Rifle Scopes Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
- Thread starter sititunga
- Start date
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes are more precise for ranging targets?
Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes are more precise for ranging targets?
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets? </div></div>
Moa click mil reticle is finer adjustment for closer range mil reticle easier to calculate with. Also to answer why is mil more popular it's easy the metric system only a few countries in the world don't use it as its primary form of measurement. In aust we changed to metric in the 70's so alot of people shooting now who are under about 40 really grew up with the metric system so it's easier to convert then trying to go and learn the imperial system. I was lucky and was taught both
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets? </div></div>
Moa click mil reticle is finer adjustment for closer range mil reticle easier to calculate with. Also to answer why is mil more popular it's easy the metric system only a few countries in the world don't use it as its primary form of measurement. In aust we changed to metric in the 70's so alot of people shooting now who are under about 40 really grew up with the metric system so it's easier to convert then trying to go and learn the imperial system. I was lucky and was taught both
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
minute of duck
minute of duck
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Big Cal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets? </div></div>
Moa click mil reticle is finer adjustment for closer range mil reticle easier to calculate with. Also to answer why is mil more popular it's easy the metric system only a few countries in the world don't use it as its primary form of measurement. In aust we changed to metric in the 70's so alot of people shooting now who are under about 40 really grew up with the metric system so it's easier to convert then trying to go and learn the imperial system. I was lucky and was taught both </div></div>
MIL and MOA are units of angles, NOT linear distances. There is no metric or imperial anything.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Big Cal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets? </div></div>
Moa click mil reticle is finer adjustment for closer range mil reticle easier to calculate with. Also to answer why is mil more popular it's easy the metric system only a few countries in the world don't use it as its primary form of measurement. In aust we changed to metric in the 70's so alot of people shooting now who are under about 40 really grew up with the metric system so it's easier to convert then trying to go and learn the imperial system. I was lucky and was taught both </div></div>
MIL and MOA are units of angles, NOT linear distances. There is no metric or imperial anything.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Yes it is an angle but that is because the further the distance the larger the value of 1 click is but it's the click value that changes between moa and mil. Moa 1 click at 100yds is about 1/4 of an inch where as mil 1 click at 100m is about 10mm I know it is an angle but seems to me I references with imperial measurements where as the other references to a metric system. Also if you google search imperial angles it is calculated in minutes and seconds ie: moa. If you search metric angles it's radians ie: milrad/ mrad/ mil
Yes it is an angle but that is because the further the distance the larger the value of 1 click is but it's the click value that changes between moa and mil. Moa 1 click at 100yds is about 1/4 of an inch where as mil 1 click at 100m is about 10mm I know it is an angle but seems to me I references with imperial measurements where as the other references to a metric system. Also if you google search imperial angles it is calculated in minutes and seconds ie: moa. If you search metric angles it's radians ie: milrad/ mrad/ mil
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Good illustration, EventHorizon.
As often as this topic has been discussed, it still amazes me that people still can't get it. To reiterate your illustration, a mil is <span style="font-weight: bold">NOT</span> metric.
Mil merely means 1/1000. And in this case, it is short hand for milliradian...1/1000 of a radian.
Good illustration, EventHorizon.
As often as this topic has been discussed, it still amazes me that people still can't get it. To reiterate your illustration, a mil is <span style="font-weight: bold">NOT</span> metric.
Mil merely means 1/1000. And in this case, it is short hand for milliradian...1/1000 of a radian.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
google search imperial angles it is calculated in minutes and seconds ie: moa. If you search metric angles it's radians ie: milrad/ mrad/ mil. It's not a matter of not getting it look at the way the reference works find same drawing in moa and I bet it's all in yards and inches
google search imperial angles it is calculated in minutes and seconds ie: moa. If you search metric angles it's radians ie: milrad/ mrad/ mil. It's not a matter of not getting it look at the way the reference works find same drawing in moa and I bet it's all in yards and inches
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Radian or milliradian...it doesn't matter. It is a <span style="font-weight: bold">dimensionless</span> quantity. In other words, it is not attached to any specific measurement system such as Imperial or Metric.
Radian or milliradian...it doesn't matter. It is a <span style="font-weight: bold">dimensionless</span> quantity. In other words, it is not attached to any specific measurement system such as Imperial or Metric.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Maybe read this it states Milrad works better on a metric conversion http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil I'm not saying it is only metric or imperial I'm just saying to work it out quicker and easier it is easier to use the metric system
Maybe read this it states Milrad works better on a metric conversion http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil I'm not saying it is only metric or imperial I'm just saying to work it out quicker and easier it is easier to use the metric system
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
I put in mil/mil, for the S&B.
Although I have, also a NF scope with moa/moa, and, another NF scope with mil ret and moa turrets.
Maybe I should of ticked all the above boxes. LOL
I put in mil/mil, for the S&B.
