Another MIL or MOA question....

T

TonyMo

CGN frequent flyer
GunNutz
Location
Ontario
Greetings,

So, I have read many articles and beginning to understand the differences in MIL vs MOA; they are angular units of measurement not metric or imperial.
This was a great article:
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/07/20/mil-vs-moa-an-objective-comparison/
MIL vs. MOA — Key Points
There are a handful of minor differences/trade-offs between MIL & MOA, but there are no inherent advantage to either system. Most people blow the small differences WAY out of proportion….Here are the biggest differences and things to keep in mind:

Whatever you decide, go with matching turret/reticle (i.e. MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA)
1/4 MOA adjustments are slightly more precise than 1/10 MIL.
MIL values are slightly easier to communicate.
If you think in yards/inches the math for range estimation is easier with MOA. If you think in meters/cm the math is easier with MIL.
When your shooting partners are using one system, there can be some advantage to having the same system.
Around 90% of the PRS competitors use MIL.
There are more product options (with ranging reticles) in MIL.
Click to expand...

So, it seems to be MIL vs MOA is sort of like two different "languages" that are conveying the same message

I have never used either system. As a woodworker and DIY builder I do think more in inches/feet ie. 4ft X 8ft sheets of plywood, 2X4 studs (actually 1.5 inches by 3.5 inches) etc. Off the top of my head, I don't know what 47cm would look like.

So, Tactical Teacher, for someone starting out and wanting to take your courses, which system would you suggest? MIL or MOA
Is one easier to learn than the other? Is one easier to teach than the other?

Thank you
Tony
 
There's really no difference in the way they're used. The only advantage to either is that MIL's are easily calculated in groups of 10 whereas MOA has a slightly finer adjustment (roughly 1/4" vs 1cm). It's really just personal preference.
 
Well this is just my opinion, the MIL scale really "shines" IMO when it's used in conjunction with a MIL reticle, while it's not that complicated, there is still much more to be studied than just my few remarks here. The "readers digest" version is that when you're using a MIL reticle, and MIL turrets you can use the "hash" marks or scale on the reticle for direct corrections. So you shoot a target @ 100m, and your low left say 2 MILs as calculated on the reticle, you simply "dial" that correction on the turrets.
 
Think of this , your bullet drop requires you adjust for 3.5 mils which you turn your turret .1 mil per click vs say 16.50 moa at 1/4 Moa per click. So that's a fast 35 clicks on the mil scope how many is that on the Moa system? 66? Complicated
 
tinviper said:
Think of this , your bullet drop requires you adjust for 3.5 mils which you turn your turret .1 mil per click vs say 16.50 moa at 1/4 Moa per click. So that's a fast 35 clicks on the mil scope how many is that on the Moa system? 66? Complicated
Click to expand...

48 clicks (@ 1/4 moa), 12 moa. Or just use the 12 MOA hash mark. Stupid easy. It's only complicated to you because you learned MIL ;) Its fractions of a second to go from 35 to 48, and if speed mattered you'd use the reticle rather than adjusting.

MIL is definitely more popular with todays shooters, more common in PRS so it'll be easier to find a spotter to match up with as well.
 
Last edited:
MIL or MOA, much like Metric or Imperial will only depend on what you get used to. It is switching in between that gets to be a problem. All of my hash marked and fully adjustable "on the fly" scopes are MIL, while those scopes I set to a distance and forget about MOA scopes are all set to "approximate" even numbers of meters in yards (ex: my one scope is set to zero at 220 yards, or 200 meters). I've had to do this because the translating all the time was messing me up as the three new scopes I have bought in the last 5 years are European with MIL adjustments.

I don't know when, but trades using Imperial is starting to become a way of the past: it's the experienced training the apprentices that hangs on to it.
usa-still-using-imperial-units-of-measure-gallons-pounds-miles.jpg
 
People love to convince others that what they use is the better system.. "easier to think on multiples of 10", etc.. to me that's just nonsense.. i think in 10's and i also think in 1/4's every single day .. how many times do you have to get fuel because you've only got 1/10 of a tank left?

Maybe it's just me, but i generally am looking at my turrets when dialing a lot of adjustment.. I'm not counting 40 clicks.

Both systems work.

Make sure your reticle subtensions are the same system as your turrets.

Make sure it's a reticle design that you like for what ever your application might be.
 
I use both.... what’s not to like? I have clients of every different stripe....it’s all good!

Kinda like the Pride Parade....just Send It!!

Cheers, Barney
 
Last edited:
1 MOA spreads about 1″ per 100 yards. (actually 1.047) so the further you go out the more the .047 becomes less precise .
 
Thanks for your responses.

^^^^Yes, I saw that chart. To me the MOA I don't read as 4 digits. I read see those elevations in fractions ie 16 and 1/2, 17 and 3/4 etc

So, if the majority of shooters use MIL and if you have MOA you end up as the "red headed stepchild" on the line....p

That being said I am pretty much decided on MOA/MOA.
 
Last edited:
tinviper said:
Think of this , your bullet drop requires you adjust for 3.5 mils which you turn your turret .1 mil per click vs say 16.50 moa at 1/4 Moa per click. So that's a fast 35 clicks on the mil scope how many is that on the Moa system? 66? Complicated
Click to expand...

Don't count clicks. Learn to read the scales on the knobs.
 
First of all, these reticles have two functions, to identify your holdover/lead distances, and to estimate distance. First part, to me, is pretty much identical as there will be a table or app telling you how much to aim off center on y and x axis, or turn turrets. Second part, the distance estimation, depends on how you're comfortable with metric system vs imperial; at the end it is all ratios and one's capability to estimate the length/width of the reference object/target, they are useless for estimation if you don't have a target without known dimensions.

Other thing to consider, 1/4 MOA clicks represent a smaller measurement of distance compared to 0.1 MILs for a given distance . As an example at 100 yards, one click of 1/4 MOA is 0.26" while one click of 0.1 MIL is 0.36". At 1000 yards, moving your zero 10" up will require 4 clicks, while with a 0.1 MIL turret, 3 clicks will move zero up 10.8". So, if you want to have finer adjustment capability, MOA turrets are probably a better option.

How these effects my scope selection; all my hunting guns are MOAs as I can easily use a range finder and don't need to estimate distance with my scope (they are typically set to cover 200-250 meters without any adjustment). They are generally easier to find so might be a bit cheaper as well. My target rifles have a mixture of both MOAs and MILs; more MOAs though. Couple rifles that have MILs are put together for shooting long distances out in the bush with first focal plane reticles where I may not always get good reflection with range finder...

That first focal vs second focal plane is a whole another subject of discussion...!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom