Rifle Scopes Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

#151
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: MTETM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I would suggest using your imagination, you seem to be the smartest amongst us, so this should not be the limiting factor.

I agree with Tburkes...I find it disheartening that the experience we can all learn from will leave due to the self gratification of the unproven...
</div></div>

Well I am going to need your help with this one. I might be smart in figuring out that not a base-10 numbering system might not be universal, but I am not smart enough to figure that one out.

Know some, don't know some, Win some you lose some.

Can you help me with this one?</div></div>
Nope...You are on your own!
 
#153
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MTETM</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: MTETM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I would suggest using your imagination, you seem to be the smartest amongst us, so this should not be the limiting factor.

I agree with Tburkes...I find it disheartening that the experience we can all learn from will leave due to the self gratification of the unproven...
</div></div>

Well I am going to need your help with this one. I might be smart in figuring out that not a base-10 numbering system might not be universal, but I am not smart enough to figure that one out.

Know some, don't know some, Win some you lose some.

Can you help me with this one?</div></div>
Nope...You are on your own! </div></div>

Can I ask one thing of you? Next time if you are going to give me advice, can you give me advice where I can comprehend how to do it? And if I don't know how to do the advice you give, can you please provide a video to show me how?

Thank You.
 
#154
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tburkes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've lost count of the number of threads that have degenerated to crap because people have to chime in with their so called intelligence talking about formulas, equations, and all manner of just crap that takes away from the teaching moment, that new guys really trying to learn something just shake their heads and walk away.

You want to talk about running over a cliff like Lemmings, sorry, but this thread went over the cliff quite a while ago.

There are not many members on this site who are more qualified than Lindy to teach, whether it's in person, or on the net, about putting bullets on steel and using reticles. Most of the other people who are as qualified have already quite posting on this site due to the same kind of thing that is taking place here again.

It happens time and again, a member asks a question and is really trying to learn something. Then you have people who have spent years making a living doing exactly what the question is about who take time out of their day and give a straight forward answer. Then you have someone who's only carried a rifle from the trunk of their car to the bench, or shot one whole rifle match, or read a book or the internet articles get on their high horse and jump in the guys face who's spent years actually living it. Or someone jumps in with milling in outer space, or artillery milling, anything and everything, except what will help someone actually learn something useful The expert pretty soon says "F*&k that guy and this site, I don't have to put up with this crap anymore"

And the knowledge base diminishes and all we're left with is the numbnuts who brought the whole thread down.

Way to go. </div></div>

+1

I believe that there are those, that try to destroy anything they can't really be or never will be a part of. Then again I've seen alter egos here, trying to run a game. Sad thing is you are 100% correct we have lost some of the best do to such B/S, but then again it is easier to quit than push on. However after a while it does become pointless trying an tame a Mechanical horse,...and easy to pull the plug.
 
#155
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Ok smart guy, point to me what I said was so wrong and I will glady give you props. Oh and just because Lindy is right 999 times, does not mean he will be right 1000 times.

All I said was milliradians will not be ideal through-out the universe because it is most likely not everyone in the universe will use a base-10 numbering system. Heck even here on Earth not everyone uses a base-10 numbering system so what makes you think everyone in the universe will?

Again I am just the messenger, if being the messenger means being a Dick, then yes, I am one of the biggest Dick in the Universe because I love being the messenger
laugh.gif
yeeee hawwww!

Besides everyone needs to as you say be "bust on" because that is what keeps us all in check and No one should ever believe "I am always right" or "I am God". Even Cartmann appreciates a good "bust on" every time he gets one. At the end of the day you have to shake the hand of the victor. This is called Sportsnamship, which is seems like 75% of gun guys know nothing about.

Now again, if you want me to stroke your ego, let me know, I don't know if I can, but I will at the very least try. </div></div>


Since we are Earthlings and are only shooting on Earth, your argument of, base 10 may not work well throughout the universe is an extremely silly argument. Making you look like an ASS. The discussion is about tactical shooting on Earth by Humans that do indeed use a base 10 numerical system and scope with Mill reticles and/or turrets


Hell, you can't even prove that there is anyone else in the universe now can you?
 
