I don't disagree. I was adressing those who say that you dont need to think in linear terms and can just use the reticle to measure angles. A ticked reticle does not relieve anyone of the need to be trained. Its a convenience.
Last edited:
Rifle Scopes I need some direction on MILRAD vs MOA.
- Thread starter Terryw123
- Start date
I don't disagree. I was adressing those who say that you dont need to think in linear terms and can just use the reticle to measure angles. A ticked reticle does not relieve anyone of the need to be trained. Its a convenience.
I also am in that boat. Fractions are all downside. I wish manufacturers would drop them from MOA scopes.
Nope.
No math sight in procedure:
When I sight in, I don't worry about mils, MOA, inches, feet, yards, furlongs, etc. Any distances mentioned do NOT have to be precise. ABOUT is close enough.
Remove bolt, set up rifle so target is centered in bore. (usually about 50 yards)
Look through scope, adjust reticle to be centered on target.
Fire one round.
Set up rifle so scope is centered on the center of the target.
Without moving the rifle, adjust scope so that the POA is slightly above the POI of your round.
Fire one round, should be slightly below the center of the target.
Move to 100 yards, fire one round. POI should be pretty close to POA.
Sorry guys... I don't get the fractions vs decimal excuse anymore.
How many of you write down your MOA dope as 4 1/4, 4 1/2, 4 3/4....etc? I write it down as 4.25, 4.5, 4.75.
If my MOA turrets are graduated in 1/4 OR 0.25 MOA increments, how hard is that? Not very difficult considering they are easy numbers, albiet fractions. BUT WAIT........ ISN'T 0.1 MIL ALSO ABLE TO BE EXPRESSED AS A FRACTION IF YOU CHOOSE TO? 1/10 MIL == 0.1 MIL
I guarantee you all that if Shooter or Ballistic AE (or any app) would have the option to round to the nearest 0.25 MOA that no one would be complaining about fractions. lol.
Depending on the DOPE I receive from the ballistics calculator, I either round up or down... eg: Calculator gives me 5.3MOA to target....I dial 5.25MOA...IF the calculator gives me 5.4 MOA...I dial 5.5MOA
The only valid argument there is for MOA vs MIL is what the scope's subtensions and turrets are calibrated in. For the most part, MILs will always be MILs - there are cases where centimeters are identified. However, some manufactures of MOA scopes do MOA, IPHY, 1" instead of 1.047" but label the turret as MOA....etc.
MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA turret to reticle is a must though. I'm tired of doing the conversion with my Mk4 scope.
I do not think in terms of how many inches, yards, centimeters or meters. I think in terms of how many MOA or MILs I am seeing by using the reticle and its subtensions.
I'm not pushing MOA or MIL...but, my next piece of glass will be MIL based upon popularity and the ability to match up what I see with what my spotters see and the fact that I feel way more comfortable with wind holds when thinking in terms of MILs.
Edit: I will give you another valid argument.... You work with smaller numbers with MILs. eg: 10MIL to reach 1000yards is a much nicer number than 33MOA.
How many of you write down your MOA dope as 4 1/4, 4 1/2, 4 3/4....etc? I write it down as 4.25, 4.5, 4.75.
If my MOA turrets are graduated in 1/4 OR 0.25 MOA increments, how hard is that? Not very difficult considering they are easy numbers, albiet fractions. BUT WAIT........ ISN'T 0.1 MIL ALSO ABLE TO BE EXPRESSED AS A FRACTION IF YOU CHOOSE TO? 1/10 MIL == 0.1 MIL
I guarantee you all that if Shooter or Ballistic AE (or any app) would have the option to round to the nearest 0.25 MOA that no one would be complaining about fractions. lol.
Depending on the DOPE I receive from the ballistics calculator, I either round up or down... eg: Calculator gives me 5.3MOA to target....I dial 5.25MOA...IF the calculator gives me 5.4 MOA...I dial 5.5MOA
The only valid argument there is for MOA vs MIL is what the scope's subtensions and turrets are calibrated in. For the most part, MILs will always be MILs - there are cases where centimeters are identified. However, some manufactures of MOA scopes do MOA, IPHY, 1" instead of 1.047" but label the turret as MOA....etc.
MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA turret to reticle is a must though. I'm tired of doing the conversion with my Mk4 scope.
I do not think in terms of how many inches, yards, centimeters or meters. I think in terms of how many MOA or MILs I am seeing by using the reticle and its subtensions.
