Rifle Scopes Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
- Thread starter edd848
- Start date
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Either one is very easy to learn and shoot with. It just depends on weather you want to think in inches or mils. Mil/mil seems to be the current popular choice, and will be more expensive in some cases.
Either one is very easy to learn and shoot with. It just depends on weather you want to think in inches or mils. Mil/mil seems to be the current popular choice, and will be more expensive in some cases.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
i thought moa was easier to learn, most american shooters have an easier time with it. i learned it first, then mil. mil is more common and seems to be used in more classes and schools
i thought moa was easier to learn, most american shooters have an easier time with it. i learned it first, then mil. mil is more common and seems to be used in more classes and schools
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
FWIW, I learned with moa but just purchased my first mil/mil optic.
With a matching reticle and turrets, either system seems equally easy to me. I look through the scope and read the reticle to find the amount of adjustment needed to be hitting poa, then dial that in the turret.
As far as coming up with drop, I use jbm's calculator and then use the same method to fine tune my zero.
Both systems accomplish the same goal and having a matching turret and reticle set up makes using one version just as easy as the other. I have basically stopped relating either system over to inches and use the system the scope is set up for in order to judge distance. Of course this is my personal experience.
FWIW, I learned with moa but just purchased my first mil/mil optic.
With a matching reticle and turrets, either system seems equally easy to me. I look through the scope and read the reticle to find the amount of adjustment needed to be hitting poa, then dial that in the turret.
As far as coming up with drop, I use jbm's calculator and then use the same method to fine tune my zero.
Both systems accomplish the same goal and having a matching turret and reticle set up makes using one version just as easy as the other. I have basically stopped relating either system over to inches and use the system the scope is set up for in order to judge distance. Of course this is my personal experience.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i thought moa was easier to learn, most american shooters have an easier time with it. i learned it first, then mil. mil is more common and seems to be used in more classes and schools</div></div>
I agree with this. I started MOA, very simple & easy to learn. Then went mil & it was tough because I kept thinking in MOA, but its been much better for long range shooting. I'm happy with mil now
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i thought moa was easier to learn, most american shooters have an easier time with it. i learned it first, then mil. mil is more common and seems to be used in more classes and schools</div></div>
I agree with this. I started MOA, very simple & easy to learn. Then went mil & it was tough because I kept thinking in MOA, but its been much better for long range shooting. I'm happy with mil now
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: m1ajunkie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW, I learned with moa but just purchased my first mil/mil optic.
With a matching reticle and turrets, either system seems equally easy to me. I look through the scope and read the reticle to find the amount of adjustment needed to be hitting poa, then dial that in the turret.
As far as coming up with drop, I use jbm's calculator and then use the same method to fine tune my zero.
Both systems accomplish the same goal and having a matching turret and reticle set up makes using one version just as easy as the other. I have basically stopped relating either system over to inches and use the system the scope is set up for in order to judge distance. Of course this is my personal experience. </div></div>
I forgot to mention this, always get the same adjustments as your reticle, that makes things a lot easier.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: m1ajunkie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW, I learned with moa but just purchased my first mil/mil optic.
With a matching reticle and turrets, either system seems equally easy to me. I look through the scope and read the reticle to find the amount of adjustment needed to be hitting poa, then dial that in the turret.
As far as coming up with drop, I use jbm's calculator and then use the same method to fine tune my zero.
Both systems accomplish the same goal and having a matching turret and reticle set up makes using one version just as easy as the other. I have basically stopped relating either system over to inches and use the system the scope is set up for in order to judge distance. Of course this is my personal experience. </div></div>
I forgot to mention this, always get the same adjustments as your reticle, that makes things a lot easier.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
They are both units of measure, one isn't easier or harder than the other. Both will get you the same result provided you grasp the concept mil,moa or iphy the concept is the same.
They are both units of measure, one isn't easier or harder than the other. Both will get you the same result provided you grasp the concept mil,moa or iphy the concept is the same.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Neither system is more difficult or easier than the other. With that said, the crowds you shoot in may make one system a better choice than the other. Wind/shot calls become much more useful to one if they are of the same units as one's adjustments/reticle.
Reasons such as "I don't use the metric system" or "MILs are easier because the numbers are smaller" are spit out by morons that probably shouldn't be allowed to play with firearms.
Neither system is more difficult or easier than the other. With that said, the crowds you shoot in may make one system a better choice than the other. Wind/shot calls become much more useful to one if they are of the same units as one's adjustments/reticle.
