Rifle Scopes Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

#201
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: para1505</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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.</div></div>

Not sure if this has been address in the thread or not yet, because I haven't read it all the way through. The difference between MOA/MOA and mil/mil, assuming the reticle and turrets match, is only which formula you would use to determine distance for range estimation. Other than that, it is plug and play, what you see is what you dial. The reason MOA based scopes aren't as common in the tactical market currently is because there aren't as many quality reticle options (nearly any scope company has a mil-dot reticle option, can't say the same for an MOA graduated reticle). The mil-dot also has been the standard for range estimation for many years, and people with military training on the subject tend to be comfortable with that system. This is all changing slightly with more shooters requesting MOA based systems, but in my opinion it is really an over discussed topic. When you start actually using one system or the other, it will make more sense, and either will work. People that talk about being more used to thinking in inches are missing the point of range estimation with MOA/IPHY/mil, as there is even a mil ranging formula that uses inches
laugh.gif
 
#205
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

in the Summer Trijicon will have a version in MOA with the TARs, and it has one of the better MOA reticles, and theirs will be True MOA.

I don't think the S&Bs have delivered yet, but I haven't paid attention...

The reason you don't see more MOA versions is there is no "Standard" and while most will claim to use MOA they usually use IPHY so that changes things downrange especially when the person tries using MOA data for an IPHY number.

They are getting better about it, but there is still too much inconsistency in the market with MOA because they all do something different.
 
#209
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Yes it used to be called SMOA for "Shooter" MOA as opposed to TMOA for "true" MOA.

Manufacturers have a tough time getting the turrets to dial 1.047" so they round it to 1" as well most are taught to round MOAs to 1" but at distance it matters, especially as we tend to shoot farther than in the past.

For a hunter, or a guy shooting a KD course where he is essentially zeroing to the distance, plus allowed sighters, it doesn't matter. But in the field, UKD targets, etc, it does.

This is part of the problem with MOA scopes, you always have to check to see what you have.
 
#210
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This is part of the problem with MOA scopes, you always have to check to see what you have. </div></div>

Shouldn't you check 'em all?
 
#211
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Sure,

But once I know a mil is a mil, I am good, you have to make sure the reticle is not True MOA and the Turrets are not IPHY, if that happens you're not going to ask the company to fix it, you're stuck with it. So you have to make sure your test is more detailed.
 
#212
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

cool I am sold my next scope will be MIL/MIL FFP think I will stay with nightforce my old 3.5/15 has been bomb proof

whats the best MIL reticle NF has in your opinion Lowlight?
 
#217
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wdebo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whats Premier's turrets? MOA or IPHY. My premier is MOA/MOA</div></div>

That is the question isn't it...

You should have checked both the reticle subtension and the turret adjustment.

You're question is the reason most say, Mils.
smile.gif
 
#218
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wdebo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whats Premier's turrets? MOA or IPHY. My premier is MOA/MOA</div></div>

That is the question isn't it...

You should have checked both the reticle subtension and the turret adjustment.

You're question is the reason most say, Mils.
smile.gif
</div></div>
They seem to work out as MOA. But both of these optics are new and I have little time behind them. Most of my shooting is of shorter distance. At the distance that I shoot aand my skill set I am not for sure I can tell the difference of .047 inches. I am new to this so I am just trying to figure this all out.
 
#219
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Shoot out to distance and the difference between 1" and 1.047" becomes very apparent. In a word, "it matters", and not so much as to the shooter's accuracy but the adjustments of the scope. Using 38, not that far off for the dope to 1000 yards with a 308, you can be more than 17" off, if you are aiming center at an IPSC Target that's a miss on a 30" target.

You can test it at 100 yards, by simply measuring the distance dialed. A good way to test is to use a 48" level and count the number of clicks it takes to move the reticle from the top to the bottom of the level.
 
#220
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shoot out to distance and the difference between 1" and 1.047" becomes very apparent. In a word, "it matters", and not so much as to the shooter's accuracy but the adjustments of the scope. Using 38, not that far off for the dope to 1000 yards with a 308, you can be more than 17" off, if you are aiming center at an IPSC Target that's a miss on a 30" target.

You can test it at 100 yards, by simply measuring the distance dialed. A good way to test is to use a 48" level and count the number of clicks it takes to move the reticle from the top to the bottom of the l



Thanks I will try this.
</div></div>
 
#221
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

Here's the simple answer:
MOA/MOA work better with fractions. (most people hate fractions)
MIL/MIL work better with decimals. (decimals work really well with calculators, which most people are using at the range.)

Long Answer:
Most people incorrectly say 1 MOA is 1 inch at one hundred yards.
Technically 1 MOA is APPROXIMATELY 1 inch at one hundred yards.

It's actually just dumb mathematical luck that it worked out this way with degrees/MOA and the imperial/inches system, and this wrongly leads people to think that MOA is inches. There are 60 minutes in 1 degree. 1/60 is a fraction. Even the the turret clicks are fractions, 1/4 clicks. MOAs work better for fraction minded people.

To add to the confusion most manufactures explain MILs using the metric system, and for good reason. MILs are a 1 to 1000 ratio. Manufactures could use inches and say at 1000 inches there is a change of 1 inch, but most people can not convert 1000 inches to an understandable measurement in there head. (by the way 1000 inches = 83.33 feet = 27.78 yards, can you see the decimals showing up)
So the manufactures use 1 meter at 1000 meters or 1 cm at 1000cm. Most metric-minded people can convert 1000 meters to 1 km or convert 1000 cm to 10 meters in their head by moving the decimal place over. Now with all these decimals it makes sense to use .1 mils for each click on the turret.

