• 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!

Rifle Scopes Current state of MOA and MIL

Fig said:
Doesn't anyone ever look on the Homepage?

It's been front and center for a long time now.

www.snipershide.com

Mils or MOA which is right for you

Milliradian, Minute of Angle, Inch per Hundred Yards, Shooter MOA versus Mils versus True MOA is the questions we are all asking. Mils vs MOA Threads
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com
Click to expand...
Why are the comments at the bottom in Latin? A dead language talking about a system that should die (moa) ?
 
LeftyJason said:
A dead language talking about a system that should die (moa) ?
Click to expand...
Interesting people feel that way. Why should it die? Is it that intimidating to you, or are those of you who think it should die just taking a page from the liberal hand book, ie My way or the highway attitude. A system thats been around longer than most here have been alive,
seems to trip more than a few triggers here, why would that be?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geno C. and bourbonbent
I got lost for a second and was wondering if I stumbled my way into a Ford vs Chevy thread.

Please continue.

6C43895C-68BF-4143-BB22-6838B7C76820.gif
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Geno C. and Luvman
it's needs to die because it's no longer suitable, it's been twisted into something it's not.

Why continue to use something that ships with a 5% error factor

People don't know the most basic facts, it's not following the textbook definitions. Want proof, Leupold .25MOA scopes adjust in .25" where Nightforce .25MOA scopes adjust in .26, small if we measure at 100 yards, but my range goes to 1780 from the firing line and I can back up another 1200.

Read the stuff on ranging, they say it's X100 to calculate, but for TMOA it's actually 95.5

Rounding matters, it matters at distance, it's not a 4" difference it's a 4MOA one. If I say you have a 2MOA sized target at 2000 yards, how big is it compared to the rounded way of doing.

It's why people see a problem with ballistic software, everyone inputs in MOA when the reality is, they have IPhY scopes.

With any MOA you have to do an extra layer of checking both the reticle and turrets in order to confirm what the manufacturer gave you, cause they don't know.

It needs to die, it's been corrupted beyond repair
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bender, Hogbreath55, Dan M and 3 others
Lowlight said:
it's needs to die because it's no longer suitable, it's been twisted into something it's not.

Why continue to use something that ships with a 5% error factor

People don't know the most basic facts, it's not following the textbook definitions. Want proof, Leupold .25MOA scopes adjust in .25" where Nightforce .25MOA scopes adjust in .26, small if we measure at 100 yards, but my range goes to 1780 from the firing line and I can back up another 1200.

Read the stuff on ranging, they say it's X100 to calculate, but for TMOA it's actually 95.5

Rounding matters, it matters at distance, it's not a 4" difference it's a 4MOA one. If I say you have a 2MOA sized target at 2000 yards, how big is it compared to the rounded way of doing.

It's why people see a problem with ballistic software, everyone inputs in MOA when the reality is, they have IPhY scopes.

With any MOA you have to do an extra layer of checking both the reticle and turrets in order to confirm what the manufacturer gave you, cause they don't know.

It needs to die, it's been corrupted beyond repair
Click to expand...
Are the mark 5’s included in the iphy and True moa miss matched system category and would a tall target test verify what you have ?
 
see you don't know the difference between a tracking test and one to determine unit of adjustment.

A mil scope might be off 2% like many brands are, but its not advertised as something its not, like MOA scopes are. There is a difference.
 
Lowlight said:
see you don't know the difference between a tracking test and one to determine unit of adjustment.

A mil scope might be off 2% like many brands are, but its not advertised as something its not, like MOA scopes are. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Lowlight said:
see you don't know the difference between a tracking test and one to determine unit of adjustment.

A mil scope might be off 2% like many brands are, but its not advertised as something its not, like MOA scopes are. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
You are correct ... hence my question . I figured you could take a B2B target with predetermined markings and make sure the reticle lines up and then dial say to 32 moa and see if it’s 32 inches or 33.5 inches ? I guess I’ll have to check the mark 5 for my self. I like the idea of mils and base 10 but for me it’s just unrealistic to swap 7 different setups over to mils when it took nearly 10 years to get what I have now. So for the time being I will stick with what I’m used to and try to utilize it the best I can.
 
