it that I naturally think of lengths in inches, feet, yards, and miles. I am going to blame my parents, grand parents, and all my idiot friends for this one for keeping the Imperial units instead of going to the Metric System. The English Measurement System is one case of how just because everyone is doing it doe not make it right. Then again, I know most idiots will always disagree with me and this how I know things are normal. Once I start to get idiots to agree with me, that probably just means I too became an idiot and it is time I put a bullet in my own head
laugh.gif
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why can't you do that with MOA reticle?</div></div>

You can.
Spend the time to range properly and use the reticle for up, don't waste time dialing until your outside of your reticle. </div></div>

That was my point.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1/1000th of 100 meters is 1 cm. Easy as pie.
</div></div>

Whoops. Don't use that math.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
(360 inches in one yard), hence where the number 3.6 comes from, it's 3.6" per mil per 100 yards.</div></div>

36 inches/yard.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
With metric it's easy. 1/1000th of one kilometer is one meter. 1/1000th of 100 meters is 1 cm. Easy as pie.</div></div>

1/1000th of 100m is 1 dm or 10 cm.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
However, everything is labeled MOA, so we never know if the label is referring to True-MOA or IPHY.</div></div>

Some scopes are labeled IPHY.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Ballistic Calculators uses true MOA.</div></div>

Many ballistic calculators are capable of producing results in IPHY.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With Mils there is no confusion as one Mildot is always one Mildot
cool.gif
</div></div>

Except that there are ~6283.185 actual milliradians in a circle, the Army (and NATO) uses 6400, and the Marines use 6280. 6280 is close enough it doesn't make a practical difference, but some mil scopes use the 6400 value.

Also the Soviet Union used 6000.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

This is a perfect place for one of Lowlight's classics:

"You guys could over complicate and ruin a blow job left to your own devices."
 
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: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1/1000th of 100 meters is 1 cm. Easy as pie.
</div></div>

Whoops. Don't use that math. </div></div>

LOL!
crazy.gif
Thanks for the catch
 
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: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
With Mils there is no confusion as one Mildot is always one Mildot
cool.gif
</div></div>

Except that there are ~6283.185 actual milliradians in a circle, the Army (and NATO) uses 6400, and the Marines use 6280. 6280 is close enough it doesn't make a practical difference, but some mil scopes use the 6400 value.

Also the Soviet Union used 6000. </div></div>

Got back to this post a little late. That is good info right there! Thanks!

I never read any sniper books so I was unaware of info like this. My own real life experience is where I get all my smarts from
wink.gif
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Except that there are ~6283.185 actual milliradians in a circle, the Army (and NATO) uses 6400, and the Marines use 6280. 6280 is close enough it doesn't make a practical difference, but some mil scopes use the 6400 value.</div></div>

Well, no.

The only rifle scope which used 6400 was the original Army M3A, and it only used it in the reticle where it didn't matter enough to create errors - the scope adjusted in MOA.

All other U.S. rifle scopes always used 6283.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
All other U.S. rifle scopes always used 6283.
</div></div>

So we all are in agreement that every Scope in the USA uses the same Mil measurement?

I thought so!!!!

So again, my theory holds correct, "One mil is always one mil". Dam I did not even read a book to figure that out, I just assumed that with my experience.
cool.gif
 
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>

Putting aside all of the talk about which is faster, more accurate, etc, etc... Like it or not, mil/mil is the standard being adopted. All of the new tactical scopes are being released as mil/mil because that's what the big military customers want. If MOA turrets are offered at all, the scope usually still has a mil-based reticle.

With FFP and matched turrets and reticle, both work the same way. So why swim against the tide when it gains you nothing? You only limit your choices and end up with something that's more difficult to sell if you tire of it.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

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

Putting aside all of the talk about which is faster, more accurate, etc, etc... Like it or not, mil/mil is the standard being adopted. All of the new tactical scopes are being released as mil/mil because that's what the big military customers want. If MOA turrets are offered at all, the scope usually still has a mil-based reticle.