I'm not pushing MOA or MIL...but, my next piece of glass will be MIL based upon popularity and the ability to match up what I see with what my spotters see and the fact that I feel way more comfortable with wind holds when thinking in terms of MILs.
Edit: I will give you another valid argument.... You work with smaller numbers with MILs. eg: 10MIL to reach 1000yards is a much nicer number than 33MOA.
Last edited:
Sorry guys... I don't get the fractions vs decimal excuse anymore.
How many of you write down your MOA dope as 4 1/4, 4 1/2, 4 3/4....etc? I write it down as 4.25, 4.5, 4.75.
If my MOA turrets are graduated in 1/4 OR 0.25 MOA increments, how hard is that? Not very difficult considering they are easy numbers, albiet fractions. BUT WAIT........ ISN'T 0.1 MIL ALSO ABLE TO BE EXPRESSED AS A FRACTION IF YOU CHOOSE TO? 1/10 MIL == 0.1 MIL
I guarantee you all that if Shooter or Ballistic AE (or any app) would have the option to round to the nearest 0.25 MOA that no one would be complaining about fractions. lol.
Depending on the DOPE I receive from the ballistics calculator, I either round up or down... eg: Calculator gives me 5.3MOA to target....I dial 5.25MOA...IF the calculator gives me 5.4 MOA...I dial 5.5MOA
The only valid argument there is for MOA vs MIL is what the scope's subtensions and turrets are calibrated in. For the most part, MILs will always be MILs - there are cases where centimeters are identified. However, some manufactures of MOA scopes do MOA, IPHY, 1" instead of 1.047" but label the turret as MOA....etc.
MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA turret to reticle is a must though. I'm tired of doing the conversion with my Mk4 scope.
I do not think in terms of how many inches, yards, centimeters or meters. I think in terms of how many MOA or MILs I am seeing by using the reticle and its subtensions.
I'm not pushing MOA or MIL...but, my next piece of glass will be MIL based upon popularity and the ability to match up what I see with what my spotters see and the fact that I feel way more comfortable with wind holds when thinking in terms of MILs.
Edit: I will give you another valid argument.... You work with smaller numbers with MILs. eg: 10MIL to reach 1000yards is a much nicer number than 33MOA.
It's more the annoyance of having to add 5/8 to 2 3/4 instead of .6 to 2.8. The decimals are less load on the brain for me.
The biggest practical differentiator aside from MOA scopes being fractions is that that 1/8 or 1/4 MOA are different than .05 or .1 mil. To me, the overriding concern is adjustment resolution, which is why I like 1/8 MOA scopes for target shooting and .1 mil scopes for field rifles. But I wish those 1/8 MOA scopes were 1/10 MOA. Not only would it eliminate the fractions, but it's also just about a perfect adjustment increment for long range KD target shooting. And .2 MOA would be just as good as 1/4, so why not? I just don't see any upside to fractions, as I've never met anyone who was more comfortable adding fractions than decimals.
I knew that would come up. Try it with iron sights. You will do some math, or you will walk it in. I prefer the math. Saves ammo.
Another example. You're off the paper and you don't see the bullet impact. Your friend is looking through a spotting scope and notes that you hit about 3 feet low (he has no reticle so can't give you that in mils or MOA). What do you do? Aim the rifle about three feet low, try not to disturb it and adjust the sights? Or a little quick math to get you on target? What if your bench is not perfectly solid or you don't have one? Knowledge is good. You don't always have to, and fancy reticles are nice conveniences, but I certainly wouldn't advocate using them blindly. Judging by the number of posts from people who spend $100 on FGGM failing to sight in their rifles, we need more knowledge, not less.
You're doing it the hard way.
If your scope has turrets and they are appropriately marked, you shouldn't need to add 5/8 to 2 3/4.
You should just be dialing to whatever MOA is appropriate for your distance, not counting and adding on the fly...use the graduations and the marks to your advantage.
If you want to shoot 300yards dial 3MOA....IF you want to go to 400yards from 300yards, don't count 4 (or 8) more clicks and try to add to your current setting....just put the turret on 4MOA and shoot.
Keeping track of your revolutions is the only hard part.
Now I have seen target scopes (Leupy in particular) that have capped turrets and are 1/8MOA per click....some of them are hard to read and keep track of what elevation you're on. But for the BR and F-Class crowd, these fine adjustments are perfect. But these shooters also have their DOPE written down for every distance so there is no adding going on for KD, stationary shooting.
They are right and you are wrong.