Last edited:
Dthomas3523 said:
So, in your world, “shit will hit the fan,” ballistic calculators and electronics won’t work.......and people will die.........because they don’t know their dope for a rifle??

What toxic waste land mad max Tom berenger bob swagard shit hits the fan scenario is this where all of a sudden being able to shoot a rifle at 500+ is going to even remotely matter?

I can think of quite a few shit hit the fan scenarios that will be more important than “oh shit I don’t know my dope.”
Click to expand...
Please keep thinking this way. It helps the rest of us stay alive as the weak and stupid are harvested first.
 
308pirate said:
LOL @ this

You just don't get it, do you?

Fuck equations. Only idiots do math problems behind a rifle.
Click to expand...
You didn't get it did you? The equation I spoke about was a big picture equation. Not stupid little fucks like you that failed at math twisting the turrets and grunting that 1 moa equals 10 wind units. Don't even know why I bother...
 
Laughing as now the truth comes out. IPHY may be called MOA, an MOA may be in fact IPHY, an mill scopes might not be true mil. Bottom line the shooter does not have a clue about what they have, until they check it for their self. Course that's all assuming they are even smart enough/able to do that,...
Sounds like true America has fully arrived,.... I don't know, don't want to know, just want to buy X to mount on Y an it will make me hit Z every-time. If not, it's the mfg's fault because they told me it was A, an now people are telling me it might be B, an that's my problem of not being able to hit target C anytime any place. Guess the old ways/days of knowing your shit is out the window, just blame it on the Mfg's,...
To recap, let me see if I have this right, a MOA/IPHY scope might be called what they ain't an a Mil might be off as much as 2% ( I've seen upwards of 5% myself) but in/on a precision system, the 2% error mill system gets a pass? Have I got that about right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slo cat and bourbonbent
brianf said:
OP not your fault: (ahem doesnt really matter...buy mil)

We should have the mods start restricting questions after a post like Huskydriver

he linked several other threads that have the same information

not saying close those linked threads down, let them go on forever

but stopping new ones from popping up like weeds

would prob make the search function work better as well
Click to expand...
The search function is not all that good on this forum, could be much easier
 
Gunfighter14e2 said:
Interesting people feel that way. Why should it die? Is it that intimidating to you, or are those of you who think it should die just taking a page from the liberal hand book, ie My way or the highway attitude. A system thats been around longer than most here have been alive,
seems to trip more than a few triggers here, why would that be?
Click to expand...

I’m only triggered by your failure to grasp what punctuation is. How long a system has been around should have no bearing on the fact that it’s time has come.
 
Gunfighter14e2 said:
Laughing as now the truth comes out. IPHY may be called MOA, an MOA may be in fact IPHY, an mill scopes might not be true mil. Bottom line the shooter does not have a clue about what they have, until they check it for their self. Course that's all assuming they are even smart enough/able to do that,...
Sounds like true America has fully arrived,.... I don't know, don't want to know, just want to buy X to mount on Y an it will make me hit Z every-time. If not, it's the mfg's fault because they told me it was A, an now people are telling me it might be B, an that's my problem of not being able to hit target C anytime any place. Guess the old ways/days of knowing your shit is out the window, just blame it on the Mfg's,...
To recap, let me see if I have this right, a MOA/IPHY scope might be called what they ain't an a Mil might be off as much as 2% ( I've seen upwards of 5% myself) but in/on a precision system, the 2% error mill system gets a pass? Have I got that about right?
Click to expand...

Savage! Pretty harsh but you are not wrong in that blindly trusting any system that has a potential for error or failure falls on the user.

IIRC there were two different mil standards, one was Russian and the other was ours? March was the only manufacturer using the other method as far as I know and they supposedly have since moved to the same as other manufacturers.

TMOA, SMOA, IPHY I can see why it becomes convoluted and difficult for guys that just want to go shooting and not have to mess with their gear and study handbooks to understand why their data won't match up. All this without taking into account that the same manufacturers will suffer the same % error in their systems whether they be MOA or MIL based.

I used MOA my whole life until I went with FFP scopes and am now fully converted to MILS for any LR shooting, its just easier for my pea sized brain to process. What I have seen with MOA is that shooters have the tendency to unconsciously try to convert everything back to inches. With MILS its like learning a second language and at some point you begin to think in MILS and then it gets easier.

