Looking for a new long range scope. Been using moa markings on all my scopes up to this point. I found a good price on a Mil. marks scope and was wondering if one was better than the other.
Rifle Scopes mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
- Thread starter kingfamous
- Start date
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
Just make sure your turrets match your reticle. mil/mil or moa/moa. You should be good to go either way.
Just make sure your turrets match your reticle. mil/mil or moa/moa. You should be good to go either way.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
They're both measurements. It's like saying if using kilometers per hour is better than miles per hour. As long as you know what you're using, you're good.
That being said, every time a mil-based scope is sold, I'm pretty sure a puppy is smothered by a terrorist...
They're both measurements. It's like saying if using kilometers per hour is better than miles per hour. As long as you know what you're using, you're good.
That being said, every time a mil-based scope is sold, I'm pretty sure a puppy is smothered by a terrorist...
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
I had no previous experience with a ffp mrad based optic, but at a recent long range rifle course I found my new mil/mil S&B really easy to use when dialing, holding over and holding for wind. My previous experience has only been with 2nd fp optics with 1/4" per click elevation/windage. Found the mil based optic much easier to use and for my pea brain to process.
I had no previous experience with a ffp mrad based optic, but at a recent long range rifle course I found my new mil/mil S&B really easy to use when dialing, holding over and holding for wind. My previous experience has only been with 2nd fp optics with 1/4" per click elevation/windage. Found the mil based optic much easier to use and for my pea brain to process.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: the man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mil is so much esyer </div></div>
Please explain how a mil/mil is "so much easier". I submit that is not the case over other options.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: the man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mil is so much esyer </div></div>
Please explain how a mil/mil is "so much easier". I submit that is not the case over other options.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
ive been using moa for a few years now but its all up to personal preferance. 1/4" clicks with 1/4 moa turrents.(close enough for discription) and around a 1/3 moa clicks for 1/10 mil turrents. the question is do you wanna make the switch to mils or stay with moa
ive been using moa for a few years now but its all up to personal preferance. 1/4" clicks with 1/4 moa turrents.(close enough for discription) and around a 1/3 moa clicks for 1/10 mil turrents. the question is do you wanna make the switch to mils or stay with moa
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
Like most folks, I'm sure, I grew up using hunting type scopes that used the MOA adjustments. That was simple.
Now that I've gotten into using reticles that feature mil dots, it is counter productive (in my feeble mind) to use a mil dot scope with MOA adjustments. I completed a precision rifle course with a Leupold Mark 4 (mil/moa) recently and it was difficult to be quick with it. If my bullet struck 1/2 mil low I had to do calculations in order to make the adjustment in moa. Had the scope adjustments been in mils it would have been a snap to dail up 5/10ths of a mil.
Like most folks, I'm sure, I grew up using hunting type scopes that used the MOA adjustments. That was simple.
Now that I've gotten into using reticles that feature mil dots, it is counter productive (in my feeble mind) to use a mil dot scope with MOA adjustments. I completed a precision rifle course with a Leupold Mark 4 (mil/moa) recently and it was difficult to be quick with it. If my bullet struck 1/2 mil low I had to do calculations in order to make the adjustment in moa. Had the scope adjustments been in mils it would have been a snap to dail up 5/10ths of a mil.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
I can use both mil or moa, but I find mil/mil easier just from dialing drop charts. One quick example 7mm mag 300Y(3.7 moa)350(4.9 moa) 400 (6.3 moa) 450 (7.7 moa) with a 1/2 or 1/4 moa turret you have to round up or round down each one of these drops.
The same mrad are 300(1.0 mil) 350 (1.2 mil) 400 (1.4 mil) 450 (1.6 mil) no rounding, no swag, just dial it in.
Not to get into which is "better" as that is as subjective as my post. Just my experience.
I can use both mil or moa, but I find mil/mil easier just from dialing drop charts. One quick example 7mm mag 300Y(3.7 moa)350(4.9 moa) 400 (6.3 moa) 450 (7.7 moa) with a 1/2 or 1/4 moa turret you have to round up or round down each one of these drops.
The same mrad are 300(1.0 mil) 350 (1.2 mil) 400 (1.4 mil) 450 (1.6 mil) no rounding, no swag, just dial it in.
