Rifle Scopes Mil or Moa
- Thread starter kdxman
- Start date
Re: Mil or Moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New guy question I have not used Mil or Moa before. Witch one would be the easier of the two to learn ?Also I not great at math so the simple is better thanks.</div></div>
Not to great with english as well. Go to your local recruiter and they will help answer all your questions.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New guy question I have not used Mil or Moa before. Witch one would be the easier of the two to learn ?Also I not great at math so the simple is better thanks.</div></div>
Not to great with english as well. Go to your local recruiter and they will help answer all your questions.
Re: Mil or Moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to great with english as well.</div></div>
If you're going to be so bold as to correct a poster's spelling or grammar, at least do so correctly yourself.
Not only did you post an incomplete sentence, but that should be "Not <span style="font-weight: bold">too</span> great..."
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to great with english as well.</div></div>
If you're going to be so bold as to correct a poster's spelling or grammar, at least do so correctly yourself.
Not only did you post an incomplete sentence, but that should be "Not <span style="font-weight: bold">too</span> great..."
Re: Mil or Moa
Lol very nice Lindy.
As long as your adjustments match your reticle, you will be happy.
Lol very nice Lindy.
As long as your adjustments match your reticle, you will be happy.
MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
Mils (Milliradian)!!!
Especially if you are not good at math! Milliradians are a unitless relationship based on the number Pi.
The BLUFF (Bottom Line Up Front) is that there are much easier convertions using Mils.
Mils (Milliradian)!!!
Especially if you are not good at math! Milliradians are a unitless relationship based on the number Pi.
The BLUFF (Bottom Line Up Front) is that there are much easier convertions using Mils.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not only did you post an incomplete sentence, but that should be "Not too great..."</div></div>
Lol my 10th grade english teacher, Sister Gross, would have smacked me with a ruler.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not only did you post an incomplete sentence, but that should be "Not too great..."</div></div>
Lol my 10th grade english teacher, Sister Gross, would have smacked me with a ruler.
Re: Mil or Moa
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kdxman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New guy question I have not used Mil or Moa before. Witch one would be the easier of the two to learn ?Also I not great at math so the simple is better thanks.
</div></div>
As has been said, keeping the adjustments the same as the reticle will help greatly in simplifying the math. Whichever you choose, the only way to be good is to use it. Both can be equally useful tools when understood, practiced with and used correctly.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kdxman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New guy question I have not used Mil or Moa before. Witch one would be the easier of the two to learn ?Also I not great at math so the simple is better thanks.
</div></div>
As has been said, keeping the adjustments the same as the reticle will help greatly in simplifying the math. Whichever you choose, the only way to be good is to use it. Both can be equally useful tools when understood, practiced with and used correctly.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunlove</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils (Milliradian)!!!
Especially if you are not good at math! Milliradians are a unitless relationship based on the number Pi.
The BLUFF (Bottom Line Up Front) is that there are much easier convertions using Mils. </div></div>
MOA are also unitless, since both are measurements of angle, not distance. While milliradians have a relationship with Pi, the more accurate definition is that a radian is an arc along the edge of a circle equal to the circle's radius. A milliradian (or mil) is 1/1000th of this. It's easier to do calculations with mils because they are decimal numbers.
Now for the short answer, mils are more common in ranging reticles. As has been mentioned already, what's important is to match the turrets to the reticle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunlove</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils (Milliradian)!!!
Especially if you are not good at math! Milliradians are a unitless relationship based on the number Pi.
The BLUFF (Bottom Line Up Front) is that there are much easier convertions using Mils. </div></div>
MOA are also unitless, since both are measurements of angle, not distance. While milliradians have a relationship with Pi, the more accurate definition is that a radian is an arc along the edge of a circle equal to the circle's radius. A milliradian (or mil) is 1/1000th of this. It's easier to do calculations with mils because they are decimal numbers.
Now for the short answer, mils are more common in ranging reticles. As has been mentioned already, what's important is to match the turrets to the reticle.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
Previous poster said, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Milliradians are a unitless relationship based on the number Pi.</div></div>
You said, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA are also unitless,...</div></div>
Neither statement is correct.
As the name implies, the base unit for milliradians is the radian, of which there are two times Pi in a circle.
"Milli-" is the SI prefix for one-thousands of whatever unit of measurement is specified.
The base unit for the MOA is the minute, which is 1/60th of one degree.
Those <span style="font-weight: bold">are</span> units of measurement, so neither is unitless.
"Milli-" is the SI prefix for one-thousands of whatever unit of measurement is specified.
Both are measurements of units of angle.
Previous poster said, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Milliradians are a unitless relationship based on the number Pi.</div></div>
You said, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA are also unitless,...</div></div>
Neither statement is correct.
As the name implies, the base unit for milliradians is the radian, of which there are two times Pi in a circle.
"Milli-" is the SI prefix for one-thousands of whatever unit of measurement is specified.
The base unit for the MOA is the minute, which is 1/60th of one degree.
Those <span style="font-weight: bold">are</span> units of measurement, so neither is unitless.
"Milli-" is the SI prefix for one-thousands of whatever unit of measurement is specified.
Both are measurements of units of angle.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a good reason every Military Sniper on the Planet uses a MilRad Scope.</div></div>
Actually, the only reason is that when the military started using scopes with graduated reticles, mil scopes were virtually the only option there was, and, being slow to change, they have continued to do so.
There's nothing wrong with a scope reticle graduated in MOA or IPHY for a civilian shooter, as long as the scope adjustment units match the reticle.
I've just never seen a persuasive reason to use an MOA scope - but using one is not a moral failure...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a good reason every Military Sniper on the Planet uses a MilRad Scope.</div></div>
Actually, the only reason is that when the military started using scopes with graduated reticles, mil scopes were virtually the only option there was, and, being slow to change, they have continued to do so.
There's nothing wrong with a scope reticle graduated in MOA or IPHY for a civilian shooter, as long as the scope adjustment units match the reticle.
I've just never seen a persuasive reason to use an MOA scope - but using one is not a moral failure...