Reasons such as "I don't use the metric system" or "MILs are easier because the numbers are smaller" are spit out by morons that probably shouldn't be allowed to play with firearms.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
I have a all MOA scope(Nightforce) and a all MRAD scope(Premier Reticle), both work, both are just as easy to use, but Mils are universal, almost every scope maker on the planet makes Mil-Dot scope and most have MRAD knobs to match as options, on the MOA front no two companies make the same reticle, so there must be something to Mils.
I have a all MOA scope(Nightforce) and a all MRAD scope(Premier Reticle), both work, both are just as easy to use, but Mils are universal, almost every scope maker on the planet makes Mil-Dot scope and most have MRAD knobs to match as options, on the MOA front no two companies make the same reticle, so there must be something to Mils.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taseal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">one is in inches, the other in cm.
</div></div> Actually, neither statement is correct. One is M.O.A.-based and one is Mil-based.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taseal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">one is in inches, the other in cm.
</div></div> Actually, neither statement is correct. One is M.O.A.-based and one is Mil-based.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taseal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">one is in inches, the other in cm. </div></div>
This is the primary reason that people have dificulty using mil or MOA, or in switching from one system to the other. Neither is a measurement of distance. They are both sytems of angular measurement that simply have different units. No conceptual difference whatsoever in the use of either one...unless you start thinking 1 MOA is 1.0472 inches at 100 yd, 1 mil is 3.6 inches at 100 yd, etc.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taseal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">one is in inches, the other in cm. </div></div>
This is the primary reason that people have dificulty using mil or MOA, or in switching from one system to the other. Neither is a measurement of distance. They are both sytems of angular measurement that simply have different units. No conceptual difference whatsoever in the use of either one...unless you start thinking 1 MOA is 1.0472 inches at 100 yd, 1 mil is 3.6 inches at 100 yd, etc.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
I forgot to mention this, always get the same adjustments as your reticle, that makes things a lot easier.
What he said.........
I forgot to mention this, always get the same adjustments as your reticle, that makes things a lot easier.
What he said.........
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
MOA is extremely easy to learn. I teach it to new shooters in a matter of 5 minutes, usually less. If you're struggling with it, send me a message and I'll help you out.
Mils aren't harder to learn or use, just different (from the perspective that I learned MOA first so I tend to think in MOA terms.)
The trick is when you learn the other system, forget thinking in the original system. Don't try to relate them, there is no need. You did buy a MOA/MOA or mil/mil scope right? They are merely two methods to achieve the same goal.
That's why everyone recommends matching your turrets and your reticle together, to prevent the confusion of going back and forth.
Later,
Chrome...
MOA is extremely easy to learn. I teach it to new shooters in a matter of 5 minutes, usually less. If you're struggling with it, send me a message and I'll help you out.
Mils aren't harder to learn or use, just different (from the perspective that I learned MOA first so I tend to think in MOA terms.)
The trick is when you learn the other system, forget thinking in the original system. Don't try to relate them, there is no need. You did buy a MOA/MOA or mil/mil scope right? They are merely two methods to achieve the same goal.
That's why everyone recommends matching your turrets and your reticle together, to prevent the confusion of going back and forth.
Later,
Chrome...
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matchking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taseal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">one is in inches, the other in cm.
</div></div> Actually, neither statement is correct. One is M.O.A.-based and one is Mil-based.
</div></div>
angular vs milirads. my apoligies.
altough I've never heard of anyone using meters for moa, and nobody using inches for mils. always cm for mil and inches for moa.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: matchking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taseal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">one is in inches, the other in cm.
</div></div> Actually, neither statement is correct. One is M.O.A.-based and one is Mil-based.
</div></div>
angular vs milirads. my apoligies.
altough I've never heard of anyone using meters for moa, and nobody using inches for mils. always cm for mil and inches for moa.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Just get turrets that match the reticle. I was stuck just like you on trying to decide. It sucks but just choose cuz when you do eat sleep and breath it and you will be able to quick adjustments on either one.
Just get turrets that match the reticle. I was stuck just like you on trying to decide. It sucks but just choose cuz when you do eat sleep and breath it and you will be able to quick adjustments on either one.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Mil is the standard. To get the linear equivelent at at a known range you multiply the number of MOA or mils by your range and multiply by a constant.
For example, how tall is 5 MOA @ 250 yards? 5 MOA*250 yards * 1.05"/100 yards = 13.13". Now most people just shorten that to 5*2.5*1 = 12.5".
Mils is no different, 2mil @ 250 yards 2 mil*250yards*3.6"/100 yards = 7.2".