Not to get into which is "better" as that is as subjective as my post. Just my experience.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
I prefer mil/mil so much more over the old MOA style. I could deal with IPHY if I had to make inch estimations, but reading from the reticle and dialing is great; knowing everything is just 1/1000 of whatever range I am at is great, whether it be yards or meters. Or parsecs.
I prefer mil/mil so much more over the old MOA style. I could deal with IPHY if I had to make inch estimations, but reading from the reticle and dialing is great; knowing everything is just 1/1000 of whatever range I am at is great, whether it be yards or meters. Or parsecs.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RFtinkerer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or parsecs. </div></div>
Wrong form, that ELR ;-)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RFtinkerer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or parsecs. </div></div>
Wrong form, that ELR ;-)
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
www.shooterready.com
why not try both? see what your comfortable with. just use matching reticle and turrets.
www.shooterready.com
why not try both? see what your comfortable with. just use matching reticle and turrets.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RFtinkerer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but reading from the reticle and dialing is great; . </div></div>
Why are you even dialing in the first place? Range an hold it all in the retical. Dialing is past old school.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RFtinkerer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but reading from the reticle and dialing is great; . </div></div>
Why are you even dialing in the first place? Range an hold it all in the retical. Dialing is past old school.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
I prefer to dial elivation and hold wind.
my preferance is a MOA/MOA NF NP-R1
Mils works well with folks who cant count high
I prefer to dial elivation and hold wind.
my preferance is a MOA/MOA NF NP-R1
Mils works well with folks who cant count high
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
I prefer a mil/mil scope. IMO it makes reading/making corrections much easier. Also, if you have the extra money to get a first focal scope I highly reccomend you do it. Its very convenient to have. The main thing is to make sure you reticle and turrets work on the same unit of measure. I started off with a mil/moa and sold it after 5months and went to mil/mil.
I prefer a mil/mil scope. IMO it makes reading/making corrections much easier. Also, if you have the extra money to get a first focal scope I highly reccomend you do it. Its very convenient to have. The main thing is to make sure you reticle and turrets work on the same unit of measure. I started off with a mil/moa and sold it after 5months and went to mil/mil.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: the man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mil is so much esyer </div></div>
Please explain how a mil/mil is "so much easier". I submit that is not the case over other options. </div></div>
Gunfighter-
Keep in mind, The Man is from Australia, where the metric system is utilized. Thus Minute of Angle is foriegn to him. Much like guys here feels about Mil. But that is changing.
Ilya and I were discussing this earlier and He and I explained to one guy the differences.
I said,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skylar McMahon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The thing about MOA and MIL, is they are both angular adjustments and not linear measurements.
MOA (minute of angle) is an angular measurement and so is (MIL) miliradian. It is a coincidence that when MOA is converted into a linear measurement that it subtends 1.047 inches at 100 yards. That is so close to 1” that most people consider it to be 1” at 100 yards. So a scope with .25 MOA adjustments translates to each click moving the reticle .25 of an inch at 100 yards.
It is a coincidence that 1/10 of a mil is 1 centimeter at 100 meters so most people go with metrics linear measurements for mil scopes. MOA and MIL are not standard and metric measurements they are simple angular measurements, many people think mil is metric but it is not.
If you can make your brain stop having to apply a linear measurement to your angular adjustments it is quite a bit easier to use a mil scope. You do this by using the reticle as a ruler to adjust for how much you missed the target. Say you are shooting 864 yards and you miss low, if you can see how much you missed then you put the reticle on where you were aiming and count how many mils it is to where your shot actually went. If it was 2.5 mils, then you just turn your elevation 2.5 mils in the direction you missed. It does not matter how far or how close you are shooting because it is an angular measurement. Mix matched scopes will soon be a thing of the past as it makes no sense to combine the two in one scope. All scopes with mil based reticles should have mil based clicks, I think in five years mil scopes with moa adjustments will be obsolete.
</div></div>
And then Ilya elaborated,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: koshkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Good post Skylar. Both MOA and mrad are angular measurements and thinking about one or the other should not be very different from each other.