Although I have, also a NF scope with moa/moa, and, another NF scope with mil ret and moa turrets.
Maybe I should of ticked all the above boxes. LOL
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hedge</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good illustration, EventHorizon.
As often as this topic has been discussed, it still amazes me that people still can't get it. To reiterate your illustration, a mil is <span style="font-weight: bold">NOT</span> metric.
Mil merely means 1/1000. And in this case, it is short hand for milliradian...1/1000 of a radian. </div></div>
Do not forget however that the unit that we (shooters) focus on in relation to this unit of radian relates simply to 1cm at 100m, which therefore puts this in the same basket as a system measured in metric units. So while a mil is not metric as such, the units at which we calibrate our zero is because we choose to do this at a predetermined distance.
I dont think it really matters at the end of day if you know what it is that you are doing.
For simplicity sake shooters associate 1mil with 10cm @ 100m, and moa is 1.047" @ 100y (or plain old 1" @ 100y).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hedge</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good illustration, EventHorizon.
As often as this topic has been discussed, it still amazes me that people still can't get it. To reiterate your illustration, a mil is <span style="font-weight: bold">NOT</span> metric.
Mil merely means 1/1000. And in this case, it is short hand for milliradian...1/1000 of a radian. </div></div>
Do not forget however that the unit that we (shooters) focus on in relation to this unit of radian relates simply to 1cm at 100m, which therefore puts this in the same basket as a system measured in metric units. So while a mil is not metric as such, the units at which we calibrate our zero is because we choose to do this at a predetermined distance.
I dont think it really matters at the end of day if you know what it is that you are doing.
For simplicity sake shooters associate 1mil with 10cm @ 100m, and moa is 1.047" @ 100y (or plain old 1" @ 100y).
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets?
It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes.
Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets?
Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets?
It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes.
Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets?
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets?
<span style="color: #CC0000">There aren't very many anymore that are non-matching reticle/turret combos. Probably the majority that are posting the mil/moa are shooting with older scopes, especially Leupold or SWFA SS (non-HD versions).</span>
It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes.
<span style="color: #CC0000">Not surprising to me, most shooters started out using mildot reticles, and naturally gravitated that way. Others find it easier to work in a Base-10 breakdown vs. fractions. The European optic influence also has a bit to do with this.</span>
Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets?
<span style="color: #CC0000">Again, comes from what a lot of us learned on, the mildot reticle, along with the availability of mil based reticles in comparison to IPHY or MOA. The need for finer adjustments isn't as necessary in practical shooting when compared to F-Class or benchrest. 0.1mil adjustments is plenty fine enough for me.</span></div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets?
<span style="color: #CC0000">There aren't very many anymore that are non-matching reticle/turret combos. Probably the majority that are posting the mil/moa are shooting with older scopes, especially Leupold or SWFA SS (non-HD versions).</span>
It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes.
<span style="color: #CC0000">Not surprising to me, most shooters started out using mildot reticles, and naturally gravitated that way. Others find it easier to work in a Base-10 breakdown vs. fractions. The European optic influence also has a bit to do with this.</span>
Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets?
<span style="color: #CC0000">Again, comes from what a lot of us learned on, the mildot reticle, along with the availability of mil based reticles in comparison to IPHY or MOA. The need for finer adjustments isn't as necessary in practical shooting when compared to F-Class or benchrest. 0.1mil adjustments is plenty fine enough for me.</span></div></div>
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Redmanss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets?
<span style="color: #CC0000">There aren't very many anymore that are non-matching reticle/turret combos. Probably the majority that are posting the mil/moa are shooting with older scopes, especially Leupold or SWFA SS (non-HD versions).</span>[/color]</div></div> </div></div>
Thanks, but S&B and NF to name a couple still offer Mil/MOA scopes.
It doesn't make sense to me that scopes makers are still offering these. If someone could explain the manufacturers rationale for this that would be great.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Redmanss</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets?
<span style="color: #CC0000">There aren't very many anymore that are non-matching reticle/turret combos. Probably the majority that are posting the mil/moa are shooting with older scopes, especially Leupold or SWFA SS (non-HD versions).</span>[/color]</div></div> </div></div>
Thanks, but S&B and NF to name a couple still offer Mil/MOA scopes.
It doesn't make sense to me that scopes makers are still offering these. If someone could explain the manufacturers rationale for this that would be great.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
I have all the above types of reticles, MOA/MOA and MIL/MOA and to be honest as long as you know the equations to utilize them it is not hard. But, that being said, I have been changing over to MOA/MOA reticle/elevation-windage knobs and I find that works for me. I would feel just as comfortable with a MIL/MIL as it doesn't matter to me as long s I understand how to measure with them and apply the knowledge. The one thing to know about MOA/MOA is to make sure it is MOA and not IPHY...there is a difference and it matters at distance.
