.1 mil or .25 moa, which is best for long range precision shooting?

[COBrad]

Don't forget that little .047 at the end of 1.047. When you get out to a thousand yards and dialing 20 MOA your getting an additional 9.4 inches.

 

[chas3stix]

Since my precision shooting revolves around one minute of mule deer, it really doesn't make a whit of difference to me. Want to open a can of worms? Just start a discussion about the merits of first focal plane and second focal plane scope reticals.

 

[mark223]

[ Also if the program said I need 4 moa correction just run it to 4 at 100 yards same as you would in mils BUT past a 100 everything changes. At 400 each click is 1 moa so if I ran to the number four on my dial I just put in 16 moa correction! Please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of the moa system, this would be correct would it not? ]

Well... your are wrong. If 4 clicks at 100 yards = 1 MOA, then the same 4 clicks a 400 yards also equal 1 MOA. Of course 1 MOA covers more real estate at 400 than at 100. Exactly 4 times as much. Others here can belabor the details as good or better than I can, so I'll leave that to them.

How ever, if your spotting scope is in MOA get MOA scopes or if in MILLs then get Mil dot type reticles. Saves a lot of confusion. Personally I like and use MOA it makes range finding much quicker and lets you measure the size of a rack quick and easy too. If you know size, you can find range. If you know range, you determine size.

If you are going to convert mils MOA in your head and do it quickly, then FORGET that a mil = 3.6 inches or 3.44 MOA at 100 and just round off either number to the number 3.5. example: You know that a T72 tank has 30" road wheels. And you estimate it measures 1 mil (3.5 MOA) then 30 divided by 3.5 = 8.57 or 8 and a half roughed out in your head. That means the tank is 8.5 hundreds or yards away. (850 yard estimate or 857 precise) If you have time for more precise work, then use the 3.44 number and you'll get 872 yards. That's a big difference in prairie dogs but it's MozNix in my former careers.

But, if you have distance, you might have the time. But if you do not have distance you probably don't have the time either. Either way once you send it, hit or miss, I doubt that you'll have much time to dope a second shot.

None of the above beats a good range finder for accuracy and speed. But it is good to know stuff for when the batteries are dead. I don't shoot much anymore but on occasion I still like to ding the gong someplace in the next zip code. And if I hit it, I don't have to clean it and if I miss it won't shoot back with something bigger.

 

[Karoo]

Guys, I do Palma target style shooting, long range hunting and I am in the armed forces. I understand both MOA adjustments and Mil adjustments for long range shooting and use them both extensively. I am going to start off by saying I favour Mil adjustments for long range shooting. It is by far easier to correct and understand than MOA adjustments. Especially should you require to engage with a second shot and you have a spotter with a reticle in his scope or spotting scope that can see what you are seeing.

MOA adjustments are much finer than Mil adjustments, however if you combine your Mil adjustment scope with a more modern reticle like the H59 or Tremor II reticle, it is a complete different ball game. Then there is no comparison between them. Not only in terms of simplicity but also versatility of that combination. If for instance you are dialing in for a long range shot and you utilize the more modern H59 reticle, you can aim of far more accurately than with a normal mildot reticle. In regards to versitility, there are a whole list of them. There are for instance very easy and quick wind formula's that you can use, quick shooting formulas up to 600m and other that cannot be named on this forum.

I know that MOA adjustment scopes were on the market way before Mil adjustment scopes and my opinion is that it is unfair to vote between the two because people use normally what they are use to and they were not properly exposed to it yet. I have and my opinion I know is going against most people out there. Not to upset people even more, but just think of it: if the MOA adjustments scopes are the way forward, how come all the top tier 1 military units(90% of them) are using Mil adjustment scopes and reticles? I can asure you that all of those guys would have tested MOA and Mil scope side by side and at the end of the day, 90% went for a Mil based scope. Another thing is the longest kill shots(more than on record)ever were taken from Mil based scopes and reticle.

My intention here is really not to upset you guys. All I am saying is that the Mil based scopes from my point of view is far easier to understand and more practicle. Combining a Mil based scope with the correct reticle(1st focal plane) it is by far the better option.

