Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
Wow! I'm reading this thread for two hours and learned alot! Great debate!
Wow! I'm reading this thread for two hours and learned alot! Great debate!
Rifle Scopes Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
- Thread starter mattmcg
- Start date
- Tags
- angular measurements moavmil prefer
I too picked up a lot of info on this thread. No wonder it won't die.Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
I measure my range in yards, and measure my distance off bullseye in inches, my ballistic charts are in moa. So it is easier, for me, to use moa.
If I measured my range in meters, and measured my distance off bullseye in cm's, it would be easier to use mils. (one cm is .1 mil in 100 meters).
I really agonized over the decision to go moa/moa. I WANTED to go mil/mil, but my ballistic charts, targets, ranges, previous traning, existing scopes were all in moa. I am learning a new skill and putting mils into the mix, with yards and inches was just a complication I didn't need. I considered changing my rangefinder to meters, getting a cm tape measure to measure my groups and changing my software to mils and cms (it wouldnt do cms, it would only do inches of drop and inches of windage). Then to get to my magic 1000 I would need to got 1000 METERS (which is 1094 yards). Signifigantly harder than the magic 1000 yards that was my goal.
If you stay in one system it is easy. It's converting back and forth that is hard. When a German measures his distance off bullseye he doesnt think "lets see, 12 cm, that is about 5". He just thinks, 12cm that is one more than 11 cem and one less than 13 cm.
People keep saying how mils ISN'T metric. But it sure lends itself to ranging in meters and measuring distance from bullseye in cms. And those are metric.
Cory has mastered both, because he HAS to. His students show up with everything under the sun. I have the pleasure of only needing to master ONE system. That way I can concentrate on what matters. Hitting the center of the target. (Although I guess eventually I'll probably be using mils too, who knows)
Although I went moa/moa, if you are young, go mil/mil. Someday the USA is gonna wake up and go metric. We'll have to rearrange our 100 yard ranges to 100 meters and so forth. Then we'll have to shoot out to 1000 METERS, signifigantly harder you see (and more fun). The cm group size and cm target will be no problem. We'll load in milligrams, not grains. The USA is the only country still using English measurements. We were supposed to "go metric" back in 1980. If we had we'd be done now. What happened?
I measure my range in yards, and measure my distance off bullseye in inches, my ballistic charts are in moa. So it is easier, for me, to use moa.
If I measured my range in meters, and measured my distance off bullseye in cm's, it would be easier to use mils. (one cm is .1 mil in 100 meters).
I really agonized over the decision to go moa/moa. I WANTED to go mil/mil, but my ballistic charts, targets, ranges, previous traning, existing scopes were all in moa. I am learning a new skill and putting mils into the mix, with yards and inches was just a complication I didn't need. I considered changing my rangefinder to meters, getting a cm tape measure to measure my groups and changing my software to mils and cms (it wouldnt do cms, it would only do inches of drop and inches of windage). Then to get to my magic 1000 I would need to got 1000 METERS (which is 1094 yards). Signifigantly harder than the magic 1000 yards that was my goal.
If you stay in one system it is easy. It's converting back and forth that is hard. When a German measures his distance off bullseye he doesnt think "lets see, 12 cm, that is about 5". He just thinks, 12cm that is one more than 11 cem and one less than 13 cm.
People keep saying how mils ISN'T metric. But it sure lends itself to ranging in meters and measuring distance from bullseye in cms. And those are metric.
Cory has mastered both, because he HAS to. His students show up with everything under the sun. I have the pleasure of only needing to master ONE system. That way I can concentrate on what matters. Hitting the center of the target. (Although I guess eventually I'll probably be using mils too, who knows)
Although I went moa/moa, if you are young, go mil/mil. Someday the USA is gonna wake up and go metric. We'll have to rearrange our 100 yard ranges to 100 meters and so forth. Then we'll have to shoot out to 1000 METERS, signifigantly harder you see (and more fun). The cm group size and cm target will be no problem. We'll load in milligrams, not grains. The USA is the only country still using English measurements. We were supposed to "go metric" back in 1980. If we had we'd be done now. What happened?