I have all the above types of reticles, MOA/MOA and MIL/MOA and to be honest as long as you know the equations to utilize them it is not hard. But, that being said, I have been changing over to MOA/MOA reticle/elevation-windage knobs and I find that works for me. I would feel just as comfortable with a MIL/MIL as it doesn't matter to me as long s I understand how to measure with them and apply the knowledge. The one thing to know about MOA/MOA is to make sure it is MOA and not IPHY...there is a difference and it matters at distance.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets? </div></div>
With 0,1 mil clicks you are maximum off your point of aim by 2" at 1000 meters. How good shooter are you? can you really handle any better than that?
Håkan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets? </div></div>
With 0,1 mil clicks you are maximum off your point of aim by 2" at 1000 meters. How good shooter are you? can you really handle any better than that?
Håkan
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Big Cal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets? </div></div>
Moa click mil reticle is finer adjustment for closer range mil reticle easier to calculate with. Also to answer why is mil more popular it's easy the metric system only a few countries in the world don't use it as its primary form of measurement. In aust we changed to metric in the 70's so alot of people shooting now who are under about 40 really grew up with the metric system so it's easier to convert then trying to go and learn the imperial system. I was lucky and was taught both </div></div>
MIL and MOA are units of angles, NOT linear distances. There is no metric or imperial anything.
</div></div>
Miliradian is metric!
The full use and advantage of milliradian is when you are fully metric.
When you measure distance in meters and targetsize in mm, cm or dm....
Its so easy, one milliradian at 542 meters are 54,2 cm, or 5,42 dm or or 542 mm.
Yes milliradian is 1/1000 but you does not measure your target in 1/1000 of the distance, but in inches and there is no good relation betwen milliradians and inches, cause there is decimals and a headache to calculate.
So by all means, milliradians is metric!
Håkan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Big Cal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me why scope makers are still making Mil reticle scopes with MOA turrets? It's interesting to see that most of the responders have Mil/Mil scopes. Also why is it that Mil/Mil scopes are more popular than MOA/MOA scopes given that MOA scopes have finer adjustments and that the reticles of MOA scopes logically would appear to be more precise for ranging targets? </div></div>
Moa click mil reticle is finer adjustment for closer range mil reticle easier to calculate with. Also to answer why is mil more popular it's easy the metric system only a few countries in the world don't use it as its primary form of measurement. In aust we changed to metric in the 70's so alot of people shooting now who are under about 40 really grew up with the metric system so it's easier to convert then trying to go and learn the imperial system. I was lucky and was taught both </div></div>
MIL and MOA are units of angles, NOT linear distances. There is no metric or imperial anything.
Miliradian is metric!
The full use and advantage of milliradian is when you are fully metric.
When you measure distance in meters and targetsize in mm, cm or dm....
Its so easy, one milliradian at 542 meters are 54,2 cm, or 5,42 dm or or 542 mm.
Yes milliradian is 1/1000 but you does not measure your target in 1/1000 of the distance, but in inches and there is no good relation betwen milliradians and inches, cause there is decimals and a headache to calculate.
So by all means, milliradians is metric!
Håkan
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Miliradian is metric!</div></div>
Miliradian isn't metric, can't be since it is dimensionless. It just works well with the decimal system.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Miliradian is metric!</div></div>
Miliradian isn't metric, can't be since it is dimensionless. It just works well with the decimal system.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
No it isn't. You can say it all you want but it isn't. Radians are dimensionless. The subtension of the arc can be measured - correctly - in any unit. Does it work very well with metric - yes. Is it metric? No.
No it isn't. You can say it all you want but it isn't. Radians are dimensionless. The subtension of the arc can be measured - correctly - in any unit. Does it work very well with metric - yes. Is it metric? No.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes milliradian is 1/1000 but you does not measure your target in 1/1000 of the distance, but in inches and there is no good relation betwen milliradians and inches, cause there is decimals and a headache to calculate.</div></div>
By "good", you really seem to be saying "easy" since there <span style="font-weight: bold">is </span>a relationship between milliradian and inches. Namely 3.6" @ 100 yds. Since I'm used to measuring with Imperial measurements, that would be "good", by your definition,
BTW - there are decimals in metric, as well. And metric gives <span style="font-weight: bold">me</span> a headache.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes milliradian is 1/1000 but you does not measure your target in 1/1000 of the distance, but in inches and there is no good relation betwen milliradians and inches, cause there is decimals and a headache to calculate.</div></div>
By "good", you really seem to be saying "easy" since there <span style="font-weight: bold">is </span>a relationship between milliradian and inches. Namely 3.6" @ 100 yds. Since I'm used to measuring with Imperial measurements, that would be "good", by your definition,
BTW - there are decimals in metric, as well. And metric gives <span style="font-weight: bold">me</span> a headache.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Mil/MIL
Mil/MIL
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Ok, for those who think the mil was established for the metric system:
The concept for the radian as an angular measure was established by Roger Cotes in 1714.
al_Kashi (mathematician) was using diameter parts (same as a radian) around 1400.