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
What I should have said is that mils or MOA are measurements of angle and that there is no need to convert them to inches or other units of length. It was in that sense that both of us were using the word "unitless."
What I should have said is that mils or MOA are measurements of angle and that there is no need to convert them to inches or other units of length. It was in that sense that both of us were using the word "unitless."
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
My opinion: True MOA is a slight pain in the rear because it is not inches per hundred yards (IPHY). This might not be a big deal for hunting or minute of torso engagements, but for competitive shooting, having to convert with the ~5% factor to get dialed in tight is a big deal at longer ranges. Mils does not have this problem, just convert the drop of your load (range card)to mils and off you go.
However, for many of us, we think easier in IPHY. We know the size of common targets / critters and their dimension in inches. We estimate the brisket of a deer at 18 inches, not 5 mils. That guy is 6 feet or 72 inches, not 20 mils. Nothing that training and practice/experience can't cure, but still...
I do agree, having the turrets speak the same language as the reticle is wholly logical.
I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to see an FFP IPHY/IPHY scope! I would be able to hit the ground running.
But for most of us, moa/moa fills the bill OK for non-extreme precision shooting.
However, as a dealer, I can tell you mil/mil is all that is selling!
Scott
My opinion: True MOA is a slight pain in the rear because it is not inches per hundred yards (IPHY). This might not be a big deal for hunting or minute of torso engagements, but for competitive shooting, having to convert with the ~5% factor to get dialed in tight is a big deal at longer ranges. Mils does not have this problem, just convert the drop of your load (range card)to mils and off you go.
However, for many of us, we think easier in IPHY. We know the size of common targets / critters and their dimension in inches. We estimate the brisket of a deer at 18 inches, not 5 mils. That guy is 6 feet or 72 inches, not 20 mils. Nothing that training and practice/experience can't cure, but still...
I do agree, having the turrets speak the same language as the reticle is wholly logical.
I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to see an FFP IPHY/IPHY scope! I would be able to hit the ground running.
But for most of us, moa/moa fills the bill OK for non-extreme precision shooting.
However, as a dealer, I can tell you mil/mil is all that is selling!
Scott
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a good reason every Military Sniper on the Planet uses a MilRad Scope. </div></div>
And until very recently, the military scopes had moa adjustments for the millradian-based mil-dot reticles.
Unertl MST-100 had yardage on the main elevation turret, but the windage and fine elevation adjust were 1 moa
Leupold M3A also had yardage & 1moa elevation, but 1/2 moa windage
Leupold M1A had 1/4 moa adjustments
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a good reason every Military Sniper on the Planet uses a MilRad Scope. </div></div>
And until very recently, the military scopes had moa adjustments for the millradian-based mil-dot reticles.
Unertl MST-100 had yardage on the main elevation turret, but the windage and fine elevation adjust were 1 moa
Leupold M3A also had yardage & 1moa elevation, but 1/2 moa windage
Leupold M1A had 1/4 moa adjustments
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
Both get you to the same conclusions fairly quickly and if you just make sure to match the reticle to the adjustments it is less confusing. I don't know why Leupold continues to sell "confused" scopes.
However, mathematically Miliradians are far superior!!!
Yes, they are both measures of angle. However, one is base on an arbitrary division of the circle (1/360) and one is based on a mathematical relationship (Pi 3.14..) to arc length. At 100 yards one MOA is close to 1 inch when it is actually 1.047... At 100m 0.1 Miliradian IS 1 cm; this is because radians are not only an angular measure but a measure of arc length.
In the end you end up always having to add one more conversion for MOA because unlike MILs it is not a measure of arc length.
Here’re the equations with different combinations:
Equations
*Notice how nicely the units drop out of the MIL equation…. And how nicely the Metric System is to work with!
Here’re some derivations behind the systems:
Derivations
Oh... and "MIL", MRAD, MilRad, Milradian, or the full correct "MilliRadian" does not come from or stem from "Military". The abbrevation MIL comes from the prefix Milli.
Both get you to the same conclusions fairly quickly and if you just make sure to match the reticle to the adjustments it is less confusing. I don't know why Leupold continues to sell "confused" scopes.
However, mathematically Miliradians are far superior!!!
Yes, they are both measures of angle. However, one is base on an arbitrary division of the circle (1/360) and one is based on a mathematical relationship (Pi 3.14..) to arc length. At 100 yards one MOA is close to 1 inch when it is actually 1.047... At 100m 0.1 Miliradian IS 1 cm; this is because radians are not only an angular measure but a measure of arc length.
In the end you end up always having to add one more conversion for MOA because unlike MILs it is not a measure of arc length.
Here’re the equations with different combinations:
Equations
*Notice how nicely the units drop out of the MIL equation…. And how nicely the Metric System is to work with!
Here’re some derivations behind the systems:
Derivations
Oh... and "MIL", MRAD, MilRad, Milradian, or the full correct "MilliRadian" does not come from or stem from "Military". The abbrevation MIL comes from the prefix Milli.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the end you end up always having to add one more conversion for MOA because unlike MILs it is not a measure of arc length.</div></div>
I'm afraid that turns out not to be the case.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One radian is the angle subtended at the center of a circle by an arc that is equal in length to the radius of the circle.</div></div>
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian
A milliradian is simply one-thousandths of that angle.
The length of arc subtended by an angle of one MOA is, at 100 yards, 1.047 inches. The length of arc subtended by an angle of one milliradian is 3.6 inches at 100 yards.
In both cases, we're talking about arc length, but the angles are so small that for all practical purposes involving shooting, we may simply treat the arc length as if it were a straight line.
It's perfectly possible to calculate the difference between the arc length and the length of a straight line across those arcs, which is known as the chord.
At 100 yards, the length of the flat surface on the target covered by an angle of one milliradian is 3.599999850000002 inches.
If you want to calculate that for yourself, the formula is:
c = 2 * r * sin(theta/2)
where
c = chord length (that's the length of the angle projected onto the flat surface of the target)
r = distance
theta = angle in radians
Note, however, that most handheld calculators will not calculate sin(.0005 radians) to sufficient precision to give you an accurate answer. You will need to find an online high-precision calculator.