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People keep saying how mils ISN'T metric. But it sure lends itself to ranging in meters and measuring distance from bullseye in cms. And those are metric.</div></div>
People keep saying mils isn't metric simply because it's true. It's just as easy to measure target size in inches and use yards for distance with a scope with a mil reticle and mil adjustments as it is to use centimeters and meters.
In fact, the standard Mildot Master slide is set up for target size in inches and distances in yards, though you can turn it over and use the metric side if you insist.
And if you're using a calculator, it's just a difference in constants, all of where are here:
Ranging Formulas
It's very convenient to have a scope which adjusts in the same units the reticle is graduated in. Other than that, it just doesn't matter.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People keep saying how mils ISN'T metric. But it sure lends itself to ranging in meters and measuring distance from bullseye in cms. And those are metric.</div></div>
People keep saying mils isn't metric simply because it's true. It's just as easy to measure target size in inches and use yards for distance with a scope with a mil reticle and mil adjustments as it is to use centimeters and meters.
In fact, the standard Mildot Master slide is set up for target size in inches and distances in yards, though you can turn it over and use the metric side if you insist.
And if you're using a calculator, it's just a difference in constants, all of where are here:
Ranging Formulas
It's very convenient to have a scope which adjusts in the same units the reticle is graduated in. Other than that, it just doesn't matter.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
"Measure my distance off bullseye in inches"
Why?
Just use the measuring device built into you scope.
What is the correction if your hit is 8" off target at 560 yards...quick!
At 100 yards, its easy to think linear, but as range increases, its more complicated. Just use your reticle and get an angular correction. Works at all ranges in both matching systems.
"Measure my distance off bullseye in inches"
Why?
Just use the measuring device built into you scope.
What is the correction if your hit is 8" off target at 560 yards...quick!
At 100 yards, its easy to think linear, but as range increases, its more complicated. Just use your reticle and get an angular correction. Works at all ranges in both matching systems.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
easiest for me o use is IPHY/IPHY however i think only uso makes it. moa knobs all seem to be alittle different so i moved to all mil/mil just because it seems to be more consistent.
easiest for me o use is IPHY/IPHY however i think only uso makes it. moa knobs all seem to be alittle different so i moved to all mil/mil just because it seems to be more consistent.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
Am I missing something? Converting Mils to MOA is as simple as making one mathmatical calculation...Right?
Mil value, viewed in scope, multiplied by 3.438 = MOA adjustment on turrets?
If this is the case, what's the big deal?
If someone has all their dope in MOA, really...how hard would it be to convert over to Mil???
I use Mil/Mil. when I measure my distance off bulllseye, ***I don't care how many Centimeters anything is***... I use my reticle and say, " OK im 1.5 Mils low. and correct accordingly on my Mil turret... it takes about 1 second. Or if I want to hold that, It takes 0 seconds...Well, I do have to cycle the bolt.
I range in YARDS and use a Mil reticle(MLR) and Mil turrets. I could care less about centimeters or Meters!
Am I missing something? Converting Mils to MOA is as simple as making one mathmatical calculation...Right?
Mil value, viewed in scope, multiplied by 3.438 = MOA adjustment on turrets?
If this is the case, what's the big deal?
If someone has all their dope in MOA, really...how hard would it be to convert over to Mil???
I use Mil/Mil. when I measure my distance off bulllseye, ***I don't care how many Centimeters anything is***... I use my reticle and say, " OK im 1.5 Mils low. and correct accordingly on my Mil turret... it takes about 1 second. Or if I want to hold that, It takes 0 seconds...Well, I do have to cycle the bolt.
I range in YARDS and use a Mil reticle(MLR) and Mil turrets. I could care less about centimeters or Meters!
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
Well I learned on MOA but in an attempt to learn everything I could about shooting I thought it was over due to learn Mils and I am happy I did. For example if the drop off the chart reads .4 then its 4 clicks adjustment or 2.2 mil drop= 22 clicks. Easy peasy. The thing that confuses or scares MOA shooters is that 1 mil = 3.6 inches at 100 yards as opposed to 1 MOA= 1.047 inches at a 100. But really who looks through the scope and can measure inches on the target? Just count the mils on the reticule accordingly and don't confuse yourself thinking about conversions. So accuse me for over simplifying but I just print out my ballistics sheet and go shoot.
