I have some time now so I am weighing my options and was wondering which is more accurate mil or moa, 1 mil equals 3.6 inches correct? 1 MOA equals 1.064 inch correct? A mil scope clicks are 1/10 of a mil or .36 is this correct? And a MOA click are mormally .250 so in my thinking the MOA is more accurate, please correct me if I am wrong on my calculations
Rifle Scopes mil vs moa which is more accurate
- Thread starter elkstalker338
- Start date
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
If you are using mil reticle with mil knobs there is no issue, stop trying to convert to inches and think in terms of mils only.
If you are using mil ret and moa knobs then yes I would say there is a margine of math based error potential as you are becoming familiar with the process.
If you are using moa reticle and moa knobs then you are no better or worse than mil/mil just depends on which you are more comfortable with.
This particular subject can become pretty indepth if you want to really get into it start here http://www.usoptics.com/index.php?page=opticalinfo
If you are using mil reticle with mil knobs there is no issue, stop trying to convert to inches and think in terms of mils only.
If you are using mil ret and moa knobs then yes I would say there is a margine of math based error potential as you are becoming familiar with the process.
If you are using moa reticle and moa knobs then you are no better or worse than mil/mil just depends on which you are more comfortable with.
This particular subject can become pretty indepth if you want to really get into it start here http://www.usoptics.com/index.php?page=opticalinfo
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Nope your still off a little. (All values are at 100 yards)
Mil=3.6 inches
MOA= 1.047 inches
1/10 mil= .36 inches
1/4 MOA= 0.26175 inches
MOA is a finer adjustment but that is not why people chose one over the other. Either system when implemented correctly will work great.
Nope your still off a little. (All values are at 100 yards)
Mil=3.6 inches
MOA= 1.047 inches
1/10 mil= .36 inches
1/4 MOA= 0.26175 inches
MOA is a finer adjustment but that is not why people chose one over the other. Either system when implemented correctly will work great.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Thanks for the replys, that was just what I was thinking and I guess it is what you are more used to using, I have always dealt with the MOA system but starting to mess around with the mil system alittle. And again
THANKS AGAIN
Thanks for the replys, that was just what I was thinking and I guess it is what you are more used to using, I have always dealt with the MOA system but starting to mess around with the mil system alittle. And again
THANKS AGAIN
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
They are all equally accurate, but adjustment values and reticle graduation markings can provide better resolution in any system.
There is a third system in fairly common use. IPHY (Inches Per Hundred Yards). USO makes some of its scopes with adjustments and reticle that are precisely 1" per hundred yard rather than 1.047 with MOA. A few other scope manufacturers also produce IPHY scopes.
More and more Ballistic software companies are providing the option of correction values in Mil, MOA, and IPHY.
They are all equally accurate, but adjustment values and reticle graduation markings can provide better resolution in any system.
There is a third system in fairly common use. IPHY (Inches Per Hundred Yards). USO makes some of its scopes with adjustments and reticle that are precisely 1" per hundred yard rather than 1.047 with MOA. A few other scope manufacturers also produce IPHY scopes.
More and more Ballistic software companies are providing the option of correction values in Mil, MOA, and IPHY.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
1 MOA @100 yds = 1.047"
0.250 MOA clicks = 0.26175"
1 IPHY or SMOA @ 100 yds = 1.0"
0.250 IPHY or SMOA clicks = 0.25"
So four 0.25" clicks do not equal 1 MOA
1 Mil @ 100 yds = 3.6"
0.1 Mil clicks = 0.36"
All three systems are equally accurate, if your scope is up to the task.
Problems and errors occur when you think your scope is adjusting in MOA, and it's really IPHY, or visa versa.
As an Illustration lets say you compute you need 35 MOA of adjustment to reach 1000 yds. 35 MOA @ 1000 yds is 366.45"
35 IPHY or SMOA is 350 inches.
Difference between MOA and SMOA is 16.45" of error....
But a Mil is always a Mil....
Bob
1 MOA @100 yds = 1.047"
0.250 MOA clicks = 0.26175"
1 IPHY or SMOA @ 100 yds = 1.0"
0.250 IPHY or SMOA clicks = 0.25"
So four 0.25" clicks do not equal 1 MOA
1 Mil @ 100 yds = 3.6"
0.1 Mil clicks = 0.36"
All three systems are equally accurate, if your scope is up to the task.
Problems and errors occur when you think your scope is adjusting in MOA, and it's really IPHY, or visa versa.
As an Illustration lets say you compute you need 35 MOA of adjustment to reach 1000 yds. 35 MOA @ 1000 yds is 366.45"
35 IPHY or SMOA is 350 inches.
Difference between MOA and SMOA is 16.45" of error....
But a Mil is always a Mil....
Bob
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
I am waiting on a PST MOA/MOA scope and was checking around and was kinda thinkin about maybe going with a sighton III but it only has a mil dot reticle but I think it adjusts in mil clicks, anyway thanks for the good info
I am waiting on a PST MOA/MOA scope and was checking around and was kinda thinkin about maybe going with a sighton III but it only has a mil dot reticle but I think it adjusts in mil clicks, anyway thanks for the good info
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
http://www.shooterready.com/lrsdemo.html
You can try both and see which one you are more accurate with.
I like MOA, but that's my preference.
http://www.shooterready.com/lrsdemo.html
You can try both and see which one you are more accurate with.
I like MOA, but that's my preference.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
If you refer accuracy to ranging, its personal preference on what units of measurements you have been used to, and what makes the math easier for you.
If you refer accuracy to hold for distance/windage to engaging the target, both systems are much more accurate than majority of the shooter.
If you refer accuracy to ranging, its personal preference on what units of measurements you have been used to, and what makes the math easier for you.
If you refer accuracy to hold for distance/windage to engaging the target, both systems are much more accurate than majority of the shooter.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Kind of adding to this. Why are scopes produced with a mil-dot reticle but with moa adjustment?
Kind of adding to this. Why are scopes produced with a mil-dot reticle but with moa adjustment?
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
They are equally accurate and equally justifiable from a geometric standpoint. The difference is in range estimation, specifically, what YOU are accustomed to. A metric measurement has the advantage of easily being divisible by 10. Otherwise, the difference is meaningless; 2 mils at 1000 yards is 6 feet, so a mil is not even necessarily metric. It becomes metric if you use 1000 meters, in which case you need to use centimeters for closer measurement and range estimation. YOU enter the equation when it comes time to use the scope to estimate height, for example. We all like our numbers to "come out even." One can select examples when either "comes out even." In my view, in a stress situation, I'd like things to be as instinctive as possible. If we were sitting at a table and you asked me to hold up two fingers 10cm apart, I can do that. I lived in Europe for a while so I got used to it. However, I still think in inches if you were to point at something and ask me how big it is. I'm 63 years old and my brain is fairly well impressed with the inch/fot/yard/mile scale. If you can quickly answer the question in cm, hey great.
So, both are accurate, the only solution is to get very used to one and train with it. Given the world, I'd say think in metric since anyplace you'd go is likely metric.
I have a moa scope and it's fine for me. Your needs in the future may be different.
The fractional system is more human, as that's how it evolved: everything gets divided by twos. A mile is Roman measure - mille pasuus - a thousand paces.
They are equally accurate and equally justifiable from a geometric standpoint. The difference is in range estimation, specifically, what YOU are accustomed to. A metric measurement has the advantage of easily being divisible by 10. Otherwise, the difference is meaningless; 2 mils at 1000 yards is 6 feet, so a mil is not even necessarily metric. It becomes metric if you use 1000 meters, in which case you need to use centimeters for closer measurement and range estimation. YOU enter the equation when it comes time to use the scope to estimate height, for example. We all like our numbers to "come out even." One can select examples when either "comes out even." In my view, in a stress situation, I'd like things to be as instinctive as possible. If we were sitting at a table and you asked me to hold up two fingers 10cm apart, I can do that. I lived in Europe for a while so I got used to it. However, I still think in inches if you were to point at something and ask me how big it is. I'm 63 years old and my brain is fairly well impressed with the inch/fot/yard/mile scale. If you can quickly answer the question in cm, hey great.
So, both are accurate, the only solution is to get very used to one and train with it. Given the world, I'd say think in metric since anyplace you'd go is likely metric.
I have a moa scope and it's fine for me. Your needs in the future may be different.
The fractional system is more human, as that's how it evolved: everything gets divided by twos. A mile is Roman measure - mille pasuus - a thousand paces.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Flyingbullseye</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kind of adding to this. Why are scopes produced with a mil-dot reticle but with moa adjustment? </div></div>
Years ago when the Mil Dot reticle was introduced, only a few manufacturers started to introduce the MilRad adjustments. As time went by, people got used to having it this way. These days, people don't always know what they are buying, and as long as people buy scopes with Mil Dot reticles and MOA (0.25) adjustments, there's a market for them, and the scope manufacturers keep making them. Look how long Leupold took to introduce the M4 and M5 turrets, and they still don't offer it as a custom shop upgrade.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Flyingbullseye</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kind of adding to this. Why are scopes produced with a mil-dot reticle but with moa adjustment? </div></div>
Years ago when the Mil Dot reticle was introduced, only a few manufacturers started to introduce the MilRad adjustments. As time went by, people got used to having it this way. These days, people don't always know what they are buying, and as long as people buy scopes with Mil Dot reticles and MOA (0.25) adjustments, there's a market for them, and the scope manufacturers keep making them. Look how long Leupold took to introduce the M4 and M5 turrets, and they still don't offer it as a custom shop upgrade.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well all I can is, it's sure is easier to dial 10 mils than it is to dial 36 moa </div></div>
That would depend on the scope one is using.
A USO with 1/2 MOA EREK can be adjusted to 36 MOA in less than one revolution of the knob and you can stop on exactly "36" in 72 clicks.
A scope using 1/10 mil adjustments and having 10 Mils per rev would require 100 clicks.
It is equipment dependent.
Of course it is a rare thing when one only has to dial nice round numbers.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well all I can is, it's sure is easier to dial 10 mils than it is to dial 36 moa </div></div>
That would depend on the scope one is using.
A USO with 1/2 MOA EREK can be adjusted to 36 MOA in less than one revolution of the knob and you can stop on exactly "36" in 72 clicks.
A scope using 1/10 mil adjustments and having 10 Mils per rev would require 100 clicks.
It is equipment dependent.
Of course it is a rare thing when one only has to dial nice round numbers.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
If its 10 mils per rev, how do you need 3 revolutions to reach 10 mils ?
you turn it too 10 on the first rev... clicks are irrelevant, its 10, who counts to 100?
If its 10 mils per rev, how do you need 3 revolutions to reach 10 mils ?
you turn it too 10 on the first rev... clicks are irrelevant, its 10, who counts to 100?
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
I screwed up, and corrected it. Thanks, Lowlight.
My point remains, even without the difference in clicks.....it is not easier unless you choose to compare different equipment. I wouldn't count clicks either.
I screwed up, and corrected it. Thanks, Lowlight.
My point remains, even without the difference in clicks.....it is not easier unless you choose to compare different equipment. I wouldn't count clicks either.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Doesn't get any easier
and I don't know many who can hold .11 inches accuracy at any range.
New shooters do better learning mils from the start, case in point look at the 1/8 MOA thread.
Doesn't get any easier
and I don't know many who can hold .11 inches accuracy at any range.
New shooters do better learning mils from the start, case in point look at the 1/8 MOA thread.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
The one you are best with is the one that is more accurate. They are just different, not better or worse. I like MOA much better but have been beat by several Mill shooters at matches not because of the system but because they were better shooters. I believe you should pick a system and stick with it. And make sure your turrets and reticle matches. I would look into the MOA but thats just me. Good luck either way.
The one you are best with is the one that is more accurate. They are just different, not better or worse. I like MOA much better but have been beat by several Mill shooters at matches not because of the system but because they were better shooters. I believe you should pick a system and stick with it. And make sure your turrets and reticle matches. I would look into the MOA but thats just me. Good luck either way.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Theres nothing hard about dialing 36MOA with a 1/2MOA EREK either.
In the 1/8 MOA thread I posted my thoughts on the problem.
It's the lack of understanding that makes the difference, not the systems.
I can agree that handing a new user something foreign to them could make it easier to teach them, rather than forcing them to change their misconceptions of MOA. I can see that without the experience you have in teaching others, though I had not thought much about it until you made that point.
This is a failure of the user, not the system.