With FFP and matched turrets and reticle, both work the same way. So why swim against the tide when it gains you nothing? You only limit your choices and end up with something that's more difficult to sell if you tire of it. </div></div>

Totally agree. Mil/Mil is the standard and so is the metric system. When are we all gonna get our asses in gear?
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Because MIL works on a base 10 number system when you use it in conjunction with metric units (e.g. metres), it's a lot easier in every respect.

How big is a 1 MIL arc at 543m range - easy - it's 543mm.
Or at, 677m - it's 677mm...!

You couldn't ask for a simpler system!!!!
smile.gif
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Wow, these discussions about this topic are always too long and drawn out making it hard for newer shooters. The basics that you need to get as far as differences go like this: At 100 yards 1 MOA is 1.047 inches and 1 MIL is 3.6 inches. Now at this point the MOA looks preferred but the nice advantage of mils is if you need 1 mil adjustment (depending on your set up but most are .1 mil or 1 cm) you only need 10 clicks adjustment on the scope. Another example is if you require 1 MOA adjustment you have 4 clicks at 100 yards (if you have 1/4 MOA turrets) either way its easy if have matching reticule with your turrets and with the other people your with shooting. Personally I like looking at my dope card telling me I need to adjust 1.4 mils and clicking 14 times. JMHO
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hunterkiwi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because MIL works on a base 10 number system when you use it in conjunction with metric units (e.g. metres), it's a lot easier in every respect.

How big is a 1 MIL arc at 543m range - easy - it's 543mm.
Or at, 677m - it's 677mm...!

You couldn't ask for a simpler system!!!!
smile.gif
</div></div>

My first scope was a Weaver V7, atop a push-feed M70 in 243 Win (1/4 "moa" clicks). We measure things in "yards and inches", so metric is generally a(nother) conversion?...

The variable MIL-DOT reticle (SFP) scope with moa knobs was next. Not a problem - drop in inches easy to convert - use MIL reticle to range/hold off. Someone says "1/4 MIL down", and I dial 1 moa.

The moa/moa FFP was next. The reticle's 2 moa graduations were "twice" as good as a MIL, so bonus there. Our targets are generally specified in inches, so moa (most, including mine, are really IPHY) was simple division of the "moa" scale. Ballistics were always inches per 100 yards, and MIL conversions were "divide by 3.6" - worked fine.

MIL/MIL is here - Oh boy! Converting moa data is easy, but I miss the 1/4 moa clicks - I'd rather have an adjustment that was smaller than my bullet diameter at 100 yards.

I'm not in any big hurry to swap moa/moa or MIL/moa for MIL/MIL. If you start with an SFP MIL/MOA scope, and learn/practice the conversions (targets from inches to cms or MIL, distance from yards to meters, moa drops to MILs, etc.), you'll know them both - everything else is "easier"?...

Cheers,

Bill
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hunterkiwi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because MIL works on a base 10 number system when you use it in conjunction with metric units (e.g. metres), it's a lot easier in every respect.

How big is a 1 MIL arc at 543m range - easy - it's 543mm.
Or at, 677m - it's 677mm...!

You couldn't ask for a simpler system!!!!
smile.gif
</div></div>

Actually, it works with any unit of measure, not just metric.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hunterkiwi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because MIL works on a base 10 number system when you use it in conjunction with metric units (e.g. metres), it's a lot easier in every respect.

How big is a 1 MIL arc at 543m range - easy - it's 543mm.
Or at, 677m - it's 677mm...!

You couldn't ask for a simpler system!!!!
smile.gif
</div></div>

Actually, it works with any unit of measure, not just metric.

</div></div>


Not true. You don't know that for sure.

Yes we humans here on earth do think of things in 10's (Decimal), but our computers think in binary (base-2), octal (base-8), and hex (base-16). Octal and Hex are basically just extentions of binary. Carpenters kinda use the binary system as every thing is split into halve, quarters, eighths, and sixteenths. The Decimal System is the one that is truly unique standing on it's own.