Both the mil and MOA "/100 yards definitions are shortened, the moa is 1.047blahblahblah same with the mil. Some people say moa is easier to learn because 1 moa ~1"@100 yards, but that's really a disservice if you're going to be doing long range shooting. There's 5% error in doing that and at a 1000 yards with a 308, it's an error of over a foot in bullet drop.
How hard is this or that to calculate? Most people have a dope chart so they do all the math at home and the just turn the dials the correct number of clicks after they've ranged the target.
More than anything though, you want to match your dials to your reticle. Otherwise you've got to do conversions in the fly and a bigger chance to screw something up.
Mil is the standard. To get the linear equivelent at at a known range you multiply the number of MOA or mils by your range and multiply by a constant.
For example, how tall is 5 MOA @ 250 yards? 5 MOA*250 yards * 1.05"/100 yards = 13.13". Now most people just shorten that to 5*2.5*1 = 12.5".
Mils is no different, 2mil @ 250 yards 2 mil*250yards*3.6"/100 yards = 7.2".
Both the mil and MOA "/100 yards definitions are shortened, the moa is 1.047blahblahblah same with the mil. Some people say moa is easier to learn because 1 moa ~1"@100 yards, but that's really a disservice if you're going to be doing long range shooting. There's 5% error in doing that and at a 1000 yards with a 308, it's an error of over a foot in bullet drop.
How hard is this or that to calculate? Most people have a dope chart so they do all the math at home and the just turn the dials the correct number of clicks after they've ranged the target.
More than anything though, you want to match your dials to your reticle. Otherwise you've got to do conversions in the fly and a bigger chance to screw something up.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
to me it seems they are equally easy to learn. just two different measurements. and you can still think in inches and range a target in Mils.
size of object (in Inches) X 27.77 / Mil reading = range in Yards.
they are really the same.. but i like basic crap and the larger click values in Mils seemed better to me.
to me it seems they are equally easy to learn. just two different measurements. and you can still think in inches and range a target in Mils.
size of object (in Inches) X 27.77 / Mil reading = range in Yards.
they are really the same.. but i like basic crap and the larger click values in Mils seemed better to me.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Just curious, any moa-turret/mil-reticle people still out there?
Moa/moa & mil/mil are just a whole lot easier.
Just curious, any moa-turret/mil-reticle people still out there?
Moa/moa & mil/mil are just a whole lot easier.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mypos5mikes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just curious, any moa-turret/mil-reticle people still out there? </div></div>
I have mil/moa. It really is not an issue once it is zero'd.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mypos5mikes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just curious, any moa-turret/mil-reticle people still out there? </div></div>
I have mil/moa. It really is not an issue once it is zero'd.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Moa is probably a little easier to learn but mil is not hard at all. Both are units of angle, put a cap on the end of the angle and you get a triangle with a height.
Pick whatever your peers that you shoot with use. If you might go into the military or police pick mils for sure. The trend is toward mils, though there are still lots of moa users out there.
What makes moa a bit easier is this (rounded):
1moa at 100 yards is 1"
1moa at 200 yards is 2"
1moa at 300 yards is 3" (and 2moa at 300 yards is 6")
.
.
1moa at 900 yards is 9".
1moa at 1000 yards is 10".
Now that is using 1" instead of the more accurate 1.047". But even at 1000 yards that 10" is only 1/2" off (the more accurate is 10.47"). So for group size it doesn't matter. For ranging it probably doesnt matter as no one can range within 5% anyway. (everyone is using rangfinders for ranging anyway). Th exat ranging formula is:
rangein inches = ((height of target in inches) x 95.5)) / number of moa tic marks
Where the 1.047" does matter is in your ballistics chart. 26.75 moa is 28iphy which is enough to put you well off your target for typical 1000 yard dope. But, most ballistics charts come in moa not iphy anyway, so you won't have to worry too much about that.
Like people are pointing out, get a matching reticle and elevation knob, both in the same units.
Moa is probably a little easier to learn but mil is not hard at all. Both are units of angle, put a cap on the end of the angle and you get a triangle with a height.
Pick whatever your peers that you shoot with use. If you might go into the military or police pick mils for sure. The trend is toward mils, though there are still lots of moa users out there.
What makes moa a bit easier is this (rounded):
1moa at 100 yards is 1"
1moa at 200 yards is 2"
1moa at 300 yards is 3" (and 2moa at 300 yards is 6")
.
.
1moa at 900 yards is 9".
1moa at 1000 yards is 10".