One point where I do disagree with you though is the whole "coincidence" statement. The fact that 1 MOA is close to 1 inch at a 100 yards is indeed a coincidence. However, the fact that 0.1 mrad is 1cm at 100 meters is most certainly not a coincidence. That is most certainly intended that way by design and comes out of the very definition of the angular measure of a radian and of the method behind the metric system. That is the beauty of the metric system: you can start with very few basic unitless measures and scale everything from there.
1 radian is simply an angle where the subtended arc is equal to the radius. 1mrad is 0.001 of a radian, so 1mrad is an angle where the subtended arc is one thousandth of the radius, i.e. if an object at a certain distance from you subtends exactly 1 mrad, then the size of that object in linear units is almost exactly one thousandth of a distance between you and that object. What linear units you happen to use makes no difference. It will work with any of them.
It is simplest to use with metric linear units because of the base10 scaling, of course.
With moderately retarded measurement systems we use for traditional reasons (like inches/feet/yards for linear units and degrees for angular units), translation between angular and linear measurements is a lot more involved.
Hence, between MOA and mrad, for as long as all you need to do is trajectory compensation, it does not matter what you use. However, once rangefinding is thrown into the mix, mrads are usually a simpler and more precise way to go.
ILya
</div></div>
You can use what ever you are the most comfortable with, however it is easier when everything matches.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: the man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">mil is so much esyer </div></div>
Please explain how a mil/mil is "so much easier". I submit that is not the case over other options. </div></div>
Gunfighter-
Keep in mind, The Man is from Australia, where the metric system is utilized. Thus Minute of Angle is foriegn to him. Much like guys here feels about Mil. But that is changing.
Ilya and I were discussing this earlier and He and I explained to one guy the differences.
I said,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skylar McMahon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The thing about MOA and MIL, is they are both angular adjustments and not linear measurements.
MOA (minute of angle) is an angular measurement and so is (MIL) miliradian. It is a coincidence that when MOA is converted into a linear measurement that it subtends 1.047 inches at 100 yards. That is so close to 1” that most people consider it to be 1” at 100 yards. So a scope with .25 MOA adjustments translates to each click moving the reticle .25 of an inch at 100 yards.
It is a coincidence that 1/10 of a mil is 1 centimeter at 100 meters so most people go with metrics linear measurements for mil scopes. MOA and MIL are not standard and metric measurements they are simple angular measurements, many people think mil is metric but it is not.
If you can make your brain stop having to apply a linear measurement to your angular adjustments it is quite a bit easier to use a mil scope. You do this by using the reticle as a ruler to adjust for how much you missed the target. Say you are shooting 864 yards and you miss low, if you can see how much you missed then you put the reticle on where you were aiming and count how many mils it is to where your shot actually went. If it was 2.5 mils, then you just turn your elevation 2.5 mils in the direction you missed. It does not matter how far or how close you are shooting because it is an angular measurement. Mix matched scopes will soon be a thing of the past as it makes no sense to combine the two in one scope. All scopes with mil based reticles should have mil based clicks, I think in five years mil scopes with moa adjustments will be obsolete.
</div></div>
And then Ilya elaborated,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: koshkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Good post Skylar. Both MOA and mrad are angular measurements and thinking about one or the other should not be very different from each other.
One point where I do disagree with you though is the whole "coincidence" statement. The fact that 1 MOA is close to 1 inch at a 100 yards is indeed a coincidence. However, the fact that 0.1 mrad is 1cm at 100 meters is most certainly not a coincidence. That is most certainly intended that way by design and comes out of the very definition of the angular measure of a radian and of the method behind the metric system. That is the beauty of the metric system: you can start with very few basic unitless measures and scale everything from there.
1 radian is simply an angle where the subtended arc is equal to the radius. 1mrad is 0.001 of a radian, so 1mrad is an angle where the subtended arc is one thousandth of the radius, i.e. if an object at a certain distance from you subtends exactly 1 mrad, then the size of that object in linear units is almost exactly one thousandth of a distance between you and that object. What linear units you happen to use makes no difference. It will work with any of them.
It is simplest to use with metric linear units because of the base10 scaling, of course.
