90% of the shooters that don't, failed arithmetic...
Last edited:
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
NEW POLL: Will your next rifle scope be MOA or MIL
- Thread starter Len Backus
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Or neighbors with Red Green...
I'm not sure if I should be liking this or not, are you Pro-Mill or not promill?90% of the shooters that don't, failed arithmetic...
Just kidding around.... following Barrelnuts comment! I use both, MOA preferred for hunting, MIL for PRS/Tactical competition with a FFP scope.
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
I once fell for the finer adjustment argument. The truth is 4 clicks with my NF MOA scopes is 1.047 and 3 clicks with my mil scopes equal 1.08. I dont know anyone who can hold the difference.
I am making the transition to mil based scopes. One reason for is I'm beginning to run nothing but the TReMoR3 reticle.
I moved to mils mainly because acquisition seamed much faster for me, as the mil number always equals the click value.
Example: say your shooting 700 yards, and it would be
4.63 mils, its also 46.3 clicks. They will always match. So instead of tying to see all the fine lines of the turrets. I snap up to the big 4 and as I'm re-acquisitioning my target, I count out my last 6 clicks out, settle in and bang!
Sooo much faster for me than MOA, were the clicks don't mathematically match the line values.
Last edited:
I bought a used Kahles mil/mil scope late last year so I could give the mil vs. moa argument a fair look. I mounted it on a 22 so I could play with it without going broke and have run a few hundred rounds under it between 20 and 150 yards. My impression at this time is that I like the base 10 system of mill turrets much more than the base 4 of moa. Much quicker to dial to a solution once you have a solution. But... getting to the firing solution is much more intuitive with moa for me at this point. That could change with a few more hours of practice. Whether it does or not I'm having a lot of fun shooting with this thing and I now understand why so many people love the MIL format.
And the father you go out, the funner and faster it is! especially in FFP!
Beardeddeer91
Well-Known Member
They both work equally well, however, I prefer mils because it is based in increments of 10. When I am shooting long range shots, I find it much easier to keep track of where I am at with mils than moa. I also don't think of/or communicate with my hunting buddies in inches but rather in the angular measurement (in my case mils). IMO there is no reason to change from inches to mils/moa, just think of everything in the measurement of your choice. The fact that everyone I shoot with also prefers mils makes this a no brainer.
NorsemanAlaska
Well-Known Member
Been MOA for 45 years. Just bought our long range rifles and shot 1,000 yards using MIL.....So my newest scope is MIL....
Isn't the LIGHT! beautiful? LOL
I use the MOA reticle to measure objects that I know the distance of but not it's size. I also use the MOA reticle to measure my group sizes on targets and large rocks at long range distances. Since the standards or measuring a riles performance is in MOA, it just makes things easier for me. If all I needed was a number to represent the total of clicks to dial, It wouldn't matter what graduation I used. I get it that Mils is a little easier to communicate from spotter to shooter, or dial, in a PRS match, but for my use I think MOA is the better option.
SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
MOA. I deal enough with metric crap as it is. I grew up with it and I'll die with it.
Similar threads