Theres nothing hard about dialing 36MOA with a 1/2MOA EREK either.
In the 1/8 MOA thread I posted my thoughts on the problem.
It's the lack of understanding that makes the difference, not the systems.
I can agree that handing a new user something foreign to them could make it easier to teach them, rather than forcing them to change their misconceptions of MOA. I can see that without the experience you have in teaching others, though I had not thought much about it until you made that point.
This is a failure of the user, not the system.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I screwed up, and corrected it. Thanks, Lowlight.
My point remains, even without the difference in clicks.....it is not easier unless you choose to compare different equipment. I wouldn't count clicks either.</div></div>
You blew your own point... in order to do what you want you had to change the rules... or should I say the click value. You went from discussing .25 vs 1/10th a mil to 1/10 vs .5 --- why not discuss 1 MOA, I have a NF with 60 MOA per rev.
this is the primary problem with MOA... 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 or 1 MOA per click value... other than a few speciality scopes, and no so smart Leupold, they are all 1/10 a mil.
MOA scopes don't match the turret and the reticle -- mils scopes do.
No two MOA reticles are the same, and don't' all subtend the same and you can have a variety of click values. The NPR1 is different than the NPR 2 which is different than the PCMOA, etc. There is no consistency across the MOA scope offerings. It's why people want numbers in their reticles because they dont' know what the value is supposed to be. It's aid to the great unknown.
Mil scopes ALL have a 1 Mil values which are broken into 1/10 which is how all of them adjust at the turrets. They only differ in how they assist you in breaking up the 1 mil. Adding .2 mil marks, etc.
MOA creates more problems then it solves, and I have yet to see a class where the MOA guys understood their own scope correctly. Only the guys who play on computers and shoot by themselves get it right.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I screwed up, and corrected it. Thanks, Lowlight.
My point remains, even without the difference in clicks.....it is not easier unless you choose to compare different equipment. I wouldn't count clicks either.</div></div>
You blew your own point... in order to do what you want you had to change the rules... or should I say the click value. You went from discussing .25 vs 1/10th a mil to 1/10 vs .5 --- why not discuss 1 MOA, I have a NF with 60 MOA per rev.
this is the primary problem with MOA... 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 or 1 MOA per click value... other than a few speciality scopes, and no so smart Leupold, they are all 1/10 a mil.
MOA scopes don't match the turret and the reticle -- mils scopes do.
No two MOA reticles are the same, and don't' all subtend the same and you can have a variety of click values. The NPR1 is different than the NPR 2 which is different than the PCMOA, etc. There is no consistency across the MOA scope offerings. It's why people want numbers in their reticles because they dont' know what the value is supposed to be. It's aid to the great unknown.
Mil scopes ALL have a 1 Mil values which are broken into 1/10 which is how all of them adjust at the turrets. They only differ in how they assist you in breaking up the 1 mil. Adding .2 mil marks, etc.
MOA creates more problems then it solves, and I have yet to see a class where the MOA guys understood their own scope correctly. Only the guys who play on computers and shoot by themselves get it right.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
A statement was made that Mils are easier.....no qualifiers.
I replied that it was equipment dependent, and gave an example.
While I made a mistake in the revolutions, and corrected it thanks to you, the point remains.
I presented an example where Mils are not easier....in the case he represented. I didn't change any rules because that statement did not define any. I saw no qualifier in that statement that requires comparing .25 MOA adjustments to 1/10 Mil.
Yes, there are more choices in MOA adjustments and reticles.
Still, the user must learn how many clicks equals how many hash marks on the reticle....no matter the system. Sometimes its a 1-1 relationship, sometimes it is not.....with both systems.
Your dislike for my position on this is clear as a bell.
A statement was made that Mils are easier.....no qualifiers.
I replied that it was equipment dependent, and gave an example.
While I made a mistake in the revolutions, and corrected it thanks to you, the point remains.
I presented an example where Mils are not easier....in the case he represented. I didn't change any rules because that statement did not define any. I saw no qualifier in that statement that requires comparing .25 MOA adjustments to 1/10 Mil.
Yes, there are more choices in MOA adjustments and reticles.
Still, the user must learn how many clicks equals how many hash marks on the reticle....no matter the system. Sometimes its a 1-1 relationship, sometimes it is not.....with both systems.
Your dislike for my position on this is clear as a bell.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
How did you present an example where mis are not easier... turning a dial to a number is equally easy. If you are saying 72 is less than 100 to reach 10 mils, well okay... turning a knob to a number is turning a knob to a number...
How can more turning be easier based on your line of thinking .
this
versus what I posted
This less to turn to reach 10 than 36...
Your "easier' example is subjective at best,
How did you present an example where mis are not easier... turning a dial to a number is equally easy. If you are saying 72 is less than 100 to reach 10 mils, well okay... turning a knob to a number is turning a knob to a number...
How can more turning be easier based on your line of thinking .
this
versus what I posted
This less to turn to reach 10 than 36...
Your "easier' example is subjective at best,
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
metric is the way of the future.... prediction - within the next 100yrs, all of the USA will be measuring in metric... everything from the speedos in your cars, to the graduations/ measreument on a CAD drawing building plan, to the graduations on measure...
its an easier system to learn and use due to the absence of fractions which makes the math more complicated. Its a 1 step calculation to simply move a decimal point or divide and multiply by 10, 100, 1000 etc... simply add or subtract zeros.
youd be mad to get involved with MOA if you havnt already learned this way... if your new, Mils all the way... the military has already converted, whats that say?
metric is the way of the future.... prediction - within the next 100yrs, all of the USA will be measuring in metric... everything from the speedos in your cars, to the graduations/ measreument on a CAD drawing building plan, to the graduations on measure...
its an easier system to learn and use due to the absence of fractions which makes the math more complicated. Its a 1 step calculation to simply move a decimal point or divide and multiply by 10, 100, 1000 etc... simply add or subtract zeros.
youd be mad to get involved with MOA if you havnt already learned this way... if your new, Mils all the way... the military has already converted, whats that say?
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Mils are not Metric... to quote Lindy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no such things as "metric" scopes, and there is nothing "metric" about mils.
Milliradians, MOA and IPHY (inches per hundred yards) are measurements of angle which have nothing whatsoever to do with any system of linear measure.
