MOA to MIL - did you switch?

[dfanonymous]

mil just makes people feel cool, because the military uses it along with the seal team 6 wannabees that shoot 20# rifles, 40mm main tube scopes that weigh over 4 pounds, off fake barricades. it really doesn't matter they are both units of measurement. if you miss and you live in america you are going to say in your head, I missed by 3 inches or I missed by 8 inches. the mil guys say use the reticle as a ruler blah blah blah. umm ok good luck with that when the gun goes off under recoil, LOL. don't let anyone make you feel guilty about using MOA. if I was from another country that used the metric system. then yeah mil is what I would choose. but being an american and thinking in inches. its MOA as my first choice. yeah I can use mil's too but prefer MOA

Rough time on sniperhide huh..

For the record, you should be able to spot your own shots...that's a technique issue for those that can't and it only benefits the shooter to be able to. To that end you might as well use a duplex reticle if you aren't going to use the reticle as a ruler....just saying... "well, it works for hold overs" under that logic just use the duplex and aim 8 inch high and 1 inch left...

 

[User4302021]

I have a 2nd focal plane on an moa reticle. Zooming in and out to bracket a target/animal creates a guess as to what exactly my zoom setting is to create a usable formula. Milling for distance is doable if you have a zoom value that is calibrated at max power for instance. Having never owned a mil scope, that's only what I have read and not practiced it. There is a way to range with moa, but I believe it must be in the first focal plane, which I dont have. Rangefinders are hit and miss with bright sun, and little rangeable vegetation near the target/animal. Dry brushy country has also caused errors for me. The earlier military snipers were taught milling techniques as laser rangefinders were not even thought of. Not sure how they did it, so accurately, with a single miss that could cost them their life. It must work.

If you have a reticle with actual MOA subtentions, dial the scope to the power where the subtentions are true. This is usually the highest power. There are two MOA formulas:

1) Size of target in inches / apparent size in MOA x 95.5 = Distance in yards

2) Size of target in MOA at 100 yards / apparent size in MOA x 100 = Distance in yards

 

[User4302021]

mil just makes people feel cool, because the military uses it along with the seal team 6 wannabees that shoot 20# rifles, 40mm main tube scopes that weigh over 4 pounds, off fake barricades. it really doesn't matter they are both units of measurement. if you miss and you live in america you are going to say in your head, I missed by 3 inches or I missed by 8 inches. the mil guys say use the reticle as a ruler blah blah blah. umm ok good luck with that when the gun goes off under recoil, LOL. don't let anyone make you feel guilty about using MOA. if I was from another country that used the metric system. then yeah mil is what I would choose. but being an american and thinking in inches. its MOA as my first choice. yeah I can use mil's too but prefer MOA

I'm curious, if you didn't spot your shot well enough to use the reticle as a ruler (either MIL or MOA), how were you able to determine how many inches it missed by?

 

[Deleted member 48126]

mil just makes people feel cool, because the military uses it along with the seal team 6 wannabees that shoot 20# rifles, 40mm main tube scopes that weigh over 4 pounds, off fake barricades. it really doesn't matter they are both units of measurement. if you miss and you live in america you are going to say in your head, I missed by 3 inches or I missed by 8 inches. the mil guys say use the reticle as a ruler blah blah blah. umm ok good luck with that when the gun goes off under recoil, LOL. don't let anyone make you feel guilty about using MOA. if I was from another country that used the metric system. then yeah mil is what I would choose. but being an american and thinking in inches. its MOA as my first choice. yeah I can use mil's too but prefer MOA

Mils easier that's it. Nothing about being cool. Being cool is the last thing on my mind. Having fun and learning is first. You don't have to be military to use Mil. It's just a ruler. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Tangent]

I agree^
I bounce around both all the time. Being just angular measurements, it really makes no difference. If one has the ability to learn the difference and get intimately familiar with, then it will help in use of a matching reticle, and the features that go with that. I wish some of you guys were into this whole long range hobby when scopes were commonly in mil reticles and moa knobs. You had to know both at the same time...and how to convert corrections.

^^^Bingo!^^^

If you're wrapped up with an angular measurement, you're not seeing the forest through the trees. The differences that are regurgitated and played up on the internet are extremely inflated. Learn & use both, it doesn't matter one bit...heck IPHY can get hits too, haha. Buy quality scopes based on features and reticles that appeal to you and understand your rifles' dope.

 

[Memberberries]

I have all 4 and I haven't had any problems. Numbers are numbers and units are units, as long as you keep them straight you are fine.