Well I learned on MOA but in an attempt to learn everything I could about shooting I thought it was over due to learn Mils and I am happy I did. For example if the drop off the chart reads .4 then its 4 clicks adjustment or 2.2 mil drop= 22 clicks. Easy peasy. The thing that confuses or scares MOA shooters is that 1 mil = 3.6 inches at 100 yards as opposed to 1 MOA= 1.047 inches at a 100. But really who looks through the scope and can measure inches on the target? Just count the mils on the reticule accordingly and don't confuse yourself thinking about conversions. So accuse me for over simplifying but I just print out my ballistics sheet and go shoot.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: diggler44</div><div class="ubbcode-body">easiest for me o use is IPHY/IPHY however i think only uso makes it. moa knobs all seem to be alittle different so i moved to all mil/mil just because it seems to be more consistent. </div></div>
Something to note I was really considering going MOA/MOA with a USO scope with the MDMOA reticle which to my understanding was S-MOA I figured 1 inch@100 shouldn't overtax my tiny little brain too much and with 1/4 MOA turrets life was simple right? Well that's great if you only use your reticle to range. If occasionally your lazy like me and use a ballistic calculator you have to remember that they use traditional MOA. I'll give you an example ranging a 30" target at 2 MOA with my scope gives me 1500 yds. With my ballistics software using traditional MOA it gives me 1389 yds a difference of 111 yds HUGE difference. I'm sure this isn't an epiphany to anyone here but it sure was to me!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: diggler44</div><div class="ubbcode-body">easiest for me o use is IPHY/IPHY however i think only uso makes it. moa knobs all seem to be alittle different so i moved to all mil/mil just because it seems to be more consistent. </div></div>
Something to note I was really considering going MOA/MOA with a USO scope with the MDMOA reticle which to my understanding was S-MOA I figured 1 inch@100 shouldn't overtax my tiny little brain too much and with 1/4 MOA turrets life was simple right? Well that's great if you only use your reticle to range. If occasionally your lazy like me and use a ballistic calculator you have to remember that they use traditional MOA. I'll give you an example ranging a 30" target at 2 MOA with my scope gives me 1500 yds. With my ballistics software using traditional MOA it gives me 1389 yds a difference of 111 yds HUGE difference. I'm sure this isn't an epiphany to anyone here but it sure was to me!
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
There are ballistic programs which will display output in IPHY, too. Perhaps you should use one of those.
There are ballistic programs which will display output in IPHY, too. Perhaps you should use one of those.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniperaviator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I measure my range in yards, and measure my distance off bullseye in inches, my ballistic charts are in moa. So it is easier, for me, to use moa. If I measured my range in meters, and measured my distance off bullseye in cm's, it would be easier to use mils. (one cm is .1 mil in 100 meters).</div></div>Nope: What you are saying is that you like MOA because you choose to make your dope print-out in MOA. It doesn't matter what units you measure in because the amount of the measurement is the same, whether described in yards or meters, inches or centimeters.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniperaviator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I measure my range in yards, and measure my distance off bullseye in inches, my ballistic charts are in moa. So it is easier, for me, to use moa. If I measured my range in meters, and measured my distance off bullseye in cm's, it would be easier to use mils. (one cm is .1 mil in 100 meters).</div></div>Nope: What you are saying is that you like MOA because you choose to make your dope print-out in MOA. It doesn't matter what units you measure in because the amount of the measurement is the same, whether described in yards or meters, inches or centimeters.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
Don't forget parsecs...
Don't forget parsecs...
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't forget parsecs... </div></div>LOL! Last night, as far as I can remember, the Milling exercise was to range Champagne bottles in Demi-secs. I'll spare you the 'knob' jokes, but suffice it to say that if I had made a print-out it would have been in inches per hundred yards.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't forget parsecs...
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
You're pretty strange - which I guess is why we are comrades...
You're pretty strange - which I guess is why we are comrades...
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
I'm in the midst of making the switch from MIL reticle/MOA knobs to a MIL/MIL setup. I've found all of the commonly claimed advantages of the MIL/MIL system to be real. The one thing I'm finding a bit difficult is making quick MIL adjustments as an observer without a MIL reticle for reference.
