NEW POLL: Will your next rifle scope be MOA or MIL

[JungleBoogey]

Moa of course. It's much more natural communicating with others, and moa has finer adjustment value than mill. I like it, too.

A "slightly" finer adjustment (1 in. @ 1000 yds). Amazingly though, despite the "finer" adjustment, I read that 90% of all Pros are using mils.

I believe that neither has a superior advantage over the other. They both have pros and cons that almost equal them out. I think it comes down to: "if you know what you know and you know it well, you're less likely to mess around with what you don't know at all". Lol

 

[Barrelnut]

I think 90% of the shooters who use them are "pro" wannabes.

 

[lessdrop]

Yup, I agree, what ya don't know, ya dasn't be a messin' widit!

 

[MachV]

My tape measure at work reads in mills and inches... parts are built each way. The funny thing is mills are finer than inches and by moving the decimal point can be enlarged.....try that with inches to yards.
Most of my scopes are mill dots with MOA turrents=Most of the scopes I could afford in the past were not good enough to rely on the dials so we just zeroed and run off the mill dots.
The two guys I shoot the most with run MOA(from my recommendation) They call my misses in MOA and I convert to mill, I see their miss in mills and tell them MOA corrections. Sounds difficult but is quite easy if that is what you get use to.
All the converting and mixed reticles work just fine inside of 700 yards or a fixed yardage but once I have to start dialing MOA works so much better. I prefer mills for shooting with the reticle and moa for dialing.
Long way around the barn but my new scopes are showing up in MOA....its easier for me to convert to moa than explain mills to other shooters

 

[bearcat2]

I'm with MachV I run MOA turrets and mildot reticles. In fact I just bought a new Leupold Mark 4 a few months ago, and specifically ordered it that way. I think in inches, feet and yards. Well I surveyed for years, where measurements are commonly in tenthes and hundredths of feet rather than inches, but I did a lot of ballpark converting for the average Joe over the years, so I can think in inches fine. I have used the metric system a little bit (want to hear real whining? Send a set of engineered plans in metric to a survey company and a construction company) but I grew up using standard and it is what I think in. I was always pretty good at math, so maybe its just me, but I don't see metric math being any simpler than standard.

I don't use a mildot reticle to judge range with, I have a rangefinder. So the fact it is not matched to the turrets doesn't bother me. The fact that the Leupold mildot reticle is by far my preferred hunting reticle does. It has the fine crosshairs for drawing a fine bead without covering up your target, yet the dots are glaringly obvious and immediately cause your eye to track to the center of the crosshairs when that big bull goes crashing through the timber as you are walking in. I've looked through and used a lot of different scopes through the years, but I've never found another reticle that I was as comfortable with and liked as much for both long and short range.

 

[bearcat2]

I noticed many of the proponents of mils here, most of whom also state they absolutely have to have the reticle and the turrets match, are still speaking in terms of yardage. Their most common reason for preferring mils seems to be the "easier math", but I fail to see how figuring mils per yard is possibly any easier than figuring MOA per yard?

Frankly it wouldn't really matter to me, I commonly have the drop in MOA in 25 yard intervals out to 1000 or 1200 yards taped to the stock of my rifle, and doing the same with it in mils would be just as simple if I had MRAD. But I can think quite easily in MOA if I need to, and converting yards to meters would seem to be an extra step if one had to do calculations in his head while in the field.

I'm actually very surprised that practically anybody uses their reticle, whether mildot, MOA, or the ridiculous "circle the size of a deer (what kind of deer? Whitetail? Mule deer? Blacktail? Coues deer? Reindeer?) chest" that so many brands of scopes are constantly trying to hype. While it isn't a bad idea to know how in case of emergency, an electric rangefinder is much more accurate, and doesn't exactly waste a lot time to point and click.

 

[doug b]

I noticed many of the proponents of mils here, most of whom also state they absolutely have to have the reticle and the turrets match, are still speaking in terms of yardage. Their most common reason for preferring mils seems to be the "easier math", but I fail to see how figuring mils per yard is possibly any easier than figuring MOA per yard?

Frankly it wouldn't really matter to me, I commonly have the drop in MOA in 25 yard intervals out to 1000 or 1200 yards taped to the stock of my rifle, and doing the same with it in mils would be just as simple if I had MRAD. But I can think quite easily in MOA if I need to, and converting yards to meters would seem to be an extra step if one had to do calculations in his head while in the field.

I'm actually very surprised that practically anybody uses their reticle, whether mildot, MOA, or the ridiculous "circle the size of a deer (what kind of deer? Whitetail? Mule deer? Blacktail? Coues deer? Reindeer?) chest" that so many brands of scopes are constantly trying to hype. While it isn't a bad idea to know how in case of emergency, an electric rangefinder is much more accurate, and doesn't exactly waste a lot time to point and click.

Yes I am one of those that stated using mils and ranging in yardage, the simple of it Is you are measuring two different things distance and radiance, not distance and distance. You are measuring a radius witch is pure math and distance that is a direct number, they are 2 different things to they marry to on another. My balistics work in both settings at the same time making it very easy to use. I use mils because my clicks match my dial number directly, making it very easy and fast to dial out to my range.

 

[ednied1]

Things in the LRH optics field have been changing fast.

So I'd like to take a fresh look at this topic.

Mil dot. Once you learn it, it is easier

 

[doug b]

Things in the LRH optics field have been changing fast.

So I'd like to take a fresh look at this topic.

I think you should change the settings on your poll so people can change there votes. What say you people?

 

[Greyfox]

I think you should change the settings on your poll so people can change there votes. What say you people?

I think a fresh poll periodically(without the ability to change a vote) gives a more viable snapshot of the trend. If the vote can be changed there is a risk of the poll itself influencing the individuals decision thus distorting the actual position that was held just prior to the survey. The way Len has set up the survey, if a change in your preference occurred in the polling period you can still make this input in the commentary, while keeping the parameters the same as the prior surveys. IMO.

It is interesting to note that so far in the latest LRH survey, the growth in MILS have seemed to level off since the prior period survey. It's also apparent that each had its strong proponents and both methods will be around for a long time.

 

[FEENIX]

As long as the turrets and the reticle match, I don't care.

Ditto! My last 4 scope purchases were 2 MILs and 2 MOAs. But for the sake of simplicity and common use in the US, I'd vote for MOA.

Cheers!

 

[mulie]

It will be MOA gun)

 

[NEMTHunter]

MOA all the way for me. They are more precise for on thing and another is I am used to it. I am sure that if I used mill more I could get used to it. But MOA just makes more sense to me. Recently I picked up a SWFA 3-15X42 scope with there MOA-Quad 34MOA reticle. Also just had a Leupolds TS29X1 reticle instaled in my VX3 6.5-20x40 LR scope. That is a very nice and will put together reticle. I am looking forward to using it!

 

[Ty.338]

Its defiantly a preference thing. The important part is that you turret matches your reticle. Not sure what Leupold was thinking with the MOA turret with a MIL reticle on the old mark 4 scopes.