There are two times Pi radians in a circle, and a milliradian is simply one-thousands of a radian.
One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.
In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).
It has nothing to do with any English or Metric system of linear measure.
</div></div>
Mils are not Metric... to quote Lindy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no such things as "metric" scopes, and there is nothing "metric" about mils.
Milliradians, MOA and IPHY (inches per hundred yards) are measurements of angle which have nothing whatsoever to do with any system of linear measure.
There are two times Pi radians in a circle, and a milliradian is simply one-thousands of a radian.
One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.
In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).
It has nothing to do with any English or Metric system of linear measure.
</div></div>
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did you present an example where mis are not easier... turning a dial to a number is equally easy. If you are saying 72 is less than 100 to reach 10 mils, well okay... turning a knob to a number is turning a knob to a number...
How can more turning be easier based on your line of thinking .
this
versus what I posted
This less to turn to reach 10 than 36...
Your "easier' example is subjective at best, </div></div>
Your pic shows an elevation knob I am not familiar with, but I will assume that those are 1/5th mil adjustments. Sure, that is a different percentage of a revoltion than the 1/2 MOA EREK must be turned to reach 10 Mil or 36MOA. (ETA: because I cannot telll how many Mils per rev from that pic)
Okay, you brought up another combination that is different than my comparison to a 1/10th mil knob.
What point does that prove?..... other than my point; that different equipment changes the method of dialing and ease.....depending on the gear being compared.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did you present an example where mis are not easier... turning a dial to a number is equally easy. If you are saying 72 is less than 100 to reach 10 mils, well okay... turning a knob to a number is turning a knob to a number...
How can more turning be easier based on your line of thinking .
this
versus what I posted
This less to turn to reach 10 than 36...
Your "easier' example is subjective at best, </div></div>
Your pic shows an elevation knob I am not familiar with, but I will assume that those are 1/5th mil adjustments. Sure, that is a different percentage of a revoltion than the 1/2 MOA EREK must be turned to reach 10 Mil or 36MOA. (ETA: because I cannot telll how many Mils per rev from that pic)
Okay, you brought up another combination that is different than my comparison to a 1/10th mil knob.
What point does that prove?..... other than my point; that different equipment changes the method of dialing and ease.....depending on the gear being compared.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
You assume wrong... its a standard S&B 4-16X and its 1/10 like all of them.
Only Leupold and few speciality scopes do 1/5th...
You assume wrong... its a standard S&B 4-16X and its 1/10 like all of them.
Only Leupold and few speciality scopes do 1/5th...
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Incorrect assumption noted.
This does not alter any point made here.
Incorrect assumption noted.
This does not alter any point made here.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Mil system is Standardized across the board... 1 mil is 1 mil is 1 mil which makes the learning curve that much less.
MOA reticles/turrets are never standardized. Your turrets may say 1/4 MOA and in all reality you get 1/4" also the reticles are all different. Some have 2 MOA spacing, others have 4 MOA and so on and so forth. Nothing is standardized with scopes dealing in MOA
Mil system is Standardized across the board... 1 mil is 1 mil is 1 mil which makes the learning curve that much less.
MOA reticles/turrets are never standardized. Your turrets may say 1/4 MOA and in all reality you get 1/4" also the reticles are all different. Some have 2 MOA spacing, others have 4 MOA and so on and so forth. Nothing is standardized with scopes dealing in MOA
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Incorrect assumption noted.
This does not alter any point made here. </div></div>
It actually makes a big point,
How are you even debating this if you can't even recognize a S&B single turn knob ?
You're all over the place, first the OP asks about .25" vs .10 and you bring up .10 vs .5" and you say the USO is easier because 72 is less than 100, but you don't know the single turn Mil scopes have a much smaller knob... you're winging this and because you throw out numbers people will read and be convinced the numbers don't lie, meanwhile, you have no idea what the competition is doing. I mean this a standard scope from S&B.
You act like you made a point that people are actually counting to 72 or 100, instead of turning to a number like EVERYONE does... so the idea that your point that some equipment makes it easier... well sure if you're comparing a NF with 5 mils per turn vs a USO EREK, but comparing a standard S&B... blows that easier apart.
Apples to Apple
You can always find a situation where something is better... but let's talk across the board here and in order to do that you have to understand what is actually out there being used everyday. Single turn S&B scopes have been around a helluva lot longer than the EREK.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Incorrect assumption noted.
This does not alter any point made here. </div></div>
It actually makes a big point,
How are you even debating this if you can't even recognize a S&B single turn knob ?
You're all over the place, first the OP asks about .25" vs .10 and you bring up .10 vs .5" and you say the USO is easier because 72 is less than 100, but you don't know the single turn Mil scopes have a much smaller knob... you're winging this and because you throw out numbers people will read and be convinced the numbers don't lie, meanwhile, you have no idea what the competition is doing. I mean this a standard scope from S&B.
You act like you made a point that people are actually counting to 72 or 100, instead of turning to a number like EVERYONE does... so the idea that your point that some equipment makes it easier... well sure if you're comparing a NF with 5 mils per turn vs a USO EREK, but comparing a standard S&B... blows that easier apart.
Apples to Apple
You can always find a situation where something is better... but let's talk across the board here and in order to do that you have to understand what is actually out there being used everyday. Single turn S&B scopes have been around a helluva lot longer than the EREK.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deadly0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil system is Standardized across the board... 1 mil is 1 mil is 1 mil which makes the learning curve that much less.
MOA reticles/turrets are never standardized. Your turrets may say 1/4 MOA and in all reality you get 1/4" also the reticles are all different. Some have 2 MOA spacing, others have 4 MOA and so on and so forth. Nothing is standardized with scopes dealing in MOA
</div></div>
That point has been made over and over and is certainly acknowledged by me.
An MOA is always an MOA just as a Mil is always a Mil.
It is the manufacturers that screw this up with improper designations and specifications; part of the reason many people us the term IPHY.....because it has nothing to do with MOA.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deadly0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil system is Standardized across the board... 1 mil is 1 mil is 1 mil which makes the learning curve that much less.
MOA reticles/turrets are never standardized. Your turrets may say 1/4 MOA and in all reality you get 1/4" also the reticles are all different. Some have 2 MOA spacing, others have 4 MOA and so on and so forth. Nothing is standardized with scopes dealing in MOA
</div></div>
That point has been made over and over and is certainly acknowledged by me.
