MOA vs. MIL

[Loner]

With todays pda's and ipods I don't think it matters much anymore. Doing the math
in your head is easiest with IPHY or shooters moa as it's called. I like smoa for that simple
reason. But now with an ipod to convert it all instantly, who cares. We take the theodolite
out for very long range finding and it is in moa of coarse. The conversion to smoa or mils
is as simple as hitting the button.
I too, like 2 moa large hash marks with 1 moa between for ranging with the scope.

 

[mrbigtexan]

moa, i like the 1moa with a half moa inbetween, i prefer 8 dots on each side of my reticle as well for a little more precision using them as holdoffs in the wind. i always dial in elevation.

 

[Jon A]

It's really a matter of personal preference as both can work equally well for anybody who knows what he's doing. I can and do use either just fine, but it is nice to have most of your stuff using one system or the other so once people find a preference they tend to try and stick to it with most new purchase. My preference is Mil/Mil for a few reasons.

The first is availability. While more and more MOA scopes have been showing up recently, which is a good thing, Mil scopes still outnumber them probably 5 or 10 to one. If you must have MOA you're eliminating a bunch of fine scopes from your list of possible choices. Spotting scopes as well—a spotter with a good reticle is a wonderful tool to have while spotting for somebody—especially at really long ranges.

Another is click value. I find .1 Mil or 1/3 MOA clicks about the right size for me as a good compromise between how fine the divisions are and speed and amount of travel per turn of the knob. Of course there are ½, 1/8th even 1 MOA scopes as well as .2 Mil, .05 Mil, so it isn't always the case, but most of the scopes I look at tend to be either .1 Mil or ¼ MOA.

Finally, I find the numbers are easier to deal with. 7.5 instead of 25.75 or 25 ¾ is simply easier for me to read off a PDA, enter in drop chart, read off a drop chart, call out to my buddy, etc. With my 300 RUM drops are a simple two digit number out to 1300-1400 or so depending upon load so drop charts are nice and neat. It's not a big thing, just something that makes things nicer to deal with.

In all my Engineering jobs we've always used inches (yes, we still use inches) but with decimals. Nobody measures things in fractions. If you give the average guy a ruler where the inches are broken up into tenths and hundreths, after using it only a couple times that's the one he'll reach for any time he needs to measure something over one with halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, thirty-seconds, sixty-fourths, etc.

And no, there is nothing "metric" about Mils nor do you need to "convert to the metric system" to use such a scope as some will say. They work just fine with yards. This seems to be a misconception most commonly held by those with little long range experience who still think of elevation and windage in "inches" and "clicks."

If you do, you should stop doing that. If you think in angular units, be they MOA or Mils you will save yourself a lot of thinking/calculating/headscratching. It's different for competition target shooters who shoot at the exact same target at the exact same distance all the time, especially when the rings of the target are in inches or MOA sized. But for all different sizes of animals at all different ranges, all different sizes of steel targets at all different ranges, getting your dope in inches then trying to figure out what that means in relation to this target at this range is a nightmare.

If you get your dope in angular units, correct for it with either the turrets or reticle, it works for any sized target at any range. You don't spend a single millisecond trying to think/converting/do math so it's much faster and there is zero chance of a math/conversion error causing a miss. Once people learn to do that and find they no longer use "inches" for anything anymore, they usually become less emotionally attached to MOA's and find they do just fine with either MOA or Mil.

 

[Loner]

Jon, just how do you size your game animals? It has to be in inches or meters. Imperial
or metric, has nothing to do with moa, iphy or mils in that respect. But the math to
convert it sure does.

 

[cummins cowboy]

this is an interesting topic see this thread I started

my dream long range riflescope - 24hourcampfire

my problem with mils is its an odd ball unit of measurement where as MOA translates alot closer to 1" and inches is the unit of measurement all of us know. ask your self how big is a rock that your shooting at, at 700 yards and it measures 2.5 moa??? thats an easy few second in your mind calculation. with mils it probably requires whipping out the mildot master or making some sort of calculation.

