MIL vs. MOA

[Rob01]

What scope did you use?

It was a Vortex Razor Gen II 4.5-27x56.

 

[kyotekiller25]

I'm only 39, but I've been using MOA for 27 years and have ZERO intentions of going to MIL, just because everyone else has and feels it's the only way to shoot anymore.

At the end of the day, your ballistic calculator will tell you what number or where to dial, so it's a moot point really. They both work just fine, it's just whatever you're comfortable with.

Me personally, I prefer 1/4 MOA over 1/8 MOA, (I own both) or MIL which is .36". I feel 1/4 MOA splits the difference between fine adjustment and overall elevation adjustment.

To each their own.

 

[Rob01]

Moa will work fine. At 1000 yards the difference between 1/4 moa and .1 mil is literally 1” in 2.6” vs 3.6”. I was more voicing my opinion against 1/8 moa. I used moa years back and use mils now but would have no problem going back to moa. The issue is my game, PRS, there are a vast majority of people using mils so easier to talk amongst each other without having to convert.

So bottom line is just pick one and go shoot.

 

[SKWERLZ]

I used to be moa but I’m all mil scopes now.

 

[precision1]

I used to be moa but I’m all mil scopes now.

Same here

 

[precision1]

Shooting known distances go moa and second focal plane.such as 600 ,1000 comps
Otherwise go mils and first focal plane.imo

Except for me....

I still prefer second focal plane on normal Alabama white tail shooting distances.dont like the tiny reticles in deep dark woods.even with illuminated reticles just to small for me imo

I like mils and sfp on hunting scopes.just my preference but I can deal with moa just the same.

 

[demarpaint1]

The 1/4 MOA might be the ticket for me, although it would be nice to at least try MIL. With the 1/4 MOA I won't have to be as concerned about running out of windage or elevation adjustment.

 

[Steve Donlon]

nmkid, really glad you are shooting. I tried mils but for me moa, is natural and very easy to deal with. I would only go to mils if I had no other choice. Being in the trades, for years, it's been part of my language. Every thing i look at is in inches It's to late to teach this old dog new tricks.

 

[Rob01]

nmkid, really glad you are shooting. I tried mils but for me moa is natural and very easy to deal with. I would only go to mils if I had no other choice. Being in the trades, for years, it's been part of my language. Every thing i look at is in inches It's to late to teach this old dog new tricks.

If you stopped thinking moa is inches it would help. Moa and mils are angular measurements. Not linear. Neither is tied to a linear. Moa is not equivalent to inches.

If you need to make corrections you use the reticle like a ruler and make them. Your reticle says you are 4 moa low and 3 moa right then you come up 4 moa and left 3 moa. No inches. Same with mils.

One of the biggest ball and chains around your ankle is thinking moa is inches. I taught long range precision rifle classes and you could see the lightbulb go off over people’s head when they figure it out and stop trying to convert anything to inches. They always said wow this is so much easier.

 

[demarpaint1]

Thanks for all the replies I decided to go with MIL. This old dog still wants to try and learn some new tricks.

 

[Steve Donlon]

If you stopped thinking moa is inches it would help. Moa and mils are angular measurements. Not linear. Neither is tied to a linear. Moa is not equivalent to inches.

If you need to make corrections you use the reticle like a ruler and make them. Your reticle says you are 4 moa low and 3 moa right then you come up 4 moa and left 3 moa. No inches. Same with mils.

One of the biggest ball and chains around your ankle is thinking moa is inches. I taught long range precision rifle classes and you could see the lightbulb go off over people’s head when they figure it out and stop trying to convert anything to inches. They always said wow this is so much easier.

I understand that. A click is still 1/4 or 1/8 of 1 moa. That is what I understand. For me, that is more easy to deal with after my experiences in life. I have no reason to change no matter anyone else's logic. But I welcome your view brother. MIl's do not make me shoot any better.

 

[drop_point]

nmkid, really glad you are shooting. I tried mils but for me moa, is natural and very easy to deal with. I would only go to mils if I had no other choice. Being in the trades, for years, it's been part of my language. Every thing i look at is in inches It's to late to teach this old dog new tricks.

What trade are you in where you used angular measurements? Specifically MOA?

 

[Steve Donlon]

What trade are you in where you used angular measurements? Specifically MOA?

I was a mason. And measurements where in parts of an inch not mils. Moa is not the point. Angles are converted to inches at different points, for me.

 

[CharlieNC]

For long distance shooting it's actually more about ffp and a graduated reticle in order to make timely wind call adjustments, and these are primarily available in mils. While moa and mil are both angular measures, engineering and math use mils (radians) because it is simply a ratio and applies the same whether mm, inches, yards, meters, etc; whereas moa requires the translation from degrees to distance is known.

 

[Rob01]

I understand that. A click is still 1/4 or 1/8 of 1 moa. That is what I understand. For me, that is more easy to deal with after my experiences in life. I have no reason to change no matter anyone else's logic. But I welcome your view brother. MIl's do not make me shoot any better.

Not trying to talk you out of moa but explain to you and anyone else that says “I think in inches” that that’s flawed logic and has nothing to do with the actual use of a scope. A click in mil is 1/10. Does that help? lol

Again not trying to make you change but just trying to show you and anyone else who may read this that it’s a flawed thought process when using scopes.

 

[Steve Donlon]

Not trying to talk you out of moa but explain to you and anyone else that says “I think in inches” that that’s flawed logic and has nothing to do with the actual use of a scope. A click in mil is 1/10. Does that help? lol

Again not trying to make you change but just trying to show you and anyone else who may read this that it’s a flawed thought process when using scopes.

I understand and I agree, Mils are better because the point of reference is a circle and my point of reference as a mason was a square. So that is why I like inches. I'm not saying it's better, just for me it is. Every thing revolved around multiples of 6-8-10 or 3-4-5 and so on when building.

 

[Rob01]

For long distance shooting it's actually more about ffp and a graduated reticle in order to make timely wind call adjustments, and these are primarily available in mils. While moa and mil are both angular measures, engineering and math use mils (radians) because it is simply a ratio and applies the same whether mm, inches, yards, meters, etc; whereas moa requires the translation from degrees to distance is known.

Not really as moa can be used the same way as mils with FFP and reticle. Just a different number to dial or hold. No need for known distance. Both are angular.

Also moa can be converted into any of those linear measurements also but like mils there is no reason to do that.

I do agree that FFP and a good reticle makes life so easy no matter which you choose.

 

[Rob01]

I understand and I agree, Mils are better because the point of reference is a circle and my point of reference as a mason was a square. So that is why I like inches. I'm not saying it's better, just for me it is.

No idea what you are talking about with circle and square. That sounds like something you have in your head as I never heard it but someday when you discover mils or moa have nothing to do with inches you will say “Ah that’s what he was talking about”. I know I could get you to say that in one range day.

 

[Steve Donlon]

No idea what you are talking about with circle and square. That sounds like something you have in your head as I never heard it but someday when you discover mils or moa have nothing to do with inches you will say “Ah that’s what he was talking about”. I know I could get you to say that in one range day.

You are not going to convert me. An arc is not a straight line, I get it.

 

[Rob01]

You are not going to convert me. An arc is not a straight line, I get it.

Not trying to convert you to mils but show how both mils and moa are the same. Moa is not a straight line. It is an arc also. Hence both being angular.