An MOA is always an MOA just as a Mil is always a Mil.
It is the manufacturers that screw this up with improper designations and specifications; part of the reason many people us the term IPHY.....because it has nothing to do with MOA.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deadly0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil system is Standardized across the board... 1 mil is 1 mil is 1 mil which makes the learning curve that much less.
MOA reticles/turrets are never standardized. Your turrets may say 1/4 MOA and in all reality you get 1/4" also the reticles are all different. Some have 2 MOA spacing, others have 4 MOA and so on and so forth. Nothing is standardized with scopes dealing in MOA
</div></div>
That point has been made over and over and is certainly acknowledged by me.
An MOA is always an MOA just as a Mil is always a Mil.
It is the manufacturers that screw this up with improper designations and specifications; part of the reason many people us the term IPHY.....because it has nothing to do with MOA. </div></div>
Thus my reasoning for saying that the Mil system is easier and simpler to grasp.....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deadly0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mil system is Standardized across the board... 1 mil is 1 mil is 1 mil which makes the learning curve that much less.
MOA reticles/turrets are never standardized. Your turrets may say 1/4 MOA and in all reality you get 1/4" also the reticles are all different. Some have 2 MOA spacing, others have 4 MOA and so on and so forth. Nothing is standardized with scopes dealing in MOA
</div></div>
That point has been made over and over and is certainly acknowledged by me.
An MOA is always an MOA just as a Mil is always a Mil.
It is the manufacturers that screw this up with improper designations and specifications; part of the reason many people us the term IPHY.....because it has nothing to do with MOA. </div></div>
Thus my reasoning for saying that the Mil system is easier and simpler to grasp.....
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Are we arguing ease of dialing particular elevation values with different gear, or whether or not I can identify gear? If the latter; you win.
It does not matter if it is 1/5 or 1/10.
I made a case where particular gear choice makes for less than 1 rev versus a full rev, and you countered with a different comparison.
We both made the same point. No argument there.
I don't care a bit about counting clicks, but threw it out there as an example. I am not hung up on this and I am not sure why you are.
My point was never to demonstrate soemthing is better and I am not making any such claim. I countered the "easier" statement with a case where it was not easier....and you showed an opposing example.
Wheres the problem?
Are we arguing ease of dialing particular elevation values with different gear, or whether or not I can identify gear? If the latter; you win.
It does not matter if it is 1/5 or 1/10.
I made a case where particular gear choice makes for less than 1 rev versus a full rev, and you countered with a different comparison.
We both made the same point. No argument there.
I don't care a bit about counting clicks, but threw it out there as an example. I am not hung up on this and I am not sure why you are.
My point was never to demonstrate soemthing is better and I am not making any such claim. I countered the "easier" statement with a case where it was not easier....and you showed an opposing example.
Wheres the problem?
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
You're "easier" claim...
1. Changed the OP question that is like me saying my NF with 1 MOA turrets is easier than the 1/2 EREK you cited. Apples to Oranges. A 1/4 EREK vs a 1/10 Mil is a better example.
2. You claimed because 72 is less than 100 so the EREK wins, being easier, when you didn't realize the S&B and now the NF are actually smaller diameter turrets... which means "less" turning. So your "easier" point is completely wrong.
You "point' is the reason this debates gets confused and why myths get perpetuated.
You're trying to be "somewhat" right when clearly you're not...
You're "easier" claim...
1. Changed the OP question that is like me saying my NF with 1 MOA turrets is easier than the 1/2 EREK you cited. Apples to Oranges. A 1/4 EREK vs a 1/10 Mil is a better example.
2. You claimed because 72 is less than 100 so the EREK wins, being easier, when you didn't realize the S&B and now the NF are actually smaller diameter turrets... which means "less" turning. So your "easier" point is completely wrong.
You "point' is the reason this debates gets confused and why myths get perpetuated.
You're trying to be "somewhat" right when clearly you're not...
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Where did I claim it was easier?
I made a point that it could be dialed in less than a rev. Thats all. You quote me incorrectly more than once.
I was not replying to the OP, but to the guy who claimed Mil was easier to dial the amount. I made the point of using the 1/2MOA knob in public for everyone to see.
The OP does not have a Mil scope so a change in gear is required to arrive at the "Mil is easier" claim as well.......but I don't see you jumping on that poster.......I can only assume you are policing my change of the argument, and not his, because you agree with his poisition.
Where did I claim it was easier?
I made a point that it could be dialed in less than a rev. Thats all. You quote me incorrectly more than once.
I was not replying to the OP, but to the guy who claimed Mil was easier to dial the amount. I made the point of using the 1/2MOA knob in public for everyone to see.
The OP does not have a Mil scope so a change in gear is required to arrive at the "Mil is easier" claim as well.......but I don't see you jumping on that poster.......I can only assume you are policing my change of the argument, and not his, because you agree with his poisition.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are not Metric... to quote Lindy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no such things as "metric" scopes, and there is nothing "metric" about mils.
Milliradians, MOA and IPHY (inches per hundred yards) are measurements of angle which have nothing whatsoever to do with any system of linear measure.
There are two times Pi radians in a circle, and a milliradian is simply one-thousands of a radian.
One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.
In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).
It has nothing to do with any English or Metric system of linear measure.
</div></div> </div></div>
i beg to differ... why is it that 1 miliradian happens to subtend 1x at 1000x`s?
it could be vehermently argued that whoever concepted the arc length of a miliradian (best as i can fathom, the french who just so happen to be a metric country) DELIBERATELY, make it equal such an exact ratio of 1:1000 to be easily adapted/implemented within a metric system of mathematics? i would love to see an argument against that in support of any other reason, let alone symantics. mili is a term used throughout the metric system and subtends 1000 of anything, mililitres, milimeters, miliradians etc... to argue that its not part of a metric 'system' is difficult. The common mistake is that a miliradian is NOT a metric DISTANCE or MEASUREMENT or quantity etc, but rather a metric ANGLE. Its beauty is that the angle subtends perfectly to all the other metric MEASUREMENTS such as 1cm @ 100m, 1m @ 1000m etc.