With moderately retarded measurement systems we use for traditional reasons (like inches/feet/yards for linear units and degrees for angular units), translation between angular and linear measurements is a lot more involved.
Hence, between MOA and mrad, for as long as all you need to do is trajectory compensation, it does not matter what you use. However, once rangefinding is thrown into the mix, mrads are usually a simpler and more precise way to go.
ILya
</div></div>
You can use what ever you are the most comfortable with, however it is easier when everything matches.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
Yes you are correct I am from Australia WE DO not use inches we use (mm) OR (CM) BUT NOT inches, I use a mil scope Because I have never worked with inches I have no I dear what inches are, for example 3\8 or something means??? Lost ME. If you have used INCHES all your life like many people from the US and A than you should have no problem using a MOA based scope.
They do much Bothe the same thing other than one has (1cm .MIL) adjustments and the other (¼ moa INCH) they are both the same Thing, they Bothe adjust angle.
So use whatever you know best. Moa or mil.
Yes you are correct I am from Australia WE DO not use inches we use (mm) OR (CM) BUT NOT inches, I use a mil scope Because I have never worked with inches I have no I dear what inches are, for example 3\8 or something means??? Lost ME. If you have used INCHES all your life like many people from the US and A than you should have no problem using a MOA based scope.
They do much Bothe the same thing other than one has (1cm .MIL) adjustments and the other (¼ moa INCH) they are both the same Thing, they Bothe adjust angle.
So use whatever you know best. Moa or mil.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
All ( Mil-Moa-Iphy)do the same thing, it's operator preference. Just because the military uses mil, does not make it the do all, be all. Every target size I've ever been given in the civi world, every target data book I was issued on the Enemy's gear, was always in inchs. From 1964 on Uncle taught me how to range everything with what was at hand. The front an rear sight on a M14, the cross hair on a straight 6X scope, my thumb, pinky, or other gear. Every target was sized in inchs. When I found a pure IPHY/IPHY scope it all fell in line. No conversions, no factors, no calculator. Target in inchs, divided by retical subtention, times 100 = yardage. The MDMOA retical will subtend to 1 IPHY both ways, and with a very shallow learning curve, it can be used effectively to 0.25 an less. Ranging is why I prefer the IPHY MDMOA retical. It's about as basic/good as it gets, less carrying more weight. Being on the same page holds water, but then again some started as a single and are more comfortable staying that way. Finding ways to shorten target ID to bang is a never ending quest, an the IPHY MDMOA is the best I've found to-date at least, for me. Will I even use it for it's intended purpose, no, not at my age. Then again the insurance I'm paying for, I don't intend on using again either, but I still have it. It's a Boy Scout thing, I guess.
All ( Mil-Moa-Iphy)do the same thing, it's operator preference. Just because the military uses mil, does not make it the do all, be all. Every target size I've ever been given in the civi world, every target data book I was issued on the Enemy's gear, was always in inchs. From 1964 on Uncle taught me how to range everything with what was at hand. The front an rear sight on a M14, the cross hair on a straight 6X scope, my thumb, pinky, or other gear. Every target was sized in inchs. When I found a pure IPHY/IPHY scope it all fell in line. No conversions, no factors, no calculator. Target in inchs, divided by retical subtention, times 100 = yardage. The MDMOA retical will subtend to 1 IPHY both ways, and with a very shallow learning curve, it can be used effectively to 0.25 an less. Ranging is why I prefer the IPHY MDMOA retical. It's about as basic/good as it gets, less carrying more weight. Being on the same page holds water, but then again some started as a single and are more comfortable staying that way. Finding ways to shorten target ID to bang is a never ending quest, an the IPHY MDMOA is the best I've found to-date at least, for me. Will I even use it for it's intended purpose, no, not at my age. Then again the insurance I'm paying for, I don't intend on using again either, but I still have it. It's a Boy Scout thing, I guess.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
I like MOA simply because I shoot mostly iron sights. Because of that I think in MOA and like my scopes in MOA.
I can see Mil Mil working if all you shoot is scopes, but I never seen irons in mils. They may be out there, I don't know, but I've never seen or heard of one.
Except machine guns of course.
I like MOA simply because I shoot mostly iron sights. Because of that I think in MOA and like my scopes in MOA.