The metric system was adopted in 1799.
So, to say a mil is metric is positing a non-sequitur.
Ok, for those who think the mil was established for the metric system:
The concept for the radian as an angular measure was established by Roger Cotes in 1714.
al_Kashi (mathematician) was using diameter parts (same as a radian) around 1400.
The metric system was adopted in 1799.
So, to say a mil is metric is positing a non-sequitur.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
I know I keep on asking this question, but I don't feel I have had a definitive answer yet.
Why are scope makers still making Mil/MOA scopes? NF offer MOA turreted scopes with a number of MIL reticle options and S&B also do the same.
I know I keep on asking this question, but I don't feel I have had a definitive answer yet.
Why are scope makers still making Mil/MOA scopes? NF offer MOA turreted scopes with a number of MIL reticle options and S&B also do the same.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Big Cal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe read this it states Milrad works better on a metric conversion http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil I'm not saying it is only metric or imperial I'm just saying to work it out quicker and easier it is easier to use the metric system </div></div>
Could that just be because you are familiar with the system?
Metric system is based on a deci system or tenths, there is a 100 centimeters to a meter, 1000 milimeters to a meter, 1000 meters to a kilometer and 10 000 meter to a mil, same goes for weights and so on,
I guess 12 inches to a foot and three feet to a yard and so on is far easier to count with, just like there are what, 1760 yards to a mile and so on.
It´s plain silly to argue that is would be easier to have a non logical, coherent system rather than the opposite is it not?
I am bilingual in that I have lived to use both ways of measuring distance, I know that the most common thing people feel is a lack of intuitual feel for 100 meters, should i say 109 (109,36) yards well then they are all comforted and well knowing.
/Chris
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Big Cal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe read this it states Milrad works better on a metric conversion http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil I'm not saying it is only metric or imperial I'm just saying to work it out quicker and easier it is easier to use the metric system </div></div>
Could that just be because you are familiar with the system?
Metric system is based on a deci system or tenths, there is a 100 centimeters to a meter, 1000 milimeters to a meter, 1000 meters to a kilometer and 10 000 meter to a mil, same goes for weights and so on,
I guess 12 inches to a foot and three feet to a yard and so on is far easier to count with, just like there are what, 1760 yards to a mile and so on.
It´s plain silly to argue that is would be easier to have a non logical, coherent system rather than the opposite is it not?
I am bilingual in that I have lived to use both ways of measuring distance, I know that the most common thing people feel is a lack of intuitual feel for 100 meters, should i say 109 (109,36) yards well then they are all comforted and well knowing.
/Chris
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know I keep on asking this question, but I don't feel I have had a definitive answer yet.
Why are scope makers still making Mil/MOA scopes? NF offer MOA turreted scopes with a number of MIL reticle options and S&B also do the same. </div></div>
AS far as I know, because of their military contracts. From what I've heard, the military asks for MIL/MOA set ups. Everyone is used to the MIL-DOT reticle and in the US they still use the imperial units for calling distance and adjustments. Don't know why that is, but they do.
If you have the choice, as LL and many others have said, it's much better to have your reticle and turrets match, it means your reticle can be used for calling your own adjustments without having to do any math on your head. This applies to MOA/MOA, MIL/MIL, IPHY/IPHY or whatever is available out there.
The implication is that of you shoot with a partner/spotter, it's best that he uses the same units as you do and vice versa. Consistency, it's a consistent theme for accuracy it seems... (see what I did there...!?!).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know I keep on asking this question, but I don't feel I have had a definitive answer yet.
Why are scope makers still making Mil/MOA scopes? NF offer MOA turreted scopes with a number of MIL reticle options and S&B also do the same. </div></div>
AS far as I know, because of their military contracts. From what I've heard, the military asks for MIL/MOA set ups. Everyone is used to the MIL-DOT reticle and in the US they still use the imperial units for calling distance and adjustments. Don't know why that is, but they do.
If you have the choice, as LL and many others have said, it's much better to have your reticle and turrets match, it means your reticle can be used for calling your own adjustments without having to do any math on your head. This applies to MOA/MOA, MIL/MIL, IPHY/IPHY or whatever is available out there.
The implication is that of you shoot with a partner/spotter, it's best that he uses the same units as you do and vice versa. Consistency, it's a consistent theme for accuracy it seems... (see what I did there...!?!).
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks. If the military are shooting MOA turreted scopes it would seem more logical to have a mildot reticle that has mildots that are portioned in MOA distances though. </div></div>
Then it wouldn't be mil-dots, it'd be MOA-dots. But yes, your point on the logic of the reticle and turret matching is true.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks. If the military are shooting MOA turreted scopes it would seem more logical to have a mildot reticle that has mildots that are portioned in MOA distances though. </div></div>
Then it wouldn't be mil-dots, it'd be MOA-dots. But yes, your point on the logic of the reticle and turret matching is true.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Miliradian is metric!
