Help me understand: Cause this seems to tell me to make more adjustments using MOA as compared to MIL depending on the range to target of course.
- Thread starter DMTYAGER
- Start date
Here's another:
Yes a MOA is finer (smaller) than a Mil so you need to stack up more of them to make the same vertical adjustment.
Okay...I think I was adding into my thoughts of what one does physically to the scope. I wasn't solely thinking of the physical measurement differences between MOA/MIL. Say I'm using the 600yd data above: Changes UP are 10.8 MOA or 3.1MIL.
It sure seems like for some scopes I'd need to turn the cap at least one full turn plus some using MOA as compared to a 1/4 turn on a MIL cap. Maybe I'd not reading the cap indicators correctly.
Anyway...thanks for the info.
It sure seems like for some scopes I'd need to turn the cap at least one full turn plus some using MOA as compared to a 1/4 turn on a MIL cap. Maybe I'd not reading the cap indicators correctly.
Anyway...thanks for the info.
This is a fairly elementary concept/math
Yes you will have to put more clicks in with an moa scope because the adjustment is smaller,
10.8moa is 43 clicks.
3.1 mil is 31 clicks.
Imagine you are stacking up blocks to get your desired elevation. at 600 yards 1/4 moa is a 1.5" block
and 1/10 mil is a 2.16" block so you will need fewer of the larger block to equal the same height.
The scopes are graduated using different units and different fractions of those units. Also an moa scope is about 25moa per revolution and mils are about 10 mils per revolution.
I really beleive this is the problem. People keep thinking I have to convert this to that so I can use this to hit that at so many yards with so much wind which is quoted at miles per hour, when I need to convert it to meters per second so that I can use my MIL scope to determine how many inches I need to input on my MIL scope turret.
Got it.
Let’s give it a real world example. Yesterday, we had a fairly tough wind. To hit a 2MOA sized circle at 435 yards, I had to move my aiming point one half of a mil to the windward side (west to east wind, so I held 1/2 mil to left as I was shooting south to north.
So, to make this proper connection, folks are thinking that they have to determine exactly how many inches to the left need to be held, then convert this to mils and then make this correction on their scope turret.
Well, I looked at my reticle that had hash marks at .25 mil increments. I moved my aim point two small hash marks to right (which moved my angle to the left) and hit target.
Why, I ask, is this so hard to understand? Is it easy for me because I am an old Mortar Man and understand bracketing?
Got it.
Let’s give it a real world example. Yesterday, we had a fairly tough wind. To hit a 2MOA sized circle at 435 yards, I had to move my aiming point one half of a mil to the windward side (west to east wind, so I held 1/2 mil to left as I was shooting south to north.
So, to make this proper connection, folks are thinking that they have to determine exactly how many inches to the left need to be held, then convert this to mils and then make this correction on their scope turret.
Well, I looked at my reticle that had hash marks at .25 mil increments. I moved my aim point two small hash marks to right (which moved my angle to the left) and hit target.
Why, I ask, is this so hard to understand? Is it easy for me because I am an old Mortar Man and understand bracketing?
You should listen to a recent Hornady podcast. Specifically episode 34. Basically they prove why almost every single ballistics calculator is almost always incorrect.
I don't know why I've always done it but I have always treated ballistics calculators as a 'general idea' rather than an exact gospel truth.
Aside from that though, variations in temperature alone, much less other environmental factors will render your chart moot for the purposes of your question. MOA might be a tad bit more fine but unless you are shooting laser beams in a benchrest competition with perfect ammo it's a moot point.
Yea...I got an idea about the math side of this. I'm just confusing the changes/positioning of the dial to hit the target or whatever. Not to mention each scope can have a different method to get "dialed" to the adjustment you want. In one scope's dial to get to 10MOA it's a FULL rotation, as compared to another dial that needs 1/4 rotational turn to get to 3MIL.
I use those "calculators" only as a tool, not the gospel. For my question/learning I was showing that as the example of "less" dial turns on the scope. I tend to let the paper and my own shortcomings to tell me what needs work.
@Wiillk Yep...I do that all the time as well. I'm not hung up on using the dial for adjusting the impacts perfectly into the crosshairs. I'm good with moving the cross hairs with a little "windage". I was just trying to figure out why the MIL dials seemed to need less input over an MOA dial. Adding to that as I looked over some scopes each manufacturer may have a dial system that lessens these factors.
I'll be hitting the LGS to get some different scopes in hand to see what's bothering my thoughts. LOL
How do you know you were 7” high?
You don’t. You are guessing. You are subconsciously converting an image to an estimate of linear measure, then converting to an angular estimation from that linear estimate. You are dragging (un-necessary) math into the problem (mil v moa) because you want it to seem more complex than it is. If you saw how high you missed, aim that much low and send again. No math. You can do it with a tree reticle without knowing the graduations. You can do it with a duplex reticle too- but it is easier to hold on a point than in space, so trees make it easier.
“Ooh, that went 1/2 a deer over the back. I need to correct my aim to the bottom of the ‘elbow…’”
Or “Hey, you were a 1/4 target off the right of diamond. Come back to the left edge.” (I’ve done this for my kids at 22 matches, and for newer shooters at centerfire matches as well.)
Unless you shot the deer as it was exiting a 7-11, there wasn’t any ruler behind the deer and your 7” is just a guess.
It’s been said before. Putting it here again isn’t lost effort. If you are doing math on the line, you have already lost.
Why use Mil over MOA?
Come in close. This is a secret, so I'm going to whisper. If you are shooting by yourself, it really doesn't fucking matter. Mil vs MOA is a meme argument.
