Rifle Scopes Why most of us have MIL scopes but accuracy is expressed in MOA?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Is it just a historical artifact that we talk about accuracy in terms of MOA but most of us are running MIL scopes? I don't hear anyone talk about 0.3MIL as the unofficial standard for a rifle being accurate, but that is 1MOA. 0.1MIL is about 1/3 of an MOA and 0.2MIL is about 2/3MOA. It's almost like 1st, 2nd and 3rd prize.

It seems that if accuracy was directly relatable to scope picture, that is more useful.

 

[diverdon]

Most of us grew up thinking that a rifle that could be depended on to shoot under an inch at one hundred yards was an accurate rifle. How would you propose to switch that kind of rule of thumb over to something as convenient using mills?

 

[DarinC]

I think there’s the strong historical aspect like diverdon said, but I also think there’s other things at work. Most people shooting out there don’t care about most of the stuff the majority of us here do, high priced scopes and rifles seem crazy to most folks, and I’d nearly guarantee those folks have never heard of mils. That, and MOA has been bastardized to be widely accepted as one inch at a hundred yards, so folks (myself included) take this angular measurement and turn it into a linear one without thinking.

I wonder how much this has to do with where we’re from and which measurements we grew up with. I’d like to hear from some overseas folks who grew up and live in the metric world on this.

 

[gpr]

hahahhahaha, this is funny. cause I argue this exact point to everyone i see with a mil scope. I understand mils but for me MOA is easier. So I give people shit about having a mil scope and ask how accurate their rifle is. then I ask how accurate it is in mils and laugh at the puzzle look on their face as they are trying to figure it out.

 

[TheGerman]

Anyone that uses MOA still somehow thinks that they can tell the difference between 10 and 25 inches at 700 yards.

 

[Mordamer]

I'm so glad we have another thread on Snipershide where we can argue about MOA vs MIL.

But seriously, we talk about our rifle accuracy in MOA because we all approximate MOA as 1" per hundred yards because it is easy to both remember and measure. Also, if we in the U.S.A. used the metric system for our units of measurement it would be just as easy to remember .1 miliradian is 1cm per hundred meters and at least that would be an accurate statement.

 

[spife7980]

Because that’s the standard

 

[natdscott]

I dunno.

But if a field rifle will shoot 0.1 MIL with consistency, it's a damned interesting rifle. Same for the shooter.

Most are pretty lucky to hold 0.3 MIL.

-Nate

 

[epaultmbt]

My rifle's accuracy is a constant, tenth of a Mil. If your's isn't consider the machine work or ammo selection / reloading practice. When I discuss accuracy with my peers its in size of wobble zone from position, expressed in tenths, which only matters if it's bigger then the given targets size expressed in tenths.

 

[uffduh]

Because saying you got a 3 MIL weapon never got anyone laid in a bar

 

[natdscott]

My rifle's accuracy is a constant, tenth of a Mil. If your's isn't consider the machine work or ammo selection / reloading practice.

Fair point. Even AR's can regularly do 0.1-0.15 MIL with handloads, and sometimes they don't even have to be particularly developed loads.

Get good barrels, and don't f(*k up the chambering.

 

[samnev]

I just think its we all grew up using inch increments to express 100 yard group size.

 

[BurnOut]

Habit.

 

[dinmax82]

Easier to have more precise measurements with MOA vs mil. So your rifle shoots 1 mil groups, YAY!

 

[Milo 2.5]

Anyone that uses MOA still somehow thinks that they can tell the difference between 10 and 25 inches at 700 yards.

I'm lost on this comment, I shoot both moa and mil, I can tell the diff between those at 1400 yards.

 

[natdscott]

Easier to have more precise measurements with MOA vs mil. So your rifle shoots 1 mil groups, YAY!

How you figure?

I AM an MOA guy, but if a person expresses a rifle as a Tenth MIL gun, I know it shoots.

 

[V-Ref]

Because saying you got a 3 MIL weapon never got anyone laid in a bar

Best post in the thread so far

 

[Thunderhorse]

Maybe it is different for others, but I find it easier to range with a mil reticle and do the calculations for it on the fly so I can do it faster. I also measure most things in inches/feet/etc... so in terms of group size it is easier to explain ___ inches at ___ distance, but easier to use a mil reticle.

 

[tna9001]

The same reason G1 is still used. We’ve always done it that way is a strong impediment to progress.

 

[Holliday]

Since all my scopes are mil and the program I use for group analysis expresses both mil/inches or moa/inches, I have switch to inches for my groups calls.....

 

[308pirate]

I'm gonna start using mils to measure and discuss group sizes just to fuck with fudds that like huskemaw scopes

 

[Rerun7]

Easy.

Murica... that’s why...

 

[jpspeeddemon]

I switched to MILs because the DOPE is usually 2 significant figures vs 3 sig figs for MOA, just easier to look at, remember, and/or process during a match

 

[V-Ref]

I know a 1:22 cm twist doesn't stabilize 6.5mm JLKs at 930 meters per second at 10M meters above sea level at 15C with a baro pressure of 1010mb.

 

[natdscott]

Uh.

Wrong thread?