MOA is close enough to 1" for the ranges we shoot at. one of my favorite reticles is the graybull precision leupold reticle, if it were me I think I would have made the range bars lower and shorter on the reticle. .5 MOA I think is going to be too fine of a unit of measurement for use on a reticle. that is the main problem with the mil based system is its very course each dot is roughly 3.6 MOA apart. I also think using a 1 moa marked reticle is going to mean it should be a SFP reticle.

2 MOA markings I really don't see the whole benefit with them because they are going to be a courser unit than the .5 mil marked scopes already out there. I would like to see more reticles that focus on dialing for elevation holding for wind, and offer a clean reticle with 1 moa marked wind hold offs.

 

[Jon A]

Jon, just how do you size your game animals? It has to be in inches or meters. Imperial
or metric, has nothing to do with moa, iphy or mils in that respect. But the math to
convert it sure does.

Do you mean for ranging the animals? Or scoring racks? First I'd say a rifle scope isn't the best tool to do either of those, but it can give a decent estimate in a pinch.

For this, I agree the math is easier for MOA for most people if all you want is a very rough estimate. If doing the math in your head, that means most people will be rounding off MOA to 1 IPHY and the range to the nearest 100 yds which builds in quite a bit of error. If you want to be accurate you'll need to bust out the calculator (or chart, MD master, etc) anyway.

Remember inches are still just fractions of a yard; unfortunately there aren't an even 100 of them as it is with cm-m but if you think of the size of things in fractions of a yard beforehand the math becomes the same.

For example if you expect a deer's chest to be 18" deep, that's .5 yards. If it's a Mil it's 500 yds away, if it's .5 mils it's 1000 yds away. That's pretty darn easy. Of course with more odd numbers the math gets harder, but it does for MOA as well if you're trying to be accurate. If measuring something, you'll get a fraction of a yard--just multiply it by 36 to turn it back in to inches. If you don't want to do that, just know the measurement you want in yards.

Either way, making up a chart beforehand with the important measurement you're looking for will be much faster and more accurate than trying to round things off and do the math in your head. But I do agree if trying to do the latter to measure a rack in inches or something, a spotting scope with a IPHY reticle would be the easiest, if anybody even makes one.

 

[Broz]

Broz,

Nothing wrong with an honest question, luckily my family owns a ranch so I get to free roam as much as I like. I do have a 1000yd range over looking an alfalfa field with stationary targets @ 500 & 1000 with several smaller dongs for placing in between (I used to be a welder by profession). All of my shooting takes place from 0-1000, most of which falls 750 & in. I would like to say I am proficient in ELR practices, but that just isn't true I do have the room, but I don't have the time... Funny how that works

I'm just starting with the Mil/Mil system, as my last post stated, I do see some issues moving forward... we'll see.

Thanks! I am just trying to get a feel for what works best for different shooters and what distance they shoot to.

Jeff

 

[Jon A]

MOA is close enough to 1" for the ranges we shoot at.

I disagree. For range estimation that built in 5% error is 50 yards at 1000 yds. 40 yds at only 800. That's enough to cause a miss. Of course I don't recommend people use reticles to range game animals at those kinds of distances, but for matches or competitions where you'd need to use it it's there. On game everybody uses a rangefinder for anything very far so it's a moot point and I agree it's not an issue at closer ranges if that's what you're talking about. Of course, at closer ranges a simple look at an animal through a mil reticle is all you need to have a pretty good idea how far it is when you're used to it.

I would like to see more reticles that focus on dialing for elevation holding for wind, and offer a clean reticle with 1 moa marked wind hold offs.

I suggest you just learn to ignore the marks on the verticle stadia. Just because they're there doesn't mean you have to use them. When you're holding the target over somewhere on the horizontal stadia you aren't even looking at that portion of the reticle anyway.

