MIL vs. MOA

[Steve Donlon]

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.

mph vs kmph

 

[drop_point]

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.

Inches are not angular. Mils are not linear. That is apples to oranges.

Why would you convert things from angles to inches, back to angles?

Angular measurements don't really have anything to do with inches unless converted, and both can be converted, but that is not a very important application to be honest. I guess manually ranging things, but you'll be using a calculator anyway and the formula is no easier. Maybe when you're zeroing you might care if you use a ruler on the target, but your reticle does that for you.


Let's picture it this way. If you are shooting at a prairie dog at 721 yards. You miss and you see the dust cloud. Are you going to walk 721 yards and pull out a tape measure and say, "I missed the target I was aiming at by 24 3/4 inches" then walk back and figure out how many MOA 24 3/4" is at 721 yards and then dial it into your windage or hold that many MOA for the next shot?

The easy solution is to forget about linear measures because they don't matter at all when shooting. Instead look through your scope and see that you missed by about "2.2 hashmarks".

Does it really matter if you look at it and see 2.2 hashmarks to make your correction or if you saw a 0.7 on your hashmarks in mils?

When you're counting, is it easier to count money by quarters or dimes?

I don't care what you do, it really doesn't matter to me, but maybe this will help you with your shooting. I use both MOA and mrad but for different purposes. For F-Class I use MOA because the targets are setup that way, static, and of known distance. The finer 1/8 MOA clicks are useful. For field shooting, hunting, and when I was shooting PRS, it was all mil-based reticles. It was simply faster, easier, and more consistent.

 

[Rob01]

mph vs kmph

Nope but if you are happy with the way you do things then keep at it.

 

[Bottom Fodder]

I’m 72 if you ask if I would like be one moa or one mil younger I would say MOA lol
Honest both have advantages and disadvantages only advice I would give if you shoot more than one or a lot different scoped guns make them all one or the other

 

[demarpaint1]

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.

Here's where I get confused. Lets say for the sake of argument you're shooting a clay pigeon at 1K, and the shot is off 1-2' to the left, or 2-3' high. With an MOA scope 1/8 adjustments vs. a MIL with 1/10 MIL adjustments wouldn't it be easier to make the correction with the MOA scope? Go easy on the old man I'm trying to learn. Thanks!

 

[drop_point]

When converting mils to inches, there is one simple trick: a mil is 1/1000th of the distance. At 100 yards, there are 3600 inches. If you want to know how many inches, move your decimal place three places and you discover a mil is 3.6" at 100 yards. At 1000 yards, it is 3.6".

 

[drop_point]

Here's where I get confused. Lets say for the sake of argument you're shooting a clay pigeon at 1K, and the shot is off 1-2' to the left, or 2-3' high. With an MOA scope 1/8 adjustments vs. a MIL with 1/10 MIL adjustments wouldn't it be easier to make the correction with the MOA scope? Go easy on the old man I'm trying to learn. Thanks!

Nope. How do you know it is 2 feet high? How do you know it is 3 feet high? You don't. That's a guess.

In your scope, use the reticle to MEASURE how far off the shot is. Then make your correction based on that measurement.

 

[Rob01]

Here's where I get confused. Lets say for the sake of argument you're shooting a clay pigeon at 1K, and the shot is off 1-2' to the left, or 2-3' high. With an MOA scope 1/8 adjustments vs. a MIL with 1/10 MIL adjustments wouldn't it be easier to make the correction with the MOA scope? Go easy on the old man I'm trying to learn. Thanks!

Nope. Your first mistake is seeing the correction in feet. Forget linear. Look through the scope and use the reticle as you would a ruler and measure the correction. It’s that easy and fast.

 

[Steve Donlon]

Inches are not angular. Mils are not linear. That is apples to oranges.

Why would you convert things from angles to inches, back to angles?

Angular measurements don't really have anything to do with inches unless converted, and both can be converted, but that is not a very important application to be honest. I guess manually ranging things, but you'll be using a calculator anyway and the formula is no easier. Maybe when you're zeroing you might care if you use a ruler on the target, but your reticle does that for you.


Let's picture it this way. If you are shooting at a prairie dog at 721 yards. You miss and you see the dust cloud. Are you going to walk 721 yards and pull out a tape measure and say, "I missed the target I was aiming at by 24 3/4 inches" then walk back and figure out how many MOA 24 3/4" is at 721 yards and then dial it into your windage or hold that many MOA for the next shot?

The easy solution is to forget about linear measures because they don't matter at all when shooting. Instead look through your scope and see that you missed by about "2.2 hashmarks".

