highplains
Well-Known Member
MOA/MOA
POLL: Preferred Combination of Turrets and Reticle?
- Thread starter ADMIN
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Quarter Round
Well-Known Member
Could I get a newer model then too?The Army (conventional) still uses moa turret/mil reticle scopes on 2 of our 3 issued Sniper Weapon Systems, and both are SFP. Just gotta learn to use both moa and mil.
You can also take that SFP mil reticle scope and adjust the magnification so the reticle subtentions are in minutes, not exactly 1 moa but it can help if you are thinking inches.
I wouldn't exactly kick that old Vietnam era crap to the curb. It works, just not as well as something new. Just like some of you old farts, how would you feel if the wife wanted a newer model?
Danehunter
Well-Known Member
MIL/MIL
Competing with mil/mil in FFP leads me to the same for my hunting scopes. No sense in confusing myself. ;o) My next scope will likely be a MARCH 3 - 24 x 44 mil/mil, FFP illuminated scope.
I have an old Burris Black Diamond with MOA turrets and mil dot reticle. ACK!
I think the scope maker that told you people actually prefer MOA turrets and mil dot reticle is full of BS. Any mix of MOA & mils a bastardized setup.
Mil DOT reticles themselves are pretty much gone an all the newer mil reticles are hash marks. Hash marks are much more precise than dots and thus easier to use.
Here's hoping that scope you are reviewing (is it Chinese or Russian?) is FFP and not SFP but I'll bet it's SFP with a turret/reticle mix like that.
Eric B.
Competing with mil/mil in FFP leads me to the same for my hunting scopes. No sense in confusing myself. ;o) My next scope will likely be a MARCH 3 - 24 x 44 mil/mil, FFP illuminated scope.
I have an old Burris Black Diamond with MOA turrets and mil dot reticle. ACK!
I think the scope maker that told you people actually prefer MOA turrets and mil dot reticle is full of BS. Any mix of MOA & mils a bastardized setup.
Mil DOT reticles themselves are pretty much gone an all the newer mil reticles are hash marks. Hash marks are much more precise than dots and thus easier to use.
Here's hoping that scope you are reviewing (is it Chinese or Russian?) is FFP and not SFP but I'll bet it's SFP with a turret/reticle mix like that.
Eric B.
Last edited:
I still own a few MOA/MILDOT Leupold Mark 4's in 3.5x10, 4.5x14, and 8x25.....All excellent condition, nice glass, and track well. Haven't used them in years but they nicely got the job done in my early LRH/competition days.
I use both only because I started with MOA so I still have MOA scopes on some rifles. I will be honest and admit that I started with MOA scopes because I didn't take the time to really learn the MIL system. Now that I have taken the time to learn the MIL system I am starting to understand why most of the world including most competition shooters use MIL (including in America) and any new scope that I purchase from here on out will probably be MIL/ MIL.
Here is why I decided to change: Since the MIL system is based on 10, it is easier than fractions (MOA) to calculate and faster to dial turrets with less numbers to remember. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed so that appeals to me. I also now realize that my belief that the MOA system is more precise is practically not accurate. At 1000 yards, there is only about 1" difference between the systems comparing the ¼/ click MOA turrets vs .10/ click MIL turrets. So, if someone can shoot better than 1" groups at 1000 yards – he should go for the MOA scope. For the rest of us the MIL system is slightly easier to use. My guess is that these are the reasons that the MIL/MIL system is vastly more popular for most shooters and why there are way more MIL option scopes than MOA scope (referring to tactical long range scopes - not hunting scopes).
Lastly, some folks tout the MIL system as being better because it is easier to use as a ranging reticle. Personally, I don't believe this is practical. There is so much error in using any reticle to range with and we all have laser range finders now. Personally, I don't know anyone that uses reticles to range with. In fact, I read there have been studies that have shown that even folks that practice this frequently are not able to repeat it so it is not ethical for hunting and not accurate for target shooting making this reticle ranging argument moot IMHO.
Here is why I decided to change: Since the MIL system is based on 10, it is easier than fractions (MOA) to calculate and faster to dial turrets with less numbers to remember. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed so that appeals to me. I also now realize that my belief that the MOA system is more precise is practically not accurate. At 1000 yards, there is only about 1" difference between the systems comparing the ¼/ click MOA turrets vs .10/ click MIL turrets. So, if someone can shoot better than 1" groups at 1000 yards – he should go for the MOA scope. For the rest of us the MIL system is slightly easier to use. My guess is that these are the reasons that the MIL/MIL system is vastly more popular for most shooters and why there are way more MIL option scopes than MOA scope (referring to tactical long range scopes - not hunting scopes).
Lastly, some folks tout the MIL system as being better because it is easier to use as a ranging reticle. Personally, I don't believe this is practical. There is so much error in using any reticle to range with and we all have laser range finders now. Personally, I don't know anyone that uses reticles to range with. In fact, I read there have been studies that have shown that even folks that practice this frequently are not able to repeat it so it is not ethical for hunting and not accurate for target shooting making this reticle ranging argument moot IMHO.
User4302021
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2018
- Messages
- 0
MIL/MIL
Elevation is just a number. 10 MILS is no easier or harder to dial than 34 MOA.
Wind math is a different story. Wind math is considerably easier in MILs whether you are using a 10 mph base wind or the BC/MIL wind method. I can do both, but prefer MILs.
Elevation is just a number. 10 MILS is no easier or harder to dial than 34 MOA.
Wind math is a different story. Wind math is considerably easier in MILs whether you are using a 10 mph base wind or the BC/MIL wind method. I can do both, but prefer MILs.
Glenn Hamilton
New Member
MIL Turrets and MIL reticle
Cross C
Well-Known Member
Poll isn't working...
MOA/MOA for sure, at the very least MIL/MIL, turrets and reticle have to match.
MOA/MOA for sure, at the very least MIL/MIL, turrets and reticle have to match.
1
108676
Guest
Moa turrets moa reticle