This is the beauty of the metrics system, everything subtends and converts easily without complex math. For example i can say that 12,231.45 litres of water weighs 12.23145 metric tonnes or 12,231.45kgs INSTANTLY in my head. Try doing somthing like that instantly in your head using not a whole number of ounces, quarts, barrels etc... MAYBE thats why they stopped using desgrees, minutes, and seconds and adpoted the miliradian??? too damn complex!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mils are not Metric... to quote Lindy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are no such things as "metric" scopes, and there is nothing "metric" about mils.
Milliradians, MOA and IPHY (inches per hundred yards) are measurements of angle which have nothing whatsoever to do with any system of linear measure.
There are two times Pi radians in a circle, and a milliradian is simply one-thousands of a radian.
One milliradian is an angle which subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance from the vertex.
In other words, one milliradian subtends an arc whose length is:
1 yard at 1000 yards.
1 meter at 1000 meters.
1 mile at 1000 miles.
1 league at 1000 leagues.
1 fathom at 1000 fathoms.
1 inch at 1000 inches.
1 foot at 1000 feet.
1 lightyear at 1000 lightyears.
1 attoparsec at 1000 attoparsecs.
3.6 inches at 3600 inches (100 yards).
It has nothing to do with any English or Metric system of linear measure.
</div></div> </div></div>
i beg to differ... why is it that 1 miliradian happens to subtend 1x at 1000x`s?
it could be vehermently argued that whoever concepted the arc length of a miliradian (best as i can fathom, the french who just so happen to be a metric country) DELIBERATELY, make it equal such an exact ratio of 1:1000 to be easily adapted/implemented within a metric system of mathematics? i would love to see an argument against that in support of any other reason, let alone symantics. mili is a term used throughout the metric system and subtends 1000 of anything, mililitres, milimeters, miliradians etc... to argue that its not part of a metric 'system' is difficult. The common mistake is that a miliradian is NOT a metric DISTANCE or MEASUREMENT or quantity etc, but rather a metric ANGLE. Its beauty is that the angle subtends perfectly to all the other metric MEASUREMENTS such as 1cm @ 100m, 1m @ 1000m etc.
This is the beauty of the metrics system, everything subtends and converts easily without complex math. For example i can say that 12,231.45 litres of water weighs 12.23145 metric tonnes or 12,231.45kgs INSTANTLY in my head. Try doing somthing like that instantly in your head using not a whole number of ounces, quarts, barrels etc... MAYBE thats why they stopped using desgrees, minutes, and seconds and adpoted the miliradian??? too damn complex!
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Trust me 65 posts, this has been debated on here already at least for years.
Look up a milliradian or a radian and you'll see. The fact it interchanges with either system makes it not metric.
A milli is 1000 not a metric 1000, and a radian is not French, Roger Cotes about 77 years before the metric system was adopted by France.
Trust me 65 posts, this has been debated on here already at least for years.
Look up a milliradian or a radian and you'll see. The fact it interchanges with either system makes it not metric.
A milli is 1000 not a metric 1000, and a radian is not French, Roger Cotes about 77 years before the metric system was adopted by France.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
I still do not have a grasp on this. I understand they are different, but I dont get quite how. To me it still seems like inchs or metric (not saying MIL's are metric) just that MOA and MIl are just two different units of measure so to speak...
I still do not have a grasp on this. I understand they are different, but I dont get quite how. To me it still seems like inchs or metric (not saying MIL's are metric) just that MOA and MIl are just two different units of measure so to speak...
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
no they are 2 different ANGLES, not units of measure.... what they subtend to at a given distance can be either inches or cms`s or miles or cake tins, it dont matter... (metric or imperial)... its an ANGLE not a measurement.
Lowlight, i understand what you are saying and regarding the debate i have no intention of reopening the can of worms... but all i can say is that the thinking behind a milliradian IS VERY SIMILAR if not IDENTICAL to the metric "way of thinking". Its integratation with the metric system and the way it works with metric measurements (its practical use) makes an easy argument to say its part of a metric "system" of ranging and shooting.
Having a scope with a mil reticle and MOA turrets makes little sense to me... for example, if i spot an impact 1.5 mil left, how complex is it to figure a correction by dialing an MOA turret to correct it? it would be more practical to keep a system consistant in its entirety, MOA all the way or mils all the way... so then you have an argument of which is better, MOA all the way or mils all the way... all i can say here is, how complex is it to figure a range or distance or size of an object using an MOA reticle as opposed to a mil reticle?
1 mil = 1yd @ 1000yds = .6yds @ 600yds = 2 m @ 2000m etc etc
Mils wins everytime...
no they are 2 different ANGLES, not units of measure.... what they subtend to at a given distance can be either inches or cms`s or miles or cake tins, it dont matter... (metric or imperial)... its an ANGLE not a measurement.
Lowlight, i understand what you are saying and regarding the debate i have no intention of reopening the can of worms... but all i can say is that the thinking behind a milliradian IS VERY SIMILAR if not IDENTICAL to the metric "way of thinking". Its integratation with the metric system and the way it works with metric measurements (its practical use) makes an easy argument to say its part of a metric "system" of ranging and shooting.
Having a scope with a mil reticle and MOA turrets makes little sense to me... for example, if i spot an impact 1.5 mil left, how complex is it to figure a correction by dialing an MOA turret to correct it? it would be more practical to keep a system consistant in its entirety, MOA all the way or mils all the way... so then you have an argument of which is better, MOA all the way or mils all the way... all i can say here is, how complex is it to figure a range or distance or size of an object using an MOA reticle as opposed to a mil reticle?
1 mil = 1yd @ 1000yds = .6yds @ 600yds = 2 m @ 2000m etc etc
Mils wins everytime...
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: groper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no they are 2 different ANGLES, not units of measure.... what they subtend to at a given distance can be either inches or cms`s or miles or cake tins, it dont matter... (metric or imperial)... its an ANGLE not a measurement.
Lowlight, i understand what you are saying and regarding the debate i have no intention of reopening the can of worms... but all i can say is that the thinking behind a milliradian IS VERY SIMILAR if not IDENTICAL to the metric "way of thinking". Its integratation with the metric system and the way it works with metric measurements (its practical use) makes an easy argument to say its part of a metric "system" of ranging and shooting.
