What system, MOA or Mil, do you use?

[emn83]

I thought I was going to switch to MOA when I upgrade, now though, MILs ar starting to grow on me, I like MOA for doing my internal adjustments, but I like mill for using the reticle, does that make sense?

 

[kraigwy]

I used mils a lot when I was in the military running machine gun schools. Mil dots didn't start getting popular until I retired.

I do like Mil Dots for range estimations but I like my scope to click in MOA. For hunting its easier to convert MOA to inches for estimating hold overs or adjustments when I know the size of the target.

An example, lets say the girth size of an antelope is 15 inches. I know my drop when sigthed in for 100 yards so all I have to do is use its girth size to know how many inches to hold over or adjust for. Its just easier for me to see that in inches and then MOA then it is to think in mils.

What it really comes down to is how you were trained and what you practice.

 

[Harry1]

I use MOA. Have never used mil-dot. Both are good I am sure. MOA just because that's what I started shooting with and it makes sense to talk in terms of inches.

 

[Haagen Dazs]

How coarse are MRAD adjustments to MoA?

Same debate going on here on CGN so I'll copy paste my speel about how MRAD adjustments are really not that bad compared to MoA.

After reading through your experiment I do understand what you're talking about and it does make sense. 1/4MoA adjustments will get you closer than 1/10MRAD adjustments will (most of the time). What I'm trying to figure out is just how bad MRAD adjustments are compared to MoA. Because I went to school for engineering and not arts and crafts, I let Excell do the work for me.


Whether you're shooting F-Class or pop cans, you will shoot, see where your shot hit, see where you want to hit, decide on how much adjustment to use based on your rifle's precision (usually divide miss distance by 2 or take 2nd shot at same Point of Aim). After all this, we all come to the same conclusion: adjust X.X clicks horizontally and X.X clicks vertically.


What I did was simulate a required adjustment for 0.25" to 10.00" at 1000 yards and applied the rounded click adjustment. Even the 1/8MoA adjustment won't get you exactly on target most of the time and there will be some error in PoA and PoI or group center.


I graphed the results as well as averaged to difference between the MoA and MRAD miss distance for comparison.

• 1/4 MoA vs 1/10 MRAD: 1/4 MoA will get you on average 0.28" closer to your PoA than 1/10 MRAD will. Extreme differences are 0.97" advantage to 1/4 MoA and 0.97" advantage to MRAD (depending on the required adjustment, see graph).
• 1/4 MoA vs 1/8 MoA: 1/8 MoA will get you on average 0.27" closer to your PoA than 1/4 MoA will. Extreme differences are 1.29" advantage to 1/8 MoA and 0.00" advantage to 1/4 MoA
• 1/8 MoA vs 1/10 MRAD: 1/8 MoA will get you on average 0.55" closer to your PoA than 1/10 MRAD will. Extreme differences are 1.32" advantage to 1/8 MoA and 0.35" advantage to MRAD (depending on the required adjustment, see graph).

Here's a refined picture for 0.1 MRAD or 3.6" at 1000 yards:

As you can see, it is a repeating series. There are certain required adjustments where 1/10 MoA will bring you closer to your PoA than 1/4 MoA and even closer than 1/8 MoA when an adjustment of about 3.6" and 7.2" is required (where the required adjustment equals 1 or 2 tenths of a mil).




So, basically, by going with a 1/10 MRAD adjustment scope instead of a 1/4 MoA one, you are only going to be off by an average of a quarter inch at 1000 yards due to scope adjustment coarsness (if that's even a word).


Hope that helps!

 

[338Tejas]

Ok, so im really not looking for a debate on what system is better. The fact is, they both have good features and in the right hands can work equally well. I get the idea though that people like Arron Davidson(Not knocking AD at all just a observation based on the fact his LRF does not give corrections in MIL.) have the preception that only tatical guys use MIL. So I would like to see how many use each system.

Never shot a Mil based rifle because i grew up with MOA. Is that saying you can't have a great time with a Red Head when all you have dated are Blondes? Not at all. It's all in what you learn and comfortable with.

 

[tatersalad]

I just got my first Mil dot scope and really like it. I'm still working on thinking in mils instead of inches, but all the ballistics calculators I have tried let you select either and my MilDot Master gives me the conversion if all I know is the inches.

 

[jtkratzer]

Math is easier on mils. Contrary to popular thought, it works with any unit of measure, not just the metric system.

Learned mils in artillery and I stuck with them on the scope.

