Silverback7
Well-Known Member
I dont understand how MOA can be more accurate than MIL, Could you please explain this for me?
Dave
Dave
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Why the love for MOA?
- Thread starter ICANHITHIMMAN
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
SBruce
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily more accurate, but more precise in my opinion.
a Moa covers 10.5" at 1000 yds.......a mil covers 36" at 1000 yds.
a 1/4 minute click moves the bullet 2.6" at 1000, where a 1/10 mil click moves the bullet 3.6" at 1000 yds.
For my eyes, it's easier to discern a 1/4 minute of spacing in a 1 MOA reticle than it is to discern a 1/10 mil spaceing in a mil dot scope. Even if they were equally easy, a 1/4 minute is a smaller measurement than 1/10 mil is.
At a glance I can visually divide a square into 1/4ths. I can't visually divide a square into 1/10ths nearly as easy. The "squares" of a mil are much bigger.
Hope that makes sense.?
Don't get me wrong, they both work. They both do what they are designed to do. I just feel that the moa spacing is the more user friendly of the two.
USO has been IPHY for years.
SBruce
Well-Known Member
Really, Seriously?? I certainly didn't know that, if they are, then they're doing the right thing IMO.
IPHY is so easy and quick.
sscoyote
Well-Known Member
I also like to apply reticles for downrange zeroing and rangefinding. IMO it's a good idea to completely understand the math behind reticles in 2nd and 1st focal plane scopes, and how to apply them.
We actually measured the size of a target at 1000 yds. to within .3" once using a mil reticle at a subtension other than std. milliradian (to obtain better accuracy). We had to mil a target of known dimension at a known range to calculate the subtension ("reverse milling") then remil the 1000 yd. target to calc. it's dimension. I have done this more than once successfully.
As it turns out the most basic form of the mil-ranging formula actually defines rangefinding with any reticle (and even turret) as well as downrange zeroing with reticles and/or turrets.
It's not often discussed but i agree that a backup system should be established in case the laser doesn't work.
The more you know about your optic the better off u will be in the field.
This optic system is a perfect example of that--
It's the Nikon Buckmasters 6-18x mil-dot on a 17 Fireball XP-100. It has been responsible for a few 1st shot connections as far out as right around 500 yds. in some light winds on prairie dogs. I apply the optic at 18x for rangefinding and windage reference where the mil becomes 66% of the 3.6 IPHY std. mil. subtension at 12x (12/18=.667, .667x3.6=2.4 IPHY). Elevation is IPHY with turret.
It is FUN to play with the math for long-range shooting...IMO!
We actually measured the size of a target at 1000 yds. to within .3" once using a mil reticle at a subtension other than std. milliradian (to obtain better accuracy). We had to mil a target of known dimension at a known range to calculate the subtension ("reverse milling") then remil the 1000 yd. target to calc. it's dimension. I have done this more than once successfully.
As it turns out the most basic form of the mil-ranging formula actually defines rangefinding with any reticle (and even turret) as well as downrange zeroing with reticles and/or turrets.
It's not often discussed but i agree that a backup system should be established in case the laser doesn't work.
The more you know about your optic the better off u will be in the field.
This optic system is a perfect example of that--
It's the Nikon Buckmasters 6-18x mil-dot on a 17 Fireball XP-100. It has been responsible for a few 1st shot connections as far out as right around 500 yds. in some light winds on prairie dogs. I apply the optic at 18x for rangefinding and windage reference where the mil becomes 66% of the 3.6 IPHY std. mil. subtension at 12x (12/18=.667, .667x3.6=2.4 IPHY). Elevation is IPHY with turret.
It is FUN to play with the math for long-range shooting...IMO!
Last edited:
LouBoyd
Well-Known Member
The practical solution to that is to carry a second laser rangefinder or at least a spare battery. Rangefinders are quite reliable. Who wants range readings which aren't better than 20% error? The problem with stadia reticles isn't reading the reticles or doing the math, it's guessing the size of natural objects. . You can get under 5% error if you have objects of known size in the field of view but how often do you have that?
Silverback7
Well-Known Member
IPHY is????
Does it matter what focal length
Does it matter what focal length
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
Yeah, 'targets' are not animals of varying aspect.. Use a laser.
Silverback7, who said anything about focal length?
IPHY is inches per hundred yards. 1/8 IPHY is the highest of adjustment resolutions I know of, which is .125" @100YDS -vs- .360" with 1/10mil(the smallest I've seen in mil).
Maybe there has been 1/16", I don't know..
I highly doubt there are a lot of USO scopes in IPHY(other than 3.6/MRAD or 1.047MOA). I could be wrong, but it would stun me if this was so at 1.000"/100yd. Afterall, their market is tactical/LE/'snipers', LOL, and IPHY is obviously either too simple or too complicated for that bunch..
Apparently SFP subtensions and laser ranging are complicated also.
