Rifle Scopes (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

[ReaperDriver]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but this is not Bench Rest Central and groups aren't the answer, that first shot is... <span style="font-weight: bold">and I know what size that is... .30 </span>

</div></div>

LOVE IT!

 

[exedotbat]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Not sure what I started here, but Im gonna go with mil/mil.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I totally stole your chart LL.

</div></div>

Of course you did... everyone should steal it because it is so simple. Instead everyone wants to overcomplicate a simple problem by adding all kinds of circular arguments to it about what they learned in school. Well in school I learned how to "read" You know the object size, read the reticle, read the chart, put your elevation solution on the gun and fire. If you screwed up, read the reticle and make the correction...

It took me all of 15 minutes to make and requires next to no thought.

 

[orkan]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I totally stole your chart LL. </div></div>

+1

I have no idea why people would fight this lowlight. Its so simple, it actually does not require a singular thought. ... but this is a prime example as to why the U.S. is not on the metric system yet. I know mils have dick to do with metrics... but the excuses are the same:

Its so complicated!

... no... YOU are complicated.

 

[ReaperDriver]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I totally stole your chart LL.

</div></div>

Of course you did... everyone should steal it because it is so simple. Instead everyone wants to overcomplicate a simple problem by adding all kinds of circular arguments to it about what they learned in school. Well in school I learned how to "read" You know the object size, read the reticle, read the chart, put your elevation solution on the gun and fire. If you screwed up, read the reticle and make the correction...

It took me all of 15 minutes to make and requires next to no thought. </div></div>

Couldn't agree more with you LL.

Question - are those ranges in meters or yards?

 

[BobinNC]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

A Life time of measuring stuff in Inches and Yards helps in what way to determine whether you should buy an FFP MIL/MIL or FFP MOA/MOA scope?

Let's do a hypothetical problem:

You don't have a LRF, and I show you a target at unknown range, and I tell you it measures exactly 36" x 36". Peering through your FFP MIL/MIL scope you measure it as being 1.25 mils tall.

Now I hand you a FFP MOA/MOA and you measure it to be 4.3 MOA Tall.

So How far is it???

Since you have to either compute it manually or look at your Mildot Master to determine that it is 800 yards away, how did a lifetime of eye measuring in inches and yards help or hinder you with either solution?

To hit that target you still have to dial or holdover whatever your drop chart tells you to in either MILs or MOA.

Again taking the same problem, after you figure your dope out, and fire the shot, you see through your FFP MIL/MIL scope that you are .5 Mils Low. For your second shot you hold .5 mils higher and hit the target dead in the middle. How did a lifetime of eye measuring in inches and yards hinder you in making that hit?

And yes, you can do the same thing with a FFP MOA/MOA scope, and a lifetime of eye measuring in inches or yards will neither help nor hinder you. Because your adjusting to what you see in the reticle, and using the ruler given you. No more or less.

Think about it....

 

[orkan]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

The problem with moa/moa comes when you DIAL the adjustment, not hold over. Secondly, the problem of the moa turrets/reticles not being standardized across the board presents its own problems.

 

[Lindy]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Yards.

 

[Guest]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I read about group size, why is it always,... I shot "X" inchs at "Y" yardage, or it shoots MOA or better?

</div></div>

ya, what does that have to do with the scope... it can easily be a .1 mil group.

I have to admit, that is seriously weak in terms of this conversation, lame is being generous. </div></div>

The point is, most are thinking in MOA or IPHY already</div></div>

I personally avoid shooting groups like the plague and can careless what it is... I do it because people expect it in stuff like the videos, but I never put a real number on it... I don't "measure" my groups, ever... so again, if you're into that, have at it, but this is not Bench Rest Central and groups aren't the answer, that first shot is... and I know what size that is... .30

</div></div>
You right group size has nothing to do with this at all, nor does shooting from a bench, but the bottom line is almost everyone here, either talks in MOA or IPHY when posting. Therefore my guess would be that is what is coming natural to them from the get go. If the world wants to use mils I could care less.

The thing that bothers me about this thread is we want to be like the rest of the world,...why? If we would have had that train of thought in WWII we would have lost that one as well, not just everything past it.