Seriously, there are dozens of beautiful reticles out there, both MOA and Mil, that will do what you want to do easily if you just ignore those other marks. You may even discover those marks can be quite useful for measuring things, ranging things, doping your own or somebody else's misses, checking the tracking of your scope, etc

 

[cummins cowboy]

I dont' recommend using the reticle or any reticle for that matter to range game beyond about 500 yards. the nice thing about a 1 moa marked reticle on the horizontal line is in addition to your yardages on your turret they can also be marked for wind holds. I am using a TMR reticle and in the heat of the moment it is slightly confusing counting off the half mil marks, it would be simpler if they were just 1 moa 2 moa etc. I hunt mostly coyotes at long range. maybe I need to develop a .5 dog hold off system, that way I am holding off half the dog, all the dog or a 2 dog hold off. this could be marked on my turret as well.

 

[Jon A]

That will be much less accurate than simply using the TMR as intended. I think the TMR is very nice, but if you're getting confused counting hashes you may be better off with a reticle where the full mils are more obvious--like the GenII (dots at full mil) or the Mil-Quad (diamonds at full mil).

With these, it's very fast and obvious to see 1 full mil, 2 full mils, etc, so there's no counting. But it's still easy to hold to the nearest 0.1 mil. So whether the drift is 0.3 mils, .8, 1.3, 2.1, 2.7 or whatever, it's very fast and easy to simply put the target at the right place on the reticle and press the trigger without even thinking about it.

The biggest challenge is estimating the wind well enough so that you know how much you need to hold off, the act of holding off precisely is easily done.

Probably the nicest MOA reticle I've used is the this one from IOR (I think a lot of you guys would like this one!):

That has a long hash at each 2 MOA with a short one at 1 MOA. Very nice but If you get lost with the TMR I think you'd get lost with this one as well. I can see getting lost and counting hashes in the 4-7 MOA range. With a mil reticle like the above you'd still be at 2 mils or under so you shouldn't be lost yet.

Having lots of fine marks--1 MOA or even .5 MOA as some have suggested--sounds good for accuracy on paper, but the more marks you have the more confusing they can be which can make you feel the need to count or just slow you down. USO has a couple reticles with .2 Mil marks and S&B has a new one as well, and I have to admit even my eyes glaze over when looking at them.

For me it's very easy to visually break down a half Mil into it's .1 Mil pieces without any additional marks that would only slow me down by making me count them. Especially for windage, which is what I use them for the most, if I can estimate the wind accurately enough that my hold maybe being off .05 mils is my biggest worry, that would be cause for celebration!

Everybody's preference on that will be different, but in general the two interests are competing--the more marks you have the better accuracy potential, but the harder it is to use the reticle quickly. What works best will be different for different people; but on the other hand some reticle designs are easier to use than others for most people.

It also depends upon the power of the scope, of course. A reticle that looks good at 25X might be a cluttered nightmare at 10X.

 

[cummins cowboy]

that IOR reticle looks pimp, actually never knew they had that one. any other details on the scope, turrets, power, zero stop etc??

 

[Scot E]

I use both MOA and MIL but have been changing out most of my scopes to MIL over the last few years. Many guys try to make this determination by looking at the math involved in MOA vs MIL but I think this is a mistake. In today's world of high tech shooting using math calculations, especially to determine range, is mostly outdated and useless in many ways. I have tried ranging reticles including Mil dot, MIL hash, and MOA hash and ranging much past 500 yards on animals is a tough proposition if the kind of accuracy most LR hunters want is desired. There is a lot of target size variance for one thing. For example, chest to back on an elk can vary quite a bit depending on the age of the bull. This by itself can lend to a lot of range error and we haven't even broached the subject of the cutting corners most guys do when it comes to running numbers in their head, i.e. using 1 inch for 1 MOA instead of 1.047. At LR distances these rounding or estimation factors introduce a lot of error. Rangefinders have pretty much eliminated the need to worry about ranging with a reticle IMO. Both MOA and MIL are angular measurements and are best used that way in my mind.