So, the error from using the arc length instead of the chord length is 0.000004166666616672248 percent.
Even though I am an Arcanamaven, that's an error I will ignore.
When shooting, if I can't hold it, I ignore it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the end you end up always having to add one more conversion for MOA because unlike MILs it is not a measure of arc length.</div></div>
I'm afraid that turns out not to be the case.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One radian is the angle subtended at the center of a circle by an arc that is equal in length to the radius of the circle.</div></div>
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian
A milliradian is simply one-thousandths of that angle.
The length of arc subtended by an angle of one MOA is, at 100 yards, 1.047 inches. The length of arc subtended by an angle of one milliradian is 3.6 inches at 100 yards.
In both cases, we're talking about arc length, but the angles are so small that for all practical purposes involving shooting, we may simply treat the arc length as if it were a straight line.
It's perfectly possible to calculate the difference between the arc length and the length of a straight line across those arcs, which is known as the chord.
At 100 yards, the length of the flat surface on the target covered by an angle of one milliradian is 3.599999850000002 inches.
If you want to calculate that for yourself, the formula is:
c = 2 * r * sin(theta/2)
where
c = chord length (that's the length of the angle projected onto the flat surface of the target)
r = distance
theta = angle in radians
Note, however, that most handheld calculators will not calculate sin(.0005 radians) to sufficient precision to give you an accurate answer. You will need to find an online high-precision calculator.
So, the error from using the arc length instead of the chord length is 0.000004166666616672248 percent.
Even though I am an Arcanamaven, that's an error I will ignore.
When shooting, if I can't hold it, I ignore it.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LibertyOptics</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to see an FFP IPHY/IPHY scope! I would be able to hit the ground running.</div></div>
Call USO and get one. I've two and would not trade either, even if a free rifle from Gap, APA, or whoever was thrown in.
The MDMOA retical which subtends 1 IPHY with a 1/2 IPHY EREK and wind is about as good as it gets for all around shooting, for me. You get 45 IPHY in one rev and can hold another 40 IPHY up, an 30 IPHY either way wind if you want.
Target size in inchs/retical subtention X 100 = yardage.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LibertyOptics</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to see an FFP IPHY/IPHY scope! I would be able to hit the ground running.</div></div>
Call USO and get one. I've two and would not trade either, even if a free rifle from Gap, APA, or whoever was thrown in.
The MDMOA retical which subtends 1 IPHY with a 1/2 IPHY EREK and wind is about as good as it gets for all around shooting, for me. You get 45 IPHY in one rev and can hold another 40 IPHY up, an 30 IPHY either way wind if you want.
Target size in inchs/retical subtention X 100 = yardage.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I've two and would not trade either, even if a free rifle from Gap, APA, or whoever was thrown in. </div></div>
Sounds like you may have an unhealthy attachment to your optics!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I've two and would not trade either, even if a free rifle from Gap, APA, or whoever was thrown in. </div></div>
Sounds like you may have an unhealthy attachment to your optics!
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
The reason it appears the same is the same reason we all refer to accuracy in MOA: We are accustomed to both units of measure. It appears in the above equation that MOA may actually be simpler. It is not. Inches to yards is one extra conversion in the MOA ranging equation. Because we are accustomed to it doesn’t make it more simple.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Whatever units you put into the Mil Ranging equation are exactly the ones you get back. This is where the metric systems helps out. The metric system makes it easy to convert to a more fitting size measure. </span>
Now the more complex part…. and without pictures to boot.
The key to understanding Milliradians is Pi. Pi is the relationship of the Unit Circle. A circle’s circumference is 2xPi = 6.283. Radians as an angular measure derive from the relationship of the radius of a circle to the circumference. Thus an angular measure of 6.283 radians equals 6.283 units length. Likewise a measure of .456 radians equals .456 units of length. The lengths of curved arcs are indeed assumed straight with such small angles. (For a full derivation check the link posted earlier)
Moving along… with a radius of 2x units, a measure of .456 radians = 2*.456 = 0.912 unit length.
And finally in shooting terms. (Milli = 1/1000) :
Ranging Example:
Given you know the height of a person 1.8 meters.
1.8m/3.6mrads *1000 = 500m
Yes the MOA equation is also fairly simple when using inches and yards but adds an extra conversation factor.
72in/13.74moa * 95.5 = 500yards
or if you are using an approximate version of MOA (shooters MOA)
72in/14.4smoa * 100 = 500yard
edited
this is much more simple but you cannot change units.
In conclusion, MOA when involving American shooters may at times appear as good or even better. However, universally and mathematically Milliradians are far superior!
The reason it appears the same is the same reason we all refer to accuracy in MOA: We are accustomed to both units of measure. It appears in the above equation that MOA may actually be simpler. It is not. Inches to yards is one extra conversion in the MOA ranging equation. Because we are accustomed to it doesn’t make it more simple.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Whatever units you put into the Mil Ranging equation are exactly the ones you get back. This is where the metric systems helps out. The metric system makes it easy to convert to a more fitting size measure. </span>
Now the more complex part…. and without pictures to boot.
The key to understanding Milliradians is Pi. Pi is the relationship of the Unit Circle. A circle’s circumference is 2xPi = 6.283. Radians as an angular measure derive from the relationship of the radius of a circle to the circumference. Thus an angular measure of 6.283 radians equals 6.283 units length. Likewise a measure of .456 radians equals .456 units of length. The lengths of curved arcs are indeed assumed straight with such small angles. (For a full derivation check the link posted earlier)
Moving along… with a radius of 2x units, a measure of .456 radians = 2*.456 = 0.912 unit length.
And finally in shooting terms. (Milli = 1/1000) :
Ranging Example:
Given you know the height of a person 1.8 meters.
1.8m/3.6mrads *1000 = 500m
Yes the MOA equation is also fairly simple when using inches and yards but adds an extra conversation factor.