I'm in the midst of making the switch from MIL reticle/MOA knobs to a MIL/MIL setup. I've found all of the commonly claimed advantages of the MIL/MIL system to be real. The one thing I'm finding a bit difficult is making quick MIL adjustments as an observer without a MIL reticle for reference.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
This is a re-post, but some might find some useful tidbits in here:
It doesn't make a huge difference, it's mainly a matter of preference. If you have a safe full of USO or NF MOA/MOA already (or shoot with a bunch of buddies who do) it wouldn't make much sense to buy a Mil/Mil--unless that's all the particular model of scope you wanted to buy offered (such as S&B, etc). If it's a relatively fresh start, that's another story. I like Mil/Mil better for a few reasons, but keep in mind they're only my personal preference. They aren't that big a deal, but they're why I like using Mils:
1) Click value. I don't do BR or F-Class or any other paper-type competitions (where people actually like 1/8 MOA clicks) and don't hunt varmints too often anymore, so .1 Mil (~ 1/3 MOA) I find to be "just right" for size. A good compromise between precision and speed/simplicity. I had a 1/2 MOA click scope and did find it to be a bit coarse for my tastes but I've never felt that way with .1 Mil. Also in virtually every case, a Mil scope will have more travel per revolution of the knob which I really like.
2) Simple numbers. Two digits with a simple decimal for drops (until you really get WAY out there) just gives a nicer number to work with. Say at a certain range your drop chart says 6.9. Or it could say 23.75. Or 23 + 3 or 24 - 1, etc. 6.9 is easier to say, to write in a chart, to read from a chart, to find on the dial, to measure with a reticle…. I just find the simple numbers to the tenth easier to work with.
Say you range something and look up in your chart your 10 MPH wind correction for that range and it's .7 Mils, for example. You measure with your Kestral, observe foliage and mirage all the way to the target and you estimate your total average wind value to be 7 MPH. What's your hold? .49 (.5) Mils . How about 3 MPH? .21 (.2) Mils. How about 11 MPH? .77 (.8) Mils. How about 15 MPH? 1 Mil. See how that works? Now try the same for 2.5 MOA. If you're good at math, it can certainly be done, just not as quickly and easily (for me, anyway).
3) It's Universal. While there are several companies coming out with MOA reticles this year--which I do think is a good thing--for those who just can't change (for reasons real or perceived), scopes with Mil reticles outnumber those with MOA by likely hundreds to one. All the world's militaries. Even in civilian market scopes EVERYBODY makes a mildot reticle or some variation. But for many years NF and USO were the only game in town for MOA.
It's even worse for spotting scopes. I got a spotter with a really nice Mil reticle several years ago. I believe at the time nobody made a spotter with an MOA reticle. Nobody. Now there are a couple but from a numbers standpoint it's a drop in the bucket. Being able to spot somebody's shots with an actual spotting scope vs. your rifle scope and being able to call corrections in actual angular measurements instead of guessing feet, inches, etc, is really, really, nice.
That doesn't really matter if all your shooting is done alone. But if you go to competitions, informal shoots or anything where a bunch of random guys get together and plink at long range, the chances are much higher that people will be calling corrections in Mils either from a spotter or by using the scopes on their rifles. It's not a big thing, but it's there.
If you want finer clicks, MOA has the advantage. If you actually plan on ranging things with your reticle a lot, many do find MOA/inch easier to do in their heads. I use reticles to range very little. When hunting I have a cheat sheet taped to my stock so it doesn't matter anyway. For impromptu targets a mildot master or a phone app works well. And as I said, if all your buddies have NF's with R2, R1 reticles, or similar you might not want to be the odd man out.
Anyway, that should get your gears grinding.
This is a re-post, but some might find some useful tidbits in here:
It doesn't make a huge difference, it's mainly a matter of preference. If you have a safe full of USO or NF MOA/MOA already (or shoot with a bunch of buddies who do) it wouldn't make much sense to buy a Mil/Mil--unless that's all the particular model of scope you wanted to buy offered (such as S&B, etc). If it's a relatively fresh start, that's another story. I like Mil/Mil better for a few reasons, but keep in mind they're only my personal preference. They aren't that big a deal, but they're why I like using Mils:
1) Click value. I don't do BR or F-Class or any other paper-type competitions (where people actually like 1/8 MOA clicks) and don't hunt varmints too often anymore, so .1 Mil (~ 1/3 MOA) I find to be "just right" for size. A good compromise between precision and speed/simplicity. I had a 1/2 MOA click scope and did find it to be a bit coarse for my tastes but I've never felt that way with .1 Mil. Also in virtually every case, a Mil scope will have more travel per revolution of the knob which I really like.