For drop/wind compensation and ease of use I like MIL for a few reasons over MOA.

1. I have moved almost completely to FFP scopes and there are a lot more options in MIL based systems than MOA. However that is changing with time. Manufacturers have really been able to fine tune the thickness of their etched reticles on FFP scopes. Not too thin for low power so you loose the reticle and not too thick to cover too much of the target. So for me the old argument of reticle issues doesn't hold water anymore. Also many guys are confused with FFP reticles stating that they can't use the higher powers because the reticle is too big but that really is impossible. The reticle stays the same thickness in relation to the target size as magnification increases or decreases so if it is okay at 6x it will be okay at 20x. It is more a matter of getting used to the target not increasing in size, which is what a SFP scope allows.
2. Turret click value- I like the .1 MIL clicks of a MIL turret better for a few reasons. .1 MIL, the standard MIL turret adjustment, is about .36 of an inch or 1/3 MOA. For most shooting, this is a perfect blend of proper adjustment vs. turret efficiency. I have yet to feel like I need more precision than a .1 MIL (or 1/3 MOA) click out to 1200 yards or so on coyote and larger sized game. I would guess ELR hunters or hunters shooting chucks and prairie dogs at long range would find MOA a bit better. But I bet many guys would be hard pressed to find a need for a finer adjustment. 1/10 MIL is a very nice size adjustment.
This adjustment size also allows for fewer clicks and revolutions of the turret to get on target which saves time, minimizes potential error and keeps the numbers a guy is working with off a PDA or chart much smaller which is just easier to remember and work with.
3. Reticle- For hold over/under I find the .5 MIL reticles to be a really good blend of accuracy vs. clutter. Most MOA guys will tell you that a 2 MOA reticle is about perfect. Well, a .5 MIL reticle is 1.8 MOA so MIL is just a touch finer.
4. There are some nice compact spotters with MIL reticles that are a nice match to a MIL scope for calling hits and misses.

A couple areas where I think some may like MOA better.

1. Varmint shooting small targets at LR.
2. If all of your buddies have MOA and regularly call shots for you in MOA then having a MIL setup will slow things down.
3. If you are hell-bent on using the math then some will find MOA to be easier.

My 2 cents!

HTH,

Scot E.

 

[Loner]

Scot I agree to a lot of what you said. To convert moa you just drop or add 5% of your
final number. Not really a hard one to overcome. And I have zero use for an moa reticle.
Mine are in iphy, as are all USO moa reticles unless they state otherwise. Lupy was
iphy for most of it's history as well. I hope vortex will convert to iphy or add it to their
line up someday as I think their PST's are a good buy in a scope these days. I am kinda
waiting for the patents on flurocarbon glass to run out so the price on the stuff comes
down. Then we will see some cheaper scopes like the pst's with great glass I believe.

 

[sscoyote]

I agree with that. As far as i can see for the American hunter (who thinks in inches everyday) the only difference between MOA and IPHY is that u have to factor in .05 IPHY more or less with MOA. Interestingly, whenever i think of MOA or say it or hear it the 1st thought that comes to my mind is .0472. I wish it were .0000 instead.

For me the only thing i like about minute of angle vs. inch per hundred yds. is that it sounds cooler to say (and actually a tad bit faster to say--"minute" instead of "inch per hundred yd."). I was out shooting with a buddy the other day and when i told him he was 4 minutes off he started to reset his watch.

I'll take IPHY subtended at 2 IPHY all around, with the last unit (at only 2 ends of both reticle axes--1 vertical, 1 horizontal) divided into 2-1 IPHY's or 4-0.5 IPHY (like Zeiss did with the Rapid-Z's) intervals for rangefinding accuracy on whatever u wanna range, and can't get a laser to bounce off it.