Does it really matter if you look at it and see 2.2 hashmarks to make your correction or if you saw a 0.7 on your hashmarks in mils?

When you're counting, is it easier to count money by quarters or dimes?

I don't care what you do, it really doesn't matter to me, but maybe this will help you with your shooting. I use both MOA and mrad but for different purposes. For F-Class I use MOA because the targets are setup that way, static, and of known distance. The finer 1/8 MOA clicks are useful. For field shooting, hunting, and when I was shooting PRS, it was all mil-based reticles. It was simply faster, easier, and more consistent.

When I build a foundation with angels I use a square to establish different points on that angle to make sure it is exact at every point, so the next trade that comes to build on what I have done, it is perfect. If not, every other person will be affected by my actions. And we all use inches, The transit elevations are in inches. The planes are in inches, angles are in degrees converted to inches. I guess you would have to be part of that world to understand why I think this way. As far as shooting prairie dogs, we could use your help around here.

 

[Steve Donlon]

Nope but if you are happy with the way you do things then keep at it.

they are just linear measurements to calculate speed

 

[drop_point]

When I build a foundation with angels I use a square to establish different points on that angle to make sure it is exact at every point, so the next trade that comes to build on what I have done, it is perfect. If not, every other person will be affected by my actions. And we all use inches, The transit elevations are in inches. The planes are in inches, angles are in degrees converted to inches. I guess you would have to be part of that world to understand why I think this way. As far as shooting prairie dogs, we could use your help around here.

That sounds like a good time!

Either way, If you learn to forget linear measurements when shooting it'll get easier.

You don't go with a tape or a square and measure your misses, because it is impractical. Your tape measure and your square are not in MOA or MIL. But you can measure with your reticle whether it is MOA or MIL. Both MOA and MIL can be converted to linear inches, but there is not a point in it. Knowing how many inches an adjustment is when shooting is of little value, outside of shooting known distance static targets with static dimensions (think F-Class).

 

[Rob01]

When I build a foundation with angels I use a square to establish different points on that angle to make sure it is exact at every point, so the next trade that comes to build on what I have done, it is perfect. If not, every other person will be affected by my actions. And we all use inches, The transit elevations are in inches. The planes are in inches, angles are in degrees converted to inches. I guess you would have to be part of that world to understand why I think this way. As far as shooting prairie dogs, we could use your help around here.

You need to separate your job from your shooting but that one sentence explains your mind in shooting “angles are in degrees converted to inches”. In shooting they aren’t. If you can get past that then you would be fine.

they are just linear measurements

Exactly and moa and mils aren’t.

 

[Steve Donlon]

You need to separate your job from your shooting but that one sentence explains your mind in shooting “angles are in degrees converted to inches”. In shooting they aren’t. If you can get past that then you would be fine.



Exactly and moa and mils aren’t.

They are converted in your retical

 

[drop_point]

They are converted in your retical

No, they aren't converted in your reticle. Your reticle is in angular measurements. Your turrets are in matching angular measurements. You see in your reticle you missed by 1.7 mils low, you dial up 1.7 mils on your elevation turret. Next round you hit your target. Nowhere does a linear measurement come into play or aide you in making the correction.

 

[Steve Donlon]

You need to separate your job from your shooting but that one sentence explains your mind in shooting “angles are in degrees converted to inches”. In shooting they aren’t. If you can get past that then you would be fine.



Exactly and moa and mils aren’t.

they are in your retical, and that is what matters to me. I think you and I will just have to see things different. Like Muslims and Christians. Maybe I made one to many deep dives as a diver.

 

[Rob01]

They are converted in your retical

Nope. They are always angular in the scope elevation and reticle. It’s you that are converting.

 

[Rob01]

they are in your retical, and that is what matters to me. I think you and I will just have to see things different. Like Muslims and Christians. Maybe I made one to many deep dives as a diver.

No you just have this need to bring linear into an all angular tool, the scope. When you stop you will see that life is so much easier.

 

[Steve Donlon]

No, they aren't converted in your reticle. Your reticle is in angular measurements. Your turrets are in matching angular measurements. You see in your reticle you missed by 1.7 mils low, you dial up 1.7 mils on your elevation turret. Next round you hit your target. Nowhere does a linear measurement come into play or aide you in making the correction.

I love you brother.

 

[drop_point]

I love you brother.

That's why we are all here, just trying to help each other get better!

 

[demarpaint1]

Nope. Your first mistake is seeing the correction in feet. Forget linear. Look through the scope and use the reticle as you would a ruler and measure the correction. It’s that easy and fast.

I'm going to have to read up on that, many thanks for your help and patience!