 

[whatsupdoc]

Thats right I was laying my 17 cm of manhood into her.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

What a bunch of shit.

 

[bigwatchpilot]

Same reason I don't order a "Royal with Cheese"....the is 'Merica!

 

[beenjammin]

Does it really even matter with ffp scopes. As long as the turret matches the reticle it is what it is. My dope is in mils cause it’s easier for me to keep in My head and wind calls are always In between the fist hash of my scope but I also think of accuracy in terms of moa. It’s just the common nomenclature

 

[sinister]

The average American thinks in inches, not in millimeters and centimeters.

OK, so burn me as a heretic but there are two types of countries in the world: those that use the Metric system, and those that have been to the moon.

 

[TimeWillTell]

The average American thinks in inches, not in millimeters and centimeters.

OK, so burn me as a heretic but there are two types of countries in the world: those that use the Metric system, and those that have been to the moon.

Except in the sciences, even in the US, we use metric. I'm in medicine and it's all mL and L, mcg/mg/g/kg, etc. Lbs and ounces is only ever mentioned to patients so they understand better.

 

[vh20]

Mil is not metric, it's geometrical.

 

[TimeWillTell]

I realize that but my point is that just because the majority of people in the US use a particular system doesn't mean it's inherently the best. I didn't comment specifically on mil vs moa. I was commenting on the posters "those that use metric and those that went to the moon" statement.

 

[TripleBull]

Mil is not metric, it's geometrical.

But radians are SI and metric units are SI. It's kinda cool that minutes of angle originated with early Babylonian astronomers. Next time I shoot at the moon, I'm using a MOA scope. MOA also has the advantage of being sexagesimal, if you're into that kind of thing.

 

[Lowlight]

Mils are Dimes... Americans know what money is, and we learn pennies and dimes in 1st grade.

There are 10 clicks to a Mil with our scopes, 10 Pennies equals 1 Dime if you need .3 mils that is 3 pennies. If you need to dial 3 Mils that is 30 cents. .3 Mils equals 1.08 inches, so instead of .25, .50, .75 and 1.0 we have .36, .72. 1.08, same, same

The inches vs Centimeters argue is stupid at best. They are just to sliding the decimal point. Fractions are a poor way of doing business here. We want to embrace the ANGLE and not the linear distance it might equal at any given point in space.

We have 3600 inches in a 100 yards, that gives a Mil 3.6 inches and also gives us .36 inch clicks.

It was not added to the metric system until 150+ years after it was used. it works perfectly well for Miles, Yards, Inches, etc.

 

[Outcome]

Well, if you asked how accurate my rifle is, and I replied with its 3/20th mils, or 0.15mils. Would you know what I'm talking about? Probably not.

 

[ultrarunner7]

That's easy. Bc its a nice round number! An inch(I know its not exactly an inch). If I were to tell you I had a .10 moa gun, I could also say .36mil gun. Most people would have no clue. Now, at distance MILs is just easier for me. I was taught both with emphasis on mils. Just made more sense to me. Again its important to know both and be able to speak to both... If you understand the angular side of it, you will.

 

[Holliday]

Mils are Dimes... Americans know what money is, and we learn pennies and dimes in 1st grade.

There are 10 clicks to a Mil with our scopes, 10 Pennies equals 1 Dime if you need .3 mils that is 3 pennies. If you need to dial 3 Mils that is 30 cents. .3 Mils equals 1.08 inches, so instead of .25, .50, .75 and 1.0 we have .36, .72. 1.08, same, same

The inches vs Centimeters argue is stupid at best. They are just to sliding the decimal point. Fractions are a poor way of doing business here. We want to embrace the ANGLE and not the linear distance it might equal at any given point in space.

We have 3600 inches in a 100 yards, that gives a Mil 3.6 inches and also gives us .36 inch clicks.

It was not added to the metric system until 150+ years after it was used. it works perfectly well for Miles, Yards, Inches, etc.

Awesome explanation !

 

[Alex V]

Most of us grew up thinking that a rifle that could be depended on to shoot under an inch at one hundred yards was an accurate rifle. How would you propose to switch that kind of rule of thumb over to something as convenient using mills?

Just say 2.5cm? Same thing. 2.54cm if you wanna be anal.

The metric system is so much better I don't know why we are still using inches and feet.

 

[diverdon]

Just say 2.5cm? Same thing. 2.54cm if you wanna be anal.

The metric system is so much better I don't know why we are still using inches and feet.

Milliradians are not a metric measurement.

 

[Alex V]

Milliradians are not a metric measurement.

I understand that but they relate better to metric measurements than standard don't they? A mil at 100m is 10cm isn't it? No one describes it as 3- 15/16" do they?

When you click 0.1Mil does it not move the impact 1cm?

The point was, if you want to describe a rifle's accuracy in a language which is compatible with Mils and you need to give a linear measurement instead of an angular one, you can say 2.5cm instead of 1" Anyone who works in Mils will understand this to be .25Mil right away.

 

[Nik H]

They don't relate to any coordinate system any better or worse. It is purely an angular measurement and how you choose to convert the angular to the linear system is your choice. However, most just read the POI using their reticle and then dial that exact amount.