Now that is using 1" instead of the more accurate 1.047". But even at 1000 yards that 10" is only 1/2" off (the more accurate is 10.47"). So for group size it doesn't matter. For ranging it probably doesnt matter as no one can range within 5% anyway. (everyone is using rangfinders for ranging anyway). Th exat ranging formula is:
rangein inches = ((height of target in inches) x 95.5)) / number of moa tic marks
Where the 1.047" does matter is in your ballistics chart. 26.75 moa is 28iphy which is enough to put you well off your target for typical 1000 yard dope. But, most ballistics charts come in moa not iphy anyway, so you won't have to worry too much about that.
Like people are pointing out, get a matching reticle and elevation knob, both in the same units.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Do yourself a favor, start mils.
They are angles...only angles. You now know the most important lesson. Everything else is easy.
It is easier to develop the very bad habbit of thinking linearly if you start with MOA, you will be hurting yourself if you try to equate inches to your scope. No need.
More people than not wind up using mils anyway. But it really does not matter.
Use the search function in my sig...TONS of info to read.
Do yourself a favor, start mils.
They are angles...only angles. You now know the most important lesson. Everything else is easy.
It is easier to develop the very bad habbit of thinking linearly if you start with MOA, you will be hurting yourself if you try to equate inches to your scope. No need.
More people than not wind up using mils anyway. But it really does not matter.
Use the search function in my sig...TONS of info to read.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
If you can figure out a 5% tip you can figure the difference between moa and IPHY (smoa).
I used to argue on teh linear measurement, but even on movers you just need to know much real esatae in your reticle a target covers in a given time and the bullet's time of flight.
If you can figure out a 5% tip you can figure the difference between moa and IPHY (smoa).
I used to argue on teh linear measurement, but even on movers you just need to know much real esatae in your reticle a target covers in a given time and the bullet's time of flight.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
When the MOA 5% matters and when it doesn't (moa vs iphy, 1" vs 1.047" per 100 yards):
1. Group size. The 5% is 1/20th of an moa. Ignore it, just use iphy.
2. Ranging. This one is a tossup. I recommend just using iphy and subtract 5%. So formula would be:
Range = ((Target size in inches) * 100 ) / of moa tic marks. Now subtract 5%.
3. Dope aka ballistic charts. here it makes a difference. So use true moa. 1.047" at 100 yards.
When the MOA 5% matters and when it doesn't (moa vs iphy, 1" vs 1.047" per 100 yards):
1. Group size. The 5% is 1/20th of an moa. Ignore it, just use iphy.
2. Ranging. This one is a tossup. I recommend just using iphy and subtract 5%. So formula would be:
Range = ((Target size in inches) * 100 ) / of moa tic marks. Now subtract 5%.
3. Dope aka ballistic charts. here it makes a difference. So use true moa. 1.047" at 100 yards.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
4. mil value (3.6 vs 3.438)
If you think 5% is insignificant then you spend too much time playing with numbers. Yes it is .47" at 1000 yards per individual unit, but at a pretty standard 308 dope the difference is 2 minutes or 20 inches.
If you are going to play MOA, get in the habit of always converting if you are a fan of first round hits.
A follow up shot using the reticle to adjust is OK, but more first round hits go to the guys that shoot more, and conjecture less.....
4. mil value (3.6 vs 3.438)
If you think 5% is insignificant then you spend too much time playing with numbers. Yes it is .47" at 1000 yards per individual unit, but at a pretty standard 308 dope the difference is 2 minutes or 20 inches.
If you are going to play MOA, get in the habit of always converting if you are a fan of first round hits.
A follow up shot using the reticle to adjust is OK, but more first round hits go to the guys that shoot more, and conjecture less.....
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
I think that is the hard thing about going from MOA to MILS for me. I keep comparing the MILS to a inch measure for reference. Thanks for the great info, even if this topic is BTD.
I think that is the hard thing about going from MOA to MILS for me. I keep comparing the MILS to a inch measure for reference. Thanks for the great info, even if this topic is BTD.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Get mil turrents with mil reticle and never look back.
Get mil turrents with mil reticle and never look back.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Sober-
I am not given to conjecture much. More a shooter than a thinker
It has been my experience in shooting, scoring and coaching that most misses come from shooter error NOT involving .47". Most times the error is in ranging the target, not the 20" at 1000 you refer to, afterall most have a solid comeup chart with 'did hit' data at their disposal.
Next biggest error is an incorrect wind call. Best example of this that takes your .47" out of it is F-TR matches. We dail a base wind on and then shoot the rings. No conversion of wind speed to MOA correction but see the spotter compensate for the wind and shoot again. The fly in the ointment is failure to catch that subtle wind change.