72in/13.74moa * 95.5 = 500yards
or if you are using an approximate version of MOA (shooters MOA)
72in/14.4smoa * 100 = 500yard
edited
this is much more simple but you cannot change units.
In conclusion, MOA when involving American shooters may at times appear as good or even better. However, universally and mathematically Milliradians are far superior!
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Inches to yards is one extra conversion in the MOA ranging equation.</div></div>
Well, no. You don't have to convert inches inches to yards. The ranging equation is always distance = (target size) * constant / image size.
That's true whether you use a reticle graduated in MOA, IPHY, or mils, whether you calculate distances in yards or meters (or something else), and whether you use inches, centimeters, or something else for target size.
All that changes is the constant.
All of which are included on this link.. You provided another link to that information, but mine is prettier, and has no advertisements...
The simple way to do the range calculation, though, is to use a Mildot Master.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Inches to yards is one extra conversion in the MOA ranging equation.</div></div>
Well, no. You don't have to convert inches inches to yards. The ranging equation is always distance = (target size) * constant / image size.
That's true whether you use a reticle graduated in MOA, IPHY, or mils, whether you calculate distances in yards or meters (or something else), and whether you use inches, centimeters, or something else for target size.
All that changes is the constant.
All of which are included on this link.. You provided another link to that information, but mine is prettier, and has no advertisements...
The simple way to do the range calculation, though, is to use a Mildot Master.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
How do I know if my scope adjustments match my reticle?
I've got a Leuopold Mark-IV LR/T M3, with the 168gr. BDC knobs.
How do I know if my scope adjustments match my reticle?
I've got a Leuopold Mark-IV LR/T M3, with the 168gr. BDC knobs.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
The elevation adjustment on the that scope is clicks which are one true MOA. The windage adjustments are in 1/2 MOA clicks. They don't match your reticle.
The elevation adjustment on the that scope is clicks which are one true MOA. The windage adjustments are in 1/2 MOA clicks. They don't match your reticle.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
Alright Lindy, so the conversion really isn't "in" the equation, it is in your head because you know what an inch and yard are.
However it still stands Milliradians kicks the ass of MOA!!
In the shooting application it is hard to see in such a small scope (lol play on words). The use of Milliradians extends far beyond the small arms shooting world to artillery and even further into the engineering world and out into the world of Mathematics, All because Mils are simply better. The universality of the units lend to its widespread use in the Military which in turn makes it more popular to purchase in precision shooting today.
I believe it was the Marines who first put the Mil-Dot scope into use. Before Mil-Dots were reserve for binoculars used for ranging artillery and ships. These spaced the Dots 10 mils apart. The dot was used because the reticles were actually made of wire and knots were tied and calibrated to mils. Some scopes still carry this tradition (dots) today; others moved on to dashes now that we used etched reticles.
Alright Lindy, so the conversion really isn't "in" the equation, it is in your head because you know what an inch and yard are.
However it still stands Milliradians kicks the ass of MOA!!
In the shooting application it is hard to see in such a small scope (lol play on words). The use of Milliradians extends far beyond the small arms shooting world to artillery and even further into the engineering world and out into the world of Mathematics, All because Mils are simply better. The universality of the units lend to its widespread use in the Military which in turn makes it more popular to purchase in precision shooting today.
I believe it was the Marines who first put the Mil-Dot scope into use. Before Mil-Dots were reserve for binoculars used for ranging artillery and ships. These spaced the Dots 10 mils apart. The dot was used because the reticles were actually made of wire and knots were tied and calibrated to mils. Some scopes still carry this tradition (dots) today; others moved on to dashes now that we used etched reticles.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
forget about mil moa and iphy!
get a notebook a laser rangefinder and get your favorite 0.
add 1 click back up until your dead on! note new yardage
add 1 click back up until your dead on! note new yardage
add 1 click back up until your dead on! note new yardage
repete until you run out of clicks!
no math, refer to range card.
make a new card for every load you ever use.
make a new range card for every change in pressure alt.
by now you have spent so much on ammo you dont ever have to worry about moving to a different range or altitude, BUT IF YOU DO MAKE A NEW RANGE CARD.
Now your life is simple enjoy. or do the math
forget about mil moa and iphy!
get a notebook a laser rangefinder and get your favorite 0.
add 1 click back up until your dead on! note new yardage
add 1 click back up until your dead on! note new yardage
add 1 click back up until your dead on! note new yardage
repete until you run out of clicks!
no math, refer to range card.
make a new card for every load you ever use.
make a new range card for every change in pressure alt.
by now you have spent so much on ammo you dont ever have to worry about moving to a different range or altitude, BUT IF YOU DO MAKE A NEW RANGE CARD.
Now your life is simple enjoy. or do the math
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, my favorite reticle is the Premier Gen II mildot, and it makes sense to have a scope which has matching adjustments and reticle graduations.
As an electrical engineer, I worked only in radians.
To argue that milliradians are superior because it's also used in artillery, though, is simply silly. I could just as well argue that MOA is superior because latitude and longitude are in degrees, minutes, and seconds.
We're talking, though, about shooting a precision rifle, and neither about artillery nor navigation.
If you have a scope reticle which you like which is graduated in MOA, get a scope which adjusts in that.
If you have a scope reticle which you like which is graduated in mils, get a scope which adjusts in that.
If you have a scope reticle which you like which is graduated in IPHY, get a scope which adjusts in that.
Actually, my favorite reticle is the Premier Gen II mildot, and it makes sense to have a scope which has matching adjustments and reticle graduations.
As an electrical engineer, I worked only in radians.
To argue that milliradians are superior because it's also used in artillery, though, is simply silly. I could just as well argue that MOA is superior because latitude and longitude are in degrees, minutes, and seconds.
We're talking, though, about shooting a precision rifle, and neither about artillery nor navigation.
If you have a scope reticle which you like which is graduated in MOA, get a scope which adjusts in that.
If you have a scope reticle which you like which is graduated in mils, get a scope which adjusts in that.
If you have a scope reticle which you like which is graduated in IPHY, get a scope which adjusts in that.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
I range my targets in parsecs and use a scope with adjustments in binary degrees. My scope has a 16 turn elevation knob and can go a full 64 BDs to effectively engage low flying aircraft.