Having a scope with a mil reticle and MOA turrets makes little sense to me... for example, if i spot an impact 1.5 mil left, how complex is it to figure a correction by dialing an MOA turret to correct it? it would be more practical to keep a system consistant in its entirety, MOA all the way or mils all the way... so then you have an argument of which is better, MOA all the way or mils all the way... all i can say here is, how complex is it to figure a range or distance or size of an object using an MOA reticle as opposed to a mil reticle?
1 mil = 1yd @ 1000yds = .6yds @ 600yds = 2 m @ 2000m etc etc
Mils wins everytime...
</div></div>
what you're talking about is the ten based decimal system that both the metric system and mil-radians are using.. Other than that the similarities end.... The metric system is called that because it is based off of the METER.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: groper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no they are 2 different ANGLES, not units of measure.... what they subtend to at a given distance can be either inches or cms`s or miles or cake tins, it dont matter... (metric or imperial)... its an ANGLE not a measurement.
Lowlight, i understand what you are saying and regarding the debate i have no intention of reopening the can of worms... but all i can say is that the thinking behind a milliradian IS VERY SIMILAR if not IDENTICAL to the metric "way of thinking". Its integratation with the metric system and the way it works with metric measurements (its practical use) makes an easy argument to say its part of a metric "system" of ranging and shooting.
Having a scope with a mil reticle and MOA turrets makes little sense to me... for example, if i spot an impact 1.5 mil left, how complex is it to figure a correction by dialing an MOA turret to correct it? it would be more practical to keep a system consistant in its entirety, MOA all the way or mils all the way... so then you have an argument of which is better, MOA all the way or mils all the way... all i can say here is, how complex is it to figure a range or distance or size of an object using an MOA reticle as opposed to a mil reticle?
1 mil = 1yd @ 1000yds = .6yds @ 600yds = 2 m @ 2000m etc etc
Mils wins everytime...
</div></div>
what you're talking about is the ten based decimal system that both the metric system and mil-radians are using.. Other than that the similarities end.... The metric system is called that because it is based off of the METER.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Size of target in "yards" X 1000 divided by size of target in Mils = Range in Yards.
Yep, very metric, nothing universal in that.
MOA,
SOT in Inches X 100 divided by SOT in Inches = R in Yards
Size of target in "yards" X 1000 divided by size of target in Mils = Range in Yards.
Yep, very metric, nothing universal in that.
MOA,
SOT in Inches X 100 divided by SOT in Inches = R in Yards
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
I shot many years in the MOA mindset. When I got into long range shooting I went all mils. It applies better at distance....most everything for long range shooting is addressed in mils. Probably most important for me is it's the language the majority of long range shooters use so communication with a partner is much easier. I think IPHY is a very intuitive system for us having grown up using inches but very little out there uses IPHY. Once I spent some time using mils, estimating with mils and shooting with mils I got rid of all the scopes on distance stuff that were not mil/mil.
I still use target size in inches for range estimations because that is easier for me but all my come ups and hold offs are figured in mils. I no longer think of X inches low or left or whatever...I think in mils.
I shot many years in the MOA mindset. When I got into long range shooting I went all mils. It applies better at distance....most everything for long range shooting is addressed in mils. Probably most important for me is it's the language the majority of long range shooters use so communication with a partner is much easier. I think IPHY is a very intuitive system for us having grown up using inches but very little out there uses IPHY. Once I spent some time using mils, estimating with mils and shooting with mils I got rid of all the scopes on distance stuff that were not mil/mil.
I still use target size in inches for range estimations because that is easier for me but all my come ups and hold offs are figured in mils. I no longer think of X inches low or left or whatever...I think in mils.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 358Mustang</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still do not have a grasp on this. I understand they are different, but I dont get quite how. To me it still seems like inchs or metric (not saying MIL's are metric) just that MOA and MIl are just two different units of measure so to speak...
</div></div>
After reading and saving previous posts from most of the above, what worked for me was to remove inches (or metric) from my head. As it’s been said, we’re measuring angles. I’m at the center of a circle and need to know where on the circle to aim in order to hit another point on the same circle. My saved snippets from the authors above:
Degrees (MOA) = 360 degrees in a circle. 60 minutes in a degree. MOA is 1/60 of a degree.
Radians (MIL) = 6.283 radians in a circle. 1000 milliradians in a radian. 6,283 milliradians in a circle. MIL is 1/1000 of a radian.
No matter how far away the target (radius) there is always 6.283 radians and 360 degrees in a circle.
1 MIL = 3.438 MOA and 1 MOA = .291 MIL
At a known distance of 100 yards:
1 MIL = 3.60 inches and 1 MOA = 1.047 inches
When ranging is where it becomes interesting and a personal choice. It can be argued that for larger targets one is better and vice versa. Ranging with a reticle is an estimate, so it seems to me that the argument is futile and is truly a personal choice for the user. What are they faster and more accurate with?
MIL -
Height of target (yards) X 1,000 / Height of target (MIL) = Range (yards)
Height of target (inches) X 27.8 / Height of target (MIL) = Range (yards)
6’ person that measures 2 MILs is 1,000 yards away. 2 X 1000 / 2 = 1,000 yards
18” brisket that measures 1 MIL is 500 yards away. 18 X 27.8 / 1 = 500 yards
MOA -
Height of target (inches) X 95.5 / Height of target (MOA)
18” brisket that measures 2 MOA is 860 yards away. 18 X 95.5 / 2 = 860 yards
If you use the MOA formula and round 95.5 to 100 to make it easy, the error is compounded as the range increases.
18” brisket that measures 2 MOA is 900 yards away. 18 X 100 / 2 = 900 yards
It’s a long damn way and 860 versus 900 doesn’t seem too much, but even with a 300WM that should be about 30” of error.
Without known distance or LRF, ranging is an estimate at best. Most target sizes aren’t exact and they don’t subtend to a nice even number.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 358Mustang</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still do not have a grasp on this. I understand they are different, but I dont get quite how. To me it still seems like inchs or metric (not saying MIL's are metric) just that MOA and MIl are just two different units of measure so to speak...
</div></div>
After reading and saving previous posts from most of the above, what worked for me was to remove inches (or metric) from my head. As it’s been said, we’re measuring angles. I’m at the center of a circle and need to know where on the circle to aim in order to hit another point on the same circle. My saved snippets from the authors above:
Degrees (MOA) = 360 degrees in a circle. 60 minutes in a degree. MOA is 1/60 of a degree.