Not to open another can of worms but I credit a failure to catch the subtle wind changes at Long Range for those unexplained 'flyers' some want to blame rifle cant for causing.
I'd would be so bold as to suggest that even the much vaunted got to make that first round hit tacticool comp shooter has far more misses than hits due to wind making them a bitch, not the .47"
Quick review-
for range I have a shot data comeup chart, not some computer conjectured might hit data. No 20" error there.
Wind error, for me to have a 20" due to the difference between 10" and 10.47" just how hard is the wind blowing???
Sober-
I am not given to conjecture much. More a shooter than a thinker
It has been my experience in shooting, scoring and coaching that most misses come from shooter error NOT involving .47". Most times the error is in ranging the target, not the 20" at 1000 you refer to, afterall most have a solid comeup chart with 'did hit' data at their disposal.
Next biggest error is an incorrect wind call. Best example of this that takes your .47" out of it is F-TR matches. We dail a base wind on and then shoot the rings. No conversion of wind speed to MOA correction but see the spotter compensate for the wind and shoot again. The fly in the ointment is failure to catch that subtle wind change.
Not to open another can of worms but I credit a failure to catch the subtle wind changes at Long Range for those unexplained 'flyers' some want to blame rifle cant for causing.
I'd would be so bold as to suggest that even the much vaunted got to make that first round hit tacticool comp shooter has far more misses than hits due to wind making them a bitch, not the .47"
Quick review-
for range I have a shot data comeup chart, not some computer conjectured might hit data. No 20" error there.
Wind error, for me to have a 20" due to the difference between 10" and 10.47" just how hard is the wind blowing???
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taseal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
angular vs milirads. my apoligies.
altough I've never heard of anyone using meters for moa, and nobody using inches for mils. always cm for mil and inches for moa. </div></div>
Again, incorrect.
You must not have been around many folks who know how to accurately use either system.
If they are speaking in inches or centimeters then they do not know how to use the system as it was designed.
Bot MOA and mRad are angular units of measure. Neither are Metric. mRad just happens to work out as a better system to use if you are thinking in meters and centimeters, however it can easily be used with inches if you must.
In either system the correction should be measured off the reticle and called in that unit of measure(mRad or MOA). A sure way to tell that your spotter is a dumbass is to have him call a correction on a UKD target in inches. In that case, spot your own splash and correct in the reticle.
I use mils because it seems more consistent across platforms (no SMOA, IPHY, MOA confusion) and it's extremely easy for me to remember. If you only run one scope or you know that what you are getting is "true" MOA every time, then there is no real advantage to either system. It seems more schools that are not in the mainstream will know what to do with a mRad based reticle, and they are more common on the match firing lines. Thus if you are thrown together with another shooter, there is a good chance that he will have a mRad based reticle to spot with. Not a lot of spotting scopes have MOA reticles.
My suggestion is that if you are new, get a Mil/Mil scope. If you have the right instructor they will demonstrate very quickly that there is no conversion and no steep learning curve. It's very simple.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taseal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
angular vs milirads. my apoligies.
altough I've never heard of anyone using meters for moa, and nobody using inches for mils. always cm for mil and inches for moa. </div></div>
Again, incorrect.
You must not have been around many folks who know how to accurately use either system.
If they are speaking in inches or centimeters then they do not know how to use the system as it was designed.
Bot MOA and mRad are angular units of measure. Neither are Metric. mRad just happens to work out as a better system to use if you are thinking in meters and centimeters, however it can easily be used with inches if you must.
In either system the correction should be measured off the reticle and called in that unit of measure(mRad or MOA). A sure way to tell that your spotter is a dumbass is to have him call a correction on a UKD target in inches. In that case, spot your own splash and correct in the reticle.
I use mils because it seems more consistent across platforms (no SMOA, IPHY, MOA confusion) and it's extremely easy for me to remember. If you only run one scope or you know that what you are getting is "true" MOA every time, then there is no real advantage to either system. It seems more schools that are not in the mainstream will know what to do with a mRad based reticle, and they are more common on the match firing lines. Thus if you are thrown together with another shooter, there is a good chance that he will have a mRad based reticle to spot with. Not a lot of spotting scopes have MOA reticles.
My suggestion is that if you are new, get a Mil/Mil scope. If you have the right instructor they will demonstrate very quickly that there is no conversion and no steep learning curve. It's very simple.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use yards for ranges and inches for target sizes when ranging with my mil scopes. Now you have heard of someone
</div></div>
Ya, but us Jarheads never have been right in the head.