If you find yourself thinking mostly in inches and football fields, IPHY is your friend.
If you are comfortable with SI, mils will work fine for you.
Whatever you do, it's easier with matching knobs and reticle.
I range my targets in parsecs and use a scope with adjustments in binary degrees. My scope has a 16 turn elevation knob and can go a full 64 BDs to effectively engage low flying aircraft.
If you find yourself thinking mostly in inches and football fields, IPHY is your friend.
If you are comfortable with SI, mils will work fine for you.
Whatever you do, it's easier with matching knobs and reticle.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
You should switch to attoparsecs for more resolution. Parsecs are too coarse.
You should switch to attoparsecs for more resolution. Parsecs are too coarse.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't quite hold minute of galaxy, so the resolution probably wouldn't help.
I can't quite hold minute of galaxy, so the resolution probably wouldn't help.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
My brother and I share a snipers hide account.... He sent me a link to this thread because he continues to try to convince me to change my belief in the superiority of s-moa over mill. I remain unconvinced and here is why.
The crux of both of these aiming systems is not in the math. The difference in calculation difficulty between:
Actual target dimension(meters) / mills subtended * 1000 = range(meters)
and
Actual target dimension (inches) / s-moa subtended * 100 = range yards
is negligible. Both involve one division and the movement of a decimal point a couple places. <span style="font-weight: bold">The difference in practice between the two ranging systems is in the users knowledge of the actual target dimensions.</span> Despite my background in the sciences and extensive familiarity with the metric system I still think mostly in inches. I am much better at estimating the sizes of items in inches. I shudder to try to guess at the size of a car tire in meters or even centimeters. In inches though a typical car tire is 15". A mans chest is about 18" across, his head is about 10" tall, and his height is about 5' 10" or 70". Of those dimensions I can only guess even closely at one of them in meters. I find a mil based scope is of little use to me in ranging because I don't really have a solid grasp on the actual size of items metrically speaking.
Furthermore, I don't believe I am alone with regard to being able to better estimate the actual sizes of items in the English system than the metric system. I have spent a great deal more time working in the metric system than most people and still have not been converted. I believe most people buy the wrong scope for themselves based on a lack of good understanding of the process of range estimation.
My opinion on why most scopes are Mil dot is that on the first ranging equipment the reticles had to be hand wound. 1 s-MOA is far to fine a scale to do this with. A mil scale was an obvious solution being as the math was quite similar. Since the military is loathe to change any of its ways the standard remains. Really, I would rather have a mil/mil scope on a semi-auto M110 than an s-moa one on a Remington 700. How many of our troops have been shot using the old bolt action that could have been saved if we had switched years ago to the sufficiently accurate, much higher rate of fire semi. Really, lots o' folks have to die before anything in the military gets changed even if the change is an obvious improvement.
Rant over.
My brother and I share a snipers hide account.... He sent me a link to this thread because he continues to try to convince me to change my belief in the superiority of s-moa over mill. I remain unconvinced and here is why.
The crux of both of these aiming systems is not in the math. The difference in calculation difficulty between:
Actual target dimension(meters) / mills subtended * 1000 = range(meters)
and
Actual target dimension (inches) / s-moa subtended * 100 = range yards
is negligible. Both involve one division and the movement of a decimal point a couple places. <span style="font-weight: bold">The difference in practice between the two ranging systems is in the users knowledge of the actual target dimensions.</span> Despite my background in the sciences and extensive familiarity with the metric system I still think mostly in inches. I am much better at estimating the sizes of items in inches. I shudder to try to guess at the size of a car tire in meters or even centimeters. In inches though a typical car tire is 15". A mans chest is about 18" across, his head is about 10" tall, and his height is about 5' 10" or 70". Of those dimensions I can only guess even closely at one of them in meters. I find a mil based scope is of little use to me in ranging because I don't really have a solid grasp on the actual size of items metrically speaking.
Furthermore, I don't believe I am alone with regard to being able to better estimate the actual sizes of items in the English system than the metric system. I have spent a great deal more time working in the metric system than most people and still have not been converted. I believe most people buy the wrong scope for themselves based on a lack of good understanding of the process of range estimation.
My opinion on why most scopes are Mil dot is that on the first ranging equipment the reticles had to be hand wound. 1 s-MOA is far to fine a scale to do this with. A mil scale was an obvious solution being as the math was quite similar. Since the military is loathe to change any of its ways the standard remains. Really, I would rather have a mil/mil scope on a semi-auto M110 than an s-moa one on a Remington 700. How many of our troops have been shot using the old bolt action that could have been saved if we had switched years ago to the sufficiently accurate, much higher rate of fire semi. Really, lots o' folks have to die before anything in the military gets changed even if the change is an obvious improvement.
Rant over.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
kdxman,
I'm not an ultra long range shooter or an expert in the subject, but MOA/MOA works pretty easy for me. I think in inches and presently only shoot to 700 Meters so the 5% ranging adjustment for inches vs MOA is not a big deal *to me*.
What distance do you shoot or plan to shoot and how much magnification are you expecting to use? This information might help with the answers.
BTW, this site was a great help to me in picking a quality optic for an SPR-ish AR. I went with a NF 2.5-10x32 with NP-R2 reticle and Zero Stop. Thus far it's proving to be a good choice (for me).
kdxman,
I'm not an ultra long range shooter or an expert in the subject, but MOA/MOA works pretty easy for me. I think in inches and presently only shoot to 700 Meters so the 5% ranging adjustment for inches vs MOA is not a big deal *to me*.
What distance do you shoot or plan to shoot and how much magnification are you expecting to use? This information might help with the answers.
BTW, this site was a great help to me in picking a quality optic for an SPR-ish AR. I went with a NF 2.5-10x32 with NP-R2 reticle and Zero Stop. Thus far it's proving to be a good choice (for me).