Håkan </div></div>
...FAIL! Okay, with Mils at 542 yds, 1 Mil is 0.542yds. See - not metric! You just have to move the decimal three to the left - 1/1000.
Now, it happens to coincide easily with the metric system because the metric system is base 10. However, one can also divide yds into 1/1000 as well. You can measure it in Donkeys, or microwaves, or Studebakers so long as you can divide them by 1000!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Miliradian is metric!
Håkan </div></div>
...FAIL! Okay, with Mils at 542 yds, 1 Mil is 0.542yds. See - not metric! You just have to move the decimal three to the left - 1/1000.
Now, it happens to coincide easily with the metric system because the metric system is base 10. However, one can also divide yds into 1/1000 as well. You can measure it in Donkeys, or microwaves, or Studebakers so long as you can divide them by 1000!!
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
I own and use all of the above, so voted for all.
My personal preference for most things is mil/mil; however, my F class scope is a 1/8 MOA click NF 32BR with an NP2DD, and I'm not sure how you'd classify that reticle, it is subtended in moa but it's nnot a range finder, so maybe it's a ??/moa. My 22LR wears an old SWFA Tasco/SS 10X with mil/moa.
I own and use all of the above, so voted for all.
My personal preference for most things is mil/mil; however, my F class scope is a 1/8 MOA click NF 32BR with an NP2DD, and I'm not sure how you'd classify that reticle, it is subtended in moa but it's nnot a range finder, so maybe it's a ??/moa. My 22LR wears an old SWFA Tasco/SS 10X with mil/moa.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Miliradian is metric!
Håkan </div></div>
...FAIL! Okay, with Mils at 542 yds, 1 Mil is 0.542yds. See - not metric! You just have to move the decimal three to the left - 1/1000.
Now, it happens to coincide easily with the metric system because the metric system is base 10. However, one can also divide yds into 1/1000 as well. You can measure it in Donkeys, or microwaves, or Studebakers so long as you can divide them by 1000!!
</div></div>
Ok, so you actually measures your target in yards? probalby no, you do it in inches right.
so its 0,542x36=19,5"
Compared to our measurement.
1 mil on 542 meters are 0,542 meters=54,2 cm.
More commonly is it used reverse, you know your target size and you LIKELY don't know it in yards, and you certainly don't want you'r distance in inches...
Then you have to do your calculations again, with the even easaly calculated 36, and even more funny is it when not using full mils but parts of it.
So the more we discuss it, the more appearant is the fact that mil is metric.
Håkan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Miliradian is metric!
Håkan </div></div>
...FAIL! Okay, with Mils at 542 yds, 1 Mil is 0.542yds. See - not metric! You just have to move the decimal three to the left - 1/1000.
Now, it happens to coincide easily with the metric system because the metric system is base 10. However, one can also divide yds into 1/1000 as well. You can measure it in Donkeys, or microwaves, or Studebakers so long as you can divide them by 1000!!
</div></div>
Ok, so you actually measures your target in yards? probalby no, you do it in inches right.
so its 0,542x36=19,5"
Compared to our measurement.
1 mil on 542 meters are 0,542 meters=54,2 cm.
More commonly is it used reverse, you know your target size and you LIKELY don't know it in yards, and you certainly don't want you'r distance in inches...
Then you have to do your calculations again, with the even easaly calculated 36, and even more funny is it when not using full mils but parts of it.
So the more we discuss it, the more appearant is the fact that mil is metric.
Håkan
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Miliradian is metric!
Håkan </div></div>
...FAIL! Okay, with Mils at 542 yds, 1 Mil is 0.542yds. See - not metric! You just have to move the decimal three to the left - 1/1000.
Now, it happens to coincide easily with the metric system because the metric system is base 10. However, one can also divide yds into 1/1000 as well. You can measure it in Donkeys, or microwaves, or Studebakers so long as you can divide them by 1000!!
</div></div>
Ok, so you actually measures your target in yards? probalby no, you do it in inches right.
so its 0,542x36=19,5"
Compared to our measurement.
1 mil on 542 meters are 0,542 meters=54,2 cm.
More commonly is it used reverse, you know your target size and you LIKELY don't know it in yards, and you certainly don't want you'r distance in inches...
Then you have to do your calculations again, with the even easaly calculated 36, and even more funny is it when not using full mils but parts of it.
So the more we discuss it, the more appearant is the fact that mil is metric.
Håkan </div></div>
UncleBenji - It's obvious he's not going to be convinced regardless of the fact that the metric system wasn't adopted until decades after the radian was in use, therefore, no intentional association with the metric system. And the established fact that the radian is a dimensionless quantity. The argument he uses is totally flawed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Miliradian is metric!
Håkan </div></div>
...FAIL! Okay, with Mils at 542 yds, 1 Mil is 0.542yds. See - not metric! You just have to move the decimal three to the left - 1/1000.