I'm certain others have had different experiences and preferences. YMMV
 
  • Like
Reactions: seansmd
Lowlight said:
it's needs to die because it's no longer suitable, it's been twisted into something it's not.

Why continue to use something that ships with a 5% error factor

People don't know the most basic facts, it's not following the textbook definitions. Want proof, Leupold .25MOA scopes adjust in .25" where Nightforce .25MOA scopes adjust in .26, small if we measure at 100 yards, but my range goes to 1780 from the firing line and I can back up another 1200.

Read the stuff on ranging, they say it's X100 to calculate, but for TMOA it's actually 95.5

Rounding matters, it matters at distance, it's not a 4" difference it's a 4MOA one. If I say you have a 2MOA sized target at 2000 yards, how big is it compared to the rounded way of doing.

It's why people see a problem with ballistic software, everyone inputs in MOA when the reality is, they have IPhY scopes.

With any MOA you have to do an extra layer of checking both the reticle and turrets in order to confirm what the manufacturer gave you, cause they don't know.

It needs to die, it's been corrupted beyond repair
Click to expand...

Howdy, Lowlight!

I wanted to reach out and clarify something you were talking about regarding Leupold adjustments. While we have labeled many dials over the years as "1/4" @ 100yds", this is a simplification to aid in the sight-in process for most users. We do not use this terminology on our scopes marketed towards long range shooters. I can say definitively:

Leupold optics with MOA adjustments ALL adjust in true MOA, NOT in inches @ 100yds.

This means a click on one of our 1/4MOA scopes will result in 0.262" of adjustment at 100yds. Similarly, I'm sure we have recommended (Inches*100)/MOA at times for rangefinding because the math is easier and provides an answer accurate within a couple percent, which is perfectly useful for many uses. You can see on the attached where we clarify the math in our manual for the TMOA reticle.

I hope this helps! If anyone has any questions, don't hesitate to reach out to us at 1-800-LEUPOLD 5am-8pm PST, Mon-Fri, or [email protected].

Have a good one!
 

Attachments

  • TMOA.pdf
    26.7 KB · Views: 187
  • Like
Reactions: Magnumitis, VP47PPC, Geno C. and 4 others
JC0352 said:
I’m only triggered by your failure to grasp what punctuation is. How long a system has been around should have no bearing on the fact that it’s time has come.
Click to expand...
Please enlighten me to why you think like that? Not knowing the hows an whys of both sides or just pack running just confuses me. I don't care who made it, who Hawks it for what ever reason or the methodology behind it, until you have vetted it your self you don't know what you have in reality. Much like showing up to a match with all the Gucci shit an not knowing how to operate it. I an others have seen it over an over, then when questioned the std reply is,... I was told,... I thought,... I assumed. Not KNOWING what you have or it's quirks is a fail before you step foot on the range. You don't believe me ask Frank what he's seen over the years, an he teaches this shit day in day out. If you don't trust Frank for what ever reason, ask jhuskey or others what he's/they have seen over the years.