My scope doesn't have graduations - it's a crosshair with 1/8MOA clicks. When I miss with my sighters, I have to do the math in my head and come up with an adjustment. I have to add a fraction to another fraction or I have to count clicks. I don't like counting clicks, so I add. This would be easier if I had 1/10 MOA clicks.
How ever did people hit anything before all these fancy scopes came out? You'd think rifles were invented 20 years ago the way people talk here.
I still have a few MOA scopes left (converting to MILS over the last year or two) and I don't like any dopes in clicks - been burnt badly by that. All in full MOA + fractions now.
And I have to say that fractions work pretty well for corrections. I naturally find myself dividing spaces into 1/2 then 1/2 of 1/2 then 1/2 of that half again (=1/8).
It seems like I can estimate half and half-of-half much better then .1 increments. The first thing on a MIL scope is to say: well, that's HALF way, so that's .5
Where it gets very tricky is when you mix them up - my spotter now has a MIL spotting scope and I still have a LD rifle with MOA reticule and turrets.
A bit tough on the conversion when under pressure. Which is why I'm sold on converting to MIL
On the philosophy of my Kiwi friend, I have to say Imperial units have their uses. They are actually very 'user friendly' (hold on, don't shoot me yet).
For just about any job/occupation/skill/trade there is an imperial unit to work with that's handy for your job at hand.
You aren't forced to fit to a system based on a piece of platinum in a lab in Paris or some 100/1000 factor thereof.
Of course, as a downside, this means you get some interesting maths when you try to convert between all those 'custom made' Imperial units...
I also do this in my head (halving and halving until I get there), but then when it comes time to add that result to whatever is on the knob already, my brain just gives up. For me, it's easiest to say, that's a little less than half a tick, so call it .4, and then add .4 to 2.6 or whatever's on the knob. But I do naturally look to halve the tick marks mentally.
And I agree on the uses of imperial units - more choices means more likelihood of finding the "right" unit, and less worries about being off by a factor or 10. A good example is powder - a tenth of a grain turns out to be a great unit for powder measurement - a tenth is just right for resolution. You could use grams, but it's not quite as good a fit.
Last edited:
I'm a mil rad guy. It was difficult trying to shot MOA, my first question was what is a MOA. MOA vs mil rad is just Different units of measurement. Like yards bs meters. Which is correct? They both are. I remember when scopes had MOA turrets and mil rad extensions. Now that was fun ... Not
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Vp H cmhbffc
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Vp H cmhbffc
Some people are trying to make MOA so much harder than it really is.
MOST firearms will never shoot under 1/4moa. 1/8s is mostly a waste of time on all but the most precise rifles. You have double the clicks for little benefit. A 1/4moa scope will always get you to within 1/8 of something you can dial.
An easy way to add numbers with different denominators? Dial one on your scope, then dial the other. There is your answer. You only need to be able to count.
If that won't work, stay in your 1/x of a unit. If you have 1/8s don't have 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 if that'll be a problem for you. Have 2/8, 4/8, 6/8s. It'll get you there fast and it is exactly the same thing.
In the real world, we don't have to reduce all of our fractions.
Then, why would you estimate in tenths? Few firearms will be precise enough that you'll notice a 1/10moa difference. Stick with the numbers you have to dial. Why would you estimate a 4.3782736283761627 adjustment? You are going to have to dial to the nearest unit on your scope anyways. The natural inconsistancies of the rifle, scope, atmosphere, earth, and shooter will make this unnoticeable.
MOST firearms will never shoot under 1/4moa. 1/8s is mostly a waste of time on all but the most precise rifles. You have double the clicks for little benefit. A 1/4moa scope will always get you to within 1/8 of something you can dial.
An easy way to add numbers with different denominators? Dial one on your scope, then dial the other. There is your answer. You only need to be able to count.
If that won't work, stay in your 1/x of a unit. If you have 1/8s don't have 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 if that'll be a problem for you. Have 2/8, 4/8, 6/8s. It'll get you there fast and it is exactly the same thing.
In the real world, we don't have to reduce all of our fractions.
Then, why would you estimate in tenths? Few firearms will be precise enough that you'll notice a 1/10moa difference. Stick with the numbers you have to dial. Why would you estimate a 4.3782736283761627 adjustment? You are going to have to dial to the nearest unit on your scope anyways. The natural inconsistancies of the rifle, scope, atmosphere, earth, and shooter will make this unnoticeable.
If anyone is interested in understanding how you can use angles to measure linear distance I would suggest googling the "small angle approximation" and the coresponding trigonometry that is involved. The method is what the entire ranging principle is based on.
Similar threads