 

[ReaperDriver]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yards.
</div></div>
Why would you not want that distance chart in meters?

 

[RONIN45230]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem with moa/moa comes when you DIAL the adjustment, not hold over......</div></div>

With all due respect, i have no problem dialing MOA corrections? Whether i spin my EREK to 6.25 MOA or 1.8 Mil whats the diff? the Numbers are on the knob. Where is the "problem"?, is it clicks that bug you? 25 or 18... the 7 extra clicks with the finer .25 MOA a prob in some way?

 

[DaveV]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you're a hunter, and you're using a reticle for ranging game at extended distances, you have my sympathy, but not my respect.</div></div>

If I wasn't already beholding to Churchill, I'd make this my sigline.

 

[TiroFijo]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

At least with a 308, I humbly suggest that the yellow/red lines are optimistic. When you get below 0.5-0.4 mils, the estimation is always highly suspect, even if it is an object of known size...

Even if you are only +/-5% off in the mil reading (and you would be VERY lucky to be so little off), at 741 yds this is a miss on a 40" tall target. To be 5% off with a 12" measured object at this distance is just +/-0.0225 mils off!!

IME the reading error can always be +/-0.05 mils off or more, and this is +/-12.5% at 4.0 mils, and +/-0.14% at 3.5, and this translates to the same percentage of ranging error. With a 308 this is a miss on a torso height target (40" or 1.0 m) at about 550 yds and 525 yds respectively.

If you must use the mil reading estimation vs LRF, get an object of known size as large as you can... or accept the limitations.

 

[orkan]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RoninP80</div><div class="ubbcode-body">25 or 18... the 7 extra clicks with the finer .25 MOA a prob in some way? </div></div>

Yes, but only because of the work I have to do to determine those clicks, not because of the "extra" clicks.

One way, requires almost zero thought. The other, requires thought. Could I be trained to do moa/moa with almost zero thought? Sure.

Do I want to? No.

I don't want to think about math... I want to think about driving my rifle properly.

 

[gugubica]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

This always seems to be a hot topic, people seem to take their chosen system very personally. Let me make it simple...yeah, right...

Either system will work. Use what you are comfortable with. If you are not tied to one or the other, I say pick mils. It is more the standard. You are much more likely to see other shooters with mildot reticles than MOA.

If you work with a group, use what they use.

With how I use a scope (and I think most others as well) either system works. Both systems have arguable pluses and minuses, but, if you are ever in a situation where someone you aren't used to working with is giving you calls, most likely, it will be in mils.

 

[TiroFijo]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Regarding "the rest of the world vs USA" remarks, it has nothing to do with surrendering pride, tradition, or anything like that.

I simply suggest changing to mils + metric (at least for shooting) because it is arguably a better system, simpler, decimal, all compatible, and has tangible advantages once you learn and use it. People are always asking about almost esoteric shooting trivia, and learning far more difficult stuff everyday, it's not big deal. Wasn't changing and using the better mousetrap the american way?

The US customary system is on the way of the Dodo bird, and for good, scientific, reasons. Change may come sooner or later, but why cling so desperately to an inferior system?

1.0 mil = 0.1 m at 100 m = 1.0 m at 1000 m

By lucky coincidence, 1.0 m (or 40") is the close to torso height. You will say, not two persons are alike, etc. but this is just a convenient average size, and several reticle designs use this distance for quick, gross ranging.

reticle in mils, clicks in 0.1 mils, all objects and distances measured in meters, everything compatible and decimal, what's not to like?

vs

1 yard = 3 feet = 12 inches

clicks in 1/4 MOA fractions (or is it in 1/4 IPHY? check!)

1.0 MOA = 1.047" at 100 yds

 

[Lindy]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

I'm not clinging desperately to an inferior system.

It's the U.S. standard. When it changes, and if U.S. non-military KD ranges are changed into meters, which means remarking or moving the berms, I'll change.

Not yet.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At least with a 308, I humbly suggest that the yellow/red lines are optimistic.</div></div>

I agree - but it's not my chart, so I don't care.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

The colors are meaningless and just an example, it wasn't done for anything other than effect... but if you want to read more into it, then by all means... I just wanted something to show the possibilities.

