• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

  • The site has been updated!

    If you notice any issues, please let us know below!

    VIEW THREAD

Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I run Mil/Mil scopes because a mil is a mil is a mil.

I don't worry about MOA/IPHY and I don't convert. What I see is what I get.

However I still have one Mil/MOA scope and won the last match I shot with it.

You can get the job done with whatever you choose. Just make sure you KNOW what it is you are choosing.

The final recommendation I make regarding scopes is that Mil reticles are the most common. If you have someone spotting for you, it's going to be more accurate and faster if you both are using the same reticle.

 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Error stacking happens in all things man made an used.
If you don't qualify your gear, no matter who made it, don't bitch when it bites you.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's simple, because look what i was questioning above there Mulehunter...

JLWoolf posted the formula he used for ranging as inches X100 / MOA of his NF scope...

if you take an 18" target and range it using that with a NF getting 1.5 MOA you are off by 54 yards, at 1150 yards. Which is clearly a miss.

When manufactures screw up the most basic of information, forget the error factor of the mechanics, just the basic differences you have a problem.

The errors in the turrets is another thing but I will say, I thoroughly check my scopes using a 4ft level and FFS to calibrate and I do not have 1 scope in my stable that I use which is off. They all subtend dead nuts .1 mils, if there was one who was off, I would return it.

But using the IPHY formula for MOA is non-starter, saying you have MOA turrets and they are really IPHY is a non-starter... that is the point of saying manufacturers are leading people in the wrong direction. </div></div>

When you're wrong, you're wrong and, I'll stand here, corrected. In all honesty, I use a rangefinder to get my yardages...almost always. I should work more on ranging targets but, I'm still offended by the other post. LOL

In fact... I think I've been motivated by this post to do just that.

JLWoolf??? Really?

Should I be taking offense at that???

Well, whatever... I'm not going to flex my ego here.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The errors in the turrets is another thing but I will say, I thoroughly check my scopes using a 4ft level and FFS to calibrate and I do not have 1 scope in my stable that I use which is off. They all subtend dead nuts .1 mils, if there was one who was off, I would return it.

But using the IPHY formula for MOA is non-starter, saying you have MOA turrets and they are really IPHY is a non-starter... that is the point of saying manufacturers are leading people in the wrong direction. </div></div>

Im not arguing that point with you Frank. I agree with you that the ranging formula he used was incorrect for MOA. I was just highlighting that my experience with scopes has been that they are all a little off from where they are supposed to be. What is your personnal experience where the manufacturer stated the adjustments where 1/4 MOA and they tested to be 1/4 IPHY?
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I have had 2 scopes from USO and 2 from Nightforce that were not true clicks. At a measured (with 300' tape) 100yds with rifles that shoot 3/8" or better for 5 shots. I find it hard to believe that the guys at US Optics and Nightforce make perfect adjustable 1/10th mil scopes and then screw up on 1/4 moa scopes because they don't understand the difference between moa and iphy (especially USO as they offer both). Ranging argument aside (as i agree with you) i think it's misleading to tell people their mil scopes will track perfect and the moa ones won't.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

if you say so, with 2 scopes and who knows how you are verifying, I will take your word for it, they are all off, and nobody gets it right.

Funny thing is, when I measure using a 4ft level and input the value into the calibration screen with FFS I get dead on more times than not.
SH_FLG_SSHDFFS-588x390.jpg


this image happens to be a SSHD scope, but I check all my scopes the same. I don't' shoot it I measure it because shooting lends to errors. At a class at Gunsite we did the same thing, measured and used FFS to verify, not many off there either.

But if you say all manufacturers get it wrong, who am I to argue. I wasn't there.

I have had scopes that showed .099, and .098 but that is about as far off as I have seen to date, without going some where beyond the useable range of course. With MOA vs IPHY you see that alternate either one way or the other. NF should measure .26 for their MOA models.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

It was 4 scopes total for me. I do it the way i read it in Brian Litz book. I measure out an exact 100yds then zero the scope. Then i take it through the range of travel. Im sure you have alot more gear than i do and more experience, i was commenting on my personnal experience.

