What system, MOA or Mil, do you use?

[Sami]

Most MIL turrets are 1/10 clicks, meaning 10 clicks needed on the turret for each MIL of adjustment. So they are one in the same.

I know they are exactly the same as MRAD. The whole 10 based system is why people relate MRAD as metric system which it isn't. It suits metric perfectly but isn't a SI standard unit.

 

[Sami]

MOA- target size in inches / MOA reading x 100 = distance to target in yards

Wouldn't that technically be IPHY while MOA is x" / MOA * 95.466 y/" ?

 

[brentc]

What is interesting is some will find MIL easier to do in their head than MOA and vise versa. Hence the reason I stated what I did. Find the system you like best, make sure the math is doable for you and then go with it. The reality is though that the math on either system is plenty doable with a little practice.

There are 2 formulas for ranging that are both pretty simple and very similar.

MOA- target size in inches / MOA reading x 100 = distance to target in yards
MIL- target size in inches x 27.8 / MIL reading= distance to target in yards.

One can also use target size in yards x 1000 / MIL reading = distance in yards

No trig needed!

I still think guys get too wrapped up in the math of it all. Unless you are ranging you shouldn't be using any math at all, just measure with the reticle and make the appropriate adjustments. If ranging is needed then there are simple basic math formulas that will get the job done.


Scot E.

This is so true. Both methods are terribly easy and will accomplish the same thing if you are actually using the reticle for ranging. The problem with ranging with the reticle is that often times you don't know the exact size of your target. You have approximations of size, for instance a mule deer might average 19" from brisket to back bone. What if he is actually 22"? Either way, you should be able to go into a hunt with the first half of the equation answered already. All you have to do is divide by the measurement of either MOA or mil from your scope.

let's do a quick exercise both ways with a deer 19" brisket to backbone deer.

Let's say you measure his size at 4 MOA in your scope
MOA: 19 inches x 95.5 / 4 MOA = 454 yards away

You can also multiply the inches by 100, but 95.5 is the more accurate measure since MOA is not a direct converison to inch.


For mil you measure a 19" buck to be 2 mils. (19" converted to yards is .53 yards.)

Mil = .53 yards x 1000 / 2 mils = 265 yards away

These are extremely simple calculations and both will work if you're in a pinch without a rangefinder.

 

[brentc]

Wouldn't that technically be IPHY while MOA is x" / MOA * 95.466 y/" ?

You are correct, but it's still darn easy. If you actually plan to measure with your scope you should be able to go into a hunt with the first half of the calculation done because, no matter what, you are dealing with approximations of animal size.

 

[Scot E]

I know they are exactly the same as MRAD. The whole 10 based system is why people relate MRAD as metric system which it isn't. It suits metric perfectly but isn't a SI standard unit.

You are correct, MIL and MOA are both angular measurements not imperial or metric. Hence, the reason I point out that guys get too caught up in the math of it all. As I have stated many times, guys really shouldn't use math at all for most of the reasons that a reticle will be used. That is except for ranging where then a formula is necessary.

The problem is though, that trainers, manufacturers, and advertisers all relate MOA to imperial and MIL to metric because the numbers are very close and work if one is to do the math. Plus everyone is trying to find a marketing advantage. And MOA makes more sense to consumers in the US which is why I think it has been more widely popular here. The opposite is true in Europe. In reality the reasons we choose MOA or MIL likely don't matter much and the real differences or advantages of one over another are ignored.

Scot E.

 

[Sami]

Brent,

For those of us who use metric as a base, easy measurements are either 1m (upper torso of a man, height of the average whitetail etc) or 30cm which is almost equal to 12" and approximate the size of a human head for example. If you can find targets that size on your game, mils becomes a VERY easy calculation.

For you example, your 19" estimate is very close to 50cm, an easy mil calculation again.

0.5m * 1000 / 2 = 250m

Even if you went with straight inch to m conversion, calculating distance is still easy:

0.4826m * 1000 / 2 = 241.3m ( = 263.888 yd)

There is always going to be error margin on both methods. First is the estimation of target size but with inches and yards you also have a error margin coming from the conversion. 19/36 = 0.53 is a rounded number from 0.52777...... Then add the error margin from the estimation of the mils on the reticle...so all I can say is practice, whatever system you use!