 

[gugubica]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

And now for the simple part...

Not to step on LLs toes, but here is another option.

For your viewing, copying, pasting and using pleasure...

Print it, fill it out, cut it out, fold it in half and laminate it. Keep it in your stock pack, attached to your rifle or around your neck...whatever.

Get a reading in mils, look at the card, know the range, flip it over and know the corrections, both elevation and wind.

Done, simple.

 

[TiroFijo]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Lindy, <span style="font-style: italic">if we talk about tactical shooting and unknown distances</span>, why bother about KD ranges?

And even for sporting KD ranges, what's the big advantage of MOA scopes?
Are all the paper target rings (in case you can read them) in true MOA or not? Because if they are in inches then there is a conversion factor as well.

You are an engineer, and know very well that most of the US industry/universities/science has changed to metric long ago, for the reasons listed above. I think all the architectural/engineering plans of federal US buildings must be metric since at least ten years ago. The products sold in the USA are a mix of both, for customary reasons. It is just the public that is clinging to pounds, yards, etc.

 

[Lindy]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Oh, I don't own, and never will own, a scope with an MOA reticle, unless someone comes up with a reticle superior to a mildot reticle. I have a mil/mil scope on my primary rifle.

But I teach on a range marked in yards, as are almost all U.S. non-military ranges. So, I'll keep my dope in yards, given that it makes no difference whether I use yards or meters for UKD targets, as you noted. The math is all the same, just different constants, and I'm going to do the UKD math with a Mildot Master anyway.

The metric system makes great sense. Please convince the U.S. to change.

I've got better ways to spend my time. I'm too old to be tilting at windmills, and I suspect Wal-Mart is going to keep selling meat by the pound.

 

[Guest]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is just the public that is clinging to pounds, yards, etc. </div></div>

Last time I checked the American Public had enough sense to know what they liked or not, depending on who was doing the best job of lying. Following the money works everytime, there is this much debate.

 

[ReaperDriver]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Last time I checked the American Public had enough sense to know what they liked or not, </div></div>

Ha, that's a good one! Just look at our current crop of politicians for that answer. But I digress....

 

[Guest]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReaperDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Last time I checked the American Public had enough sense to know what they liked or not, <span style="font-weight: bold">Depending on who was doing the best job of lying. </span> </div></div>

Ha, that's a good one! Just look at our current crop of politicians for that answer. But I digress.... </div></div>

Fixed it for ya,... guess your back button worked over time on that one

 

[orkan]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Lowlight, you have an extension of that chart you posted?

... or could tell me how to build my own? I'd like to have a second chart that went up to 40 or 72".

 

[jackh]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

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

</div></div>

i know old thread

so i know i have a 12" target out in the field. in my reticle it is 1 mil tall. this means its 333 yds away, so i either adjust turret to compensate for range or hold over accordingly?

correct me if im reading that wrong please. and how did you come up with the numbers? are there some sort of equations you used to come up with those ranges? like how do you KNOW that a 12" target that reads 1 mill is at 333 yds? sorry for the questions, im very new to this but very interested in learning as much as i can.

 

[Lindy]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...so i either adjust turret to compensate for range or hold over accordingly?</div></div>

Correct. On a target that close, it's a lot faster to hold over.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...equations...</div></div>

Ranging Formulas

 

[jackh]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And now for the simple part...

Not to step on LLs toes, but here is another option.

For your viewing, copying, pasting and using pleasure...

Print it, fill it out, cut it out, fold it in half and laminate it. Keep it in your stock pack, attached to your rifle or around your neck...whatever.

Get a reading in mils, look at the card, know the range, flip it over and know the corrections, both elevation and wind.

Done, simple. </div></div>

do you fill in the turret corrections for the ranges in the top half of that? and what is the stuff on the left side that says like 10@45?

thanks

 

[gugubica]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Jack, you are correct. I actually do it on the computer for every caliber at different density altitudes. I pick the card that is closest to the currect DA and secure it to myself or my gear. No guessing the rest of the day, no math. Mil it, read distance, flip card over, know your correction, easy. I left that one blank so others could print it and write in their own data.