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To argue that milliradians are superior because it's also used in artillery, though, is simply silly.</div></div>
Not quite silly… when I place a sniper in an observation position I want him to be able to observe artillery and other targets far beyond the capabilities of his 7.62 ror 300 WIN rifle. Don’t forget the sniper also has a 50 cal weapons system and his most powerful weapon of all is his radio.
Using SMOA or especially MOA falls very short in sniper applications. MOA’s application to precision marksmanship is understandable but for snipers it is not.
Also of note: ACOG’s newest sight actually has an extended horizontal Mil scale. The designers at AOCG continue to stay well on top of the industry!
Oh and brother, I will convince you one day…
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To argue that milliradians are superior because it's also used in artillery, though, is simply silly.</div></div>
Not quite silly… when I place a sniper in an observation position I want him to be able to observe artillery and other targets far beyond the capabilities of his 7.62 ror 300 WIN rifle. Don’t forget the sniper also has a 50 cal weapons system and his most powerful weapon of all is his radio.
Using SMOA or especially MOA falls very short in sniper applications. MOA’s application to precision marksmanship is understandable but for snipers it is not.
Also of note: ACOG’s newest sight actually has an extended horizontal Mil scale. The designers at AOCG continue to stay well on top of the industry!
Oh and brother, I will convince you one day…
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
And also different countries use different miliradian base system (I think Sweden is the only one using correct 6283 and US/NATO uses 6400 and Russia&Co uses 6100.
As was covered in similar topics it all boils down to a system one thinks in as for "metric countries" people it's easier to think in mils in relation to corrections or distance/size calculations and for "metric challenged
" it's easier to do the math in inches/yards. If you can think only in mils and measure everything in mils or MOA's so much the better though noone measures distance to an object in angular units
.
And also different countries use different miliradian base system (I think Sweden is the only one using correct 6283 and US/NATO uses 6400 and Russia&Co uses 6100.
As was covered in similar topics it all boils down to a system one thinks in as for "metric countries" people it's easier to think in mils in relation to corrections or distance/size calculations and for "metric challenged
" it's easier to do the math in inches/yards. If you can think only in mils and measure everything in mils or MOA's so much the better though noone measures distance to an object in angular units
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
Sharac,
Miiliradians should not be confused with the metric system. Radians are NOT metric. However it shares the similarity of the SI system in that it is extremely easy to work with. The milradian ranging equation can be used with any unit of measure; this is the beauty of it! <span style="font-weight: bold">It is a mathematical relationship! The MOA and SMOA equations rely on an arbitrary angular system</span> and thus though they accomplish the same thing but require conversion if you want to use any units beside inches to yards.
The Mil ranging equation can be used with US units, all you have to do is convert inches to yards 1/36. Any arbitrary angular measure could be invented and set up for any combination of two units.
EXAMPLE:
If you are an equestrian guru and you want to measure and range the horses you are going to shoot in “hands” and you like to play football on a full stomach of horse you could use AOH (Angle of Horse) which would relate hands to football field lengths.
It would an easy equation for the given two units and if you wanted to change units you would have to convert.
The advantage of Mils is the universality!
Sharac,
Miiliradians should not be confused with the metric system. Radians are NOT metric. However it shares the similarity of the SI system in that it is extremely easy to work with. The milradian ranging equation can be used with any unit of measure; this is the beauty of it! <span style="font-weight: bold">It is a mathematical relationship! The MOA and SMOA equations rely on an arbitrary angular system</span> and thus though they accomplish the same thing but require conversion if you want to use any units beside inches to yards.
The Mil ranging equation can be used with US units, all you have to do is convert inches to yards 1/36. Any arbitrary angular measure could be invented and set up for any combination of two units.
EXAMPLE:
If you are an equestrian guru and you want to measure and range the horses you are going to shoot in “hands” and you like to play football on a full stomach of horse you could use AOH (Angle of Horse) which would relate hands to football field lengths.
It would an easy equation for the given two units and if you wanted to change units you would have to convert.
The advantage of Mils is the universality!
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The MOA and SMOA equations rely on an arbitrary angular system.</div></div>
"SMOA", which is properly termed Inches Per Hundred Yards, there being no other name for it, is hardly arbitrary, nor are Degrees, Minutes, and Seconds, which were angular units of measurement long before the Radian.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The advantage of Mils is the universality!</div></div>
Well, no. You completely missed Sharac's point. When people are referring to "mils", they are not always using the true milliradian, of which there are 6283 in 360 degrees.
Often, they are using another unit of measure. In fact, in artillery units, including NATO countries, they are usually using a "mil" of which there are 6400 in 360 degrees. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil
You will note in that link that there are at least <span style="font-weight: bold">four</span> different definitions of angular mil in use.
So, there is not much which is "universal" about the mil.
Look, I run <span style="font-weight: bold">only</span> scopes with mil reticles, and I recommend that shooters have scopes which adjust in the same units in which their reticle is graduated.
But your argument that mils are inherently superior to MOA or IPHY is repetitious, tedious, and factually incorrect.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The MOA and SMOA equations rely on an arbitrary angular system.</div></div>
"SMOA", which is properly termed Inches Per Hundred Yards, there being no other name for it, is hardly arbitrary, nor are Degrees, Minutes, and Seconds, which were angular units of measurement long before the Radian.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The advantage of Mils is the universality!</div></div>
Well, no. You completely missed Sharac's point. When people are referring to "mils", they are not always using the true milliradian, of which there are 6283 in 360 degrees.
Often, they are using another unit of measure. In fact, in artillery units, including NATO countries, they are usually using a "mil" of which there are 6400 in 360 degrees. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil
You will note in that link that there are at least <span style="font-weight: bold">four</span> different definitions of angular mil in use.
So, there is not much which is "universal" about the mil.
Look, I run <span style="font-weight: bold">only</span> scopes with mil reticles, and I recommend that shooters have scopes which adjust in the same units in which their reticle is graduated.
But your argument that mils are inherently superior to MOA or IPHY is repetitious, tedious, and factually incorrect.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> …is hardly arbitrary, nor are Degrees, Minutes, and Seconds, which were angular units of measurement long before the Radian. </div></div>
I too consulted wikipedia. I won’t link it but much of my information comes from there if anyone cares to look into it.