2) Simple numbers. Two digits with a simple decimal for drops (until you really get WAY out there) just gives a nicer number to work with. Say at a certain range your drop chart says 6.9. Or it could say 23.75. Or 23 + 3 or 24 - 1, etc. 6.9 is easier to say, to write in a chart, to read from a chart, to find on the dial, to measure with a reticle…. I just find the simple numbers to the tenth easier to work with.
Say you range something and look up in your chart your 10 MPH wind correction for that range and it's .7 Mils, for example. You measure with your Kestral, observe foliage and mirage all the way to the target and you estimate your total average wind value to be 7 MPH. What's your hold? .49 (.5) Mils . How about 3 MPH? .21 (.2) Mils. How about 11 MPH? .77 (.8) Mils. How about 15 MPH? 1 Mil. See how that works? Now try the same for 2.5 MOA. If you're good at math, it can certainly be done, just not as quickly and easily (for me, anyway).
3) It's Universal. While there are several companies coming out with MOA reticles this year--which I do think is a good thing--for those who just can't change (for reasons real or perceived), scopes with Mil reticles outnumber those with MOA by likely hundreds to one. All the world's militaries. Even in civilian market scopes EVERYBODY makes a mildot reticle or some variation. But for many years NF and USO were the only game in town for MOA.
It's even worse for spotting scopes. I got a spotter with a really nice Mil reticle several years ago. I believe at the time nobody made a spotter with an MOA reticle. Nobody. Now there are a couple but from a numbers standpoint it's a drop in the bucket. Being able to spot somebody's shots with an actual spotting scope vs. your rifle scope and being able to call corrections in actual angular measurements instead of guessing feet, inches, etc, is really, really, nice.
That doesn't really matter if all your shooting is done alone. But if you go to competitions, informal shoots or anything where a bunch of random guys get together and plink at long range, the chances are much higher that people will be calling corrections in Mils either from a spotter or by using the scopes on their rifles. It's not a big thing, but it's there.
If you want finer clicks, MOA has the advantage. If you actually plan on ranging things with your reticle a lot, many do find MOA/inch easier to do in their heads. I use reticles to range very little. When hunting I have a cheat sheet taped to my stock so it doesn't matter anyway. For impromptu targets a mildot master or a phone app works well. And as I said, if all your buddies have NF's with R2, R1 reticles, or similar you might not want to be the odd man out.
Anyway, that should get your gears grinding.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ninja Pirtle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am switching to mil, just because I want to learn it. I can't help but challenge myself to change, and get out of my comfort zone. </div></div>
Nice Picture with the post!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ninja Pirtle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am switching to mil, just because I want to learn it. I can't help but challenge myself to change, and get out of my comfort zone. </div></div>
Nice Picture with the post!
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1fstTA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA with MOA reticle. nightforce npr1 </div></div>
I have 2 of the exact same scopes, one 15x and the other 22x. So easy to use.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1fstTA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA with MOA reticle. nightforce npr1 </div></div>
I have 2 of the exact same scopes, one 15x and the other 22x. So easy to use.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
I have a mil/mil bushnell elite tactical.
It measures clicks in .1mil or 1/10th click adjustments.
So from one mil center to the next mil center its 10 clicks.
If I am looking through my scope at the dead center of my target, and hit half a mil down, what am I going to do?
Move 5 clicks of adjustment, shoot again, and be dead on.
I have a mil/mil bushnell elite tactical.
It measures clicks in .1mil or 1/10th click adjustments.
So from one mil center to the next mil center its 10 clicks.
If I am looking through my scope at the dead center of my target, and hit half a mil down, what am I going to do?
Move 5 clicks of adjustment, shoot again, and be dead on.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
I picked MIL/MIL. I feel more comfortable using centimeters and meters than using inches and yards. I can look at a distant object and more quickly estimate the distance in meters than I can in yards. Being an engineering student I have seen how easy it is to use the metric system since its based on 10. In the Marines I think it was silly having a MIL reticle and MOA click adjustments because you have to convert which increases time for an accurate follow up shot.