Radians (MIL) = 6.283 radians in a circle. 1000 milliradians in a radian. 6,283 milliradians in a circle. MIL is 1/1000 of a radian.
No matter how far away the target (radius) there is always 6.283 radians and 360 degrees in a circle.
1 MIL = 3.438 MOA and 1 MOA = .291 MIL
At a known distance of 100 yards:
1 MIL = 3.60 inches and 1 MOA = 1.047 inches
When ranging is where it becomes interesting and a personal choice. It can be argued that for larger targets one is better and vice versa. Ranging with a reticle is an estimate, so it seems to me that the argument is futile and is truly a personal choice for the user. What are they faster and more accurate with?
MIL -
Height of target (yards) X 1,000 / Height of target (MIL) = Range (yards)
Height of target (inches) X 27.8 / Height of target (MIL) = Range (yards)
6’ person that measures 2 MILs is 1,000 yards away. 2 X 1000 / 2 = 1,000 yards
18” brisket that measures 1 MIL is 500 yards away. 18 X 27.8 / 1 = 500 yards
MOA -
Height of target (inches) X 95.5 / Height of target (MOA)
18” brisket that measures 2 MOA is 860 yards away. 18 X 95.5 / 2 = 860 yards
If you use the MOA formula and round 95.5 to 100 to make it easy, the error is compounded as the range increases.
18” brisket that measures 2 MOA is 900 yards away. 18 X 100 / 2 = 900 yards
It’s a long damn way and 860 versus 900 doesn’t seem too much, but even with a 300WM that should be about 30” of error.
Without known distance or LRF, ranging is an estimate at best. Most target sizes aren’t exact and they don’t subtend to a nice even number.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
It's not rounding if you use IPHY with 100.
Many scopes thought to be MOA are actually IPHY, which is another problem, knowing which one you have.
It used to be called Shooter MOA but more correctly Inches Per Hundred Yards.
MOA = 95.5
IPHY= 100
Two different set of numbers.
It's not rounding if you use IPHY with 100.
Many scopes thought to be MOA are actually IPHY, which is another problem, knowing which one you have.
It used to be called Shooter MOA but more correctly Inches Per Hundred Yards.
MOA = 95.5
IPHY= 100
Two different set of numbers.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
Agreed and not intended as a correction, I would have used the 100 to keep it simple and get the 900y and then deducted 45y for the known 5% error and would have been very close. If the shot “mattered” I would have had an LRF and been even closer.
Agreed and not intended as a correction, I would have used the 100 to keep it simple and get the 900y and then deducted 45y for the known 5% error and would have been very close. If the shot “mattered” I would have had an LRF and been even closer.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's the lack of understanding that makes the difference, not the systems.
</div></div>
-bingo. Everything else is a preference argument.
BobinNC's response to the OP's question covers the fundamental concepts perfectly and I think it behooves any shooter that may encounter a scope with target/tactical turrets to undestand fully the relationship between the three angular measurements.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's the lack of understanding that makes the difference, not the systems.
</div></div>
-bingo. Everything else is a preference argument.
BobinNC's response to the OP's question covers the fundamental concepts perfectly and I think it behooves any shooter that may encounter a scope with target/tactical turrets to undestand fully the relationship between the three angular measurements.
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: groper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no they are 2 different ANGLES, not units of measure.... what they subtend to at a given distance can be either inches or cms`s or miles or cake tins, it dont matter... (metric or imperial)... its an ANGLE not a measurement.
Lowlight, i understand what you are saying and regarding the debate i have no intention of reopening the can of worms... but all i can say is that the thinking behind a milliradian IS VERY SIMILAR if not IDENTICAL to the metric "way of thinking". Its integratation with the metric system and the way it works with metric measurements (its practical use) makes an easy argument to say its part of a metric "system" of ranging and shooting.
Having a scope with a mil reticle and MOA turrets makes little sense to me... for example, if i spot an impact 1.5 mil left, how complex is it to figure a correction by dialing an MOA turret to correct it? it would be more practical to keep a system consistant in its entirety, MOA all the way or mils all the way... so then you have an argument of which is better, MOA all the way or mils all the way... all i can say here is, how complex is it to figure a range or distance or size of an object using an MOA reticle as opposed to a mil reticle?
1 mil = 1yd @ 1000yds = .6yds @ 600yds = 2 m @ 2000m etc etc
Mils wins everytime...
</div></div> Thanks for your post, but if you see I said SO TO SPEAK. I was not implying that they are units of measure, I am using it purely as an example. This post makes me want to get my new Leupold converted to MIL turret knobs, of course they proby dont have them. Go figure
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: groper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no they are 2 different ANGLES, not units of measure.... what they subtend to at a given distance can be either inches or cms`s or miles or cake tins, it dont matter... (metric or imperial)... its an ANGLE not a measurement.
Lowlight, i understand what you are saying and regarding the debate i have no intention of reopening the can of worms... but all i can say is that the thinking behind a milliradian IS VERY SIMILAR if not IDENTICAL to the metric "way of thinking". Its integratation with the metric system and the way it works with metric measurements (its practical use) makes an easy argument to say its part of a metric "system" of ranging and shooting.
Having a scope with a mil reticle and MOA turrets makes little sense to me... for example, if i spot an impact 1.5 mil left, how complex is it to figure a correction by dialing an MOA turret to correct it? it would be more practical to keep a system consistant in its entirety, MOA all the way or mils all the way... so then you have an argument of which is better, MOA all the way or mils all the way... all i can say here is, how complex is it to figure a range or distance or size of an object using an MOA reticle as opposed to a mil reticle?
1 mil = 1yd @ 1000yds = .6yds @ 600yds = 2 m @ 2000m etc etc
Mils wins everytime...
</div></div> Thanks for your post, but if you see I said SO TO SPEAK. I was not implying that they are units of measure, I am using it purely as an example. This post makes me want to get my new Leupold converted to MIL turret knobs, of course they proby dont have them. Go figure
Re: mil vs moa which is more accurate
The Minute-of-angle and the Milradian are units of angular measurement just as the yard and meter are units of linear measurement.
All of them are "units of measure".
The Minute-of-angle and the Milradian are units of angular measurement just as the yard and meter are units of linear measurement.
All of them are "units of measure".