Now, it happens to coincide easily with the metric system because the metric system is base 10. However, one can also divide yds into 1/1000 as well. You can measure it in Donkeys, or microwaves, or Studebakers so long as you can divide them by 1000!!
</div></div>
Ok, so you actually measures your target in yards? probalby no, you do it in inches right.
so its 0,542x36=19,5"
Compared to our measurement.
1 mil on 542 meters are 0,542 meters=54,2 cm.
More commonly is it used reverse, you know your target size and you LIKELY don't know it in yards, and you certainly don't want you'r distance in inches...
Then you have to do your calculations again, with the even easaly calculated 36, and even more funny is it when not using full mils but parts of it.
So the more we discuss it, the more appearant is the fact that mil is metric.
Håkan </div></div>
UncleBenji - It's obvious he's not going to be convinced regardless of the fact that the metric system wasn't adopted until decades after the radian was in use, therefore, no intentional association with the metric system. And the established fact that the radian is a dimensionless quantity. The argument he uses is totally flawed.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Miliradian is metric!
Håkan </div></div>
...FAIL! Okay, with Mils at 542 yds, 1 Mil is 0.542yds. See - not metric! You just have to move the decimal three to the left - 1/1000.
Now, it happens to coincide easily with the metric system because the metric system is base 10. However, one can also divide yds into 1/1000 as well. You can measure it in Donkeys, or microwaves, or Studebakers so long as you can divide them by 1000!!
</div></div>
Ok, so you actually measures your target in yards? probalby no, you do it in inches right.
so its 0,542x36=19,5"
Compared to our measurement.
1 mil on 542 meters are 0,542 meters=54,2 cm.
More commonly is it used reverse, you know your target size and you LIKELY don't know it in yards, and you certainly don't want you'r distance in inches...
Then you have to do your calculations again, with the even easaly calculated 36, and even more funny is it when not using full mils but parts of it.
So the more we discuss it, the more appearant is the fact that mil is metric.
Håkan </div></div>
Just keep talking, this is getting better. I guess Pi is a distance, and Kilogram is a weight?
Again, Mils COINCIDE with metric quite nicely due to the base 10 system - but that's a fluke, a coincidence, a happenstance. I don’t use yds to measure my targets, but I understand the relationship between yds and inches, just as you understand the relationship between meters and centimeters. I know what the approximate size of a 0.542 yds at a glance, just like you know the approximate size of 54.2cm is at a glance. I had to make the EXACT same number of mental calculations as you did - one!
In your example, you just converted meters into centimeter, just like I can convert yds into inches. Is metric easier conceptually to coorelate it with Mils when attemtping to range a target at an unknown distance? Yes. Is it metric? No! That’s like saying a 13 degree angle is 2,269 centimeters – WTF!?! Instead of doing a 360 in my car, I just did a 62830 centimeter!!!
I understand what you’re attempting to say, but it’s irrational, illogical, and incorrect. It also scares people from using Mils because they think that they have to learn the metric system if they’re used to the standard system. Ultimately, all you need to know is the distance, and what your bullet drops at that distance in Mils.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: UncleBenji</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Miliradian is metric!
Håkan </div></div>
...FAIL! Okay, with Mils at 542 yds, 1 Mil is 0.542yds. See - not metric! You just have to move the decimal three to the left - 1/1000.
Now, it happens to coincide easily with the metric system because the metric system is base 10. However, one can also divide yds into 1/1000 as well. You can measure it in Donkeys, or microwaves, or Studebakers so long as you can divide them by 1000!!
</div></div>
Ok, so you actually measures your target in yards? probalby no, you do it in inches right.
so its 0,542x36=19,5"
Compared to our measurement.
1 mil on 542 meters are 0,542 meters=54,2 cm.
More commonly is it used reverse, you know your target size and you LIKELY don't know it in yards, and you certainly don't want you'r distance in inches...
Then you have to do your calculations again, with the even easaly calculated 36, and even more funny is it when not using full mils but parts of it.
So the more we discuss it, the more appearant is the fact that mil is metric.
Håkan </div></div>
Just keep talking, this is getting better. I guess Pi is a distance, and Kilogram is a weight?
Again, Mils COINCIDE with metric quite nicely due to the base 10 system - but that's a fluke, a coincidence, a happenstance. I don’t use yds to measure my targets, but I understand the relationship between yds and inches, just as you understand the relationship between meters and centimeters. I know what the approximate size of a 0.542 yds at a glance, just like you know the approximate size of 54.2cm is at a glance. I had to make the EXACT same number of mental calculations as you did - one!
In your example, you just converted meters into centimeter, just like I can convert yds into inches. Is metric easier conceptually to coorelate it with Mils when attemtping to range a target at an unknown distance? Yes. Is it metric? No! That’s like saying a 13 degree angle is 2,269 centimeters – WTF!?! Instead of doing a 360 in my car, I just did a 62830 centimeter!!!
