What system, MOA or Mil, do you use?

[Sub MOA Hunter]

Agreed

 

[Sub MOA Hunter]

I agree with you Scot E

 

[orkan]

This site shows a huge cross-section of MOA shooters.

If you talk with many optics dealers, their demand is for Mil scopes... by a huge margin. About dead opposite from the numbers in this poll actually.

I wonder what the reasons are for the difference?

 

[Scot E]

This site shows a huge cross-section of MOA shooters.

If you talk with many optics dealers, their demand is for Mil scopes... by a huge margin. About dead opposite from the numbers in this poll actually.

I wonder what the reasons are for the difference?

Part of it is that NF has been the main staple for repeatable LR scopes and they were late into the MIL game and are still a bit behind of some companies. Even Leupold was late getting into the MIL game. Many of the true LR guys have been at this a long time and their options were MOA. My take anyway.

Scot E.

 

[SidecarFlip]

I'm with Jeff.

The more I read the more confusing it gets but then I have a love/hate relationship with metric tools and things and if possible I substitute SAE. (Everything mechanically fastened should be 13mm.......

Not to worry, I'm only buying one scope this coming year, for my smoke pole and it will be MOA.

I don't want to be like Europe, not interested in Soccer, don't drive a European car and prefer the Kings English (or at least the local version of it....)

For decades, Europeans have been telling us their system is better. If it is, then why are they going broke?

 

[SidecarFlip]

Part of it is that NF has been the main staple for repeatable LR scopes and they were late into the MIL game and are still a bit behind of some companies. Even Leupold was late getting into the MIL game. Many of the true LR guys have been at this a long time and their options were MOA. My take anyway.

Scot E.

I don't see that theory holding much liquid, if any, because NF is a small part of the LR optic market.

I'd say that Leupold and Stevens is a much larger player.

I personally think it has to do with the 'whats comfortable for me to use' scenario.

 

[orkan]

I'm with Jeff.

The more I read the more confusing it gets but then I have a love/hate relationship with metric tools and things and if possible I substitute SAE. (Everything mechanically fastened should be 13mm.......

Not to worry, I'm only buying one scope this coming year, for my smoke pole and it will be MOA.

I don't want to be like Europe, not interested in Soccer, don't drive a European car and prefer the Kings English (or at least the local version of it....)

For decades, Europeans have been telling us their system is better. If it is, then why are they going broke?

Mils are not metric. MOA is not imperial.

I encourage you to read the 3-part series I wrote on rifle sighting systems. I start with MOA.

Primal Rights • Primal Rights -- Rifle Sighting Systems - Part 1: MOA & IPHY

 

[SidecarFlip]

Mils are not metric. MOA is not imperial.

I encourage you to read the 3-part series I wrote on rifle sighting systems. I start with MOA.

Primal Rights • Primal Rights -- Rifle Sighting Systems - Part 1: MOA & IPHY

In essence thats correct, however, Minute of Angle is what I grew accustomed to during my T&D apprenticeship in as much as extrapolation of angularity is expressed in minutes and seconds. I'm certainly not going to deviate from what I use in the shop and what my precision tools are calibrated in and graduated as.

I was painting with a broad brush. That 'brush' also covers other aspects not related to firearms.

 

[orkan]

I was painting with a broad brush. That 'brush' also covers other aspects not related to firearms.

I know lots of machinists that work in imperial whom shoot with mils. If you know one system, the other is just as easy to understand. I can use either. I prefer mils because I like memorizing small numbers and communicating in short bursts.

It doesn't matter which system someone uses, so long as their reticle matches their turrets... and they know how to use them.

 

[SidecarFlip]

There you go. I'm comfortable with the MOA system and being an old fart I'm adverse to change anyway.

I strive to keep my life as uncomplicated as possible.

 

[joseph]

There you go. I'm comfortable with the MOA system and being an old fart I'm adverse to change anyway.

I strive to keep my life as uncomplicated as possible.

X2. I'm an old fart too.

joseph

 

[SidecarFlip]

I'm going to do a poll on just that sometime. I suspect that for the most part, posters on this site are well past puberty, probably closer to the eternal dirt nap.

I know I am......

 

[Scot E]

I don't see that theory holding much liquid, if any, because NF is a small part of the LR optic market.

I'd say that Leupold and Stevens is a much larger player.

I personally think it has to do with the 'whats comfortable for me to use' scenario.

Who exactly are the other LR players from 10-20 years ago when the LR hunting game was beginning to come out of the closet? Besides NF and Leupold, which I did mention BTW there really aren't many others. Premier and S&B but they never held the market share. Bushnell but they had very limited options.

The LR game in this country started with military and LE and most all of them were trained on MILS so I am not sure the "what's comfortable" concept fits.

Scot E.

 

[Etool]

I use Mil-Dot and Mrads, less math, and quicker adjustments in the field.