Degrees are said to be developed by the ancient Babylonians who based it on their 360 day calendar.
Radians were developed by Roger Cotes in 1714.
So.. degrees are somewhat arbitrary. The rotation of the earth and days in a year were applied to a circle, Each degree being a day on the calendar..
However, it is more fitting to call Radians a discovery rather than invention. Radians are a mathematical relationship; thus why they are commonly used.
This brings me to the next point
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You will note in that link that there are at least four different definitions of angular mil in use.
</div></div>
Yes, people round Milliradians for calculations. These are not different definitions of radians but simply different methods of rounding. So WHY use radians if 6283 is such a crazy non round number in the first place? Why not just use degrees and have a nice easy to divide 360?? It is because radians are a much better mathematical tool. This is why militaries still use Miliradians. They round 6283 to make using Mils more simple. The military uses mils in artillery, compass directions, tank turrets, and much more.
6283 is a weird number because it is 2*Pi, a relationship. However the advantages of the radian system far outweigh the advantage of a nice round number (360). This is why the military decided to use miliradians and thus in some applications round it, excepting some small error, for easier use and calculations.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But your argument that mils are inherently superior to MOA or IPHY is repetitious, tedious, and factually incorrect. </div></div>
Radians are Superior to Degrees! It’s simply mathematics, no one will dispute that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Note, however, that most handheld calculators will not calculate sin(.0005 radians) to sufficient precision to give you an accurate answer. You will need to find an online high-precision calculator. </div></div>
Note radians can be used the same as degrees (they are both angular measures) in trigonometry and they greatly reduce the difficulty of calculations. Like arc length; you can calculate in your head quickly rather than using a calculator to perform the trigonometric function.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Those are units of measurement, so neither is unitless.. </div></div>
Lindy you’re correct this is not the right term. The word I was looking for was dimensionless. Radians are a dimensionless unit of measure because in this ratio the units cancel. Radians are based on a ratio of radius to arc length.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> …is hardly arbitrary, nor are Degrees, Minutes, and Seconds, which were angular units of measurement long before the Radian. </div></div>
I too consulted wikipedia. I won’t link it but much of my information comes from there if anyone cares to look into it.
Degrees are said to be developed by the ancient Babylonians who based it on their 360 day calendar.
Radians were developed by Roger Cotes in 1714.
So.. degrees are somewhat arbitrary. The rotation of the earth and days in a year were applied to a circle, Each degree being a day on the calendar..
However, it is more fitting to call Radians a discovery rather than invention. Radians are a mathematical relationship; thus why they are commonly used.
This brings me to the next point
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You will note in that link that there are at least four different definitions of angular mil in use.
</div></div>
Yes, people round Milliradians for calculations. These are not different definitions of radians but simply different methods of rounding. So WHY use radians if 6283 is such a crazy non round number in the first place? Why not just use degrees and have a nice easy to divide 360?? It is because radians are a much better mathematical tool. This is why militaries still use Miliradians. They round 6283 to make using Mils more simple. The military uses mils in artillery, compass directions, tank turrets, and much more.
6283 is a weird number because it is 2*Pi, a relationship. However the advantages of the radian system far outweigh the advantage of a nice round number (360). This is why the military decided to use miliradians and thus in some applications round it, excepting some small error, for easier use and calculations.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But your argument that mils are inherently superior to MOA or IPHY is repetitious, tedious, and factually incorrect. </div></div>
Radians are Superior to Degrees! It’s simply mathematics, no one will dispute that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Note, however, that most handheld calculators will not calculate sin(.0005 radians) to sufficient precision to give you an accurate answer. You will need to find an online high-precision calculator. </div></div>
Note radians can be used the same as degrees (they are both angular measures) in trigonometry and they greatly reduce the difficulty of calculations. Like arc length; you can calculate in your head quickly rather than using a calculator to perform the trigonometric function.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Those are units of measurement, so neither is unitless.. </div></div>
Lindy you’re correct this is not the right term. The word I was looking for was dimensionless. Radians are a dimensionless unit of measure because in this ratio the units cancel. Radians are based on a ratio of radius to arc length.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not confusing i'm merely stating that for one who is used to decimal metric system computing with mils is easier that moas. For me (have moa scope
) personally it's totally irrelevant as i know that i have one click @.7mm and if i'm low 3cm at the target i dial up 4 clicks and that's that. If i were milling target i'd have to compute ~.3 of a mil and then convert that to clicks (which if i had mil/mil scope with .1click rate i'd simply rotate for as much as i have milled). That was the point in another thread that if you use angular units to measure sizes all computations go away as you read size in mils and then do your 10x 2x clicking or whatever ratio mil to click you have on a scope knobs. In that case MOA/MOA scope will do exactly the same (to me if i get size of an object in true imperial system like 3 and 3/8 of an inch my CPU goes to 100% however if you get that number it just clicks naturally).
For me with my IT background this discussion is much like hex/bin/dec system and which one is more natural or correct, to some hardcore assembler freak anything which aint hex or to some even bin is just unclean and heresy. One should use whichever suits him more, for tactical work i'd dare to say mil/mil will be better (with training) and you drop sizes in any system just use mils for everything (when someone asks how heavy you are you just say my weight is equal to a weight of water in block which has following dimensions 1milx1milx100mils @ 100m and yes i really need to loose weight
) from dope cards to ranging and correcting.