#158
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

frustrating, I admit to being a newbie to true long range shooting and am trying to really learn the pros/cons of the various setups... I can make tiny groups at 100 and out to 300 and make hits consistently with my 308 to 750 with a hunting scope.. but I am FAR from an expert on the subject and the when trying to understand the different systems so that I can experiment with them and LEARN here it's frustrating to see the theory debates turn into a cluster F

not sure why people (and it happens on all types of forums) seem to need to try to get into a pissing contest over who's the smartest.

I appreciate the people who know what they are doing taking their time to articulate and inform while remaining professional and civil.


 
#162
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

The problem is, this guy shits in every thread. Thanks Mods for doing the right thing at the right time. I like that you guys let things play out until it's clear that you need to step in. These guys come and go and, on rare occasion, change their stupid ways and actually contribute something useful.

...this guy, I'm not so sure
 
#163
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tburkes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Next time I see that hammer I'd like to see stains, nicks, dents, and blood on it. It doesn't look like it gets used near enough in that picture. </div></div>

better?

2je74g.jpg
 
#164
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Second, you must understand that it has nothing to do with metric or imperial. This is not centimeters vs inches, its MILs vs MOAs.

</div></div>

I'm not sure if this is a correct statement. My understanding is 1 MIL = 1 cm @ 100m. However 1 MOA does NOT equal 1" at 100yds. Therfore in my mind, Mils are better because they actually subtend to real quantifiable whole number measurements whereas the MOA is introducing quite a bit of additional math in public. I do NOT do math in public.

I know this has been said a hundred times - but its whatever you're most comfortable with. As long as your reticle and turrets match, it really is not going to make that much of a difference for most folks. Being a Military pilot, I've always thought in terms of Mils for a bombing solution or using the gun reticle in the HUD. Other things in my professtion that use Mils would be things like determining laser spot size.

The one and only time I looked through a MOA dot scope (NF, I think) - I didn't care for it. The hash marks were too far apart and the units were too large and confusing to use quickly. My $.02

edit: Holy shit, I started on pg 1, posted a reply and missed the whole shitfight. Wow, this thread degenerated quickly!
 
#165
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: Tburkes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Next time I see that hammer I'd like to see stains, nicks, dents, and blood on it. It doesn't look like it gets used near enough in that picture. </div></div>

better?

2je74g.jpg
</div></div>

Keep trying, Chiller. Still no stains, nicks, dents or blood
laugh.gif
However, the mushroomed head at least shows some use.
 
#167
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReaperDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Second, you must understand that it has nothing to do with metric or imperial. This is not centimeters vs inches, its MILs vs MOAs.</div></div>

I'm not sure if this is a correct statement. My understanding is 1 MIL = 1 cm @ 100m. However 1 MOA does NOT equal 1" at 100yds.</div></div>

Actually, 1 mil = 10cm @ 100m. .1 mil = 1 cm @ 100m.

Regardless, mils have nothing to do with centimeters. It is an angular measurement based on the radian. The radian the angle of a circular arc of length equal to the radius of the arc. Remember circumference=PI*diameter=2*PI*radius? A full circle arc has length of 2*PI times the radius, or 2*PI radians.

A mil (milliradian=1/1000th radian) is an arc whose length is 1/1000th the radius of the arc. This arc is so small compared to its radius it can be treated as a straight line on the target.

1/1000*100m to target=.1m=10cm
1/1000*100yards to target=.1yards=3.6"
1/1000*263.256ft to target=.263256feet

Pick a unit. It doesn't matter. One mil on target is 1/1000th the distance to the target.

For that matter, MOA doesn't have anything to do with inches, either. A circle has 360 degrees. There are 60 minutes of angle per degree. It just happens to work out very close to 1" at 100 yards. It's just an angle.
 
#169
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This arc is so small compared to its radius it can be treated as a straight line on the target.</div></div>

427Cobra: This one is <span style="font-weight: bold">just</span> for you, buddy...
laugh.gif


Well, for the math finikins, at 100 yards, the length of the flat surface on the target covered by an angle of one milliradian is 3.599999850000002 inches.

If you want to calculate that for yourself, the formula is:

c = 2 * r * sin(theta/2)

where

c = chord length (that's the length of the angle projected onto the flat surface of the target)
r = distance
theta = angle in radians

Note, however, that most handheld calculators will not calculate sin(.0005 radians) to sufficient precision to give you an accurate answer. You will need to find an online high-precision calculator.

So, the error from using the arc length instead of the chord length is 0.000004166666616672248 percent.

Even though I am an Arcanamaven, that's an error I will ignore.