If all Mil scopes are perfectly calibrated than that would be a good reason not to use moa.

In your video review of the tpal you shot and measured. If the rifle/shooter combo is consistent enough its plenty accurate.

lowlight's Tpal Review skip ahead to 1:55

 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I shoot and video to match the reticle to the scope and I am not measuring the clicks.

That is only because you can't video tape me watching the reticle travel 4ft so I can count the clicks it takes... it's just a visual difference. One looks good on camera one doesn't.

if every scope you test is wrong you might want to re-assess your testing or validate the scope errors with another method.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
if every scope you test is wrong you might want to re-assess your testing or validate the scope errors with another method. </div></div>


When i tested my USO's IPHY clicks the measured out .245" When i dial 20 it moved my point of impact 19 5/8". I am happy with the way i test and the results speak for themselves. If you are shooting at a steel silhoutte at 1,000 are you going to notice that its 3.75" off? For me its an error i can measure and account for so i put it in the ballistic program. I put in the correction factor and see the results when the hits are centered in elevation.

Why would i want to re-assess my testing when it works?
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Pretty darn good subtending a shot to .005, I am impressed, is that to the top of the group, bottom of the group, center of the group, prone, off a bench, I might have to do that to figure things out to nearest .001" of an inch.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
if you take an 18" target and range it using that with a NF getting 1.5 MOA you are off by 54 yards, at 1150 yards. Which is clearly a miss.

</div></div>

In your video review one of the targets you ranged during the tracking test came up "1/10th mil low". By my estimate thats about what my 3/8" error was. Was it the scope or you? Lets say that you were ranging the same 18" target. If you blew your ranging by a 1/10th mil at 1,000yds you would be off by 250yds. Seems like a good reason to check it and fix it to me.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

The difference between IPHY and MOA is .011" per click so if a scope is off by .005" in either direction you can't really say its Manufacturer ignorance, just error. I measure to center of group.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MuleHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
if you take an 18" target and range it using that with a NF getting 1.5 MOA you are off by 54 yards, at 1150 yards. Which is clearly a miss.

</div></div>

In your video review one of the targets you ranged during the tracking test came up "1/10th mil low". By my estimate thats about what my 3/8" error was. Was it the scope or you? Lets say that you were ranging the same 18" target. If you blew your ranging by a 1/10th mil at 1,000yds you would be off by 250yds. Seems like a good reason to check it and fix it to me.</div></div>

Which scope the Vortex when I went beyond the max elevation range... wasn't it a 4X scope and I cranked it beyond the manufacturer recommended elevation

if that is the one you are talking about... hardly an LR optic
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

D'uh,

That is me reading the reticle and not measuring anything but eyeballing it... I read the reticle to .1 and you're calling that a scope error.. Please get a life.

With me judging the distance by eyeballing it, I still managed to take the center out of the target all the way up. That is not scope tracking error.

Not a single ruler was used, so how can you even begin to claim there is an issue. I am moving the reticle over and eyeballing what I believe to be the correct mil adjustment.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

We also had some SS scopes and Bushnell Tactical 4200's that were either .235 or .273 per click. More than just 4 scopes in my experience. Not including my friends' NF. It's not a big deal, just enter it once into the program and your done. I realize that its a bit dogmatic to say ALL Manufacturers. But i think its true, and more often than not people don't realize 3/8 moa at 1,000, or don't care, or blame it on something else. Most of the nice ballistic programs have that feature in them for a reason. The problem is some guys don't check them and try to do a trajectory validation instead and just end up compounding errors.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Give it break...

you're seeing ghosts.

Agreed most need to check, and check more than 20", which how you can actually see the sub-tension, by checking tracking across 100% and not 40%. Using a 4ft level you can test and validate, I have tested and validated every scope I use and they are all dead nuts on or else I wouldn't use it.

Have I seen errors, sure, quite a few, but not all manufacturers suffer from it, and clearly I have a stable of scopes that are error free tested across 48" and not 20" and not SHOT but measured via the clicks and the actual movement of the reticle.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">D'uh,

That is me reading the reticle and not measuring anything but eyeballing it... I read the reticle to .1 and you're calling that a scope error.. Please get a life.