I'll bet most here have no clue as to how much up or wind their parallax adjustment will move the ret when it's clear but still has parallax in it. Mine have from 1/10 - 1/2 moa depending scope an 1/10 - 1/4 mil on my mil scopes.
Data On Personal Equipment, DOPE, is more than a code word for knowing your up to X range or windage for X range in Y wind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbonbent
Gunfighter14e2 said:
Laughing as now the truth comes out. IPHY may be called MOA, an MOA may be in fact IPHY, an mill scopes might not be true mil. Bottom line the shooter does not have a clue about what they have, until they check it for their self. Course that's all assuming they are even smart enough/able to do that,...
Sounds like true America has fully arrived,.... I don't know, don't want to know, just want to buy X to mount on Y an it will make me hit Z every-time. If not, it's the mfg's fault because they told me it was A, an now people are telling me it might be B, an that's my problem of not being able to hit target C anytime any place. Guess the old ways/days of knowing your shit is out the window, just blame it on the Mfg's,...
To recap, let me see if I have this right, a MOA/IPHY scope might be called what they ain't an a Mil might be off as much as 2% ( I've seen upwards of 5% myself) but in/on a precision system, the 2% error mill system gets a pass? Have I got that about right?
Click to expand...
None of this matters to me as long as the scope is consistent. I shoot a target at every 100 yards up until I reach my max range. I write these numbers down and end up memorizing them even though it isn't necessary. What more do you need to do to make hits. I could give a shit if my scope dials .11 mil or .10 or .12. As long as 5.8 hits at 750 and 7.8 hits at 900 I am good regardless of the actual value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steel+Killer, Nodakplowboy and bourbonbent
Long Range 338 said:
Savage! Pretty harsh but you are not wrong in that blindly trusting any system that has a potential for error or failure falls on the user.
Click to expand...
That is the crux of the matter an why lots of data never lines up with bullets holes. The issue is the bullet hole has no incentive, to sway the end user or massage the end result. Every one what to plug it all into a app/software an when the splash/hole is not pinwheeled they have no clue why, or blame their self. SISO = shit in shit out,... is an old engineers saying for FNG's operating some of the first calulators , an that saying applies to many things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbonbent
wade2big said:
None of this matters to me as long as the scope is consistent. I shoot a target at every 100 yards up until I reach my max range. I write these numbers down and end up memorizing them even though it isn't necessary. What more do you need to do to make hits. I could give a shit if my scope dials .11 mil or .10 or .12. As long as 5.8 hits at 750 and 7.8 hits at 900 I am good regardless of the actual value.
Click to expand...
That is the way your supposed to do it. Most people getting their own data do it every 25 yds to 400-600yds then 50 on out, for high speed pills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbonbent and wade2big
Well in case anyone is bored with the current conversation I just farted on a conference call when I just *knew* the speakerphone was muted......def early 4th of July firecracker.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Luvman and bourbonbent
Less than 3 full pages, this thread would have not even been a also ran, back in the first few years. I recall a thread called "Whats the best scope" now that was a knock down, ass kicking thread to the point some got their tity's/dicks in a real twist over some of the responses. This one has been mild compared,... But sometimes it takes a head beating for all sides to be known/heard from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbonbent
Gunfighter14e2 said:
Less than 3 full pages, this thread would have not even been a also ran, back in the first few years. I recall a thread called "Whats the best scope" now that was a knock down, ass kicking thread to the point some got their tity's/dicks in a real twist over some of the responses. This one has been mild compared,... But sometimes it takes a head beating for all sides to be known/heard from.
Click to expand...

I never figured it much mattered as long as you knew your shit inside and out, I still remember when MOA turrets and MIL reticles were the norm, didn’t seem to stop anyone from hitting shit. 3 pages of arguing rehashed (ad nauseum) semantics and minutia rather than shooting or dry firing or reading or anything that’ll improve shooter skill, knowledge, or ability.

But, then again, I’m just some guy on the internet, having some laughs and learning some stuff.
 
LeupoldOptics said:
Howdy, Lowlight!

I wanted to reach out and clarify something you were talking about regarding Leupold adjustments. While we have labeled many dials over the years as "1/4" @ 100yds", this is a simplification to aid in the sight-in process for most users. We do not use this terminology on our scopes marketed towards long range shooters. I can say definitively:

Leupold optics with MOA adjustments ALL adjust in true MOA, NOT in inches @ 100yds.

This means a click on one of our 1/4MOA scopes will result in 0.262" of adjustment at 100yds. Similarly, I'm sure we have recommended (Inches*100)/MOA at times for rangefinding because the math is easier and provides an answer accurate within a couple percent, which is perfectly useful for many uses. You can see on the attached where we clarify the math in our manual for the TMOA reticle.

I hope this helps! If anyone has any questions, don't hesitate to reach out to us at 1-800-LEUPOLD 5am-8pm PST, Mon-Fri, or [email protected].

Have a good one!
Click to expand...

Yep, this is exactly why leupold is one of the main culprits in shooters not understanding how to use angular measurements without introducing linear values.

Being one of the most widely popular hunting optics on the market, you are doing a disservice to the entire shooting community trying to “make the math easier.”

While you do not do this in optics marketed towards long range shooters.......where do many of these shooters start at? Yep, hunting rifles with leupold optics.

So, while you do not technically do this in the long range market, you absolutely directly influence a large pool of shooters that eventually get into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirthead1 and seansmd
LeupoldOptics said:
Howdy, Lowlight!