When shooting, if I can't hold it, I ignore it.
 
#170
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Lindy, Sir, I have all kinds of numbers in my head, and I remember alot of them, what I need is a simple no bullshit way of ranging, come ups, holds, or so on with shooting, Mils are it for me now, it took me a couple of years to get there, but now that I have arrived there all current/future scopes will have Mil Dot based reticles and adjust in .1mrad, to me mils are easier to use, I understand the math(I have all A's in my math college transcripts thru Calc 2) the information is out there, I use it, but all this bickering about math is getting old.
 
#173
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

first off, i have been trying to get through this thread for the past hour. kudos to kicking cartman of here. total douche-nozzle (apologize for the foul language, but i think its a good, accurate description).

second, i did awesome in trig and calc etc, but the thing i dislike moth about advanced math is when the definitions are written, and not expressed by writing out a formula. they tend to get confusing as all hell. so much easier to see the formula and an example or two. i learn better that way.

third. lindy, i looked up tensors (more knowledge on anything is always good to know), and with all the written definitions in math speak almost made my head explode. i bow to your vast knowledge and hope to one day be as well educated and intelligent as you are.

ok heres what i would like to learn/possibly contribute to this. this is where i get confused. i am used to calling quick corrections in mils when doing hold. however, if i am dialing, i am used to moa. so if my spotter tells me to hold 2 mils up, i understand it. if he tells me i am two inches low, i know what to dial in. WHAT I AM CONFUSED ABOUT IS USING MILS FOR DIAL ADJUSTMENTS. for instance, i am told that i am 20 inches low at X amount of distance, how could i quickly figure what the added mil value would be. if my format of thinking is wrong, please someone explain it to me so i can see the light. i am going to buy a scope soon, and am now thinking about what the turret unit of measure should be in. i see how mil/mil is good, but i am used to moa/mil.

correct me if i am wrong. 1 mil at 100 yards is 3.6". therefore, 1 mil at 200 yards is 7.2". So having a turret in .10 mils would make my adjustment to 0.36" (at 100 yards), and 0.72" (at 200 yards) per click.
also 1 mil at 100 meters is 10cm. so 0.1 mil would bring it to 1cm clicks. If I am right, then i basically just answered my own question above on mil turret adjustments vs moa turret adjustments. If not, let me know what I am doing wrong so I can learn, and then make a decision on what to go with as far as moa/mil or mil/mil.

Last question. if you guys have a mil/mil scope im assuming that the windage is also in mils? Thanks a lot for all the help, and thanks for finally getting the D-bags out of here to turn this back into a topic that promotes a gain of knowledge and self betterment, as opposed to babbling about alien math systems which in the end, makes us all dumber.
 
#175
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Tribe nailed it. Assuming that your spotter also has a reticle graduated in mils, he will tell you how much you are off the target in mils. Dial it or hold it - it's the same value either way. Shoot. That's the beauty of a scope which adjusts in the same units the reticle is in.

And a scope will have windage and elevation adjustments in the same system - so far. I've never seen one which didn't.
 
#176
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

If all you adjustments are in mils (reticle and turrets) then tell your spotter to call corrections in mils, simple.

If a spotter is telling you that you are 20 inches low, that is a guess. If he has a mil reticle, he can give you a much more accurate measurement in mils (ruler in front of him). As a side note, if a spotter does not have a reticle, I prefer "1 and 1/2 target." That way, you can quickly figure out the hight of the target and know what to correct, as opposed to trying to remember how far away you are and how that effects how many inches equals how many moa or mils. Keep everything in an angular system for corrections, no math...nice.

There should never be a need to dail a follow up shot, it should be fast and accurate using your reticle. But that is personal preferance.

It is a much easier world when you stop thinking in inches and just use the angles given to you. Linear distances have no place in shooting after a firing solution is figured. You either hit or correct the angle you see (or a spotter sees). Done, simple.
 
#177
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Actually, 1 mil = 10cm @ 100m. .1 mil = 1 cm @ 100m.

</div></div>
Sorry, yes I meant to say <span style="font-style: italic">.1</span> mil = 1cm @ 100m

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maladat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Regardless, mils have nothing to do with centimeters. It is an angular measurement based on the radian. The radian the angle of a circular arc of length equal to the radius of the arc. Remember circumference=PI*diameter=2*PI*radius? A full circle arc has length of 2*PI times the radius, or 2*PI radians.