</div></div>

Okay Frank. But if you can't read the reticle to within a 1/10th mil you shouldn't be calling people out on a possible 54yd error because their stupid manufacturer doesn't know the difference between IPHY and MOA. My argument is that the manufacturers know what they are doing and they all have a little acceptable tolerance built into the turrets, including some manufacturers that allow a certain percentage of reticle cant. Your argument seems to say that the guys making the scopes don't know the difference between IPHY and MOA, i disagree. My opinion is partly based off a phone call to the technical support of Nightforce and their comments that the scope was within their acceptle error margin. He said to 'take a caliper and measure from the bottom of the scope body to the top of the turret, then adjust up one click and measure the difference. That's how fine the adjustments are and we can only get them so close.'


If what you are doing is close enough for YOU, or so close you think they are nuts on, than go for it. I would personally rather account for the error. And 1/10th mil at 1,000yds is measureable.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Okay Rocket man,

Any time you want to put rounds downrange against my poor skills let me know... Forget the fact I am videotaping myself, it was a single target, and tracked perfect the next shot, one .1 mil error and suddenly it's enough to shut me up. As if I don't check every scope I own, you're on to something new.

Like I said, any time you want to go head to head name the time and place, be happy to make it for real against your obvious superior skills. We'll do it 100% UKD to keep it fair and a combination both ranging and shooting. And I won't divide my attention I will give 100% of it to hitting the target.

You win, Every manufacturer is fucking the public , thanks for the public service announcement.

I'm outta here, you win !
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

If you were spotting for me on a steel silhoutte at 1,000yds and i was attempting a head shot and i hit 3.75" low would you call it a head shot? or would you tell me i was a 1/10th low?

Im not trying to insult or challenge you. Im just sharing my opinion and what i have personally observed. No hard feelings. The message isn't that we are being screwed, its that it doesn't matter if its mil or moa.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

9mm vs. 45ACP? AR15 vs. AK47? Jenna Jameson vs. Tia Tanaka?

Preference bro, that's all the difference...
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike Vegas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9mm vs. 45ACP? AR15 vs. AK47? Jenna Jameson vs. Tia Tanaka?

Preference bro, that's all the difference... </div></div>


Who is Jenna Jameson? Is she into shooting? Which one prefers mil or moa?
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

It's pretty clear.

Mil for a sniper rifle and MOA for a hunting rifle.
grin.gif
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RADcustom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's pretty clear.

Mil for a sniper rifle and MOA for a hunting rifle.
grin.gif
</div></div>

Dude you're awesome. Thanks I needed a good laugh.
How are ya man?
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RADcustom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's pretty clear.

Mil for a sniper rifle and MOA for a hunting rifle.
grin.gif
</div></div>

Dude your awesome. Thanks I needed a good laugh.
How are ya man? </div></div>

Thanks, but it's "you're"
wink.gif
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RADcustom</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RADcustom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's pretty clear.

Mil for a sniper rifle and MOA for a hunting rifle.
grin.gif
</div></div>

Dude your awesome. Thanks I needed a good laugh.
How are ya man? </div></div>

Thanks, but it's "you're"
wink.gif
</div></div>


I am sorry, I do not know what you're talking about.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

They should really come out with a new measurement that combines the two and call it a MilOA. Maybe then we could all agree about something.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike Vegas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9mm vs. 45ACP? AR15 vs. AK47? Jenna Jameson vs. Tia Tanaka?

Preference bro, that's all the difference... </div></div>


Who is Jenna Jameson? Is she into shooting? Which one prefers mil or moa? </div></div>

Ow yeah! She likes shooting... Not sure if she's an MOA or MIL kinda shooter... LoL
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Before you make the choice to go moa or mil, unlike Jenna Jameson who goes both, You need to know if your rifle is chambered in mil or moa, that way you get a scope to match.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MuleHunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you were spotting for me on a steel silhoutte at 1,000yds and i was attempting a head shot and i hit 3.75" low would you call it a head shot? or would you tell me i was a 1/10th low?