I can see Mil Mil working if all you shoot is scopes, but I never seen irons in mils. They may be out there, I don't know, but I've never seen or heard of one.
Except machine guns of course.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like MOA simply because I shoot mostly iron sights. Because of that I think in MOA and like my scopes in MOA.
I can see Mil Mil working if all you shoot is scopes, but I never seen irons in mils. They may be out there, I don't know, but I've never seen or heard of one.
Except machine guns of course.
</div></div>
I think there are some metric M14 sights out there.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like MOA simply because I shoot mostly iron sights. Because of that I think in MOA and like my scopes in MOA.
I can see Mil Mil working if all you shoot is scopes, but I never seen irons in mils. They may be out there, I don't know, but I've never seen or heard of one.
Except machine guns of course.
</div></div>
I think there are some metric M14 sights out there.
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kingfamous</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... was wondering if one was better than the other. </div></div>What units does your spotter use?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kingfamous</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... was wondering if one was better than the other. </div></div>What units does your spotter use?
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RFtinkerer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but reading from the reticle and dialing is great; . </div></div>
Why are you even dialing in the first place? Range an hold it all in the retical. Dialing is past old school.
</div></div>
Er, I shoot 700-1000 meters on a regular basis. I don't have enough reticle for 12 mils or so.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RFtinkerer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but reading from the reticle and dialing is great; . </div></div>
Why are you even dialing in the first place? Range an hold it all in the retical. Dialing is past old school.
</div></div>
Er, I shoot 700-1000 meters on a regular basis. I don't have enough reticle for 12 mils or so.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pmclaine</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like MOA simply because I shoot mostly iron sights. Because of that I think in MOA and like my scopes in MOA.
I can see Mil Mil working if all you shoot is scopes, but I never seen irons in mils. They may be out there, I don't know, but I've never seen or heard of one.
Except machine guns of course.
</div></div>
I think there are some metric M14 sights out there. </div></div> None were issued that I know of? All the Poly-techs, and clones that were sterile from China that went to the Congo in the late 60's on, were all MOA subtentions. Of course you can do a conversation on the fly, but why when all target data was in inchs?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pmclaine</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like MOA simply because I shoot mostly iron sights. Because of that I think in MOA and like my scopes in MOA.
I can see Mil Mil working if all you shoot is scopes, but I never seen irons in mils. They may be out there, I don't know, but I've never seen or heard of one.
Except machine guns of course.
</div></div>
I think there are some metric M14 sights out there. </div></div> None were issued that I know of? All the Poly-techs, and clones that were sterile from China that went to the Congo in the late 60's on, were all MOA subtentions. Of course you can do a conversation on the fly, but why when all target data was in inchs?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: mil or moa scopes advantages/disadvantages
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RFtinkerer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Er, I shoot 700-1000 meters on a regular basis. I don't have enough reticle for 12 mils or so. </div></div>
Once you get a good reticle an quit dialing, I doubt you will ever go back to it.
On my .308 I have 20 IPHY above an 40 below at the ctr X. My 100yd zero is at the +20 which puts the X at a 700yd zero, with 40 IPHY of up left. This is before I dial anything with the EREK if needed. I've experimented with many a scope to find the best set up for me and this one just works for me. My 300wm is set the same way, but the x zero is at just a shade over 900yds. Not ideal for paper, but very fast for steel an other things. At my age, I don't have the speed I use to, so I have to find ways of cutting the Detection to Bang time, anyway I can.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RFtinkerer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Er, I shoot 700-1000 meters on a regular basis. I don't have enough reticle for 12 mils or so. </div></div>
Once you get a good reticle an quit dialing, I doubt you will ever go back to it.
On my .308 I have 20 IPHY above an 40 below at the ctr X. My 100yd zero is at the +20 which puts the X at a 700yd zero, with 40 IPHY of up left. This is before I dial anything with the EREK if needed. I've experimented with many a scope to find the best set up for me and this one just works for me. My 300wm is set the same way, but the x zero is at just a shade over 900yds. Not ideal for paper, but very fast for steel an other things. At my age, I don't have the speed I use to, so I have to find ways of cutting the Detection to Bang time, anyway I can.