A mil (milliradian=1/1000th radian) is an arc whose length is 1/1000th the radius of the arc. This arc is so small compared to its radius it can be treated as a straight line on the target.

1/1000*100m to target=.1m=10cm
1/1000*100yards to target=.1yards=3.6"
1/1000*263.256ft to target=.263256feet

Pick a unit. It doesn't matter. One mil on target is 1/1000th the distance to the target.

For that matter, MOA doesn't have anything to do with inches, either. A circle has 360 degrees. There are 60 minutes of angle per degree. It just happens to work out very close to 1" at 100 yards. It's just an angle. </div></div>

And yes, I get that a Mil has nothing to do with cm and that's its an angle. I was simply trying to say that when assigning a linear value to that angular measurement - its MUCH easier when you're thinking in terms of nice round divisions of 10, 100, 1000 etc rather that our fucked up english system.

And I disagree that its a bad idea to assign a value to a mil - because that's how we do ranging and other linear measurements. At some point, its useful to translate a pure mil into a unit of measure (whether it be meters, cm, etc). If you're talking strictly "relational" measurements (i.e. my hit was .5 mils left of the target) then yes it makes sense NOT to assign a value. But trying to describe something as .7 mils tall and .4 mils wide does me no good if I then cannot translate that into a linear measurement to estimate range and/or size.
 
#179
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

If you guys want to me fill you in about "EricCartman" shoot me a PM. I'm surprised he even came to this forum with his 3rd person BS.

Pretty much every forum he is a part of takes the same turn and he always has the same "cool kids", "ego", "stroking" argument.
 
#181
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>

Why?
Some of us may be so stuck in our ways and willing to take what we can get.

How much money would it take to get you to switch:
From table saw to radial arm saw?
From right handed to left handed?
From straight to gay?
From beef to soy?
From Centimeter gram second to Le Système International d'Unités?
From caffeinated to decaffeinated?
From republican to democrat?
From mouse to mouse pad?
From boxer shorts to jockey?
From degrees to radians?

opplanet-leupold-zero-point-magnetic-illuminated-boresighter-3.jpg

After63thouverticallyand41thouhoriz.jpg


I think in inches at 100 yards and so do my targets and my bore sighter.
 
#182
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JFComfort</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you guys want to me fill you in about "EricCartman" shoot me a PM. I'm surprised he even came to this forum with his 3rd person BS.

Pretty much every forum he is a part of takes the same turn and he always has the same "cool kids", "ego", "stroking" argument.

</div></div>


I am not even going to get into this one. If you want you can PM me.
 
#184
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

i shoot both, it just depends, if you shoot with others and you might have spotters calling your shots, you probably want to use the same system as your buddies. for military and policemen who have been indoctrinated with mil/mil set up, you want to stick with that. some guys find thinking in inches/1/4 inch easier that mil/1/10 mil. what i suggest is find what you like, or what you're going to be trained, if your on a team what they shoot and get comfortable with that. everything else is a moot point
 
#185
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

I have been looking at purchasing a new scope and have used MOA/MOA before and like it, but also like the MIL/MIL. The only thing that has been keeping me from purchasing a MIL/MIL scope is I often shoot targets without a spotter so when I walk up to the target I can easily see where I need to adjust in inches on the target because I am used to using inches. Is there any way to make the same adjustment on a MIL/MIL scope other bringing out the meter stick.
 
#186
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rubicon1996</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have been looking at purchasing a new scope and have used MOA/MOA before and like it, but also like the MIL/MIL. The only thing that has been keeping me from purchasing a MIL/MIL scope is I often shoot targets without a spotter so when I walk up to the target I can easily see where I need to adjust in inches on the target because I am used to using inches. Is there any way to make the same adjustment on a MIL/MIL scope other bringing out the meter stick. </div></div>

Yes, one mil is roughly 3.6 moa.. Or 1/10th mil is roughly .36 moa.
 
#187
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

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

Seriously? Posted "TAG" in a thread that has been dead over a year?
 
#188
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrivera</div><div class="ubbcode-body">tag </div></div>

Seriously? Posted "TAG" in a thread that has been dead over a year? </div></div>

I don't care who you are that's funny lol
 
#189
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DJ480</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tylerw02</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrivera</div><div class="ubbcode-body">tag </div></div>

Seriously? Posted "TAG" in a thread that has been dead over a year? </div></div>

I don't care who you are that's funny lol </div></div>

lol, got to get your post count up somehow
whistle.gif
I think he did it in a few other threads that have been dead for a while as well.
 