If you feel more comfortable using inches and yards then get a MOA/MOA set up. Do what makes you feel the most comfortable. Above all get a reticle/click adjustments that MATCH.
I picked MIL/MIL. I feel more comfortable using centimeters and meters than using inches and yards. I can look at a distant object and more quickly estimate the distance in meters than I can in yards. Being an engineering student I have seen how easy it is to use the metric system since its based on 10. In the Marines I think it was silly having a MIL reticle and MOA click adjustments because you have to convert which increases time for an accurate follow up shot.
If you feel more comfortable using inches and yards then get a MOA/MOA set up. Do what makes you feel the most comfortable. Above all get a reticle/click adjustments that MATCH.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WMAficionado</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I picked MIL/MIL. I feel more comfortable using centimeters and meters than using inches and yards. I can look at a distant object and more quickly estimate the distance in meters than I can in yards. Being an engineering student I have seen how easy it is to use the metric system since its based on 10. In the Marines I think it was silly having a MIL reticle and MOA click adjustments because you have to convert which increases time for an accurate follow up shot.
If you feel more comfortable using inches and yards then get a MOA/MOA set up. Do what makes you feel the most comfortable. Above all get a reticle/click adjustments that MATCH.</div></div>
that's nice, but he asked about angular measurements, such as Mil and MOA, you're talking about metric LINEAR measurments.
Milradians have NOTHING to do w/ meters, or anything else metric
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WMAficionado</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I picked MIL/MIL. I feel more comfortable using centimeters and meters than using inches and yards. I can look at a distant object and more quickly estimate the distance in meters than I can in yards. Being an engineering student I have seen how easy it is to use the metric system since its based on 10. In the Marines I think it was silly having a MIL reticle and MOA click adjustments because you have to convert which increases time for an accurate follow up shot.
If you feel more comfortable using inches and yards then get a MOA/MOA set up. Do what makes you feel the most comfortable. Above all get a reticle/click adjustments that MATCH.</div></div>
that's nice, but he asked about angular measurements, such as Mil and MOA, you're talking about metric LINEAR measurments.
Milradians have NOTHING to do w/ meters, or anything else metric
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
@ Force_Multiplier
I'm referring to click adjustments when I say if your more comfortable using SI or Imperial Units of Measure. My S&B PMII for example has 1/10 milliradian adjustments which is the same as 1cm @ 100m. For a MOA scope it typically has 1/4 MOA adjustments which is ~0.26" @ 100 yards.
Yes, with milliradians it doesn't matter what unit of length you use. What does matter is how hasty you can accurately estimate distance be it in yards or meters for that quick follow up shot. Additionally, if you miss how many inches or centimeters is the impact from the POA so you can adjust to walk the round on target. If you can more quickly determine distance in inches/yards then get a MOA/MOA scope because of the ~1/4" adjustments at 100 yards. Vice versa with centimeters using a MIL/MIL setup. Some people can more readily identify a length in inches than centimeters. This should play into the decision making process when selecting the right scope for the user.
@ Force_Multiplier
I'm referring to click adjustments when I say if your more comfortable using SI or Imperial Units of Measure. My S&B PMII for example has 1/10 milliradian adjustments which is the same as 1cm @ 100m. For a MOA scope it typically has 1/4 MOA adjustments which is ~0.26" @ 100 yards.
Yes, with milliradians it doesn't matter what unit of length you use. What does matter is how hasty you can accurately estimate distance be it in yards or meters for that quick follow up shot. Additionally, if you miss how many inches or centimeters is the impact from the POA so you can adjust to walk the round on target. If you can more quickly determine distance in inches/yards then get a MOA/MOA scope because of the ~1/4" adjustments at 100 yards. Vice versa with centimeters using a MIL/MIL setup. Some people can more readily identify a length in inches than centimeters. This should play into the decision making process when selecting the right scope for the user.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WMAficionado</div><div class="ubbcode-body">@ Force_Multiplier
I'm referring to click adjustments when I say if your more comfortable using SI or Imperial Units of Measure. My S&B PMII for example has 1/10 milliradian adjustments which is the same as 1cm @ 100m. For a MOA scope it typically has 1/4 MOA adjustments which is ~0.26" @ 100 yards.