The mils vs moa argument is quite old and really shouldn't matter to anyone for anything other than mil tends to have more reticle options with holdovers. moa has the problem that 1" at 100 yards is not 1 moa but some scopes adjust in 1/4" at 100 yard increments and call themselves shooter moa(iphy). My S&B is 1 cm at 100m where a 1/10 mil is .9999 cm at 100m. The mil argument that they are faster only applies to 1/4 moa vs 1/10 mil adjustment, if you bought a scope with 1 moa clicks it's faster than the 1/10 mil if that's your only priority. Now that manufacturers are getting away from mixing mil reticles with moa adjustments it's getting better. They are offering more complex moa reticles that are capable of ranging just like their mil counterparts.

Doesn't matter what you get if you know what you have and know how to use it.

 

[milo-2]

We've covered the same topics that always come up in these discussions. Easier, better, blah, blah.
I could have died shooting moa and been happy, I know it, it's easy, but I shoot some mil today because guys around me shoot mils. I'd say 60% of them could not tell what a mil measures at 100 yards in inches, basically it's irrelevant with a reticle though.

Having an moa scope and calculating and calling corrections in mils is a giant pain.They want a correction now, and I can vaporlock most with a 4" off the right side, for now they have to measure that. And they cannot call in moa.

So what I am saying, some consideration must be given to who you shoot around, who you may end up shooting around, if you want help or are going to help them.
Making the switch is nothing, 2 range sessions and you'll be off and running, use the reticle. Even if you took the long road like guys who learned on a Mark 4 and wanted to dial, you can make the conversions, but the light bulb will come on that it is right there in your eye socket, use it.
Today, selling most high end moa scopes is a losing proposition. I sold a NF 5-25 atacr
F1 in moa(MOAR), I knocked 300 off what I wanted for it just because it was moa.

 

[SavageHunter11]

Ok, I understand the basics of both systems.

But what I'm really interested in is for those who have made the switch. Were you happy? Regret your choice? Stick with it or go back? Why?

I switched to Mils about 10 years ago because the math was quicker and easier and I can now do range estimations off the reticle in my head with Mils something I could not manage with MOA. The only issue I still struggle with 10 years later is that I still think yards for distances and inches for target measurements in my head because living in the US and for what I do for my job, meters and centimeters are simply never used. So besides an added step to swap meters and yards (most of which I forced myself to memorized in 50 meter increments out to 1000m) I find Mils a lot easier. You have to put in some effort to relearn a few things when you switch but as long as you put in the effort, you will learn it. About the only other thing I could maybe say I regret about going from MOA to Mils is that 1/10 a Mil is a larger angular adjustment than 1/4 MOA. It hasn't ever hindered me but it bugs my brain that I has a less finer unit of adjustment.

 

[22Kreedmire]

Switched to MIL a year ago and haven't looked back. For ME, It's easier. Also, you don't have to think in "metric" (Cm and meters) to use mil scope system. I still range in YARDS and think in INCHES. 1 Moa is 1.047". Lots of decimal places. 1 mil is 3.6". 1 decimal place. At 100 YARDS. So at 1000 yards 1 Moa is 10.47" or 1 mil 36". 500 yards now I have to divide in half 10.47" so 1 Moa is 5.235".. or 1 mil. 18". Way easier in mils. Now say .1 mil at 100 is .36". How big is .1 at 500. Easy. .36x5.= 1.8". Or the same as half a mil at 100 yards. Now moa .26175x5=1.308" per click at 500yards. . Kinda difficult in your head.. It just makes sense to me personally. and the other up side is it's faster than your "normal" 1/4moa scope as far as dialing. There is Way less turning of the dial to get the same out of it. It's pretty close to a 1/3moa scope (huskemaw, John burns leupold) for speed . Some people argue with me, well mil it's not as precise.. Ok TECHNICALLY yes . It's a bigger movement per click. but the same people arguing are also rounding the MOA to the nearest inch. wait a minute(pun intended). im not rounding with mils. and you are rounding with MOA so you are already inducing some "error". and not as concerned with being as DEAD ON your mark as you claim. 2.6175" per click at 1000 yards vs 3.6" per click in mil. So 1" difference. But in reality we aren't shooting "lasers" like in Star Wars so there will never be a time when 1" makes a difference between a kill and a miss even shooting prairie dogs. There are too many other variables that will affect your hit and miss percentage .. this is just my opinion ! One other thing, more people are going to mils so i may as well learn it anyway for easier communication, no matter who i am shooting with..