All intelligent life in other parts of the universe may not have a base-10 numbering system for their every day life. They might naturally think like a computer and use a Hex system for their every day life.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not true. You don't know that for sure.</div></div>

Well, yeah, I do. It doesn't matter what number base you calculate in, nor what you measure in - an angle of one milliradian subtends an arc who length is 1/1000th (in base 10) of the distance from the vertex.

For example, at a distance of 10011100010000 parsecs (binary), one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is 1010 parsecs (binary).
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not true. You don't know that for sure.</div></div>

Well, yeah, I do. It doesn't matter what number base you calculate in, nor what you measure in - an angle of one milliradian subtends an arc who length is 1/1000th (in base 10) of the distance from the vertex.

For example, at a distance of 10011100010000 parsecs (binary), one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is 1010 parsecs (binary).
</div></div>

Again you are thinking in Dec (base-10) again. A radian does not have to express in thousandths. it can also be expressed in a binary, oct, or hex system. As long as your complete circle has 2-pie-r then you are good to go.

We commoners here on earth like to call this 2-pie-r, "360 degrees" but you do not have to use degree for a unit of angular measurement. You can even use a grad. 400 grads makes a complete circle also. Basically the point is this, there are many ways to draw a circle and you do not have to use mils (based on the decimal system) to do it.

Don't worry about being closed minded, it's only natural for humans to be close minded and also follow a herd. These are survival instincts
wink.gif
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At a distance of 10011100010000 parsecs (binary), one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is 1010 parsecs (binary).
</div></div>

Careful Lindy, that might wind up in somebody's sig line
laugh.gif
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

The relationship of a given angle to the length of the arc subtended by that angle at a given distance from the vertex is independent of the number base used, as well as independent of the units in which the angle is measured.

And I apologize for the sin of casting pearls before swine.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The relationship of a given angle to the length of the arc subtended by that angle at a given distance from the vertex is independent of the number base used, as well as independent of the units in which the angle is measured.

And I apologize for the sin of casting pearls before swine.
</div></div>

exactly, and why do you need to express things in 1000ths to do it?

No apology needed, this swine loves sin!!!
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because that is the definition of milliradian. </div></div>

Really? I thought pink sandles were definition of a Milliradian? My point was that a Milliradian might not work everywhere in the universe because other worlds might not use the Decimal System for their numbering system.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">437 feet, 13/32 inches divided by 1000 is 5 feet, 1/4 inches.

Everything can be divided by 1000, does not matter what the base is. </div></div>

Evertying can also be divided by 6787865... so what's your point?
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">6787865 is not the definition of a mil.

I understand your argument, just saying that you don't have to use metric distances to use mils.

Any arbitrary system will work. Any fraction can be expressed as a decimal. </div></div>

To use mils effectively you have to use the decimal system as your numbering system. Does not have to be metric (which is a decimal system by the way), but it does have to a measuring system based on the decimal system.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because that is the definition of milliradian. </div></div>

Really? I thought pink sandles were definition of a Milliradian? My point was that a Milliradian might not work everywhere in the universe because other worlds might not use the Decimal System for their numbering system. </div></div>

Informal logic much?
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

The whole point why mils work "better" with the decimal system is that in the decimal system, the same unit of measurement is used for distance and target size.

It doesn't matter at all that metric uses meters, you could use yards as well if you were used to think of target sizes in yards. Where it gets more complicated with the imperial system is when you try to calculate a distance in yards using a target size given in inches or feet, because that's where you have to divide or multiply by odd numbers while you only shift commas with the metric system.

It's not that one unit of measurement is "superior" to the other, it's just that the imerial system is not coherent and different units are being used for different parts of the equation.
 
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chiller</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because that is the definition of milliradian. </div></div>

Really? I thought pink sandles were definition of a Milliradian? My point was that a Milliradian might not work everywhere in the universe because other worlds might not use the Decimal System for their numbering system. </div></div>

Informal logic much? </div></div>

Not much, and you?