I'm in alignment with SBruce on this.
Silverback7, who said anything about focal length?
IPHY is inches per hundred yards. 1/8 IPHY is the highest of adjustment resolutions I know of, which is .125" @100YDS -vs- .360" with 1/10mil(the smallest I've seen in mil).
Maybe there has been 1/16", I don't know..
I highly doubt there are a lot of USO scopes in IPHY(other than 3.6/MRAD or 1.047MOA). I could be wrong, but it would stun me if this was so at 1.000"/100yd. Afterall, their market is tactical/LE/'snipers', LOL, and IPHY is obviously either too simple or too complicated for that bunch..
Apparently SFP subtensions and laser ranging are complicated also.
I'm in alignment with SBruce on this.
Maybe you ought to give USO a call. Plenty of IPHY reticles and turrets available and
always have been. I think they should make it a bit clearer in their marketing but
I am no salesman so it's their business. And I agree, if anything is convoluted it's
the mil system. Doesn't use actual milradian numbers at all, Just a rounded off convenience system. True moa is the only system out there true to it's original math.
But with todays calculators it's becoming a mute point. They all spit out the numbers
in any combination you want. As a note, J. Wiliams Sr. was a friend of mine, he was a long range competitor from way back. He originally catered to the international long range hunting circles before it became
popular as it is today. The military end of it was pursued for the money not the love of it. Their products are custom and you can order anything you want, if it's doable they will do it.
Last edited:
ICANHITHIMMAN
Well-Known Member
Lots of great points here guys. I suppose for those of us who choose mils its based on using our rifle systems in a dual role aspect hunting/steal (with demsions of known size).
My US Optics is .065 MOA per click
My US Optics is .065 MOA per click
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
ICANHITHIMMAN, 1/16moa is pretty **** fine in adjustment.
It would take 1/55mil to match that resolution!
Did you have an issue with MOA as a standard?
What did you really want fron this thread?
Loner, I agree that calculated and dialed solutions put it all to success.
I also know accuracy in calculations is tied to input accuracy.
To the subject of MILs and SFP scopes;
In the real world, which I hunt in, optical bracket ranging in MILs, and then holding off in MILLs is more an act of futility than calculated precision.
I read some doing this rely on spotting misses & corrections to take any mark..
Some even credit themselves with 'hunting' by this blonde approach..
But I could never accept any part of this as a valid hunting.
It would take 1/55mil to match that resolution!
Did you have an issue with MOA as a standard?
What did you really want fron this thread?
Loner, I agree that calculated and dialed solutions put it all to success.
I also know accuracy in calculations is tied to input accuracy.
To the subject of MILs and SFP scopes;
In the real world, which I hunt in, optical bracket ranging in MILs, and then holding off in MILLs is more an act of futility than calculated precision.
I read some doing this rely on spotting misses & corrections to take any mark..
Some even credit themselves with 'hunting' by this blonde approach..
But I could never accept any part of this as a valid hunting.
ICANHITHIMMAN
Well-Known Member
I suppose I just wanted discusion on the issue I already have my mind made up on mils just wondering why guys pick MOA is all.
I have mils down pat at this point so MOA makes my brain wonkie
sscoyote
Well-Known Member
Lou, when i'm out coyote hunting every year i get a lot of opportunity to reticle range antelope (mostly), and according to my notes i have 8 entries from 300 to about 700 yds, and by using 14" for does and 15" for bucks i have 1-2% error from lasered readings using everything from simple plex to Ballistic Plex. 2 seasons ago i finally had the opportunity to reticle range 2 coyotes and by guessing their back to brisket measurements ~11" (can't remember now) i ranged them both close enough to have killed them out at ~500-some yds. (also can't remember exact details now). John Barsness has also used the system with way better success than simply guessing before the lasers hit the market (on antelope mostly). I actually reticle-ranged a doe antelope on the move trotting through a prairie dog town we were shooting in and got very close to lasered range (~350) using another mil reticle.
I elevated my score in a tactical match couple years ago by reverse milling one target, calculating it's size, then milling another target of the same dimension, and it worked well enough to hit the ~350ish yd. target (steel prairie dogs actually) using a 4 MOA reticle subtension--the important point here being knowing the simple math behind the system is better than not knowing it, and no one's laser was working on that particular tgt.
Here's another example of why it's important to have some system established. Buddy was hunting antelope several years ago when he came upon an alerted buck. The buck ran from him some distance away and got down into a hollow. My buddy takes off after him and while crawling up to the buck it jumped out of it's bed spooked by my partner. My buddy's prone from crawling of course and pulls out his laser to try and range the buck standing broadside. But he can't get the laser steady enough to get a range. He keeps raising higher and higher to try and get the laser to work. Finally he got a lasered range of 200-something. Now had he had a point blank range rangefinding system established with his plex reticle he could have applied an adequately accurate system quickly without having to get out of position. He said he thought the buck was over 300 yds. away--easy to misake from prone. He actually got that buck somehow even with all the lasering antics he was doing right in front of him.
For me knowing and applying the systems when needed has been a help way more than a hindrance.
Last edited:
I get a kick out of listening to these answers. Not that anyone is right or wrong but the reason that most guys say they love the MOA option is the exact reason that most diehard MIL guys hate it! Most MOA'ers love it because it is "close enough" to 1 inch per hundred yards so the math is easy. MIL'ers will say the fact that you are trying to apply an linear number to an angular measurement shows that you don't really understand the correct and fastest way to use any scope in MOA or MIL.
Much of it really depends in figuring out your personal shooting style.
If you are going to use a duplex reticle then the question of MOA or MIL is much different than if you are thinking about getting a scope with a matching turret/reticle for ranging, holdover, etc.
If your system of shooting requires you to assign a linear number to a MIL or MOA then you just need to figure out which math is easier and go with it. Each guy will be different but I would argue that the math for either is doable for just about anyone with some practice. One WILL be more intuitive though.
I personally like matching reticles and turrets with some kind of hash reticle and I use the angular measurement to calculate hold and windage after my initial shot. It is much faster and eliminates a lot of confusion and chances for error when rushing to get off a shot.
I personally like the MIL system a bit better for long range stuff. I personally don't find the finer adjustment of the MOA to offer any advantage in 95%+ of my shooting. You have to get way past 800-900 yards and be a really, really good shot to notice any difference here IMO.
MIL reticles are cleaner, MIL turrets are faster to adjust with less chance for rotation error. MIL eliminates some chance of error because a MIL is a MIL is a MIL. With MOA there are a lot of varying options from manufacturers that for the long range guys can mess up long range accuracy. There are scopes with true MOA turrets and IPHY reticles but they call the reticle MOA. There are True MOA turrets with true MOA reticles. There are IPHY turrets and on and on. You have to be sure you know what you are getting then test the scope to be sure.
If you have a spotter that doesn't call misses by MOA or MIL but just how many inches you were off then MOA is sometimes easier for folks because that "linear number per MOA" concepts becomes valuable and I think for most guys the math is now faster and more intuitive.
One important thing to remember is that both MOA and MIL are angular measurements so if you are interested in learning more about the concept of ranging with a reticle you don't have to buy a MIL scope to start practicing. You can stick with what you are familiar with, MOA, and get the hang of it very quickly. Guys over at the HIDE tell newbies that MIL is a must for this and it just ain't so.
A good scope with a true MOA turret and reticle with 2 MOA hashes, or a scope with IPHY reticle and turrets with 2 inch hashes would go a long way in allowing MOA to compete with MIL in my opinion. There just aren't many good options out there that meets those specs.
Much of it really depends in figuring out your personal shooting style.
If you are going to use a duplex reticle then the question of MOA or MIL is much different than if you are thinking about getting a scope with a matching turret/reticle for ranging, holdover, etc.
If your system of shooting requires you to assign a linear number to a MIL or MOA then you just need to figure out which math is easier and go with it. Each guy will be different but I would argue that the math for either is doable for just about anyone with some practice. One WILL be more intuitive though.
I personally like matching reticles and turrets with some kind of hash reticle and I use the angular measurement to calculate hold and windage after my initial shot. It is much faster and eliminates a lot of confusion and chances for error when rushing to get off a shot.
I personally like the MIL system a bit better for long range stuff. I personally don't find the finer adjustment of the MOA to offer any advantage in 95%+ of my shooting. You have to get way past 800-900 yards and be a really, really good shot to notice any difference here IMO.
MIL reticles are cleaner, MIL turrets are faster to adjust with less chance for rotation error. MIL eliminates some chance of error because a MIL is a MIL is a MIL. With MOA there are a lot of varying options from manufacturers that for the long range guys can mess up long range accuracy. There are scopes with true MOA turrets and IPHY reticles but they call the reticle MOA. There are True MOA turrets with true MOA reticles. There are IPHY turrets and on and on. You have to be sure you know what you are getting then test the scope to be sure.
If you have a spotter that doesn't call misses by MOA or MIL but just how many inches you were off then MOA is sometimes easier for folks because that "linear number per MOA" concepts becomes valuable and I think for most guys the math is now faster and more intuitive.
One important thing to remember is that both MOA and MIL are angular measurements so if you are interested in learning more about the concept of ranging with a reticle you don't have to buy a MIL scope to start practicing. You can stick with what you are familiar with, MOA, and get the hang of it very quickly. Guys over at the HIDE tell newbies that MIL is a must for this and it just ain't so.
A good scope with a true MOA turret and reticle with 2 MOA hashes, or a scope with IPHY reticle and turrets with 2 inch hashes would go a long way in allowing MOA to compete with MIL in my opinion. There just aren't many good options out there that meets those specs.