1 mil = 3.6" @100 yards or 36" @ 1000 yards. or 1 mil = 10cm @100 meters or 1 meter @ 1000 meters.

 

[diverdon]

I understand that but they relate better to metric measurements than standard don't they? A mil at 100m is 10cm isn't it? No one describes it as 3- 15/16" do they?

When you click 0.1Mil does it not move the impact 1cm?

The point was, if you want to describe a rifle's accuracy in a language which is compatible with Mils and you need to give a linear measurement instead of an angular one, you can say 2.5cm instead of 1" Anyone who works in Mils will understand this to be .25Mil right away.

I'm not sure that you do understand. I Milliradian is 1/100 of a meter at 100 meters or it is 1/100 of a yard at 100 yards or it is 1/100 of a mile at 100 miles, I could continue this with inches, light years ect until I run out of units I can think of. Regardless of what you understand, what you stated in your first post was factually incorrect. If the Snipers Hide is to remain a useful educational tool then when factually incorrect information is stated is should be corrected so that those reading these threads to learn do not become misinformed.

 

[_Windrider_]

I'm not sure that you do understand. I Milliradian is 1/100 of a meter at 100 meters or it is 1/100 of a yard at 100 yards or it is 1/100 of a mile at 100 miles, I could continue this with inches, light years ect until I run out of units I can think of. Regardless of what you understand, what you stated in your first post was factually incorrect. If the Snipers Hide is to remain a useful educational tool then when factually incorrect information is stated is should be corrected so that those reading these threads to learn do not become misinformed.

how does information like this still persist? i dont get it.

 

[Alex V]

I'm not sure that you do understand. I Milliradian is 1/100 of a meter at 100 meters or it is 1/100 of a yard at 100 yards or it is 1/100 of a mile at 100 miles, I could continue this with inches, light years ect until I run out of units I can think of. Regardless of what you understand, what you stated in your first post was factually incorrect. If the Snipers Hide is to remain a useful educational tool then when factually incorrect information is stated is should be corrected so that those reading these threads to learn do not become misinformed.

Holy poop. No one said that Mils don't correspond to Inches. The numbers are simply easier with metric measurements. 3.6" isn't and easy round number like 10cm. All I said is that the metric system is easier to use with Mils than using inches. Its a better system to use with ANYTHING

Sure you can do it in LY. But what is easier to say; 1meter or 1.057x10 -16 Light Years? Why not say .546 fathoms? 9.84 hands?

The point is metric is easier because its all round number and a base of 10. Holy Fuck.

As an Architect in the US I work with inches and feet all day. I have also done projects in Europe and Asia and dealing in mm makes immensely more sense.

 

[_Windrider_]

Holy poop. No one said that Mils don't correspond to Inches. The numbers are simply easier with metric measurements. 3.6" isn't and easy round number like 10cm. All I said is that the metric system is easier to use with Mils than using inches. Its a better system to use with ANYTHING

Sure you can do it in LY. But what is easier to say; 1meter or 1.057x10 -16 Light Years? Why not say .546 fathoms? 9.84 hands?

The point is metric is easier because its all round number and a base of 10. Holy Fuck.

As an Architect in the US I work with inches and feet all day. I have also done projects in Europe and Asia and dealing in mm makes immensely more sense.

I agree the metric system is much easier. Doing anything in a base 10 system is. Something definitely got lost in translation somewhere in here.

 

[diverdon]

In your first statement you said:

The metric system is so much better I don't know why we are still using inches and feet.

I said mills are not metric, now why exactly have you spent another several posts arguing. There is no point you can make that will turn mills into a metric measurement. Being an Architect will not make a false statement true.

 

[Alex V]

In your first statement you said:


I said mills are not metric, now why exactly have you spent another several posts arguing. There is no point you can make that will turn mills into a metric measurement. Being an Architect will not make a false statement true.

No you are just retarded and can't follow the thread. I responded to a member saying that if we can't express accuracy in inches how would you do it that would better correspondent to Mils? I said to use 2.5cm instead of 1". It is my opinion that using the metric system WITH Mils is easier than using it with inches. I never said that Mils are a metric measurement. You just can't fucking read and assumed I said that Mils are metric.

 

[_Windrider_]

No you are just retarded and can't follow the thread. I responded to a member saying that if we can't express accuracy in inches how would you do it that would better correspondent to Mils? I said to use 2.5cm instead of 1". It is my opinion that using the metric system WITH Mils is easier than using it with inches. I never said that Mils are a metric measurement. You just can't fucking read and assumed I said that Mils are metric.

I'll be the first to admit that when i first read your post, it apeared that you were trying to say that mils is a metric system measurement. After rereading a few times, i stand by what i said that something got lost in translation. i now see you were just making an argument about why using the metric system is easier. i get that now and i dont disagree, but here in the US i guess we are stuck with imperial so we may as well just use that here. i would love to switch to metric, but i also know that isnt as easy as congress just making it so. it would be a monumental undertaking to say the least.

 

[Ledzep]

lol Mils are not metric?

Look up the SI unit for angles, and SI prefixes...