 

[orkan]

Moved from moa to mils several years ago. Haven't looked back. It's not like its difficult using either system. I simply prefer the smaller numbers of mils. "Thirty two and a quarter minutes" vs. "seven point six" is just a hell of a lot easier to talk about and deal with. Obviously the above measurements don't correlate... it's just a case in point.

 

[kraigwy]

Moved from moa to mils several years ago. Haven't looked back. It's not like its difficult using either system. I simply prefer the smaller numbers of mils. "Thirty two and a quarter minutes" vs. "seven point six" is just a hell of a lot easier to talk about and deal with. Obviously the above measurements don't correlate... it's just a case in point.

I really don't see that much difference. Mil adjustments are normal .1 mil or .347 per click. MOA adjustments are normally 1/4 min or .25

That's less then .01 difference so clicking from 100 yards to 600 yard wouldn't be that much difference. Just click up in full mils or full MOA and add the little bit differene to get where you're going.

I like Mil dots in my scopes but I like MOA adjustments. Mainly because I think in inches. For example the height of an antelope from back to belly is about 15 inchs. I can use the Mil dot to determine range, and adjust what ever MOA. For example I know at 300 yards the Antelope is 5 MOA. Easier then trying to figure 4.32 inches.

Guess its just what you get use to.

 

[orkan]

I didn't say anything about the fine or course adjustments in comparison. I agree... it doesn't matter.

What I'm talking about is memorization and communication. With moa, you're saying about twice as much as compared to mils.

 

[Broz]

EDIT: never mind.... right brain left brain thing I say.

Jeff

 

[Sub MOA Hunter]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion so here is mine

I have owned and am familiar with both systems for LR shooting but Mil-rad wins my vote without a doubt
In NZ, Aus we use the metric system so I think those who say MOA is easier is because they have not had the time to understand Milrad and MOA is probably all they know.

1Milrad is = to 1m @ 1k so .1Mil = 1cm @100m that has to be easier than 1/4 of MOA = 0.7cm Approx. @ 100m when conducting calculations

ie miss your target at 600m by 80cm (.1Mil = 6cm @ 600m) 80cm/6(Range)= 13clicks or 1.3Mil
I can do this quickly in my head for a quick follow up shot what I can't do quickly is this

1/4 MOA = 0.7cm x 6(Range) = Calculator please 4.2cm per click, 80cm/4.2cm = 19 clicks or 4.75MOA

for those who use only the imperial unit of measure this one is for you

Target 700yds miss 2.5 feet calculation is as follows, feet to inches 2.5 x12inch = miss by 30 inch, 30/7(range) = 4.3MOA

easier yes, I can hear people replying now that is why I use a ballistic program, problem is that takes time, the only other option is to apply aim off judged by your fall of shot ie round goes 80cm to 2oclock aim 80cm at 8oclock this is adequate but not precise and less face it we are only estimating we missed by 80cm.

The real advantage of a milrad scope is when you incorporate it with milrad rectical simply measure your miss by the milrad rectical eg miss by 1.2mils + or - 1.2mils on your scope it's that easy no math's and very fast and also gives you backup range finding ability

If you use MOA scope with a milrad rectical you have to times the milrad adjustment by 3.57 to get the adjustment in MOA (still math's not something you want to be doing under pressure this is probably why I have seen more and more US snipers going to this combination)

There is one advantage in 1/4 MOA adj instead of 0.1Mil and that is it is very slightly a finer adjustment but this is only about 3cm at 1km how well can you realy group?

I am always learning new things so feedback welcome.

 

[Scot E]

Could we have an exmple of this? Haven't a clue here what you mean.

Thanks!

Jeff

I think what he meant is 28.75 MOA is approximately 8.5 MIL which is a lower/smaller number and thus easier to remember and memorize.

Scot E.

 

[Scot E]

The real advantage of a milrad scope is when you incorporate it with milrad rectical simply measure your miss by the milrad rectical eg miss by 1.2mils + or - 1.2mils on your scope it's that easy no math's and very fast and also gives you backup range finding ability

I.

This isn't a real advantage for MIL setups but instead any setup that uses angular measurements with the same unit of measurement or calibration for both the reticle and turrets. If you try and forget about the math and just use either MOA or MIL as an angular measurement you will be much better off IMO. Just measure the distance with your reticle and dial it with your turret and you are done. It is faster and there is less chance for error.

One of the big benefits to MIL in my mind is that there are many more scopes with MIL reticles and turrets than there are MOA. Add to that that there are many more options for spotting scopes with a MIL reticle to be used in spotting and there is an advantage for this guy.

Scot E.