Rifle Scopes moa or mil turrets give your preference
- Thread starter chevyboy
- Start date
Re: moa or mil turrets give your preference
Thank you, Michael, for saving me from having to do that yet again.
Thank you, Michael, for saving me from having to do that yet again.
Re: moa or mil turrets give your preference
Doesn't matter much as long as the reticle matches the adjustment knobs. I kinda like the moa because you can talk in inches which is what we americans are used to.
CJG
Doesn't matter much as long as the reticle matches the adjustment knobs. I kinda like the moa because you can talk in inches which is what we americans are used to.
CJG
Re: moa or mil turrets give your preference
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rotortuner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesn't matter much as long as the reticle matches the adjustment knobs. I kinda like the moa because you can talk in inches which is what we americans are used to.
CJG </div></div>
CJG,
One would think so. But the problem is in usage, and in language. For far too long folks have been getting confused with IPHY (SMOA) and MOA. One is not the other. The differences seem small 1" vs 1.047". And they are for the most part meaningless, at short distances.
But distance compounds your problem. If your scope adjusts in IPHY, and you think it's MOA, then your 1000K dope will be off by 18-20" inches. Same thing happens if your scope really is MOA, and you think it's IPHY.
But let's put aside the problem of MOA v IPHY, and discuss MIL v MOA, and the issues of talking in inches, because your an American and it's easier.
You don't have a LRF, and I show you a target at unknown range, and I tell you it measures exactly 36" x 36". Peering through your FFP MIL/MIL scope you measure it via the reticle to be 1.25 MILs tall.
Now I hand you a FFP MOA/MOA and you measure it via the reticle to be 4.3 MOA Tall.
So how far is the target away???
Since you have to either: compute it manually, or use a calculator, or look at your Mildot Master, to determine that the target is 800 yards away, how did a lifetime of talking in inches, help or hinder you with either solution?
To hit that target you still have to dial or holdover whatever your drop chart tells you to do in either MILs or MOA.
Again taking the same problem, after you look your dope up, and adjust, and fire the shot @ the 800 YD target, and you see through the FFP MIL/MIL scope that you are 0.5 MILs (1.75 MOA or 14" @800 Yds) Low. For your second shot you hold 0.5 MILs (1.75 MOA or 14"@800 Yds) higher and hit the target dead in the middle. How did a lifetime of talking in inches hinder or help you in making that hit?
And yes, you can do the same thing with a FFP MOA/MOA scope, and a lifetime of talking in inches will neither help nor hinder you. Because your adjusting to what you see in the reticle, and using the ruler given you. You still have to do calculations of some kind,to get there, and you cannot run away from the math. In fact if I did not tell you 1.75 MOA is 14" @ 800 yds, you would have to look it up or calculate it.
There is nothing intuitive about MOA, just like there is nothing intuitive about MILs. They are measurements of angle, and not linear measurements.
Think about it......
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rotortuner</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Doesn't matter much as long as the reticle matches the adjustment knobs. I kinda like the moa because you can talk in inches which is what we americans are used to.
CJG </div></div>
CJG,
One would think so. But the problem is in usage, and in language. For far too long folks have been getting confused with IPHY (SMOA) and MOA. One is not the other. The differences seem small 1" vs 1.047". And they are for the most part meaningless, at short distances.
But distance compounds your problem. If your scope adjusts in IPHY, and you think it's MOA, then your 1000K dope will be off by 18-20" inches. Same thing happens if your scope really is MOA, and you think it's IPHY.
But let's put aside the problem of MOA v IPHY, and discuss MIL v MOA, and the issues of talking in inches, because your an American and it's easier.
You don't have a LRF, and I show you a target at unknown range, and I tell you it measures exactly 36" x 36". Peering through your FFP MIL/MIL scope you measure it via the reticle to be 1.25 MILs tall.
Now I hand you a FFP MOA/MOA and you measure it via the reticle to be 4.3 MOA Tall.
So how far is the target away???