The people who use the imperial system tend to think in fractions because the inch is broken up into 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, and so on.

The people who use the metric system tend to think in decimals because 1km = 1000m = 100000cm = 1000000mm and so on.

So people wrongly say, "Look there are fractions on the turrets, just like on the foot ruler, so it must be imperial."
or
"Look at those .1 clicks, just like .1 cm is 1 mm, so those MILs must be metric."

I'll say again MILs are NOT metric and MOA are NOT inches.
More correctly:
MILs work better with decimals.
MOAs work better with fractions.
(Not to say that you couldn't use fractions with MIls or decimals with MOAs)

One more myth to bust:
MILs are not "worldly."
No one on this planet first learns that a right angle is approximately 1570 MILs. Most all people learn a right angle is 90 degrees.
The MIl system (or more correctly call radian system) of measuring angles is a more scientific/mathematical system of measuring angles. (I'm not going to describe it here just google radian if you want to know more.)

Summary:
If you think in fractions use MOA/MOA
If you think in decimals use MIL/MIL
Or, for that matter, if you need to use a calculator or can't convert to fractions use MIL/MIL
(I'm not saying people that are bad with fractions can't learn to use MOA, but it's just easier for someone new to take the above route.)
 
#224
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

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

Assuming you're using a FFP mil/mil scope, it runs like this:
Your gun is zeroed at 200 yds, then you push out another 100 yds or so. You take the shot and the POI is 1.5 mils low. Then you would just put in 15 clicks (1 click = .1 mrad) for elevation.
MOA on the other hand needs a little more math, so it takes more time to figure it out.
It all depends on what your preferences are.
 
#225
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. </div></div>
This is wrong. A MIL is always a MIL and an MOA is always an MOA. These are angles and have nothing to do with distances.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaKid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Assuming you're using a FFP mil/mil scope, it runs like this:
Your gun is zeroed at 200 yds, then you push out another 100 yds or so. You take the shot and the POI is 1.5 mils low. Then you would just put in 15 clicks (1 click = .1 mrad) for elevation.
MOA on the other hand needs a little more math, so it takes more time to figure it out.
It all depends on what your preferences are. </div></div>

This is also a little inaccurate.
If a shot is 1.5 MILs low you do just dial 15 clicks.
If a shot is 3 MOA low you would just dial 3 MOA or 12 clicks (1 click = 1/4 MOA).

There is only an error if you start to say the shot was 23 inches low. Since this is a distance you would need to calculate the angular measurement, whether in MILs or MOAs.

23 inches at 100 yards is a different angle than say 23 inches at 1000 yards.
This might be what the first person wrongly meant by saying "moa changes as you go farther out."
 
#227
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ropes</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. </div></div>
This is wrong. A MIL is always a MIL and an MOA is always an MOA. These are angles and have nothing to do with distances.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaKid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Assuming you're using a FFP mil/mil scope, it runs like this:
Your gun is zeroed at 200 yds, then you push out another 100 yds or so. You take the shot and the POI is 1.5 mils low. Then you would just put in 15 clicks (1 click = .1 mrad) for elevation.
MOA on the other hand needs a little more math, so it takes more time to figure it out.
It all depends on what your preferences are. </div></div>

This is also a little inaccurate.
If a shot is 1.5 MILs low you do just dial 15 clicks.
If a shot is 3 MOA low you would just dial 3 MOA or 12 clicks (1 click = 1/4 MOA).

There is only an error if you start to say the shot was 23 inches low. Since this is a distance you would need to calculate the angular measurement, whether in MILs or MOAs.

23 inches at 100 yards is a different angle than say 23 inches at 1000 yards.
This might be what the first person wrongly meant by saying "moa changes as you go farther out."
</div></div>

How is it inaccurate. Please explain.
 
#228
Re: Why MIL/MIL not MOA/MOA?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaKid</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ropes</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaKid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Assuming you're using a FFP mil/mil scope, it runs like this:
Your gun is zeroed at 200 yds, then you push out another 100 yds or so. You take the shot and the POI is 1.5 mils low. Then you would just put in 15 clicks (1 click = .1 mrad) for elevation.
MOA on the other hand needs a little more math, so it takes more time to figure it out.
It all depends on what your preferences are. </div></div>

This is also a little inaccurate.
</div></div>

How is it inaccurate. Please explain.</div></div>

There's no more math involved in the MOA situation... you spot it X MOA low, dial X more MOA just like in the Mil scenario (I guess unless 4 clicks to an MOA for 1/4 MOA click scope counts as "math").

Though in reality I don't know why you'd bother with the knobs in said situation using either unit of measure...
 
#230
kombayotch said:
<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.
Click to expand...

This is probably the best answer I've heard to what is actually better between MIL and MOA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#231
Ive used both systems as L.E. and civilian competitions. Mil/Mil is the way to go. Most scopes have a mil reticle so why make the adjustments in moa? Having mil/mil is quicker and easier especially with horus reticles. I have a hdmr with the tremor2 reticle and I will say I dont think I will ever buy a different reticle. In the end its sort of like the old school dope gathering vs shooting off of air density. Just a better way of doing things. This is just my opinion.
 
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