I will call range in yards because I can visualize it better. It's also how my mental range estimation calculator was programmed. However once I am on the scope it's all mils.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use yards for ranges and inches for target sizes when ranging with my mil scopes. Now you have heard of someone
Ya, but us Jarheads never have been right in the head.
I will call range in yards because I can visualize it better. It's also how my mental range estimation calculator was programmed. However once I am on the scope it's all mils.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use yards for ranges and inches for target sizes when ranging with my mil scopes. Now you have heard of someone
</div></div>
Ya, but us Jarheads never have been right in the head.
I will call range in yards because I can visualize it better. It's also how my mental range estimation calculator was programmed. However once I am on the scope it's all mils. </div></div>
if you were to range a known sized target with your reticle what would YOU use in the equation? inches or meters?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use yards for ranges and inches for target sizes when ranging with my mil scopes. Now you have heard of someone
Ya, but us Jarheads never have been right in the head.
I will call range in yards because I can visualize it better. It's also how my mental range estimation calculator was programmed. However once I am on the scope it's all mils. </div></div>
if you were to range a known sized target with your reticle what would YOU use in the equation? inches or meters?
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Problem is people are "thinking" instead of simply using the ruler in front of their eyes and "reading" the information as it is presented. This is what makes any matched system effective. No thinking, conversion, math, for any reason.
In terms of ranging, a little prior planning goes a long way and no form of math is necessary once you hit the field.
Something along the lines of this, laminated handy, or even a mil dot master is all you need.
I won't get into my personal issues with MOA, I see it a lot and I start sounding like a broken record, but suffice to say, there are more than one way to skin the cat here.
Problem is people are "thinking" instead of simply using the ruler in front of their eyes and "reading" the information as it is presented. This is what makes any matched system effective. No thinking, conversion, math, for any reason.
In terms of ranging, a little prior planning goes a long way and no form of math is necessary once you hit the field.
Something along the lines of this, laminated handy, or even a mil dot master is all you need.
I won't get into my personal issues with MOA, I see it a lot and I start sounding like a broken record, but suffice to say, there are more than one way to skin the cat here.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Lowlight how would that chart be applicable to say a human target or other large targets like that? use constant known sizes of the human body? wouldnt larger objects leave less room for error at great distances rather then deciding between .2 mils or .3 mils?
68in x 27.77 / 2.5 = 755
68in x 27.77 / 2.6 = 726
8in x 27.77 / .3 = 741
8in x 27.77 / .2 = 1111 (that charts off by 1 yard)
so it would seem the larger the object your milling the less human error factor affects the range. or am i missing something?
Lowlight how would that chart be applicable to say a human target or other large targets like that? use constant known sizes of the human body? wouldnt larger objects leave less room for error at great distances rather then deciding between .2 mils or .3 mils?
68in x 27.77 / 2.5 = 755
68in x 27.77 / 2.6 = 726
8in x 27.77 / .3 = 741
8in x 27.77 / .2 = 1111 (that charts off by 1 yard)
so it would seem the larger the object your milling the less human error factor affects the range. or am i missing something?
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Most guys are not mil'ing human targets like you think. To mil a human can be either very hard or very offhanded. They usually use 36" and just do the belt to the top of the head. Full size targets are more forgiving, however todays' guys have things like laser, not to mention maps and known reference points. Mil'ing is not done unless they have too. It would be the last thing I do in combat is try to mil a guy.
You have no way of knowing the person's actual size, they can give you average size of the population, but in most cases you know that <span style="font-style: italic">"intersection"</span> is 400m away, so you just visualize it from there. Anything dynamic is close, anything long term or from a hide is plotted with a map and laser.
People don't stand still, they are not there with signs giving you exact height, you estimate it, which is why it is called <span style="text-decoration: underline">"range estimation"</span> and not range exact, and you shoot and count on following up... some get lucky, but most ranging is done inside 600m where the errors are much more forgiving. Now they have very small units that are co-located to the reticle and give a range with a single push of the button on what you are looking at through the scope.
It's like a back up iron sights nowadays, sure you have them, but do you really use them. Most aren't even zeroed.
Most guys are not mil'ing human targets like you think. To mil a human can be either very hard or very offhanded. They usually use 36" and just do the belt to the top of the head. Full size targets are more forgiving, however todays' guys have things like laser, not to mention maps and known reference points. Mil'ing is not done unless they have too. It would be the last thing I do in combat is try to mil a guy.
You have no way of knowing the person's actual size, they can give you average size of the population, but in most cases you know that <span style="font-style: italic">"intersection"</span> is 400m away, so you just visualize it from there. Anything dynamic is close, anything long term or from a hide is plotted with a map and laser.