Since you have to either: compute it manually, or use a calculator, or look at your Mildot Master, to determine that the target is 800 yards away, how did a lifetime of talking in inches, help or hinder you with either solution?
To hit that target you still have to dial or holdover whatever your drop chart tells you to do in either MILs or MOA.
Again taking the same problem, after you look your dope up, and adjust, and fire the shot @ the 800 YD target, and you see through the FFP MIL/MIL scope that you are 0.5 MILs (1.75 MOA or 14" @800 Yds) Low. For your second shot you hold 0.5 MILs (1.75 MOA or 14"@800 Yds) higher and hit the target dead in the middle. How did a lifetime of talking in inches hinder or help you in making that hit?
And yes, you can do the same thing with a FFP MOA/MOA scope, and a lifetime of talking in inches will neither help nor hinder you. Because your adjusting to what you see in the reticle, and using the ruler given you. You still have to do calculations of some kind,to get there, and you cannot run away from the math. In fact if I did not tell you 1.75 MOA is 14" @ 800 yds, you would have to look it up or calculate it.
There is nothing intuitive about MOA, just like there is nothing intuitive about MILs. They are measurements of angle, and not linear measurements.
Think about it......
Re: moa or mil turrets give your preference
For all logical reasons you are right. I think i may understand what he meant by saying 'thinking in inches'. Lets say you were spotting for someone using a spotting scope and not a calibrated rifle scope in MOA or MIL. The target is at 800yds and you know the target size is 12". When you see the splash you estimate it to be 2' to the right based off of the target size. Using the IPHY (i know its not true moa but bear with me) you call a 3 MOA correction for wind. Now according to true MOA i would be .14 MOA off or roughly an inch.
All the above being said with my experience there is more margin of error in the actual scope turrets being .25, .23, or .27 per click due to the manufacturers acceptable tolerances than in range estimation. We have shot competitions that require reticle ranging and we used the IPHY method even though our scopes where in MOA. Most targets where 800yds and in. We did well.
If i personnally were spotting for someone using a spotting scope and the scenario was the same above i wouldn't know what the correction for 2' would be in MIL.
For all logical reasons you are right. I think i may understand what he meant by saying 'thinking in inches'. Lets say you were spotting for someone using a spotting scope and not a calibrated rifle scope in MOA or MIL. The target is at 800yds and you know the target size is 12". When you see the splash you estimate it to be 2' to the right based off of the target size. Using the IPHY (i know its not true moa but bear with me) you call a 3 MOA correction for wind. Now according to true MOA i would be .14 MOA off or roughly an inch.
All the above being said with my experience there is more margin of error in the actual scope turrets being .25, .23, or .27 per click due to the manufacturers acceptable tolerances than in range estimation. We have shot competitions that require reticle ranging and we used the IPHY method even though our scopes where in MOA. Most targets where 800yds and in. We did well.
If i personnally were spotting for someone using a spotting scope and the scenario was the same above i wouldn't know what the correction for 2' would be in MIL.
Re: moa or mil turrets give your preference
I agree that yes you always have to do some calculations for the range finding. I am only going to address mil vs moa.
In talking moa I think its intuitive in this example:
I look through the scope at a target of unknown height, lets say a prarie dog and its just sitting there, so i know its about 6" off the ground. in inches a unit i know and have used since I was young, I match it up on the reticle and its an moa tall, boom I know its at 630 yds (6*1.05). I just did this all in my head and it was because i was able to determine the size of the target by looking at it and just intuitively knowing its size in units i know. If you asked me what the height is in cm(or yards, i dont think of heights in yards too much), without FIRST thinking how tall it is in inches and then converting from inches to cm i wouldn’t know how tall it is, I would always have to do that conversion in my head or with a calculator or paper.
I think that makes sense?
Honestly I have scopes both in moa moa and mil mil. when shooing with friends who have mil bases stuff, i need that ability, but if im by myself or with moa shooters, the moa seams more intuitive to me.