 

[HunterGreen]

Moa/Moa

 

[Dgd6mm]

Ha, ha ,ha, I have a Leupold scope second focal plane, Premier Reticle Marine Corp mil-dot, moa adjustment. Try that one on for size. The dots are football shaped, and have a different value then a round mil-dot. I had an old time Marine sniper school me on it and I shot it well in some tac comps. They I got smart and went to a ffp mil-mil scope, ahhhh life is much easier....

 

[300RUM LNGRNGE]

1 MOA is 1.047" at 100 yards, or 10.47 at 1000. Important distinction when dialing in corrections at long range.

Don't necessarily agree, at 1000 yards 1 click or .25 moa is just over 2 1/2 inches. You can't adjust .47 , less than 1/2 inch at 1000 yards on your dial.
Also one must not forget that most custom rifles are guaranteed to shoot 1/2 moa or better, even with a 1/4 moa rife your best possible groups would be over 2 1/2 inches at 1000 yards with the removal of all other variables.
While you are correct, it makes more sense to use the KISS method. 1 moa = 1 inch at 100, 2 at 200, 3 at 300 and so on is easier to make quick adjustments in the field.

 

[300RUM LNGRNGE]

if the MOA adjustments scopes are the way forward, how come all the top tier 1 military units(90% of them) are using Mil adjustment scopes and reticles? I can asure you that all of those guys would have tested MOA and Mil scope side by side and at the end of the day, 90% went for a Mil based scope. Another thing is the longest kill shots(more than on record)ever were taken from Mil based scopes and reticle.

QUOTE]

I think I can answer that, when you enter the military into the picture , you must consider a few things that we , the average Joe, are not required to do.
First you have versatility, the majority of other civilized nations have been using the metric system for years. We in America use the standard system in defiance of England. That does not make one better than the other, however, if I am training someone to fight alongside other nations , it is a huge benefit for that soldier to know and understand the weapons systems that , for lack of a better way to put it, may be laying on the ground.
That fact alone answers why the longest kill shots have been taken with mil based scopes, there is just more of them, and the technology meaning, better rifles and optics, bullet BCs, as well as the sniper program itself have all evolved alongside that trend.
Shooting competition, if 90% of competitors are using brand X stocks and 7 of the top ten shooters were using those brand X stocks does that then mean that brand X stocks are the best? Or does it just mean there was a higher average of use?

Second, when using the reticle to range estimate( average Joe uses a rangefinder ) the mil based reticle is more accurate because you have different size measurements in the reticle. In an MOA reticle each line represents 1 MOA.( some are as far as 2 MOA ) Maybe in some the line thickness itself may have a represented value, but no moa standardized setting from one manufacturer to another.
In a mil-dot reticle from center of mil-dot to center of mil-dot = 1 mil. Distance between dots is = to .8 mil. Mil-dot itself is =.2 mil and from center of one dot to bottom of another =.9 mil. From center to top =1.1 mil. From bottom of one to top of another =1.2 mil. Having multiple measuring references makes range estimation way more accurate. Using that information, it is easiest to learn a system that you don't have to convert. Mil reticle, mil turrets.
Milliradian is also easier math.

To the OP,

Use what you understand and are comfortable with. If you are not familiar with either , you already have a mil based spotter and the math is easier as long as you are ranging in meters, not yards.


I personally am used to MOA, been using it for years. I do some range estimation, just because I don't trust electronics to never break and I don't want to have to walk away from a trophy animal because my rangefinder broke.
I have MOA turrets and MIL-DOT reticle. I range in yards, adjust turrets in MOA , but convert range estimation from mil to moa. That's what works for me, but I would not recommend to anyone starting out.