#191
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dk-1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, one mil is roughly 3.6 moa.. Or 1/10th mil is roughly .36 moa. </div></div>

Not quite, but close.

1 mil = 3.438 moa
1 mil = 3.6" at 100yds
 
#192
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Here is my thinking. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

.1 Mill = 0.360"
3/8=0.375"
0,375"-0.360"=0.015"
1/64"=0.0156"
1/64"x10/1=5/32"
5/32"@1000 yds

So I use 0.1 mil=3/8" and I use 1/4MOA=1/4"

On my Mildot scope I use the mildots as 3" and 1-1/2" @ 100 yds.

I can't shoot closer than that anyways.

I think "mils" sounds more "sniperish"

 
#194
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Don-n-Texas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is my thinking. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

.1 Mill = 0.360"
3/8=0.375"
0,375"-0.360"=0.015"
1/64"=0.0156"
1/64"x10/1=5/32"
5/32"@1000 yds

So I use 0.1 mil=3/8" and I use 1/4MOA=1/4"

On my Mildot scope I use the mildots as 3" and 1-1/2" @ 100 yds.

I can't shoot closer than that anyways.

I think "mils" sounds more "sniperish"

</div></div>
I think your math is right. Using 3/8" as an estimate for 0.1 mil does produce the error you calculated at 100 and 1000yds. But be careful. That's the error per click. The error accumulates. If your shooting at 1000yds, and your dialing in say, 10 mils, that error is now 100 times larger. That's 500/32 or better than 15". Assuming I did my math right.
 
#195
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Remember, mils are a 1/1000 relationship.

1 mil at 100 meters is 1 decimeter, at 1000 meters it's 1 meter (1 decimeter X 10)

.1 mil at 100 meters is 1 centimeter, at 1000 meters it's 1 decimeter (.1 x 10).

At 1000 YARDS 1 mil = 1/1000 of the distance, therefore 1 mil @ 1000 yards = 1 yard (36").

So at 100 yards 1 mil would = 1/10 of 36" = 3.6". Therefore at 100 yards .1 mil would equal 3.6"x .1 = .36".
 
#196
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killer Spade 13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember, mils are a 1/1000 relationship.</div></div>

That's an interesting way to think about it and got me looking again into the math behind the mil. It works out correctly I guess. However the strict definition of a mil(milliradian) is not 1/1000 of the distance to the target, but 1/1000 of one radian. But that's mumbo jumbo not useful in the field where quick shortcuts are needed like yours.
 
#197
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?


Get over it , to me its about the courseness or finess of the adjustment ( and the type of knobs that I prefer , ie single & DT indicated ) , and fitting that to your purpose .

Either will work .

The common 0.1 mil adjustments would maybe be too big / course for say a ELR rig that you want to shot out to 2000m + .

But for most mid to long range the 0.1 mil is OK , they also make 0.05 mil knobs in some scopes .

Later Chris
 
#198
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Also the problem comes in when mixing MOA knobs with MIL reticle like my last S&B. It's fine for some applications but ideally you want to spot your own misses, esp at long distances where you have the time to actually reacquire the target miss, use the reticle to figure out how much adjustment you need without thinking about cm or inches.

For me 1/4MOA is actually more useful at closer distances where the hit is more deterministic. At 1500+ given my experience the shots vary quite a bit to wind and I'd rather gain more elevation by going 0.1MIL than dice up less elevation by 1/4 MOAs, which is the tradeoff you have to make with the S&B PMII.
 
#200
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

All of has lost sight of the question. It was why are people getting mil/mil scopes and not moa/moa. Not what the difference is between MOA and IPHY. Or how accurate the adjustments are on a scope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lowlight
Rifle Scopes Form and Function of MOA and MIL
Replies
6
Views
497
375fan
3
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
865
jLorenzo
jLorenzo
F
Why would a scope be made with MOA turrets and Mil-Dot reticle
Replies
69
Views
1K
roostercogburn98
roostercogburn98
B
Rifle Scopes NX8 elevation issues....
Replies
3
Views
307
bjtiger75
B
poke_53
SOLD DNT Optics 7-35 MIL & MOA
Replies
3
Views
271
CJC73
CJC73
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts