mils or moa, what do you prefer?

[stangfish]

Yo- he did, "Dan Quayle".

Chuck- I did not have to watch the video as I have seen that before...but that is a classic response to anything about spelling. Dagnabbit.

[rattfink]

like meat and potatoes. we can survive very well with just the basics.
practice on paper by holding steady on your aiming point.
then dial the scope to your hit and see what happens.

I remember the Dan Quayle thing. I won't laugh at him though as I ama terrible speller.

[dondlhmn]

MOA for me...as long as I can have MOA in both reticle and turrets, but if I had to make a choice between a scope that had MOA reticle and Mil turrets and one that was all Mil, I'd DEFINITELY take the one with the reticle and turrets matching.

[squirrelsniper]

I got started back in the day when everyone used mil-dot reticles and MOA knobs. No one complained either, that's just the way it was. I spent so many years shooting that way and still have so many good scopes with the mil reticle and MOA knob combo that I still do most of my shooting that way. Now it's just habit and I really don't think much about it until someone is showing me their new scope and I realize how old-fashioned my gear is.

If I were to go back and start over again in modern times I'd probably be a Mil-Mil fan as I personally find it easier to comprehend under stress.

[Starosta]

For me, mil-mil FFP is the way to go.
Easy holdover, easy math, no zoom issues while measuring.

Wouldn't change it for anything (only target high zoom with thin duplex for pure groups shooting of the stand - in case I would wanna shoot that way).

[JMGlasgow]

I use both. Milrad on my 308, MOA on my 30-06 hunting rifle. I do like milrad better.

[chukarmandoo]

It will be interesting to look at this poll in let say 2 years.

[LoneWolf]

MOA makes sense to me but I would love to understand MRAD better

I recently switched over and believe it's a pretty easy switch as MRAD works on a scale of 10. The hard part is picturing the metric distance at range. I still range in yards, but understand that 100yds is about 91.4 meters. Math isn't that difficult.

[chukarmandoo]

The funny thing about mils, they have nothing to do with a metric system other than the fact that it can be used with meters as well as with yards. 1 mil is 1 meter at 1000 meters. 1 mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards. 1 inch at 100 yards is not 1 MOA, close but not quite.
All that mils and moa are is simply a measure of an angle. That is it, period.

[foxx]

The funny thing about mils, they have nothing to do with a metric system other than the fact that it can be used with meters as well as with yards. 1 mil is 1 meter at 1000 meters. 1 mil is 1 yard at 1000 yards. 1 inch at 100 yards is not 1 MOA, close but not quite.
All that mils and moa are is simply a measure of an angle. That is it, period.

Exactly.

Too many people , I think, are confusing the concept. It is so much easier than it is often made out to be.

[Mike220]

If you learn the milliradian system and you will never give moa another thought. Mil based rericles with 1/10 mil adjustments are the only way to go. Scopes are offered In both first and second focal planes. You can range with second fp but has to be on the mag. Setting that the manufacturer specifies. Follow up shots are easy because adj. Match the reticle. 1 mil @ 100 yards is 3.6'' On a 1/10 mil turret 1 click =.36" 1 mil @ 200 yards=7.2" 1click=.72" 1 mil @ 1000=36" 1 click=3.6" there are several foemulas to use to range targets with. The only Inches I use Is for my known target heights. I use inches. Say you have a target height of 18". 18" divided by number of mils read x27.78. Distance to target. You know the speed of your load. Trajectory sheet. Lights out on the other end.

[soutthpaw]

Downloaded a free app called "Mil Calculate" for Android. Lets you set both target and distance measurements in either metric or Standard (can set metric distance and standard for target)and also the xfactor default being 1000 or 10x but you coud have it be whatever magnification you prefer to sight at... This is a good way to see how it is NOT a metric calculation. Sort of like UTM co-ordinance which is built on a 10 factor and perfect squares... just makes life easier over the old Lat Lon system

Before you know it, you guys are all going to be buying Metric clocks
http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/theysavedlisasbrain3.png

[buxman66]

F--- it. I'm still in moa,I can't help it! What I know is what I know.it works period.

[yobuck]

i think the best solution is to find the camp with the most bucks hanging year after year.
then go make friends and find out how there doing it.
dont be expecting to be told where they got them. be happy to just find out how.
i did just that about 40 years ago.
ill never forget one guy saying to me (listen here friend if this was hard we couldnt do it).
it can be as simple or as complicated as you wish to make it.







9listen here

[broncbob]

I'm still MOA, mainly because it's what the rest of my fleet of glass is. I can't afford to replace them all, and I don't want to have try and remember what system I'm using from rifle to rifle. All of my ranging reticals are in MOA.

[452b300]

MOA makes sense to me but I would love to understand MRAD better

http://www.mil-dot.com/media/1027/the_derivation_of_the_range_estimation_equations.p df This may help? If you are using MIL/MIL a mil-dot master is just as good as a calculator and needs no batteries.

[mattri]

Just picked up a Vortex PST in mil/mil, it is so easy to use I'll probably never buy another MOA scope for field work. For target shooting at known distances I can't see how it would matter.

[yobuck]

first off i doubt you will be finding many if any serious hunters using a reticle for ranging.
we all know or should know what a small error means at long distences.
so in a practicle sence the ranging option dosent exist at least for hunting.
the exception could be varmit hunting for prairie dogs.
time is usually your enemy while hunting. if you happen to find a bedded animal your first
shot might offer the time you need. after that it could be a totaly new ballgame.
each oppurtunity for an open shot will likely be at a different distance. time simply
wont permit recalculating in most instances. bottom line is it matters not at all as to
your choice of reticle, ffp or 2ndfp. buy what you like and learn to use it well under pressure.
then buy the best rangfinder on the market.

[shoalwater]

I prefer mil/mil for no real reason. The real issue is everyone tries to look at mils and moa as linear measurements inches, yards, meters, etc, instead of the angular measurements that they are. When I miss a target at long range I don't say to myself well I was 3' to the left and 2' short so that equals this many mils at this yardage, instead I use my reticle to measure from the splash back to the target to make my corrections in mils. So instead I would say I need to come right a .5 mil and up . 3 mils, I don't ever think of it as inches, feet, yards, etc. If you think of moa or mils in this way it will be much easier on follow ups or calling corrections for your buddies. Biggest thing, as mentioned earlier is get your reticle and dials the same mil/mil or moa/moa that way your dialing what your seeing in the scope.

[soutthpaw]

I ended up with a MIL/MOA. but I am not constantly adjusting it for each shot. The adjustments are under caps and just use holdover and windage adjustment which is easier to do with mil dot or hash than a crosshair plex, etc. Also we have all grown up with 360° circles and compasses. So in that respect, MOA is An easier concept to grasp for many. For a tactical scope then a MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA and maybe even FFP.seems like a more logical choice