 

[brentc]

I think we're on the same page here and I don't disagree with you a bit. My point here is that even by using the most accurate figures in calculation, you are still approximating the size of the animal. 50 cm or 19 inches isn't going to make a great deal of difference. But if you go in thinking the approximate size of a mule deer buck is 19" and the buck you have in your scope is actually 22" then the range is going to be off significantly.

It's best to reserve reticle measurements for pinch situations when the rangefinder isn't working or not available.

 

[Scot E]

Wouldn't that technically be IPHY while MOA is x" / MOA * 95.466 y/" ?

Yes, it is. But my point was that most guys aren't good enough to reticle range much past 4-500 yards on big game animals. The variance in target size that BrentC brought up is one of the reasons for this limitation. So for the most part you can use the IPHY formula which is very easy to remember and calculate in your head and only induce a very small amount of error compared to using MOA. At those distances the error isn't enough to worry about.

Even if I did want to add in the 5% error that IPHY induces, it would still be easier for me to use the IPHY formula then subtract out 5% after I get my yardage. This won't be exactly the same number but is close enough and faster for me to do in my head.

For instance, using BrentC's example:

MOA: 19 inches x 95.5 / 4 MOA = 454 yards away
I would have done this: 19/4x100= 475, 5% of 475 is easy for me to figure in my head, 10% is 47.5 and half of that is 23.75. So 23.75 subtract 475 = 451.25. So that is about the same as the true MOA formula but easier and faster for this brain to do!

Scot E.

 

[brentc]

Here is some useful information I found for all you reticle ranging fanatics.

Dogs run from about 5" to about 12" back bone to brisket. Mule deer 18" is a great average to field range in your shot. Whitetales on the southern side of the country run 14", eastern Whitetale 16"-18". NW Whitetale 15"-18". Blacktale 12"-14"
Elk 18"-30" (small cow to mature bull ranges)
Man sized Target 18" shoulder to shoulder width(measure your self to see). Women 14"-16" shoulder to shoulder width. Average fence posts are 40-48" tall Bare ground to tops.
Average Sage Brush are Bare ground to top 30-36" Some can be upwards of 6' or more.
Coyotes are 16"-18" shoulder to rump or often 14-16" bare ground to backbone.
Crows or ravens are 12"-14" tall.

 

[Loner]

IPHY, so I guess neither.

 

[etisll40]

My opinion is that ranging with a scope is so imprecise your best bet is to not take the shot. If that's all you have, move closer. The longer shot still has other variables, wind, temperature, elevation, humidity etc. Most scopes are not precise enough with click values to begin with. This isn't target practice, wounding an animal and not finding it can be a disastrous for other hunters and hikers with some animals. Wing a wolf, big pig or a bear and they get angry, the next person walking in the area may have to deal with that. Wounded dangerous game aren't good for any of us.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Or both. Reputable sellers of quality glass might take a return for "as good as new" optics. If you find a no questions aked return policy on some of them, id try em both, one of each make and model you prefer, in in MOA, one MIL. If you can't find someone who 'll take em back, then don't risk it as you may get stuck with two scopes that suck. It's not super dishonest as long as you treat em good, I've done it before.

 

[meanmrmustard]

My opinion is that ranging with a scope is so imprecise your best bet is to not take the shot. If that's all you have, move closer. The longer shot still has other variables, wind, temperature, elevation, humidity etc. Most scopes are not precise enough with click values to begin with. This isn't target practice, wounding an animal and not finding it can be a disastrous for other hunters and hikers with some animals. Wing a wolf, big pig or a bear and they get angry, the next person walking in the area may have to deal with that. Wounded dangerous game aren't good for any of us.

I somewhat agree with you. In most instances, the inaccuracy is compensated with larger caliber (I guess wounding with a bigger gun makes more sense?), ergo, making for more recoil and even more inaccuracy. The wind bucking properties of a larger bullet might make it ever worse still. Get closer or use a range finder.

 

[Sami]

Get closer or use a range finder.

If you are unsure of the shot when ranging with a good scope, I feel you shouldn't take the shot even if you can verify it with a rangefinder. What etis is saying is how most people feel about long range hunting in general, "too many variables", "move closer". That applies even if you know the distance.