The 10@45 etc is for wind correction at each distance. A 10 mph wind coming in at a 45 degree angle. If you have a 20 mph at 45, you just double the given correction (not exact, but closer than I can read wind).

You are welcome to use this one, or use it as a template to create your own.

 

[jackh]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

that is badass. how do i gather data to put into the wind part of the chart? does that just come from shooting in varying conditions?

i googled ranging chart and found 3 or 4 others, some with numbers that the two in here dont have. i think ill make an excel sheet with even more numbers in case i need them. or is yours and LL's complete enough for most ppl? for example, if i have an 18" target that i read as 5 mils, i know its at 100 yds. im sure more experienced shooters can judge 100 yds just by eye but 1) im not that experienced with long range shooting, 2) im terrible at judging distance, and 3) even if i had an idea of the distance, i would really prefer to check back to the card just to make sure im correct.

 

[gugubica]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

The type of shooting you do (ranges, target types, etc) wil dictate what mil readings and target sizes to put on your cards.

A good ballistics calculator will get you real close on your numbers, but real world data will require some adjustment. Just record any deviations and when you compile enough, adjust the numbers on your card.

Your card does not have to have every target size on it, for example, if you are using Frank's card, and mill a 20" target at .7 mils, just use the 10 line and double the distance. So it would be about 800 yards away.

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

..


With thanks to Low Light, very useful. All I did was restack to align with MILDOT.

In case the logo is a no-no...

..

 

[jackh]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

thats badass thanks for the help guys

 

[wheelchairman]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

It's not as precise as it should be. I should have made it in .1 mil increments but it's close enough currently. I made it in class one day for an excel project

 

[Lindy]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Actually, if you just want to know the range, the fastest way to compute that is will a Mildot Master, which is faster than looking up numbers on a little chart.

If it's speed you want, you want a chart like that one, but instead of range, you have the dope required for the corresponding range for your load.

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></span> will give you speed.

 

[edward r homeyer]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Horus sells the Atrag PDA. you build your gun into it. put in the baro pressure, temp and humidity .True your muzzle velocity prior to subsonic and it will give you a range card from 100 meters all the way till your bullet goes subsonic. then you shoot past where your bullet goes subsonic and extrapolate your bc till your hold matches the computer. you then have an accurate range card as far as you can call winds and see the splash of your rounds.
Then just type in the size of your tgt in inches, type in what you mil the tgt at and the computer tells you your hold. or moa or clicks whichever you want. takes a matter of seconds.

 

[gugubica]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, if you just want to know the range, the fastest way to compute that is will a Mildot Master, which is faster than looking up numbers on a little chart.

If it's speed you want, you want a chart like that one, but instead of range, you have the dope required for the corresponding range for your load.

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">That</span></span> will give you speed.
</div></div>
Making balistic cards using desity altitude

Just messin with ya!

Mdm is quicker, but I like having my cards match my conditions. Everything is a compromise.

 

[jackh]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

ok i got another question click this link and enlarge the picture of the ballistic chart

http://www.snipercentral.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=133_134&products_id=633

at 1100 yds the bullet drop is 13.3 mils. therefore you either dial in or holdover 13.3 mils, correct? what is the other part of that card labeled "come-ups"? for 1100 yds its like 2.2 mils.

 

[Lindy]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

If you look closely, you will see the 2.2 mil figure is between 1000 and the 1100. That indicates that 2.2 mils is what you have to come up or hold over if you have the elevation for 1000 dialed on, and you need to shoot at 1100.

 

[J.Boyette]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Guys,

The key here is using the milrad system is 1/1000 of any unit.

So since we use yards at 1000yds a Mil is 1 yd. If you shot in feet 1 mil @ 1000ft is 1ft.

If you shot on a inch range, 1000inches a mil is 1 inch.

So this whole idea that you must use metric or standard is false.

You can use anything you want.

This is why @ 100yds a mil is 3.6" or a 1/10th click is .36"

The numbers of 36 is the amount of inches in a yard.

Its so simple.

Also you have less error built in using mil over MOA anyhow.