People don't stand still, they are not there with signs giving you exact height, you estimate it, which is why it is called <span style="text-decoration: underline">"range estimation"</span> and not range exact, and you shoot and count on following up... some get lucky, but most ranging is done inside 600m where the errors are much more forgiving. Now they have very small units that are co-located to the reticle and give a range with a single push of the button on what you are looking at through the scope.
It's like a back up iron sights nowadays, sure you have them, but do you really use them. Most aren't even zeroed.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
10-4 thanks for the info Lowlight. bassically what i say is if your estimating the size of an object looking through a magnified optic then your probably better off just estimating the range itself.
10-4 thanks for the info Lowlight. bassically what i say is if your estimating the size of an object looking through a magnified optic then your probably better off just estimating the range itself.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use yards for ranges and inches for target sizes when ranging with my mil scopes. Now you have heard of someone
</div></div>
Ya, but us Jarheads never have been right in the head.
I will call range in yards because I can visualize it better. It's also how my mental range estimation calculator was programmed. However once I am on the scope it's all mils. </div></div>
if you were to range a known sized target with your reticle what would YOU use in the equation? inches or meters?
</div></div>
Inches as I always have.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I use yards for ranges and inches for target sizes when ranging with my mil scopes. Now you have heard of someone
Ya, but us Jarheads never have been right in the head.
I will call range in yards because I can visualize it better. It's also how my mental range estimation calculator was programmed. However once I am on the scope it's all mils. </div></div>
if you were to range a known sized target with your reticle what would YOU use in the equation? inches or meters?
</div></div>
Inches as I always have.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you were to range a known sized target with your reticle what would YOU use in the equation? inches or meters?
</div></div>
Inches, and I output my range in yards.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if you were to range a known sized target with your reticle what would YOU use in the equation? inches or meters?
</div></div>
Inches, and I output my range in yards.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
If you measure anything in inches its always harder anyway.
If MOA was equal to Inches, or if a foot divided into a better fractional number, or if a yard had a round number of feet etc etc then it might be different, but fact of the matter is, when you use mil and cm, you will only ever have to do one conversion of units, (or none if your not in the 4.5% of the world that uses inches) than 3 if you use MOA.
I always hated Mil at school because it wasn't an exact fraction. Maybe I should be a yank!
Chris
If you measure anything in inches its always harder anyway.
If MOA was equal to Inches, or if a foot divided into a better fractional number, or if a yard had a round number of feet etc etc then it might be different, but fact of the matter is, when you use mil and cm, you will only ever have to do one conversion of units, (or none if your not in the 4.5% of the world that uses inches) than 3 if you use MOA.
I always hated Mil at school because it wasn't an exact fraction. Maybe I should be a yank!
Chris
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> if a yard had a round number of feet</div></div>
A yard is exactly three feet... that IS a round number.
I like mils, though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Crnkin</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> if a yard had a round number of feet</div></div>
A yard is exactly three feet... that IS a round number.
I like mils, though.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lowlight how would that chart be applicable to say a human target or other large targets like that? use constant known sizes of the human body? wouldnt larger objects leave less room for error at great distances rather then deciding between .2 mils or .3 mils?
68in x 27.77 / 2.5 = 755
68in x 27.77 / 2.6 = 726
8in x 27.77 / .3 = 741
8in x 27.77 / .2 = 1111 (that charts off by 1 yard)
so it would seem the larger the object your milling the less human error factor affects the range. or am i missing something? </div></div>
Constant known size of a human body? You're joking right? Are you ranging a 5'-6" tall man or a 6'-4" tall man? The difference is going to be 12.5% error. That's more than 125 yards at 1000 yards. That's over 100 inches of bullet drop on a 168 gr 308.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kentactic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lowlight how would that chart be applicable to say a human target or other large targets like that? use constant known sizes of the human body? wouldnt larger objects leave less room for error at great distances rather then deciding between .2 mils or .3 mils?
68in x 27.77 / 2.5 = 755
68in x 27.77 / 2.6 = 726
8in x 27.77 / .3 = 741
8in x 27.77 / .2 = 1111 (that charts off by 1 yard)
so it would seem the larger the object your milling the less human error factor affects the range. or am i missing something? </div></div>
Constant known size of a human body? You're joking right? Are you ranging a 5'-6" tall man or a 6'-4" tall man? The difference is going to be 12.5% error. That's more than 125 yards at 1000 yards. That's over 100 inches of bullet drop on a 168 gr 308.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
Go with Mil/Mil and never look back. Much better for long range and adjustments on the fly.