The precision argument is a red herring. 0.1 mil at 1000 yards is 3.6 inches. 0.25 MOA at 1000 yards is 2.62 inches, assuming you are using actual MOA and not Shooter's MOA or IPHY (You do know the difference, and the scope manufacturer did mark the scope correctly, right?) That's a difference of 0.98 inches at 1000 yards.
Let's examine the environmental effects using my 6.5 Creedmoor, shooting a 147 gr ELD-M at a muzzle velocity of 2700 fps. A 25 yard estimation error will throw the bullet off by 14" high or low, depending upon the direction of the error, and a 1 mph error in wind estimation will throw the bullet 7" left or right of the point of aim. The 0.98" difference in granularity between the systems is within the noise of the system...
"Well, what about at 100 yards where we can mostly discount velocity and wind effects?" That 0.098" difference is within your ability to measure the true center of the shot group (especially with the 3-5 shot groups most are shooting), so it doesn't matter there either.
Any thesis for or against one system or the other that uses linear measurements as an argument only proves that the user doesn't know their chosen system any better than the other.
Here is the even bigger secret. Comp guys are using Mil over MOA because they are all big fat cheaters. Yeah, I said it. They're cheating. CHEATING I say!!! Okay, I mean this in jest, but when you have a squad of 8 shooters and 7 of them are all conversing in mil, you are the odd man out if you are using MOA.
"Hey, what did you hold on that last stage?"
"Oh, I started at 0.4 and added a tenth every other target on the way out."
"But, you shoot a 6.5 CM and he shoots a 6GT..."
Yeah, but it is still a reality check. If you're thinking X and data from the other shooters says Y, then consider Y. This is easier when you are all speaking the same language.
Another area where mil shines over MOA is in wind calling. For example, I know that my gun is a "6 mph rifle." In a 6 mph wind and from 0 to 900 yards, I can add a 0.1 mil for every 100 yards of distance. Wind is hard and calling wind to 1 mph is really hard, and it gets even harder as the distance increases. I can't call a 1 mph wind. But, I can call light, moderate, and strong breeze. Let's call "Light" ~3mph, moderate at ~6mph, and strong as 12mph. from 0 to 900 yards, and without a dope sheet or any 'real math' I have a good starting point for wind. So, at 400 yards and a light breeze I hold 0.2 mil off center and let her go. That bullet drops just off the left edge of the plate. Ok, add 1/2 plate to my initial hold and fire again-assuming it wasn't something stupid that I know I did. "Impact! Center punch!"
Same example as above. I measure the wind at 3 mph before I hit the stage and I say "Ok, my hold is 0.2 right", but as I get up there the wind shifts and changes strength (Fuck you Texas and freak cold fronts). Well, my kestrel is in the bag and I am on the clock. Now the wind is strong and from left to right. Ok, 0.8 mil left and let her go. Correct as necessary.
I think I know what you are saying, but just in case- "Because the deer isn't holding a ruler..."
How did you measure that 7"?
You missed by some angular measurement.
If you are using a scope that subtends in MOA, you missed by some MOA increment. Measure that miss using that reticle and make an appropriate adjustment.
If you are using a scope that subtends in Radians, you missed by some Radian increment. Possibly 1/1000 of said radian. Same shit. Measure the miss with the increments in your scope.
This answers all my questions then. Honestly. The “mils are much easier to use than MOA” and “you’re way behind times. Everyone uses Mil because of simplicity” that’s splattered on every forum would simply be false then? Especially since there’s no math involved.
And I’d agree the analogy I’d given earlier was poor for sure.
With that, I’ll say that using a reticle in MOA is a little easier and faster for myself to get a measurement on say antler height and width on an elk or deer in the field. I use the reticle quite often for this purpose. I know the same can obviously be done with a mil reticle. Just not as easily for me.
Last edited:
Im just saying, being able to visually measure 7" at 700yds is questionable in itself. if you can accurately recognize 7" at that distance surely you can move your reticle that same 7" to compensate. Lastly if you just missed a deer by exactly 7" and seconds matter you're probably not converting your linear measurement to either mil or moa and dailing it.
converting is for ranging or sizing (period)
I'm not sure you actually have the concept even yet.
As you are looking through your scope and pull the trigger, you can see where the impact of the projectile was in relation to your point of aim. Using that scope, whatever flavor of the month it is, you can see....hey....I missed my point of aim by uh, 1, 2, 3 little marks to the right and uh, let's see, uh, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 little marks down.
Realize that it doesn't even matter what those little marks even represent.
You can think it through...ok, i gotta aim 3 marks left and 5 marks up. You can hold or dial.
This works no matter if you have a FFP or SFP scope. MIL or MOA. 10,000 yards or 30 meters. 6.21 Creekside or 7.94 Realman. It does not matter what the linear difference from your POA compared to POI at the target....that is 100% irrelevant.
You should try using that reticle to range with.
Be sure to do all the calculating as carefully as possible. Do it 2 or 3 times to verify that you made no mistake.
Now use the LRF.
Would you have been able to hit the target using your reticle to range with?
Hahaha! Exactly? Who the Fuck cares?
Very good.
To all,
I just have to say that I have enjoyed this thread. Is without doubt the best Mil vs. Moa thread this year. It has it all. Inches versus metric, converting back and forth from linear to angular measurements, boasting about time spent hunting to establish thread dominance, arguments over the meaning of each term, about fifty people saying that it is a measuring stick and use it as such, about fifty people saying that it doesn’t fucking matter which one you use…unless it’s in field/PRS style comps or if you are in benchrest/f-class comps, then it matters.
It’s glorious I tell you! Bask in its magnificence!
Similar threads
Advanced Marksmanship Where on the rifle do you measure scope height?