I understand what you’re attempting to say, but it’s irrational, illogical, and incorrect. It also scares people from using Mils because they think that they have to learn the metric system if they’re used to the standard system. Ultimately, all you need to know is the distance, and what your bullet drops at that distance in Mils.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Ok so all im convinced of is that even though mil may not be 100% a metric system it is better suited to a metric system because both work in a 1/1000 scale so as far as I'm concern mil is for metric and moa is for imperial because they each way are best suited to each other it's not you can't use the others together it's just alot faster to make calculations using mil and metric cos they decide together easier which if your making calculations under pressure the simplest method is the best that's why NATO started using radians at the same time they started using the metric system
Ok so all im convinced of is that even though mil may not be 100% a metric system it is better suited to a metric system because both work in a 1/1000 scale so as far as I'm concern mil is for metric and moa is for imperial because they each way are best suited to each other it's not you can't use the others together it's just alot faster to make calculations using mil and metric cos they decide together easier which if your making calculations under pressure the simplest method is the best that's why NATO started using radians at the same time they started using the metric system
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Its likely eayest to use the Mil system regardless if you are in imperial or metric, probably it's the eayest system anyway.
But it's a lot easyer in metric than in imperial....
And if that is a coincidence or not that metric and mil is 10 based, does not really matters....
Håkan
Its likely eayest to use the Mil system regardless if you are in imperial or metric, probably it's the eayest system anyway.
But it's a lot easyer in metric than in imperial....
And if that is a coincidence or not that metric and mil is 10 based, does not really matters....
Håkan
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
I can and have used them all. I prefer the MIL SYSTEM in short everything is in 10s not fractions.
Mike @ CST
I can and have used them all. I prefer the MIL SYSTEM in short everything is in 10s not fractions.
Mike @ CST
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
In my post above I stated that I use all of the above.
Couple of things to note about who uses what and why.
The Navy spec for the recent scope competitions required Mil/MOA so I'm going to venture a guess that the SEALs still use Mil/MOA.
Now let me explain the one place that I know that MOA is better.
In shooting competition on official NRA targets the ring sizes are MOA so you want MOA turrets and dont care about the reticle because you never use it to measure anything.
In the field for measuring/ranging I think mils are easier because they are a "10 based" system and any math you do is generally easier in your head.
In my post above I stated that I use all of the above.
Couple of things to note about who uses what and why.
The Navy spec for the recent scope competitions required Mil/MOA so I'm going to venture a guess that the SEALs still use Mil/MOA.
Now let me explain the one place that I know that MOA is better.
In shooting competition on official NRA targets the ring sizes are MOA so you want MOA turrets and dont care about the reticle because you never use it to measure anything.
In the field for measuring/ranging I think mils are easier because they are a "10 based" system and any math you do is generally easier in your head.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
So, getting back to the original question?
What reticle is your favorite and why?
So, getting back to the original question?
What reticle is your favorite and why?
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
All Americans use the metric system almost every day. Just look at the Dollar. $2.80 would be 2.8 mils. Or you can do $2.75 or 2 3/4 moa. (spoken in fun not trying to make a serious point)
I have used all three. I felt lost with mils when dialing the turret. Usually only whole mils are marked on the turret leaving 8 hash marks on the turret to count through ie 2.6 mils i found myself dialing to 2 then counting 6 clicks. For this reason i prefer MOA/MOA or IPHY/IPHY. I like turning to a whole number then visually i can easily hit 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 quickly and easily. I think with training i would get used to the MIL/MIL i just never cared to. Some of the advantages of MIL/MIL are a wide variety of Spotting scopes with MIL reticles. You also don't have to worry if your spotter's rifle scope is true MOA or IPHY etc. For these reasons i wish i could bring myself to switch to MIL for everything but i just don't want to.
You know Blonde vs Brunette
All Americans use the metric system almost every day. Just look at the Dollar. $2.80 would be 2.8 mils. Or you can do $2.75 or 2 3/4 moa. (spoken in fun not trying to make a serious point)
I have used all three. I felt lost with mils when dialing the turret. Usually only whole mils are marked on the turret leaving 8 hash marks on the turret to count through ie 2.6 mils i found myself dialing to 2 then counting 6 clicks. For this reason i prefer MOA/MOA or IPHY/IPHY. I like turning to a whole number then visually i can easily hit 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 quickly and easily. I think with training i would get used to the MIL/MIL i just never cared to. Some of the advantages of MIL/MIL are a wide variety of Spotting scopes with MIL reticles. You also don't have to worry if your spotter's rifle scope is true MOA or IPHY etc. For these reasons i wish i could bring myself to switch to MIL for everything but i just don't want to.
You know Blonde vs Brunette
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, getting back to the original question?