I'm not confusing i'm merely stating that for one who is used to decimal metric system computing with mils is easier that moas. For me (have moa scope
For me with my IT background this discussion is much like hex/bin/dec system and which one is more natural or correct, to some hardcore assembler freak anything which aint hex or to some even bin is just unclean and heresy. One should use whichever suits him more, for tactical work i'd dare to say mil/mil will be better (with training) and you drop sizes in any system just use mils for everything (when someone asks how heavy you are you just say my weight is equal to a weight of water in block which has following dimensions 1milx1milx100mils @ 100m and yes i really need to loose weight
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
For some of us, who have been shooting 308/7.62 in NRA/DCM highpower competition for 20+ years and have M852 sight dope for the Mk2-1 and M14 nearly laser-engraved into our minds, an moa adjustment is a given. Couple it with formal instruction on an M14 with an ultra-M1A 10x with mil-dots and it's still a no-brainer to use moa adjustments. When I went shopping for an NXS, I first considered the MilDot with moa adjustments, but once I saw the NP-R1 moa reticle, I was sold. One less conversion for my brain. My choice is based on MY comfort and familiarity which is based on my experience. All this boiler-plate crap about the purety of which reticle and adjustment is counter-productive to answering the OPs original question.
kdxman - keep researching, go to the gunshops and look thru different scopes to see which looks better for your budget. Depending on your end-use, you can go with a milliradian-based reticle or a moa-based reticle, but as a newer-to-the-scope type of guy, matching the adjustments to the reticle is just common sense. I saw more than a couple guys struggle with the math on the fly with mildots and moa adjustments. Hell, some guys carried calculators. I haven't used mil adjustments, because I was too comfortable with moa, but I don't see them being vastly different than moa's overall. Knowing that at 500yds, a 10mph full-value wind will give you 2moa windage is the same as knowing it's about .6 mils. Know your rifle, know your ammo, know your scope and go shoot and get proficient.
For some of us, who have been shooting 308/7.62 in NRA/DCM highpower competition for 20+ years and have M852 sight dope for the Mk2-1 and M14 nearly laser-engraved into our minds, an moa adjustment is a given. Couple it with formal instruction on an M14 with an ultra-M1A 10x with mil-dots and it's still a no-brainer to use moa adjustments. When I went shopping for an NXS, I first considered the MilDot with moa adjustments, but once I saw the NP-R1 moa reticle, I was sold. One less conversion for my brain. My choice is based on MY comfort and familiarity which is based on my experience. All this boiler-plate crap about the purety of which reticle and adjustment is counter-productive to answering the OPs original question.
kdxman - keep researching, go to the gunshops and look thru different scopes to see which looks better for your budget. Depending on your end-use, you can go with a milliradian-based reticle or a moa-based reticle, but as a newer-to-the-scope type of guy, matching the adjustments to the reticle is just common sense. I saw more than a couple guys struggle with the math on the fly with mildots and moa adjustments. Hell, some guys carried calculators. I haven't used mil adjustments, because I was too comfortable with moa, but I don't see them being vastly different than moa's overall. Knowing that at 500yds, a 10mph full-value wind will give you 2moa windage is the same as knowing it's about .6 mils. Know your rifle, know your ammo, know your scope and go shoot and get proficient.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
MOA is much easier for me. I can estimate inches better than centimeters. With a formula of (target size in inches * 100)/MOA observed=distance to target, it is not that difficult and most of the time the turrets are in MOA. Also the MOAs change equally through different ranges. 1 MOA=1" @ 100 yd and 6" @ 600 yd. For me, like i said I can estimate inches better than centimeters so it works great for me. If you can estimate using the metric system better than Mils is your thing. Just make sure to get matching turrets to make it easy on yourself. 1 Mil = 1 cm at 100 m, etc.
MOA is much easier for me. I can estimate inches better than centimeters. With a formula of (target size in inches * 100)/MOA observed=distance to target, it is not that difficult and most of the time the turrets are in MOA. Also the MOAs change equally through different ranges. 1 MOA=1" @ 100 yd and 6" @ 600 yd. For me, like i said I can estimate inches better than centimeters so it works great for me. If you can estimate using the metric system better than Mils is your thing. Just make sure to get matching turrets to make it easy on yourself. 1 Mil = 1 cm at 100 m, etc.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
Your problem is you are trying to use inches and centimeters. Mils and MOAs have nothing to do with inches and centimeters, it is just mans way of tying to quantify it.
They are both units of angular measurements and the sooner a person forgets about inches and centimeters the easier it becomes to understand.
Your problem is you are trying to use inches and centimeters. Mils and MOAs have nothing to do with inches and centimeters, it is just mans way of tying to quantify it.
They are both units of angular measurements and the sooner a person forgets about inches and centimeters the easier it becomes to understand.
Re: MIL MIL MIL!!!!!!!!!!!
AGREE if you measure everything in angular units HOWEVER if you try to convert sizes in metric or imperial system to angular system then this process is easier in one's native SIZE system. That's all and whole point to it. But i guess some are just chanting same chant over and over again.
PS: See weight "joke" above and i wonder how many of inet warriors can really list several objects with their corresponding angular sizes - and on what distance are you going to name them for example human body can be 1 mil or 2 mils or xy mils if he is going to smack you in the face. If i state size of human silhouette being 40cm than thats universal however if i use size in angular units i have to say or have a range basis (100m, 200m, 300m whatever). For tactical work i agree that using angular only (especially holdovers) is a must and reading silhouettes is easy as one reads 8mils on a human that becomes 50m or 2mils become 200m and missing target for 3 mils measured on a scope and doing the clicking part sure beats going to the target and using a precision laser measuring device with bubble levels and then do little math while target is being served a cup of coffee for a follow up...
AGREE if you measure everything in angular units HOWEVER if you try to convert sizes in metric or imperial system to angular system then this process is easier in one's native SIZE system. That's all and whole point to it. But i guess some are just chanting same chant over and over again.
PS: See weight "joke" above and i wonder how many of inet warriors can really list several objects with their corresponding angular sizes - and on what distance are you going to name them for example human body can be 1 mil or 2 mils or xy mils if he is going to smack you in the face. If i state size of human silhouette being 40cm than thats universal however if i use size in angular units i have to say or have a range basis (100m, 200m, 300m whatever). For tactical work i agree that using angular only (especially holdovers) is a must and reading silhouettes is easy as one reads 8mils on a human that becomes 50m or 2mils become 200m and missing target for 3 mils measured on a scope and doing the clicking part sure beats going to the target and using a precision laser measuring device with bubble levels and then do little math while target is being served a cup of coffee for a follow up...