Yes, with milliradians it doesn't matter what unit of length you use. What does matter is how hasty you can accurately estimate distance be it in yards or meters for that quick follow up shot. Additionally, if you miss how many inches or centimeters is the impact from the POA so you can adjust to walk the round on target. If you can more quickly determine distance in inches/yards then get a MOA/MOA scope because of the ~1/4" adjustments at 100 yards. Vice versa with centimeters using a MIL/MIL setup. Some people can more readily identify a length in inches than centimeters. This should play into the decision making process when selecting the right scope for the user.
</div></div>
you have no idea what you're talking about...
it's not about inches or centimeters....
it's about Mils or MOA... for a follow up shot, read the reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300WMAficionado</div><div class="ubbcode-body">@ Force_Multiplier
I'm referring to click adjustments when I say if your more comfortable using SI or Imperial Units of Measure. My S&B PMII for example has 1/10 milliradian adjustments which is the same as 1cm @ 100m. For a MOA scope it typically has 1/4 MOA adjustments which is ~0.26" @ 100 yards.
Yes, with milliradians it doesn't matter what unit of length you use. What does matter is how hasty you can accurately estimate distance be it in yards or meters for that quick follow up shot. Additionally, if you miss how many inches or centimeters is the impact from the POA so you can adjust to walk the round on target. If you can more quickly determine distance in inches/yards then get a MOA/MOA scope because of the ~1/4" adjustments at 100 yards. Vice versa with centimeters using a MIL/MIL setup. Some people can more readily identify a length in inches than centimeters. This should play into the decision making process when selecting the right scope for the user.
</div></div>
you have no idea what you're talking about...
it's not about inches or centimeters....
it's about Mils or MOA... for a follow up shot, read the reticle
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
I'm currently running Inch per Thousand Inches
I'm currently running Inch per Thousand Inches
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm currently running Inch per Thousand Inches </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm currently running Inch per Thousand Inches </div></div>
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you prefer?
Have used moa on all my stuff for years.
All tech stuff aside ,about everyone I shoot wth use mils.
Can I convert it to moa ? yes. Is it easy or FAST ? no.
If your spotter is using mils and you are adjusting in 1/4 moa on your turrets you are not having fun.
Will change out my big scope for mil mil next week.
Have used moa on all my stuff for years.
All tech stuff aside ,about everyone I shoot wth use mils.
Can I convert it to moa ? yes. Is it easy or FAST ? no.
If your spotter is using mils and you are adjusting in 1/4 moa on your turrets you are not having fun.
Will change out my big scope for mil mil next week.
Re: Which angular measurements MOAvMIL do you pref
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many don't even believe me when I tell them you can not only see the trace, you can see the BULLET, sometimes even with the naked eye, once you learn what to look for.</div></div>
More often than not, it's with iron sights when I can spot the bullet on it's trip and trace it to it's destination. Sometimes when the butt end is shining as the sun is setting behind me it's even easier to spot. With a scope, if it's a mild recoil I can see the same in the scope only magnified (duh! lol) And yes. The same skepticism happens to me when I relate to my buddies my experience. I was confused when this first happened. To me it was normal to be able to spot the fired bullet, and kind of a shock to find out it's not very common for others to do. But that's because of their limitations, not mine. My son the other day was telling me how he could follow the BB's from his air rifle, and I smiled and told him "Like father, like son."
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many don't even believe me when I tell them you can not only see the trace, you can see the BULLET, sometimes even with the naked eye, once you learn what to look for.</div></div>
More often than not, it's with iron sights when I can spot the bullet on it's trip and trace it to it's destination. Sometimes when the butt end is shining as the sun is setting behind me it's even easier to spot. With a scope, if it's a mild recoil I can see the same in the scope only magnified (duh! lol) And yes. The same skepticism happens to me when I relate to my buddies my experience. I was confused when this first happened. To me it was normal to be able to spot the fired bullet, and kind of a shock to find out it's not very common for others to do. But that's because of their limitations, not mine. My son the other day was telling me how he could follow the BB's from his air rifle, and I smiled and told him "Like father, like son."