Im not trying to insult or challenge you. Im just sharing my opinion and what i have personally observed. No hard feelings. The message isn't that we are being screwed, its that it doesn't matter if its mil or moa. </div></div>

Jesse,...ur totally missing the point or lacking any real experience with MIL/MIL scopes. Take the MSR ret as an example,..yes,...you could call a 1/10th MIL correction with ease on the fly at ANY distance ANY magnification. No math no hardship.

Beats MOA or unmatched ret/turret combinations hands down.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Jesse,...ur totally missing the point or lacking any real experience with MIL/MIL scopes. Take the MSR ret as an example,..yes,...you could call a 1/10th MIL correction with ease on the fly at ANY distance ANY magnification. No math no hardship.

Beats MOA or unmatched ret/turret combinations hands down. </div></div>

No. I understand ffp, and matching turrets to the reticle. It doesn't "beat" anything. Thats like saying chocolate beats vanilla hands down. While i appreciate your opinion on your preference for Mil i disagree that its better than Moa or Iphy. Its a preference matter. You are not going to have any advatage over a guy using a different system. I understand that the trend on this site is for a Mil based system but i think its silly to insinuate that a guy is going to be handicapped if he uses something else.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Okay Rocket man,

Any time you want to put rounds downrange against my poor skills let me know... Forget the fact I am videotaping myself, it was a single target, and tracked perfect the next shot, one .1 mil error and suddenly it's enough to shut me up. As if I don't check every scope I own, you're on to something new.

Like I said, any time you want to go head to head name the time and place, be happy to make it for real against your obvious superior skills. We'll do it 100% UKD to keep it fair and a combination both ranging and shooting. And I won't divide my attention I will give 100% of it to hitting the target.

You win, Every manufacturer is fucking the public , thanks for the public service announcement.

I'm outta here, you win !
</div></div>

LL, I've tried to respect you... I really have.... I'm frankly tired of seeing you do what you do here... I know it's your place and you can ban me if you like and, at this point, I don't give a shit.

A sniper tab does not a good shooter make, IMHO... I know you've done a lot of work and you probably shoot 1000s of rounds/year... I respect that and, I've always tried to respect you but, you respect nobody.

You act like a prick here and, somebody has to say it so, I'll be the sacrificial lamb... I don't need this place to be who I am.... I have folks here I keep in contact with...

It's a nice place, don't get me wrong but, I'm not going to kiss your ass to stay. I've had several .. run in type situations with you where you've been a prick... I don't need to be called a "L" ( loser ) by you or, "rocketman" or anything else by a "sniper tab" guy when, I've shot at the national level.... have you??? I have.

I don't appreciate being told I'm wrong all the time by someone that could be my kid and I was shooting smallbore when I was 10yrs old and I won the state championsip when I was 12... I'm 47 now.. and you may be able to learn some things from me, son.

So, go ahead and ban be for my disrespect to your thrown postion in this place... cuz, I'm done with your attitude

Shit, I was national jr team when I was 14yrs old... so, who sent you to the nationals???? and, why am I always wrong, sniper tab guy????

( you should remember not everyone here is new )

So... I've just said what a LOT of others were thinking.... I'm expecting not to have a login tomorrow but, I don't give a shit.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jwoolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Okay Rocket man,

Any time you want to put rounds downrange against my poor skills let me know... Forget the fact I am videotaping myself, it was a single target, and tracked perfect the next shot, one .1 mil error and suddenly it's enough to shut me up. As if I don't check every scope I own, you're on to something new.

Like I said, any time you want to go head to head name the time and place, be happy to make it for real against your obvious superior skills. We'll do it 100% UKD to keep it fair and a combination both ranging and shooting. And I won't divide my attention I will give 100% of it to hitting the target.

You win, Every manufacturer is fucking the public , thanks for the public service announcement.

I'm outta here, you win !
</div></div>

LL, I've tried to respect you... I really have.... I'm frankly tired of seeing you do what you do here... I know it's your place and you can ban me if you like and, at this point, I don't give a shit.

A sniper tab does not a good shooter make, IMHO... I know you've done a lot of work and you probably shoot 1000s of rounds/year... I respect that and, I've always tried to respect you but, you respect nobody.