 

[flylo]

I switched because of Mils having better reticles but both are easy if you can do math. I never knew Mils were metric? This will help https://www.longrangeshooting.org/articles/moa-and-mils-explained

 

[Greyfox]

Overall, I don't think it makes much difference which system is used for hunting given the scope is well designed and the shooter acquainted with its use. I learned Mil years ago when I took the deep dive at LRH. At the time, the Leupold Mark 4 had the best balance of capability, reliability, and cost for my personal situation. This scope strangely had MOA turrets and a MIL reticle. While I fully understood MOA, I took it upon myself to fully understand MILs. With the rangefinders at the time leaving much to be desired in performance unless you spent big bucks, I found that ranging 500-600 yards could be achieved with the Mildot reticle system of the Mark 4. The 18" chest area of a mule deer/white tail fit nicely at 1MIL at 500 yards, the 9' chest of a coyote at 250. The math to adjust range was simple. My Mark 4's served me quite well back then and made me equally proficient/successful) with both MOA and MIL based systems. As rangefinders became more effective, I found my self preferring MOA scopes. In addition to being a practiced turret spinner for elevation with the long shots, I found the windage scale of the MOA reticle more definitive for precise windage corrections....just me.....When I became more involved with tactical/PRS, I favored the MIL based system in a FFP scope. The match language is predominately in MILS which certainly makes communication easier. Since it's a game of speed/accuracy/volume the MIL system is more condensed by design with both the turret and reticle, resulting in faster adjustments. A 1000 yard dope in MOA of 22MOA is less then 1/3 the value using the MIL scale. Much less spinning and better scores. While I have used my FFP MIL based competition scopes for hunting, they are generally too heavy and bulky. Weight and bulk aside, the other attributes(optical quality, mechanical performance, and reliability), IMO, is generally superb/superior with some of my high end tactical, MIL based scopes which for certain hunting situations are preferred, and it doesn't matter whether the scope is MIL or MOA.

 

[cummins cowboy]

I'm curious, if you didn't spot your shot well enough to use the reticle as a ruler (either MIL or MOA), how were you able to determine how many inches it missed by?

this is the problem with what the tactical crowd tries to preach. This is a long range hunting forum. not a tactical forum, and not a range shooting forum. In all these discussions I think we leave out specific uses of optics, range and tactical are a different use that is distinct from hunting. spotting your shots really depends on a bunch of factors. shooting position, recoil of the rifle. suppressed or non suppressed. the tactical community acts like you should see every miss and that the reticle is perfectly lined up on the target still at the point of impact and you can just simply adjust and take another shot.

for one thing nearly all the animals I shoot at don't give you a second shot at least not just still stay standing there. also its very much not a given you can even see where the shot went, can you see your shot if there is snow on the ground? how about damp ground from morning dew? how about any other situation that keeps you from seeing dust fly up or just simply not being able to see the miss. All this is reasons why we must seperate hunting from tactical shooting. ITS NOT THE SAME. its also revealing where people use their optics the most. I have access to public lands and most of my shooting on them. Most of the country has to shoot at a gun range.

the most common situation I can spot my misses is when I am shooting priarie dogs. in that situation I just swag it and stay in the scope. I say to myself I missed by aboutta thatta mucha. I am also typically using a gun that doesn't have all that much recoil, probably suppressed as well. its also dry and dusty. in that case I think I missed by 3 inches or say 5 inches and I just guess what that looks like in the scope and simply send another shot, I don't even bother with looking at the hash marks most of the time. this is different than shooting an 8# 7mag across a canyon over a shooting pack. how about a coyote in the sage brush, aint seeing a miss there either. plus the coyote low recoil gun and the big game animal shot at with a 7mag aint standing there just waiting for a second shot to come flying in.

those saying I lack technique because I can't always see my miss, I say on what planet have you been doing your shooting? not the same one I shoot on.

but I digress, I will admit mils is probably a better unit of measurement if you are into FFP scopes. it just seems to fit better in that format. I hate FFP , again tactical vs hunting. but that is another discussion I don't wanna even mess with. If you want a higher powered scope in FFP mils is probably a better fit for the reticle, that I will admit.

 

[bojangles]

Can anyone recommend some reading material to teach a novice, rifle scopes, setup, use and MIL/MOA

 

[22Kreedmire]

Snipers hide. Franks posts are always informative and to the point. He talks mils vs Moa Etc....