John

 

[jackh]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you look closely, you will see the 2.2 mil figure is between 1000 and the 1100. That indicates that 2.2 mils is what you have to come up or hold over if you have the <span style="color: #FF0000">elevation</span> for 1000 dialed on, and you need to shoot at 1100.
</div></div>

do you mean that ive dialed in my dope for 1k yds, suddenly i need to shoot 1100 yds. so instead of redialing, i just hold over 2.2 mils? correct me if im reading that wrong

 

[Lowlight]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jackh</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you look closely, you will see the 2.2 mil figure is between 1000 and the 1100. That indicates that 2.2 mils is what you have to come up or hold over if you have the <span style="color: #FF0000">elevation</span> for 1000 dialed on, and you need to shoot at 1100.
</div></div>

do you mean that ive dialed in my dope for 1k yds, suddenly i need to shoot 1100 yds. so instead of redialing, i just hold over 2.2 mils? correct me if im reading that wrong</div></div>

yes it is the same... the reticle has value and in some cases more value than the mechanical turrets, so using the reticle effectively is the same as using the turrets.

 

[edward r homeyer]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

The opposite works also. If you are running a horus and you hold is 9.6 mils, dial on .6 mils and hold on the 9 mil line. this works really well for movers at distance and really small targets at long range. It's also easier to hold wind on an actual mil line.

 

[jackh]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

someone correct me if i am seeing this the wrong way

mil/mil is easier because if you range a target, then read your dope in mils, you simply dial in those mils or holdover that amount of mils. with moa/moa, you range the target, get your dope in moa, then you have to dial in more clicks than with a mil turret because each click is 1/4 moa (or 1/2 moa etc) rather than 1 mil like with a mil turret? this doesn't seem right, arent most mil turrets in .1 mrad?

i read so many different opinions on this stuff that it all get intertwined and i get confused. im just a newb trying to learn. thanks

 

[Lindy]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

You're seeing it the wrong way.

It's not about ranging. Ranging calculations are best done with a Mildot Master, then you can dial the range in whatever the scope adjusts in.

It's about seeing a bullet strike off the target, measuring the desired correction with the reticle, then being able to dial the correction in the same system the reticle is in.

It doesn't matter if the scope is mil/mil or MOA/MOA - it works the same either way.

 

[jackh]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's about seeing a bullet strike off the target, measuring the desired correction with the reticle, then being able to dial the correction in the same system the reticle is in.
</div></div>

ok that makes sense now. now that you said that, i remember i have read that before.

i think i remember reading on here something about spotting your hits and correcting with a mil/mil scope is easier than with a moa/moa scope. is this true? could anyone explain why/why not?

thanks

 

[maladat]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

I guess you might possibly say that moa/moa is slightly more complicated since it you multiply the observed error in MOA by 4 to get number of 1/4 MOA clicks instead of multiplying observed error in mils by 10 to get number of .1 mil clicks.

Ex:

You see that you miss about .5 mils to the left. Multiply by ten to get 5 clicks correction.

You see that you miss about 1.75 MOA to the left (about the same error). Multiply by four to get 7 clicks correction.

Under stress, multiplying by ten is maybe less error prone than multiplying by four but it's still pretty easy.

 

[jackh]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

that makes a lot of sense. thanks

 

[gugubica]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

You guys need to stop thinking in clicks, it makes life easier.

If you miss by .5 left, you miss by .5, no need to alter that. Hold or dial .5, done.

If you miss by 1.75, hold or dial 1.75, done.

 

[maladat]

Re: (mil/mil) (moa/moa)

Except that if you want to dial without reading the lines on your turret, figuring out what fraction you're at, adding your adjustment, figuring out what fraction you need to be at, and watching the marks until you get to the right spot, you need to know how many clicks you want to move.

If you're dialing 1.75 MOA without looking by feeling 7 clicks (or .5 mils by feeling 5 clicks), you're thinking in clicks whether you think about it or not.

I mean, you can count 1/4 MOA clicks .25-.5-.75-1-1.25 etc. but you're still counting clicks you're just not counting 1-2-3-4... You skip dividing by four but make counting more complicated.