This debate is old and im not going to argue about it, everyone has their preference, this is just an illustration of the plusses I see with the moa system when it comes go range finding with the reticle on targets of unknown dimension.
CJG
I agree that yes you always have to do some calculations for the range finding. I am only going to address mil vs moa.
In talking moa I think its intuitive in this example:
I look through the scope at a target of unknown height, lets say a prarie dog and its just sitting there, so i know its about 6" off the ground. in inches a unit i know and have used since I was young, I match it up on the reticle and its an moa tall, boom I know its at 630 yds (6*1.05). I just did this all in my head and it was because i was able to determine the size of the target by looking at it and just intuitively knowing its size in units i know. If you asked me what the height is in cm(or yards, i dont think of heights in yards too much), without FIRST thinking how tall it is in inches and then converting from inches to cm i wouldn’t know how tall it is, I would always have to do that conversion in my head or with a calculator or paper.
I think that makes sense?
Honestly I have scopes both in moa moa and mil mil. when shooing with friends who have mil bases stuff, i need that ability, but if im by myself or with moa shooters, the moa seams more intuitive to me.
This debate is old and im not going to argue about it, everyone has their preference, this is just an illustration of the plusses I see with the moa system when it comes go range finding with the reticle on targets of unknown dimension.
CJG
Re: moa or mil turrets give your preference
Mule hunter,
Thats another good scenario, we almost always spot through the rifle scopes with reticles, but that is a good example also. If I was looking through binos, which sometimes we do, I would call it out in feet or inchesm which feeds right into the calcs for hold overs in moa. it would be another step to get into mil.
The biggest thing is the reticle and knobs match, but i see it as an added bennefit that its in units that are what we are used to dealing with.
A negative is that, moa can use a lot of fractions where mil is going to be based on tenths and possibly more decimals which can be easier. like i said, its a lot of preference.
CJG
Mule hunter,
Thats another good scenario, we almost always spot through the rifle scopes with reticles, but that is a good example also. If I was looking through binos, which sometimes we do, I would call it out in feet or inchesm which feeds right into the calcs for hold overs in moa. it would be another step to get into mil.
The biggest thing is the reticle and knobs match, but i see it as an added bennefit that its in units that are what we are used to dealing with.
A negative is that, moa can use a lot of fractions where mil is going to be based on tenths and possibly more decimals which can be easier. like i said, its a lot of preference.
CJG
Re: moa or mil turrets give your preference
Something like this renders thinking, even with ranging a moot discussion
<span style="font-style: italic">pay no attention to the colors they are only for effect</span>
Something like this renders thinking, even with ranging a moot discussion
<span style="font-style: italic">pay no attention to the colors they are only for effect</span>
Re: moa or mil turrets give your preference
Rotortuner,
Loved your example: 6" target 1 moa high, and boom 630 yds.
Not so boom, it's actually 573 yds.....
Must be new math?
Formula for those watching at home, (props to his mathness Lindy):
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Height of Target</span> (inches) x 95.5 = Distance (yards)
moa
6"/1 moa x 95.5 = 573 yds.....
But that's ok, that's why I don't do the math in my head, but use a mildot master.
Oh, and why are you bringing cm's into this? You don't convert inches to centimeters, to use mils....you also don't convert inches to mils.
But you can use a formula:
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Height of Target </span>(inches) x 27.78 = Distance (yards)
mils
Bob
Rotortuner,
Loved your example: 6" target 1 moa high, and boom 630 yds.
Not so boom, it's actually 573 yds.....
Must be new math?
Formula for those watching at home, (props to his mathness Lindy):
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Height of Target</span> (inches) x 95.5 = Distance (yards)
moa
6"/1 moa x 95.5 = 573 yds.....
But that's ok, that's why I don't do the math in my head, but use a mildot master.
Oh, and why are you bringing cm's into this? You don't convert inches to centimeters, to use mils....you also don't convert inches to mils.
But you can use a formula:
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Height of Target </span>(inches) x 27.78 = Distance (yards)
mils
Bob