You act like a prick here and, somebody has to say it so, I'll be the sacrificial lamb... I don't need this place to be who I am.... I have folks here I keep in contact with...

It's a nice place, don't get me wrong but, I'm not going to kiss your ass to stay. I've had several .. run in type situations with you where you've been a prick... I don't need to be called a "L" ( loser ) by you or, "rocketman" or anything else by a "sniper tab" guy when, I've shot at the national level.... have you??? I have.

I don't appreciate being told I'm wrong all the time by someone that could be my kid and I was shooting smallbore when I was 10yrs old and I won the state championsip when I was 12... I'm 47 now.. and you may be able to learn some things from me, son.

So, go ahead and ban be for my disrespect to your thrown postion in this place... cuz, I'm done with your attitude

Shit, I was national jr team when I was 14yrs old... so, who sent you to the nationals???? and, why am I always wrong, sniper tab guy????

( you should remember not everyone here is new )

So... I've just said what a LOT of others were thinking.... I'm expecting not to have a login tomorrow but, I don't give a shit.</div></div>

LOL

That was funny, and again.. you;re wrong.
smile.gif


You made a mistake and didn't even realize you made a mistake and changed the situation to think I was calling you out for something else... The formula you gave was wrong, end of story. An MOA Reticle use 95.5 and not 100, common error and one that can result in a complete miss of a target, especially a UKD one.

And I am 44 years old, will be 45 next month... not your son. another mistake you made.

Congratulations on your jr nationals, nothing else to say. I never did that when I was 14, I was working in my dad's shop, not really shooting much in Bridgeport CT, unless you count the murders, it had a higher rate than NYC at the time.

Though I do shoot 1000s of rounds and have a heck of a lot of experience, most of it current, no need to go back in time here. I do this (shooting type stuff) and just this for a living. So I am bit more relevant than a jr national.

As far as the "rocket man" mule hunter was right it was not directed at you, another mistake. What is that like 3... at least, all in one thread.

So, here is the deal, banning you would be all of 3 clicks, one on your name, one to check the box and one to update the profile. Not worth it, LOL

Emouse, dig the MSR, I have 2 and like them... not to mention when i mil things (when I am not multi-tasking) i can subtend .1 mils easily.
smile.gif
Admittedly I when I am shooting a video, acting both in front of the camera and behind, I tend to lose a little bit... incase anyone was wondering, 95% of the videos you see me in, I am shooting, acting and editing all alone, makes the shooting part a chore as I am always more worried about the camera.

For the most part, I wasn't too interested in debating mils vs moa, but I will say, correcting direct errors either way I had no trouble doing. If you stuff matches you 're definitely better off than not matching, and while most people who never venture out of their own pond, usually shooting in private, read by themselves, moa works perfectly well. however throw them in the mix with others, like a competition where the situation is beyond their control, they tend to fall apart more often then not. Sure there are exceptions, 1 to 10 at least, but usually the moa guys don't fare as well. Just a fact. Too many variations and no standard among manufacturers like mils.

Oh, and Jwoolf the "L" from the other post, was a simple typo, it wasn't a grand scheme, nothing more them my fingers moving faster than my thoughts, or my thoughts moving faster than my fingers, whatever. Either way, nothing more than a typo... what is that mistake number 4, for reading too much into it.

LOL

enjoy your evening.
smile.gif
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

My rifles don't shoot different from the 1st shot to the second and we have done it in class after class with a host of students, I think we have learned something since the 70s.

Jwoolf, your wisdom will be missed..
wink.gif
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Let the banhammer speak...

Back on subject, there is no "better" one between Mil and MOA, but I will take Mil because it is what I've been using since I started hunting, and I don't have to worry about whether or not its MOA or IPHY, Mil is Mil and doesn't change from scope to scope (unless, of course, the manufacturer doesn't do it right). I don't want to have to worry about whether or not my scope is MOA or IPHY, don't get me wrong, I like MOA scopes just as much as Mil and can use them just as well, but its that uncertainty that makes me go Mil everytime I buy a scope.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

Nope, no ban here, he is seeing things that aren't there and it will be funny to have him read this and realize he was wrong almost across the board. LOL

The lack of standard is the biggest problem, because manufacturers interchange MOA and IPHY without any real concern, they figure everyone is rounding anyway so if they call it an MOA it doesn't matter, so moving .25 or .26 who will notice.

