MIL vs. MOA

[NZ_Fclass]

Tried a MIL scope. hated it. At least I tried...maybe, I'll stick it on a varminter.

 

[tsyarnall]

I’m sure many would disagree, but to me, it’s just another way to measure the same thing with different units of measurements. One person may use MOA much easier and another person may take to MIL use much easier. Try the change to MILs. Borrow a friends rifle with a scope that is in MILs. You’ll know quickly if you take to MILs or not. As I always used MOA in the Army I decided to stay with what I knew…..

 

[Rob01]

It matters to me when I don't know the range! I know a deer is xxx inches tall through the chest, an elk is xxx inches tall, etc... I don't think of a groundhog as 20cm when standing.
When shooting a course of fire with unknown distance, the targets always seem to be given in inches. When given a target size it is almost always given as "x inches by x inches" or in MOA.
Using an FFP scope and some very easy math I can easily determine range to that target.
I agree that once dialed or if using a known distance, there is no advantage to either system.

Ranging with the reticle is a dying skill and yes you do need to know the target size but even there you can use the mil formula in inches or just use a mildot master which works in both MOA or mils. Quick and easy. Have been using one for over 20 years to shoot UKD matches like the Alleghany Sniper Challenge. And guessing the target size, as no animal is the same, then it's also a guesstimate at range. Using a LRF is faster and much more accurate. Also what most use now for ranges unless it's at a match and you have to range.

Yes UKD targets are given in inches but again that's just a drop in number in a formula or use the mildot master and you got your range fast and easy. UKD is very rarely used in matches anymore also so not a major issue for most people as they will never use it.

Target size in inches x 27.78 / size in mils = range in yards
Target size in inches x 95.5 / size in moa = range in yards

So worrying about inches for ranging is a non issue as you can use inches with mils or moa for target size. I have shot many matches where you ranged and no issues using moa or mils. Get out of that "I think in inches" mindset and you can use any angular.

 

[Rob01]

Tried a MIL scope. hated it. At least I tried...maybe, I'll stick it on a varminter.

What did you hate about it?

 

[Spike A]

While I know 1 moa is just over an inch they are close enough to use to adjust, I will add a click if I feel necessary …. I think in inches… if i go out to target At what ever distance and see I’m x amount off I can easily figure out adjustments… not start doing math to convert to mil… just simpler to me… either way it’s a measurement…

 

[Rob01]

Why would you convert anything? Use the reticle. It's like a ruler in front of your eye and tells you exactly what you need to adjust in mils or moa. No converting inches to anything whether mils or moa. While your saying I am at 862 yards so 1 moa is about 8.6" and I am about 4" right because the target is 10" wide so I need to adjust about 1/2 MOA, the guy using the reticle as a ruler saw his hit 1/2 MOA right and quickly corrected and took his follow up shot. You are just doing more work for no reason.

And just so people know I am not trying to convert anyone from mils to moa or vice versa but trying to explain how to use either more efficiently without converting anything and that neither is linked to any linear measurement.

 

[stevenpoplin]

I'll bet it will come easy to you. It's not difficult. I am almost your age and I started out learning mrad. I had to learn a bunch of usless crap from guys that walked around like they had a stick up their ass. I swiched to moa in the late 70s or so and never looked back. Mils are in tenths so that can be easier for some people depending on what they'r doing. I pick up a realy nice rifle now and then with a mil/mil scope and they are easy to shoot. The guys I shoot realy long distances with all shoot mils and think there should be a law against shooting moa.
You can do it

 

[Fast14riot]

Lol, I still make all my wind speed calls in knots. 20 years racing boats, its pretty ingrained in my mind (I can convert on the fly, though)I can use either mils or moa interchangeably pretty well. But in the games I choose to play target dot or FCH reticles are pretty normal and the target has the linear measurement for correction, i.e. target rings in MOA.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Two issues I have with MIL scopes is that they do not have the vertical or horizontal resolution required for F Class. .1 MIL is to coarse. The other is that most MIL scopes these days seem to be first focal plain. The damn reticle becomes as thick as your thumb at full power and blocks the x ring in the targets I shoot on.

 

[NZ_Fclass]

What did you hate about it?

The old brain and the F-Class targets work in MoA. It was like learning your multiplication tables and then being told that numbers are changing. Coupled with the coarser adjustments...

I bought it in a hurry after my Sightron got Covid. Its not a bad scope and will find a home on a sporter.

 

[hoz53]

I keep mulling this over and have started to watch some YouTube videos. I'm 76 and have always had MOA scopes. Having recently beaten the Coronavirus and an almost life-ending kidney infection, (I only have one kidney) I'm starting to feel froggy and thinking about getting a MIL scope. If you are shooting MOA how hard would you think it would be to go MIL?

Im 65 and like you i was thinking of getting a MIL scope so I spent a little time learning about MILs. After that I decided Id much rather have an MOA scope with 1/8 clicks than a MIL scope for what I do. (bench and little animal shooting) MILs are easy to understand though and im sure youd have no trouble. its metric so everything goes by 10s - 100s ect The only reason I would get a MIL scope is if I was shooting some discipline where everyone and everything was communicated in MILs.

 

[XTR]

In the field I like mils.