 

[AaronEdwardJames]

Mil is better if ranging in metres, 1 click = 1cm at 100 , 2cm at 200m and so on, easier to take 1/4 ,1/2, 3/4, 9/10 winds eg if range is 500m, 10 kph wind at full value = 10 clicks a 1/2 value would b 5, 9/10 value would be 9 , I just think the maths is easier

 

[rcoody]

yep

the military is all metric. kilometers instead of miles, distance in meters, scopes in mils., .223 is a 5.56 and a .308 is a 7.62

the reason is the rest of the world is metric. All our allies are metric. So we conformed.

mil and moa all work the same. If you are trained by the military then mils is probably what you are used to. If you grew up with moa then that is what you are used to. If you are just starting out then you get to pick. It really doesn't matter. What works for you.

just like the FFP and SFP scopes. It is what works for you.

the most recent fad is military equipment. Guns that look military. Military scopes. Tactical is the fad. For me my classic bolt guns and moa SFP scopes have been working for 60 years. I like the way they look. Don't see any reason to join the tactical fad. I am certainly not going to war.

 

[AaronEdwardJames]

I think for hunting situations and for instance shooting on a gallery range at paper targets MOA system is ideal , but for your right a military application or tactical shooting engaging multiple targets at various ranges under time etc mil is better because the maths is quicker and easier and also the mil dot reticle you have 10 click per mil dot so you can easily either dial in or use a hold off or if you dial in and hit a target and another snap shot pops up you can add the etxtra or less clicks using a hold off eg 1st target = 500m 25 clicks , 2nd target pops up 600 = 35 clicks so you can either cum up 10 clicks on the scope or just hold 1 mil dot up

 

[COBrad]

Don't necessarily agree, at 1000 yards 1 click or .25 moa is just over 2 1/2 inches. You can't adjust .47 , less than 1/2 inch at 1000 yards on your dial.
Also one must not forget that most custom rifles are guaranteed to shoot 1/2 moa or better, even with a 1/4 moa rife your best possible groups would be over 2 1/2 inches at 1000 yards with the removal of all other variables.
While you are correct, it makes more sense to use the KISS method. 1 moa = 1 inch at 100, 2 at 200, 3 at 300 and so on is easier to make quick adjustments in the field.

At 1K yds with my rifle, my correction is 20.1 MOA. 20.1x.47" is 9.5". That is the difference between a good hit or a poor hit, or miss, on an elk at that range. As the focus of my long range hunting is varmints, every half inch counts. My longest two shots on Marmots were at 1400 and 1402 yds. At that range that .047 has a value of .658. I dial in an even 35 MOA for that shot. That's another 23". A .25 MOA adjustment at that range is 3.67". That much I can hold for. If I'm an additional 23" off there is no chance of making the shot.

 

[rcoody]

At 1K yds with my rifle, my correction is 20.1 MOA. 20.1x.47" is 9.5". That is the difference between a good hit or a poor hit, or miss, on an elk at that range. As the focus of my long range hunting is varmints, every half inch counts. My longest two shots on Marmots were at 1400 and 1402 yds. At that range that .047 has a value of .658. I dial in an even 35 MOA for that shot. That's another 23". A .25 MOA adjustment at that range is 3.67". That much I can hold for. If I'm an additional 23" off there is no chance of making the shot.

my



my long range scope has 1/8 moa clicks for elevation

I use a kestrel with AB and rangefinder combo. I assume the dial correction given takes into account the 1.047 moa

 

[300RUM LNGRNGE]

At 1K yds with my rifle, my correction is 20.1 MOA. 20.1x.47" is 9.5". That is the difference between a good hit or a poor hit, or miss, on an elk at that range. As the focus of my long range hunting is varmints, every half inch counts. My longest two shots on Marmots were at 1400 and 1402 yds. At that range that .047 has a value of .658. I dial in an even 35 MOA for that shot. That's another 23". A .25 MOA adjustment at that range is 3.67". That much I can hold for. If I'm an additional 23" off there is no chance of making the shot.

We are obviously talking about two different ends of the shot.
I am unaware of any ballistic software that doesn't account for the 1.047 MOA.


I read in the post I replied to, " when dialing in corrections. " Not when dialing in shooting solutions, which I took to imply a miss had already occurred, meaning that if you have a 10" miss at 1000 yards, you can correct for 1 minute on your dial, giving you a corrected shot that will = 10.47 inches movement in point of impact, there is nothing you can do to account for the additional .47 inches of bullet impact.
So, for corrections, it is best to keep it simple.

Sorry if I was unclear.