What system, MOA or Mil, do you use?

[Scot E]

I'm MOA all the way!

Ok, a question for the Mil users. Explain (as if I'm new to long range precision shooting) why you would select the Mil system over MOA? (other than the reasons: I always have, my scope is a Mil scope, the military does it).

I'm one of those weirdos that moved from MOA to MIL for my big game hunting needs!

Taking that math out of it, and they both are pretty easy, it is just getting used to it, I still personally like MIL for a few reasons. And keep in mind this list is simply what I like and I do still use both MOA and MIL.

I like the slightly courser adjustments. For my type of shooting, big game to a half mile or so, and practicing out to 1000-1200 yards, I don't feel I lose enough precision to worry about with a .36 adjustment over .26. But the courser adjustments do add these benefits.

1. Fewer clicks and/or rotations of the turret to get on target. This aids in speed and helps eliminate error to some degree IMO.
2. Smaller numbers to remember when dialing, ie 5 mil vs 16.6 MOA. Again, quicker and easier to remember which should lead to fewer mistakes
3. If you like using a ranging/ballistic style reticle in your scope, and I do, I personally like what the 1/2 MIL hash reticles bring to the table. They are a really good blend of precision without too much clutter for ranging, measuring misses or group size, and hold over for target acquisition. I have used 2 MOA and 1 MOA hash reticles and always found myself wanting a bit finer hashmarks than what the 2 MOA offered and the 1 MOA is awful cluttered. Obviously this is my taste only.

Also, I really like FFP scopes for big game hunting inside of 1000-1200 yards and MIL scopes still offer way more and better options than MOA scopes. This has begun to balance more as companies add FFP MOA options but MIL still rules the FFP world as far as good quality scopes with well designed reticles. I realize my like of FFP doesn't fit the majority on this site for LR hunting.

My Take.

Scot E.

 

[Good]

I don't have much practice with either system, but a "benefit" to the mil system as I see it is:

The way I see it, if you can think in centimeters/decimeters you always know what your click value is. I.e. If your target is 243m, one click is 2.43 centimeters. If your target is 338m then each click equals 3.38c and if your target is 736 then your click value is 7.36c

Whether that's a true benefit or not, I don't know, but it seems like it would be for missed windage and quick follow up shots. Please straighten me out if my thought process is flawed.

 

[lever-hed]

3. If you like using a ranging/ballistic style reticle in your scope, and i do, i personally like what the 1/2 mil hash reticles bring to the table. They are a really good blend of precision without too much clutter for ranging, measuring misses or group size, and hold over for target acquisition. I have used 2 moa and 1 moa hash reticles and always found myself wanting a bit finer hashmarks than what the 2 moa offered and the 1 moa is awful cluttered. Obviously this is my taste only.

Also, i really like ffp scopes for big game hunting inside of 1000-1200 yards and mil scopes still offer way more and better options than moa scopes. This has begun to balance more as companies add ffp moa options but mil still rules the ffp world as far as good quality scopes with well designed reticles. I realize my like of ffp doesn't fit the majority on this site for lr hunting.

My take. :d

scot e.

good stuff

 

[countryrebel]

I use both but prefer the speed of mils.

 

[RTK]

How are mils any faster??

 

[Scot E]

How are mils any faster??

Courser adjustments equals less turning of the turret to get on target. Fewer rotations of the turret means less of a chance for loosing ones place and having to start over.

Scot E.

 

[wendlz]

Thanks lever- hed for the kudos.

 

[varmintH8R]

I think Mil is probably more intuitive, if you were not raised on the good 'ol English standard system. I was, so mils to me are kind of like centimeters, meters, and kilometers - they make way more sense than inches, feet, yards, and miles but lack meaningful context in my "standard" brain. Since MOA exists and is functional, I use it rather than learning a new language.

 

[Wino]

I'm european, so I think in meters, Mil is right for me

 

[D1mens1onsh00ter16]

Mrad is better IMO. If you get an mrad scope you need to have matching turrets. Ranging your target with a mrad scope is very simple. You take the height of the target, multiply it by 1,000 and then divide it by how many mils is takes up in the reticle. For example if your target is 2 yards tall and it takes up 4 mils in the scope then you simply do the equation. 2x1000/4 comes out to 500 yards. If you are going to get an Mrad scope you need to get a first focal plane scope that away no matter what magnification you are on the sub tension will be the same, making ranging the same no matter what. If you get a 2nd focal plane reticle then you will need to find out which magnification the scope is supposed to be on so the mildots will be accurate. As far as the turrets go the mrad is .36 inches per click instead of .25 inches per click at 100 yards. 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1 inch, 1 mill at 100 yards if 3.6 inches. So if you have a MOA scope and an Mrad scope that both have 50 MOA/Mrad of elevation adjustment then the Mrad scope has more adjustment in inches than the MOA scope. With all of that being said I would only recommend an Mrad scope and turrets for somebody that will need the capability to shoot long range and use the ranging reticle. If you are hunting only and will never shoot farther than 4 or 500 yards then get the MOA scope.

 

[Broz]

If you are hunting only and will never shoot farther than 4 or 500 yards then get the MOA scope.

Oh really, don't tell all the game we have taken at 1000 plus yards with SFP MOA scopes.

In fact ranging any game with a reticle past your 500 yard limit is getting pretty risky. A good laser RF is the best way to go and for me and most others the MOA system is much easier than what you just explained in your post.

SPF and MOA only for all my Long range shooting to 3000 yards.

Jeff

 

[IdahoRedneck]

Oh really, don't tell all the game we have taken at 1000 plus yards with SFP MOA scopes.

In fact ranging any game with a reticle past your 500 yard limit is getting pretty risky. A good laser RF is the best way to go and for me and most others the MOA system is much easier than what you just explained in your post.

SPF and MOA only for all my Long range shooting to 3000 yards.

Jeff

Umm yeah. MOA is much simpler to learn. Gotta go with the Broz on this one.gun)

 

[D1mens1onsh00ter16]

Nobody said the moa scopes are bad I just stated that for long range shooting the mrad scopes have more capability. Also I only recommended a FFP scope if you are going to use an mrad scope that away your subtensions will always be the same. A range finder is always good to have but having the ability to range your target through your scope is nice to have if you have to take a shot on the fly. Oh and 3000 yards huh? Wow your one hell of a shot.

 

[SidecarFlip]

Nobody said the moa scopes are bad I just stated that for long range shooting the mrad scopes have more capability. Also I only recommended a FFP scope if you are going to use an mrad scope that away your subtensions will always be the same. A range finder is always good to have but having the ability to range your target through your scope is nice to have if you have to take a shot on the fly. Oh and 3000 yards huh? Wow your one hell of a shot.

You are new here... Jeff shoots off his back deck as a pastime (or out his loading room window)........