Also there is no standard in reticles, and subtending down to 1 moa is not as easy as it appears with some reticles. Others become cluttered, and the fact they have reticles that go, 2 MOA - 5MOA etc, creates a bit of confusion. Luckily companies are working to fix this but still it creates a lot of confusion. 1/8th, 1/4, 1/2 or 1 MOA turrets with reticles are that different means knowing two different values or more at the same time... as put above, a mil is a mil and all of the reticles have 1 mil sub tensions, it usually just depends on they assist you in breaking that up. Aside from the few mistakes, which very few tactical people buy, the turrets are all .1 mils, another benefit. Much easier to break up 1/10th, then 1/4 turrets with 2 MOA reticle along with a 5 MOA line, etc.

But still, if you're doing nothing more than shooting by yourself, it doesn't matter at all. Anything will work, especially when you control the variables, control the scenario the odds are you'll do it right every time. So run with whatever you like, if it makes you happy, who is anyone else here to argue with that. End of the day it is a tired argument.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I'm sort of sorry I went on such a rant as I did....

I don't deny that I was sort of ignorant of the IPHY thing... that's true...

Hey, I'm a perfectionist as, we all are or, we wouldn't be here.

I don't like to be talked down to... or be called out as an idiot when, I'm clearly not one.

The funny thing about it is that there are shooters but, when you get to the national level or the real competitive level... you get to millimeters....and that is what wins the day.... I know Frank is one of those guys, there's no doubt.... I'm an old guy but, I've shot out of a sling my whole life and, it's fun to shoot off a bipod now and reload for accuracy now for me... that's my thing now... I'm not taking anything away from anyone here and, I just don't want to have to feel like an idiot to post here.

Shooting off a bipod is new to me.. shooting out of a sling is not. Either way.... you end up fighting over very small deviations at this level, IMHO and egos should not be so involved as this... it should be helping others in a positive way.

That's my thing... I have about 4... sort of students I'm working with... they don't pay me.. I love it... so do they.

I show them how to turn necks, anneal brass, case prep, trickel charge, work up loads and shoot for accuracy... It's a total labor of love but, if guys like us don't do it.... who will???

We're a breed that should be able to pass this information on... and, IMHO, it's something that should be always passed freely.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The lack of standard is the biggest problem, because manufacturers interchange MOA and IPHY without any real concern, they figure everyone is rounding anyway so if they call it an MOA it doesn't matter, so moving .25 or .26 who will notice.</div></div>

What information are you basing that on?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Others become cluttered, and the fact they have reticles that go, 2 MOA - 5MOA etc, creates a bit of confusion. Luckily companies are working to fix this but still it creates a lot of confusion...Much easier to break up 1/10th, then 1/4 turrets with 2 MOA reticle along with a 5 MOA line, etc.</div></div>

Im not confused by my reticle at all. Some Mil reticles have .2 mil subtensions some don't, thats not confusing. My reticle has 1 moa subtenstions. Its really easy to break down 1 moa into 1/4's or less, much like milling to the .1 or better.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anything will work, especially when you control the variables, control the scenario the odds are you'll do it right every time. So run with whatever you like, if it makes you happy, who is anyone else here to argue with that. End of the day it is a tired argument. </div></div>

Totally agree. I have done just fine with Moa and i have competed in a variety of matches. We had one match where every stage had 1 UKD you had to engage first, i thought the Moa reticle worked great. We placed 5th as a team.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

AH,

History, they used to call it SMOA for Shooter MOA because it was rounded, the fact they all say an MOA (except recently) and then adjust in inches, shows the lack of standard. It is not as easy to 1.047 as it 1"

How a mil reticle helps you divide 1 mil is not an issue, not like MOA, giving you .2 mils is just an assist they all have 1 mil marks. the sub division are all part of the whole and not in spite of it. Your questions shows a bit of a lack of understanding with a mil based scope.