On an NRA target that is laid out in rings that are in MOA I use MOA. If I happen to be shooting a mil scope, or coaching someone with a mil scope I have to remember that it is ~1.5 clicks per ring vs the 2 or 4 of a shooter with an MOA scope.

In the end as has been stated here, it's just a unit of measure. How many of you use grains anywhere other than when you are measuring the weight of reloading components? It's just a convention you have learned that would work equally as well with fractions of a gram or oz.

 

[PWS]

I liked the idea of how come-ups usually are given in decimals so I tried MILS for a while but having done so much carpentry with a fractional ruler, my mind has no trouble working in the fractions of MOA.

And, despite both being angular measurements, I find it very difficult to not think in the linear values at the target. The only plus I found with MILS was that the wind holds are a smaller number.

 

[Downeast]

I have both and I have no problems with either. Both systems are based on angles, not inches or millimeters. The problem arises is when you try to compare the two and make conversions from one to another. I'm 65 and I like to learn new things so I have both. Maybe good for the brain, maybe not. I do know that the MIL ranging system works. I was deer hunting last season from a solid deer stand and observed a deer in an open field but it was difficult to range the distance with no reference points. I used 18 inches as the height of chest and measured the deer with my mils, did the math (see formula earlier in thread) and killed the deer at 457 yards. There was no wind and I had a very stable shooting platform (shooting a .257 Wby).
Since then I have made a little chart in 50 yard increments starting at 200 yards out to 500 based on the formula. That way if I see a deer, all I have to do is measure it in mils and pull the distance off my little table. Works for me.

And recently I have been using the metric system to measure things more and more. So much easier to measure things in whole numbers instead of fractions. I scored a deer last season in mm and then converted it to inches and it was so much easier.

 

[moondog]

Funny, I worked with the Metric system all my life. Owned a shop Audi, Saab, Porsche.
Don't own but a handful of SAE tools, don't get it. Never shot a mil scope, I've looked through a bunch, for me, I don't like em.
If you look at some of the threads on Typer Sniper, your considered a knuckle dragger and basically laughed at for shooting moa.
I've beaten a fair number of mil shooters, been beat by a fair number of mil shooters.. It's not the system, mil/moa that will keep you out of the top 5 in field style matches. Tracking first, good glass 2nd, a reticle you like. F class, bench, different scope requirements.
If I was starting over, I'd pick mils just because it's so prevalent in field style matches, PMS, NRL if that's your game. I'm 67 and still run with the pups doing field matches. That may change, but till it does.

 

[moondog]

Speaking of the metric system vs sae, I like whole numbers. Seems counter intuitive to speak in 10ths with mils. Is it just me?

 

[Rob01]

Funny, I worked with the Metric system all my life. Owned a shop Audi, Saab, Porsche.
Don't own but a handful of SAE tools, don't get it. Never shot a mil scope, I've looked through a bunch, for me, I don't like em.
If you look at some of the threads on Typer Sniper, your considered a knuckle dragger and basically laughed at for shooting moa.
I've beaten a fair number of mil shooters, been beat by a fair number of mil shooters.. It's not the system, mil/moa that will keep you out of the top 5 in field style matches. Tracking first, good glass 2nd, a reticle you like. F class, bench, different scope requirements.
If I was starting over, I'd pick mils just because it's so prevalent in field style matches, PMS, NRL if that's your game. I'm 67 and still run with the pups doing field matches. That may change, but till it does.

What don't you like looking through a mil scope? The reticles in mil scopes and moa scopes are basically the same in most companies that put them out but in different graduations. Below are the 7C reticle from Vortex that is used in their very popular Razor II 4.5-27 scope. They look the same. I get if you like moa and that's fine. Some games use MOA for the reasons mentioned earlier about the 1/8 moa clicks and targets in MOA for corrections but just wondering what about those two below don't you like about the mil vs the moa?

 

[moondog]

What don't you like looking through a mil scope? The reticles in mil scopes and moa scopes are basically the same in most companies that put them out but in different graduations. Below are the 7C reticle from Vortex that is used in their very popular Razor II 4.5-27 scope. They look the same. I get if you like moa and that's fine. Some games use MOA for the reasons mentioned earlier about the 1/8 moa clicks and targets in MOA for corrections but just wondering what about those two below don't you like about the mil vs the moa?

Like I said. If I was starting over doing field matches, I'd go MILS. Just got a Gen3 Razor in moa, love it so far! Vortex MOA reticles are my favorite for match shooting. Nothing wrong with mils, just not for me at this juncture.

 

[Rob01]

Like I said. If I was starting over doing field matches, I'd go MILS.

I wasn't trying to make you, or anyone in here, change to mils but wondering what you didn't like about the mil reticles compared to moa. I have used both in matches and as long as the reticle and turrets match there is no difference other than a different number dialed or held.

 

[moondog]

I wasn't trying to make you, or anyone in here, change to mils but wondering what you didn't like about the mil reticles compared to moa. I have used both in matches and as long as the reticle and turrets match there is no difference other than a different number dialed or held.

Good point, being able to communicate with other shooters in the same language on their holds is the single most important reason. I'm definitely the odd duck in my group, and I'm ok with that.