Go with Mil/Mil and never look back. Much better for long range and adjustments on the fly.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
The problem for me is correctly using a Mil reticle with MOA adjustments. Especially for a follow up shot, its not as easy as it could be. Couple more months and I can send in my MK4 for M5 turrets I cannot wait.
The problem for me is correctly using a Mil reticle with MOA adjustments. Especially for a follow up shot, its not as easy as it could be. Couple more months and I can send in my MK4 for M5 turrets I cannot wait.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marshallwk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem for me is correctly using a Mil reticle with MOA adjustments. Especially for a follow up shot, its not as easy as it could be. Couple more months and I can send in my MK4 for M5 turrets I cannot wait. </div></div>
Its really easy-hold what you saw and reengage.
As for the earlier post with 3 feet not being an even number in mils-
someone's not using the noodle. 3 feet is a number you should love if you run mils in a "yard" world, since its a mil at 1K or 2 mils at 500, its on eof the easiest mil references.
18" target reads 1/2 mil, its 1K away. 18" reads 1 mil, its 500 away.
Belt to noggin is 2 mils? hold 3 mil on center of the torso and let her rip, I pretty much guarantee you'll hit with most rifles 223-308 and the 6'sw and 6.5's in between.....
I happy I can speak all three......YMMV
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: marshallwk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem for me is correctly using a Mil reticle with MOA adjustments. Especially for a follow up shot, its not as easy as it could be. Couple more months and I can send in my MK4 for M5 turrets I cannot wait. </div></div>
Its really easy-hold what you saw and reengage.
As for the earlier post with 3 feet not being an even number in mils-
someone's not using the noodle. 3 feet is a number you should love if you run mils in a "yard" world, since its a mil at 1K or 2 mils at 500, its on eof the easiest mil references.
18" target reads 1/2 mil, its 1K away. 18" reads 1 mil, its 500 away.
Belt to noggin is 2 mils? hold 3 mil on center of the torso and let her rip, I pretty much guarantee you'll hit with most rifles 223-308 and the 6'sw and 6.5's in between.....
I happy I can speak all three......YMMV
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
I think grasping the advantage of using the metric system together with mils is a mental leap for those used to the imperial system only comparable to that of a person that is for the first time presented with the concept of not converting mils or MOA to a linear measurement on target for using reticle holds.
Sure, there are discrete measurements where mils, yards and inches all line up to give results that are easy to work with. Same thing with mils, meters and centimeters. The difference is, for everything that doesn't happen to line up, mils together with metric only requires one potentially odd division for ranging, everything else is just shifting commas.
For exmaple, if my target has a known height of 30cm, I just remember it as "300", and to get the range, divide by the number of mils it subtends in the scope and I have the range in meters. If it's 110cm, the number is "1100". Divide by the number of mils and you have the range in meters, same procedure with any target size, only one division.
And if you either have a dedicated ranging scale in your reticle or memorize a series of reticle breakdowns, you can range any target size using just a simple multiplication that anyone who has graduated elemantary school should be able to do without ever losing the sight picture.
Maybe I'm too stupid but I can't come up with a comparably easy formula that gives me the same straightforward results with yards and inches.
The problem with the imperial system is using different units of measurement for range and target size and not being able to convert those units by shifting commas.
I think grasping the advantage of using the metric system together with mils is a mental leap for those used to the imperial system only comparable to that of a person that is for the first time presented with the concept of not converting mils or MOA to a linear measurement on target for using reticle holds.
Sure, there are discrete measurements where mils, yards and inches all line up to give results that are easy to work with. Same thing with mils, meters and centimeters. The difference is, for everything that doesn't happen to line up, mils together with metric only requires one potentially odd division for ranging, everything else is just shifting commas.
For exmaple, if my target has a known height of 30cm, I just remember it as "300", and to get the range, divide by the number of mils it subtends in the scope and I have the range in meters. If it's 110cm, the number is "1100". Divide by the number of mils and you have the range in meters, same procedure with any target size, only one division.
And if you either have a dedicated ranging scale in your reticle or memorize a series of reticle breakdowns, you can range any target size using just a simple multiplication that anyone who has graduated elemantary school should be able to do without ever losing the sight picture.
Maybe I'm too stupid but I can't come up with a comparably easy formula that gives me the same straightforward results with yards and inches.
The problem with the imperial system is using different units of measurement for range and target size and not being able to convert those units by shifting commas.
Re: Moa or Mil, which is easier to learn?
It's easy. You just have to measure stuff in centiyards like I do.
It's easy. You just have to measure stuff in centiyards like I do.