I wanted to reach out and clarify something you were talking about regarding Leupold adjustments. While we have labeled many dials over the years as "1/4" @ 100yds", this is a simplification to aid in the sight-in process for most users. We do not use this terminology on our scopes marketed towards long range shooters. I can say definitively:

Leupold optics with MOA adjustments ALL adjust in true MOA, NOT in inches @ 100yds.

This means a click on one of our 1/4MOA scopes will result in 0.262" of adjustment at 100yds. Similarly, I'm sure we have recommended (Inches*100)/MOA at times for rangefinding because the math is easier and provides an answer accurate within a couple percent, which is perfectly useful for many uses. You can see on the attached where we clarify the math in our manual for the TMOA reticle.

I hope this helps! If anyone has any questions, don't hesitate to reach out to us at 1-800-LEUPOLD 5am-8pm PST, Mon-Fri, or [email protected].

Have a good one!
Click to expand...
@Lowlight so did you mis speak ? Made an assumption? I’ll informed ? Or Leupold is just lying ?
 
have them define long range scope, they make a lot of them

Which ones are TMOA and which are not, cause all I know is, they are not all TMOA

We tested them and most track SMOA why we made the tool, Leupold is one of the biggest offenders


I have found their CS to be less than helpful, not everyone shoots the most expensive models. Long range needs to be defined
 
Last edited:
leupold's first foray into mils was also .05 vs .1 and they went 6400 with their first reticles instead of 6283 like the USMC back in the day

Their track record in this regard is all over the place
 
Lowlight said:
leupold's first foray into mils was also .05 vs .1 and they went 6400 with their first reticles instead of 6283 like the USMC back in the day

Their track record in this regard is all over the place
Click to expand...
Nightforce and mils it is!
 
Lowlight said:
have them define long range scope, they make a lot of them

Which ones are TMOA and which are not, cause all I know is, they are not all TMOA

We tested them and most track SMOA why we made the tool, Leupold is one of the biggest offenders


I have found their CS to be less than helpful, not everyone shoots the most expensive models. Long range needs to be defined
Click to expand...
Which did you test that were SMOA ? He did say that ones marked 1/4 moa are true as well. So my vx6’s and mark 5 are supposed to be Tmoa apparently. I guess I’ll find out soon enough ....
 
I have never owned a mil scope. That changed last week when I picked up a Steiner T5XI for cheap. I’m excited for the new scope but equally excited to finally give a scope in Mils a chance. Being a hunter my whole life mil scopes were definitely taboo.
 
Swampr42 said:
I have never owned a mil scope. That changed last week when I picked up a Steiner T5XI for cheap. I’m excited for the new scope but equally excited to finally give a scope in Mils a chance. Being a hunter my whole life mil scopes were definitely taboo.
Click to expand...

I switched over about 8 years ago. I remember how natural it felt within a matter of minutes compared to years of MOA. I will never go back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swampr42
notorious said:
I switched over about 8 years ago. I remember how natural it felt within a matter of minutes compared to years of MOA. I will never go back.
Click to expand...

I switched to Mils about 2 years ago when I bought my Athlon.

It was quite painless.

I still don’t have any issues with moa but giving corrections In Mils and tenths does seem a bit cleaner and more concise.

Milling a Target seems faster as well but that’s probably because I’m not doing any SFP conversion math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VP47PPC and notorious
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Optics Nightforce BEAST i4F Mil-Radian 5-25x56 - C448 $3250
Replies
1
Views
332
Toast
T
Trevor300wsm
SOLD NF ATACR 5-25 F1 Mil-XT C616
Replies
5
Views
584
WhiteLight
WhiteLight
nrspence
SOLD WTT NF ATACR 4-16x50 F1 Mil XT for NF ATACR 4-16x42 F1 Mil C or Mil XT
Replies
0
Views
255
nrspence
nrspence
GS455
Optic Needed for Intro to Precision Shooting course
Replies
18
Views
547
Steel+Killer
S
JBSTRD
SOLD ***SPF***Nightforce ATACR 7-35 F1 Mil-XT (C613) $2800 shipped
Replies
5
Views
448
JBSTRD
JBSTRD
Top Bottom
Back