What reticle is your favorite and why? </div></div>
I probably would have gone MOA/MOA if the EBR-1 if the Vortex had finer resolution in the MOA reticle. But the tic marks are 2 MOA apart, requiring me to visualize in eigths. It's easier, for me, to break the tics by tenths in the EBR-1 MRAD, since they have .5 mil tics. Not hard to change my reference from .25" to .36"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, getting back to the original question?
What reticle is your favorite and why? </div></div>
I probably would have gone MOA/MOA if the EBR-1 if the Vortex had finer resolution in the MOA reticle. But the tic marks are 2 MOA apart, requiring me to visualize in eigths. It's easier, for me, to break the tics by tenths in the EBR-1 MRAD, since they have .5 mil tics. Not hard to change my reference from .25" to .36"
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my post above I stated that I use all of the above.
Couple of things to note about who uses what and why.
The Navy spec for the recent scope competitions required Mil/MOA so I'm going to venture a guess that the SEALs still use Mil/MOA.
Now let me explain the one place that I know that MOA is better.
In shooting competition on official NRA targets the ring sizes are MOA so you want MOA turrets and dont care about the reticle because you never use it to measure anything.
In the field for measuring/ranging I think mils are easier because they are a "10 based" system and any math you do is generally easier in your head.</div></div>
All of the Army Ranger snipers I met were just getting in mil/mil Nightforce F1s in . They were pretty excited.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my post above I stated that I use all of the above.
Couple of things to note about who uses what and why.
The Navy spec for the recent scope competitions required Mil/MOA so I'm going to venture a guess that the SEALs still use Mil/MOA.
Now let me explain the one place that I know that MOA is better.
In shooting competition on official NRA targets the ring sizes are MOA so you want MOA turrets and dont care about the reticle because you never use it to measure anything.
In the field for measuring/ranging I think mils are easier because they are a "10 based" system and any math you do is generally easier in your head.</div></div>
All of the Army Ranger snipers I met were just getting in mil/mil Nightforce F1s in . They were pretty excited.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
I went with the Mil/Mil and the EBR-1 in the Vortex. I like using hash marks better than using mil dots. A bit clearer and, in my opinion, a bit more precise.
But I'm pretty new to this so my mind might change in the future.
I went with the Mil/Mil and the EBR-1 in the Vortex. I like using hash marks better than using mil dots. A bit clearer and, in my opinion, a bit more precise.
But I'm pretty new to this so my mind might change in the future.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
If i had the choice of any reticle (AS A HUNTER) i'd take the Vortex EBR-4 reticle (not designed yet but oughtta' be the EBR-2 mrad with only one mil unit in each quadrant subdivided into tenths)--don't know why they subdivided 3 mil units into tenths and fifths. Of course mil turret too.
I'm not real picky though. I also like Holland's HUMR, and Zeiss Rapid-Z's.
If i had the choice of any reticle (AS A HUNTER) i'd take the Vortex EBR-4 reticle (not designed yet but oughtta' be the EBR-2 mrad with only one mil unit in each quadrant subdivided into tenths)--don't know why they subdivided 3 mil units into tenths and fifths. Of course mil turret too.
I'm not real picky though. I also like Holland's HUMR, and Zeiss Rapid-Z's.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA scopes have finer adjustments</div></div>
Not all MOA scope have finer adjustments than 0.1 mrad and not all mrad scopes have coarser adjustments than 1/4 MOA.
A Leupold scope with M3 knobs has an elevation knob with 1 MOA clicks and a windage knob with 1/2 MOA klicks. (1/2 MOA > 0.1 mrad)
A Leupold scope with <span style="font-style: italic">M1 Metric</span> knobs (a.k.a M4 knobs) have 0.05 mrad klicks. (1/4 MOA > 0.05 mrad)
Schmidt & Bender PM2 12.5-50x56mm is available with 0.025 mrad clicks. (1/8 MOA > 0.025 mrad)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sititunga1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA scopes have finer adjustments</div></div>
Not all MOA scope have finer adjustments than 0.1 mrad and not all mrad scopes have coarser adjustments than 1/4 MOA.
A Leupold scope with M3 knobs has an elevation knob with 1 MOA clicks and a windage knob with 1/2 MOA klicks. (1/2 MOA > 0.1 mrad)
A Leupold scope with <span style="font-style: italic">M1 Metric</span> knobs (a.k.a M4 knobs) have 0.05 mrad klicks. (1/4 MOA > 0.05 mrad)
Schmidt & Bender PM2 12.5-50x56mm is available with 0.025 mrad clicks. (1/8 MOA > 0.025 mrad)
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
Yes the Mil vs MOA thing has been beat to death. But in all honesty, I learn something everytime the topic comes up.
Yes the Mil vs MOA thing has been beat to death. But in all honesty, I learn something everytime the topic comes up.
Re: Poll: What reticle & turrets are you using?
i used both, but the good ole boy in me likes standard better than metric
i used both, but the good ole boy in me likes standard better than metric
Similar threads