If you read what I wrote i said there are always exceptions, picking and choosing your battles, as well as your victories doesn't change the fact of the bigger picture.

Understand something "I" did the first MOA / MOA scope with USO. Along with John Sr I spec'd it out and worked with it. We designed it at SHOT Show in Orlando, so I have some measure of understanding and experience here.

You, yourself said manufacturers are not getting it right, why because they figure everyone uses 1" and not true moa, so they call it whatever they want. History has shown this to be a fact, very few scopes are consistent, and until the last few years there were even less MOA / MOA models, NF was pretty much. But a company like Leupold was still mixing and fond of calling an IPHY an MOA, along with many others.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

One of the biggest reasons i like the moa system is that its much easier for me as a hunter to switch from match shooting to long range hunting. One of my favorite practices is to drive in the mountains and find a rock thats 1moa or smaller, stop the truck, range it, and practice my first round hit. If i range a 1 moa spot at 800yds i know its 8" or the size of the vitals. I know its a 4.5% error but it doesnt matter for THAT purpose. The other is if i range a buck with the rangefinder i can size him up in my reticle quickly to see if its what im after. So for me it works great. I recommend Moa to other long range hunters for these reasons. If you told me its for strictly tac matches i would probably recommend a guy go Mil because that is what the community uses and just starting he will get more help from people familiar with that system. If a guy was wanting FClass advice i would advise him to look at 1/8moa because i have experienced being in between my adjustments on a 1/4moa system.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

A mil is a mil and much easier to work, there is no confusion, no conversation, in fact no math if you don't want it there,

You just read, anything you do with moa can be done with a mil... the fact you think in a linear way doesn't change the fact you don;t have to, that is a personal choice and not a requirement.

Picking the scenario and pointing out the wins in a game you designed doesn't change the big picture, more people switch from MOA to mils and not the other way around... it is all about understanding. If you are taught the correct way it;s hard to argue with it.

People are automatically taught to compound MOAs, and to round it... 1 MOA @ 100, 2" @ 200, 5" @ 500, etc, so they get this linear conversion in their head, and always think, "where will this move the bullet in inches" How many inches will .25 move the strike at 833 yards.

Mil people taught correctly just say, "a mil is a mil" doesn't matter 200, 333, 854, 1020, a mil is a mil and what you see is what you get. Need .2, dial .2, need 1.5 dial 1.5, need .75, hold the reticle .75, the answer is always the same.

That is where the problems begins and ends.
 
Re: Why is MIL better than MOA at long range?

I am familiar with the history of manufacturers rounding to 1", i thought your comments were suggesting that manufacturers were make IPHY turrets with an MOA reticle because they (the manufacture) didn't know the difference or didn't care. When you said interchage i took that as meaning IPHY turrets with MOA reticle. My mistake.

There are also alot of new offerings in the MOA/MOA market.

Im not ignorant to mil reticles i understand how they work. In an moa scope, for example the NPR1 reticle, the windage is in 2 moa increments, the vertical 1moa. On the vertical posts the varying widths of the subtension gives you 1moa and even 1/2moa measuring capabilities. I was never confused. I have used the MK4 TMR reticle too, but i prefer the moa system with the NPR1 reticle for the reasons listed above, not because i don't know how mils work lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Don'tnegotiatew/terrorist
It makes no sense, Why do Tikka TAC A1 rifles come with 0 moa scope bases.
Replies
36
Views
1K
DubfromGA
DubfromGA
Toast
Optics LOWERED: Nightforce BEAST i4F Mil-Radian 5-25x56 - C448 $2900.
Replies
1
Views
686
Toast
Toast
Arken7mm
Zero Stop loses elevation in scope
Replies
13
Views
854
Megalodong
M
SkepticalTiger
0 MOA or 20 MOA for multicaliber optic?
Replies
1
Views
148
Birddog6424
Birddog6424
Milirad
Question: Angular Resolution of The POA Dots On Burris Eliminator 5 and Eliminator 6
Replies
17
Views
585
Rocklong
Rocklong
Top Bottom
Back